HC Deb 24 March 1948 vol 448 cc3023-32

3 40 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman

The first Amendment I shall call is in page 4, line 1, which stands in the name of the Home Secretary. I understand that it meets the convenience of the Committee to have a general Debate on redistribution on this Amendment.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede)

I beg to move, in page 4, line 1, at the end, to insert: (a) in rule 1, in the table showing the number of constituencies, for the words '591,' there shall be substituted the words '613.' This Amendment amends rule 1 in the Third Schedule of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1944. That rule requires that the number of constituencies in Great Britain shall not be substantially greater or less than 591. That is a somewhat unusually vague definition to put into an Act of Parliament. In fact, the Report of the Boundary Commissioners provided for 596 seats in Great Britain. The exact point at which a number ceases to be substantially greater or less than a given number must always be a matter for argument. After examining the Report of the Boundary Commissioners, the Government came to the conclusion that, in order to meet the various points which were raised on the Second Reading, it was desirable to create 17 additional seats, which would make 22 seats more than 591. I suppose that there are certain circumstances in which it might be held that 613 is not substantially greater than 591. We have thought it desirable that we should make the rule coincide with the number of seats which the Bill, as drafted and as amended by Government Amendments, would give us.

There has been very considerable play made, during the discussions on this Bill, with the failure of the Boundary Commission to achieve anything approximating to the principle of one vote, one value. In my remarks on Second Reading, I said that the Government would listen carefully to what was said on the subject of the size of constituencies. The first thing we have to bear in mind is that Scotland and Wales are guaranteed, I think rightly, a minimum number of seats. Scotland must have no fewer than 71 seats, and Wales must have no fewer than 35, and these 106 seats have to be taken out of whatever number is put into this rule before we arrive at what will be the approximate number of seats for England. As a matter of fact, the first Report suggested 35 seats for Wales, and the Second 36.

This minimum rule involves a substantial under-representation for England. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay) pointed out on Second Reading, England were given seats on the same basis as Scotland, it would have 90 more seats in the House of Commons, and if the representation of England were increased by 9o, no Scottish grievance would be created on any basis of the proportional representation of the electorate in this House. If England had the same representation as Wales, it would have 67 more seats than were allocated by the Boundary Commission.

I will admit straightaway that there are certain parts of Scotland and certain parts of Wales where the population is so sparse that it is right to regard them as having a claim to additional representation, so that Members may be able to deal with the large and scattered constituencies which exist in the mountainous parts of these two countries. That was the basis on which this minimum representation was given to them. It would appear that no substantial injustice will be done to Scotland or Wales if some slight additional representation is given to England in the House of Commons.

As was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) in his speech in Committee earlier, the proposed House of Commons will be, with the exception of the House of Commons which sat from 1922 to 1945, the smallest House of Commons that has existed since the Act of Union with Ireland. From 1801, when the Act of Union was passed, until 1885, the number of seats in the House of Commons was 658. At the General Election of 1885, 670 Members were returned, and that remained the membership of the House of Commons until the Representation of the People Act, 1918, when the figure was raised to 707. The figure of 615 was reached after the Irish troubles, when the representation of Ireland was reduced by 92. The figure of 615 continued until the General Election of 1945, when it was temporarily increased to 640. I think it has been agreed on both sides that there is no magic about the figure which should be the size of the membership of the House of Commons. I certainly laid down that principle on Second Reading.

I now wish to deal with another disparity in the representation in the House. The Boundary Commissioners' Report for England and Wales produced an average electorate per constituency of 58,705 for England. The borough constituencies have an average of 61,442, or 2,737 above the general average. The average electorate in the county division is 55,360, which is less than the general average by 3,345. Between the average borough and the average county constituency there is a difference of 6,082. While the Government accept the view that there is a reason for giving a county division some advantage in numbers, we believe that a disparity as big as that cannot be justified in the case of England. We have, therefore, examined the proposals which were placed before us by the Boundary Commission to see in what way this disparity could be redressed. The Boundary Commissioners themselves drew attention to eight boroughs in England each with an electorate of over 80,000—Battersea, Blackburn, East Ham, Gateshead, Hammersmith, Norwich, Paddington and Reading. Eighty thousand electors, running up to 88,000, are, in the opinion of the Government, too many electors for one Member adequately to represent in this House.

In 1832, the 658 Members then returned represented a total electorate of approximately one million. But the range of Government activity, the way in which government affected the lives of the people in matters like pensions and social services, had hardly commenced in those days, and the vast correspondence that Members now receive, dealing with all sorts of intimate details, was not known to the Member of Parliament of those days. To expect any Member adequately to represent 80,0oo electors in this House, and to do his duty to them and to the House, is, in our view, expecting too much of any Member of Parliament. We received from the Boundary Commissioners an indication of the way in which these constituencies could be divided if we thought they were too large. We have decided——

Mr. Osbert Peake (Leeds, North)

When did the right hon. Gentleman receive this indication from the Boundary Commissioners?

Mr. Ede

I think it was three or four months ago, but I will get the exact date and let the Committee know during the Debate.

Mr. Churchill (Woodford)

Is it in their Report?

Mr. Ede

No.

Mr. Churchill

It has not been made public?

Mr. Ede

I will endeavour to give the right hon. Gentleman the information he wants. It has been made public in the White Paper which was published, I think, on Friday last. The divisions of these boroughs are those recommended by the Boundary Commissioners. Frankly, I am not going to be responsible for the division of any borough—the single Member borough, to be divided into two; or the larger Member borough, to be divided into a certain number of constituencies of more than two. All the proposed divisions which are included in Amendments to the Bill are those which have been recommended by the Boundary Commissioners.

Mr. Churchill

Much turns upon this: I do not understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. Here is a Report which we have received from the Boundary Commission. Where is the plan in it for dividing these big boroughs, or adding an additional seat, assuming that the Commission had recommended such a course?

Mr. Ede

The plan is not in the Report. The eight big boroughs are mentioned in the 15th paragraph of the Report. It states that of the 44 constituencies with electorate of over 70,00o, eight have elec- torates exceeding 80,000. Then they enumerate them; those are the eight boroughs which have been divided into two.

Mr. Churchill

Yes, but they enumerated them for the purpose of saying that they did not propose to divide them into two.

Mr. Ede

In spite of that, they recognised that this was a point at which—I am trying to answer the right hon. Gentleman; I think he is more likely to get the information from me than from his right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). The Commissioners submitted to the Government a way in which these boroughs could be divided if the Government or the House decided to divide them into two.

Mr. Churchill

Where is that recommendation of detail as to how they should be divided?

Mr. Ede

It is in the Government's Amendments to the Bill, and was also in the White Paper which was issued last week.

Mr. Churchill

Has there been a secret reference to the Commission, of which the House has not been made aware?

Mr. Ede

If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to deal with this matter I shall make a complete disclosure of the way in which these Amendments have been drafted. I think he will find exactly how it has occurred. The Boundary Commissioners divided each of these eight into two. The Government, in the light of the representations made to them during the Second Reading, then considered whether it was possible in any other way to redress the great disparity between the average borough and the average county constituency in England. The Boundary Commissioners themselves had said that the normal constituency should be regarded as having between 50,000 and 70,000 electors. We had to scrap the first Boundary Commission's Report, which was on the basis of one vote, one value——

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay (Combined English Universities)

Scrap it?

Mr. Ede

As Members know, there have been two reports like this. The first was produced on the 1945 register, which was generally condemned on both sides on the ground that, while it produced greater mathematical exactitude, it did, in the case of medium-sized boroughs, greatly offend local susceptibilities and local patriotism. I was pressed, even more from the opposite side of the House than from this, to scrap the Report and to draw up new rules with the object of getting a second report in which mathematical considerations were not given as great a weight as the kind of local considerations which had weighed with boroughs which were entitled to one Member and a bit more.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Churchill

It is vital to our discussion to know the essential facts. Did the Boundary Commissioners, at the time they made this second report, trace out the lines of division of these 17 constituencies, or was that done afterwards?

Mr. Ede

I have not said that they traced out the boundaries——

Mr. Churchill

They didn't?

Mr. Ede

The right hon. Gentleman might allow me to finish what I was saying. They traced out the boundaries of the eight divided boroughs.

Mr. Churchill

When?

Mr. Ede

At the time the second blue report was submitted. At that time, we received the division of the eight big boroughs into 16 constituencies.

Mr. Churchill

I am sorry to interrupt, but we must know where we are. I think that we are being misled. Why was this scheme for redistribution by the Boundary Commission not made public at the time when this report was made public?

Mr. Ede

Because at that time the Bill had not been drafted, and, as I explained to the House on the Second Reading, we decided to put into the Bill, when we presented it to the House, the Boundary Commissioners' Report. At that time, we had the division of the eight large boroughs into 16 constituencies.

Mr. Churchill

What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "had the division"? Did the Commissioners give him the report of how these boroughs should be divided before this report which I have been holding in my hand was laid before Parliament, or was there a request by the Government for a further suggestion on this matter?

Mr. Ede

There was not a further suggestion that there should be a division of those. I want the Committee to keep clearly in mind two stages. The first is the division of the eight big boroughs, plans for that were given to us at the time we received the report which we embodied in the Bill. With regard to the other nine scats which make up the 17, no suggestion at that stage was made to us by the Boundary Commissioners. The Government took this figure which the Boundary Commission themselves had regarded as normal—between 50,000 and 70,000—and applied it to the divided boroughs in the country. It found that there were nine divided boroughs, which, if they were given an additional seat, would still have an average constituency of between 50,000 and 70,000.

Mr. Churchill

Who found this, the Boundary Commission or the Government?

Mr. Ede

The arithmetical powers of the Government were sufficient for that.

Mr. Churchill rose——

Hon. Members

Order.

Mr. Churchill

We are in Committee. [Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite think that they are going to knock us about to get their dirty racket through they are very much mistaken. Why was this information withheld? The Boundary Commission had nothing to do with it.

Mr. Ede

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be listened to in perfect courtesy. I do not think that he has ever complained that I have interrupted him. But I am endeavouring to give an explanation to the House which I think is quite simple, and which I am certain is truthful. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman doubts that, it is impossible to argue with people who will not accept the other man's good faith in the matter.

Mr. Henry Strauss (Combined English Universities)

I want to get clear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying as regards the eight boroughs. I understand that as regards the eight boroughs he stated that he received a report from the Boundary Commissioners. May I ask if that report was in writing and if it has ever been published to this House?

Mr. Ede

The report was in writing. It was purely a statistical report dividing these eight boroughs into two each, as proposed in the Government's Amendments to the Bill.

Mr. Strauss

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the White Paper of last week, which makes no mention of the Boundary Commission at all.

Mr. Ede

As the Lord President of the Council said at the time the original Bill went through in 1944, in these matters Parliament is supreme. It is for Parliament to settle what the constituencies are to be, and it is for the Government to get the best advice it can to tender to the House as to what the constituencies should be when they decide to submit their suggestions to the House. There were nine boroughs in the country which had more than two members, where an additional member would still keep the average size of the constituency within the normal limits. I will enumerate them: Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Manchester, Nottingham and Sheffield.

To take the first one, Birmingham was allotted 12 members, and, with an electorate of 759,690, that gave an average electorate for each constituency of 63,308. An additional member there brought the average electorate for the constituency to 58,438, which was a great deal nearer to the general quota for the whole country than the figure for the 12 seats. In the same way, in each of the other eight boroughs, by adding one member to each borough we secured an average electorate which was still within the normal limits. As a matter of fact, Bradford, one of those in the Boundary Commissioners' Report, had an average electorate which was outside the normal of 71,133. By giving them an additional member, the average electorate becomes 53,350, which is within and not without the normal size of a constituency.

Mr. Frank McLeavy (Bradford, East)

The best description of the position in Bradford is not "giving them an additional member" but restoring the one taken from them by this report.

Mr. Ede

We did not have any regard to what was the representation of the city before the report was published. We took the number of electors, and we arrived at a number of constituencies which would still keep the average size of the constituency between the normal limits. As a matter of fact, we could have given Birmingham two other members and still have been within the size of the average constituency. Having decided that those nine cities should receive an additional Member, we asked the Boundary Commissioners if they would divide the nine seats into constituencies of the numbers which we recommend to the Committee. As a result of their recommendations and response to that request, we have put the other nine seats into the Amendment to the First Schedule.

Mr. Churchill

Is it not a fact that when the Boundary Commission presented its report, its functions were discharged, and in the main it has stated its opinion as to the fair distribution of the seats? Is it not a fact, also, that the Government desired to know whether the Boundary Commission would deal further with the matter, and were they not informed that the Commission could not act in a collective capacity any more? Were they not then reduced to obtaining the individual advice and opinion of former members of a Boundary Commission, which in this matter was defunct?

Mr. Ede

No, Sir, it is not right.

Mr. Churchill

I think it is.

Mr. Ede

The Boundary Commission now is a continuing body. As a result of the 1944 Act it is the duty of the Boundary Commissioners within not less than three years and not more than seven from the date when their previous reports have been enacted by this House to present a fresh report to this House, indicating the way in which the constituencies of the country should be revised if any revision is necessary. This Report has not been enacted, and we think the best people to advise us on the way these nine seats should be divided were the people who had drawn up the original Report, and who had experience in dividing the constituencies into cities and counties throughout the country.

Mr. Churchill

But they had neither collective nor statutory capacity except as individuals to advise after the functions defined by the Act of 1944 had been discharged.

Mr. Ede

Even if that were an accurate statement of the position—and I do not admit it to be—it does not invalidate the value of their recommendations to the House. The Government have reached the decision to recommend to the Committee, for the reasons that I have given, that these nine additional seats should be found, and there can be no one more competent than the Boundary Commissioners to advise us as to the appropriate way in which these seats should be divided. The effect of these proposals is that the average electors in England with these 17 seats will be 56,758 and the average electors in a borough will be 57,833–1,075 above the average instead of 2,737 in the proposals of the original Report. The average electorate of a county will be 55,360 or only 1,398 below the average instead of 3,345 as in the Boundary Commission's Report. The Government feel that this greater approximation to equality between the boroughs and the counties is a thing——

4.15 p.m.

Forward to