REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES)

HC Deb 16 December 1954 vol 535 cc1987-2288

Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Bedford and Mid-Bedfordshire) Order, 1954 [copy presented 18th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament], approved.—[Major Lloyd-George.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Reading, Newbury and Wokingham) Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Major Lloyd-George.]

3.47 p.m.

Mr. Ian Mikardo (Reading, South)

I hope that the House will forgive me if I venture to take a little time to address right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the details and the effects of this Order. I begin by saying that, like some hon. Gentlemen who addressed the House in the main debate yesterday, I can speak without any subjective considerations in mind because I personally am not directly affected by the Order.

Yesterday, some hon. Gentlemen said that they were not affected because their constituencies were not to be altered. I remain unaffected for a different reason. If the Order is withdrawn or not carried, I shall be in the next Parliament, as I am now, as the Member for Reading, South. If the Order is pressed to a Division and carried, I shall be in the next Parliament as the Member for Reading. The only difference it will make to me personally is that I shall have the honour of serving about 20,000 more constituents than I have now.

The Order proposes that the two constituencies of Reading, North and Reading, South shall be merged into a single constituency and—to bring that constituency down to manageable size, as the Commissioners think—one ward at the eastern end of the borough shall be taken out and put into the Wokingham constituency and another ward at the western end of the borough shall be taken out and put into the Newbury constituency. Until the last redistribution, Reading was a single constituency, the constituency boundaries being coterminous with those of the county borough. There was no part of the borough which was not within the constituency and no part of the constituency which was not in the borough.

In the last redistribution this constituency, without alteration of boundaries, was divided into two, so that at present the two precisely cover the whole of the borough, no more and no less. What is now being proposed is that there shall be a Reading constituency consisting of the central 11 wards of the borough, the easternmost ward going into Wokingham and the westernmost ward into Newbury.

When the Commissioners first published this proposal certain objections to it were received by them. The people and parties who objected to this proposal were: the Newbury Conservative Association; the Newbury Constituency Labour Party; the Reading Conservative Federation, representing the Reading North Conservative Association and the Reading South Conservative Association: the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. F. M. Bennett); the Reading Labour Party; the Wokingham Constituency Labour Party; the Wokingham Conservative and Unionist Association; the Wokingham Liberal Association; the Reading County Borough Council, by a unanimous vote; and the Berkshire County Council, by a unanimous vote. Apart from that, everybody seemed to be in favour of it.

What is interesting is that whilst, so far as I know, none of them consulted each other, nevertheless they all, independently, put in objections on what were approximately the same lines. They all had the same view of the Commissioners' proposals, which they reached independently. I wish to dwell for a moment on the question of what happened to the objections. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said yesterday that when he made some observations to the Commissioners on the subject of his constituency he got nothing but courtesy from the Commissioners and also got a public inquiry. As is well known, my right hon. Friend is a man of great charm and great persuasive powers.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

May I be allowed to say that I was not the only person who made representations on those lines? I would not like it to be thought that the qualities to which my hon. Friend has alluded were so displayed on that occasion as to outweigh the representations that were made by other people in the same respect.

Mr. Mikardo

My right hon. Friend, as always, is a shade too modest. I believe that the experience which he had not only testifies to those powers of charm and persuasion to which I have referred, but also tends to show how considerably one's powers of charm and persuasion may sometimes be reinforced by being a former Home Secretary and a possible future Home Secretary.

But we in Berkshire, where we can boast of nothing more exalted than a Parliamentary Private Secretary to an Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, did not share the happy experience of my right hon. Friend with the Commissioners. The most and best which any of our objectors got was a printed acknowledgment. Some did not even get that elementary courtesy from the Commissioners. I understand that the Reading Conservative Federation did get such acknowledgment, but I know that the Reading Labour Party did not get one, although I am not saying that there is any significance in that.

The really serious part of the situation is that everybody in the area affected went on for a very long time—not unnaturally, as I am sure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree—expecting that an inquiry would be held wondering when it would be held and not knowing that it was not to be held until the Commissioners actually published their Report. Leaving aside the political parties who made representations—eight of them altogether, in three constituencies—I ask the Home Secretary, is that the sort of way in which the Commissioners ought to treat a county borough council and a county council, both of whom reached their conclusions by a unanimous vote of members of all parties?

The objections which were made to the Commissioners' proposals are based upon two main points. I hope the House will bear with me if I try to explain them. The first is the acute disorganisation which will be caused by the proposals to the work of the various political parties there. The hon. Member for Walton (Mr. K. Thompson) yesterday gave the House, if I may be allowed to say so, a most effective and graphic account of the way in which ward associations and similar party organisations are seriously disturbed when they are shoved around in this way.

I think every hon. Member will know from his own experience how difficult it is at any time, even when it has got to be done, to merge together ward associations of a borough party with local parties of a county party. In the case of Reading, those difficulties are intensified because we shall have involved not merely a borough party and a county party, but a borough party and two county parties in the same medium-sized borough.

In his opening speech yesterday, the Home Secretary referred to the way in which cases similar to that of Reading—boroughs with an electorate of a little more than 80,000—have been handled by the Commissioners. I wish to put to him that the observations he made apply to every one of the Commissioners' proposals of this type except their proposals with regard to Reading. This is what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said: The Commission, therefore, has clearly been forced back on to the third method, which is that of dismemberment. Thus, a county borough with an electorate of a little over 80,000 … must have same of its wards included in a county constituency;".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 1791.] That is understandable if it is a—and I emphasise "a"—county constituency, but if hon. Members will examine the whole of the Report and the appendices they will find that Reading is the only place where parts of the borough have been hived off into two separate county constituencies.

Just imagine what it will be like to run borough council elections in Reading, what it will be like for the Conservative Party, for the Labour Party and any other party which chooses to run candidates, if they are to be involved annually in borough council elections with two county constituency parties on each side as well as a borough party on each side. Taking one ward in the extreme west of the town and putting it into one county constituency and another ward in the extreme east and putting it into another county constituency, and leaving the rest truncated, is not dismemberment, but being hanged, drawn and quartered. It is making an absolute mess of the poor borough of Reading.

That, therefore, is one of the reasons why I think that there was so much indignation in and around Reading about this, not based on purely parochial and local considerations. We know that throughout the country there has been a great deal of abjection based only on real or imaginary hurt to local pride. No local borough likes to have its boundaries invaded one way or the other, either by addition or subtraction.

I would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to believe that there would not have been anything like the volume of objections to this Berkshire proposal that there was if it had been proposed to take some part of Reading—one or two wards—out of the borough, and put it into one of the county constituencies. As it is, the proposal will be very difficult to work, and the authorities in Reading are very concerned about the grave disorganisation which will be caused to their work by having three constituency boroughs in their county elections. This is the first major ground of this objection.

The second is the obvious instability of the proposals as they are now, because they cannot remain for very long. The effect of all that is proposed to be done now in the Commission's present Report will have to be undone in a very short time, largely because of the growth of the new town of Bracknell in the constituency of Wokingham, as well as because of other major developments of atomic energy establishments in a fairly close ring round the borough of Reading.

On this matter, I would draw the attention of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and of the House to paragraph 16 of the Commission's Report, in which the following passage appears. The Commissioners say: In many areas projected housing development leading to a probable movement of population has been urged as a reason for either abandoning our recommendations or for creating additional constituencies elsewhere. The full effect of movements from such causes will not become apparent for some years, but we have shaped our final recommendations so far as practicable, having regard to the Rules laid down for our guidance, to meet present and imminent local conditions. I think the House will probably agree that that is in general a sensible attitude to take. Obviously, the whole matter is in a state of flux, and if one can say that one can never make a decision now because of what is likely to happen in the future, there never will be a point of time at which we can make a decision. Therefore, I think that we can say that the Commissioners were right, with respect to you, Sir, as Chairman, in refusing to take into account projected changes, except those which they thought to be imminent.

In the case of this area in Berkshire, I would have thought that it would have been reasonable to argue that the known plans of the Ministry of Supply for the development on a large scale of new and existing atomic establishments, especially at Aldermaston, could be considered to be imminent; but even if one disallows that, one faces the anomaly of what the Commission is proposing for Berkshire and its own definition of what it includes as being imminent.

I pass on from what I have just read to the next sentence. The Commissioners say: In our recommendations for Essex and Hertfordshire we have had regard to the probable effect upon the distribution of electorate of the growth of the new towns designated in Orders made under Section 1 of the New Towns Act, 1946. There the Commissioners say, as I interpret it, that one thing which they consider to be imminent, one thing that they have allowed for as being imminent, and one thing which they have, therefore, taken into account in drawing up their proposals, is the growth of the new towns designated in Orders made under that Act.

I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman—and I hope that he or the Under-Secretary will answer the question explicitly—why Essex?; why Hertfordshire?; why not Berkshire? Bracknell is a new town in exactly the same way as Harlow is a new town and as Hemel Hempstead is a new town in Essex and Hertfordshire respectively. Why Essex?; why Hertfordshire?; and why not Bracknell? It is clear that the effect of this growth at Bracknell is something which, I say with respect, the Commissioners ought to have taken into account.

What is to happen? Before very long, as Bracknell grows, because of this growth, and because of putting over 80,000 electors of Reading east ward into the Wokingham Division under this present proposal, the Wokingham Division will rapidly become oversized. It will have to be cut down. What will then happen? We cannot forecast the action of the Commissioners, but it is reasonable to suppose that when they get to the situation of another examination in which they have to cut down Wokingham which has then become oversized, the obvious cut which they will make will be to take the east ward of Reading out of Wokingham and put it back into Reading again.

I think it is fairly easy to deduce from this that the proposal to put the east ward into Wokingham is a temporary, and, as I have said, an unstable proposal. I am fairly sure that the reasons why all three political parties in the Wokingham constituency—Conservative, Labour and Liberal—objected to the proposal is that each one of the three will have to change its organisation or set up a new organisation and machinery to look after the east ward of Reading for what it knows is only a very short time. Then it has to lose it.

It is, I believe, a reasonable assumption that that is the case, and I hope we may hear on this subject from the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant). I know that is the reason for the objection of the Wokingham Labour Party, and I think it is reasonable if I assume that that is probably the reason for the objection of the other two political parties in Wokingham.

It is not my job, or that of any other hon. Member, to do the Commission's work for it by devising alternative schemes. But I would say that if one had sought to take into account the growth of the new town in Berkshire, as the Commissioners say they have taken into account the growth of the new towns in Essex and Hertfordshire, it would have been comparatively easy to do so by a method which would have remained much more stable, and which could have been continued for a very long time, because in the Wokingham constituency, contiguous with Reading and part of Reading in everything but name, are the two parishes of Earley and Woodley, which could have been moved into Reading, South, with a compensating adjustment to Reading, North, thus keeping the Wokingham electorate, notwithstanding the growth of the new town of Bracknell, at a reasonable level.

I do not want to pursue that point, because it is not the business of hon. Members to devise alternative schemes. I merely make the point to show that there was, had the Commissioners sought to take into account the growth of the new town, a fairly easy way of doing this.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman may put it to me that, notwithstanding all I have said, it would be intolerable to maintain two such small constituencies as Reading North and Reading South. Anticipating that possible point, I want to say a word or two about it. First, I want to say that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) pointed out yesterday, there are a considerable number of proposed constituencies, both existing ones and new creations under the recommendations which are about the same size as Reading, South or smaller than Reading, South. There are also quite a number of boroughs with only a few more electors than the borough of Reading which are to retain two constituencies.

Secondly, I would direct the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's attention to the fact that many of the people and organisations who objected to the Commission's proposals—notably the Reading Borough Council—put forward a second line of defence. They said, "We want the two constituencies as they are, but if we cannot have that, because it is thought that they are too small, we should like to go back to having the whole borough as a single constituency, as we had before 1950." That bears a little thinking about, because I can see no reason why, within their terms of reference as they themselves interpret them, the Commissioners should not have considered that as a possible alternative to their own proposals.

They may so have done. Since they have not published any of the reasons which induced them to arrive at their various conclusions; since they have neither replied to any of the objections made, nor published any observations upon them, we have no method of knowing whether they ever considered the alternative proposal of the Reading Borough Council and others. They may have considered it and said, "Ah, that would create a constituency of just over 80,000 electors, which would not enable us to say the one thing in our Report of which we are most proud, namely, that we have not made a constituency of under 40,000 or over 80,000 electors."

In this case the electorate would be only just over 80,000, and, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman observed yesterday, this is an electorate with a falling trend. It will go on slightly exceeding 80,000 for only a very short time. In those circumstances, I put it to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that this solution—which I am not saying is the best one—should have been considered by the Commissioners because, unlike their own proposals, it will provide a situation which will remain reasonably stable, even if it is viewed from between the Commissioners' own mathematical blinkers.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman yesterday referred to the fact that most of the recommendations laid down by the Commission arose from the departures made from the Commission's recommendations in 1948. I endeavoured to put a point to him by way of intervention, but I obviously did not make myself clear. It is not easy to do so in a short intervention, but if I now develop the point the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will probably see what I mean. In his speech yesterday, he said: Why has the Commission found it necessary to make so many changes? The answer is indicated quite clearly in paragraphs 14 and 17 of the Report. It is the result very largely of the changes made to its recommendations in 1948."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 1787.] If that proposition could be fully defended one would infer, in logic, that what the Commissioners would now do—or art least not seriously object to—is to revert to their original proposals in 1948, before they were changed. The logic of what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says is that if we were merely rectifying the discrepancies caused by the House varying the 1948 recommendations, we should make a single constituency of Reading.

I put that proposition to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman yesterday, and he appeared to think that I was arguing the case for two separate constituencies, in which case I agree that it would be a weak point. But I should like to know his answer to my present proposition, that if, as he says, we have landed all this upon ourselves because we varied the Commissioners' 1948 proposals, we should revert to the 1948 position before the House altered it. I am not putting this forward as an ideal solution; I am merely asking why it could not possibly be considered. Most important of all, I am trying to show that, whether considered on the basis of the present status or the status of a single constituency of the whole borough, it is possible to provide an arrangement which will remain stable and sound far longer than any which can be expected to result from the Commissioners' proposals.

I apologise for having wearied the House with these details, but there is one more point which I wish to make. I should have thought, with great respect, and not subjectively, that this was almost the perfect case for the House not rubber-stamping automatically the proposals of the Commission. It was said many times, with great effect, yesterday, that the Commission is an impartial body, but impartiality is not omniscience, and the members of the Commission would be the last to claim that they were omniscient, however impartial they may be. Hon. Members on both sides of the House yesterday urged that we should look at these matters on their merits.

Among hon. Members opposite, the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn), the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis), and the hon. Member for Walton said, in effect, "Let us have a look at each of these things on its own merits or demerits. Do not let us deny ourselves the right to change the proposals, or evade our responsibility for doing so, where we think that the Commissioners have not made the best job they possibly could, with all the skill and impartiality at their command." I should like to quote a passage from the speech of the hon. Member for Carlton, because it should commend itself to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and to the House. He said: All I am now pleading is that … the Government … should not absolutely tie themselves to all of these matters. It should not be impossible to make an exception in the case of one or two of these Orders where it can be shown that no injustice would be done … by not swallowing that Order or Orders. All that I am arguing is that where there are a few such cases … there shall be opportunity given for making an exception. Do not fall into the risk of … destroying our own powers by refusing to decide how to exercise them. That is the risk which the House is at present running."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 1814.] This is the first of the Orders to be debated today—we have passed one without debate—and I submit that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would be doing a service to the House and to the institution of our Parliamentary democracy if he showed some flexibility in this matter and gave further thought to it, rather than forcing this Order through the House.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. Peter Remnant (Wokingham)

I find myself in the rather unusual position of agreeing with a considerable amount of what was said by the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo), so I should first like to dispose of the few points upon which I disagree with him.

The hon. Member started by saying that he would be unaffected whether or not this Order was accepted by the House. As I understand, he is—or was—a business efficiency expert and, as such, must be a realist. If I may use the language of another sphere, I would offer him a shade of odds that in this case he is wrong. I think that I should find that he was not in a unanimous circle on this point, and, at any rate, I believe that I could count upon my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. F. M. Bennett) to think he held an equal or greater chance of being the hon. Member for a single Reading constituency than I would give the hon. Member for Reading, South.

On the question of the possibility of adding Earley and Woodley to Reading, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he fell into the trap into which he accused others of falling. I think he has overlooked the interests of the local authorities concerned, because there will be the strongest possible objection from the Wokingham Rural District Council on the ground that a large part of their rateable value lies in these particular areas.

The next point that I wish to take up with the hon Member for Reading, South is in regard to the east ward of Reading. The east ward regards itself as part of Reading Borough, and, in my view, it is in effect as well as in name part of Reading. Therefore, if the Commission's proposal is carried out, the east ward of Reading will have to look west for municipal affairs and east for its political affairs.

I ask the House to try to picture the position of the hon Member for Wokingham, whether he be myself or anybody else, when the time comes, as well it may, when Reading Borough desires to extend its boundaries. Such a proposal from Reading Borough would be most bitterly and strongly opposed by the Wokingham Rural District Council.

What would be the position then? We should have part of the Borough of Reading asking me to agree to proposals to extend the borough boundaries, and, on the other side, I should have the rural district council opposing them with all the force at their command.

Mr. G. Lindgren (Wellingborough)

Have a day off.

Mr. Remnant

That is only part of the answer. Every conscientious person has to face this possibility. I suggest that it would place the hon. Member for Wokingham in a position in which he ought not to be placed

I want to move to the other point which the hon. Member for Reading, South raised in regard to the counterbalancing effect of the new town of Bracknell. If I am right, the Wokingham constituency as it now stands is roughly about 6,000 people under the norm, and one of the reasons for adding the east ward of Reading, which has an electorate of about that figure or slightly more, is to bring it up to the norm.

Bracknell new town is to have an additional population of about 20,000, of which I suggest we might take about 13,000 or 14,000 as being electors. It has already 1,500 on the new electoral roll, so that, if we take approximately an additional 11,000 on the electorate and add this figure to the present electorate, it would bring the present Wokingham constituency above the norm. I suggest that by adding the east ward of Reading, purely for purposes of numerical accuracy or propinquity, and then extending the time for the revision of boundaries, Wokingham will become an over-sized constituency.

My final point on this subject is that, when Bracknell new town, which is growing fast and well, reaches its full size, some further change will have to take place, particularly in relation to Reading. The Wokingham constituency has been a separate constituency only since 1950, and I think that both sides of the House will agree that it is settling down very well. I think it is a little tough that the people of a ward which regards itself as part of Reading Borough, and which is actually part of the borough, should be asked to be absorbed in another constituency and taken out again on some future occasion, because the people concerned will not know where they are.

There may be an extremely good reason for the Boundary Commission's decision, but, in the absence of any reason being given, and in the absence of any local inquiry being held, I just do not know what it is. After the objections made by these various bodies, including, I think, the Wokingham Rural District Council, with which I am in agreement, I should be very grateful if my right hon. and gallant Friend could tell me what was the overriding consideration or reason for not acceding to the objections made by all these authorities, or why an inquiry was not held.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Hurd (Newbury)

All of us in Berkshire think that this is a bad proposal which is now before Parliament from the Boundary Commission. The hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) listed the responsible elected authorities which had made representations which were brushed aside by the Boundary Commission, which did not think it was worth while having a public inquiry. I should have thought that this was certainly one of the cases where a principle was involved which deserved a local inquiry by the Commission.

As far as the political implications are concerned, I do not myself think that there is very much in it, one way or the other. I think that, if these proposals go through, the voting strength of the abridged Reading constituency might be shown on the Conservative side or on the Labour side. So far as my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) is concerned, I think his adherents are fairly staunch and I think that perhaps I am rather more staunch with my friends in Newbury; and, therefore, I do not think there is any political content in this discussion.

Having met some of the 12,000 citizens of Reading who would become constituents of mine in the Newbury division, I can say that they cherish their full citizenship of Reading, both as local electors—because they have their own police force, education arrangements, and so on—and also as Parliamentary electors. I do not think that Parliament should attempt to deprive them of that citizenship. If it does so happen that the Tilehurst Ward in the west of Reading goes into the Newbury constituency, I have no doubt that in the hon. Member for Newbury they will be very adequately represented in this House, but they will not feel that their citizenship of the borough as a whole is as complete as it is today.

All I would add is this. If the Home Secretary, having listened to the arguments put up by the hon. Gentleman opposite, by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham and myself, still feels that he must ask the House to endorse the recommendations of the Commission, I shall not be able to support the Government in the Lobby.

4.28 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth)

As has been said, this Order abolishes one constituency at Reading. It transfers one ward of Reading, the Tilehurst ward, to the Newbury constituency, another ward, the east ward, to Wokingham, and makes the remainder of Reading a single constituency.

Reading was one of the boroughs with electorates slightly exceeding 80,000 people which the Boundary Commission, in 1947, recommended should have only one seat, but it was given two seats in 1948. As was explained, in its Report, the Commission allotted seats to geographical counties in proportion to their electorates, and that question was discussed generally on the Motion before the House yesterday.

The electorate of Berkshire, including Reading as a whole, has hardly changed since 1946. Reading's electorate has gone down from 84,068 to 81,134. There has been a compensating increase in the county. The result of the addition of a seat at Reading in 1948 was, of course, that Berkshire as a whole became overrepresented. The position is that the existing six seats for Berkshire have an average electorate of only 47,036 and that the proposal now before the House will rectify that, in accordance with principles laid down by Parliament, by giving five seats, with an average electorate of 56,443.

Mr. Remnant

Those figures, presumably, do not take into account the intake into Aldermaston.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I will say a word about that point later.

The proposed change is as I have described it. It seems clear that the Commission is justified in its views that a seat should be abolished and that the proper place for abolishing it is Reading.

If so, the Commission had two alternatives. The first was to give the county borough of Reading one seat. That alternative was suggested by the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) today. Reading was to have had only one seat in the original proposals in 1947, but Parliament decided that Reading should have two seats. If the Commission had proposed that we should go forward now with abolishing two seats by simply amalgamating them, and giving Reading only one, I am sure that the hon. Member for Reading, South would have been the first to say that the Commission was flouting the opinion of Parliament; and, indeed, he would have been right.

Mr. Mikardo

The hon. Gentleman cannot possibly know what I would have said in hypothetical circumstances. Even if he is right, two blacks do not make a white, especially where one is blacker than another. What has been said by Reading Borough Council and others is that the alternative of one seat for the whole borough is less repugnant than the Commission's present proposal.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I quite agree that I have the greatest difficulty in prognosticating what the hon. Gentleman is going to say, but on this occasion I have confidence that what I said is correct. I will leave it at that.

The county borough, however, has still an electorate of more than 80,000. Parliament made it clear to the Commission in 1948 that it should not propose constituencies of more than 80,000. That is stated in the Report of the Commission. In consequence, the Commission was forced back to the other alternative of detaching parts of Reading and joining them to one or more adjoining county constituencies. That is the proposal before the House.

Hon. Members have said that there are unanimous local objections from Reading. That is not surprising. If we take away a seat from a county or a city we get local objections. That is natural, but is certainly not conclusive. If it were, we should never be able to take away a seat. The Commission, the Government, and, indeed, this House, must look at the position as a whole.

Hon. Members have asked why there was no inquiry. Whether or not to hold an inquiry is a matter entirely at the discretion of the Commission. It was so left by the Act which, I need not remind the House, was not passed by this Government.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas (The Wrekin)

In how many cases did the Commission choose to exercise its discretion? Would it not be correct to say that it did so in not more than seven cases? How does the Minister explain this miserly ration of exercise of the Commission's discretion?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

It is not for me to explain what went on in the mind of the Commission. That matter was given to the Commission to consider by the Act of Parliament to which I have referred.

The Commission, in its discretion, held inquiries only in certain cases. The purpose of the inquiries is to assist the Commission. I quite understand that a great number of people wish to express views strongly, and feel—as the Attorney-General in the late Government expressed it—that they would like to let off steam. The purpose of the inquiry must be to assist the Commission in coming to a decision. It may well be that parties and individuals feel very strongly and sincerely, but they may have nothing fresh to bring to the notice of the Commission. It is for the Commission, in its discretion, given by Parliament, to arrive at a decision whether or not there should be an inquiry.

Mr. Ralph Morley (Southampton, Itchen)

Would it not have been discreet on the part of the Commission to take notice of the representations it received from the county borough, two county councils, and both political parties?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I have no doubt the Commission took notice of all representations received. All I am saying is that it rests with the Commission to decide, having taken notice, whether there is a case for an inquiry. In the present case, the Commission decided not to hold an inquiry. I cannot go further than that.

Mr. C. R. Attlee (Walthamstow, West)

Is the Minister suggesting that where a discretion is vested, whether in a Minister, a Commission or anyone else, we are not entitled to criticise the exercise of it and say that it is unreasonable? There are many cases where inquiries may have been held and it is always open to us to say whether we think they should have been held.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I do not complain in the slightest degree that his hon. Friends were complaining. I think it is no more than natural. I said that it was a matter within the discretion of the Commission, and I have no doubt that it exercised its discretion according to the views at which it arrived.

Mr. Scholefield Allen (Crewe)

How many inquiries would have taken place if the discretion had been exercised in each case in favour of inquiry?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I cannot possibly give an answer to that. In reply to a Question the other day I said that 900 requests had been put in. I think that was the figure, but I gave it offhand. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) may remember, because it was his Question. Beyond that, I cannot answer the question asked of me by the hon. and learned Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen).

Mr. Scholefield Allen

I was not asking for the number of individuals or associations, but how many inquiries would have been held—how many constituencies would have been the subject of inquiry—if the requests, be they 900 or 2,000, had been acquiesced in?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew)

Order. I think that we are getting on to the Question which we debated yesterday. These are particular Orders, and to go back over yesterday's debate would be out of order. It is only the Reading Order which we are discussing.

Mr. Julian Snow (Lichfield and Tamworth)

On a point of order. This question arises on each of the disputed Orders. It was not at all clear from the debate yesterday how the Commission could exercise its discretion without consulting local opinion. I do, with great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, suggest that, as we are all involved in this respect, some latitude should be allowed by the Chair.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I do not think so. I think that on each particular Order this point can be raised individually. We are only dealing with the particular Order before us and not with the lot. We cannot again deal with them en masse, as we did yesterday.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing (Hornchurch)

Further to that point of order. I think that the House is in this difficulty. Whether one or the other Order is just can only be seen, very often, in comparison with other Orders. It is quite impossible to deal with them separately, because the justness or otherwise depends on how the Commission has treated another area. If, in fact, the Commission has exercised its discretion in quite a different way in regard to another area, that is surely a reason for rejecting the way in which it has dealt with a particular area which is under discussion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That may seem to be perfectly reasonable, but it is rather a point we were dealing with yesterday. We are now dealing with the Orders one at a time.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood (Rossendale)

Perhaps I may put a question to the Joint Under-Secretary on this particular Order, relating to the way in which the Commissioners declined to exercise their discretion. There may be two views about that but, in the unfortunate and unaccountable absence of the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. F. M. Bennett), may I ask the hon. Gentleman his view as to the discourtesy shown by the Commissioners in not even acknowledging the request for an inquiry in this case?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

Without in any way accepting what the hon. Member has just said, that is not a question for me to answer.

Mr. Scholefield Allen

On a point of order. Do I take it that, if we cannot get a general answer to a general question, it would be in order to oppose every separate Order so as to find out whether, on that particular Order, an inquiry had been asked for and refused? After all, it would be more for the convenience of the House to have a general answer, than that we should obstruct every Order in that way. But we are determined to have this explanation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I do not think that I am in a position, under the rules of order—which I only carry out—to allow that. The rules are that we discuss one Order at a time. I would be only too happy to do anything I could, but I am precluded from doing so on this point.

Mr. I. O. Thomas

You have stated, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it would be out of order to discuss generally the question of the exercise of discretion by the Commission, because that was fully dealt with generally in yesterday's debate. From the beginning of his statement in support of acceptance of the recommendations of the Commission the Joint Under-Secretary has dealt generally with the exercise of the discretion of the Commission in its refusal to hold a local inquiry. As he was allowed to develop that argument in this particular case, I presume that he will be allowed to develop the same argument in several other cases. Why should it be ruled out of order for hon. Members, in a particular case, to refer to the argument which is adduced by the Minister in support of his case?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I think the position is quite clear. Since the point was raised I have taken further advice. I am not in a position to allow a debate on the general question, but, on each particular case, the question can be asked, and an answer given, why an inquiry was not allowed. Probably the answers will be different; but I do not know.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I am sorry that I was led beyond the bounds of order in replying to the question asked by the hon. and learned Member for Crewe. His question does involve some figures, and raises a much wider issue. I will see whether I can have the figures worked out, and, if so, I will let him have the answer as soon as possible.

The hon. Member for Reading, South said that this Order would cause inconvenience. The truth of the matter is that all redistribution involves some degree of inconvenience. He cited some particular instances. Those inconveniences are to be regretted, but they are a necessary concomitant of any form of redistribution. I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields would be the first to agree that inconveniences cannot altogether be avoided.

A point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) and by the hon. Member for Reading, South, was that these proposals, owing to the proximity of the new town of Bracknell, would necessarily be of a somewhat temporary nature. In paragraph 16 of their Report, the Commissioners say: … we have shaped our final recommendations so far as practicable, having regard to the Rules laid down for our guidance, to meet present and imminent local conditions. No doubt the question which the Commissioners asked themselves in each case, when they found they were dealing with a new town, was, "How far is a change imminent?" I cannot, of course, say what particular logical process went through the minds of the Commission, but, while the debate has been going on, I have obtained some figures in this connection. I find that there is a substantial difference between the case of Bracknell and some, if not all, of the new towns to which reference has been made.

The figures I have are that, in Bracknell, 743 houses are now being built; in Stevenage, 2,200; and in Hemel Hempstead, 1,202. These figures are of houses building and are, of course, relevant to imminence. In Basildon, the figure is 1,050. At Harlow, 1,442 houses are being built. They are all in excess of the figures at Bracknell. This is a question of degree. I can only assume, and ask the House to assume, that the Commission, in its discretion, came to the conclusion that the degree of imminence was not such as to vitiate the particular proposals put forward.

I hope that I have dealt with the various points that have been made in the debate, and I therefore recommend the House to approve the Order.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

I had hoped to be able to say that it would not be necessary for me to do more than to commend to the House the speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo), by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant), and by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), and that I hoped that the House would agree that they had made out the case which they put forward against this Order.

But the speech which was made by the Joint Under-Secretary really raises one or two other matters. Let us be quite clear on this. These Orders are not the Commission's Orders. The Orders are those of the Secretary of State, and the Act expressly provides that the draft of any Order in Council laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State under this Act for giving effect, whether with or without modifications, to the recommendations contained in the Report of the Boundary Commission, may make provision for certain matters.

It is quite clear that the intention of Parliament there was that when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman received the Report, he should, before he drafted and laid the Orders, himself consider whether, and if so what, modifications might be required. Therefore, the evidence that had been laid before the Commissioners, and the weight that they attached to particular representations in reaching their decision, all became relevant to the consideration of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman before he submitted the Order. It is quite clear from what the Under-Secretary has said that no such consideration was given in this case.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels (Gloucester) rose—

Mr. Ede

I find it difficult enough to speak on these highly-complicated legal matters without having to compete with the assistance of learned counsel.

Mr. Turner-Samuels

I only wished to add a word.

Mr. Ede

I am not closing this debate. If my hon. and learned Friend's ambition is merely to add a word, I would rather that he added it and did not interpolate it. These are very complicated and difficult matters for laymen to deal with. I purposely did not interrupt anybody because I was anxious that other hon. Members should make a connected statement to the House, and I want to have the same privilege.

The action of the Commissioners is a relevant consideration for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but he cannot shrug off responsibility for this Order. I should like to deal with this question of the 80,000. It so happens—it was a peculiar coincidence—that in 1948 when the eight seats that had over 80,000 were divided by two, each of them could, without dividing wards, produce a constituency of over 40,000. Reading has still over 80,000 electors, but the difference now is that Reading cannot be divided into two constituencies of over 40,000 without dividing a ward. One constituency would be about 41,000 and the other, speaking in thousands, would be just over 39,000.

While I agree that, on the whole, it is desirable that seats should not be under 40,000, the Commission itself has proposed that Battersea, South, with under 40,000 in 1954, shall remain a constituency. That was dealt with precisely in the same way in 1948, when an electorate of over 80,000 could be divided into two and produce two constituencies, not cutting across ward boundaries, each of which would have over 40,000 electors.

I am bound to say that those Members who have listened to the speeches which were made by the representatives of three of the constituencies concerned—the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. F. M. Bennett) has not spoken; I see that he has just returned to the Chamber.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood

He has returned just too early!

Mr. Ede

The hon. Member for Reading, North did not speak, but he did not show any very violent signs of dissent from any of the views which were expressed by the three other Members representing this locality.

Mr. F. M. Bennett (Reading, North)

I think that the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the only reason that I have not spoken today is that I happen to be in the position of a Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Minister in the Department concerned. The right hon. Gentleman is aware of the convention attached to that position.

Mr. Ede

I accept that explanation at once. I know the difficulties that occasionally attach to Parliamentary Private Secretaries who, for no reward at all, have to submit to many hardships. I hope that nothing I have said will be taken to indicate that I implicate the hon. Member either way in the quite legitimate controversy that has arisen with regard to this area.

I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything more. Frankly, I do not want to speak unduly on these Orders after hon. Members representing the constituencies concerned have spoken, but I sincerely hope that the House will accept the views of the Members representing the area and that the Order will be rejected.

Mr. Turner-Samuels

I did not want to make a speech on this matter at all. The reason I interrupted my right hon. Friend was that I wanted him to put to the Home Secretary this question: as he has vested in him a definite duty under the Act to look at these results and make such modifications as he thinks proper in all the circumstances, how could he possibly exercise that duty, if necessary, to make modifications when he even refused to see and listen to people who wanted to make representations?

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Bing

I think that everyone was surprised that one very important aspect was not dealt with by the Minister. In this case there is an absolutely clear and flagrant departure from the rules laid down by Parliament. As the Home Secretary is aware, Rule 4 (1) begins by saying: So far as is practicable having regard to the foregoing rules"— and the foregoing Rules merely provide that every constituency shall return a single Member, that the number of constituencies shall, so far as Great Britain is concerned, not be substantially greater or less than 613, and that there shall continue to be a constituency which shall include the City of London— … in England and Wales,—(i) no county or any part thereof shall be included in a constituency which includes the whole or part of any other county or the whole or part of a county borough or metropolitan borough. So here there has been a complete departure from the Rules. There is no rule which prohibits the Boundary Commission from dividing up a ward if they so sec fit. Indeed, if Reading Corporation was anxious to preserve the Parliamentary divisions, no doubt there could have been some discussion with it on how to redistribute the wards in such a form as to give, for convenience, two Members. However, this proposal before us is a complete departure from the Rules.

It would not be so serious had not the Commission taken the view, and everywhere taken the view, that it could not split up county divisions. Whenever a county division was considered the Commission's view was that it could not be split up.

I take, as an example, Herefordshire, which has the advantage of being represented exclusively by Conservative Members. At least one seat there has only just over 40,000 electors—the average for the county being only 42,000—but it is not split up because of the principle that that is impossible because the Rules prevent the splitting up of a county division.

Before we leave the matter we ought to hear from the Home Secretary why he thinks it proper not to apply to a county borough the same Rules as apply to an administrative county. This is a complete departure from the Rules. If the Home Secretary is introducing an Order which flies in the face of the Act under which it is supposed to be introduced, he should explain to the House why he has departed from the principles which Parliament saw fit to lay down.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 212.

Division No. 13.]	AYES	[5.2 p.m.
Aitken, W. T.	Gough, C. F. H.	Moison, A. H. E.
Alport, C. J. M.	Gower, H. R.	Monokton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Graham, Sir Fergus	Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Gridley, Sir Arnold	Nabarro, G. D. N.
Arbuthnot, John	Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Neave, Airey
Armstrong, C. W.	Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Nicholls, Harmar
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Hare, Hon. J. H.	Nield, Basil (Chester)
Astor, Hon. J. J.	Harris, Reader (Heston)	Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Nugent, G. R. H.
Baldwin, A. E.	Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)	Odey, G. W.
Banks, Col. C.	Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)	O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Barber, Anthony	Harvie-Watt, Sir George	Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N)
Barlow, Sir John	Hay, John	Page, R. G.
Baxter, Sir Beverley	Head, Rt. Hon. A. H	Partridge, E.
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel	Perkins, Sir Robert
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Heath, Edward	Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Henderson, John (Cathcart)	Peyton, J. W. W.
Bennett, William (Woodside)	Higgs, J. M. C.	Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)	Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Birch, Nigel	Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)	Pitt, Miss E. M.
Bishop, F. P.	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Powell, J. Enoch
Black, C. W.	Hirst, Geoffrey	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Bossom, Sir A. C.	Holland-Martin, C. J.	Profumo, J. D.
Bowen, E. R.	Hollis, M. C.	Raikes, Sir Victor
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.	Holt, A. F.	Ramsden, J. E.
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hope, Lord John	Rayner, Brig. R.
Braine, B. R.	Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry	Redmayne, M.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)	Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Braithwaite, Sir Gurney	Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence	Renton, D. L. M.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)	Ridsdale, J. E.
Brooman-White, R. C.	Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)	Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Browne, Jack (Govan)	Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)	Robertson, Sir David
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)	Robson-Brown, W.
Bullard, D. G.	Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.	Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.	Roper, Sir Harold
Burden, F. F. A.	Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Butcher, Sir Herbert	Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)	Russell, R. S.
Carr, Robert	Hyde, Lt.-Col, H. M.	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Cary, Sir Robert	Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.	Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Channon, H.	Iremonger, T. L.	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Scott, R. Donald
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Cole, Norman	Jones, A. (Hall Green)	Sharples, Maj. R. C.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger	Kaberry, D.	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert	Kerby, Capt. H. B.	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Cooper-Key, E. M.	Kerr, H. W.	Soames, Capt. C.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Lambert, Hon. G	Spearman, A. C. M.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Langford-Holt, J. A.	Speir, R. M.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Leather, E. H. C.	Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Crouch, R. F.	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Crowder, Sir John (Finehley)	Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)	Stevens, Geoffrey
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)	Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)	Linstead, Sir H. N.	Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Davidson, Viscountess	Llewellyn, D. T.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Deedes, W. F.	Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Digby, S. Wingfield	Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.	Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)	Summers, G. S.
Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA.	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.	Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Donner, Sir P. W.	Longden, Gilbert	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Doughty, C. J. A.	Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Drayson, G. B.	Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)	Teeling, W.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)	McAdden, S. J.	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Errington, Sir Eric	Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Erroll, F. J.	Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)	Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Fell, A.	Maclay, Rt. Hon. John	Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Finlay, Graeme	Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)	Tilney, John
Fisher, Nigel	Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)	Touche, Sir Gordon
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Turner, H. F. L.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.	Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald	Turton, R. H.
Ford, Mrs. Patricia	Markham, Major Sir Frank	Vane, W. M. F.
Fort, R.	Marlowe, A. A. H.	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Foster, John	Marples, A. E.	Vosper, D. F.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)	Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Garner-Evans, E. H.	Maude, Angus	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Glover, D.	Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Godber, J. B.	Medlicott, Brig. F.	Wall, Major Patrick
Gomme-Duncan, Col A.	Mellor, Sir John	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)	Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)	Woollam, John Victor
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.	Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Watkinson, H. A.	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Wellwood, W.	Wood, Hon. R.	Mr. Wills and Mr. Robert Allan.

NOES
Acland, Sir Richard	Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Paton, J
Albu, A. H.	Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)	Peart, T. F.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)	Hamilton, W. W.	Plummer, Sir Leslie
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Hannan, W.	Popplewell, E.
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)	Hardy, E. A.	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Hargreaves, A.	Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Awbery, S. S.	Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)	Probert, A. R.
Bacon, Miss Alice	Hastings, S.	Proctor, W. T.
Baird, J.	Hayman, F. H.	Pryde, D. J.
Balfour, A.	Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)	Rankin, John
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)	Reeves, J
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J	Hewitson, Capt. M	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood	Hobson, C. R.	Reid, William (Camlachie)
Benson, G.	Holman, P.	Rhodes, H.
Beswick, F.	Holmes, Horace	Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Bing, G. H. C.	Houghton, Douglas	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Blenkinsop, A.	Hubbard, T. F.	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Blyton, W. R.	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Boardman, H.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Ross, William
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Royle, C.
Bowden, H. W.	Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Shackleton, E. A. A.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth	Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)	Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E
Brockway, A. F.	Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)	Short, E. W.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.	Shurmer, P. L. E.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Brown, Rt. Hon.. George (Belper)	Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Burton, Miss F. E.	Johnson, James (Rugby)	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech	Skeffington, A. M.
Carmichael, J.	Jones, David (Hartlepool)	Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)	Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Champion, A. J.	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Chapman, W. D.	Kenan, W.	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Chetwynd, G. R.	Kenyon, C.	Snow, J. W.
Clunie, J.	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Sorensen, R. W
Coldrick, W.	King, Dr. H. M	Sparks, J. A
Collick, P. H.	Lawson, G. M.	Steele, T.
Collins, V. J.	Leo, Frederick (Newton)	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Cove, W. G.	Lindgren, G. S.	Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Lipton, Lt. Col. M.	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Crossman, R, H. S.	MacColl, J. E.	Swingler, S. T.
Cullen, Mrs. A.	McInnes, J.	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Daines, P.	McKay, John (Wallsend)	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)	McLeavy, F.	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Thornton, E.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
de Freitas, Geoffrey	Mann, Mrs. Jean	Viant, S. P.
Deer, G.	Manuel, A. C.	Wallace, H. W.
Delargy, H. J.	Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.	Warbey, W. N.
Dodds, N. N.	Mayhew, C. P.	Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Donnelly, O. L.	Mellish, R. J.	Weitzmann, D.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)	Mitchison, G. R.	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Moody, A. S.	Wells, William (Walsall)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	Moley, R.	West, D. G.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)	Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)	Wheeldon, W. E.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Moyle, A.	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Fienburgh, W.	Mulley, F. W.	Wigg, George
Finch, H. J.	Nally, W.	Wilkins, W. A.
Foot, M. M.	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	Willey, F. T.
Forman, J. C.	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.	Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Oldfiefd, W. H.	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)	Oliver, G. H.	Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.	Oswald, T.	Wyatt, W. L.
Gibson, C. W	Owen, W. J.	Yates, V. F.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.	Padley, W. E.	Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Greenwood, Anthony	Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Grey, C. F.	Palmer, A. M. F.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Pannell, Charles	Mr. Turner-Samuels and
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Pargiter, G. A.	Mr. Mikardo.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)	Parker, J.

Resolved, That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Reading, Newbury and Wokingham) Order. 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Crewe, Knutsford, Nantwich and Northwich) Order, 1954 [copy presented on 18th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament], approved.—[Major Lloyd-George.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Derby and South East Derbyshire) Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Major Lloyd-George.]

5.12 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion (Derbyshire, South-East)

I propose to ask the House to refuse to give its approval to this Order. I shall have to weary hon. Members with a little of the history of this constituency, but I do so because it has some bearing on the decision taken recently by the Boundary Commission and the decision to be taken by this House today.

Before the Election of 1945, the constituency was called South Derbyshire, and it then had a total electorate of 104,000. At that time, it comprised the whole of the urban district of Long Eaton, the whole of the urban district of Swadlincote, the whole of the rural district of Shardlow and part of the rural district of Repton.

As a result of the work of the Boundary Commission in 1947, the electorate was reduced to 70,000 by taking away 34,000 of the electors. Then the urban district of Swadlincote was taken away, and so was part of the rural district of Repton, leaving the re-named South-East Derbyshire constituency with the whole of the urban district of Long Eaton and the whole of the rural district of Shardlow.

As I say, it was left with 70,000 electors which is, of course, above the average for the country. But the constituency did comprise two whole county districts, so that the county district boundaries were not violated by the decision of the Boundary Commission and the eventual decision of this House. In the four years since the actual dismembering of the original constituency the political parties have settled down to the task which the alteration left them. They have adjusted themselves to the job which is theirs. They have modified and rearranged their political organisation to suit the new boundaries.

So far as I am aware, no particular difficulty has been experienced by the Member of Parliament concerned with the constituency on the ground of his inability reasonably to represent the area because of its numerical or geographical size. While many of his constituents may strongly object to his political views, I gather that he has never received a complaint from any quarter about his inability to put points on their behalf in this House.

I would add, in parenthesis, that the Member of Parliament is not asking his constituents to "start something" on the ground of this being an invitation to do so. It is nothing of the sort. But I think it of special note in this connection that no local government boundaries were violated by the Boundary Commission and by the action which followed in this House when the previous dismemberment of the South Derbyshire constituency took place.

I think it an important point that great care was taken by the Boundary Commission, in its Report in 1947, to remove the dual representation of the Repton Rural District which existed in 1945. That dual representation was removed and a single representation established for the district, as it was for the two districts which were left to the new South-East Derbyshire constituency

At the same time as South Derbyshire was altered, the Parliamentary borough of Derby was divided into two seats; the North, with an electorate then of 46,000, and the South, with an electorate of 52,000. So that, after the Boundary Commission had completed its work, we had adjoining constituencies of 46,000 and 52,000 inside the Borough of Derby, and outside, in the county, a constituency of 70,000 electors.

The position facing the Boundary Commission in 1954 was that the South-East Derbyshire electorate had grown to 74,000 and the Derby, North electorate had grown to 48,000, but the Derby, South electorate had fallen to 49,000. It will be seen from those figures that although the South-East Derbyshire constituency electorate has grown by about 4,000 since the boundary revision, and the combined electorate of the County Borough of Derby has fallen by 1,000, the change in the proportions of the three constituencies has not been of a substantial nature. I know the difficulties about using the word "substantial"—we heard so much about it yesterday—but I believe it right to use that word in this connection.

It is fair, I think, to argue that the changes which have taken place have certainly not been of such a nature as to justify the proposals now before the House. The alterations in the electorate has not been sufficient to justify the upset for everyone which will result from a proposal of this character. Neither is it the case that the figures anywhere in these three constituencies either exceed the maximum figure of 80,000 laid down, or fall below the minimum figure of 40,000.

I have no complaint to make on the ground of failure to hold an inquiry. I rather regret that I cannot bring that into my argument. I have to take another line for obvious reasons. Art inquiry was held in this case, but my complaint about the Commission in this connection is that it failed to have regard, in its final recommendations, to the mass and the weight of evidence submitted by the people who appeared at the inquiry.

What does this Order do to the three constituencies, and particularly to the South-East Derbyshire constituency? It carves up a single rural district—Shardlow—and it gives one parish with 6,000 electors to Derby, South, within the Borough of Derby, and another parish of 8,000 electors to Derby, North—also within the Borough of Derby. So that the area of this single rural district will in future 'be represented by one county Member and two borough Members. It is carved up in such a way that three separate Members of Parliament will represent one rural district area.

I admit straight away that if boundary revisions are to take place on a purely numerical basis, there is a strong case for the Order; for if it goes through, we shall be left with three constituencies with electorates of about 55,000, 56,000, and 62,000. But I had the privilege of being in the House when the 1949 Act was passed, and as I understood it, it was never the intention of Parliament that the numerical basis should be the prime factor in this connection. It is true that it was one of the factors to be considered.

I agree with the main principle that, I believe, was embodied in the Act, and as the intention of Parliament has been for many years, that the franchise should be based upon the principle of one person, one vote, one value. But no principle is ever carried out completely and logically under the British Constitution, and surely this principle is no exception. The electoral quota basis should not be completely and logically applied to the job of carving up the electorate between the various constituencies. As the 1949 Act clearly said, other important factors have to be taken into consideration.

During the discussion on the previous Order, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) called attention to the Rules which were laid down in the 1949 Act. Rule 4 (1) states: no county or any part thereof shall be included in a constituency which includes … part of a county borough. It goes on to say: no county district shall be included partly in one constituency and partly in another. It provides two things: that no county borough should spread out into the surrounding county council district, and that no Member of Parliament should represent two county districts.

I am not attempting to ignore Rule 5, of which, I am sure, the Joint Under-Secretary will remind me. It states: The electorate of any constituency shall be as near the electoral quota as is practicable having regard to the foregoing rules"— those are some of the Rules about which I have been talking— and a Boundary Commission may depart from the strict application of the last foregoing rule if it appears to them that a departure is desirable to avoid an excessive disparity between the electorate of any constituency and the electoral quota, or between the electorate thereof and that of neighbouring constituencies in the part of the United Kingdom with which they are concerned. In this case, what the Boundary Commission has done, and what the Order seeks to do, is to act upon the latter part of Rule 5 but to ignore the important words in Rule 4. For the sake of a closer approximation to numerical equality, the Commission has ignored everything that the 1949 Act intended on the point of county boroughs not including within their Parliamentary constituencies any part of bordering counties. The Commission has offended against that Rule, and also against the further intention of the Act that no county district should be represented by more than one Member of Parliament.

The four local authorities in the county are against the conditions set out in the Order. The county council has stated clearly, in its submission to the Boundary Commission's inquiry, that confusion would be created in the minds of electors who would vote in the Parliamentary Borough of Derby for Members of Parliament and in the county for county council and rural and parish elections. We are all practical politicians here, knowing something about the difficulty of organising our political work, and everyone, I am sure, would agree with those comments by the county council.

The county council said, secondly, that the proposed transfer would inevitably give rise to great administrative difficulties. Its third main point, and one which already has been well made in the debate, both yesterday and again today, is that Members representing both the county borough and part of the county district would inevitably have conflicting loyalties on the differences which must arise from time to time between county boroughs and county councils. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), whose experience of local government work is probably unsurpassed in this House, made this point very forcefully yesterday. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) made it again this afternoon. It is, in my opinion, a very pertinent point to make in this connection.

The rural district concerned—Shardlow—advanced two main points of objection to the proposals. The first was that it attached great importance to the whole of the rural district being comprised in the same Parliamentary constituency. It supported all the county council points which were made in this connection; and modesty almost, but not quite, forbids my saying that the rural district council expressed satisfaction with the work of its Member.

The parishes of Chaddesden and Littleover, both of which objected to the proposals, are considerable parishes with a total electorate of 14,000. Both of these parishes have had a separate life since the time of the Domesday Book, in which both of them are mentioned. They have had a life separate from the county borough of Derby. They strongly oppose the proposals and hope that this House will reject the Order.

The other main council concerned—the county borough of Derby—held aloof. It made it quite clear that it would not participate in any attempt either to support what the Boundary Commission proposes or to object to it. The attitude of the county borough throughout has been one of holding aloof from the proposals which are before us today.

Let me sum up the points of objection. No sufficient changes have taken place since the last revision to justify the further upset in Derbyshire, South-East, or in any of the areas covered by these proposals, where there is a rural district council area to be divided between three Members of Parliament, and where there is a county district to be included in parts of two county borough constituencies.

I believe that there is neither in existence, nor proposed, a case of three Members of Parliament representing a single county district. Even if there is in existence such a case, I am sure there is no justification for adding to the number. Certain it is that no other rural district council area is, or will be, represented by one county Member and two county borough Members. We certainly ought not to support tonight such a cock-eyed method of representation as this.

We have against the proposal the county council, and the rural district council and parish councils concerned. We have against the proposal, too, one of the main political parties, the Labour Party. The other main party, the Conservative Party, put in an alternative proposal expressing its opposition to one half of the proposals made by the Boundary Commission; it made an alternative proposal, and the ward Tory organisation concerned violently protested against the alternative proposal. So we see that there was no unanimity about any suggestion by the Tory Party in this connection.

Also against the Boundary Commission's proposals is the common sense of all those who think that there is still a place in our national life for local communities, based on local government areas. I ask the Government either to withdraw this Order or to permit the House to turn it down, because I believe it is unsound, and that it violates every principle of decent representation which ought to obtain.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. George Brown (Belper)

As the Member for a neighbouring county division I should like to support the case my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) has made, and made very convincingly, so that anybody who listened to it and was willing to consider the arguments must by now agree with my hon. Friend. This Order will create an electoral and local government monstrosity for no reason at all that at present exists, and I hope that this time the Home Secretary will show that he is willing to listen to the arguments.

There is inevitably a somewhat thin House to hear detailed arguments about individual areas, and one cannot complain about that, but it follows that it is difficult to persuade many of the hon. Members who, in a moment, will have to cast their votes; and if, on top of that difficulty, we are to have the further one that the Secretary of State will not listen to the arguments in individual cases, the debate will be reduced nearly to a farce. We shall certainly be a long way from effective Parliamentary control of a matter which affects the lives and liberties—the liberties Parliament has the duty to defend—of our people and their proper representation.

Those who have heard my hon. Friend will agree with me that he has in no sense made a political or a personal case. He started by saying that the Member of Parliament for Derbyshire, South-East is thought by the county to be a good Member. I could not help observing to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker) tha1, with the exception of one or two of us, he is probably the best in the county. However, I think everybody will agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East is regarded throughout the County of Derby as a model of what a Member of Parliament should be. Therefore, it would be ridiculous to try to make out that since the last redistribution there has been any insuperable difficulty in representing the constituency as it is now drawn.

It is not so large as mine, which is a neighbouring one. Its terrain is no more difficult to cover than that of mine, and less difficult than that of Derbyshire, West. It is not an unduly large constituency. Its size was put right in the previous redistribution. Nor is it an outstandingly large one in terms of electorate. Those of us who sit for county constituencies know very well that in judging whether a county division is tolerably easily representable we must have regard to both the acreage and the question of how scattered or densely congregated the electors are.

An important factor is the number of miles one has to travel between one community of electors and others, and the sort of ground one has to travel. This constituency is not unduly large in terms of acreage. Although the number of the electorate is certainly larger than the electoral quota it is by no means so large as to impose an undue difficulty on its Member or to make the constituency outstandingly illogical.

The proposals of the Commission leave 27 divisions with electorates around or above the electorate of this constituency. If those 27 are to be left, one ought to find some other reason than electoral size for interfering in this case, and since there is no outstanding reason for the change on the ground of size, since this constituency is smaller than others and the electorate is not more numerous than that in a large number of other cases, one is left wondering why the Commission felt it had to intervene here at all.

There cannot be a case on the ground that the constituency is growing at a tremendous rate. The figures given in Cmd. 9319 show that the electorate in Derbyshire, South-East in 1953 was 74,699 and 74,857 in 1954, an increase of less than a couple of hundred. There are other constituencies in the county where the electorate is increasing by that rate or more. There is Ilkeston with nearly 71,000 electors, where the electorate is increasing at a greater rate than that, and there is my own constituency, with 67,000, where it is increasing at that rate. Are we all to be in fear and trembling in Derbyshire that any one of us may be completely upset because the electors are increasing at a rate of 100 or 200 a year? If that is not a good reason for interfering—and I think it is not—there is left no single reason at all for this proposal.

Nobody has complained about the constituency as it is. I have read the transcript of the evidence at the local inquiry, and nobody suggested that there was any reason for this change. Apart from the guess hazarded by counsel for the Conservative organisation of what the electorate might number at some unstated number of years from now, no point was made for the change. I urge on the Secretary of State that here is a proposed change for which no valid reason exists at all, and that, therefore, in fulfilment of his function, which he must accept, he himself should produce a reason for bringing forward this proposal and pressing it upon the House. That is the first and overwhelming objection to interfering in this case at all.

There is a second objection, which really is a substantial one. Having decided to interfere, for no good reason at all, what then has the Commission decided to do? Here we have the whole of a rural district—a county district—taken for Parliamentary purposes. Two-thirds of it is to be taken out of the county and placed not in one county borough division, but one-third in one county borough division and one-third in another county borough division, the one-third remaining to be in the county division.

If there is roam for argument in the House before these Orders are pressed through, then surely it can be argued that this is a silly situation. If there was a tremendously compelling reason for doing something and, in the end there was no other way, it might be said that it was unhappy and undesirable but there was no alternative to doing it, but in this case there is no compelling reason at all; and to arrive at this result is to justify the word "monstrosity."

This is a case of not merely making difficulties for councils, councillors, clerks and Members of Parliament. This is an interference with the ordinary community of interest that must exist. Here we have the electorate of this county district being asked to vote and take an interest Parliamentarily in the affairs of the borough and the two county borough constituencies, and to take an interest for all other local government purposes in their own county district. They live in an area not of possible but of actual conflict of interest between the county borough and the county. That has been very clear and marked, as we Members of Parliament who are concerned very well know.

There are legitimate differences of opinion and of interest, but here we shall have a situation in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Derby, North (Group Captain Wilcock) will be representing the county borough, with possible continuing conflict of interest with the county district, on which very high feelings exist. They will have to interpret both the will of the county borough, in which the bulk of their electorate reside, and the wishes of the county district in which the minority of their electorate reside.

This is more than electoral awkwardness. What will happen will be that virtually the electorate in those two-thirds of the county district will be disfranchised as far as Parliament is concerned. No matter how my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Derby, North interpret their responsibilities, it is bound to happen that the third of the county district transferred to each of the county borough constituencies will be swamped by the two-thirds of the electorate who are in the county borough and who owe their loyalties and allegiance to the county borough.

Can it be a good thing for the sake of something that looks tidy on the map, and for no other reason at all, to put Members of Parliament in a most difficult position? There will be conflicts of ideas, loyalties and interests to be worked out. The inhabitants of the county district will be left feeling that for four years out of every five they must look to the local government or the county council and take part in all the arguments there and then for a short period in the fifth year turn up in the borough and pick up contacts there for a short time. For all effective purposes they will be represented on local government but will be left feeling, rightly or wrongly, that they are disfranchised as far as we are concerned.

Let us think of the administrative difficulties. Perhaps it is a small point, but it is a good point. Parliamentary democracy works only as long as the wheels go round, but let us imagine the administrative difficulties of county districts which have to have Members representing areas with different interests and the inhabitants of which have to cross the county border in order to raise certain matters. Rule 4 (1, a) in the Second Schedule of the Act treats counties and county boroughs as the same, and says: So far as is practicable … no county or any part thereof shall be included in a constituency which includes the whole or part of any other county or the whole or part of a county borough.… If it had been proposed to take something from the other end of South-East Derbyshire and add that to Leicestershire or Nottinghamshire it would have looked silly, but this is no better—this taking out of the county and putting into a county borough and the creating of administrative difficulties for no purpose at all. It still produces quite a sizeable constituency and leaves other constituencies in the county of about the same size. I suggest very strongly that both the evidence for the reason for doing this and the evidence of the absurd situation that emerges are strong arguments against it.

There is a third reason, though I admit that that reason would not be so compelling by itself if the other two reasons were not so very good. It is the complete united front of interests there, a united front which goes right across political considerations. All the county local authority bodies concerned have opposed this and they are not all of them of the same political complexion in their majority. I am leaving out the Borough of Derby, which decided to express no opinion.

The rural districts, the parish council and the county council, all of different political make-up, feel exactly the same—that this is an outrageous thing to do, giving them no benefit at all, introducing considerable problems and simply producing something on a map. I know a large number of the personalities who are concerned, the leaders of local thought and public opinion. Whether they agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East politically or not, none of them has a good word to say for this scheme. They all regard it as outrageous.

There is no sense in interfering with a constituency which my hon. Friend is representing successfully and well in this House. There is no sense in interfering with local government units which are recorded in the Domesday Book and have had a separate independent existence ever since then. There is no sense in interfering with the whole process of local government operation there and producing in the end a constituency which I urge very strongly goes against the Rules of guidance in the Act, messes up the county by mixing it with two county boroughs and leaves a county district where the density of population is quite low to become a very small part of a county borough constituency where the density of the electorate is very great.

I hope that the case made out by my hon. Friend will meet with the approval of the Joint Under-Secretary. To an impartial audience it must seem a very strong case and I hope it will have some weight with the hon. Gentleman and that he will not just rely on the automatic majority on the other side of the House to see this Order through. Not only are his own political friends strongly opposed to this, but so is the ordinary voter who is not attached to any party machine. This Order produces a result which is quite indefensible and I would urge the hon. Gentleman to take it back and reconsider it.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. Bing

I only want to say a few words to the Joint Under-Secretary. If he supports this Order he should be frank with the House and tell us on what grounds he is doing so. Quite clearly, this is a departure from the Rules. It is no use the Joint Under-Secretary getting up and saying, "Oh, well, this constituency is too large," because if we cast our minds back to the Order dealing with Chester, which we passed without a Division, it will be found that we leave in existence the constituency of Wallasey, which has practically the same electorate to within a few hundreds as is to be found in Derbyshire, South-East.

If it is said that Derbyshire, South-East is too big, why have other equally big constituencies not been sub-divided? On what principle did the Commission decide that certain constituencies should continue and certain others should cease to exist? At this time we need a statement of principle from the Under-Secretary. This is his Order; it is not the Commission's and it is his duty to justify it. Why should it be necessary to increase the size of certain Derby seats which are larger than the new seat which we created under the last Order?

The House may recall that we have created the now constituency of Nantwich, which has an electorate of 42,000. If that figure is large enough to create a new seat, by what principle is the Under-Secretary of State working in saying, in this case, that Derbyshire, North-East, with an electorate of 48,000, and Derbyshire, South-East, with 49,000, are too small? This whole thing seems to have reached a stage of illogicality, and we are entitled to know on what grounds the Boundary Commission decided this issue and why the Under-Secretary has decided to support it in departing from Rule 4. Why has it refused to depart from that Rule in other cases?

It is quite intolerable that the House should be asked to support something because it is too big judged by Rule 4, and, in another case, to support something which is not too big though the numbers in both cases are nearly the same. Why should the Boundary Commission say that it is entitled to depart from Rule 4 when no ground of principle has been given to us for that departure? The Government should tell us.

5.56 p.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

The effect of this Order is to transfer two parishes from Derbyshire, South-East, one called Chaddesden, to Derby, North and the other, called Littleover, to Derby, South.

As hon. Members have suggested in the course of the debate, a fairly obvious reason for the making of this Order is the size of the constituencies concerned. The electorate in the existing Derbyshire, South-East constituency is high for a county constituency and the electorates in Derby, South and Derby, North are low for borough constituencies. No doubt it is on that account that the Commission has recommended this change.

Mr. Bing

Would the Under-Secretary give the House the acreage of Derbyshire, South-East because on that, of course, depends the whole issue of whether it is large or not?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

If that is the best point that the hon. and learned Gentleman can make it shows us the value of his argument. When I say size I mean size in connection with that about which I am talking, namely, the size of the electorate.

Mr. Bing

Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

No, I cannot.

I will give the House the figures. They have already been mentioned, but it may be convenient if I give them again. The present electorate of Derbyshire, South-East is 74,699 and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) suggested that that was not a very high figure. He mentioned that there were 27 other similar constituencies. Of course, the 27 constituencies which are referred to in the Report are not all county seats and in fact, this is the largest county seat—and I mean that from the point of view of the size of the electorate—in the country with only two exceptions, namely, Barnet and Spelthorne, It is proposed in subsequent Orders that both of these should be altered. This would be, in fact, the largest county seat if it were left unaffected.

The two neighbouring seats of Derby, North and Derby, South are small. They are 47,634 and 50,142 respectively. The effect of the Order will be to produce three seats, roughly speaking of the appropriate size. Derbyshire South-East will have an electorate of 60,230; Derby, North 55,687; and Derby, South 56,558.

I certainly do not complain of anything that has been said during the debate. Hon. Members are entitled to make the kinds of points that they have made, and, if I may say so, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) made a very fair speech, in which he brought forward all the arguments that can be advanced against this Order. On a question of this kind there are two sides, and it was obviously for that reason that the Commission, in this case, held an inquiry. It then came to the conclusion that the alteration proposed was a proper one, and I am bound to tell the House that the Government agree with that view. We have to have regard to the extremely explicit provisions of Rule 5. I do not think I need read those provisions again to the House, but they are explicit.

Mr. G. Brown

Would the hon. Gentleman say what is more explicit about Rule 5 than about Rule 4 (1, a)? Rule 5 says: The electorate of any constituency shall be as near the electoral quota as is practicable having regard to the foregoing rules.… One of the foregoing Rules is that no county or any part thereof shall be included in a constituency which includes the whole or part of any other county or the whole or part of a county borough… It does not seem to me that Rule 5 is any more explicit than Rule 4 (1, a).

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman read all the relevant parts of Rule 5, because it also says: … and a Boundary Commission may depart from the strict application of the last foregoing rule if it appears to them that a departure is desirable to avoid an excessive disparity between the electorate of any constituency and the electoral quota, or between the electorate thereof and that of neighbouring constituencies in the part of the United Kingdom with which they are concerned.

Mr. Bing

It says "may." It is not explicit.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I agree. The Boundary Commission had a discretion, but it had to use it having regard to the circumstances of the case. Here was a balance of considerations and, having held an inquiry, the Commissioners came to the conclusion, I think rightly, that the important consideration of Rule 5 over-rode other considerations in other parts of the Rules. For those reasons I advise the House to agree with the Boundary Commission and to pass this Order.

Mr. Bing

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he is now saying that no county constituency should exceed 74,000, but that a borough constituency may, even though the area of this constituency happens to be only 47,000 acres—a thing which he did not even know?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I did not say anything of the kind. It is plain that it is undesirable that a county constituency should consists of 74,000; and when it is adjacent to two much smaller constituencies well below the appropriate unit, clearly the Commissioners are well within propriety in suggesting that there should be a transfer, and I think that their suggestion in this case is a proper one.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall (Colne Valley)

There is little I need add to what has been said from this side of the House on this Order, but I must indicate to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Home Secretary and to the hon. Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department how disappointed we are with the hon. Gentleman's reply. The hon. Gentleman has not really answered the points put from this side of the House. This is the twelfth Order, I think, with which we have dealt and I have been waiting for that open mind which the Home Secretary promised us; but up to now we have seen no sign of it.

We object to this Order, because it divides a rural constituency into three. Solomon was content to divide the baby into two, but the Boundary Commission and the Home Secretary want to go one better. Here is a living entity in Derbyshire, a rural district, which is to be divided into three different constituencies. We think that it is grossly unfair. There is no reason for it. If the hon. Gentleman had advanced any reason for this action we would have been quite willing, unlike the Home Secretary, to have had an open mind and to have considered the matter.

All the facts are against the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. A few moments ago we passed an Order which created—not allowed to continue to exist—a new seat, that of Nantwich, of about 42,000 electors. So that if, as we agree, the electorate of Derby, North and Derby, South are both round about 50,000, and thus below the quota, there is obviously no reason why additional electors should be added, if by so adding them we do this injury to a rural district council.

After all, a 70,000 or a 74,000 electorate is not unique. There are at least 27 divisions of between 70,000 and 80,000, eight of which come in the 75,000 to 80,000 class. Therefore, if we have a self-contained community, as we have here, there is no reason why we should not let that community continue. We have another area of a similar kind in Derbyshire itself, Ilkeston, and we wonder why we were not told why this division has been picked out and Ilkeston has been left. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) asked the Minister to tell us, but he has not done so.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman got very hot round the collar yesterday because, in his view, the charge we had made, namely, that the Rules had not been obeyed by the Commissioners, was ill-founded and had not an atom of truth in it. He demanded—rather rhetorically for him, because normally he is not given to that kind of thing—that we should give proof. Proof has been given, over and over again, and here in this debate we have given further proof.

Rule 4 of the instructions for the redistribution of seats is quite definite. It says: So far as is practicable having regard to the foregoing rules—(1, a) in England and Wales,… no county shall be included partly in one constituency and partly in another. This constituency is in England and the only question for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is whether it is practicable to leave it as it is. From the fact that a number of others have been so left, it is obvious that it is practicable so to leave it. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman refuses to see reason, and to acknowledge that here we have an excellent case. I must, therefore, invite my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House to divide against this Order.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 202.

Division No. 14.]	AYES	[6.7 p.m.
Aitken, W. T.	Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Heath, Edward
Alport, C. J. M.	Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Higgs, J. M. C.
Arbuthnot, John	Crouch, R. F.	Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Armstrong, C. W.	Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Davidson, Viscountess	Hirst, Geoffrey
Astor, Hon. J. J.	Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)	Holland-Martin, C. J.
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.	Deedes, W. F.	Hollis, M. C.
Baldwin, A. E.	Digby, S. Wingfield	Holt, A. F.
Banks, Col. C.	Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Hope, Lord John
Barber, Anthony	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.	Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Barlow, Sir John	Donner, Sir P. W.	Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Baxter, Sir Beverley	Doughty, C. J. A.	Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Drayson, G. B.	Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)	Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)	Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Bennett, William (Woodside)	Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Errington, Sir Eric	Hurd, A. R.
Birch, Nigel	Erroll, F. J.	Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Bishop, F. P.	Fell, A.	Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Black, C. W.	Finlay, Graeme	Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Bossom, Sir A. C	Fisher, Nigel	Iremonger, T. L.
Bowen, E. R.	Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Fletcher-Cooke, C.	Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Braine, B. R.	Ford, Mrs. Patricia	Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)	Fort, R.	Kaberry, D.
Braithwaite, Sir Gurney	Foster, John	Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)	Kerr, H. W.
Brooman-White, R. C.	Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)	Lambert, Hon. G.
Browne, Jack (Govan)	Garner-Evans, E. H.	Langford-Holt, J. A.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Glover, D.	Leather, E. H. C.
Bullard, D. G.	Godber, J. B.	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Burden, F. F. A.	Gough, C. F. H.	Linstead, Sir H. N.
Butcher, Sir Herbert	Graham, Sir Fergus	Llewellyn, D. T.
Carr, Robert	Gridley, Sir Arnold	Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Cary, Sir Robert	Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Channon, H.	Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Hare, Hon. J. H.	Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Cole, Norman	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Colegate, W. A.	Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger	Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)	McAdden, S. J.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert	Hay, John	McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Cooper-Key, E. M.	Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel	Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)	Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John	Profumo, J. D.	Summers, G. S.
Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)	Raikes, Sir Victor	Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Ramsden, J. E.	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald	Rayner, Brig. R.	Teeling, W.
Markham, Major Sir Frank	Redmayne, M.	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Marlowe, A. A. H.	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Marples, A. E.	Remnant, Hon. P.	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)	Renton, D. L. M.	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Maude, Angus	Ridsdale, J. E.	Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.	Roberts, Peter (Heeley)	Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Medlicott, Brig. F.	Robertson, Sir David	Tilney, John
Mellor, Sir John	Robson-Brown, W.	Touche, Sir Gordon
Molson, A. H. E.	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)	Turner, H. F. L.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Roper, Sir Harold	Turton, R. H.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard	Vane, W. M. F.
Nabarro, G. D. N.	Russell, R. S.	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Neave, Airey	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.	Vosper, D. F.
Nicholls, Harmar	Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Nield, Basil (Chester)	Scott, R. Donald	Wall, Major Patrick
Noble, Comdr. A. M. P.	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Nugent, G. R. H.	Sharples, Maj. R. C.	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C
Odey, G. W.	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)	Watkinson, H. A.
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)	Wellwood, W.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)	Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Page, R. G.	Spearman, A. C. M.	Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Partridge, E	Speir, R. M.	Wills, G.
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.	Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Perkins, Sir Robert	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard	Wood, Hon. R.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.	Stevens, Geoffrey	Woollam, John Victor
Pickthorn, K. W. M	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.	Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Pitt, Miss E M.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.	Mr. Robert Allan and
Powell, J. Enoch	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)	Mr. Edward Wakefield.
NOES
Acland, Sir Richard	Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)	Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech
Albu, A. H.	Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)	Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)	Keenan, W.
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)	Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Kenyon, C.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Fienburgh, W.	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Bacon, Miss Alice	Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	King, Dr. H. M.
Baird, J.	Foot, M. M.	Lawson, G. M.
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood	Forman, J. C.	Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Benson, G.	Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Bing, G. H. C.	Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.	Lindgren, G. S.
Blenkinsop, A.	Gibson, C. W.	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Blyton, W. R.	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C	MacColl, J. E.
Boardman, H.	Greenwood, Anthony	McInnes, J.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Grey, C. F.	McKay, John (Wallsend)
Bowden, H. W.	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	McLeavy, F.
Braddook, Mrs. Elizabeth	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Brockway, A. F.	Griffiths, William (Exchange)	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colney Valley)	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)	Mann, Mrs. Jean
Burton, Miss F. E.	Hamilton, W. W.	Manuel, A. C.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Hannan, W.	Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Carmichael, J.	Hardy, E. A.	Mayhew, C. P.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Hargreaves, A.	Mellish, R. J.
Chapman, W. D.	Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)	Mikardo, Ian
Chetwynd, G. R.	Hastings, S.	Mitchison, G. R.
Clunie, J.	Hayman, F. H.	Moody, A. S.
Coldrick, W.	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)	Morley, R.
Collick, P. H.	Hewitson, Capt. M.	Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Collins, V. J.	Hobson, C. R.	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Holman, P.	Moyle, A.
Cove, W. G.	Holmes, Horace	Mulley, F. W.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Houghton, Douglas	Nally, W.
Crossman, R, H. S.	Hubbard, T. F.	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Cullen, Mrs. A.	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J
Daines, P.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Oldfield, W. H.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Oliver, G. H.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Oswald, T.
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)	Owen, W. J.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)	Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)	Padley, W. E.
de Freitas, Geoffrey	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.	Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Deer, G.	Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.	Pannell, Charles
Delargy, H. J.	Jeger, George (Goole)	Pargiter, G. A.
Dodds, N. N.	Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)	Parker, J.
Donnelly, D. L.	Johnson, James (Rugby)	Parkin, B. T.

Paton, J.	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)	Warbey, W. N.
Peart, T. F.	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)	Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Plummer, Sir Leslie	Skeffington, A. M.	Weitzmann, D.
Popplewell, E.	Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)	Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)	Wells, William (Walsall)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)	West, D. G.
Probert, A. R.	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)	Wheeldon, W. E.
Proctor, W T.	Snow, J. W.	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Pryde, D. J.	Sorensen, R. W.	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Rankin, John	Sparks, J. A.	Wigg, George
Reeves, J.	Steele, T.	Wilkins, W. A.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)	Willey, F. T.
Reid, William (Camlachie)	Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.	Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)
Rhodes, H.	Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.	Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)	Swingler, S. T.	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)	Taylor, John (West Lothian)	Wyatt, W. L.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)	Yates, V. F.
Ross, William	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)	Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Royle, C.	Thornton, E.
Shackleton, E. A. A.	Turner-Samuels, M.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn	Mr. George Brown and
Short, E. W.	Viant, S. P.	Mr. Champion.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)	Wallace, H. W.

Resolved, That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Derby and South-East Derbyshire) Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Plymouth) Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Major Lloyd-George.]

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot (Plymouth, Devonport)

During the course of yesterday's debate I quoted a letter which the Home Secretary had sent to me in which he said that he could not receive a deputation from the Plymouth City Council, which wished to protest against the Boundary Commission's recommendations. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman gave me a promise that he would come to the debate, would listen to the arguments with an open mind and would be concerned about anything which we put to him. It is in that spirit that I approach the discussion on this Order, as, I hope, we all approach the discussions on all the other Orders, because the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is a man of honour and he gave me a promise, as no doubt he gave a promise to other hon. Members, that he would deal with this question on its merits. I trust that he is prepared to do so.

A further reason for which he should do so is that in this case, as in so many others, the Plymouth City Council was never able to put its case at a public inquiry. When, after several months, we discovered that the demand for a public inquiry had been rejected—and we dis- covered that only by writing to the Commission—I wrote to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on behalf of the city council and asked whether he would receive a deputation. This was just before the recommendations were published, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman at that time sent me a very interesting reply, dated 18th November, just before the publication of the Commission's recommendations.

In this letter he said that he could not receive a deputation before the recommendations had been published, and the last sentence of his letter read: The Commission's Report will be laid be-for Parliament and published during the next few days. If, when the Plymouth City Council have seen the Commission's final recommendations for Plymouth they still want to send a deputation to the Home Office, please let me know. I did let the right hon. and gallant Gentleman know, and I have no doubt that several other councils dealing with other Orders also let him know. When one receives a letter suggesting, in effect, that he could not receive a deputation before the recommendations were published but that if, subsequently, the city council still wanted to send a deputation they were to let him know, surely there is, at any rate a suggestion of a chance that a deputation would be received.

It appears that for some reason or other the right hon. and gallant Gentleman changed his mind about receiving such deputations and therefore, because no deputation has been received in this case and because no public inquiry was permitted, it is all the more necessary that he should be prepared to deal with the argument in this debate on its merits.

I must confess, however, that from the replies of the Joint Under-Secretary of State so far, we have been given no indication that this is the way in which these matters are being treated. The Under-Secretary seems to say, "We are doing this because the Commission recommends it," and then he adds, "Of course, I cannot be expected to interpret the mind of the Boundary Commission."

This lands us in almost a deadlock. It is my contention that if the House of Commons is properly to deal with these Orders, and this Order in particular, we have the right, on each Order, to ask if the Boundary Commission has abided by its rules. We have the further right to ask, even if the Boundary Commission has abided by its rules, whether a particular proposal, which is now the Government's proposal, is just and proper.

I should have thought that was the right way in which we should proceed, but the Under-Secretary seems to take a different view. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will take a different attitude in dealing with this Order, because his hon. Friend seemed to claim that although he would congratulate those who had made the case against the Order, for some reason, which he was not fully prepared to explain, the Boundary Commission had not been in favour and that, therefore, we should proceed with the plan.

The Under-Secretary's attitude seemed to remind me of an epigram attributed to the late Ramsay MacDonald, "The longer I remain in political life and the more I see of the varieties and discrepancies of political experience, the more I am coming to recognise that it would be neither unwise, nor an exaggeration, to say that upon all topics there is much to be said for both sides of the case." That seems to me to be the reply which the Under-Secretary has been making. I hope that we shall have a more satisfactory and pithy reply from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

The first thing I want to make clear about this Order is that it is unanimously opposed by the Plymouth City Council. Other Members in dealing with other Orders have given long lists of all the various bodies that opposed various recommendations of the Boundary Commission and the proposals of the Government. I do not want to weary the House with another long list, although I could give a very long list of all the bodies and various individuals who have expressed opposition to the Government's proposals and the Boundary Commission's recommendations.

I will content myself by saying that, since this is a West Country constituency and, as I understand, other objections have been received, as well as those of Plymouth, the recommendations are further opposed by "Bill Brewer, Jan Stewer, Peter Gurney, Peter Davey, Dan'l Widden, Harry Hawke and old Uncle Tom Cobley an' all." That seems to cover the objections that have been presented to the proposals.

When the Boundary Commission produced its earlier proposals, it was seen that the changes involved five wards being transferred from the constituency of Devonport to the constituency of Sutton. They also involved the tranference of about 30,000 electors and the abolition of the historic names of Devonport and Sutton. The Council protested on both those grounds and all were agreed in their recommendations, backed by many other bodies, in asking for no change in the city boundaries and for the restoration of the historic names.

The Boundary Commission has produced the different proposals which we are now debating. It is true that these recommendations restore the names of Sutton and Devonport and for that small mercy we must express our gratitude. But for the rest of the recommendations we take precisely the same objections.

These proposals are open to these objections, because to secure the shift of 5,000 votes from one constituency to another—at present, Devonport is about 10,000 bigger than the Sutton constituency—about 30,000 electors in five wards are to be changed over. The council has unanimously protested against that on precisely the same grounds as their other objection to the equal convulsion that was produced in the previous recommendation.

The first reason the council so strongly objected is because of the convulsions that have already taken place in Plymouth during the war and since the war. The last person who attempted to mess around Plymouth in this way was Adolph Hitler. We succeeded in dealing with him and I hope that we shall be equally successful today.

The 1948 proposals involved a very drastic change in the City of Plymouth. They reduced the membership of this House from the City of Plymouth from three to two. As a result, the constituency of Drake was altogether wiped out. Some hon. Members may recall the debate we had when the earlier redistribution proposals were put forward. I think that everyone will agree, including my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who was responsible for that proposal, that the arithmetical balance under which one of the constituencies of Plymouth was abolished was very narrow.

Even if we had kept three constituencies in Plymouth, as we had in 1945, we would have had three constituencies with 47,000 members, which would not have been altogether different from what was proposed in other parts of the country. As a result of the change about 40,000 electors in the City of Plymouth had to be moved to new constituencies. Now a second change is proposed in which about 30,000 electors are involved.

I should like the Home Secretary specifically to answer this: even if the necessity of equalising the two Plymouth constituencies is granted—and I do not necessarily accept that it was essential to make the two constituencies equal—why is it that five wards had to be changed around instead of changing one ward? It passes my comprehension to understand that. It would have been easy to have carried out the same numerical transference, if only one ward had been moved. If we had been allowed a public inquiry, that is one of the matters that would have been presented as, at any rate, a second best alternative to the proposal which the council preferred, which was having no change at all.

It was said by the Under-Secretary, in replying to a debate on an earlier Order, that some inconvenience is bound to be caused in any change. I quite agree. But surely it is the duty of the Commission to try to minimise the inconvenience as much as possible. Instead, in this case it has maximised the inconvenience.

It could quite easily have transferred one ward, which would have had exactly the same numerical effect, instead of causing turmoil among precisely those electors who suffered previous turmoil in 1948. Twenty thousand electors, shifted in the previous redistribution, are again unnecessarily to be shifted when the numerical change could have been carried out with only one ward's transference.

Why was not the change confined to one ward, if the sole purpose of the operation was to secure numerical equality between the two constituencies? But that is not the worst feature in the plan. The present proposals will make more inevitable a third redistribution in three or four years' time. That is for the simple reason that the new housing development plans over the next three or four years in Plymouth—and they are approved plans and some houses are already built and others are being built and the plans have been accepted by the Ministries involved—provide for new housing development to take place in the Sutton division with hardly any in the Devonport division.

That brings us to the issue of what is meant by the Commission taking into account imminent changes in different constituencies. That is a matter of great importance. There is no rule laid down about how the Commission should interpret the word "imminent." the Commission does that quite arbitrarily, and the only explanation of the test of what imminent developments may be taken into account was given by the Joint Under-Secretary when, earlier, he compared the figures quoted in Berkshire with the figures in the new towns.

Apparently the test of what imminent developments may be taken into account, according to the Under-Secretary, depends on how many houses have been built or are being built in the area. I should like to know whether that is, in fact, the test which the Commission applies. If that were so, I am sure that all of us could justify our cases extremely well.

If this was the test which the Commission was applying, at least we should have known it in advance so that all of us could check our own areas to see whether we are not building, in some of the areas which might be taken into account on grounds of imminence, more houses than the numbers cited by the Under-Secretary in reference to the new towns. I think that that probably is the situation in the City of Plymouth. It is all very well to have a special arrangement for new towns. Blitzed towns are in a similar situation to new towns in the sense that they have vast new estates being built in their areas. We have as much right for the imminent developments in Plymouth to be taken into account as anyone has to take into account the imminent developments in the new towns.

I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would agree with that principle, but how does it work out in practice? In the circumstances, in the next three years there will be a big growth in the Sutton division and a big reduction in the Devonport division. The figures were worked out not by the City of Plymouth Corporation to deal with this problem, but for the city development plan long before the boundary proposals were ever heard of.

According to the figures what will happen will be that under the Order in the next five years the Sutton constituency will rise from a total of 71,000 to a total of 78,000. Devonport will fall from 69,000 to 63,000, leaving a disparity between the two divisions of over 15,000.

What happens if the Order is rejected? I will not go into detailed figures of what would be the rise and fall. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had the figures sent to him by the city council. Under the existing division of the constituencies the disparity between the two in five years' time will be less than it is under the Order which is being put forward. Therefore, if the argument for the Order is that it must be done in the name of establishing a better numerical equality between the two constituencies, the Order is defeating its own purpose because within an imminent period the disparity between the two constituencies will become much greater.

Therefore, we in Plymouth cannot understand why the Government have accepted the Commission's proposals, or why they appear to be accepting them by presenting them to the House. We hope that, having heard the case which we and the city council were not able to present to a public inquiry, the Government will be willing to withdraw the Order. We say "Why not wait for a few years until this imminent development is fulfilled or partly fulfilled, and then at least we would avoid a third convulsion? We would have to have a change after a few years, but let us have two convulsions instead of the three which these proposals by the Commission would make inevitable."

I do not know whether one could add to the arguments the case on the ground of sentiment and history, but the manner in which the line has been drawn in the City of Plymouth passes all understanding. Not only does it take Home Park out of my constituency and put it into the next one, but it does something very much more serious. It puts into the Devonport constituency Plymouth Hoe, the city centre of Plymouth, the Church of Plymouth and all the institutions in the city which have been associated with the Sutton division or with the name of Plymouth. The main institutions are put into the Devonport constituency.

This could easily have been avoided entirely if the Commission had left the constituencies the same, or if it had adopted the principle of changing only one ward. There is no one in the city who can understand why it is that the line has been drawn on historical grounds in this way. I have sought to put to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the case as the city council sees it. It is their unanimous opinion. I have spoken with the utmost moderation, but I must confess that when I look at the ravages which it is proposed to perpetrate on the precious soil of the City of Plymouth, where I was born, I feel myself saying: O! pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth, That I am meek and gentle with these butchers.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Astor (Plymouth, Sutton)

The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) has put forward some important points, many of which I agree with. The first point that I want to emphasise to the Home Secretary is that the hon. Member for Devonport and myself are not speaking from the party point of view. It would be possible for two Members in our position to support each other, because inevitably, in a city such as Plymouth where there are two constituencies, if the boundary change means an influx into my constituency of many Socialists it would obviously be to my disadvantage and to the disadvantage also of the hon. Member for Devonport. The yardstick by which I hope the House will judge the matter is the opinion of the city council, for the majority opinion of both parties in the council is against the Order.

The main reason for rejecting the Order is that the population of Plymouth is a shifting population. If the Order is agreed to, in a few years' time the inequality of numbers will be greater than if the Order is rejected.

So that the matter can be fully understood. I must touch on one or two background points and circumstances which have led to the present position. In 1941, there was the blitz on Plymouth. This, naturally, resulted in a major exodus, and even now there are about 10,000 fewer electors in Plymouth than there were in 1939. Four years later there was a vigorous campaign to rebuild the city along lines known as the Plymouth Nan. This has altered the whole nature of the city. In the middle there will be the civic centre and the shopping facilities, and the housing estates will be on the perimeter.

Three years later the boundaries were recast, and 42,000 people were affected. The constituency of Drake was annihilated. Six years after that we have the new scheme, the Devonport Dockyard Development Scheme, and a slum clearance scheme in Devonport. This must mean that further population will be moved in the next few years to the housing estates on the perimeter.

I mention these points so that the House can be convinced that not only has the population of Plymouth moved, but that it is moving and will move in future. One would have thought that if it were numerical equality at which the Commissioners were aiming and if, as they say, they were making allowance for the future, they would have taken into consideration the positions of the housing estates, for it is the positions of the housing estates which dominate the problem.

As the hon. Member for Devonport pointed out, if the boundaries were left as they now are the disparity would increase by 2,000 for two or three years and then decrease. If the Order is agreed to the disparity will for the moment decrease and there will be a difference of 2,000 or 3,000, but in five years' time there will be a difference of 15,000. Every week, month and year after the disparity will increase because the housing estates are all in the constituency on the east side. In a city which has undergone a series of convulsions, if this Order is passed there must be another rearrangement in 1959, or before.

It seems a masterpiece of mismanagement to affect five wards, move 31,000 people and yet, in five years' time, to have greater disparity than there would be if the present boundary were left. The House must accept that this is based not on hypothetical figures, but concrete figures. If the Home Secretary agrees with numerical equality it is difficult to support this Order.

An aspect of the matter which has caused considerable resentment in Plymouth is that the Boundary Commission appears to have acted with no regard to the historical features of the city. Plymouth is no new town; it is steeped in history. It has been pointed out that under this Order Plymouth Hoe will no longer be in the Sutton division but will be associated with Devonport, as will other features of the city. I wish to draw to the attention of the House a letter recently written in "The Times" by a distinguished Plymouthian, a former Liberal Minister, the right hon. Isaac Foot, father of the hon. Member for Devonport. He ended his letter by saying: The surgeon's knife is to cut through the veins, arteries and tissues of our body politic, regardless of the history of a thousand years. Anyone who knows anything about this problem will realise the truth of that observation.

I am still hopeful that the Home Secretary may give way on this matter, for he did say that he was approaching it with an open mind. I ask him on what grounds this Order can be supported, if it is supported. It cannot be on the grounds of numerical uniformity, because the difference will be greater in a few years' time than if the boundaries are left as they are now. Can it be to satisfy local opinion, to redress a wrong written into the last effort of the Boundary Commission? The answer to that must be no, for local opinion is against this Order. Can it be to conform with some neighbouring constituencies which are affected and to whose advantage it might be while it is to the disadvantage of Plymouth? That cannot be the case because the change does not affect any neighbouring constituency.

If this Order is supported by the Government it will show that the Government are disinclined to be selective in this matter. I cannot believe that if the case is judged on its merits it can be accepted. If there are many places worse than Plymouth, that is a still greater reflection on some of the work of the Boundary Commission. I appeal to the Home Secretary—this is the only method of appeal—to pay some attention to local opinion.

I do not know whether I am in order in making this suggestion. Having listened to practically all the speeches yesterday and today, it seems to me that it might be possible to have a better method of appeal. Inevitably, only a handful, perhaps two or three hon. Members, really know the "ins and outs" of every problem involved, yet we have to pass judgment on all these Orders. Perhaps a committee might be set up, to hear appeals. I firmly believe that if this Order is passed there will be a greater disparity.

I presume that the Home Secretary agrees with me that interference by the Government, or any outside body, with individuals or the communal life of a city is in itself a bad thing, unless it is necessary. I ask, is this legislation really necessary? I have spoken with all the moderation I can command, but I feel very strongly about this matter. I can only hope that my remarks will influence the Home Secretary to give way and to reject an Order which is unable to achieve numerical equality in the next few years, is unacceptable to local opinion, is unconscious of historical features and traditions, and seems altogether unnecessary in itself.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay)

As I had a great deal to do with the discussion on Plymouth which took place some years ago, and endeavoured to save the three Plymouth seats, and as also I have had the honour of representing a West Country constituency for longer than most people in this House, perhaps I might say a word on this Order.

When first we heard that the name "Devonport" was to be taken out by the Commission, I and the whole of the West Country were completely and utterly horrified. It had been laid down, almost throughout the whole time in which we have been discussing these Orders—not only now, but right into the past—that historic names should be kept. That cannot be disputed. When the Commission did that, many of us who live and have our being in the West Country were upset about it.

The Commission re-discussed the question and left Devonport in, but it did not stop there. It went on and, as the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. J. J. Astor) have said—putting the case so clearly—the Commission cut the heart out of Plymouth—the Hoe—and put it in Devonport. That, again, is an historic feature which should never have been interfered with unless it was absolutely essential.

I quite realise that the case of Plymouth presents immense difficulties, because within a comparatively short time it will be absolutely essential to reorganise the boundaries of the constituencies owing to the enormous number of people who are going to be housed outside the city, in what is now the Tavistock division. I realise that the Boundary Commission could not have done very much else, but when once it realised the feelings of the people of Devonport upon this matter the very least it could have done was to create the least possible disturbance, and that it did not do.

I cannot see how we can put the matter right at this stage. If I could, I should use what little ingenuity I have to put it right. In passing these Orders, we are accepting the situation that is being created, but it is not a bad thing for a Member of Parliament such as myself to say that although we agree with, and support, the Orders in the main, we wish the Commission had been rather less busy and had done rather less. In this case it could have made the change by disturbing a comparatively small number of voters if it had been less busy and had kept to what was quite easy and comparatively simple.

In his dealings with the Boundary Commission I hope that the Home Secretary, in some way or other, will be able to make the point that he would appreciate it if the Commission had not acted as it has in this case but had been very much more concerned with local feelings and rather less with figures. If the Commission had to take note of figures, the consideration which it should have had regard to all the time is that it should never have upset more people than it could help doing.

6.52 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George)

I am grateful to the Members who have spoken upon this order. They put their case with great moderation and thought. I assure the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) that no discourtesy of any sort was intended to the deputation from Plymouth, and I hope he will take it from me that I should be the last person to be discourteous. The sole reason was that at that time the Report had not been published, and I could not have foreseen the number of deputations I should be asked to meet. I did in fact ask if deputations would be good enough to submit memoranda, and many people did so. That was a very great help.

I have been asked to deal with this case on its merits, and that I propose to do. Despite what has been said yesterday and today, namely, that the Commission has constantly broken the Rules, I adhere to what I said last evening, that no case has yet been made about a single instance of the Rules having been broken.

I know the Rules as well as most people. Incidentally, they are the result of a Statute passed before this Government came into office. In this instance, Rule 5 is of enormous importance. It is not purely a question of being fussy about getting a nice, tidy constituency. The matter goes much deeper than that. It deals with the question of the number of Members which can represent various parts of the country. We have to remember that hon. Members are dealing with their separate constituencies but the Commission has to deal with the country as a whole, which is a much more difficult task.

In the case of Plymouth there was a disparity of about 9,000 voters between the Devonport and Sutton divisions, and in accordance with Rule 5 the Commission decided to recommend that the two constituencies should become equal by a transfer of voters. That was a provisional recommendation, which had the effect of altering the boundaries. It is true that this recommendation was unanimously opposed by the City of Plymouth, and I believe that it is also true that both political parties were opposed to it.

As a result of that opposition, changes have been made, with which I shall deal in a moment. I am not disputing what the hon. Member for Devonport said about the possibilities of the next five years. He referred to the question of imminent changes, with which we dealt in a previous discussion, in which the new town of Bracknell was mentioned. The only point made was that the Commission said that it had to have regard to imminent changes.

We must assume that it had regard to imminent changes in this case. No one could be more concerned than I am about the destruction of historic names, but public opinion in Plymouth has become quite different from what it was. It is not now true to say that there is unanimous opposition in Plymouth to the change which is now contemplated.

Mr. Foot

A week ago, immediately the proposals came out, I received a message from the town clerk, following a meeting of the special purposes committee of the council, opposing these new proposals. Just over a week ago that opposition was unanimously supported by the Plymouth City Council. Since then there have been no other meetings, and no other resolutions have been published upon the subject.

Therefore, it is the unanimous opinion of the members of the city council, representing both constituencies, that this recommendation should be opposed on precisely the same grounds as was the earlier proposal. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will refer to the documents sent to him by the city council he will see that its opposition is based on precisely identical grounds, namely, that the proposal involves the transference of such a large number of electors.

Major Lloyd-George

The transfer of voters is being made in order to reduce the electorate of the Devonport division from roughly 74,000 to 70,000 and to increase the electorate of the Sutton division from roughly 65,000 to 70,000.

I am not clear whether the later proposals are still unanimously opposed, because I have received two letters from Plymouth, one of which arrived only today, which said: We are now instructed … to inform you that the Association"— this is a Conservative Association— favourably regards the recommendations affecting the City of Plymouth as contained in the Report of the Boundary Commissioners. It does, in fact, coincide with the second of two alternatives submitted to the Commission. That letter comes from the Devonport division.

A letter from the Sutton division says: From reports appearing in the Plymouth Press it is apparent to us that attempts are being made to convey to you an impression that the final proposals of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Plymouth are generally unacceptable to the citizens of Plymouth and to all political organisations in the City. This is not the case. Certainly, when the Commission's provisional proposals were published, these were rejected locally with complete unanimity, and all sections of opinion agreed that the status quo was much to be preferred to what the Commission then suggested. With the publication of the Commission's final proposals, however, that situation has been changed. No longer are cherished local names with long traditional and historical associations to be dropped; it is not now proposed to include within a Plymouth West division the most easterly ward on the city's waterfront; nor are long-standing neighbourhood unities to be torn apart, as would have happened had the earlier proposals been accepted. In view of these new circumstances, … we are instructed to convey to you, on behalf of our members, their view that these proposals comprise a just, balanced and acceptable solution of the admitted problem of the unequal electorates within the city at the present time. They also said that, if necessary, I should bring the views expressed in the letter before the House. That letter is from the Chairman and Secretary of the Labour Party in the Sutton Division of Plymouth.

Mr. Astor

Is my right hon. and gallant Friend suggesting that the majority—and, after all, we have to go by majorities; it may not be a very good way, but this House itself works by majorities—of Socialists and of Conservatives on the city council are not opposed to this scheme, because my information is that at the last meeting the majority of both parties in both constituencies were opposed to it?

Major Lloyd-George

I was not quoting the city council, but simply trying to put to the House views which I have been asked to put forward.

Mr. Foot

I have received no such communication from the Sutton Divisional Labour Party, nor, strangely enough, from the Devonport Conservative Association. Perhaps these two cancel each other out, but I do want to put this to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. The decision of the Plymouth City Council was taken unanimously, and the Labour members from Sutton, equally with the Conservative members from the Devonport constituency, unanimously supported the council's opposition. Indeed, it is contrary to everything that has been said by the Plymouth City Council, with its peculiar knowledge of the City of Plymouth, to say that this proposal does not ravage long historical associations.

Major Lloyd-George

That only goes to show how difficult the task of the Commission must have been, I have only quoted the letter because I was asked to put it before the House. I feel greatly honoured to have received letters from both sides in Plymouth, which I feel is a great compliment to myself, but the letter definitely states that it is not the case that this proposal is generally unacceptable.

What I feel about the position is that this is a case which falls, I suppose more readily than any other, under Rule 5; that is to say a case in which, where possible, equality of numbers should be achieved. That is a very important consideration of the redistribution, for obvious reasons, because of the number of seats which there are likely to be in this House. It is quite obvious at the moment, at any rate to me, that the revised proposals of the Commission are not unacceptable. On the contrary, I have read two letters from the two political parties in Plymouth saying that they are satisfied with the changes, and, in the circumstances, I do not think that the House could do better than accept the Motion.

Mr. Foot

Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman answer the specific question I put to him? If the basis of making this scheme is that we have to secure numerical equality between the two constituencies—and that seems to me to be the only argument on the merits of the case which he presented—can he tell us why that should not have been accomplished by the transference of one ward from one constituency to the other, disturbing only 10,000 electors, instead of by this proposal, which will disturb 30,000?

Major Lloyd-George

I am sure that the House will forgive me, but that is what I am not in a position to do. There are many constituencies, and I have done my best to acquaint myself with some of them, but I do not know them all. I know that the hon. Gentleman knows everything, but I just happen to know what I can.

Mr. Bing

Let me give the right hon. and gallant Gentleman some advice.

Major Lloyd-George

The hon. and learned Gentleman has given quite enough advice to all quarters of the House in the course of the day.

I am not in a position to tell the hon. Member for Devonport what he asks. I am sure that he will appreciate that it is not possible for me to know all the details of all these cases. I am simply saying that the Commission, in its judgment, followed out the instructions given to it, by the Rule and in accordance with the Statute, and I do not see how the House can do otherwise than support it.

Mr. Foot

I can quite understand the Minister when he says that it is difficult for him to know all the details, but this is our only court of appeal and the only place where we may put our case. We were never able to put this to the Commission, and, therefore, if it is proved, as it has been proved—and nobody dissents from this—that we could carry out exactly the same numerical change by altering one ward instead of five, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is genuinely listening to these issues on their merits, and if he is prepared to listen to the case and change his mind if need be, will he not agree to withdraw this Order and come back with a proposal which will achieve the same numerical result without disturbing 30,000 people in Plymouth? Will he agree to take it back and make a fresh attempt?

Mr. Astor

Would my right hon. and gallant Friend inform the House that the letters which he has quoted represent minority opinions in both parties in the city, and not the majority view?

Major Lloyd-George

I am not sure that I can say that. All I can say is that I had a letter from the Labour Party in the Sutton division, and I therefore assume that it represented the views of the Labour Party. The other letter was from the Conservative Party, but I should not have mentioned it unless I had been asked to do so.

7.8 p.m.

Sir Richard Acland (Gravesend)

I do not now represent a West Country seat, but I am very much a West Country man, coming from a West Country family, and I think I am the only Devonian on this side of the House at the moment. I should, therefore, like to say a word or two before the House makes up its mind on this matter.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) was speaking and was being supported by two hon. Gentlement opposite, it really seemed to me that this must be a case in which the Home Secretary would get up and disprove all the things which he alleged were being said about him and the party machine behind him being a rubber stamp, riding roughshod over all argument and local opinion. I thought he would say to the House that, after hearing the argument, he would take the Order back and ask the Commission to take another look at it in the light of the facts put forward by the three hon. Members with particular local knowledge. Instead of that, he has disappointed me and has sunk to the lowest level which the occasion offered to him. He has adopted the role of the rubber stamp, or that of the driver of the big steamroller.

Three arguments were put to him, and each one seemed to me to be overwhelming. The first was why must he disturb 30,000 people, almost all of whom were involved in a major disturbance only a few years ago, to achieve a result which could be achieved by disturbing only 5,000? The only answer he gave to that was that Rule 5 required it; but Rule 5 does not require it. It only requires that the Commission should, if possible, achieve equal numbers, and the whole essence of the points made by the representatives of Plymouth and Torquay was that they could get the result of numerical equality by disturbing only 5,000 people, instead of 30,000.

Then the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was asked why we should accept proposals which, whatever they may achieve this year and next, will, five years' hence, achieve an even greater degree of disparity than that which exists today. I listened very carefully, and the only two occasions on which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman even touched upon that argument were when he said, first, that that may well be so, and secondly, when he said that he must assume that the Commission had regard to the future. To that argument, therefore, he did not address his mind in any serious way.

The last argument was that the proposals cut across arteries, historical associations and historical connections. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman's only answer to that argument was to read two letters from bodies each of which, I am sure, could be described as much less influential than the Plymouth City Council, which is unanimous on the matter. In any case, it seems to me that, putting the two letters together, the changes proposed by the Commission would only effect either the transfer of some Conservative voters from Sutton to Devonport or the transfer of some Socialist voters from Devonport to Sutton, or both.

That is the conclusion to which I should reluctantly be led from the sources of the two letters which have been quoted in support of proposals for which no other conceivable argument can be found, and in support of which no answer has been given to the overwhelming arguments which have been brought against them. I still hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will say that this Order can be withdrawn. If not, I would appeal to hon. Members opposite to join with us on this side of the House in voting against it.

There are well over 20 hon. Members opposite who have heard the arguments which have been put forward. They were not party arguments, but were put forward by one Member of the Labour Party and by two Members of the Conservative Party. It would do enormous honour and enormous credit to this House if those 20 Members, having heard the arguments—I am not referring to anything that I myself have said, but simply to the three speeches made by the two hon. Members who represent Plymouth divisions and by the right hon. Member opposite who represents the not-far-distant constituency of Torquay—were either to vote against the Order or to abstain.

After all, we on this side of the House have among us those who vote against the instructions of party Whips. Of course, they do it on important and fundamental issues. For hon. Members to do this would really clearly add to the prestige of the Members concerned and would add vastly to the esteem of the House of Commons. It would show that there was a little individuality left in us, and that the steamroller could not always have all its own way.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

There is really nothing that I can add to the very forceful speeches which have been made on this Order from both sides of the House. There have been two from the Conservative benches, and, including mine, two from this side. Listening to those speeches, I thought that the arguments adduced were extremely cogent.

Two facts emerge from the discussion. The first is that no answer has been given by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman as to why it is proposed that five wards should be messed about when all that was necessary was for the Commissioners to transfer one ward from Sutton to Devonport, or from Devonport to Sutton, as the case may be.

Earlier in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot), the Home Secretary said that he had not received a deputation when one had requested to see him because he was afraid that, if he opened the door to deputations, too many would want to come. Had the right hon. and gallant Gentleman received the deputation from Devonport, he would undoubtedly have known this afternoon the answer to the question why five wards had been altered when it was only necessary to alter one.

We on this side of the House intend to invite hon. Members to go through the Division Lobbies in order to register their views on the desirability or otherwise of this Order. We should do that in any case, if only to give the right hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. J. J. Astor) a chance to register their views. I am sure that neither of them would be happy unless they had a chance to join with us, and to show by their votes, as well as by their voices, what they feel about this Order.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

I know nothing at all about this matter other than what I have heard in the course of this debate. My only reason for rising is because of something which was said by my right hon. Friend just now.

I should like to hear from the Home Secretary what his attitude and that of the Government would be if the House, having heard the debate and having brought its mind to bear on the matter and on the arguments, and exercising its own judgment, as the Government undertook that it should do, were to vote against the Order. I should like to know, and I am sure that there must be many hon. Members opposite who would like to know, whether the Government or the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would regard that as a matter involving the fate of the Government.

Is it the sort of matter about which the Government would say, "Well, this is Government policy, and if you want

to support the Government, whatever you think about it, you must vote as we want you to vote. That is your obligation to us, because we are the Government and you are supporters of ours"? Or, on the other hand, is it the sort of matter which the Government genuinely regard as not being a matter of Government policy at all? In other words, is it a matter merely of putting before the House of Commons the recommendation of the Boundary Commission, hearing the arguments and leaving the House of Commons free to cast its vote as it thinks the arguments warrant?

I do not know what the Government think about that. A great many other people do not know either. If it is true that there has been a three-line Whip on the subject, then that would be a little inconsistent with being judicial. I do not know how a man can be judicial under a three-line Whip. I have never regarded a Whip as a judicial instrument. It may be that there is some other view, and that what the Government really meant was, "If you cannot make up your mind, vote for us, but if you can make up your mind, whichever way you make it up, you are free to exercise your judicial conscience and to decide according to the merits of the arguments and of the facts." Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman regard this question as involving the fate of the Government or not?

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 193.

Division No. 15.]	AYES	[7.20 p.m.
Aitken, W. T.	Brooman-White, R. C.	Doughty, C. J. A.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Drayson, G. B.
Alport, C. J. M.	Bullard, D. G.	Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.	Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Arbuthnot, John	Burden, F. F. A.	Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Armstrong, C. W.	Butcher, Sir Herbert	Errington, Sir Eric
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Carr, Robert	Fell, A.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Cary, Sir Robert	Finlay, Graeme
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.	Channon, H.	Fisher, Nigel
Banks, Col, C.	Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Barber, Anthony	Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Fletcher, Sir Walter (Bury)
Barlow, Sir John	Cole, Norman	Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Baxter, Sir Beverley	Colegate, W. A.	Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Conant, Maj. Sir Roger	Fort, R.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Cooper-Key, E. M.	Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Bennett, William (Woodside)	Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Garner-Evans, E. H.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. B.	Glover, D.
Bishop, F. P.	Crouch, R. F.	Godber, J. B.
Black, C. W.	Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Bossom, Sir A. C.	Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)	Gough, C. F. H.
Boyle, Sir Edward	Davidson, Viscountess	Graham, Sir Fergus
Braine, B. R.	Deedes, W. F.	Gridley, Sir Arnold
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)	Digby, S. Wingfield	Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Braithwaite, Sir Gurney	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA	Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Donner, Sir P. W.	Hall, John (Wycombe)
Harris, Reader (Heston)	Maclay, Rt. Hon. John	Scott, R. Donald
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Sharples, Maj. R. C.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)	Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald	Shepherd, William
Harvie-Watt, Sir George	Markham, Major Sir Frank	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Hay, John	Marlowe, A. A. H.	Smithers, peter (Winchester)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.	Marples, A. E.	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel	Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)	Spearman, A. C. M.
Heath, Edward	Maude, Angus	Speir, R. M.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)	Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.	Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir p. (Kensington, S.)
Higgs, J. M. C.	Medlicott, Brig. F.	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)	Mellor, Sir John	Stevens, Geoffrey
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)	Molson, A. H. E.	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Hirst, Geoffrey	Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Holland-Martin, C. J.	Nabarro, G. D. N.	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Hollis, M. C.	Neave, Airey	Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Holt, A. F.	Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E)	Summers, G. S.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.	Nield, Basil (Chester)	Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence	Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)	Nugent, G. R. H.	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)	Odey, G. W.	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)	O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)	Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.	Page, R. G.	Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Kurd, A. R.	Partridge, E.	Tilney, John
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.	Touche, Sir Gordon
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)	Perkins, Sir Robert	Turner, H. F. L.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.	Peto, Brig. C. H. M.	Turton, R. H.
Iremonger, T. L.	Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Vane, W. M. F.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Pilkington, Capt. R. A.	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)	Pitt, Miss E. M.	Vosper, D. F.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)	Powell, J. Enoch	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Kaberry, D.	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.	Profumo, J. D.	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Kerr, H. W.	Raikes, Sir Victor	Wall, Major Patrick
Lambert, Hon. G.	Ramsden, J. E.	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Langford-Holt, J. A.	Rayner, Brig. R.
Leather, E. H. C.	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Remnant, Hon. P.	Watkinson, H. A.
Linstead, Sir H. N.	Renton, D. L. M.	Wellwood, W.
Llewellyn, D. T.	Ridsdale, J. E.	Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.	Roberts, Peter (Heeley)	Williams, Paul (Sutherland, S.)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)	Robson-Brown, W.	Wills, G.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.	Roper, Sir Harold	Wood, Hon. R.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard	Woollam, John Victor
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Russell, R. S.
McAdden, S. J.	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.	Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas	Mr. Redmayne and Mr. Legh.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)	Shofield, Lt.-Col. W
NOES
Albu, A. H.	Collins, V. J.	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)	Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Allen, Scholefield (Crowe)	Cove, W. G.	Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)	Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Astor, Hon. J. J.	Crossman, R. H. S.	Hamilton, W. W.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Cullen, Mrs. A.	Hannan, W.
Bacon, Miss Alice	Daines, P.	Hardy, E. A.
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood	Darling, George (Hillsborough)	Hargeaves, A.
Benson, G.	Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Davies, Harold (Leek)	Hastings, S.
Bing, G. H. C.	Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)	Hayman, F. H.
Blenkinsop, A.	Deer, G.	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Blyton, W. R.	Dodds, N. N.	Hewitson, Capt. M.
Boardman, H.	Donnelly, D. L.	Hobson, C. R.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)	Holman, P.
Bowden, H. W.	Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Holmes, Horace
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth	Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)	Houghton, Douglas
Brockway, A. F.	Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)	Hubbard, T. F.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Fienburgh, W.	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Brawn, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Foot, M. M.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Burton, Miss F. E.	Forman, J. C.	Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Carmichael, J.	Freeman, Peter (Newport)	Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Champion, A. J.	Gibson, C. W.	Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Chapman, W. D.	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.	Jeger, George (Goole)
Chetwynd, G. R.	Greenwood, Anthony	Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Clunie, J.	Grey, C. F.	Johnson, James (Rugby)
Collick, P. H.	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech

Jones, David (Hartlepool)	Padley, W. E.	Steele, T.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Keenan, W.	Pannell, Charles	Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Kenyon, C.	Pargiter, G. A.	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Parker, J.	Swingier, S. T.
King, Dr. H. M.	Parkin, B. T.	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Lawson, G. M.	Paton, J.	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Peart, T. F.	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Lover, Harold (Cheetham)	Plummer, Sir Leslie	Thornton, E.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Popplewell, E.	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Lindgren, G. S.	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)	Viant, S. P.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)	Wallace, H. W.
MacColl, J. E.	Probert, A. R.	Warbey, W. N.
McInnes, J.	Proctor, W. T.	Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)	Pryde, D. J.	Weitzman, D.
McLeavy, F.	Reeves, J.	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)	Wells, William (Walsall)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Reid, William (Camlachie)	West, D. G.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Rhodes, H.	Wheeldon, W. E.
Mann, Mrs. Jean	Robens, Rt. Hon. A.	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Manuel, A. C.	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)	Wigg, George
Mellish, R. J.	Ross, William	Wilkins, W. A.
Mikardo, Ian	Royle, C.	Willey, F. T.
Mitchison, G. R.	Shackleton, E. A. A.	Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)
Moody, A. S.	Short, E. W.	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Morley, R.	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)	Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)	Wyatt, W. L.
Moyle, A.	Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)	Yates, V. F.
Mulley, F. W.	Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)	Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Nally, W.	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Oldfield, W. H.	Snow, J. W.	Sir Richard Acland and
Oswald, T.	Sorensen, R. W.	Mr. Turner-Samuels.
Owen, W. J.	Sparks, J. A.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Plymouth) Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Gateshead and Jarrow) Order, 1954 [copy presented 18th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament], approved.—[Major Lloyd-George.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Billericay, South East Essex, Romford and Southend) Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Major Lloyd-George.]

7.29 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel J. C. Lockwood (Romford)

It should not be necessary for me to detain the House for more than a minute while I put forward the objections to this draft Order as it stands. The effect of it, if adopted, would be to create a constituency consisting of the urban districts of Billericay and Brentwood, and the name of the constituency would be "Billericay." Brentwood is at present part of the Parliamentary constituency of Romford, for which I am the Member. If this draft Order is adopted Brentwood will lose not only its partner but its name. The people of Brentwood feel very strongly about this, and say that, although they halve no objection to Billericay, as such, the name of the constituency should be Brentwood.

Far be it from me to try to say anything detrimental about Billericay, particularly as, sitting close to me, is the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine). Some hon. Members may know Billericay in the same way as they know Brentwood; they may have been involved in traffic congestion. Billericay has great historical associations, and is altogether a very desirable place. What the people of Brentwood are saying, and I suggest that they have every justification for saying it, is that Billericay, though well known, is not half so well known as Brentwood, and that, where there is a choice of two well-known names, the constituency should have that which is better known. Perhaps the House will bear with me while I give, very shortly, some reasons to support my argument.

The Brentwood County Police division comprises both Billericay and Brentwood. Its headquarters are at Brentwood. The Brentwood County Court comprises both districts, and the court itself is situated in Brentwood. The Catholic diocese of Brentwood comprises both districts, and the cathedral is in Brentwood. In Brentwood there is a well-known grammar school for boys, and there is also a high school for girls. Both those establishments cater for the children of Brentwood and district.

All the offices of the Ministry of Labour and National Service, and of the National Assistance Board, are in Brentwood. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about prisons?"] I do not think that the people in Brentwood require a prison. There is one many miles away, but I do not think that any of my constituents go there. The headquarters of the county fire brigade and of the Territorial brigade are at Brentwood. I do not want to sing the praises of Brentwood too much, though I could go on for a long time. I might mention also that the electors there made me their Member.

It is perfectly true that the area of Billericay is bigger than that of Brentwood. If I did not admit that, I am sure that the hon. Member for Billericay would point it out. It is also true, however, that it is estimated that the town map population of Brentwood will be 38,000 in 1971, while the estimated town map population of Billericay will then be 15,000. I am afraid that I shall not be very much concerned with what happens in Brentwood or anywhere else in 1971.

I should also say that an inquiry was held. I was not there, but I understand that the argument which I have been trying to advance was put forward, and that it created a very good impression. My hope is that I shall make a better impression upon the Home Secretary than some others have been able to do today. I have sat here for I do not know how many hours, and I keep hearing it suggested that the Home Secretary is perfectly prepared to listen to reason; that he has a perfectly open mind and that, if a case is put forward, he will listen to the arguments and adopt them.

I venture to suggest that the arguments that have been put forward in this particular case are cogent, and that, if I can get the Home Secretary to consider them at their true worth, he will have no hesitation whatsoever in changing the name to Brentwood. Subject to that change, I do not think that either Brentwood or Billericay have any objection to the Order, nor, if I may say so in all modesty, have I. I was asked to put forward this suggestion. I hope that it has had an effect on the Home Secretary, and that I shall hear him say "In this particular case the merits are such that I have no option but to grant the request."

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing (Hornchurch)

I intervene for only a moment because, like the hon. and gallant Member for Romford (Lieut.-Colonel Lockwood) I have a constituency within the area of the matter under dispute. This merely shows the unfortunate way in which the Home Secretary approached this matter in the first place. Had he done as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) did, and embodied all his changes in a Bill, it would have been possible to deal with these matters as we dealt with Mid-Ulster. For some reason it was desired to call that constituency by a very long name, but the name Mid-Ulster was substituted by a vote of the House.

The present method means that we either accept the Home Secretary's view or throw out the whole Order. That perhaps might be a good thing, and if the hon. and gallant Member for Rom-ford is prepared to support his objection in the Division Lobby I shall vote with him. I do not feel that it is a matter upon which we should divide the House, but, if he feels strongly about it, he has his remedy.

I hope that the Home Secretary will deal not only with the question of the name but with the principle upon which the Boundary Commission have proceeded here, because what it has done in regard to this Order is in exact opposition to the argument which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman put forward with regard to South-East Derbyshire. The real reason these changes started was that, apparently, it was said by the Boundary Commission that it was improper to have a county district in a borough area. All the changes in Essex start from the removal of the rural district of Rochford from the Borough of Southend. Having started there, the Commission then proceeded to erect a number of new constituencies, including South-East Essex, which has only 45,000 electors.

We have just been told that this is a quite impossible figure to have, and that we must have a larger figure. This once again is an example of the Commission supporting rural constituencies and county constituencies as against the urban areas. As far as taking into account future building is concerned, one can see that the method of approach by the Commission was not very satisfactory last time, because it was the Commission who recommended last time that Brentwood should be joined to Romford, and Rom-ford now has an electorate of 89,000. I think the hon. and gallant Member for Romford has the largest, or one of the largest, constituencies in the country, and no account is taken of building.

I should like to be told why Horn-church, which will be the largest constituency in the country if all these changes go through, with an electorate next year of 78,000, and Dagenham, with 77,000 were not put together to make three seats. Those are important problems. It is no use the Joint Under-Secretary saying that the present scheme is what the Commission has done. He is responsible for what it did. It is not the Commission which is introducing this Order, but he. I hope that we shall have some explanation on the merits of why a small constituency is to be constructed, and why the large urban constituencies are not to be divided.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine (Billericay)

I do not propose to follow the argument which the hon. and learned Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) has adduced, because, as far as I can discover, there is general satisfaction in my constituency and the adjoining constituencies with the proposals of the Boundary Commission. Indeed, I think I am right in saying that when the inquiry was held the local Labour Party did not raise any particular objection to the Commission's proposals precisely because they were logical and sensible. There was no feeling one way or the other.

It is precisely because of that that I must join issue with my hon. and gallant Friend, my good neighbour, the Member for Romford (Lieut.-Colonel Lockwood). He thought that this new alteration of constituency boundaries was quite a good arrangement, and that is the only point upon which I agree with him. Whilst I understand, and I am sure the House will understand, the motives for his local patriotism, I would ask the Home Secretary to reject his suggestion concerning the name of the new constituency.

I ask this without going into any great detail, for the perfectly good reason that the Boundary Commission thought it proper to preserve in the next Parliament the name—I hope the honoured and respected name—of a constituency which has existed since the General Election of 1950. I think that the House generally likes to preserve continuity where it is possible, and it is right to do so. In that connection, I must say that the decision of the Boundary Commission to restore the ancient and historic name of South-East Essex to the other new division carved out of my constituency is one which is generally welcomed in my part of the world and, indeed, in the county as a whole.

I do not agree for a moment with what my hon. and gallant Friend has said about the relative merits of Brentwood and Billericay. Billericay is much older than Brentwood, to start with. It is known not only in this country as a place of great charm and distinction, but is known well in the United States, since it was from Billericay that five of the Pilgrim Fathers came. The "Mayflower" was actually victualled by Christopher Martin, a Billericay man. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why did they emigrate?"] Let me say at once that those who emigrated in the past were usually people of energy and vigour, and one expects a place like Billericay to produce people of that kind.

I did not want to engage in any argument about the relative merits of Brentwood and Billericay, but if my hon. and gallant Friend suggests that the name of the new constituency should be Brentwood because of its historic importance, I am at least entitled to point out that Billericay is equally, if not more, important, and I see no reason why the name should be changed.

But there is another reason. After all, the Billericay urban district is larger than the Brentwood urban district. That is a consideration which has guided Boundary Commissions previously when deciding upon the name of a constituency. Where there is some element of choice, the name of the largest district is chosen. Moreover, the electorate in the Billericay urban district is much larger than that in the Brentwood urban district.

In this connection my hon. and gallant Friend's researches cannot have taken him very far, when he projects himself into the future and considers what the optimum population of the two districts will be in 1970. If he had gone into the matter in any detail, he would have discovered that there is a new town under construction in the urban district of Billericay named Basildon, the optimum population of which is to be 80,000. Indeed, I understand that the Chairman of the Development Corporation has been talking in terms of an optimum population of nearer 100,000. At some stage that may mean a new constituency with the fine old historic name of Basildon. For the time being, therefore, I suggest that there is no justificaiton whatsoever for a change of name, and I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion will be rejected.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Ede

The main matter that appears to have aroused interest at the inquiry was that of the names of the various constituencies, and I am told by one who was there that the eloquence of the clerks of the various urban district councils concerned in claiming for each of the constituencies a name other than the one which had been assigned to it was really wonderful. It is a great pity that the hon. and gallant Member for Romford (Lieut.-Colonel Lockwood) was not there to have added to the wealth of information then available the speech which has has made to us tonight, because that might have had some influence on this matter.

We must congratulate the lion. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) on the fact that the Pilgrim Fathers emigrated. If they had remained behind, he might not have been here to represent a constituency in which their influence was very strong.

As to which place is bigger, and the prophecies that have been made in this connection, I do not think that is a matter in which we need go beyond what the Boundary Commission decided after the inquiry, but I do object to the doctrine, satirised by James Russell Lowell and put forward by both hon. Members, "Our nation's bigger than your'n; therefore, our rights are bigger."

The hon. Member for Billericay in the few years that he has been with us has, at any rate, established the fact that when we talk about the hon. Member for Billericay everyone knows whom we mean. I think he has established for that name just about sufficient prestige to make us feel that no change could be for the better.

Mr. George Wigg (Dudley)

I do not want to talk about Billericay. I certainly do not want to go into the historical references that have been made.

I should like to say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that there is one principle that I infringed last night, and that is that I aimed my shots at a sitting bird. I am sorry that I made a remark which reflected on the Chair, for the occupant of the Chair is at no time in a position to answer back. Therefore, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to you personally, because you are held in high regard, and because of the position you occupy, I tender my sincere apologies for what I said last night, and I very much wish that I had not said it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris)

I am much obliged to the hon. Member for his withdrawal.

7.50 p.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I am sorry to disappoint my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Romford (Lieut.-Colonel Lockwood), but I am afraid that the inhabitants of Brentwood must be like the inhabitants of the high school for girls they must take the name of the institution to which for the time being they are wedded. They have not had a separate Parliamentary name while they have been connected with his constituency, and it is not suggested that they should have a separate one now. In those circumstances, I think that we should accept the Report of the Commission.

The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) asked me if I would state the basis of the Order. It is that the electorate of the geographical county of Essex increased by over 72,000 between 1946 and 1953. It was necessary to cover that by giving two additional seats in the county as a whole, and this proposal provides one of those seats. It creates the new constituency of South-East Essex and it does so from parts of Billericay and Southend, East.

It is to consist of the urban districts of Benfleet, Canvey Island and Rayleigh now in Billericay, and the rural district of Rochford, now in Southend, East. Consequently, the Brentwood Urban district is transferred from Romford to Billericay. Further, the removal of the Rochford rural district would reduce the electorate of Southend, East to just over 40,000 and, accordingly, Southend is re-divided.

That is the principle of the Order. It produces five constituencies instead of the previous four, approximating much more nearly to the electoral quota.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Bing

Perhaps I did not put the point clearly. As I understand it, the position was that Essex was entitled to two more Members, if we took a quota based on the total number of people in the county. Why, instead of re-dividing the big industrial areas, which are Tuning at 77,000 to 78,000, did the Commission construct two small rural constituencies, two small county constituencies, both of 45,000, Chigwell and South-East Essex? That is the question which I wanted the hon. Member to answer.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

That does not arise on this Order.

Mr. Bing

We have in Chigwell and South-East Essex two small county constituencies, and the justification for it is that the urban areas were so big that they deserved another Member. Will the hon. Member explain why the Commission constructed new county constituencies?

Resolved, That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Billericay, South East Essex, Romford and Southend) Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on lath November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Chelmsford, Chigwell and Woodford) Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on lath November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]

7.54 p.m.

Mr. Bing

I had not intended to speak on this Order, but I was not given an answer by the hon. Gentleman on the previous Order and, as this Order involves the same point, perhaps I may be given one now. May I make clear to him what happened in Essex as a whole? Essex has a large and growing industrial population and, as a result, there were too few Members for the county as a whole. Essex was, therefore, entitled to more Members.

Why make a new constituency of 45,000 for Chigwell, instead of putting together Hornchurch and Dagenham? Hornchurch will have 78,000 electors when the next register is published and Dagenham already has 77,000 electors. Why not put those two together for purposes of redistribution? On what principle are those small rural constituencies constructed? Why do we need more county constituencies when the excess of population is produced by an increase of voters in the urban areas? That is the question to which I hope the hon. Member will now address himself.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Hubert Ashton (Chelmsford)

In Essex, the expansion is not merely industrial. We have five L.C.C. housing estates and two new towns, and in the Chingford area there are two L.C.C. estates which are still expanding rapidly. I do not want to go into the details of the Boundary Commission's recommendations in this respect, but it is not true to say that all the expansion has been in the industrial areas to the south, near the Thames. It has been throughout the county within a radius of about 30 miles of London.

May I express great regret at having Ongar taken away from me and that so many friendships should be severed in this way? Perhaps, having said that, I may be allowed to express the hope that the western area of the Chelmsford constituency, which is now to be joined together with—to borrow a phrase—the under-belly of the Woodford constituency, will ultimately become a happy, harmonious and right-minded constituency.

7.57 p.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

The point made by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) arises more on this Order than on the previous Order. I intended no discourtesy to him in not replying earlier. These two Orders tackle the two largest constituencies. The previous Order dealt with Romford, which has about 87,000 electors, and this Order deals with Woodford, which has over 81,000 electors. The hon. and learned Member asked why we had not chosen his constituency. But his constituency is not of that size.

One cannot speculate on all the intricate details of a reorganisation of this kind in a county which now has 24 constituencies. The average electorate at present of those 24 constituencies is as high as 61,000. After these changes, it will be about 56,000. It is, of course, true that we cannot get absolute equality, but no doubt this scheme is as near to it as can properly be worked out within the Rules. It has the great advantage of apparently being acceptable to all those who live in the areas. I do not think that is a conclusive point, but it is a point to bear in mind.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. John Parker (Dagenham)

We have seen a very big growth in the population of Essex in recent years and, according to all accounts given to us, that increase is likely to continue. If the present Rules continue in operation, therefore, another redistribution of seats in Essex will probably be necessary in a very few years.

During our debates, many people have expressed the view that we do not want boundaries altered too often. I sympathise very much with that point of view and would strongly oppose frequent small changes in boundaries taking place, but, having had the honour of representing the old Romford division in the House, which, in the course of a few years, had, by 1945, reached a total of 207,000 electors, I must say that there is a great danger that we may perhaps alter the Rules and then make it too difficult to make boundary alterations.

It is highly desirable that whatever alterations are made in the Rules, we should retain the right to review areas, such as those in Essex, which are likely to continue to grow, because it would be very unfair if constituencies row being created were to grow rapidly and then to remain over-large constituencies for many years.

My constituency already has an electorate of 77,000 and that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) is about the same in size. We may find that these constituencies will continue to grow, and perhaps other hon. Members in Essex whose constituencies now have smaller electorates may find that they will grow. I wish to press the point that if we make any alteration in the Rules, we must retain the right to review the position regarding large constituencies when necessary.

I think that the matter should be taken further than that. It is not likely to be the case that when an increase takes place it will be all in one constituency. It may well be that growth will take place all over one of the Home Counties, such as Essex or Hertfordshire. To obtain adequate representation we should have to review the county as a whole—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member would appear to be directing his remarks to the general issue. I do not think that he is speaking to this particular issue.

Mr. Parker

With respect, I would urge that this is a danger which now faces us in regard to Essex, but may also face us again in the future in other parts of the country; and that we should not only bear this in mind in dealing with this issue, but in any general future arrangements we may make for reviewing boundaries.

Resolved, That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Chelmsford, Chigwell and Woodford) Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Gloucestershire) Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Major Lloyd-George.]

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Bean (Bristol, South-East)

I propose to detain the House only for a few moments. I am not speaking on my own behalf, but on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland), who is unable to be present as he is temporarily out of the country.

Briefly, the position in this constituency is that the County Borough of Bristol, which returns six Members, has as its Member for the extreme easterly side myself, and beyond the city boundaries is the urban district of Kingswood, a famous local government authority which recently celebrated its centenary. In their wisdom, if that be the word, the Boundary Commissioners, when reorganising the constituencies of Bristol, cut off the urban district of Kingswood and incorporated it in my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Coldrick).

As the possible future Member of Parliament for this urban district, it is not my purpose to speak unfavourably of the people who live there, but rather the reverse; to stress their pride in their own individuality and in their independence from the city and county borough of Bristol. They believe that a great wrong is being done to them in incorporating them as, necessarily, a very minor element in what they fear may in the end become the administrative area of Bristol.

I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would comment on the protests which have been made by the Urban District Council of Kingswood against this amalgamation with the City and County Borough of Bristol. As I say, I speak for my hon. Friend who represents this urban district. But I imagine that these changes will go through, and I should like to take the opportunity of saying that I shall be very proud to represent these people, though I think it wrong that they should be incorporated in the bigger unit.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins (Bristol, South)

As one partially responsible for the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland) is not with us today, I should like to say a word on his behalf about this proposal.

May I first say that I am just a little alarmed at the apparent equanimity with which the Home Secretary and the Parliamentary Secretary are accepting the recommendations of the Boundary Commission? It seems to me as though the attitude they adopt is that the Boundary Commission can do no wrong.

The Parliamentary Secretary, in particular, seems to be treating the various points raised by hon. Members in a rather off-hand way. I noted that earlier the hon. Gentleman said, "Of course, we understand that hon. Members wish to put their points and state their case in the House." He dismissed it in a manner which made me feel that already the minds of the members of the Government had been completely made up.

I have very little to grumble about. In fact, my position politically has probably been strengthened. But I wish to support what was said by the right hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). I think the Boundary Commission could have given much greater consideration to historic and traditional relationships.

I feel that I am part of a juggling act in this matter. I am losing a ward which is being tossed away to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) and another ward is being tossed to me from the constituency of Bristol, South-East. That is just one of the things that is happening in Bristol. But in the juggling of the constituencies which has taken place, I do not believe that there is a greater change than 1,000 in the electorate anywhere. I have not checked it, but I believe that that is how it works out.

The ward which I am to lose has been in the constituency of Bristol, South for longer than I can remember. That means that it must have been part of that constituency for more than 50 years, and probably much longer than that. The feeling that is created in these wards, and the resentment which is occasioned when people find themselves disintegrated from those with whom they have been associated, and the constituencies with which they have bean associated, throughout the years must be experienced to be believed. I think that the Boundary Commission should have given consideration to that.

Returning again to the question of the constituency of Gloucestershire South, I made a note earlier that the Parliamentary Secretary tried to ride off by saying that in every case some inconvenience, some disturbance, must be expected. I wish to suggest to the Home Secretary that in this case it is more than a disturbance; it is a real upheaval. If we study the Report, we shall find that hitherto this constituency comprised two rural districts and two urban districts. Under the proposals of the Boundary Commission both the urban districts have been taken away. One has gone to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and the other to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Coldrick).

This is a serious matter for my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South. In effect his political body has been dismembered. The only two parts of the constituency where he could expect to find satisfactory headquarters from which to operate a political party, and from which to draw strength for the party machine, are being taken away. He is left with an almost entirely rural area in which it would be most difficult to assemble a political machine.

I want to take this matter out of the sphere of politics. One Sunday evening, about three weeks ago, I engaged, after going to church, in a debate with the prospective Conservative candidate for my hon. Friend's constituency of Bristol, South-East. About 100 young men and women attended at the youth club, and I dealt with this very point. We are all beginning to become a little alarmed with what we term the apathy of the people. It is vital to our democracy that both of our political parties—perhaps I should say all three of them—must be in a position to function at the time of an election, and to do that we must have a political machine—we all recognise that. If we are to decapitate different constituencies and make it almost impossible for them to function, in the end there are bound to be repercussions upon our democracy.

I urge the Home Secretary to look again at this proposal and consider whether he cannot say that this is the first time that he might make a review. There is no harm in looking at something. In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South, and in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East, I invite the Home Secretary to give further consideration to the proposals of the Boundary Commission for this constituency.

8.12 p.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

This Order transfers two urban districts—Mangotsfield and Kingswood—from South Gloucestershire to Bristol, North-East and Bristol, South-East, respectively. Consequent upon that, the Order transfers the rural district of Thornbury from Stroud and Thornbury—the name of which constituency will be changed to Stroud—to South Gloucestershire, and also the Tetbury rural district from Cirencester and Tewkesbury to Stroud. In addition there is a complete rearrangement affecting every constituency in Bristol. The Order also makes a minor alteration of the boundary between Stroud and Gloucester to bring it into line with the recently altered parish boundaries.

The main effect of the order is to reduce the rather high average electorate of the county constituencies and to increase the average electorate of the constituencies in Bristol. Bristol was one of the towns which in 1948 was given one more seat than the Boundary Commission had recommended. Its electorate has not altered materially since then, but its average electorate per constituency is rather low—it is now only 52,878—and the proposed changes will increase it to 57,332. There will, of course, be a corresponding change in the county divisions. The changes, therefore, have a general effect, and, at the same time, they appear from the map to be geographically advantageous as they will produce county constituencies of a better and more compact shape.

The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) asked the reason for the transfer of Kingswood. All I can tell him in that connection is that the transfer is, obviously, necessary to give effect to this design of reorganisation. It is impossible to say why any particular piece of the puzzle is cut in a particular way.

Mr. Benn

The hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that the figure for the Bristol population was much the same as in 1948, but that the Boundary Commission had now come to the conclusion that it was too small. Is the hon. Gentleman not really admitting that the Boundary Commission has changed its views since 1948 and not that there has been any substantial change in population?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

The hon. Member has missed the point. In 1948, one seat was added to Bristol over and above what the Boundary Commissioners had recommended. The position, therefore, was that after 1948 the average of the constituencies in Bristol of only 52,000 was substantially below the national average or electoral quota. Therefore, on this review, it was in some way necessary to make a readjustment.

Mr. David Jones (The Hartlepools)

Is the Under-Secretary now saying that because Parliament, in 1948, decided that the average size of a constituency in Bristol should be less than the Boundary Commissioners had recommended, the Commissioners are now having their own back by taking that one away or adding two urban districts to it?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I am saying nothing of the kind.

As hon. Members know, certain proposals were made, and then an additional constituency was put into Bristol. The effect of that was to alter the proportion in a way contrary to the rules laid down for the Commissioners to work upon. It is the readjustment of that position which has caused this large number of alterations in a number of constituencies. The alterations are certainly in accordance with the rules. They produce results which make a better system of constituencies, and for these reasons I recommend them to the House.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. Ede

Once again, we have the illustration by the Government of the general argument that this is what the Boundary Commissioners have done and that that settles it. It seems to me that the Boundary Commissioners have not made a very good job of these constituencies, because Bristol, North-East will have an electorate of 63,272 and

Bristol, West will have 60,590 but Bristol, South will have only 49,968. Why, after all the jugglery with these wards and urban districts, a better result than this cannot be worked out, we have had no explanation.

Mr. Wilkins

It would be unfair for me to let this pass without making an explanation. Three estates which are being built in the Bristol, South constituency will add probably another 8,000 people in a comparatively short time.

Mr. Ede

That would have been taken into account at the places from which the people moved into the Bristol, South constituency. I do not think that that helps very much.

This is another case where an expanding city—on the statement of my hon. Friend—brings in two urban districts. One knows exactly what will happen. In a few years' time, there will be an application for an extension of the City of Bristol, and, in spite of what the Commissioners say, there can be no doubt that among the grounds that will be urged for including these two urban districts will be that they are already part of the Parliamentary City of Bristol.

This is again one of those eases where, quite needlessly, the Boundary Commissioners have upset a large area and in the end they have not produced a mathematical result that can be regarded as at all satisfactory. I shall advise my hon. Friends to vote against the Order.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 178.

Division No. 16.]	AYES	[8.20 p.m.
Aitken, W. T.	Bossom, Sir A. C.	Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Boyle, Sir Edward	Crouch, R. F.
Alport, C. J. M.	Braine, B. R.	Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)	Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Arbuthnot, John	Braithwaite, Sir Gurney	Davidson, Viscountess
Armstrong, C. W.	Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Deedes, W. F.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Brooman-White, R. C.	Digby, S. Wingfield
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Astor, Hon. J. J.	Bullard, D. G.	Donner, Sir P. W.
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.	Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.	Doughty, C. J. A.
Banks, Col. C.	Burden, F. F. A.	Drayson, G. B.
Barber, Anthony	Butcher, Sir Herbert	Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Barlow, Sir John	Carr, Robert	Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Baxter, Sir Beverley	Cary, Sir Robert	Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Channon, H.	Errington, Sir Eric
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Fell A.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Cole, Norman	Finlay, Graeme
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Colegate, W. A.	Fisher, Nigel
Bennett, William (Woodside)	Conant, Maj. Sir Roger	Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Cooper-Key, E. M.	Fletcher, Sir Walter (Bury)
Bishop, F. P.	Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Black, C. W.	Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C	Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Garner-Evans, E. H.	Longden, Gilbert	Russell, R. S.
Glover, D.	Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Godber, J. B.	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)	Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Gough, C. F. H.	McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.	Scott, R. Donald
Graham, Sir Fergus	Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Gridley, Sir Arnold	Maclay, Rt. Hon. John	Sharples, Maj. R. C.
Grimston Hon. John (St. Albans)	Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)	Shepherd, William
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesborough, W.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Harris, Reader (Heston)	Markham, Major Sir Frank	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)	Marlowe, A. A. H.	Spearman, A. C. M.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George	Marples, A. E.	Speir, R. M.
Hay, John		Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.	Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel	Maude, Angus	Stevens, Geoffrey
Heath Edward	Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Henderson, John (Catheart)	Medlicott, Brig. F.	Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Higgs, J. M. C.	Mellor, Sir John	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)	Molson, A. H. E.	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)	Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Summers, G. S.
Hirst, Geoffrey	Nabarro, G. D. N.	Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Holland-Martin, C. J	Neave, Airey	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Hollis, M. C.	Nicolsen, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Holt, A. F.	Nield, Basil (Chester)	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.	Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence	Nugent, G. R. H.	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)	O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)	Page, R. G.	Tilney, John
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)	Partridge, E.	Touche, Sir Gordon
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.	Turner, H. F. L.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.	Perkins, Sir Robert	Turton, R. H.
Hurd, A. R.	Peto, Brig. C. H. M.	Vane, W. M. F.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)	Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)	Pilkington, Capt R. A.	Vosper D. F.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.	Pitt, Miss E. M.	Wade, D. W.
Iremonger, T. L.	Powell, J. Enoch	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)	Profumo, J. D.	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)	Raikes, Sir Victor	Wall, Major Patrick
Kerby, Capt. H. B.	Ramsden, J. E.	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Kerr, H. W.	Rayner, Brig. R.	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Lambert, Hon. G.	Redmayne, M.	Wellwood, W.
Langford-Holt, J. A.	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Leather, E. H. C.	Remnant, Hon. P.	Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Renton, D. L. M.	Wills, G.
Leigh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)	Ridsdale, J. E.	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Linstead, Sir H. N.	Roberts, Peter (Heeley)	Wood, Hon. R.
Llewellyn, D. T.	Robson-Brown, W.	Woollam, John Victor
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.	Roper, Sir Harold	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
		Mr. Kaberry and Colonel Harrison.
NOES
Acland, Sir Richard	Cove, W. G.	Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Albu, A. H.	Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Hamilton, W. W.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)	Crossman, R. H. S.	Hannan, W.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Cullen, Mrs. A.	Hardy, E. A.
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)	Darling, George (Hillsborough)	Hargreaves, A.
Bacon, Miss Alice	Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Benson, G.	Davies, Harold (Leek)	Hastings, S.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)	Hayman, F. H.
Bing, G. H. C.	Deer, G.	Hobson, C. R.
Blenkinsop, A.	Dodds, N. N.	Holman, P.
Blyton, W. R.	Donnelly, D. L.	Holmes, Horace
Boardman, H.	Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)	Houghton, Douglas
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Hubbard, T. F.
Bowden, H. W.	Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth	Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Brockway, A. F.	Fienburgh, W.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Foot, M. M.	Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Burton, Miss F. E.	Forman, J. C.	Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Carmichael, J.	Freeman, Peter (Newport)	Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.	Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Champion, A. J.	Gibson, C. W.	Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Chapman, W. D.	Grey, C. F.	Johnson, James (Rugby)
Chetwynd, G. R.	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech
Clunie, J.	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Collick, P. H.	Griffiths, William (Exchange)	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Collins, V. J.	Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Keenan, W.

Kenyon, C.	Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Pannell, Charles	Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
King, Dr. H. M.	Pargiter, G. A.	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Lawson, G. M.	Parker, J.	Swingler, S. T.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Paton, J.	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Peart, T. F.	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Lindgren, G. S.	Plummer, Sir Leslie	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
MacColl, J. E.	Popplewell, E.	Thornton, E.
McInnes, J.	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)	Turner-Samuels, M.
McKay, John (Wallsend)	Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
McLeavy, F.	Probert, A. R.	Viant, S. P.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Proctor, W. T.	Wallace, H. W.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Pryde, D. J.	Warbey, W. N.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)	Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Mann, Mrs. Jean	Rhodes, H.	Weitzman, D.
Manuel, A. C.	Robens, Rt. Hon. A.	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)	Wells, William (Walsall)
Mellish, R. J.	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)	West, D. G.
Mikardo, Ian	Ross, William	Wheeldon, W. E.
Mitchison, G. R.	Royle, C.	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Moody, A. S.	Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Morley, R.	Short, E. W.	Wigg, George
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)	Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)	Skeffington, A. M.	Willey, F. T.
Moyle, A.	Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)	Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)
Mulley, F. W.	Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Nally, W.	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)	Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Oldfield, W. H.	Snow, J. W.	Yates, V. F.
Oswald, T.	Sorensen, R. W.	Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Owen, W. J.	Sparks, J. A.
Padley, W. E.	Steele, T.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
		Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Benn.

Resolved, That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Gloucestershire) Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Hampshire) Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Major Lloyd-George.]

8.29 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Morley (Southampton, Itchen)

In dealing with these recommendations, I want to sneak exclusively upon the recommendations which concern the two divisions in Southampton. We have had a good many criticisms today of the recommendations of the Boundary Commission. But the recommendations for Southampton are perhaps among the most unfortunate, the most ill-considered, of all the recommendations that the Boundary Commission has made.

They totally ignore natural boundaries. They ignore community interests. They ignore history and tradition. There runs down the middle of Southampton from north to south, dividing it into practically equal parts, a very broad road. That road is called by different names. One part is called The Avenue, and it is one of the finest avenues in England and Wales, as the Home Secretary well knows. Another part is called Above Bar and another High Street.

That road divides the town into two equal parts, not only from the point of view of size, but also historically. On the eastern side of the road is the older and more historic part of the town, which contains the oldest houses and the greater aggregation of working-class houses. On the western side of that broad road is the more modern part of the town, which contains the greater amount of new buildings and of residential suburbs.

When Southampton, in 1950, from being a two-Member constituency, as it had been for very many years, was divided into two separate constituencies, this broad road was made the dividing line. The constituency to the east was called the Itchen constituency and the one to the west was called the Test constituency, the names being given after the two rivers which flow through Southampton and debouch into Southampton Water.

Everybody was satisfied with that method of dividing the town into two constituencies. They thought that it was fair and equal, and that it maintained ancient traditions. The Commission proposes to take one ward, Portswood, from the Itchen constituency, and place it in the Test constituency. Portswood ward has no geographical or social relationship with the Test constituency. To go from Portswood to the Test constituency one has to pass through 1½ or almost 2 miles of common land. There is a big common in Southampton which separates Portswood from the Test constituency.

The nearest shopping centre in the Test constituency to Portswood ward is in Shirley High Street, and that is a good two miles away. The natural shopping centre for people in the Portswood ward is in the Itchen division. There is no community interest whatever between Portswood and Test.

The children in Portswood go to schools in the Itchen division, as they have done for many years. The parishioners go to churches in the Itchen division. There is one church in the Portswood ward, Highfield Church, which has a very long tradition. It has had a succession of eloquent and popular incumbents. It has exercised a good deal of influence over the people in the Ports-wood ward, and that church is a long distance away from any church in the Test division. From the geographical point of view, from the community point of view, there is no excuse whatever for putting the Portswood ward into the Test division.

The other suggestion made by the Boundary Commission is that a small ward, Swaythling ward, should be taken from the Test division and put into the Itchen division. The Swaythling ward is next to the Bassett ward. Only the width of a street separates the two wards. Up to a year ago they were the same ward for the purposes of municipal elections—St. Nicholas' ward.

The connection between Swaythling ward and Bassett ward is very close indeed. The children of the two wards go to the same school, the parishioners in the two wards attend the same churches. The old-age pensioners' federation which serves the two wards is called St. Nicholas' Old-Age Pensioners' Federation, after the former single ward existing a year ago. It is now proposed to separate Swaythling ward from its natural neighbour and transfer it from the Test division to the Itchen division.

What can be the reason for this quite unjustifiable interference with community interests, ancient traditions and political organisations? The reason given was that without this alteration, the Itchen division had a larger electorate than the Test division. Without the change, the Itchen division would have an electorate of 68,892 and the Test division an electorate of 64,562, the difference being 4,330. I submit that a difference of 4,330 in two constituencies, each over 60,000, is not sufficient to justify these radical and unpopular changes. In the debate yesterday we were informed that there are contiguous constituencies in London in one of which are 30,000 more electors than in the other, but the Boundary Commission did not propose to alter them.

If the proposed change is carried out the Itchen constituency will have 68,469 voters and the Test division 65,652 voters, a difference of 2,817. Instead of the difference of 4,420 there will be a difference of 2,817. The difference of the difference is only 1,603. Is it worth while disturbing all tradition and all past relations for the sake of making a difference in the voting strength of 1,603?

The extension of buildings in the Itchen area has almost come to an end, but the extension of building in the Test area is rapidly expanding. There are three very large council housing projects under way in the Test area. Many thousands of houses will be built in those estates, and many of the people who will occupy those houses when they are built will come from the more crowded streets of the Itchen area.

In three years' time, if no change had been made in the two constituencies, the electorate in the Test division would have been just as big as that in the Itchen division. If this change is carried out, with the completion of these big building projects in the Test area, in three or four years' time, the electorate there will be bigger than that in the Itchen area. What will happen then? Will the Portswood ward be put back into the Itchen division and the Swaythling ward transferred once more to the Test division?

I suggest that there is really no valid reason for making this change. The Southampton Borough Council passed a resolution objecting to it, and a very closely reasoned thesis was sent to the Commissioners by the Secretary and Agent of the Labour Party, asking for an inquiry into the change. So far as I know, the resolution of the borough council and the thesis of the Southampton Labour Party were never even acknowledged by the Commissioners. Certainly no inquiry was held.

Dr. Horace King (Southampton, Test)

I think that the representations of the borough council were heard by the Commission, but no public inquiry was held.

Mr. Morley

No public inquiry was held. I am not even sure that the recommendations of the borough council were considered by the Commission. At all events, no inquiry was held at which evidence could be given by either side.

I suggest that this is a case which the Minister could take into consideration, and in respect of which he could make a concession. If he referred the matter back to the Commission there would be very little delay. All that the Commission would have to do would be to put the Portswood ward back into the lichen division and the Swaythling ward back into the Test division, and everybody would be perfectly happy and contented. The whole thing could be done by the Commission in a matter of 10 minutes. The Home Secretary has not, so far, made any concession. I seriously hope that this will be the first.

8.43 p.m.

Dr. Horace King (Southampton, Test)

If I may be personal, I should first like to express my sorrow for the physical and mental burden which we are placing upon the Home Secretary, to whose distinguished father my father gave some 50 years of political loyalty. I hope it is a burden that we are placing upon him; that he meant what he said yesterday, and that he is prepared seriously to consider arguments which are put forward.

If we are just going through the motions of democracy; if the Government have decided that every recommendation of the Commission shall be accepted, and have instructed their supporters to vote against the rejection of any Order, it would be much more honourable if they had said so yesterday, so that we should not do what we are doing today, which, in the circumstances, can only hurt democracy and Parliament—and Parliament is much more important than any of us.

I ask the Home Secretary to assure us that the Government have not already decided to reject all the arguments that come before them today. If that is to happen, possibly the only glorious thing that will go down to history from this two-day debate will be the behaviour of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. J. J. Astor), who voted on the issue on which he was convinced and, in so doing, defied the Party Whips.

One other preliminary observation. The Report of the Boundary Commission says: The terms of Rule 6 gave us discretion to depart from the strict application of Rules 4 and 5 if in our view departure was desirable to meet special geographical considerations. We have used this discretion as widely as circumstances appeared to us to justify it. So it would be wrong to say that the Boundary Commissioners, in the Report presented to us, are the slaves of the Rules. If the case for accepting everything now before us was that they were tied hand and foot by the Rules which Parliament had laid down, there might indeed be a reason why they should go through unchallenged, but the whole of their work involved not only the application of the Rules but an application of discretion in the modification of these Rules in carrying out their instructions.

So far, what has worried me has been that whenever the Rules have been prayed against the Boundary Commissioners the Home Secretary has argued that that was where they were using their discretion, and if ever their lack of discretion has been argued against, then the Home Secretary has said that that was where they had been using the Rules. In any case, it ought to be declared today and made abundantly clear that Parliament is the supreme body in this matter, and that Parliament can override the Boundary Commission, even if it were a matter of interpreting the Rules and certainly in a matter of discretion.

It is very difficult for me to speak on a matter in which I have so obviously a personal interest. Frankly, I would not wish to be in this position, and I should have refrained from speaking if I did not believe that what is proposed is wrong and that I am one of the hon. Members of this House with enough local knowledge to show that it is wrong. If it were a purely personal matter, I think I have enough sense of humour to appreciate the irony of speaking at one's own obituary ceremony, or making a last appeal for clemency at a Trotsky trial, or composing a swan song. If it were a personal matter I should not have spoken in this debate at all.

To me the issues here are profound and serious. We have given the Boundary Commission tremendous power; I believe too much power. The "Economist" pointed out months ago that the Boundary Commission can make a General Election, can fix the date of a General Election and can decide the structure of the next Parliament and the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) said that much more eloquently yesterday than I can do today.

Unlike any law court the appeals against it so far have been heard not by another body but by itself. Unlike any law court no reasons have so far been given not even in this debate for its refusal to accept the appeals which various bodies have made against it. All this being so and its members being British human beings and political animals it is of vital importance that any proposals which the Commission makes should be clearly, reasonably and openly justified.

If this House makes a purely party decision on each contested proposal, I shall be even more alarmed. In the corrupt days of this Parliament, all election issues were settled by the House, and that reached its worst stage in the 18th century, when even a man who had tried not to stand for Parliament was elected by a corrupt majority in one Parliament, and, when the other party took power, was unseated and accused of corrupt practices.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris)

I hope that this is a preamble to the specific Order with which we are now dealing.

Dr. King

It is, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I am pleading with the House of Commons to reject the Order.

It would be a bad thing if this Order, like each of the others so far, should go through the House merely with the Government in one Lobby and the Opposition in the other. This being so, the responsibility of the Home Secretary, who alone can decide what is to happen to the appeal which I am making and whether it shall be left to the arbitrament of party politics, becomes, in some ways, almost as grave as the prerogative which he exercises in another capacity as Home Secretary.

Whereas most of the boundary changes in Hampshire have a case—and I am not competent to express exact judgment on the merits of each proposed change in Hampshire—a case which may not universally be accepted, and one sometimes now modified in detail in answer to the representations of Hampshire local government bodies, but a case usually of merit and validity which can be appreciated even by those who do not accept it, I venture to say that not a soul in Southampton can justify on any grounds that ought to weigh with neutral, impartial Commissioners the proposed changes in Southampton boundaries.

Our local newspaper, the "Southampton Echo," is one of the finest in the country. Hon. Members may not believe me when I say that I have such a regard for the political integrity of this local newspaper that, had it commented favourably upon or even endorsed the Commissioners' proposals, I should not have spoken against them. As it is, that newspaper could only make the comment on the proposed boundary changes which was that they made one division more homogeneous. It then went on to say that the changes would obviously promote and provoke a party fight.

The word "homogeneous" means "of the same kind." It is true that the proposals place three middle-class wards of Southampton all in the same division. Therefore, they concentrate the strength of one political party in one division so as to give it its greatest political weight. But Southampton is by no means divided into homogeneous units, a middle-class half town and a working-class half town. In both divisions there is a preponderance of working-class people. In any case, that kind of homogeneity is, I am quite certain, something which ought to be and has been excluded from the minds of the Boundary Commissioners. The search for social homogeneity must be left to countries which practise it, and which call it gerrymandering.

The Southampton Borough Council protested against the proposal, as my hon. Friend has said, but I will be quite frank and say that the borough council was divided on whether or not it should so protest against them. It may be that that consideration has weighed in the minds of the Boundary Commissioners.

But Southampton Borough Council is and has been for the whole of this century, and for most of the last century, intensely political conscious, and that political interference with local government was not invented by the Labour Party. Indeed, at the turn of the last century an ancient and sick alderman of Southampton was taken in a coach to the civic centre to register a party vote, for which bit of party loyalty he gave his life 24 hours later; and Southampton has not changed since then.

When the borough's attitude towards the proposals had to be debated, and in spite of the reasoned case put up against the proposals in the borough council, the Conservative majority voted against any representations being made. They would not have been human and Southamptonian if they had not. They knew, for example, that one of their prospective Parliamentary candidates said, immediately the proposals became known, that one of the constituencies would become Tory. That was an indiscretion and a piece of wishful thinking to which I do not subscribe and which has not been repeated.

Nevertheless, the borough council made a reasoned non-party case to the Commissioners against the proposals, and if this case has been rejected it can only be because the Commissioners have noted that the council was not unanimous about it, and were unaware of Southampton's long political maturity and the history of the civic divisions. In the same way, the Commissioners seem to be unaware of the physical details of the town which they propose to carve up.

First, let us clear away the matter over which there is no controversy. That is the inclusion of new bits of Southampton into the two Parliamentary divisions. Even here, if one accepted the Commission's obsession with numbers, one might easily argue—I would not—that the Commission ought to have added some of these bits to the Eastleigh division, a small one of 48,000. There is no argument about including the bits of the new Southampton borough into the two divisions. Having added those bits to Southampton, the Commissioners were faced with the fact that one of the Southampton divisions was 4,400 bigger than the other.

I suggest to the Home Secretary that to worry to this extent about mathematical accuracy is going too far. Both constituencies, anyway, are over 65,000. They are both huge, and very big constituencies for the Commissioners to swallow, considering that the Commissioners have made three new small ones, Eastleigh with 47,000, Winchester with 47,500 and Petersfield with 50,000. To accept constituencies, each of which is over 10,000 more than Eastleigh, Winchester, Basingstoke, New Forest and Petersfield, and then to alter one of these two big ones merely to reduce it by 1,500, is straining at a gnat and swallowing about half a dozen Hampshire hogs. Remember that the general proposals leave Walthamstow, West with 41,000, Leyton with 76,000 and Edmonton with 72,000.

As a matter of fact, Test, the smaller constituency, is growing year by year. This is not to be taken as coming from one of the two Members for the constituency, but from the Commissioners' own Reports. They give the figures for 1953 as: Itchen, 68,469; Test, 65,652; and, for 1954: Itchen, 67,341; Test, 66,129. In one year, one has grown by 1,000 and the other has shrunk by 1,000. There is a 2,000 difference year by year so that, by 1956 or 1957, they will be level and the smaller one will be growing bigger year by year.

Most of the new houses in Southampton have been built in Test. The Itchen housing development is practically complete, and the houses in Test have been filled from the overcrowded dwellings in Itchen and Test. There is a steady population shift over to Test. If left alone, the present difference of 4,500 between the two constituencies will shrink to nothing within two or three years; so that even the mathematical case for this change falls to the ground.

To achieve a temporary balancing of the numbers, what have the Commissioners proposed? In brief, they propose to switch 15,429 electors; about 8,500 Itchen electors to the Test division, and about 7,000 Test electors to lichen. They propose to make the bigger division smaller by 1,500 and the smaller one larger by 1,500 for a couple of years—indeed, for only one year. Soon, the proposed switch will itself prove to have made the disparity between the two constituencies even larger because the one which they are at the moment making bigger is the one which, eventually, will, automatically, be larger.

We should remember, as a background to what I have said, that the Government, and the Boundary Commissioners themselves, are arguing, "We do not want to touch this problem again for 10 or 15 years." This hyper-sensitiveness to mathematical equality might be defended as mere shortsighted levelling up if the moving of 15,000 electors had any geographical or community justification. If the fiddling about with the dividing line between the two parts of Southampton is something that should have been done before, some weight might be given to it: but what are the facts?

The present division of Southampton into two constituencies was made in 1948. It was a division which was politically disadvantageous to the party to which I belong, but we made no protest or objection, because it seemed to be the fairest way of dividing Southampton. No political party opposed it, nor did any civic group oppose the division as then drawn. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley) has many virtues, but he cannot have foreseen this problem in 1948. His words, therefore, should be above all suspicion. In the debate here in 1948 he said: The present division is a natural one. A long street runs through the middle of Southampton"— Southamptonians will not readily forgive him calling the glorious Avenue a street. He went on: it is two or three miles long, and the area falls roughly into two constituencies, one on the Test side of the street and the other on the Itchen side. It would be most complicated to divide the area in any other way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1948; Vol. 450, c. 109.] The new proposals tear up this natural boundary. To include in the Test division its new ward, the boundary leaps over the vast Southampton common and, instead, follows narrow streets and cuts through housing districts. To include in the Itchen division its new ward the proposed boundary slices through the middle of a housing estate, with half the streets in one division and half in the other, and next-door neighbours are divided even more than most neighbours are divided.

Under the present boundary arrangement the only unsatisfactory point at which the two divisions meet is one where there are streets coming close to each other. That part of the present boundary is the only thing that remains in the new proposed boundaries. In the graphic words of one objector to the boundary: The proposed boundary does not follow any natural or geographical landmarks, but runs south, west, north, east, south, west, north, east, and, finally south. So much for geography. But community interest follows geography. Portswood ward is the shopping centre for a large number of those in the Itchen constituency. It is proposed to leave that out of the Itchen division and to take it away from the people who shop there. Portswood citizens are cut off from the rest of their new constituency by a vast stretch of common, plus the Avenue. The shopping, the church, school, entertainment, and social interests of the ward are closely bound up with those of neighbouring wards from whom it is proposed that it should be severed.

If that is true of the bit that is to be lopped off the Itchen, the other proposal to lop a bit off the Test is even more fantastic. The wards of Swaythling and Bassett consist largely of a great council house estate, one of the earliest in Southampton. It is a 30-year old community with a multiplicity of community interests. It is only in the last few months that, for borough council election purposes, it has been divided because it had become so vast. Even for local government purposes this division is arbitrary and clumsy.

But, for Parliamentary purposes, to cut across this great community is quite untenable. The proposal does, indeed, cut into two the housing estate, with fantastic next-door divisions, into different constituencies—and this is a community with the same outlook, the same great churches, the same great chapel and the same mighty school system.

Even if it had been geographically defensible, the cut would have been socially wrong. And even if it was necessary to alter the mathematical structure of the two constituencies, there were other ways of altering the proposed boundary, at either end of the dividing line. None of them would have been so satisfactory as leaving it alone, but any other arrangement of wards on the boundary line would have been more geographically defensible than the present proposal.

I would hope that the Minister has studied the map which accompanies the Boundary Commission's proposals. The arbitrary nature of the boundary must strike anybody who looks at the map for the first time, even if he is a stranger to the town. I know that any Southampton citizen who studies the proposed changes and who compares them, on the one hand, with any other switching of wards and, on the other hand, with leaving the present boundary alone, would agree that the moving of about 17,000 electors in this way to reduce the one division by 1,500 is indefensible.

After all, we are not just moving pawns on a chess board. Constituencies mean something to Britain. They are not just mathematical carve-ups. We were changed in Southampton, in 1948, to a two-Member constituency. We were happy as we were. The old system had its virtues. But when we were divided, we imagined that we were divided for some purpose and that when we became two constituencies those constituencies had a meaning. They have a meaning now. They have taken shape. Each has its own personal contacts with its Member, with its prospective candidate and its political organisations. We did not ask for any change. Now that the change is made, Southampton has built some of its political life around it. Test is Test, and Itchen is Itchen, and both have a meaning.

If we are merely going to divide group of years by group of years for mathematical reasons, we might as well divide Southampton into Southampton A and B and make a mathematical adjustment each time we have a new electoral register. I believe that change for mere mathematical sake is bad, and it runs counter to everything that the Commissioners have done in the rest of Hampshire. No Southampton citizen will be aggrieved if his portion of the Member of Parliament is one-1/65,000th rather than 1/66,000th. But he will be aggrieved and angry if he is to be chopped and changed about by an ephemeral mathematical arrangement whose validity begins to disappear the moment it is created.

Democracy is on trial in this country, and the workers of Southampton have faith in democracy. They are uneasy at the moment. If anyone ought to be, like Caesar's wife, above suspicion—and remember, so far as we know, Caesar's wife was not guilty—it is the Boundary Commission, entrusted with the far-reaching powers that we have given it.

I demand tonight that we have from the Minister the Boundary Commissioners' reasons, which are not yet apparent to any citizen in Southampton, for the proposed change—the reasons why, making such a ticklish adjustment of the boundaries inside Southampton, they did not hold a public inquiry, and the reasons why they turned down the case which was laid before them logically and with a wealth of detail by the clerk of the town council.

If I may end by again being personal, I would say that I must be frank: few Members of my age have gone about as much as I have preaching the glories of the British democratic system and the single-mindedness of all that makes up the democratic machine of this country, whatever the faults of the party politicians who use it. I think that this system faces a crucial test when we are altering the democratic system. It should be felt that whatever is done is right, whatever the party consequences.

It is because I cannot see any justification for the way in which the Commissioners have made the changes in Southampton that I say with regret that my faith in the capacity of the Commissioners to match up to their high responsibilities in their proposals for Southampton has been shaken. I hope that it will be possible to remove that lack of faith by the explanation of this Order which we are to hear from the Home Secretary.

9.11 p.m.

Colonel O. E. Crosthwaite-Eyre (New Forest)

I live just outside Southampton, but I cannot speak with either the force or the authority of the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley) or the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King). They have made a certain play with the natural division of Southampton from north to south, but if anyone looks at the map which has been published in accordance with the Boundary Commission's Report he will see that the new boundaries accord far more with that north-south principle than do the present boundaries. In fact, under the redistribution, the constituency comes more into line with what both hon. Members said would be the proper division.

I should not have risen except for one or two other remarks made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. He went right back into history until you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, asked him what that had to do with Southampton. He referred to rotten boroughs and various other aspects of local history. I should likes to ask him this: when he speaks about the Parliamentary candidate for his division, which he thinks is going to be Tory, is he certain that he is being impartial him self? It may be that he is, and I hope he is. I hope that when he made his speech he had not in his mind the thought that he might fight the next General Election and find himself a loser. If so, it is perfectly fair for him to throw these taunts at a Conservative Parliamentary candidate, but if not—

Dr. King

The hon. and gallant Member accuses me of throwing taunts at a political candidate. I simply pointed out that the reactions of the local government representatives in Southampton were naturally conditioned by the political advantage involved, and that there was such a political advantage was declared not by myself but by the Tory candidate.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

No doubt I am to take it from what the hon. Member said that he will be fighting the Test division in the next General Election.

Dr. King

That has nothing to do with it.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

That is very interesting. In the first place, then, the speech which the hon. Member has made was attacking the Conservative candidate and, secondly, it was his apologia pro vita sua in this House.

Dr. King

I said it better than the hop. and gallant Gentleman has said it. I said it was my obituary notice.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

The hon. Member said it was his obituary notice? What did the hon. Member say?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. and gallant Member should address the Chair.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

I was making the point that when the hon. Member for Southampton, Test talked about the long political maturity of Southampton he was making a case which was based only on what he himself felt to be correct. The only point I wished to make was that, as was said in 1948, the Boundary Commission had said that the north-south line should be established in Southampton. That will be established even more under this present redistribution, and I hope that we shall accept it.

Mr. Morley

How can the north-south line be more firmly established if Ports-wood, which is well to the east of the Avenue, is placed in the Test division? Surely that is going away from the north-south line?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

As I understand it, and particularly from what has been said by both hon. Members opposite, the whole question was based on the Avenue, which as they know, runs from the docks roughly as far as the Common. That has been accepted by 'both political parties as the north-south line. I think I am right in saying that that principle is even more reinforced by the present decision.

Mr. Morley

That is quite wrong.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

If I am wrong, I can only apologise, but I have the map here and it would appear to be as I have said. I went to the Library this evening and checked both lines, the one in 1948 and the one which is now proposed. Basing Southampton on the north-south principle, this present redistribution is far more effective than the previous one. That is my opinion after looking at the map, and I can only give my opinion.

Dr. King

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain how a new division which adds a mighty bulge one way, and another mighty bulge another way, can make the north-south line more precise?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

I can only give my own opinion. From looking at the maps in the Library—which any hon. Member can do—and judging both lines, I should say that the north-south principle in Southampton is far more confirmed by the present distribution than was the case in 1948.

Mr. Morley

That is quite wrong.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

I may be wrong, but I can only go on what I have seen on the maps, and any hon. Member is entitled to judge for himself.

I wish to ask the Home Secretary a question. He had placed before him a new constituency for Hampshire. In this draft Order he has accepted what I would call a horseshoe ring round Southampton itself. If we take the full arc, the constituency must stretch for about 30 miles, but I think hon. Members opposite would agree that, at the most, it is only four or five miles wide, certainly not more. That is a most curious decision. I know it to be one put by the county council to the Boundary Commission.

Mr. Speaker will remember that in the original proposals we were to have a block constituency based on Romsey and Eastleigh. That was to be a semi-urban and semi-agricultural community, but it was contiguous. It was a complete form. The division now proposed has, I think, a very loose entity, stretching from Hamble on the east, down almost to Marchwood on the west.

I cannot see the purpose of that division. It is neither industrial nor agricultural. It has no centre. I do not know what the hon. Member for the Test division would think of it, but it seems to me to be an excrescence on Hampshire political life. There may be a good reason for it, but I have no idea what it is. I know that the Boundary Commission put up first the idea of Eastleigh and Romsey, but it has been changed, at the request of the county council, to this horseshoe. I hope that my right hon. and gallant Friend can tell the House for what reason he accepted this change from the original suggestion.

Dr. King

The district that the hon. and gallant Member is worried about is surely urban.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

Not all of it. Part of it comes from my own con- stituency, and particularly in the Netley Marsh area. I would call that agricultural.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Peter Smithers (Winchester)

The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King) said that a good many people in Southampton were worried about the findings of the Boundary Commission, and that it was important for the standing of that Commission to be above suspicion. With that, I heartily agree. I think that if people in Southampton look at the Order as a whole, any misgivings which they may have will be removed. I am sure that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test would rejoice if that were so.

I do not propose to enter into the merits and demerits of the two Southampton divisions. Whatever may be the political result of the new arrangement, I am not concerned in it. But if somebody considers that there is ground for dissatisfaction politically with regard to that part of the Order, I beg of them to look at the half of the Order which refers to the county.

What was the history of the county proposals? First, the Commission came forward with a scheme which, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) has said, created in Hampshire the new seat which we very badly need, and which ought to have been created in the last redistribution. That seat consisted partly of Romsey and the country area around it, and partly of Eastleigh. The county council, as my hon. and gallant Friend has said, then came forward with alternative proposals.

It is well known in Hampshire, I think, that those alternative proposals were strongly supported by the small number of Socialists on the county council. They were vigorously endorsed by the Eastleigh Borough Council, which is, of course, a Socialist body, and they were thoroughly acceptable to Socialists in the area. I do not complain of that; I am not accusing anybody of doing anything improper. In fact, they evidently did the right thing, because the county council, although a Conservative body, accepted these proposals and the Boundary Commission accepted them too, so that their judgment in this matter was fully justified.

That ought to remove any doubt or suspicion with regard to the Southampton proposal that there is the least question of prejudice or colour of politics about the Boundary Commission's doings.

Dr. King

I know the hon. Member so well that I know he would not want to commit any inaccurate statement. He has mentioned that the small group of Socialists on the Hampshire County Council supported enthusiastically the county council's proposal. The proposals of the county council were made by a finance committee on which sits no Socialist member. I assure the hon. Gentleman that not a single Socialist on the Hampshire County Council had anything whatever to do with the county council's objections to the Boundary Commission's original proposals.

Mr. Smithers

That strengthens my argument; I am not complaining. Had Socialist members been on the finance committee, I should have been delighted if they had supported the proposals. AH that I am trying to do is to point out that, taken as a whole, the Older betrays no evidence whatever of political partiality.

As a candidate, and then as; a Member of Parliament, I have for eight years represented, or purposed to represent, 20,000 electors in the Borough of Eastleigh and a lot of people in some of the villages nearby, and I am now to lose them. I should like to take this opportunity of putting on record that although I anticipated that not all of those people in Eastleigh would regularly vote for me, nevertheless during the time I represented them I had nothing but kindness and courtesy and the greatest help from the local authority, though not all its members were by any means; Conservatives. I only recall one occasion when I had a thoroughly offensive thing said to me in the course of my political work, and that was by a newcomer to the borough.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Ede

I want, first, to raise with the Home Secretary a technical point with regard to the Order. There were three sets of proposals for the County of Southampton—that is the official name for Hampshire. The first dealt with a proposal that there should be new constituencies called Basingstoke. New Forest, Eastleigh, Petersfield, Romsey, and Winchester. That was a self-contained proposal.

There was another proposal, dealing with three divisions of Portsmouth, which again was self-contained. There was a third set of proposals relating to the two seats in Southampton. Each of those three groups is quite self-contained. One can be in favour of two, although against one, or the other way round. Generally speaking, I do not think that there is any other instance in this group of Orders where the proposals are grouped so that one has self-contained proposals that are linked with other self-contained proposals.

If we take the county divisions, once a change is suggested all the groups are included. If we touch one of the Portsmouth divisions, the other two are involved. If we touch one of the Southampton divisions, something has to happen to the other. In these three separate decisions there is no influence of one on the other. It is desirable, if we are to go in for series of Orders, that each should represent a self-contained proposal so that people can vote on a clear issue.

I am grateful to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for the fact that in every other case he has followed the course that I have suggested. Here one can be in favour of both the first sets, the county set and the Portsmouth set, and against the Southampton set. But to express one's opposition to the Southampton set, one has to vote against the whole Order, which would include two sets of proposals of which one might be in favour. I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to note the point that I have made so that on a future occasion it may be noted in the Home Office that it is desirable that these sets of proposals should be kept self-contained and not mixed, as in this case.

From my hon. Friends who represent the two divisions of Southampton we had a most penetrating analysis of the division that has been made. Apparently this Order is partly caused by a revision of the boundaries of the County Borough of Southampton, because the wards are described as those defined by an Order dated 20th January, 1954.

If one adds up the numbers on the 1953 Parliamentary Register, as set out by the Registrar-General, one finds there were 130,016, but of course the two divisions that are now proposed to be made have an electorate of about 134,000. So obviously about 3,000 electors have been recently introduced into the borough.

Anyone who knows Southampton—and I imagine most of us have been through it at one time or another, and I have spent some time in it at various periods in the past—knows that there is this clear division. On the main road in, the Common and the Avenue are well marked features of the approach to Southampton. In fact they make it one of the most delightful approaches from the landward side to a seaport that we have anywhere in the country. Clearly, if that was about the centre of the population of the borough, it would make a well defined and recognisable boundary between the two constituencies.

What I understand has happened is that a ward which is on one side of the Common had been linked with a constituency from the remainder of which it is separated by the whole of the Common. That, I think, is the way that this would strike an observer seeing the position for the first time.

This destroys the social unities in the borough. The churches, schools, and the various public services, around which community life centres, will in some cases have been divorced from a substantial part of the population which they serve. The voluntary social organisations which do so much to make a community life, especially inside a large borough, which enable one to find where the villages are inside a great conglomeration of people, are being split between these two divisions.

I cannot think that this is a wise course for the Commission to have followed. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will be able to ask the Commissioners to submit a further scheme for Southampton in which the social organisations of this important seaport will be recognised so that the two communities which, by this natural division which exist in the borough, ought to be recognised will continue to be recognised in the Parliamentary representation of the borough.

Portsmouth is placed in Appendix D of the Report. That merely deals with some slight boundary adjustments between wards. With regard to the county, although I do not accept altogether what the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Smithers) has said, I think that that also is a proposal to which we need offer no objection.

It may interest the hon. Gentleman to know that when the Nine Elms Works brought this great population into the neighbourhood of Winchester—into Eastleigh—it took a fair number of men whom I had taught when I was a pupil teacher at Lavender Hill. I once went to a meeting in the constituency, where I observed "They tell me that this place is called Battersea-on-Solent", and it turned out that both the chairman of the meeting and the secretary who invited me had gone to the school in which I had been apprenticed.

Mr. Smithers

Will the right hon. Member allow me to add that I feel it is very fortunate that the community which is so young, and which he remembers so kindly, which has now come of age, and which will give its name to the constituency, has developed well and deserves what it is getting from the Boundary Commission?

9.36 p.m.

Major Lloyd-George

The debate on this Order has, not unnaturally, centred round Southampton to a very large extent. Like the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I know Southampton and like it. I agree with him entirely that the approach to the harbour is one of the finest we have, though I am not at all sure that I always appreciated it, because it led to somewhere else.

While the discussion, not unnaturally, has ranged around Southampton, this draft Order deals with the creation of a new constituency in Hampshire. That, I think, will have to be the answer to the right hon. Member, who hoped that next time we could put the proposals into three separate blocks so that hon. Members could express their views separately. I am informed that the difficulty is that practically all the changes are connected. That is why they come in together. I appreciate that the point made by the right hon. Member is one of substance.

Mr. Ede

The principle I enunciated is the one which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has followed generally, that self-contained proposals should be the subject of a separate Order.

Major Lloyd-George

Oh, yes, but in this case, as it happens, they are all affected. The Order creates a new constituency in Hampshire. The electorate of the County of Hampshire has increased by over 20,000 between 1946 and 1953. On that basis, it is entitled to one more seat. Taking the 1953 electorate, which was 812,000, the existing 13 seats had an average of 62,400 voters. The additional seat would make 14 and bring down the average electorate to 58,000.

The constituencies from which this new constituency would be formed have areas with rather high electorates. The new constituency is that of Eastleigh, which is to be created from parts of the existing Winchester, New Forest and Petersfield constituencies. It will consist of the Borough of Eastleigh, part of the Romsey and Stockbridge rural district, which is now in the Winchester constituency, two parishes from the New Forest rural district and part of the rural district of Winchester, which is now in the Peters-field constituency. Consequently, the part of the rural district of Romsey and Stock-bridge which is now in the Basingstoke constituency will be transferred to Winchester. The Order makes minor adjustments—that is why I say it overlaps—between the three Portsmouth constituencies and Petersfield to bring them into line with recently altered ward and local government boundaries.

Whatever may be said about the recommendations of the Commission for South-

ampton, it is quite obvious that it was right when it said that there was no unanimity. One had only to listen to the short debate we have had to appreciate that. Obviously, there was no unanimity. Therefore, the Commission—as is its duty—must come to the best conclusion it can. That is why it has put this proposal forward.

It is not purely a matter of figures, as was suggested by the hon. Members for Southampton, Test (Dr. King) and Itchen (Mr. Morley). As both hon. Members said, there has been an addition to the boundaries of the boroughs, and this addition had to be brought within the Parliamentary boundaries. I am informed that there would have been an even greater disparity without this alteration. In addition, the boundaries were altered to conform with the recently altered ward boundaries. In a case like this, if a unanimous opinion exists in certain areas which are affected it will obviously carry weight with the Commission, but where there is no unanimity the Commission has to be left to do the best it can in view of the existing circumstances.

Eastleigh is a comparatively small constituency at present, but I understand that it is still developing, and I have no doubt that the Commission took into account the future possibilities for housing there. In the circumstances, I think we should agree to the Motion.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 215, Noes 173.

Division No. 17.]	AYES	[9.42 p.m.
Aitken, W. T.	Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)	Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S)
Alport, C. J. M.	Braithwaite, Sir Gurney	Davidson, Viscountess
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J	Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Deedes, W. F.
Arbuthnot, John	Brooman-White, R. C.	Digby, S. Wingfield
Armstrong, C. W.	Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Bullard, D. G.	Donner, Sir P. W.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.	Doughty, C. J. A.
Astor, Hon. J. J.	Burden, F. F. A.	Drayson, G. B.
Banks, Col. C.	Butcher, Sir Herbert	Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Barber, Anthony	Carr, Robert	Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Barlow, Sir John	Cary, Sir Robert	Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Baxter, Sir Beverley	Channon, H.	Elliott, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Clarka, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Errington, Sir Eric
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Cole, Norman	Fell, A.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Colegate, W. A.	Finlay, Graeme
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Conant, Maj. Sir Roger	Fisher, Nigel
Bennett, William (Woodside)	Cooper-Key, E. M.	Fleetwood-Hesketh, R F
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Bishop, F. P.	Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Black, C. W.	Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Fort, R.
Bossom, Sir A. C.	Crouch, R. F.	Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D (Pollok)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Garner-Evans, E. H.
Braine, B. R.	Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)	Glover, D.
Godber, J B.	Longden, Gilbert	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A	Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.	Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Gough, C. F. H.	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W
Graham, Sir Fergus	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R
Graham, Sir Arnold	McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S	Sharples, Maj. R. C.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)	Shepherd, William
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Maclay, Rt. Hon. John	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Maitland, Cmdr J. F. W. (Horncastle)	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Harris, Reader (Heston)	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald	Spearman, A. C. M
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)	Markham, Major Sir Frank	Speir, R. M.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George	Marlowe, A. A. H.	Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S)
Hay, John	Marples, A. E.	Stevens, Geoffrey
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.	Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel	Maude, Angus	Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Heath, Edward	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)	Medlicott, Brig. F	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S)
Higgs, J. M. C.	Mellor, Sir John	Summers, G. S.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)	Molson, A. H. E.	Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)	Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Nabarro, G. D. N.	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Hirst, Geoffrey	Neave, Airey	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Holland-Martin, C. J	Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Hollis, M. C.	Nield, Basil (Chester)	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W)
Holt, A. F.	Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.	Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.	Nugent, G. R. H.	Tilney, John
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence	O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)	Touche, Sir Gordon
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)	Page, R. G.	Turner, H. F. L.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)	Partridge, E.	Turton, R. H.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.	Vane, W. M. F.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, H.)	Perkins, Sir Robert	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K
Hughes Haiku, Vice-Admiral J.	Peto, Brig. C. H. M.	Vosper, D. F.
Hurd, A. R.	Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Wade, D. W.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)	Pilkington, Capt. R. A.	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)	Pitt, Miss E. M.	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.	Powell, J. Enoch	Walker-Smith, D. C
Iremonger, T. L.	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)	Wall, Major Patrick
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Profumo, J. D.	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)	Raikes, Sir Victor	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)	Rayner, Brig. R.
Kaberry, D.	Redmayne, M.	Wellwood, W.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Kerr, H. W.	Remnant, Hon. P.	Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Langford-Holt, J. A.	Ridsdale, J. E.	Wills, G.
Leather, E. H. C.	Roberts, Peter (Heeley)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Linstead, Sir H. N.	Robson-Brown, W.	Wood, Hon. R.
Llewellyn, D. T.	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)	Woollam, John Victor
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)	Roller, Sir Harold
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Lockwood. Lt.-Col. J. C.	Russell, R. S	Mr. Legh and Mr. Robert Allan.
NOES
Acland, Sir Richard	Crossman, R. H. S.	Hobson, C. R.
Albu, A. H.	Cullen, Mrs. A.	Holman, P.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)	Darling, George (Hillsborough)	Holmes, Horace
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	Houghton, Douglas
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)	Davies, Harold (Leek)	Hubbard, T. F.
Bacon, Miss Alice	Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood	Deer, G.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Dodds, N. N.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Bing, G. H. C.	Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)	Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Blenkinsop, A.	Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Blyton, W. R.	Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)	Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Boardman, H.	Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Fienburgh, W.	Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Bowden, H. W.	Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth	Foot, M. M.	Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Brockway, A. F.	Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Johnson, James (Rugby)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Freeman, Peter (Newport)	Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.	Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Burton, Miss F. E.	Gibson, C. W	Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Grey, C. F.	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Carmichael, J.	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Keenan, W.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Griffiths, William (Exchange)	Kenyon, C.
Champion, A. J.	Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Chapman, W. D.	Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)	Lawson, G. M.
Chetwynd, G. R.	Hamilton, W. W.	Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Clunie, J.	Hannan, W.	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Collins, V. J.	Hargreaves, A.	Lewis, Arthur
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)	Lindgren, G. S.
Cove, W. G.	Hastings, S.	MacColl, J. E.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Hayman, F. H.	McKay, John (Wallsend)

McLeavy, F	Popplewell, E.	Swingler, S. T.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Probert, A. R.	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Mann, Mrs. Jean	Proctor, W. T.	Thornton, E.
Manuel, A. C.	Pryde, D. J.	Turner-Samuels, M
Marquand, Rt. Hon H A	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)	Viant, S. P.
Mayhew, C. P.	Rhodes, H.	Wallace, H. W.
Mellish, R. J.	Robens, Rt. Hon. A.	Warbey, W. N.
Mikardo, Ian	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)	Weitzman, D.
Mitchison, G. R.	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Moody, A. S.	Ross William	Wells, William (Walsall)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W)	Royle, C.	West, D. G.
Moyle, A.	Shackleton, E. A. A.	Wheeldon, W. E.
Mulley, F. W.	Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Nally, W.	Short, E. W.	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)	Wigg, George
O'Brien, T.	Skeffington, A. M.	Wilkins, W. A.
Oldfield, W. H	Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)	Willey, F. T
Oswald, T.	Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)	Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)
Owen, W. J.	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Padley, W. E.	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)	Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)	Snow, J. W.	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Pannell, Charles	Sorensen, R. W	Yates, V. F.
Pargiter, G. A.	Sparks, J. A.	Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Parker, J.	Steele, T.
Paton, J.	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Peart, T. F.	Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.	Mr. Morley and Dr. King.
Plummer, Sir Leslie	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Hampshire) Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November. 1954, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Hertfordshire) Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Major Lloyd-George.]

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith (Hertford)

I do not intend to detain the House for very long as this Motion, at any rate in this House, is a non-controversial one. The absence of controversy, however, does not necessarily connote an absence of regret. The broad effect of this Order is to create a new Parliamentary constituency in the County of Hertfordshire which is, of course, a natural result of the increased population which has come into the county and of the establishment there of new towns.

The creation of these new divisions makes substantial changes in the eastern part of the county, about which I am most qualified to speak. The increase of population, as it affects my own constituency, can be seen from the figures. In 1935, there were only 52,000 electors, in 1945 there were 65,000, and now there are about 70,000.

The changes take two principal forms. In the first place, certain villages in the Hertford rural district are lost to the constituency, but as a compensation for that certain other villages from another rural district, the Braughing rural district, are added to the constituency. There is a special compensation in that in the sense that it means that the Member for this constituency will, after the redistribution, have the advantage of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary as a constituent, and so, albeit he has not redistributed his own constituency in conformity with the Rules, he has shown his good faith by redistributing himself.

The other more serious change is the loss of the ancient and historic Borough of Hertford from the constituency in which it is at present. The detachment of the county town from the other towns in East Hertfordshire, with which it has been associated for three quarters of a century, is necessarily a sad as well as a significant moment.

Before the Reform Act, the Borough of Hertford had two Members of its own, and continued to have borough representation in Parliament right up to the 1880s. Indeed, Mr. Balfour first came into this House as a Member for the borough of Hertford, in 1874. His biographer said that he had drifted into the arena unopposed, with merely an election address, one speech and a few personal calls. It is recorded that the one speech gave him a great deal of difficulty.

Since the 1880s, the Borough of Hertford has been part of the East Hertfordshire constituency, from which it is now to be severed by this new major change. Such a change necessarily involves the sundering of many links among those accustomed to work together. It will be keenly felt, not only in the borough but in those towns and villages with which it has been politically associated for so long. The logic of arithmetic and of numbers prevents me from opposing the Motion, but it does not prevent me from recording the regret which I naturally and sincerely feel.

Mr. Ede

The epitaphs distributed by the Chairman of the 1922 Committee over the various Tory organisations at present existing in Hertfordshire will, I have no doubt, become as historic as the speech which gave Mr. Balfour so much difficulty. If the hon. Member will persevere, and will not annoy the Chief Whip, as he has done by making a speech and so delaying the proceedings, he might even some day be invited to cross the Gangway.

Resolved, That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Hertfordshire) Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (North Kent) Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Major Lloyd-George.]

9.57 p.m.

Sir R. Acland

I hope that the House will bear with me on this Order. I have no criticism to make of the greater part of its effect, but I have a very strong protest to make in so far as the Order affects the urban district of Swanscombe, which consists of the little township of Swanscombe and the neighbouring township of Greenhithe.

These towns deserve the sympathy of the House, for two reasons. The first is that the citizens of Swanscombe live in a devastated area which is undermined from below and smothered from above in the interests of giving this country the cement that it needs. The other reason why the citizens of Swanscombe deserve sympathy in connection with this Order is that no urban district has been so messed about by redistribution as has Swanscombe—although the words "messed about "are much more Parliamentary than those which are colloquially used in Swanscombe to describe the process.

In 1944, Swanscombe was part of the grossly over-large Dartford constituency, so large that it had to be dealt with by Act of Parliament in 1945, when Swanscombe was pushed into Chislehurst. In 1948, Swanscombe was moved again, and came to Gravesend. That is a matter of six years ago, and it might have been all very well if that had been the end to the story. But now Swanscombe is to be put back into the much smaller proposed Dartford division, the fourth in ten years. That change I am protesting against and am opposing.

Swanscombe belongs with, and looks towards, Gravesend and Northfleet for every imaginable social purpose. It is true that past the northern tip of Swanscombe buses ply to and fro between Gravesend and Dartford. Therefore, from Swanscombe it is physically possible to get to either place—it is 4d. to Gravesend and 8d. to Dartford. But the only buses which run through the streets of Swanscombe go to Gravesend; hence all the shopping done from Swanscombe and Greenhithe is down towards Gravesend and Northfleet. The telephone exchange is at Gravesend; the trades council is at Gravesend; trade unions are organised towards Gravesend, the Co-op is at Gravesend, the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance is in Gravesend—in fact I think the only body which was in Dartford was the Rent Tribunal, and that has now been shifted to Maidstone.

One rather peculiar aspect in this part of Kent is in connection with wage agreements. Hon. Members on the outskirts of London will know that there are often very tricky problems as to whether, for certain purposes, a particular town or borough is inside London and the London rates are paid, or outside, with the outer London rates. This can have rather strange results.

In Gravesend, electricians serving in the nationalised electricity industry are counted as being inside London, and they get the London rates, while those electricians employed in the private electrical industry are counted as outside London, with a consequent difference of 4d. in their rates. I may say, in passing, that in spite of this the nationalised industry manages to pick up a lot of wiring contracts at the expense of the private side.

But the point I am making is that however complicated the different arrangements may be for different trades, Swanscombe and Greenhithe are always counted as going with Gravesend. They never go with Dartford. One sometimes gets a boundary coming between Dartford and Swanscombe, and sometimes one on the other side of Dartford, or sometimes on the other side of Gravesend; but never has anyone, trade union or employer, thought fit to sever Swanscombe and Greenhithe from Northfleet and Gravesend.

The only argument which can be advanced against what I am saying is the argument of mathematics. It does look so nice and tidy, on page 51 of this Report, to see that the new Dartford constituency will have about 58,700 electors, and the new Gravesend constituency will have about 59,000. If we refrained from making the change proposed by the Boundary Commission the result would be that in the new Dartford division there would be 53,000 electors, and in the unaltered Gravesend, 65,000.

It may be said that that is a large disparity but, after all, what is wrong with electorates of 53,000 or 65,000? They are both within the 45,000 to 65,000 bracket which the Commission is so proud of having established for 400 of our constituencies. One has only to look a very short distance to find Orpington with 45,000, which is 8,000 fewer than Dartford would have if the point that I am making succeeded. Across the river there are Dagenham and Hornchurch, with 77,000 and 76,000 electors—constituencies both larger than Gravesend would be were my point conceded.

A publicly-signed petition has been presented in this case. Although that idea is not very original, I think that I am right in saying that in no case argued up to now has there been any presentation of a petition at all. This petition was signed by just over one-half of the electors in the urban district. It might be implied from that, that the other half were against the petition, but anyone concerned with organising petitions knows that that is not true. Even in by-elections one may only get some 60 per cent. of people to vote at all. It is a question of finding the people at home, particularly in a town which works mostly on a shift basis. In such a town a petition signed by 50 per cent. is of considerable significance. The urban district council wrote a letter to the Commission. It got an acknowledgment by card. It never had a proper reply, and was never asked to state its case.

I should like to hang on this local point a general point, that it seems to me in relation to this case which has come so closely to my notice, as it does also in the cases of other areas with which I am less directly concerned, to be a most shocking thing that the local people have not been heard, and that nobody has attended to what they had to say. I suggest that if it is too great a burden for the Commissioners themselves to hear what local people have to say, next time there should be appointed a sufficient number of assessors to work with the Commissioners and to advise them so that they may go around and hear the views of the local people.

I am firmly convinced that if anybody of open mind had visited Swanscombe and had talked to representative people there, had been able to assess the strength of local feeling, and had weighed that local feeling against the mathematics of having one constituency of 53,000 and another of 65,000, he would have come to the conclusion that the urban district of Swanscombe should stay where its citizens wanted it to stay—along with Gravesend and Northfleet, to which it is connected for all social purposes.

I am in a great quandary about this Order, because we are going through with the procedure, contrary to what happened when this party was in office, in which no amendments are possible. In this case there are 270,000 people who are not in any serious way opposed to the Order, and there are 5,800 people who are violently opposed to it. It makes it difficult to know just what one should try to do if the Government are going to refuse to listen to the voice of reason or to the desires of the local people concerned.

When I remember, too, that in the case of all the six preceding Orders, when protests have been made on behalf of much larger numbers of electors, when the arguments have been overwhelming and have come from both sides of the House, when the Question has been put nothing has happened except that the Whips have called out their automatons, and the sheer weight of brute numbers have voted down arguments which would inevitably have prevailed before any impartial and open-minded tribunal, then I have to decide—and I tell the Under-Secretary of State this in advance—that I shall not submit this case to the indignity of going through such a farce.

I have made my protest on their behalf, and I still ask the Minister if he will take this Order back and ask the Commissioners to look at the matter again so that these people may belong Parliamentarily where they belong socially.

Resolved, That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (North Kent) Order, 1954, a copy of Which was laid before this House on 18th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Blackburn, Chorley and Darwen) Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Major Lloyd-George.]

10.10 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle (Blackburn, East)

In protesting vigorously on behalf of Blackburn against this Order, I do so on the same grounds as those on which I voted against the Commission's Report yesterday. I think that the complaint against the Order is the same complaint as that which was made against the Commission's whole approach to the solution of this problem—the complaint that this decision in relation to Blackburn has been reached because the Commission has not applied the rules in the way that Parliament intended that they should be applied.

As the House may be aware, under this Order the Blackburn County Borough, which has enjoyed a representation in the House of two Members ever since the Reform Bill of 1832, is to lose a Member, and in future the House will be impoverished by the fact that Blackburn will have only one representative sitting in this Chamber.

It is a bitter blow to Blackburn's pride that this long historic tradition of two-Member representation should be disturbed in this way; but I would agree that this blow to our pride would not necessarily be a conclusive argument if there were other factors sufficiently strong to necessitate the reduction of our membership. What is far more important, in my view, is that this break with tradition and with the status of Blackburn in a Parliamentary sense has been done not in conformity to the Rules which Parliament intended should be applied, but in violation of those Rules. In other words, it has been done without any overriding mathematical or other reasons.

We protest very strongly that this ancient county borough is to be impoverished in this way because the Commission has ignored Rule 4 (1), in which it was specifically instructed that county boroughs should not be split up unless that was unavoidable and that pieces of county boroughs should not be attached to county constituencies.

I think it is an insult that our borough, which is protesting in its official capacity, with the support of all members of the council and all members in the constituency, should have had this reduction in its status without any reasoning at all being advanced in the Report. The reference in the document before us is scanty. All we are told is that the continuance of two constituencies in Blackburn, which was confirmed by the House as recently as 1948, is no longer justified. Just that. One would have thought that it was due to ancient county boroughs that they should be given a little more reasoning than that for this mutilation of their Parliamentary constituencies. But no; we are left to deduce that the reason is that the electorate of Blackburn is now only 80,305.

Clearly, this is not a sufficient reason, because if we look elsewhere in the Report we find that this same Commission, which says that this is sufficient reason for robbing the House of its two outstanding Members, proposes to create a constituency, Nantwich, of only 42,000. Also, in this great reorganisation which has been conducted, apparently with such strict regard to the mathematical figures, the Commission has left in being other constituencies with nearly 40,000 electors, such as Norfolk, South-East and Ripon, as well as a constituency of less than 40,000—

Mr. Scholefield Allen

Having lost the urban district of Nantwich from my constituency, I would remind my hon. Friend that Nantwich is at least as ancient as Blackburn.

Mrs. Castle

I am not talking about age, I am talking about mathematics. On both arguments, obviously, we have something in common. I am not saying that this is a crime committed by the Commission, but what is sauce for Nantwich should be sauce for Blackburn. We also have the Commission leaving in being the constituency of Battersea, South with an electorate of fewer than 40,000. I suggest that if the claims of tradition are reinforced by such modern examples, it is fitting that the claims of tradition should be heard and be given due consideration here.

More important than the argument of history is the argument of current administrative need, and of current political desirability. If the House will study the proposals in relation to Blackburn, it will appreciate the administrative and political clamour which will be created by an Order which takes three wards out of the County Borough of Blackburn, the wards of St. Andrew, St. Francis and St. Mark—hacks them out of the parliamentary and municipal body of Blackburn—and grafts them on to a completely foreign body, the adjoining county constituency of Darwen.

The borough council, all the political organisations and many other public bodies in Blackburn have been unanimous in their protests against this proposal. The town clerk, as many other town clerks have done, and equally vainly, wrote to the Commission on behalf of the borough council to protest, and to point out that the electors of these three wards who are citizens of Blackburn for all municipal purposes, will now find that they have to lead a double life—[Laughter.]—but it is very serious. The electors of Saint Andrew, Saint Francis and Saint Mark now have this dual personality. For municipal purposes they are part of Blackburn. They think as Blackburn citizens. They are part of a unit which has been welded together through a long history of struggles in the cotton industry and in the years of depression. They have a municipal entity and for municipal purposes these electors will remain part of Blackburn. But for Parliamentary purposes they find themselves citizens of Darwen, and they will have to look two ways at the different questions which come before them.

There is deep resentment about it, because they no longer have a sense of integrated political personality. In his letter to the Commission, the town clerk pointed out that on all issues in which there is a diversity of interest between the borough and the county council, these electors will be virtually disfranchised; because they will be in the minority in a county constituency in matters in which the county council is in conflict with the borough council.

That is the very situation which Parliament desired that the Commission should avoid. The Commission was instructed that it should go to all reasonable lengths to avoid this carving up of a political entity. I declare that the Commission has failed in its duty by separating the electors of these three wards and putting them in constituencies with which they have no community interest at all.

Blackburn is an integrated industrial unit. Darwen is largely a rural area, and here are three wards in this integrated industrial unit being carved off and artificially grafted on to a rural area. I suggest that that is not what this House intended to be a proper division of electors.

I ask the House to realise that when a petition was produced by the council for signature by the electors, there was not the usual lethargy to which we have become so accustomed even on issues which are rather nearer home, more economic, and of more direct day-to-day interest. On the contrary, 11,000 out of 17,000 electors signed the petition. If that does not show the deep sense of grievance that was felt, I should like to know what does.

Every hon. Member knows how difficult it is to get a busy man or woman, concerned with day-to-day economic matters, to take an interest in these constitutional questions ahead of the time when they arise and to deal with a hypothetical situation, but 11,000 signatures from 17,000 potential signatories is proof that a deep emotional injury has been done to the people of Lancashire and that they responded.

Even though I have already described points in it to the House, I should like to read one paragraph of the petition to show the tone of feeling on this matter: In our considered opinion, the recommendations are fantastic and indefensible, they militate against good Parliamentary and local government, involve an unwarrantable disregard of the statutory rules laid down for the guidance of the Commission, and sacrifice the communal loyalties of many thousands of Blackburn burgesses on the altar of a mere mathematical formula. The petition was not only signed by the Blackburn citizens in their thousands; it was sent to the Commission. I should have thought that any objective person, realising the injury that was being done to the traditions and unity of Blackburn and the feeling that had been created, would have realised that support of this kind for the protest warranted the holding of an inquiry. Surely, if there was ever a case for an inquiry, it obtained in this instance with this support for the protest.

Last July, on the unanimous instructions of the borough council, the town clerk wrote to the Commission asking for an inquiry. He had the same fate as so many other people who made representations to the Commission: he got an informal acknowledgement only.

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South)

What was the reply to the petition?

Mrs. Castle

There was no reply, only a formal acknowledgement, although the petition, with the number of signatories, was sent to the Commission. No inquiry was held and no argument was put forward in favour of the change, and there is no argument now in the Report, except that we have only 80,305 electors. Yet the Commission is creating or preserving constituencies just as small and with less administrative justification.

The council therefore unanimously decided to ask the Home Secretary to receive a deputation, failing to believe or to realise that this kind of mutilation would be carried through without anybody listening to the case. Of course, the borough council received no greater success in its request than did any other constituency which asked for a deputation to be received.

So we come to this Order. I made my real protest against the Order last night when I voted against all the Reports of the Commissioners and their treatment of various constituencies. I know that the fate of this Order will be the fate of all the other Orders on which we make protests tonight. The Government will not shift; they have made up their minds. We can have our say, but our efforts will be as useless as the others we have made over these months. Despite that, however, I register my protest tonight on behalf of the constituents concerned and of the Borough of Blackburn as a whole. They say that this Commission ought not to have interfered with, or in any way altered, the present situation in Blackburn so recently reaffirmed by this House.

In the last year or so Blackburn has definitely suffered a reduction in its population. It is now feeling the effect of the depression years of 20 years ago when in that depression citizens left, or children were not born who might otherwise have been born. We believe that this small slump in the population, which has taken place since 1948, is a transitional one reflecting that period of depression. We believe in the future of Blackburn and in its future expansion. Certainly, if we did not have a Conservative Government which refuses to give industrial help by means of a development order, we would have greater faith in its future. Nevertheless, we believe that this small slump in population is transitional, and that in obedience to a transitional mathematical change the Commission is doing profound injury to the life of the borough which we represent.

It is particularly saddening to realise that if the Commission had used the electoral quota which Parliament intended, the one laid down in the Act which would have given us 519 seats for England instead of 506 seats, the Commission need not have asked the House to agree to the abolition of six seats. This extra Blackburn seat need never have been abolished, if the Commission had not arbitrarily altered the electoral quota on which it works. Blackburn is being sacrificed to the fact that that Commission has taken upon itself to interpret the will of Parliament in way s Parliament never intended.

I want to conclude by reading an extract from a telegram from the Mayor of Blackburn—a Conservative Mayor—which I got yesterday at the beginning of this debate on the Boundary Commission's work. It is a copy of a telegram he sent to the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary with touching faith to the last that something might be done to prevent this indignity being inflicted on Blackburn. He writes as follows: Blackburn electors incensed by the recommendations of the Boundary Commission to deprive this important county borough of the historical and traditional right to return two Members in the House of Commons which has been enjoyed since 1832. The proposal to incorporate 17,000 Blackburn electors in the neighbouring Darwen constituency with which they have not the slightest community interest is most strongly resented. On behalf of the electorate I urge that the Draft Order confirming the Commission's recommendations be not approved by Parliament. I do not know whether the Prime Minister ever saw that telegram and whether even the Home Secretary did. I do not want to be cynical. It may not be in his files at the moment.

I still make a last plea in reinforcement of this all-party protest from the borough, part of which I have the honour to represent in this House. We do not want any jiggering about with Blackburn, or attempts to tack on bits here, or take off bits there. We want this House to leave well alone, and I hope that even at this last moment this protest and this plea may be heeded.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Assheton (Blackburn, West)

I rise to join with the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) in opposition to this Order. I have listened to a large number of Orders being discussed this afternoon, many of which seem to have been full of possibilities for criticism, but I certainly have not listened to any criticism which is as substantial as that which may be levied, and which should be levied, against this Order.

This is much the worst of this bunch of Orders. Its immediate effect is to take 17,000 electors out of the Borough of Blackburn. The whole of the constituency which I have the honour to represent is being eliminated, some of the electors in my constituency are being added to the hon. Lady's and the remainder added to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke).

I rise with the object of trying to persuade the Home Secretary to withdraw the Order. I hope very much that he will do so. I do not very much like the procedure under which we are working, but it is the result of an Act of Parliament passed during the time of the Labour Government. We all agree now that this constant alteration of boundaries really is folly. We must allow a greater length of time between alterations of boundaries. I think, also, that there has been a consensus of opinion that the English Commission has given far too much weight to mathematical precision.

Even taking that into account it is surprising what the Commission has done. Here is the case of an ancient county borough which has had two Members since the Reform Bill, which still has more than 80,000 electors but which is to be deprived of one of its Members; whereas there is a constituency left in London with fewer than 40,000 electors, and there is a constituency in Glasgow—not one of these Scottish county constituencies, some of which have only 20,000 or 30,000 electors—with only 38,442 electors. In what way is Blackburn inferior to Glasgow?

I do not want to challenge the bona fides of the English Commission, but I do want to criticise its work. It seems to have made some extraordinary recommendations, and this is the most extraordinary of them all.

Mr. Ede

No.

Mr. Assheton

This is the most extraordinary of those which I have been able to study, and I shall listen to other recommendations being discussed later.

Here we have three wards being completely removed from Blackburn and, if you please, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, a constituency to be created and called "Blackburn." That will be a complete misnomer. It will not be Blackburn at all. It will be part of Blackburn. Every time the Member for Blackburn, whoever he or she is, speaks, that Member will not be representing Blackburn but merely a number of the constituents of Blackburn.

One can imagine how deeply this is resented in Blackburn. The council has a Labour majority, but every single member, Labour, Conservative and Liberal, unanimously determined that the arrangement was wrong. The council unanimously asked the Commission to hold an inquiry. I cannot imagine why such an inquiry was not held. I cannot imagine why the Commissioners were so foolish as not to hold an inquiry. No doubt they think they have done justice, but surely they have the common sense to see that it is wise that justice should appear to have been done. Without holding an inquiry they could not have ensured that. I am satisfied that if they had held an inquiry they would have come to a quite different conclusion. They would have listened to what was said.

I take the liberty tonight of attacking the Commission, a thing which, normally, I would not do because it cannot answer back, but I was not allowed to go to the Commission. It did not allow me to answer back; therefore, the Commission is one which I shall proceed to attack. I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that Mr. Speaker is the nominal Chairman of this Commission. I find that a rather embarrassing thing. If, in future, legislation is introduced to deal with this problem of the work of the Boundary Commission, I suggest for consideration that it might be less awkward if the nominal Chairman is someone other than Mr. Speaker, because we all know his heavy duties make it impossible for him to give detailed consideration to these questions.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood

The Chairman might as well be the Home Secretary.

Mr. Assheton

I find it difficult to see why an inquiry was not held. Had it been held all sorts of views might have been put forward. It would have been possible quite easily to have added a certain number of voters who live on the outskirts, in the suburbs, of Blackburn, whose whole lives are led in Blackburn, to the present 80,000. Various things might have been done; various suggestions might have been made. The people of Blackburn are not very satisfied when they hear that in other cases inquiries have been held. Why were inquiries held in other places? Has any other constituency quite as strong a case as this?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I doubt it.

I suggest that the work of the Boundary Commission in England stands condemned. I am glad to learn that the Boundary Commission in Scotland has, apparently, done a better job. I looked at the names of the Boundary Commissioners in "Who's Who" and I noticed that all these gentlemen—who, no doubt, are very eminent and have great careers behind them—reside in or near London. I should have thought they would have been specially glad to inquire into the objections raised by a very important corporation in the North of England, in an area with which perhaps they are not familiar. It should not have been difficult for them to have sent someone along to conduct an inquiry, but they did not do so.

In view of all this, I do hope that the Home Secretary will pay some attention to the representations made by the hon. Lady and myself. [An HON. MEMBER: "What a hope."] The hon. Lady read a telegram from the Mayor of Blackburn in which he expressed the great concern of the borough. I say here and now that I concur with the criticism he made and I beg the Home Secretary to reconsider the Order.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Scholefield Allen (Crewe)

We have heard a protest against this iniquitous division of Blackburn from the right hon. Member the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle). I have a regular periodic interest in Blackburn and its citizens. I hope that tonight I may be able to do almost the impossible—to speak in a non-political capacity—because I occupy a public position in the ancient Borough of Blackburn of which I am very proud.

During the course of my visits to Blackburn since this decision was first announced I have met protests on all sides. Blackburn citizens are justly enraged. I do hope that the Home Secretary will pay attention to the speeches made on this Order. It seems to me that the Commission ought to have held an inquiry in the case of Blackburn. It seems to me that the Commissioners have not paid attention to Rule 4, and that they have almost torn out a part of the heart of Blackburn from the ancient Borough of Blackburn and added it to the neighbouring county constituency of Darwen, with which it has no affinity whatever.

I believe that in the future the hon. Member for Blackburn will labour under a difficulty, in that the electorates of the three wards which have been torn out of Blackburn will consider him as their Member, and that, accordingly, he will have their correspondence and their problems added to those of his own constituents. About that I have no shadow of doubt.

For that reason, I feel that there is a very good argument in this case for the Home Secretary reconsidering the matter. To tear out a part of the Borough of Blackburn in this way, a borough which has had two Members since 1832, is going too far even for this Government.

If there were really no justification for Blackburn having two seats with electorates of just over 40,000 each, then it might have to put up with what is coming to it, but when, for instance, the constituency of Battersea, South with 39,900 electors, and a constituency in the City of Glasgow with an even smaller number, continue to exist, then I see no reason why the ancient Borough of Blackburn should have its community life disrupted in the manner suggested by the Commissioners.

Standing, as it were, between the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West and the hon. Member for Blackburn, East, I appeal to the Home Secretary to reconsider the case of Blackburn, to do justice to its citizens, and to send a telegram to its mayor saying that his request has been acceded to, even though it be the only one in the course of this debate.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. Clifford Kenyon (Chorley)

The House will notice from this Order that the constituency of Chorley is sandwiched between Darwen and Blackburn. I wish to say a few words on behalf of that constituency without in any way detracting from the arguments advanced on behalf of the constituencies of Blackburn and Darwen.

In 1948, I had the experience of having the Urban District Council of Withnell removed from the constituency of Chorley and placed in the constituency of Darwen. At that time, I was requested by the Chorley Borough Council, the Chorley District Council and the Withnell Urban District Council to oppose that action.

Unlike the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), I succeeded in persuading the Boundary Commission to hold an inquiry at which all the arguments against the transfer of the Withnell Urban District Council from Chorley to Darwen were heard and fully considered. Nevertheless, the action took place and the Urban District Council of Withnell was transferred to Darwen. It was made perfectly clear that the purpose of that transfer was to keep the Darwen constituency alive, because it was falling in numbers and could not claim the right to have a Member unless something was done to assist. So this section was taken away.

Now the Commission is returning to the Chorley constituency the Urban District Council of Withnell, and every argument that was used to remove it is valid today if it was valid then. On behalf of all those who opposed the transfer in 1948, we welcome its return. We are glad that even after five years the arguments put forward have finally sunk in, and that the Commission can say that the action it took on that occasion was wrong from every point of view, geographically, socially and numerically. Now it has righted that wrong, and I want to welcome Withnell back to Chorley.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I understand that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) was approving something that we are doing, and that he was criticising his right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede).

The House will sympathise with the feelings of the people of Blackburn at the prospect of having to lose the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) or my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) as one of their Members.

Mr. Ede

Surely one of them could stand for that part of the constituency which is included in Darwen?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

There is already an hon. Member for Darwen.

Mr. Ede

He has not got a freehold.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

Hon. Gentlemen will have sympathy with the two hon. Members who have spoken for Blackburn in that the town has had two Members since the Reform Bill, although I think that the Reform Bill is an odd milestone to choose, because, if the principle they are advocating is that long continued ownership or possession of two Members should justify its continuance, the Reform Bill would never have been passed.

The electorate of the geographical county of Lancashire declined by 70,000 between 1946 and 1953. In 1948, Lancashire was given three more seats than the Boundary Commission had recommended, and the second Blackburn seat was one of them. Even on the basis of the increased total of constituencies now it has two more seats than it is entitled to have according to the rules laid down in the Act. Blackburn was one of the boroughs with an electorate of a little more than 80,000 which the Boundary Commission, in 1947, recommended should have only one seat, but which was Given two seats in 1948. Between 1946 and 1953 its electorate declined from 84,641 to 81,218. The 1954 figure shows that the electorate of one of these constituencies is now below 40,000. If we grant that two Lancashire seats must now be abolished—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—to comply with the Rules laid down in the Act—

Mr. Assheton

Lancashire has a larger population than Scotland, but has far fewer Members.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

The minimum representation for Scotland is laid down in the Act, and also the total representation for Great Britain—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—within narrow limits.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

Is the hon. Gentleman telling us that one more Member in Lancashire would be a substantial addition to the representation?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

We have already discussed that on a number of occasions. In every case there is one more addition. Every number is composed of a quantity of ones. If we started increasing the number this year we should completely defeat the provisions of the Act. It is on that basis that Lancashire must lose two constituencies. Accepting that, then one of those constituencies must be Blackburn. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite, now that they have crossed to the other side of the House, are entitled, if they wish, to repudiate the Act which was passed by their own party, but the people of the country will look with disapproval upon someone who takes that line.

The position in Blackburn is that there are three contiguous constituencies, Blackburn, East, with 40,377—I will give the latest electorates for which I have precise figures—Blackburn, West, with 40,841, and Darwen with 40,890, all verging on the minimum possible figure. If any reduction is to be made, it must be in Blackburn. It would be quite wrong to make a reduction elsewhere when there are three contiguous constituencies lower than any other part of the county.

Mr. Charles Royle (Salford, West)

Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten that Withnell has been taken away from Darwen? The argument of the hon. Gentleman that the figures should be divided by two instead of three is lost by virtue of that fact.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I am not saying that no other constituency is affected, but that there is one constituency too many. It has to be taken from somewhere. It is obvious, in the case of Blackburn, where two constituencies verge on the minimum number and one is actually below the 40,000 mark, that the reduction should be made there.

Mr. J. T. Price (Westhoughton)

Would the hon. Gentleman address his mind to the alternative way of dealing with this matter? He says that one of these contiguous areas must go, two of them being Blackburn and one Darwen. It would be equally logical for Darwen to go, as the junior partner of the three.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke (Darwen)

What does the hon. Member who sits for a constituency out on the plain of Lancashire mean when he says that Darwen is the junior of the three?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I think that what the hon. Member is really suggesting is that we should make this division and call both parts "Blackburn" in order to soften the blow to some hon. Members.

The fact is that there were two alternatives before the Commission; and the position was really just the same as in the case of Reading, which we have already discussed. The Commission could, first, have proposed that Blackburn should be a single constituency of some 80,000 electors or, secondly, it could have proposed something of the kind we have now. Nobody is really criticising the proposals on the broad principle. The only criticism is that Blackburn would have only one Parliamentary constituency; but, apart from that, the proposals are acceptable. I think that the proposals are right and I ask the House to approve them.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Ede

I suppose that that is the best which can be said for the suggestion that Blackburn should be deprived of one hon. Member in this House. But what I want to put to the Under-Secretary is that this position arises from the fact that the Boundary Commissioners did not use the quota laid down in the Act of Parliament. I regret having to repeat this—although I do not think that it has been said today—but may I say what is the definition of "electoral quota"? That expression means, in the application of these Rules to a constituency in Great Britain: a number obtained by dividing the electorate for Great Britain by the number of constituencies in Great Britain… That was not the quota which was used. The quota used in the case now before the House was obtained by dividing the English electorate by the number of English seats.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman to ask which quota was used in 1947, when he was the Home Secretary?

Mr. Ede

I would rather like to have notice of that question. But, even if I

did wrong, surely the Under-Secretary or his right hon. and gallant Friend should do right, if only to put me to shame.

Let us just see exactly how this case fits. Whether I did right or wrong—and I have no recollection that anybody pointed out in this particular matter that I was doing wrong—there are, in the County of Lancashire, 3,568,247 electors; and if one uses the quota from the Act to which I have just drawn attention, there would be 64, and not 62 seats available. That is the number that there are now, and there would be no need for any reduction.

It is the duty of the Government to modify the Commissioners' Orders if they have made a mistake. If they have not followed the Act, it is the Home Secretary's duty to submit an Order which does comply with the Act. No more need be said about this. If the quota in the Act had been followed there would have been no need to reduce the representation of Blackburn by one seat and no need to abolish the Droylsden constituency in the same county. If the two hon. Members from Blackburn will both tell against this Order, I will advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote with them.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 143.

Division No. 18.]	AYES	[11.2 p.m.
Aitken, W. T.	Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Cole, Norman	Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Alport, C. J. M.	Colegate, W. A.	Hall, John (Wycombe)
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Conant, Maj. Sir Roger	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Arbuthnot, John	Cooper-Key, E. M.	Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Astor, Hon. J. J.	Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Armstrong, C. W	Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Heath, Edward
Banks, Col. C.	Crouch, R. F.	Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Barber, Anthony	Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)	Higgs, J. M. C.
Barlow, Sir John	Davidson, Viscountess	Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Baxter, Sir Beverley	Deedes, W. F.	Hirst, Geoffrey
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Digby, S. Wingfield	Holland-Martin, C. J.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.	Holt, A. F
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Donner, Sir P. W.	Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Bennett, William (Woodside)	Doughty, C. J. A.	Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Drayson, G. B.	Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Bishop, F. P.	Duncan, Capt. J. A. L	Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Black, C. W.	Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)	Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Bossom, Sir A. C.	Errington, Sir Eric	Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Boyle, Sir Edward	Erroll, F. J.	Hurd, A. R.
Braine, B. R.	Fell, A.	Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)	Finlay, Graeme	Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Braithwaite, Sir Gurney	Fisher, Nigel	Iremonger, T. L.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Brooman-White, R. C.	Fletcher-Cooke, C.	Kaberry, D.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Ford, Mrs. Patricia	Kenyon, C
Bullard, D. G.	Garner-Evans, E. H.	Kerby, Capt. H B
Burden, F. F. A.	Glover, D.	Langford-Holt. J. A.
Carr, Robert	Godber, J. B.	Leather. E. H. C
Cary, Sir Robert	Gough, C. F. H.	Legh, Hon Peter (Petersfield)
Channon, H.	Graham, Sir Fergus	Linstead, Sir H. N
Llewellyn, D. T	Pitt, Miss E. M	Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)	Powell, J. Enoch	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Lockwood, Lt -Col. J. C.	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Longden, Gilbert	Profumo, J D.	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Raikes, Sir Victor	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.	Rayner, Brig R.	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.	Redmayne, M.	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C N
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)	Rees-Davies, W. R	Tilney, John
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John	Remnant, Hon. P.	Touche, Sir Gordon
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald	Ridsdale, J. E.	Turner, H. F. L.
Markham, Major Sir Frank	Roberts, Peter (Heeley)	Turton, R. H.
Marples, A. E.	Robson-Brown, W.	Vane, W. M. F.
Maude, Angus	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)	Vaughan-Morgan. J. K
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.	Roper, Sir Harold	Vosper, D. F.
Medlicott, Brig. F.	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard	Wade, D. W.
Mellor, Sir John	Russell, R. S.	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Molson, A. H. E.	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.	Wall, Major Patrick
Nabarro, G. D. N	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Neave, Airey	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)	Sharples, Maj. R. C.	Watkinson, H. A.
Nield, Basil (Chester)	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)	Wellwood, W.
Odey, G. W.	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)	Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co Antrim, N.)	Stevens, Geoffrey	Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Page, R. G.	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Partridge, E.	Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)	Wood, Hon. R.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.	Woollam, John Victor
Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.	Summers, G. S.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
		Mr. Wills and Mr. Edward Wakefield
NOES
Albu, A. H.	Holmes, Horace	Plummer, Sir Leslie
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Houghton, Douglas	Popplewell, E.
Bacon, Miss Alice	Hubbard, T. F.	Price, J, T. (Westhoughton)
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)	Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Bing, G. H. C.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Probert, A R.
Boardman, H.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Proctor, W. T
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)	Pryde, D. J
Bowden, H. W.	Jeger, Mrs. Lena	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth	Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)	Rhodes, H.
Brockway, A. F.	Johnson, James (Rugby)	Robens, Rt. Hon A.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Jones, Rt Hon. A Creech	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Jones, David (Hartlepool)	Ross, William
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)	Royle, C.
Carmichael, J.	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Shackleton, E. A. A.
Champion., A. J.	Keenan, W	Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Chetwynd, G. R.	Key, Rt. Hon C. W.	Short, E. W.
Clunie, J.	King, Dr. H. M	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Collins, V. J.	Lawson, G. M	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Skeffington, A. M.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Cullen, Mrs. A.	Lewis Arthur	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)	MacColl, J. E.	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	McLeavy, F.	Snow, J. W.
Davies, Harold (Leek)	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Sorensen, R. W
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Sparks, J. A.
Deer, G.	Mallalieu, J P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Dodds, N. N.	Mann, Mrs Jean	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)	Manuel, A. C.	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Mayhew, C. P.	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Mellish, R. J.	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)	Mikardo, Ian	Thornton, E.
Fienburgh, W.	Mitchison, G. R.	Wallace, H. W.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	Moody, A. S	Warbey, W. N.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.	Morley, R.	Weitzmann, D.
Gibson, C. W.	Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)	Wells, William (Walsall)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.	Moyle, A.	West, D. G.
Greenwood, Anthony	Mulley, F. W.	Wheeldon, W. E.
Grey, C. F.	Nally, W.	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	Wilkins, W. A.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J	Willey, F. T.
Hamilton, W W.	O'Brien, T.	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Hannan, W.	Oldfield, W. H.	Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hargreaves, A	Oswald, T.	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)	Owen, W. J.	Yates, V. F.
Hayman, F. H.	Pannell, Charles	Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S E.)	Pargiter, G. A.
Hewitson, Capt. M.	Parker, J.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hobson, C. R.	Paton, J.	Mr. Assheton and Mrs. Castle.
Holman, P	Peart, T. F.

Resolved, That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Blackburn, Chorley and Darwen) Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Liverpool and South-West Lancashire) Order. 1954 [copy presented on 18th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament], approved.—[Major Lloyd-George.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Manchester, Oldham and Ashton under Lyne) Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Williams (Droylsden)

suppose that most of us who have been present yesterday and today must be feeling very much as if we have been through a casualty clearing station. We have seen representatives of constituencies going away cross-eyed, cross-legged, knocked-kneed and bow-legged and we have felt very sorry for them. But I feel sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will have more sympathy for me, because my political body is completely dead. It has disappeared entirely.

I have to ask the House to be good enough to withhold its approval of this Order which dissolves the Droylsden constituency and distributes the electors between two Parliamentary divisions in Manchester and the Parliamentary division of Ashton-under-Lyne. Audenshaw and Denton will go to the Gorton division; Failsworth will go to the newly created Openshaw division and Droylsden will go to the Ashton-under-Lyne division.

Those who have listened to the arguments will conclude that there are many anomalies and inconsistencies in the first Report of the Boundary Commission. There are many cases of injustice and inequity, but I doubt very much whether there is a worse example of what I regard as muddled thinking and injustice in the whole Report than is contained in this Order, the publication of which came as a bombshell to everyone in the constituency of Droylsden.

I wish to quote what appeared in the "Ashton-under-Lyne Reporter" about this matter. This local newspaper which, incidentally, is by no means pro-Socialist, is not given to exaggeration. I think the position is aptly summed up in the following statement: The ire of the electors of Droylsden Borough constituency has been raised by the 'bombshell' proposal of the Boundary Commission to wipe out the present Parliamentary constituency and add the dismembered portions of its carcase to surrounding constituencies in a way which bears little relationship to the needs of the community. I would like the House to dwell on the phrase: in a way which bears little relationship to the needs of the community. Those words undoubtedly reflect the strength and vigour of local feeling on this matter. It may be suggested that my objection stems, in part, from the fact that I am personally interested, and will be on the way out. The "Manchester Guardian" has today recalled the words of the late Dean Inge, who said, "No one is so interested in the price of pork as the pigs." No one can be more interested in the future of a constituency than the hon. Member who is likely to be displaced.

In case this should be my last opportunity to do so, I will say now that I am proud of having been the Member for Droylsden for the past three years. Without fear of contradiction, I can claim that we have worked together closely and effectively in the constituency, irrespective of creed, class or colour. I have found great encouragement and loyalty, and I shall always feel proud of my association with this populous, industrialised, friendly section of south-east Lancashire.

I claim that in opposing this Order I am also acting in accordance with the expressed wishes of the people of the four townships of the constituency of Droylsden. I would ask the Home Secretary, if he is to reply—[HON. MEMBERS: "He will not reply."]—I think he may, on this. This is the best case which has been put up, and I do not see how he can get away from answering it, and favourably, too. I may have a claim on his nationality as well. In the case of Southampton, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that so far as he knew there had been no unanimity. Therefore, he said, what could the Commission do but reach the conclusion that it did. Someone had to decide, and as there was no unanimity among the organisations and bodies concerned the Commission had to decide.

May I ask him whether the converse is true if all the bodies are unanimous? The local authorities of Audenshaw, Denton, Droylsden, and Failsworth are unanimous. All have protested vigorously to the Boundary Commission and, subsequently, to the Home Secretary; the local political parties also have protested. There is no question of any political priorities or advancement for either side here. Furthermore, there have been protests by the ratepayers' and tenants' associations. I am satisfied that if the Home Secretary were prepared to have a referendum he would get a unanimous vote against this Order and the gross injustice it will do to the Droylsden constituency. The people there are amazed by, and resentful at, the Commissioners' recommendation to do away with the constituency. What are the reasons for their amazement and resentment?

I want to attack the Commission. We have been mealy-mouthed with the Commission too long in this debate. I know it is not here, but there should be somebody replying on its behalf and accepting responsibility. The Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary have not accepted what I regard as the constitutional responsibility of replying logically and reasonably on behalf of the Commission for which they are responsible.

The chief resentment in my constituency is at the fact that the Commission has not made a real effort to understand the Parliamentary requirements of the four towns and to acquaint itself with local traditions and affinities in the area. I deliberately make that charge against the Boundary Commission on behalf of my constituency.

Did the Commission ever visit Droylsden or the adjacent area? Did it ever go away from Whitehall? We are entitled to know, because if people in the locality are finding difficulty in dividing up areas—and they are on the spot and know the local difficulties and local traditions and local histories—how can this bureaucratic dictatorial body do it in London, without ever going away from Whitehall?

It did not make the geographical and other inquiries that were needed to come to a right conclusion. I am satisfied that, as an example of what I am saying, had the members of the Commission visited our area they would have seen that the normal lines of communication between the townships of Droylsden and Ashton-under-Lyne involve travelling through Audenshaw which, under the new proposals, will be part of the Manchester division of Gorton. There is no direct main road—unless one crosses the Moss and, in winter, gets up to one's neck in mud—between Droylsden and Ashton-under-Lyne. But the Commission did not come to Droylsden to discuss that with neutral and unprejudiced people on the spot. Had it done so, it would not have made that very elementary error.

Looking through the Report as a whole, one can claim that in some cases the Commission worked harder at its mathematics than at its history, and vice versa. In the case of Droylsden, however, it has not worked hard at mathematics, at local history, or, indeed, orthography, because it does not even know how to spell Droylsden correctly. Had the Commission come to Droylsden, its members would have seen the name on lamp-posts and direction posts. I can visualise them looking at maps, studying the contours. and trying to make out how they are going to make these new affinities. But no reasonable body of people would have endeavoured to solve a problem of this intricate nature without having gone to the spot to study it.

My second serious complaint, and that of the people in the locality, is that the Commission never intended to deal with the case of Droylsden on its merits. It merely regarded the constituency as a makeshift which enabled it to seek a solution of the problem of the adjacent Boroughs of Manchester and Ashton-under-Lyne.

Mr. James Hudson (Ealing, North)

They went there with murder in their hearts.

Mr. Williams

And they committed it with no compunction whatever. Anyone reading the Report will find that the Commission has dismissed the whole of Droylsden's case in these words. I must find the place in the document—

Mr. L. M. Lever (Manchester, Ardwick)

May I hand the document to my hon. Friend?

Mr. Williams

Thanks. That is an example of the great co-operation and understanding that there is between Manchester and Droylsden on this important issue.

I should like the House to consider that in these three lines we are doing away for ever, as far as we can find out, with a constituency which has been working in good tradition since 1918. Between 58,000 and 59,000 electors are dismissed in three lines, like this: We have also found it necessary to recommend the abolition of the Droylesden… spelled wrongly— constituency and the incorporation of part of the contents of that constituency in a borough constituency of Manchester and the remainder in the Ashton-under-Lyne constituency. No reason is given—not one. The Order does not even contain the name of Droylsden, except as on transfer to somewhere else.

This is a serious point and I cannot understand it. In 1948, the Commission itself created Droylsden as it is now. Nobody else did it. The Commission did away with the Mossley section because it was untidy and was not contiguous, and created what everybody at the time regarded as an ideal constituency. First, it was ideal in its population of about 58,000 or 59.000 electors. Even the Home Secretary and the Commission could not expect anything better than that. That is as near to the norm as possible.

It was ideal in the sense of the nature of the constituency. It consists of four urban district councils. This is rather curious. When I was in the House as Member for Heston and Isleworth—this is the second time that I have been on my way out—and we discussed the last Report, I could not understand why Droylsden could be a borough constituency when it had no borough in it.

It is a borough constituency with four urban district councils. Would not hon. Members have thought that it would be an ideal make-up to leave four urban district councils together and not disturb them? I should have thought so, but this unreasonable, illogical, unpractical Commission seems to have been wooden- headed. I do not suppose that it ever dawned on the Commissioners that these four defenceless councils work under the overall jurisdiction of one county authority, the Lancashire County Council. Local councillors, county aldermen and county councillors representing the four local government bodies meet frequently to discuss joint problems and to plan for future development.

I do not want to take up too much time, because other hon. Members want to speak, although I slept here last night and it would do no harm for others to sleep here tonight. There is a very serious question which I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to answer. What Parliamentary affinity can there possibly be between any of these four townships and Manchester City divisions, or Ashton-under-Lyne? Throughout the years the four townships have vigorously resisted absorption either by the east or the west. They have striven to retain their identity and their independence. They have no ill-feeling at all towards the larger boroughs; in fact, relationships are extremely friendly, especially with Manchester. But it is the friendship of equals and we desire to retain that friendship and that equality.

In fairness to Manchester, it must be readily conceded that it has strongly opposed absorption of the three towns from the Droylsden constituency. This is not a case of a 'big large unit or city wanting to swallow small fry. Public opinion in Manchester, equally with that in Droylsden, has aligned itself against this move. A leading public man in Manchester, a Liberal—there are not many of them—[An HON. MEMBER: "Who is he?"] If the hon. Member wants to know, I can give him the address to which he can write to the gentleman. This public man said quite categorically: I cannot see what affinity Failsworth. Denton and Audenshaw have with Manchester. Neither can anyone else and neither could the Boundary Commission if it had taken the elementary precaution of going away from Whitehall for a change and having a look at the area.

I have dealt with the population, which is ideal; I have dealt with the complete affinity; and there is only one other matter which, I think, is important. That is the question of compactness. I doubt whether there is a more compact division in the whole of Lancashire, or in the whole country. One can travel over the whole of my constituency in a car—if one has a car, I have not—in about 40 or 45 minutes. We find no difficulty in getting inter-divisional functions arranged and attended. From the point of view of a Member of Parliament, consultation is always easy, although there are four separate urban district councils to consult. We have slight differences from time to time between the four urban district councils, but we can easily have inter-divisional conferences and meetings to consider and resolve those difficulties.

My final point against the Commission is that it has acted in an obviously dictatorial manner. Strong representations were made to it from many quarters and detailed opposition offered to its proposals. It was asked to explain—not to justify—its reasons and why it did certain things. "Would you kindly explain why you are going to murder our division?" it was asked. There was not a word in reply, not even an acknowledgment of the representations which were made on behalf of the deceased. The Commission has denied to us the democratic right to be heard as equals.

Unfortunately, the Commissioners are not the only ones who have acted in an off-hand manner. The Home Secretary may not have been long enough in his present job to be used to it yet, and I forgive him quite a lot on that account, but he has not been above reproach in this matter. I got in touch with him through his secretary and asked him to receive a deputation so that he could explain some of the things which, in our opinion, ought to be explained. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he could not see me, and, also, that he could not see anybody else either, That was a little consolation, but not a lot.

The decision of the Commission is a dictatorial one, and, in my opinion, is not based on any sound or understandable consideration. I would remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), when occupying the post of Lord President of the Council, said that Members of Parliament did not represent mere aggregations of individuals bundled together in mathematically equal groups, but sought to represent areas which were identifiable and had their own traditions. I claim that Droylsden has both its identity and its traditions. We shall be committing an act of injustice if we approve this Order tonight.

11.37 p.m.

Mrs. Eveline Hill (Manchester, Wythenshawe)

I wish to deal very shortly with some of the repercussions which the hon. Member for Droylsden (Mr. W. R. Williams) said the decision of the Commission had on his division, though that is not the only point I desire to make. Yesterday, the Minister commended the various Reports to us en bloc. My right hon. and gallant Friend is not obliged to accept all the recommendations of the Commission and I sincerely hope that after he has heard the protests from the Manchester Members he will have second thoughts on the matter.

Major changes affecting Manchester are made in the English Report. All the political parties and the city council are in complete agreement that the proposals are quite unacceptable. The Commission was notified of this, but, unfortunately, as in the case of so many other places, our objections received no attention at all.

As a member of the Manchester City Council, I take a very great objection to treatment of that description. It really means that, through elected representatives, nearly half a million electors have been unable to express their views. I can see that there is a reason for having a Commission to consider these matters. One can imagine the chaos there would be if the political parties tried to deal with them on their own. But there is provision in the Act for discussions and inquiries, and we have had neither, in spite of our protests. All our complaints have been ignored.

Of the nine divisions in Manchester, only two remain as they were. One is completely abolished, one new division is created, and six have had their boundaries considerably altered. Then, of course, there is, as I said at the beginning, the repercussion of the bombshell on Droylsden inasmuch as some of us are having districts outside our boundaries tacked on to two of our constituencies. I wish to make it quite clear that we are not unfriendly towards those areas. At the same time, we know per- fectly well that they do not want to be linked with us, and, therefore, the feeling is mutual.

By these methods the city has been given divisions which they could use to offset some of the additional seats elsewhere. We have heard much about numbers in this debate, but I fail to see where there has been any consistency in this matter at all. It does not matter whether one is dealing with a county, county borough or rural constituency—there has been the widest disparity. Geography may be the cause in some cases, or the disposition of population in others. The numbers in Manchester itself are relatively average. There are a few more in one constituency than in another, but that could be put right within the boundaries. There have been comparisons with other areas. Just outside Manchester there are two county constituencies with the widest disparity. They are Newton and Wigan. The commission never suggested equalising them. Why equalise the rest? Why should the Commission ignore all our protestations?

In the previous review before the 1950 election all Manchester, including Wythenshawe, was brought within the city boundary. Before that Wythenshawe had voted for municipal matters in Manchester, but for Parliamentary purposes with the Bucklow division, and that was most confusing to the people there. What we are grumbling about is that within a period of five years we are to be subjected to drastic changes. One thing which the Commission has not considered in the movement of population in Manchester. There has been a great movement of population because of rehousing and slum clearance. I know this very well because I have a large number of them in my division. I have 74,000 in my constituency now, and the figures of the Commission are out of trend.

Such frequent changes are extremely bad. No organisation has ever time to settle, and it is a waste of money for them and for the local authorities. There was a redistribution of wards throughout the city for the May elections, and now there is nothing but turmoil. All these points could have been put to the Commission if it had given us the privilege of listening to our protests. But, in common with everyone else, we have been completely ignored. We have heard it stated that only seven inquiries were held, and after them three recommendations were confirmed and four modified. I personally feel strongly that in this matter the period between the reviews is too short, and I think that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary feels that, too.

The other matter that makes me cross is that unless there are ample opportunities for discussions or inquiries on these matters we are heading the wrong way. It is too dictatorial altogether, and I strongly protest in the name of my city. Because of that I could not possibly support the proposals as outlined for Manchester.

Mr. L. M. Lever (Manchester, Ardwick)

I support the pleas that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Droylsden (Mr. W. R. Williams) and the hon. Lady the Member for Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill) to the Home Secretary to withdraw the draft Order. This is an excellent opportunity for him to begin his term of office as Home Secretary by granting reprieves, if only to the division of Droylsden.

In this Order the Boundary Commission has misdirected itself and has not done justice to the situation. The Order is an attempt to bring about a forced marriage between the City of Manchester and self-respecting, progressive, admirable urban district councils, who were making good progress, by joining them together contrary to the traditions and sentiments of the people of all the areas.

The House has already heard that the Order is an unwanted child. Manchester City Council—all political points of view—rejected it. Members of the Conservative Party on the council have been in opposition to it. I do not know what they will say on learning that their own Home Secretary has turned down their opposition, quite apart from the Boundary Commission's ignoring the request for an inquiry. Liberal, Labour, all parties on the urban district councils, have been completely in opposition. It seems as if the Boundary Commission had made up its mind what was to happen to Manchester and this urban district council, and had closed its ears to any pleas for inquiry or that it should listen to reasons that we might have put before it.

The Home Secretary has a unique opportunity to withdraw the Order, and, thereby, to assert freedom and democracy in the great city in which his distinguished father was born. I wonder what his father—of blessed memory—would say if he knew that his son proposed to support a Boundary Commission that was determined to proceed without reference to the wishes of the people. If an Order or proposals are made, we in this country are accustomed to having an opportunity to put our case. This is the only example in the whole of our system of a Commission steamrollering the whole position. There is no basis of justice for this Order.

What does the Boundary Commission do? There are 36 constituencies in this country with an electorate of between 40,000 and 45,000. The Manchester average is 54,253. There are 70 constituencies of between 45,000 and 50,000—also well below Manchester's figure of 54,253. There are 111 constituencies with between 50,000 and 55,000; 136 with between 55,000 and 60,000; 93 with between 60,000 and 65,000; 38 with between 65,000 and 70,000, and 19 with between 70,000 and 75,000. There are 8 where the figure is between 75,000 and 80,000.

I ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, why that is the sort of mathematics that the Boundary Commission has employed in establishing justice in numbers and evenness as between electors. The recital of these facts would surely clear the position so far as the issue of justice is concerned. I say that the Commission has ignored everyone; true, we have written to the Commission and have received a formal acknowledgement, but when was the great City of Manchester, throughout the whole of its long history, ignored as it has been ignored by this Commission?

The Commission may have ignored us, but it is no use the Home Secretary saying "Well, this is the Boundary Commission's view. I am sorry, but I have submitted the Order." The fact is that he, too, has ignored us. He has submitted the Order without doing something about this undemocratic procedure, without holding an inquiry, but pressing for its adoption. That is a clear indication that he is of the same mind as the Boundary Commission. It is he who must bear the responsibility for this Order.

It is no use the right hon. and gallant Gentleman saying that the Commission has handed him this child and that he has to adopt it. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that he has full power to reject, or amend, the Order. He has complete power to see that justice is done to Manchester, even at this stage; he could withdraw the Order, and then hold an inquiry or he could amend it.

Nobody who had the slightest knowledge of Manchester, and knowing the movement of population going on—as the hon. Lady the Member for Wythenshawe has told us—would say anything but that the safest thing to do would be to leave well alone until the population had had the opportunity of settling down. Then the boundaries could be drawn on a basis of justice. Whatever the Home Secretary has done in regard to other areas, here is an excellent opportunity for him to do justice; and not only I make this plea. The hon. Lady the Member for Wythenshawe, a member of the city council, like myself, knows how the population is shifting.

What about this furtive Boundary Commission? Nobody knows when it came or even if it came, and it seems to me that here we have another example not of government, but administration, by a non-elected body from Whitehall determining the future layout of our Parliamentary divisions in Manchester. I say that we resent these intrusions, and that the Home Secretary has it in his power to repair the damage which has been done. The electoral quota for Great Britain is 55,670 and the average electorate based on the Commission's proposed 511 seats for England is 55,563, so that there is just as much justification for an average electorate in Manchester of 54,253 as for an average electorate of 58,789.

Look at the way we have been treated in England. No one loves Scotland or Wales more than I do, and I am sure that all of us have enjoyed happy times in, and have the greatest admiration for, both those parts of our great country and Empire. But the average electorate for Scotland is 48,011 and for Wales 50,363, while Manchester is not allowed a quota of 54,253. The position will not bear the slightest examination on the basis of justice. We have a sufficient population in Manchester for 9 Parlia- mentary seats with electorates of 54,000 within the city. Why should we have to go outside Manchester and overlap into the county area? Many of the questions affecting Manchester differ from those affecting the county.

The Commission has misconceived the whole situation and I appeal to the Home Secretary to withdraw the Order. The people of Manchester are waiting to see what he proposes to do. If he attempts to stifle the voice of Manchester, he and the Government will receive the answer which they deserve. I hope they will not attempt to stifle it, but will withdraw the Order so that justice may be done.

11.56 p.m.

Mr. Eric Johnson (Manchester, Blackley) rose—

Dame Florence Horsbrugh (Manchester, Moss Side) rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris)

Mr. Johnson.

Mr. Johnson

I count myself fortunate in being able to take part in the debate, for the double reason that I have the honour to represent—

Mr. Charles Pannell (Leeds, West)

On a point of order. On a previous occasion, when you were in the Chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you ruled against my speaking because a Privy Councillor was on his feet, even though you had already called me. I understand that the right hon. Lady the Member for Moss Side (Dame Florence Horsbrugh) was on her feet when you called the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson).

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I regret that I did not see the right hon. Lady in time. If I had done so, I would certainly have called her.

Mr. Johnson

Perhaps with the exception of the hon. Member who now represents Droylsden (Mr. W. R. Williams), I have a greater knowledge of that constituency and its problems than anyone else here, having contested the constituency in 1950. I am bound to say that I agree almost entirely with everything which the hon. Member said I would also point out that in this case, unlike other hon. Members who have spoken, I can say that my own constituency is in no way directly affected.

The Boundary Commission has had, I believe, an extremely difficult task, which it has carried out impartially, although I would not go so far as to say it has carried it out altogether wisely. There is undoubtedly bound to be a good deal of strong local feeling and resentment in cases of this kind, and I feel that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary, has a most unenviable task. We in Manchester feel that we have a very real grievance and one which I think has nothing to do with party politics.

The hon. Member for Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) has given the House a large number of figures, which I will not repeat, but I think what he said goes to prove quite conclusively, on the basis of figures alone, that there is no substantial ground for these changes. But it is proposed to make them, to increase the size of the average electorate of the Manchester constituency to 58,789 and to do that by abolishing the constituency of Droylsden. The House is aware that Droylsden is to be divided up and I do not think anyone could say that on political grounds I would be standing here and saying that I think it is wrong to do away with Droylsden; but on grounds of justice and common sense I think we are entitled to know why it is being done. The Commission just said that it intended to abolish it, but do not say why.

I should like to reinforce the remarks of the hon. Member for Droylsden about the extraordinary decision, on geographical grounds, to divide Droylsden in the way it is proposed. Droylsden itself—I refer to the urban district—is actually adjacent to Manchester. One does not know when one leaves Manchester and comes into Droylsden, apart from the sign board by the road. If one did not see that one would not know.

On the other hand, Audenshaw lies in just the same relation to Ashton-under-Lyne and, in all sense, if Droylsden is to be divided up, Ashton-under-Lyne ought to take Audenshaw and Droylsden should come into Manchester. I do not say that on political grounds, because anyone acquainted with the political complexion of the districts knows it is much more advantageous for Manchester, at any rate from the Conservative point of view, to have Audenshaw than Droylsden. But it is not common sense.

As to Manchester's objections, they are that we see no reason and no sense in the proposal and feel, further, that it is extremely undesirable to tack three urban districts on to a county borough. I am not directly affected, but I can see that the hon. Member who happens to represent the new Gorton or Openshaw division will be in a very difficult position in trying to reconcile the interests of Gorton with Audenshaw and Denton, which are urban districts, or of the Manchester wards of Openshaw with Failsworth.

It is a very big mistake to make this change, but our main grievance is that we have been denied a public inquiry. Seven public inquiries have been held. Why has Manchester not been allowed to have one? We should be told that. Surely Manchester, with its 9 Members, is sufficiently important to be allowed an inquiry.

Mr. Foot

In view of what has been said by the Minister on all the previous Orders, can the hon. Gentleman say whether he thinks there is any possibility of his being given a reason why Droylsden has not been granted a public inquiry?

Mr. Johnson

I should not like to make invidious comparisons, but I should say that perhaps Manchester, with its 9 representatives, is more entitled to an inquiry than some smaller constituencies.

I feel that we ought to have had a public inquiry. If these proposals had been examined at a public inquiry, and it had been decided to uphold the decision of the Boundary Commission, I should not have had another word to say, nor, I think, would anyone else in Manchester. I do not think that anyone can derive any satisfaction from these unfortunate debates. There are weighty arguments which we can put forward, but it seems that the Home Secretary must inevitably rely on the recommendations of the Boundary Commission—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—which has been studying this problem for a long time. I say that for the simple reason that the Home Secretary cannot possibly study the problems of every constituency, and the Boundary Commission was set up for that purpose.

Mr. Norman Dodds (Dartford)

Is the hon. Member inferring that this Commission of human beings is infallible, and that the Home Secretary must in no way ask for a re-examination, in view of the evidence which has been given?

Mr. Johnson

I am certainly not inferring that the Boundary Commission is infallible. But it happens to be the machinery set up by the previous Government, and I think that we must stick to it.

Mr. L. M. Lever

Is the hon. Member for or against Manchester? May we know that?

Mr. Johnson

If the hon. Member will restrain himself for a moment, he may hear later. I have not quite finished, but I think that what I have said so far is in favour of Manchester. But I am also standing up for my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary, who has had a most invidious and unpleasant task to discharge and has done it admirably.

Although the Boundary Commission made these recommendations, we, who know local conditions, are entitled to say that we happen to know better than the Commission. I feel that the Commission has made a mistake in this case, tho' I am ready to admit that I am wrong, if my right hon. and gallant Friend can give a satisfactory explanation of the proposals. I think that that is fair enough. But if he is unable to do so, and feels that he cannot withdraw the Order, then I can only say, with regret, that I am unable to support it.

12.8 a.m.

Mr. William Oldfield (Manchester, Gorton)

I happen to be the senior Member in the House so far as the Manchester City Council is concerned. As an ex-Labour agent in the Manchester area, with experience extending over 23 years, I claim to know something about the electoral position in the city.

One has heard a number of attacks on the Boundary Commission. I believe that its job is difficult, but in Manchester it is not difficult. There has been a good deal of controversy in the country about a play called "1984." In that play we see who is responsible for the dictatorship. We see a photograph of "Big Brother" and we hear him speak—but none of us in Manchester has received a postcard from the Commission. This is a type of tyranny which is not English. In my opinion, it is foreign to the English way of life.

I represent a division which, if this Order goes through, is to take in Audenshaw and Denton. Having known Audenshaw for 40 years, I say that this proposal is one of the biggest mistakes that has been made by the Commission. Manchester has an electoral quota of over 54,000 within the city and I say that there is no need to alter the Manchester division.

The former Minister of Town and Country Planning, who is now Minister of Defence, stopped the Manchester City Council building another town, in Mobberley. That means that for many years our people will have to reside within the city, so that there cannot be much diminution of population. I hope that the Home Secretary will take back this Order and allow the 9 Manchester Divisions to remain as they are.

12.12 a.m.

Dame Florence Horsbrugh (Manchester, Moss Side)

The arguments from both sides of the House have been against this proposal of the Boundary Commission. I will not take up time by going over those arguments. I could not emulate the eloquence of the hon. Member for Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever), and I could not agree with what he said about Scotland. We realise the Home Secretary's difficulties, but I believe that a great mistake has been made here. If a local inquiry had been held, and the matter had been looked at on the spot, it would have been realised that the arrangement for Droylsden and Manchester is, to say the least, most unsatisfactory.

I am sure that my right hon. and gallant Friend will have noticed that this is the unanimous view of hon. Members from Manchester on both sides of the House. There is nothing political about it. From the commonsense point of view, therefore, and on the arguments which have been advanced, I would ask the Home Secretary even now to reconsider the matter. If he could study, or ask others to study, in more detail the geographical difficulties with which we shall be faced in Manchester, I believe that he would agree that on this occasion a mistake has been made.

12.14 a.m.

Mr. W. Griffiths (Manchester, Exchange)

I rise to oppose the Order, and I will be brief. I have listened to the speeches of the hon. Members representing Manchester, and I have been deeply impressed by their arguments. As I listened to them I found it increasingly difficult to understand why, on the main Question last night, they supported the Government in the Lobby. The arguments and criticisms of the Boundary Commission which they have put forward this evening applied equally last night on the main Question so far as the Reports of the Commissions in general were concerned. I shall not attempt to repeat the detailed criticisms of the Boundary Commission's proposals for Manchester. I want to say something of a more general character and draw the Home Secretary's attention to a few general points.

We live in a world where Parliamentary democracy is assailed by many people and held by many to be a decadent form of government. Observing the handling of the Boundary Commission's Reports in the last two days by the Home Secretary, I could think of hardly any other matter more calculated to bring the British House of Commons into disrepute.

As we consider these Orders in detail, there is a great deal of humbug and hypocrisy about it all. This evening the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) made an eloquent plea for his constituency. Much of his argument was based upon a general attack on the Report of the English Commission and its failure to carry out the Rules laid down by Act of Parliament.

The argument he deployed in opposition to the Blackburn Order applied with equal force to the Manchester Order, and to every Order that we have discussed today. If the right hon. Gentleman means what he says, he should be in the Division Lobby with Members on this side and, I hope, some Conservative Members when we divide against the Manchester Order.

Nothing is more calculated to make the House of Commons look nonsensical than to sit here until the early hours of the morning making constituency speeches and knowing that the Government are in no danger If a Division takes place and two or three Conservative Members accompany the Opposition into the Lobby, it is only because the Chief Whip has made a careful calculation of the relative strengths of the parties present. He can afford to make an apparently liberal gesture of allowing a few of his hon. Friends to go through the motions of democratic practice by following their voices with their votes in the Division Lobby.

Mr. George Odey (Beverley)

I hold no brief for the recommendations of the Commission, but has the hon. Gentleman considered the desirability of keeping its recommendations altogether outside the realm of party politics?

Mr. Griffiths

I am very glad to hear that from the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will bear in mind the observations and criticisms that have been made by his hon. Friends on this Order. I hope that he will be persuaded to show his divorcement from the party struggle by accompanying us into the Division Lobby when we divide.

So far as I am able to judge, and so far as I am advised by my hon. Friends from Manchester who have studied these questions, the proposals of the Boundary Commission make my chance of remaining in the House of Commons somewhat rosier than if no change had been made. So I have no vested interest in seeing the proposal carried. Nevertheless, I say quite sincerely that I am at one with all hon. Members from Manchester in opposing the Order. This is not unique; it is common to all of us. After all, we represent people, not boundaries.

If the proposal is approved I shall be left, after nine years in the House of Commons, with only one municipal ward containing some of the people who first elected me in 1945. Though I am advised that the chopping and changing will be to my advantage, I take some pleasure and pride in having represented my people for nine years. Although I have a small majority I am conceited enough to believe that some people in the constituency have been persuaded to their present point of view by what I have been able to do in the past nine years. I want to keep them with me.

However nice people may be, I do not want to have the problem of having to make new friends all over again. I do not want to lose the old friends and to break up the continuity between Member and constituent. That is a matter of supreme importance to which more weight should be given by the mathematicians who advise the Commission.

I want to indulge in a brief rubbing in, as it were, of the facts already presented. A very important local authority, the Manchester City Council, with about 150 members and a Labour majority, unanimously decided that it objected to the proposals and it forwarded its objections to the Commission. Those objections were supported by the surrounding urban districts which were affected. As far as I know, all the political parties, certainly the Conservative and Labour Parties—

Mr. L. M. Lever

And the Liberal Party as well.

Mr. Griffiths

—offered the strongest objection. Every non-political figure who has given utterance on the question has been against the proposals.

I end with the familiar condemnation of the Commission and its defenders in the Government. We have had ad nauseam today references to refusals to hold inquiries or to give any reason to local representatives for the decisions the Commission has arrived at. Although we have discussed the question of Manchester, this is a matter of supreme importance far beyond the immediate interests of any one city, even one as important as Manchester. I say to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that they should think very seriously before they allow the Government to behave in this way and before they go lightheartedly into the Lobby, trampling over democratic local opinion and—as I am sure some hon. Members opposite agree in their hearts—bringing the House of Commons into disrepute at a time when democracy is being assailed by enemies all over the world.

12.24 a.m.

Mr. Bing

I think it worth while recalling to the House the way in which the Commission came to its decisions about Manchester. It said: We had before us particulars, provided by the General Register Office, of the electorates of each administrative area as at 15th March, 1953, and maps prepared for us by the Ordnance Survey Department showing in detail all the administrative areas in England. On the basis of this information we formulated provisional recommendations and published them locally. In other words, the Commission did not see fit to invite the views of the right hon. Lady the Member for Moss Side (Dame Florence Horsbrugh). Many of us on this side have differed from her in our views of how political affairs should be conducted, but I think that we can all say that we have a great admiration for her courage. If she is no longer a member of the Government it is because she was prepared to stand up for her principles. wrong as we think they were.

Were not her views worth consideration; were not the views of a Privy Councillor on the Government side worth even consideration on this matter? The Commission did not even see fit to invite a Privy Councillor of the distinction of the right hon. Lady to give any views at all. It just got a map of the largest scale possible and a few figures, and decided on that basis. Then it did not even bother to hold a public inquiry at which the right hon. Lady could express her views.

The House of Commons is asked to say that what the Boundary Commission decided yesterday, Manchester should have today. We ought to have from the Under-Secretary a reasoned answer—[An HON. MEMBER: "From the Home Secretary."] From the Home Secretary if he dares to speak for Manchester. He should remember who once elected the right hon. Member who is now the Prime Minister. Has he not any thoughts for the value of Manchester representation?

We all value the contributions made to our debates by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin); I regret that he is not in the House now. The Boundary Commission said that 40,000 people are sufficient to decide who shall be elected as the hon. Member for Leominster. It is not for me to make comparisons between hon. Members of this House, but I can remember many nonparty occasions on which my hon. Friend the Member for Droylsden (Mr. W, R. Williams) has been here on a Friday to contribute to a debate from his great knowledge, from his trade union experience, his political experience and his whole background. It is now said that he must be removed from the House because he has not an electorate of 58,000 to support him.

Why should there be an average for Herefordshire of 42,000 and a quite different figure for Manchester? Let the right hon. and gallant Gentleman get up and say on what political basis Manchester must have one Member for 58,000 electors and Herefordshire one for 42,000. Does he think there is a 20 per cent. excess of political wisdom in Herefordshire? What is the reason? Is it because now he has joined the Conservative Party people who vote solidly Conservative are entitled to a bonus of this kind?

Earlier the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said to me that I knew the answer to every question. The only difference between us seems to be that he knows the answer to no question and, therefore, has the political wisdom not to attempt to answer any of them. What is the reason the electors of Manchester should be written down in this way and there should be this weightage against Manchester? Are they so stupid or so silly? Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give the answer? What is the reason the average for Herefordshire should be 42,000 and for Manchester 58,000? Is there a political reason? Is there any reason at all that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can produce? Let him try; let him come to the Box and say why the wisdom of Herefordshire is so much greater than that of Manchester.

I am prepared to admit that they should be equally represented, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not. He says there must be a different system. If one lives in the country one is entitled to have 1¼ more Members than in the town where the production is done. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am prepared to admit that in view of Tory policy people who live in the country are working very hard for very little money. That is quite true. We all know what the farmers think about it.

On what political principle is this justified? Is this a purely political act, a belief by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that, now that he has joined the Tory Party, he should throw aside those great millions of industrial workers who supported his father? Does he think that they should now be disregarded? Has he no sense of the view, one vote one value, or does he say that it has one value for Manchester and quite another for Herefordshire?

Why should the hon. Member for Leominster be entitled to be returned by 40,000 votes while anyone who stands for election in Manchester must be returned by 58,000 votes? What, in fact, is the political principle which has made the right hon. and gallant Gentleman decide on this change?

I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) was able but evasive. Why should he seek to shelter behind the Commission? Let us be quite frank about this. Except for yourself, Mr. Speaker, the Commissioners are a group of civil servants, and if this House is to be ruled by civil servants then we might as well discard democrary altogether.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies (Isle of Thanet)

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman really claim that Mr. Erskine Simes is a mere civil servant? He is one of the most distinguished members of our own profession.

Mr. Bing

He may be that, but it is unfortunate that members of our profession should be dragged into matters of this sort, because it is quite clear that, if a leading barrister seeks to divide a constituency like Manchester just by looking at a map and without considering all the other issues involved, the profession should be reformed. Merely because somebody happens to be a Q.C. does not mean that he can decide over all the people who have experience. That is a great discredit to the Bar.

One of the misfortunes of the Boundary Commission is that it does not publish verbatim reports of its discussions as do Select Committees of this House. It may be that you, Mr. Speaker, and this distinguished gentleman, were in a minority and were outvoted by the civil servants on the Commission. But, of course. you would not be at liberty to tell us if that were so.

Mr. E. Johnson

As the hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to say that I was taking refuge behind the Boundary Commission, may I say that my reasons for saying what I did, and, indeed, for voting as I did yesterday, were largely that I thought that what the hon. and learned Gentleman said yesterday, namely, that the Boundary Commissioners had seen fit to make a political decision, which they were not entitled to make, was a very unfair statement. The hon. and learned Gentleman almost persuades me to change my mind on this occasion.

Mr. Bing

It does not in the least matter whether the hon. Gentleman decides to change his mind or not. This is one of the—

Mr. Pannell

May I interrupt my hon. and learned Friend? Of course the hon. Gentleman made a political decision. He came over from the Liberals to the Conservatives to get a seat.

Mr. Speaker

Order, order. I think we are getting a little far from the Manchester question.

Mr. Bing

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Blackley was in order in his intervention, and I would be prepared to defend him against any Ruling that he was not.

The issue here is that the Boundary Commission have said without any authority from this House that rural seats should be smaller than urban seats. Why is that so? Will the Home Secretary tell us? What is the great bucolic reason that exceeds that of the urban areas? Why is it that someone who lives outside an urban area is able to elect a Member so much easier than one who lives in that area? The whole of the Manchester decision arises from a mistaken view of the Boundary Commission. It said, in paragraph 14: In our initial report we expressed the view that, in general, urban constituencies could more conveniently support large electorates than rural constituencies… That is a political decision. Why should it have come to that conclusion? What are the reasons? It has never seen fit to give reasons. The Home Secretary has never dared to give them, because there is none. The Commission goes on: …and our recommendations were framed so as to give expression to that view. Why should they be? Manchester is being deprived of a seat by a political decision which the Commission was never entitled to make. There is nothing in the Rules under which it was ordered to operate which provided for it to make such a decision, and the House is being deprived of the valuable services of hon. Members. It is wrong for the Home Secretary, who must take political responsibility for the Boundary Commission, not to be prepared to justify the action. Let him say why the average for Herefordshire should be 42,000 and the average for Manchester quite different.

Mr. Garner Evans (Denbigh)

May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman why the average in one division in North Wales is over 30,000 and not 42,000?

Mr. Bing

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should make a covert attack on the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Clement Davies), to whose constituency he has referred. But it is a fair point, and I am glad that one fair point has been made from the other side. It might give another ex-Liberal an opportunity for making another. It is a little odd that the electors of a county constituency in Wales should have twice the value of electors in Manchester.

Mr. Evans

May I point out that the county constituency to which I was referring elects a Labour Member?

Mr. Bing

Surely this is a very interesting example of the party spirit in which this matter has been approached. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) spoke against this Order, although it gives him a safe seat. I have spoken against most of these Orders although my seat has not been redistributed, as it might have been, to my disadvantage.

We should see that the people of Britain are fairly represented, and not that particular people should have a vested interest in a particular seat. Why should some Members be chosen from 20,000 or 30,000 voters while it needs 50,000 voters to choose a Member for Manchester and Wales is given 30,000 voters to choose a Liberal or an ex-Liberal? What principle does the Home Secretary believe in? I have left Wales out of my consideration because there a different question arises.

England is bad enough. I have put forward the case of Herefordshire, and I hope the Minister will reply to it. Why should the hon. Member for Leominster come back to the House with a 40,000 constituency? Manchester is a county borough: why should a different rule be applied to a county borough from that applied to an administrative county? That is a question which has several times been put and has not yet been answered. The Boundary Commission did not hold inquiries because it could not face that question. This House ought to be supreme. The Boundary Commission is the servant of this House—I make no criticism of the members of it—and ought to have behaved in a judicial way. It has failed to do so.

12.42 a.m.

Mr. Foot

I was born a long way from Manchester, unlike the father of the Home Secretary, but I do not apologise for intervening in this debate. When the House was debating the Order concerning my own constituency I was grateful that some hon. Members who came from other parts of the country, and whose motives for speaking could not, therefore, be suspected, supported my case.

Every debate on these Orders is a matter of national and not merely of constituency importance. Some of my hon. Friends may think or say that they are waiting to get on to their own Orders and that my intervening delays the debate. They may find that unfortunate, but if they think that that is the way to represent their constituents effectively they are making a mistake. I say that because of the experience we have had so far in these debates. It is illustrated conclusively by the answers of the Home Secretary and his hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary. On a whole series of Orders, in which different issues are involved, the Government make the same blanket reply. If my hon. Friends want to make the most effective protest on behalf of their constituencies they must protest against all these Orders and that kind of answer.

Manchester is regarded by many as the second city in the United Kingdom. If it is unfortunate that we should be discussing at this time of the night the Orders affecting Manchester, and, later, other cities. That is not the decision of those who are taking part in the debates, but of the Government. Therefore, the charge which Members for Manchester, Leeds, and other cities have against the Government is enhanced by the fact that it is the Government's decision that the future boundaries of these and other places shall he debated not in the ordinary time of the House but through an all-night Sitting.

The Government do not want the House to have time to deliberate carefully. It is their decision and that of the night hon. and gallant Gentleman that the carving up of Manchester, Leeds, London, and other cities, and of the county constituencies, shall take place in an all-night Sitting. Of course, the Government also knows, as we all know, that if the House has an all-night Sitting there will be abridged reports in the newspapers. I do not know, in that connection, what the "Manchester Guardian" will do, because I think it will be in some difficulty.

Let me explain; one of the reasons why I am speaking at this moment is that there is no member of the Liberal Party here tonight. [An HON. MEMBER: "There are ex-Liberals."] Yes, and I am an ex-Liberal. I think that Liberalism has a great deal to say to the country. I am not ashamed, but am, on the contrary, proud of my Liberal ancestry but if my father, and the father of the Home Secretary, were present with us tonight, they would surely be ashamed of the fact that there is not one member of the Liberal Party here to speak in the name of Manchester.

Richard Cobden and John Bright fought one of their greatest battles against "the fancy franchise" and the attempts of the Tories to steal the clothes of the Whigs, and fought a long battle against the jiggery-pokery of those days, in Manchester; and one of the biggest fights in this House was the attempt of the Tories of those days so to alter the franchise as to assist the party of that time. Cobden, Bright, fought it; David Lloyd George, from Manchester, fought it, and yet there is not one single member of the Liberal Party here tonight to speak in the name of Manchester.

Therefore, we are engaging in debates on all these Orders because all these individual Orders involve national issues. It is quite proper that others, apart from those born in Manchester, or those who speak for the direct representation of Manchester, should also indicate their views in this debate. But there is another powerful reason for opposing this particular Order, and that reason has been revealed in all the speeches in this debate.

In the case of my own constituency, or other individual constituencies involved, where there were two constituencies and where a lesser change was taking place, I can understand, while I do not accept, the argument that it was possible for the Boundary Commission legitimately to oppose the holding of a public inquiry. The Home Secretary has argued that, after all, the dispute should be understood easily by the Commission and that if there were only two constituencies involved, there could be no great conflict of interest. But where one has cases of a constituency being abolished, and four or five other constituencies becoming involved, surely the case for a public inquiry is overwhelming.

I ask the Home Secretary to tell the House why a public inquiry was refused in this particular case and whether the seven public inquiries which were accepted were inquiries referring to constituencies in which there may have been four or five, or perhaps more, constituencies involved. I ask that because it would provide an interesting criterion. What is the basis upon which the Commission decides whether there should be a public inquiry or not? Manchester has been deprived of the right of a public inquiry—and I say that it is a right—and is entitled to find on what grounds a public inquiry there, as elsewhere, was refused.

Mr. Bing

Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend on that. I attended one such public inquiry and it was devoted practically entirely to what name should be given to the proposed constituency.

Mr. Foot

It would be an interesting revelation if the Home Secretary would tell us whether it is a fact that public inquiries were granted chiefly in cases where objections had been made to the names of the constituencies.

We know that there are one or two constituencies in which that was not the case and in which public inquiries were granted for other reasons, South Shields being one. It would be interesting to know whether there are any other cases, apart from that of Manchester, in which a public inquiry was refused although four or five constituencies were involved. It is no good the Under-Secretary saying, as he said in an earlier debate, "I cannot interpret the mind of the Com- mission. I cannot say what reason it had."

The hon. Member contradicted himself a little later when he gave what he considered to be a precise explanation of how the Boundary Commission interpreted the clause about what would constitute an imminent development which deserved to be taken into account in determining whether or not a change should be made. If he is capable of telling us how the Commission can decide that, he should be able to tell us what are the grounds on which the Commission either accepted or refused an application for a public inquiry. Plymouth had a right to know why it was refused a public inquiry, and, certainly, if numbers are taken into consideration, the people of Manchester have an even stronger claim to know why they were refused a public inquiry.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington (Hayes and Harlington)

In the case of London, in the provisional determination of the Commission, no fewer than 22 constituencies were involved. Representations were made by all political parties, by the London County Council—both parties agreeing—by the Metropolitan Boroughs Joint Standing Committee, but despite the universal agreement by all parties, no inquiry was held for London and a great deal of difficulty and inconvenience was experienced in knowing whether the Commission was to be called at all.

Mr. Foot

That strongly reinforces my argument. It would have saved the House a great deal of time if the Minister had told us yesterday why no more than seven public inquiries were held and what were the conditions in which the applications were granted, as well as why the application was not granted in the case of Manchester. We have never had such a reply. All we had was a speech by the Secretary of State for Scotland. He has not been here all night. Where is he? Presumably he has caught a train to Scotland, as have some other hon. Members. He has not even been prepared to defend the speech which he made last night. His discretion is wise; after his speech yesterday, it was probably wise of him not to intervene in the affairs of Manchester as he intervened in English affairs generally.

It would have saved the time of the House if the Government had been prepared to tell us, either yesterday or in any of the previous debates on these Orders, why a public inquiry was refused. They have not been prepared to do so. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is now prepared to tell us and is prepared to try to interpret the decision of the Boundary Commission in refusing a public inquiry, he will invalidate the replies which have been given to previous Orders, because he has refused, in previous cases, to tell us why public inquiries were refused. This is another illustration of the farcical way in which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his colleagues have decided to run these proceedings.

If further illustration is needed it was given by the speech of the right hon. Lady the Member for Moss Side (Dame Florence Horsbrugh). We have had in this debate on Manchester an illustration of the same thing that has happened on every Order: a right hon. Gentleman on that side of the House gets up and protests, or a right hon. Lady protests, that the Government have made a mistake and were wrong. Of course, on all the other Orders the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Lady can support the Government. Perhaps they will not on this Order.

If one were to add up all the hon. Members on that side of the House who, at each opportunity, have said that the Government were unwise, mistaken or wrong-headed, or acting monstrously, it would add up to a defeat of the whole proposition that the Government have been advancing, and the Government know it. Rt. hon. Gentlemen opposite know it; everyone on this side of the House knows it; the Press knows it; the whole country knows it—everyone knows that the well-nigh unanimous opinion of the House of Commons on a free vote would be to chuck out the whole of these Orders. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, everyone knows it.

It seems that we are going on right through the night with the solemn farce of the right hon and gallant Gentleman or the hon. Gentleman getting up and saying, "I have listened carefully to the debate. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having put his case so forcibly. He has absolutely bowled out any answers I might possibly have in reply—but, as I do not propose to make a considered reply, it does not make any difference. We will shove the Order through the House. Christmas is coming. We have fixed the time-table. We are all going off next Wednesday. Nothing will be altered. All this was decided at a Cabinet meeting a day or two ago. We do not care a fig for the opinion of the House of Commons."

This is the procedure that is happening, and every hon. Member knows it. Not an hon. Member in the House of Commons will get up and deny it. They all know that the Cabinet decided this two or three days ago. [An HON. MEMBER: "With an open mind."] They had to say, "What shall we do about the Orders?". They did not say, "What shall we do about Manchester?" They did not trouble about that. Maybe they had a laugh among themselves, and said, "Let us do the same about Manchester as we did about Plymouth and Southampton. Let us toss up between the Home Secretary or the Under Secretary, as to who is going to dish it out on this particular occasion."

Sometimes we think they have been a bit confused as to who won or lost the toss. This is how the whole thing has been done, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows it. It was decided three days ago, so do not let him think that the House of Commons decides these matters. Let the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who has had to move around some of these constituencies, remember he has had to do a bit of travelling in his political career. Now he is encouraging the process. He thinks it is good for people's health, and good for the reputation of the House of Commons maybe, that one should have such frequent changes, that people should have to travel off from one constituency to the other, even if they have established associations here or there; that one should break it up by an arbitrary procedure decided by the Cabinet, which is not even to be debated in the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker

I think the hon. Member is now repeating a part of yesterday's debate. We are now discussing the question of Manchester. I am prepared, and the Chair is always prepared, to allow reasonable latitude, so I hope he will impart a little more relevance in his speech to the debate before the House.

Mr. Foot

With great respect, Sir, I do not think I could have chosen a better Order on which to make that comment, in view of what every hon. Member of the House recalls and knows of the record of my hon. Friend whose constituency is to be destroyed under this Order. He has had great distinction because his constituency is to be destroyed for the second time. It is the second time within four years, so it is directly relevant to this Order. I say that this principle, in the way in which it has been applied to Manchester, could undermine the reputation of this House of Commons. This whole system becomes a kind of "Carpet Bagger's Charter" in order to shunt people around.

Whatever may be the attitude of those who make hypocritical protest, and agree with us in secret but are not prepared to act in public, I hope it will be understood by my hon. Friends that the only way to expose this farce to the country and to expose these Orders which offend against the principles laid down in the original Act, is to make this a national issue. We should not consider that these Orders are concerned solely with parochial issues. It is only in that way that we shall expose the miserable manoeuvre in which the Government have been engaged yesterday and today.

1.2 a.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I have no desire to curtail the debate. It is obvious that there is an enormous interest, both in the Orders generally and in this Order which affects Manchester.

The hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Odey) interrupted one of my hon. Friends to say that in his view the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners should be taken out of party politics. It had not occurred to him that the whole discussion which has taken place on this Order has, in a sense, been outside party politics, in that hon. Members on both sides of the House have agreed unreservedly that this Order should be withdrawn. It has been treated in a non-party spirit and it is a great pity that all these Orders have not been so treated.

Mr. Odey

The point I was endeavouring to make was that the whole recommendations that we are discussing were put forward by the Commission, and I do not think that it is right or proper to question the unprejudiced attitude of the Commission. The point to which I wish to refer is that there has been an attempt on the part of hon. Members opposite to pin upon my right hon. and gallant Friend a responsibility for the recommendations of the Commission which he should not be called on to bear.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

Had it been worth while, I would have pointed out to the hon. Gentleman that we were not now discussing the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners, but the Orders made by the Minister on behalf of the Government. Although it is true that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has accepted—in our view, quite wrongly—the full recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners, nevertheless the Orders are those of the Government; and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would himself admit, on behalf of the Government, that he is responsible to the House and not the Boundary Commission.

Mr. R. J. Mellish (Bermondsey)

Is it not the case that it was understood that when we came to discuss the Orders, the Government would be quite impartial and listen to the points made about each Order, and, on the arguments advanced, would take a certain decision? In fact, however, the 'position is now farcical, because there is a three-line Whip out, and. whatever is said about any of these Orders, the Government will make quite certain that the Report of the Commission is accepted.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which underlines what has been said many times in the debate.

I do not intend, at this hour, again to go over the arguments which have been put from both sides of the House on this Order the debate on which, I would like to say, was very well initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Droylsden (Mr. W. R. Williams), when he opened with what I thought was an excellent speech.

I rise particularly to ask the Home Secretary whether he realises what is happening here this evening. As we proceed with these Orders it is obvious that the tone of the debate becomes more serious. Hon. Members on both sides are becoming more and more perturbed as the discussion proceeds. I have sat through most of the debate, and, so far as I have noticed, in no instance has any hon. Member on the other side of the House had any good to say of any Order on which he spoke. The Home Secretary ought to take serious note of that.

I realise, and we all do on this side, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not been long in his present post, and it may be that we ought not to blame him personally too much for what is in these Orders. He ought, however, to know that when one sups with the Devil one needs a long spoon. He ought to remember what happened to his father when he began to hobnob with the party opposite.

If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman gets deeper and deeper into the mire as a result of holding the office he now occupies he must not blame us if we have to attack him personally, as undoubtedly we have had to do. We realise that he is, in a sense, the prisoner of the post he holds; nevertheless, we would like to see him agree to take this Order back and to bring in one more in conformity with the views expressed by hon. Members from constituencies in Manchester and the surrounding area.

There has been an attack tonight from both sides on the Commissioners: on this Order; on the way the Rules have been applied; and on the fact that few inquiries have been held. These complaints have not been isolated; they have been general from both sides. It is true that the volume of complaint has varied according to the Order which was under discussion. When the Order dealing with Devonport was under review only one hon. Member on the Government side saw fit to support us. That was because he was the only Conservative hon. Member involved in that Order. Only when one comes to Manchester do a large number of Conservative hon. Members rise in support, and that because they are affected. We think it is grossly unfair of hon. Members on that side only to rise when their constituencies, or constituencies adjacent to theirs, are affected. As a House they and we ought to take this matter seriously. Every Order, as the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) has said, affects all of us, whether or not it concerns a constituency in the area which we represent.

It is the duty, surely, of Members on the Conservative side to come to the assistance of their colleagues. Therefore, we hope that when we carry this matter to a Division, as we intend to do, every Member on that side of the House will come to the support of the Conservative Members for the Manchester area, who, I am positive, having raised their voices in protest, will, when the Division is called, desire equally to add their votes to their voices.

Mr. Snow

On a point of order. Would it be in order for the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) to finish his meal outside?

1.10 a.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

Every hon. Member, whichever way he intends to vote in the Division on this Order, will, I am quite certain, regret that its possible result may be to remove the seat from under the hon. Member for Droylsden (Mr. W. R. Williams). I agree with the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths), who said that this question had already, to some extent, been covered by the previous discussion on the Order relating to Blackburn. It is true.

On that Order I argued that the result of carrying out the rules would necessitate Lancashire's having to lose two seats. I do not need to go over that ground again. In the case of Blackpool, the matter has been decided. [HON. MEMBERS: "Blackpool?"] I beg pardon—the case of Blackburn has been decided. The question is now raised about the second of these seats.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

On a point of order. I take it the hon. Gentleman did mean Blackpool and not Blackburn. Is that perhaps the position, that the Boundary Commission did not know the difference between Blackpool and Blackburn?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

We have been discussing for some time past the position in Manchester. There, the electorate has declined by some 11,000 between the years 1946 and 1953. At present, the electoral average is low; it is only just over 54,000, which is well below the unit figure.

For that reason, it is right that the seat should come from Manchester. Of course, when it is proposed to take one seat from Manchester, all Manchester Members are up in arms. I certainly do not complain of that. Representations are made from all those who are concerned locally. There is nothing surprising in that. It is perfectly reasonable and proper. Indeed, I think that one hon. Member opposite shouted "Whose side are you on? Are you on Manchester's?" That shows the very reasonable and proper tone of this debate.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom (Sheffield, Brightside)

On the point of the Boundary Commission's recommendations to withdraw two seats from Lancashire, will the Under-Secretary tell us why there is a decision for Lancashire and no decision for Hereford?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

We have dealt with the different electoral counties in order. The electoral figure is the figure for England as a whole. Lancashire falls short of that figure, and we are now discussing Lancashire.

Mr. I. O. Thomas rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew)

If the Minister does not give way, the hon. Member must resume his seat.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I have made the point—

Mr. Thomas

The hon. Gentleman has not.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

Another seat has to come from Lancashire and that seat should properly come from Manchester. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because the electoral average in Manchester is too low. I appreciate that this is objectionable to hon. Members who sit for Manchester divisions and to those who live in Manchester. Nevertheless, it is a fact.

Mr. Thomas

On a point of order. The Minister is repeatedly using the term "electoral average." He mentioned the application of that term.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I am listening to a point of order, but up to now it does not appear to be one.

Mr. Thomas

I have a right to state my point of order in my own way, provided that I do not unnecessarily waste the time of the House. This is the first time I have stood on my feet in the last four hours. I have listened to attacks from both sides of the House amid silence from the Government, until a few minutes ago. The point of order is that the Minister has repeatedly used the term "electoral average." Just now he said that the application of that electoral quota to the whole of the country should be equal. Now he is saying that in Manchester it should be different from the rest of the country.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That is not really a point of order.

Mr. Bing

Further to that point of order. Might I be of some assistance to the Minister? He is in some difficulty in replying because of a misunderstanding on his part of a Ruling from the Chair. Perhaps I might be able to clarify the matter. The point put to the Minister, to which I am sure he wishes to reply, is that in Herefordshire the average size of a constituency is only 42,000, while in Manchester it is 58.000. The Minister may well feel that, because of something that was said from the Chair, he might not be able properly, within the rules of order, to reply to this very serious criticism. It would be of value if you were to say that he could quite easily explain this within the rules of order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

He may be able to, but if he gets outside the rules of order I shall stop him.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I propose to remain in Manchester. It is better if one does not wander over other parts of the country.

It is natural that many objections should be raised to a proposal of this kind. No one would object to such objections being raised, but the question whether or not they call for a public inquiry must be a matter for the discretion of the Commission. It is expressly given such discretion by the Act, and no doubt it used its discretion properly.

Mr. Alfred Robens (Blyth)

Should the Commissioners not give a reason when they use their discretion?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

Not necessarily. They were given discretion by an Act of Parliament which was not put on the Statute Book by this Government.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

May I correct the hon. Gentleman? These Rules first began in 1944, they were repeated in an Act of 1947 and finally came to rest in the Act of 1949. They began in the lifetime of the Government which preceded the Labour Government of 1945.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I believe that a statutory Commission of this sort is a novelty and that this is the first time we have proceeded in this way. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] The Act on which this procedure rests was, so far as this paragraph goes, an agreed Act between the parties. It is a matter within the discretion, and quite properly within the discretion—

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I am sorry to interrupt again. This is the first time the Rules are being used, but the point I made was that they were not implemented in the lifetime of the Labour Government between 1945 and 1951.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I do not know whether the right hon. Member is suggesting that it would be right and proper that the Commission should not have a discretion in this matter. That seems the only inference that can be drawn.

Mr. Robens

It should give a reason.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

It seems to me that what is being done is strictly in accordance with precedent. The reasons for refusing to hold an inquiry in a particular case cannot be known to the Government.

Mr. I. O. Thomas

Why not?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

As to this particular proposal, if it is necessary to take one seat from this number of seats in Manchester, hon. Members have questioned why it should be necessary to take Droylsden. Taking the seats as a whole, no hon. Member in any part of the House has suggested that it would be better to abolish some other seat—

Mr. Bing

Yes, Leominster.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

No other proposal has been made to abolish one other seat from this number of seats so as to comply with the law in the case of Manchester. If one looks at Droylsden one sees that it consists of four urban districts. It is, therefore, relatively easy to deal with that constituency in such a way as to make a fair distribution. Certainly, no one has suggested a fairer distribution than this—

Mr. L. M. Lever

Because we could not be heard.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

If hon. Members suggest that the law should not be complied with—[HON. MEMBERS: "What law?".] I quite understand that one could make a case against this proposal, but, assuming compliance with the law—[HON. MEMBERS: "The law?"]—the law as interpreted not by this Government, in the first place, but by the Government of the right hon. Member opposite, I believe that this is really much the best and fairest way of dealing with the matter. For that reason I ask the House to approve this Order.

1.24 a.m.

Mr. Ede

When the Under-Secretary comes to the Box to reply to the case put against a particular Order he merely repeats what he said on a previous occasion without taking any account of what has been said after his last remarks. If the law had been complied with there would have been 64 seats for Lancashire instead of 62. I have been supplied with the necessary statistics by an expert mathematician who, somehow or other, thinks one can take Members of Parliament to three decimal places. There are 3.568.247 electors in Lancashire. If we take the electoral quota laid down in the Act of Parliament, we get a quotient of 64.096. We make no claim for .096 of a Member. The number of seats that have been allotted to Lancashire amounts to 62, and, therefore, if the quota is used as laid down by Act of Parliament, there are two seats which have not been allocated.

The Under-Secretary talked about Droylsden as if it were already a Manchester seat. I have worked out a far easier sum with regard to the numbers for Manchester as they now are. On the 1953 register, there are, in Manchester, 487,969 electors. For nine seats that gives an average of 54,218, which is not so far below the quota of 55,670, unless the Government say that in the case of a big city the average must always be above the electoral quota.

That, again, proceeds on the assumption that boroughs must have bigger electorates than county divisions. While I think there is something in that argument, it is not something that can be pushed too far, and we cannot accept that every borough seat, even in a big city, shall, on average, be below the quota in every case.

In an effort to be facetious in the last debate, the hon. Gentleman asked me what I did when I was Home Secretary. The working of the Rule always produces this result. As I said yesterday, by taking the big county or the big city we get opportunities for reductions that we do not get in the smaller areas. I quoted Norfolk yesterday. On either method of calculation, Norfolk is not entitled to more than six seats, but, because it is a small unit, the Government have left it with eight. After all, there are eight seats in the geographical area of Norfolk, six in the county and two in the City of Norwich. On average, they are well below the electoral quota and well below the figure for Manchester, with its existing number of constituencies.

In my view, all the time the Rules remain as they are it will be necessary for the Government, in reviewing a Report of the Commission to make some allowance for the discrepancies and injustices that are produced. That was why, on the last occasion, the Government came to the House and proposed certain additional constituencies to rectify the fallacies that the strict application of the Rule was always right. It is astonishing that, after six years, it is only in these wide areas that they are able to find places where, by using a different quota, they can prove that what was done ought not to be continued.

Major Lloyd-George

The right hon. Gentleman keeps on saying "using a different quota." The quota used today is exactly the quota used by the Labour Government when it was fixed. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I beg pardon, the quota used for England. The right hon. Gentleman did consult other parties at the time to point this out, and it was agreed that it should be accepted.

Mr. Ede

The Government do not use the quota, it is the Commissioners who use it.

Major Lloyd-George

The right hon. Gentleman knows that what I mean is that the decision whether the Commission should be allowed to use the average for England was put to the parties, and it was agreed. This has been done on the same basis.

Mr. Ede

That does not alter the fact that it is not the Government who use the quota. After the Commissioners have made their Report the duty falls on the Home Secretary to prepare the Orders, and it is expressly stated that he will bring them in in accordance with the recommendations of the Commissioners, with or without modification. The difference between the procedure in 1948 and today is that then we proceeded by Bill, now we are proceeding by Order, and it was between the Committee and Report stages of the Bill in 1948 that the modifications were recommended to the House by the Government and adopted by the House. That is a correct statement of the facts, and I do not think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will dispute it.

It is obvious that unless some corrective measures are taken when the Government take over from the Commissioners the scales will always be weighted in such a way that the big areas like London, Lancashire, the West Riding and other more populous geographical counties will always suffer by comparison with other areas. It is evident that tonight Members representing the City of Manchester feel that the Government have not exercised the powers conferred on them by the Act in the way they should have done, and I trust that we shall find some at least of them in the Lobby in protest against the way this matter has been handled.

1.35 a.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South)

Before we proceed to a Division I would appeal to the Home Secretary to consider withdrawing this Order. Every hon. and right hon. Member who has spoken from either side of the House has been critical of the Order. They have produced statistical evidence to support their criticism. They have been critical on a geographical and economic basis. Manchester is the centre of one of the greatest industrial areas of the world. Within 20 miles is a great density of population. The people of those areas are watching this House this night. Even if the Press will not publish reports of our debates in the morning, there is an evening Press. There is sufficient interest in the matter locally to ensure that these proceedings are duly reported.

A great responsibility is on the shoulders of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I remember, when reaction was in the ascendancy before the war, that people in these areas were beginning to doubt whether democracy could deliver the goods. As the result of the actions of this House their confidence has, to a great extent, been restored. Now they are beginning to feel that there is a different law for the South and for the North. This Order will increase their doubts and undermine their confidence. Therefore, I appeal to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to withdraw this Order, pending consultation with the local authorities and the representative bodies in the area. That is a democratic suggestion that ought to be considered.

Hon. Members

Answer.

1.37 a.m.

Mr. James Hudson (Ealing, North)

The Minister will not give an answer. May I add my voice to those that have appealed for an answer? It is of the greatest importance to Members on the Government side that they should take account of the opinions of their own hon. Friends.

This has been a very impressive debate, and I intervene as I am myself an old Manchester man. I was born near Manchester and I worked in politics in Manchester up to my 55th year. I was a teacher in Manchester and was educated at its university. I am proud of Manchester, and I have been proud to listen to the universal appeal of Manchester Members for reconsideration of this Order. I will not repeat figures that have been given by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I make an appeal to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on the ground that for many years the arrangements for redistribution of seats has included the production of reports of a non-party type.

Speaker's Conferences in the past, it is true, were attended by representatives of all parties, but with Mr. Speaker in the chair, using his own impartial position, the arrangements made were usually of a character that all political parties, before the conflict in a General Election, accepted. It was intended at least that the impartial character of those decisions should be continued in the legislation under which we are now acting. It was so under the late Government, and, in the beginning, I have no doubt that it was intended to be so under the present Administration.

From what has been said by hon. Members from Manchester tonight it is clear beyond all doubt that if the Home Secretary, having failed to respond to appeals that there should be an inquiry into the political arrangements for these half-million people, having listened to complaints of a non-party character and taken into account the regions from which those complaints have come, goes on with this Order, his action will be regarded in Manchester as a deliberate political arrangement by the Government to secure their own interests and advantage against their opponents.

Is it not clear that Manchester citizens, above all others, will be called upon, if this Order goes through, to regard the House of Commons as not trying to secure a fair law for the electorate out of which a real democracy may work? Is it not clear that one Government are considering their own advantage despite every complaint and appeal? Is it not true that they have steam-rollered, because of the power they possess through the Whips, the opinion of the House?

I am sure that the Home Secretary must feel that there is something in this argument that he might have the memory of his own father's connection with Manchester. If he has listened to the appeals of hon. Members from Manchester he must agree that a very great injustice is being done. But there is more. This is the beginning of a process which, if continued, can lead to the power of the central authority becoming greater and greater over that of the votes of democracy. I say that to disregard the appeals which have been made tonight will do a vital injury to the principles of democracy itself. I hope that, even now, the right hon. Gentleman will listen to the appeals made to him to withdraw this Order.

Hon. Members

Answer.

1.45 a.m.

Major Lloyd-George

I am very glad to answer; but I can answer only on one point, and that is to reply to the repeated statements about taking political advantage. If that charge lies anywhere, it lies with the benches opposite. I do not want to start any undue controversy, but the facts are as I have stated them. The electoral quota in England is decided, not through dividing the constituencies in Great Britain, but through dividing the constituencies in England.

Mr. Bing

No.

Major Lloyd-George

That is what the Commission has done.

Mr. Bing

It is wrong.

Major Lloyd-George

I am stating what the Commission has done. It is what the late Government did.

On that basis, in 1948 an extra seat was given to the Manchester area against the recommendations of the Commission. I am only stating the facts. Under Rule 5, under the Statute passed by the late Government, the question of numerical equality is stressed very strongly. The Commission is told to take great care of that. That was done and, on the same basis as that used in 1947, the Commission says that Lancashire should lose two seats because the electorate in Lancashire has fallen considerably since the last Bill. Two seats are to fall.

The average for Manchester has been compared with that for England as a whole, which is over 57,000; and that will leave one seat fewer in the area. The average in Manchester will be only 58,000, and it is, therefore, not unnatural that the Commission should recommend a reduction in Manchester, where one seat was created more than the Commission thought necessary in 1948.

Mr. W. R. Williams

Is this what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman means to say: that to reconcile the Manchester position or to reconcile anything else in that area, he is sacrificing four urban district councils, which have between 58,000 and 59,000 electors?

Major Lloyd-George

I am saying what the Commission has recommended.

Mr. Williams

I am asking the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Major Lloyd-George

I am not quarreling with the Order.

Mr. Lewis

It is the Minister's Order, not the Commissioners' Order.

Major Lloyd-George

I am trying to explain what the Commission had in mind. Nobody can contradict what I have said about the situation in the previous review and in this review. That is a fact, and the fact is that the Commission has proceeded on exactly the same basis as in 1947. What is the good of talking about political advantage? It is the most intolerable humbug I have ever heard. Throughout the debates yesterday and today we have been told about political advantage, but nobody on the other side of the House has had the courage to accuse the Commission of not being independent.

Mr. Foot

I do not think any hon. Member—certainly I do not—accuses the Commission of having been lacking in impartiality. What we criticise as lacking in impartiality is the result of what the Commission has proposed. The basis on which we have made this allegation about the results which the Government have presented to the House is that, whereas there was a direct bias—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew)

Order. I think the hon. Member has made a speech on this Order. I thought he rose to ask a question. He cannot make a second speech.

Mr. Foot

I was replying to a direct challenge by the Minister, who said that no one had dared to say on what basis he was making this charge. I was reminding him of the repeated arguments from this side of the House to show that, whereas there was already a strong bias against the boroughs and in favour of the rural constituencies, the recommendations of the Commission carry that bias still further, as is illustrated in the case of Manchester. The case which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not dared to answer, either on this Order or any any other, is how he justifies making proposals to the House which further weight the position against the boroughs, which is a political advantage for the Tory Party.

Major Lloyd-George

There, again, it is a very debatable point, one which has been raised on several occasions. I do not accuse the hon. and learned Gentleman of saying anything of the sort, but it has been said—"rigging" was the word used. I am not sure that it was not "jiggery-pokery." If it was not used recently it was certainly used earlier. Perhaps I may say something else. Most of the trouble that we have had in the last two days has been due to the jiggery-pokery of the last Government.

Mr. Bing

Will the right hon. Gentleman—

Major Lloyd-George

No, not now. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows quite well that I want to finish what I have to say.

Mr. I. O. Thomas

Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say what he means by jiggery-pokery?

Major Lloyd-George

I do not have to. I read HANSARD. It is quite sufficient.

As far as the difference between rural and urban constituencies is concerned, I have some experience of that. I would suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is very much more difficult to look after the interests of 50,000 constituents in a large rural area than 70,000 or 80,000 in an urban area. The interests of the constituents must also come in. I was asked why there should be any difference. I am trying to explain it. Lancashire is losing two seats entirely because of the working of the Rules laid down and the way they have worked out, and accordingly this Order ought to be accepted.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has made what I consider a rather serious allegation, namely, that the last time—to use the phrase which, I must admit, he did not coin—there was "jiggery-pokery" so far as Manchester was concerned.

Major Lloyd-George

No.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I am putting it to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He has not had a very easy time tonight, so we might put it quietly and await the answer. As I understand him, he has indicated that the granting of an additional seat to Manchester was jiggery-pokery, and that now it is to be taken away. If it was jiggery-pokery and an advantage to this side of the House, why is it that every Manchester Member on that side of the House wants it to continue?

Major Lloyd-George

Obviously, no one wants to lose his seat. I did not use the word "jiggery-pokery." I was just repeating that it had been used from the other side. There is no jiggery-pokery, but the term was used on that side, and if there was any basis for such a charge it was much more applicable to the last time. I ask the House to accept the Orders which have been made on recommendations by an independent tribunal which has stuck strictly to the Rules.

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt (Birmingham, Aston)

If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks that the results of the work of the Boundary Commission are not impartial, will he explain how it is that, although his party got a minority vote at the last General Election, they are the Government today?

Mr. J. Hudson

The Home Secretary appeared to be replying to me when be mentioned that the expression "jiggery-pokery" had been used. Those were the words I used. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman pointed at me. I made no charge, except that he had been seeking political advantage.

Major Lloyd-George

I readily withdraw. I certainly did not mean the hon. Gentleman. I regret that he thought I was pointing at him. I was waving my hand in his direction. The hon. Gentleman did say that I was seeking political advantage by putting into operation the recommendations of an independent tribunal. That surely means that there is bias in the Commission.

Mr. Bing

May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman how, if there is no political implication in his own actions, he has decided that 42,000 is the right number to elect a Member of Parliament in Herefordshire, and 58,000 is the right number to elect a Member of Parliament in Manchester, when it happens that Herefordshire is entirely converted to the Conservative Party?

Mr. G. R. Mitchison (Kettering)

May I be allowed to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman a question?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

We have already spent a long time on this Order.

Mr. Mitchison

I have listened carefully to what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Act does not mention that all these recommendations are to be put into the Orders without modifications. Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me in what circumstances, other than those of arithmetical error, he would make modifications?

1.59 a.m.

Mr. I. O. Thomas

Mr Deputy-Speaker—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Surely the House is now ready to come to a decision.

Mr. Thomas

I think that the opportunity should be taken by an hon. Member on the back benches to draw attention to the outstanding fact that for the last three hours there has only been one short statement from the Government Front Bench in favour of this Order. Every other speaker has condemned it and its consequences, hook, line and sinker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Stinker"]—Yes, hook, line and stinker, if you like.

In his last few words the Minister cast aspersions on hon. Members of his own party, when he said that their contributions were stimulated only by their personal interest. That suggested that there was no principle determining their contributions to the debate. Do hon. Members opposite accept that definition? Do they contend that their contributions to the debate were determined on principle, not merely on the passing interest they might have in this Order?

I take the opportunity at this hour, 2.0 a.m., to call attention to another serious criticism of Government policy on this matter. The Minister has pointed out that the late Labour Government made changes by Bill. A Bill can be amended. One cannot put down Amendments to an Order. An Order must be accepted or rejected. To rally the whole weight of their small majority in support of their policy the Government have proceeded to make these changes by Orders.

As we have passed from Order to Order, the Home Secretary and his Under-Secretary have remained silent until the debate on each one has finished. Neither has risen during the initial stages of the discussion to justify an Order. In my opinion, and in the overwhelming opinion of this side of the House, they have not risen because they could not justify the Orders. After the whole of each debate, after all the criticism, all that the Minister or his Under-Secretary have done has been formally—very little more—to move that the Order be approved; no justification, no argument: merely the dead weight of the numbers behind them.

I appeal to hon. Members who criticised 100 per cent. the proposals in this Order to have the courage of their convictions. If this set of changes is wrong, if the whole conception of this method of rearrangement is subject to serious criticism such as they have produced, let them have the courage of their convictions and not only speak against the proposals but vote against them.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 98.

Division No. 19.]	AYES	[2.4 a.m.
Aitken, W. T.	Garner-Evans, E. H.	Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Godber, J. B.	Pitt, Miss E. M.
Alport, C. J. M.	Gough, C. F. H.	Powell, J. Enoch
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Armstrong, C. W.	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Raikes, Sir Victor
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Harris, Reader (Heston)	Redmayne, M.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Banks, Col. C.	Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)	Remnant, Hon. P.
Barber, Anthony	Heath, Edward	Ridsdale, J. E
Baxter, Sir Beverley	Higgs, J. M. C.	Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Hirst, Geoffrey	Russell, R. S.
Bishop, F. P.	Holland-Martin, C. J.	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Black, C. W.	Holt, A. F.	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Bossom, Sir A. C.	Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.	Sharples, Maj. R. C.
Boyle, Sir Edward	Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Braine, B. R.	Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)	Stevens, Geoffrey
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)	Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich W.)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Brooman-White, R. C.	Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J	Summers, G. S.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T	Iremonger, T. L.	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Bullard, D. G.	Kaberry, D.	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Burden, F. F. A.	Kerby, Capt. H. B.	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Carr, Robert	Leather, E. H. C.	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Cary, Sir Robert	Linstead, Sir H. N.	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Channon, H.	Llewellyn, D. T.	Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G	Touche, Sir Gordon
Cole, Norman	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C	Turner, H. F. L.
Colegate, W. A.	Longden, Gilbert	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Vosper, D. F.
Cooper-Key, E. M.	Maclay, Rt. Hon. John	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Marples, A. E.	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Crookshank. Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Maude, Angus	Wall, Major Patrick
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Crouch, R. F.	Medlicott, Brig. F.	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C
Deedes, W. F.	Mellor, Sir John	Wellwood, W.
Digby, S. Wingfield	Molson, A. H. E.	Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Doughty, C. J. A.	Nabarro, G. D. N.	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Drayson, G. B.	Neave, Airey	Wills, G.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)		Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Errington, Sir Eric	Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)	Wood, Hon. R.
Erroll, F. J.	Nield, Basil (Chester)	Woollam, John Victor
Fell, A.	Odey, G. W.
Finlay, Graeme	O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Fisher, Nigel	Page, R. G.	Mr. Legh and Col. Harrison
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F	Partridge, E.
NOES
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Darling, George (Hillsborough)	Greenwood, Anthony
Bacon, Miss Alice	Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Bing, G. H. C.	Davies, Harold (Leek)	Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Deer, G.	Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Bowden, H. W.	Dodds, N. N.	Hewitson, Capt. M.
Brockway, A. F.	Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)	Holman, P.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Fienburgh, W.	Holmes, Horace
Champion, A. J.	Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Chetwynd, G. R.	Foot, M. M.	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Collins, V. J.	Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Gibson, C. W.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena	Owen, W. J.	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)	Pannell, Charles	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech	Pargiter, G. A.	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S)	Paton, J.	Thomas Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Peart, T. F.	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Plummer, Sir Leslie	Wallace, H. W.
King, Dr. H. M.	Popplewell, E.	Warbey, W. N.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)	Weitzmann, D.
Lewis, Arthur	Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)	Wells, William (Walsall)
MacColl, J. E.	Proctor, W. T.	West, D. G.
McLeavy, F.	Rhodes, H.	Wheeldon, W. E.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Robens, Rt. Hon. A.	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Rogers, George (Kensigton, N.)	Wilkins, W. A.
Mellish, R. J.	Short, E. W.	Willey, F. T.
Mikardo, Ian	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)	Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Mitchison, G. R.	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Morley, R.	Skeffington, A. M.	Wyatt, W. L.
Moyle, A.	Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)	Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Mulley, F. W.	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.	Snow, J. W.	Mr. Oldfield and
O'Brien, T	Sorenson, R. W.	Mr. W. R. Williams.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Manchester, Oldham and Ashton-under-Lyne) Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Warrington and Newton) Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Major Lloyd-George.]

2.12 a.m.

Mr. Ede

I beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned.

I move this Motion to give the Leader of the House an opportunity to tell us exactly how far the Government intend to go tonight with this list of Orders. On the whole, we have had a good-tempered discussion. The last one would have been half-an-hour shorter but for the somewhat truculent intervention by the Secretary of State. After all, Ministers—and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has been a Minister for a long time—know that on these occasions the most difficult task is to resist the provocation that is quite legitimately offered to them. This is not the first time that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has been engaged in this sort of conflict.

We have had a reasonably good-tempered discussion. There are a number of very important Orders still to come. There are three dealing with London. Then there is the Order dealing with Nottinghamshire and those which deal with South-East Staffordshire and Newcastle. Towards the end of the list there are the Orders relating to Leeds and Sheffield, and I have no doubt that there are one or two others which will call for comment.

The House would be obliged to the right hon. Gentleman if he could tell us exactly how far he hopes to go with these Orders on the assumption that there is no undue prolongation of debates but that a full opportunity will be afforded, especially to Members in the constituencies affected, to place their views before the House and to get a considered reply from the Ministers responsible.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank)

There has certainly been no attempt to stop any right hon. or hon. Member making the speeches he or she wished to make. The right hon. Member asked how far we intend to go. We shall continue as we are doing now. I understood that that was in accordance with the wishes of the Opposition as expressed in the usual manner at an earlier stage. I did announce this business for today. We have made progress, but we have got a long way to go yet.

Mr. Ede

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intimation. As he says, we have a long way to go. I have no doubt that some Ministers have an invitation to the circus luncheon. I am certainly going to the circus in the evening. I hope that the debate will be ended in time for me to go, even if Ministers have to lose their lunch. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. Bing

Before the Motion is withdrawn, I think it would help the House if, from the Home Secretary, we could have an expression of opinion in regard to what I thought was an extraordinarily important question of principle he raised. On the discussion of the last Order he said he thought that for the convenience of hon. Members rural constituencies ought to be smaller than urban ones. If that is his view it introduces a quite different situation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris)

Is the hon. and learned Member speaking on the Question That the debate be now adjourned?

Mr. Bing

Yes, most definitely so, because it depends on the attitude which the Minister takes what view the House takes and how long the discussion may be prolonged. If that is an expression of policy it might well involve my hon. Friends opposing every Order because we would have to examine exactly on which basis the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was putting them forward.

When we come to the Newcastle Order we can go into the question of why the particular borough constituency of Newcastle, North should be quite all right with 51,000 electors, but that is a rather separate question. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not saying that one particular borough constituency should be particularly favoured but that, generally speaking, rural constituencies, with the exception of Newcastle, North, should be smaller than urban constituencies.

Under these circumstances, I think it would be proper if we had from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman a statement of policy, because that would indicate to hon. Members how much and how often they ought to raise questions of principle in regard to these areas. I therefore hope that before the Motion is withdrawn the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will quite frankly state the policy of the Government, whether it is to have a two-tier system of small rural constituencies and large urban constituencies, or whether it is his view that the Act passed by this House should be implemented and they should, as far as possible, be of equal size. We are entitled to an answer and it would help to shorten the debate if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would make it.

Question put and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

Mr. Bing

I did not want to speak again, but this Order gives the Minister another opportunity to tell us whether he is in favour of smaller rural con- stituencies and larger urban constituencies. Will he be frank with the House and say whether that is Conservative policy? Are we not entitled to an answer?

Resolved, That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Warrington and Newton) Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Bosworth and Loughborough) Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Major Lloyd-George.]

Mr. Bing

Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will explain the reason for this Order. Is this because rural constituencies ought to be smaller than urban constituencies? Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not prepared to state Conservative policy? We have reached a curious state of affairs in this House when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who is renowned for his discretion, does not bother to get up to say what Conservative policy is. Is he not prepared to say whether or not what he stated in connection with one Order is true of them all? Or is this a reason for taking a seat away from Manchester, and, when dealing with other constituencies, is this to be entirely disregarded? Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not going to answer?

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The Question is—

Mr. Bing

I have not finished yet, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was just about to reply to the remarks of hon Gentlemen opposite. They all shout out "No." The interjections of hon. Members will be reported, and it will be interesting to know that they so disregard the views of the people whom they seek to represent that they are not at all concerned whether somebody in one area should have a vote of only half the value of the vote of somebody else in another area.

They try to prevent their own Minister from answering. We understand why. Here he is trying to bring in the university seats by a back door. Here is an attempt to persuade the rural population to emulate the universities. One would at least think that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would have the courtesy to give us and the country some explanation of the Orders he is introducing. If he has not that degree of courtesy for the constituents, then I am quite certain that they will know how to answer those Members who represent them and who shout out "No" from the back benches when any question is raised about their representation.

2.22 a.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham, East)

The question which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchuch (Mr. Bing) has raised regarding the remark made by the Home Secretary about showing favour to rural constituencies is one which is, of course, relevant to every Order which comes before us. Since the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not seem disposed to reply, I venture to hope, without presumption, that I may be able to help my hon. and learned Friend with an answer to the question. It seems to me that the answer must be sought in the history of this country.

Mr. Lewis

Is my hon. Friend not aware that my hon. and learned Friend both expects and appreciates that he is more likely to get a well-considered and sensible answer from—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The purpose of an intervention, when an hon. Member is in possession of the Floor, is either to clear up an ambiguity or to obtain an explanation of something which is ambiguous.

Mr. Lewis

I was asking my hon. Friend whether he was aware of the fact that when my hon. and learned Friend—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member can make that point in his own speech if he has an opportunity to do so.

Mr. Stewart

I think I am aware of the question which my hon. Friend is trying to ask me. I am well aware of the fact that my hon. and learned Friend really wants to get an answer from the Minister and not from me. I entirely agree, and if, in a moment, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman rises to give an answer, I will cease to speak at once. But, in the absence of such an answer, it occurred to me that I might be able to assist my hon. and learned Friend to understand what is behind the policy of showing favour to rural constituencies, which the Home Secretary has just announced.

The answer is to be found in a study of English history and a study of the history of Parliamentary institutions. At a very early date in that history it was clear that the land-owning classes took the view that Parliament would be a much better institution if they had a predominant influence in determining who were elected, and I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that some of the best people in the country have adopted that view for centuries.

During the time historians refer to as the Lancastrian experiment the first serious attempt was made to govern this country by means of Parliamentary institutions, and the landed classes kept on their estates armed retainers who turned up when elections to Parliament were taking place. It frequently happened that those who were elected were generally people who could be relied on to express opinions in agreement with those of the great landed classes.

Mr. Arthur Colegate (Burton)

On a point of order. Are we discussing the Bosworth and Loughborough Order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

As I understand, the argument of the hon. Gentleman is to show that the agricultural interest is overweighted. But I hope he will not cover the whole of English history to prove that.

Mr. Pannell

Is not my hon. Friend entitled to bring the Battle of Bosworth up to date?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I cannot say that it is irrelevant, but I hope we shall not be here all night discussing English history.

Mr. Victor Collins (Shoreditch and Finsbury)

Is not the successor to the armed retainers for the party opposite the Boundary Commission?

Mr. Stewart

I am not going to deal with every period of history as with the Lancastrian period, and I am much obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), for if there is any Order in the whole of the 42 we are discussing now on which this matter could properly be raised, it is this one.

It was the Battle of Bosworth that finally ended the capacity of the landed classes to influence Parliamentary elections. The operation of the Statute of Livery and Maintenance made it impossible to influence the elections by means of armed retainers. As time went on the preservation of the pocket boroughs became another method because these, although called pocket boroughs, were but mere villages or hamlets, and great industrial centres grew up with singularly poor representation.

The landed classes had devised one method of rigging elections to take the place of another. Their influence was perpetuated by avoiding redistribution as long as possible. Once again, as time went on, just as the movement that, in the 15th century, had made the method of intimidating electors out of date, so, in the 19th and 20th centuries, it was continued by having no redistribution at all.

Mr. Rees-Davies

On a point of order. Must we, in the 20th century, have to listen to the filibustering methods of the 15th century? Is that not out of order?

Mr. Lewis

Is it in order for an hon. Gentleman to suggest that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, are allowing my hon. Friend to filibuster?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I did not draw that inference. I did say that the argument about overweighting is relevant. But I do hope that we are not going to cover the whole of English history.

Mr. Stewart

I have covered five centuries of history in less than five minutes. The hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) asked whether he must stop to listen. There is no compulsion on his stopping.

In the 15th century efforts were made to influence elections in the interest of the land-owning class by actually intimidating the electors. That had become out-of-date by the 19th century, when the method then was of having no redistribution. That is now unfair and hard to justify in view of the growth of democratic ideas. There remains the modern method of having Boundary Commissions who announce that they propose to give advantage to rural seats despite the fact that the Act of Parliament which set them up does not give them authority to do any such thing.

The climax of all this is when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, going further than the Boundary Commission, suggests that 70,000 urban electors are equivalent to 50,000 rural voters. If I follow what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said—and if I am misrepresenting him he knows that I am only filling in time until he gets up to withdraw this Order—the climax of the Lancastrian intimidators and holders of the pocket boroughs in the 18th and 19th centuries is reached in the statement of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman which amounts to the suggestion that three wretched townsfolk are worth two solid peasants who can be relied upon to vote for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's party. The three wretched townsfolk might not have such democratic ideas in their heads.

I am sorry that my hon. and learned Friend has not been able to get a reply from the Minister. I suggest, with all humility, that what I have said will help to explain, if not to justify, the kind of result we get in a Report of the Boundary Commission.

2.33 a.m.

Mr. Jack Jones (Rotherham)

I dare to intervene at this strange hour in the debate only to express my astonishment. I am beginning to wonder where this House is going. I represent a constituency that is not concerned with these Orders, but, even if it was, my constituents are shrewd, hard-working and hard-thinking, and it would not make a lot of difference to me.

I am concerned that the Government spokesman said that priority was being given to the rural areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) suggested that the ratio was three wretched townsfolk to two peasants. It is not quite like that. The Commission's figures are 54,000 divided by six, giving 9,000, and 42,000 divided by six. That proportion seems to be about the figure that has been submitted to us tonight.

According to the Government spokesman, that quota of reproduction means that nine intelligent, hard-working townsmen have the same value electorally as seven peasants working on the land. In actual fact, Members for rural areas are being told that they are of great value to the country. They were always of great value to the Conservatives, because they are more afraid, being less well-organised. They are potentially of great value to the Tory Party. I am not surprised that it runs in the mind of Tory Ministers that this ratio of nine engineers to seven farm labourers is about the true one. Two of the five have not forgotten the days of the squire.

We seem to be getting somewhere, even at this time of night. We are beginning to find out what is really in the mind of the Government; and it has been worth waiting for. Many hon. Members have gone home and I am sorry for those whose own Orders are still to be discussed; but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) that this issue goes far beyond affecting individual Members. It affects the whole Constitution of this country and for my part, I am "all ears" for what the Government have to say about my premise of nine engineers and seven farm-workers.

2.35 a.m.

Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn (Carlton) rose—

An Hon. Member

Sit down.

Mr. Scholefield Allen

On a point of order. May I ask whether it is in order, when you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have called upon an hon. Member to address this House, for one of his hon. Friends to shout out, in a very loud voice, "Sit down"?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

There is nothing unparliamentary in the expression, but an hon. Member should not shout.

Mr. Pickthorn

I hope later to make a very long speech—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and if I have ill-natured and ill-mannered interruptions from those who ought to be my political friends, I shall make several of them.

Mr. Foot

Let us have some more history.

Mr. Pickthorn

I do not think that I could give the hon. Member more; I could give him some history, but that would be different.

I want to make a very short speech now, and to point out that this is less of a party matter than has been represented. Guidance has been given from one Front Bench, but not from the other, and guid- ance should be given. The disparity between the borough and the county constituency is, on the average, 1,793; that is what we were told yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). The right hon. Gentleman added: which, I should have thought, by and large"— although I do not like the expression— was a sufficient recognition of the extra difficulties concerned with county divisions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 1798.] That is to say, it is apparently the policy of right hon. and hon. Members on the other side that there should be, as there always traditionally has been ever since we have had these Orders, and, a priori, ever since there have been Boundary Commissions, a general conditional understanding that "area" should mean a smaller population where that can be arranged. The only difference between the two sides of the House is what that difference should be.

2.40 a.m.

Mr. Ede

An ex-Parliamentary Secretary on the other side of the House, the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pick-thorn), has seen fit to allude to me personally. I have assured the House that there would be no attempt at filibustering so far as I was concerned, and I try to keep to promises which I have made. The hon. Member might have gone on to point out that I then proceeded to show that the present scheme of redistribution more than doubles that difference.

This is a matter, I agree, which is one of opinion, first, as to whether there should 'be any weighting at all and. secondly, if there should be weighting, what the extent should be. I expressed a personal view, as I think the phrase which he read indicated, and I stick to that view, having contested both rural and urban constituencies and knowing the extra strain, during a campaign, which is placed on a candidate in a county division compared with the strain in a normal borough constituency. I also know, when one is elected, the difficulty of keeping in touch with the electorate when one has to go to various places miles apart, compared with the position in a compact borough constituency where there is a central point to which one can expect constituents to come.

I do not think there is any very serious difference of opinion as to the fact that there should be some weighting, but the amount of that weighting is a matter for legitimate controversy, and my view is that on this occasion, in the present redistribution, the Government are submitting Orders which make the weighting too heavy in favour of the rural constituencies.

2.42 a.m.

Mr. Foot

There is some advantage in having a discussion on this issue of the weighting of rural constituencies when we are debating an Order which, I gather, no one wishes to oppose on the merits of the Order. It cannot be said that anyone is seeking a political advantage in this case. Nevertheless, we are having a debate on a fundamental principle which is involved in all the Orders.

All this could have been avoided if we had had the debate yesterday. The hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) raised similar points yesterday and received no reply from the Government, and it is right that he should raise them again.

The point about what was said on this side of the House which the hon. Member for Carlton has not appreciated is that, while some hon. Members on both sides may agree that there should be some weighting in favour of the rural constituencies—that is an arguable proposition—it is quite indefensible that the decision as to the precise degree of the weighting should be made by the Boundary Commission and should never be defended by the Government on the Floor of the House.

The reason for which it is particularly invidious that the Government should not defend the alteration in the weighting on the Floor is that this Government happen to derive an advantage from this sort of weighting. The hon. Member for Carlton has agreed that this is an important principle involved in the whole of the Commission's Report; that was the reason for his intervention, for he stressed the importance of this principle and defended it. If he is prepared to defend it and to recruit, on his side of the argument, quotations from a speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), why do not the Government defend it?

Why does the Home Secretary not speak on it? Why do the Government not say that in their view the Boundary Commission this time has made an improvement on the Report of the Commission on the previous occasion? Because the Commission, on this occasion, has acted on a different principle. On the previous occasion, it was the opinion of the Commission that the difference in the weighting should be 1,700—the difference between the two.

Mr. Ede

No, that is not quite so. The figure of 1,700 arises from the action taken by the then Government after the Boundary Commissioners had submitted the recommendation that it would have involved a bigger weighting.

Mr. Foot

I apologise. That is correct, and it was incorrect as I have stated it, though the way my right hon. Friend puts it strengthens my argument, because in the case of the previous Government he was prepared to take responsibility for the proposals he made to the House of Commons and to defend them then as he has defended them now.

My right hon. Friend did not come along and say, "The Boundary Commission has made these proposals. I think we must accept them completely, and I am not going to consider the relations that these proposals produced as between urban and rural constituencies." He said, "I take the Boundary Commission's Report in order to reduce the bias which the Commission's Report proposes as between rural and urban constituencies." And it was reduced, even though it did not wipe it out altogether, and the House of Commons accepted it and the position that there should be a reversal of what the Commissioners proposed.

But the present Government are now defending that, setting the ground for their defence on a weighting in the opposite direction and a weighting which, not out of any partiality on the part of the Commission but out of partiality in the defence of the Government, assists them in their electoral prospects. This is one of the grounds of our objections. I will not go with my hon. Friend all the way in the history he related, and from some of the speeches made from this side I must say I felt at one moment that it was a peasants' revolt. It is not the peasants who ought to be blamed for this. It is not they who decided it should be weighted in their favour—it is the Government, who are calculating that it is to their benefit.

This Government have not been prepared, as the last Government were prepared, to survey the Boundary Commission's recommendations, to have a debate in which all hon. Members should present their views, and then to present the Government's proposals. This Government have not been prepared to do that because they have decided before the House of Commons had had the opportunity of passing its judgment on any of these proposals, to drive them all through, irrespective of the weighting in any particular constituency and the fact that the Commission had altered the principles on which the Report was to be based, and on which the results were to be achieved. The Government decided in advance that the Cabinet was to settle the distribution and revision of seats and that the House of Commons was not to be allowed to alter the decision of the Cabinet by one figure, by one per cent. by one decimal point or, indeed, in one constituency.

2.50 a.m.

Mrs. Eirene White (Flint, East)

I think we are entitled to some opinion from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on this point. I am somewhat confused. I have heard the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) say that there should be fewer electors in a county division wherever that can conveniently be arranged. Surely it should be the other way round: wherever possible, a county division should have the same number of electors as the norm for all divisions, but there are some instances in which we would all recognise that it is inescapable that there should be fewer.

I recognise, for example, that in the case of the Isle of Anglesey it would be difficult to amalgamate that with any mainland constituency in North Wales. There would be perfectly reasonable geographical validity for saying that there should be rather fewer voters there than is generally regarded as proper. But that is a very different thing from making it, as appears to be the Government policy, a matter of principle that county divisions, regardless of their peculiar individual characteristics, are all to be considered to be entitled to have fewer voters than the urban divisions.

This is a serious matter. If we look not only at our own past history, but at other parts of the Commonwealth, we can see the effect of this policy of overriding rural areas. Particularly is that evident in the Union of South Africa, where there is a statutory weighting of the rural vote. I believe I am correct in saying that the rural vote is worth 25 per cent. more than the urban vote; and because of that the Nationalist Party has been able to obtain a majority and the United Party has not a hope of turning it out.

Although we are not proposing at present to have as a customary form weighted rural areas, it seems that the Government are countenancing something which will lead to a similar result. I think we should know whether it is only for unavoidable geographical reasons that county divisions should have this peculiar privilege, or whether the Government feel that as a matter of general policy rural areas, regardless of geography, should be entitled to these weighted votes.

2.52 a.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey (Sunderland, North)

The House should be obliged to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) who, through his persistence, has raised a matter of considerable importance. I agree that exceptional cases should be recognised, but I think that exceptional cases should be made out before they are recognised. The burden should be on the constituency to prove that it is an exceptional case.

I do not agree with my hon. Friends who say that there should be automatic weighting in rural constituencies. Let us be realistic about this. My constituents do not primarily vote for me; they vote, through me, to get a Labour Government. The decision at a General Election, as we all recognise, is to determine the shape and content of the Government. So far the argument has been—and I regret that it has been put by many of my hon. Friends—that the vote should be for the particular Member. It is quite unrealistic and wrong to argue that any form of vocation or job should give a higher electoral value, but that is what has been argued about rural constituencies.

We are now facing a position where the weightage has been increased. Elec- tions are not being determined so much by the Members as by national propaganda. Is the wireless less effective today than five years ago? Is it more difficult for the rural electorate to receive election addresses? It is easier now than five years ago. Yet, according to the Commission, the weightage is to be twice as great as last time.

What is the basis for this? We all recognise that wireless, television, the Press and the communications which go through the post have a greater effect in determining the decision of the electorate than a few years ago. The Home Secretary must reply to the debate. He must not just sit there, turning his back on us and paying no attention. There has been a substantial change in the relationship between the rural and the urban constituencies. The burden is on the Government to make out a case.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster)

Will the hon. Member—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There have, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, been six speeches from the other side on this Order. It so happens that Bosworth is the predominently rural constituency and Loughborough the predominently urban constituency, and that Bosworth has 10,000 more electors in the rural constituency than has Loughborough in the urban constituency.

Mr. Willey

I have no doubt that the hon. Member will have an opportunity to join in our discussion. If he had paid attention he would have known that it was agreed that we should have a general discussion on this Order.

I hope the Home Secretary will make out his case. I am not saying that he will convince us, but the burden is on him to make a case. There has been a change of policy. I am against this policy. This is not a political matter. It is a matter on which we ought to hear the opinion of as many hon. Members as possible. The Commissioners ought to know what the views of hon. Members are. We do not want the position to be aggravated. It may be four times the weightage if they go on at the present rate. We will soon be in the position of South Africa. Is that the purpose of the Commission? Will the Home Secretary tell us? That is the direction in which we are moving. If this is the policy imposed upon us by the Commission the Home Secretary ought to defend it.

It is our duty to make clear to the Commission that we are against it; that we believe that there should be equality in the worth of every elector's vote, except where, because of geographical or other difficulties, a smaller constituency may be tolerated. I have expressed my opinion clearly, and I hope that other hon. Members will express theirs, so that from this debate some guidance can be gained on the views of the House on an important political question.

2.59 a.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has said. It would be intolerable if we passed this Order without having a reply to the debate from the Home Secretary. It is no use him sitting there and sniggering. Serious arguments have been addressed to him.

Major Lloyd-George

It would have been better if the hon. Member had been here longer instead of coming in now.

Mr. Fletcher

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has no right to make that remark. I spent most of yesterday here, and I have sat here for several hours this evening. The Home Secretary is treating the House with contempt.

On a previous Order the right hon. and gallant Gentleman went out of his way to enunciate an entirely new principle—

Major Lloyd-George

I really must correct the hon. Member. All I did was to make a simple observation, which I now repeat, that in my judgment it was easier for a Member to look after, say, 70,000 in an urban area than 50,000 in a rural area. That is all I said.

Mr. Fletcher

Exactly. The Home Secretary is repeating what he said. He is introducing a new principle—

Major Lloyd-George

I am sorry to interrupt, but I did not introduce a new principle. I was asked a question and all I said—and I am not putting forward a new principle—was that from my experience of both kinds of constituencies it is easier to give service to 70,000 electors in an urban area than 50,000 in a rural area.

Mr. Fletcher

I do not think there is any difference of opinion between us about what the Home Secretary has said. He has now repeated twice what he stated an hour or two ago. It is because of that remark that we have had this discussion in which a number of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) have taken part.

It is something different because there is nothing whatever in the Rules laid down by Act of Parliament, under which the Boundary Commissions operate, which entitled anybody to assume that there should be any differentiation for rural as distinct from urban constituencies. What the Home Secretary has now said is that it is easier for a Member in an urban constituency to look after 70,000—

Mr. Speaker

The debate now seems to have moved a little wide, to general principles of electoral representation. We are dealing with a series of specific Orders and the rules of order as to relevancy, as the hon. Member addressing the House knows, are strict on that matter. He should confine his remarks to questions of Bosworth and Loughborough.

Mr. Fletcher

I am trying to confine myself to the subject matter of this debate, in which a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have taken part, the object of which has been to obtain an elucidation from a Government spokesman on their views on this principle.

Perhaps we may have the Home Secretary's attention for a moment. We are endeavouring to point out that there is nothing whatever in the Rules laid down by the Statute which entitles the Boundary Commissions to give any weighting at all to a rural constituency as compared with a urban constituency. On the contrary, the Boundary Commissions are entitled to take into account the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency. If Parliament had so desired, it would have been possible to have there added words which would have enabled the Boundary Commissions to take into consideration whether a constituency was urban or rural.

If it has now become, as a result of what the Home Secretary said, recognised as part of the operations of the Boundary Commissions that that should also be a ground for differentiation, then we shall be debating what all my hon. Friends regard as a very reactionary modification of the accepted principles of universal suffrage and the well-known principle of our party of "one man, one vote," whether the vote comes from a rural or urban constituency.

Mr. Speaker

I can see that all these matters may affect this particular Order and some discussion on them was necessary. But it would be an abuse of the practice of this House to turn a debate on a specific Order like this into a general discussion. If some discussion of this sort has taken place I can well understand it, but it must not be carried too far.

Mr. Fletcher

I do not desire to prolong the debate, Sir. I have made the point and I hope that, before we part with the Order, the Home Secretary will, in view of the speeches from both sides of the House, take an opportunity to correct the impression he gave by his remarks just now.

3.5 a.m.

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt (Birmingham, Aston)

One has the most eerie feeling, in listening to the debate, that instead of a Secretary of State for the Home Department we have a kind of electronic brain which is the instrument of the Boundary Commissioners. They have fed into the brain a programme and it is working to the programme, but it can do no creative thinking; so whenever we ask it a question which the Commissioners have not already anticipated we get absolutely no answer whatever. It really is quite intolerable that the House of Commons should be given this display by an electronic brain rather than a thinking being, acting and speaking for a Government policy.

Mr. Speaker

I must point out that there is nothing about the electronic brains in this Order.

Mr. John Paton (Norwich, North)

On a point of order. I think, Sir, that you are probably not aware that the debate is now taking place not on an Order but on the Motion moved by my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member is talking about something that happened when I was momentarily out of the Chair, but I understand that that Motion was on a previous Order and not on this one.

Mr. Paton

The Motion to adjourn the debate was never withdrawn in my hearing.

Mr. Speaker

It was negatived, I understand. I hope that the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) will confine himself to the delectable region of Bosworth and Loughborough.

Mr. Wyatt

It was simply because there was no mention of an electronic brain in the Order that it was so distressing to be treated to this display by one. One could not help referring to it. Why it is that the Home Secretary does not answer the specific question: why has the weightage gone up in favour of county constituencies since the last proposals were presented to the House by my right hon. Friend the former Home Secretary? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was allowed to give an illustration from his own past when he explained how he felt, having had experience of both rural and urban constituencies—that, on the whole, it was easier to represent an urban constituency than a rural constituency.

There may be something in that, but surely nothing has happened since the last redistribution Orders to make it more difficult to represent rural constituencies and, therefore, to justify the increase in the weightage. There has been no breakdown in the train services or slowing down of motor cars. There has been no more difficulty in bus transport or any increase in any of the other difficulties which a rural Member might be expected to meet. We ought to be told specifically why it is now thought that, five or six years later, it is necessary to increase the weighting when nothing whatever has happened to justify it.

3.8 a.m.

Mr. Victor Collins (Shoreditch and Finsbury)

This discussion arose on a point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) as a result of a remark by the Home Secretary about the relative difficulty of administering an urban and a rural division. It seems to me that hon. Gentlemen opposite, in attempting to justify the greater disparity which is now proposed by the Commission, sought to do so by reference to the difficulties which a candidate experiences in rural elections and the difficulties or greater work Which a Member of Parliament for a rural area experiences in administering his constituency.

The point which should be stressed is that we have not merely one man, one vote, but one man, one value. For five years I represented a rural constituency which had an electorate of 52,000, and I now represent an urban constituency with an electorate of 56,000. I have not had sufficient experience of the latter to confirm or deny the view put forward by the Home Secretary.

When I was in a rural constituency I had one "surgery" a week but now, in a London division which is two boroughs joined together—formerly two Parliamentary constituencies up to four years ago—it is still felt necessary for the convenience and comfort of the electorate that I should appear each week in both boroughs to deal with people's needs. From that point of view, there is more work in the urban district than there was in the rural.

I mentioned the figures of 52,000 and 56,000 because they seem normal figures. I think it would be utterly wrong to let the suggestion go any further that there is thought to be a need for a great disparity in numbers between rural and urban divisions. Inevitably, that would lead to the view that there was a difference in the value of the vote. I hope, therefore, that the Home Secretary will clear up this point.

I never heard an hon. Member—on either side of the House—representing a rural area complain that he could not do his work and I do not think that that is the case. In judging these matters the first consideration should be the convenience of the electorate and not the convenience of hon. Members. Any weight Which goes beyond the very narrowest limits is, in my view, completely unjustified.

3.12 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington (Hayes and Harlington)

I did not intend to intervene on this Order and I apologise to my hon. Friends who want to speak on other Orders. I only do so now, however, in view of the very pertinent observation of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). As he pointed out, we are considering the draft constituency Order for Bosworth and Loughborough and it is true that the Bosworth constituency, which, in this case, is the agricultural constituency, has an electorate of 63,000.

One of the difficulties all the way through, in the case of the Report of the English Commission, is that it gives practically no reasons for its recommendations. It discusses some general principles, but gives practically no general review of observations made by bodies—as have the Scottish and the Welsh Commissions. Although this Commission dealt with a far larger number of constituencies, some of great magnitude, it has given practically no reasons why it has come to particular conclusions and made recommendations. That strengthens the view which I and other hon. Members expressed yesterday that the English Commission seems, in general, to have treated the public and those who made representations with indifference, if not with contempt.

As we do not know the reasons why the Commission has recommended the set-up for these two constituencies, I am hoping that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, when he replies to the very important points which have been raised, will take the opportunity of telling us—because we do not know—why, for example, the urban district of Hinckley is in the county constituency of Bosworth. Although this Order is not contested, it is not true to say that representations were not made. I understand that they were made in regard to the provisional recommendations. If one looks at the map one sees no reason why the urban districts of Hinckley and Market Bosworth should not go into the constituency of Loughborough.

At any rate, there must, presumably, be some reason why Hinckley and Market Bosworth were included in the county constituency. I think it is more logical that the urban districts of Ashby-de-la-Zouche, Ashby Woulds and Shepshed should, in fact, be included in Loughborough, but I can see no reason why Bosworth gets this addition. As the Commission has not told us, perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will enlighten us, and, incidentally, the constituents of the two new constituencies who do not know why they have been pushed into them.

Major Lloyd-George rose—

Mr. Bing

This will be interesting.

Major Lloyd-George

I shall not be long, because I am still under the impression 'that we were discussing the Bosworth and Loughborough Order, which I would point out, before I go further, purely conforms to alterations in local government boundaries.

On the main point which has been raised and about which there has been some misunderstanding—which, I hope, I have cleared up as far as I am concerned—I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says, that we have to have some weighting for rural seats, for reasons which I think everyone appreciates. Everyone knows that this weighting cannot be avoided because of the difficulties which are there.

I would point out that any change in the weighting is not due to any action of the Commission as such, but is really automatic. Where 17 extra seats have been created, that obviously alters the advantage. Any rectification made in boroughs would, naturally, bring back the pendulum. That is purely automatic.

Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh (Islington, North)

Nonsense.

Major Lloyd-George

It is no good the hon. Gentleman talking like that. He ought to listen.

Mr. Fienburgh

It is because I am listening that I talk like that.

Major Lloyd-George

I think that even the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that if 17 borough seats are added, it will alter the advantage in weighting. If that is rectified, it will, in the ordinary course of events, change the weighting in the other direction.

I do not propose to go further except to say that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The electorate of Loughborough is roughly 53,000, and Bosworth, which I assume is comparatively rural, has an electorate of roughly 63,000.

Mr. Nabarro

That is the very point I made.

Major Lloyd-George

In that instance, we have the weighting quite the other way.

I will give another example, of two seats with which I have been connected. My present constituency—and I say this to the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing)—is within 300 of the average for the whole country. At the moment, my electorate numbers 55,370. That is a borough constituency. The rural constituency which I used to represent had about 62,000 electors.

There are other cases in which we have to depart from the Rule because we simply cannot help doing so. That is obviously what was intended in rural areas. The Rules say that: A Boundary Commission may depart from the strict application of the last two foregoing rules if special geographical considerations.. We know some of those, the Western Isles and the Shetland Isles— including in particular the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency, appear to them to render a departure desirable. That is stated in the Rules, and I am satisfied that that was done. We all know of constituencies which are in a peculiar position, and where all kinds of difficulties are found. I know of one in Wales which must be a tremendous task to look after. It is Brecon and Radnor. It covers a vast area—

Mr. Ede

And is very mountainous.

Major Lloyd-George

Yes, it is very mountainous country. The terrain imposes a severe strain on a Member. I have met two or three, and I thought I was rather well off in comparison. I would quote one sentence from the Commission's Report. In paragraph 9, it is stated: In many instances, we decided in exercise of the discretion given to us in Rule 6 that we would be justified in recommending the creation or continuance of constituencies with electorates substantially below or in excess of the electoral quota, but in no case have we recommended the creation of a constituency with an electorate in 1953 of less than 40,000 or more than 80,000. I can say no more than that I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says about it. There are cases that come within the Rules. They are difficult cases and I am certain that we do not want to depart from recommendations made in accordance with the Rules.

Resolved, That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Bosworth and Loughborough) Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Harborough and Leicester South-East) Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Major Lloyd-George.]

3.24 a.m.

Mr. John Baldock (Harborough)

I have no intention, at this hour, of keeping the House for many minutes, but I do feel it incumbent on myself to represent the views of those of my constituents who live in the Oakley urban district, which they have expressed through their urban district council, in the form of a petition to which a great number of signatures have been appended.

An inquiry was held into the original alterations to the Harborough constituency and others adjacent to it, and in the City of Leicester. The original proposals are not before the House, for new and different proposals have been presented. The Boundary Commission has deviated from the undertaking it gave, because at the inquiry it stated that it would hear further representations if any alterations were proposed to the original proposals. The original proposals have been altered, but there has been no opportunity for the Commissioners to hear further representations. If the undertaking was given it should have been carried out.

There are two reasons why the electorate in the Oakley district feel that the changes are unfortunate. First, they are part of the county for local government purposes, and they do not desire to be transferred to the city, thereby breaking one of the Rules under which the Commission has operated. It is a general rule that a constituency should not contain different parts of an administrative county. That has arisen.

The general feeling in the urban district is that people would prefer to remain in the county for Parliamentary electoral purposes as well as for local government. That has been expressed by the urban district, which has asked me to put forward its views, and also because certain members of the community in Oadby have got up a petition. They have not had very long in which to do it, so the petition does not contain the signatures of more than half the electorate. Nevertheless, I have a certificate, signed by the three people responsible for organising it, to say that in one case 95 per cent. of those approached for signatures, in another case 95 per cent., and in a third case 100 per cent. desired to remain in the Harborough divisions. They say that approximately half the electorate was approached. There is no doubt that the people in the urban district wish to remain in the county for Parliamentary representation.

The petition states: The signatories of this petition, being electors in the Oadby urban district, protest in the strongest terms against the proposals of the Boundary Commission which would entail severance from the county, of which they are an integral part, by transferring their Parliamentary representation to the city. The feeling is that it is unfortunate to split a comparatively small urban district in this way. There are only about 5,000 electors, so it is not merely a question of accurate mathematical distribution or convenience.

This is a most unfortunate time to make this change. There is a very big movement of population taking place in and around the city. In 1947, the Local Government Boundary Commission strongly represented that the administrative county of Rutland should be more closely associated with Leicestershire. There is every evidence that at some stage it will come more and more closely into Leicester. An addition of 25,000 new electors to the county of Leicestershire, and the considerable overspill from Leicester into the county which is taking place at a very great rate, mean that considerable changes ought to be made there.

It is most unfortunate to make a change in this way by putting an urban district out of its county into the city, when, quite likely, it will have to be brought back into the county again in a short time. The people would prefer to be electors in a county constituency because they regard themselves as members of a county.

Mr. Scholefield Allen

I am sure that on this side we all sympathise with the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Baldock), but he will look in vain, I fear, for sympathy from his own Front Bench. This is another example of the violation of Rule 4, by which an urban district is to be snatched out of its county constituency and placed, like a wart, on a number of boroughs.

Earlier this evening, the ancient and historic City of Blackburn complained of exactly the reverse process; that is, four wards had been snatched from Blackburn and stuck on to the adjacent urban district of Darwen. That, surely, was not the intention of those who thought first of the Rules; of those who laid down the Rules? They expected the Commissioners to have some respect for community life; but there is no regard here for that important aspect.

Surely, the urban district of Oadby could very well have been left where it was, as the hon. Member opposite desires. After all, even if it is a matter of 5,000 or 6,000 votes, what is that? My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross) has been left with an electorate of nearly 78,000, so why do we carve up these bodies simply to add mathematical accuracy to the one constituency when we leave a top-heavy and over-weighted constituency in another case?

The real reason why I have risen is this. Earlier in this debate, I raised the question of requests for public inquiries, and the Under-Secretary, if he will give me his attention, did say that, at a later stage, he would be prepared to give the information for which I then asked. I hope that he now has that information and that he will be able to give it in relation to this particular Order, because there was a demand for an inquiry in this case. Was there, in fact, an inquiry? Was any answer sent? We are entitled to know, and to have an answer to the general question.

I have framed my question in a way which is readily understood, and the Under-Secretary has promised an answer to it; and, when he rises to give way to the wishes of the petitioners who plead to be left where they are, I hope that he will give me, and the House, this information.

3.34 a.m.

Mr. Norman Smith (Nottingham, South)

The House has heard a cogent and admirable speech on the subject of an inquiry which was held in respect of this Order, and my point is precisely this. I have the honour to represent a part of Nottingham, which is similar to Leicester, with which it has close relations. There is much competition and attempts at emulation between the two towns, but we in Nottingham cannot understand the holding of an inquiry in the case of this particular Order when there was not an inquiry in the case of Nottingham. The Under-Secretary, who has given a marvellous exhibition of standing pat and stonewalling, should really give the answer to that question. The. Nottingham case is on all fours with this with which we are now concerned.

This is a modified Order and not at all the same Order which came out in the first Report of the Boundary Commission in May. In the first Report it was suggested adding rural districts not only to Leicester, South-East, but also to Leicester, South-West. There were the usual objections, but in this case there was an inquiry, and Nottingham claims for herself a title to which Leicester would never lay claim, namely, "Queen of the Midlands." The original proposals for Nottingham were very similar.

Mr. Speaker

May I point out that there is an Order dealing with Nottingham? The hon. Member's remarks would be more appropriate on that Order.

Mr. Smith

Then I will content myself by asking the Minister to reply to the question put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen), to which he did not reply yesterday: why did the Boundary Commission agree to an inquiry in this case and what were the features relating to this Order which were not present in many other instances where the request for an inquiry was refused? This seems to hon. Members on this side of the House an example of an unresponsible, unrepresentative body exercising remote control over the election of the legislators. It looks to us like a very dangerous and, indeed, sinister element intruding itself into our public life. The question by my hon. and learned Friend was very pertinent and I suggest that he is entitled to an answer from the Under-Secretary.

3.36 a.m.

Sir Leslie Plummer (Deptford)

I want to support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith) about the inquiry which has taken place on this Order. I ask the Under-Secretary of State to explain why the Commission undertakes an inquiry in a small but none the less important place like Harborough—

Mr. Baldock

In Leicester.

Sir L. Plummer

—and refuses one in London? Why does the Commission treat London with disrespect?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member is talking about other places. He must confine himself to the Order.

Sir L. Plummer

I want an explanation as to why there is differentiation in treatment anywhere in the country. If the hon. Member would address himself to that question it would perhaps be of benefit to us and would explain what is a grievous worry to us—whether the Commission treats Socialist councils and Socialist constituencies differently from others.

3.37 a.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I hope I may be allowed to answer the question put by the hon. and learned Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen), for I promised him an answer and it would be proper to give it. There were 938 representations in writing made to the Commissioners. I cannot give him a precise answer to his question, because I am informed that the great majority of these representations contained some such phrase as, "Will there be an inquiry?" That may be a question or it may be a representation that there should be an inquiry. If the hon. and learned Member puts one interpretation on it he would say that there were 900 requests, but, if he were to treat them merely as questions, then he would say that there were very few representations.

Mr. Scholefield Allen

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to repeat the question. I have had no answer whatever. I do not think he has deliberately misunderstood the question. Could he tell the House how many in- quiries would have taken place had the Commission complied with all the requests for an inquiry? That is totally different from the question of how many people asked for an inquiry. The answer cannot be 900, because there are not 900 constituencies. In how many of these proposed constituencies would an inquiry have taken place if the Commissioners had agreed to the requests which were made? It is a simple question; the answer may be 60, it may be 120.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

The hon. Member has put this question fairly. What I say to him is that there is no answer to the particular question he has put, because it is impossible to say, when you have a letter which says, "Is there to be an inquiry?", that that is a request.

Mr. Scholefield Allen

On a point of order. The Minister has promised to give us this information, which is surely obtainable. It cannot be 900, because there are not 900 constituencies. If we listened throughout this debate and looked in HANSARD and were able to count up the number of hon. Members who got up and protested that certain constituencies were not—

Mr. Speaker

That is not a point of order at all. This is the third speech that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I am not trying to dodge the hon. and learned Gentleman's question. He must remember that this is not a matter for the Government. The requests were made to the Commission—

Mr. Norman Smith

Rubbish.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

The hon. Gentleman says "Rubbish," but the fact is that all these requests were made to the Commission. In most cases a question was put, and, no doubt, that means that in most cases someone asked whether there was to be an inquiry. Whether or not that amounts to a request within the meaning of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question is a matter of opinion and interpretation that he most solve himself.

On the merits of this particular question, the Order transfers an urban district. It is a complete urban district, and, therefore, an entity in itself—and it is not a rural district. I do not say that that is a very strong argument, but it puts a somewhat different complexion on the case. The urban district has an electorate of upwards of 5,000. At present, the constituency of Leicester, South-East has an electorate of 47,800, and the change will bring it up to 52,000, not a large electorate for a borough constituency. The county constituency of Harborough, on the other hand, has at present an electorate of 64,000, which is well above the quota, and this change will reduce it to 60,300.

Mr. Mellish

With all that upset and unhappiness.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

The hon. Member really does exaggerate when he talks of "all that upset and unhappiness." The hon. Member who represents the constituency himself said that he had not had time to complete the petition, which, I understand, was rather a last-moment thought. This change is a small one, but it is perfectly justified, and I ask the House to accept the Order.

3.45 a.m.

Mr. Ede

There are one or two things which I think we are entitled to know about this proposed change. This is one of the cases where an inquiry was held, and I had heard before the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Baldock) mentioned it that during the inquiry, when it was intimated that there might be reconsideration of the original proposals, the barrister holding the inquiry was asked if there would be any opportunity to make representations with regard to such modifications; and he replied that there would be. I am not purporting to give a verbatim account of the words that were used, but that was the way in which it was explained to me, and I think that that more or less agrees with what the hon. Member has told us.

There was no right to an inquiry into the modified proposals, and it would be interesting to know what action was taken when that was discovered and no act was to be performed to redeem the promise which had been made. It would be interesting to know why no notification was sent to the parties making the representation. I know that the barrister holding the inquiry is particularly well acquainted with local government law, and it is rather strange that he was not properly briefed as to the answer he should give to such a request were it made.

Regarding the question asked by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen), the answer given to me on 6th December by the Under-Secretary was that 63 notices of proposals were published, so that, presumably, there could have been at least 63 inquiries. It does not follow that a representation is necessary for an inquiry to be held. If they thought any case was sufficiently complicated or in any other way worthy of an inquiry, it was quite possible for the Commissioners to hold one.

These 63 proposals related to 222 constituencies, which is one-third of the constituencies. At the time the proposals were made, there were 506 constituencies in England. Half of that figure is 253, and as 222 constituencies were involved it is obvious that nearly half of the constituencies in England stood, at that moment, in some jeopardy of having their boundaries altered.

Mr. Scholefield Allen

Would my right hon. Friend explain how it is that I got the figure of over 900 from the Under-Secretary, and how it is that he is in possession of the information which the House wanted?

Mr. Ede

I do not know. The Under-Secretary gave the information to me on 6th December, when he answered a Question.

I was going on to say that there were 938 representations in respect of 63 proposals which works out at about 15 to each of the proposals. From conversations which I have had with various people, my information is that most of the representations—would my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) allow me to continue without being interrupted by his conversation with the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate)?

Mr. Colegate

It is not a conversation; it is a monologue.

Mr. Ede

I did not get to bed last night, and I shall not tonight. Although, as an old soldier, I can stand one night out of bed, I find two successive nights out of bed something about which I ought to complain to the sergeant-major.

I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us what steps were taken when it was found that the promise made to the people at this inquiry could not be fulfilled, so that they should at least know that the mistake was acknowledged, and that an apology was due to them for the wrong opinion they had been given.

3.51 a.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

With the leave of the House I will try to answer these two questions. I understand that there was a misunderstanding about the answer of the barrister. What was said was understood differently by the barrister who said it and by those who heard. It is not unknown for laymen to misunderstand lawyers, and occasionally the converse happens. I imagine that something of the sort happened in this case. I cannot give further information on that score. It was not a matter of Government responsibility, and that is the most I can tell the right hon. Gentleman.

On the point about the number of inquiries which might have been held, I have had further inquiries made and I can say that if an inquiry had been granted in every case in which there was a request for one, giving the benefit of the doubt to the inquirer—that is, treating every question as a request for an inquiry—there would have been an inquiry in about 50 cases.

Resolved, That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Harborough and Leicester South-East) Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Bethnal Green, Hackney and Stoke Newington) Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Major Lloyd-George.]

3.53 a.m.

Mr. Herbert Butler (Hackney, South)

I have sat here for the bulk of this debate and have found myself in difficulty because the Home Secretary has reiterated on a number of occasions that the proposals before us are proposals of the Boundary Commission. The Under-Secretary has followed that line. They have, I think, almost convinced the House that they are in no way responsible for the proposals placed before us. If they have not convinced the House they have made considerable efforts to convince themselves.

I am in a difficulty. The proposals which were put before the Boundary Commission in considerable detail I shall have to explain, because the Commission, in page 4 of its Report—and the Home Secretary accepts it, apparently—dismisses the problem of South Hackney and Stoke Newington, and North Hackney and Bethnal Green, in a couple of sentences. It does not discuss the elaborate and detailed case which was submitted to the Commission. It will, therefore, be necessary for me to deal in considerable detail with the proposals that were submitted to the English Boundary Commission. The Town Clerk of the Borough of Hackney and his predecessor have been of considerable use to the Home Office in years gone by and have served upon the Electoral Reform Committees for a number of years.

My hon. and learned colleague from Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) will have some observations to make on these proposals, as will my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Holman). I want to oppose the Order on grounds that are different from those which they probably will advance.

I apologise to hon. Members for the parochial nature of what I have to say, but the House will know nothing of it unless I state the facts. It is unfortunate that the Home Secretary does not consider it necessary to explain why he rejected the proposals of certain people and accepted the Boundary Commission's Report. I am entitled, as every hon. Member is entitled, to explain my case in as much detail as possible, possibly for the benefit of the Secretary of State, but obviously for the benefit of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who might feel that a genuine case has been submitted that might attract their support.

Hackney is the largest borough in area north of the Thames. Hon. Members may remember that Hackney has had a very good record. It produced for Parliament my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition. We had Horatio Bottomley at one time, but we do not claim any particular fame for his existence.

In the Borough of Hackney we have certainly regarded ourselves as a very important part of the community in general. I am not talking in any disparaging sense when I say that we are not an urban district council. The Borough of Hackney has a population of 169,000. It has a Parliamentary electorate of 121,061 persons. This is a position which I should have thought that the Secretary of State would have considered, irrespective of whatever observations the Boundary Commission made, unless he considered that his hands were entirely tied in the review of the Parliamentary constituencies.

Here we have a situation where a Metropolitan borough, with an electorate of 121,061 has a population which, on redevelopment—after a considerable blitz during the war—is designed to grow to 180,000 and will obviously grow still more. For 32 years before 1950, Hackney comprised three Parliamentary divisions. After the 1950 General Election the borough's representation was reduced to one constituency wholly within the borough—that was Hackney, South—with an electorate of 75,000 odd, and a very large part of the electorate was attached to my hon. Friend's constituency of Stoke Newington and Hackney, North.

That was bad enough from our point of view, but under these proposals the borough's representation will now be reduced to one constituency wholly within the borough and to two other sections, one assigned to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North, of 31,000 electors, and the other to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green, of 22,300 electors. These two assignments constitute approximately 44 per cent. of the electorate of the Borough of Hackney.

I say quite seriously that my electors are neither rodents nor half-wits. They are responsible people who do not desire to be pushed and shoved around because the Secretary of State either will not examine the documents prepared by the Commission or, if he does examine them, is not aware of the consequences of these decisions. Hackney is entitled to a reconsideration of the situation. At least two Parliamentary seats should be restored to the borough. That would give an electorate of over 60,000 for each constituency.

If the Government were seeking equity in this matter one would have thought that this would have commended itself for favourable consideration by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but we have not got it. Instead, part of the borough is sent to Bethnal Green. That is quite a respectable borough, and I have no complaint about it. It is represented by an exceedingly useful, honest and industrious Member of Parliament. My constituents in Hackney have a community spirit. They like Hackney. They like to live there.

I am sure that what has happened in this case is due to the entire disregard of Rule 4 (1, a, iii) of the Second Schedule of the Act of 1949. For the purpose of emphasising the point I read it to the Secretary of State and to 1.he Under-Secretary who, no doubt, is preparing a considerable brief in answer to my case: No metropolitan borough or any part thereof shall be included in a constituency which includes the whole or part of any other metropolitan borough. That is specific and clear. There is no equivocation about it, but the Home Secretary apparently ignores that provision and goes into an explanation about Scotland and Wales having so many Members and all this other business being ignored—if Hackney was divided the quota would be retained.

It is remarkable that in Essex where new constituencies are created and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) is involved, the electorates there number 45,000. In Hackney, with 121,000 electors, surely we are entitled to say that we want at least two seats.

I come to the present proposals. If these are adopted I wish to indicate the consequences. The proposed union of these three wards with the constituencies of Bethnal Green friends will result in considerable physical and geographical difficulties. I heard one hon. Gentleman say that ward committees are set up, associations are developed, roots grow and people get into the habit of living in their own communities. The geographical difficulties are many. The very large area of Victoria Park is interposed between the residential area of Hackney and Bethnal Green.

I apologise for giving these details, but apparently the Secretary of State is not concerned with anything else. I ask him to pay attention to the problems which will confront the electorate. Between Hackney and Bethnal Green only one road crosses the boundary along the 1¼ miles through Victoria Park. That alone is available to pedestrians and vehicular traffic during the hours of darkness. That may not seem important, but in a congested area such as a metropolitan borough it is a long distance. The route from the Bethnal Green area to the Wick and Victoria wards referred to in the Order is very circuitous because of Victoria Park. The other ward which it is proposed should be transferred to Bethnal Green is very remote from the Bethnal Green area and does not even abut upon its boundaries. Between this ward and Bethnal Green is interposed part of the constituency of Poplar.

The residential area of the wards proposed to be assigned to Bethnal Green are contiguous for a very short length due to the interposition of 217 acres of Victoria Park. We are very particular in our area. We close our parks at dusk. All those going about their normal social and political affairs would be hampered by having to travel from Bethnal Green to the Wick and vice versa. I would remind the House of the previous discussion we had involving the constituency fringing Hyde Park, when the proposal was abandoned.

Shifting sections of the population of Hackney into other boroughs is already creating considerable difficulty. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North will confirm that we both have considerable difficulty with constituents who are not aware of the boundary line between our two constituencies. Already, at Hackney town hall inquiries are being made as to whether they will have to go to Bethnal Green for sanitary notices or whether the certificates of disrepair we are advising them to get in connection with that terrible Housing (Repairs and Rents) Act are to be obtained at Bethnal Green or Hackney. It is all very bewildering to the people. They cannot understand the whys and wherefore of this insane proposal.

I suggest that we have the same problem. People want to know where to make applications for housing. Will they go to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green if it is a Hackney proposition? Will they have to go from a particular area in Hackney Wick, probably a 4d. or 5d. bus ride, to see the Member, and through Victoria Park, with all its attendant difficulties?

We have had many changes in my constituency. The political offices of all the parties were set up in the old South Hackney constituency and they had to be moved when the alterations took place. Under this arrangement, it will mean that they will have to be moved again and that new offices will have to be set up to meet the requirements of those constituents transferred to the Bethnal Green area.

A glance at the map will show the difficulties. These transfers of electors on frequent occasions, with their attendant dislocation and severance, are essentially bad. I speak for the local authority which made extensive and detailed representations on the matter and which produced facts and figures, and which, through our own local authority associations in London, pressed for an inquiry. But a county the size of London was refused a hearing. We utilised all the machinery possessed by the local authority associations, but it got us nowhere.

I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to have some feeling for the electorate and for the fact that whatever he may think about this matter, he, ultimately, is responsible for forcing it upon people who do not desire it. He has to bear the responsibility. He cannot pass the buck to the Boundary Commission.

I am fortified in the representations which I make in this connection by the fact that although I am not a member of the London County Council, I, like many other Members, received a letter from the L.C.C. in which it was stated: To summarise, the Council wish to express the strongest opposition to the Bethnal Green, Hackney and Stoke Newington Order and the Fulham and Hammersmith Order on the grounds that (1) they contravene the provisions of the Second Schedule of the 1949 Act which envisages that the boundaries of Metropolitan boroughs and electoral constituencies shall be coterminus, save in exceptional circumstances, and (2) because by their effect upon county council elections they militate against good local government in the country. Here is a local authority of the size and importance of the London County Council, stating definitely that if this and similar proposals are carried in London it will be to the detriment of good local government. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Order.

4.18 a.m.

Mr. David Weitzman (Stoke Newington and Hackney North)

I suppose that every Member on both sides of the House will agree that every Order we are discussing is a matter of vital importance, and, therefore, no one would begrudge any time spent on them by any hon. Member. It is a grave reflection on our Parliamentary life that after 4 a.m. we are to discuss Orders which will affect the Parliamentary, civic, and municipal life of the millions of people who live in the City of London. There are a small number of hon. Gentlemen who have come in to hear the arguments put forward who will be swayed by them, reclining on the benches opposite, possibly with open minds, who may be persuaded as to what should be done in justice in this case.

I am certainly disheartened in getting up to speak, because I know that anything I may say is not the slightest bit of use, and that however eloquently I may speak, and whatever argument I might put forward, the two Ministers on the Government Front Bench will pay not the slightest attention, and it will have not the slightest effect on their minds. We know, and it has already been said, that they have come to a decision about every Order on the Order Paper. They have made up their minds that, however plausible an argument might be, it must be rejected. Nothing must be given, no indulgence must be shown, the Orders must be carried through at the behest of the Government and by a three-line Whip. The whole thing is a complete farce. I see an hon. Gentleman opposite shaking his head. I will give way if he can show me whether I am wrong.

Mr. Nigel Fisher (Hitchin)

As the hon. and learned Gentleman has kindly invited me to do so, I was saying that we have not had a three-line Whip.

Mr. Weitzman

I understand that it was a three-liner. It may be a heavy two-line Whip. Whether it is a two-line or a three-line Whip no hon. Gentleman may disobey it except one or two in interesting constituencies, who, by kind permission of the Chief Whip, can go into our Lobby to vote on a question which affects his own constituency. Is it not a really disgraceful state of affairs that a Member of Parliament can put forward a case which cannot be resisted, with no argument against it, that the Home Secretary gets up and says that there has been an impartial inquiry, and that the Boundary Commissioners have gone into the matter and have given their Report, and, because they have given their Report, he intends to force it through the House?

I believe that the Minister does not appreciate his true function in this matter. The Commissioners have presented a Report to him consisting merely of recommendations which he can adopt or reject. He can put them before the House in the form of an Order with or without modifications. What the Minister has done with regard to every Order is to adopt the attitude, "The Commissioners have put forward these recommendations and I will not interfere with them." It looks as if the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State have not taken the trouble to obtain much information about the subject matter of the Orders. I have been here for many hours, sitting here most of the time, and I have heard the Minister say in reply, again and again, "I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Member details about this matter." He ought to be able to give details. It is his job to have information in order to come to his own decision, yet he has told us that he cannot give information.

I support the case which has been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South (Mr. H. Butler), but I do so in an unhappy frame of mind. Believing that the Minister does not know what the case is and has not the information, I will reiterate some of the vital facts that have been put forward by my hon. Friend. He stated that the electors in the Borough of Hackney number 121,061, and that the number is growing steadily. He told us that for more than 30 years before 1950 the borough was represented by three Members. Stoke Newington has an electorate of just over 35,000, and it also is growing steadily.

It follows from the steady rise in the population that if the Order is carried it will result in a state of affairs that will have to be altered in a very short time, perhaps within the next five years. It will be necessary for the Boundary Commission to consider the position again and probably to make further changes. When redistribution was made in the previous period, Hackney and Stoke Newington were put together and two constituencies were carved out. Stoke Newington and Hackney, North, which I have the honour to represent, has an electorate of 81,000 and Hackney, South an electorate of 78,000. The The Boundary Commission then made a change, departing from the rule which my hon. Friend read to the House, that no metropolitan borough or part of it should be included in a constituency which included the whole or a part of any other metropolitan borough.

It was a very inconvenient change because it meant that, instead of Hackney having three representatives in this House, there was a Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North to represent two boroughs—Stoke Newington, and a considerable part of Hackney; and another Member representing another part of Hackney. It meant, also, that with regard to representation on the London County Council, there were three representatives for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North and three L.C.C. representatives for Hackney, South.

It was said that the change was necessary because Stoke Newington was very small; it had only about 35,000 electors. The change was duly made and organisations were built up in both constituencies. Now, within a very short period, we get another change, and what this change means is that part of Hackney is not only joined up with one metropolitan borough, but that parts of Hackney are joined up with two metropolitan boroughs. Not only are the Parliamentary divisions affected; so is the L.C.C. representation.

Let us see what that means. It means that with regard to the metropolitan Borough of Hackney, we are to have a Member representing part of the borough with Stoke Newington, another part, together with Bethnal Green represented by a Member, and another Member representing a small part of Hackney itself. Was there ever a breach of the Rule contemplated in that way? Where is such a process going to end? One visualises that a metropolitan borough may be carved up eventually into many different parts allied to, or joined with, other metropolitan boroughs. Surely that was never the intention.

We have already had attention drawn to local feeling in this area; to the difficulty that must result with regard to established electoral arrangements. No attention was paid—and I emphasise this as strongly as I can, although it has been said again and again on almost every single Order—to the representations made to the Commissioners; representations by Hackney, Stoke Newington, and Bethnal Green, by the local political parties, by the L.C.C., by the local councils themselves. Surely they were entitled to have their representations considered. Surely they were entitled to some explanation as to why their recommendations were rejected. Above all, they had the right, one would have thought, to an inquiry in order to put forward representations.

Here again, in this most important part of North London, no attention is paid to such representations; in fact, the Commissioners treat the councils and everyone who made representations with absolute contempt. Is this not deplorable? I ask the Minister to depart from the rule of silence which he has enjoined upon himself in regard to other Orders, and to try to give an answer in this case; to say why no inquiry was held.

What I have said shows that grave injustice was done to the metropolitan Borough of Hackney. Whereas for years it had three Members, it is now proposed that it should merely have one for a small part, with two others representing also other boroughs. The Report states that this is being done because Stoke Newington and Hackney, North has an electorate of 81,000, which is over the magic figure of 80,000, and because Bethnal Green has just over 40,000. The Members for the three constituencies have no objection to continuing as they are; nor have the local interests.

Despite the Commission's zeal for mathematical equality, it has left the Borough of Leyton with 76,000 electors and it has left Battersea. South with 39,980—under the figure of 40,000. That makes nonsense of the Commission's interference with the three boroughs of Stoke Newington, Hackney and Bethnal Green. If the Commission were to interfere, why did it not do so to remedy the wrong which was done to Hackney in the previous redistribution? The Minister will probably reply, "Your party was then in power," but is it not time that that sort of answer was dropped? Why is it that when hon. Members opposite have no answer they always say, "Your people did it?" Let us assume that the Labour Government did it. This Government take the view that what the Labour Government did was wrong, but they have not the courage to adopt their own view on arguments put to them.

The figure for the metropolitan Borough of Hackney is 121,061. On any view of any quota, the borough is entitled to two Members. That is a quota of well over 60,000. The Minister told us about Manchester and 58,000; but we are talking here not about 58,000 but about over 60,000. With Stoke Newington, the electorate of Hackney is over 156,000, and this figure is growing steadily. There could, therefore, be three constituencies, each with an electorate of 52,000.

If there is to be any interference, why not combine the borough with Stoke Newington? The Minister says he has an open mind, and this might penetrate his open mind, if I could have his attention; why not combine Stoke Newington with the Borough of Hackney, so that Stoke Newington and part of Hackney form one constituency, the metropolitan Borough of Hackney have two seats and leave Bethnal Green with just over 40,000 electors?

If any complaint is made about that, I remind the Minister again that Battersea, South has been left with under 40,000. We cannot amend this Order. We can only ask the Minister, as I ask him, to take it back and think again. At the very least I would ask him to leave things alone. All the three boroughs are content with the status quo. The only thing this Order does is to interfere with the electoral machinery, play havoc with it, and bring about a state of acute disorganisation. It disturbs what one might call the local community feeling. There is no reason for it. It is un- wanted, uncalled for and put forward in the teeth of united local opposition, without any inquiry.

I urge these things on the Minister and ask him what can be said in repudiation of these arguments. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) referring to the letter the Minister sent to him and other hon. Members. I remind the Minister of that letter, in which he said he would keep an open mind. I take it that it means an open mind, and not a mere vacuity. I suppose it means a mind open to argument. Has the Minister kept an open mind, and, if so, what is his answer to the arguments put forward? He promised in that letter to bear in mind what was said in debate. Will he do so?

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman promised to pay careful attention to what was said? Will he—or has he already made up his mind? Is the Minister determined that whatever arguments are put forward he will impose his will, and force it through the Lobbies by means of the Whip that has been issued? Again, I emphasise that if that is so it makes a complete farce of an hon. Members' position. There is no sense in Members of Parliament sitting up through the night and pleading a cause which they know will not be listened to or accepted.

I ask the Minister to take back this Order. If he will not, I hope that hon. Members opposite will at least have an open mind and, after listening to these arguments, to which there is no answer, will come into the Lobby with us and vote against this Order.

4.39 a.m.

Mr. Percy Holman (Bethnal Green)

My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South (Mr. H. Butler) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) have put the case of our three councils so well that there is little left for me to do, except to put before the House the position of Bethnal Green. When I entered the House in 1945 I represented an electorate of only 17,000, owing to the devastation of war and the long period since there had been any redistribution of seats. I was an enthusiast for a Boundary Commission, and I was on the look-out for a method of dealing democratically with the situation from year to year.

I therefore welcomed the work of the Commission that was set up and when Bethnal Green, which had, previously, two Members of Parliament, had only one, I welcomed that as a democrat, because I did not consider that the votes of my friends in Bethnal Green were worth about four times as much as the votes, say, of Wimbledon, or many of the bigger seats in the surrounding part of London.

It took some time for two old parties to harmonise. There were many jealousies as to who represented the most important part of the borough and it took two or three years for these two parties to face the new situation. Bethnal Green is a small but very ancient borough. I will not make any invidious comparisons but, centuries ago, it was a residential area just outside London, and there were many coaches and four taking merchants to their residences in that district. It always has been worthy of adequate representation, but owing to improved housing conditions elsewhere, and rebuilding after the blitz, the total electorate has fallen from about 56,000 or 57,000 in 1939 to just over 40,000 at present.

What was right from the point of view of the Boundary Commission five years ago should be approximately right today. When I welcomed the Boundary Commission as a body which would report periodically I felt that it had made such a drastic alteration in the County of London—and one of which I approved—on the basis of population, cutting the number of Members by 20, that for some period to come its main work would be that of relatively minor adjustments. A tremendous number of modifications was not justified, except in very exceptional circumstances. In the case of London, they have wiped out many proposals which they originally put forward as the result of objections which were lodged. Some were so absurd as to be almost laughable, but they have left two, and one very minor one, in their further recommendations.

It is not good to interfere with electoral organisations and community organisations at too frequent intervals, and I believe that the plea made by my two hon. Friends and myself should meet with the almost universal sympathy of the House on the ground that major reviews as compared with minor adjustments, should not take place too frequently. We have to build up a political organisation. We have a cultural and civic life round our town halls, and in London we have several additional complications compared with many other parts of the country.

The proposal to put three wards from Hackney into Bethnal Green means that the Bethnal Green Council will also be responsible for three wards in Hackney. The people do not appreciate the different functions of the county and the borough. County functions are delegated in some cases to boroughs. In London, the county and borough councils are housing authorities. How will the average elector know whether he is to go to the Hackney Town Hall or the Bethnal Green Town Hall for advice on any matter? There will be great confusion.

As was mentioned in the discussion yesterday, the proposal that the county council elections in March should be on the basis of this newly constituted constituency is undemocratic. No democratic organisation can be organised and be effective in three months. It means building up with individuals, with ward organisations, with the parties, and these things cannot be done in a day, when they are based, so far as the bulk of the work is concerned, on the voluntary labour of enthusiastic people. It takes time to do these things.

I hope that the Home Secretary will concede the point in some way, so that the next London County Council elections shall be based on the existing position. I have not heard of any organisation in London of any party, or independent of party, which is sympathetic to this new organisation. Every public body, every political party, the London County Council—on two occasions, I believe, without a dissentient—has protested. I have not heard one voice raised in favour of the Order. On the contrary, I have heard many in favour of maintenance of the status quo for the time being.

There has been in this House almost unanimous expression of the view that major changes should not take place in periods of three to seven years, but only less frequently. In "The Times" this morning the Prime Minister was reported as saying that there ought possibly to be a period of 10 to 15 years. That no doubt is why the Home Secretary said 10, 12, and possibly 15 years. If the Home Secretary believes that too frequent and drastic changes are not desirable, and that a change should be made in the present law, the only honest and proper thing for him to do is to say that in the circumstances, and owing to the drastic revision of only five years ago, he will withdraw all the Orders, that he will look at them again and see what modifications are necessary. I appeal to him to start the ball rolling with this Order by withdrawing it and all the other London Orders.

4.50 a.m.

Mr. C. W. Gibson (Clapham)

I should like to support the very eloquent plea made by the three hon. Members directly affected by this Order and especially to emphasise that in this case, as, indeed, with the other Orders affecting London to which there has been objection, there is complete unanimity among all political parties in London. Not only are the boroughs concerned unanimous—where there has been Tory representation—but even boroughs where there are Tory majorities, have unanimously opposed these proposals and asked that the position in the London area should be left where it is.

The metropolitan boroughs, through their association, the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, again with Conservative Party representation, unanimously, on two occasions, objected to any change in the political distribution of seats in London.

Surely the Home Secretary cannot refuse to take note of that kind of mass political opinion against him. If he does, he is belying completely the statements in the letters which have been read to the House during the debate. I want to stress the fact that the London County Council—again, by a unanimous vote and supported by the leader of the Conservative Party on the County Council—has unanimously opposed, not only the original proposals of the Commission. but the modified proposals, too.

Indeed, it has gone a bit further than that and pointed out that even on a strict mathematical basis there is no cause at all for taking any seat away from London. As I know to my cost—because, like the hon. Member for Droylsden (Mr. W. R. Williams), I was wiped out in the last redistribution and I know what he feels—we then lost 18 seats in London. Now we are to lose another—not because we do not have sufficient people to support 43 Members, for we do have them. Even on the restricted basis which the Commissioners took for calculating their figures, in London we are only half a Member short of that to which they say we are strictly entitled.

Instead of leaving the situation alone and stopping the nonsense of fiddling around with constituencies in the absurd way described by my three hon. Friends, the Commission has chopped off another Member. Other changes then have to be made—they come up on the next Order—to justify changes which seem to be utterly absurd and which will seriously prejudice the business organisation of the next L.C.C. elections which are due at the end of next March.

It is never easy to build up new political organisations in new constituencies. It is not easy for local authorities who run the business side of an election. But to be told to do it in less than two months of election day is asking for a lot of inevitable confusion when the election comes along, especially in this case when a county council constituency is the same as the Parliamentary and will be in two boroughs with two town clerks and two returning officers. I know that it is said that it can be sorted out. Of course it can, but it is all adding unnecessary work to the business of conducting an election in this great London of ours.

I do not understand why the Government, who have looked at this matter with an open mind, could not have said, as has been said before on this kind of occasion, "There is nothing very much in the proposal to justify a change in London constituencies and we will drop it." The case for not altering the constituencies in London rests entirely on its own merits and need not be affected in any way by what occurs in the rest of the country. It is a little bit absurd.

I remind the House that the political organisations in London have been against the proposal throughout. I miss perhaps one Conservative Member who has been sitting waiting for this debate. It may be—I do not know—that as a result of the changes which the Commission made in its first proposal before submitting the ones we are now discussing all the Conservative Members escaped without interference and the only people interfered with happened to be Labour Members. That is what has happened, and if some people draw unkind conclusions as to why that was done, it will be quite natural. If Conservative Members who represent London constituencies really believe that they represent the people in their districts in these matters they should vote with us against the Order and against the next one, affecting Fulham and Hammersmith.

There has been a completely unanimous opinion on the part of the political parties, the borough councils, the London County Council and the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, which is the organisation representing the borough councils for practical working purposes. If ever there was a case where there was unanimity of opinion that the proposals of the Commission were wrong, this certainly is it. If there is a Division—and the Minister could avoid it by saying that he would withdraw the Order—we should see all the Conservative Members for London seats in the Lobby with us protesting against something being done which will hamper and hinder the political and electoral development of London, which will create for us in the next two or three months difficulties in the London County Council elections and which will be unfair to the people of London.

4.58 a.m.

Major Lloyd-George

One feature which has struck me during the fairly long debates that we have had yesterday and today, most of which I have heard, has been the number of hon. Gentlemen who have asked that no change at all should be made.

Mr. Gibson

There is a case for it this time.

Major Lloyd-George

We are discussing Order for the redistribution of seats. Where no changes are suggested no Orders are submitted. Where changes are suggested that is bound to cause inconvenience in some cases. I do not see how it could be avoided. There are bound to be difficulties here and there.

What is the basis of any suggestion for redistribution which this House has laid down? There are various methods. I fancy that on the whole two considerations would count here. There is the size of one of the constituencies. It has an electorate of 81,500 plus, which one hon. Gentleman referred to as a magic figure. It may be a magic figure because 80,000 was the figure decided upon by this House. The other thing the House decided, and it is in one of the Rules, is that the Commissioners must bear in mind, when coming to a decision, the disparity in figures and particularly the disparity in relation to adjacent constituencies.

Mr. Mellish

That is a nonsensical one.

Major Lloyd-George

It may be nonsensical, but so nonsensical that it was supported by hon. Members opposite, who passed it into law.

Mr. Mellish

It is nonsensical because in the rest of London the same position applies and it is not being altered. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman puts forward that this happens in Bethnal Green because it happens to be a smaller constituency next to large ones, why was it not done in other cases of the same kind?

Major Lloyd-George

The hon. Member may have in mind a place alongside the river which, if added to the next constituency, would be well over the figure of 80,000, the figure which was laid down. I suggest with all sincerity to hon. Members that, the House having accepted that criterion, it is difficult to find a case more deserving of treatment than this. Here we have three constituencies which are adjacent, one with an electorate of 40,000, the next with 75,000—in round figures—and the other with 81,000. If we put the three together we get electorates of 63,000, 67,000 and 66,000.

Mr. Gibson

The Rule also says that borough boundaries should not overlap and this is an excessive case of overlapping borough boundaries.

Major Lloyd-George

That case has been made before, but I would draw attention to the specific exception put in Rule 5: and a boundary commission may depart from the strict application of the last foregoing rule…"— which is the one to which the hon. Member referred— if it appears that a departure is desirable to avoid an excessive disparity between the electorate of any constituency and the electorate quota… It is definite there. or between the electorate thereof and that of neighbouring constituencies in the part of the United Kingdom with which they are concerned.

Mr. Weitzman

Why should the Minister say that we may depart from one Rule but not from another? He seems to regard 80,000 as the magic figure, yet there we have a Rule which he completely disregards.

Major Lloyd-George

I have read the part which seemed to me to make perfectly clear that in certain circumstances the Commission is entitled by the wish of this House to depart from that particular Rule. There can be no doubt at all that in this instance it has departed from it and, I think, rightly departed from it. Some hon. Members think it better to leave the position as it is, but the Act lays down that in a certain period of years reviews have to be made and lays down Rules to be applied in carrying out the reviews.

Mr. Weitzman

If the right hon. and Gallant Gentleman is concerned with getting a solution to the problem of a large constituency next to a small one, why not apply the principle of making three constituencies out of Stoke Newington and the large borough of Hackney. with an electorate of 121,000?

Major Lloyd-George

It seems to me that in this case the Commission has made a recommendation in complete accord with the wishes of this House. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not answer the question? "] It is no good hon. Members saying that I do not answer questions. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are constantly trying to avoid the fruits of the Act for which they are responsible. I am only recommending to the House what to do.

Mr. H. Butler

In that case, we do not need the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. We should have the Commissioners here.

Major Lloyd-George

That was not the intention of Parliament. As it happens, the House has given the Commissioners a duty to perform, and it is the job of the Home Secretary to place the orders, made as a consequence of the Commissioners' recommendations, before the House. There is no modification in this instance. On the previous occasion they were modified afterwards.

Mr. Ede

There were no orders then.

Major Lloyd-George

I know; they became part of the Schedule.

We are discussing something in which I do not think that the Commissioners have departed from what the House intended they should do. It was accepted by hon. Members opposite. But when it comes to putting it into operation, what happens? I am not complaining, because, obviously, hon. Members do not want their constituencies interfered with, but the purpose of the Act is to interfere with the constituencies. That is its purpose.

The vast majority of constituencies have not been interfered with at all. It is only in such cases as this that changes have been recommended, and I challenge anyone to give a more glaring example of inequality as regards electoral average.

Mr. Weitzman rose—

Major Lloyd-George

Let me finish.

I should have thought—and I have not the slightest desire to score a point on this—that here, if anywhere, discrepancies are to be found. The hon. Gentleman asked why an inquiry had not been held. It is not for me to order the Commission to hold an inquiry. By law, it is entirely at the discretion of the Commission whether or not it holds an inquiry. It would be most improper for any Home Secretary to interfere with that discretion.

As far as London generally is concerned, I do not agree with the suggestion that no notice was taken of any protests made in London. That is not so, because in at least six cases the provisional recommendations were altered as a result of protests made. I think that the constituency of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh) was one.

Mr. Fienburgh

Not mine, but a neighbouring one.

Major Lloyd-George

I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I know that alterations were made. I cannot think of a better case than this one which is supported by the Act.

5.5 a.m.

Mr. Ede

The curious thing is that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has now said that what he has previously been calling jiggery-pokery is now part of an Act of Parliament. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that that is nowhere stated in the Statutes. It was taken on the last occasion and accepted by the House as a convenient figure in discussing proposals to say that no constituency should be above it. It was not incorporated in the Act. When it suits the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to explain why Reading is now deprived of a Member he says, "That is what you did in defiance of what the Commissioners proposed."

I think that 80,000 is a convenient administrative figure to take. I am not at all ashamed of having suggested it to the House and it is evident that the Boundary Commissioners have now accepted it as a working rule. Where we go wrong on this occasion is that the first thing we have to consider is the representation of each metropolitan borough. The Rule was not invented by the Labour Government, but goes back to the Redistribution of Seats, Act. 1944. where it is said: No metropolitan borough or any part thereof shall be included in a constituency which includes the whole or part of any other part of a metropolitan borough. That is not one of my wicked inventions. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that he has not said it was, but he has been saying it for the whole of the night.

Major Lloyd-George

I agree that metropolitan borough is in Rule 4, but surely the right hon. Gentleman and the Government of which he was a member are responsible for the following Rule, which says the Commissioners may disregard that Rule.

Mr. Ede

I am coming to that. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will admit that it did not appear on the Statute Book for the first time in the 1949 Act. It was first inscribed in the Statute Book in 1944. If we could get that admission it would clarify the atmosphere a bit. The Boundary Commissioners or anyone else examining their proposals with a view to submitting an Order to the House starts the task, I should imagine, by taking each metropolitan borough in succession.

They would find there is one borough, Hackney, which has an electorate of 121,000. That clearly entitles that borough to two seats. That I do not think can be denied as a mere piece of arithmetic. There are two adjoining constituencies. I do not think anyone contemplated, when the matter was dealt with between 1944 and 1949, that three metropolitan boroughs should be brigaded together so that one which was entitled to two seats by itself would get one and two bits, and that the two adjoining boroughs would only get a bit each.

As has been said during the debate, we have in this Order not merely to determine the Parliamentary representation of the areas, but to determine the London County Council representation. I can imagine nothing more difficult than for the ordinary elector in these three boroughs, if this Order is made effective, to discover exactly where he is with regard to Parliamentary elections and his Member of Parliament, his borough council and the councillors and aldermen of that, and the London County Council and the councillors and aldermen of that body.

This makes matters far too complicated. This is a condition of affairs that I do not believe anyone could have anticipated when either of these three Acts was going through. It is another case of the excessive use of saving words which are meant to deal with cases of exceptional emergency. The first mistake was in not recognising the claim that Hackney can assert to have two Members of Parliament in respect of its own internal electorate.

Instead of going back to the fact that these are the Rules for the redistribution of seats, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is continuously emphasising to us that this is a Redistribution of Seats Act. Certainly it is, and when the Boundary Commission came to do its task the Rules are set out in the Second Schedule. The first Rule, with regard to metropolitan boroughs is: No metropolitan borough or any part thereof shall be included in a constituency which includes the whole or part of any other metropolitan borough. In each of these three contiguous constituencies that Rule is flagrantly broken. I do not think that one can plead in aid the saving words which are meant to deal with exceptional circumstances only.

Mr. Braine

I am trying to follow the right hon. Gentleman in his extremely interesting argument. He seems to have left out of calculation two important facts. Assuming that the Borough of Hackney were divided into two constituencies, what would be the size of the electorate in Stoke Newington, and how would it be dealt with? What would be the size of the electorate in Bethnal Green?

Mr. Ede

I would tell the hon. Gentleman if the figures were available. I have tried to get the figures, but the figures for those constituencies for any year later than 1951 are not available.

Mr. Nabarro rose—

Mr. Ede

Let me deal with one question at a time. It is a quite frequent request made from the Government side. One of the difficulties that confront us is that that kind of statistic of modern years is not available.

Mr. Nabarro

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have been following his argument closely and studying the proposals. As the local government register is the same as the Parliamentary register, and as the fragmentation of Hackney that is complained of is among adjoining constituencies, it should be possible to ascertain the figures for which my hon. Friend asked quite easily, based on the local government electorate for the borough wards.

Mr. Ede

I agree, but neither are those published by the Registrar General for any year later than the one I mentioned.

Apart from that, when I point out the position of Hackney, it is not incumbent on me, in saying that the Boundary Commission went wrong and that its proposal should have been modified by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman before he submitted them to this House, to discuss at this stage what should be done with the two remaining boroughs. I know from the figures that were quoted tonight that they have larger electorates than Battersea, South, which, in 1954, has a smaller electorate than 40,000. Therefore, I do not think that that point arises. This is a flagrant abuse of the saving words introduced into the Rules, and it is quite unfair to the electorate and to the administrators in these three boroughs to chain them in this way.

I have endeavoured throughout to be as brief in my interventions as I possibly can be, and, if I am asked a question I try always to reply to it; but I defy anyone, from the figures produced by the Boundary Commission to the House, to provide an answer to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) or his hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro).

Mr. Braine

If the right hon. Gentleman adds up the total electorate for the three divisions proposed in this Order and subtracts the total electorate for the Borough of Hackney given by the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), in his most interesting speech, he will arrive at a very remarkable figure for the Boroughs of Stoke Newington and Bethnal Green. In Stoke Newington, for example, the electorate would be no more than 35,000. The whole point of my intervention is to ask the right hon. Gentleman how, if Hackney is divided into two constituencies, as he now proposes, he would deal with a constituency of only 35,000? How does that fit into the Rules?

Mr. Ede

I think that one would have to look at the other boroughs adjoining Stoke Newington.

Mr. Weitzman rose—

Mr. Ede

I am sorry, but as I said yesterday, when hon. Members learned in the law attempt to help me in these arguments I generally find that their minds are so clear that they only confuse mine.

I would go as far as to say that it might be necessary to put one ward—possibly of Hackney—into this to level things out, but that would not involve three metropolitan boroughs in an astounding mess-up.

Mr. Nabarro

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, so that I can put this to him. The electorate of the three constituencies proposed has a total of 196,627; if the total electorate of Hackney is deducted at 121,000, the residual is 75,627, and that would have to be divided between the two constituencies of Stoke Newington and Bethnal Green, giving an average, as between the two, of only 37,800—that is, in round figures; and that, in the opinion of my hon. Friends, is grossly inadequate for a London borough.

Mr. Ede

I think I can help the hon. Gentleman in so far as Bethnal Green is concerned. In 1954, the electorate there was 40,287 and there is no reason why figures which have been used by the Commissioners elsewhere in London should not be used to make Bethnal Green a constituency on its own. We should then be left with the possible amalgamation of Stoke Newington and Hackney, with not more than one ward of Hackney being required to make a reasonable constituency for Stoke Newington and one ward of the North of Hackney. This would reduce the administrative difficulties for borough councillors, city councillors. Members of Parliament and their respective constituents to a minimum. I do not say that that is the only way to do it but, on the proposition put forward by the hon. Member for Kidderminster, it is not an unfeasible way of handling the situation, and it would be far better than the present proposals.

Mr. Nabarro

If that suggestion were followed, the inequality would be that the two Hackney constituencies would each average 60,000—correct to the nearest thousand—whereas the other two would average only 37,500, which would completely offend all the Rules which we have tried to lay down for the Boundary Commission.

Mr. Ede

The hon. Member has forgotten that I had conceded that it might be necessary to include one additional ward. I am not pleading for any constituency of under 40,000.

Mr. Braine

Fragmentation.

Mr. Ede

Fragmentation of somebody is inevitable, but that is no reason why we should have an atomic bomb to achieve it, which is what the Commission has done. To take one additional ward offends, as a general rule, but it is the minimum offence.

Throughout the country there are examples where we have constituencies side by side with 40,000 and 70,000 electors respectively. We find it in Middlesex, in Essex and even in County Durham. Disparities of the kind suggested as a result of this interchange of statistical bargaining between us do not involve precedents, when applied to the whole country.

I believe that the scheme put forward by the Government is thoroughly unsatisfactory. It worsens instead of improves administrative and representative difficulties in the area, and I therefore advise my hon. Friends to vote against it.

5.28 a.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish (Bermondsey)

The answer to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braille) is that, although fragmentation would be inevitable here, if our argument were followed there would still be two Members for the Borough of Hackney instead of one.

The point is that what has been done in London could have been understood had there been a pattern. If the Government had said, "We are doing this because this is a very small constituency and must have added to it a number of people from a larger neighbouring constituency," and if that pattern had been followed throughout the country, we could have understood it, but my constituency is small—41,000—and alongside is a constituency of 70,000. The original proposals were that 17,000 of the electorate of that larger constituency should be added to my constituency.

When the second proposal came out they altered it, and said, "All right, you can stay at 41,000." They said to the other chap, "You can stay at 7,000, too." They said it in the case of Battersea, where they had 39,000 in one part and a large weight in the other, with which they had not attempted to interfere. If the Home Secretary had tried to give us some idea where he thought the Commission should have followed the pattern it would have been very interesting. But he did not do that, and he does not know anything about it.

It is a pity that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not go out to Australia. They need some stonewallers out there at the moment, because I understand that England has lost two wickets so far. He would do much better than he has done here. He has merely said, "The Boundary Commission's Report is inevitable and you must accept it." [An HON. MEMBER: "He has had a very long innings."] The whole point of this debate has been that all hon. Members on this side of the House believed that each of these Orders would be discussed on its merits.

Mr. Nabarro

It is grouping.

Mr. Mellish

It is rather sad grouping when an hon. Member loses not only his ward but his seat.

We believed that the Home Secretary would get up on an occasional Order and say, "That is fair enough. We think that the case has been advanced and on this occasion we will not continue this Order. We shall withdraw it." But in not one case has he attempted to say that; not one case has been answered by him. He knows nothing about this London argument. In fact, he does not know much about any of them, and after all London, the greatest city in the world, never had an answer from this Boundary Commission.

The Commission had representations. which we have heard, from my hon. Friends, who wrote and said, "These are our representations. May we have an inquiry?" They never even received a card saying, "We have got your representations." None of the political parties were told whether there were to be any changes, and the London County Council were not advised either.

The next thing we knew was that another lot of proposals were presented to Parliament. We all had to dash into the library to try to find out what had happened to our constituencies, and why. I tried to find out why they had altered my constituency back to its former position. As far as I can see, it was because of the borough boundary, and I am glad to know they did it. But they have gone over the borough boundary and given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Holman)—or will give him, they hope—a large section of another borough, which is completely contrary to what they said in my case.

The Home Secretary does not attempt to justify it, and does not care. He will see that he does not withdraw this Order because if he followed the argument there would be another hon. Member here. Why will he not? Because it would be a Labour Member. I believe that our case is so strong for another Member in this instance that the Home Secretary should admit it.

The whole of this debate has developed along this idea: that because the Commission have said it, we have all got to accept it. My hon. Friend said that this is not democracy, it is a mockery. So it is—an absolute mockery. We have been here since yesterday afternoon and on every one of these Orders we have the Home Secretary, with a poor brief, and a Parliamentary Secretary who knows even less, saying, "The Boundary Commission said it and you have got to take it."

The arguments advanced from this side of the House again and again have been completely ignored. That is democracy, is it? Let me say to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that I think it is a very poor show, not only on his part, but by his party. They say that the Act was introduced by a Labour Government. As was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) this Tory Government were going to show we Socialists how to do the job. When the Act was introduced they said that it was a bad Measure, but they have not done much about it.

If it was so bad, why did not they do something about it? The reason is that it suited them, and they do not intend to do anything about it. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about last time? "] I will tell hon. Members about last time. In London, and here I speak with some knowledge, the Labour Party lost a considerable number of seats. In my own constituency there were two seats and now there is only one with the same electorate; and I had a 21,000 majority, so that we could get another Labour Member in there all right.

The last Boundary Commission Report had to be made because there were so many anomalies. We all recognise that. In this case there was none. But in spite of the case which has been made again and again by hon. Members on this side of the House, the Home Secretary has completely ignored that. Although we have proved that Bethnal Green and Hackney are being treated unfairly, he still ignores it, and I am glad to know that my hon. Friends intend to vote against this Order.

5.37 a.m.

Mr. Collins

The Home Secretary acknowledged the unanswerable case advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South, (Mr. H. Butler) by attempting a few sentences in answer to it. In effect, however, all he said was that changes must cause inconvenience, and we were already aware of that. I would remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that if changes are necessary, they should be made in a reasonable manner. I do not think that the Minister has any idea of the amount of inconvenience which will be caused by the contemplated change in the Hackney Division.

Mr. Mellish

And he does not care, either.

Mr. Collins

My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South said that his constituents were neither rodents nor nit-wits. They are not crows, either. They cannot fly as the crow flies; they would have to be birds to get to Bethnal Green in a convenient manner. The only way would be to go through my constituency, as Shoreditch and Finsbury adjoin both these divisions.

There is the question not only of the L.C.C. but of the borough elections. These wards are being transferred from Hackney next March. The people will have to vote in the L.C.C. elections in Bethnal Green, and a year later they will be voting in Hackney for borough council candidates. They will belong to Hackney Borough Council—they do not belong to the Borough of Bethnal Green—so they will be supporting Hackney Borough Council candidates in 1956 and going to Bethnal Green to vote for the L.C.C. candidates in 1955. Anything calculated to cause a greater amount of inconvenience it would be difficult to imagine No attempt has been made to answer any query as to why the Home Secretary approved the recommendation of the Boundary Commission to deal with Hackney in this way rather than divide the borough, which has 120,000 electors. into two convenient and full constituencies.

The most frightening thing about this discussion, which has continued for about 13 hours, is that time and again hon. Members have said, and it has not been denied, that there has been no acknowledgment by the Boundary Commission of communications from responsible bodies and individuals; that there has been no opportunity for discussion or for public interviews and hearings. The Boundary Commission just presented its findings to the Minister and he has presented them to the House, without alteration, in a series of Orders. When the Minister is questioned, he says, "It is not my responsibility. I was not responsible for these things." We are left in the position that the Commission was a body of people we did not know, could not question, and could not see at public interviews.

The Commissioners are responsible for these things. It is a fantastic situation. When we ask the Under-Secretary for information he says that he does not know, that he has a bad memory. To whom can we put these questions? The Home Secretary and his Under-Secretary say that they do not know; they have not the details. They are not expected to have the details. Yet hon. Members and local authorities having the details and wanting to present their views to the Boundary Commission were not permitted to do so. No doubt members of the Commission, within their limited knowledge—and they could not hope to have the intimate knowledge that hon. Members have of their constituencies—did the best they could, but they made a lot of mistakes which could have been corrected if the public hearings which were asked for had been held. This mistake in Hackney could almost certainly have been avoided.

It is astounding that the Home Secretary and the Government should not premit the slightest variation or agree to look at things again. I believe the Home Secretary thinks that London is all alike, that it does not matter if boroughs are out up into bits because the people concerned will unite and be perfectly happy. That is a mistaken conclusion. There are local prides and loyalties which not even the Home Secretary or a Conservative Government will destroy. I was born near the divisions we are discussing. I represent a two borough constituency. Those two boroughs were joined four years ago. There could not be two communities closer than that, yet the people of these two boroughs are quite different in a number of essentials. It is the same in Hackney. I ask the Home Secretary to realise that this is not a minor inconvenience we are discussing. It will be a major and unnecessary inconvenience for the people concerned. I hope he will look at the matter again.

5.44 a.m.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas (The Wrekin)

We have reached this, the nineteenth of the proposed changes for England and Wales, out of a list of 42. The Minister ought now to reveal to the House what are his intentions.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris)

We are dealing with the Order that is now before the House.

Mr. Thomas

I am addressing myself to the Order now before the House. In doing so, I am prefacing my remarks by saying that it is the duty of the Home Secretary to tell us, not only what he is proposing to do, if anything, about the representations made on this Order, but also his intentions about the succeeding Orders.

Devastating criticisms have been made in all cases, including the Bethnal Green, Hackney and Stoke Newington case, from both sides of the House. The outstanding characteristic of the debate on this and previous Orders has been the paucity of contributions in support of the Government by their own backbenchers and by the Home Secretary.

We are entitled to ask at this stage for a clear and unqualified reply about the Home Secretary's intentions and the intentions of the Government. Can the Home Secretary indicate if anything that is said in criticism of this Order and succeeding Orders will carry any weight with him? Is any criticism that can be made from this side of the House likely to alter his present intention of forcing through each of these proposals without amendment? Or is he prepared to listen to reason? If in any case reason does penetrate his mental armour, will he then be prepared to take back such cases for reconsideration?

Can we have a reply to that straightforward question? Has he made up his mind that this series of alterations has to go through holus-bolus without qualification, without amendment? Is there no reply? The answer is that of the Sphinx—absolute silence.

5.49 a.m.

Mr. Willey

If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will not respond to that appeal, can I make this appeal to him? When he left the Ministry of Food and went to the Home Office I wished him well and thought that he would retrieve his good name. In this debate he has acted as the public relations officer of the Boundary Commission and has consistently refused to discuss the question of the exercise of the Commission's discretion. I appeal to him in this case to reveal the reasons for the Boundary Commission not receiving representations. It is an exceptional case, because it alters, for all practical purposes, a local government boundary. When local government boundaries are altered, suggestions are made for the alteration and, if an inquiry is wanted, an inquiry is invariably held.

In this case, why has there not been an inquiry? I want to know upon what grounds the Boundary Commission acts without holding an inquiry. Here it is quite clear, as in the Manchester case, that the local authorities and the political parties made representations and, on the face of it—I put it no higher than that—they were entitled to expect an inquiry. No inquiry was held. A great deal of disturbance will take place in the three constituencies. There will be a further disturbance in local government. We are entitled to hear from the Home Secretary the reasons which impelled the Commission not to receive representations in the form of an inquiry and why it did not discuss the matter with those who objected to the recommendations.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 126, Noes 84.

Division No. 20.]	AYES	[5.50 a.m.
Aitken, W. T.	Garner-Evans, E. H.	Page, R. G.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Godber, J. B.	Partridge, E.
Alport, C. J. M.	Gough, C. F. H.	Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Armstrong, C. W.	Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Pitt, Miss E. M.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Powell, J. Enoch
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Banks, Col. C.	Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)	Raikes, Sir Victor
Barber, Anthony	Heath, Edward	Redmayne, M.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Hirst, Geoffrey	Remnant, Hon. P.
Bishop, F. P.	Holland-Martin, C. J.	Ridsdale, J. E.
Black, C. W.	Holt, A. F.	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Bossom, Sir A. C.	Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.	Russell, R. S.
Boyle, Sir Edward	Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Braine, B. R.	Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)	Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)	Sharples, Maj. R. C.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Brooman-White, R. C.	Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)	Stevens, Geoffrey
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Bullard, D. G.	Iremonger, T. L.	Summers, G. S.
		Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Carr, Robert	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Cary, Sir Robert	Kaberry, D.	Thomas, P. J. M. (Cornway)
Channon, H.	Kerby, Capt. H. B.	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Leather, E. H. C.	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Cole, Norman	Linstead, Sir H. N.	Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Colegate, W. A.	Llewellyn, D. T.	Touche, Sir Gordon
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger	Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.	Turton, R. H.
Cooper-Key, E. M.	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.	Vosper, D. F.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Longden, Gilbert	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Wall, Major Patrick
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E.	McKay, John (Wallsend)	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Crouch, R. F.	Marples, A. E.	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Deedes, W. F.	Maude, Angus	Wellwood, w.
Digby, S. Wingfield	Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.	Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Doughty, C. J, A.	Medlicott, Brig. F.	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Drayson, G. B.	Mellor, Sir John	Wills, G.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)	Molson, A. H. E.	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Errington, Sir Eric	Nabarro, G. D. N.	Wood, Hon. R.
Erroll, F. J.	Neave, Airey	Woollam, John Victor
Fell, A.	Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Finlay, Graeme	Nield, Basil (Chester)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Fisher, Nigel	Odey, G. W.	Mr. Legh and Mr. Edward Wakefield
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F	O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
NOES
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Bacon, Miss Alice	Jeger, Mrs. Lena	Rogers, George (Kensington, N)
Bing, G. H. C.	Johnson, James (Rugby)	Short, E. W.
Bowden, H W.	Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Brockway, A. F.	Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S)	Skeffington, A. M.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Champion, A. J.	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Chetwynd, G. R.	King, Dr. H. M.	Snow, J. W.
Collins, V. J.	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Lewis, Arthur	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)	MacColl, J. E.	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	McLeavy, F.	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Thomson, George (Dundee, E)
Deer, G.	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)	Wallace, H. W.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Mellish, R. J.	Warbey, W. N.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)	Mikardo, Ian	Wells, William (Walsall)
Fienburgh, W.	Moyle, A.	West, D. G.
Foot, M. M.	Mulley, F. W.	Wheeldon, W. E.
		White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	Wilkins, W. A.
Gibson, C. W.	Owen, W. J.	Willey, F. T.
Grenwood, Anthony	Pannell, Charles	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)	Pargiter, G. A.	Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Paton, J.	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)	Peart, T. F.	Wyatt, W. L.
Hewitson, Capt. M.	Plummer, Sir Leslie	Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Holman, P.	Popplewell, E.
Holmes, Horace	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)	Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)	Mr Weitzman and
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Proctor, W. T.	Mr.Herbert Butler

Resolved, That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Bethnal Green, Hackney and Stoke Newington) Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on lath November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Fulham and Hammersmith) Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Major Lloyd-George.]

6.0 a.m.

Mr. W. T. Williams (Hammersmith, South)

I have sat through the whole of this two-day debate, and what a very heartbreaking business it has been. More than once it has been declared that the Boundary Commission has done a very bad job. Over and over again, not to put the case too highly, hon. Members on both sides of the House have declared their dissatisfaction with what the Commission has done. Some hon. Members have said that they made no attempt to impugn the impartiality of the Commission.

I offer no judgment about its impartiality. What I recognise, however, and what many other hon. Members have recognised, is that, however impartial the Commission may have been, the consequences of its work have been grievously unfair. If not actually contemptuous of public opinion, it completely disregarded any public attempt made to guide it in the conduct of its work.

But perhaps more important than that is the contempt with which Parliament has been treated by the two Ministers in charge of these matters. It is easy, of course, to over-stress one's case, particularly when one is emotionally bound up with the decisions the Government are presenting. On the other hand, I think that no fair-minded person could deny that it is an abuse of Parliament to bring before it Orders and recommendations which, by general acknowledgment on both sides of the House, have been botched up, and to insist on these being discussed through some 15 hours of debate, and to present what I believe to be perhaps the classic example of the Boundary Commission's misspent labours at six o'clock in the morning.

During the whole of this debate, though attacked by Members of their own party as well as by Members on this side of the House, the Ministers have at no time offered any explanation of the reasons that have guided them in offering these propositions for the consideration of the House. They have merely stood up, said that these are the Commission's recommendations, that they are sacrosanct, sat down, and relied, not upon arguments or upon democratic procedure, but rather on the Whips to see that the Members of their own party were brought into the Lobby, of times contrary to their own declared opinions, to vote for the Orders.

On Tuesday last, Mr. Justice Harman said quite clearly about the Fulham and Hammersmith situation that the matter was one for judicial consideration. He said, however, that it was not within his competence to deal with it, because Parliament must act as judge in its own cause. Mr. Justice Harman also added that he was certain that when Parliament came to consider the Hammersmith and Fulham Order, about which he took leave to express some personal doubt, Parliament would see that justice was done. It is obvious that the learned judge is learned in the law, but he has little experience of the conduct of Parliament under a Conservative Government.

The Minister is in a difficult position. All of us on both sides of the House recognise that. He is faced with a situation in which the decision about these Orders was made, so we are told, in Cabinet, so that we in this House have been forced to proceed hour by hour through the farce of trying to persuade the Minister who has not made the slightest attempt to act in a judicial capacity.

For the most part it is manifestly obvious to all of us who have sat in this House and watched that the Minister not only has not attempted to act in that judicial capacity, but for the most part he has not even listened to the arguments. I appreciate the difficulty for the Minister in trying to look like a judge through 15 hours of debate when he is fettered by a decision of the Cabinet about which he can do nothing.

I should like to make this comment and, if it is harsh, it is no more harsh than the occasion demands. The Minister wrote to me as he wrote to others. My borough wrote to him first of all and presented reasoned objections to the conduct of the Boundary Commission in respect of the recommendation relating to Hammersmith. The Minister acknowledged that, which was more than the Boundary Commission did, but he did no more about it. He laid these Orders. My borough again wrote to him asking him to receive a deputation from Hammersmith and Fulham. The Minister said he was not prepared to receive a deputation, although it seemed to me difficult to understand the processes of reasoning by which he said that, because the Orders have been laid, it would have been improper for him to have received that deputation.

I would have thought it eminently proper for the Minister to have discovered something of the facts of the situation on which he was to act as judge. I attempted to get in touch with him, and I got a reply in which he gave me an undertaking, as he gave other Members, that he would come to this debate prepared to listen to the argument with an open mind and pay careful attention to anything that was said, and that when he heard it he would then make up his mind.

Hon. Members

Where is he?

Mr. I. O. Thomas

Gone to make up his mind.

Mr. Williams

Whatever his Ministerial responsibility may be to his Cabinet colleagues, the Minister has been a little less than just in his own personal integrity when he gives an undertaking of this kind and then behaves as he has behaved throughout this debate.

Mr. Thomas

For the purposes of the record, would my hon. Friend quote the reply he received from the Minister?

Mr. Williams

I have quoted from the letter; I do not want to detain the House too long. I have no hope that anything I say at this late hour will make any more difference to the Minister than the powerful arguments that have already been advanced.

The principles on which the Boundary Commission was required to work are in the Second Schedule to the 1949 Act. Rule 4 lays down that the Boundary Commission shall ensure as far as is practicable that the Metropolitan borough boundaries are not infringed by any changes it may make. It is true that under Rules 5 and 6 the Commission is entitled to break that rule of the sanctity of borough boundaries, if it finds excessive disparity with electorates of neighbouring constituencies or with the electoral quota; or if there are special geographical considerations.

The Minister has been guilty of considerable laxity in the way he has treated Rules 5 and 6. At the slightest difficulty about observing the sanctity of borough boundaries, the Commission was regarded as entitled to take any liberties it liked. Those Rules lay down that if the position is so serious that it is impossible, without injustice to the general over-all picture or without an offence against the electoral quota, to keep a borough boundary, only then shall strict application of Rule 4 not be made.

Let me examine the conditions laid down in Rules 5 and 6 in regard to Hammersmith. The Minister has talked today in a way that shows he is more politician than judge and as though boundary changes must be made merely because they are recommended. Redistribution has to take place for redistribution's sake. In Hammersmith there is no excessive disparity with the surrounding constituencies or with the electoral quota, when these are compared with constituencies similar to Hammersmith. In 1954 Hammersmith has some 43,000 electorate. Its nearest neighbours are Battersea, North and Battersea, South, Chelsea, Paddington, and Brentford and Chiswick. Then there are the new constituencies of Hammersmith, North, Baron's Court and Fulham. The present Hammersmith, South constituency has an electorate of 43,000; Battersea, North has 43,000; Battersea, South 39,000; Chelsea 49,000; Paddington, North 43,000 and Paddington, South 46,000. Brentford and Chiswick has 43,000 and the only other contiguous constituencies are South Kensington, with 63,000, and the Cities of London and Westminster, with 76,000.

It cannot be held that there is an excessive disparity between Hammersmith, South and its surrounding constituencies when it is remembered that, of those constituencies, some are smaller, and only two are in any degree larger; and in that connection, the disparity between South Kensington and the Cities of London and Westminster is so much greater. Any change in Hammersmith has been a change literally torn out of the general situation and the Boundary Commission has misconceived its function in that it attempts to break through the borough boundary of Hammersmith purely on the grounds that it is permitted to do so by Rule 5.

What is an extraordinary feature about all this is that the Commission, although it has no justification under Rule 5, has committed an attempt on the integrity of Hammersmith's boundaries; although the Commission admits that it is making this change despite the fact that new alterations will be made in the near future. It is not denied that very shortly all these changes will have to be put again into action because of the movements of population, which are so rapid in the London area.

If, on the other hand, the Government carry out their intention, or their desired intention, of ensuring by some act in the near future that further disturbance or disruption of constituencies shall not be permitted—the Home Secretary has variously used 10, 12, 15 years—then it is a grave injustice to the people of Hammersmith that they should be deprived of their electoral rights and that their boundary should be infringed on the pretext that it is done by the entitlement of Rule 5; because, in fact, no such entitlement has been given to break the primary Rule that the borough boundaries shall not be infringed. Rule 6 states that, even although it may not be the case that there is no excessive disparity in the number of electors, geographical considerations shall apply. I thought that geographical considerations were meant to apply to constituencies such as the Orkneys and Shetlands, or Brecon and Radnor, or similar difficult country areas. If the Home Secretary has felt like it, for political reasons. he has pressed "geographical considerations" into some very odd shapes.

If the Minister is prepared to answer at all, which I doubt, and if he is prepared to give consideration to my arguments, which would be remarkably different from what he has done throughout the debate, he might say that the position of Hammersmith was considered from the geographical point of view. I have looked at the map of the Hammersmith and Fulham constituency to see what kind of constituency has been created by this ruthless tearing of Parliamentary divisions, and the constituency of Barons Court looks to me like a cubist's nightmare, for all the world like some grotesque face with a hand held before it thumbing its nose. That must be one of the reasons which the Home Secretary is using to justify this Order and to justify making this monstrosity of a division called Barons Court.

In the hope that the Minister will at least do me the courtesy which he has so far refused to most hon. Members and will try to meet argument with argument, I must submit to him that there is very little substance in the reasons which made the Commission propose these alterations. I cannot help feeling that the Commissioners revealed probably more than they intended when they said they had found it difficult to see where they could squeeze one Member out of London. They then chose the four near-small constituencies and were concerned only with mathematical considerations and not with the injury which they were doing to the political and municipal life of London.

For the inadequate reasons, which, without justification, can be torn out of Rule 5, the Commission has broken the primary Rule that no Metropolitan borough shall be made a constituency in which it has to share a part of another Metropolitan borough. The effect of the Commission's Report on the boroughs of Fulham and Hammersmith has been that four wards of Hammersmith, South have been removed to the new Barons Court division, and three wards have been removed to the North Hammersmith division, and the consequence has been the strange picture of a division with ragged edges which I have tried, no doubt inadequately, to describe.

The effects of these recommendations have been far more dangerous and ridiculous than any conceivable advantage which has been derived from them. That the Commission was locked in its private room, dealing not with people or civic considerations but with mathematics of the oddest kind, is to be seen in the fact that the new Hammersmith division has no town hall at all. The town hall of Hammersmith is now in the Barons Court division.

The position therefore is this. The ancient Borough of Hammersmith, which has a continuous history of 350 years, the original hamlet of which was to be seen on the banks of the Thames where Hammersmith now stands as early as the Roman days, has been completely lost, and even the name of that ancient borough has been taken away. It has been renamed by the Boundary Commissioners—who are apparently as unimaginative as they are contemptuous of public opinion—on a site which has no knowledge of history, except as the site of the District Railway Station.

Those are its ridiculous aspects. Some of the effects of the recommendations, on the other hand, have been a serious affront to civic feeling and to historic background of the Borough of Hammersmith. I have already spoken about Hammersmith's ancient date, and that is not a thing lightly to be despised. Hammersmith probably has a local loyalty which, if it is not surpassed in London, is certainly not more than equalled in any other part of London. Purely in terms of its sense of civic responsibility, Hammersmith's record is a very valuable one.

In the General Elections of 1950 and 1951, Hammersmith, South recorded the remarkable vote of 82.1 per cent. of the total electorate. Hammersmith has besides that a remarkable and flourishing social and cultural life that certainly is not surpassed in any other London borough. Most of the people in Hammersmith, if there is a peripheral floating population, have lived there all their lives, their fathers before them, and their fathers' fathers before them. There has grown up in Hammersmith a very strong community feeling, of which the Boundary Commissioners and apparently the Home Secretary—although he ought to be better informed—were apparently completely ignorant.

It is not possible from written representations for the Boundary Commission or the Home Secretary to be aware of the depth and strength of civic loyalty in the people of Hammersmith, for if either the Commission or the Home Secretary were aware of them they would not have done the affront to them which they have done in these Orders and recommendations. There is no continuity of interest between residents of Fulham and Hammersmith. I know nothing about the Borough of Fulham and would not be as presumptuous as the Home Secretary to attempt to legislate for it. I make no comment, therefore, about the respective merits of the citizens of Hammersmith and Fulham, but I do know that the citizens of Hammersmith have no doubt about which is the superior borough.

All their interests are directed and will continue to be directed to different boroughs, and now the situation has come about, not only that they have been linked with "foreigners"—I would hardly dare call them unbelievers—but that they have had insult added to injury by the fact that Hammersmith, South is now the only London constituency that is not related to a Metropolitan borough and has the other rather doubtful honour of being related only to the Metropolitan Railway.

Perhaps the most important thing of all—and it is something about which one would have thought that the Home Secretary would have been very concerned—is the fact that injury has been done, or will be done, if this Order is passed—and I have no doubt that, owing to the intransigence of the Cabinet's decision, it will be passed—to the administrative structure of the Borough of Hammersmith. I suggest for the consideration of the Joint Under-Secretary—if he is listening to what I am saying—that this is clearly one of the overriding considerations that determined Parliament that Metropolitan borough and county borough boundaries ought not to be transgressed.

Take the situation which will arise in relation to the new Barons Court division so far as it affects Hammersmith. The Member of Parliament for the new Barons Court division and the London County Council members for that new division will find their tasks so immeasurably increased that their difficulties will be almost insurmountable. That applies with more particular force to the L.C.C. members than to the Member of Parliament, but in both cases it puts a severe strain on those representatives which it is little short of an impertinence to put on the shoulders of voluntary workers.

The housing authorities in Fulham and Hammersmith are completely separate. No one who has sat as I have Friday after Friday in a constituency clinic will underestimate the difficulties facing public representatives in trying to deal with separate boroughs within one constituency. When it comes to housing problems, the methods adopted by the two boroughs are entirely different. One borough will be able, perhaps, to build faster than the other, which will increase local resentment. Public health authorities are entirely different. Half the people will have to go to Fulham and half to Hammersmith. The people in the boroughs will not know and, unless the L.C.C. members and the Member of Parliament are familiar with every street in this hybrid constituency, they will not know to which sanitary inspector the people should be directed. Even the police authority is completely different in these two boroughs. If I may reduce this argument to its absurdity, I would add that even the buses do not run mutually between Hammersmith and Fulham. It will mean that the task of public representatives will be increased tremendously, and for very little reason.

I should be interested to discover how much reading the Home Secretary has done about Hammersmith and Fulham; how much real interest he has taken in the representations made to him in writing. If he has shown as much interest in the written material with which he has been provided as he has shown in the course of this debate, I suggest that he has read nothing about it at all.

A great part of the local rate of Hammersmith is devoted to London County Council purposes. Yet the effect of the Commission's recommendation, and of this Order, if it is pushed through, will be to reduce the London County Council representation which is so important to the boroughs and for which they pay heavily. Through this Order Hammersmith will lose three London County councillors. The task of the London County councillors who thereafter will share responsibility for Hammersmith and Fulham will have to be borne by three voluntary workers instead of six. Difficulties will be created for the administrative machinery, since elections to the London County Council and to Parliament will have to be undertaken in two separate borough organisations.

Ministers ought to be concerned with people rather than with figures, and a matter which should be of primary concern to them is the effect these changes will have upon the residents of the borough, who will have to vote in one place for the borough elections and in another for the London County Council and Parliamentary elections. It ought not to be a matter to which the Home Secretary is indifferent, although it seems to be, that these Orders will not only make a serious attack upon the civic life and traditions of the borough, but will confuse the residents in regard to public affairs by introducing a new area, the area of Barons Court in particular, which has no relation to any of the functions or districts which are now ascribed for various municipal purposes to the Borough of Hammersmith.

These are cogent arguments. They destroy the basis on which the Home Secretary would claim that ho is entitled to escape from the responsibilities laid upon him by Rule 4. They are not merely my arguments. They are the arguments and objections of every interested body not only in Hammersmith but in the County of London, The protest against the Hammersmith and Fulham Order has been made by Conservative as well as Labour politicians; by Conservatives represented within the joint committee of the Metropolitan Boroughs' Association, and by Conservative bodies within that association as well as Labour; by the London County Council and by Conservative Members of Parliament as well as by Labour Members of Parliament. These objections have been made by every interested body, non-political as well as political, which has any association with Hammersmith. It is a protest which has been made in large numbers not only by public bodies but by distinguished people.

The Home Secretary may have read the letter from a distinguished former member of this House, Sir Alan Herbert, which was published in "The Times." Sir Alan Herbert himself registered his protest against this truncation of the ancient Borough of Hammersmith. He was supported by the son of a former Conservative Member of Parliament who for many years represented Hammersmith in this House, Sir Douglas Bull, son of Sir William Bull. He drew the attention of the Home Secretary to what he regarded as this abuse.

I cannot but believe that if the Home Secretary, or his masters in the Cabinet, or whoever it was who took the decision to have this abominable Order on the Order Paper, had taken the trouble to read these representations, they could not have been indifferent to the wrong that they have inflicted upon the borough and particularly on that Dart of it which I, at least temporarily, have the honour to represent.

All this moving around of 43,000 voters, shuffling them into new areas, into the truncated new divisions that have no history, is like Melchizedek—has no father and mother and is likely to have no children. To effect one division altering 12 constituencies to a greater or less degree; moving around 43,000 voters; aid this only four and a half years after a major upheaval in London when 19 seats disappeared; only shortly—if the Boundary Commission's view is to be accepted—before it will be necessary to look at the whole matter again, shows that the Commission cannot have behaved with any sense of responsibility to the people of Hammersmith.

The Commissioners have used Hammersmith purely as a way out of the mathematical maze they have created for themselves. The Home Secretary is, or at least ought to be, in a different position. It is his duty, not to his party but to his country, to consider the folly and the injustice of the Commission's recommendations and remedy them by paying attention to the needs of the citizens of this ancient borough. Governments exist for the people. People are not units to be shifted about at the whims of parties who happen to be in Government. I hope—and hope is always triumphant—that the Home Secretary will pay attention to these arguments and withdraw this iniquitous Order.

6.44 a.m.

Mr. M. Stewart

We have all listened with interest and approval while my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, South (Mr. W. T. Williams) has set forth the claim of that ancient and distinguished borough, which is now to be injured in the way in which it is injured in this Order. There are two essential features about the Order. The first is that it is the one London Order which inflicts on the County of London the loss of a Parliamentary seat. Secondly, this is an Order which departs, not merely from the strict application of the Rule about Metropolitan borough boundaries, but flies flatly in the face of the Rule that Metropolitan borough boundaries should not, in general, be crossed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, South, my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill), and myself, are therefore entitled, in view of the injury done to the representation in that area and to the borough boundaries, to draw the attention of the House to the claims and dignity of these two boroughs. Fulham, like Hammersmith, has an ancient history, as is well known. It has for very long been associated with the dignity of the Bishop of London. That dates, I believe, from the time of Bishop Erconwald, shortly before the year 700. He was granted the Manor of Fulham.

That distinguished connection has remained ever since. It has been one of the centres of community life round which the whole community of Fulham has grown. I do not propose to develop that aspect further, as the Bishop's Palace lies not in my constituency but in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West, and she may wish to develop the ecclesiastical aspects of the argument.

It is true that no Metropolitan borough can have had a life as a Metropolitan borough for more than about 50 years, since they all came into being by the same act of legislation, but Fulham as a community is very much older than that. Although the great tide of building that occurred in the 19th century has swept round the older parts of the borough, one does not need a very discerning eye to perceive in Fulham the old parish of Fulham, which is gathered round Fulham Church by the river, the old hamlets of Walham Green and the neighbourhood now called Parsons Green, which have been welded together without losing their individuality and their traditions in the modern 20th century city.

People who are not Londoners are sometimes inclined to label the whole of the suburban area as a dormitory. It would be a profound mistake so to label Fulham. A considerable proportion of its inhabitants work in or near the borough. There is the great generating station, one of the largest in the Kingdom, if not in the world, there is the North Thames Gas Board, there are the industrial establishments connected with chemicals, laundering, and the preparation of foodstuffs, which employ the people of the locality, who live and work near their homes.

Fulham, despite the fact that it is part of the Metropolis, has a real and living community life of its own. It is a community which has not only an economic but a cultural life of its own. On the map it is not a very large community, yet it can boast some affection for, and some degree of achievement in, the arts, as any of those acquainted with the achievements of its citizens who have contributed to local drama, painting, and the study of history and archaeology, know. We have there a community which can stand up and face comparison with the oldest and most compact in the country. It is not a mere dormitory or a mere slice on the map.

In that part which forms the Parliamentary division of Fulham, East, one is struck at once by the fact that it is a section very suited indeed to be treated as a Parliamentary constituency. Running down it like a sort of spine is the North End Road, starting near Olympia, and then substantially the same road changes its name to Fulham Broadway and Harwood Road until it turns into Wandsworth Bridge Road and reaches the river in the ward of the borough known romantically as Sands End, though the colour of the sand has been somewhat changed by the growth of industry during the centuries from what it must have been in an earlier and less sophisticated stage of Fulham's history.

Round that whole series of roads there run two bus routes. It is possible to travel without difficulty from one end of the constituency to the other in the same vehicle, but that state of affairs will not exist when the place of the constituency is taken by the hybrid constituency of Barons Court. The North End Road is not merely a thoroughfare. As anyone who has visited it will know, it has a considerable street market, and street traders form a lively and vigorous part of the community of Fulham. It is interesting to notice that at one end of North End Road, where the street market is almost at its busiest, there is a centre of municipal and political life.

On an open space near there on many Saturdays during the last nine years there may have been seen and heard the hon. Member for Fulham, East discoursing to constituents and such members of the crowd returning from Chelsea Football Ground as passed by that forum. Not only could the hon. Member for Fulham, East be seen there, but any one of a series of itinerant Conservatives who have endeavoured, without success, to become the hon. Member for Fulham, East. I believe my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West has had a different but no less humorous series in her constituency.

From that place one might say—although perhaps it is not a very suitable phrase in the circumstances—that only a stone's throw away is the Conservative Club. A little further on is the headquarters of my constituency Labour Party, and not very far away is the town hall. All these political amenities are to be found in the heart of the borough and the constituency. I mention them because the result of the change of boundary will be that instead of being right in the heart of the constituency in future they will be on the extreme edge. The great street market of North End Road, which has always been thought of as part of Fulham, and linked with Fulham Town Hall and Fulham Members of Parliament, will, in future, to its mystification, be told that it is in a constituency called Barons Court.

Mr. W. T. Williams

Is it then the case that Barons Court will have two town halls whilst Fulham will have none?

Mr. Stewart

No, the town hall will remain in Fulham, East constituency but on the extreme edge of it. It will be only a short distance from the Barons Court division. Those who live in that neighbourhood do not think of themselves as being in Barons Court. As a character in one of Bernard Shaw's plays remarked: Denmark Hill is not Camberwell. The Lilley ward is not Barons Court and no one thinks of it as Barons Court.

My hon. Friend referred to the great interest shown in politics and civic life by the people of Hammersmith. I do not dispute that, although I might perhaps point out that the percentage of persons in Fulham, East who voted at the last General Election was 84 per cent. and I think my hon. Friend mentioned a figure of 82.1 per cent. We need not quarrel about that because both are very creditable figures.

In the last few years I have been paid the compliment of visits to the constituency by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence, the right hon. Member the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary, all of whom have tried to persuade my constituents to return someone else to this House for Fulham, East. I was very gratified about all that, and so were my constituents. It made them feel, as journalists say, that the eyes of the world were on Fulham, East. I would not wish to suggest that all those distinguished Members of this House were merely wasting their time. They evidently felt that what happened in that constituency was of some importance, and that it was a constituency worth some attention. I see an hon. Member on one of the back benches opposite who was also, I believe, one of the visitors.

However, to speak a little more seriously, if this Order goes through, in future Parliaments neither I nor anybody else will be the Member for Fulham, East, and the people of East Fulham, whoever they may have wanted as their Member, will, I think, regret that. Anyone who has at any time been associated politically with that constituency will feel regret at the passing from the Parliamentary map of a constituency containing people who took their political duties and responsibilities so vigorously, so seriously, and so cheerfully, because although we take politics seriously in Fulham, we do not take them glumly, nor in a manner entirely devoid of humour.

Now half of this constituency is to be in this unsatisfactory entity known as Barons Court. I believe that in every part of the House we are agreed that it is thoroughly undesirable for a Parliamentary constituency to be nothing but a name and a slice on a map, with no reality. No one can pretend that Barons Court will be anything more than a slice—and a fantastically-shaped slice, as my hon. Friend pointed out—on a map without any sense of unity.

I do not need to develop to the House the really serious inconveniences that will confront the citizens, the Parliamentary representative and the London County Council members of that constituency. Perhaps I should add that the L.C.C. elections occur in the very near future. The passing of this Order will impose a quite unreasonable burden of hurried reorganisation on every political party in that area. It is not reasonable that people should be expected to reorientate their whole political loyalties and affiliations at such extremely short notice.

It was not at all surprising, therefore, that almost unanimously opposition was voiced to these proposals. The London County Council is a body on which both the great parties in the State are represented. It unanimously, and without distinction of party, condemned this and all the other London proposals of the Boundary Commission.

This is a topic on which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) is better informed than I am, and on which I hope that he will say something to the House. I will merely say that the reception given to the London County Council representations by the Boundary Commission was not consonant with the dignity of the L.C.C., or with any reputation that the Boundary Commission may have been trying to build up for itself.

If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that it would have been most improper for him to have told the Commission to hold inquiries, we might accept that, but I would ask him, now that we have seen what the Commission has done and what it has failed to do, whether he thinks it right that the Commission should not have sent a 1½d. acknowledgment of the representations received from great public corporations. We should like to know what the Home Secretary thinks of that kind of behaviour. I know that if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman answers, it will be the first time that he has expressed any opinion of his own on any topic since the debate began, but I think that he might at least go as far as that.

The Standing Joint Committee of the Metropolitan boroughs presented the same unanimous decision, the Fulham Borough Council, on which both parties are represented, without a dissentient vote expressed its position. In Fulham, we had the same experience as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, South had. The Town Clerk, together with the Town Clerk of Hammersmith, made approaches to the Home Secretary, who was asked to receive a deputation. That was seconded by personal appeals by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, South, and myself. We received from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman a letter saying that he would pay careful attention to what anyone might say in the debate. That letter has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's signature on it, and we have discovered how much the document is worth. Fulham, because of its nature, ought not to have been treated in this way.

What can justify departure from the Rule about not crossing a Metropolitan borough boundary? It must be admitted, both from the Rules themselves and from the special claims of vigorous boroughs like Fulham, that borough boundaries ought not to be crossed unless powerful reasons for doing so could be shown. Strict application of the Rule about not crossing boundaries may be departed from if special geographical considerations, including the particular size, shape, and accessibility, require it. No question of shape or size applies here. The new constituency of Baron's Court is of a ridiculous shape and a muddle of communications.

The only possible justification one might find to show how the Commission's mind worked on this matter of why the Rule about Metropolitan boundaries not being crossed is being set aside, is that the Commission tells us that it is because it has decided that there must be one seat less in London. Why did it decide that? Normally the Commission ought not to cross the Metropolitan borough boundaries unless there are the strongest reasons to justify that action. It has crossed them here, and the real reason is that it had already decided that there must be one seat less in the county.

It reached this decision by taking the electorate of London and dividing it by 57,122, and discovered that the answer was about 42, but had it used as the yardstick, not 57,122, but 55,670, it would have found that London should have 43 seats. If it had stuck to the Act there would have been no need to cross the Fulham-Hammersmith boundary and deprive London of one seat.

What is the excuse for the disregard of the law and of equality? The right hon. Gentleman said that was done in 1947, but he ought to know that is completely irrelevant. This Commission is not, and could not, be bound by anything done or not done in 1947. Its duty is by the Act which set it up and there is nothing about following rules laid down in 1947. The Act tells it that where it wants a yardstick it is to use the British and not the English yardstick.

The Attorney-General, who intervened in these debates at a point which now seems quite a long time ago, tried to explain the Act by saying that the electoral quota had to be used, otherwise we should get a total number of seats substantially in excess of 613. How much is "substantially in excess"? The Commission proposes to exceed 613 by 5, which is, to the nearest percentage, 1 per cent. It could have avoided all the trouble of using the quite incorrect English electoral quota, the false line of argument which led it to deprive London of a seat, and doing this outrage upon Fulham and Hammersmith, by exceeding 613 by 13, which would have been 2 per cent.

The whole argument for the Order hangs on the view that to increase the number by 1 per cent. is not a substantial increase but to increase it by 2 per cent. is: that is the dogma, the faith which we must hold pure and entire if confidence in the Boundary Commission is not to perish. Does anyone seriously believe that the Home Secretary would say "Yes," if we asked him whether he believed the general proposition, "Are you satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that if the Commission increases the number by 1 per cent. it is not increasing the number substantially, while if it increases it by 2 per cent. it is increasing it substantially"? We have to believe that absurd proposition beyond reasonable doubt in order to justify what has happened in London and Manchester, and is done in defiance of the Rule about the Metropolitan boroughs.

By ignoring the Act and using this bogus English electoral quota measuring rod, the Commission decided to deprive London of a seat, which it ought not to have done. It then had to say, "Where shall we do it?" Any ordinary person, having allowed himself to get as far as that, would have looked first at the smallest constituencies in London, but the Commission looked at Fulham and Hammersmith. Departing from its usual reticence, it tells us why. It was not because those electorates were particularly small, but because the Commission thought that they were going to be small in the future. With an engaging candour, it admits that anything that happened in Fulham and Hammersmith is quite likely to happen in any other part of London as well.

Instead of speculating about what might happen to Fulham and Hammersmith, why did the Commission not look at what has happened in Battersea, South? There is a constituency which is not only smaller than Fulham or Hammersmith but is the smallest in London. I am not sure that it is not the very smallest one which the Boundary Commission has proposed anywhere in England, below the normal tolerance limit of 40,000. The Commission averted its eyes from it.

Mr. E. Partridge (Battersea, South)

By how much is it below?

Mr. Stewart

By 20. I repeat that that is below the tolerance limit. It is the smallest in London, the smallest in England, and yet the Commission has averted its eyes from it, and, by the strangest of coincidences, it is one of the few seats in London which is represented by a member of the Conservative Party.

Mr. Partridge

That, surely, is the complaint—leaving Battersea as it is; but that is probably because the citizens of Battersea make proper representations to the Commission.

Mr. Stewart

If the hon. Member had been awake while my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, South and I have been addressing the House, he would know that full representations were made by Fulham and by Hammersmith. If representations from a Conservative constituency—

Mr. Partridge

I made no representations to the Commission; I was referring to the representations made by the Labour Party of Battersea.

Mr. Stewart

And I was pointing out that representations were made by the boroughs of Fulham and Hammersmith, so that that interruption has nothing to do with the matter.

The original decision to deprive London of a seat is in clear defiance of the instructions given to the Commission, and the further decision as to which borough of London is to be deprived of a seat is based on no reasonable principle; and instead of having the overwhelming reasons which alone could justify crossing the boundaries of a Metropolitan borough, the Commission has no reason for the most modest infringement of local government boundaries.

The Home Secretary, and the rest of the people responsible for this deplorable procedure, know that all this is true, but do not propose to answer it, any more than they have answered any of the other arguments. What is their frame of mind? Let them turn to the great work of Walter Bagehot, in the middle of the last century, on the English Constitution. He there describes a certain Government Chief Whip who, when a certain matter was discussed in the Cabinet and he had been called in to give his advice as to how a certain matter would be received in this House, replied. "We have a bad case here; we have an indefensible case. We must apply our majority!"

Mr. Pickthorn

How did he get into the Cabinet meeting?

Mr. Stewart

I dare say that Chief Whips may have been garrulous in those days.

That is the spirit in which this whole major issue has been approached. "We have a case which is bad; which is indefensible" say the Government, and so they apply their majority. But they cannot make what is being done any the more justifiable, nor rub out the fact that the Commission has done its work badly, has been partial in the political sense, and has not respected local loyalties; and now the Home Secretary has made no attempt to explain or excuse what is being done.

7.15 a.m.

Dr. Edith Summerskill (Fulham, West)

I have little to add after the excellent contributions by my hon. Friends the Members for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) and Hammersmith, South (Mr. W. T. Williams) and I propose to make only one or two short observations. We have had an excellent sociological and geographical survey of Hammersmith and Fulham. My hon. Friends have sought to prove to the House that in Hammersmith and Fulham, in the middle of the 20th century, are two virile and interesting communities, and they have tried to persuade the Minister that if we approve these recommendations we shall partially destroy those communities. As I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, East describe conditions in his constituency, which is adjacent to mine, I thought that here was a case to which the Minister should listen.

May I emphasise a personal aspect? We have heard about the factories and the physical conditions in these constituencies, but the Minister will also recall a wonderful Member of Parliament in his time in the House—his family will not mind my mentioning this: I refer to William Banfield, who was the Member for Wednesbury, and who devoted the whole of his political life to trying to abolish night baking. I feel that William Banfield and his family emphasise the point I want to make about community life. He was a constituent of mine in West Fulham.

He had a big family, and he was a fortunate man because, while some families reject the views of their parents and grandparents, his family accepted his views and sought to emulate him. In West Fulham, that family is now identified with every kind of social service. If we ask about the various organisations which are functioning in West Fulham we hear that members of the family are doing their best to promote good causes.

I met one of the family the other day and asked how things were going, and they told me, to my horror, that if these recommendations are approved the whole family will be out off from Fulham and be in the constituency which my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, South described, with reference to Fulham, as "foreign parts." That is an astonishing thing. Overnight, the Boundary Commission comes along and cuts through what might be regarded as a microcosm of social life in West Fulham. That is another aspect of the repercussions of the Commission's Report.

The Minister has so far been unapproachable in these matters. I think he has failed in this debate, which may prove to be historic, because he has refused to recognise that today and yesterday he should have been fulfilling a semi-judicial rôle. On each group of constituencies he has more or less reflected the views of the Commission. He has failed to deal objectively with the pleas which he has heard from this side of the House—and some of those pleas have been poignant, for we have heard older men on this side of the House literally plead for their Parliamentary lives. I am sorry that the Minister has not recognised that he should also have listened to these men as a colleague—that he should be here not only as a Minister representing the Boundary Commission and its Report but as a colleague, and that he should perhaps have put himself in the position of some of the men who have pleaded their cases.

Therefore I ask him to reconsider the dismemberment of Hammersmith and Fulham; to weigh up the cases that have been put by my hon. Friends, the Members for Hammersmith, South and East Fulham. We have had, in the last two weeks, a debate on National Insurance, and it seems to me that history is repeating itself. We have had to appeal, time after time, to the Minister to change his mind and to listen more sympathetically, but in the last two days we have failed. I ask the Minister on this occasion to retrieve the situation at this late hour, to look at the matter objectively, and to say that he will reconsider the Boundary Commission's recommendations.

7.20 a.m.

Mr. Skeffington

After the three excellent speeches which we have just heard from Members who are personally involved in these changes, I do not want to say very much about the particular proposals, except in so far as they refer to the County of London as a whole. If one looks at the results in London I think they give us almost the supreme example of the folly of the methods adopted by the English Commission. I am not certain whether the West Riding of Yorkshire does not provide an even more grotesque example, but no doubt we shall hear about that later.

It is true to say that all the confusion and uneasiness in London arises from the fact that the English Commission has adopted two processes which are certainly not specifically authorised in the Act, one of which we think, with a good deal of authority, is possibly an illegal one. There is the allocation of a special and unauthorised quota for English constituencies, and, secondly, there is the division of that quota into administrative counties. There may be some cases where the administrative county does comprise a convenient group of constituencies, but that is certainly not true in London.

London was a statutory creation and was not a growth of natural development. At a particular date, 1888, for certain purposes, boundaries—many of them very inconvenient, awkward, and logically indefensible—were selected. Into that artificial unit there has been divided this unauthorised quota which the English Commision has seen fit to use. Nearly all our trouble in London, Lancashire, and many other places, arises from the combination of these two unauthorised factors.

Earlier, the Home Secretary, in dealing with Manchester said that Lancashire had to lose two seats. But there is nothing in the Act which makes it necessary for Lancashire, or a number of constituencies, to lose seats. That is only the interpretation put on the Act by the Commission and apparently accepted without question by the Home Secretary. It is quite unnecessary, and it is bound to give rise to many anomalies if one diverts this English average into an artificial unit like the administrative County of London.

If one looks at the electorate of London in 1954, it is found to be about 2,391,000. If one divides the London electorate by the specified statutory quota for Great Britain of 55,670, one gets an answer of 43, which corresponds with the existing number of seats. If that is the case, and in view of the widespread changes which took place only a few years ago, why was it necessary for the Commission to create all this dislocation in London after such a short period? We need not have any of the arguments about the size of Hackney and Stoke Newington if the Government would leave well alone.

If we are to apply a measuring stick, and if we use the proper quota and divide it into the London electorate, we get the answer of 43. Why mess about with it? We can only get an answer to reduce if we take a quota which is not authorised. The effect of these Orders, if they go through—and I still hope that the Home Secretary will show, for the first time, that he is not a slave to the recommendations of the Commission—42 seats in London will have an average electorate of 56,935. Yet the quota authorised by the Act is 55,670. The net effect is that there will be 300 electors per London constituency more than the average for all the English constituencies together—both borough and county, of 56,564.

That is quite unjustifiable. Indeed, were it not for the fact that the Commission was here dealing with a large area and a large number of constituencies, it could not so have maneouvred its recommendations that one seat was lost. In the smaller counties it could not be done. Take Cumberland, for example, where there are four small seats, each with an electorate of 47,000, or about that. They cannot be reduced by one, or else there are created three seats, each with an electorate of 67,000.

Again I must point out to the House, as I tried to do some 26 hours ago with reference to the country as a whole, that these proposals, which originally affected 22 constituencies in London—they are now, I am glad to say, slightly modified—are suggested only four years after the last comprehensive changes in London. Then 19 constituencies disappeared, and the unhappy infringement of the Metropolitan boroughs started. I regretted that when it started in 1948. I said so at the time, both in this House and outside.

Having regard to the history of London; the position of the capital centre of the Commonwealth, and to local government complications in London, which are very great, this merging of Metropolitan boroughs was unfortunate and unworthy, and was bound to lead to acute difficulties—as in fact it has done. Anyone who has taken part in a Parliamentary election in which two Metropolitan boroughs are concerned will realise the kind of complexities which arise. What happened four years ago? Not only did 19 seats disappear, but eight of the Metropolitan boroughs which were self-contained up to that time were affected.

Shoreditch and Finsbury were amalgamated, and three boroughs had pieces of them knocked off and put into other boroughs. Bits of Chelsea went to Kensington. The whole of Holborn went with bits of St. Pancras, and bits of Stoke Newington went to Hackney. The effect of that was felt only four years ago—such a short period in the political life of a nation. Then 48 of the then 62 existing constituencies were changed.

One would have thought, having regard to those widespread changes, that whatever the Commission had recommended, the Home Secretary would have considered whether it was necessary to impose this further dislocation on London, with all the other complications of the London County Council electoral divisions. I do not suppose there is a case in law or logic for treating London differently from anywhere else; but one could at least have said that here was a case for the status quo in view of the widespread dislocation so recently created. Now four more London boroughs are to be put into the unfortunate position of having their boundaries merged in one way or another, so that north of the river 13 out of the 19 Metropolitan boroughs will have their boundaries infringed. That seems to show tremendous indifference to London's feelings, and to the representations made.

Even at this stage I hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider this case, especially in view of the anomalies which remain. If he could say that he had got rid of some very large and very small constituencies in London he would have a case which could be argued; but that has not happened.

Large and very small constituencies are left, for instance, Battersea, South, to which reference has been made, with under 40,000 electors, and Hampstead, with more than 70,000. It is perhaps accidental that they are Conservative seats. The number of small constituencies which remain shows that the tidying process, for which there might have been some justification, does not exist. The changes are unnecessary, and do not remove differences which exist in the size of London constituencies. I do not know whether there is any other case where protests have been so unanimous as in London. Though it is not altogether popular with all hon. Members opposite, the London County Council is the largest municipal government in the world. It is composed of members who make no bones about their politics in the council chamber. It is a controversial local authority if ever there was one. Yet it was unanimous in opposing the provisional and the final recommendations of the English Commission.

When the draft Orders appeared, the following resolution was put on the council's order paper, and was carried by members of the majority and the minority parties: That in relation to the Draft Orders which had been laid before Parliament to give effect to proposals contained in the first periodic report of the Boundary Commission for England, set up under the House of Commons Redistribution of Seats Act, 1949, the Council is of opinion that the reasons given by the Commission justify neither reduction of Parliamentary constituencies in London from 43 to 42 nor any departure from the injunction contained in the Act that so far as practicable no Metropolitan borough or part thereof shall be included in a constituency which includes the whole or part of any other Metropolitan borough. That was passed in the council with complete agreement.

That is a remarkable example of unanimity in a body which does not hesitate to be very controversial on issues when it feels that to be the right course. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) referred to the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee. All the 28 Metropolitan boroughs are represented by both parties, and that committee has also recorded its unanimous objection to these recommendations. Political parties—certainly the Labour Party, and, I understand, the Conservative Party—in London have also made objections. In addition, many various individuals, representives of both parties, have made representations to the Commission against these proposals.

Surely, in face of this unanimous opinion of municipal London and of public life of London, the Home Secretary is not going to give the same monotonous kind of reply that we have heard up to now. If he does, we really shall feel—as has been suggested, although I still hope that it is not true—that a good deal of this debate is sheer farce and unnecessary, because the Home Secretary is not listening to the arguments and is really not prepared to consider them.

I must again refer to the effect on the London County Council elections. I raised the point yesterday. No reply has yet been given, although it may be that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was taken by surprise. If that be the case, he must have been badly advised by his officers about the position in London. The London County Council is responsible for organising the county constituencies. The alteration of registers now in course of preparation, the redefining of polling areas, and the resiting of polling booths will be the necessary results of this change, if these proposals go through. This will place a good deal of administrative work on the council.

In addition there is the difficulty for the political parties. They must, if they are to fight an election, re-constitute the new constituency: new management committees have to be informed and candidates adopted. To expect all that to be done in three months with any degree of efficiency is expecting almost the impossible. There is no reason why the great elections of London, which take place every three years and are extremely important politically, should suffer because of the incompetency of the Boundary Commission.

Whatever is the result, I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will still be prepared to look at the London county constituency position. Even if he does not do so, we should like to see some kind of standstill agreement for the county constituencies of London. I hope that we shall have at least the courtesy of a reply from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. We have not had it so far. This matter was raised 25 or 26 hours ago. Not the slightest notice has been taken of a point which seems to be of greatest importance.

I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who has so far made "No, No, Nanette" look like a "yes-woman," will agree to some modification in the Orders. They are his Orders, and he has the right to do that. We have not had a single concession. I hope at this late hour that we may get some proof that this debate has not been a complete farce, with the matter already decided without any consultation at all with the House of Commons.

7.39 a.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

My right hon. and gallant Friend and I have heard every word of this debate, and I will try and answer the numerous points that have been made, but I think that it is impor- tant to put the general principle into proper perspective.

In this case, the recommendations of the Commission, on which the Order is founded, are dealt with at some length in the Report of the Commission. Hon. Members will of course have carefully read paragraph 18 of the English Report. Certainly, the hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) has done so. Indeed, he went almost to the length of accepting these recommendations, subject to—and I agree that this is a very important proviso—the fact that he disagreed with the principle on which the Commission applied the electoral quota.

Mr. M. Stewart

The exceptions I took to that were two. First, I made it clear that the Commission had not justified the case for reducing seats in London and, secondly, even if it had, it had not justified its Choice of area in London. Apart from that, I have no objection to 18, but there is not very much left.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I want to narrow the issue and to see where we stand. I will try to deal with these two points. They are very important and, indeed, they have been made on nearly all the arguments on the various Orders. I should like to say something at greater length than has been said hitherto on the subject of the use of the electoral quota.

Exactly the same question existed in 1947. The Great Britain quota was then 57,697, but the English Commission based its proposals on the English average, which was 59,312. That is stated in paragraph 9 of the 1947 Report. It is stated quite clearly, so it was known to the House and certainly to the then Government. The changes made in 1948 had the effect of reducing the English average to about 56,755—less than the quota—but it also reduced the Great Britain average to about 55,630. Consequently, in 1953 the Great Britain quota was 55,670—less than the English average of 57,122. So far there is no dispute between us.

In exactly the same way, if England were now given 13 more seats instead of only five, this would bring the English average down to the 1953 quota, but it would mean that the quota in operation at the next review would again be sub- stantially below the English average. The same point would arise again. On the Opposition's argument England would once more be entitled to another 10 or 12 seats. This process would continue general review by general review. In other words, what the Opposition is saying is that we ought under the Act to go on adding steadily to England, and to England alone—

Mr. Stewart

No.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

That is the effect of the argument—10 or 12 seats at every review. Clearly that is not the intention of the 1949 Act. On the contrary, the limit on the number of seats under Rule 1 is plainly designed to prevent this very thing from happening.

It has been argued that 13 seats would not now be a substantial increase. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and other hon. Members have argued that. The principle if it were applied—and if it were applied at all it would have to be applied in all cases—would mean not simply this single increase of 13 seats but a continued increase of 13 or some such number at each review.

Mr. William Warbey (Broxtowe) rose—

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

This is a difficult and technical matter. Perhaps I may be allowed to finish my argument and then the hon. Gentleman might put a question. Clearly at some point a line must be drawn between what is and what is not substantially greater than the statutory figure. From all these considerations it is clear that the only sensible and logical view of Rule 1 is that taken by the Commission on the last occasion and on the present occasion. Indeed, that was the view which hon. Members opposite took when they were responsible for operating the Act.

Mr. Stewart

The hon. Gentleman is arguing that we must not increase the number of seats by 13 this time because in certain circumstances we would have to make further increases next time, but what the Act talks about is the conclusions reached now, not what may happen in a few year's time. The whole argument rests on certain assumptions as to comparative populations in England, Scotland and Wales in five year's time. The whole thing is hypothetical from beginning to end.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

Of course the whole question of redistribution is hypothetical. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We have to proceed on a hypothesis, and I would proceed on the hypothesis recommended by the Commission—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why not on the figures?"]—and accepted by the Government.

Mr. Warbey

May we take it from what the hon. Gentleman has said that he expects, as far as the present review is concerned, that the figure of 13 is not substantially greater than that provided in the Rules and that, having accepted that, the criticisms made by my hon. Friends throughout the night on the present Orders have been entirely justified?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I certainly do not agree with any of that. My whole argument has been that the principle on which hon. Members opposite argue that 13 is the right figure would involve a much larger increase again and the proper course for the Government to take is the increase recommended by the Commission by operating the Rules in the only way considered reasonable by all who consider them in a dispassionate spirit.

Mr. Skeffington

This is a very important point, and this is the first time we have had any real discussion on it. The hon. Gentleman is saying that if we apply the Rules as the Commission does, every time there is a review of English constituencies there will be a reduction. It is just as absurd to say that as to say that there is bound to be an increase.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I do not know how the hon. Member counts—perhaps he does it backwards. No doubt on future occasions there will be similar movements; there may be a slight increase or a decrease. I think I have dealt fairly and fully with that substantial point.

Mr. I. O. Thomas

Littlewoods are not in it with the hon. Gentleman.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

The hon. Member for Fulham, East put another point perfectly clearly, that even if we have to make a reduction of one why pick on that particular constituency? Here there are four adjacent constituencies, the two Fulhams and two Hammersmiths—

Mr. W. T. Williams

All Labour.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

The electorates in each of these constituencies are: 44,600, 44,800, 41,200, and 42,900. They are a group of constituencies all of which verge on the minimum level. The hon. Member says they are all Labour constituencies. Is he making a charge against the Commission?

Mr. Skeffington

It is the Government's Order.

Mr. Stewart

The charge is against the Government.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

This Order is based on the recommendation of the Commission—

Mr. Bing

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me a moment?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I will not.

Mr. Williams

We are charging the Government.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

The hon. Member for Fulham, East asked why we chose these constituencies. We chose them because they were recommended by the Commission.

Mr. Williams

The Government are responsible.

Mr. Thomas

What about Battersea, South with 39,000, which is Tory-controlled?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

The hon. Member for Hammersmith, South (Mr. W. T. Williams), who began this debate, referred in particular to Rules 4, 5 and 6. He suggested that my right hon. and gallant Friend had always allowed Rules 5 and 6 to prevail wherever possible. He and other hon. Members suggested that Rules 5 and 6 ought not to prevail unless it was necessary for them to do so.

If hon. Members will read these Rules, they will see that the operative word used in each case is not "necessary," but "desirable." In Rule 5 they will see it stated: a Boundary Commission may depart from the strict application of the last foregoing rule if it appears to them that a departure is desirable to avoid… Therefore, it is obvious that it is not intended that there is to be any such high test as suggested by hon. Members opposite.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the novel point that the result of amalgamating the parts of the two boroughs to make the single constituency would mean that the Member would have to deal with more than one housing authority, and he suggested that that would give rise to a great deal of extra work for the Member.

I do not know whether he appreciates that practically every Member of a county constituency has to deal with up to half a dozen or more local authorities. Perhaps he has never bean a Member for a county constituency, but it does not come well from hon. Members to argue that there is no reason at all for giving county Members a rather smaller number of electors to deal with. I think that I have dealt with all the points that have been fairly raised in this debate, and I hope that the House will approve the Order.

Mr. Skeffington

Surely the hon. Gentleman will say something both about the united representations in London and the question of the county constituencies of London.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

The point about the united representations has been made a very great number of times.

Mr. I. O. Thomas

What is happening to them?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

It is pretty obvious that everybody objects to having constituencies taken away from them, whatever their politics, whether they are Members of Parliament or members of local authorities. It really cannot be said that one should never take action merely because of the unanimity of objection. If that were the test, it is perfectly plain that the whole of this Act would be abortive and that every Redistribution Act would be abortive, because, as I say, everybody objects to having their constituencies redistributed.

I think that the hon. Gentleman also complained about the shortness of the period before the L.C.C. elections. It is true, of course, that there will only be some three months, but here there was a choice of evils. Either we had to have this relatively short period—it really should not be too short for what is not really a very complicated piece of organisation—or the alternative was to leave the matter, not for a matter of months, but for a further period of three years. On the whole, it seemed wiser, better and fairer to deal with the matter as the Government have done rather than to leave it over for three years.

7.55 a.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I will not stand long between my hon. Friends who wish to speak and the House, but I think all of us who have been present during the debate, and certainly during the performance we have just had from the Under-Secretary, will have been struck by the complacency with which he produced the brief which had been prepared for him. It is astonishing that, after we have had two full days debate, followed by a whole night, it is only now at this hour of the morning that any real excuse has been produced by the Minister to explain and try to substantiate these Orders. It is astonishing not only that we should have to wait until now, but that when we get the explanation it is so poor.

The Under-Secretary did not explain why the Home Secretary has seen fit to foist these Orders on the House without attempting to mitigate the damage the Commissioners have done, although a strong case has been made against them. The seats in London are to be reduced from four to three, and to add insult to injury one of the remaining constituencies is to be named after an Underground railway station. The area is to be robbed of three London county councillors and its representation will be reduced by that number.

We think that the right hon. Gentleman should have taken note of the objections raised, particularly as he is empowered to do so under the Act. As I sat here and watched the faces of hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite, I wondered what they would have done if they had been sitting on this side, and they had been under the impression that these changes would make an adverse difference to them electorally when the next General Election came. Whether the changes will help them or not, I do not know, but I gather they imagine they will help them and for that reason are accepting them with complacency and without attempting to get the Minister to change his mind. If anything like this had happened in earlier days, the Minister would have risked being charged by outraged Members with attempting to rig the forthcoming election in the interests of one political party. What a contrast we have here with 1948.

I should like to feel that hon. Gentlemen opposite are ashamed of what is happening now. Then, in London alone the Government reduced the number of seats by 19, thus robbing the Labour Party not only of representation in this House but representation on the London County Council as well. That was in marked contrast to what is happening now. Here the plain facts are that London electors number 2,425,167 and have been allotted 42 seats. Their quota was 43.563, or in other words 44 seats. No one can dispute that London at the present time is under-represented by two seats. We cannot see why those two seats should not now be given to London by the Home Secretary.

The attitude of the Minister has rarely been equalled in this House. I am astonished at the way in which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has conducted himself in this debate. He seems to have made no attempt to go through the list to see which of the Orders were justified and which ought to be amended in the interests of decency and democracy. He has accepted them as they were given to him and has presented them without much explanation; such explanation as has been given has, in any case, been the same every time. It has been a poor explanation, given with not much spirit. The only time we have seen any animation at that Box was when the hon. Gentleman read out just now the brief which had been supplied to him, after much effort and after such a long time. I am sure that when this debate finishes my hon. Friends will go into the Lobby with the utmost alacrity to show what we think—and what the country will think—about the actions of this Government in this matter.

8.3 a.m.

Sir L. Plummer

When, about three hours ago, we were discussing Orders relating to Manchester, the Government benches contained some worthy representatives of the Conservative Party in Lancashire and district. Two hon. Ladies on the Conservative benches had the courage to go into the Lobby in opposition to their Government, and at least two Lancashire M.Ps. abstained. We have been discussing since half-past five the situation in London, and only three Tory M.Ps. were at any one time on the Government benches representing London constituencies.

The reply which the Joint Under-Secretary of State has just given, and his faulty reading of what must have been a badly cyclostyled brief, have not produced a single protest from the London Tory M.Ps. That is an evidence of the decadence of the Tory Party in London. That is one of the reasons why London is a Socialist city and why it will continue to remain a Socialist city.

The Under-Secretary of State used the Report as a shield for his defence—a Report which is confused. The hon. Gentleman cannot make up his mind whether the investigations into this situation will lead to an increase or a reduction in the number of seats. If he will refer again to paragraph 18, he will see that the last paragraph is: We are not unmindful that alterations in the distribution of the electorate in other areas in London may, within a comparatively short time, render other changes of boundary necessary. What does "comparatively short time" mean? Does it mean the sort of time which has elapsed since the last rearrangements were made and the present proposals?

It is an important point because every single word which has been uttered in defence of this doctrine has come from this document. But the Home Secretary told the House yesterday, that it was his wish that there should not be a rearrangement in London for many years; so, what are we to believe? Do we accept the words of the Home Secretary or the statement in this document? We cannot go on with this confusion, and we cannot sit all through another night as frustrating as this has been.

I have the honour to represent a constituency which is not affected by any of these proposals, and that is something which I cannot understand. I cannot understand why Deptford has not been touched. It is a historical borough it has a long history, in which it is on common ground with Fulham and Hammersmith; and it is a borough known throughout the world. Just as Hammersmith was made famous by the Palais de Danse, so Deptford was made famous by Drake.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I gathered that Deptford is not affected by this Order.

Sir L. Plummer

That is so, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I am asking why it is not affected. What are the reasons for the fact that the two boroughs of Fulham and Hammersmith have been so treated, while Deptford has not.

There are discrepancies in the London plan, and we have tried to get an explanation from the Under-Secretary as to how these discrepancies arise. Deptford is one of the 111 constituencies with between 50,000 and 55,000 electors, and it is within four per cent. of the electoral quota. It is a small constituency, tucked up tidily, with a town hall and local administrative offices, and it is geographically homogeneous, as are Fulham and Hammersmith. Furthermore, it is a Labour seat "as safe as houses." Therefore, I cannot think why there is no change.

Mr. Pannell

Deptford could not be changed to make it a Tory seat.

Sir L. Plummer

My hon. Friend knows better than I do, and at least I have an answer, which is more than I shall receive from the Government front bench.

This is a Government of traditionalists who decide that they will change the name of a constituency famous throughout the world for the name of a railway station. What would happen if we on this side of the House sat where the Government are today and we sought to change the name of Ascot or Goodwood, or wanted to call Eton by the title "Fenner Brockway"? We should be told that we were destroying some of the sacred institutions of this country. This change, which will be railroaded through in a few minutes, is a piece of folly and an insult to the people of London, and so that we may have a monument to this folly and this incredible stupidity, I recommend the Government to change the name of the new constituency to Baronet Court.

8.10 a.m.

Mr. Foot

In view of the fact that the Joint Under-Secretary of State reserved his attempted reply to one of the main arguments until the end of the proceedings, it is right that I should make some comment on it. At the beginning of his speech we thought for a moment that he was about to attempt what he has never attempted in all his previous interventions—that is, to debate the issue. He very soon discovered the unwisdom of that course, however, and after he had attempted the explanations, we could all understand why he had not attempted them before.

In the course of these abrupt and abbreviated explanations, he gave away a large part of the case which the Commission was supposed to have represented to us in previous debates, because his main contention was that we had to take some hypothetical figures—not merely the figures at the present time but hypothetical figures at the time of a subsequent review. If that is the case, it disposes of the argument put up by the Government on a variety of individual Orders, for they have argued that we cannot take into account the development which may take place two or three years hence, but must consider only the figures on the register at present.

I can understand why the Government have got into such a mess, because the Commission has pushed them into it. The Commission has indicated a principle which it has applied here but has refused to apply in most other cases—the principle of saying that The evidence available to us indicated that the trend of the comparatively low electorates contained in the present constituencies had to be taken into account. By what right does the Commission take into account the trend of declining electorates in this area when it has consistently refused to take into account the trend of declining or increasing electorates in the case of almost all the other Orders?

Mr. M. Stewart

The Joint Under-Secretary said that the reason for all these mathematics to deprive London of a seat was that in future there would be more people in London, compared with Scotland and Wales. The Commission Report tells us that Fulham and Hammersmith must lose a member because in future there will be fewer people. It seems that whichever way we assume the trend, the number of Labour seats must be reduced.

Mr. Foot

I am sure that Lord Woolton has put the matter quite as succinctly as my hon. Friend. He made a speech only a few months ago in which he indicated that.

I was dealing with the general principle to be divined here, which has been applied in Fulham and Hammersmith. If applied elsewhere, it could have enabled the Government to alter the Commission's proposals. But the fact is that when it suits the Government to apply it they do so, and when it suits them to apply it in another way, they follow their instincts in that direction, too.

This is a serious matter for the City of London. It is quite clear from the principles which have been applied to the City of London in this case that if there is any basis for any of the mathematical calculations defended by the Minister, there was an overwhelming case for the population of the City of London and—

Mr. Partridge

The County of London.

Mr. Foot

Perhaps the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge) is envious of the even lower electorate which they had in the City of London. We were promised that one of the major points of legislation to be introduced into Parliament would be the restoration of the university seats and the seats for the City of London. That is one of many promises which, for excellent reasons, have not been kept.

The fact is that this is a very serious matter. The application of this principle to London proves that every time there is a Boundary Commission Report and boundary changes, London will be involved in large-scale convulsion, because it is a wide area, and that it is possible for this butchery to be carried out in a fairly easy way in London. In this case, London will be subject to this process every two or three years, if these principles are accepted, and that is a very serious matter.

We have had no reply in the whole debate as to why the Cabinet made the

decision a few days ago that they would drive these Orders through without any possibility of amendment and modification. I have been searching for the last two days to discover what is the answer, and I think that possibly I have hit on as good an explanation as we are likely to get, at any rate from the Government itself or any spokesman.

I have been trying to calculate what are the electoral quotas of all the members of this Cabinet who have made the decision. I looked up the names—I think they came to about 14—and discovered that there are only two members of this Cabinet whose figures are above the electoral quota, and 12 members who are well below the electoral quota, and that the average for the members of the Cabinet is about 50,000 per constituency. That is leaving out the Members of the House of Lords, for if one put them in, that would reduce the figures still further.

Therefore, the men who have made this decision to hack about all these constituencies and take no account of the protests from the constituencies themselves, are themselves representing, on an average, constituencies well below the quota. Naturally they have an interest, which they should have declared at the beginning, in protecting the smaller rural county constituencies against the urban constituencies. I am not saying that this is the final and conclusive reason why the Cabinet reached this decision, or that they decided this solely on the interest of the members who happened to be there at the time. I am not saying that is the reason, but until I get some explanation from the Government I do not see why I should not believe in that reason as well as any other.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 74.

Division No. 21.]	AYES	[8.19 a.m.
Aitken, W. T.	Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Alport, C. J. M.	Brooman-White, R. C.	Crouch, R. F.
Armstrong, C. W.	Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Deedes, W. F.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Bullard, D. G.	Digby, S. Wingfield
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Carr, Robert	Doughty, C. J. A.
Banks, Col. C.	Cary, Sir Robert	Drayson, G. B.
Barber, Anthony	Channon, H.	Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Errington, Sir Eric
Bishop, F. P.	Cole, Norman	Fell, A.
Black, C. W.	Colegate, W. A.	Finlay, Graeme
Bossom, Sir A. C.	Conant, Major Sir Roger	Fisher, Nigel
Boyle, Sir Edward	Cooper-Key, E. M.	Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Braine, B. R.	Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Garner-Evans, E. H.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)	Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C	Godber, J B.
Gough, C. F. H.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Maclay, Rt. Hon. John	Sharples, Maj. R. C.
Harris, Reader (Heston)	Marples, A. E.	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Harrison, Cot. J. H. (Eye)	Maude, Angus	Stevens, Geoffrey
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V (Macclesfield)	Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S L. C.	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)	Medlicott, Brig. F.	Summers, G. S.
Heath, Edward	Mellor, Sir John	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Molson, A. H. E.	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Hirst, Geoffrey	Nabarro, G. D. N.	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Holland-Marlin, C. J.	Neave, Airey	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Holt, A. F.	Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.	Nield, Basil (Chester)	Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence	Odey, G. W.	Touche, Sir Gordon
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)	O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)	Turner, H. F. L.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)	Page, R. G.	Vosper, D. F.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)	Partridge, E.	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)	Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.	Pitt, Miss E. M.	Wall, Major Patrick
Iremonger, T. L.	Powell, J. Enoch	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Kaberry, D.	Raikes, Sir Victor	Wellwood, W.
Kerby, Capt. H. B	Redmayne, M.	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Linstead, Sir H. N.	Remnant, Hon. P.	Wood, Hon. R.
Llewellyn, D. T.	Ridsdale, J. E.	Woollam, John Victor
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.	Russell, R. S.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Longden, Gilbert	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.	Mr. Wills and Mr. Robert Allan.
NOES
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)	Proctor, W. T.
Bacon, Miss Alice	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Robens, Rt. Hon. A
Bing, G. H. C.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Short, E. W.
Bowden, H. W.	Jager, Mrs. Lena	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Brockway, A. F.	Johnson, James (Rugby)	Skeffington, A. M.
Broughton, Dr. A, D. D.	Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)	Snow, J. W.
Champion, A. J	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Chetwynd, G. R.	Kirg, Dr. H. M.	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Collins, V. J.	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Lewis, Arthur	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	MacColl, J. E.	Wallace, H. W.
Davies, Harold (Leek)	McLeavy, F.	Warbey, W. N.
Deer, G.	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Weitzman, D.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Wells, William (Walsall)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Mellish, R. J.	West, D. G.
Fienburgh, W.	Mikardo, Ian	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Foot, M. M.	Moyle, A.	Wilkins, W. A.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N	Mulley, F. W	Willey, F. T.
Gibson, C. W.	Owen, W. J.	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Greenwood, Anthony	Pannell, Charles	Wyatt, W. L.
Hall, Rt. Hon Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Pargiter, G. A.	Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)	Paton, J.
Hewitson, Capt. M.	Pearl, T. F.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Holman, P.	Plummer, Sir Leslie	Mr. W. T. Williams and
Holmes, Horace	Popplewell, E.	Mr. Michael Stewart.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Fulham and Hammersmith) Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

8.27 a.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank)

I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.

I hope that the hon. Member who has the Adjournment will excuse me for moving this Motion. We have not finished this business, as I had hoped we might, and as their was every indication in the earlier part of the day that we might. We have reached the time when in my opinion, and in the opinion of my colleagues, it is no longer suitable for the House to be sitting. [Interruption.] I must inform the House that, not having got this business at this sitting, it will involve reconsideration of next week's business. I cannot at the moment say what that might involve. I will make a statement about next week's business sometime during the sitting today.

Mr. Ede

I apologise for the few minutes or so which I may take. I am not sure who has won so far, but I accept the right hon. Member's Motion in the spirit in which he has moved it. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is that?"] That is what I am trying to find out. We are willing to go on. The way in which this Motion has been moved precludes any Division on it.

Mr. Crookshank

It is the only way it can be done.

Mr. Ede

The next Order could have been called and the adjournment of the debate then moved. That would have given an opportunity to discuss it without entrenching on anyone's time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] He cannot withdraw it now. The right hon. Gentleman has indicated that he will make a statement later in the day. I will see that there is someone available to ask the appropriate question when the time comes. I hope it will not be at 11 a.m.

Mr. Crookshank

It certainly will not.

Miss Alice Bacon (Leeds, North-East)

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it unfair to ask the House to agree to the adjournment without indicating whether the Government will give time during the day or at mid-night next week? What about the consequences for Yorkshire and other areas in Orders very far down the list? Will they be taken at a late hour of the morning?

8.30 a.m.

Mr. Warbey

We are entitled to know more about the situation. We have already sat through a whole night and part of this morning to try and urge upon the Government some proper reconsideration of matters which affect not merely political parties but our whole system of Parliamentary democracy. It is a matter for the House as a House and not for the Government as a Government. We are being asked to make time for Government 'business. If the Government are concerned about the way in which the electors are represented in the House—which is what we have been discussing—it could be discussed if this Motion were withdrawn. The House would then be in charge of the matter and we could give time to it before the Christmas Adjournment.

The Government are trying to find time before Christmas to push through legislation which is not required. We can very well do without this legislation and bring it forward again after Christmas. There is no reason at all why the debate on these Orders should not be finished today. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look at this in the spirit of regarding the House as a collective assembly and not as a Government and an Opposition.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

Why all this fuss about Christmas? It is not celebrated in Scotland and Scottish Members do not see why these Orders should not be considered until the New Year.

Mr. Frederick Mulley (Sheffield, Park)

We must protest at the way in which the House has been treated. I can say only that I hope that one of the consequences of this adjournment may be that the right hon. Gentleman will persuade his Cabinet colleagues, particularly in view of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot), to think about this matter so that we may have a very much more extensive reply from the Government.

8.34 a.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

There is another point, and that is the unfairness to those constituencies whose case was not considered last night, or this morning. Quite a number of these oases remain to be considered, and it is invidious that they should be singled out for neglect. We should continue consideration of this matter so that those Orders not yet reached can be discussed before the House adjourns. One remarkable feature of the discussions last night and this morning has been the shocking way in which the Government have sought to make the House delegate its authority. It was a matter for the House fully to consider.

We are disgracefully being asked to adjourn without completing the work to which we have set our hand. That would be bad enough in itself, even if it were not that to adjourn now would inflict a grievous wound upon those constituencies in the list which have not been reached. No self-respecting Government would ask the House to do a thing of that kind. I appeal to hon. Members who have had the courage and the stamina to remain here all night—as we have—to remain here a little longer and complete the work to which we set our hand last night.

It would be disgraceful for the House to confess failure now, at 25 minutes to nine, after having sat continuously for all these hours. After all, it is a minority of constituencies which still remain to be considered. Why should not we deal with that minority? Why should we be invidious in this matter? We have enough Members here to go on with the business of the nation. It is a minority of the House, it is true. A number of hon. Members appear to have run away or fallen by the wayside, but there are some strong and courageous souls still remaining. I appeal to hon. Members, not only on this side of the House, but opposite, to show their courage and willingness to go on with the business of the nation.

I hope that the Motion will not be accepted—that the House will reject it.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three Minutes to Nine o'Clock a.m.