HC Deb 27 March 1958 vol 585 cc694-700

(1) If at any time the electorate of a constituency is more than eighty thousand it shall be the duty of the appropriate Boundary Commission, after taking the necessary steps under subsection (4) of section two of the principal Act, to submit to the Secretary of State under subsection (3) of that section a report with respect to the area comprised in that constituency and in any neighbouring constituencies appearing to the Commission to be concerned.

(2) The appropriate Boundary Commission may in such a case recommend the creation of an additional constituency until the next general review.

(3) Subsection (5) of the said section two shall apply to a report submitted under this section:

Provided that the Secretary of State shall lay such a report before Parliament, whether or not the report states that no alteration is required to be made in respect of the part of the United Kingdom with which the Commission are concerned.

(5) In this section the expression "electorate" has the meaning attributed to it for the purpose of the rules set out in the Second Schedule to the principal Act.

(5) This section shall not apply to Northern Ireland or to any constituency in Great Britain, which appears to the appropriate Boundary Commission to be one to which Rule 6 of the said rules applies.

(6) This section shall have effect without prejudice to the generality of the said subsection (3).—[Mr. Parker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Parker

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

In asking the Committee to accept this Clause I have Hornchurch particularly in mind. I understand that the electorate there is already 88,000, although in 1955 it was about the normal for other constituencies. There is every chance that by the time the next General Election takes place, under this Bill, say, in 1964, the electorate in that area may be well over 100,000, possibly 120,000. The population is growing rapidly and there is plenty of room for building houses. I would have thought it undesirable that we should have an anomaly of this kind perpetuated for such a long time, and I suggest that we ought to take a decision upon it tonight.

I speak with feeling on this matter, having represented a large constituency before 1945. From 1935 to 1945, I was Member for the old division of Romford, which, in 1918, was a normal-sized constituency. Thanks, however, to the building of L.C.C. housing estates especially, and to other developments in the area, when I was elected for the area in 1935 the electorate was already 169,000 and it rose during the ten years to 1945 to 207,000. It had to be divided into four separate constituencies.

I suggest that there is a danger, not only in Hornchurch but elsewhere, of that kind of anomaly arising. New towns are under construction. Some of them may grow rapidly. I think, therefore, that we ought to take a decision about this example and also about the principle of the matter.

This Clause proposes that the Boundary Commission should be able to look at such a constituency—in fact, should be ordered to do so—when the electorate reaches the figure of 80,000. In this case, it could divide the constituency, here and now, into two constituencies of approximately 44,000 each. If it did that, both seats would be larger than many now existing. If it were possible to do that, the Boundary Commission could look at the matter again at the time of the next general review. What I am suggesting is that in such a case we should ask the Boundary Commission just to deal with that particular anomaly, to provide for an extra Member for the time being, and then to review the whole position when the general review takes place. 9.0 p.m.

Having an extra Member in the House for a few years would not matter very much, because it might be later decided to bring down the number to what it was before. The advantage of my proposal is that it would prevent having to alter the boundaries of all sorts of constituencies in order to find an extra seat for one group of constituents. That is what we want to avoid and it is the purpose of the Bill to avoid altering boundaries all over the place and inconveniencing many Members by the sudden alteration of boundaries. My proposal would enable that to be avoided in a very practical way.

I ask the Government to tell us what they propose to do about the Hornchurch constituency, with its 88,000 electors and a growing electorate, and whether they could provide for an extra Member for that area, possibly taking into account immediately surrounding constituencies, but not others, and whether that would not be a sensible way out of the difficulty. I also ask the Government to say what they want to do on the principle of the matter as a whole.

Mr. Godfrey Lagden (Hornchurch)

I associate myself with most of the remarks of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker). I, too, would like to know what is to be done about the constituency of Hornchurch. At the outset, I want to thank the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) for his appreciation of the manner in which the people of Hornchurch are now being represented. I agree with him entirely.

The new Clause will bear serious consideration by the Government. Hornchurch is the perfect example of a constituency which has grown very rapidly since the war. Immediately after the war, there were 45,000 electors and there are now 87,000 out of a population of 116,000. If sixteen years are allowed to elapse before any attempt is made to deal with such a constituency, it must be generally admitted that the burden placed on the Member is nothing compared with the burden placed on the constituent trying to get representation through his Member. That is a great deal more important.

This afternoon, the Committee has given too much consideration to the Member and what he has to do and too little to the plight in which a constituent finds himself when he wants assistance from a Member who has to represent a number so large that he is precluded from giving personal attention to an individual case.

I was delighted that on Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) expressed the opinion—and his opinions in these matters are always valuable, because of his long experience—that a constituency such as Hornchurch could be dealt with under existing powers. I believe that that is so and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said that he was of the opinion that the Bill did not in any way take away the powers from the Act of 1949. It therefore seems that there is a power for the Boundary Commission to deal with a division such as mine.

So long as I can be assured that the assessors, to which the Secretary of State referred on Second Reading, will refer to the Boundary Commission the facts as they exist, then I am confident that Hornchurch will get a second Member. There is no difference of opinion in Hornchurch between its political parties, its Member of Parliament and its local council, so none of the alarming fears which have been mentioned previously today is justified.

I hope that the Minister will make it clear that the Boundary Commission has power to act. We are so often told by Ministers—of Governments of both parties—"There is nothing to worry about; the Boundary Commission", or whatever body it is, "will know exactly what its powers are, and it can act under those powers and all will be well." When the Act is on the Statute Book, however, and the people concerned ask for action and write to the Boundary Commission, or whoever it may be, they are told, "Unfortunately, we are precluded from acting." It is found that a phrase in the Act allows them to sit back and say, self-righteously, that they are prevented from acting.

It is the duty of a Member such as myself to make sure that that position does not arise when Hornchurch, either through its local council or myself, asks the Commission to consider sympathetically the matters which will undoubtedly be brought before it.

Mr. Mitchison

The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden) has a very acute appreciation of the inspissated obscurantism and ineluctable obstinacy of all Governments. The question that we now have to consider is whether, in the light of those well-known facts, the Clause is necessary, like the journey in the railway train. The Joint Under-Secretary has told us that it all depends, in practice, upon the operation of Section 2 (3) of the principal Act.

Although the Bill is now going through, that subsection has always been up there, watching over us. If it is not operating; if we have been watched without knowing it; if the Boundary Commission, in the active and continuous discharge of its functions has not been quite so invisible to the naked eye as it should have been, we are given cause to wonder whether it might not require what I called a tug at the coat, or the kind of inducement given it by the existence of a constituency swollen to the size of Hornchurch.

In short, if it is to act as wonderfully as we were told it would, despite the obstinacy of the Government in refusing every attempt to give it a prod, impulse, reminder, or whatever one likes to call it, how comes it that over all these years Hornchurch has been growing and growing and growing, and nobody has done a thing about it? Not a thing has been done; not even by the member of the Boundary Commission nominated by the Home Office; not even by the member of the Boundary Commission nominated by another Government Department; not even by the technical gentleman the Registrar-General, and what-not, who, till today, had been sitting as part of the Commission. They may have registered many things, but they have not registered the need to take any action about Hornchurch.

There it is. It has been always with us. Hornchurch has been growing; nothing has happened. Can the Government tell us, conclusively and finally, that such a change of heart has come over the institutions of this country, including, in this case, the Boundary Commission, that, for once in a way, it will do its continuous job without being prodded? I hope that they can tell us that; otherwise, it seems that much that they have been telling us in the past has been drawing wool over our eyes and deceiving us as to the extent of inertia inherent in all Governmental institutions.

Mr. Renton

When I saw this proposed new Clause on the Notice Paper, I little thought it was but a convenient way of pressing for another Member for Horn-church, but as the need of Hornchurch for another Member has been suggested in the debate perhaps I should mention it.

One of the reasons, perhaps, why Hornchurch has not had a second Member as soon as it might have is the energy and ability displayed by my hon. Friend in representing with very great skill no fewer that 80,000 people. I feel that it was to a very large extent modesty on his part which caused him to join the clamour which has been raised on this new Clause, which itself has a very much wider purpose.

As I have been challenged to say something about what is to happen so far as Hornchurch is concerned, let me, first, reassure my hon. Friend that there is abundant power under the 1949 Act for the Boundary Commission to make an interim review. The fact that that power has not been used so far is no indication that it will not be used in future.

Those who are so anxious for the power to be used have had the procedure explained to them by me on an earlier Amendment. All that they have to do is to make representations to the Boundary Commission, and if they care to make them through my right hon. Friend, he will be glad to forward them.

I presume that, in spite of the fact that Hornchurch has loomed so large in this discussion, I must deal with the merits of the proposed new Clause, lest the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) should think I was in any way discourteous, especially when he has taken a certain amount of trouble. At first sight, it is rather tempting to deal with what the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) called the "Fat Boys" in this way, but we would be highly selective if we decided that one particular reason for holding an interim review should be made the subject of this special procedure, when there are various other examples which have been mentioned in the course of the discussion on earlier Amendments, and which might very well have been made the subject of special procedure, had such procedure been necessary.

My contention on this proposed Clause, as it was on a previous Amendment, is that no such procedure is necessary. The obligation of the Commission, as I said earlier, is a continuing one, as is clear from Section I (1) of the 1949 Act. The power to hold an interim review is an unfettered one, the opportunities provided for the Commission are unlimited, and, in these circumstances, there does not appear to be any need for the special procedure which the hon. Gentleman has suggested to the Committee.

My duty is to advise the Committee to reject the Clause, but, as I believe that this is the last proposal for amendment of the Bill that we shall be discussing this evening, may I say with great humility that, so far as I recollect, no Committee stage of any Bill of this kind dealing with the distribution of seats for the House of Commons has ever taken place in such an equable and pleasant atmosphere, nor, if I may say so with humility to the Chair, with such a tremendous regard for the rules of order. May I say, on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend and myself, what a pleasure it has been to us to take part in such proceedings.

Question put and negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.