PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (Hansard, 27 January 1964)

§ The Joint Under-Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse)
I beg to move, That the Parliamentary Constituencies (Eccles and Salford West) Order, 1964, a draft of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved. These five Orders give effect without modification to the recommendations made by the Boundary Commission for England in its Report submitted to the Secretary of State on 19th December, 1963, under Section 2(3) of the House of Commons Redistribution of Seats Act, 1949, and laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State in pursuance of Section 2(5). In accordance with the Proviso of Section 3(6), the Orders will not affect any Parliamentary election until the next General Election.
The Orders make minor adjustments of constituency boundaries to conform with the alterations in local government ward boundaries, and in this they resemble a series of previous Orders—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Is the hon. Member proposing that the House should discuss more than one Order at the same time? That may well be acceptable, but he should indicate that that is his intention.

§ Mr. Woodhouse
I apologise, Mr. Speaker. If I may have the leave of the House, I wish to move all five Orders together.

§ Mr. Speaker
Moving the first one, and asking the leave of the House to discuss them altogether, is a course which I see is acceptable. So be it.

§ Mr. Woodhouse
I apologise again, Mr. Speaker.
We can discuss the effect of all five Orders together. The Orders resemble a series of previous Orders which have been approved by Parliament, but the Order concerning Blackpool not only makes alterations to conform with new ward boundaries but transfers one ward from Blackpool, North to the Blackpool, South constituency, to achieve a better numerical balance. As required by the 1949 Act the recommendations were 166 published in at least one newspaper circulating in each constituency, and facilities were given to anyone who wished to do so to submit representations. The only representations received were against the Boundary Commission's recommendations for Blackpool, North and South constituencies.
At the request of the Boundary Commission the Secretary of State appointed an Assistant Commissioner—Mr. Patrick Freeman—to hold an inquiry. In the light of his report it was considered that there was no case for deferring the Commission's recommendations. Copies of the Assistant Commissioner's Report were sent to the Town Clerk of Blackpool and the three main political parties.
The effect of the Orders is briefly described in the Report of the Boundary Commission to which I have referred, but I will gladly answer any questions on detail that the House may wish to put.

§ Mr. Arthur Skeffington (Hayes and Harlington)
As I indicated the other day, when we were considering the Statutory Instruments in relation to the creation of the new county boroughs, it is the duty of the Opposition to look carefully and critically at all legislation—and certainly at legislation in this form, because by the time the Orders are made and laid before the House of Commons this is the last opportunity for the citizen to exercise his right, through his Member of Parliament, to raise a question and it is the final occasion in which the House, in certain circumstances, may wish to withhold its approval.
But, in addition to this general constitutional right, it is proper that the House should consider all these Statutory Instruments individually to see, as far as possible, what their effect is; the alteration in constituency boundaries may have consequences of some importance, even if only for a few electors.
In the case of the five Orders that have been spoken to by the Under-Secretary involving ten constituencies, he indicated—and the Boundary Commission's Report for 19th November, 1963, confirms this—that with the exception of the Blackpool Order, all the suggested alterations are of a minor 167 character. We shall have to take the Under-Secretary's word for that, because neither the Orders nor the Commission's Report are at all explicit about what the changes are, I wish to ask one or two questions and make some suggestions about the future presentation of Boundary Commission's Report, which is made under the House of Commons Redistribution of Seats Act, which is as it were, the House of Commons own Special Measure, and to make some suggestions about the future draft Statutory Instruments.
In the case of the Blackpool Order, the Boundary Commissioners took the opportunity, while making adjustments to both constituencies as a result of changes in the boundaries of wards, to even up the numbers of the two constituencies by transferring one ward from the north to the south. I should have thought that the Report of the Boundary Commissions might at least have given the numbers of electors involved. After all, the Commission is a permanent institution. It is assisted by members of the Ordinance Survey and of the Registrar General's Department, and it would be easy, without making an unduly lengthy report, to have given precise details of what are the effects of its proposed changes.
There is, I think, a duty on the House of Commons, to make this type of legislation and the preceding Report as clear and as easy for the layman and elector to understand as is possible. But one finds that there is no reference to the actual numbers in the constituencies in the relevant Order. Nor is there in the Boundary Report submitted to the Home Secretary on 19th November. In future, I suggest that where information of this character can be given that should be done in the Report.
If one looks at the other Orders, one can hardly say that they are forthcoming. In the Order relating to Guildford and Woking, in the First Schedule the existing towns and parishes are there as they were at the end of 1947, the last time there was a change. Schedule II shows the new constituencies after the County of Surrey (Parishes of Normandy and Worpleston) Confirmation Order 1962. If one looks at the individual parts of the constituencies the names of the parishes appear to be 168 exactly the same as those in the First Schedule. There must be some reason for the change. One presumes that there are minor changes in boundaries. Again one wonders whether the elector could be assisted by the inclusion in these Orders of what now appears on the Statutory Instruments relating to the creation of new local authorities. At the end, there is an Explanatory Note which says it is not part of the Order but which states briefly the effect of the Order in simple terms. Here could be given any change in electors or similar factual information.
It may be suggested that this information could be found in the Boundary Commission's Report, but in this case that is no clearer than the Order. It may then be suggested that one could look at the County of Surrey (Parishes of Normandy and Worplesdon) Confirmation Order 1962. I have endeavoured to do that, but the House of Commons Library can find no trace of the Order, or the Blackpool Order either. If an hon. Member cannot find this information, I do not suppose that an ordinary citizen or party worker could find it. I feel that the House of Commons has a duty to make these Orders clear and intelligible and to assist the public. There is no reason why the House should withhold its approval to the Orders tonight. But we give our approval while we are very much in the dark.

§ Mr. Woodhouse
If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, I wish to thank the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) for his helpful and constructive suggestions, which I shall pass on to the Boundary Commission.
I may be able to help him now by putting into the record the numerical effect of these changes so that he will see that, with the exception of Blackpool, they are very minor. It is easy to understand the reasons for making them. In the case of Eccles and Salford, West 17 electors are to be transferred from the former constituency to the latter. In the case of Bournemouth, East and Christchurch four electors are transferred from New Forest to Bournemouth, East and Christchurch and 15 from Bournemouth, East and Christchurch to New Forest. In Rochester, Chatham and Gravesend 72 will be transferred from Gravesend to 169 Rochester and Chatham. Under the Guildford and Woking Order, 229 will be transferred from Guildford to Woking. I think that this makes it clear why the names of the units remain the same.
In the constituencies of Blackpool, North and Blackpool, South the effect is to transfer 4,914 from Blackpool, North to Blackpool, South. If the Boundary Commission had not done so the alternative effect would be to transfer 1,144 from Blackpool, South to Blackpool, North and the resulting constituencies would have been about 62,000 in the case of Blackpool, North and about 51,000 in the case of Blackpool, South, whereas the transfer which has been made has brought them much closer in relation to numbers, with 55,600 for Blackpool, North and 57,500 far Blackpool, South. That alternative I think explains itself.
I repeat that I shall convey to the Boundary Commission the hon. Member's suggestions about making the numerical and geographical effect more explicit in the Orders or in the Report in future cases.