LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARIES, NORTHAMPTON

HC Deb 17 February 1965 vol 706 cc1283-321

8.8 p.m.

Sir John Hobson (Warwick and Leamington)

We now wish to raise the question of the ward boundaries for the newly extended County Borough of Northampton, and we on this side of the House want to know what possible explanation there can be, other than that of political pressure from the local Labour Party, for the Home Office having reversed its original decision to accept the recommendation of an independent inquiry in relation to the ward boundaries within the County Borough of Northampton.

We want to know from the Home Secretary, whom we are very glad to see here this evening—we are grateful to him for coming—how he can possibly justify the disfranchising of a town of at present some 70,000-odd people, a town which is due on 1st April to receive an additional 10,000 electors within its boundaries. How can he justify disfranchising more than 80,000 people for nearly seven months at a vital moment in the development of the town, and how can he justify cementing on to that town during that period a narrow majority of two, which the Labour Party now holds on the council, merely because the Labour Party, as we understand it, does not like the decision which he and the independent tribunal took?

Of course, we recognise that if the Home Secretary had been directly concerned with all the details of this from the beginning he would not have allowed any such decision to be taken. We hope that he will not allow his broad and respectable back to be used to shield some of his colleagues who we think have made a serious error, and we hope that when he has listened to what can be said, and realises its implications, he will think it right to stand by the decision which the Home Office, in his name, originally took in December of last year. Perhaps the most convenient way to do this is shortly to recount the history of the matter, and then shortly to adumbrate the points.

On 10th December, 1963, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), as the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, decided that the boundaries of the County Borough of Northampton should be extended by the addition of fringe areas containing about 10,000 people, and it was intended that that extension should come into operaion on 1st April, 1965.

On 25th March, 1964 the Home Office wrote a letter pointing out that there were disparities between the existing wards, and that new warding arrangements ought to be made for the extended county borough, and with that I think everybody would agree, because the ward boundaries in Northampton had not been reviewed for 30 years, and it was high time that they were readjusted.

In that letter the Home Secretary set out the bases on which the boundaries should be redrawn and reconsidered. I understand that this is common form, and the usual basis on which a direction is given on every occasion when ward boundaries are to be redrawn. The bases were, first, to provide wards of approximately equal size, allowing for likely changes in the distribution of the town in the following five years. That was the overriding object of the exercise. Secondly, to have regard to the desirability of having easily identifiable boundaries, and thirdly, to have regard to any local ties which would be broken by the fixing of any particular boundaries.

The letter—and I believe that this applies to all letters sent out in similar circumstances—did not contain any direction at all about the political considerations of applying those criteria. As I understand the position from my right hon. and hon. Friends who have served in the Home Office, it has always been a tradition in the Home Office that political considerations, even when discussed, do not form any part of the application of the criteria, except possibly to the extent of a consideration of how far the criteria have been properly applied. I understand that there have been a number of these inquiries, and that there has never been any question of the politics of the matter applying at all, and that this is the usual way in which the matter is dealt with.

On 24th July, 1964, as a result of a petition to the election court, the control of the council of the Borough of Northampton passed to the Labour party, which then had a majority of 25 to 23. In the May election there had been a spoilt vote in one ward, which had resulted in a tie, and the Conservative won the seat on lots being drawn. There was then an election petition. It was held that what was said to be a spoilt vote was not a spoilt vote, and the seat was awarded to the Labour Party, with the result that instead of being equal on the council, with the mayor holding the casting vote, the position from August last year was 25 Labour councillors and aldermen and 23 Conservatives.

On 24th September the Home Office gave notice of a local inquiry to be conducted by an independent barrister, and appointed a Mr. Verney, who is a much respected member of the Bar and a person of some experience in this matter. He has, I understand, been doing this work for some time, and he has, I believe, conducted and presided over seven or eight inquiries of this nature.

His inquiry opened on 12th October, three days before the General Election, and there were two proposals before the inquiry. One had been drawn up by the tow n clerk, and had the support of the Labour group on the local council, and the other had been drawn up by some of the Conservative councillors, though there had been an earlier Conservative scheme.

In the course of his opening and explanations the town clerk said that Any suggestion that his proposals were designed to secure a permanent Labour majority was unfounded and any political result would he fortuitous. I accept that without the slightest hesitation. The learned Clerk of Northampton happened for a short time to have served as my clerk of assize, and I have no doubt that he was genuinely attempting to apply the Home Office rules.

But I do not think it fortuitous that his plan was received with alacrity and enthusiasm, and has been espoused ever since, by the Labour group on the council, because, as he said, if it secured a permanent Labour majority it would be fortuitous as far as he was concerned, and he obviously would never have said that unless he had foreseen that that would be the result. The view of the Conservative group on the council was that there was no doubt that that plan would result in a built-in majority for Labour, with seven wards certain Labour and five certain Conservative.

The counter-proposals which were put forward were also an attempt—and I hope the House will accept the genuine attempt—by a responsible solicitor of the Supreme Court to apply the Home Secretary's rules. The view of the Conservative group was that its plan, which was not its first one, would provide for five wards which were likely to be Labour, five which were likely to be Conservative, and two which might change at every event.

I recognise, and it is fair to tell the House, that the Labour Party took the exact opposite view. It took the view that the Conservative plan would provide a built-in Conservative majority of 7 to 5, whereas the town clerk's plan would provide two swingers—five Conservative, five Labour, and two swingers.

Thus we had the situation, which I imagine is not unusual, that each party thought that the plan which it opposed was favourable to the other side, while each party thought that the plan which it supported was fair in that it provided two swinging wards as a result of the redrawing of the boundaries. One can never analyse figures of this kind, however many inquiries one has, because one can never know what the result is likely to be in such an event until it is put to the test.

The counter-proposals which were drawn up were deposited with the town clerk on 14th September. That was almost a month before the inquiry was held. They were deposited there for all to see and consider, and on 15th September the Labour leader on the council was informed by the supporters of the counter-proposals that that had been done and that they were available to be seen. The counter-proposals were also published in the local Press, so they had the fullest possible publicity.

At the inquiry on 12th October, several members of the Labour group on the council were present. They had ample opportunity to raise any points they wished to raise, and they were asked on more than one occasion by the person holding the inquiry whether anyone had any questions to put or any representations to make. The Labour chairman of the finance and general purposes committee of the borough gave evidence in support of the town clerk's proposals and could presumably have said anything he pleased in the course of his evidence.

No political points were taken for or against either scheme. The supporters of the Conservative plan had intended to raise political objections to the town clerk's plan along the lines that I have indicated, but when they discovered that the town clerk was raising no objections on political grounds they did not pursue any political objections either. I submit that that was quite proper and correct. The only question in the end is whether the criteria laid down by the Home Secretary in his letter—the direction that the Home Secretary and the Home Office had given, as to what should be done—had been properly followed, and that inquiry, and the basis on which it was to be held, made no reference to any political consequences of the application of those criteria.

The town clerk admitted that his figures took account only of natural growth, whereas the alternative scheme was based on future trends both of developments in the outer areas and clearance in the central areas. The inspector, without considering the political implications—because they were never discussed before him and because no party and no person present at the inquiry, although given the opportunity to do so, discussed them or drew his attention to them—recommended in his report to the Home Secretary that the counter-proposals were the better and that they should be adopted in substance, although he made some small alterations to them by cutting down some forecasts in respect of the clearance and development areas.

But even on that basis he preferred the alternative scheme, and so recommended. He suggested that the Home Secretary should ask the Minister of Housing and Local Government to lay down in his Order a form of procedure which would avoid double elections in 1965. He therefore suggested that the new council should be elected en bloc in May, 1965, or, alternatively, that there should be elections to enable the new council to assume office on 1st April, 1965.

After the receipt of that recommendation the decision of the Home Office, in the name of the Home Secretary, was conveyed on 23rd December, and I think that I should read some passages in it. It said: The Secretary of State has considered the main criticism made of the Council's proposals, that they failed sufficiently to take into account residential development in Northampton. He appreciates the contention that, since such development would take place for the most part in wards abutting the boundary whilst wards in the centre of Northampton would be affected by slum clearance, the electorates of the former wards would tend to increase and those of the latter to decrease with the result that there would be disparities between the electorates of the proposed wards in a few years' time. In the view of the Secretary of State the counter-proposals take account of this situation more satisfactorily than do the Council's proposals, by providing for wards in the centre with high electorates at present and wards abutting the boundary with low electorates. The Secretary of State accordingly accepts Mr. Verney's recommendation that the counter-proposals should be accepted subject to minor changes for the purpose of adopting boundaries which are more easily identifiable. Later on the letter states: The Secretary of State notes that all parties are agreed that there should be fresh elections of councillors in 1965. Mr. Verney was in favour of elections on 13th May, as preferred by all parties, or alternatively on a date before the appointed day, 1st April, 1965, so that councillors could come into office on the appointed day. The Secretary of State agrees that there should be fresh elections. As for the date on which they should be held, the Secretary of State does not consider that it would be satisfactory to adhere to the ordinary day of election if the effect is that the areas to be added to the county borough would be unrepresented on the council between 1st April and the coming into office of the newly elected councillors on 17th May… The Secretary of State has decided therefore that provision should be made in the order for elections to be held on such day prior to the appointed day as the returning officer shall appoint. That decision, conveyed by that letter of 23rd December, brought a wail of anguish from the Labour group on the council, which decided to embark on a party political campaign to reverse the acceptance by a Labour Home Secretary of the report of an independent inquiry. On 8th January the finance and general purposes committee of the borough council met, and by a purely party vote decided to recommend to the borough council that action should be taken. On Monday, 25th January, the Labour chairman of the finance and general purposes committee and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) visited a Ministry in London. We do not know whether it was the Home Office or the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. We do not know what was said or what allegations were made, but we know that on Thursday, 28th January, at a council meeting, by a party vote of 25 to 23, a resolution was passed which was in two parts. The first said that the proposed warding arrangements were wholly unacceptable to the council, and the second that the Minister of Housing and Local Government should be informed of the views of the council, and that the proposals be abandoned and that the draft order amended.

No suggestion was made in that resolution that the Home Office should be consulted—although the Home Office in these matters exercises a quasi-judicial function—or that it should be approached to reverse the decision, and no allegation was made in the resolution that anybody at any stage had been misinformed. On Monday, 29th January, a letter was sent by hand to the Home Office, but no Conservative member of the council has been provided with a copy of that letter. The deputy chairman of the finance and general purposes committee, who is a Conservative, asked for a copy of that letter, but the town clerk said that he was not able to hand it over, and it has never been published in the proceedings of the council.

It may be quite innocent, but we have no idea what was in it. No one on behalf of the Home Office or on behalf of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government ever approached any Conservative member of the council from the date of that letter—not even the mayor who was a Conservative, or the deputy chairman of the finance and general purposes committee—to tell him of anything that was being transacted between the Labour group and the chairman of the finance and general purposes committee. Their approach was to see whether anything which was being said did or did not accord with the views of the Conservative group. On Wednesday, 3rd February, the Minister of Housing and Local Government announced the doubling of the population of the borough of Northampton to deal with London overspill and he said that he was embarking on discussions with the local authority on the machinery and measures which would be needed for doubling the town and on the siting of new houses and the provision of new industry and new offices.

Then, on 4th February, two rather astonishing letters arrived. The first was from the Home Office. It was signed by an official and it said: I am directed by the Secretary of State to refer to your letter of 29th January forwarding the resolution of the Northampton Borough Council asking him to rescind the decision regarding the warding arrangements for the extended county borough … The Secretary of State has given the most careful consideration to the council's resolution. He notes the view expressed in the resolution, that Mr. Verney, the independent barrister who held the inquiry, was misinformed on certain material aspects. While the Secretary of State does not accept that insufficient opportunity was given to all concerned to express their views fully at the public inquiry he has decided that in the circumstances the best course will be for the whole question of the warding of Northampton to be considered afresh and publicly at a further local inquiry. The Secretary of State understands that the Minister proposes to lay the Northampton Order before Parliament during the third week in February in time for it to take effect on 1st April this year. There is insufficient time for the warding arrangements to be fully and publicly considered afresh before this date. He went on: The Secretary of State considers that the first elections to be held in the borough as extended should be held on the basis of a new ward scheme and not on the basis of the existing wards with the added areas annexed. It would not however be practicable for the procedure under section 25 of the Act of 1933 to be completed in time for the suggested date of borough council elections (13th May). Accordingly the Secretary of State is asking the Minister of Housing and Local Government to provide in his Order for the ordinary borough elections in May to be postponed to such date as may be provided in an Order in Council … and that until the councillors elected at the postponed election come into office, the existing councillors should represent the existing wards, subject to the added areas being annexed to contiguous wards. The Secretary of State very much hopes that it will be found possible to hold elections on the basis of new wards at the latest by the end of October. Contemporaneously with that, a letter was sent from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to the Borough of Northampton, setting out what they intended to include in the Order. It said: The relevant article would read as follows: 'Article 6(2) The ordinary elections of councillors of the borough due to take place in May, 1965, shall be postponed so as to take place in accordance with this paragraph, and no election of such councillor to fill a casual vacancy shall be held between the date of the coming into operation of this Order and the postponed election; and any councillor holding office immediately before such date shall (unless he resigns his office or it otherwise becomes vacant) continue to hold office until the fourth day after the day of the postponed elections. … The Borough council shall before 7th April, 1965, or such later date as the Secretary of State may allow, present a petition under Section 25 of the Local Government Act, 1933, praying for one or more of the following things …'"— and one is the alteration of the boundaries of the wards— and if no such petition is presented, the said section 25 shall have effect as if a petition had been presented by the borough council to Her Majesty … There are only two other facts. As a result of the letter from the Home Office, those who have been concerned in conducting the case for the counter-proposals were greatly upset and infuriated at the charge levelled, without hearing, by the Home Office that Mr. Verney had been misinformed. One of the promoters was a most respectable solicitor of the Supreme Court and a member of one of the best respected firms in Northampton one of them is a soldier, a deputy lieutenant and a prominent manufacturer in the town; and one of them was the mayor-designate for the borough for 1965–66.

They wrote to the Home Office and asked what was meant by the allegation that Mr. Verney had been misinformed. They received a reply this morning from the Home Office, to say: I am directed by the Secretary of State to refer to your letter of 9th February about the local inquiry held by Mr. Verney into the warding arrangements of the county borough of Northampton, and to give you an assurance that the Home Office letter of 4th February was not intended to imply that Mr. Verney had in any way been misinformed or misled in the evidence given by you or by Mr. Lewis or Mr. Wilson. The passage in the letter to which you draw attention related to the statement in the council resolution that Mr. Verney was wholly mistaken in stating that there was no political objection to the Conservative proposal. Of course, as far as Mr. Verney was concerned, there have been no objections of any sort to any proposals because the matter had not been discussed.

Perhaps I can, on these facts, ask the Home Secretary these questions. Is it right that no other charge except that was made, that Mr. Verney had been misinformed? The letter originally said that it was the view expressed in the resolution, but that resolution, of course, contained no such allegation.

Secondly, who made the allegation that insufficient opportunity was given to all concerned to express views fully at the public inquiry? This allegation, in a letter of 4th February which the Home Secretary rejects, formed no part of the resolution forwarded to him. It is utterly untrue and unfounded. We should like to know who was making representations that such an event had occurred. Was such an allegation made to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, or was it made to the Home Office, or to both? Next, we should like to know why, if the allegations were being made, no opportunity was given at all for those who had supported the counter-proposals to deal with them before the previous decision was rescinded. After all, the Home Secretary in this situation is in a somewhat quasi-judicial capacity. He had taken one decision and was being asked unilaterally and ex parte by one party to reverse it.

Why was there no approach by the Home Office to other people interested in this matter who had appeared at the inquiry and had been successful before the Home Secretary announced that he was going to reverse his decision? What part has the Ministry of Housing and Local Government played in all this? We know the result was supposed to have been sent to the Ministry. To what extent is the Ministry responsible for this reversal of policy?

Now I come to the really important point. Why reopen the inquiry to discuss political issues at all? The letter received this morning makes the point that the only new circumstances which the Home Secretary has taken into account is the fact that politics was not discussed before Mr. Verney. His letter never suggested that they should be. As I have pointed out, opposing parties take opposite political views of the consequences of the two proposals. Is not this a complete departure from the usual independence of the Home Office and the Home Secretary in considering these warding arrangements? They are intended to divide the wards into equal areas so far as possible, taking into account only the convenience of boundaries and whether community ties are being broken. If by the application of such criteria, which are surely the right criteria, a particular result is produced, it matters not in whose favour it is one way or the other.

I understand that in a very large number of these inquiries no question of the political result is ever raised. I also understand that where it is raised, it is usual for the Home Office and those concerned in the matter almost wholly to ignore the political question. What one is trying to do out of fairness, and I say again in a quasi-judicial capacity, is to divide up the borough into roughly equal areas, taking amenity interests into account and seeing that convenient boundaries are arranged. All we are doing by this decision of the Home Secretary is to enable him to reverse himself, and throw this, and possibly future inquaries into warding arrangements, into the political melting pot. Would not it be better to stick to the tradition that one applies the Home Office criteria, because that is the object of the exercise and the only fair way to do it?

The next question I should like to ask—perhaps it is only in passing—is how can a Minister of the Crown require legally elected representatives to pass a resolution? This is what the Minister of Housing and Local Government has announced he is proposing to put in his Order. How can a Minister of the Crown require legally elected representatives of a borough council to pass, by a majority of their total number, a resolution that they will present a petition to Her Majesty, because that is the procedure required under Section 25 of the Local Government Act?

The Minister of Housing and Local Government seems to be assuming to himself the right to give directions to independent members of a local authority. How, I ask, can a Minister of the Crown announce that if the legally elected representatives do not do what they are told to do by him, he will proceed under an Act of Parliament, which requires a resolution, as if that resolution had been passed, when, in fact, it has not? Is not this wholly unlawful and without authority or precedent of any sort?

If the Home Office Minister thought that it was unsatisfactory in December to disfranchise 10,000 new voters for six and a half weeks, how can he possibly justify disfranchising not only 10,000 but the remaining 73,000 voters of Northampton for seven months while a new inquiry is drawn up and its result known, possibly at the end of October?

How can he possibly justify cementing on to the whole of this town for seven months a narrow Labour majority of two, won by a single vote in a single ward at the elections last May, without even the chance to win a seat, because if there is a casual vacancy caused by death or resignation there is to be no by-election which would enable a seat to be recaptured from the other side? And this at a time when, first, the town is being doubled and vital expansion is taking place, secondly, when big questions of central development are involved and, thirdly, when there are vital questions affecting the local grammar schools and the control of education in the borough before the electors in this town?

Above all, how can he possibly justify reversing decisions of an independent inquiry—which he had already himself accepted—because of the partisan and one-sided pressure of the local Labour group and without any attempt at all to obtain the views of those who take the opposite view in this town? Does he not agree that it is absolutely essential that when the new borough comes into operation there should be a newly elected borough council, upon a proper system of wards?

Does he not think that the only proper way of securing that is to stick by his decision of December not to reopen a political dispute in which both sides will take opposite views and no conclusion will be reached? Are we not getting into a very dangerous position indeed, and will he not agree to reconsider the matter and to take the opportunity to look at the whole situation again and agree to stick by what was done by him and his Department in December of last year?

8.43 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Frank Soskice)

First let me complete the recital of fact. The right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson), with a wealth of mysterious allusion, seemed to imply that something was being held back. I should like to disclose exactly what he thought was being held back. A letter of 29th January, he said, was withheld from disclosure. That was what I understood from his speech.

The House will remember that there was a meeting of the council on 28th January. There were two letters and I will read them both. The first was dated 29th January, 1965, from Mr. Rowe, the town clerk. It was addressed to the Secretary, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Whitehall, London, S.W.1. It read: Sir, I am directed by the Council to forward for the Minister's immediate attention the enclosed certified copy of a resolution approved by the Council at its meeting yesterday evening, relating to the proposed Warding arrangements. I am Sir, Your obedient servant— and it was signed C. E. Vivian Rowe, Town Clerk. That was the first mysterious letter. The second mysterious letter was dated 29th January, 1965, and was again signed by Mr. Rowe, but this one was addressed to the Under-Secretary of State, Home Office, Whitehall, London, S.W.1 It read: Sir,

East Midlands General Review Area I enclose for your information a copy of a letter which I have today forwarded to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, together with a copy of the enclosure thereto. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will feel satisfied that ample disclosure has been made. If the nondisclosure of those letters disarranged the course of his argument, or put him in a position the less forcibly to make his point, I am very sorry. I now hand them to him, and I am sure that were he to seek leave to supplement his argument after having them, the House would be sympathetic.

Sir J. Hobson

I appreciate that. I only raised the matter because I did not know what was said in the letters and, as they had been refused, one naturally asked what was in them. I entirely accept that they were absolutely proper letters from the town clerk, and I am sure that we are all very glad to hear about them. But the first question of who made the charges of impropriety, as they do not appear in the letters, still remains to be answered.

Sir F. Soskice

I will deal with all the right hon. and learned Gentleman's questions later, if I may—I have them all carefully noted—but that is one point dealt with, and I cannot help but remember the well-known Latin phrase, Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.

That pillar of suspicion having, I hope, been demolished, I come to the next. The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of a mysterious visit made to me by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). My hon. and learned Friend visited me, and I was glad to see him—as I always am. He came in a state of high dudgeon—and the House knows what my hon. and learned Friend is like when he is in a state of high dudgeon. He represented to me that the consequence of my Order was to produce a monstrous injustice, that the House should know this, and that there was high feeling in Northampton.

I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will not think that I am being unduly insensitive to the deep emotions he evinced if I make clear to the House now, as I made clear to him then, that I conceive my duty to be to the citizens of Northampton as a whole, and that I certainly would not think it a ground for my further intervention that a result has been produced that one side or the other in the council does not like. If that was all that was present in the featuring of this case, I certainly would not have taken any further step. But I think that, for reasons that I will disclose in a moment, the case goes far beyond that, and did warrant my intervention. If I may say so with respect and gratitude to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, having heard his speech I am amply reinforced in my conclusion.

Perhaps I may say at the outset that I do not make any imputation against anyone concerned in these proceedings. We had, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, a representation from Mr. Walmsley, the solicitor who presented the counter-proposals, in which he complained that the attitude I had adopted implied a reflection upon him and upon certain others. May I make it as clear as I can in this public debate that I make no sort or kind of imputation upon him whatever, or upon those associated with him. I am sure that he presented the Conservative counter-proposals with the fairness and care that one would expect from a member of his profession. Having made that perfectly clear, I should like to tell the House why it was that I thought—and still think, having looked back on it—that it was appropriate for me to take the course I did take.

First, what is that course? The course I have taken is to initiate procedure that will result in a new public hearing, and the shoot reason why I adopted that course, and thought it necessary so to do, was that it seemed to me, in view of what was brought to my notice, that the hearing before Mr. Verney, for reasons that certainly were not attributable to any blame on his part or on the part of the persons who appeared before him, had proceeded upon a misconception.

It having proceeded upon a misconception and there being, as I understood, considerable feeling in Northampton and a sense of considerable resentment between the opposing sections of the council, it seemed to me that far the best course in the circumstances was to bring it about that there should be a new public hearing at which every possible point of view could be adequately ventilated and explored. It seemed to me that that was the only way in which this controversy, which has a longish history stretching back certainly to the beginning of 1964, could be finally set at rest. It seemed to me that it was not desirable that the new warding arrangements should take their birth in an atmosphere which I understood was likely to be one of suspicion and possibly mutual recrimination. I hoped, and I still hope and think I am right in so doing, to put an end to this finally once and for all. If there is a new public inquiry at which everybody can put their point of view, nobody can conceivably have the smallest grievance.

Mr. Arthur Jones (Northants, South)

Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman admit that that type of inquiry has already taken place?

Sir F. Soskice

I was coming on to say why I thought that the inquiry which has already taken place had, due to an accident more than anything else, not been a satisfactory inquiry, because it seemed to me that the Commissioner who con- ducted it had proceeded upon a misconception.

Mr. Arthur Jones

I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will elaborate on "accident" in this context.

Sir F. Soskice

Yes. That is just what I am about to do, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue with my speech. If he would like to intervene, I should be only too glad for him to do so. I want to explain why it was that it seemed to me, rightly or wrongly—the House may agree or disagree with my judgment; it is a subject for discussion—that the inquiry had not been satisfactory, in the sense that it proceeded upon a misconception, and therefore was not likely to bring satisfaction and confidence to everybody who was dependent upon the conclusion at which Mr. Verney, an extremely able and careful barrister-at-law, had arrived.

Mr. Arthur Jones indicated dissent.

Sir F. Soskice

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I cannot stop him from doing that. If I could define his thoughts other than as those of general disapprobation, I would try to answer him. I can do no more than that. I will do my best.

May I recount what seemed to me to be the relevant facts leading up to the conclusion that I formed? As the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out to the House, Mr. Rowe, the town clerk, had prepared a scheme back in 1963. He did it, as I understand, entirely upon his own initiative. He did it upon a basis which he thought was fair. He did it because he thought there was a likelihood of an Order being made in due course by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in view of the addition of new areas to the County Borough of Northampton.

In August, 1964, the then newly emerging Labour majority accepted and put forward that scheme. This was about a year after the scheme was prepared. The Labour majority adopted it as its own and decided to put it forward. That was on 14th August, 1964. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has pointed out, and it is part of the difficulty in this case, the two parties are very evenly balanced and it was a decision on an election petition which took the majority from the Conservatives and gave it to the Labour party on the council. Therefore, I must be very careful that, so far as can be achieved, feeling that there is any sort of unfairness in the way in which the majority arises is removed.

That was in August, 1964. In September, 1964, the Conservatives prepared their counter-proposals and lodged them, perfectly properly. I have no criticism of that. They also lodged, as I understand, an objection on political grounds to the proposals made by the town clerk. I will, if I may for the sake of brevity, refer to "the town clerk's proposals" and "the counter-proposals" as being the two sets of proposals considered by Mr. Verney.

Mr. Verney held the public inquiry on 10th October, 1964, and rendered his report to me in November. I read it. It seemed to me a well-reasoned report and I had no hesitation in accepting it. It was a report which entirely upheld the counter-proposals put forward on behalf of the Conservatives. It seemed to me when I read the Report that Mr. Verney's reasoning was convincing, and I accordingly intimated that I proposed to accept it.

What I want to call attention to in this report is this. In three separate places Mr. Verney makes reference to the absence of political considerations, and that obviously weighed with him. If it were merely a passing reference, merely recording that no objection of a political nature was raised, perhaps it would not have mattered so much, but it is obvious in his report that he attaches importance to it.

In order that the House may judge whether I am right or wrong, I will ask the indulgence of the House while I read two of the shorter passages. Before stating his conclusions he says: It is right to emphasise that the town clerk's proposals, which now form the basis of the council's scheme, were drawn up by him alone with no political outcome in mind. The criticism from a political point of view was not pursued at the inquiry"— that means the Conservative criticism that had been lodged with the counter-proposals— and should be disregarded in assessing the merits of the scheme. It is equally important to emphasise that no suggestion was made that the new Conservative proposals should be criticised as designed to secure political advantage, whatever may have been the defects of earlier proposals. The two schemes have to be judged solely according to whether or not they succeed in satisfying the criteria which have to be applied. The authors of each scheme have had these criteria clearly in mind. If the matter rested on that passage alone, I submit that it would be perfectly apparent that on the balance of circumstance Mr. Verney thought it was of importance. But he goes on to reinforce it in a later passage. He sets out his conclusions at the end of the report and he indicates the way in which his mind is moving. He says: I am reinforced in my view"— that is the view which he has expressed in favour of the counter-proposals, and I would ask the House to note the word "reinforced"— by the fact that no suggestion of political motive has been advanced. When the balance of power between two parties is so close, it must be expected that legitimate criticism on this basis would be put forward, if it reasonably could be. There being no such criticism of the Conservative Scheme, and the political criticism of the Council's Scheme not having been pursued, I have been free to determine my recommendation on the merits of each scheme as presented to me. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked what has the political result got to do with it. Prima facie he is right in saying that. The objective of the inquiry is, as he says, to try to get a numerically properly balanced warding arrangement, with clearly-defined boundaries, attention being paid to local ties. On the other hand, the Conservative party clearly thought that political objections were material. They made a political objection, although they subsequently withdrew it. It is obvious that the Labour party thought so. But what is still more important is that Mr. Verney thought so. He may have been right or wrong in thinking so, but he certainly thought so, and he accordingly used the words which influenced me when I considered the case, that he was "reinforced" in the view that he expressed by the fact that there were no political considerations applicable in this case. That is one of the things which have influenced me.

Mr. Arthur Jones indicated dissent.

Sir F. Soskice

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but that is how I read it.

Mr. Jones

I shook my head because this is not pertinent to the issue at all, with respect.

Sir F. Soskice

I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. It is the case that I am trying to deploy and it seems to me that it is directly relevant and pertinent. The hon. Member may change his mind about it.

That is what the parties thought, that is to say Mr. Verney, the Conservatives and the Labour party who were involved before him. But it may be said, "Whether they thought that or not, they may have been wrong and you have got to say whether it is relevant or not." This is my answer. I would certainly have thought that, had it been represented to Mr. Verney that one of the sets of proposals produced a very marked political result, he would have scrutinised that proposal with perhaps rather more anxiety than he brought to bear when he looked at them. That is a view which seems to me instinct in the language which he himself has used. We therefore start with the basis that here is Mr. Verney recording his conclusions upon the assumption that there is no political question there at all.

The next material thing that happened is that the town council held its meeting on 28th January, and the House already knows from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech what it resolved. The council resolved by a majority of 25 to 23 to uphold a report which had been made by the finance and general purposes committee earlier, I think on 8th January. Therefore it seems to me that I ought to read part of that report, which was approved by the council's resolution, because it is directly relevant to the conclusions that were formed. I do not endorse what it says. I do not know whether it is right or wrong, but this is what was said: The Chairman referred to the decision of the Secretary of State on the proposals submitted by the Council which had been contained in a letter dated 23rd December, 1964. He pointed out that these proposals were weighted heavily in favour of the Conservative Party and submitted the following figures to support that position… Then it sets out the figures and proceeds in this way: The proposals which were drawn up by the Town Clerk and approved by the Council gave no political advantage to either party. The Labour Group of the Council accepted these as fair to both sides. The Conservative Party, whilst first objecting on political grounds, withdrew these objections at the inquiry. The probable political effect of the proposals drawn up by the Town Clerk was to divide the wards into five Labour and five Conservative, leaving Trinity and Kingsthorpe wards to swing according to the political pendulum. The effect of the Conservative counter proposals was to remove from both these wards a Labour area which would be added in each case to a ward which already had a substantial Labour majority, thereby making these two marginal wards into safe Conservative wards and giving a minority of Conservative voters a built-in majority of seven wards to five on the Council. I do not say that that is right; I deliberately avoid expressing an opinion about it, because I think that the inquiry which I anticipate will take place in due course should be conducted by a person with an open mind who should not be inhibited in any way by anything that I say in this debate.

Then the resolution went on: The Commissioner reporting to the Home Secretary emphasised that there was no political objection to the Conservative proposals. In this he was wholly mistaken. The Labour Group having accepted the Town Clerk's plan as fair and reasonable did not appear as objectors. As the Town Clerk was appearing for the Council and not representing the Labour Group, it was clearly impossible for him to deal with the political consequences of these proposals, and as the Conservative Party withdrew all political objections to the Town Clerk's plan, there was no opportunity to challenee the Conservative proposals upon the basis of their political consequences. The case I make is this. I contrast, and I ask hon. Members to contrast, that passage, these assertions put forward by a small majority of the council after a debate, with the assumption that underlay Mr Verney's report. He was clearly making his report on the assumption that there were no political aspects to the proposals which he was considering and, as I read out, here is the council resolving by a small majority that the effect of the proposals was to remove from two wards a Labour area which would be added in each case to a ward which already had a substantial Labour majority.

Sir Harwood Harrison (Eye)

There was ample opportunity before Mr. Verney, if the Labour Party wished to raise the matter. I cannot believe that Labour members were so naive as not to make a representation if they thought that the Conservative proposals were not acceptable.

Sir F. Soskice

I absolutely agree, and I was about to indicate how that consideration impinges itself on my mind. They certainly had opportunity. Indeed, in the letter which the right hon. and learned Gentleman read, I pointed out that I did not accept that they had not had a proper opportunity of putting forward their considerations.

In these circumstances, having received the resolution, I had to decide what was the right thing to do. Was it proper to leave the position as it was? Or was it proper to arrange to institute proceedings which would give opportunity for a further hearing? Was there any other course open? It seemed to me that there were only those two alternatives: either I could leave the position as it was or, there being to hand a ready procedure, I could say that the hearing before Mr. Verney proceeded on a misconception and take the other course. I do not say that Mr. Verney was misled, but the hearing proceeded on a misconception which, as I say, I do not attribute to anyone's fault. Therefore, since there was to hand a further opportunity for public discussion and for publicly putting these considerations which, at least, were thought by the parties, including Mr. Verney, to be material, should not that opportunity be made available?

It is said that that is all very well, but the Labour party had an opportunity of putting its objection. I quite agree. That is an argument in favour of following the former of these two courses, that is, not changing the arrangements. It was a consideration which I weighed in the balance. If, for instance, it had simply Seen a matter of litigation between two opposing parties for a piece of property or something like that, I should, I think, on ordinary principles have said that, if one party did not take the trouble to put forward a consideration which it thought was material, that party must carry the disadvantage ensuing therefrom.

What seemed to me the right view to take was this. This, after all, was a matter which affected the voting rights of about 70,000 people. It was a matter of extreme public importance. It was not merely transient and ephemeral but would last for a number of years. Therefore, it seemed to me that the kind of criteria one would normally apply to a private action between two competing litigants would not be the criteria to apply here.

The Labour party could have put forward its view, but it did not. It gave an explanation, which may or may not be sound. I feel that Mr. Rowe, the town clerk, was in a personal difficulty, and I quite understand that what was said about him was perfectly well-founded. I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, if Labour people were present, they could and ought to have put forward their objection. In fact, they did not. But, for the reasons I have given, I did not regard this as an ordinary piece of litigation, as it were, but something far more important and transcending that, and it seemed to me that that was not a conclusive consideration.

As I say, the basic question was whether one should leave matters as they were or give ample further opportunity for views to be aired. My judgment worked in the matter in this way. I thought—I have said this already—that, if I left it, the high feeling would grow. It would be said that Mr. Verney proceeded on a misconception, and words like "misleading" would begin to be bandied about. The feeling would fester, would not die down, and there would be left a very disagreeable heritage.

The view I took was that, as there was ready available to hand the necessary machinery to enable everyone to have a full chance to air his views, not in an atmosphere of misconception but with the full case being raised, the relevance and importance of all matters could be adequately presented and explored. It seemed to me right to say that, although Mr. Verney is careful and experienced—I am most grateful to him for his painstaking work—his inquiry, for a reason which certainly was not his fault, miscarried. He had come to his conclusion under a misconception, and he had not realised that there was, at least, an alleged marked political result likely to ensue from the counter-proposals. It semed to me, therefore, that it ought to be decided that the inquiry before him had not reached a result which could carry everyone's confidence. For these reasons, it seemed to me that I ought, in the circumstances, to make that procedure available to the citizens of Northampton.

I say this with every conceivable emphasis that I can. It does not make the slightest difference to me—I hope that hon. Members will believe this, because I am saying it with all sincerity—that it was a Labour majority which was asking for the petition. It would have been exactly the same if a Conservative majority in similar circumstances had wanted one, too. Mr. Verney's conclusions were in favour of the Conservative counter-proposals, and I have not the slightest hesitation in accepting them. It seems to me that if for one reason or another—the circumstances of the case are very exceptional; I regard them as a chapter of accidents—the commissioner who is appointed under this extra-statutory procedure does not reach a conclusion on a satisfactory footing which ought to carry confidence in everybody's mind, a further opportunity, in a sense an appeal, if it is reasonably practicable to do so, should be given. That is my whole instinct, and that was the basis on which I arrived at my conclusions. That may be right, or it may be wrong.

Having said that, I now address myself to the ten questions asked of the Attorney-General. The first question was: Who is it that says that Mr. Verney was misinformed? I have read out the relevant part of the town council resolution. That is where I got it from. Mr. Verney proceeded—whether "misinformed" was the right or the wrong term—under a misconception, as I like to put it. I would make clear that I am not asserting, and I have never asserted, that anyone misinformed him in the sense of purposely trying to mislead him. I do not think it happened, and I do not seek to put that forward. That is my first answer.

The second question related to the issue of whether there was insufficient opportunity available for representations to be made to Mr. Verney. I say at once that the Labour representatives had a perfectly ample opportunity and they ought to have done it, but they did not do it. I have given to the House the weight which I attributed, rightly or wrongly, to that circumstance.

The third question was: Why, if allegations were made, was no opportunity given to those against whom the allegations were made to rebut those allegations? I am not quite sure what allegations are referred to there. I have made no allegations. What is said, as I read the council's resolution, is that Mr. Verney, for the reasons there given, was not made aware of the consequences of the Conservative counter-proposals. The resolution gives the reasons—that the town clerk was in a difficulty, and so on. That is my answer to the third question.

The fourth question was: What part has the Minister of Housing and Local Government played in this? I ought to explain in answer to that question that the procedure which is adopted, and has been long adopted, between the Home Office and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is an extra-statutory procedure. It is not laid down by Statute. It is the Minister of Housing and Local Government who makes the Order to implement the Boundary Commission's findings, and he is advised upon an extrastatutory basis by the Home Secretary of the time as to the best way of rearranging the warding within the enlarged area. So the Minister of Housing and Local Government's part, in the end, is limited to making the Order, if he thinks it proper to do so, accepting such advice as he receives from the Home Secretary with regard to what are the appropriate re-warding provisions.

The next question is fundamental, and I think I have already answered it. It is, "Why require the Commissioner to discuss political issues?" That is an important and basic question, and I have sought to answer it. The reason is that, first, the parties all thought that the political question was material. So did Mr. Verney. Whatever they thought, it had at least this degree of materiality—that Mr. Verney, had he known that there was, at any rate, the asserted result of the counter-proposals as set out in the council's resolution, would, I think, have looked rather more narrowly at them. It is far from certain that, had he been aware of the political considerations, he would have arrived at the conclusion he did reach.

Mr. Henry Brooke (Hampstead)

I have had some experience of this subject. Does the Home Secretary think that a Commissioner holding an inquiry of this sort should or should not take into account political considerations? In this case, the request to Mr. Verney was sent out under my authority. As far as I am aware, political considerations were not mentioned in it. I gather that the right hon. and learned Gentleman requires the Commissioner holding the new inquiry to take into account political considerations. If so, then the right hon. and learned Gentleman is changing Home Office policy.

Sir F. Soskice

I do not mean to change Home Office policy at all. The objective of the inquiry is to secure warding arrangements which comply with the requirements—namely, that they shall be approximately equal in numbers, with boundaries that are clear, and that ties shall be taken into account.

The place for consideration of political objections occupies, in that scheme, the following degree of importance, neither more nor less. There would have been an extremely marked political result in this case, supposing that what is said in the resolution is justified—and I do not know whether it is. Supposing a set of proposals is put before the Commissioner and that they produce a marked political result. I would have thought that any Commissioner, when examining those proposals and looking at what, after all, is a rather flexible picture—one cannot determine these things on very clear rules or clear numerical criteria—would examine more closely their effect.

The Commissioner would certainly, I think, have in mind, quite apart from anything else, the desirability that his proposals should carry confidence. If there was a very marked political result, it would be desirable that he should at least take that into account in the sense that he might have to explore whether there could be any political motive which might have had any place in the formulating of the proposals. He should, as I say, look at it, but, of course, the result he must aim at is not a political result but a numerical result carrying the feature that the boundaries should be clear and that local ties should, as far as possible, be recognised. I am, therefore, not changing Home Office policy at all and that is what I conceive to be the relevance of the political aspect.

Mr. Brooke

I once received a report from a Commissioner in which he said that he had refused to receive any evidence at the inquiry on the political consequences which might flow from one scheme or another. The recommendations he made were unfavourable to the Conservative Party, but I unhesitatingly accepted them because I would have thought it wholly wrong to repeat a public inquiry in such circumstances.

Sir F. Soskice

I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has said that because it enables me to point the difference between that report and the one now under consideration. The present report was based on a clear misconception that there were no such considerations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I am sorry, but that is how I read it. I do not understand how one can read the words, "I am reinforced in my conclusion", in any other sense, so it seems to me that the report was clearly based on a misconception. The case my predecessor has mentioned does not seem to me to be pari pasu. This was an exceptional case, because there was a misunderstanding.

To continue answering the questions—Question No. 7 was: How could the Minister of Housing require locally elected representatives to pass a resolution? The only purpose of the provision in the Order which I hope will be made, so that the Minister is to be able to proceed on the footing that a petition has been presented, is to make absolutely certain that there is a public inquiry. The whole purpose of the procedure is that there should be a new Commissioner appointed, a scheme presented, and the matter fully and fairly heard before him.

With regard to the supposed disfranchisement; disfranchisement is hardly the right word. I am postponing elections, but the persons who live in both the added areas and the existing ward areas are not disfranchised but represented by councillors now. To use the word"disfranchise" in this context is to use a rather emotive term which does not in any way describe what the real situation was.

The same consideration applies to Question No. 9—"Why impose a Labour majority of two for eleven months?" The reason for that is that if one is to use the procedure and ensure plenty of time for a scheme to be put forward and for a hearing to take place and for everybody to have a full opportunity to put before the Commissioner the considerations which he desires to put, and bearing in mind the holiday period, there should be provision in the Order for the election to take place as late as October—although the earlier the better.

Sir J. Hobson

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has criticised my use of the word "disfranchise," but it comes from his own letter of 23rd December when he said that it was wrong to disfranchise people for six weeks.

Sir F. Soskice

The word disfranchise in my letter was used in one context—[HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] If the right hon. and learned Gentleman has borrowed my word "disfranchise" and used it for the purposes of his speech, I do not complain, he is perfectly entitled to do so. The minimum period safely needed for the necessary proceedings to take place is set out in my letter of 4th February. I certainly do not want it to be a minute longer than can be helped.

The next question is: "How could reversing the decision of Mr. Verney because of pressure of the Labour group be justified? "The answer is that most certainly it was not. When I got the council's resolution, it seemed to me that this was the fair course to take, the one course which would put an end to this matter and restore confidence as between the opposing points of view in the council and outside the council in Northampton. I greatly hope that the House will be able to take the view that, although it may have disadvantages, when one has a picture such as one has on the documents, the best thing is for the matter to be re-argued in public. I hope that the effect of the rehearing will not in any sense be inhibited by what is said in the House today, and that it will put an end to this matter once and for all and get a satisfactory result to the re-warding scheme available for Northampton.

Sir Edward Boyle (Birmingham, Handsworth)

What, other than the communications from the city council and the Labour majority and the high dudgeon of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has influenced the right hon. and learned Gentleman at all between his letter of 23rd December and his letter of 4th February?

Sir F. Soskice

Exactly what I have been trying to say, namely, the consideration that it seemed to me perfectly obvious from the terms of the council resolution that there had been a misconception on Mr. Verney's part. That was my independent judgment. I want the House to have the full facts and I do not want to keep back anything, but if the House does not know me better than to think that I am liable to be pressurised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton, or anybody else in the House, I hope that the House will get to know me rather better before my term of office comes to an end.

Sir H. Harrison

Surely if the Labour Party thought on reflection 48 hours afterwards that Mr. Verney had not really been fairly informed by it, it could either have indicated that to the right hon. and learned Gentleman as Home Secretary, or put this resolution to the council meeting before the result was known. It waited and then trumped up this excuse.

Sir F. Soskice

As to waiting and trumping up an excuse, I understand—I do not know—that 28th January was the earliest time at which the council meeting could be fixed. Again, I do not want to say why that was. It certainly was not the council's fault. I understand it would have liked it much earlier but it simply could not help itself. It had to wait. It could have written to me, certainly, and perhaps it ought to have done, but it did not do so.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones (Northants, South)

I listened with great care to the halting explanation of the Home Secretary. I found it quite unsatisfactory, especially on the interventions which I made when he was so elaborately and carefully trying to deal with the issue—trying to confuse it, to my mind—of the political aspects of this decision.

I speak on this because no fewer than 10,000 of my constituents are involved in this question of the boundary revision in the county borough. Use the words "unrepresented" or "disfranchised" as he will, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has used those words, both of them, just to suit his own convenience. When he says there is high feeling in Northampton, will he take my assurance that that is certainly so? He and his colleagues are entirely responsible for it. There is the resentment to which he referred, and the resentment comes about entirely because he has gone back on an earlier decision, on grounds which are quite unsatisfactory, and, I submit to the House, quite unacceptable to us here this evening.

What advantage is there in postponing the elections? He said in one of the earlier letters that there was everything to be said in favour of having early elections, and he accepted the recommendation of Mr. Verney that the elections should take place before the end of March. I read from the letter from his Department: The Secretary of State does not consider that it would be satisfactory to adhere to the ordinary day of election if the effect is that the areas to be added to the county borough would be unrepresented on the council between 1st April and the coming into force of the newly elected council on 27th May. His new proposals leave a gap of some six months. He made no endeavour to explain the change in this matter or to justify his new course. We have had mentioned the general complexion of the council in the County Borough of Northampton. One, I think, might well be justified in assuming that this is in the ordinary way an authority which is run by a Socialist council, but the facts are that in the last seven years only in one year have the Socialists had a majority on the council. They divide the alder-manic seats equally between the parties in proportion to their elected councillors. It was only way back in 1958–59. Until the recent disputed vote, in all the years in between, the County Borough of Northampton had a majority of Conservative councillors and aldermen.

Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton)

Not Conservatives.

Mr. Jones

I do not think that that intervention alters the facts.

We need to direct our attention to the course of events which occurred between 23rd December and 4th February. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) for the complete review that he has given of the course of events. When the Home Secretary referred to the fact that the local council could not have called a meeting earlier than 20th January, I was about to intervene to say that that was a special meeting called by the council to deal specifically with the particular issues which he has raised in his reply.

It is alleged that the Commissioner's facts on building and development were distorted. This implicates those who presented the case, and I very much welcome the letter which the Department has now sent to those at whom this reflection was directed, but in doing that the Home Secretary has turned the light on Mr. Verney. He is now accused of being wholly mistaken in his judgment—"misconception" was the word used by the Home Secretary in his speech. He now says that Mr. Verney was misled and was likely to mislead his Department in that judgment. The Home Secretary also referred to a chapter of accidents. This is an entirely unsatisfactory explanation of the course of events.

In his customary fashion the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) gave vent to his views on this issue. I have here a copy of his letter which appeared in the Chronicle and Echo, the local Northampton paper, on 13th February. He said that the council had pointed out to the Minister that his Commissioner had based his finding on grossly inaccurate building forecasts. To whom is the hon. and learned Gentleman going to apologise for that assertion? He is not in sympathy with the Home Secretary with regard to the holding of elections. He said in his letter to the Chronicle and Echo: The inconveniences resulting from delayed elections are very slight. Everyone will have a councillor whom they can go and see if they want anything. It is true that some of them will not have had a chance of voting for that councillor for a few months but that is surely preferable to having a majority of councillors from a party which the majority of the electorate voted against. This is the very denial of our democratic system of representative local government, and to try to find any sympathy of view between the Home Secretary and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton is very difficult indeed.

Who is responsible for presenting "grossly inaccurate forecasts"? On what ground is this allegation made, and what substance is there for it? If there was any inaccuracy in the statements, surely the town clerk was in a position to correct them? The town clerk is referred to in Mr. Verney's report dated 16th November to the Home Secretary as the author of the council's scheme, that is, the Socialist,' proposal. It says: Although he"— that is the town clerk— had looked to the future, he had not been in a position to ascertain all the current development plans. Can this possibly be acceptable, and what basis does it provide for the remarks in the hon. and learned Gentleman's letter?

What consultations, lobbying and pressures were being exercised during the month of January? It has been interesting to hear from the Home Secretary. I think his explanation is quite unacceptable as to what led him completely to change his mind on this question and issue his letter of 4th February which says, among other things, that he knows the view expressed in the resolution that Mr. Verney, the independent barrister who held the local inquiry, was misinformed on certain material aspects.

Was there no opportunity for the town clerk and Councillor Dilleigh to correct any misstatements during the course of the inquiry? A quite reasonable assessment to make is that no corrections were made because no corrections were possible. I say it with regret, but I submit that the Home Secretary has placed himself in a completely false and untenable position. I have no doubt that this has arisen because of the great pressure that he has been under from his colleagues in the Government and the party opposite. Although he has not admitted it, he would be the first to realise the impact that this Volte face must have on Northampton and throughout the country—boundary revisions decided upon political grounds and as the direct result of political pressures. Local political bigwigs persuade Her Majesty's Home Secretary to reverse a decision, allegedly because his inspector at a public inquiry, at which all interested parties had every opportunity to put their case, was misinformed on certain material aspects. How can he persuade himself that such an explanation is acceptable? What is the public in Northampton saying about this? I read from a resolution passed at a meeting held on Tuesday, 9th February: This meeting strongly objects to this undemocratic and thoughtless action and another, from the residents of Boothville: When the public inquiry was held to determine whether Boothville should be added to the County Borough, assurances were given to us and to the representatives of Duston, Whitehills and Weston Flavell, which we understood to mean that we should not be disenfranchised if the County Borough were enlarged. This refers to an undertaking given on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

I echo the words of my right hon. and learned Friend. What part has the Minister played in this matter? Does he support the Home Secretary? Was he a party to the pressures put upon him? Does he not support the principle of elected representation in local government? The hon. and learned Member for Northampton clearly does not. I refer again to his letter in which he refers to the inconveniences resulting from delayed elections.

Mr. Paget

The hon. Member had better read it all.

Mr. Jones

I was hoping that I could keep my remarks short, because I am sure that other hon. Members wish to speak. The letter is here, and it can be read by any of those who are sufficiently interested.

How far are the views that we have heard tonight a guide to the Government's attitude towards local government? Are the many thousands of supporters, both on the Socialist and on the Conservative side, and who give such a tremendous amount of public service to local government, to be treated as puppets in the type of political chicanery of which we have had such clear evidence in this affair? This is an issue that will have wider implications and will be of wider interest than merely to Northampton alone. What of the many boundary revision decisions which are due to be decided in the near future? Is what we have seen Labour policy—the use of revision for political needs and advantages? This is an issue which will be in front of the electorate in the forthcoming county and municipal elections.

In my view, the decisions of the Home Secretary on the ward boundary review in Northampton expose a sinister threat to local government from this Labour Administration, and is clear evidence of the Government's determination to make decisions of such a character on the basis of party advantage.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton)

I agree with the hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) that feelings on this matter in Northants run very high. They run higher than on any occasion that I remember during the 30 years in which I have been in public life in Northampton. Unlike the hon. Member, however, I do not propose to attempt to exaggerate those ill feelings. I may say that political ill-feeling of a party nature is something which is not usual in Northampton. We have a council which, as has been pointed out, is finely balanced. We have this system of chairmen from the majority party and vice-chairmen from the minority party. These chairmen and vice-chairmen work closely together in friendship and cooperation. I have worked with the council when it has been Conservative and when it has been Labour. I think that we have worked together in mutual confidence and also in mutual friendship. I have warm friendships with members of both parties in Northampton. Therefore, I feel a great desire that this kind of bitterness should not come about. That is why I greatly welcome what my right hon. Friend has done, because it was the only alternative to the continuation of that bitterness.

I shall not try to go into the details of this. Members of my party felt that they had been unfairly placed in a position in which, even though they had secured a large majority of the votes—a majority of better than 10 per cent. of the votes—they would, none the less, inevitably be in a minority on the council. People who think that they will be put in that kind of position feel very bitterly about it. For local government to be good, there must be inter-party competition, but there must also be inter-party co-operation and inter-party confidence, and one could not have it on that basis. The wholly important thing here is that this sense of injustice should be removed, there should be an open and fair inquiry in which everything can be gone into and in order that both sides can be heard.

The misunderstanding as to the right of hearing arose in this way. Originally, there had been three plans. There was the Labour plan and the Conservative plan and then the two committees of three members of each party agreed to ask the town clerk for an independent plan. That plan was then rejected by the Conservatives. The election petition came and the Labour Party decided to accept the independent plan and not go back to its own plan. The plan of the town clerk was passed by the council. It was advertised according to the rules. Being advertised, it was read in the council and objectors were called. No ratepayer objected. Rightly or wrongly, the Labour members were advised that as they were not objectors, they had no locus standi and could not appear at the inquiry. They did not appear at the inquiry and, as a party, we were unrepresented at the inquiry. The town clerk appeared representing the council, but believing himself to be in a position in which he could not go into the political questions. That is how this misunderstanding arose and, as a result of that misunderstanding, the Labour Party, rightly or wrongly, felt that it had been cheated and given a desperately unfair result.

The only way to get decent political feeling in Northampton is to take the course which my right hon. Friend has advised. I hope that we shall not have any more ill feeling in a town where ill feeling is foreign.

9.45 p.m.

Sir Edward Boyle (Birmingham, Handsworth)

We have listened tonight to the detailed reply of the Home Secretary to this debate. We on this side of the House shall want carefully to consider it, but I must say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that on first consideration, after listening to his speech, we still feel anxious about this matter. I cannot say tonight that we are fully satisfied with the explanation that he has given. I must say to the House that it is possible that we may want to consider this matter further. This evening I should like to say only three or four things.

First, I am quite certain that the letter sent out on 25th March, during the time when my right hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke) was in office, set out what were the right criteria in this sort of case, and that any change in the criteria would certainly involve a considerable alteration in Home Office policy. I am coming on to the Verney report in a moment and to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. But I should like to remind the House that the criteria are absolutely clearly set out in this letter. Perhaps I may be permitted to read one or two paragraphs they are quite short: In considering the number of councillors the desirability should be borne in mind of affording a reasonable level of representation whilst not having a council too big for business to be conducted efficiently or for the individual councillor to play a worthwhile part. The natural aims in drawing up the new ward boundaries would no doubt be to provide an approximately equal number of local government electors for each councillor, allowance being made for any likely change in electorate because of development within the next five years; and to have regard to the desirability of having easily identifiable boundaries and to any local ties which would be broken by the fixing of any particular boundary. I maintain that the Verney report clearly paid regard to these criteria and fulfilled them and that should be borne in mind when the right hon. Gentleman speaks of the Verney report "miscarrying".

I should like to answer the specific point of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the subject of the Verney report and the political considerations. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, of course, originally accepted the Verney recommendation. As he said, he had no hesitation in accepting it. But in explaining why he sent out the letter of 4th February and his changing his mind on this subject, and dealing with what he called a chapter of accidents, he said that the Verney report mentioned an absence of political considerations, that Mr. Verney himself thought these were relevant and that there was an element of misconception here.

I do not agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view for a reason I should like to explain. When talking about politics in the report, Mr. Verney says not one but two separate things. First, he points out, quite rightly, that the criticism of the town clerk's proposals from a political point of view was not pursued at the inquiry and should be disregarded in assessing the merits of the scheme". Incidentally, I am very glad that in his letter of 4th February the right hon. and learned Gentleman does away with the idea that insufficient opportunity was given to all concerned. Allegations have been made about that, and I am glad the point has been cleared up. But, with respect, that was surely not the principal point in Mr. Verney's mind. He comes back to this point in his conclusion. He goes on to say: It is equally important to emphasise that no suggestion was made that the new Conservative proposals should be criticised as designed to secure political advantage whatever may have been the defects of earlier proposals. He comes back again in his conclusion to this question of motive. He says: I am reinforced in my view by the fact that no suggestion of political motive has been advanced. I think that there is an important difference between the text accompanying the resolution and what Mr. Verney says in his report. It said in the text accompanying the resolution: The Commissioner, reporting to the Home Secretary, emphasised that there was no political objection to the Conservative proposals. In this he was wholly mistaken, but Mr. Verney was not concerned with the fact that the objection was not taken. The point particularly in his mind was that "no suggestion of political motive has been advanced", and, therefore, Mr. Verney went on to say: There being no such criticism of the Conservative scheme, and the political criticism of the Council's scheme not having been pursued, I have been free to determine my recommendations on the merits of each scheme presented to me. He was clear that, in those circumstances, he was free to accept either scheme. In my view he was perfectly right to feel that way. He was not under any misconception on this essential point and this is one of the principal reasons why it is a serious matter to take this new view of the question which, the Home Secretary said, should be reached as a conclusion which will be on the footing of confidence to all concerned.

I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself realises clearly the very great concern that his decision has already caused and how extremely difficult it is going to be in any case to maintain confidence in view of his intervention tonight. I simply cannot accept his view that there will be no difficulty now about maintaining confidence if we have one fresh inquiry. After all, this point is not merely the concern of those who are concerned with politics in Northampton, for there is the further point raised by the local Press, which stated: The electors are entitled to ask why a ward system already approved by an impartial tribunal should be reviewed simply because a political party thinks it will lose votes in the right places. The public were under the impression that the purpose of re-warding was to provide 12 balanced electoral sections, balanced numerically as well as geographically. If this had been done once, the Press asked, why go into the matter again? After listening to the explanation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman tonight we still feel that insufficient grounds have been given for going into this matter all over again.

Finally, I say this to the House. Surely it is particularly important, where this sort of issue is concerned, that there should be, as it were, an absolutely objective procedure followed which leaves as little execuse as possible for any suggestions of political partiality. This is of great desirability to the whole country and to our local government system. The less, as it were, that personal will and personal decision comes into this, the better.

It seems to me that the objective critieria laid down in the letter of March of last year were absolutely clear-cut. As I say, I think that these criteria were followed. It is obvious, on the evidence, that all those who were entitled to be heard had an absolute chance, rightly and properly, to be heard on that occasion. I do not think that anyone disputes that a number of members of the Labour group were present at the inquiry and I think I am right in saying that the Commissioner on two occasions asked if anyone in the room wished to make representations or to say anything.

I believe that Mr. Verney was right to ask whether, even though representations had not been made, there was political motivation in this case, and to conclude that he had not had evidence of this in connection with the Conservative scheme. In these circumstances, to say that his Report miscarried is entirely unjustified. It would seem that his conclusions were reached in a perfectly normal and proper way and that the Home Secretary's acceptance of them in his letter of 23rd December was entirely right. What bothers me is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to feel that—granted there is feeling in Northampton about this—he can best put this right by saying "Let us go right back to the beginning, start again and have a fresh inquiry."

We on this side are very doubtful about this action. We feel strongly that the proper procedure having been followed here and a perfectly proper report arrived at with all the criteria attended to, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making the situation more difficult, and is setting a very dangerous precedent for the administration of the Home Office in the future. This is surely a matter in which it is particularly important that the procedure followed by the Home Office should be well known, clear, and as objective as far as possible.

I listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman taking up one point put by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir John Hobson), dealing with it at some length, and quoting Latin. I could not help remembering a distinguished historian who once taught me who, reviewing a book by, I think, some learned men of a religious order, wrote: How choosily these learned men nibble when nothing of consequence is at stake. The right hon. and learned Gentleman rather choosily nibbled at the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend.

On the main issue we feel, having listened to the debate, that the Home Secretary has made an error of judgment. We are very concerned about what the consequences of that error of judgment may be for the future, and I must therefore tell the House that we on this side will want most carefully to consider this debate, and whether we should take the matter further.

9.57 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Thomas)

The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) has done less than justice to the considered statement put before the House tonight, by which the House has been informed fairly and in detail of every consideration that led to this second tribunal being suggested. The hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) indicated—I think that I do him no injustice—that political considerations would define the ward boundaries. There is every intention, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said, that the tribunal that will be held under another distinguished chairman shall be as impartial as the last one was and will be given an opportunity, we hope, to restore what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) so wisely said is required, a better spirit in the public life of Northampton—

Mr. Nigel Birch (Flint, West)

Come off it, George!

Mr. Thomas

The right hon. Gentleman is well known in Wales, but he would be well advised to realise that we have been left with only three minutes in which to reply to his right hon. Friend.

The other matter that has been raised by the right hon. Member for Hands-worth is that Mr. Verney's reliance on the fact that there was no political consideration at stake was unimportant—that it did not count. That was the burden of his argument. As my right hon. and learned Friend has reminded the House, Mr. Verney himself made a special point of the fact that he thought that these considerations were not at stake. We would be doing an injustice to the people of Northampton if we did not recognise now that, these differences being present, there would be a festering sore in the life of Northampton unless this action were now taken.

I believe that the speeches from the other side of the House tonight have done nothing but exacerbate feeling. My right hon. and learned Friend is merely anxious to ensure that the boundaries that are decided upon shall be acceptable to the whole community in Northampton, and I believe that if a further tribunal is held at which both sides can state their views fairly and accurately, and have them weighed, there will be no difficulty in their accepting the tribunal's further verdict, whichever way that verdict may go.

The question of the tribunal is also—

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.