HC Deb 25 April 1968 vol 763 cc647-56

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wood (Bridlington)

I beg to move, That the Kingston upon Hull Order 1968 (S.I., 1968, No. 128), dated 31st January 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th February, be withdrawn. I begin by expressing gratitude to the Government for arranging time for this debate after the 40 days for praying against the Kingston upon Hull Order, 1958 had come to an end.

My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) has asked me to apologise to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government for not being present. My hon. Friend is abroad. He and I have a justifiable interest in this Order because it incidentally makes slight in-roads into the two constituencies in the East Riding of Yorkshire which we represent, but, sad as we are to lose any constituents, that is not the reason for this Motion. We are instead raising the matter because of one issue contained in the report of the Commissioner, Mr. Paul Curtis-Bennett, to the Home Secretary, which was dated 9th November, 1967.

At the public inquiry which was held in August of last year, the Town Clerk of Hull explained that: the proposals stemmed from the decision of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to extend the boundaries of the city as from 1st April, 1968. It is generally agreed that the revision of the ward boundaries in the City of Hull is long overdue. I am delighted to see one of the hon. Members who represents the City of Hull here.

Large movements of population in the city have taken place since the last revision of boundaries, which was 38 years ago, with the result that the electorate in the 21 old wards varied from about 1,000 to well over 20,000 yet each of these disparate electorates had identical representation on the city council.

Working on the electoral population figure, which he projected for 1973, of rather more than 200,000 in total, the Town Clerk prepared a scheme of redistribution, giving to an unchanged number of wards in the city an average of a little less than 10,000 electors each.

It is broadly true to say that there was no serious disagreement about the Town Clerk's proposed redistribution, but paragraph 4 of the Commissioner's report makes it clear that there was: a fundamental difference of opinion as to whether or not completely fresh elections throughout the city were in consequence desirable. In May, 1967, a meeting of the Hull parliamentary and general purposes committee had by a majority recommended that: …existing councillors, not ordinarily due for election in 1968, be reallocated to the new wards in accordance with detailed provisions. These provisions were then before the committee of the council. Again, I do not believe there was any argument against the detailed provisions. The argument was about the whole principle of reallocation, which is the matter I am raising tonight.

The arguments in favour of reallocation and against an immediate general election in Hull were as follow. First, that 28 of the 42 councillors who would be reallocated would still represent substantial numbers of those who had elected them. Secondly, it was put forward that a general election would be both expensive and confusing. Thirdly, that continuity of representation was desirable, and that councillors elected were entitled to serve their term. Fourthly, that at the last review in 1930, reallocation had been adopted. Lastly, that by 1970 the whole matter would in any case be adjusted; and examples of reallocation at Grimsby in 1956 and at Birmingham in 1961 were quoted in support of its adoption in the present case.

Against reallocation, and in favour of a general election, it was urged, first, that the other 14 of the 42 reallocated councillors would represent wards: which had no connection with the electorates by whom they were returned. It was also put forward that another six would represent areas which contained less than half of the electorate which had returned them. Second, it was suggested that the imposition of councillors on areas was undemocratic. Third, that councillors elected in May, 1967, knew of the possibility of a general election in 1968. Fourth, that the administrative problem of such a general election was not insuperable. Fifth, that a multiple election had taken place successfully at the end of the war.

While the Commissioner accepted the force of the arguments in favour of reallocation and against a general election, he concluded in paragraph 9 of his Report: None of these considerations outweighs in my view the fact that the choice of reallocation involves the imposition of no less than one-third of all the councillors reallocated upon districts which have no part in their election… The final words of his sentence are even more noteworthy: …and which in many cases would almost certainly not have returned them if they had. Later in the same paragraph he added: Had there been general agreement to such a course, the dictates of democracy might perhaps have been permitted to yield to the considerations of convenience; but it is clear that a substantial body of representative opinion in the City favours a 'general' election, and my view…would be that, in such circumstances as these, it is entitled to one. Therefore, the Commissioner's formal recommendations included, in paragraph 11(b) of his Report, …that there should be a fresh election of all councillors and aldermen in 1968. He added, in paragraph 11(c): …that if reallocation…is preferred, the system of reallocation should be"— and he specified various lines which have been broadly agreed.

This Report went to the Home Secretary and, on 11th January, 1968, a letter was written on the Home Secretary's behalf which ran directly counter to the leading recommendation in the Commissioner's Report. Paragraph 8 of the letter says that he appreciates that…the ward boundary alterations are such that existing councillors cannot be allocated to the new wards, so as in every case to continue to represent a substantial proportion of their former constituents. I suggest that that is a masterly understatement. In only one ward out of the 21 are the boundaries unchanged. In all the other 20, some part of the electorate will be forced to accept, as its representatives, councillors with whom it has had no previous connection; and in no less than seven of the wards, the allocated councillors will not represent any of their present electors. Therefore, over half the electors of Hull will now be represented by councillors whom they have not elected.

The Home Secretary's letter continued that …the principal aim of the present rewarding being to avoid aggravating the imbalance which has arisen over the years in the existing ward electorates…there should be no more disturbance than is necessary to achieve that end. But that is precisely the point on which the Commisisoner thus commented in paragraph 9 of his Report: The present council is itself the product of a ward structure which has become grossly out of balance, and a revision of which seems to me…to have been overdue. He ended: To re-allocate councillors when such a revision has officially been made seems to me to prolong an anomaly unjustifiably. Nor is the Home Secretary's decision consistent with those reached in similar circumstances in other cities. For example, in Bradford and Leeds a similar ward revision will be followed next month by a full election of all councillors and aldermen.

I am not naturally suspicious, but in searching for differences between Leeds and Bradford, on the one hand, and Hull, on the other, the only relevant one I have so far found is the existence already of a Conservative majority in the two former cities and not in the City of Hull. Understandably, therefore, the Home Secretary is less worried about a disturbance—I take his own word—in Leeds and Bradford, than in the City of Hull, where I suggest that the existing Socialist majority would not only be disturbed but utterly overwhelmed by a similar full election.

It is not unnatural, in the circumstances of today, that the Hull Labour Party should send distress signals to the Home Office; but having a deep respect, as I do, for the courage and integrity of the Home Secretary, I find it less easy to understand why he should agree to send such a disreputable lifeboat to rescue the quivering councillors from the mounting storm.

Having studied the Commissioner's report and the Home Secretary's reply, I can reach no other conclusion than that the Home Secretary has overridden the Commissioner's decision in the hope of maintaining for a little longer Socialist control of this great city. I do not believe that any objective observer would reach a different conclusion. I am convinced that any political party that hopes to hold on to power by methods like this has not only plumbed the depths of despair, but fully deserves the ultimate rejection which will be accorded to it by the electors of Hull.

I have contemplated asking my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in voting against this unworthy decision, but I am conscious that the Government on these occasions can use its dwindling but still large majority to force such a decision through. I therefore concluded that a Division would be unlikely to be fruitful. None the less, I felt that this bad business deserved discussion in Parliament so that the representative of the Government could defend the decision as best he may, and in order that the electors of Hull, who are most closely concerned, could draw their own conclusions, and act accordingly, in the opportunity which will shortly be afforded to them.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North)

I was interested to hear what the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) had to say, but I could not help thinking that in raising the matter in this way it was a trifle unworthy of him. I do not think that his interest is as great as he suggests. I tried to think what reasons the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members from the East Riding of Yorkshire might have in raising this matter. I thought perhaps they had constituency interests. Granted there have been small incursions on their constituencies, but none of the other local authorities have complained. In fact, I understand that they are surprised that this Motion has appeared on the Order Paper.

There are certain constituency interests. The leader of the Tory group on the Hull council does not live in Hull. He lives in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, so for that reason I suppose the right hon. Gentleman has a legitimate constituency interest. I then thought that perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite were realising the evil being done to Hull by the famous, or infamous, "Hands off Haltemprice Campaign", because as a result of the rather remarkable decisions made by the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, Hull did not get all the land that it needed for housing purposes from the East Riding. In fact we have only a limited amount of land. I thought that they were coming to the support of Hull to enable it to get the extra land that it needs for housing purposes, but that was not the case.

I then thought that perhaps many of their constituents work in Hull where they make use of the tremendous amenities which are lacking in their own areas, or perhaps they worry about the fact that some of their constituents do not get the same public services as are supplied by the city council of Kingston upon Hull, and they want these for their constituents, but that is not the case either.

Having made his political points, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would not divide the House. It would have been nice to have had a Division on this issue.

I shall not go over the facts as outlined by the right hon. Gentleman or deal with the extracts from the various reports to which he referred. Much of what he said is correct, but I challenge some of his conclusions. The city council in Hull decided on allocations, and the reasons have been outlined by the right hon. Gentleman. Hull is a large thriving city. Its health, welfare and education services are the envy of many parts of the country. It seemed reasonable to retain in office the gentlemen who had been responsible for building up and administering those services, and this was therefore a reasonable decision to take.

In addition, however, the 1933 Local Government Act contains specific provision for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to agree to allocations if he wishes, and here I come to something over which the right hon. Gentleman skated very quickly. We have a precedent in Hull for allocations. In 1930, 38 years ago, a precedent was created there by a Conservative-dominated council. I agree that that precedent is not on all fours with this case because here, under the town clerk's scheme, we have 21 wards, 63 councillors, and 21 aldermen being allocated.

What did the Tories do in 1930? There were then 16 wards in Hull. The number was increased to 21, and there were allocated 32 councillors and 16 aldermen. The remaining 5 new wards had to elect three councillors, and there were elections for the aldermen. It is dangerous for the right hon. Gentleman to try to make political points when he knows that in 1930 there was a clear example of a terrible abuse of political power. Under the Tories the number of wards was increased from 16 to 21. In 1968 there were 21 wards, and the figure is to remain unchanged. We have an allocation of councillors who, in many cases, will have a great deal in common with the wards to which they have been allocated.

I would, perhaps, feel a little guilty about this if I felt that as a result of the changes my own political party would retain control, but it is quite possible under the situation in May that the Labour Party may lose control. It is on the cards. Therefore, I think that the latter point made by the right hon. Gentleman is not really substantive.

I think that we have here a good case and a strong case for allocation. We have had many years of devoted and honourable service from all the political parties in Hull on the council, and it would be wrong to run the danger of losing so much of that experience. It will still be there, whichever party is in control after May.

11.21 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington)

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) has raised this matter in his usual very thorough and courteous manner, although he did have something to say at one stage in criticism of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary which I thought was very unusual, coming from him.

I will certainly repudiate what he said in suggesting that my right hon. Friend's motives were not judicial when he came to a decision in respect of this Order.

Knowing my right hon. Friend as the right hon. Gentleman does, and bearing in mind the right hon. Gentleman's own career as a Minister, I am rather surprised that he should, on such sparse evidence, have made this charge, and also that he should have made it on a pro- cedural Motion. I should have thought there were other ways open to him if grave charges of that kind were to be made.

But I acknowledge—and I am glad to do so in view of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. MacNamara) is here—and confirm what the right hon. Gentleman said when he stated that the Order in general has been welcomed, because it allows for additional building land to be included in the City. Therefore, it will, I think, be greatly in the interests of the local authority and of those it serves that it now will have an area for its building operations and for other services, which will be of great advantage to all concerned.

The reason the Order was made, despite the statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government about not going forward in general with Orders in the light of the considerable progress of the Royal Commission, was that this was an agreed Order. At least, these changes which the Order makes were agreed. Hull's need for further housing was not disputed by the other local authorities affected, the East Riding County Council and the Beverley Rural District Council.

So we really come down in this debate to the very narrow issue of whether the decision contained in the Home Office letter of 11th January is right in all the circumstances.

The House may wonder why it is that I am answering the debate, and not a Home Office Minister, but this is an Order which is made under the Statutes respecting the alteration of local government Orders, and as this Ministry was responsible for that, it takes general responsibility for the Order itself.

I think the right hon. Gentleman realises that the Motion really cannot be effective because the 40-day period has expired, and indeed the Order is now in operation. So this is—I was going to say a propaganda effort but I do not want to be in any way offensive—a public relations exercise rather than going into the merits of withdrawing the Order.

The right hon. Gentleman stated quite fairly the arguments of the parties at the inquiry, which was held under the authority of the Secretary of State into the re-warding of Kingston upon Hull. There were sound reasons for a fresh scheme. The boundaries in Hull were very old, and, with the addition of these areas for rehousing, it would not have been possible to tack them on to existing wards, since that would have worsened the imbalance.

The right hon. Gentleman was right to point out that arguments advanced for reallocation rather than a fresh general election of councillors over the whole area and he put both cases fairly. I would direct the attention of the House and anyone else interested, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's subsequent charge, to the case for reallocation in paragraph 8 of the local inquiry report. Heads (a) to (g) are quite convincing arguments supported by the evidence of Mr. Hall and his reference to Grimsby and Birmingham. In this question of a reallocation or a general election of all councillors, two views can be taken and we should remember what the Commissioner said, dealing partly with this argument, in paragraph 9, that his view, without prejudice to the situation as it may or may not have existed in any other cases cited, as to which evidence was sparse, was that, in justice, the city is entitled to a general election. The right hon. Gentleman referred to Leeds and said the evidence is sparse. This is entirely a matter of judgment.

I can do no better, dealing with the reasons why the Home Secretary considered that reallocation was the better alternative, than to refer to those passages in that Home Office letter of 11th January to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, particularly paragraph 8. There is there, in the case of an expanded city, a case for maintaining continuity rather than having a clean sweep.

This is a matter of judgment and the Home Secretary may have been wrong, but I greatly resent and utterly repudiate the allegation that he made it for political purposes. I do not think that it should have been made any more than I would suggest that the only reason why the right hon. Gentleman has raised this matter is the approach of the May elections. Both allegations are unworthy and I will not pursue them.

In this argument for reallocation, the council put the emphasis the other way round, that, of the 42 councillors to be re-elected, more than half—28—would still represent substantial numbers of those who elected them. This is another way of putting the case. The right hon. Gentleman concentrated on one-third, but in fact more than half will still represent a substantial number of those who elected them.

Even if the Home Secretary had adopted another view, that there should be a "general post" of all councillors, it is often the case that the city itself requests, or the Home Secretary thinks it right, that all aldermen at least should remain for the term for which they had been elected. I am not arguing whether we should have aldermen or not but one of the general cases for them, once they are there, is that they continue to represent an element which has been there since before the change, and bring to two councils whose composition changes an element of stability. It might well have been the case that even if there had been a general post for councillors, the Home Secretary would have thought it right that, in the circumstances, aldermen should remain in office—

It being one and a half hours after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.