§ Q1. Mr. Ridleyasked the Prime Minister if he will co-ordinate the activities of the Home Secretary and the Minister of Housing and Local Government in regard to the implementation of changes necessary in local government boundaries as a result of the report of the Royal Commission on Local Government.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)The Report of the Royal Commission will be relevant to the Departmental responsibilities of many Ministers, and I shall, of course, make the necessary arrangements for co-ordination.
§ Mr. RidleyIs the Prime Minister aware that, in his speech on 14th October last, the Home Secretary said that he 1323 might well delay the implementation of the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions' Reports until he had considered the Reports of the Local Government Commissions? Will he undertake that implementation of the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions' Reports will not be delayed for any reason such as that? Will he frustrate the Home Secretary's knavish tricks?
§ The Prime MinisterI have been informed, though I would like to check on it, that the hon. Gentleman's account of what my right hon. Friend said was somewhat elliptic. He has answered a Question about it in the House, in any case. The Reports of the Boundary Commissions have not yet been received. They are expected soon. The Redcliffe-Maud Report, which is the subject of the main Question, is also expected in the near future, and my right hon. Friend will put his conclusions before the House on the Boundary Commissions' Reports after he has studied those Reports.
§ Mr. BostonWould my right hon. Friend accept that there is a need for very full and adequate consultation with local authorities, other statutory bodies and other bodies before implementing any legislative proposals arising from the Redcliffe-Maud Report? Despite what has been said, is there not a strong case for avoiding costly duplication of two sets of boundary changes and a strong case for doing the whole job at one time, once we have produced any legislative proposals arising from the Redcliffe-Maud Report?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Questions must be reasonably brief.
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend's second point is a matter which the House will have to deal with when it has received both Reports. On the first part of his question, I agree about the need for full consultation with local authorities about the recommendations of the Redcliffe-Maud Report. These consultations are important. On the other hand, they should not go on for ever. The Redcliffe-Maud Report will deal with a situation in local government which has remained unchanged since the 1890s—even before the motor car—and will be dealing with the problems with which we have to live in the modern age. I think that we should make speedy progress, 1324 given sufficient time for consulation.
§ Mr. HeathIf the Reports of the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions are to be received shortly as well as the Report of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission, which I agree must be given proper consideration and full consultation, does not the Prime Minister think that a situation in which Birmingham, Ladywood has an electorate of 18,095, and Billericay has an electorate of 109,000 ought to be changed in accordance with the recommendations at the earliest opportunity?
§ The Prime MinisterI understand the right hon. Gentleman's pessimism about both. But, on the main question, we had better see the Reports before taking a decision on this. There is an assumption going about—the right hon. Gentleman has done nothing to spread it himself, but I have seen some newspaper articles to that effect—that, for some reason, the Reports when received are unlikely to be in favour of Government candidates. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have formed a more objective view, particularly since I have received reports from the most experienced national party agent whom I have known, based on exhaustive local surveys, suggesting that the consequences will at most be highly marginal. We shall decide this matter when it comes up and put our recommendations to the House. On our present information, there will be no advantage to either side.
§ Mr. HeathIn order that the Prime Minister can put to the test the recommendations of the most objective national agent he knows, should he not implement the Report immediately and then have a General Election?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman is not the Parliamentarian I would listen to most about the timing of a General Election, because he was a member of the Government who, for the first time in a hundred years, postponed the election until the very last minute allowed under Statute.
§ Mr. RidleyOn a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.