HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) (No. 2) BILL (Hansard, 8 July 1969)

§ Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone)

May I make a humble representation to you, Mr. Irving, about your provisional selection—not for your immediate Ruling, because I imagine that you will wish to reflect about the matter, but so that you will know what is in our minds?

We give our thanks to you for the care that you have devoted to this matter. There is a very long group of Amendments which you propose to take together, for both discussion and, apparently, Division. I notice that whoever has typed the provisional selection has punctuated it in such a way as to indicate that there is a difference between some of them, by putting a semi-colon at certain rests. This corresponds very broadly to our own feelings about it.

Quite apart from the individual Amendments, we had intended—I speak only about Amendments in the names of myself and my hon. Friends—to deal with three quite separate groups of subjects. The Government say that the Report of the Boundary Commission should be suspended owing to the imminence of the local government decisions arising on the Redcliffe-Maud Report. We desire to raise three points on that by this group of Amendments.

First, there are, quite apart from Schedule 2, a number of constituencies of abnormal size, and one group of Amendments deals with abnormally large constituencies. The second, which is dependent upon an amendment to the Long Title, deals with abnormally small constituencies. The third deals with constituencies round London. In our view, that group is entirely separate from the other two, because it is not dependent primarily upon the size of the constituencies.

The Government have departed from the Boundary Commission, on the basis 1171 that they wish to keep the Boundary Commission's recommendations for London but to make a special job of the peripheral constituencies by way of adjustment. We have proposed a scheme which would enable us to give effect to the Boundary Commission's proposals for the periphery, not by way of adjustment, but by way of incorporation. We have reasons which we shall advance for suggesting that this is both better and more constitutional.

The view which I would like you to reflect upon, Mr. Irving, is that these three groups should be dealt with separately, both for discussion and for Division, and that, if you were to go half way and not the whole way that I am asking you to do, the ones on the periphery of London should be taken separately, anyway.

I am very grateful to you for listening to me, Mr. Irving. I am not pressing you to give an immediate Ruling. I merely make that as a submission for you to reflect upon.