§ 25. Mr. Speedasked the Secretary State for the Home Department what, studies have been made by his Department to determine the maximum size of a Parliamentary constituency, taking into account population and area, to be represented by one Member of Parliament.
§ Mr. CallaghanSufficient guidance is given in the Redistribution of Seats Acts, 1949 and 1958.
§ Mr. SpeedWould the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he considers to be the maximum that can be fairly represented in this House and properly served by one Member of Parliament?
§ Mr. WellbelovedIt depends on the Member.
§ Mr. CallaghanI have nothing to add to my hon. Friend's reply.
§ Mr. HoggWill not the right hon. Gentleman repudiate the attack on the criteria that he has just defended coming from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) in The Times this morning?
§ Mr. CallaghanI thought that The Times, for the first time since the controversy began, had a fair and impartial statement of the position by my hon. Friend.
§ 26. Mr. Speedasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consulations he had with outside bodies, individuals or organisations before introducing the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 2) Bill.
§ Mr. CallaghanNone, Sir.
§ Mr. SpeedIn view of the recent remarks made about the timing of the implementation of the Redcliffe-Maud proposals by a noble Lady who is a member of that Commission, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would have been sensible to discuss this matter with outside bodies before calling in the Redcliffe-Maud Commission as an excuse to delay redistribution.
§ Mr. CallaghanI have little doubt that if the programme of the Redcliffe-Maud proposals is carried through—I believe from an examination of the timetable that it would be possible for this to be done in a reasonable period of time—the Bill which I have introduced will be entirely vindicated.
§ Mr. HoggDoes not the Home Secretary recognise that the account which he has now described as impartial and correct repudiates the Redcliffe-Maud Report as an excuse for the Bill and attacks the Boundary Commissions' criteria which the right hon. Gentleman has previously defended?
§ Mr. Michael Footrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is seeking to reply for the Minister.
§ Mr. FootSince it is evident that the intervention by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) 2122 misrepresents the letter in today's The Times, will my right hon. Friend arrange for the letter to be printed in full in HANSARD.
§ Mr. CallaghanYes, Sir; I undertake to do that as a statement following the answer which I have just given.
§ Mr. SpeedIn view of the unsatisfactory nature of the two replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter again.
§ Mr. HoggOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there any precedent for a letter from a private Member printed in The Times being published in HANSARD by the Home Secretary?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Mr. Speaker would require notice of such an erudite question.
At the end of Questions—
§ Mr. RipponOn a point of order. Further to the point of order raised during Question Time by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), would you, Mr. Speaker, consider giving a Ruling at a suitable opportunity on the circumstances in which Ministers can write into the record the private correspondence or speeches of other hon. Members? would be grateful if my speech on the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 2) Bill in Hexham could be written into the record; it is very different in tone and content from the letter which appears in The Times from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot).
§ Mr. SpeakerIf the right hon. Gentleman can persuade the Home Secretary to write his speech into the record, I am sure the world will be edified. It is for the Home Secretary to decide what quotations he makes in the record. I did advise the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) some time ago that this was a very erudite question which I would have to have time to consider.
§ Mr. HoggFurther to that point of order. May I ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, whether I was right in assuming that the Home Secretary was jesting when he made the suggestion?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have a shadow of a suspicion of an idea that that might be So.
§ Mr. CallaghanFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. While I quite appreciate the sensitivity of the Opposition about the letter to The Times of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), if it would meet with the general convenience of the House I would be delighted to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
§ Mr. SandysFurther to that point of order. Mr. Speaker, can you give a Ruling? Is there no limit to what Ministers can have written into the OFFICIAL REPORT, however irrelevant?
§ Mr. SpeakerI hope the right hon. Gentleman heard what the Home Secretary said. The Home Secretary was saying that if it were the wish of the House—and it is apparently not the wish of the whole House—he would be prepared to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT what he regards as a valuable letter appearing in The Times newspaper.
§ Mr. SpeakerI understood that the right hon. Gentleman was asking for the wishes of the House. I think that some hon. Members think that it would be a good thing for the letter to be circulated and others think it would be a bad thing.
§ Mr. Arthur LewisFurther to that point of order—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I advise hon. Members that I can take only one point of order at a time.
§ Mr. Arthur LewisFurther to that point of order. Have you not yourself, Mr. Speaker, and previous Speakers, given a Ruling that Ministers are themselves responsible for the replies which they give, and if the Home Secretary feels that it is wise to publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a reply which he thinks is an answer to the Question, is not he entitled to do so? We have always been told that a Minister is responsible for how he replies and what he puts into HANSARD. If the Home Secretary wishes to do that, 2124 is not it with in his powers, and, with great respect to you, Mr. Speaker, that not even you or the House can decide but that it is the Minister who has to decide?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe House will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his sudden defence of Ministerial powers. The Minister has not indicated that his answer will consist of an extract from one of the morning newspapers.
§ Mr. SpeakerOnly one point of order at once.
§ Mr. ShinwellNo doubt you will realise that this is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker. I want to ascertain whether there is any question of a Division on this issue. Why should The Times get preferential treatment? Do you realise, Sir, that The Times is obtaining a cheap advertisement from all this discussion? Before the letter is inserted in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I should like to know whether The Times will pay the usual advertising fees.
§ Mr. SpeakerI think we might get on with the serious business. We have, I imagine, quite a lot of serious business.