HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) ACT 1949 (AMENDMENT) (Hansard, 14 May 1969)

§ Dr. M. P. Winstanley (Cheadle)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949, to provide for the election of two Members for each constituency with an electoral roll in excess of 100,000, and for purposes connected therewith. I shall not detain the House for long on this simple, though desirable and necessary, Measure. I know that if I speak for too long, Mr. Speaker, you will call me to order, but I think that I have correctly interpreted Standing Order No. 13 in assuming that I am not obliged to occupy the full allotted span of 10 minutes.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is quite right. He is not obliged to speak for that length of time.

§ Dr. Winstanley
I shall endeavour to sit down as quickly as I can, Sir.
In short, my simple Measure is designed merely to enable constituencies with electoral rolls in excess of 100,000 to return two Members of Parliament to this House. It is a Bill of limited application, since there are few hon. Members in this category.
It will be realised that if and when the Government implement the recommendation of the Boundary Commission there will be no such Members and, therefore, the Bill at that time would have no application, but it is desirable to bring it forward now so as to safeguard the future position.
There are three reasons that I will put to the House for doing something urgently about the very large constituencies. First, it is important to spread the load on individual Members more equitably. I emphasise that the hon. Members concerned would not themselves push this matter and have not done so.
Secondly, we should do something to equalise the opportunity of constituents to have contact with a Member of Parliament. The share of the time of an hon. Member with over 100,000 constituents that each individual constituent may occupy must, by the nature of things, 1421 be less than the share of time of a Member with a constituency of only 20,000. This is a marginal point. I put the three points in reverse order of importance.
The third and most important reason is to ensure that the representation of the people by Members of Parliament in the House is on as equal a basis as can reasonably be managed. I fully understand that it is not possible to have exactly arithmetically equal representation, but we should endeavour, and the House always has endeavoured, to try to make each hon. Member represent a constituency broadly equal to another.
We feel strongly in the House that we must have a system of one man, one vote. But if we are to have such a system, whether in this country or elsewhere, we must also pay some attention to having one vote of one value. Hon. Members cannot escape the logic of the argument that a vote cast by a Member representing more than 100,000 constituents could he neutralised, indeed negated, by the vote of an hon. Member representing only 20,000 constituents. That is a denial of the kind of democratic process on which the House is based.
Ever since the days of the Reform Bill, this House has concerned itself with trying to equalise Parliamentary constituencies. It has not been wildly successful.
Immediately after the war a scheme was advanced whereby the Parliamentary Commissioners were required to take note of the average size of a constituency and to take steps if any constituency exceeded the average by 33½ per cent. Hon. Members who do the arithmetic will find that this is impossible. If one takes the average figure of 50,000, once a constituency gets to the 33½ per cent. mark and above, say 70,000-odd, by halving it the average size is reduced and there has to be a corresponding modification. Arithmetically, it proved impossible although it was a desirable aim.
We have had successive difficulties over the years with the implementation of the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners, about which there has always been argument as to the amount of delay. At the moment, there is argument about this matter. I would draw attention to an article in The Times today, concerned with the boundary recommendations which are under consideration. 1422 The article says that the Home Secretary already has the recommendation for England and for Scotland and hopes that something will be done soon.
The Times then reports certain regrettable and perhaps fruitless speculation as to who will benefit by the carrying out of revisions of Parliamentary boundaries at the moment. There are always accusations of gerrymandering when there is a proposal to revise constituency boundaries. Sometimes they are proved to be ill-founded, sometimes, the would-be gerrymanderers are shown to have got their arithmetic wrong.
At this stage, we should try to forget this kind of argument and concentrate on the more important argument with which this narrow Measure is concerned as to what can be done for the very large constituencies if the boundary recommendations are not implemented.
I accept that there may be reasons for the Government to say, "We cannot implement the Boundary Commission's report at the moment, in advance of possible changes in local government structure, in that it might be unwise to finalise new Parliamentary constituency boundaries which might cut across new local authority boundaries." I do not accept this argument. I hope that, when the time comes, the Government will bring in these changes; I believe that they will, in fact, do so. But if they do not, we must do something about the large constituency and provide the essential safeguards.
I should like to point out the constituencies with which I am concerned, and to make my own position clear. Those who know my constituency, Cheadle, will notice on the last register that the electoral roll is 98,909. Before it is assumed that I am indulging in a selfless quixotic act I must point out that, when the young "Y" voters come on to the register on 1st October the electoral roll will be 100,035. Therefore, I have to declare an interest.
Billericay had a roll of 109,319 on the 1968 register; Epping, 102,872; Portsmouth, Langstone, 102,582. I wish to mention one constituency especially, because the hon. Member who represents it is one of the sponsors of the Bill, the constituency of Meriden.
1423 Hon. Members will recollect that the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) came into this House after a by-election only a year ago. Since then he has distinguished himself as an active and industrious Member. What we do not realise is that his constituency then had 78,000 constituents, but in October, 1969, will have 106,000. A growth of this kind shows the necessity of providing a safeguard. Constituencies can change at such a rapid rate, but we know that, for reasons which may be justifiable, changes as a result of the Boundary Commission's recommendations do not take place at the same rapid rate. Therefore, a safeguard of this kind will be of tremendous help.
I return briefly to my three reasons. None of the Members concerned would wish to advance the argument that he cannot manage, or that his duties are too heavy to discharge. It is manifest that these hon. Members—I do not speak for myself—can and do discharge their duties extremely effectively. But it is right to take note of the tremendous burdens borne by some hon. Members. Some of them write upwards of 8,000 letters in a year. Their postbag is more than double that of any of their colleagues. It is right that I should recognise, not only as a Member but also as a doctor, the kind of burdens which are borne by hon. Members of all parties in these circumstances.
My second point was on the share of a member's time by constituents. I say nothing more of that.
But on the third point, one vote, one value, surely we should look at some of the small constituencies. The electorate for 1966 of Birmingham, Ladywood was 25,294. We will shortly have a new Member for Ladywood. It might even be that I shall have another hon. Friend, but I may not always vote the same way as that Member. It would be regrettable if my vote, representing 100,000 constituents, were to be neutralised or negatived by the vote of a Member representing perhaps 20,000 constituents.
Manchester, Exchange had an electorate of 26,400 in 1966.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is introducing a Bill under the Ten Minute Rule.

§ Dr. Winstanley
I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker. I will immediately come to a conclusion.
I hope that the House will feel that it ought to do something. It could be done in other ways, for example by a card vote, but that would introduce an impossible distinction between Members. For example, how would one move the Closure? Would we need 98 Members plus the hon. Member for Billericay, and so on, if certain Members had two votes? It is important to have one member with one vote. Providing this kind of remedy, to Members for a large constituency, would serve this purpose.
I remind the House that in the past, Blackburn. Bolton, Preston, Derby, Oldham, Southampton and Stockport were represented at one time by two Members. That system worked very well and it worked even better for the university seats.
The safeguard may not be needed now—I hope not—because I trust that the Boundary Commission's recommendations will be implemented. But, by bringing my Bill forward we will have a safeguard which will last not merely during the lifetime of this Government, but of future Governments, and we will always protect the rights of the constituencies and the constituents rather than Members themselves.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I remind hon. Members that Bills under the Ten Minute Rule should be introduced in a speech of not longer than 10 minutes. If it goes beyond that time, it starts a process of extending the time.