HC Deb 19 November 1971 vol 826 cc857-65

12.47 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples)

I beg to move: That the Parliamentary Constituencies (Abingdon and Newbury) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be approved. It may be for the convenience of the House if we discuss at the same time the remaining Orders on the Order Paper. I take it that I have the approval of the House for the adoption of that course.

Mr. Merlyn Rees (Leeds, South)

indicated assent.

Mr. Sharples

The House will recall that the last report by the Boundary Commission for England, following its last general review, was dated April 1969. Although the Order giving effect to its recommendations was not made until November, 1970, this Order had to define constituencies by reference to local government areas as they were at 1st January, 1969. In that respect the Order was some 18 months out of date by the time it was made. The purpose of the present series of Orders, affecting some 25 constituencies, is to bring it up to date in respect of the boundaries of those constituencies. In accordance with previous practice, a separate Order has been prepared for each of the 11 groups of constituencies concerned.

During the debates on the draft Orders in October, 1970, hon. Members from both sides of the House drew attention to places where local government boundaries had been adjusted or where there had been some re-warding. It was urged by hon. Members that in these cases interim reviews should be carried out as soon as possible. In replying to the debate I pointed out that the decision whether a particular interim review should be undertaken was entirely a matter for the Commission. I am sure that the House will be glad to see these results of the Commission's first interim reviews, and to see that they have been completed so quickly.

The House will also be glad that the report gives details of the electorates affected by each of the recommendations. When the last interim review report was presented in 1963, there was criticism that insufficient details of this sort were given. The House will be grateful for the fuller report, including the maps, which is now provided.

I do not think I need deal with the detailed recommendations for each constituency. These recommendations are clearly set out in the Commission's Report, which hon. Members will have read I would only draw attention to the Commission's observations in paragraph 2 that it received no representations, and, therefore, no objections, when its provisional recommendations were published. It can be said, therefore, that the Commission has managed to please everybody in the way in which its recommendations are put forward.

I hope the House will approve these Orders.

12.52 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees (Leeds, South)

When we last debated this matter, which was two years ago under the previous Administration, there was far greater interest in the discussion on redistribution than there is today. If it were not for the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) has what is for him a most important matter to raise later, I should be able to observe that the question of parliamentary redistribution interests nobody.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Ardwick)

I shall be very interested in the next batch of orders which the Minister of State will introduce, because they will affect my consituency.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

I concede that we are dealing with only 25 constituencies and that only about 11,850 people are affected. However, there are basic principles involved in even this minor redistribution. Those principles were present two years ago but were almost completely ignored by the then Opposition. I shall return to them, because the House should know what the Government's intentions are about parliamentary redistribution.

As the Minister of State has explained, perhaps by implication in one sense, under Section 2(3) of the 1949 Act there must be a continuous review of parliamentary boundaries as a result of local government changes. Two of these Orders relate to the area of the Greater London Council—Southwark and Bromley—and therefore affect an area of local government in which the changes have been operative since 1963. Although there is one aspect of the London Orders to which I shall return, as a general principle I can see the logic of what the Government are doing. I shall question some of the other Orders.

Since the 1948 Act we have had general reviews. It has been the law since 1958 that there shall be a gap of 10 to 15 years between each review. What will be the date of the next major parliamentary reboundarying? The Labour Government were seized of the fact that major local government reforms were in prospect.

The Rules for Redistribution of Seats—Appendix A to the Second Periodical Report of the Boundary Commission for England—state: 4.—(1) So far as is practicable having regard to the foregoing rules:— (a) in England and Wales:

  1. (i) no county or any part thereof shall be included in a constituency which includes the whole or part of any other county or the whole or part of a county borough or London borough;
  2. (ii) no county borough or any part thereof shall be included in a constituency …:
  3. (ii) no London borough. …"
I have already put that aspect out of my argument. (iv) no county district shall be included partly in one constituency and partly in another. (2) …'county' means an administrative county". Legislation passing through the House will alter all of them. 'county borough' has the same meaning as in the Local Government Act, 1933". Legislation now going through the House will put an end to that Act. 'county district' has … the same meaning as in the Local Government Act, 1933". We argued that it would have been good sense to have delayed, in that the local government reform changes would have been known by this time and, therefore, by 1973 the Parliamentary Boundary Commission could have given effect to the local government changes and then there could have been sense in parliamentary boundaries. There was much discussion on that question. Allegations of gerrymandering were made. I would not mean it, but if I were to accuse the Government of gerrymandering on this occasion there might be some mention of it in the Press tomorrow. The matter is still of fundamental importance, but nobody is greatly interested. A great deal of political arithmetic was resorted to at the time in an effort to find out what the parliamentary effects would be. In fact, there was no effect other than parliamentary redistribution in a small number of seats. In the event, the changes are to take place for the next General Election.

Because of the fundamental local government changes that are taking place, the Boundary Commission's recommendations will involve in Leicester and Harborough altering boundaries with no electors being affected. In other areas only 13 electors will be affected. In the London area, where the changes in local government have applied since 1963,3,000 electors are affected in Southwark.

Surely we are not to go through this facade any more in the future of regularising, under the rules, boundary changes or local government areas which will no longer exist. It is an utter waste of time. Except in the cases of Southwark and one other area which affects 1,700 electors, only 11 or 13 people are affected in each area. What is the point of going through this process? When in opposition hon. Members opposite took a different view. There will now he no rhyme or reason between local government boundaries and parliamentary constituencies.

We ought to know whether we are to continue to have minor changes of this sort, involving no persons at all in many cases, to bring into accord local government and parliamentary boundaries when, as we all know, the local government areas are in process of being dissolved.

The hon. Gentleman might argue that, because the next General Election will come some time between now and 1975, there is some logic—though pretty small logic—in amending boundaries. But if after the next election one will have to wait up to 10 years, any logic in that argument completely goes out of the window.

On this question of the 10 or 15-year period, I raise this further point. Are we sticking to the 1958 Act? Have the Government any intentions in that respect? Are we to keep the 10 to 15 years, or will they seek to alter that? If they propose not to alter it, if they are sticking to their view in Opposition that local government changes do not matter two hoots, what about the fundamental redrawing which is to take place? The House may be showing sense by its scant attention to these Orders today, but what about the fundamental question?

There are minor changes being made in respect of Bromsgrove and Redditch, but I am told that long before the major redistribution that constituency will comprise 160,000 electors. Nothing is to be done about it, apparently. Recalling what we had to listen to two years ago, I can only say that such a situation is utterly nonsensical. In the meantime, we shall pass Orders altering constituency boundaries in which there are no electors involved, in which there are 11 involved, or 13 involved, and so on. But nothing is being done about the real issue that matters, the change of the demographic map, let alone the fundamental changes in local government boundaries.

I happen to think that the Labour Government were right in 1969, although the Press, the leader writers and the learned journals thought otherwise and preferred to talk what I thought was a lot of rubbish about gerrymandering. So be it. But at some time the Government must govern and do the right thing. I feel that we are wasting our time this morning on Orders of this kind while the House has before it a Measure which will sweep aside the whole basis.

We want to know the Government's intentions. The point has been put to me time and time again, and I want the Government to confirm that they do not intend to alter the 1958 Act and that the next major parliamentary redistribution will be 10 to 15 years after the previous one.

We shall not oppose the Orders—they are not worth opposing—but we want to know what the Government intend.

1.4 p.m.

Mr. Sharples

May I have the leave of the House to speak again?

The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) raises two points. First, he complains that these orders affect only a very small number of people and are, therefore, insignificant. In our last debate on the subject, as I said in opening, there was considerable pressure from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides urging that the process of interim reviews should continue. I believe that it is the wish of the House in general that interim reviews such as have taken place in the past between the main reviews should continue. The general reviews take some time. Even if we decided to start one today, it would be at least four or five years before it could be completed.

In effect, the hon. Gentleman is asking why we should carry out reviews of any kind when the House is being asked to pass a local government Bill which will have a major effect upon local government areas. The answer lies in the general principle by which the Commission is bound—I have no indication whatever that it does not have the support of the House—that constituency and local government boundaries should as far as possible coincide.

The Commission is bound to have regard to local government boundaries as they are at the moment, not as they may be at some future time, whether or not the local government Bill is passed in its present form or with amendments.

As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the Local Government Bill will change the whole pattern of local government in England and Wales as from 1st April, 1974. He asks what are likely to be the future arrangements regarding constituency boundaries as from that time. The Commission can take into account only the boundaries as they are at the moment, so that until the new arrangements come into force in 1974 that will be the basis of its consideration.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

For understandable reasons, the 1949 Act was couched in terms of the Local Government Act, 1933—and, as it happens, the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898—and all I am asking is whether, when that legislation is ended by 1st April, 1974, we shall have to have amendment of our parliamentary redistribution Acts of 1948 and subsequently, since otherwise the Boundary Commission will be marginally amending constituencies in the context of local government boundaries which no longer exist and legislation which no longer exists.

Mr. Sharples

The Commission will continue to work—in fact, it has another series of constituencies under consideration now—on the existing procedure until, in its opinion, it is right to start another general review of parliamentary constituencies. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Commission is required to report the outcome of its general review between 1979 and 1984. Because of the extent of the redistribution required following all the local government changes, I should certainly expect it to report earlier rather than later during that period.

If the Commission is to be able to report in 1979, it will probably need to start its preliminary work about three years from now, towards the end of 1974 or early in 1975. It will thus be starting its work on the next major reorganisation of constituency boundaries at the time when the Local Government Act, as it will then be, is intended to come into force, and it will be starting work at that time on the basis of the boundaries which Parliament and the Local Government Boundary Commission have decided.

We have no proposals at present for introducing legislation to ask the Boundary Commission to bring forward its work before the statutory period.

Mr. Rees

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that; it answers the major question. But I must come back to the other point. At 1st April, 1974, there will be the new and enlarged local government areas, which in the north—certainly in Yorkshire, the West Riding and South Yorkshire—make fundamental changes. The same is true in other parts of the country. After that date, will the Boundary Commission go on making little changes in boundaries, involving nil, 11, 13 electors and the rest, according to local government boundaries which no longer exist? The Minister has satisfied me on the major question, but will it really go on making minor changes to keep agreement between parliamentary and local government boundaries, which was the object 20 years ago? Surely it will not go on doing that for non-existent local government boundaries?

Mr. Sharples

No. The normal position is that when the Commission starts to work on a major review it says that it does not intend to introduce any further interim changes. Therefore, there will be a period from the time when the major review is started when it announces that it will not be introducing any interim changes. That is some years ahead. In the meantime I shall be bringing forward similar Orders to keep the situation up to date until such time as the new, major review is started. Indeed, I have another series of constituencies under examination.

Mr. Rees

Perhaps I may ask one other question, because I am asking questions on behalf of large numbers of people. Could the hon. Gentleman let me have a list, perhaps by way of Parliamentary Answer, of all those constituencies now being investigated? It would be information of value to the House, and there should be ways in which hon. Members should know these things, perhaps by reading about them in their local paper or learning about them from town clerks.

Mr. Sharples

The constituencies involved, which the Commission announced in the notice of 4th October that it intended to review, are Camden, Hampstead; Camden, St. Pancras North; Christchurch and Lymington; New Forest; Manchester, Ardwick; Manchester, Blackley; Manchester, Central; Manchester, Gorton; Manchester, Moss Side; Manchester, Openshaw; Manchester, Withington; Daventry; Wellingborough; Northampton North; Northampton South; Norwich North; and Norwich South.

Mr. Rees

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Parliamentary Constituencies (Abingdon and Newbury) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be approved.

Resolved, That the Parliamentary Constituencies (Stockport) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be approved.—[Mr. Sharples.]

Resolved, That the Parliamentary Constituencies (London Borough of Bromley) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be approved.—[Mr. Sharples.]

Resolved, That the Parliamentary Constituencies (Richmond upon Thames, Twickenham and Esher) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be approved.—[Mr. Sharples.]

Resolved, That the Parliamentary Constituencies (London Borough of Southwark) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be approved.—[Mr. Sharples.]

Resolved, That the Parliamentary Constituencies (Hertford and Stevenage and Hitchin) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be approved.—[Mr. Sharples.]

Resolved, That the Parliamentary Constituencies (Bosworth and Loughborough) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be approved.—[Mr. Sharples.]

Resolved, That the Parliamentary Constituencies (Leicester, South, and Harborough) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be approved.—[Mr. Sharples.]

Resolved, That the Parliamentary Constituencies (Blyth and Hexham) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be approved.—[Mr. Sharples.]

Resolved, That the Parliamentary Constituencies (Bromsgrove and Redditch and Stratford-on-Avon) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be approved.—[Mr. Sharples.]

Resolved, That the Parliamentary Constituencies (Swindon and Devizes) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be approved.—[Mr. Sharples.]

    c865
  1. ADJOURNMENT 12 words
Forward to