PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (ORDERS) (Hansard, 8 February 1973)

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle)
I beg to move, That the Parliamentary Constituencies (London Borough of Camden) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)
I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if the following four orders were taken with this order: That the Parliamentary Constituencies (Manchester) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved. That the Parliamentary Constituencies (Norwich) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved. That the Parliamentary Constituencies (Daventry. Wellingborough and Northampton) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved. That the Parliamentary Constituencies (New Forest and Christchurch and Lymington) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.

§ Mr. Carlisle
As you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it will be convenient to discuss the other four orders. This is the second instalment of a tidying-up exercise. The Boundary Commission for England and Wales last reported following a general review in April 1969. During a debate in October 1970 hon. Members on both sides of the House drew attention to places where local authorities or ward boundaries had been altered since April 1969 and urged the need for interim reviews in these cases. The Boundary Commission's report in 1971 dealt with 25 of these constituencies and its present report deals with a further 17 constituencies to take account of changes in local government areas that took place in 1971.
Constituency and local government boundaries should coincide as far as possible. Although it is true that a great many local government boundaries will disappear on reorganisation next year, it is clearly desirable that constituency boundaries should coincide with local boundaries as they were immediately before reorganisation. Already as a result of the Commission's last interim reviews the boundaries of nearly all constituencies to be used at the next General Election 833 coincide with existing local boundaries. Now the Commission has completed that process by recommending adjustment of those few boundaries which did not coincide.
In the case of 13 constituencies, the Commission's proposals attracted no representations when they were published. But in the case of the other four constituencies, they attracted representations. These were the constituencies of Northampton, North and South, Daventry and Wellingborough. The Commission was right in this case not to anticipate local government reorganisation and not to distinguish Northampton from the innumerable other areas where a case might be made for adjusting constituency boundaries now to the new county and district boundaries. The Commission took the view that all these changes should wait until the next general review. As the House knows, the Commissioners are bound by statute to report after this general review between 1979 and 1984. The fact is that the next general review will involve another major redistribution. Every county and most constituencies will be affected, and it would make no sense to tinker with the present constituencies before then, however strong the individual case may be. As it is, these orders, if approved, will enable the Commission to start its review with a clean slate. It will have all constituencies now defined in terms of local boundaries as they now are.

§ Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Ardwick)
It will not surprise the hon. and learned Gentleman that I wish to address myself to the order relating to my own constituency. In doing so, if we turn to the schedule to the order, at Parts I and II and notice the differences in the wards in my constituency of Ardwick, we shall see that two historic wards of Manchester, St. Luke's and St. Mark's, are to disappear as a result of local government redistribution. I do not think that they should be allowed to disappear without comment, because they are historic parts of Manchester and have contributed to its history as a great industrial city.
I am glad that St. Mark's will be commemorated by a superb contemporary picture by Trevor Grimshaw who has 834 drawn and painted many scenes of the old northern terraces in the West Gorton area of St. Mark's, and will also be commemorated by the decision of Manchester City Council to erect vandal-proof lighting in the approach to St. Mark's Church which will be greatly welcomed by people in the area.
It is important, in considering the new boundaries of my constituency in this area, to draw attention to the similarity of the problems which in many ways affect the four wards as they will now constitute my constituency—Ardwick, Levenshulme, Longsight and Rusholme.
These are the problems of derelict land, on the one hand which the inhabitants of all four wards complain about. I am delighted that Manchester Corporation has given a great shove to British Rail to deal with derelict land at Broom Lane in Levenshulme. The people there will be pleased that the health hazard which has grown up there will disappear. All of these wards have clearance areas, and some more than others.
The new wards have an identity of interest in wanting people rehoused and in making sure that clearances are carried out sensibly. A group of people in Rusholme will watch with sympathy the clearances taking place in the other wards while hoping that the corporation will see fit to preserve in its entirety the small but historic Moon Grove which may be designated as a clearance area. It is such a sturdy and handsome part of Manchester that we hope it will remain.
I feel it is right, while not opposing the order, not to allow it to go through without commenting on the changes which it makes in the historic old names and districts in Manchester and hoping that the four new wards which go to make up my constituency will live as happily and comfortably together as the six old wards which they replace.

§ Mr. John Fraser (Norwood)
First, I cannot possibly vie with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) in his deep knowledge of the historical and architectural attributes of his constituency. Members of Parliament view boundary distribution rather as they view a major operation, as something which is not to be 835 welcomed. What we have before us seems to be a slight skin graft for some constituencies without pain and, as far as I can see, without opposition from the major political parties. It is sensible to keep to the old ward boundaries until there is a major redistribution and therefore there is no opposition to the order from the Labour side of the House.

§ Mr. Carlisle
With the leave of the House may I say to the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) that, as someone who has a considerable and lengthy knowledge of Manchester, I, too, deplore and regret the departure of St. Luke's and St. Mark's. The fact remains that the parliamentary divisions in Manchester are changing. I know the two wards to which the hon. Member refers and I note also that there will no longer be a St. John's or St. Matthew's. I do not know whether that means much to Manchester but I accept what the hon. Member says.