§ 5. Mr. Madelasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he plans in the criteria that the Parliamentary Boundary Commission must consider under the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, in relation to alteration of parliamentary constituencies in England; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. BrittanA number of suggestions have been put forward for changing the way reviews are conducted, and these are being considered. It would, however, be undesirable to change the rules governing the present review as this could only delay its completion.
§ Mr. MadelDoes my hon. and learned Friend recall that in its report of 1969 the Boundary Commission drew attention to the fact that it was not required by the rules to pay attention to future population movement? As what the commission is now doing is based on the 1976 electoral register, and as there have been and will be population movements between 1976 and the next general election, should not the rules be changed so that the commission must have regard to future population movements?
§ Mr. BrittanThe commission has indicated that in the present review it is taking account of population changes to the extent that that is possible. Whether it be necessary to give any statutory force to that in respect of future reviews is a question which we shall have to consider. But I think that what everyone ought to be anxious to achieve above all is that the present review is completed as early as may be, so that the existing disparities between constituencies can be removed as far as possible.
§ Dr. Edmund MarshallNow that the present review is well under way, will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will exert absolutely no pressure on the Boundary Commissions either with regard to the statutory criteria which 629 they have to observe or, equally important, in the timing of their reports to the Home Secretary?
§ Mr. BrittanThe Government fully recognise and appreciate the independence of the Boundary Commissions, but if we can assist them in carrying out their task and ensure that the review is completed in reasonable time, that is something we should look at sympathetically.
§ Mr. W. BenyonWhen does my hon. and learned Friend think he will be able to lay the recommendations of the Boundary Commission before Parliament? Secondly, does he agree that, even if we were to get back to the 10-year period laid down in the Act, that is totally inadequate for a constituency such as mine with a very rapid rate of growth?
§ Mr. BrittanI hope that the Boundary Commission will be in a position to present its report by mid-1982. As to the second point raised by my hon. Friend, there is always a conflict here. On the one hand, if the reviews are too frequent, there is an element of disruption, while, on the other hand, if they are too infrequent, constituencies become either too big or too small. In considering whether any changes are necessary for future reviews, one will have to decide how to balance those two considerations.
§ Mr. Merlyn ReesThe Minister gave his view on the independence of the Boundary Commission and any changes which it recommends. Will he therefore accept that any parliamentary boundary changes which are made are the result of consideration conducted by commissioners who both before and after their appointment have no contact whatsoever with any political party, but, like Caesar's wife, are above suspicion? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that if they were to get themselves involved in that way, any report which they put before the House would have to go back and we should have to start again?
§ Mr. BrittanI agree that it is essential that the independence of the Boundary Commission should be maintained.