Representation of the People (Hansard, 9 March 1987)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg)
I beg to move, That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 23rd February, be approved. This draft Order in Council gives effect to the final recommendations of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England following an interim review of 40 parliamentary constituencies in England. If the draft is approved by both Houses, it will be submitted to Her Majesty in Council for promulgation.
I turn to the form of the order. Articles 2 to 12 substitute the constituencies in the schedule for the constituencies that presently exist. Article 1(3) provides for the order to come into force 14 days after it is made. The changes to the constituencies will take effect at the next general election. Any by-elections in the meantime will be held on the existing boundaries.
The review which gave rise to the draft order was the third interim review to be conducted by the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England since it completed its general review of constituencies in 1983. Since that general review there have been a number of changes to local government boundaries which have resulted in the county, district or ward boundaries following a different line from the constituency boundary. The commission decided therefore to conduct a number of interim reviews to remove these anomalies.
Though the House is considering 40 constituencies, the commission reviewed 42. When the proposals were published in September 1986 there were objections to the proposals for the constituencies of Reading, East and Wokingham. These have been the subject of an inquiry and will feature in a separate report. With two other exceptions the remaining proposals did not attract any opposition. The exceptions were two objections to the proposals for Warrington, South and Halton, which were subsequently withdrawn. The commission therefore decided to confirm its draft proposals as its final proposals, and these are given effect in the order. In all instances the changes proposed are the minimum necessary to realign the constituency boundary with the altered local government boundary.
One measure of the extent of the changes effected by the proposals is the number of electors involved. The largest number of electors affected is nearly 4,000, who will move from Horsham to Crawley. Other relatively large-scale changes are the transfer of about 1,300 voters from Arundel to Shoreham, and around 1,900 voters from Warrington, South to Halton. The remaining changes affect between one and 400 electors. In some instances, including my own constituency of Grantham, no elector is affected directly. I hope that the House will approve the order.

§ Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington)
I thank the Minister for the brisk and informative way in which he dealt with the substance of the order. Perhaps the House would permit me to say that I have a special interest in the order because it includes the Hertfordshire, West 122 constituency. When I had the honour to become the first Labour Member of Parliament for the former Hemel Hempstead constituency, which is part of the Hertfordshire, West constituency, I wrote on occasion to the boundary commissioners urging upon them the sense of changing the name of the constituency to Hertfordshire, West. It was not until I came second, which is not as much fun as coming first, that the boundaries were altered and the commissioners saw the good sense of the proposal. I am sure that it was right because it was quite wrong, even in those days, to impose the name of the new town of Hemel Hempstead upon the small towns and villages which helped to make up part of the constituency.
I could, but I will not, wax lyrical about my fond memories of Aldbury and Wigginton, Ashridge and Cupid Green— there is many a story or poem in that— as wards of the Hertfordshire, West constituency. However, I shall content myself by agreeing with the Minister that the changes that the Boundary Commission has come up with, as far as I am aware, make sense because, as best as the commission is able, it is right that the boundaries of the local authority should be contiguous with the boundaries of the parliamentary constituency.

§ Mr. W. Benyon (Milton Keynes)
I should like to direct my remarks to part IX of the order, particularly to the constituencies of Mid-Bedfordshire and South-West Bedfordshire. Those two constituencies border my constituency of Milton Keynes, and my constituents are unanimous in their admiration of the way in which the Members of Parliament for those two constituencies conduct themselves in dealing with the interests of their constituents. They are also impressed by the speed with which the Boundary Commission has dealt with the particular changes.
My constituency is the fastest growing in the United Kingdom. In the 1983 election it had just over 70,000 electors and it now has 98,000, an increase per annum of 5,000. I remind my hon. Friend that when the last division of the constituencies took place the base year was 1976, and the final answer was brought in in 1982. If those circumstances continue in the future I shall be representing 150,000 constituents before the next division takes place. I do not worry about that but my constituents ask me whether there is something wrong with the procedure that we adopt in revising constituencies, or whether Members of Parliament should he paid proportionate to the amount of people they represent. There would be no increase in Government expenditure because it would be an average, some of us would get more and some less.

§ Mr. Robert B. Jones (Hertfordshire, West)
I simply want to welcome the order because it brings local government boundaries and the parliamentary constituencies into line. In the case of the boundary between Hertfordshire, West and Hertfordshire, South West, the electors in the portion due to be transferred have, for the past two years, been transferred for local authority reasons but not for parliamentary reasons. It has been thoroughly confusing to them at election time and when writing to their councillor or Member of Parliament.
Although the delays have been brief in some ways, despite the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon), it seems 123 curious that the changes can come into effect for local government purposes in April 1985 but two years later for parliamentary purposes. I wonder whether the Minister can look into that to see whether there is any way in which procedures can be speeded up. I welcome the nearly 200 extra constituents who will come into Hertfordshire, West because they will enjoy, in common with the other people of that area represented in the past by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), a sense of community and of pride in the area's achievements, economic and cultural.
I realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes was a sympathiser for proportional representation, but I always thought that that was to do with the way that people vote. Now that I know that it is to do with the way that Members of Parliament should be paid, I am sure that there will be a rising tide in favour of proportional representation in the future.

§ Mr. Peter Pike (Burnley)
I support the principle of the order because it is right that, wherever possible, when there is a minimal change in a district or borough boundary, the parliamentary constituency boundaries should be changed so that they are conterminous with that boundary.
Like the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), I am concerned about the delays in the changes that sometimes occur. I have a vested interest in changes that do not come under this order. I hope that the Minister will say what other orders will come before us, which will take similar action to deal with similar situations. For example, there are some changes in the county of Lancashire, and my borough is affected. I hope that that order will be put before the House before the general election. If not, during the next Parliament I would represent a small number of people living in a different borough from the other 99 per cent. It is easier for the people if they know that the boundary is the same for the parliamentary constituency as for the borough. Thus confusion can be avoided.
While I support the proposal, I hope that the Minister will give us an idea of when the expects to lay further orders before the House.

§ Mr. Simon Coombs (Swindon)
I lend my support to that of other hon. Members who have spoken in this short debate for the proposal that is before the House, but I should like to follow what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) and invite the Home Office Minister to respond to what he said and what I should like to add.
A report from the Select Committee on Home Affairs on the redistribution of seats has been laid before the House. It would be for the benefit of all of us if, instead 124 of debating late at night these small and straightforward orders, we had the opportunity to discuss the much more important issues of how to overcome the problems of great inconsistencies between the sizes of constituencies. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, I have a constituency that is growing extremely rapidly. While none of my constituents has, as yet, offered me the option of extra pay to deal with the extra problems—nor would I want to accept it—they are being under-represented in the county of Wiltshire, and other counties such as Hampshire are similarly affected.
The Select Committee came forward with some thoughts but no recommendations. If it were given the opportunity, the House would like to follow those thoughts and perhaps add some recommendations of its own. I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Minister to respond to that point.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)
Not tonight

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg
I want to thank the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and my hon. Friends for the support that they have given to the draft order. With regard to delays, the review into the boundary recommendations that we are considering tonight was announced in February 1986. As you will see Mr. Deputy Speaker, it has taken about a year to get to this final stage.
The hon. Member for Burnley asked what other reviews are being undertaken. On 23 December last year the Boundary Commission for England gave notice of its intention to review 55 parliamentary constituencies and the Welsh commission gave notice of its intention to review 21 constituencies in February 1986. A number of inquiries are currently being undertaken.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, said that it would not be right for me to comment on a possible response to the Select Committee on Home Affairs report. However, might I say that it was a very valuable report and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would wish to make a response in the near future.