HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) BILL. (Hansard, 17 October 1944)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON)
My Lords, there is no necessary or logical connexion between arrangements for the redistribution of seats, altering the size of constituencies and changing their boundaries, and the passage of a Reform Bill which increases the number of voters; but, historically, the occasion when there has been a Redistribution of Seats Bill has, at any rate during the last century and a half, always been the occasion when a Reform Bill was passed. For example, in connexion with the Reform 576 Bill of 1832, there was a Redistribution of Seats Bill. Before that, of course, the inequality in the size of constituencies and in the number of voters they contained was obvious and scandalous. The constituency of Old Sarum, which returned two members to the House of Commons before the Reform Bill, contained seven voters. Other instances almost as remarkable could be given. In the same way, after the second Reform Bill of 1867, there was a Redistribution Bill, when great towns like Manchester received greater representation than they had before. Again, in 1884, in the memory of some now living, when a Reform Bill was passed it was insisted—and insisted by this House —that at the same time there should be a Redistribution Bill. There is no logical connexion that I can see between admitting the agricultural labourer to the vote and changing the size of constituencies; but it happened. Lastly, in 1918, when the franchise was still further widened and women got the vote, it was thought right at the same time to have a Redistribution Bill.
The great disadvantage of this system of proceeding by jerks and starts, waiting until something occurs which is regarded almost as a revolution before you modify the size and boundaries of constituencies, is that the population is always shifting, and the result is you get amazing anomalies before a new Redistribution Bill is passed. When I was elected a member of the House of Commons in December, 1905, I had the honour of being chosen as representative of the second most populous constituency in Britain. Walthamstow then contained over 40,000 voters. There was only one more extreme case, which was that of Romford. Nowadays matters have gone far beyond that. If your Lordships have got a copy of the Bill in your hands and would look at the Second Schedule on page 9, you will find there a list of 20 constituencies, all constituencies in England, which at present return one member each, and only one member, but each of which contains over 100,000 voters, while in two cases they contain over 200,000 voters—Romford and Hendon. My old constituency of Walthamstow has in the meantime been divided up—chopped into quarters in fact —and a portion of it has been transferred to the rural constituency of Epping, which is a compliment to the present Prime Minister! One result is that Epping now 577 contains 107,162 voters, so that it clearly must be redistributed by the process of division.
It is quite obvious that you could have a better system. Many of us who have taken an interest in this subject have thought so for a long time. Both practical politicians and political theorists have pointed out that it is really quite absurd to redistribute only at distant intervals, and that the proper way to do it is to have some Commission or something of that kind which can attend continually to this business and propose the necessary adjustments from time to time. The object is not to get an absolutely scientifically exact distribution of voters in each constituency. Other things have to be considered. There is, for instance, such a thing as the personality of the constituency. A city may have a natural unity very proper to be represented by one member and yet its voting population may fall somewhat below or rise somewhat above the average, and in such cases it would be absurd to be pedantic, and ask for precise correspondence. There has to be what, in another connexion, in connexion with the science of measurements, is called a very extensive "tolerance." You have to allow for adjustments on that ground.
The method which I have just indicated is the method which is followed in this Bill. It is proposed that there should be set up four Commissions, one for England, one for Scotland, one for Wales—Wales is now being treated for many purposes as a self-contained country and even has a day, I understand, in the House of Commons devoted to the discussion of exclusively Welsh affairs, and I am glad it should be so—and one for Northern Ireland. In each case the Speaker of the House of Commons has been good enough to undertake the Chairmanship. These four Commissions staffed by highly skilled people and entirely unbiased people will keep continuously under observation the changes which take place in the size of existing constituencies and will make proposals for adjusting the extreme cases. The first thing the Commission will have to do will be to deal with these twenty bloated constituencies to which I have already referred and which are listed in the Second Schedule of the Bill. They will make proposals to the divisions which should take place with the necessary result that 578 so far the number of members of the House of Commons will be a little increased. That will be the first duty of the English Commission.
But, apart from that, from time to time these Commissions will make reports either informing the Government that there is no need to enter upon any system of change or that because of unusual developments it really is right to make a modified distribution, either adding to the number or, I suppose (which is more likely), changing the boundaries of constituencies so as to get them more approximately even. At the moment the difficulty is that some constituencies are so enormously too big, while others are quite substantially too small. If you take the 1939 electoral register, and if you disregard university seats which are dealt with on a different principle, you will find that the average number of voters in an English constituency is 54,775. In Wales the average is one member for every 47,220, and in Scotland one member for every 44,642. Scotland, therefore, not for the first time, comes out best. In the case of Scotland that perhaps can be justified on a view, which I seem to remember was expressed by Richard Cobden, that the voters who are furthest off from Westminster are entitled to a proportionally increased representation because they have less opportunity of making their feelings known by local demonstrations than those who live in the metropolis. But whether Cobden expressed such a view, it certainly is the case that Scotland is best off. On the other hand, if you take certain individual cases, it is not uninteresting to see to what lengths we have gone in the other direction. The Penrith Division of Cumberland contains only 28,00o voters, so I think does North Cumberland, while the ancient little town of Sudbury and a certain amount of surrounding country contains 31,000 voters and the ancient Cathedral city of Hereford 39,000 voters. It is therefore plain that this Commission may, after dealing with the very big constituencies, for other causes perhaps, proceed to the other end of the scale and consider the small constituencies.
The mechanism of the Bill is as simple as possible. Any Commission of this sort that reports there is need for adjustment, provide, as I understand, a perfectly impartial view of the situation and the 579 Government will then be able to put before both Houses a draft Order in Council which would make such adjustment as seems right having regard to what has been discovered. The draft Order in Council will, of course, have no effect in itself. It will be subject, as many rules and regulations are nowadays, to what is called an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament—that is to say, there must be a positive approval of the draft Order in Council before it goes further. If it is approved, then the Order in Council will be made and by the terms of the Bill that will have the effect of making the adjustment, be it small or large, to the constituencies affected.
That, my Lords, is the whole object of the Bill. It appears to me to be in point of political science an immense improvement on the occasional violent change which four times over has been connected with Reform Bills. It is far more scientific and far more sensible to do this thing as it becomes necessary rather than to wait until you are in the presence of what amounts to grotesque inequality. This provision was unanimously approved in another place and I now move the Second Reading of the Bill.

§ LORD AMMON
My Lords, as one who was privileged to serve on the Speaker's Conference, I think I can say with safety that I myself, as well as my noble friends, are prepared to give this Bill wholehearted support. It does, in effect, carry out the recommendations made by the Speaker's Conference. The Bill has been so lucidly and comprehensively explained by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that there is no need further to elaborate it. I simply rise to ask a question, hoping that the noble and learned Viscount can give me the information. I am not quite sure whether I am in order in so doing. In paragraph 6 there is a reference to the university constituencies. It is said, in effect, that this Bill in no way affects them. But in the Speaker's letter, which was, in effect, the report of the Speaker's Conference, it was stipulated that university representations should not be interfered with, but that there should be some alteration in the method of registration. Whereas 580 hitherto a fee has had to be paid, in future those who have got to come in will do so automatically and will be registered without having to pay this fee. I wonder whether that matter has been reserved for a future occasion and will be included in the Boundary Commissioners' activities or whether it was intended to put it in this Bill and it has been deliberately excluded.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I think I can give a short and accurate answer to my noble friend, who has raised an interesting point. As he has pointed out, the university constituencies—I think there are nine of them—are not within this scheme at all. The justification for such constituencies rests on other considerations. I was not aware myself of the particular recommendation made by the Speaker's Conference to which my noble friend alludes, but I am quite clear that it is not dealt with in this Bill. University constituencies are outside the Bill altogether. I do not myself see how a change in the method of registering voters could come within any recommendation made by the Commissions set up by the Bill. The Commission are solely concerned with the boundaries of constituencies which are not universities. I assume, therefore, that that particular recommendation is one which is in reserve. I have no doubt the Government will pay attention to what has been said, but it will have to be dealt with quite outside this Bill.

§ THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM
My Lords, may I ask a question which I admit is rather academic? I understand that these Commissions will have to report their findings to the Government. Of course they will deal with boundaries, as the noble and learned Viscount has just said. These constituencies will be represented by members who will be paid. When these Commissions report I understand that an affirmative Resolution from both Houses of Parliament will be required. Will your Lordships' House be debarred in any way on a question of privilege under the Parliament Act from amending or altering the decisions come to by these Commissions?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, the form in which the matter would come before both Houses would be that a draft Order in Council would 581 be laid on the Table. It would then be for each House to consider whether it approved of that draft. The draft will provide that such and such constituencies shall be divided or such and such a portion of a constituency shall be added to another constituency. It will deal solely with redistribution. Before the proposals contained in the draft Order Council can become law and be acted upon both Houses must approve the Order by an affirmative Resolution. There will be, for example, in your Lordships' House a Motion from the Government Bench that the House approves the draft Order. On that there can be debate and if the House decides that it wants something different it would be quite entitled to say so. No question of privilege would arise.