HL Deb 16 December 1954 vol 190 cc485-506

4.21 p.m.

LORD MANCROFT

My Lords, a glance at the Order Paper will show your Lordships that there are no fewer Than fifty-two Draft Orders standing in my name. I understand that it is not likely to be to the taste of the House that I should move each one separately and discuss it in detail. Therefore, I propose to address your Lordships for a short time upon the general principles underlying these Orders and not discuss the details of them. In doing this, I am following two highly reputable precedents, to which I shall refer in the course of my remarks; but that does not mean for one moment that any of your Lordships who desires to make any individual point on any individual Order is not fully entitled so to do. I hope that that procedure will meet with the approval of the House.

These Draft Orders give effect without modification of any kind to the recommendations contained in fie recent reports of the Boundary Commissions. The Commissions submitted their reports in pursuance of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1949. This Act consolidated Acts of 1944 and 1947. The 1944 Act gave effect to recommendations of the Speaker's Conference for the establishment of permanent Boundary Commissions, and laid down agreed rules for redistribution. The 1947 Act made certain amendments to the rules which had been agreed between the parties after experience had shown that the original rules were in some respects too rigid. The Commissions had first to make an initial general review of constituencies on which they reported in 1947. Those recommendations were given effect—with some changes to which I shall have to refer in a moment—by the Representation of the People Act, 1948. The Commissions now have to make further general reviews at intervals of from three to seven years, and to submit periodical reports showing the constituencies into which they recommend that the country should be divided to give continuous effect to the redistribution rules. The Redistribution of Seats Act provides that recommendations made in these periodical reports are to be given effect by Orders in Council, the drafts of which must first be approved by both Houses of Parliament.

The principles behind the Welsh and Scottish recommendations call for little comment from me, but your Lordships may well ask why so many and such drastic changes should be necessary in England so soon after the last general redistribution. The answer is indicated in paragraphs 14 and 17 of the English Commission's report. The fact is that this crop of recommendations is the aftermath of the changes made to the Commission's initial recommendations in 1948. I do not want to revive an old controversy, least of all one that mainly affects another place, but it is impossible to understand the present recommendations unless one remembers that in 1948 seventeen borough seats additional to those recommended by the Commission were created during the passage of the Representation of the People Bill through another place. The creation of these extra seats upset the balance of representation between urban and rural areas, and between different parts of the country which the Commission had been at such pains to create; and the great majority of the present recommendations are necessary solely in order to restore that balance.

I do not mean to say that the Commission have sought to reverse everything that was done by Parliament in 1948–far from it—but the creation of a larger total number of seats clearly altered the whole mathematical basis of the scheme of redistribution, and also gave some parts of the country more seats than they were entitled to, and made it equitably necessary to create other counterbalancing new seats in other parts of the country. Each of these Draft Orders requires the approval of both Houses before it can be made. When it has been made, it will take effect in fourteen days. This means that the 1955 register will be based on the new constituencies; but the changes will not affect elections until the next General Election: any intervening by-election will be fought on the old constituency battleground.

London County Council elections are held on Parliamentary constituencies, each constituency electing three county councillors. The London Orders accordingly provide that the changes which they make are to operate also for L.C.C. elections, and are to come into force for this purpose at the next ordinary L.C.C. elections on March 31 next year. That is, I think, a point which has probably not escaped the attention of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. In paragraphs 19 and 20 of their report, the English Commission have made two important suggestions for amendments of the law. Legislation, of course, is not in issue at the moment; and if there is to be any, it must be preceded by careful consideration and discussion between the political Parties, and the need for it will not arise until the next general review begins to fall due. The Government, therefore, have no firm pronouncement to make on the subject at present. May I tell your Lordships, however, that the Government will be glad to give every consideration to what is said in both Houses about these suggestions of the Boundary Commission at the present time, and to consider the possibility of legislation in due course.

The first suggestion is that the interval between general reviews of constituencies should be extended. I do not think there is much doubt that there will be widespread support for this suggestion. The other proposal is that the rules for redistribution should be somewhat relaxed, in order to relieve the Commissions of any necessity to recommend changes purely for mathematical reasons.

We are at a very interesting moment in our constitutional history, for we have to consider the results of the first periodical review of constituencies by permanent Boundary Commissions under permanent machinery. For that reason this is naturally an occasion of particular interest to this House. Your Lordships will agree that it is right and fitting that this House should play its part in the constitutional process of giving effect to the recommendations arising out of that review. At the same time, as I have indicated, I do not suppose that your Lordships will wish to inquire closely into the merits of particular changes or particular boundaries. These are matters of the most intimate domestic concern to the Members of another place, where they are, I understand, being considered at this moment with an anxious and uninhibited thoroughness. We in this House can take a little more detached view about them.

I remember, of course, that in 1948 the creation of seats not recommended by the Boundary Commission was not passed over in silence in your Lordships' House on the Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill—indeed, I remember there were one or two speeches which almost came into the category of taxing—but there was no discussion at all, at any stage, on the details of constituencies as set out in the First Schedule to the Bill. That Schedule corresponded closely with the Draft Orders which we are now discussing. That precedent may well commend itself to your Lordships on this present occasion. It was, I think, at the instigation of the noble Viscount, the late Lord Addison, whose advice we always took so readily in these matters, that we took that course on that occasion; and the precedent was again followed on the advice of the late lamented Lord Shepherd, when the Order of 1951 was being discussed by your Lordships. I hope that that precedent will commend itself to the House to-day. In conclusion, I would say that I feel the recommendations made by these distinguished, independent and impartial Commissions are such that we in your Lordships' House, at any rate, may accept them with entire confidence. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the following Draft Orders be approved:

Parliamentary Constituencies (Crewe, Knutsford, Nantwich and Northwich) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Reading, Newbury and Wokingham) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Bedford and Mid-Bedfordshire) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Derby and South East Derbyshire) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Plymouth) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Gateshead and Jarrow) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Billericay, South East Essex, Romford and Southend) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Chelmsford, Chigwell and Woodford) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Gloucestershire) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Hampshire) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Hertfordshire) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (North Kent) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Blackburn, Chorley and Darwen) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Liverpool and South-West Lancashire) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Manchester, Oldham and Ashton under Lyne) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Warrington and Newton) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Bosworth and Loughborough) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Harborough and Leicester South East) Draft Order,1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Bethnal Green, Hackney and Stoke Newington) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Fulham and Hammersmith) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Woolwich) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Spelthorne, Feltham and Heston and Isleworth) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Harrow) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Newcastle upon Tyne) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Nottinghamshire) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (South-East Staffordshire) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Dudley and South Staffordshire) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Stoke on Trent) Draft Order,1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Wolverhampton) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Croydon) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Kingston upon Thames, Surbiton and Wimbledon) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Sussex) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Birmingham and North Warwickshire) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Yorkshire, East Riding) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Huddersfield, Colne Valley and Penistone) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Bradford, Brighouse and Spenborough and Dewsbury) Draft Order, 1954.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Wakefield and Hemsworth) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Leeds) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Sheffield) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Carmarthenshire) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Swansea) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Newport and Monmouth) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Bute and North Ayrshire and Central Ayrshire) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (East Aberdeenshire, West Aberdeenshire, Aberdeen North and Aberdeen South) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Edinburgh Central and Edinburgh Pentlands) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Glasgow Scotstoun, Glasgow Hillhead and Glasgow Woodside) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Glasgow Pollok, Glasgow Craigton, Glasgow Govan and Glasgow Gorbals) Draft Order, 1954.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Midlothian, Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, and Edinburgh East) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Glasgow Springburn, Glasgow Central and Glasgow Kelvingrove) Draft Order, 1954.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Stirlingshire and Stirling and Falkirk Burghs) Draft Order, 1954.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Edinburgh North and Edinburgh West) Draft Order, 1954,

Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (West (Glasgow Bridgeton, Glasgow Provan and Glasgow Shettleston) Draft Order, 1954,

—(Lord Mancroft.)

4.31 p.m.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

My Lords, as the noble Lord opposite pointed out in his admirably clear explanation of these regulations, the subject of Parliamentary representation is rather a delicate subject for your Lordships. I shall endeavour in my remarks to tread as delicately as did the noble Lord in his. What I should like to do is to draw the attention of the House to two of these Orders—those dealing with Bethnal Green, Hackney and Stoke Newington, and Fulham and Hammersmith, two of the Orders affecting London. In doing so, I should like at the outset to make clear that I am not in the least concerned about the effect of these Orders on the representation of London in Parliament. Of course, that is a subject we are entitled to discuss here, just as we are entitled to discuss finance or any other subject; but it is not a matter that I, personally, wish to deal with. My observations will therefore be strictly limited to the effect of these proposed changes on local government in London.

The London County Council and some of the metropolitan boroughs strongly object to both of these Orders. What I should like to do is to state their objections, with which I personally agree, and to give the noble Lord opposite an opportunity, if he so desires, to reply to them before the House takes the final step of approving the Orders. In my judgment, there are two reasons why these proposals will have a harmful effect on the government of London. The first is this. As your Lordships are aware, the electoral divisions of the County of London are, in fact, the Parliamentary constituencies; that is laid down by Statute. The consequence is that any changes in the boundaries or composition of London constituencies will also change the system of local government in London.

The result of the second of these Orders, the one dealing with Fulham and Hammersmith, which two boroughs are now to be merged, will be that one Parliamentary seat in London will be completely eliminated and, as a consequence, the London County Council will be deprived of one electoral division and three of its elected members. At present there are 129 members of the London County Council, and the effect of this Order will be to reduce their number to 126. Many of your Lordships have served on the London County Council—at least, one noble Lord who sits on the Front Bench has been a member of the Council; I think the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, was at one time a member—and they will, I know, fully realise how much work the members of the London County Council have to do and what an extremely busy authority it is. They will sympathise with the difficulty which I am going to put before your Lordships. The loss of three elected members will throw even more work on the other members, and as there has been no substantial lessening of the responsibility of the Council since the last election in 1952, it is a real addition to their present work.

Unlike the metropolitan boroughs, the London County Council meets in the daytime, in the ordinary hours of work, and the result of putting additional work on the councillors will be to make it even harder for professional men and women who have to earn their living in the daytime to serve as members of the County Council. This will increase the unfortunate tendency, of which I know those of your Lordships who have been connected with the Council are aware, for the ranks of the councillors to be recruited from persons who have reached an age at which they can retire from employment and are therefore free to give hours of work in the daytime to the committees of the Council. This is certainly contrary to efficient local government, because members of a local authority need to be recruited from persons of all age groups—the vigour and energy of youth is needed as well as the ripe wisdom of older persons. That is one undesirable effect that we see resulting from this Order.

The other effect of these two Orders, taken together, is that they increase from nine to twelve the number of metropolitan boroughs in London partly or wholly merged with other metropolitan boroughs for Parliamentary, and consequently for county, purposes. I am glad to see that the Report respects the integrity of the ten London boroughs south of the Thames—that is something, at any rate; but north of the Thames, instead of reducing the number of boroughs that are at present divided between different Parliamentary constituencies, three more are added and will now be dismembered. We had hoped that a reduction might be possible. The first of these Orders will add part of Hackney to the Parliamentary constituency of Bethnal Green, and, as I have already said, the second Order will merge Fulham and Hammersmith. Not only will this weaken the community spirit of the metropolitan boroughs, which I think is something that everyone would wish to strengthen, but it will not make it easier for the voters of these metropolitan boroughs to be fairly represented when matters affecting them are discussed and decided by the London County Council—very often matters of considerable importance.

A further serious difficulty and inconvenience for London in regard to these Orders, which was mentioned in passing by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is that they will take effect before the London County Council election, which is due at the end of March of next year. The difficulty for London is that a period of three months is simply not long enough to allow for the reorganisation of the electoral divisions of the county which are affected by these Orders. I really cannot see why local government elections should be treated differently from Parliamentary elections. Why should not the date upon which these Orders take effect be the same for local government elections as for Parliamentary elections? We do not know when we shall have another General Election, but I think we can be fairly certain that we shall not have it before next March. To that extent, therefore, I think it is perfectly fair to say that the local authorities are being roughly treated as compared with Parliament.

I think that one of the things the noble Lord will say, if he wishes to reply to these observations, is that these changes in London local government follow necessarily from most desirable alterations in the London constituencies. Of course, in so far as logical necessity is concerned, no one would disagree with that proposition; but it is highly questionable whether the particular alterations in respect of the London constituencies that have been made should have been made in order to bring them closer to an electoral quota or average electorate of 57,122 persons.

I am sorry to have to mention figures, but I do not think it is possible to put this argument as it should be put without referring to a simple figure, which is the figure of the average electorate as calculated by the Boundary Commission, and the figure they give is 57,122 persons. But if the Boundary Commission had obtained this figure of the average electorate, which is sometimes technically called the electoral quota, in another way, and in a very simple way, by dividing the total number of voters in Great Britain by the total number of Parliamentary seats—this is laid down as an instruction in the 1949 Act—then the result would have been an average electorate of 55,670 persons, a substantially smaller figure. But the average London electorate at the present time is 56,935 persons and therefore is in excess of an average electorate obtained simply by following the instructions of the Act. Had this figure which I have just quoted been taken by the Commissioners, then London would not have lost a Parliamentary seat, the London County Council would not have been deprived of three members and the various other changes I have mentioned would not have occurred.

No doubt the noble Lord will reply that the Commissioners were also bound by law, by a provision in the Act, to ensure that the existing number of Parliamentary seats should not be "substantially" increased. The word used, "substantially," is gloriously vague; it is not defined in the Statute and has already been interpreted in an entirely different way by equally responsible people, in Parliament and outside. While I do not wish to make the obvious argument that could be made, one other argument ought to be put. What arises here, particularly on the point on which so much turns, the meaning of the word "substantially" in the 1949 Act, is the need for amending the Act and, of course, for agreement between the Parties about matters that require alteration. I was glad that the noble Lord opposite said that Her Majesty's Government had in mind at least two important amendments which were recommended by the Boundary Commission in its Report. From the standpoint of local government I very much hope that consideration will be given to having reviews of Parliamentary constituencies at intervals less frequent than every three to seven years. These reviews are extremely unsettling to local authorities, compelling them to waste a great deal of their time and energy. The less frequently these reviews occur, when right consideration is given to changes in population, the better.

Everyone, whatever his Party, wants a fair and reasonable system of representative government in this country, at the centre and in the local authorities. I therefore appeal to Her Majesty's Government and to the noble Lord opposite to try to achieve revision of the 1914 Act in a way which would be acceptable to all political Parties. If we all turn our minds to it I cannot see why representation should not be taken right out of Party politics in the same manner as adult franchise or the secret ballot or any of the other essentials of democracy. The attempt should be made, and I hope it will be made by the present Government.

4.45 p.m.

LORD HADEN-GUEST

My Lords, I am particularly interested in this matter. I feel that the procedure now being adopted is quite contrary to public interest. I have in my hand a letter from the London County Council, who are not what one might call a firebrand authority. They say, summarising: … the Council wish to express the strongest opposition to the Bethnal Green, Hackney and Stoke Newington Order and the Fulham and Hammersmith Order, on the grounds that (i) they contravene the provisions of the Second Schedule to the 1949 Act"— referred to by my noble friend who has just spoken— which envisages that the boundaries of metropolitan boroughs and electoral constituencies shall be coterminous save in exceptional circumstances … The significance of that point is reinforced when one realises a situation which has not yet been mentioned here: that, South of the River Thames, Parliamentary constituencies and those pertaining to borough elections do not have boundaries that overlap one another, so that County Council and Parliamentary and borough council organisations can work as an efficient machine. The new proposals put forward in the Fulham and Hammersmith Order and the Bethnal Green, Hackney and Stoke Newington Order will upset that situation. Already North of the river there are a good many places where that has happened. These Orders will disturb a movement towards a better arrangement. It is undoubtedly better to have Parliamentary, County Council and borough council organisations together, so that each area governs all relevant matters centrally. That is a very convenient arrangement which makes the County Council and metropolitan borough work in London go very well indeed. I speak from intimate knowledge of London, especially in the field of education services, and I know how excellent an arrangement it is to have things as they now stand. I sincerely hope that your Lordships' House will not accept these two Orders now before us. I believe that they are wrong in fact and in principle, and ought never to have been introduced.

4.48 p.m.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I should like to add a few words to those already uttered in criticism of the Orders submitted to your Lordships' House. First, however, I desire to pay a tribute to the Boundary Commissions. They have done an honest, sincere, impartial and objective job according to their lights, and in nothing that we say from this side of the House do we desire to criticise the way in which the Commissions have carried out their work. They have had an exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, task. They have had to reconcile three almost irreconcilable factors. First, they have had to ensure that the number of constituencies in the country was not substantially increased, and to provide that Scotland and Wales have their fixed quota, with no substantial increase in England. Side by side with that task, they have had to provide, so far as possible, that constituencies should be equal in size. In London, they have also had to secure that, so far as possible, local boundaries were not interfered with in fixing the new constituencies. Nevertheless, I would submit that the Commission have given undue weight to one of the factors and inadequate weight to the other two.

They have regarded it as their duty to ensure that the number of Members of Parliament is not substantially increased, but in so doing they have misdirected themselves. I do not for a moment suggest that they have acted in bad faith, but I believe that in securing the one factor—avoiding a substantial increase in the number of Members of Parliament—they have failed to give adequate weight to the undesirability of cutting across local boundaries in London. Nor have they given adequate weight to the desirability of securing for the whole country (not merely for England) equal representation. Both my noble friends who have spoken have dealt with the effect on London, and I should like to assure noble Lords opposite that the effect is a very serious one. Anyone who has any knowledge of the growth and development of London well knows how these boroughs have grown from small beginnings, from village communities sometimes, into living entities. They become what those of us who are in the planning world describe as "neighbourhood units." Living things, organisations, have been created on the basis of these local government boundaries and authorities. It is no good the noble Lord jeering at that.

LORD MANCROFT

I am not jeering at the noble Lord at all. I have been for some time myself on the council of a metropolitan borough. I have heard it said time and again, both there and in other boroughs, that people do not know what borough they live in. I have heard that said in many boroughs, and so I am sure has the noble Lord.

LORD SILKIN

The noble Lord must have heard the wrong people. Certainly in the majority of boroughs people really do know, if only because they pay rates, in which borough they are living. They know where their Town Hall is and where their local organisations are. And in any case, one wants to encourage that knowledge and the spirit which goes with it.

LORD MANCROFT

I quite agree with that.

LORD SILKIN

One wants to encourage it and not to throw these things into the melting pot after a few years. Our criticism of these Orders is that of the three requirements the Commission were called upon to satisfy, they tried to satisfy one and did not give proper weight to the other two. I should think that, so far as London is concerned, the most important of the three requirements was the one to maintain and foster local patriotism and local organisations, and so on. And local patriotism is very strong is some places. I could give the noble Lord a number of illustrations in order to remove the area of difference which exists between us. I know the noble Lord is always very fair in controversy of this sort. For my part, I would say that there are some boroughs in London of which his statement might be true, but that it is difficult to know where the dividing line comes. On the other hand there are a great number of boroughs where local patriotism is intense.

LORD MANCROFT

I am sure of that.

LORD SILKIN

Some of my best examples may be in South London, but I do not think that that affects the general line which I am taking; next time it may well happen that the same thing will occur in regard to South London. Let us take, as an example, Fulham. It is an entity, a unit. The people who live there are intensely proud of belonging to Fulham. They may even be intensely proud of their Members. It so happens that ever since I have been interested in politics, Fulham has always had a particular type of Member representing it. I remember Sir Cyril Cobb, and to-day we have Dr. Edith Summerskill. Whatever one may feel about their views, the Members representing Fulham have always been personalities. And I think that that fact reflects the character of places like Fulham. There are other London boroughs in exactly the same position.

I do not know what is going to be the effect of this change on the organisation of the boroughs concerned. It looks to me as if there might be a break-up of these units. If these boroughs are to be broken up for Parliamentary purposes and for purposes of the election of members to the London County Council, I imagine that it will follow that the same thing will happen in respect of borough councils. I do not know. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, can give us an answer upon that point. But if it does not happen automatically, clearly the next logical step is to interfere with the actual construction of the local authorities themselves. I find it exceedingly difficult to understand how you can have representation on the London County Council spread over several boroughs, and representation in Parliament spread over several boroughs, without the construction and constitution of the local authority itself coming into question. The logical thing to do, once you have gone along that course, would be to create new local authorities which would coincide in their areas with the areas of representation in Parliament and on the London County Council. I am not advocating that, of course. But I say that this is the thin end of the wedge which may lead to the reconstruction of the London boroughs. If that is going to take place—I am not suggesting even that it is not desirable; I am not suggesting that London government is not in need of reorganisation—it ought to be undertaken, I submit, as a separate process, and not by means of this side wind to alter the representation in Parliament.

Noble Lords will be aware that the point that I have made has been taken in the courts. In fact, it was put rather more strongly than I am putting it, because it was alleged in an application made in the Chancery Division on Tuesday last that the Commission had gone wrong and had misinterpreted one of the instructions under which they were required to act, namely, that in fixing the electoral quota they had fixed it by reference to England alone, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel has explained, instead of fixing it by reference to the country as a whole. The learned judge found himself in a difficulty in giving a decision—I hope that I am not misrepresenting him. I read the report of the matter in The Times very carefully, and the impression I had was that he thought the complaint was well-founded, though he was very loth indeed to make a pronouncement. At any rate, he did not think that it was ill-founded. But his view was that Parliament was the body that should make the decision; it was a matter for Parliament and not for the courts. That to me is a little surprising, because I was always brought up to believe that where there is a legal wrong there is a legal remedy in the courts. Apparently, in this case, Parliament is regarded as the high court.

If that is the view, then I am appealing to Parliament. I appeal to Parliament on the ground that the Commission, acting in all honesty and sincerity, have misconstrued the regulations; that they have acted wrongly; that they have ignored what is, in my view, the most important of the three directions with which they had to comply, and that they have confined themselves to acting on the one. In those circumstances, if it were possible for this matter to be postponed in order that the Government might reconsider it, I should have thought that that was the right course to adopt. These questions of redistribution are exceedingly delicate ones. They are delicate, of course, in this House, and delicate in another place. I may say that I have a personal interest in redistribution. I was a victim of one redistribution. I was, in fact, the victim of the very first of them. My seat in another place was completely obliterated as the result of redistribution. In my case, there was an illustration of objectiveness in the way in which the redistribution was done. I do not think anyone deliberately desired to blot me out in another place. But it is desirable that redistribution should be carried out above the Party level. It should not be thought possible that it could be carried out for the sake of Party political advantage.

I am not suggesting that the Government themselves have brought about this process of redistribution. This is the Report of a Commission which they have accepted, and I am not suggesting otherwise; but the fact is that the redistribution that is proposed might have vital effects on the constitution of the next Government, and that is a reason for hesitating and giving careful consideration to the recommendations, to ensure that there is no feeling anywhere in the country that one side or the other is going to get electoral advantage from what many of us feel is a misconception on the part of the Commission or a misinterpretation of the regulations. It is for that reason that I feel the Government ought to hesitate before they press for the passage of these regulations.

5.1 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient if I said a few words of a general character on this subject. I must confess that, as I listened to noble Lords pleading with the Government on this question, I could not help feeling—if I may say so without any wish to be in any way offensive in relation to them personally—that it is rather a case of Satan rebuking sin. If they have any complaint against this narrowly laid down procedure, it really must lie at their own doors: it is the result of legislation which they themselves passed.

The late Lord Shepherd, whom we miss so much, on occasions of this kind especially, put it extremely well, I thought, on a former occasion when similar Orders came before your Lordships' House in the days of the late Government, on February 20, 1951. What the noble Lord said was this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 170, col. 390]: Your Lordships will be aware that until quite recently redistribution of seats in the House of Commons took place only at odd dates and after prolonged intervals. …Under the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1949,"— passed by the Government of noble Lords opposite— however, Commissions of a permanent character were appointed for each of four constituent parts of the United Kingdom; and, as a result, we shall receive Order of this description following upon the recommendations for changes, as the need arise. That is exactly the procedure that has been used on this occasion, and if noble Lords opposite had not passed that Act we should not have been dealing with these Orders to-day.

The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, went on to say—and this deals with the point which I think was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who complained that these Orders would operate at different dates with regard to local elections and with regard to Parliamentary elections— It is proposed that these Orders shall come into operation on April 1 this year, but they will not affect any Parliamentary election until the next General Election. That is exactly the position now. I do not say that it is necessarily the right position, but it is the position which was laid down by the late Government and is exactly the procedure which we have followed at the present time. Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referring to the Orders in question at that time, said that he hoped: that it will be to the convenience of your Lordships' House if I now move them en bloc. That, too, is exactly the procedure we have adopted on this occasion. In all these ways we have adopted exactly the same procedure as the noble Lords opposite used in their day.

A good deal of discussion has taken place this afternoon over the question of certain constituencies where the boundaries have been changed. Complaint has been made that the course proposed is illogical, and contrary to the Schedule to the 1948 Act—I think that was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest. I do not want to go into details of what has been done by the Boundary Commission. I can only explain the reasons which I understand actuated them in the decisions which they took. The main reason is that which has already been mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel—that is, they did their best to try to equalise the voting power of the various constituencies. For example, before this redistribution, in Bethnal Green there were 41,000 voters, roughly speaking; in Hackney South there were 75,000, and in Stoke Newington and Hackney, North, there were 81,000. Under the new arrangements, Bethnal Green has 63,000, Hackney, Central, 67,000 and Stoke Newington, 66,000. Over that block of London an attempt has been made to create three constituencies with, broadly speaking, equal voting power. Noble Lords may criticise it, but it was the view of the Boundary Commission that that was a very important consideration to have in mind; and I think it is. I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the Boundary Commission had a terrible job, for obviously they had a number of general principles by which they conceived themselves to be guided, and very often these may have led to very complicated results. But I think nobody can say that they behaved in an improper manner in attempting to achieve equality of votes over these constituencies.

Though the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I know, speaks with great authority on these subjects, I thought that in the latter part of his speech he exaggerated the effect of the fairly limited changes recommended. I got a sort of impression that the whole of London government would go up in smoke if these things were done. Nobody really believes that. We might have had a better arrangement or a slightly worse one than the Boundary Commission have recommended, but surely it is not the end of local government in London or right to say that we may have to consider a completely new system.

LORD HADEN-GUEST

Nobody suggested it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Oh yes, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, did.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, for the purpose of the record I should like to say that I did not suggest that this in itself is going to disorganise local government in London. I said that this is the first step, and that the logical step to take in future would be to break up local government units as we know them. That is the logical step.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I apologise if I over-stated the noble Lord's case, and I quite accept what he now says; but I think that even that is an exaggeration of the results which are likely to accrue. It is purely a matter of opinion, and he may hold a different view from mine. But I repeat once more that the procedure we have adopted has been exactly the same as that adopted by our predecessors. Yet I saw no record, in those debates which I have looked through, of noble Lords on the other side of the House intervening on former occasions. They remained discreetly silent and seemed quite happy. I know that noble Lords on this side equally did not intervene. On the occasion which I have mentioned, on which the late Lord Shepherd spoke, he was the only speaker. After that, the Question was put and the Motion was agreed to without further ado. It is surely a little late in the day to express serious doubts about procedure which appeared to be completely satisfactory on earlier occasions.

As I see it, the real point is this—and it is an important point, which was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and also. I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin: is the present machinery perfect? Does the present Act, in the light of experience, work as well as it was intended to do? Obviously, nobody complains of the intention at all; the question is, has it worked? I think there is always room for improvement. Indeed, we already have it from the Government spokesman in another place that he thinks the matter ought to be very seriously considered, and there is none of us, I imagine, who would not agree with that view. No legislation, however well-intentioned, works as well as it was intended to do. No doubt these constant interferences with boundaries are inconvenient and productive of great friction, which ought, in my view, to be avoided. But the fact remains that by the Act of 1948 these Boundary Commissions were brought into existence, and in my view, until the Act is altered we must use them as they were intended to be used. To reject their recommendations whenever we individually do not like them can only lead to chaos.

The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that these things ought to be above political considerations. I would entirely agree with that. We have sometimes felt—though I do not wish to say more—that certain changes that were made and which were not entirely in accordance with the recommendations which the Government of the day had received might have been interpreted as having a certain political bias. We do not want to fall under the same accusation. If Parliament is to have the final responsibility, as has been suggested, then I feel that where that final responsibility lies is over the modification or alteration of legislation; that is where it really should be. If we are all convinced, as a result of the experience of the last six years, that this present well-meant legislation does not achieve the objects we all had in mind, then by all means let us reconsider it. But do not let us juggle it about and reject the conclusions reached by great Commissions of this kind whenever they do not suit us. As I said before, that would lead to greater chaos than any alterations which the Government are proposing to approve under the present Orders.

5.12 p.m.

EARL JOWITT

My Lords, with a great deal of what the noble Marquess has said I am entirely in agreement. He has the right to poke fun at us and to point out that it is our legislation which has given rise to this trouble. All I would say is this. I hope that all of us, even the youngest of us, can learn by experience and begin to see that a scheme which we thought a good scheme, when pressed to its logical conclusion is a bad scheme. I find myself in agreement with the noble Marquess as to the line that this House should take. We have agreed to all these Orders being put en bloc, and we do not propose to divide against any of them, because, as he rightly said, this is the machinery which has been provided by the Act of Parliament, and that machinery must be carried out unless we have another Act altering it. Therefore, I feel that we are playing our part in assisting the Government to do what is necessary under the existing Act.

But I do not want this matter to pass without saying this—and indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, rather suggested that we might make an observation about it. I very much hope that new legislation is going to be produced, because I feel that it is most unfortunate that we should regard all these constituencies, with all their traditions, as mere units of a certain number of people, to be broken up from time to time, so that one never knows for any length of time where one stands. I was a Member for a constituency in the old days, and I know what intense pride they have about their own traditions. It always seems to me that the English people make themselves most ridiculous when they try to be logical. No doubt it is right that we should have each constituency of the size of 57,221 electors, or whatever the number is; and no doubt it is wrong that one should represent 80 and another 40. So, for the sake of trying to be logical and ironing out this matter, a scheme has been initiated which has worked out as we see. These eminent people, who have been perfectly honest in the way in which they have approached this matter, have done this thing, absolutely riding roughshod over all local traditions and history to try to get us a better-balanced House of Commons. There it is. We have got to let these Orders pass in this House, as I see it. I have no doubt that these Orders tell against us, but the next lot of Orders may tell against the other side of the House.

I hope that we in this House, at any rate, shall be impartial, to this extent. I suggest that the best thing we can do now is to give this Commission—as they rather suggest themselves—a long holiday; I hope that they will pack their bags and go away for another twenty years, and then at that time they, or perhaps some other Commission, can come back and do the work equally skilfully. I should not like this opportunity to pass without saying that that is the opinion of noble Lords who sit on this side of the House, not only because it is thought by some who understand these matters (I know nothing about them myself) that these particular Orders are likely to be an advantage to the Party opposite, but because I feel it a bad thing that the constituencies should be broken up in the way I have indicated. I say no more. These Orders shall pass; we certainly have not tried to obstruct them in any way, but I thought it only right to say what I have said before we let them pass.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House adjourned at sixteen minutes past five o'clock.