HL Deb 09 March 1987 vol 485 cc881-3

7.14 p.m.

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, I beg to move, that the draft Parliamentary Constituences (Scotland) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1987, which was laid before the House on 10th February, be approved.

This draft order is to implement the final recommendations contained in the Boundary Commission for Scotland's report on its 1986 interim review of 14 parliamentary constituencies. The commission submitted its report to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on 29th December last and he proposes that its recommendations should be implemented without modification. The draft order has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which had no comments on its substance but suggested a minor descriptive amendment which will be adopted in future orders. The draft order was approved in another place on 26th February and, if it is approved by your Lordships today, it will be submitted to Her Majesty in Council to be made.

Articles 2 to 8 of the draft order replace 14 of the constituences created by the Parliamentary Constitu-ences (Scotland) Order 1983 with those described in the schedule. Article 1(3) provides for the order to come into operation 14 days after it is made and for the new boundaries to take effect at the next general election. Any by-election before that would therefore be held on the present boundaries.

Reviews of this kind are held at the discretion of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission between the general reviews of parliamentary constituencies which must be completed every 10 to 15 years. They occur at infrequent intervals. The Scottish Commission's last interim review, which affected 16 constituences, was held in 1972. Following the reorganisation of local government in Scotland in 1975 the commission then undertook its mandatory general review of all the parliamentary constituences from 1978 to 1983, when its recommendations were implemented in full.

The need for this interim review arose from a number of changes which have been made to regional and district boundaries since the making of the Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order in March 1983. These changes resulted in the divergence of the boundaries of the new local government areas from those of the present constituencies in a total of seven areas in Borders, Central, Lothian, Strathclyde and Tayside regions. Most of the alterations were quite small but the commission decided to review the boundaries of the 14 constituencies so affected in order to remove the anomalies which had arisen. In each case its proposals disturb the existing pattern of constituencies as little as possible by simply realigning the constituency boundary with the new local government boundary.

The commission's report sets out the steps it took to bring its proposals to the notice of the public, the local authorities, the political parties and the Members of Parliament for the constituencies affected. The acceptance by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State of the commission's proposals was intimated to the authorities and the political parties when the draft order was laid before Parliament last month, and a statement on the commission's proposals was issued to the national and local press at the same time.

The alterations, if implemented, will affect a total of approximately 270 electors. Some 200 of these are in one area, Croftamie, formerly in Dumbarton District and, since 1983, in Stirling District. No objections were received by the commission during the review and none has been received by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State since its report was submitted to him. I therefore commend the draft order giving effect to the commission's recommendations to your Lordships. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th February be approved. [12th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(The Earl of Dundee.)

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I think that the Motion will be agreed to without much heated controversy. Certainly, I am glad to state that I have nothing to do with it. I say that because there was very considerable controversy over the general revision of constituency boundaries between 1978 and 1983. The chairman of the Boundary Commission was named Lord Ross. I found myself getting the blame for all the considerable difficulties created for certain people and had continually to point out that there was another Lord Ross who was a judge in Scotland and had nothing whatever to do with me.

It is interesting that the Minister said that only about 200 voters were concerned—

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, 270.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, was that all in the 14 constituencies? That might be very important in the next election. I remember one of the relevant criteria that were put down by the commission when it carried out the last reorganisation: it had to have constituencies which were close to one another and which would be of the same size. I have now stopped voting in constituencies so the Alliance need not worry. I am not voting Alliance at the next general election; I shall not even have the chance to vote Labour at the next election by virtue of being here. However, it turned out that in the constituency in which I used to vote side by side there were a constituency that was Labour held and a constituency that was Conservative held. One of those became one of the smallest in Scotland and the other became one of the largest. It may have suited the Member for Cunning-hame South and it may have suited the Member for Ayr (who happened to be the Secretary of State at the time and is now Minister of Defence) but I did not think that it was quite in conformity with the rules laid down by the Boundary Commission for themselves.

However, it may well be that half a dozen votes will make all the difference, certainly in the Ayr constituency, at the next election according to the way matters are going. I should like to know this: are Drybridge, Barassie and Gailes Foreshore now in Ayr or are they in Cunninghame South? Has the change been made to the advantage or disadvantage of Mr. Younger?

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I am also glad that he has removed any element of doubt about his role with boundary changes. His namesake, who might have undergone criticism in the reorganisation of constitu-ency boundaries of 1978 and 1983, is to be given some of the blame, fairly or unfairly, but none of the blame should go to the noble Lord. He had nothing to do with this!

The noble Lord asked me about the position in the area of Barassie Beach, Ayrshire. The discrepancy there arose from their delineation of the coastal boundary of Irvine New Town to the high water-mark instead of to the low water-mark as is customary with local authorities. The effect was to place within Kyle and Carrick district instead of within Cunninghame district—the strip of foreshore between those marks running northwards from the boundary of the former borough of Troon to the boundary of the former borough of Irvine. This discrepancy was removed for local government purposes as a result of the Boundaries Amendment Order 1983 referred to in Article 2 of this draft order, which provides for its removal for parliamentary purposes.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I shall be able to sleep tonight after hearing that.

Qn Question, Motion agreed to.