| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Darling : I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is arguing that London boroughs should be crossed or that they should not. I believe that he is saying that they should. Certainly, if the position does not change, it is difficult to see how the boundary commission can ignore rule 5 in the schedule to the Act, which relates to excessive disparity, and rule 6, which entitles the commission to cross London boroughs. It did not cross them to any material extent at
Column 151
the time of the last review. If, however, there are changes in any London boroughs, especially the smaller ones but also the larger ones--the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) is right ; the commission must examine the boroughs to assess entitlement to parliamentary constituencies--entitlements may change as well, even if the alterations are not dramatic. The question of registration is also important. If, for instance, Hackney's 20,000 missing voters are actually present, there is bound to be an effect on its entitlement. The hon. Gentleman's intervention has helped my argument, although I can see from his face that that was not his intention.Mr. Robert B. Jones : On Second Reading, those who criticised the over-representation of urban Scotland pointed out that London was also over -represented, and that it was therefore logical to cross London borough boundaries. The boundary commission has already set a precedent by grouping metropolitan districts to get around the excessive disparities. Surely it is reasonable for it to group two or more London boroughs to avoid such a problem in the capital.
Mr. Darling : I am not sure that all Conservative Members took that view, but I know that the hon. Gentleman does, and I do not quarrel with him. It may well be appropriate to cross boroughs in some circumstances.
Amendment No. 8 is designed to draw the Government on their intentions relating to boroughs. The rules come into play only when the boundary commission is faced with a set of boundaries. If there are to be changes, the commission should be aware of them before starting its work. If the rules are to be obtempered, and if the rationale behind the London borough rule in particular has any weight in terms of community and other links, the boundary commission should know where the boundaries are likely to be when it draws up the parliamentary constituencies.
Mr. Robert B. Jones : Is not it perfectly clear that the local government boundary commission can make minor tidying proposals, and has done--for example, for the borders between Bromley and Kent and between Croydon and Surrey--but the parliamentary boundary commission can have regard only to what has already happened? Since there are no proposals for major overhaul of the London boroughs, the parliamentary boundary commission must work on the basis of the existing London boroughs, irrespective of whether it crosses borough boundaries.
Mr. Darling : I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but the purpose of the amendment is to probe the Government's intentions. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present when I said that it was a probing amendment. If the Government say that there will be no change whatsoever, fair enough ; the issues will have been canvassed and we can all go home happy that we have done an afternoon's work. But if changes are to be made--even small changes can be substantial--it would be appropriate for the boundary commission to know before it makes its recommendations to the Secretary of State.
Column 152
4.15 pmMr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) : Is not the Bill a political hot potato for the Government, because nothing creates greater anger and confusion among electors than people in, for instance, Richmond being claimed by the London borough of Kingston and people in Esher, which is in the district of Elmbridge, also being claimed by the London borough of Kingston? The Conservative party loses votes under such arrangements, as we saw with the London Government Act 1963. Conservative Members are very anxious about the possibility of the same happening now. Hon. Members who are anxious to defend the integrity of the county of Essex are concerned to ensure that the Government fully and frankly disclose their intentions. Many people in the counties surrounding Greater London are deeply concerned about the proposal for local government and parliamentary boundaries. They wish to be in the parliamentary boundary that is coterminous or has a relationship with their district council and local government unit. Above all, most people want to stay in the counties--
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech
Mr. Darling : It is clear that in the next eight or 12 years the Government will have to turn their attention to what constitutes London and whether the present boroughs are satisfactory. Suggestions will always be made about whether a boundary should be down one street or another. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West said that changes are contemplated all the time. When the Government say that they are not planning anything, it usually means that they are planning something but do not want to say. [Hon. Members : "No."] Our experience over the past 12 years tells us that that is true. The amendment is a probing amendment designed to draw from the Government their intentions for the local government structure. It is important that the boundary commission knows what the Government plan, otherwise the basis on which it proceeds will be false and the boundaries that it suggests in 1994 may not be appropriate at that time, let alone eight or 12 years thereafter.
I hope that, in reply, the Minister will tell us the Government's intentions. If, as the interventions and grunts from Conservative Members suggest, no changes are to be made, which I find hard to believe, I am sure that the people of London and of its surrounding areas would like to know about it.
Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North) : The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said that the local government boundary commission seems to consider constituency boundaries simply on a street-by-street basis, but that has not been my experience. In the past two years, major changes to the boundary between the London boroughs of Ealing and Hillingdon have been suggested. We saw fit to contest those changes strongly and succeeded in having them withdrawn. From the local government point of view, the proposed changes are merely a tidying process, perhaps to move a boundary to a railway line where the railway line is close to the existing boundary. That seems to make good sense, and it is such small, tidying changes which are needed rather than major structural changes.
Column 153
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central rightly said that the smallest London constituency comprises 42,500 people, but not many London constituencies are anywhere near as small as that. In any case, it does not compare with the smallest Scottish constituency of 23, 000. As he is making comparisons between Scotland and London, I draw his attention to that fact.Mr. Bermingham : I understand the argument about Scotland, but it is a different matter and, like Wales, involves a different commission. However, can the hon. Gentleman justify the fact that Northampton--I choose that town deliberately, as it has two Conservative seats--has approximately 70,000 or 75,000 electors in each seat, whereas the London borough which was mentioned a moment ago has only 42,000? Is there something special about London, or is it part of England?
Mr. Greenway : It is interesting that Labour Members of Parliament argue as they do. I do not remember them arguing against the substantial number of London Members of Parliament when most of them were Labour. Now that 47 of the 84 Greater London Members of Parliament are Conservatives--
Mr. Bermingham : We need fewer of them.
Mr. Greenway : I hope not, but I was merely saying what crossed my mind when the hon. Gentleman invited me to comment on what he said. I have heard nothing in today's debate or anywhere else about one of London's particular problems : we are obliged--I am not complaining--to give homes to substantial numbers of asylum seekers. In the past year, in the London borough of Ealing, about 220 housing units, some sizeable, were handed to asylum seekers. I may even be understating the case substantially, but the fact is that a fair number of asylum seekers have been put into leased accommodation, which means that local people who should be on the electoral register are not because they are not living in the units of accommodation which have been passed to the asylum seekers.
As I was saying only this morning to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, a Member of Parliament is obliged--and, naturally, keen--to provide a service to asylum seekers. I dare say that, like me, many of my hon. Friends find that asylum seekers are keen to use the services of their Member of Parliament. They come to my surgery--
The First Deputy Chairman : Order. What has this to do with the amendment?
Mr. Greenway : I am dealing with the numbers game which was a central part of the argument of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, who asked : why had people gone from the register? I am explaining that many of them have disappeared from the register because, at least in my constituency and in Ealing as a whole, many of the housing units have been taken over by asylum seekers who are not registered-- [Interruption.] Yes, it is a considerable issue. Another matter about which I expected the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central to be knowledgeable--he probably is--is the fact that, between 1986 and 1996, 1 million fewer people will reach the age of 18. As those over 18 go on to the electoral register, that fall in the population
Column 154
will be reflected there. London has taken a substantial share of that population fall and that has substantially affected the numbers in our constituencies.I hope that we shall respect the London borough boundaries and not cross them unless there are exceptional reasons for doing so. It is well known that all London boroughs individually seek to create their own identities and that they succeed in doing that. Ealing regards itself as--and is--the queen of the suburbs and is proud of it. People who live in Ealing have their own ethos, just as there is a different ethos across the border in Brent--one only has to go across the border to discover that. If we start crossing borders in redrawing constituency boundaries, we shall introduce a substantial change which will mean that not everyone in London will be well represented.
All London boroughs, like other local authorities, have distinct services, such as the education and youth services. The services in one borough are very different from the services in others. For those and other reasons, I hope that constituency boundaries will continue to be drawn within boroughs, as they have been in the past.
Mr. Bermingham : As always, I declare an interest in the subject as a practising lawyer who has been involved in a number of inquiries. I accept unreservedly that there will be no local government changes in London this side of the year 2000. I see no need for change because the boroughs, as has been said, have their own entities. That view may surprise Conservative Members.
I am concerned about the sense of justice in the country as a whole. I hope that the Home Secretary will find it in his heart this afternoon to be gracious for once and to give way to a fair point. I hope that he will give an undertaking when, no doubt, I persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) to withdraw the amendment in return. The undertaking which I seek relates to paragraph 4(1)(a)(ii) of schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 which deals with the London boroughs. The Home Secretary will recall that the paragraph deals with the question of crossing what I call the "skin" boundaries--the county boundaries. We know that developments are taking place whereby certain counties are being redefined. I take no issue with that because it is fair and reasonable. Monstrosities such as Avon and Humberside, which were set up in 1984, are silly. Let us have a little bit of sanity. Why, for example, can we not go back to Lancashire? It will happen. Our skin boundary, for the sake of argument, would be Lancashire and within it would be a number of metropolitan district councils. In the redistribution between 1976 and 1983, one of the factors that led to the case of Foot and others v. the boundary commissioners was that the law at the time led to differences between the way in which the counties were considered, the way in which the metropolitan districts were considered and the way in which London was considered. For my own purposes and for the record, I say that if we could have a system of every constituency having the same numbers, all well and good. No one could argue with that. However, I am a realist and I recognise that because a council is built in a series of wards--in some areas there are big wards and in others there are small wards--that is not always practicable. One must be realistic and realise that there will be an area of imbalance between
Column 155
constituencies. Provided that that does not exceed 5 per cent. either way, that is tolerable. It becomes intolerable when the imbalance is more than 5 per cent.4.30 pm
For the purposes of my argument, I am leaving out Scotland and Wales because they have different commissions and the 1986 Act deals mainly with the English commission. One accepts that the Welsh and Scots will go their own way--I do not mean to be unkind.
In 1983, when we came to consider the matter in some depth, we found an interesting feature. We found that in the interests of achieving parity of number, for example in Tyne and Wear, it was necessary for the boundary to cross the Tyne bridge. I know that yesterday my mathematics were appalling, for which I apologise to the Committee. However, I corrected the figures for Hansard's purposes. I said that seven and a half plus three and a half equalled 12. That will undoubtedly bring a smile to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), who is an expert in the subject. I got it wrong and I apologise for that.
The point was that by crossing, say, the Leeds-Wakefield boundary, the commission was able to create seats of similar size. Boundaries were crossed in the west midlands, in Dudley ; in Greater Manchester, in Rochdale ; and in the borough next to Oldham. That was logical because it made it possible to create seats of the same size. When the skin boundaries come to be drawn for the counties or the new shire counties--leaving aside the future nature of local authorities and whether they will be unitary or otherwise--I hope that the commission will use common sense and try to keep towns in those areas as single units. Of course, that will mean crossing local government borders so that, within the county, seats of comparable size are created, perhaps consisting of part of the metropolitan district and part of the adjacent former county council area. But at least it will be possible to create seats of approximately the same size.
The problem arises with paragraph 4(1) (a) (ii) of the schedule to the 1986 Act. The 1986 Act says bluntly that in London one cannot cross boundaries except for reasons of excessive disparity. How can one cross the border of Surbiton and--if someone will think of the name of a large seat in north London, I shall be grateful because I cannot think of one off the top of my head--
Mr. Bermingham : If the hon. Gentleman has a suggestion, I shall give way.
Mr. Bottomley : As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) jokes from my side, there are not any large seats in London. The House understands the hon. Gentleman's point. He does the House a service in an additional sense. This is not a party political issue. Whether London is allocated Members of Parliament on the basis of its whole electorate or by adding up bits and pieces from column 7 of Hansard , the number comes to 70 or 71 Members. So London loses 13 seats, whatever happens. The question is, what sort of fairness and disparity will there be? Everyone is listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Bermingham : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I take his words kindly. He understand the point that
Column 156
I seek to make. The first question is, what is London? Is it the total of all the London boroughs which are known as the London boroughs of--? Once that point is reached, we have the total electorate. When we have the total electorate, we can determine the total entitlement. If the matter is dealt with in that way, we shall avoid the problems of 1983. In 1983, in some London boroughs, a factor of 4.3 or 4.4 meant four seats and, therefore, small seats. In other boroughs, 1.3 meant two seats and, in others, 5.2 or 5.3 meant five seats.In the rest of England the commission made a fair rule so that, for example, in Northamptonshire--I cannot think of the exact figures ; I merely use Northamptonshire as an example--a quota of 8.4 resulted in eight seats, whereas in Leicestershire a quota of 9.5 resulted in 10 seats. In other words, the commission rounded up or down to the nearest whole number. In London it did not do that. It took 0.35 or 0.4 as the cut-off point, thus causing London to become over-represented. That is the root cause of the problem.
Hon. Members have asked whether we shall be able to keep the number of seats down to 651. There is a simple solution. If London is properly represented, with seats that reach the norm for England, the House will not grow. I concede that in some areas in the south the number of electors warrants an increased number of Members of Parliament to represent them. That is fair, as some seats are over-sized.
I cannot foresee a solution to the Isle of Wight problem, as it is illogical to tack part of Hampshire on to it. We shall have to wait for the island to become more popular. I think that it will happen and 'ere long it will reach a population that entitles it to two seats. I hope that the Minister will then decide to take an interim step to create two seats on the island, rather than waiting for another parliamentary boundary review.
I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to say that he understands the argument with regard to London and that, because of the increasing disparity likely to occur between London seats and those in the rest of the country, the time has come to cross London borough boundaries. We are merely asking for London to be treated in the same way as any county. Once that is accepted, the argument is over. This is not a party political matter, as it will be for the commission to decide which boundaries to cross and not for us to decide or even to suggest, and I do not do so today.
If London boundaries are to be considered as a single skin and are to be crossed, it will require a simple amendment to paragraph 4(1)(a)(ii) of the schedule. I suggest that the following wording should be added,
"save as is where necessary to achieve parity with the rest of England"
I am trying to be as succinct as possible and I hope that I have been as fair and non-partisan as I can be. I leave the matter squarely in the Home Secretary's paws. If he wants fairness in the commission and in the Bill, he must treat London the same as the rest of the country.
Dame Angela Rumbold (Mitcham and Morden) : I listened with great care to the speech of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will reject the amendment, because it is important for London constituencies to be considered in conjunction with the rest
Column 157
of the parliamentary seats in England, Wales and Scotland before the end of 1994. It would be unparalleled and unfortunate if they were not.As a London Member, I have great interest in these matters, as do many of my Conservative colleagues. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South said that London constituencies are over-sized and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) pointed out--and received an answer--that London is over-represented in Parliament. That is inescapable. However, the means to overcome that problem must not depend on waiting for some supposed change in local government boundaries or local government reorganisation, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) suggested.
As far as I am aware, Sir John Banham's commission is merely considering the possibility of changes to the structures of counties and districts. It is possible that some unitary authorities will be created. In any event, I understand that that does not necessarily apply to London boroughs, since they are unitary authorities and have been for some years. I did not read anything in the Conservative party manifesto during the run-up to the last election to suggest that there will be any other change in local government boundaries or local government in London.
If we are to acquire the right amount of parliamentary representation equitably, within present Greater London boundaries, without over-reaching the county boundaries--apart from any marginal changes that may be suggested by the local government boundary commission--it seems right that the boundary commission might decide to cross boundaries ; or the commission might decide to link two slender boroughs, which do not warrant two Members of Parliament each, to create three constituencies.
Let us consider the smallest constituencies. I do not know which ones will be chosen, but from the written answer in column 7 in Hansard of 22 June to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) I see that the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea has an electorate of 84,700. That seems to be close to the number necessary for one parliamentary seat. If it is linked with one of the boroughs close by--I know not which--it may be possible to find a rationale for those two small boroughs to have three seats rather than four. It is along those lines that I urge the Minister to consider whether the boundary commission should or should not transgress borough boundaries in order to make common sense and rationality out of what many people see as the unsatisfactory position in London.
Like some of my hon. Friends, I will regret the passing of some of the seats in London. Traditionally, some helped to give the Conservative party, rather than the Labour party, a majority in London. However, having considered the position in London, I accept that it is manifestly unfair that some constituencies are made up of many electors while others are not.
I also seek some reassurance from my colleagues on the Front Bench that they are not considering any reorganisation that will create a superstructure for the government of London. I warn them, straightaway, that I should be opposed root and branch to that.
Mr. Robert B. Jones : In some ways, I feel that we have been here before--both yesterday and on Second Reading. I wish to respond to some of the issues which have been raised today.
Column 158
The consensus between the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and those Conservative Members who have contributed to the debate was heartening. The hon. Gentleman hit the nail on the head. Happily, the Isle of Wight, which is the great exception to the rule, is acceptable as a constituency to those who live there. They did not respond to the provisional recommendation that the Isle of Wight should have two constituencies. Therefore, they seem to be content to be under- represented at the moment, no doubt in the sure and certain knowledge that the Isle of Wight will have two constituencies in due course.I take issue with a point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). He seemed to suggest that a road that had one borough on one side and another borough on the other would inevitably create anomalies, but that one could somehow do something about that. It is inevitable that there will always be areas in which the border between urban authorities is a road and not something more significant, such as a river, railway line or canal. If that were not so, we would have enormous local authorities. For example, the local authority for London would cover not only Greater London, but large parts of the surrounding non-metropolitan counties. The city of Glasgow would have to include all its suburbs, too, because it is a continuous built-up mass.
Mr. Darling : I can save the hon. Gentleman some time. That was not my argument. I agree with the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), who pointed out that some of the boundaries are odd and that there is no rhyme or reason for them. However, there is no way around the problem. According to the boundaries proposed by the last boundary commission review, my constituency is circumscribed because the residents parking scheme for Edinburgh stretches into one part of it, but not into another. That may be an anomaly, but I do not know what can be done about it. I accept that that is so.
Mr. Jones : We have common ground on yet another point, which is excellent.
The problem in London has become more acute in recent years because of the stair-stepping effect. When the number of seats in a London borough was reduced from five to four or from four to three, the problem was less difficult to overcome. In an extreme case, in which a London borough was theoretically entitled to 4.5 seats but actually had four, the average constituency size would be only 12 per cent. above the national average. If the number of seats in a borough were reduced from four to three, the maximum discrepancy in constituency size would be 17 per cent. If the number of seats in a borough were reduced from three to two seats, the discrepancy would be 25 per cent. If the reduction were from two seats to one, it would be 50 per cent. It is because of the stair-stepping effect that the proposed constituencies for London must cross borough boundaries.
4.45 pm
The precedent has been set in the metropolitan districts and it works perfectly well. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who is no longer present, argued that it would be desirable if parliamentary boundaries and local authorities were contiguous units. That is simply not possible. In the non-metropolitan counties, it is quite common for Members to represent parts of more than one district authority. For example, in
Column 159
my neighbouring constituency, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) represents part of the Three Rivers district council, the whole of the borough of Watford and part of the city of St. Albans. Such boundaries are set to ensure that there is the right number of electors in each non-metropolitan district. Until now, the only anomaly has been London. The logic of the figures, which show that the electorate in London has declined over a long period, means that, for reasons of fairness, that nettle has to be grasped by the boundary commission. Otherwise, we will have an increasing number of Members of Parliament in the House of Commons and the areas outside London, whose population is growing, will be treated unfairly.Mr. Ken Livingstone (Brent, East) : I support the amendment.
Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne) : The hon. Gentleman has not been present for the debate so how does he know?
Mr. Livingstone : I can read the amendment, but I doubt if the arguments of Conservative Members would have swayed me very much, given the appalling and, I think, corrupt approach of the boundary commission to London over the years.
I have never had the slightest doubt that the boundary commission shows a small and significant bias in favour of the Conservative party. That is manifest because, whenever a boundary review is completed, one always finds such a bias. We saw that in 1950 and 1951 when it was much easier to elect Conservative Members of Parliament than Labour Members of Parliament. In 1951, the Labour Government were defeated, although they had won more votes than the Conservative party, because the boundaries had been drawn in a subtle way to benefit the Conservatives.
Mr. Peter Bottomley rose--
Mr. Simon Burns (Chelmsford) rose--
Mr. Livingstone : I shall not give way until I have made my argument.
The same thing has happened with each significant boundary review. After each of them, there has been a small bias in favour of the Conservative party.
Mr. Burns rose--
Mr. Livingstone : I shall give way once I have completed my argument. I advise hon. Members not to object to my argument until they have heard it.
After the votes are counted at each election, psephologists have demonstrated that were the Labour and Conservative parties to receive an equal number of votes, the Conservatives would usually enjoy an advantage of 10 to 20 in the number of seats won. That advantage tends to be eroded during the lifetime of the boundaries as population change takes place, but every parliamentary boundary review has had an in-built bias towards the Tory party.
I had the misfortune to attend one of the reviews in London during the last round. It was for the constituency of Hampstead and Highgate and was an absolute travesty, showing great prejudice. The constituency had been bitterly fought over, and it once returned a Labour Member of Parliament. We saw in that boundary review a complete ignoring of natural communities in order to
Column 160
preserve a seat for the Conservative party. In the long term, it did not work, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms. Jackson) demonstrates that fact. In Camden, before the review came into operation in 1983, we had three constituencies which, it was proposed, should become two. The choice before the boundary commission concerned what part of the old St. Pancras, North seat should be included in Hampstead.There were two proposals, one from the local Conservative party, arguing that Highgate should be included. That proposal overlooked the fact that no road joined the Highgate ward in St. Pancras, North with the Camden constituency. Unless one trekked over the heath--quite a trek--one had to go out of the Highgate ward, through Haringey and back into Camden to find a road that would convey one from one side of the constituency to the other. It was absolute nonsense. The alternative, put forward by the Labour party, was that the two wards of Gospel Oak and Grafton, which abutted the South End ward--it was one natural community but was divided for years-- should be included. That would have made a clear and concise boundary created by a railway line. There could have been no doubt on the part of anyone listening to the hearing on that boundary review that the obvious and sensible natural community would be achieved by the creation of a Hampstead seat which included Gospel Oak and Grafton. Highgate was included for no reason other than the fact that Gospel Oak and Grafton were safe Labour wards, whereas Highgate ward normally returned a Conservative.
Mr. Robert B. Jones : I read the report on that occasion. The boundary commission made it clear that it thought that there was merit in bringing together the two sides of Hampstead heath, which would have meant the least disruption to existing constituencies, that always being one of the commission's principles. There seems to be a clear communality of interest between those who look to the heath from one side and those who look from the other. For the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the commission acted out of political motivation is a travesty of justice and, even with his standards, he should know better than to suggest that.
Mr. Livingstone : To define a constituency by being on opposite sides of an open space, one of the largest open spaces in London, seems to be a wonderfully new concept. That does not apply anywhere else in London. But it made all the difference to a seat that Labour would have been more likely to win.
Mr. Burns : The hon. Gentleman sauntered in half way through the debate and then made outrageous allegations about the boundary commission. I fear that, because he was so late coming in, he missed the tabloid press reporters in the Press Gallery.
The hon. Gentleman alleged that, following a boundary commission review, there will be at the next general election an inbuilt bias of 10 to 20 seats in favour of the Conservative party. Does he have any positive proof to back up his allegation? How does he reconcile it with the fact that, prior to the February 1974 election, the press having made that allegation, as press cuttings--
The First Deputy Chairman : Order. The hon. Member's intervention is becoming very long. Interventions must be brief.
Column 161
Mr. Livingstone : February 1974 was not the natural next election. Those boundaries should have come into operation at the 1970 general election, but we remember why the then Labour Government decided to put off the alterations, by which time the natural bias of which I spoke had started to erode. If those boundaries had operated in the 1970 election-- [Interruption.] I refer Conservative Members to the analysis made by The Economist and published as a separate booklet in late July 1970. That made it clear that that inbuilt bias was there at that stage.There would have been a Conservative Government in February 1974 but for the split with the Ulster Unionists. That allowed Labour to win more seats because in every previous election the 11 Ulster Unionist seats would have been counted with the Conservative seats.
Mr. Bermingham : Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a major problem has been the fact that, in every redistribution since 1951, there has been a growing disparity in the average size of London seats compared with seats in the country as a whole? That has given a flavour of there being a Conservative bias. The bias has appeared to benefit the Conservative party simply because London has too many seats. Further, the hon. Gentleman must remember--
The First Deputy Chairman : Order. I draw the attention of the hon. Member and the Committee to the fact that we are discussing London boroughs in the year 2000, not what the situation is now or in the past.
Mr. Bermingham : On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. How on earth can we discuss the future without referring to the present and the past? The future is built on the present and the past.
The First Deputy Chairman : Order. I urge hon. Members to have a good try.
Mr. Livingstone : My worry is that the boundary commission is planning to take the same corrupt approach to boundaries in London-- [Interruption.] --in the coming redistribution--
Mr. Peter Bottomley : On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Is it in order for an hon. Member to suggest that the boundary commissioners are corrupt?
The First Deputy Chairman : That is a matter for the hon. Member concerned to decide.
Mr. Bottomley : It is disgraceful.
Mr. Livingstone : Not at all. I have a lot more evidence about the corruption of the boundary commission, and it is what one would expect. I am not saying that it is blatant. Corruption in Britain is usually rather subtle. I am referring to a small bias, with a decision here or there, carefully moved the Conservative party's way, and I have drawn attention to what happened in Hampstead--
The First Deputy Chairman : Order. I suggest that the hon. Member return to the subject of the amendment.
Mr. Livingstone : I return to the specific point of London and the borough boundaries. We have seen already the approach of the boundary commission. In 1993, London should have lost four more seats than it actually lost, the point that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) made, for too many seats have been given to London. Some people in
Column 162
London greeted that as a sign of generosity on the part of the boundary commission. When one examines which four boroughs were the beneficiaries of the extra four seats, one discovers that they maintained four Conservative seats in London.Mr. Livingstone : No, not Newham. The four boroughs that were allowed to keep an extra seat--which, if the formula had been applied accurately, they would not--were Bromley, Barnet, Bexley and Greenwich, with the result that in each borough the Conservatives retained a seat that they would otherwise have lost. If that is not biased, I do not know what is, and it has started again. A local government boundary review is being carried out in London and it is expected that the changes to be made will provide the basis for the parliamentary boundary commission's findings--the point made in the amendment.
Mr. John Gorst (Hendon, North) : As the hon. Gentleman's objective is to win seats, may I put it to him that he would be more effective if, instead of traducing the boundary commission, he seduced the electorate? That has been his great failing so far.
Mr. Livingstone : I have no intention of seducing anybody in the Chamber. A series of boundary reviews of the boroughs is occurring, and the parliamentary boundary commission faces a problem. If it reduces the London seats to exactly the number that the area should have in relation to its population, the majority of seats lost would be Conservative seats. Many Tory boroughs which, unjustifiably, held on to their seats at the last redistribution-- [Interruption.] The majority of seats to be lost in London will be Conservative seats. The parliamentary boundary commission has started to change borough boundaries to try to reduce that impact. Brent is a borough from which, with the best will in the world, my party would have trouble dislodging the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson). Equally, it would not be easy for the Conservative party to win either of the other two Labour seats in Brent. Although the boundary commission's attitude is to reduce Brent to two seats, the population figures do not justify that. Unless the boundary of the borough is changed, Brent will continue to have three parliamentary seats : two Labour and one Conservative. So the parliamentary boundary commission has approached-- informally, of course--the local government boundary commission and asked it to reduce the population of Brent sufficiently so that it will lose a parliamentary seat. That is what I call corruption.
I received an anonymous telephone call from a worker inside the local government boundary commission tipping me off about the fact that the commission had been asked to reduce the size of Brent to two parliamentary seats. When that redistribution takes place, the Brent, North seat would remain Conservative and Labour would lose one of the other two seats. Thus, the bias of the boundary commission is revealed once again.
5 pm
The boundary commission set about its task by suddenly publishing a proposal to remove the safest Labour ward from my constituency and move it to Westminster, North. That act was not received enthusiastically by the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), as the ward concerned has about
| Next Section
| Home Page |