| Home Page |
Column 713
Points of Order
3.32 pm
Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to seek guidance on the way in which the Government responded to the Select Committee on Social Security on the Maxwell pension scheme. Yesterday, there was a notice outside the Vote Office stating, "No papers today". In question 311 on yesterday's Order Paper, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) asked the Secretary of State when he intended to respond. In yesterday's Hansard, the Secretary of State replied :
"The Government's response to the Select Committee's report is published today."--[ Official Report, 29 June 1992 ; Vol. 210, c. 432.]
I went to the Vote Office earlier today, and was told that the report would not be made available to hon. Members until 3.30 pm. However, journalists received unembargoed copies yesterday. That is a case of sneaking a reply out and cheating hon. Members. It is an abuse of procedures and shows that the much-vaunted style of open government has not reached the Department of Social Security. May I request a statement from the Leader of the House on how it is that a report published yesterday is not available to us but has been made available to the Lobby? What can you do, Madam Speaker, to end such obnoxious practices?
Several Hon. Members rose --
Madam Speaker : Order. Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman's point.
What the hon. Gentleman had to say has been heard by those Ministers who are present. I deprecate the practice of documents being made available to the press before they are made available to the House. There are senior Ministers on the Front Bench who will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. I am sure that, as a matter of courtesy, Ministers with responsibility for such matters will report to me.
Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We are told that the Community's ethos has undergone a sea change towards subsidiarity, yet daily more Community instruments are being rammed down our throats.
The Prime Minister told us today that shop hours are a matter for Community discretion. But more important than that, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given his assent to the possibility that VAT rates could be constrained by European considerations. My right hon. Friend is a good Chancellor of the Exchequer and I hope that he will hold office for a long time, but he might not. My understanding is that the House is responsible for making decisions on supply and that it should not be constrained in what taxes it raises and at what level it raises those taxes. You, Madam Speaker, may not wish to pronounce today, but it may be advisable for Europeans to know that decisions on taxation are for the House, not for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Madam Speaker : As the hon. Gentleman knows, points of order should relate to matters for which I am responsible, and I am not responsible for what Ministers say, whether in the House or outside.
Column 714
Several Hon. Members : On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker : Order. I must respond to one point of order before I can take any others.
As the hon. Gentleman understands, I will rule if necessary on whether or not tax proposals are in order as and when they are made, but I do not want to make advance pronouncements on a hypothetical situation derived from press reports. When the time is right, I shall pronounce on those matters.
Ms. Dawn Primarolo (Bristol, South) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you been notified that the Government will be making a statement to the House on the allegation that the arms embargo against Iran has been broken by the Ministry of Defence in issuing an export licence for the export of machinery which is capable of making gun barrels to a firm in my constituency? That is a matter of interest to members of the public as well as to Members of the House.
Madam Speaker : I have had no such notification from any member of the Government.
Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will know from your constituency how the primary purpose rule unfairly separates families. Has the Home Secretary, who, conveniently, is in his place, applied to you to make a statement to announce the conduct of a review which the Home Office is now conducting into the cases of spouses who have been waiting more than five years to enter Britain, particularly those with British citizen children? As that review effectively abolishes the primary purpose rule and clearly has important public policy implications, has the Home Secretary sought an opportunity to announce the review into the primary purpose review?
Madam Speaker : I have had no indication from the Government that they are seeking to make a statement on that matter.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : As you are aware, Madam Speaker, Members of Parliament have free access to this place--a right which you would guard with your life, I suppose. But do you have any jurisdiction over the Tory Members of Parliament who were trying to enter the other place today? Tory Whips were using intimidatory tactics to stop Tory Members going to the other place to see Baroness Thatcher being ennobled and taking part in the "Monty Python" sketch. Do you have any powers to stop those Tory Whips preventing those Euro-sceptics
Madam Speaker : Order. I have sufficient responsibilities in relation to the House. Please do not burden me with any more.
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Am I to understand from previous exchanges that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having apparently conceded the important power of the House in raising taxes by accepting a VAT limit of no lower than 15 per cent. for four years, is not applying to you to make a statement of what amounts to a betrayal of the British people and the handing over of power to the Common Market on an unprecedented scale?
Column 715
Madam Speaker : I have already answered a point of order on that matter. We must now move on--to summer time.STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.), That the draft Summer Time Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Boswell.]
Question agreed to.
Column 716
Tattooing (Insurance Cover)
3.41 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay) : I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require that a person shall be insured against the cost of tattoo removal when purchasing the services of a commercial tattooist.
You will recall, Madam Speaker, that before the election there was a considerable hue and cry about long-term waiting lists in the health service. I decided to investigate the list in my constituency, Billericay, where we have an excellent burns and plastic surgery unit. I found, to my great surprise, that a remarkably large number of the people who were waiting for two years were waiting to have tattoos removed. There were over 100 cases of that type, and they represented almost 10 per cent. of the long-term waiting list. I have subsequently been told by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) that his hospital, Stoke Mandeville, has a similar experience. I made inquiries in other hospitals, including the Brighton hospital, where there are specialists in this work, and they too had close on 100 people waiting to have tattoos removed. If this is added up throughout the country, one finds that a very large number of people on long-term waiting lists are there because they very much regret having been tattooed in the first place. Mr. Patrick Hall-Smith, a specialist at the Brighton hospital, points out that taking off a tattoo can be almost as traumatic as having it put on. It causes great psychological distress and, in addition to the cost, can cause a long-term problem for the individual concerned.
You will be surprised to learn, Madam Speaker, that it would cost you £25 to have "I love Teresa" tattooed on your arm ; but it will surprise you even more to learn that it would cost £2,500 to have that tattoo removed under the health service. That is money which could be better spent on people who are ill, and surely that is what the health service is for. I am therefore calling for people who choose to have themselves tattooed to have first to think carefully about it and to take out an insurance policy.
Tattooing is of course extremely common in the Navy. It is quite common for a jolly sailor to roll out of the Crown and Anchor with a girl on his arm, stagger across to the tattooist and, because he does not have to sign anything, have "Sharon" tattooed on his chest before he realises what he is doing. But he may wake up in the morning to find that in fact it is Tracey he loves. He is now burdened with something that he wishes to goodness he had never had done. I am told that such sailors, when they leave the Navy, are often discriminated against when they are looking for jobs, particularly if their tattoos are in a place where they can easily be seen. This is especially so when they are on the face, where, I am given to understand, many people have tattoos.
The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1992 made it necessary for tattooists to register, although apparently very few of them do so. It also made it necessary for people to be over the age of 18 before they could be tattooed. However, the journal of the British Medical Association records that the majority of tattoos are carried out on people under the age of 18, and often as young as 13. The removal of these tattoos requires the use of acid, burning, abrasion, lasers or even skin grafts, and can take
Column 717
place over a long period--so long, indeed, that the individual often gives up, having wasted the valuable time of a plastic surgeon who could be doing something a lot more useful. Furthermore, the treatment leaves the skin looking like a patchwork quilt. There is no such thing as invisible mending when it comes to the removal of tattoos.Tattooing has currently become very fashionable. Many prominent people in the pop world are displaying tattoos. There is a young lady called Paula Yates who apparently has a tattoo which she regularly exhibits on television. I think that it is on her arm. Surprisingly enough, Eddie Grundy of "The Archers" was recently tattooed, and he is busy persuading the young people of Ambridge to follow his example. I hate to think what the plastic surgery bills will be in Ambridge in the near future.
Whole magazines are devoted to the apparently fashionable art of tattooing, but no one tells the people who undergo what is in a way enforced defilement of their skin what it will cost in pain, suffering, misery and lost jobs if they change their minds. My Bill does not seek to prohibit people being tattooed. I would be the last one to stop them. I am on record as saying that everyone should be allowed to go to hell in their own way--I just do not think that we ought to pay for the journey.
My Bill would ensure that, before people are tattooed, they would obtain insurance, and would give their consent in writing, to absolve the tattooist of any responsibility. It is wholly wrong that the health service should be derided for keeping people waiting a long time for treatment, when many of those concerned are in need not of a genuine operation but only of cosmetic surgery.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Mr. Christopher Gill, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Gyles Brandreth, Mr. Eric Pickles, Dr. Robert Spink, Mr. Terry Dicks, Dr. Liam Fox, and Mr. David Lidington.
Tattooing (Insurance Cover)
Mrs. Teresa Gorman accordingly presented a Bill to require that a person shall be insured against the cost of tattoo removal when purchasing the services of a commercial tattooist ; And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 10 July and to be printed. [Bill 49.]
Column 718
Orders of the Day
Boundary Commissions Bill
As amended, considered ; reported, with amendments.
3.47 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time I am extremely pleased that this legislation has made its way to this stage in the parliamentary process comparatively quietly. It is a tribute to our parliamentary democracy that it has aroused relatively little controversy, and that only a small number of right hon. and hon. Members voted against its Second Reading.
The majority of right hon. and hon. Members are committed to our system of single-member constituencies as a fair way of producing a representative assembly to support the Government of the country. If we defend that system --as the majority of us do--it is important regularly to revise the numbers in each constituency to take account of demographic change, and to ensure as far as practicable rough equality between constituencies.
Our system is well trusted and impartial. The boundary commission process is fairly lengthy, and allows for considerable debate and local public consultation. It is necessary that the commissioners undertake a thorough review at rather more frequent intervals these days, because the population moves about so much across the country. A problem exists because we have reached the stage where one person's vote is worth almost twice that of another person in England alone, because constituencies have drifted apart in size. Previous boundary commission reviews were probably too infrequent- -as long apart as every 15 years--for today's demographic changes. It is therefore necessary to ensure that we keep to a sensible timetable. The present review should be completed by31 December 1994, and thereafter we will move to an eight to 12-year cycle.
Although about 40 hon. Members were prepared to vote against the Bill on Second Reading, Members on both Front Benches were in agreement. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) for welcoming the Bill. He said that it was important to put it on the statute book to ensure that the review is completed within a reasonable time, so that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House can contest at the next general election constituencies which have had time to settle down, and in which loyalties have become established.
I am sure that all the party organisations will want to know the boundaries a reasonable time before the next election, so that they can establish the various bodies and candidates.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : I voted against the Bill on Second Reading. Derbyshire is in the first tranche of counties to be examined in an investigation relating to the parallel question of the local government boundaries. The three north Derbyshire seats--Bolsover, Chesterfield and Derbyshire, North-East--all conform to the normal electoral pattern, with between 65,000 and 68,000 electors. May we have a guarantee that, irrespective of what
Column 719
happens in regard to the local government boundary commission and anything that may happen to Derbyshire, the parliamentary boundary commission will not interfere with constituencies of that kind, which were revised in 1983? Any changes in constituencies that fitted the bill perfectly in 1983, and have not altered dramatically since then, would constitute an act of political involvement and an attempt to rig the position for the Tory party.Mr. Clarke : One of the great strengths of the system is the fact that the Home Secretary of the day cannot direct the boundary commissioners to reach any conclusions about any constituencies. The rules in schedule 2 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 determine the way in which the commissioners proceed, but ultimately their independent, objective judgment will decide where the boundaries lie, in Derbyshire and elsewhere. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), has made his point about the Derbyshire constituencies. As it happens, I represent a constituency with little more than 70,000 voters, which is coterminous with the borough council. No doubt, if any proposals are made to change his constituency, the hon. Gentleman will do the same as I would, and argue his case before the boundary commissioners and at the public inquiry.
I have no reason to believe that the local government boundary commission, which has not even reached Derbyshire yet--Derbyshire is merely at an early point in its timetable--has any views about local government boundaries in the county, and I certainly do not believe that the parliamentary boundary commissioners will alter constituencies needlessly. Changes should arise only when it is necessary to make constituencies conform as closely as possible to the national quota, and to ensure that there are no major discrepancies between neighbouring constituencies.
The key point is that I cannot influence boundaries in Derbyshire or anywhere else ; nor should I be able to do so. The boundary commissioners must be independent, and I think that it is generally accepted on both sides of the House that they are.
Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : Why are the two reviews not to be kept entirely separate, so that one review cannot possibly have an impact on the other? The Department of the Environment's guidance notes about the local government review state that the parliamentary boundary commission must be one of the bodies that engage in consultation. If it engages in consultation in connection with one review, it must also do so in connection with the other, and the two reviews will become intimately linked as a result. That will affect Derbyshire, which is in the first tranche of counties to be dealt with in the local government review but not in the first tranche to be dealt with in the parliamentary review. The connection should be kept out of the picture, because it is open to manipulation under the terms of reference set out for the commissioners.
Mr. Clarke : The two processes are essentially separate, except in one respect. The parliamentary boundary commissioners have always been enjoined to have regard to local government boundaries when making their recommendations, and as far as I am aware that has never been seriously challenged. The parliamentary boundary
Column 720
commissioners--particularly in shire counties of the kind that we are discussing--do not cross county boundaries except under carefully prescribed rules.All of us who have spoken so far have constituencies in the east midlands. I do not recall anyone seriously suggesting the creation of constituencies that cross the boundaries between Leicestershire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Staffordshire. When the Local Government Commission has been set up--it is not my responsibility but that of the Secretary of State for the Environment--it will seek the best organisation of local government, will consider the possibility of unitary authorities and will clearly have regard to local loyalties and the effective delivery of local services. It will impinge on the parliamentary boundary commissioners only if it starts altering county boundaries.
Although parliamentary boundary commissioners are not enjoined to do so, in our experience they have tended to try to get the constituencies to coincide with the local borough or district boundaries where that is convenient. My constituency in Nottinghamshire is the only one where it is not convenient. Other than that, I am not aware of any overlap between the two. The Bill covers the overlap only because, if the parliamentary boundary commissioners were enjoined to avoid crossing local authority boundaries, the problem would arise of which local boundaries they should have regard to, when we are in the process of local government reform in Wales and England and, under a slightly later timetable, no doubt in Scotland. Clause 3 clarifies the position by providing a cut-off date-- before that date local authority boundaries will be taken into account, and after that date, usually they will not.
We have tried to maintain reasonable bipartisanship and have tried to make the Bill straightforward, so as to clarify the timetable. In so doing, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), and I have listened carefully to some of the arguments about the drafting of clause 3, and have amended it in response to the points made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). I think that everyone is now happy with it. In our previous debate, there were many exchanges about Mr. Banham and the local government boundary commission. Strictly speaking, they are irrelevant to the Bill. We are dealing with the parliamentary boundary commission, and local government reorganisation is relevant only where local government boundaries have been changed and have a bearing on the parliamentary work as described in clause 3.
Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart) : May I raise the question of Scotland with the right hon. and learned Gentleman? Of course the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for the local government boundary commission and the boundary commission for Scotland. I am disappointed, to say the least, that a member of the Scottish ministerial team is not present. At the moment, a local government boundary commission is operating in Scotland, drawing up new boundaries for the existing local government structure, but in September we shall have a White Paper on the total reorganisation of local government in Scotland.
In Committee, the Minister of State implied that there was a fair chance that the 1994 regional elections would be cancelled, so that local boundary commission is operating
Column 721
to no good purpose although the boundary commission may take into account any recommendations that it makes about boundaries for local government seats.Mr. Clarke : The hon. Gentleman is trying to draw me on issues which he knows perfectly well should be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Whether my right hon. Friend is about to publish a White Paper on further local government reform, when he will do so and what it might contain are matters on which I cannot be drawn and of which my knowledge is very slight. Ministers from the Scottish Office have at times been present during our debates, usually listening to English exchanges, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of my hon. and right hon. Friends in the Scottish Office. The position in Scotland is the same as that in England. The parliamentary boundary commissioners will have regard to any changes in local government boundaries which come into effect by the cut-off date described in clause 3. One particular problem with local boundaries caused much debate in Committee. There was considerable concern about London boroughs and whether the parliamentary boundary commissioners should be en-joined to cross them. A perceived difficulty arose out of rule 4(1)(a)(ii) in schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 : "no London borough or any part of a London borough shall be included in a constituency which includes the whole or part of any other London borough".
A number of hon. Members. including my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) and the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), were concerned that, if the boundary commissioners adhered rigidly to borough boundaries in London and allocated seats between boroughs on the principles sketched out, we were likely to have new constituency boundaries in London which would give rise to great discrepancies in size between one constituency and another. Other hon. Members also thought that, in London, it would make more sense to cross borough boundaries in some circumstances to achieve constituencies of a more equal size.
The case was made cogently in Committee. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, when he wound up, undertook that we would look at the matter. I assure the House that my hon. Friend and I have given considerable personal attention to the question whether the rule in schedule 2 should be deleted from the Bill. We have decided that it should not be, although we had considerable sympathy with the case put to us. One can draw up good examples of neighbouring London boroughs in which a strict adherence to borough boundaries will give rise to considerable discrepancies in size. However, I point out to those who raised the point and who wonder why the Bill is unamended on that point on Third Reading that it is our considered opinion that rule 5 in schedule 2 gives the boundary commission sufficient flexibility to behave in the way that is being urged on it by hon. Members if it judges it fit.
I have read out the strict terms of rule 4(1)(a)(ii) in schedule 2, which appears to give rise to difficulty about
Column 722
not crossing London borough boundaries. However, the rule is qualified clearly by rule 5 of schedule 2. Rule 5 makes it clear that"a Boundary Commission may depart from the strict application of rule 4 if it appears to them that a departure is desirable to avoid an excessive disparity between the electorate of any constituency and the electoral quota, or between the electorate of any constituency and that of neighbouring constituencies in the part of the United Kingdom with which they are concerned."
We are satisfied that the boundary commission, which will have regard to that rule, can, if it judges fit, use that rule to justify crossing borough boundaries, which it declined to do when it adjusted the London boundaries on the previous occasion.
Rule 5 gives two bases on which it is perfectly proper for the boundary commission to depart from a strict adherence to the boundaries. The first basis is when it is necessary or desirable to avoid a disparity between the electorate of a constituency and the national quota. That is less likely to arise in the London area. More importantly and relevantly in parts of London, borough boundaries may be crossed if it is desirable to avoid an excessive disparity between the electorate of any constituency and that of neighbouring constituencies. I am sure that the boundary commissioners will have regard to what was said in debates in the House. They have all the powers that they require.
As I said to the hon. Member for Bolsover a moment ago, it is extremely important that, in the end, the boundary commissioners themselves must decide whether it is desirable to cross borough boundaries. I have no doubt that they will do so if they judge it necessary to get a fair and proper result in London.
The Bill in its present form, which I ask the House to give a Third reading, is essentially similar to the Bill that was introduced earlier. I described it then as a straightforward measure which would make no change to the rules for the boundary commission's operations and which would confirm the timetable to which most hon. Members expected the boundary commission to adhere in any event. I said that it would help to ensure that the timetable was achieved by making arrangements for some modest extra resources to be provided and for the commissioners to be paid for their public work. We all hope that the commission will finish its work in good time to enable us to fight the next general election, whenever it comes, on sensible boundaries for which everyone is prepared.
I do not know whether there will be a repeat today on Third Reading of the modest vote against the Bill that occurred on Second Reading. I continue to fail to see why anyone should sensibly want to repeat that vote. When the Bill was first published, some Labour Members denounced it as gerrymandering. However, it seemed at the time, and it has become clear since, that they did that without studying the process upon which we were going to engage.
The only reason to vote against Third Reading would be to try to ensure some delay in boundary changes, with the result that the next election would be fought on geographical distributions that are more than 20 years old. I hope that no one will again try to take the high moral ground and argue that it is desirable to fight an election on population distributions of 1976.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook encountered some criticism. Mutterings in the corridors have reached my ears about the fact that the Opposition did not divide
Column 723
on Second Reading against this Bill, which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook quite rightly recognised to be a sensible measure. If there is a Division against Third Reading, that can occur only because someone has decided to vote against the Bill for the sake of it. However, for the benefit of our parliamentary democracy, I trust that there will be an uncontroversial, straightforward end to our proceedings.Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : I was one of those who advocated for voting against Second Reading, and I did so. I want to make it abundantly clear that I did so because the Government introduced the Bill without any consultation with other political parties. They introduced it in a spirit of partisanship, and they have substantively changed the law in respect of Scotland. Although the schedule to the Act that the Secretary of State cited makes it clear that the boundary commission in Scotland is required to have regard to local government boundaries, as a result of the Government's gerrymandering objectives, the boundary commission for Scotland will not be able to follow current local government boundaries. Those were very good reasons for voting against Second Reading.
Mr. Clarke : I am glad that we have heard that last-minute explanation of what the vote was supposed to be about. However, I am not convinced by it.
As I have already explained, the Bill does not change the rules. The Scottish boundary commission will follow current Scottish local government boundaries unless new ones have come into effect by the cut-off date. Having listened to the Second Reading debate and the Committee stage, which was taken on the Floor of the House, I have yet to hear any substantive objections to the terms of the Bill from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I believe that the underlying point is accepted by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland advocated a quite different method of electing Parliaments. He believes in proportional representation. He does not support the single-constituency method of electing Parliaments. If I were to attribute to him the kind of unworthy motives that he somewhat lightheartedly attributes to us, I could say that it was in his interests to reduce the
single-constituency method to the ridiculous and to have people represented in thoroughly disproportionate constituencies to provide him with an extra argument for moving to another method.
However, those of us who believe in the single-constituency method know that it has always required periodic, objective review to ensure that the constituencies remain roughly of the same size. That is what the Bill does, and I commend it to the House.
4.8 pm
Mr. Alistair Darling (Edinburgh, Central) : I get the impression that the Secretary of State would like a vote at the end of the debate. The fact that the Bill's principle at any rate is not controversial seems to be a matter of regret for the Secretary of State. It does not suit his temperament to have to introduce a measure or see its progress completed when its principle at least is not a matter of major controversy.
The principle that we need a review is beyond question. The present boundaries are drawn up on electorates that
Column 724
may have been correct 20 years ago, and there is no doubt that the population has moved since then. However, we are entitled and quite right to raise questions that arise from the Bill and, in particular, to refer to the interrelationship between local government boundary structure and local government boundary reviews and the work of the parliamentary boundary commission. Those two issues are related. The impartiality of the boundary commission is not in question. However, we are entitled to question the rules and regulations which the House, and in particular the Government, lay down. The parliamentary boundary commission is rather like a train. If one lays the tracks to lead to an eventual destination, one can hardly be surprised if the train eventually arrives there. The same principle applies to boundaries.In the main, the local authorities are the building blocks for the parliamentary boundary commission. Therefore, in directing or attempting to influence the boundary commission, it is important for the Government to ensure that the local authority structure and the building blocks are as they would like. For that reason, we raised several issues in Committee and divided the Committee on them. We were worried about the way in which the Government proposed to operate, particularly with regard to the local government review in England, Scotland and Wales.
I am happy to vote against measures if the principle is at stake, but it is important to vote against the right measures and not the wrong ones. As I said, the principle of the Bill is that we need to review the boundaries because there have been population shifts. That is beyond doubt. So we do not object to the principle.
However, while I accept that the 1976 electorate is no basis on which to conduct a general election in 1995 or 1996, I reiterate the point that we made in Committee. There is great anxiety that the 1991 registers in England and Wales and the 1992 registers in Scotland are inaccurate. There are grounds for suspecting that in some cases the registers are grossly inaccurate. In England alone, it is expected that more than 1.5 million people are not on the register. I repeat that it is important that the boundary commission should have regard to established under-registration. If it does not, the recommendations that it makes in 1994 will be based on electorates that are inaccurate. We shall have exactly the same problem in 1994 and subsequent years that we readily accept that we have now-- constituencies are based on electorates that have changed since they were originally drawn up.
As the Home Secretary said, anxiety was expressed on Second Reading about the wide scope of clause 3, which allows the parliamentary boundary commissions to take account of local government boundaries and structure. We tabled amendments on that point, and I am glad that the Government accepted the spirit of them. We in turn did not oppose the amendment which made it clear that the parliamentary boundary commissions could have regard only to boundaries that were enshrined in an Act or other measure. That amendment ensured that the commission could be sure that Parliament had approved the boundary changes.
However, in Wales there is a curious arrangement whereby the parliamentary boundary commission is entitled to consider boundaries approved only on Second Reading. In other words, changes could take place in Committee or on Report. That is not inconceivable in
Column 725
matters of local government structure. Changes could be introduced by all-party agreement. Conservative Back Benchers might press changes on the Government. It would be unfortunate if the Welsh parliamentary boundary commission introduced proposals based on boundaries proposed on Second Reading which might change. It would be regrettable if we allowed that to happen.In any event, it is a bad precedent to invite bodies which are not part of the structures of the House of Commons to have regard to a preliminary discussion. Second Reading debates are merely preliminary discussions. It would be far better to require the boundary commission to have regard to something which is on the statute book. Notwithstanding the changes made to clause 3, problems may arise. The Home Secretary said that it was a matter of clarification, yet in London we still do not know the scale of the changes that the Government have in mind. The Local Government Act 1992 makes it clear that the review body must consider the boundaries of local government in London. Of course, the structures and boundaries that will eventually be decided by the local government boundary commission are interrelated.
If the Government asked the local government boundary commission as early as this year to examine the structure of local government in London, they must be contemplating changes which may not be major but could be significant to parliamentary boundaries. I note that a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham North-West (Mr. Banks) in column 368 of yesterday's Hansard gave the impression that the Government contemplate such changes.
It is now common ground between the parties that the boundary commission should cross London borough boundaries where necessary. Where small local authority constituencies coincide with parliamentary constituencies such as that of Surbiton, which has an electorate of 42,000, it is clearly right for the commission to exercise its discretion.
I accept that this is not the Bill in which to change the rules in the 1986 Act--the consolidating Act. I had hoped that the Secretary of State might say something about the Government's intentions as regards those rules. Again, it is common ground that the rules are in need of revision. The Home Secretary has said that the boundary commission will have discretion, within the existing rules, to consider boundaries in London. If we accept that the rules need changing, it seems odd that we do not simply change them and remove that preliminary injunction from the boundary commission. The problems will remain in England, where there is a creeping system of review and change. By the qualifying date of 1 June 1994, it is likely that the first tranche of changes in England will have been discussed and will be on the statute book. When we consider the apparently haphazard selection in the first tranche to be reviewed by Sir John Banham's commission, it is no surprise to find included several counties which are sensitive as regards parliamentary boundaries. We shall be interested to find out whether the Government seek to influence the Banham inquiry--either through the representations made, or in
Column 726
any other way--and thus indirectly the parliamentary boundary commission, to make certain recommendations about boundary changes. If I am wrong and that is not the intention of clause 3, I wait with interest to discover the real intention. It seems clear that the Government hope to use the opportunity to influence the boundary commission, which has to depend on the local authority building blocks to do its work.As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, the position is different in Scotland. A commission is set up to consider appropriate parts of England and to hear representations about what people want. In Scotland, there is no similar provision--the Government will decide what is best. They will certainly consult, but having consulted--if the way that they have behaved in Scotland in the past 12 years is anything to go by--they will decide what is best. I suspect that they will decide what is best for Government and for the Conservative cause.
The Home Secretary fairly said that he did not know what was going on in Scotland and could not let us know what the Secretary of State for Scotland had in mind, but we have some clues. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), has been touring Scotland, encouraging any district, parish or group to make proposals. From what we know about the Under-Secretary of State, his approach to politics and the way in which he has conducted himself, it is clear that he is trying to create Tory enclaves wherever he can. The Tories face an uphill battle in Scotland to make any recovery. They will lose no opportunity to make that recovery, and overlook nothing in their cause.
I am sure that the Scottish Office intends to use the review of local authority structure to try to create units of local government that can conveniently be presented to the parliamentary boundary commission as units which ought to be taken into consideration during the review of constituencies. In Scotland, local authority boundaries are also the building blocks on which the parliamentary boundary commission will have to rely. For example, if the local authority review suggests single-tier authorities, which are small enough to be constituencies in Scotland, it will invite the parliamentary boundary commission to have regard to those.
While the impartiality of the Scottish boundary commission is beyond reproach, one cannot say the same of the Government's review of local authority structure in Scotland, which is entirely partial. Nothing that we have seen from the Government leaves us in any doubt that the Conservative party in Scotland will take the opportunity to influence the parliamentary boundary commission if it has a chance to do so.
| Next Section
| Home Page |