Sixth Periodical Review

Sixth Periodical Review
Name	Sixth Periodical Review
Country	United Kingdom
Period	20th century
Authority	Boundary Commission for England, Boundary Commission for Scotland, Boundary Commission for Wales, Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland
Created	post-war review cycle
Outcome	constituency boundary changes

Sixth Periodical Review

The Sixth Periodical Review was a quinquennial redistribution exercise undertaken by the four Boundary Commission for England, Boundary Commission for Scotland, Boundary Commission for Wales, Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland bodies to redraw parliamentary constituencies across the United Kingdom. It sought to reconcile shifts recorded in the Census and align representation with statutory rules established by the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 and subsequent legislative amendments. The review influenced electoral districts used in several general elections and intersected with debates involving figures and institutions such as Parliament of the United Kingdom, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Home Secretary, Lord Chancellor and major political parties including the Conservative Party (UK), Labour Party (UK), and Liberal Party (UK).

Background and Purpose

The review was framed by demographic change recorded between successive decennial Census returns, urban migration affecting areas like Greater London, West Midlands, Greater Manchester, and depopulation in parts of Scotland such as the Highlands and Islands. It aimed to implement statutory criteria from the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 while taking account of later provisions in acts debated in the House of Commons and scrutinized by committees including the Select Committee on the Boundary Commissions. The commissions referenced precedents set by earlier redistributions that had affected constituencies after events like the Representation of the People Act 1918 and the Representation of the People Act 1948, balancing equality of electorate with continuity in areas represented by constituencies such as Birmingham, Liverpool, Glasgow, and Cardiff.

Commissioning and Methodology

Statutorily independent, each commission comprised legally appointed commissioners, professional staff from institutions like the Ordnance Survey and statisticians familiar with Census geography. The commissions applied rules distilled from legislation debated in sessions presided over in Westminster Hall and consulted via local hearings in venues such as Guildhall, London, Edinburgh City Chambers, Cardiff City Hall, and the Stormont Estate. The methodology combined electoral registers, Census enumeration district mapping, and consultations with constituency associations from the Conservative Party (UK), Labour Party (UK), Liberal Party (UK), and regional parties including Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, and the Social Democratic and Labour Party. Technical procedures invoked cartographic standards used by the Ordnance Survey, population statistics from the Office for National Statistics, and legal interpretations by offices such as the Attorney General for England and Wales.

Boundary Changes and Recommendations

Recommendations altered boundaries in metropolitan areas including London Borough of Hackney, Manchester, Birmingham, and Liverpool, and adjusted seats in rural areas from Cornwall to Aberdeenshire. The commissions proposed creating, abolishing, or renaming constituencies, affecting seats historically associated with politicians tied to events like the Suez Crisis and institutions including the Bank of England. The proposals referenced long-standing constituencies such as Islington North, Edinburgh South, Cardiff Central, and Belfast South while proposing new alignments reflecting electoral register data that paralleled population shifts evident in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The recommendations reflected an effort to equalize electorates against the backdrop of changes following the Post-war consensus and urban redevelopment projects tied to authorities like the Greater London Council.

Implementation and Legal Challenges

Implementation required Orders in Council and secondary legislation processed through the Parliament of the United Kingdom with scrutiny by the House of Commons and House of Lords. Several interested parties sought judicial review before courts including the High Court of Justice and, on some procedural points, appeals reached the Court of Appeal (England and Wales). Litigants invoked statutory interpretation linked to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 and later amendments debated during sittings in Westminster. Challenges often concerned constituency names, ward groupings governed by principal local authorities such as Metropolitan Boroughs and county councils like Essex County Council and West Riding of Yorkshire County Council, and the commissions’ discretion over community ties exemplified by disputes in areas like Blackpool, Newport (Isle of Wight), and Dumfries and Galloway.

Political and Public Reaction

Political reaction traversed party lines: the Conservative Party (UK) and Labour Party (UK) lodged submissions through MPs who raised matters in parliamentary debates overseen by Speakers of the House of Commons; regional parties such as the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru campaigned locally against perceived dilution of community representation. Media outlets including The Times (London), The Guardian, Daily Telegraph, and regional papers reported contention in constituencies like Bristol, Sheffield, Glasgow, and Belfast, while pressure groups including the Electoral Reform Society and civic associations organized petitions and public meetings. Local councils such as Manchester City Council and Glasgow City Council made formal representations, and individual MPs raised concerns linking boundary outcomes to electoral prospects for leaders such as the Leader of the Opposition (United Kingdom) and sitting Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Impact and Subsequent Reviews

The Sixth Periodical Review’s changes affected the composition of candidates and campaigning strategies in subsequent general elections, influencing contests in seats like Leeds Central, Brighton Pavilion, Aberdeen South, and Derry South. Its legacy informed legislative debates that produced later reviews and reforms overseen by subsequent boundary commissions and enacted through legislation such as the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act successors. Subsequent periodic exercises referenced its methodology and controversies during later redistributions that involved institutions like the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and informed discourse about representation in bodies including the European Parliament prior to the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union.

Category:Electoral redistributions in the United Kingdom