§ [Queen's Recommendation signified]
§ Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).
§ [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to local government and the functions of local authorities in the metropolitan area, it is expedient to authorise—
§ 10.17 p.m.
§ Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham)
We should not let the Money Resolution on as important a Bill as this pass without comment and we should not let it pass without opposition, because the Division showed that a Government which could muster a majority of over 100 for its Landon proposals in February can now muster only a majority of under 80. In view of this declining enthusiasm, we ought to press the inquiry a little further.
There are, moreover, a number of important interests concerned in the Bill who will want to know what is implied in the Money Resolution. As I read the terms of the Resolution, it is quite widely drawn, but if we read what is said in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum—
§ Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)
On a point of order. Sir William, would you ask hon. Members at the Bar to keep quiet? I cannot hear a word that is being said.
§ The Chairman
Order. It has been drawn to my attention that there is so 346 much noise that hon. Members cannot hear the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), who has the floor.
§ Mr. Stewart
I was saying that while the Resolution is widely drawn, the Financial Memorandum to the Bill suggests that the Government do not think that they are likely to be run into very much expenditure as a result of the Bill. That raises a number of questions. There are certain expenses which arise out of the Bill which one would normally say fall on local authorities but, with block grants, rate deficiency grants and so on, it is difficult to say, when an expense falls to be met in the first place by a local authority, whether indirectly some money is not money provided by Parliament. I want to ask, therefore, whether certain types of Amendment which would involve increased expenditure for local authorities and therefore, possibly indirectly, charges on Parliamentary moneys will be in order under the terms of the Resolution.
For example, the view has been expressed from both sides of the House of Commons that the members of the Greater London Council ought to be salaried or, at any rate, that more generous provision ought to be made for their needs than is made under the existing general law of local government If an Amendment were introduced in Committee providing that a salary should be paid, one would normally assume that the salary would be paid out of moneys raised by the Greater London Council. There again, some element of Government grant one way or another might come in. We should not want to be told later in the proceedings that for that reason an Amendment to provide that the members of the Greater London Council should be salaried would be out of order.
It is a legitimate anxiety to express that an Amendment of that kind might be out of order and we are entitled to ask the Government whether such an Amendment would be in order. I see that the Government are not certain of the answer and are obtaining it. This at least is not one of the arguable points of the Bill that would be argued strictly on party lines. Hon. Members on both sides have urged a salaried council.
The next question concerns the transitional arrangements that are to be made for the severed remnants of Surrey, Kent 347 and Essex. The opinion has been expressed—not so much in debate during the last two days, but in the Press and in various journals—that there is some responsibility on the Government to find the money for transitional relief to the severed counties, whereas in fact as the Bill now stands it will be the ratepayers inside the Greater London area who will have to find the money with which to compensate the truncated remnants of Surrey, Kent and Essex.
There is a legitimate case for arguing that the money ought to come from Governmental sources rather than from the ratepayers of Greater London, because this is not simply a removal of rateable value from what is now Surrey into Greater London. If that were all there was to it, it could then be said that that part of Surrey which is now in Greater London and which takes its rateable value with it ought to pay up to help the truncated part left outside.
Further, the mere fact of truncation will make the rendering of the services mare costly, at any rate at the beginning, on both sides of the border. If, for example, as Surrey has, there is an organised fire brigade on a county basis and the Government step in with a Bill as a result of which the administrative headquarters of the fire brigade are on one side of the boundary and most of the individual fire stations are on the other, it is as if a living organism has been cut into two pieces and neither piece can function quite as well after that process as it did before. Both pieces have to set to work to create the missing part. One side has to create a new administrative headquarters.
This is the kind of expense which is caused. It is a completely additional expense. These is not merely the transfer of rateable value from one authority to another. There is a new expense created by the tiresome character of the provisions of the whole Bill. In these circumstances the Government who introduce the Bill should help to find the money or, more strictly speaking, to pursue a local government analogy, it ought to be raised by a surcharge on the Ministers responsible for the introduction of the Bill. Failing that, there is at least a case for saying that this additional expense thrown on Surrey, Kent and Essex 348 through no conceivable fault of their own ought to be regarded as a sort of national disaster, as other acts of the present Government are regarded, and met out of public funds provided by Parliament. I want to know on that point whether such Amendments designed to give help to the severed counties would be in order.
The third and, perhaps, the most important question is that affecting compensation to the staffs of the authorities concerned, one may say particularly the staff of the L.C.C.—and I will explain why I particularise in this case. It is not merely a question of that partial affection from which we all pray to be delivered at the beginning of each day's sitting. There is a special reason why I mention the staff of the L.C.C. in this connection. It is because the L.C.C. at present offers its staff greater opportunities for rising in the service from comparatively minor posts to posts of great responsibility. It also offers a much wider range and a greater variety of work than any other local authority in the Kingdom, whatever its kind.
This is shown by the type of intake it gets. Of the people entering what is called the major or administrative grade of the L.C.C. service this year, 60 per cent. have been honours graduates. There is no local authority in the Kingdom with a position anything like that and it is fair to say that people who enter the L.C.C. service are not really weighing up in their minds whether they should go to the L.C.C. or some other local authority. They are choosing between the L.C.C. and the service of the central Government. It is on that level that they are thinking.
That is the point made in a circular letter which all hon. Members have received. That is the point in that letter which I particularly remember because I found, when a goad many years ago I was teaching at a school in east London, that that was true of a number of one's more gifted senior pupils. They were in a position where they could decide whether to enter either the Civil Service or the administrative grade of the L.C.C. service.
We are, therefore, dealing with a service of considerable importance, and I should like to know what is to happen to these people. Some of them—a great 349 many, I dare say—will enter the service of the Greater Landon Council, but although that body has a wider area than the L.C.C. it has not so wide a range of services. It is open to question with regard to many people now doing administrative work for the L.C.C. whether they can expect a career of such width and promise as is open to them in their present service. If they cannot, what provision or compensation is to be available for them?
They will not be able to get into the service of the Greater London Council, and, indeed, it would be wrong to suggest that automatically they should all be moved into it. But suppose some of them must seek employment in the London boroughs or with provincial authorities? For the reasons I have mentioned, it is no disrespect to those authorities to say that service with them is not the same thing as service with the L.C.C. For these reasons, the question of what guarantee can the Minister offer is an important one.
What guarantee can be offered regarding future employment, salary scales, prospects or—and this is most germane to the Committee and the Money Resolution—if those things cannot be guaranteed, what will be the arrangements for compensation? I have mentioned chiefly the staff of the L.C.C. because it is, for the reasons I gave, the most striking example. There will, however, be a very great many other people in the employ of many local authorities who will have considerable reason for anxiety over the Bill.
That anxiety will perhaps not affect the younger ones so much, but there will be older men who could reasonably have expected to have continued, perhaps not for very many years, in the service of their present authority but cannot expect confidently to pick up a totally new job with a new authority when they are not very far from their retiring age. Again, we must ask, what is to be their position? If it is not possible to give them any sort of guarantee, what compensation will be available to them? Particularly, is the whole cost of any such compensation to fall on the local authorities concerned, or, once again, will the Government be prepared to bear some share of the cost?
350 I think that I have said enough to show that we have good reason for inquiring into the real range of the Money Resolution, and into the type of Amendments that will be in order under the Bill. I must say that my hon. Friends will think it right to vote against the Money Resolution, because we are totally opposed to the purposes for which it is required and, if I may say so, anybody who was opposed to the Bill before the Minister of Health spoke will not be likely to have changed his opinion by the time the Minister had finished.
If I may say so, it was a very shoddy speech, and unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Since that matter has been raised, I will refer to one point. The Minister of Health ventured to say that I had approved of the transfer of the health and welfare services—
§ The Chairman
Order. I hope that the Committee will not be led into going further than a debate proper to the Money Resolution.
§ Mr. Stewart
I find it a little hard, Sir William, that I should be met with a provocative remark from the other side to which I am apparently debarred from replying but, if that is the position, I shall put up with it. There will be other opportunities in our dealing with this Bill when I shall hope to demonstrate that what the Minister of Health said was totally untrue.
Leaving that remark aside for the moment—I know that it is the behaviour which we have to expect over this Bill from some hon. Members opposite—I have said enough to show that we have anxiety over the terms of the Money Resolution, and that we are entitled to ask the Government for assurances about what kind of Amendments will be in order. As I have said, we shall feel it right to vote against the Money Resolution. The Government, with their majority—even though it is rather less than it was in February—will no doubt get their Morley Resolution but, out of justice to the staffs concerned, to the severed counties and the other interests involved, I hope that they will be prepared to answer my questions about the scope of the Money Resolution.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield)
As the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) stated, the Financial Resolution has been drafted widely, covering local government and its functions in the metropolitan area. In drafting it in this form, the intention was not to inhibit discussion and not to restrict consideration of any matter falling within the heads of local government and the functions of the local authorities in the Greater London area.
The hon. Gentleman asked how this applies in three specific cases, of which the first was salaries. I am advised that salaries would come within the Money Resolution because, as a normal basis of local government in various parts of the country, there are provisions for meeting expenses.
The second point was about the transitional payments for meeting the extra expenditure which might be cast upon the truncated counties. This, I understand, is part of the normal local authority function in the metropolitan area, as I think is the wording of the Resolution. It is extremely doubtful, therefore, whether any provision to meet these expenses directly from central Government funds would be included in the Resolution. I think that these general remarks also apply to the last point which the hon. Member made.
After all, the reorganisation of local government is not something entirely new. It has happened before. The general principle is that compensation to staff is the liability of the authorities which take over. This is the normal principle and consequently it is the normal function included in the Resolution. Therefore, any payment by central Government funds would not be covered by the Resolution.
§ Mr. R. J. Mellish (Bermondsey)
On this question of the liability of central funds for what we think will be the higher expenditure as a consequence of the Bill becoming law, without any party spleen may I put an obvious fact of which even the party opposite must be aware? It is that when the local government bodies become the Greater London boroughs it is inevitable that the new services they will undertake will lead them to great and increased expenditure. I want to be clear about this from the 352 beginning. It is the subject of fears which have been expressed to me. If they can show that this expenditure is entirely and directly due to the passage of the Bill and they are involved in expenditure which normally in their present condition they would not have to face, will they receive direct grant from central funds to relieve their financial situation?
§ Mr. Corfield
Is the hon. Member referring to the present metropolitan boroughs or to the new London boroughs?
§ Mr. Mellish
They are the present metropolitan boroughs which will be merged and become the Greater London boroughs. This matter was ignored in our earlier debate and I realise that I should be out of order if I explored it now. Inevitably, financial restrictions will be imposed on the rateable value in some parts of London, irrespective of Exchequer equalisation grant, and it might well mean that these boroughs might not be able to run these services.
There is also the fact that there is to be a complete review of all rateable values in this part of the country. Here we have rateable values being changed and the consequent levying of a larger sum of money on the community via the rates, together with the fear of councils about the increased services which they will have to supply. I ask for a straight answer. Do I understand that the Money Resolution is so worded as to enable the central Government, where it can be shown that hardship has been inflicted on the new boroughs, to pay a direct grant to enable them to overcome that hardship?
§ Mr. Corfield
The general grant, which, as the hon. Member knows, is calculated on a national basis, is entirely outside the Bill. Its distribution to the new London boroughs will depend, when they are formed, on their resources and their rateable value, neither of which can be forecast until they are formed and the new rating lists are out. But the general principle will be that they will be financed, so far as the contribution from the central Government is concerned, through the general grant, and, where they qualify, from the rate deficiency grant. It is not the intention that there should be a direct Government grant outside the ordinary general grant formula.
§ Mr. Mellish
But does it not follow that the Greater London authorities will have, on the one hand, householders bitterly complaining about the increased rates which they will have to pay, plus, on the other hand, increased charges to bear for the increased services? Will there not be an enormous financial burden imposed on them far beyond anything experienced at present?
§ Mr. Corfield
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the general grant is related to the cost of these services; and the rate deficiency grant distribution is based on a parallel calculation in relation to authorities which carry out the same services, so this is taken care of in the formula.
§ Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)
I am sorry that I, a Scottish Member, have to intrude but, of course, Scottish Members are very much concerned with the financial provisions which the Government make. We have always displayed an interest in these matters when it is possible that they may affect Scotland.
The question I put to the Parliamentary Secretary is this. Will the new arrangements for the government of the Greater London area affect the calculations made in respect of Exchequer equalisation grant and, in turn, affect Scotland? This is an important matter. In most of these Financial Resolutions there is a paragraph providing that any increase in Exchequer equalisation grant is authorised in respect of Scotland, or it is authorised that any increase in respect of Scotland which may arise as a result of what happens in England shall be paid.
In this Financial Resolution, there is no mention of any increase being permitted in Scotland. I am sure that my hon. Friends and other Scottish Members will want to know whether Scotland is affected by the Resolution.
§ Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock) rose—
§ The Chairman
I hope that hon. Members will not pursue their point too far. There is nothing whatever in the London Government Bill which has to do with Scotland.
§ Mr. Willis
But, Sir William, quite a number of English Bills are passed with Financial Resolutions empowering the Government to meet expenses in con- 354 nection with them, and, although those Bills have nothing to do with Scotland, there is nevertheless a paragraph that, if they affect the Exchequer equalisation grant—and in Scotland it is all based upon the amount paid in England—consequential provision is made. In such Financial Resolutions, Scotland is usually specifically mentioned. I want to know whether this Bill affects the Exchequer equalisation grant in such a way as to affect the Exchequer equalisation grant in Scotland. Surely, that is in order.
§ Mr. Ross
Sir William, I wonder whether your remarks about carrying on, and about something not being in order, were directed to me. As far as I remember, I had not opened my mouth. You tempt me, Sir William, because you, like me, are a Scottish Member and the Committee is being asked to authorise the expenditure of money and, as far as I know, Scotland still contributes to the Exchequer and Scottish Members want to know how much is involved. It is usual in Money Resolutions to indicate how much is involved for a possibleincrease attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment".I want to know what Scotland's share is likely to be and what the estimated expenditure will be.
The reference to "any other enactment" includes enactments which enable the Secretary of State for Scotland to get moneys in respect of expenditure incurred by English Ministers. You must know, Sir William, that there is a direct link between expenditure in respect of the equalisation grant in Scotland and rate deficiency grant in England and Wales. In that calculation, London is often excluded, but London is now to be changed and if a greater area is now to be excluded from calculations from which Scotland's equalisation grant is fixed, injustice will again be done to Scotland. Why is there not some provision in the Money Resolution to cover that?
The Money Resolution also says:…in this Resolution the expression 'Minister' includes the Board of Trade.I never knew that the Board of Trade was a Minister, and I wonder why the expression is not "President of the Board of Trade."
§ 10.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Corfield
I can answer these questions very shortly. The general grant is not affected and the rate deficiency grant could affect Scotland only if it were at all likely that the reorganisation of London would suddenly make the richest part of the country the poorest. The rate deficiency grant is based on the product of a penny rate per head of the population as against the national average and the Resolution will not affect the quota from Scotland in any way.
§ Mr. Willis
This is most unsatisfactory. It does not matter what the rate deficiency grant is based on if the total is different and the amount paid to Scotland is consequently different.
§ Mr. Willis
I am surprised by this deplorable exhibition from the Government. I should like to know why the Scottish Ministers are not here, because right hon. Gentlemen opposite apparently do not know how the Exchequer equalisation grant is calculated. The Exchequer equalisation grant for Scotland has a direct relationship to the figures for England and Wales. Therefore if these figures are in any way changed, the grant will be changed in respect of Scotland.
§ If that is not so perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will explain. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I see he does not intend to reply. We cannot let the Government get away with this. If he cannot explain, I am prepared to carry on speaking until we get the Secretary of State for Scotland here to explain. This is important.
§ This fact is recognised in almost every Financial Resolution affecting local government in England passed by this House. They include a subsection which makes allowances for it. Why is it not in this Resolution, although the Parliamentary Secretary suggested that there will be a difference in the totals? We are entitled to an explanation.
§ Mr. Corfield
The rate deficiency grant in England and Wales—I do not know what happens in Scotland, though no doubt the hon. Member does—arises from the difference between the product of a penny rate per head of the population as compared with the national average. It does not make the slightest difference to that sum what the boundary of Greater London is or is not. The population of London and the rateable value of the area remain precisely the same whether the Bill is passed or not.
§ Question put:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 264, Noes 210.359
|Division No. 16.]||AYES||[10.52 p.m.|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Brooman-White, R.||d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry|
|Aitken, W. T.||Brown, Alan (Tottenham)||Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.|
|Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)||Bryan, Paul||Digby, Simon Wingfield|
|Allason, James||Buck, Antony||Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian||Bullard, Denys||Drayson, G. B.|
|Arbuthnot, John||Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)||du Cann, Edward|
|Ashton, Sir Hubert||Carr, Compton (Barons Court)||Duncan, Sir James|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Carr, Robert (Mitcham)||Eden, John|
|Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)||Cary, Sir Robert||Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)|
|Balniel, Lord||Channon, H. P. G.||Emery, Peter|
|Bartow, Sir John||Chataway, Christopher||Errington, Sir Eric|
|Barter, John||Chichester-Clark, R.||Farr, John|
|Batsford, Brian||Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)||Fell, Anthony|
|Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)||Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)||Finlay, Graeme|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)||Cleaver, Leonard||Fisher, Nigel|
|Berkeley, Humphry||Cooke, Robert||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles|
|Bidgood, John C.||Cooper, A. E.||Foster, John|
|Bitten, John||Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(Stafford&Stone>|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Corfield, F. V.||Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)|
|Bingham, R. M.||Costain, A. P.||Freeth, Denzil|
|Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||Coulson, Michael||Galbraith, Hon. T. C. D.|
|Bishop, F. P.||Craddock, Sir Beresford||Gammans, Lady|
|Bossom, Clive||Crawley, Aldan||Gardner, Edward|
|Bourne-Arton, A.||Critchley, Julian||Gibson-Watt, David|
|Box, Donald||Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver||Gilmour, Sir John|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John||Crowder, F. P.||Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)|
|Boyle, Rt. Hon, Sir Edward||Curran, Charles||Goodhart, Philip|
|Braine, Bernard||Currie, G. B. H.||Goodhew, Victor|
|Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SlrWaltei||Dalkeith, Earl of||Gower, Raymond|
|Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry||Dance, James||Grant-Ferris, R.|
|Green, Alan||MacLaren, Martin||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.||McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia||Sharpies, Richard|
|Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.||Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs)||Shaw, M.|
|Gurden, Harold||Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)||Shepherd, William|
|Hall, John (Wycombe)||MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Harris, Reader (Heston)||McMaster, Stanley R.||Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chlswick)|
|Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)||Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)||Smithers, Peter|
|Harvey, John (Walthamatow, E.)||Maddan, Martin||Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John|
|Harvie, Anderson, Miss||Maginnis, John E.||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)|
|Hay, John||Maltland, Sir John||Stodart, J. A.|
|Heald, Rt. Hon. sir Lionel||Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm|
|Hendry, Forbes||Marten, Neil||Storey, Sir Samuel|
|Hicks, Meach, Maj. W.||Mathew, Robert (Honiton)||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Hiley, Joseph||Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)||Summers, Sir Spencer|
|Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)||Mawby, Ray||Talbot, John E.|
|Hirst, Geoffrey||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Tapsell, Peter|
|Hobson, Sir John||Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Hocking, Philip N.||Mills, Stratton||Taylor, Edwin (Botton, E.)|
|Hollingworth, John||Miscampbell, Norman||Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)|
|Holt, Arthur||Montgomery, Fergus||Teeling, Sir William|
|Hopkins, Alan||Morgan, William||Temple, John M.|
|Hornby, R. P.||Morrison, John||Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret|
|Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.||Nabarro, Gerald||Thomas, Peter (Conway)|
|Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)||Neave, Airey||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Howard, John (Southampton, Test)||Nicholls, Sir Harmar||Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)|
|Hughes-Young, Michael||Nicholson, Sir Godfrey||Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin|
|Hulbert, Sir Norman||Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard||Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)|
|Hurd, Sir Anthony||Orr, Capt. L.P.S.||Tilney, John (Wavertree)|
|Hutchison, Michael Clark||Osborn, John (Hallam)||Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon|
|Iremonger, T. L.||Page, Graham (Crosby)||Turner, Colin|
|Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Page, John (Harrow, West)||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Jennings, J. C.||Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)||Peel, John||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Percival, Ian||Vane W. M. F.|
|Johnson Smith, Geoffrey||Pilkington, Sir Richard||Vickers, Miss Joan|
|Jones, Arthur (Northants, S)||Pitman, Sir James|
|Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hail Green)||Pitt, Dame Edith||Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis|
|Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith||Pott, Percivall||Wakefield, Sir Wavell|
|Kaberry, Sir Donald||Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch||Walder, David|
|Kerans, Cdr, J. S.||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Walker, Peter|
|Kerby, Capt. Henry||Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek|
|Kerr, Sir Hamilton||Prior, J. M. L,||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Kershaw, Anthony||Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho||Webster, David|
|Kimball, Marcus||Profumo, Rt. Hon. John||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Kirk, Peter||Proudfoot, Wilfred||Whitelaw, William|
|Kitson, Timothy||Pym, Francis||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Lambton, Viscount||Quennell, Miss J. M.||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Ramsden, James||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Langford-Holt, Sir John||Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin||Wise, A. R.|
|Leburn, Gilmour||Rees, Hugh||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Renton, Rt. Hon. David||Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard|
|Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Ridley, Hon. Nicholas||Woodhouse, C. M.|
|Lilley, F. J. P.||Ridsdale, Julian||Woollam, John|
|Lindsay, Sir Martin||Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey||Worsley, Marcus|
|Linstead, Sir Hugh||Roberts, Sir Peter (Heely)||Yates, William (The Wrekin)|
|Litchfield, Capt. John||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)|
|Longden, Gilbert||Roots, William||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Loveys, Walter H.||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard||Mr. J. E. B. Hill and|
|Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||St. Clair, M.||Mr. Michael Hamilton.|
|McArthur, Ian||Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan|
|Abse, Leo||Braddock, Mrs. E. M.||Deer, George|
|Ainsley, William||Bradley, Tom||Delargy, Hugh|
|Albu, Austen||Bray, Dr. Jeremy||Dempsey, James|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Diamond, John|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)||Dodds, Norman|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Bullus, Wing Commander Erie||Donnelly, Desmond|
|Baird, John||Butler, Mrs. Jovce (Wood Green)||Doughty, Charles|
|Barnett, Guy||Callaghan, James||Driberg, Tom|
|Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)||Carmichael, N. G.||Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John|
|Beaney, Alan||Castle, Mrs. Barbara||Edelman, Maurice|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Cliffe, Michael||Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)|
|Bence, Cyril||Collick, Percy||Edwards, Walter (Stepney)|
|Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Evans, Albert|
|Benson, Sir George||Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Fernyhough, E.|
|Black, Sir Cyril||Cronln, John||Finch, Harold|
|Blackburn, F.||Crosland, Anthony||Fitch, Alan|
|Blyton, William||Cullen, Mrs. Alice||Fletcher, Eric|
|Boardman, H.||Dalyell, Tam||Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.||Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)|
|Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)||Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Forman, J. C.|
|Bowles, Frank||Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)|
|Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh||Loughlin, Charles||Russell, Ronald|
|Galpern, Sir Myer||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Short, Edward|
|Ginsburg, David||MacColl, James||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Mclnnes, James||Skeffington, Arthur|
|Gourlay, Harry||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)|
|Greenwood, Anthony||Mackie, John (Enfield, East)||Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)|
|Grey, Charles||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Small, William|
|Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Snow, Julian|
|Griffiths, W. (Exchange)||Mapp, Charles||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Gunter, Ray||Marsh. Richard||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Hannan, William||Mason, Roy||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)||Mayhew, Christopher||Steele, Thomas|
|Harper, Joseph||Mellish, R. J.||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Hart, Mrs. Judith||Mendelson, J. J.||Stonehouse John|
|Hayman, F. H.||Millan, Bruce||Stones, William|
|Healey, Denis||Milne, Edward||Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)|
|Henderson, Rt.Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)||Mitchison, G. R.||Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent,C.)|
|Harbison, Miss Margaret Hill, J. (Midlothian)||Monslow, Walter||Taverne, D.|
|Hilton, A. V.||Mulley, Frederick||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Holman, Percy||Neal, Harold||Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)|
|Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Houghton, Douglas||Oram, A. E.||Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)|
|Howell, Denis (small Heath)||Oswald, Thomas||Thornton, Ernest|
|Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Owen, Will|
|Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Padley, W. E.||Timmons, John|
|Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)||Tomney, Frank|
|Hunter, A. E.||Pargiter, G. A.||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Parker, John||Warbey, William|
|Hynd, John (Attercliffe)||Parkin, B. T.||Watkins, Tudor|
|Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Pavitt, Laurence||Weitzman, David|
|Irving, Sydney (Dartford)||Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|Janner, Sir Barnett||Peart, Frederick||White, Mrs. Eirene|
|Jeger, George||Pentland, Norman||Whitlock, William|
|Jenkins, Roy (stechford)||Plummer, Sir Leslie||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)||Popplewell, Ernest||Willey, Frederick|
|Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)||Prentice, R. E.||Williams, D. J. (Neath)|
|Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Price J. T. (Westhoughton)||Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)|
|Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)||Probert, Arthur||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|Jones, Jack (Rotherham)||Proctor, W. T.||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Pursey, Cmdr. Harry||Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Kelley, Richard||Redhead, E. C.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Kenyon, Clifford||Reynolds, G. W.||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|King, Dr. Horace||Rhodes, H.||Wyatt, Woodrow|
|Lawson, George||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Yates, Victor (Ladywood)|
|Ledger. Ron||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)||Zilliacus, K.|
|Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Lever, Harold (Cheetham)||Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)||Mr. Charles A. Howell and|
|Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)||Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)||Mr. John McCann.|
|Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)||Ross, William|
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to local government and the functions of local authorities in the metropolitan area, it is expedient to authorise—
§ Resolution to be reported.
§ Report to be received Tomorrow.