HC Deb 02 August 1963 vol 682 cc889-900

3.59 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

I am sure that all my constituents, as well as myself, will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) for his generosity in what he has just said. I think that he appreciates, as I hope the House did yesterday, that the matter which I wish to raise is of great urgency in my constituency and, perhaps, confronts it with one of the greatest problems it has had to face in its long history, which, as I said yesterday, dates back for over 1,290 years, as having some form of separate jurisdiction——

It being Four o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacArthur.]

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

I should like also to express thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, for having allowed me to raise this subject, having obtained the agreement of my hon. Friend. I also welcome the presence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government on the Front Bench. Normally, these debates are answered only by Parliamentary Secretaries, and I very much appreciate my right hon. Friend's having taken the trouble to come. Indeed, I would go out of my way to express my admiration for his integrity and devotion to service that he gives and the immense pains he has taken over the whole of this problem, as well as the invariable courtesy which he has shown me whenever I have approached him on this or any other matter.

Yesterday's decision came, naturally, as a very great blow, not so much, perhaps, to myself as to my constituents, and not least to the members of the assiduously devoted staff of the County Council of the Isle of Ely. Many people may not realise that the geographical County of Cambridgeshire which they see on the map is not all administered by the Cambridgeshire County Council. Since the last century, the northern half of it has been administered by the separate County Council of the Isle of Ely.

My right hon. Friend indicated yesterday that it had not been a county council very long, but I remind him that in 1783 that eminent jurist, Lord Mansfield, upheld in litigation that the Isle of Ely was equivalent to a county. One can trace the separate jurisdiction of the Isle of Ely right back to the year 673 A.D., when Ethelred a, the wife of Tombert, ruler of the South Girvii, first established a monastery there and settled the government and jurisdiction of her lands upon it. That process will be ended if the Order which my right hon. Friend will be laying when the House resumes after the Recess is passed.

The more right that one might think that this decision is, the more difficult it becomes to understand how the decision over Rutland can be right, too. I welcome very much the decision concerning Rutland, because I like to see independent-minded people respected and given what they want. The upholding of the rights of minorities is one of the greatest prides of our Parliamentary system and I welcome what has happened in the case of Rutland. That makes it all the more difficult, however, to understand the case for amalgamating the Isle of Ely, which wanted to be independent of Cambridge shire County or, indeed, any other county.

On finance alone, one sees how difficult the situation is. In the report of the Inspector to the Minister, a copy of which I received only this morning and, therefore, have not studied in full detail, the evidence is repeated that today the Isle of Ely spends £3,265,252 a year compared with £57,242 in 1900, whereas Rutland's figure is only a little over £500,000 today in all. When one thinks of the financial burden which the Isle of Ely carries and compares it with the burden of Rutland, one can say that if it be right, as I believe it is, to leave Rutland on its own, it is extremely difficult to suggest that it is not right for the Isle of Ely to be left on its own, too.

If I have interpreted it aright, the reason that my right hon. Friend the Minister has had in mind is this. Primarily for political reasons, I think, nobody wanted to have Rutland, and if anybody were forced to have Rutland against Rutland's wishes, or against the wishes of the receiving authority, that would not strengthen the authority which resulted from that amalgamation. Whereas in the Isle of Ely case, as I see it, to amalgamate the Isle of Ely with Cambridgeshire, which is apparently prepared to go in with the Isle of Ely, will strengthen the new Cambridgeshire—by embodying the Isle of Ely and the administrative County of Cambridge.

One of the points which I have been asked to put to my right hon. Friend since his decision is this. Are we now to understand that if one happens to have the same county name geographically which one enjoys administratively that puts one in a superior position to that of a county whose administrative authority has a different name from the geographical name? In Rutland, the County Council is in the County of Rutland, and that is that. The administrative county of the Isle of Ely is in the geographical and indeed the postal district of the County of Cambridge. I have been asked to put this point to my right hon. Friend and I should be grateful if he could answer on that.

The Report of the Boundary Commission has gone out of its way to avoid blaming the Isle of Ely for any shortcomings to date. It has cast no innuendoes, but has emphasised that it believes the amalgamation with the administrative County of Cambridge would result in a stronger authority emerging. But I have lived with this problem for even longer than the Minister has, and I would say to him that I do not believe that, if there is to be any other decision than that of allowing the Isle of Ely to remain, there will be real stability—which is a word which has a special significance throughout the inspector's report—in the new authority. I cannot see how those living on the border of the Holland with Boston division of Lincolnshire on the northern border of the Isle of Ely and those living in the south on the boundary of Cambridgeshire with Essex will have that community of interest which is so important if we are to have good local government.

I think therefore that it is important that so far as possible we should not be too fixed in our ideas about what is the right alternative. If independence cannot be continued—I still hope that it yet may, but if it cannot be—then I would ask my right hon. Friend to appreciate this, and here I have the authority of something said in the consultations which the Boundary Commission itself had on 18th November, 1960, with some of the authorities.

I should explain that the north-south solution is the recommendation which the Minister is to lay before the House in Orders in the autumn, and refers to the Isle of Ely and Cambridgeshire administrative county. It was said by the then Chairman of the Isle of Ely County Council: We have discussed this North-South solution quite a lot, and I came to the conclusion myself, listening to what the members had to say, that the majority opinion—and I am probably sticking my neck out when I say this—of the members of our council is that of the two evils, the four-in-one and the North-South, the four-in-one is the lesser evil. I am quite sure that is what the majority of our council will think. I have, naturally not yet been able fully to consult all my constituents on this matter, but I would say to the Minister that I have seen that Wisbech, the only borough still left, other than the City of Cambridge itself, in the geographical County of Cambridge, is already showing signs of a mixed reaction.

Some are saying that they would far sooner have had the four-county set up. The inspector's report has made it clear to my right hon. Friend that only one county was inclined to this view in any way, and that the only other people who wanted that solution were those in the City of Cambridge. Cambridge wanted the amalgamation of the four counties—the Stoke of Peterborough, Huntingdonshire, the Isle of Ely, and Cambridgeshire. Then the City of Cambridge could have county borough status.

My right hon. Friend has rejected that, rightly in my opinion, because there is a division of opinion as between the university and the city authorities. Whatever the rights and wrongs may be, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir H. Kerr) will in due course be very expansive on the subject. Nevertheless, the effect of what the Minister is now to do will divide public opinion in the Isle of Ely in twain. It will not lead to stability in the new authority.

I have no desire to take any action or to say any word which is likely to exacerbate feelings to such a pitch that, as a result of whatever Parliament decides, the task of the new authority will become more difficult. I am anxious that everyone should sit back and contemplate the situation before committing himself as to what he will do. I have held it to be my duty throughout this operation to see that what I honestly believe to be the opinion of my constituents was properly expressed in the proper place—and in my view there can be no more proper place available for a back bencher than to speak in this House to the Minister himself.

Nevertheless, I would feel that, having done my best to do that, it would be wise for everybody to think quite quietly and calmly what are the chances of upsetting this decision; what it would cost to do so, and what would be the effect in the end. I hope that, whatever may eventuate, no one will decide to indulge in what, from the outset, could possibly be regarded as an abortive exercise, simply for the fun of doing it. If anyone does that it will make the task of the inheriting authority more difficult, and no one wants that.

I ask my right hon. Friend to deal with one other matter. His department sent a letter, signed by a Mr. Fox, to the Clerk of the County Council. The Minister has been courteous enough to send me a copy of that letter this morning, although the Clerk had already sent me a copy. It contains this sentence: The Minister notes, moreover, that none of the residents in the Isle of Ely made representations to him or appeared at the public local inquiry in support of their county council's case". I say to him straight away that the reason why I have been badgering his two predecessors in office, as well as himself, is that I knew what my constituents were thinking. I was in touch with all three Ministers.

Surely it is reasonable to suggest that when a county council comes under the hammer in this way, and has to appear at a local inquiry, they can be taken as representing the views of their own ratepayers there. I find it strange that that sentence should be included in that letter, because yesterday my right hon. Friend went out of his way to make kind remarks about my efforts for my constituents. It is monstrous to suggest that individuals who happen to object to what the Boundary Commission was doing had a duty to write to the Minister personally, instead of approaching him through their Member of Parliament, whose duty it surely is to pass on their representations to the Minister. Whom is he representing, if not his constituents? Have not they the right to go through their Member in order to approach the Minister? Therefore, I hope that he can clear that one up. I must say that I regret that he put that sentence in.

Finally, I want to ask my right hon. Friend what his intentions are now. There is one rural district on the North-West of the Isle of Ely called Thorney. It is called Thorney for exactly the same reasons as the Thorney Island on which Westminster Abbey stands. It stuck up with its thorn bushes in the same way as the old Thorney Island did out of the former fen now called St James's Park. That district at one time expressed the preference to go with Peterborough. Later it changed that preference, and I hope that I have the assurance from my right hon. Friend that he will take note of the latest views of Thorney and not only its earlier one.

Can my right hon. Friend also tell me what he is going to do about the membership of the present County Council during the period of transition, and what reasonable information he can give to the employees of the County Council—very devoted public servants they are too—about their future employment. It is obviously of vital importance for them to know if they are going to look for alternative jobs. Quite obviously, they must be made aware of what the Minister's plans are as soon as possible. In other words, I hope that we shall be told whether or not there is going to be a sort of shadow new authority elected while the old ones remain in being, and, if possible, and as soon as possible, what the timing factor is likely to be, assuming that Parliament passes the Orders.

I know that my right hon. Friend will not expect me today to commit myself on what I shall do with regard to those Orders. However, I can assure him that what I shall be doing in the meantime is finding out what my constituents really want and that I shall do my best to do my duty towards them, because I am quite certain that the Isle of Ely never elects its Member to preside over the dissolution of the Isle of Ely. I know that my right hon. Friend understands that.

I not now going to give way in the hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will find it possible to call my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton),who is my near close neighbour and who has been in this battle with us all along.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. David Renton (Huntingdonshire)

I wish to join my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) and my right hon. Friend the Minister in the way that he did. First, I wish to congratulate the people of Rutland on remaining uniquely small as a county. Their history is almost as interesting as that of Huntingdonshire. But even if my right hon. Friend's decision on Rutland was right, it has, of course, made other counties much larger than Rutland feel that they also could claim to be considered unique.

However, it was said repeatedly by the Boundary Commission—and the Minister accepted it as we heard in his statement yesterday—that there is considerable merit in having larger units of local government than Huntingdonshire and that its union with the Soke of Peterborough would strengthen both counties. Both those counties already have many links with each other and together they will, in my opinion, form a well-shaped, well-sized county for modern administration. The representatives of the Huntingdonshire County Council had all this in mind when, yesterday, they welcomed the Minister's decision, but I must point out that they did so without knowing of his decision with regard to Rutland. It is only fair that I should say that for it is difficult to reconcile my right hon. Friend's two decisions.

The representatives of the Huntingdonshire County Council, with whom I have been in touch today, still feel that the decision to join Huntingdonshire with the Soke of Peterborough is correct in the circumstances and is most likely, in the long run, to provide the best services for both counties. It is certainly preferable to the four-county plan to which all of us in Huntingdonshire were very strongly opposed.

Speaking for myself, I shall do all that I can to help to make the union between these two counties a happy one. There are certain problems yet to be resolved, peripheral decisions which my right hon. Friend has to make, and I will keep in touch with him about them.

4.20 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph)

There is much in what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton) which is wise and which, in the kindness of what they have been good enough to say about me, I much appreciate.

I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his persistent and sustained championing of the rights and interests of his constituents, as he has seen them, both to my predecessors and to me; and to my right hon. and learned Friend for his steady presentation of the interests of his constituents, as he has seen them. But I know that both will recognise with me that change is the very condition of survival—survival, that is to say, in the sense of the achievement and the maintenance of the highest practical standard of living for the citizens. We are talking of the survival and standard of living of the citizen, and not of the survival and, as it were, the status of local government institutions which, whatever their history, must ultimately be the servants and the agents of the citizen. It is the citizen whom Governments must first and foremost have in mind.

If I may take up one of the criticisms of my hon. Friend of part of the letter, issued with my authority, I must say that it is true, of course, that the citizens of the Isle of Ely have made their views known to my hon. Friend in the confident expectation that he would pass on those views with clarity and cogency to the Government. That duty he has honourably and consistently discharged. But it is a duty which other hon. Members also have to discharge towards their constituents.

The fact is, as stated in my letter, that there was in Rutland a far more public demonstration, in addition to the private representations made to the Member of Parliament, than happened in the Isle of Ely. I assert and emphasise that public opinion is not decisive and conclusive in these difficult matters. It is one, and only one, factor. But I maintain to my hon. Friend that the sentence in my letter was accurate and I do not deny that he has received many representations from his constituents.

The whole of the elaborate local government reorganisation procedure provides systematically for judgment to be made by the Government of how local government can best be provided for effective and convenient local administration in the interests of the citizens. There is, as I do not need to remind the House, an elaborate and long drawn out procedure designed for this purpose. It is not the job of the Government to look just at size or any particular manifestation of service, but to try to judge the picture as a whole and to assess what will serve to produce the most effective and convenient local government in the interests of the people. I can assure my hon. Friends that it is a difficult and invidious jurisdiction. Questions of semantics or geographical continuity do not enter into the decision.

I must now deal with the two decisions put to me. First there are the four neighbouring counties, not one of which, according to the Commission, whose findings the Government have accepted, is entirely satisfactory as an administrative county. There is the Soke of Peterborough dominated by the City of Peterborough and Cambridgeshire dominated by the City of Cambridge. The responsibilities of the councils are vastly greater than when they were created in 1888. As my hon. Friend says, the budget of the Isle of Ely is 120 times greater than it was 60 or 70 years ago. That only illustrates the increasing change and responsibility, the latest manifestations of which are the added responsibilities, for example, for mental health, preventive medicine and the care of the handicapped.

It is difficult for small administrative counties—and the Soke of Peterborough, Huntingdonshire and the Isle of Ely are the third, fourth and fifth smallest of the administrative counties of England—to provide the wide range of specialist services and the skills and institutions which are needed to serve the relatively small numbers of specialist demands thrown up by their catchment areas. Not only do such specialist services place a great strain on their financial resources, but a small case load does not make sensible or economic use of the highly specialised skills required.

The Government found that, compared with large counties, these three counties were below average in effectiveness. As my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely said, there was no possible criticism of the members or officers of the local authorities concerned because of this; but the effectiveness of their service is determined to some extent by their size. The Government have tried to seek two better balanced counties, Cambridgeshire with the Isle of Ely, on the one hand, and Huntingdonshire with the Soke of Peterborough, on the other, as a better basis for providing services for the sick, the aged, the handicapped and the young.

My hon. Friend spoke of the distance from the north of the Isle of Ely to the south of Cambridgeshire, but many counties would be passionately and patriotically defended by their inhabitants although they are far larger than the combined county which will evolve. I agree that there is a strong case for amalgamating Rutland with Leicestershire, but if we merged the two the fate of Rutland would be very much more severe. Rutland would be swamped by Leicestershire. It would provide one-sixteenth of the population and less than one-sixteenth of the rateable value, whereas to join Huntingdonshire with the Soke of Peterborough and Cambridgeshire with the Isle of Ely would be to form two partnerships in each of which the participation would be formidable with equally contributing components. That is a very different picture from the possible swamping of Rutland by its merger with Leicestershire.

If Rutland had to rely entirely on its own resources, the case for merging with Leicestershire would have been very nearly unanswerable, but there is this twofold distinction between the two situations. Rutland and Leicestershire would not mutually benefit each other if they were merged, whereas the two combinations of the two counties would be of mutual help to each other. Leicestershire can and does help Rutland to provide a wide range of specialised services needed for its citizens. Rutland has the good fortune to have direct-grant schools inside its boundaries which cater for a large number of its grammar school children.

Both my hon. Friends adopt a very wise and statesmanlike attitude about the future. They reserve their freedom to comment and criticise and take what action they see fit, but, at the same time, they are constructive and accept that if the Government's decision is sustained the best must be made of the decision in the interests of the citizens and staff alike. It is the intention of the Government to lay an Order as soon as possible. I am not yet able to announce the date of the effectiveness of the two mergers, but any transitional arrangements will be made clear as soon as the Order is laid.

As to the staff, it is, in general, true that the purpose of these reorganisations is to improve the local authority services to the public and thus to increase the scope of the staff. There are, of course, compensation arrangements which are normal in these reorganisation procedures.

I do not pretend that these decisions can ever be ideal. They are not easy for a Government to make. But they are inherent in the whole process of modernising the structure of the country. I believe that the Government, in all the decisions announced yesterday, have come to conclusions which will be seen ultimately to be in the interest of the citizens which must be the Government's first responsibility.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock, till Thursday, 24th October at Eleven o'clock, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 30th July