Clause 6.—(ALTERATION OF BOUNDARIES OF OR WITHIN GREATER LONDON.) (Hansard, 25 July 1963)

§ Sir K. Joseph
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It meets a point which was made in Standing Committee by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and supported strongly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead). The idea was that on the periphery of Greater London it should be open to a certain number of electors to initiate the process by which a change of an area might be considered in order to move that area from a London borough and Greater London to a non-London authority or vice versa. The Amendment allows this to happen under certain conditions—namely, that an application should be made by 300 or 10 per cent. of the local government electors residing in the area, whichever should be the greater.
I see that the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) is in her place, and I remember that she was keen enough to watch during the whole proceedings and to agree with me at the stage at which I advised the Committee against accepting the Amendment. But on further reflection I think that it is sensible to allow this procedure for the consideration of a possible transfer of a small area during the first five years of the new arrangement set in hand by the 1818 Bill. I hope that the House agrees that it is acceptable.

§ Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith (Chislehurst)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the concession which he has made. It was introduced in another place, but it was a matter of great concern to those of us with areas on the perimeter. Much of our areas are suburban but some are almost wholly agricultural, and I am sure that it will bring great satisfaction to these small peninsulas, which cannot claim a large population to voice their views but which were not properly placed in London with the London boroughs. This will cause great satisfaction particularly in Knockholt, which was the purpose of the Amendment by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). I am sure that he is extremely sorry that for obviously good reasons he is not able to be here to thank the Minister in person. But I know the area well; it was once in my constituency. I thank the Minister for the concession which he has made, which will greatly help these areas.

§ Mr. Pavitt
I rise briefly to say that I rejoice that the hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) has received satisfaction, and to point out that, although sometimes in the laborious discussions in Committee one felt one was hammering against a brick wall, this shows that it was possible by continuous argument there and in debates in another place to achieve something which we wanted.

§ Mr. M. Stewart
I too should like to welcome the Knockholt Amendment, as this might be called. I remember receiving representations from Knockholt early in the Bill's proceedings and feeling disappointed when in the early days in Standing Committee it did not seem possible to get this arrangement made.
Something unavoidable must have prevented the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) from being present at this debate because he has taken a very keen and constructive interest in this Bill throughout. We must all congratulate their Lordships on having succeeded in getting this quite necessary and useful Amendment into the Bill.

§ Sir K. Joseph
I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a small Amendment, but an important one and there are a number of consequential Amendments to it. Unless we make this Amendment some of the staff, who under the provisions of the Bill might later be transferred from one authority to another, might have to look to the Local Government Act, 1933, for the safeguards covering their transfer arrangements. By making this and the consequential Amendments we shall ensure that they will be given the benefit of the safeguards provided in Clause 82.