HC Deb 22 February 1967 vol 741 cc1652-75

11.25 a.m.

Mr. Michael Heseltine (Tavistock)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Plymouth Order, 1966 (S.I., 1966, No. 1583), dated 16th December, 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd December, be annulled. This is the end of a long tragedy for many thousands of my constituents who will regret that the two principal villains of the piece, the present Leader of the House and the present Minister of Housing, are not here to witness the final act.

The purpose of the Order is to transfer to the city of Plymouth about 34,000 people who at the moment live within the Plympton Rural District Council in Devon. Probably the most substantial argument which we would advance against the proposal is that, at the moment, a Royal Commission is considering local government and its recasting. It seems to us that this is not the moment to undertake a change of this kind.

I quote the Prime Minister in support of what I say. On 24th May, 1966, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Gilmour), who asked: Since the Royal Commission may possibly recommend far-reaching changes, is it not plain that no piecemeal and footling boundary changes should take place in the interval?". the Prime Minister replied: I believe that we can make some useful changes on the basis, for example, of past Reports by the Boundary Commissions, but on the big issues of principle it would be better to await the reports of the Commissions. The work of the Royal Commissions will not stop all work on boundary changes in the interim. Where such changes are justified on merit, they will be carried out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May, 1966; Vol. 729, c. 294.] This change has been examined on no fewer than two occasions by the Boundary Commissions, which on both occasions considered that the case for the adjustment had been made out, and twice rejected Plymouth's request to take over these areas. If the Prime Minister's words have any meaning, they should be used in this case to hold up this proposal until after the findings of the Royal Commission.

Our second reason, obviously, is the feelings of the people in these areas. I would agree with the Ministry's view that a change which affects local government is likely to meet some local opposition. This is natural. People who have lived in a certain local government framework get used to it. They know the people and the way it works and there is a certain natural reluctance to change. I would agree, also, that in many cases that is not an argument for not changing.

But there is a case for looking at the depth of local feeling and discovering how widespread it is. It is rare that one has the opportunity to do this, because local opinion is not usually measured. In this case, however, it was measured by a referendum. Everyone knows the number of people likely to vote in any election and no one is more aware of figures of this sort than we in this House. On the occasion of this referendum, when the 20-odd thousand electors in this area were asked to vote on this issue, over 80 per cent, did so.

A turn-out of over 80 per cent. of the people eligible to vote is comparable with the General Election figure. Of that 80 per cent., more than 90 per cent. voted against the change. This is overwhelming testimony of the confidence which the local population has in its existing local government organisation and the feeling of the people about finding themselves incorporated in the City of Plymouth. It is a remarkable demonstration of popular feeling and one which the House cannot ignore.

One must next consider the effect of carving off this area from Plympton R.D.C. in the way it is proposed. It will be deprived of three-quarters of its population. It will be left with about 14,000 people, which means that a council which is today regarded as one of the most efficient and progressive in Devon will be truncated and left without any real opportunity of continuing the work which it has done so well for a great many years. It may not be able to afford the quality of staff which it has at present. It will not be able to have centralised control. It will be left without any real centres of population under its jurisdiction. Thus, Plympton Rural District Council will be more affected than any other local authority in the area.

Plymouth City itself will not greatly change. It is already large, with a population of more than 200,000 people. It will become a city with a population of about 250,000 people as a result of these proposals. Plympton Rural District Council however will change dramatically. It will be made smaller and, in the way of things nowadays, it will be less efficient. This is indeed a great tragedy.

The proposed change comes at a time when Devon County has already lost areas which are about to be incorporated in Torbay. Now the county is to lose another large area. With this in mind, it is reasonable to consider some of the proposals that have been advanced by the City of Plymouth to justify these proposals. The argument which is usually heard on these occasions is that there is a shortage of easily developable land within the city. At first flush one might have a certain sympathy for that view, but we have heard it all before.

In 1949 another extension of the city boundaries took place. Again, it was Plympton Rural District Council that suffered. On that occasion there was a transfer of a substantial acreage of land from Plympton Rural District Council in order to give the city of Plymouth sufficient land to develop. I understand that about 3,500 acres in and around the land that was transferred in 1949 remains undeveloped. This prevents one from having any sympathy with Plymouth's argument that it needs more land to develop.

Neither does that argument stand examination when one considers the land Plymouth City proposes to take over, for it is, in the main, already developed. Very large areas of it are developed housing and shopping centres, with high rateable values which have been developed by Devon County Council. It cannot be said, therefore, that Plymouth City will be getting much land to develop. I suggest that the city already has sufficient land to develop and that it has had it since 1949. It is a tragedy that the best efforts made by Devon County Council and Plympton Rural District Council over many years should be negatived with an excuse which does not stand examination.

Another heart-rending type of argument produced by the City of Plymouth is that too many young people are moving out of the city into Plympton and Plymstock. One might have some sympathy for the city, but one must consider what moral justification one has for saying that people who have deliberately chosen to move out of Plymouth into Plympton and Plymstock should now be captured by these proposals and obliged to move back to Plymouth City—a place from which they have sought to escape. These people have obviously wanted to move out of Plymouth and it seems wrong that we should change the framework of local government merely to bring them back. So that, too, is not a coherent argument in favour of the change.

The suggestion was made that more industrial land should be available for development, but I understand that the city has withdrawn that argument, it having been pointed out that land is already available to the city for that purpose.

This all indicates that the city merely wants more power to govern more people in this area, more or less regardless of the strength of the arguments against its proposals. It is obvious that the city is prepared to throw any argument on to the table in an effort to play up its case. For example, the city has argued that it wishes to control the whole of the port area of Plymouth and to be able to landscape it. However, no proposal has been made to take over the land in the other port areas of Cornwall—and the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) would probably have some strong things to say if such a proposal were made. So the city's argument about landscaping the port does not stand up to examination, either.

Plympton Rural District Council has made a real success of developing the area which we are now discussing. It has built up in Plymstock a town centre which is much used and greatly admired by the local inhabitants. It has drafted proposals for a new town centre for Plympton which, when completed, will greatly increase the amenities of the area. Despite this, the bureaucrats of Plymouth, with their power-hungry eyes, are looking with envy upon this area and want to bring it within the confines of the city to make the city more attractive. Instead, they could have done a better job by concentrating on developing the land they already have, which might have resulted in their keeping people in the city instead of those people wanting to move out into the area controlled by Devon County Council and Plympton Rural District Council. They should not merely wait for those councils to make a success of developing their areas and then bring forward proposals of this kind to take them over. This is not the way to develop local government in this country.

There are many arguments in favour of the case being put by Devon County Council. For example, Plympton Rural District Council will be reduced in population to 14,000 people. I need not explain that that is simply not a sufficient population to create a viable local government organisation. It is not the sort of organisation that we should create, and nobody in his right mind would suggest the creation of such an area.

Devon County needs a base in the south-west of Devon and this base, logically, should be in the Plympton area. However, this base will find itself within the City of Plymouth. There is no other substantial urban centre in this area which Devon County can use as a base.

I have mentioned the overwhelming views of the local inhabitants. We in the House cannot ignore their wishes. They feel deeply and passionately about this matter. Hon. Members may have read in The Times how, yesterday afternoon, a number of my constituents came to London bringing with them 16,000 referendum cards to present to Parliament. I have one with me and I see that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North also has one. Those 16,000 votes were cast against this proposal, and feelings of this kind cannot be ignored.

What will be the financial repercussions if this change comes about for the people living in my constituency who will become part of Plymouth City? Plymouth City will hand over £90,000, spread over a five-year period, to the rural district to help it over this difficult period. What will happen to my constituents? We all know that the rates in Plymouth are very substantially higher than they are in the rural district. The figure is 1s. 7d. in the £ higher. Anybody faced with this administrative change, knowing that purely as a result the poundage will go up by 1s. 7d. in the £, is entitled to ask, "What extra am 1 getting for this very substantial extra expenditure in any year?". It is even more serious, because if the present administration had gone on there would have been a 2d. reduction in the rates by Devon County Council for this year. This further aggravates the situation.

I am told that as a method of financing the extra cost of running the area, there will be an increase of 9d. purely for the additional administrative costs. Therefore, my constituents are faced with the situation where they have lost the 2d. economy which they would have got if the local government situation had remained the same. They will have to pay an extra 9d. in the £ if they remain outside, in order to finance the extra costs necessary to run the new Plympton Rural District Council. Those of my constituents who go into Plymouth, over a period of time will find their rates increased by l s. 7d. in the £. The onus of responsibility is on the Government Front Bench to explain what is the attraction of this for the 30,000 people about to go into Plymouth City. Why should they be expected to tolerate this sort of change which will lead to very substantial rate increases if they will not enjoy any extra benefits in return?

There was the infamous letter from the then Minister of Housing, the present Leader of the House, in which he announced his decision to the local authorities concerned, explaining why he had decided to overrule the two reports of the Boundary Commission. He had various reasons for doing this, which he gave. He used the reason to which I have already referred—that the young people are moving out of Plymouth and therefore compulsorily they should be brought back again.

I do not think that stands up to investigation. They have decided to get out. That is their decision, and I do not think that we should redraw local government boundaries to bring them back. He referred to Plymouth being a freestanding city, which conjures up all sorts of wonderful images until one asks oneself, "What is a free-standing city?" The fact is that in this area we have three distinct communities, one on the west of the River Plym in Plymouth and, outside that, two separate communities, namely, Plympton and Plymstock. They are not £ single community. People living in Plympton regard themselves as a separate community from those people who live in Plymstock. They live in one of those two communities and they regard themselves as being individual communities. This situation is very attractive to local people.

Therefore, it is simply not true to say that the change which we are discussing this morning will create one great community within this area. We will still have in the area three separate communities, or the best of all possible reasons that the land lying between Plympton and Plymstock is largely sharply rising hillside which cannot be developed, so it will remain as it is. This distinction between Plymouth and the areas of Plympton and Plymstock will remain, unless it is the Government's intention to do away with the river and the hill. We will have three distinct communities as we have today. It does not make sense to talk about a freestanding city, except in moments of rhetoric to cover the lack of solid arguments on behalf of this case.

There was then the most curious flight of fancy of the Minister in which he said that his proposals would make it possible to reach a settlement between the county and the city which, once arrived at, should make it possible for them to work together in amity for a long time to come. That is an attractive idea until one thinks about it and until one thinks about the 16,000 postcards which have reached the House and one wonders how those people will live together in amity.

Much more significant is my question: what about the Local Government Commission? We all know that the changes which are being discussed this morning are academic, because within a very short period of their being implemented they will cease to exist, and the whole job will have to be done again. We all know that the views of the Ministry of Housing are that local authorities in the region of 500,000 population should be created. Here we are setting up a local authority which at best will be only half that size.

I would be the first to say—and I would like to say t very loudly and clearly—that I would welcome a Measure redrawing all the local authorities areas in Devon to create large viable areas once and for all. I would agree with it. I would like to get rid of the distinction between town and country which ceases today to have the meaning which it used to have. I would like to see a growth centre in South-West Devon, proud of its existence, viable, and rid of all the problems which have beset it for many years. But is this the way to get it, or the time to get it?

Everybody knows, with the exception of the then Minister of Housing, the present Leader of the House, responsible for this decision, that this is not the way to get this result. This is not the time to get this result, and this matter should have been shelved pending the findings of the Royal Commission which we all believe will lay a coherent and permanent basis for this area's development.

I should like to quote another argument which was put forward by the then Minister of Housing which is relevant to this question of local authorities being able to work together. I think that the House will be slightly surprised by the quotation. On 26th May, 1965, he said: I may warn you of two solutions which I shall not take very seriously. The first is that we should simply accept the automatic expansion of the county borough, that when the built-up area expands the county borough should expand to the same extent. This leads to an impossible relationship between the urban area and its surrounding countryside, if the countryside lives under the threat of constant aggression, ratified decennially by decree of a Boundary Commission. This is precisely the situation which he has described so vividly and which he has now, in the case of the Plymouth Order, ratified in the way that I do not believe is justified.

It is precisely this about which my local constituents are so concerned. They have worked for a long time to build up an area of which they are proud. They have developed it to the best of their skills and abilities. Plymouth is now trying to take it over. This process was described by the Minister of Housing on the 26th May, 1965, and I find it totally inconsistent therefore that he should find himself making a decision to offset the findings of the two inquiries under the Local Government Commission in the way that he did. It was said at the time —and the Minister, in his letter to which I have referred, mentions this—that the arguments were finely balanced indeed. I should like to quote from the report that was made by the Commission after it had first said that Plymouth should not have its way. The concluding paragraph, paragraph 264 in the appeal, says: After reviewing all the arguments submitted by Plymouth on our draft proposals, together with those of the other authorities concerned, we were not satisfied that the new material submitted by Plymouth was such as to justify our changing the views expressed in our draft proposals. Accordingly, we recommend no alteration in the present boundaries of Plymouth. What is the point of going through this expensive charade if the result is that the then Minister of Housing, in a moment of passion, should overrule it? Twice this has been investigated by experts. Twice all the evidence has been placed before them. They went over Plymouth's arguments with great care and consideration, and with great courtesy, and twice they have said that there is no case on balance for going through with the Plymouth Order. And yet this Government is pressing this Order.

Therefore, I can only appeal to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing to think again. I realise that he is in a difficult situation. I realise the decision taken by the Minister of Housing responsible makes it difficult for him to be generous. It makes it difficult for him to say that perhaps there is an argument for holding up the Order. I am not asking the Government to say that they were wrong. I am asking them to consider the depth of local feeling, to consider the purposes for which the Local Government Commission was set up. I am asking them to consider whether they are not prejudicing the happy results which we hope to see from that Commission, as they affect my constituents and people living outside my constituency and, I hope, the whole of the country. I am asking them to consider whether, by the course which they are following, they are not prejudicing the things for which they are striving most energetically. I hope that they will feel this is not the moment to reject the proposals absolutely but that this is the sort of scheme that should be held up pending the results of that Commission. Whatever they may feel they must do to support a previous Minister of Housing, in their hearts and their minds they must know that common sense at this moment demands that the Order be put on one side until we are able to do the job properly and permanently.

11.51 a.m.

Dr. David Owen (Plymouth, Sutton)

I find myself in an extraordinary position today, because Plympton is the town in which I was born and in which I have lived a great part of my life. I am now proud to be a Member of Parliament for Plymouth. Normally, these two interests go hand in hand. They provide me with a unique opportunity to speak in the House from local knowledge.

However, today I find myself, and certainly my interests, in conflict to a certain extent. I am in the rather extraordinary position of having a mother who is a Devon county councillor and who is leading the action group which opposes the Order. I support the Order. Lady Eden said at the time of Suez that the canal ran through her sitting room. My father must feel that the Plymouth boundary runs through our house. No one will be happier than he to see this matter settled one way or the other—and, I suspect, not the way his son wants to see it settled.

This s a very serious and very difficult Order. It is understandable that, all through, the arguments have been said to be "finely balanced". I want to start by dealing with the main burden of what the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) said, namely, that the Order is opposed by the vast majority of those who reside in the added areas. I do not dispute this for a moment. Anyhow, it is clearly shown by the referendum. But we should look to the history of why this feeling is there and why it has arisen to such a very marked extent. As the hon. Gentleman generously conceded, all forms of local government always cause very considerable feeling. This is a rather strange and difficult situation, and we must look back into history.

Many centuries ago Plympton was a more important town than Plymouth. Plympton was the thriving community with a priory and a castle. In 1242 Plympton Erie was made a borough. In 1295, when Edward called his first Parliament, burgesses came only from the older towns of Tavistock and Plymp- ton. It was not until the second Parliament in 1298 that Plymouth sent burgesses. Gradually, the influence of the priory of Plympton has waned and the town of Plymouth has grown. This is the background. In 1328, when Plympton was made a stannary town, it was already beginning to lose its influence. It was a port. Gradually the Laira Estuary filled up with silt from the products of to mining. It now fills up with silt from the products of china clay. Gradually and inexorably Sutton became the terminal port instead of Plympton and Plymouth's influence grew. In 1439, and finally in 1440, Plymouth negotiated and became a borough town and was also the first town in England to be incorporated by Act of Parliament.

There has been this conflict all through history of Plympton gradually waning in influence and Plymouth pushing up its influence and expanding its population. As somebody who has lived in Plympton, I am very proud of our old traditions. We have an active parish council which beats the bounds. We can claim Sir Joshua Reynolds as a mayor and as somebody who was born there. There is this very real feeling, particularly in the parish of Plympton St. Maurice, which does not want to be taken over by Plymouth.

I suggest to the House that this conflict has been seen in Plymouth before. When Devonport was amalgamated with Plymouth, there was very considerable feeling, as I am sure the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) will attest. That has died down and now very few people, other than the very old, look back on those old days. I think that the majority of people convincingly feel that Plymouth has gained from that amalgamation. It is my fervent belief that Plymouth and the people in the added areas will gain from this amalgamation. However, I understand the feeling, and I think that we should be foolish to underestimate it.

Let us look at the position as it is before us now and think back. First, this controversy has been going on for seven years. The hon. Member for Tavistock made much of the fact that, as a Royal Commission was already sitting, and will, we hope, be reporting late in 1968, this was no time to go through with boundary changes. If the hon. Gentleman could show, which he singularly failed to show, that this boundary extension could in any way work against any likely recommendation from the Royal Commission, his case would be a strong one. But the facts are, as the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I know, that the Commission is bound to form larger units of local government. This is an inexorable tendency. It is clear that, whatever comes out of the Commission, Plymouth's boundaries will be extended to take in a much larger area than is being taken in at the present.

I do not think for one moment that this boundary change will militate against any recommendation which is likely to be made by the Commission. In fact, I think that it will help it, because I believe that this is an inevitable addition to the city boundaries. By forming a bigger and more viable centre of administration in advance of the Commission, Plymouth will be in a far better position to administer the wider area which I hope it receives.

The hon. Gentleman talked about a growth centre in the South-West. He will know that I feel very strongly about this. The whole prosperity of the South-West depends on building up an economic industrial centre in Plymouth. To this end, I support all efforts to strengthen Plymouth's authority in the nation and its size and ability as a local authority.

I believe that the Order was a very courageous decision by a Labour Minister of Housing. It shows that which is most important—anticipation of an inevitable tendency. Though it must be admitted that the two Commissions came down on a finely balanced judgment against this, my right hon. Friend felt, reviewing the situation and with his inspector's report before him, that there were advantages in this.

I want now to take up some of the points which the hon. Gentleman made. First, he did his case a slight disservice by arguing against a community interest between Plympton and Plymstock and Plymouth, because this community of interests and continuity of development, which are paragraphs (a) and (b) of Regulation 11 of the Local Government Commission's Regulations, Statutory Instrument 2115 of 1958, has been accepted by both Commissions. The community of interest argument and the continuity of development argument have been accepted.

Speaking from my own experience, I think that this is clear-cut. I can remember as a small boy talking of going into Plymouth and Plympton. All the time I have been growing up I have seen the growth of Plympton and the gradual fusion of Plympton and Plymstock with Plymouth. The bridge across the Laira between Plymstock and Plymouth is now a very excellent one. The tendency for people to move into Plymouth, to shop in Plymouth, has been progressive. The build-up of the population of Plympton has continued throughout this time. This argument has been accepted, and I think that the hon. Gentleman would have done better to have conceded it. It was paragraph (c) which the Commission found it could not accept. That was the balance of advantage in the change.

I wish to correct one point in the speech of the hon. Member for Tavistock. He said that the population of Plymouth was well over 200,000. This is not the case. The population of civilians in 1965 —and we ought to confine ourselves to civilians as the Service population has waxed and waned very much—was 200,100 and in 1951 it was 198,300. The population of Plymouth has been remarkably static for many years.

Mr. Michael Heseltine

I have the Registrar General's figures, which show the population in 1966 as 213,980 and this compares more or less with the 1961 figure of 212,780.

Dr. Owen

I am grateful to the hon. Member, but he has added the Forces population. In 1965 the Forces population was 12,400 and for 1966 we do not have a breakdown between the Forces and the civilian population. In considering Plympton and Plymstock it would be better to leave out the Forces population; then we would get a much better understanding of the static position. The Forces population also affects Plympton and Plymstock. Between 1961 and 1965 there has been a very substantial civilian increase 14,650, in the added areas of Plympton and Plymstock, and the population has risen from 17,850 to 32,500. There has been an increase in the population of Plymouth in this period of only 1,800. This shows that the growth in the size of Plymouth has largely gone to the added areas.

To find the reason for this we have to look back a little into history. This started soon after the war years, because the centre of Plymouth was devastatingly bombed and there was a tendency to move out of the city. The hon. Member spoke about young people deciding to get out and being compulsorily brought back, but I do not think that represents the facts of the situation. Many went out because there happened to be houses and development outside the city and many of the people in Plymouth have relatives in Plympton.

This works against the hon. Member's case. There is no question that Plympton and Plymstock have formed a valuable part of Plymouth in many senses and we should look at the balance of advantage in the change. Plymouth feels that the migration is a drain on the city's reserves and an important section of the community is left outside, yet at the same time they can enjoy the facilities of the city and should be contributing in terms of personnel and rateable value to the city. This is a good argument.

One of the remarkable things about this take-over has been that the city council is united. It is a city council which has changed its political complexion on a number of occasions, but there has been a united resolve of both Labour and Conservative members in wanting this Order. Although we hear talk about a dictator and compulsory orders, the Minister could hardly be suspected of political motivation in taking over Plympton and Plymstock, for all of us who wish the Labour council well know that we have a much harder fight on our hands than if we were just fighting Plymouth City Council with its present boundaries.

These two towns with Plymouth form one single urban complex which fits into a natural authority for the effective solution of problems of redistribution of population, traffic, allocation of land for housing and attraction and development of new industry. The hon. Member for Tavistock made rather disparaging comments about the proposals relating to the Plym Estuary and the Cattewater. There are one-and-half miles of the Cattewater on the Devon side and he asked why we should not take over Cornwall. I think it should not be beyond the competence of the boundary Commission to look at Cornwall in this respect, but that is for another day. The Cattewater should be treated by one authority.

A great many of us are keen to see the polytechnic which is to come to Plymouth gradually building up studies in maritime affairs and we hope eventually to produce a university. There are plans for extending the Cattewater to make it a yachting centre and to offer research facilities for Government Departments. A large part of this area in Devon is in Service hands and landscaping is badly needed. If we are to make the Cattewater commercially more viable and important, having one authority to deal with it would be a great advantage.

Forty-eight per cent. of the population of Plympton and Plymstock work in the city. This percentage was the same in 1951 as in 1961. The number of those working in the city has never been accepted as the sole criterion for a boundary change. That is quite right, but it is an important criterion which we should consider.

I come to some of the arguments against the proposal, because they were ones which weighed the balance of advantage and made the Commission come down against Plymouth's proposals. Much was made of the financial implications to Devon County Council and that under the Order it was taking a large portion of its rateable value and this would affect the county rate. On 17th February, 1967 Devon County Council announced that its rate was pegged at 8s. in the £. This was only the third year since the war that it had not gone up. The reasons given were the increased Government grants, the proposed transfer of Plympton and Plymstock and the amalgamation of the police forces. Devon county rate, therefore, has been well protected by the transitional arrangements made by the Government, and that argument does not hold up.

As for the rural district council rate, to which the hon. Member for Tavistock rightly drew attention, this has been eased by the city paying £90,000 over five years and in the initial year, when the burden may be the greatest, it is expected to be £30,000. That is a generous offset of what otherwise would mean an increase of 1s. 3d. in the £. It will go a long way to meeting objections.

Mr. Michael Heseltine

Within the very short period of two or three years rural district ratepayers will find their rates up to the level of the Plymouth rates.

Dr. Owen

This is a five-year transitional arrangement which is very generous, although I agree that they may eventually come up to the Plymouth rate.

Another point which the hon. Member raised was about viability. The rural district council population will be reduced to 12,800. Of 16 rural districts in Devon seven have a greater population and eight have a smaller population. The present offices of the rural district council are not to be transferred. They could stay within the city boundary, and this has been a satisfactory administrative area in the past. Loan charges on Devon County Council development will be taken over by the city council, which of course is quite right. In my view, therefore, the arguments on finance and viability are not strong.

The last argument, to which Plymouth attached great importance at the time of the Commission, needs examination. The hon. Gentleman said that we got no land by taking over this added area. The Plymouth city planning officer feels that in the added areas we shall have 490 acres for residential development which are not already the subject of planning permission. This is a substantial increase, particularly as we have only 470 acres like that available in Plymouth at the moment, and we are tight for land.

If we are to build up Plymouth to be the regional centre for the South-West and eventually, I hope, to be the site for a regional parliament, we must have land available. We are expanding our college of technology to become a polytechnic. We have to build a district general hospital at Derriford, to serve both the Plymouth area and a large proportion of Devon county, which will take up a large amount of the city's land, quite rightly. We hope to attract a teacher training college. We always have the demands of the Defence Department, which have taken a heavy load of Plymouth's land in the past and may well do so in the future.

Most important of all, the City Council has shown its determination to try to attract overspill population to Plymouth. There is a determination in Plymouth to make it an economically viable city, to diversify its economy and to make it not as dependent as it has been in the past on the dockyard. We have, therefore, collaborated with Devon county in bringing industrial consultants in to look at the possibility of attracting population, and there is at the moment a pilot scheme being undertaken with the Greater London County Council under which it is eventually hoped that 10,000 people from London will come down to Plymouth. These people must be housed, and land will be important.

We have an industrial estate proceeding at Estover, and we are to start building the Leigham estate. We need land. Land is an important attribute for an expanding city. We must have land available to offer to people if they come forward with imaginative schemes for industry, for factories or for higher education.

We have to confess that it was the Minister himself who limited Plymouth's application for land. In its original application, Plymouth wanted more land and asked, in fact, for Wembury. It was the Minister who drew the boundary very tight.

I have referred to the local feeling. Very little has been said about the transitional arrangements, and this is a tribute to Devon County Council and Plymouth City Council for the way in which they have made real efforts to agree on the complicated machinery for transitional arrangements. Everyone has been aware that the outlying areas could be badly served unless there were thoroughly satisfactory transitional arrangements. Plymouth City Council has expressed its readiness to meet Devon County Council over this, even if the present arrangements turn out to be unsatisfactory, and it has said that it will be very flexible. It can do no more than that.

There has been real collaboration and co-operation. The education problem, which has come up just recently, has been settled to Devon county's satisfaction, to my satisfaction and to everyone's satisfaction. A clear statement has come from the city council that it will proceed with the comprehensive reorganisation scheme drawn up by Devon County Council.

This is an Order which shows vision. It allows Plymouth to expand. It is opposed by people who feel that they have strong grounds for opposition, and I understand their feeling, but I believe that the time has now come for cooperation, for Plympton and Plymstock, inside Plymouth, to make a valuable contribution to the city. When the Order is implemented. I shall be proud to be able to say that I am in essence and in truth a Plymouthian.

12.14 a.m.

Dame Joan Vickers (Plymouth, Devonport)

After the powerful speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen), and in view of the shortness of time, I shall say only a few words. I fully support the Order, and I do so having in mind our previous experience in Devonport of being taken over, with the urban district of Stone-house also amalgamated with Plymouth. This has worked very satisfactorily, despite the fact that Devonport then had its own Lord Mayor and moot hall and it was a powerful entity itself. Perhaps I might remind the House also that we had Stonehouse Creek and the bridge at that time, which was a deep division between Plympton and Plymouth.

I must correct what my hon. Friend said about the 3,500 acres. There are only 1,000 acres still undeveloped. When we had the inquiry, however, we were asked to look ahead for at least 15 or 20 years, as the hon. Member for Sutton has said. We need more factories. Our unemployment rate, 3.7 per cent., is very high at present, and it is essential that we have more industry attracted to the area. For this purpose we need land.

As for the amenities such as the guildhall, the swimming pool, the museum and so on, these are used also by people from Plympton and Plymstock, and they might contribute something towards them. I remind the House that, when the Local Government Commission for England considered the South Western Review area—this appears on page 89 of its Report—the County Borough Council of Plymouth's suggestions included a rather larger area, bringing in Plymouth St. Mary rural district, with Plympton St. Maurice, Plymstock, Wembury, part of Plympton St. Mary and part of Brixton. One of the objections to the Order, I feel, is that it does rather carve up some of the small villages in an undesirable way. I support what the hon. Member for Sutton said in urging that we must think in the future, when the Royal Commission on Local Government reports, of these wider areas. I consider that we should in the future have areas based on Exeter, Torbay, Plymouth and, perhaps, Barnstaple, and eventually, perhaps, do away with Devon County Council. This is what we should look to in the years ahead, having an elected co-ordinating committee dealing, probably, with the whole of Devon and Cornwall so as to have some form of connected regional organisation.

Practically all the points which arise have been adequately dealt with by the hon. Member for Sutton, who has great knowledge of these matters. I particularly endorse what he said about the polytechnic, the teacher training college and the idea that we should have a bigger population so as to relieve London or Birmingham of some of their enormous population. These people could come down to help in the growth point of the South-West, which, we believe, will be the City of Plymouth.

The hon. Gentleman emphasised how dependent we have been on the Services. Now, with the Government's wish to cut the defence programme, this is a worrying factor, and for that reason also we need further land in order to build more factories.

We know how long Royal Commissions take to report. In my view, it would be better to take this step towards making a larger conurbation rather than wait, perhaps, seven or 10 years till the Royal Commission on Local Government produces its report. We all want to give the Minister an opportunity to reply, so I shall say no more. I support the Order, and I hope that the Minister will be able to set at rest some of the anxieties which people feel. One accepts that these anxieties are justifiable in the minds of those who live in the areas to be incorporated into Plymouth, and I hope that he will give them reassurance.

12.18 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe (Cornwall, North)

I also wish to leave the Minister time to reply, but in my few remarks I shall support the citizens of Plympton in their opposition to Plymouth's take-over. I do not think that there has ever been an Order with a worse name to describe it than this Plymouth Order. A far better name would be the "Rape of Plympton" Order, 1966. I am sorry, in one sense, that the Minister of Housing and Local Government is not here to listen to what is said, because he is cast in the r´le of Pandarus, and he was the greatest pimp in history. He is not entirely responsible for his actions, as he was landed with this baby by his predecessor, but it is not too late to change the Ministry's decisions. After all, this will not be the first time that the present Leader of the House has been proved wrong.

I support the citizens and congratulate them on a first-class fight. Organisation of the referendum was magnificent and a true joint political venture, even if not supported by all the elements in the political firmament. The Plymouth arguments do not stand up at all. They have been completely demolished already by the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) and by the 1963 Boundary Review, in the pages of which they tumbled one by one.

I do not intend to go through them now but only to remind the House that the Review ended with the words: We decided that the case for the inclusion of Plympton and Plymstock in Plymouth was not strong enough to justify change. The case which Plymouth has put forward, that its young people are moving out and that these areas should therefore be incorporated in the City because people are working there, could well be applied to Brighton's relationship to London. There is a host of areas around this city where people live who work in the centre of London. Where does this argument stop?

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) said that the Royal Commission would produce a Report which would not militate against the Order. I do not know how he knows what the Commission will say. I agree that it may say there should be larger units in local government, with which I would agree, but at what tier would we have the larger units? If we are to have them at county or regional level, it is extremely important to strengthen the lower tier of local government to ensure that the democratic ties between the local authority and the people are strengthened as much as possible. There is a grave danger in the Order that the people of the area will have a feeling of distance from the decisions made about them.

The hon. Member for Tavistock asked "Why not Cornwall?" In case the Minister should take this hint to heart, let me warn him that, if they set one dirty foot across the Tamar, the clang of the anvil will be heard in Michael Joseph's blacksmith's shop again, Trelawney will rise from his grave and a great many more than 20,000 Cornishmen will march to know the reason why!

The rape of Cornwall has not yet begun, but I warn the hon. Gentleman that, if it does, it will be a very bloody business indeed. We across the Tamar, are always happy to lend a hand to the downtrodden and oppressed. Therefore, I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to change his mind—it is not too late to think again.

12.23 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl)

Over the years now, it becomes trite to say that something is always happening in this place. In the years that I have been taking part in debates on local government reorganisation, from both sides of the House, I have heard no appeal so poignant and unique as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen).

I thought that he provided us with an admirable clinical examination of the position as one would expect from one of his distinction. In notable distinction from the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), he balanced the issues and saw the poignant realities of this decision from both sides and its importance to the communities, and was able to put it from the point of view of someone who lived with both sides of the problem. The language used by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North did not advance us at all. Of course, if one approaches these difficult questions in that kind of slap-happy way, one does not lay the kind of foundations on which communities can work together. Our problem in the world today is not to spread local hatred but to get communities to recognise that they have common interests and to use them to solve common problems.

I have little to add to what has been said and will deal only with the points as they appear to my two right hon. Friends who have been so much involved. As to the reason for a quick decision, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton, gave a very poignant reason, that we ought to settle it one way or another and not put it off until after the Royal Commission reports. We have acted entirely in conformity with what we have always said we would do in looking at Local Government Commission recommendations.

It is not correct to say that, in this case, we have completely reversed the overwhelming rejection of the arguments by the Local Government Commission. The Commission saw the balance of argument as everyone else in the debate has seen it. It came down on the other side from that of my right hon. Friend the present Leader of the House. He was entitled to have a different opinion, but, equally, those who dislike the Order are perfectly entitled to make the point that this was not the view of the Commission. However, it was very difficult and nicely balanced.

The main argument which influenced my right hon. Friends in considering this was the inter-relation of these two communities. The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) asked how we could possibly justify morally making an Order which forced these people who sought to escape from Plymouth into Plymstock to go back to the city. The answer is that many of them do not seek to escape, because they go back to Plymouth to work, and enjoy its services. They no doubt go to the Plymouth Library in the lunch hour. They are nearer the centre of Plymouth, particuparts of the existing city. From that larly the new centre, than those in many point of view, they are not contracting out but are an integral part.

The converse is also true. As industrial development takes place outside the town, in the same way, people will come out from Plymouth to work in the added areas, so there will be a growing interchange of activity and movement between the populations. In view of that, it is sensible to recognise that they are one community and that they should take part together in the privileges and the responsibilities of common citizenship.

There are arrangements for transitional help to the rural districts from Plymouth and for keeping down the increase in rates in the added area, as is normal when these things happen. It will to some extent make the transition less harsh. However, the basic question is still, are they to come into the city with which many of them are closely identified, and take their responsibilities in it? On balance, painfully, after much thought, my two right hon. Friends, having looked at the problem and read their inspector's Report, concluded that the right thing was to submit the Order to the House.

12.29 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

In the 60 seconds or so before you put the Question, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to remind the House that this Order, like so many others of a similar nature, comes while the Royal Commission is deliberating on the future structure of local authorities. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) said that the Order was the anticipation of the inevitable conclusion by the Commission that there must be larger local authorities.

I do not know that that is so in this form. The Royal Commission may recommend balanced conurbations, and not a take-over by the city which is the main local authority in any area. The conurbation authority may be a larger one with smaller authorities under it, the form of which is not necessarily that laid down in the Order.

We may be not only pre-judging but prejudicing the Royal Commission's Report. The Minister justified a similar Order a few days ago on the ground that it would take a long time to bring about reform of local government structure when the recommendations of the Commission were received. This is not what his predecessor said. What we were told when the Royal Commission was set up by the then Minister was that this was a dynamic policy of the present Government, an urgent drive for local government reform. Now we are told that it will take many years to carry out that reform. The Commission was supposed to be hurrying up this reform, but it is doing nothing of the sort. We are receiving only piecemeal reforms through this and similar Orders and no policy whatever is coming from the Minister.

Question put:—

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER'S opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Proceedings stood deferred pursuant to Order (Sittings of the House (Morning Sittings)).