COUNTIES AND METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS IN ENGLAND

HC Deb 06 July 1972 vol 840 cc763-1150

Mr. Michael Fidler (Bury and Radcliffe)

I beg to move Amendment No. 1020, in page 192, column 2, leave out lines 36 to 41 and insert: 'The county borough of Bury; In the administrative county of Lancaster— the Boroughs of Prestwich and Radcliffe; in the borough of Heywood, so much of the Birtle and Ashworth ward as lies west of the line for the time being of the centre of the Cheesden Brook and so much of the Heap Bridge ward as lies west of the boundary referred to in paragraph 3AA of Part III of this Schedule; the urban districts of Tottington and Whitefield'.

Mr. Speaker

With this Amendment we are to take the following:

Amendment No. 444, in page 192, leave out line 16 and insert: 'that part of the ward in Merseyside that lies to the south side of the road A.580'.

Amendment No. 474, in line 17, leave out 'except the wards in Cheshire'.

Amendment No. 7, in line 28, after 'Horwich', insert: 'including the curtilages of the necessary land comprising the Rivington and Blackrod Grammar School and the new buildings to be erected thereon for the new comprehensive school'.

Amendment No. 302, in page 192, leave out lines 30 to 34.

Amendment No. 9, in line 41, leave out 'Whitefield and Whitworth' and insert 'and Whitefield'.

Amendment No. 305, in line 41, leave out 'Whitworth'.

Amendment No. 10, in page 192, leave out lines 42 and 43.

Amendment No. 1021, in line 43, column 2, at end insert: 'District (cc) The county borough of Rochdale; In the administrative county of Lancaster— the borough of Middleton; the borough of Heywood, except the areas in district (c); the urban districts of Little-borough, Milnrow and Wardle'.

As Amendments to proposed Amendment No. 1021: (a), leave out line 4.

(b), line 5, leave out 'except the areas in district (c)'.

Amendment No. 1022, in page 193, column 2, leave out line 10.

Amendment No. 11, in page 193, leave out lines 31 and 32.

Amendment No. 445, in page 194, line 16, leave out 'South ward' and insert: 'that part of the South ward which lies on the southern side of the road A.580'.

Amendment No. 475, in page 199, leave out lines 30 and 31.

Amendment No. 303, in page 203, leave out from line 45 to line 3 on page 204.

Amendment No. 1043, in page 204, line 1, leave out from 'Brook' to end of line 3 and insert: 'to the end of the Reservoir Dam, thence to Blackburn Road north of Moss Cottages and thence north-eastwards to the ward boundary'.

Amendment No. 1023, in line 3, at end insert: '3AA. The boundary dividing the Heap Bridge ward of the borough of Heywood referred to in Part I of this Schedule shall be such as the Secretary of State may by order determine on or near the general line of the western boundaries of Ordnance Survey parcels 1605, 1800, 2488, 2788, 2769 and 3557, the northern side of Bury Old Road, Moss Hall Road to Brook Cottage and thence westwards to the boundary of the borough'.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether you will allow Divisions on individual Amendments within the group? It seems to me that the Amendments are grouped rather queerly and that some of them cannot relate to others in the group. If we are to be allowed to vote on only one Amendment, that will be most unfortunate for those hon. Members who have tabled Amendments in this group.

Mr. Speaker

I understand, and to some extent sympathise with, the hon. Gentleman's difficulty. It has been difficult to group this series of Amendments in a manner convenient to the House. When we last dealt with this matter the Amendments were grouped even more comprehensively. At least today we have split the ones dealing with this area into three groups. That has been done by agreement, and I shall consider the question of Divisions as we go along.

Mr. Fidler

What I am proposing is that what was originally put forward by my right hon. Friend as District (c) of the Greater Manchester Metropolitan County 12 should be divided into two, one district based on Bury, in which would be Prestwich, Whitefield, Radcliffe, and Tottington and the four wards of Ramsbottom as in the original proposal, and the other based on Rochdale and associated with it Middleton, Milnrow, Wardle and Littleborough. The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) will take pleasure from the fact that I have excluded Whitworth from my Amendments.

I offer apologies on behalf of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann), who is not with us today. Unfortunately he has been ill for a long time. I am sure that the House will wish to extend to him its best wishes for a speedy recovery and return to our midst. It is with his authority that I speak to the Amendments, and I have a letter written by him only 48 hours ago expressing support for what I am putting forward. I hope that the Minister will achieve his own aim and desire by accepting the four Amendments in my name and the names of the hon. Members for Rochdale and Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Haselhurst).

This is a special case—indeed, unique. By accepting it the Minister would not create any precedent for change elsewhere, since there are so many special things that apply in this area alone which call for exceptional treatment.

First, I am not proposing any diminution in the size of the area or population of the Metropolitan district or the county itself. I accept the overall Greater Manchester Metropolitan County proposals. I am simply proposing the separation of proposed District 12 (c) into its two natural separate and distinct districts, and by adding it to the non-county borough of Middleton it will make a group with a total population of 400,000 which splits nicely and conveniently into two separate districts of about 200,000 each.

I remind my right hon. Friend that there are proposed districts in certain parts of the country well below that figure. For example, on Tyneside there is one of 177,000. It means taking Middleton out of District (f) which is based on Oldham, but it leaves that district with a population of more than 225,000, which is completely viable for all the purposes of this part of the Bill.

District (c) is one of the few in the country, and the only one in the Greater Manchester Metropolitan County, which includes two existing county boroughs. At present nine districts are proposed. Of these, six have only one county borough, two have no county boroughs at all, and only one of the nine, District (c) is proposed to have two county boroughs in it; namely, Bury and Rochdale.

I should have liked to have included the whole of Ramsbottom in the proposed District (c). I know the strength of local feeling, and I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Bray), who also has tried very hard to secure the reunification of all six wards of Ramsbottom. We have both tried to do this. The only difference between us is that he wishes to see the whole of Ramsbottom in the Lancashire area, whereas I wish to see it all united but included in District (c) of the Greater Manchester area. But at least the Amendment leaves the four wards of Central, East, South and West Ramsbottom, which look to Bury as their centre, as the Minister has included them in the Bill.

The Amendment brings in Middleton. My hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich will no doubt deal in detail with what is part of his constituency. It is enough for me to say that the Middleton non-county borough has gone on record as desiring to be grouped with Rochdale with which it has a community of interest, provided that Rochdale is split from Bury with which it has no such community of interest. This very fact is another indication that Bury and Rochdale are different entities.

I have here a letter from the town clerk of Middleton in which he said that the Council recommend the Government to include Middleton in a Metropolitan District including Rochdale and Heywood and certain outlying Urban Districts but separated from Bury as indicated in the above minutes (these minutes referring to a Metropolitan District including Rochdale and Heywood and certain outlying Urban Districts provided always that the Government do in fact divide the proposed Metropolitan District 12(f))…into two parts.

Mr. James Lamond (Oldham, East)

What is the date of that decision and of that letter?

Mr. Fidler

The hon. Gentleman will accept that I am quoting evidence. I should be glad to supply it in full. The letter was sent in November, 1971, and was followed by a letter in December from that Middleton authority to the town clerk of Bury. I have a copy. It was dated 14th December and it indicated that Middleton had decided to approve its inclusion in District 12(f) because the Local Government Bill had not divided Metropolitan District 12(c) into two parts. Clearly, Middleton would wish to be with Rochdale in District (c) if District (c) is split on the lines I have endeavoured to indicate.

The case submitted by the Bury local authority, and an identical case submitted by the Rochdale local authority, early last year and since then, set out a tremendous number of reasons as to why it was imperative that proposed district (c) be split into two parts. I shall not burden the House with the whole case, because I want to be brief. But the town clerk of Bury refers to paragraph 8 of the White Paper, which states: Local authority areas should be related to areas within which people have a common interest—through living in a recognisable community, through the links of employment, shopping or social activities, or through history or tradition. Local boundaries, the allocation of responsibilities and the system as a whole should be understood and accepted as sensible by electors, by members and by officers. The case is made as I hope to prove, that on all grounds, those cited in that statement, it is absolutely imperative that the proposed district be split in two on the lines I have indicated, for reasons of social geography, local trade interests, traditions, and many others to which I shall refer.

But equally, the geographical location of the administrative centres of these two new districts would be ideal. The one based on Bury could be served by the Bury town hall, which was opened by Her Majesty the Queen in 1954. It was specially built to cater for a larger area than Bury alone, but one based on Bury. It is right in the heart of the Bury based group.

On the other hand, Rochdale town hall is a building of unique architectural structure and is equally ideally situated geographically to administer the new proposed district based on Rochdale. Acceptance of the Amendment would avoid the scrapping of both buildings and the building of some new town hall in a no-man's land between the two districts. I have mentioned the populations which the Amendments will allow for. Broadly speaking, the two new districts would be each of about 200,000 population.

It is important to know what the travel patterns are. There are no east-west travel links whatever. They are all north-south. Here the details of the rail lines and the Selnec services which are available are important because all the railway lines are exclusively north-south. They run from Manchester to Bury and further north, or from Manchester to Rochdale and further north, the line between Bury and Rochdale being closed. The proposed M66 Bury easterly by-pass will ring Bury, going from north Bury down to Manchester.

Regarding trade and commerce, the Bury and District Chamber of Commerce has commented to me that it is strongly united as to why it is essential that the Bury-based district be separated from the Rochdale-based district. The Chamber of Commerce says: There is virtually no contact in industry or communications between Bury and Rochdale…Industry draws little labour from the Rochdale area, or vice versa. Industrial rates of pay differ for similar industries between the Rochdale area and the Bury and District area. The Chamber of Commerce points out that there are many compelling reasons for two completely separate districts.

4.15 p.m.

I have had a communication from the clerk to the magistrates speaking for the magistrates and the Bury and District Law Society, all of whom make it clear that the arrangements made for the magistrates and judiciary clearly indicate that Bury and Rochdale are two separate entities and ought to remain so.

Clearly, we have two friendly but different boroughs, with different areas, traditions, local organisations and football and other sports clubs. Apart from the amateur football clubs involved, Rochdale has its fine club in one of the English leagues, which is supported by the Rochdale-based population, just as Bury has its professional team in the Football League, supported by the Bury-based population. Both areas have their own Government offices. Even geographically, the two areas are physically separated by a high ridge of land and a no-man's-land between the two.

The Minister's proposals also throw up problems of local democracy and equality of representation. There have been meetings to decide what kind of wards should be established and the local councillors to be elected both for the districts and for the metropolitan county. Meetings have shown that as it stands at present, the average number of voters per representative from Bury/Rochdale to the Great Manchester Metropolitan County will be 21,500, far in excess of any of the eight other districts in the Greater Manchester metropolitan county. From the Bury area alone, 23,930 voters per representative is the figure, compared with others which go as low as 16,500 per representative. It is no wonder that the town clerk was obliged to inform the Secretary of State that these variations could have been avoided if the districts had been split into two, one based on Bury and the other based on Rochdale.

Finally, the really vital new factor is expert opinion which has come from the Department of the Environment itself. I have a copy of the strategic plan for the North-West. The SPNW is a report which was published and released early this year, and hon. Members may obtain copies. The North-West strategic planning team was set up by the Department of the Environment under the director of strategic planning, Mr. A. G. Powell, the Assistant Chief Planner of the Department of the Environment. The report shows clearly two separate districts, one based on Bury and one based on Rochdale. It must be of tremendous importance to the whole House that this completely independent body of professionals of the Department feels that Bury and Rochdale, together with their surrounding districts, form naturally independent units: the planning district No. 30, of Bury, Rams bottom, Tottington, Radcliffe, Whitefield, Prestwich and Heywood, and planning district No. 31, of Rochdale, Whitworth, Wardle, Littleborough and Milnrow. These should not be amalgamated into one administrative unit.

Mr. John Silkin (Deptford)

Will the hon. Gentleman give the date of that publication?

Mr. Fidler

The date is December, 1971. It was made available in the early months of this year. It is a very up-to-date report.

It is no wonder that the town clerk of Bury should write to me referring to these Amendments, to say: An informal meeting of representatives of the Councils of Bury, Prestwich, Radcliffe, Tottington and Whitefield was held recently to discuss this matter. They considered that in the interest of good local government in the area it is imperative that your amendment succeeds. This then is the strength of local feeling—I emphasise that—of all parties in the area, united in wishing to see these Amendments succeed. I advise my hon. Friends and hon. Members of the Opposition that the leaders of the Labour groups of Bury and Rochdale Councils, which are both now Labour-controlled, support these Amendments and hope that they will succeed. If the local representatives whom the Minister met early last year were not unanimous then, they are certainly unanimous nowand are united in this demand. The people, the local authorities, the officers, Members of Parliament, the magistrates, the Chamber of Commerce, the Law Society and all parties in the area concerned are convinced that the aims and purposes of the Bill will be met by accepting the Amendments. Each of the two areas, one based on Bury and one based on Rochdale, will be fully viable and capable of administering all the services proposed for the district.

I beg of the Minister not to proceed with a shotgun marriage, creating a "Botchdale". It is not without interest that one of the local authorities, I believe Prestwich, held a competition to find a new name for the district. The result was Bury-Rochdale, or Rochdale-Bury, thus indicating the impossibility of linking the two together in any suitable form.

I have been working on the Amendment for more than a year. I first brought it to the notice of the Minister in February of last year, following the issue of the White Paper. I have been involved with this matter for the last 15 years or more, especially in 1957–58 as mayor of Prestwich, and as a former chairman of the local government reorganisation committee.

I was born in the area and I have lived there all my life. I have the deep passionate conviction that my Amendment is right, regardless of any party political considerations. It is a fair, sensible and practical proposal. I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) for their support when the needs of the district were referred to in Committee. I particularly pay tribute to the hon. Member for Widnes, who was the Opposition spokesman in Committee and who made such effective arguments in support of the plan which, broadly speaking, lies within these Amendments. He said in Committee: I hope the Committee have noted that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann) and the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler)—two hon. Members on opposite sides politically, neither on the Committee although both spoke on Second Reading…unite on the matter of the metropolitan district proposed in the Bill which seeks to unite two entirely different places, the County Borough of Bury and the County Borough of Rochdale.…Knowing the area, and coming from Lancashire, I know perfectly well that there is little, if any, community of interest between the two great county boroughs, or their people. The link-up by shotgun marriage between Bury and Rochdale is not acceptable to the hon. Members who represent those constituencies; nor is it acceptable to either of the councils, to the officers or to the people of the area. Consequently, the Amendment, which I put down on behalf of two hon. Members who are not members of the Committee, and whose arguments I fully support knowing the area as I do, is to divide that metropolitan district into two perfectly good metropolitan districts, one based on the County Borough of Bury and the other on the County Borough of Rochdale. I also extend my thanks to the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin), who led the Opposition in the Committee, and who was kind enough to endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Widnes. He said: I should like to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes), the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) and the hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) by saying this. I hope the Minister is listening to the points that are being made, and that it is not some form of charade."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 14th December, 1971; c. 399–404.] I can give the House further quotations, all of which indicate that at that time at least the right hon. Member for Deptford was most desirous of what he called the "flexibility" which might be demonstrated by my right hon. Friend in accepting the Amendment, then argued so eloquently by the hon. Member for Widnes. These opinions represented the mature view of the right hon. Member for Deptford, based not only on the arguments which he had heard in Committee but on his long years of experience as a specialist in local government affairs. My tribute to him is based on the confidence that what he said then will again be said by him and that the Amendments will also have his support.

Finally, I also have pleasure in having in my hand a letter from the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton. Writing to the town clerk of Rochdale, the hon. Gentleman said: …I should say that I do entirely agree with the Council's suggestion"— that is, the Rochdale Council— that Rochdale and Bury should be divided into two separate sub-Regional centres. Whatever hon. Members on both sides may say, it is incontrovertible that there are only three hon. Members in the House whose constituencies are wholly within the district concerned. They are myself, representing Bury and Radcliffe, including Tottington, the hon. Member for Rochdale and the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich, which includes Whitefield. Those hon. Members come from both sides of the House, and they are unanimous in their support of the Amendments. Surely the greatest weight must be attached to their views above those of any other hon. Member in this debate.

Finally, to sum up, trade wants it, commerce wants it, society wants it, organised labour wants it, work people want it, employers want it, religious institutions want it, recreational associations want it, and social welfare workers want it. Geographically, industrially, traditionally and administratively, this is the answer. Generally, communications-wise and population-wise, this is the answer.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member had one "finally".

Mr. Fidler

The local authority representations which have been made in the area gravitate into two groups, one based on Bury and one on Rochdale. They are ready to go ahead in two individual districts. I believe there could be a new blossoming of local government achievement through the Amendments, which have everything in their favour and noth- ing against them. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend's acceptance today will give a tremendous fillip to all in the area to go forward tomorrow.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

In calling the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett), I should point out to him that I have not selected sub-amendment (a), standing in his name, but he may discuss it.

Mr. Joel Barnett (Heywood and Royton)

I am sure that if the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler) were able to convince the House by the length of his speech, he would win even without the Minister's agreement.

A notable victory has been won by the small town of Whitworth and there is a great lesson to be learned by it. By persuading, I hope, the Minister to allow it to have what it wants—that is to say, not to be in the Rochdale district—Whitworth has won a great victory for democracy. I shall be somewhat critical of the Minister, but I do not wish to be at all churlish, so I express now my appreciation that, as I understand him correctly, he is willing to accept that Whitworth will not be in either of the proposed new areas.

I recognise the impossibility of the Minister's task; it is absolutely impossible for him, as I am sure he is very well aware by now, to satisfy everybody on both sides of the House and in every district of the country. All of us are delighted not to have his job at the moment. However, the Minister told me when I was presenting the case for Whitworth that a junior Minister had flown over the town and had decided it was more suitable to go in with Rochdale. Apparently that flight was abortive, as I now understand that it is accepted that Whitworth is more contiguous with the area the other side of Rochdale.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page)

I also told the hon. Gentleman that I went over it on my flat feet.

Mr. Barnett

Knowing the length of Whitworth, I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman walked all the way up and down, but whichever way he did it, I am grateful to him.

This is a great victory for democracy. There was great pressure from Whitworth, and it is part of our democracy when a great pressure has the effect of persuading a Minister he has done the wrong thing and is prepared to rectify it. I am grateful to him for doing so. In this instance, the representations I have had from most of the people in the town are overwhelmingly in favour of going into Rossendale rather than staying in Rochdale. This is the type of case when local voices should be heard. The Minister has heard them and I am delighted that he has indicated he is prepared to accept the Amendment.

I turn to the other case where the Minister apparently will reverse a decision because of the magnificent speech of the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe, or for some other reason. If he stood on his head over the Whitworth case, for which I am delighted, on an important principle of local democracy, on the small geographical point of the division of Bury and Rochdale he has stood his whole policy on its head. I do not complain about that necessarily. I am delighted to say that much of the Government's policy has been stood on its head. Indeed they are doing well in that process.

The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe made it clear—he quoted me and was right to do so—that I have always been in favour of splitting Bury and Rochdale. I have never made any secret of that. But what I have always said is that if we are having smaller district councils, then bodies such as education, social services and the rest should be with the larger authority. That is what I have always said and what is now happening means that the smaller district councils will be given nearly all the major powers, including education. In his circular the Minister stated that he wanted metropolitan district councils with populations of not less than 250,000 but here the figure will be considerably less. Bury will have about 180,000, Rochdale about 198,000 and Oldham about 220,000. They will be among the smallest of the metropolitan district councils in the country. It is an especially harsh decision in the case of Oldham and it affects my own area of Crompton and Royton.

4.30 p.m.

They are now faced with a new authority which without Middleton will be in the position of having no major industrial site. An industrial site is vital to an area like ours in the North-West conurbation because without one the opportunities for expansion become, to put it mildly, extremely difficult, and it is crazy to take Middleton out. In spite of what has been said about Middleton being in favour of the decision, my understanding of the situation from the town clerk of Oldham only yesterday was that in recent months Middleton Council has made no firm decision either way. The vice-chairman of the steering group of the new Oldham Council is a Middleton councillor and has been working very well, as have all the officials, in moving towards the new Oldham District Council. But the crazy thing is that the steering committee has been advising industrialists to develop in Oldham and they have been told that they must go to Middleton because that is where the new industrial estate is situated. Oldham will be left literally with nothing but small sites. The town clerk was here yesterday with officials from Failsworth and other councils pointing out that in the area of the Oldham District Council there will be no reasonable industrial estates.

Forgetting the more emotive issues of the boundaries, the net result is that every ratepayer in each of the three districts in the area will, I believe, be faced with a massively increased rate burden because to try to finance education, social services and the rest of the major items of local authority expenditure out of small populations and the consequent smaller rateable values must be more costly. The very serious problems created for education, for example, will mean inevitably that local authorities, with pressure on expenditure, will be compelled to cut down and one of the areas in which they may be compelled to cut down is that of special schools and the number of school classes generally.

I cannot imagine what the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe would have said if I had put an Amendment on the Order Paper suggesting that a small part of Bury be moved out of Bury and put in Ramsbottom, or somewhere that he did not particularly like, without discussing it with him. But he put an Amendment on the Order Paper suggesting that a part of Heywood in my constituency should go into Bury and the other part into Rochdale. I suppose that the people of Heywood might appreciate sharing the two of us as MPs. I do not know what representations he has had from the people of Heywood, but I can tell him that they do not want to be split up in this way. They take the strongest possible exception to the idea, as I do. It is bad enough to play ducks and drakes with Heywood but now to split it up and take a little bit away is a monstrous insult to the people of a town with a long and great tradition and where the borough charter was granted in 1881.

Mr. Fidler

Would the hon. Member admit that it is about 10 months since I indicated to him the nature of my proposed Amendment and that I discussed it with him when I put it on the Order Paper?

Mr. Barnett

I accept what the hon. Member says if he means that he told me that he was putting it on the Order Paper. But I did not like it then and I do not like it now, and the people do not like it.

I am happy, however, that the Minister has accepted the argument that I put to him yesterday, supported by the town clerk of Heywood and the chairman of the appropriate committee. It was stated that 2,500 people lived in this small part of Heywood but the Minister said yesterday that the figure was about 900 and the town clerk of Heywood told me today after a further check that it is nearer 850. To take 850 people out of a town and put them into Bury, the rest going to Rochdale, seems nonsense to me, and I am happy that the Minister accepts that at least the whole of Heywood should go into Rochdale.

However, I condemn the way in which the whole matter has been handled. The Minister has been adamant throughout that a major principle was involved and that he would not change it. The councillors and officials and town clerks have spent an enormous amount of time in steering committee meetings throughout the country yet, while they were meeting day after day and night after night, the Minister's policy was being changed. On Tuesday night my constituents read in the local paper what was to happen. That was the first indication they had. It looks very much to me that what the Minister intended was that it should go through without his being troubled with the representation that he was kind enough to agree to meet yesterday. But it came very late in the day. The councillors and town clerks who came yesterday telephoned me late the previous night and they had to work very hard to get the necessary people together in order to make representations yesterday.

The Minister's policy was being changed without giving councils the opportunity to make the representations that they would have made if the decisions had been known. That is not only my view but it was the view of the all-party delegation I brought yesterday. It was not the view of any one particular party or any one town. One of the most vehement of the local councillors was a Conservative councillor in my constituency who had some pretty strong words for the Minister because he had apparently read about what was to happen at tea-time the night before. I can understand his feeling because he, like other councillors, must have been having lengthy meetings in the last 12 months, and it is not good enough to be told to forget them and start again. It makes a nonsense of the situation.

While I have always favoured a division between Bury and Radcliffe, I dislike the way in which the proposals have been finally devised. I dislike putting areas together when they are dissimilar. Whitworth and Prestwich have only one thing in common. Their MP at one time represented Prestwich on the borough council. But all that Prestwich has in common with Bury is that its hon. Member is the Member for Bury and is also an alderman in Prestwich. Prestwich has much more in common with Manchester than ever it had with Bury.

I do not like splitting areas, but it is inevitable with conurbations as heavily built-up as those in our area. There would have been some sense if the powers in respect of education, social services and the rest had been given to the upper tier. The new proposal, while it has some merit, is doing the right thing in one sense but it is doing it in an appalling ham-handed way and it is putting powers in entirely the wrong place. Most people prefer it as it is today, and that is certainly the impression gained from speaking to people in the constituency. I fear that giving major powers to the smaller councils will mean higher rates for all those in these areas.

Therefore, we are now to get the worst of all worlds, doing away with small councils, many of which were doing a first-class job. In this case the hon. Gentleman proposed literally to destroy one town, Heywood, by splitting off a bit of it, at the same time by allocating powers ensuring a further boost to inflation through spiralling rates.

It will be clear that I am not entirely happy with what the Minister is doing in the Bill and in the proposal before us. I especially condemn the way in which the whole matter has been handled.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke (Darwen)

The purpose of my Amendment No. 302 is to preserve the integrity of Turton. Although I feel strongly on the subject, I shall address the House briefly, moderately and at a low temperature.

By "Turton" I mean not my right hon. Friend the Father of the House but the Turton Urban District Council, one of the chief ornaments in the diadem of the Darwen Division of Lancashire. The Turton Urban District Council is something of a misnomer, because it extends over 17,000 acres and is chiefly beautiful moorland. Therefore, it is difficult to describe is as urban, and even more difficult to think of it in the context of metropolitan. Yet the Government's proposal is to sever it in such a way that 19,000-odd of its 22,000-odd inhabitants will go into the metropolitan area of Greater Manchester. The majority of the inhabitants do not want that severance; the district council does not want it; and I do not want it. At one time some of the inhabitants did want it, because, the Lancashire education authority having gone comprehensive, young married couples thought, rightly or wrongly, that their children might receive a better education under the aegis of Bolton, which was not comprehensive. But unfortunately there has been a change of power in Bolton so that even that advantage and attraction are likely to disappear.

Therefore, as time has gone on, the majority of inhabitants who have not wanted this has grown. The fact is that the vast majority of them do not want to leave the county of Lancashire, as they will under the Government's proposal.

It is said that they work and shop in Bolton, and indeed they do, but that argument proves too much. If everybody who travels to work or to shop in a neighbouring town is to have his home included in it for local government purposes, we shall be straight back to Redcliffe-Maud, a policy which I thought the Government had rejected. Also, if everyone who works or shops in a neighbouring town is to be transferred, the whole of the urban district should be transferred. Belmont and Edgworth were excluded by the line which was drawn across the Turton moors, rather as the Pope drew a line separating the interests of Portugal from those of Spain in South America. All of them should be included, for those in Belmont and those in Edgworth shop and work in Turton as much as do the others. Therefore, that argument cannot be used to defend the line, whatever else it may be used for.

4.45 p.m.

But my chief objections are the repercussions of the line. If Turton could be preserved in its integrity, as my amendment suggests, it would form a natural district council with the present non-county borough of Darwen, with a few other villages, as both local authorities want. That would make a good district council of about 59,000 souls, which is about the right size for a district council in a rural area. It would be of about 40 square miles. But if 19,000 of the 22,00 are to be removed and put into Greater Manchester, that possibility will not be open, for then it would be too small, and it would have to join the district council to be based upon Blackburn, as has been proposed.

The county borough of Blackburn is already quite large enough as a district council with its present boundaries. It has over 100,000 souls, and if it is to have added to them Darwen, what remains of Turton and half the Blackburn rural district, it will approach 140,000, which is, on modern views, too large for that local contact which is so important in district councils in the county and which has been emphasised over and over again by experts and pundits in the matter. Fifty-nine thousand is good, 100,000 is tolerable, but 140,000 for a county district council is much too big. Yet that will be the inevitable result if the line drawn in the very curious way across Turton Urban District Council is to stand. It is an old line that has been dredged up from somewhere and it is obviously a wrong line, if there must be a line at all, for it cuts off the northern part of the Edgerton ward, leaving a dozen or so families out on the moors out on a limb, miles from anywhere.

My second and third Amendments, Amendments Nos. 403 and 1043, seek to rectify that line in a very modest manner, assuming the line must stand, for I think that that dozen or so families should stay with their ward of Edgerton, and if necessary they must go into Manchester along with the others south of the line. It would be cruel to leave them out on a limb, as the Government have proposed. If my right hon. Friend is determined to preserve the line, those dozen families should go into Manchester along with their neighbours.

In conclusion I must thank my right hon. Friend for coming to the area recently, to the surface of the area, not flying above it but walking over it. That was very much appreciated. It contrasts with a flight taking under half an hour, which was the only previous ministerial experience of the difficulties of the area. Even if the worst is to befall the people of the southern part of the Turton Urban District Council—and I have no great hopes of saving them—at least they will know that my right hon. Friend has taken a great personal interest in this difficult problem. I hope that even at this late hour I may be able to save them from this fate, but even if I cannot, I thank my right hon. Friend very much.

Mr. Charles R. Morris (Manchester, Openshaw)

I draw attention to the Amendment standing in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Oldham, East (Mr. James Lamond), Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark), and myself, Amendment 1021 (a). That Amendment seeks to retain Middleton in the envisaged Oldham metropolitan area. Against the background of speeches from the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler), nobody would dispute that Bury and Rochdale have a separate natural identity of community interest.

The Minister's original proposals, which we are now led to believe are to be dramatically changed, envisaged the Middleton County Borough being included in the proposed Oldham metropolitan area. We are entitled to know the reason for that dramatic change. Nobody will argue that Bury and Rochdale have a separate identity. But the Minister's proposals for accepting the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe are contrary to the criterion of the 250,000 laid down in the Minister's White Paper. The Minister's decision is contrary to the ministerial view which was expressed during the Committee stage of the Bill on 14th December last. The decision has caused consternation amongst the local authorities in the proposed Oldham metropolitan area.

Yesterday the civic representatives from Failsworth, Oldham, Saddleworth, Chadderton, Royton and Crompton sought an immediate interview with the Minister to put their case. Their first concern was that they had only 36 hours notice of the Minister's decision. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) drew attention to that.

This should not be the way in which ministerial decisions are made. Those representatives came to the House to register their immediate protest. Their protest was that if one takes Middleton out of the proposed Oldham metropolitan area one will deny that area £1,700,000 of rateable value, which is approximately one-third of the rateable value of the Oldham County Borough. That is the financial implication of this move. It is bound to have an effect on the provision of education, personal health services and social services in the new Oldham metropolitan area.

The smaller authorities such as Fails worth in the proposed 12F area needed a very great deal of persuasion to accept the idea of joining the Oldham metropolitan area. For nearly 12 months they have been liaising and co-operating in the work of a steering group. They now find at this late stage that the structure of the envisaged 12F area, the Oldham area, is to be changed and that Middleton, which was the growth development area of the Oldham metropolitan district, is to go into Rochdale. The Minister is obliged to provide an explanation. When this matter was considered at the Committee stage the Minister's colleague said: The new proposals"— that was the proposals to split Rochdale and Bury—if accepted would give Bury a population of only 175,000. In place of our present proposals which create two strong districts—one based on Bury-Rochdale and the other on Oldham—we would end up with three under-sized metropolitan districts, the metropolitan districts of Bury, Rochdale and Oldham. That is what the Minister is now proposing to accept. He continued: If we were to accept…this proposal for splitting Bury and Rochdale…we should have established yet another precedent where there was no overwhelming case for so doing."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 14th December, 1971; c. 414–15.] That is the contention of the local authorities in the 12F area.

Mr. Fidler

Would the hon. Gentleman accept that the report dealing with strategic planning for the North West was not in existence at the time of that debate?

Mr. Morris

The local authorities in the envisaged Oldham metropolitan area were not aware that the Minister was going to change his decision and attitude and point of view so dramatically. The Minister said that the idea of putting Middleton in Rochdale and splitting Rochdale from Bury has been canvassed over a long period. Until 36 hours ago the ministerial statements and all indications from his Department were that the Oldham metropolitan district was to include Middleton. What has happened to change his mind?

The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe has fought a very long campaign to bring the split between Rochdale and Bury about. I agree that he was not on the Committee which considered the Bill. His rôle at that time was, if he will forgive my saying so, very much one of the fiddler on the roof. Although he was not present he exercised what some might think was a malevolent political influence on the Minister's thinking. I hope that the Minister will tell us of the justification for this dramatic change of mind.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst (Middleton and Prestwich)

In supporting the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler) I pay tribute to the energy and determination which he has shown in representing the views of his constituents and the sustained campaign he has maintained on this issue. For reasons which will be apparent, I have not at all times been able to stand by him during his campaign. On this occasion I stand foursquare with him in supporting these Amendments. The whole of my constituency is affected, though in varying degrees.

All three towns support Amendment No. 1020 and linked Amendments. I state that lest it be thought that their voices have been muted on this issue. Whitefield is the smallest town in the constituency and lies geographically on the Bury border. It found itself, under the arrangements of the White Paper, in District 12F from the beginning. That was confirmed in the Bill. Whitefield did not quarrel with that fact. It did not have any particular reason for wanting to transfer itself from one district to another. Nevertheless, the locally-held view in Whitefield supported Bury in Bury's fight to separate itself from Rochdale. That view has been endorsed by a minute of the urban district council. As the Member for Whitefield I have been urged to support that view.

5.0 p.m.

As a result of the White Paper Prestwich found itself in District 12D, and very much resisted that proposition. There was very strong opposition developing locally, and persuasion on the Government proved successful. When the Bill was published Prestwich found itself in District 12C, and there was a sigh of relief as a result. Prestwich still had a view on the matter of further development with regard to Bury and Rochdale but perhaps did not feel that it was altogether gracious to push its luck in seeking another major change in the Bill.

When we turn to Middleton, the position needs rather more careful explanation. The position of Middleton can be shown to have been one that has not lacked responsibility throughout. I have to admit that the first response of any self-respecting Middletonian to the idea of local government reorganisation was that he did not want to know, that Middleton was "all right as it was, thank you." I imagine that this is an impression which right hon. and hon. Members have found many times in their own areas.

In fairness to Middleton, it also recognised that some sort of local government reorganisation had to come and on its own account was involved in discussions with neighbouring urban district councils ahead of the publication of the Bill. The White Paper put Middleton under District 12F. The council was reluctant to take a decision either to approve or disapprove because it did not feel that sufficient information was available on which it could base a sensible decision. In any case it thought that as the only alternative to being in District 12F, centred on Oldham, was to be in a metropolitan district which included Rochdale and Bury it did not feel that the choice gave it any great determination to escape from District 12F.

After months of consideration the Middleton Borough Council decided that if there was a possibility of a metropolitan district including Rochdale and Heywood but excluding Bury that was what it would wish. It took that decision before the Bill was published. After it was published and Middleton was still placed in District 12F the council decided to accept this, regretfully, feeling that the matter was finally settled and that what should be done was to co-operate in the setting-up of the new district.

It was certainly apparent to me and, I believe, many people in Middleton over a period of months since the publication of the White Paper that the people of Middleton were far from delighted at the prospect of being in District 12F. As awareness grew of Rochdale's fight for separation from Bury and for the creation of two metropolitan districts, so the people in Middleton were asking in louder voices why it was that there could not be a link-up between Middleton and Rochdale.

I recently felt it right to put this matter once again to the Middleton Council and to say: if there was a chance of a Rochdale-based metropolitan district, did it wish to be in that district, did it wish Middleton's voice to be heard in support of that proposition? The only convenient body at the time able to consider that question was the finance and general purposes committee of the council, although this has been the body which has, all along, formulated policy on reorganization matters. I was duly informed that Middleton would prefer to be in Rochdale. This was in March of this year. I also made it clear in the local paper, the Middleton Guardian, that the door might not be finally shut on the possibility of a change, and I invited comments.

The result was a considerable number of letters and mini-petitions. These amount to practically a 14 to 1 vote in favour of Middleton being linked with Rochdale rather than Oldham. All of us realise what might be termed a significant amount of correspondence on any issue. If one has an electorate of 35,000 one does not expect to be getting 5 per cent., 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. of letters on any subject. There have been a total of 378 names and addresses submitted mostly in individual letters and the rest in the form of mini-petitions, with 352 expressing themselves in favour of being in Rochdale and 26 against. The letters come from all parts of the town including the large Langley overspill estate which draws its population largely from Manchester.

Some of the things said in the letters are rather interesting. One lady says: I did not know we had any choice. We were told we were going with Oldham. Middleton people were not even consulted. Someone else said: I feel sad…to see, like many others, that it was no use protesting about the link-up with Oldham as the powers-that-be would please themselves anyway, whatever we ordinary people feel about it. One other lady wrote to me: Last night, 12 days after my resolve to write to you I realised that time might be running short and that probably many of your constituents, like me, had decided to write and had let the opportunity slip. So I decided to canvass my neighbours for an hour or so. The result is the enclosed list of signatures. Every person I approached was most anxious to sign—some had intended to write. This proves to me how lazy we all are and we deserve just what we get. However, I do hope that you will succeed in getting the decision that Middleton be merged with Oldham altered. These remarks back up the clear message I have received at all the gatherings that I have attended in Middleton in the past few months. I am satisfied that the overwhelming view of the people of Middleton is in favour of these Amendments which would allow them to be linked with Rochdale.

It is also my duty to say that I received yesterday a resolution signed by 15 Labour members of the Middleton Council which supported Middleton staying in District 12F. I am equally bound to point out that this does not represent the entire Labour group on the Middleton Council. This is a matter which cuts across party lines as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe pointed out so adequately. I am also satisfied that, had there been time for a full meeting of the council to be properly convened to discuss this matter, then on a free vote it would once again have reflected support for Rochdale in preference to Oldham, in line with all its previous decisions.

When it comes to the merits of choice I will be frank with my right hon. Friend. It is not very easy to show the various considerations that can be taken into account in terms of amenities and finance and so on as being decisive one way or the other. Lord Redcliffe-Maud and Mr. Derek Senior who wrote a dissenting report at the time could certainly adduce no convincing reasons for placing Middleton with Oldham as they did. Mr. Senior was quite open about the difficulty. In paragraph 590 of Cmnd. 4040 he wrote: Among other finely balanced decisions in which I have no great confidence, but which I have not yet had adequate cause to reverse, are the inclusion of Middleton in the Oldham rather than the Rochdale unit. The impression might be given from all this that Middleton was being placed in the Government's White Paper more according to what seemed most convenient to fit in on a map being drawn up rather than because there was an absolutely overwhelming and outstanding case based on other considerations to place it in one direction or another. After all, an earlier local government commission had placed Middleton with Rochdale, and this had also been the view of the Lancashire County Council at one time.

I have tried to balance these considerations. What weighs with me is that I believe there is a closer natural affinity between Rochdale and Middleton than between Middleton and Oldham and I believe also from the point of view of my constituents that there will be greater scope for development if Middleton is linked in an area with Rochdale.

But surely the thing that matters most where other considerations are not absolutely clear-cut is what the people themselves want. I submit that there is an overwhelming majority in Middleton which wants to be with Rochdale and shuns Oldham. This view is backedup effectively by Prestwich and Whitefield's desire to see a Rochdale/Bury split. This is further endorsed by the views of Rochdale and Bury themselves, and the other authorities mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe. In short, almost everybody wants to see this change brought about. I am sorry if Oldham and the other members of District 12 (f) do not now want to see this, but my responsibility is to speak for my constituents and I am very clear in my mind as to what the views of my constituents are. Whilst there may be financial considerations which affect the minds of the good citizens of Oldham, again not from any party consideration, I would also have to back the remark made by the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) about democracy. I believe it would be a triumph for democracy if the people in my constituency, thinking overwhelmingly as they do, had their views taken into account by my right hon. Friend in this connection.

My right hon. Friend could very easily grant my request in that we are not seeking in this Amendment to upset in any radical way the basic principle underlying the Government's reorganisation plans. We are not challenging the concept of the metropolitan county. We are not seeking to transfer powers from district to county, or vice versa. We are saying in effect that we accept all this in principle. All we are asking is that an extra metropolitan district be created. We say that this can be done without upsetting the Government's overall plan, and we say it should be done in order to create the greatest good will among the greatest number of people to ensure that the new authorities are launched under the most promising auspices.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Lee (Newton)

I want to speak to Amendment No. 474. As the Bill now stands, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to dismember the Golborne Urban District Council. He is going to place two of its wards, Culcheth and Newchurch, with Warrington and Chester while the remainder of the urban district gees with that of Leigh and Wigan. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman realises the anomaly he is here producing. In the Newchurch ward there is a village called Glazebury which is already part of the Leigh borough, so there will be the ridiculous situation in which half of a village well into the heart of Lancashire will be in Leigh borough and the other half will be based on Chester. Could there be a more grotesque situation?

Those of us who have lived in the area for many years have always known this part of Lancashire as the Leigh rural areas. They were put with the Golborne Urban District Council many years ago, and since then we have had the great advantage of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority establishment at Risley a mile or so to the south, and Culcheth has become the residential quarter for the Authority. The first of the people at the Atomic Energy Authority establishment were housed by the Golborne Urban District Council on council estates. They showed themselves very enterprising, and we have a great number of social activities in the area based neither on Leigh nor on Warrington but on Culcheth itself.

My argument is that among those social amenities, and I could give a whole list of them, there is not a single one which is in any way based on Warrington or Chester. The great majority of them owe their origin in part to their proximity to Leigh. For instance, there are the Civic Society, the Drama Society, the Music Society, the WVS, two Women's Institutes, the Spastics Society, the Horticultural Society, and so on. Not a single one of them has any kind of origin in Warrington, whereas the Leigh children's department has liaison officers in Culcheth.

I have tried to describe as briefly as possible the way this area has now developed. I never heard any suggestion from any of the inhabitants of Culcheth or Newchurch of wanting to go into the Warrington area until we had a further input of people to the atomic energy establishment. These were not people who were being housed by the Golborne Urban District Council but people with pretty substantial residential premises of their own. They know nothing about Culcheth or its history, and they are not interested in it. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that they are far more interested in the value of their residences, and maybe in party politics as well, than they are in the desire to have decent local government in that area.

I have intimated that the Golborne Urban District Council has spent a great deal of time and money on developing what is now a very desirable residential area. It seems to me that there is more to it than a mere redistribution of local government functions. Of course, Leigh and Golborne are more famous for their cotton mills and slag heaps than for the more residential and balmy atmosphere of Cheshire, although maybe the thought of the Cheshire hounds going along slag heaps is entertaining. To my mind, this decision has not been arrived at on the basis of what is good for the area so far as local government is concerned. It has been done for very different reasons.

Let me take one or two of the other developments which have taken place. I had to fight about the closure of two railways which run through Culcheth. Neither of them ever went near Warrington; they went in precisely opposite directions. Those stations went and we now rely on public road transport. In the main the provision comes from Leigh; we are in the SELNEC area, Wigan and Leigh. The nearest bus from Warrington finishes at Fearnhead, about three miles from Culcheth.

If we take the health side of things, there are two practices, one in Leigh, with a clinic in Culcheth, and the other completely local to Culcheth. Up to 10 years ago there was one practice run from Leigh. Recently one of the dentists has left the village to take up practice in Leigh.

I do not want to labour the point, but I must ask the right hon. Gentleman, on the evidence I have adduced, to give me any reason he can why, in the letter he sent to me the other day, he told me, before he had heard my arguments, that he had decided to reject the Amendment.

It is wrong that changes should be made when in an urban society like Golborne there has been established an affinity between the wards. The basis of that society having been laid, we now find it is to be dismembered. One half of the village of Glazebury is to be in Leigh and the other half is to be based on Chester. That is not organisation; it is organised chaos. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, even at this late hour, to examine this matter again, even if it means putting down an Amendment in another place.

In the last two years the first phase of the Culcheth High School has been brought into use With few exceptions Culcheth and Glazebury children go to the comprehensive school. Before the opening of the High School children went to grammar schools at either Leigh or Newton-le-Willows. Although it was theoretically possible for those children to go to Warrington Grammar School, I know of no parents in Culcheth or New-church who sent their children there. If a patient has to go to hospital, unless he asks specifically to go to Warrington he is sent either to Leigh or Wigan.

I have tried objectively to set out the facts. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to deny them. If he cannot deny them, I hope he will do the decent thing and transfer the whole of Golborne into the Leigh-Wigan area.

Mr. Ronald Bray (Rossendale)

Since there are a large number of hon. Members who wish to speak, I will confine my remarks to matters which specifically affect the constituency which it is my privilege to represent, Rossendale.

The affairs of Bury and Rochdale are domestic issues within that area, and I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler) is not in his place when I make these remarks. My constituents and I strongly resent the intrusion of the Bury authorities and the manner in which it has been done. It has been done without authority from the local authorities or from political and social associations. I shall later refer to statistics which confirm that. I shall concentrate my remarks on Amendment No. 10, in my name, and Amendment No. 305 which I support in conjunction with the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett).

To get the picture into perspective, Rossendale consists of four comparable towns, and, we hope, with the addition of Whitworth urban district which is of smaller stature, five towns. They are valley towns which have a great deal in common in industry and social life, and they work amicably together. They have a great many social problems, but because of the Governments present policies they are being rapidly overcome. I hope that process will continue after the Bill becomes law, but that depends largely on the attitude adopted by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development.

About 20 years ago the four valley towns, Bacup, Haslingden, Rawtenstall and Ramsbottom, started negotiations for voluntary amalgamation. Two years ago those negotiations had reached an advanced stage. I discussed the proposals with my right hon. Friend and I am convinced that, had the White Paper not come forward when it did, those towns would have been amalgamated. That would have been a voluntary amalgamation rather than a shot-gun marriage.

With the publication of the White Paper a peculiar situation arose. Two thirds of the urban district of Ramsbottom was taken from what would have been the Rossendale district and handed on a plate to Bury. Perhaps, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) said, someone flew over the area in a helicopter, or maybe the buses ran that way. Be that as it may, that is the proposal in the Bill, and we utterly reject it. In addition, the district is bounded by the River Irwell, which confines a large part of Ramsbottom. I cannot see that any argument which disregards a natural boundary can be valid.

I give full marks to the activities of these four councils in putting forward their case. There was a referendum which came out in favour not only of Ramsbottom remaining within Rossendale but of Rossendale becoming a county district in its own right, but I may be slightly out of order in mentioning that.

On 22nd December, 1971, I asked the Minister for Local Government and Development a Question, to which I received the following reply: The wishes of local residents were of course taken fully into account, but the Government proposals for the new areas set out in the Local Government Bill, necessarily had regard to many other relevant factors as well."—[Official Report, 22nd December, 1971; Vol. 828, c. 356.] Be that as it may, surely the wishes of the people rather than whims of bureaucracy should be considered.

How many letters has my right hon. Friend received from my constituents opposing his suggestions? How many of my constituents have signed opposing petitions? How many of my constituents have supported him? If we are to believe the answers which have been given—and I always believe my right hon. Friend—not one of my constituents has supported his proposals, but well over 22,000 have objected, as well as the four councils, unanimously, and against party lines. Does not that in itself show the need for the acceptance of the Amendment to leave out lines 42and 43?

I look forward to my right hon. Friend's assurance that he will accept the Amendment and the two Amendments to secure the inclusion of the urban district of Whitworth within what we hope will be the county district of Rossendale. Finally, I thank my right hon. Friend for his courtesy in discussing this subject with me. I feel sure, even at this late hour, and on the basis of constant dripping wearing away a stone, that some good will come from today's debate.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. David Clark (Colne Valley)

I make no apology for participating in this debate as a Member of Parliament representing a Yorkshire constituency. I make this point at the outset since it highlights the difficult position in which the Government now find themselves.

Part of my constituency, Saddleworth, is on the western side of the Pennines, and the Maud Report and the Government's White Paper both suggested that Saddleworth should go into the Greater Manchester area. It will not need great imagination for hon. Members to appreciate that, while we all may have had difficulties in trying to explain to our local authorities why it was necessary for amalgamations to take place, I had one of the most difficult tasks in persuading people in Yorkshire that their future lay in an area which has traditionally been part of Lancashire.

The Maud Report suggested that the district should be split in two. The present White Paper and the Bill suggest that it should go in with Oldham. There is a great difference of opinion about this recommendation, but in the end the people of Saddleworth agreed to go into District 12(f). The area surrounding Oldham was probably the most logical answer. They opted for this area because they felt that it would be well balanced. At one end it has Saddleworth with open green spaces and moorlands, there is the urban area of Oldham, and on the very western edge there is the Middleton area, which we all thought would be the area for the industrial expansion which the district so badly needed.

It has come as a great shock to me and to the people of Saddleworth to find out that only 36 hours ago it was not known that the Government intended to take Middleton out of the Oldham district. I have the full support of the Saddleworth people, who believe that the Minister has acted in a rather shameful manner. They feel that they have not been consulted and have not had the opportunity to make their views known. In other words, they feel that an attempt has been made to slip this provision through without notice. I cannot emphasise too strongly that there will be great resentment in the district about this move. This point was made by every single one of the delegates who saw the Minister yesterday to ask for a last-minute reprieve.

There are two points which I should like the Minister to answer. He gave certain indications that parts of the green belt could be waived for the building of factories. Would he be more explicit on this point? Does he realise that much of the green belt in the Oldham district is in the Saddleworth constituency? It is hilly terrain and probably most unsuitable for large-scale industrial development.

The Minister has grossly offended every urban district in my constituency. In regard to the Huddersfield district, he refused to see the urban districts but saw the county boroughs, and in regard to Oldham he seems to have sold them down the river at the last moment. There is great resentment at the way in which the Government have handled the matter. There will be grave disappointment in the district, and a great many local people and local councillors of all parties will feel that many hours of anxious work and toil in trying to build up a cohesive unit will be destroyed by this last-minute, underhand move.

Mr. Laurance Reed (Bolton, East)

I shall say nothing about Amendment No. 7, except that I shall support what the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) will say. But I wish to deal with the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) concerning Turton, even though I raised this matter fully upstairs. We in Bolton understand and share the anxieties of Turton in being drawn into the Greater Manchester area. This is why we have fought hard during the proceedings on the Bill to obtain for the metropolitan district the maximum degree of autonomy. Having sought for ourselves a fair degree of autonomy, it is necessary and desirable to be organised on a level and scale that will allow us to operate effectively the powers which we have.

The great weakness about so many of the arguments about facts and figures about size, and so on, is that if the 20,000 people of Turton were taken out of the Bolton Metropolitan District we would be below the optimum size required to operate the powers we have won effectively. I am glad that the Minister has made a tour of the area, because it is evident from a visit that Turton is an integral part of Bolton. It is on our side of the high moorland that separates all of us from Blackburn.

My hon. and learned Friend said that many people in the Turton area were opposed to going into Bolton; but this is not the feed-back I have been receiving from the many people in Turton I meet in the shops, schools and factories of Bolton. This is not altogether surprising since a large part of the people of Turton are expatriate Boltonians. We look forward to a partnership with Turton in the changes which are to come in local government, and I am sure that these things will work out for the best. This has not been an easy decision for the Government, and there is perhaps no perfect solution, as the people of Belmont will recognise. However, the proposals we accepted in Committee are, I believe, the best that can be obtained.

Mr. James Lamond

I shall not detain the House long. It was rather interesting that the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler) quoted extensively from statements made by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the discussions in Committee but did not quote any statement made by his own Ministers. The reason why he did not quote from his own Ministers became clear when my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) quoted from the Minister's reply in Committee.

The Minister made it absolutely clear that if there was any principle at all in the Government's policy on local government—it was difficult to discern a policy, but perhaps the policy was to organise local government units of a certain minimum size so that they could operate efficiently and provide the various services—it was that he would rather have two viable metropolitan districts than three small districts which were all below the criterion for size to provide the services required. That seemed to be reasonable.

Therefore, it was with some amused interest that I listened to the case put forward by the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe. But it was with some astonishment that I learned about this proposal in the form of a back-bench Amendment, supported originally by two back benchers and now by a third recruit at the last moment. This is to become Government policy in one of the most important pieces of legislation we have had this Session.

As one who has had more than 12 years' experience in local government, I believe passionately that the roots of democracy lie there and that if we are to reorganise it and make it successful we must do it with a sense of responsibility, ensuring that the framework is correct. What we have done in this House is based on sound principles.

I have yet to discover from the Minister that he has changed his mind. I skip lightly over the tremendous blow that this proposal is to District 12(f), which includes my own constituency as one of its main parts. Many authorities are involved in 12(f) and they have sunk their differences to be part of it. It is no use the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe quoting decisions made in Middleton in 1971 saying that if there were to be two districts Middleton would wish to be associated with one of them, but that if there was to be one it would willingly come in with Oldham. After all, the urban district councils which make up 12(f) could all have made the same reservation. They were willing to go into 12(f) if Middleton was included.

This tremendous jigsaw consists of the whole of England and Wales. I appreciate the Minister's difficulties in trying to make a reasonable pattern out of this complex situation. However, if one part of the jigsaw is moved, it has consequential effects on many other parts—in this case especially those round about it in 12(f). It affects it in many ways. It affects the buoyancy of its rateable value. Already 12(f) suffers from the disability of having one of the lowest rateable values of any metropolitan district. Its rateable value is about £9,300,000. Middleton makes up £1,900,000 of that, or almost 20 per cent., and it is proposed to remove that at a stroke. The same applies to the population. Middleton's 55,000 is being removed from the metropolitan district's 277,000. We cannot stand by and allow this to be done by a back-door method without raising some complaint.

In the past, the Minister has moved reasonably. He has consulted the authorities concerned, and I have been impressed by his knowledge of the districts and areas being discussed. I was impressed again only yesterday about his knowledge of 12(f) when I discussed this matter with him. However, he has fallen down badly in terms of the lack of consultation with the authorities concerned, and that is surprising from one of his stature, interest and knowledge. The people who came to see us yesterday were thunderstruck when they were told that a back-bench Amendment was to become Government policy. Not one of them knew about it. I do not know whether Middleton was consulted. Cer- tainly Middleton's representatives were not present. But we were told by those who were present that it was touch and go whether they would accompany the deputation to see the Minister.

I do not believe that anyone can say that he knows how the people of Middleton feel. There has been no recent decision of the council to the effect that it wants to be taken out of 12(f). There has been a decision of a council committee, but it has not yet been taken to the council itself. There is every reason to believe that if and when it is taken to the council the district will wish to stay in 12(f).

Mr. Haselhurst

I apologise for not being here to listen to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's speech. However, with regard to his last contention, I think that he ought to say whether he believes that there is any reason to suppose that any decision that the council took today or tomorrow would be any different from any decision reached in the past?

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden (Liverpool, West Derby)

Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. James Lamond). I, too, have received a letter from the Labour majority on the Middleton Council. My hon. Friend knows the operations of local government as well as anyone. If the majority of the local Labour group in Middleton has decided that it would prefer to remain in Oldham, that will be put to a group meeting at which the majority decision will be taken, following which it will be carried automatically. That seems to be a practical reason for saying that a council meeting would express itself in favour of remaining with Oldham.

Mr. Lamond

I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) for that helpful intervention.

There are a number of very pressing considerations. One is the lack of industrial development sites of any size in 12(f) if Middleton is removed. To improve a rather depressing environment we must have room for industrial development. That will not exist if Middleton is removed. That is a consideration which we urged strongly on the Middleton councillors when they came to make their decision.

The members of the steering committee in 12(f) are bitterly disappointed. They settled all their differences, of which there were many. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) brought out one when he referred to Saddleworth. They sank their differences and they co-operated with the Minister. I doubt whether any proposed metropolitan district has gone as far. Now all that work has been smashed to the ground, and all the differences between the various urban district councils and Oldham itself again come to the fore. Human nature being what it is, it is likely that the electors of Saddleworth will say to their elected representatives "If Middleton can come out of Oldham, why were we told that we had to go in? You are not representing us properly. We want you to exercise the same democratic right as Middleton councillors have done. We want you to put pressure on the Minister to ensure that Saddleworth comes out as well."

If we accept this back-bench Amendment we open the door to the complete disintegration of the unity which has been built up and which we look forward to as a reason for the success of the new local government unit. That unity will be destroyed.

Mr. Winterton

I intend to direct my remarks to Amendment No. 11. I am pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Minister in his place, because I have no doubt that the village of Poynton with Worth is well known to him, as he will have received some 800 letters from its residents urging him to allow the village to remain in the county of Chester.

As a county councillor as well as a Member of Parliament, I am especially interested in the Bill. Serving at both levels perhaps enables me to understand and appreciate both sides of the coin. But, at whatever level one serves, there is no doubt that local government is in essence a very personal matter. It deals with the administration of perhaps the two most personal services—those of social services and education. For this reason I believe that it must provide a a balance between efficiency and demo- cracy, efficiency being characterised by size and democracy by relatively small community units.

In this Bill, bureaucracy in the guise of so-called efficiency seems to have won all along the line, to the detriment of identity and an acceptable widely-based representation. Remoteness and frustration are the inevitable results. Councils are comprised of retired people with time on their hands, wealthy businessmen who can buy time, and an element of trade union officials and members who, in the main without financial loss, are encouraged to participate in local government. These people will provide the sparse harvest from which local government representation will be drawn. This will not provide either adequate or suitable representation. Grass roots availability and understanding are vital ingredients of local government. The Bill fails dramatically to provide these ingredients.

I hope that my right hon. Friend is prepared to consider this Amendment sympathetically, and also the others with which it is grouped, and has not set his mind with inflexible dogmatic resolve against accepting any further changes to the Greater Manchester county and the districts within it, despite, I emphasise, the weight of evidence and argument presented in the debate today. It is unfortunate that certain senior civic leaders in the Greater Manchester area have let it be known that in meetings with my right hon. Friend he has stated that the Government will not contemplate any further changes to the metropolitan and county boundaries. If so, our debate today is a pointless exercise and my right hon. Friend's attitude a discourtesy to the House.

Mr. Graham Page

I am sure that I have made no such dogmatic statement on any occasion.

Mr. Winterton

A certain civic leader has indicated to people in the parish concerned that my right hon. Friend has clearly stated that he is not prepared to accept any Amendments.

The purpose of my Amendment is to remove the rural parish of Poynton with Worth from the proposed District 12(h) of the Greater Manchester County and to place it in the County of Cheshire, of which it has long been a part.

Poynton is a free standing village separated from Hazel Grove, Bramhall and the Greater Manchester conurbation by substantial tracts of agricultural land which is included in the North Cheshire Green Belt. When this matter was discussed in Committee, the then Undersecretary said: I should not be able to describe it as a village separated from the conurbation. There is, it is true, a small green field gap, but it is very small."—[Official Report, 14th December, 1971; Standing Committee D, c. 418.] This is incorrect and misleading. I admit that there is one point at which the green field gap is only 800 yards wide—about half a mile—but, with that exception, the green belt is well in excess of a mile wide. If there is any doubt in my right hon. Friend's mind, I suggest that he walks the area, as I have, to see for himself that which he can see from the map which I hold up.

The development which radiates from Manchester in a southerly direction comes to a halt at Hazel Grove. Unless the green belt proposals are to be completely abandoned, which would be an environmental disaster, there is no question of Poynton being linked physically with the conurbation for many years to come, if at all.

Although two road schemes are proposed in the area, one from the A6 at High Lane passing through Middlewood Poynton to connect with the Macclesfield north-south relief link road and the other from the A523 just north of Poynton to connect with Woodford Road, no development is proposed with the former project and only limited development with the latter on land already earmarked for residential development close into the heart of the village.

Despite its growth since 1945—its population is now about 10,000—Poynton with Worth still retains a village atmosphere with an extremely strong community spirit among its residents, many of whom actively participate in local matters. Poynton has a strong parish council which has made excellent provision for the area. Added to these facts are the close and happy relations with the local government authorities forged—this, too, is important—by the relatively high degree of representation that the village enjoys at county and county district level, and the co-operation that exists between these two tiers of authority and the parish council.

If local government is to be effective and local democracy meaningful, there must be a reasonable ratio between the number of local authority representatives and the people they represent. The serious reduction in representation at metropolitan county and district levels that will result from the Bill can do nothing other than take local government further away from the man and woman in the street—the very antithesis of what the Government claim they wish to achieve.

Poynton, like many other areas, will suffer in this direction. Its representation on the rural district council of eight councillors will be reduced to three on the Metropolitan District Council 12(h) which will be based upon Stockport.

The inclusion of Poynton in the metropolitan county will destroy the valuable county, district and parish relationship built up over many years. It must be realised that the constitution of the Greater Manchester County in Schedule 1 includes only nine rural parishes, including Poynton, in what is simply an urban mass of nearly 3 million population.

The comparative value of the population of the village of Poynton to the Greater Manchester and Cheshire counties respectively can be clearly illustrated. The population of the proposed Greater Manchester area is 2,870,000 and of the proposed new Cheshire approximately 800,000. Therefore, the percentage represented by Poynton is about 0.38 per cent. and 1.40 per cent. respectively.

Taking it at the proposed district council level, the population of District 12(h) is 331,000 and the Cheshire County district concerned 100,000. The percentage represented by Poynton is therefore approximately 3.3 per cent. and 10 per cent. respectively. Therefore, the effect upon the metropolitan county and district by the retention of Poynton in Cheshire would be minimal, whereas the effect on Cheshire is significant.

I wish to touch briefly on a point of administrative efficiency, seemingly so important to the Government. Of all the areas proposed for inclusion in District 12(h), only Poynton will be at variance with the parliamentary constituency boundaries recommended in the most recent report of the Boundary Commission. Only Poynton will be in the position of being located in one local government area, but in a different constituency. This must be considered administratively unfortunate. As Poynton has a growing affinity with Macclesfield, due to industrial expansion in that borough providing employment for many Poynton residents, and because of its own small but expanding light industrial estate, the parish should not be torn from its natural home in Cheshire.

While I admit that a high proportion—75 per cent.—of the employed population of Poynton, totalling 4,580 in 1966, travel out of the parish to work, the major source of employment is at Woodford Aircraft Works, immediately to the west of the village, and not in the Greater Manchester conurbation. Some 1,500 people find work within the Macclesfield rural district. As only just over 2,000 from the whole area of the rural district commute to Manchester, it is unlikely that more than 1,200 of the employed population of the parish work there.

The Minister has placed great importance on the fact that statistics prove that more Poynton people travel by public transport to Stockport and Manchester than in the direction of Macclesfield. I agree that public transport, totally inadequate as it is, is biased towards Manchester; but as a growing number of people in Poynton, as elsewhere, own vehicles and use them to get to work, statistics on public transport mean very little indeed.

Whitehall's blind craving for size and administrative ease fails to appreciate, or even comprehend, certain important matters. For example, the important service of education. Poynton contains an excellent new secondary school, which serves a large surrounding district particularly meeting the requirements of children from the villages of Pott Shrigley and Adlington—both remaining in Cheshire under the proposed reorganisation. These children undergo primary training in their own village schools and later enter the secondary school at Poynton. A number of Poynton children on the other hand, go to the King's School at Macclesfield for their secondary education.

6.0 p.m.

I cannot see the new district councils taking kindly to heavy extra district charges. Apart from the financial aspect, the proposed situation is not educationally desirable, as it may well be found in future that differing systems of education exist between the two authorities—and the problems of school transport, so well known to this House, must also be appreciated.

Finally, if democracy is to mean anything—and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as well as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development have acknowledged the importance of public opinion; particularly my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who said that we governed by the people's mandate—how can the Government—and I say this with emphasis—ignore the clear wishes of 83.6 per cent. of the electorate of the village of Poynton, this figure representing 95.5 per cent. of those who wished, or were available to express an opinion on this matter, who have dramatically indicated their desire to remain part of the County of Cheshire? This is no borderline majority. This is an overwhelming expression representing all sections of the village, supported by the county council, the rural district council and the parish council.

The Bill, as proposed, will strangle local government. It exudes bureaucratic bumbledom and it will eradicate community spirit and take local government away from the people it serves. I admit that the reform of local government is needed, but the Bill contains far too many ill-thought-out proposals and too much illogical slaughter. I ask the House and the Minister to accept my Amendment.

Mr. J. T. Price (Westhoughton)

After that tour de force I know that the House will forgive me if I do not seek to emulate such highly-coloured and emotive language as that used by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). There are occasions when I might be tempted to utter a few homilies about the doubtful character of this legislation that is being steamrollered through the House, but I should be out of order if I were to try such an exercise tonight.

An Hon. Member

It is proceeding rather slowly.

Mr. Price

A steamroller proceeds slowly but it crushes a lot of things in the course of its progress. I ask hon. Members not to provoke me to develop that theme, as I do not want to be out of order.

I rise merely to draw attention to a matter which I have been discussing with various Departments for about six or seven months. Amendment No. 7 in my name is supported by the hon. Members for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) and Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond), and therefore by no stretch of the imagination can this be regarded as a party matter.

This is a matter of administration which originally came to my notice as an education problem. I am grateful to see present the Minister for Local Government and Development and his aide-de-camp the Under-Secretary of State, but I should have been even more grateful if there had been present a Minister from the Department of Education and Science.

In this short and fragmented debate—which is what it is bound to be—I want to draw attention to an administrative absurdity. The Rivington and Blackrod Grammar School is an ancient and historic school in my part of Lancashire within a few hundred yards of my parliamentary boundary. It has been there since a famous Bishop, Durham, Bishop Pilkington, an ancestor of the present distinguished member of the other place, Lord Pilkington, founded it in 1566, and some years ago I had the pleasure of attending the 400th anniversary of this famous foundation. These are historical embellishments which I mention merely to emphasise that this is by no means an artificially produced school because of the growth of population at a given time. It has a long history of distinguished service to education.

Some years ago, when the whole concept of comprehensive education was being debated vigorously by many people who had opposing views about it, this district, which was a division of the Lancashire County Council education committee for administrative purposes, decided to redevelop Rivington and Blackrod Grammar School, rename it Rivington High School, and use it on a comprehensive basis.

Regardless of party politics and the kind of disputes that arise on matters of principle on these issues, the educationally well-advised local people in my part of Lancashire, who knew the school, who had lived with it and had promoted its welfare and its progress, were all agreed that that development should take place. Then along came the moguls of Whitehall after the Redcliffe-Maud Commission reported and began to up-end all the established forward planning that had taken place. I should be out of order if I were to develop that now, and I do not wish to do so.

This school draws its population from three townships, all of which are in my parliamentary Division of Westhoughton—Westhoughton itself, Horwich, now an urban district, and Blackrod, another urban district. The school in its new form will have an intake of about 1,300 children. It is a mixed school on the site of the ancient grammar school on the shoulders of Rivington Pike at the foothills of the Pennines, with fine views across the countryside, and a fine place at which to have a school development. The land is there to be developed on a large scale in order to provide places for these 1,300 children from the three townships, all of which are now within Metropolitan District (b) of the Greater Manchester area to be administered from Bolton.

I do not want to over-elaborate this, to be emotional about it, or to make dramatic statements. I am concerned with common sense. I drew the attention of the Secretary of State for Education and Science to this matter on 6th January. Apparently, the right hon. Lady is not required to be present for this debate; nor is one of her Under-Secretaries of State. Presumably, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will be here until 8 o'clock tomorrow morning, at breakfast time, and anyone who wants a reply will have to sit it out till then, but I do not intend to do so. In fact, I cannot stay because I have business to attend to in other parts of the country. The right hon. Gentleman has my profound sympathy. He ought to receive support from other Government Departments which have a foot in this door, but they switch things over to his camp when they run up against awkward things such as this.

This school will not draw one half of 1 per cent. of its population from the county area, that is the non-metropolitan county area of Lancashire. They are all within the ring fence of Metropolitan District (b), and I am merely saying that we ought to have the common sense to make the necessary boundary alteration now.

I shall not quote in extenso the answer to my plea by the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Education and Science, because I do not wish to waste time embellishing what I say with much verbiage. Replying to my courteous and correct letter—all my letters are like that—after her general introduction the right hon. Lady said: While I understand your concern, and certainly would not wish to minimise the difficulties that may face the school as a result of boundary changes, I know you will appreciate that the same kind of situation will occur in other parts of the country. So what? Apparently, the merits of the question do not matter. Because there is a lot of measles during an epidemic, the bureaucratic mind takes refuge in saying, "It is not so bad your having measles because all the kids in the next street have measles". This does not make any impression on rational minded hon. Gentlemen who are supposed to be running the country. To put up that sort of cock to me is a bit much—if that is not using language which is too untidy.

The right hon. Lady continued: The new education authorities will in general have, of course, the job of coping with these problems and I am sure they will be more than equal to the task. If that is not a piece of self-righteous complacency I have never heard of one. I am sorry to have to say this behind the right hon. Lady's back, but she ought to be present, for I would freely say it to her face if she now entered the Chamber.

Having got that off its chest, the Department of Education and Science, which could not answer my questions, switched the point of attack to the Department of the Environment. This is where the Demon King comes into it, the right hon. Gentleman who is now the pivot of this operation in local government, ably assisted by the genial Under-Secretary. I do not wish to quarrel personally with either of them.

When the matter went to the Department of the Environment, I was not honoured by a personal letter from the Secretary of State. I got a letter from the Under-Secretary. The Department is split into little pockets, and I make no complaint about that. But this is a serious matter. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, brought face to face with this problem—not directly through me but indirectly through the Department of Education and Science—is shunting it over the counter to another Department. He said: We do appreciate that there is a problem here, but because of the further issues which arise on this particular boundary, I really do think that on balance it would be much more satisfactory to leave this over for the Boundary Commission's detailed review and to make arrangements meanwhile. The hon. Gentleman continued: But there will be no reason why the new school should not vest in the metropolitan district from the start, if is catchment area is so overwhelmingly in that district. Thus it would be possible for the school to be the property of the metropolitan district, and be administered by them, from the outset, even though the actual boundary between the two counties was not adjusted until a little later. I hope that this consideration will allay the fears felt locally, and will enable you to withdraw your amendment. That was quite a courteous approach to me, but I did not accept it. Why should I withdraw the Amendment and accept a pig in a poke from any Government Department? As a Member of Parliament, I have lived with Government Departments for 22 years, under Governments of both political complexions, and often I am extremely sceptical of them. On a matter such as this, they have a technique for always dodging a difficult column. It is nothing to do with party politics. It is to do with the nature of bureaucracy.

But I shall not be tempted into that line of country. I shall not spell it out, except to say that no self-respecting or competent civic administrator, be he a town clerk, a director of education or any one of the kind of officials who will be concerned with the development of this new comprehensive school long before the Boundary Commission sets about this in 1974—when the Act will be on the Statute Book and it will be too late to plead these considerations in its aid—would agree that the matter should be handled in this way.

6.15 p.m.

It cannot be done this way because the officials, meanwhile, have to arrange for the planning, design and erection of many new buildings at Rivington, for the recruitment of considerable additional staff and for the reorganisation of three existing schools which these children are already attending in Horwich and other parts of my constituency. These schools have to be brought together under one roof, rehoused, and made into a coherent school.

To say that these things can be done on an ad hoc basis, without rules laid down and known only by word of mouth, is not a feasible proposition. Although the Government may have done this with the best of good will, I am surprised, because one cannot do things like that. The man who is handling the money, engaging staff and paying out money for materials and buildings wants to know what his statutory authority is for exercising those powers. Therefore, this way of dealing with the matter is impossible.

I have been shown a considerable amount of tolerance until now and I have tried to be brief. I have discussed this matter with the right hon. Gentleman on several occasions. I say to him that this business does not make sense. At this distance of time, with all the months of haggling in Committee and now with this completely disorderly, fragmented debate on all kinds of disconnected questions which hon. Gentlemen from all parts of the House will be debating all night why cannot the Minister accept Amendments sometimes? The Minister has made concessions on the Bill previously. I know that the officials in my local authorities are behind me on this matter. There is one discordant voice in another part of the county area, but it does not add very much because it affects none of the children attending the school.

While I should preserve the courtesies in this matter, I would not be very much overborne by the argument that because this school has always been in the rural district area, it must always stay there. The school must be administered by the authority that has to provide the rate fund and the staff and to plan the buildings and the administration of the school. This matter ought not to be left hanging in mid-air until 1974–75 or some later period when this great monolithic body called the Boundary Commission decides to have a look at it. Meanwhile, much work has to be done.

With great conviction, I appeal to the Minister to accept my Amendment.

Mr. Idris Owen (Stockport, North)

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I wish to bring the House back to Amendment No. 11 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I congratulate him on a most sincere speech in favour of his Amendment. It was a highly emotional speech. It was capably delivered and very sincere. No one works harder for his constituency than my hon. Friend. I know this personally, because I am one of his constituents.

But I have a distinct advantage over my hon. Friend on the subject of the village of Poynton, because I lived there for 20 years. I have worked in Poynton and in the area of District 12(h) for the whole of my life. I have been a ratepayer to the Cheshire County Council and to the proposed District 12(h) at Stockport for the whole of my adult life, so I can reasonably assess the merits and demerits of local government administration on the ground.

Over those years I have worked to support the municipal candidates for the county borough areas, for the Cheshire County Council, and for the Poynton parish council. I have seen those people at work and have a great respect for them. Should the members of the Poynton council be embraced within the area of District 12(h), they will add lustre and character to the new area. The elected representatives of Poynton are wonderful people.

Poynton is astride the A523 leading directly out of Stockport. It is now to be embraced with other urban district areas in the surrounding district. There has been no protest from the other areas which are likely to be included within the district as recommended. My hon. Friends arguments would, if valid, be equally valid for many other urban districts. If those arguments were accepted, we could tear up the Bill and we should have no local government reorganisation. My hon. Friend referred to the massive campaign that has been mounted in the village of Poynton. I ask the indulgence of the House for being somewhat parochial, but this is a highly parochial and emotive issue in the village. The elected representatives, who felt strongly about the matter, decided to mount a campaign to stay within the county of Cheshire. They went from house to house with leaflets announcing that a meeting would be held. The leaflets issued were of a type calculated to arouse the emotions. It is not surprising that my hon. Friend was able to secure a large attendance at this meeting, and many letters were sent to the Government.

If the electors of a parish are threatened that, if they are embraced within a new area, their rates and motor insurance will be higher, they will lose their green belt, they will lose their rural amenities, they will lose their adequate social services, they will lose their identity, and they will lose their say in local government, it is not surprising that people will say that they do not want any part of it.

However, all those things are not true. In support of what I suggest, I have a letter from some of the parish councillors of Poynton inviting me to express their view, which is totally contrary to that advanced by my hon. Friend. These councillors mostly favour Poynton going into the area of Stockport.

My hon. Friend said that there was a substantial tract of green belt between the proposed Stockport area of District 12(h) and the village of Poynton. I lived in that "substantial" tract. My hon. Friend must have seven-league boots, because it is only 485 yards. If that is a substantial green belt, my hon. Friend has the wrong idea of what constitutes a green belt.

Poynton is only 5½ miles from Stockport. There is an area of approximately 500 yards separating the built-up area of Hazel Grove and Poynton. Going from Poynton in a southerly direction to Macclesfield, to the area that my hon. Friend desires to be attached, the distance is 6.5 miles. From the village of Poynton to Macclesfield it is almost continuous green belt. There are at least five miles of continuous green belt betweenPoynton and Macclesfield.

As to transportation and work arrangements, I say unequivocally that the majority of people who live in Poynton and who go out of Poynton to work go to the new metropolitan county area. There is literally a mass exodus from Poynton every morning by bus, by train and by car to the Greater Manchester area. When I lived there—I have no reason to suppose that it is any different now—buses left Fountain Place in Poynton at 15-minute intervals for Manchester. The bus that goes less frequently to Macclesfield makes a rural detour throughout all the villages in the area and takes much longer to arrive in Macclesfield.

The parish councillors who are elected to Macclesfield Rural District Council would have had considerable difficulty in going to their rural district meetings if they did not possess cars, for if they had had to wait for a bus, they would have had to wait a considerable time. They have to travel 35 miles to the county seat. They could not go by bus. They would have to go from Poynton to Cheadle Hulme, from Cheadle Hulme to Crewe. from Crewe to Chester, if going by train, or they could go to Manchester, with a direct service from Manchester. So they must have their own car. Over the years I have spoken to county councillors representing Poynton. They say that the responsibility of going to Chester makes it difficult. One distinguished alderman said that he had to have a taxi when he was no longer able to drive.

Mr. Winterton

Macclesfield is the same distance from Chester as Poynton is. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that Macclesfield should be attached to the Greater Manchester area?

Mr. Owen

I am suggesting that Macclesfield will be merely a county district; it will not be the seat of the county government. Chester will still be the seat of county government.

The elected representatives from Poynton will have to travel 5.5 miles—a journey of a quarter of an hour on the bus—to the seat of the county district council. Under the new proposals if, as we expect, the seat of the metropolitan county is in Manchester, they will be able to go on the train from Poynton to Manchester in 20 minutes. The difference in the mode of travel is bound to have some influence on the metropolitan county district and on the county.

The White Paper states that local authorities should be related to areas within which people have a common interest through living in a recognisable community through the links of employment, shopping or social activities. I lived in the village for 20 years. The employment of the people in the village in which I lived was at the Woodford Airport and at the works of the Hawker Siddeley company, which are in the new 12(h) area. Many other people work in Manchester and all stations north of Poynton. A smaller percentage of Poynton people travel south to Macclesfield.

Government and judicial agencies based on Stockport cover the Poynton area. The head post office of Stockport covers Poynton. The East Cheshire Valuation Panel and the coroner for East Cheshire cover Poynton. Stockport High Court Registry covers Poynton. The local probation service covers Poynton. Stockport area office of the Department of Employment covers Poynton.

As to local services, future sewerage for the village of Poynton will be undertaken in the Selnec area. The fire service assists in Poynton. We have a large college of further education in Stockport with 8,000 students, a substantial number of whom come from Poynton.

On the edge of Poynton is Lyme Park—one of the largest parks of 1,500 acres—available for community amenity in the district. It is on the boundary with Poynton and is maintained by the ratepayers of Stockport.

As to public undertakings, the water board in Stockport has worked with all the representatives in the new District 12(h) area for many years. The Stockport Water Board is responsible for water supply in Poynton. The same applies to the North-West Gas Board and the North-West Electricity Board. The ambulance service at Stockport serves Poyoton.

Going to ecclesiastical matters, the rural deanery of Stockport serves Poynton.

The Trades Council in Stockport is responsible for the trade unionist activities of Poynton. The Chamber of Commerce is similarly situated.

The local papers, the Stockport Advertiser and the Stockport Express, are the only newspapers distributed in Poynton. A substantial shopping precinct has been built in Stockport, which is one of the most successful in the North. That precinct is well supported by the people of Poynton.

The only major recreation in the district that the public enjoy is the local football team. Manchester is the source of the major football activity for the people of Poynton. The Davenport Golf Club, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. Orbach), is now closing down. It is to be reconstructed in Poynton. The cultural centre for Poynton is Manchester. I add, perhaps facetiously, that if the people of Poynton wished to go to see a film, the nearest cinema is in Stockport.

6.30 p.m.

I have had no representations from the Cheshire County Council, or any of the other urban district councils in the proposed District 12(h), the Poynton Parish Council or the Stockport Borough Council inviting me to oppose the new 12(h) area. I have received not one word of protest, although I live in the Macclesfield Rural District area. I have had no protest from Stockport, but that is understandable, because there has never been any diversity of opinion within the borough council on the subject of local government reorganisation. It appears that Stockport is prepared to accept the recommendation of Her Majesty's Government.

So the emotion and the protestation has come from Poynton. However, I should like my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield to appreciate that, although he has witnessed the mounting of a campaign protesting that it should not be moved into Stockport, it is not surprising as Poynton has been relatively isolated and has been well maintained as a village. My hon. Friend said that everyone in Poynton was extremely happy with the present form of local government, but I assure him—I have been associated with the area for more than 20 years—that in many local election campaigns the opposition has been highly critical of the services received from Chester. Of course, that was purely political, but there is no doubt that Poynton is a delightful, well knit community, although I must admit that it has been somewhat inward looking. Any dramatic change in local government was bound to be resisted. I should have been surprised if it had not been resisted. But if we are to accept the recommendations of the White Paper and the Government proposals, and if we take as our criterion the words of the White Paper, we cannot chip away at these proposals to satisfy parochial needs.

The people of Poynton are now getting less interested than they were and the emotion is disappearing. They are displaying hardly any interest in the matter. I know that there would be great difficulty now in whipping up another campaign. The local representatives must be assured that there is a place in the district council for them. They will have much to contribute to the new county district and they must not forget that they are inextricably linked with the other constituent authorities in the new 12(h) area. They are only two miles from Hazle Grove, 2.7 miles from Bramhall and 7.5 miles from Wilmslow. Those are the constituent authorities which are now to come into 12(h), with which Poynton has a considerable community of interest. If one area could be regarded as being outside 12(h) it would be Wilmslow, which would have much more cause to complain.

Finally, Poynton will gain from this merger and District 12(h) will gain from the inclusion in its affairs and deliberations of able and experienced councillors. They will add lustre and ability to 12(h). They need have no fears, and the fears which they have expressed are mainly the fears of "Big Brother". However, they are to join a new family which will be much more successful and more progressive than anything they have ever known in the past. I have no anxieties on that count. Time will show that they will never regret being part of the new District 12(h) community.

Mr. Maurice Orbach (Stockport, South)

The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made a stirring speech using eloquent language in support of his Amendment, which I propose to support, as against the documented statement made by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen). I was not supplied with a brief, and I want to make it clear that no direct representations have been made to me by the County Borough of Stockport, the people of Poynton or anybody else in respect of this matter. I have not been approached by groups of county councils, parish councils or anybody else. I speak solely as the representative for Stockport, South.

I have weighed up in my mind the situation regarding the approaches made to Poynton, and Poynton's rejection of them. Although it has been stated by both the Stockport local authority and the people in Poynton that approaches have been made to Members of Parliament, they forget that I have been a Member of this House for 22½ years and that the hon. Members for Macclesfieldand Stockport, North have been here for a much shorter time. However, I am sure that they have been approached because they belong to the party which, in the case of the Tory council of Stockport and the people of Poynton, seems to be more considerate totheir point of view.

I have, however, had some indirect representations in the shape of an advertisement in the local Press which bore the heading: Members of Parliament, will you please help us? I thought it was proper as a Member of Parliament that I should read it and I did so. It was a heading to the protest which the people of Poynton were making, quite properly, against their incorporation in 12(h). In the third paragraph of the advertisement they say: We have conducted our campaign in an exemplary manner. Had we all gone on strike, or possibly indulged in violent demonstrations, the powers that be would no doubt have sat up and taken notice. We consider we are a special case. All we ask in life is that our village remains in Cheshire. I support solemnly that last heartfelt wish, but I cannot support them in the idea that if they had threatened to go on strike or had acted violently in demonstrations it would have enhanced their chances of getting the Minister to listen to them more sympathetically than he has done. I hope that the Minister will not be inflexible in this matter, will consider Poynton as a special case, and will give way to the astonishingly effective plea of the hon. Member for Macclesfield, although I think that it might have been better expressed on a different occasion—perhaps when the European Economic Community is under discussion next week.

Mr. Ogden

They do not want to join that, either.

Mr. Orbach

They are a special case, because a month after the advertisements appeared I noticed a newspaper report about Poynton. It said that Poynton people were …'appalled'to see plans submitted for link attached houses, rather than detached houses…". Apparently, all the houses in Poynton are detached. The report went on to say that, to Poynton people, hug houses that were linked together would bring a "shanty town' to Poynton. That gives one some idea of the type of area we are dealing with. It is because of these statements in the Press that I am strongly in favour of the case put by the hon. Member for Maclesfield and do not want these people included in District 12(h). In another newspaper article, we are told that there is in Poynton …a sense of forelock touching feudalism… which will continue and has come down from the days when the Vernon family ruled the whole village. I think that I have shown that as Labour Member for Stockport, South, I would prefer to keep Poynton out of the conurbation. We are happy in Stockport to continue our plebeian rôle.

The town was originally set up as a result of silk spinning. It developed into a haven for people who came over to build the railways and the roads of Britain in the "Hungry Forties". Later, when the Industrial Revolution was in full stride, Stockport turned to cotton spinning. It had 600 mills when I first visited the town; now I believe it has only one. It has changed to being a town of sophisticated engineering and the manufacture of electrical equipment. We are happy to remain that way. We do not all want detached houses; we do not want to go forelock touching around the town to our betters. We are quite happy, therefore, to leave the petit bourgeoisie of Poynton to Macclesfield.

Mr. Winterton

I remind the hon. Gentleman that there are considerable council housing developments in the village of Poynton and that the tenants of those houses, as well as those living in the detached and semi-detached houses, wish to remain in Cheshire.

Mr. Orbach

That is probably quite true. I have not visited the village. I understand that 10,000 people live there. But I am sorry that many of them are in some way blind to their surroundings, although they appreciate their garages and detached houses.

Mr. Idris Owen

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the whole economy of Poynton at the end of the last century and for the first 20 years of this was based on coal mining, which provided Stockport with almost the whole of its output? Poynton was a mining village.

Mr. Orbach

That is true. I read about that in a two-page spread in a newspaper. But I am not here to declare that I know all about Stockport or that I have lived there or in Poynton all my life. I merely advise the hon. Gentleman that the House of Commons is not a place which welcomes people with a pork barrel to push through on occasions. It does not want people here as delegates of an area; it wants people who represent an area and the national interest as well.

Mr. Haselhurst rose——

Mr. Orbach

I shall not give way again. I think I have given way a reasonable number of times. I have not been outrageous in any way. I do not think that I have made a flamboyant speech. I have not asked the clerks of the local authorities to provide me with a brief. I have reached my own conclusions. I think that the speech of the hon. Member for Macclesfield was perfectly proper and I do not agree with the hon. Member for Stockport, North. I hope that we shall be able to persuade the Minister not to be as flexible in this case as he has been in others.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Chapman (Birmingham, Handsworth)

I support Amendment No. 11 and do so not because my constituency is in any way affected but because until the last General Election I lived all my life in, and know the problems of, the area which is the subject of the Amendment. Therefore, hon. Members will agree that I have no vested interest in the sense of representing a continuency point of view.

We are talking about the parish of Poynton with Worth, which has a population of about 10,000. It is proposed that this parish should go into District 12(h), the Stockport district, which will have a population of just under one-third of a million people and will in turn be part of the metropolitan county of Greater Manchester, with a population of nearly three million. As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has said, we are talking, therefore, about a parish which has just over one-third of 1 per cent. of the population of the new county of Manchester and just over 3 per cent. of the population of the new 12(h) District of Stockport. We are therefore, as he also said, talking about a minimal difference, if the Amendment is accepted, to these important proposals, and it is the almost unanimous wish of the electors of the parish that they should remain in the county of Cheshire and not come into the new metropolitan county.

Of course, there are some people in Poynton who are not against the change but in the petition those who were not necessarily in favour but were not against the proposition numbered 310, while the point of view expressed today so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield was shared by 6,658 people. Whatever the merits or demerits of the case, my hon. Friend therefore has the overwhelming support of the parish for which he has spoken.

Having lived near there nearly all my life, I agree with my hon. Friend for three reasons. First, Poynton historically has always been part of Cheshire; secondly, it is geographically part of Cheshire rather than of the conurbation; thirdly, and importantly, politically it has always been part of Cheshire. Its historical link is obvious. On the geographical aspect, I make one point about the green belt. The quality and purpose of a green belt should not be judged by its size. On that issue I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen). Indeed, the smaller or narrower the green belt is, the more important it is is a very real sense. I accept that if Poynton goes into greater Manchester that will not neces- sarily mean the end of the green belt, but its demise will be more rather than less likely. The green belt is of dramatic importance from the planning point of view.

Politically, Poynton has always been part of Macclesfield constituency and Macclesfield rural district. It is interesting to note that if the Bill's proposals go through it will be the only part of the Macclesfield constituency and of the Macclesfield rural district which will go into the metropolitan county, the rest staying in Cheshire county. The majority of people in Poynton seek their employment outside the parish, but by no means all of them in Manchester or Stockport. A number do so at Woodford and some go to Macclesfield. That is also true of the village that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North now lives in and of the village I used to live in.

But because the majority of people do no work in Poynton it does not mean that the village should go into the new metropolitan county. As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield said, good government is surely a balance between democracy and efficiency. Ninety-five per cent. of the people of Poynton want to remain part of Cheshire. That is the democratic side. On the efficiency side, what I propose will in no way effect the Government's plans.

We are dealing here with a very marginal and minimal part of the new local government structure. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister is sensitive to the wish of people locally. I humbly ask him to consider allowing Amendment No. 11 because it will give great satisfaction to the overwhelming number of people who live in the parish.

Mr. Michael McGuire (Ince)

I wish to speak to two Amendments which are on the Order Paper in my name, Amendments No. 444 and 445. Their purpose is simple. It is to form a more natural, homogenous unit within the proposed District (a) of the Manchester Metropolitan Council, namely the Wigan district. Ashton-in-Makerfield, the south ward of the town, is almost totally being taken out and being put into the Metropolitan County District (c), the St. Helens district. That contradicts what the Secretary of State said both at the Dispatch Box and in his much-quoted White Paper Cmnd. 4584. In paragraph 8 the White Paper says: Local authority areas should be related to areas within which people have a common interest—through living in a recognisable community, through the links of employment, shopping or social activities, or through history and tradition. The people of the south ward consider themselves to be Wiganers and to be part of the Wigan district. They felt that long before the reorganisation proposals. They were more attuned to the town of Wigan. They went to Wigan for the majority of their shopping. There are facilities in Ashton but they do not compare with those at Wigan. The people indulge in their social activities in Wigan and their support of the Wigan Rugby Football team over a long period shows their attraction to Wigan. The Minister has fastened on the south ward reorganisation of a few years ago, which was purely a local domestic administrative problem which had to be overcome.

If the Amendment is carried it would be in keeping with the famous and much-quoted paragraph 8 and would encourage the community of interest which local government must have to succeed. I know that one of the Ministers difficulties has been with District 11(c) from which I am seeking to take a small part. For all kinds of reasons District 11(c) in the Merseyside metropolitan area has been probably the most difficult, notwithstanding the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler) dealing with the Bury-Rochdale grouping in the greater Manchester area.

The Minister has recognised the illogicality of putting Skelmersdale into the district and has now taken it out. We know that he will accept an Amendment which will still further carve up District 11(c) because it makes for a greater community of interest. With the best will in the world, these groupings, however natural they may seem to the Minister and his advisers, are doomed from the start if they do not have that essential ingredient of community of interest.

In the Amendments we are not dealing with a great carve up. Of the six towns in my constituency only two have been carved up. Billinge-and-Winstanley was carved up and everyone agrees that it was the most natural carve up. Half will go into the new Wigan area and the other half into District 11(c). I have received no representations from anyone saying that they disagree with it. In the case of Ashton the council have sent a memorandum to the Minister which I know he has studied. In a letter to me dated 4th July he seems to have rejected it fairly quickly.

We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) how an ancient grammar school or a parish church or some similar object or institution can create a great allegiance in the minds of the people, and how if the object or institution is removed to what the local people believe to be an alien area, that does not help the situation. My hon. Friend referred to an ancient grammar school in his constituency at Rivington. He mentioned Bishop Pilkington, who was the first post-Reformation bishop who went to Durham and who was supposed to be one of the ancestors of the famous Pilkington family. I do not know how true that is, but I believe it is his coat of arms which is reproduced as the trade mark for Pilkington Brothers.

My hon. Friend was making the point about the great affection that the local people have for the grammar school. In my constituency in the south ward, which is to be carved up and taken away from its natural connection with Wigan, there is also a very ancient grammar school. It is not now used for that purpose because the school has a betterbuilding in another area. But the people have an affection for it and they do not want to lose that part of the ward if they can help it. The ancient parish church of an area that will go into Wigan will be in the St. Helens district and that does not help matters.

I hope that, although his letter seems to indicate that he will not accept the Amendment, the Minister will agree that it does not imply the removal of thousands of £s of rateable value and the diminution of the number of people in it, reducing it to a parlous state. It is only a simple ward that affects only a few people but that does not mean that it is not important. I hope the Minister will say on balance and on reflection—and I agree that to a certain extent the argument is finely balanced—that in spite of his letters and comments he will accept the two Amendments.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page

This group of Amendments can be divided into two kinds: first, those seeking a rearrangement of the metropolitan districts within the metropolitan county, and, secondly, those concerning the built-up areas one side or another of the boundary of the metropolitan county, including, for example, the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) which would involve a move from a non-metropolitan county to a metropolitan county.

The Amendments mainly concern authorities on the boundary of the conurbation. That is perhaps natural, because so many of their residents have moved there from the big town in order to escape the big town. But many of the areas around the fringe of the greater Manchester conurbation which have been discussed today depend on the conurbation for work, culture, leisure, shopping and so on.

Generally, the principle adopted in drawing the boundary of the conurbation has been to find the area of continuous build-up. Before deciding, we not only look into the conurbation to see the build-up from it but also see whether there is any reasonable joining up of the suburb of a conurbation with a town outside. It may be that the suburb is really of the same character as a nearby town, as in the case of Whitworth, which is far more Bacup and Rossendale than Rochdale. On the other hand, it may be that miles of open country stretch out beyond the suburb, as in the case of Poynton.

In drawing the boundaries I have tried to apply the principle laid down in paragraph 32 of the White Paper, Cmnd. 4584, dealing with metropolitan-type structures. It says: The boundaries of these areas should include all the main area, or areas, of continuous development and any adjacent area into which continuous development will extend. We cannot say that the boundary will include all the development of the conurbation, but I think that, in applying that general rule we get a sensible set of local government areas when drawing both the county and the metropolitan county districts.

I should like to deal first with the rearrangements of the metropolitan districts within the metropolitan county. We have had the case of the Bury and Rochdale division. Originally, as in the Bill, the Government chose to put Bury and Rochdale together. That was discussed very fully by all the local authorities concerned at a meeting which the then Under-Secretary held last July. We might have thought from today's debate that it was entirely a new idea sprung on local authorities only yesterday. In fact, it has been the subject of debate in the area for a very long time. The whole of the meeting last July was taken up with the debate on whether Bury and Rochdale should be separate or should be combined in one metropolitan district.

It is interesting to note that during that meeting last July the Oldham representatives said that if we decided to split Bury and Rochdale they accepted that Middleton would go with Rochdale. The case they presented to me yesterday was that they needed Middleton because it had an industrial site in it and they relied on that site. It has an industrial site up in the north-east corner. The rest is residential overflow from Manchester. I was shocked when Oldham based their argument on the need for an industrial site in Middleton, when there is all that derelict and cleared land in Chadderton and Failsworth all along the road from Oldham. Of course, it is nice to take the soft option and have tens of acres of virgin soil on which to produce the industry, but I ask Oldham to turn to its derelict and cleared land. It will find many sites for industry there.

Mr. James Lamond

Surely the Minister recalls that when he put that very point to the officials representing Oldham they denied that there were sites available on derelict land. They listed two very small sites which were available and said that the 100-acre sites and 50-acre sites, which are what developers look for nowadays, could be found only in Middleton.

Mr. Page

I did not accept that denial. From my own knowledge of the area I think the division of Bury and Rochdale will produce two very good local government areas.

I hesitated about the matter in Committee, because it was a new proposition put to me, and I thought we had got it right in the Bill. But I have since studied it carefully with my colleagues in the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health and Social Security, and we think they will make good separate local government areas with sufficient population in each. They are different communities, and we are giving them what they want.

The difficulty arises not only with Middleton but with Heywood, which runs down the centre and is a town of a different character from both Bury and Rochdale. If we could take Heywood out and put it 20 miles north into the country it would be a far better place, but it is between Bury and Rochdale, and we must decide where it should go. The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) objected to small parts of Heywood being cut off and put into Bury. These are promontories which go almost into the centre of Bury, but I was persuaded by the argument the hon. Gentleman put to me yesterday and to the House today.

If the House accepts Amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler) and of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann), as I advise it to do, I give an undertaking to study carefully what we have done about these promontories. There could then be a correction in another place. My officials will study the matter with the council officials, and we shall get the matter right, as the people want it. It is a small point. Only a thousand people are involved, but I should like to get it right, and so I ask the House to accept those Amendments.

I should now like to go clockwise around the edge of the conurbation, dealing first with Ashby-in-Makerfield. The whole south ward of Ashby-in-Makerfield is far more closely linked with St. Helens than with Wigan.

Mr. J. T. Price

The right hon. Gentleman means "Ashton-in-Makerfield".

Mr. Page

I am sorry. I am perhaps trying to go too fast.

Mr. Price

I thought the right hon. Gentleman had been running around Lancashire on a pair of roller skates and had familiarised with all the geography.

Mr. Page

I apologise for getting it wrong, but I was trying to speak too quickly.

In the Bill the Government have put the whole of one ward where they believe it belongs, with St. Helens rather than with Wigan. The Amendment on this matter mistakenly follows the usual illusory fascination of a major road—in this case the East Lancashire road—as a boundary line. It would be wrong to carve up that south ward of Ashton-in-Makerfield in that way, and, therefore, I cannot advise the House to accept that Amendment.

The Amendments of the right hon. Member for Newton dealt with moving the southern wards of Golborne Urban District and the wards of Culcheth and Newchurch, into greater Manchester. The Government proposed the split of Golborne Urban District Council as they did because Golborne has overwhelmingly strong links with the metropolitan county, with greater Manchester, as the right hon. Gentleman said. The two wards concerned are separated by open country from the remainder of Golborne; its links are predominantly southwards towards Warrington and other areas in the new Cheshire.

Although the right hon. Gentleman's argument today was very persuasive, I cannot advise Parliament to accept that proposal. Even so, there is still another place where the matter can be considered. I wish the right hon. Gentleman had been able to discuss this with me in more detail before. I hope I may have the opportunity of doing so with him in the next week.

Mr. Frederick Lee

The right hon. Gentleman implied that the open country provided one reason why he did not want to accept my Amendment to join the greater Manchester area. There is no open country between Newchurch and Leigh. In one way it is part of Leigh. The open country is to the south in the direction of Warrington.

Mr. Page

The open country forms the division which we make in the Bill. I have offered to talk with the right hon. Gentleman on this.

Coming to Horwich and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) to transfer part of the parish of Rivington, which comprises the land and buildings of the Rivington and Blackrod Grammar School, this is a small area which is not easily described by any ward or parish lines. It is a boundary which will have to be amended by the Boundary Commission, not only here but elsewhere; for example, Lever Park. One can leave this to the Boundary Commission and not ask us, across the Floor of Parliament, to draw lines which are not fully indicated on the map. Although the property transfer idea was scoffed at, it is practicable as a transitional idea.

Mr. J. T. Price

Whilst I am disappointed at the right hon. Gentleman's negative approach to the Amendment as it stands, I hope I may have, coupled with the assurance I have already had from him in correspondence concerning the Boundary Commission, the assurance that, if he has any faith in the remedy that the school be dedicated and the property be dedicated to the metropolitan area, he will use the machinery of this Department to prevail upon Lancashire County Council to so dedicate it before the Boundary Commission has a further two or three years' gestation period before it reaches a solution by the conventional process.

Mr. Page

I am not giving any further undertakings, certainly not those which will encourage me to bully a county council.

The Amendment proposed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) concerned Turton. The southern wards of Turton are a straight build-up from Bolton. One proceeds on the road from Bury to Bolton. When one arrives at Ainsworth one turns north and there is a continuous build-up until one reaches the top of the hill, Turton Towers. One then arrives at new country, Edgworth, which is one of the grey villages of that area. We have drawn a line at that point except in relation to the small Amendment proposed concerning half a dozen houses. I ask the House to accept that. My hon. and learned Friend has delineated it exactly. It corrects an anomaly.

So far as Ramsbottom is concerned, again there is a continuous build-up from Bury. Ramsbottom in separated from the towns to its north. It becomes a suburb of Bury, although as one comes down the A56 from Broadfield towards Bury on the east there is one wide open country reservoir. On the west along the Irwell there is a modern built-up development. We must keep Ramsbottom within Bury.

7.15 p.m.

It is different as one moves further to the east when one reaches Whitworth. There I was presented with a problem. One would take in a continuous build-up; then one would have to go out to Bacup and Rawtenstall. Someone looked for a real break between Rochdale and Bacup. It comes at the start of Whitworth, the southern boundary of Whitworth, where the character changes from the town of Rochdale to the country town of Whitworth. It is right to take Whitworth out of Rochdale.

Mr. Bray

My right hon. Friend said that one should take Ramsbottom out. Is he referring to Ramsbottom as defined in the Bill?

Mr. Page

Yes. It comprises the south-western wards of Ramsbottom to which I referred. That comprises the suburb of Bury.

Going clockwise I arrive at Poynton. Here it is difficult to accept the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). As one leaves Stockport and arrives at Hazelgrove, which is part of Stockport, there is no real division. Along the road into Poynton, between the Fiveways Hotel at Hazelgrove and the Bull's Head at Poynton, the substantial area which my hon. Friend was talking about is Seven fields dominated by a few houses. Poynton is connected thoroughly, geographically and culturally, with Stockport. People from Poynton seek their theatres and so on within the conurbation. I cannot agree that one can hive off an area like that and leave it with Macclesfield, as there are many miles of open country between Poynton and Macclesfield.

Mr. Winterton

My right hon. Friend and other hon. Members participated in the debate affecting Poynton. They have implied that much of what Poynton needs and uses is located in the Greater Manchester area. In many ways that is true. It is true of many areas which are not going to be located in the greater Manchester area under the local government reorganisation arrangements. So that does not hold much water.

Mr. Page

If my hon. Friend will look both east and west from Poynton there is a continuous build-up to Wilmslow and to the east. It is not as if Poynton sticks out like a wart into the conurbation. It is part and parcel of that area. If we took Poynton out of the area it would amount to a cut-in.

I give an assurance about the green belt. It does not mean that because we include a certain amount of green belt within the conurbation it is not going to be protected. It is going to be protected whether in or outside the conurbation. My hon. Friend's area, Poynton, is blessed because it will have its own parish in the future. It is one of those few areas of a rural district which have a parish and which have been included in a conurbation.

I have proceeded round the fringe of the conurbation. I have not dealt with it in any detail as I should like to have done and as I have tried to do in discussion with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in discussing these Amendments outside the Chamber. I should like to have gone into it in far more detail. There are some details where I have been able to meet the Amendments on the Order Paper and some which I must resist. We shall have a very reasonable county with very reasonable county districts.

Mr. David Clark

When the right hon. Gentleman was referring to Poynton he made a succinct comment that Poynton would be one of the few areas that would retain a parish council within the metropolitan area. Is the right hon. Gentleman ruling out the possibility of urban district councils having parish council status within metropolitan counties?

Mr. Page

No, Sir.

Mrs. Connie Monks (Chorley)

May I ask the Minister whether in the consultations he has with regard to this school in Rivington I might be included, since Rivington happens to be in my constituency and I had hoped to have an opportunity to speak on this but was not called? I would like that to be borne in mind.

Mr. Page

I will certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I know her interest in this area because it now falls within her constituency.

Mr. John Silkin

The House has spent——

Mr. Ogden

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it customary for Front Bench speakers who have no direct geographical interest in an area to speak before other hon. Members on both sides who have such an interest have been called?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)

Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to interfere in this matter. Mr. Silkin.

Mr. J. T. Price

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In case any wrong impression is left among my colleagues or among hon. Members opposite, let me say, with regard to this school on which I spoke at some length—and I apologise for that—that in fact I observed the usual courtesies and gave personal notice to the hon. Member for Chorley (Mrs. Monks) that I intended to do so. I should not like anyone to think that I have interfered with something outside my province because I gave full notice.

Mrs. Monks

That is so.

Mr. Silkin

I was about to say that the House has spent three hours and 20 minutes discussing these Amendments. I realise that I should have said three hours and 22 minutes. I do not believe that it is the wish of the House that we should go on very much longer in discussing them. What the House wants to do is to come to a decision, because if we do not do so soon it looks as though the Local Government Bill, 1972 might turn into the Local Government Bill, 1973.

What is interesting about this debate, which centres on the question of the Bury-Rochdale spread, is that in Committee a number of my hon. Friends and I asked the then Under-Secretary—this was in his helicopter days; now it is Concorde—to consider the representations made to him, because it seemed that he had not done so. He had given the Committee a strong and forceful basis for saying "No" without, we thought, listening sufficiently. We rather chided the Under-Secretary and the Minister for being too inflexible. I withdraw that now because I believe that the Minister has been extremely flexible and has done what a Minister should do; he has looked and looked again. Having said that, the rather odd situation arises in that while the Minister has been looking again, so, too, have I.

I have been looking at the arguments the Under-Secretary put in Committee, which were basically two-fold. First, he said there is a common interest between Bury and Rochdale apart from the fact that they are both in South-East Lancashire—if my geography is correct. The second strength of his argument was that if one divided Bury and Rochdale one would create three metropolitan districts with populations of 175,000, 208,000, and 224,000. I realise that some Amendments have made a slight difference in that. He went on to quote from the White Paper which says that the minimum population for a metropolitan district ought to be 250,000. There is certainly one English example of a metropolitan district with less than that. The Minister has chided me for suggesting the creation of metropolitan districts with populations below 250,000. These were the points he made.

What he said in Committee was: It would be misleading for me not to say that the Government's view remains that it would not be in the best interests, either of the local people or the form of local authority reorganisation which we are introducing, to accept this Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee, D, 14th December, 1971; c. 414.] If that is so we are entitled to ask what new factors have arisen. Apart from the

change from a helicopter to Concorde, only one othernew factor has been vouchsafed to us by the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler). We on this side of the House thank him for his kind remarks about my hon. and sick Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann).

The only new factor, as I understand it, is the publication of the book on strategic planning for the North-West which the hon. Member said took place in the early months of 1972, although he went on to say when I asked him that it has been in the Department since December, 1971. Assuming that those dates are correct, an interesting view of the home life of the Ministry emerges. It is that it is totally unaware of a giant survey on planning in the North-West——

Mr. Graham Page

I chaired a large meeting at Manchester to put this document on the bookstalls.

Mr. Silkin

I rather suspected that that might be so. I do not think it is a new factor at all. In other words, what has happened is that the Minister, despite the strong case that was made in Committee, has changed his mind, not on external facts, not on new facts, not on any new considerations. I have studied the arguments again and again since Committee. Had there been new facts and considerations, I might have thought differently, but in view of the fact that the arguments were put so strongly in Committee by the then Under-Secretary, and that, to my mind, they stand today and because there are no new considerations, I shall have to ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to oppose the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes, 113.

Division No. 270.]	AYES	[7.30 p.m.
Adley, Robert	Buck, Antony	Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Bullus, Sir Eric	Drayson, G. B.
Atkins, Humphrey	Burden, F. A.	Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Bell, Ronald	Chapman, Sydney	Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Benyon, W.	Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher	Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Churchill, W. S.	English, Michael
Biffen, John	Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Farr, John
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)	Cockeram, Eric	Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Boscawen, Robert	Cooke, Robert	Fidler, Michael
Bossom, Sir Clive	Cooper, A. E.	Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Bowden, Andrew	Cormack, Patrick	Fookes, Miss Janet
Bray, Ronald	Crouch, David	Fortescue, Tim
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Crowder, F. P.	Fowler, Norman
Bryan, Sir Paul	Dean, Paul	Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)
Gibson-Watt, David	Madel, David	Sinclair, Sir George
Goodhart, Philip	Mather, Carol	Speed, Keith
Gray, Hamish	Mawby, Ray	Spence, John
Green, Alan	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Stanbrook, Ivor
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Gummer, J. Selwyn	Miscampbell, Norman	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Gurden, Harold	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Moate, Roger	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Haselhurst, Alan	Monks, Mrs. Connie	Tebbit, Norman
Hawkins, Paul	Montgomery, Fergus	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Higgins, Terence L.	More, Jasper	Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Holland, Philip	Murton, Oscar	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)
Hordern, Peter	Neave, Airey	Trew, Peter
Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia	Normanton, Tom	Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)	Nott, John	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Hunt, John	Onslow, Cranley	Waddington, David
Iremonger, T. L.	Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)	Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Jopling, Michael	Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Kaberry, Sir Donald	Parkinson, Cecil
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine	Powell, Rt. Hn. Enoch	Wall, Patrick
Kershaw, Anthony	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Ward, Dame Irene
Kimball, Marcus	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis	Warren, Kenneth
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Quennell, Miss J. M.	Weatherill, Bernard
Lane, David	Raison, Timothy	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James	White, Roger (Gravesend)
Le Merchant, Spencer	Redmond, Robert	Wilkinson, John
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)	Woodhouse, Hn. Chrilstopher
Longden, Sir Gilbert	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Loveridge, John	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Luce, R. N.	Russell, Sir Ronald	Mr. Victor Goodhew and
McCrindle, R. A.	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)	Mr. Marcus Fox.
McNair-Wilson, Michael	Shelton, William (Clapham)
NOES
Allen, Scholefield	Heffer, Eric S.	Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)	Hooson, Emlyn	Pavitt, Laurie
Ashton, Joe	Horam, John	Pentland, Norman
Atkinson, Norman	Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Prescott, John
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Bidwell, Sydney	Jeger, Mrs. Lena	Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Booth, Albert	Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)	Roper, John
Bottomley. Rt. Hn. Arthur	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Judd, Frank	Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)	Kaufman, Gerald	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Lamond, James	Silverman, Julius
Cohen, Stanley	Latham, Arthur	Skinner, Dennis
Concannon, J. D.	Lawson, George	Spearing, Nigel
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Spriggs, Leslie
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)	Leonard, Dick	Stallard, A. W.
Crawshaw, Richard	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard	McGuire, Michael	Taverne, Dick
Dalyell, Tam	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Tinn, James
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	McNamara, J. Kevin	Torney, Tom
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	Tuck, Raphael
Deakins, Eric	Marsden, F.	Urwin, T. W.
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund	Marshall, Dr. Edmund	Vickers, Dame Joan
Dormand, J. D.	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
	Mendelson, John	Wallace, George
Dunn, James A.	Mikardo, Ian	Weitzman, David
Edelman, Maurice	Millan, Bruce	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Evans, Fred	Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)	Whitehead, Phillip
Faulds, Andrew	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Whitlock, William
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Ogden, Eric	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Foot, Michael	O'Halloran, Michael	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Forrester, John	O'Malley, Brian	Winterton, Nicholas
Gilbert, Dr. John	Orbach, Maurice
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hardy, Peter	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles	Mr. Ernest G. Perry and
Harper, Joseph	Pardoe, John	Mr. Ernest Armstrong.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Parker, John (Dagenham)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 1021, in page 192, line 43, column 2, at end insert: 'District (cc) The county borough of Rochdale. In the administrative county of Lancaster— the borough of Middleton; the borough of Heywood, except the areas in district (c); the urban districts of Littleborough, Milnrow and Wardle'.

No. 1022, in page 193, column 2, leave out line 10—[Mr. Fidler.]

Mrs. Barbara Castle (Blackburn)

I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 193, line 41, at end insert:

Lancashire

District (a) The county borough of Blackburn In the administrative county of Lancaster— the boroughs of Accrington, Clitheroe, Darwen and Haslingden; the urban districts of Church, Clayton-le-Moors, Great Harwood, Oswald-twistle, Rishton and Withnell; the urban district of Turton except the area in Greater Manchester; the rural districts of Blackburn and Clitheroe. In the administrative county of Yorkshire, West Riding— the rural district of Bowland

District (b) The county borough of Blackpool In the administrative county of Lancaster— the boroughs of Fleetwood and Lytham St. Annes; the urban districts of Preesall, Poulton-le-Fylde, Thornton-Cleveleys and Kirkham; the rural district of Fylde; in the rural district of Garstang, the parishes of Great Eccleston, Hambleton, Out Rawcliffe, Pilling, Stalmine-with-Staynall. District (c) The county borough of Burnley. In the administrative county of Lancaster— the boroughs of Colne, Nelson, Bacup and Rawtenstall; the urban districts of Barrowford, Brierfield, Paliham and Trawden; the rural district of Burnley. In the administrative county of Yorkshire, West Riding— the urban districts of Barnoldswick and Earby; in the rural district of Skipton, the parishes of Bracewell, Brogden and Salterforth.

Disirict (d) The county borough of Preston. In the administrative county of Lancaster— the borough of Chorley; the urban districts of Fulwood, Walter-le-Dale, Longridge, Leyland and Adlington; the rural districts of Chorley and Preston; in the rural district of Garstang, the parishes of Barnacre-with-Bonds, Bilsborrow, Bleasdale, Cabus, Catterall, Claughton, Forton, Garstang, Inskip-with-Sowerby, Kirkland, Myerscough, Nateby, Nether Wyresdale, Upper Rawcliffe-with-Tarnacre and Winmarleigh.

District (e) In the administrative county of Lancaster— the boroughs of Lancaster and Morecambe and Heysham; the urban district of Carnforth; the rural districts of Lancaster and Lunesdale. District (f) The county borough of Southport. In the administrative county of Lancaster— the urban districts of Ormskirk and Skelmersdale and Holland; the rural district of West Lancashire except the area in Merseyside; the rural district of Wigan except the area in Greater Manchester.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)

With this Amendment we are to take the following Amendments:

No. 14, in page 193 leave out line 43 and insert: The county borough of Bootle.

No. 81, in page 201, leave out lines 15 to 25.

Mrs. Castle

I will move the Amendment briefly and I am doing so out of compassion as much for hon. Gentlemen opposite on the Government Front Bench as for my hon. Friends, because of course we could go on endlessly arguing the cases of our own particular areas. I hope that the Minister, if I am brief and if this debate is brief, will hold it as a credit to us and not as an indication that somehow we are not interested, because if that is to be the test of the measure of our enthusiasm he will be here not only all night but well into next week as well.

At this stage of a debate of this kind, anyone putting forward an Amendment of local application must almost have a sense of despair. The Government have been committed to a broad strategy of local government reform and they are buoyed up with a sense of the rightness of their own strategy. Therefore, it must be a very great temptation to dismiss individual Amendments dealing with particular areas as purely parochial.

I make a genuine plea to the Government to accept the Amendment, the effect of which will be to make Central Lancashire, that is area 10, into a petropolitan area. A powerful case for this was put by my hon. Friends in Committee and I thank them for making that case, although the Under-Secretary of State did not deal with it properly. We are grateful to the Chair for giving those of us who represent the county boroughs concerned a chance to add our plea to that which was so forcefully put by my hon. Friends.

It is inevitable, representing, as I do, the constituency of Blackburn, that I should look at this issue from the point of view of my own constituency, but I want to build up the picture from its foundations, on the basis not just of what my own constituents will suffer but of the whole principle of local government reform. On that basis, we find that the Government propose to destroy four substantial county boroughs, Blackburn. Blackpool, Burnley and Preston, and reduce an area which should be planned as a whole to a patchwork of small local authorities. No other non-metropolitan county in the Government's plan has this number of important county boroughs in its area.

I have read the Committee debates and the Government's White Paper, and it is far from clear on what criteria the Government have based their choice of the metropolitan areas. For heaven's sake. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, how can the Government include in their metropolitan areas South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire and omit Central Lancashire, when they are such comparable areas, having so many similar characteristics of urban concentration and unified interests? The Royal Commission carefully considered making Central Lancashire a metropolitan area, and there is reason to believe that if the plans for the Central Lancashire new town had been further advanced at that stage the Royal Commission might well have come down in favour of that solution.

The case for the coherent government of urban Central Lancashire, on which the future of the Central Lancashire new town depends, is surely unanswerable. Once the Government announced their intention to allow the development of the Central Lancashire new town to proceed, they made Central Lancashire into a metropolitan area. If local government reorganisation has any meaning at all, surely the area from Blackpool in the west to Burnley in the east must be planned as a whole, as a multi-centre urban area, with the Central Lancashire new town as a focal point under a first-tier authority dedicated to the development of this multi-community metropolitan complex and supported by strong second-tier authorities with a substantial range of functions.

I hope that the Government have not got so bored by this stage that they are closing their ears. The future of our local democracy is at stake, and I ask the Government to consider this on its merits. We are talking of a proud area of one million people, 80 per cent, of whom live in urban authority areas—areas that have known struggle, suffering and difficulty in the past years. This area has begun to pull itself up by its own bootstraps, and now it suddenly finds itself faced with a future which will downgrade many of its efforts and fill it with uncertainty. There is a great need for urban and industrial renewal. The problem can only be solved, for the sake of Britain as a whole, under a coherent structure of local government.

7.45 p.m.

Is it not absurd that, under this proposed pattern of local government, we should plonk down a new town in the heart of such an area and expect it to develop in isolation from its urban hinterland?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that there was great anxiety in North-East Lancashire about having a new town there. I know; I was a member of the Government when it was first broached. There was tremendous anxiety amongst all sections of the population and all types of association and organisation because it was felt that the new town would be a magnet for industry and population not so much from the south as from the neglected areas, the old cotton areas of North-East Lancashire. Our fears were only allayed—and I played my part in allaying them —by the promise, first, that the old cotton towns would get differential help for industry compared with the new town—that has gone under the Government's new regional plans—and secondly, that the old cotton towns, the old county borough areas, would get new local government status as unitary areas with even stronger local authority structure and powers, and that has gone too.

I warn the right hon. Gentleman that, despite the progress now being made with the Calder Valley road—he and I have discussed this and we welcome that progress—those fears are alive again. It is no good having a first class modern road at the heart of an area if at the same time we are diminishing the power of that area to help itself. After all, roads lead more ways than one, and enable people to travel away from as well as into the old towns unless the old towns are given every facility to develop as an equivalent magnet to the new town.

If the new town were to be developed, as we plead in the Amendment, as part of a comprehensive metropolitan area, then we should strike a better balance in the tug-of-war that is bound to ensue between the old cotton towns and the new growth point. Instead of that, what will happen to the old towns when the Government's proposals go through? What will happen to the old county boroughs of Blackburn and Burnley? I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) is waiting to add his quota to the debate. Those once proud self-reliant areas will be left with fewer functions than any contemporary rural district council. They are to have their educational powers and their responsibility for personal social services taken away. They are told, "That is all right, you will be left with housing". That is a bad division of functions anyhow, but I will not stop to argue that general local government point.

By making them into ordinary districts under an ordinary county council, instead of metropilitan districts within a metropolitan area, we shall break up the close co-ordination that exists between slum clearance, area improvement and planning powers. This will also be the fate of the new town if the Government's proposals go through. Imagine setting up an important new growth point which is not to be an all-purpose authority. Imagine a new town set down in an area which is already heavily urbanised, facing problems of urban renewal and developing its infra-structure, and then giving it no powers to control its own destiny.

I emphasise that the length of my speech should not be regarded as an indication of the strength of my arguments or the strength of feeling in the area which I represent. Brevity is an act of consideration, not capitulation. What the Government are doing by these present proposals is reviving in North-East Lancashire all the old fears and hostilities about the new town. It has disheartened local authorities who have done more than any in the country in similar circumstances to renew their own lives and to build up their own sense of community.

I have a pile of letters which I could quote but which I shall spare the House. The letters show that the support for making this comprehensive urban part of Britain into a metropolitan area ranges from chambers of trade and commerce right through to trades councils and Labour Party regional councils in the neighbourhood.

In the interests of good local government, I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will please think again. There is nothing in his present proposals as a whole to justify him refusing to this proud and courageous part of our country the metropolitan area status which it deserves.

Mr. Graham Page

I hope that it will be convenient to intervene at this stage. Since this is a debate on principle it is probably better that I should make an opening statement now, rather than listen to individual constituency speeches and try to answer each constituency point. If there are points raised in the debate which need to be answered, I shall if the House will allow me to do so, take them at the end of this discussion.

I shall attempt to answer the questions of principle which were rightly put forward by the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). She touched on three subjects into which I do not need to go in great detail. In regard to the division of functions and the merits of such a division, we have to consider what functions the area would exercise if it were a metropolitan district. I hope she will forgive me if I do not go in detail into those functions because she will appreciate that next week or the week after we shall be discussing them in great detail.

The right hon. Lady then raised the question of the merits of having the new town in central Lancashire. Again, although the existence of that new town when built will have a great influence on our decision in relation to this Amendment as to whether this should have metropolitan or non-metropolitan status now or in the future, I ask her to excuse me from going into the merits of having the new town there or not.

The third point raised by the right hon. Lady related to the need for urban renewal. We all recognise, and the Government have recognised in practical fashion, the need for urban renewal in towns in North-East Lancashire and partly in Central Lancashire. I do not think the question whether they are of metropolitan or non-metropolitan status affects the efforts which they will make for urban renewal. Many are now taking great advantage of the assistance offered by the Government, and to great effect. I know that at present the county boroughs have full powers to do that, but even those towns which are not county boroughs at present are accepting and putting to very good purpose the assistance which the Government are giving in urban renewal.

I cannot think that the difference in status will affect that situation. I hope that this matter is gaining in momentum, and, as I have said on frequent occasions in the area, I hope that the existing towns will make rapid progress with urban renewal and rehabilitation in the introduction of industry with such assistance as my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry can give, and that they will be fully revived before we even start building the new town. If that is so, we can gain great advantage out of the existence of the new town. There is no intention of the new town supplanting the existing towns.

Let us look at the principle of the setting up of a metropolitan county. The metropolitan county is an innovation in the provinces; it is an innovation in local government. We cannot judge it against existing examples because there is none. There is the Greater London Council, but I doubt whether anybody would suggest that that is particularly applicable to Lancashire. However, we can judge this proposal which we are now debating against the other metropolitan counties which we have set out in the Bill. The principle on which we propose to make those areas counties with metropolitan status is that they are predominantly urban in character and generally compact. This was said in paragraph 16 of the White Paper and is the principle we have tried to carry out in choosing the areas.

The right hon. Lady mentioned West Yorkshire and raised the question of whether it could be called compact. I must join issue with her on that point. West Yorkshire is of a different character to Lancashire in that, although it has a number of free-standing towns, they are far more compact than Lancashire. When we try to apply to Lancashire the phrase "predominantly urban in character" which is used in the White Paper, it becomes a little ridiculous. We think of the west of Lancaster and Lunesdale rural district, the Bowland Forest, West Lancashire rural district between Preston and Southport, the open spaces between Turton and Darwen, and we cannot call the area predominantly urban in character, nor can we call it compact.

If we were to place metropolitan status on this area at present, it would hold up our whole principle of metropolitan status to ridicule. The case in the Amendment is that the towns should be grouped in six districts and that those districts, because they would be of metropolitan district status, should have education and social service functions. That may be the desire of the present county boroughs which have those functions already, but the smaller towns in general do not want this grouping and feel that they may be overpowered by the county boroughs. The grouping which they would receive under the non-metropolitan status, if there were a non-metropolitan county, would be a grouping into 12 or 13 districts.

It is relevant to point out the representation which the people would have in their councillors under those two different sets of circumstances. If we were to group Lancashire into six metropolitan districts, the number of councillors in that area for the districts would be about 240 to 300—on the basis on which, say, greater Manchester or Merseyside have their councillors. If we leave the districts as they are in the Bill, and as the Boundary Commission has indicated, it will divide the area into districts, and the average size of a non-metropolitan district council is 50. That means, therefore, that there would be 650 councillors representing the area if this were a non-metropolitan county as opposed to only about 250 in the case of a metropolitan county.

At this stage, I believe that it is right to retain Lancashire as a non-metropolitan county. It means depriving the existing couny boroughs of direct rule in certain functions, but they will have through their councillors control of a far wider area in the carrying out of those functions.

In the Bill we are endeavouring to set up a structure of local government. It happens that at present certain areas fit into one type of structure and certain areas into another. That does not mean that in the next 10, 20 or 50 years an area will not graduate into the other structure of local government. Applying that to Lancashire, it may be that when the Central Lancashire new town is built there will be a compact area predominantly urban in character which will qualify as a metropolitan county. But that is not so at present, and, therefore, I must advise the House to reject the Amendment, although I have great sympathy with the intention behind it of producing a co-ordinated area in Lancashire, to get all the towns of Lancashire outside the Greater Manchester conurbation and the Mersey conurbation to work together. I think that they can do it best at present under non-metropolitan county status.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Dan Jones (Burnley)

I have listened carefully to the Minister, and although he has made his reply sound reasonable, I am quite sure that it will not be accepted as such by members of his own party in the county borough of Burnley. It is for that reason that I intend to support the Amendment so ably moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle).

On this occasion, I am privileged to speak, not only for the right hon. Gentleman's own party in Burnley. The Minister must also be aware that I speak on behalf of the Association of Municipal Corporations. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers, the AMC has far more experience of local government work than they have, and that association, too, supports the proposals contained in the Amendment.

I must speak of Burnley predominantly, and I begin by telling the Minister that to reduce the county borough of Burnley to the level of a district council, stripping it of all its local authority powers, is a shameful act. I have been in Burnley for some 14 years, and I have represented my constituency during periods when both main parties have operated from the town hall. In all aspects of local authority work the county borough council has a unique record. For that reason it is an act of vandalism to bring down these people to the level of a district council, robbing them of powers that they have enjoyed for more than 100 years.

As I have said already, this is a unique occasion, and I intend to make full use of it by speaking for the Labour Party in Burnley and for the right hon. Gentleman's party.

Recently, the Minister had the privilege of being in the county borough of Burnley. He met people from all over the area. He will remember the fraternal welcome that he had, and he will know the sense of purpose of those who are elected by the ordinary people to the town hall.

Perhaps I might refer again to the geographical differences between the proposals contained in our Amendment and the Government's own proposals. It is intended that the people of Burnley and of the constituency of the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) will go into Preston whenever they have points which they wish to discuss with those at the town hall. That is a laborious and costly journey. In my opinion it is also a rather unnecessary one. We have heard it said that local authority representation no less than central Government representation should be such that it is close to the people. Yet the people who for more than 100 years have been able to walk to the town hall to discuss their affairs will have to make a long and costly journey to Preston.

The whole of North-East Lancashire from Blackburn to Barnoldswick is a natural enclave. It forms itself naturally into one comprehensive geophysical setting. Those are not only my opinions. If the Minister cares to look at reports offered to the previous Government and to that Government's conclusions in relation to these recommendations, he will see that this area was to be one unitary authority. That met with the approval of the people. I do not know how the Minister can now say that the proposals in the Amendment would not meet the wishes of the majority of people in the area. I admit that there are those who would oppose them. However, I chose my words carefully, and I have no doubt what the majority view would be.

Again I ask the Ministry why an area like Huddersfield, a county borough with characteristics very much like those of Burnley and Blackburn, is to retain its county borough status. Why is this distinction made? I will not venture too deeply into this matter because I hope that it will be argued more extensively by others of my hon. Friends. I turn instead to the White Paper.

In choosing its six metropolitan areas the White Paper states two brief requirements; namely, areas needing to be treated as entities for the purposes of planning, transportation and certain other services, and areas which are divisible into districts all of which are populous and compact. If that does not fit Blackburn and Burnley, I do not know what does. It is because of that that I ask the Minister to give these proposals further thought.

The Minister has already intimated in a previous debate that he would adopt the mood of flexibility. He even hinted that Ministers had some right to expect that when these issues went to the other place possibly they could get some change there. I should have been happier tonight if similar assurances had been offered on this issue, but it seemed that before hon. Members on this side had an opportunity of supporting my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn the right hon. Gentleman had closed his mind and almost told us that whatever we said could make little difference. Therefore, the Minister has not been fair.

I should like to quote from another of the Government's documents. I do not wish to detain the House unduly long and promise that this will be my last quotation. Taking into consideration the Government's recommendation, one can see from this document a significance which definitely applies to the merits of the Amendment: One aspect of this general question of interrelated services deserves special mention. Parts of Central Lancashire have a slum clearance and urban renewal task proportionately as great as that to be found in any of the conurbations. Most, possibly all, areas where a comparable concentration of urban blight exists will be governed under the metropolitan system. Two conditions are essential in the organisation for solving this desperately urgent problem, namely (1) integration of housing and social services (including education) within the redeveloped team, and (2) the closest co-ordination in the exercise of slum clearance area improvement and planning powers. It is, in our view, a daunting handicap, to say the least, to attempt this task with an organisation comprising separate housing and social services authorities and a planning authority with, in the case of Area 10, disparate and unrelated urban and rural objectives. The metropolitan authorities will be much better served in this respect. That is the nub of the case for Burnley and Blackburn.

I should like to refer to social services. Without being unduly aggressive, I challenge the Government to point to any area in the country which has dealt with social services with the kind of humanity that progressively the county borough of Burnley has. It is to be denied that.

Within recent months I have received a petition signed by 4,000 to 5,000 people from all over the County Borough of Burnley stating that as their county borough status had been taken away they were prepared to do away with the Noyna centre in Blackpool to which they send their disabled and infirm for sound convalescent treatment. I do not know of any petition in the years I have been in Burnley which has evoked such a toll of humanitarianism as that project. It would be shameful were it to end.

The Minister must not think that the comparative brevity of our contributions indicates that our concern is superficial. I shudder to think what the position of Burnley through the years would have been had it been operating under the county council. No local authority has had to bear progresively the burden that this county borough has borne, certainly in post-war years. Had it not been for Burnley's own imaginative efforts, its own cost, with both parties in solid support, its position would have been tragic. It is a county borough which at one time enjoyed a population of 120,000. The population now is just over 70,000. It would have been "Heaven help the area!" had it not been for the efforts of the county borough and the people elected to serve that closely knit, splendid community to preserve at least a basic whereby industrial expansion could conceivably take place. All this will come to an end under the Government's proposals.

8.15 p.m.

If the Minister does not feel he can respond to my overtures on behalf of the County Borough of Burnley, labelling me as an opponent anyhow and, therefore, against the Government, and cannot take into account the rather wiser deliberations of the AMC, which is certainly far more experienced at this kind of work than I am ever likely to be, perhaps he will take into consideration the claims made by his own political party in the County Borough of Burnley?

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

I rise strongly to oppose the Amendment. The last thing my constituents in the proud city and county town of Lancaster, the urban district of Carnforth and the rural districts of Lancaster and Lunesdale want is to be included in a metropolitan district. They know that they are perfectly capable of conducting their own affairs and beg leave to continue to do so. I ask the Minister not to heed the Amendment, but to allow my constituents the proud independence they have always had.

Mrs. Monks

I oppose the Amendment on behalf of the five local districts in my constituency because, if it were passed, the Lancashire County Council would virtually cease to exist, for the Government's proposals already truncate it and the Amendment would complete its annihilation. Nobody with any affection for Lancashire and regard for the extremely high quality of many of its services could possibly approve of the Amendment.

Central and Northern Lancashire is not a "metropolitan area" in any sense of these words. It contains large rural areas, some of them very attractive indeed, and the Lancaster County Council, by its overall planning power, has done a great deal to preserve and enhance these rural areas and yet supervise the provision of amenities and services second to none. Anybody with a close knowledge of Lancashire would know this.

Similar proposals put forward previously were bitterly opposed by the vast majority of the 40 district councils in Central Lancashire—I believe by 39 out of the 40—which shows loyalty to the county and gratitude for the services it has inaugurated.

This is one of the great county councils, which has been able to pioneer in many aspects of local government—in education, the police, motorways and welfare services—largely because it had high rateable value owing to its size and population.

The adoption of the Amendment would destroy the Secretary of State's concept of the proposed growth of the designated area of the Central Lancashire new town which is based on the closest co-operation between the county council and the new town corporation. The county planning department and the new town consultants have been working together on this project for seven to eight years, long before the new town corporation was formed, and now that the New Town corporation is getting down to business after two years, further delay by changing plans at this stage is absolutely unthinkable.

The whole planning theme has been and still is that a common centre must be avoided at all costs. In the Central Lancashire new town there are to be three separate growth areas based on the existing towns of Preston, Chorley and Leyland. Each will have something of its own individuality to give to the others, and we shall maintain a certain amount of green belt in between.

Perhaps I may link the Amendment with the previous one with regard to the school in Rivington. The area of Rivington and the country around it is just without the new town area, but it is in my constituency. It has been planned by the Lancashire County Council as a country park to be enjoyed by areas to the north as well as to the south. According to the guidelines given to us, a principle of the Bill is that a new district should comprise whole parishes or wards, and the county council could not entertain the transference of the whole of Rivington village and parish just to give greater Manchester another school.

Children will continue to cross boundaries from one area to another, and local authorities will continue to pay for their children going into other areas, so this school in Rivington does not present any great problems. To interfere at this stage with an area on which the county council has spent a considerable amount of money and which it has planned as a country park would be very wrong, indeed.

Mr. David Waddington (Nelson and Colne)

I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments, but it is my duty to express my outright and complete opposition to the proposals embodied and embedded in the Amendment.

I do not accept any of the arguments advanced either by the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) or by my friend—I cannot call him my hon. Friend—the Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones). The right hon. Lady said that the new town must be an issue when we consider whether there should be a metropolitan area in Lancashire. To introduce a discussion on the new town is to drag as large a red herring across the debate as I have ever heard. The new town obviously presents North-East Lancashire with great problems, but it will continue to do so whether or not North-East Lancashire becomes part of a metropolitan area.

The right hon. Lady went on to say that over the years Lancashire—and North-East Lancashire in particular—had pulled itself up by its boot straps. Is the right hon. Lady suggesting that just because her pet scheme of having a unitary authority or a metropolitan area is not carried out the boot strap which has been so useful over the years will suddenly snap? What absolute rubbish.

The hon. Member for Burnley referred to industrial expansion and seemed to suggest that it would come to an end if the proposal for a central Lancashire metropolitan area were not put into effect. The truth of the matter is that over the years North-East Lancashire has created a most important and influential body called the North-East Lancashire Development Committee which has done a great deal of work in the way of attracting new industry to that area. It is a classic example of the way in which small authorities can co-operate and work together. It does not need a monolithic structure such as a metropolitan area comprised of monolithic metropolitan districts to get that sort of co-operation.

Mr. Dan Jones

All that the hon. and learned Gentleman says is true, but he should remember that that has been done with power which the area is not likely to have in the future.

Mr. Waddington

I do not accept that. To accept it is to suggest that the Lancashire County Council, far from encouraging the promotion of industrial expansion, is an impediment to it, and nothing could be further from the truth. A top tier authority will be working with us to get the industrial expansion that we want.

I can understand people involved in local government in, say, Burnley, bitterly resenting the loss of county borough status and thinking that the next best thing is to be the centre of a metropolitan district, but I cannot for the life of me see what the people, as distinct from the politicians, in, for example, Nelson and Colne, would get out of becoming mere appendages of Burnley.

Last summer posters and leaflets suddenly began to appear in Nelson and Colne. They were stuck on the town hall door, and they bore the legend "Keep Local Government Local". A number of my constituents were naive enough to believe that those responsible for the posters and stickers meant what they were saying. They believed that Nelson Council had suddenly seen the light and was supporting the Government's proposals, which are to make local government local, certainly in Nelson and Colne. Imagine their surprise when they discovered that the subtle originators of the posters wanted precisely the opposite. They wanted a Burnley take-over of the surrounding district, and that is something which is not acceptable to other than the tiniest minority of my constituents.

Some have tried to say that that slogan is justified because county hall is further away in terms of miles than Burnley town hall. People who say that ignore the fact that people in Nelson and Colne are used to the two-tier system. They are used to looking to Nelson town hall for certain things, and to the county for other things.

Most of all, the people who try to support that slogan ignore the fact that on the county council the representatives of small authorities such as Nelson and Colne, Lancaster and many others will find themselves alongside representatives of similar sized local authorities with similar problems and will be able to find common cause with those representatives. On a greater Burnley Council the representatives of Nelson and Colne would not matter two hoots. They would be outvoted on every important issue, and that is the principal reason why people like myself could never support this proposal.

I shall vote against the Amendment, and I shall do so in the knowledge that I am doing the right thing by my constitutents. In case there should be any doubt about the situation on the various councils in my constituency, let me tell the House that every local authority in my Division, apart from Nelson, is opposed to this proposal to bring about a central Lancashire metropolitan area. Even Nelson and Colne has not always been in favour of a metropolitan area. It has investigated all sorts of possibilities over the months, if the Press has been right. At the beginning also it was against a metropolitan area and at that time it was asking for a county district of Nelson and Colne, which I am quite sure we shall get and which I am sure would be the right solution.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Oakes (Widnes)

The right hon. Gentleman the Minister will agree that in all the Amendments we have put forward, both in Committee and at Report stage, we on this side of the House have been trying to find the best and most appropriate form of local government for a particular area.

I support entirely what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), that the remaining area of Lancashire clearly ought to be a metropolitan county area.

The right hon. Gentleman sought to draw a very dangerous distinction. He represents a Lancashire constituency, as do I, and he will possibly realise the danger of what he did. He drew a comparison between Lancashire and Yorkshire, and the West Riding of Yorkshire at that. The right hon. Gentleman appears to think Yorkshire much more compact than Lancashire and that, therefore, there is a big difference between the type of county structure we should have.

What about the moors of Skipton and around Keighley? What about "Ikley Moor bah't 'at?"How can one argue to the people in the Lancashire boroughs of Burnley, Preston and Blackpool that they are less compact boroughs than some of the Yorkshire areas in the West Riding which have become metropolitan counties? How can one explain to citizens of Blackburn or of Burnley why their authority should cease to be a metropolitan district when a few miles away Bolton remains a metropolitan district? How does one explain the same thing to the people of Preston when Wigan remains a metropolitan district? How does one explain to the people of Blackpool, that great seaside resort well known to both sides of the House from our conferences, that Southport, her rival holiday resort south of the Rubble, should be a metropolitan district but that Blackpool should not?

There seems no rhyme or reason in keeping Lancashire as a non-metropolitan county. The right hon. Gentleman said that there would be between 240 and 300 councillors if we had metropolitan status in Lancashire, whereas 50 or 60 could do the job. I do not submit to the idea that more means better, or that less means better. This compact urban area has many problems of urban redevelopment. Some of the towns have a higher proportion of old people than many other towns in Britain. In this area it is essential to have more councillors who are easily and readily accessible to the electorate and who are easily to be found.

The difficulty of this proposal is that it centralises most of the main functions of local government away from their traditional centres in Burnley, Blackburn, Preston and Blackpool. It removes them all to the county hall at Preston. The hon. Lady the Member for Chorley (Mrs. Monks), who is no longer present in the Chamber, put her finger on the matter, perhaps inadvertently, when she said that if the Amendments were accepted Lancashire County Council as we know it would cease to exist. That is the reason why Lancashire has been left a non-metropolitan county whereas the other parts, such as Merseyside, Manchester and West Yorkshire, become metropolitan counties.

I am not detracting from Lancashire County Council. Indeed, I dare not do that because my wife is a Lancashire county councillor. But the problems of Lancashire County Council should not be increased at the expense of such great community boroughs as those which have been mentioned today.

One of the factors which, perhaps, the Government do not realise is contained in the word used repeatedly by my right hon. Friend, the word "pride"—not arrogance but pride. It is proper, decent, Lancashire civic pride, pride in one's town and urban area, and in the things one's town has accomplished. Nation wide we hear of the Burnley Building Society and the Blackburn Building Society, and the savings banks of the North. These are names well known throughout the country. They arise from civic pride, which is felt just as much by the right hon. Gentle-

man's supporters in those towns as it is felt by those of my hon. Friends.

It is a matter of regret that we have not heard today from two of those great towns which are represented by hon. Members. We have not heard from Blackpool about what the Conservative-controlled council at Blackpool thinks of the proposal to demote it to a district council. We have not heard from Preston—proud Preston—in this year of all years, the year of the Preston Guild, when it will find itself demoted, from its ancient splendour as a civic centre, to a district council.

We on this side cannot be satisfied with the replies given by the right hon. Gentleman on the question whether Lancashire county be a metropolitan county. We believe that it should be a metropolitan county and that some of these great districts in Lancashire should be metropolitan districts with the powers of metropolitan districts—library powers, planning powers, and, most important of all, education powers—because of the way in which they have led the rest of the country in these matters. We believe that these towns do not want to be demoted to the status of little more than parish councils. I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 105, Noes 128.

Division No. 271.]	AYES	[8.40 p.m.
Albu, Austen	Dunn, James A.	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Allen, Scholefield	Edelman, Maurice	McGuire, Michael
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)	English, Michael	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Ashton, Joe	Evans, Fred	McNamara, J. Kevin
Atkinson, Norman	Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Marsden, F.
Bidwell, Sydney	Foot, Michael	Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Forrester, John	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Gilbert, Dr. John	Mendelson, John
Booth, Albert	Hardy, Peter	Mikardo, Ian
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)	Harper, Joseph	Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)	Heffer, Eric S.	Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Horam, John	Oakes, Gordon
Cohen, Stanley	Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Ogden, Eric
Concannon, J. D.	Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)	O'Halloran, Michael
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Jeger, Mrs. Lena	O'Malley, Brian
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Crawshaw, Richard	Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Pardoe, John
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richrad	Judd, Frank	Parker, John (Dagenham)
Dalyell, Tam	Kaufman, Gerald	Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Lamond, James	Pavitt, Laurie
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)	Latham, Arthur	Pentland, Norman
Deakins, Eric	Lawson, George	Prescott, John
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund	Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Dormand, J. D.	Leonard, Dick	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)	Tinn, James	Whitlock, William
Roper, John	Torney, Tom	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)	Tuck, Raphael	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)	Urwin, T. W.	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Silverman, Julius	Vickers, Dame Joan	Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Skinner, Dennis	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Spearing, Nigel	Wallace, George	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Spriggs, Leslie	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)	Mr. Ernest Armstrong and
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley	Whitehead, Phillip	Mr. Ernest G. Perry.
Taverne, Dick
NOES
Adley, Robert	Grylls, Michael	Percival, Ian
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Gummer, J. Selwyn	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Astor, John	Gurden, Harold	Price, David (Eastleigh)
Atkins, Humphrey	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Haselhurst, Alan	Quennell, Miss J. M.
Bell, Ronald	Hawkins, Paul	Raison, Timothy
Benyon, W.	Holland, Philip	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Holt, Miss Mary	Redmond, Robert
Biffen, John	Hordern, Peter	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)	Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Bossom, Sir Clive	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Bowden, Andrew	Hunt, John	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Bray, Ronald	Iremonger, T. L.	Russell, Sir Ronald
Bryan, Sir Paul	Jopling, Michael	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Buck, Antony	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Shelton, William (Clapham)
Bullus, Sir Eric	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine	Sinclair, Sir George
Burden, F. A.	Kimball, Marcus	Speed, Keith
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Spence, John
Chapman, Sydney	King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Stanbrook, Ivor
Churchill, W. S.	Lane, David	Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Cockeram, Eric	Le Marchant, Spencer	Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Cooke, Robert	Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Cordle, John	Loveridge, John	Tebbit, Norman
Cormack, Patrick	Luce, R. N.	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Costain, A. P.	McCrindle, R. A.	Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Crouch, David	Madel, David	Trew, Peter
Crowder, F. P.	Mather, Carol	Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Dean, Paul	Mawby, Ray	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Drayson, G. B.	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Waddington, David
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Miscampbell, Norman	Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Farr, John	Moate, Roger	Warren, Kenneth
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy	Monks, Mrs. Connie	Weatherill, Bernard
Fidler, Michael	Montgomery, Fergus	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)	More, Jasper	Wilkinson, John
Fookes, Miss Janet	Murton, Oscar	Winterton, Nicholas
Fowler, Norman	Normanton, Tom	Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Goodhart, Philip	Onslow, Cranley
Goodhew, Victor	Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gray, Hamish	Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)	Mr. Tim Fortescue and
Green, Alan	Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)	Mr. Marcus Fox.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Parkinson, Cecil

Question accordingly negatived.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Simon Mahon (Bootle)

I beg to move Amendment No. 385, in page 193, leave out line 43 and insert: The county borough of Southport.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)

With this Amendment we shall discuss the following Amendments: No. 386, in page 194, leave out line 4 and insert:

The county boroughs of Liverpool and Bootle.

No. 15, in page 194, leave out lines 5 and 6.

No. 966, page 194, leave out lines 7 to 20 and insert:

'District (c) The county borough of St. Helens— In the administrative county of Lancaster— the urban districts of Haydock, Newton-le-Willows and Rainford; the urban district of Billinge-and-Winstanley except the areas in Greater Manchester. In the urban district of Ashton in Makerfield, the South Ward. In the rural district of Whiston, the parishes of Windle, Eccleston, Rainhill and Bold, except the area in Cheshire.

District (cc) In the administrative County of Lancaster— the urban districts of Huyton-with-Roby, Kirkby and Prescot; the rural district of Whiston except the areas in district (c) and Cheshire. In the rural district of West Lancashire, the parish of Simonswood'.

No. 472, in page 194, line 11, leave out 'Newton-le-Willows'.

No. 16, in page 194, line 18, leave out 'district (b) and'.

No. 17, in page 194, leave out line 24 and insert: 'the boroughs of Bebington and Ellesmere Port'.

No. 473, in page 199, line 29, at end insert 'Newton-le-Willows'.

No. 383, page 201, line 16, column 2, leave out 'and Preston' and insert 'Preston and Southport'.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there likely to be a separate vote on Amendment No. 15?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I think that in broad principle Mr. Speaker felt that hon. Members should have what votes they wanted. In the outcome of events, the hon. Gentleman may feel that he does not want a Division. I do not know.

Mr. Heffer

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a feeling among some Merseyside Members, certainly among the Liverpool Members, that we would wish to vote against Amendment No. 15.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I ask the hon. Gentleman not to commit me completely at the moment. I will bear in mind what he has said.

Mr. McGuire

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was under the impression that exactly the opposite had been pronounced—that, since there are so many Amendments, individual Amendments in a group could not be put because it would be so time-consuming. I certainly do not want to deprive anyone of the opportunity to vote on an individual Amendment—I think that it would be a good thing in many cases—but I was told, when I raised this question with the Chair earlier in relation to a modest Amendment of my own, "You can vote only on the main Amendment in the group. "There does, therefore, seem to be a contradiction. If it is the case that a vote can take place on Amendment No. 15, that will be welcome news to many hon. Members concerned.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

There may be some slight misapprehension in my mind about this which I would like a little time to clear up. If I may, I will announce something to the House shortly.

Mr. James A. Dunn (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I appreciate that you need some time to take advice on the guidance given by Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless, I would point out to you that there are hon. Members on this side of the House, if not opposite, who would wish to take issue on Amendment No. 15 even if the Government were to accept it. We reserve our right to show our disagreement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I understand what the hon. Gentleman means.

Mr. Mahon

This is a speech which I would rather not have made. It would have been unnecessary if the Government had been consistent about No. 11(a) District. Equally, I am aware of the time factor and that so many of my hon. Friends from Merseyside want to speak. I shall therefore be as brief as possible, but this is a very important Amendment for the people of Merseyside and my constituency in particular.

The constituencies of the Minister for Local Government and Development and mine are contiguous. When I welcomed the White Paper I was happy that the great new port of Crosby was being associated with the great ports of Bootle and Liverpool, in some ways. I find the Government's change of mind somewhat disconcerting, therefore. It is not usual for us to quote our own speeches in the House, but I feel it to be necessary in this case. In the debate on the White Paper, I said: I think the Secretary of State is right in his adjudication on Merseyside. It would have been a great mistake to put the County Borough of Bootle and the County Borough of Liverpool in the same setup. We are rather pleased that he has given us the opportunity of land and advantages coming from the association"—[Official Report, 19th May, 1971; Vol. 817, c. 1337.] Then I took care to mention every district because I thought there would be a change and I mentioned Crosby, Thornby, Litherland, Antree, Altcar, Aughton, Downholland, Ince Blundell, Lydiate, Maghull, Melling, Netherton, Sefton, and Thornton. I finished by saying that if there were an election in the area tomorrow the Labour Party would not be in control. I repeat what I pointed out then, that anyone who plans the future of local government on the basis of partisanship is doing the country an injustice.

My attitude to the White Paper stands and my attitude to the partisanship, which I believe is now being shown, stands also. We are being wooed from both sides. There was a time when Liverpool wanted us. Liverpool has been constant in its wooing. But it is only lately that Southport has loved us in any way. Southport is like the Miller's Daughter we sang about at school. In those days Bootle people considered Southport to be a haughty lass who was certainly longing to be of a higher class. In all the problems we had in Bootle and Merseyside Southport eschewed us and gave us no help nor cognisance nor comfort.

When I came out of the Army and returned to my native town where I still live the medical officer of health, Dr. Wood, told me we had the highest maternal mortality rate in the country, the highest incidence of tuberculosis, the highest birth rate and the lowest death rate. Those were the problems that Bootle had to solve within the confines of the Bootle county borough. We were therefore willing to take assistance from anyone who would give it but it was not forthcoming at the time.

The situation in Bootle has changed. It has become a prosperous town—though not as prosperous as we would like—and the whole social and economic face of the town has changed as a result of the hard work we have done there. I hope that we can all claim to be patriotic about our localities and about our country. I was born in the middle of Bootle and have spent the whole of my political life in the town. It has a good authority which is kind, humane and forward-looking. That is quite proper because the motto of the town is Respice, Aspice, Prospice—look to the past, consider the present, plan for the future.

In all these circumstances I ask the Minister to reconsider what he is doing to us. We are perfectly happy to go on as we are. It is only because the Government have amended their original plans that it is necessary for me to change my attitude and my speech from that which welcomed their previous wishes. If the right hon. Gentleman will nod now and say the old District 11(a), which contained Bootle, Crosby and the other districts but not Southport, still stands, I will stop my speech. But he obviously will not agree to that and I am not expecting him to.

The council at Bootle is not now unanimous on the matter. A change of heart by the Government has caused anxiety, and I am seeking to ventilate the feelings of my people. The majority party is in Bootle is upset over the matter as the minority. The council passed a resolution accepting the original basis of the White Paper. Since then there have been elections, and the chief whip of the majority party has written to me saying Strong feelings were also expressed at the inclusion of Southport in the proposed Metropolitan Merseyside Council. It was agreed to dissociate ourselves from Southport and if possible identify ourselves with Liverpool in preference to Southport. Anybody who knows the history of Merseyside will understand what a revolutionary suggestion that is. The historical opposition to Liverpool was not because we did not understand Liverpool and not because we did not have an affinity with Liverpool. It was because we knew the immensity of the problems of Merseyside. We in Bootle felt that we could get on with our share of them better as a separate authority and that Liverpool could get on better with hers as she was. Bootle has done remarkably well—better than the city of Liverpool in many ways. I believe that our opposition was right then, and that my opposition to the inclusion of Southport now is right. We were proved right then, and we shall be proved right again.

I do not know what the political complexion of the places in question will be in 25 years' time. It would be a very good man who could say whether the Labour Party or Tory Party will be in existence then, or what the position will be in local government. I am not introducing the political aspect. If anyone thinks I am being political, I deny it straight away. I should like the same assurance from the Government that the new 11(a) District has no semblance of political thought behind it.

I remember hearing the late Aneurin Bevan asking the House "Why look into the crystal ball when we can read it in the book?" We know what Southport's attitude has been in the past. They are nice people there. They have nice manners, and live in a very nice way. No doubt they are very fine people. I am talking about the different character of thearea. We have our own problems. I believe that the old 11(a) gave an ideal opportunity to solve the problems, and that the Government are now doing us a particularly bad injustice.

I know that Southport people are not too happy about the new plan either. Many of them do not want to come in with Bootle. Southport would do better to go into other areas which are similar in character. It will not be too long before the Ribble Estuary is crossed. That will open up all sorts of new avenues. I am sure that is in the Secretary of State's mind even today. What a change would take place if the Ribble Estuary were opened! Would not that make Southport, Blackpool, Preston and the other places there have more in common with each other than with the Merseyside area?

An undesirable degree of stress is already showing in the meetings between Southport, Bootle and other authorities, not only between elected personnel but between non-elected personnel. I am not saying that such problems are insurmountable.

What I want for my people, and what I, as a long-standing Member of Parliament and long-standing local government man, am entitled to ask for on their behalf, is the best form of local government that I can help to give them. The opportunity is not being given.

I shall not quote all the figures which could prove that Southport's argument is fallacious. Southport residents working in Southport number 26,740—these are 1966 figures—or 78 per cent. of the working population. Only 2,790 work in Liverpool, 8 per cent.; on Merseyside and District (a) 2,290, 7 per cent., and in other districts 2,038. That explodes the idea being promulgated that Southport is a great commuter place for Liver- pool. Southport has more in common with Preston and Manchester than Liverpool.

I do not wish to push the Amendment concerning Liverpool. We are happy to stay in our own backyard. We do not wish to join Southport. We are not breaking our necks to go in with Liverpool. A decision has been forced upon us because of the attitude of the Government.

I do not believe there is a diabolical plot concerning Bootle. I am asking for the best thing. We must make up our minds. It is not an easy choice to make. There is a change taking place. The right hon. Gentleman is the Member for the best part of the finest port in the world; the new Seaforth complex is one of the finest things from the point of view of maritime interest I have ever laid my eyes on. The right hon. Gentleman has the honour to represent that area. In my constituency we have the great Gladstone Docks. The right hon. Gentleman and I have a lot in common. The right hon. Gentleman understands my plea. In Liverpool the South End Docks are closing. They comprise an area 3½ miles in length. The whole of the maritime and commercial aspects of Merseyside are changing.

I should like that problem to be looked at again. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has made up his mind. He knows the sincerity with which I am pleading for my own people. We recommend that Crosby and Bootle should not be separated. There is a natural character which has grown between us.

The right hon. Gentleman is foisting upon us something which is out of character with the Merseyside, which he and I know so well. Only the best is good enough. If he cannot leave us alone—and there may still be some chance of the Bill not going through—then he should put us back to what was originally planned in the original 11A District. Southport should be left out for its own sake, its future and prosperity. If not, the advantages or disadvantages of Liverpool joining Bootle should be considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I should apologise to the House in general and to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) in particular for misleading him. I have since ascertained what are Mr. Speakers intentions. A Division should be allowed upon the first Amendment of each group and also upon any Amendment which it subsequently turns out the Government can accept.

Mr. Oakes

I am very glad to hear the ruling that Mr. Speaker has given on this matter.

There are three separate Amendments with which I shall deal. Two of them could be linked: the removal of the parish of Heywood, which is at present in the Urban District of Whiston, from the proposals of the Government to put it in District (b), that is the present City of Liverpool; and the division of District 11(c) into two separate districts. They are Amendments Nos. 15 and 966, which form one Amendment.

The other quite separate Amendment is Amendment No. 17 which asks for the inclusion of the Borough of Ellesmere Port in the Merseyside County, instead of, as at present, in the county of Cheshire. The central feature of the Amendment is to provide a better unit of local government, as far as it is practicable for this House to do so, and at the same time, whenever possible, to take into account the clearly expressed and declared wishes of the inhabitants of any area as to the area to which they wish to belong. I begin with Amendment No. 17, leading with Ellesmere Port, and ask the Government to put it back into the Merseyside area.

I say "put it back" because this borough of Ellesmere Port was originally, not only under the Maud proposals but under the Government's White Paper proposals, included in the Merseyside area. Subsequently the Bill came along and excluded Ellesmere Port and put it in the county of Cheshire. No one in the House or the Committee has given an adequate reason why the Government changed their mind between the White Paper and the publication of the Bill and moved Ellesmere Part into Cheshire.

Ellesmere Port is a growing and thriving town which rests on the banks of the Mersey and the Manchester Ship Canal. Yet it has been decided that this should not be part of the county of Merseyside. That is surely a strange contention, par- ticularly when one looks at the industries in Ellesmere Port. It is a town of great oil refineries, at Stanlow, of expanding oil refineries; it is a town which has the Standard Triumph car factory. It is a town which has links with Merseyside in that many people have gone from there to Ellesmere Port to work and to make their homes there. Houses have been built to take the overspill from the Liverpool area. I have some personal knowledge of the area because until 1959 I was the parliamentary candidate for Bebington, which is next door to Ellesmere Port. I can assure the Minister and the House that the links with Ellesmere Port are very definitely along the south bank of the River Mersey.

Ellesmere Port is linked directly with Bebington and Birkenhead and Wallasey. It is in no way linked with Chester and the rural county of Cheshire, yet it is being put, for no good reason that has been adequately explained, into the Cheshire County Council. Clearly in the interests of good, viable local government, Ellesmere Port ought to be restored to the area where the White Paper and the Maud proposals put it, that is, the Merseyside metropolitan district, and not the county of Cheshire, where the Government have so strangely putit, between the White Paper and the printing of the Bill.

I come to what is possibly a much more contentious matter, although a matter on which I am led to believe by Press reports we might have some agreement because I understand from those reports that the Minister said, to use his phrase, that he was "minded to accept the Amendments". This matter concerns District 11(c) and not District 11 (b). It is proposed to divide District 11(c) for a number of reasons, the first of which is size. In accepting a previous Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler), the right hon. Gentleman said that the criterion of 250,000 is not sacrosanct. Indeed, in paragraph 12 of the White Paper the Government made it clear that if there were special reasons in an area they would depart from their figure of 250,000. On this division of 11(c) into two separate districts, I am suggesting to the House and to the Government that there are very abundant special reasons.

First of all, on the question of population alone, this division in the way Amendment No. 966 sets out, would give each authority just under 200,000. But so far as 11(cc) is concerned, that is the district based on Huyton, I think I can say without fear of any challenge at all that this is an area which is growing in population. Both on natural grounds, by the number of children per family, and by importing population into the area, it is one of the fastest-growing, if not the fastest-growing, district in the whole of Great Britain. The figure of just under 200,000 for that area is one that even during the long and sometimes tedious course of this Bill might be surpassed. The population is explosive in that area. There is a very high rate of population in 11(c), the area we suggest should be based on St. Helens in Amendment No. 966.

Therefore, I do not think that the Government have a great deal to worry about on the question of population, because these districts would be smaller than some of the other Merseyside districts and considerably smaller than District (b), the City of Liverpool, but they would be bigger than many metropolitan districts in the rest of the country.

There is another very good reason and I think that the right hon. Gentleman, who represents a Lancashire seat, is very well aware of this—why the forced union of all these urban districts in this part of Merseyside should be set asunder and two separate districts set up. It is the total difference in the character of the areas. St. Helens, Haydock, Billinge-and-Winstanley, that type of area which it is proposed in this Amendment should be in 11(c), are all Lancashire towns, based on heavy industry, glass making, formerly on coal mining. The people there speak with a clear and distinct Lancashire accent. The people there, for example, watch Rugby League, not Liverpool or Everton. The people in those areas eat tripe and onions, not scouse. They talk differently, work at different occupations. The problem—and this is far more important—is totally different; it is a problem of urban renewal.

That type of problem is totally different from the problems of Huyton, Kirkby, Halewood and Whiston, which are new, expanding towns—an overspill area where the people are basically from Merseyside, many exported from Liverpool to Huyton and Kirkby and all those areas, where they have basically light industry and support Liverpool or Everton with equal vociferousness, while poor little Huyton can hardly get a team going at all. Sport is important in the constitution of an area, just as important as the problems of youth facilities, schools, social services, and things of that kind.

This Amendment seeks to make two good, viable authorities, one based on St. Helens and one based on Huyton, each of which can make a great contribution to the Merseyside area, but a different kind of contribution.

Mr. McGuire

I agree with most of what my hon. Friend says about the attitude of the people. So that I can get it clear, is it his intention, as I hope it is, to include in the new districts to be in the St. Helens 11(c) area the Eccleston Park district in which I live, because I can tell him that he is on a winner as regards the attitude to sport in that area, which properly belongs to St. Helens?

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Oakes

I am glad that one of my hon. Friends thinks that I am on a winner. Yes, it is the intention that Eccleston Park, the parishes of Eccleston, Rainhill and Windle, should be part of the St. Helens district and not part of the Huyton district. If one goes along Warrington Road in the parish of Rainhill, that is the dividing line; one half is in St. Helens and the other half consists of people who have come out from Liverpool. The parish of Rainhill is the dividing line, and it was decided that that parish should go into St. Helens.

I come to the most controversial aspect, which concerns the parish of Halewood. The Government propose in the White Paper and the Bill to put the parish of Halewood into District (b), that is the existing city of Liverpool. It is the only parish to go into Liverpool, and the people of Halewood, which is wholly in the Widnes constituency, resent very much being put into Liverpool. They prefer to remain with Whiston Rural District Council, in the 11(c) area, where they have been successfully integrated into the community.

Halewood was a village of 3,700 people in 1961. The latest 1971 figure is 26,850 people, most of whom came from Liverpool. Those people do not want to go back, they have become part of the parish of Halewood, they have become integrated into a parish-type community and they are proud of their own local area of Halewood. As testimony to that, a petition signed by nearly 50 per cent. of the voters of Halewood has been sent to me and transmitted to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Heffer

There must be 51 per cent. who think the other way.

Mr. Oakes

As my hon. Friend knows, it is extremely difficult to get as many as 50 per cent. of the people in a parish to sign a petition. He may say that 51 per cent. have not signed, but I assure him that I have not received a single representation, either written or verbal, from the parish of Halewood to the effect that it should be included in District 11(b). If my hon. Friends are worried, I know what worries them. It is not that the parish of Halewood would go into District 11(c); what worries them is that the Ford factory would go with it into District 11(c).

District 11(b) is by far the biggest; it is the giant among the Merseyside districts. On 1971 figures the population was 633,000. Its rateable value was £28,797 and the rateable value per head was £45.49. District (c) has all the problems—overspill, housing needs and the provision or youth facilities and social services. With Halewood, its rateable value would be £37.18 per head. Without Halewood it would be £36.11 per head. If Liverpool loses the Ford factory and its £800,000 rateable value to District (b), the rateable value per head goes down a fraction of a penny. Liverpool is a very rich authority compared with the very poor authority next door in terms of rateable value per head. The poorer authority has problems far grater than those of the much wealthier District (b). District (b) is big enough and rich enough, but District (c) has needs. For all these good local government reasons, I ask that Halewood be included in District (c).

Most important of all are the wishes of the people of Halewood, the parish council and all political parties. I have had a letter from a Conservative councillor who was on the parish council before the overspill came. I have had letters from all the churches and from the Community Council which is doing such excellent work in Halewood. I have a petition signed by nearly half the inhabitants of that parish, and I have had a letter from the Ford Motor Company signed by Sir Leonard Crossland.

Mr. Heffer

Will my hon. Friend make it clear that, although he is speaking from the Opposition Front Bench at the moment, he is on this Amendment not speaking for the Labour Party and that he is now arguing his own case? I hope he will make that clear so that the House knows the exact position.

Mr. Oakes

The Order Paper makes the situation clear because Amendment No. 966 in regard to splitting District 11(c) in two and Amendment No. 15 relating to Halewood is in my name, and in my name alone. If any hon. Member is in doubt, let me make it clear that both Amendment No. 966 and No. 15 are my Amendments; they are not official Opposition Amendments. Amendment No. 17 is an official Opposition Amendment.

I was about to quote from a letter from Sir Leonard Crossland, Chairman of the Ford Motor Company. Ford is the biggest ratepayer in the parish of Halewood. The Secretary of State was sent a copy of this letter, which in the concluding sentences says: I do not know to what extent representations have been made to you, but I thought you might like to have this note setting out our view about the Amendment which Mr. Oakes proposes to make in the House on April 20"— that is when he thought the Amendment would come on, as indeed did we— and I hope you will be able to listen sympathetically to the case he puts forward. That was the view of the biggest ratepayer in the area, and is the view of all the inhabitants in the area.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, I am speaking here as a constituency Member. The foremost duty of a constituency Member is to represent the views of his contituents, especially when he believes those views to be absolutely right and he agrees with them.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs (St. Helens)

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool. Walton (Mr. Heffer) has just put my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) on the spot by saying that Amendment No. 966 is an unofficial Amendment. May I assure my hon. Friend that when he tabled that Amendment, I transmitted it to the St. Helens local authority and to others and asked for objections. I have not received one. Therefore, I was able to give my local authority and my constituents an assurance that I would give Amendment No. 966 my full support.

Mr. Oakes

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I have no doubt that if he has an opportunity to speak on this Amendment, he will wish to expand at much greater length upon it.

I conclude by saying that it is the duty of a Member of Parliament to represent the views of his constituents, particularly when he firmly believes that they are right. I believe that the people of Halewood are right in their desire to go into District 11(c), and that from a local authority point of view it is just and proper for the Government and this House to accede to their wishes and to make it a proper and more viable unit of local government.

Mr. John Tilney (Liverpool, Wavertree)

I am pleased that I have been chosen to take part in this discussion following speeches by the hon. Members for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) and Widnes (Mr. Oakes). The hon. Member for Bootle referred to the immense problems on Liverpool and Merseyside and suggested that Bootle had done better. But my own feeling is that these are problems for the whole of the economic community on both sides of the Mersey River and estuary and that we shall tackle the matter better in partnership under the new county than we have ever done before.

The hon. Gentleman said that he thought Southport's attitude in the past had been reprehensible. He might have said the same about those who live in Wirral. I believe in people being mixed together, and that we shall do very much better in the new County of Merseyside when the people are all part of one country.

Mr. Simon Mahon

I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman but was there any exodus from Southport or Wirral to Marsh Lane, Bootle, or to Scotland Road?

Mr. Tilney

Once we improve Bootle and Liverpool I believe that many people who now commute will choose to come lo live in Bootle and Liverpool since their journeys to work will be very much easier.

I turn now to the remarks of the hon. Member for Widnes and to the Amendment relating to Ellesmere Port. I look from my home across the Mersey to Ellesmere Port. That does not mean that I think that it should be part of Merseyside. It is very much part of Cheshire. It has been part of your constituency, Mr. Speaker, for a long time. One might as well suggest that Frodsham and Helsby, which I also see, should become part of Merseyside. In my view, it is better lo leave Ellesmere Port out of the Merseyside conurbation.

I find it more difficult to argue about the splitting up of District 11(c). I accept the views of the hon. Member for Widnes that those on the western side of District (c) think very differently from those on the eastern side and regard themselves as part of the expansion of Liverpool and of Merseyside.

As regards Halewood, again there is the fear that Liverpool will dominate because of its size, although I believe that it will always be primus inter paresof the new Merseyside county.

The argument has shown that, be it in the Army or in local government, mankind is fiercely tribal and likes to keep to his own history and friends. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will consider whether the new split district which has been suggested will be viable and produce the soundly-based housing, education and social services which every district should be able to support.

If my right hon. Friend accepts the Amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Widnes, there will be not four but five districts. They will range in population from nearly 700,000 to just over 200,000 in District (a). If District (c) is split, both will be below the 200,000 mark. It is up to my right hon. Friend to decide whether that is big enough. But any proposal must be soundly based and we must not jeopardise the adequate provision of local government services.

As regards Halewood, the House will be aware that before the Ford factory came the population was very small. It was in the context of the unemployment problem of Liverpool that Ford came, under a Socialist administration in Liverpool but under a Conservative Government nationally. It has helped the employment situation on Merseyside enormously. But in order to obtain the Ford factory Liverpool had to spend a great deal of money to provide all the necessary infrastructure in Halewood. The ratepayers were asked to do this and were delighted to do so.

I have heard it argued on Merseyside that Halewood should become part of Liverpool because of our housing there. However, it is a slightly bogus argument. There are only just over 4,000 houses in Halewood. There are 4,000 in Knowsley. No fewer than 7,000 are owned by the City of Liverpool in Huyton and as many at 11,500 in Kirby. It has been decided that these should be outside District (b) of the Merseyside County.

It is right that I should report to my right hon. Friend that I have had a letter from the Secretary of the Halewood North Conservative Branch which says: I can tell you for a fact that if we go into Huyton many parents with children approaching secondary age will move into Liverpool City boundary to take advantage of the fine secondary schools. I am not sure whether they are aware of the problems we have recently had over our city education.

The writer continues: We are also disquieted by the loss of Liverpool City Police and the Parks Constabulary, (there is no park attendant in Halewood), both bodies sorely needed to fight vandalism here. I believe that the important concept is Merseyside. When people living in the City of London are asked where they live, they do not reply that they live in Kennington, Kensington, Pimlico or Paddington; they say that they live in London. I hope the time will come when instead of people saying that they live in Wallasey, Bootle, Birkenhead or even Liverpool, they will say that they live in Merseyside.

It is to Merseyside that every help should be directed. What the escutcheon for the new Merseyside County will be we do not know. There ought to be a blue heraldic fosse, I suppose, rather than a fesse, though I think it will be a long time before the Mersey is as blue as that is likely to be. As an analogy, it should be attached at only one end by the tunnel—our river is like a number-plate half falling off a car—until we get the proper communication between north and south of the Mersey.

We have to make this Merseyside County a real success. I have urged the Department of the Environment—I am not blaming my right hon. Friend for this—to look into the matter of communications. Only yesterday I received this letter: On theM53, while it may not give the inhabitants of Wavertree and Garston easy and immediate access to Wales, I would maintain that it has opened a significantly improved line of communication to Wales for the inhabitants of the Merseyside area as a whole! As my right hon. Friend knows, the M53 has one-line traffic, because of the box girder bridges, and for only part of the way. In any case, it goes in the wrong direction. It reminds me of when we were bombed during the war by our allies and they were 90 degrees out for line. The M53 goes from the north-west to the south-east when we really want to go from the north-east to the south-west.

The letter continues: Not only was the Mid-Wirral motorway opened in February this year, but also the 20-mile stretch of M62 connecting Tarbock and Worsley is at present under construction. That has little to do with the linking of Merseyside. …the public at large I think have certainly been impressed that over the last six months or so it has become possible to drive from London to South Wales and from London to Carlisle"— what has that to do with the Mersey?— (or, in Merseyside terms, that it is possible to drive from Haydock to Carlisle, London, Bristol and Cardiff)". One has only to try to get out from the centre of Liverpool to Haydock to know what an immense time it takes. This is one of the silliest letters I have received in 22 years from any Government Department. This does not mean that we do not want to make Merseyside a great success. I hopethat that will be the paramount consideration of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Edmund Dell (Birkenhead)

I rise to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) said about Amendment No. 17 which he told the House was an official Amendment. I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for speaking about part of your constituency without your having the opportunity to reply, but this matter is important to Merseyside, and it is a wrong decision of the Government to exclude Ellesmere Port from the Merseyside conurbation.

It is admittedly a difficult problem when, in making this proposal, one is overriding the views of Ellesmere Port itself and, as far as I can see, of most people there who have expressed an opinion on it. Nevertheless, one of the facts about local government reform is that sometimes one has to override local views. In my view it is necessary to do that in this case in the interests of Merseyside as a whole and, indeed, in the interests of Ellesmere Port itself.

I should like to make clear the view of Birkenhead on this matter, because some doubt might have arisen as a result of Ellesmere Port's glossy publication on this issue. It suggests on page 19 that Birkenhead has changed its mind about whether Ellesmere Port should be within the Merseyside conurbation. It refers to certain comments made by Birkenhead in August, 1970, on the previous Government's White Paper on the reform of local government. In those comments Birkenhead accepted the argument for a link between Ellesmere Port and Chester, but at that time the whole concept of the Merseyside conurbation was of a very much larger metropolitan area, and within that much larger area it would have been possible to meet the two requirements, first, that Ellesmere Port should be part of Merseyside and, secondly, that it should maintain its traditional links with Chester.

The problem with which we are here dealing arises because of the restricted metropolitan area which the Government have created in the Bill. Given the choice that is thereby forced upon us, I am sure it is more important that Ellesmere Port should be part of the Merseyside conurbation than that it should maintain its traditional local government connection with Chester. That is the view of Birkenhead. Indeed, that was the Government's original view on the matter.

Ellesmere Port advances various arguments against what I am suggesting. It says that whereas Wirral looks to Birkenhead as its centre—and indeed it does—Ellesmere Port looks to Chester. It says that it is nearer to Chester, but that is hardly a decisive argument. If local government boundaries were decided on that basis it would be impossible to draw them anywhere. If one is to draw boundaries one has occasionally to divide boroughs from areas which are proximate to them.

Ellesmere Port also says that it has always been in Cheshire, and therefore all its existing political links are with that county. It says, further, that it is a small self-contained town, and that the great majority of its population works in that town. Those are the arguments which Ellesmere Port understandably presents in support of its view that it should be outside the Merseyside metropolitan county. I merely say that all those arguments are derived from the past and that they ignore the increasing future pull of Merseyside on Ellesmere Port.

Let us consider what current and future developments in Merseyside imply. We have just had an amusing speech from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) about the M53, which he says goes in the wrong direction. I am sure that that is a point he will take up with his right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), who directed it in the wrong direction. Nevertheless, it performs a function in linking the different parts of Wirral, and linking Ellesmere Port with Wirral, and linking Wirral with Liverpool.

Mr. Tilney

I agree entirely, but it does not link the south end of Liverpool with Wirral, which is the suggestion of the Department.

Mr. Dell

I agree entirely that it does not do that. If the idea the hon. Gentleman has in mind is that the south of Wirral should be linked with the south of Liverpool, when that takes place, as in due course I am sure it must take place, this will increase the pull of Merseyside and Liverpool on Ellesmere Port. That is a probable future development and it strengthens the argument for my case.

Railway developments will have exactly the same effect. The passenger transport authority is already examining links between Ellesmere Port and Merseyside. In other words, in terms of communications, all the arguments on future developments that will take place indicate this greater and greater pull of Merseyside on Ellesmere Port.

Industrial development in the area is having exactly the same effect. Ellesmere Port, with all the industrial facilities to which my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes referred, is providing employment for North Wirral, and across the river for people from Liverpool.

We come here to the question of the development area boundaries. This point is important to the future of Ellesmere Port. I wonder whether the Minister is prepared to say that the exclusion of Ellesmere Port from Merseyside will not affect its development area status in any way. We have already seen the way that, relatively, Merseyside has been downgraded by the creation of special development areas in other areas of the country. I should have thought it not inconceivable that the boundaries would be redrawn. We know that in the old days development area boundaries have had no relationship to local government areas, but will that remain true under the new conditions when we have these larger local authorities with wider areas which might conveniently provide the boundaries of development areas in future?

It seems that Ellesmere Port itself should want some assurance from the Minister in that respect before it strives so strongly to be excluded from Merseyside. But my general point is that industrial development in Merseyside is having exactly the same effect in linking Ellesmere Port to Merseyside and to Liverpool as are the developments of communications.

When we reform local government there is always a very great danger that the boundaries are out of date before the new authorities are set up. I am very much afraid that in the Government's idea of separating Ellesmere Port from the new Merseyside metropolitan area, they are falling into that error and creating an authority which, in terms of its boundaries, is out of date before we begin.

It is for those reasons that I so strongly support my hon. Friend's proposition that Ellesmere Port should be brought back within the Merseyside conurbation.

Mr. Eric Cockeram (Bebington)

I wish to oppose Amendment No. 17, which is the proposal to which the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) addressed himself; namely, that Ellesmere Port should be included in the Merseyside conurbation.

Despite the claims made by the right hon. Gentleman, those in Ellesmere Port have no doubt whatever in their minds that they are part of Cheshire. A new hospital, for example, is just being built to serve both Chester and Ellesmere Port. Income tax matters are handled from Chester. On matters of employment, police and courts, and social matters, the inhabitants of Ellesmere Port look towards Chester. It is possible to move a number of administrative offices, but it is not possible to alter people's habits.

In that respect, the House should be aware of a shopping survey recently undertaken by the Birkenhead Council. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested an affinity between Birkenhead and Ellesmere Port. But that is not shown in the survey, which covered a month and was taken in both mornings and afternoons and on different days of the week. The survey covered 1,300 people. Precisely seven came from Ellesmere Port. In another shopping survey of Ellesmere Port it was found that over 70 per cent. of purchases were made in Ellesmere Port itself and of the balance 25 per cent. were made in Chester. That indicates clearly where the people of Ellesmere Port regard their affinity as lying.

9.45 p.m.

It has been argued that Ellesmere Port has housed people from Liverpool. This is true, even though the process of overspill is now coming to an end. It is also true that Runcorn has housed people from Liverpool, but Runcorn is not in the Merseyside proposal. It is also true that Skelmersdale has housed people from Liverpool, but it is not proposed that Skelmersdale should be part of the Merseyside area. Therefore, the suggestion that Ellesmere Port should be linked with Merseyside because it has housed people from Liverpool does not bear further examination.

On the important matter of employment, 82½ per cent. of the residents of Ellesmere Port work in that borough. Of the balance, more go to Chester to work than go to the whole of the Wirral combined.

The Merseyside Area Land Use and Transport Survey, the results of which were published in 1969, concluded that Ellesmere Port was separate from Merseyside and that Merseyside did not need Ellesmere Port to solve any of its land use problems.

If Ellesmere Port were to be included in Merseyside, it would produce another problem in that area of Cheshire. Ellesmere Port is an expanding town. Chester, only six miles away, is an historic town. A few miles in the other direction, to complete the triangle, there is Runcorn, an expanding new town. The present planning proposals incorporate the needs of all three and they are complementary. To divorce one from the other two would create problems, not solve them.

The glossy publication to which the right hon. Member for Birkenhead referred and which he somewhat decried is a publication of the council of Ellesmere Port, which is a Labour-controlled council. It is the clear wish of that council—I speak not only for the Labour majority but also of the Conservative minority—that Ellesmere Port should remain in Cheshire.

Birkenhead likewise made written representations some years ago to the effect that Ellesmere Port was separate and distinct from the Wirral area.

Mr. Dell

The hon. Gentleman will agree that Birkenhead's representations on that point were made in an entirely different context and that Birkenhead has now made absolutely clear its view that within the new Merseyside metropolitan county it believes that Ellesmere Port should be within Merseyside.

Mr. Cockeram

I accept that Birkenhead has made those representations, but the representations of Birkenhead have been somewhat conflicting and confused, because it repeated its first representations only a couple of years ago.

The House should be reminded that the Labour Government deliberately excluded Ellesmere Port from the passenger transport area of Merseyside, stating that the local authority area which it seemed to the then Minister should be included in the PTA on the basis that the minimum area should make sense for proper planning should exclude Ellesmere Port.

Mr. Dunn

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that Southport was excluded, too?

Mr. Cockeram

I accept that Southport was excluded. I am arguing the case of Ellesmere Port. The Labour Government's action in that respect indicates that they were aware not only that public transport links between the two hardly existed but that it was not necessary to provide any. The case for Southport is somewhat different, as my hon. Friend knows, in that the public transport links are strong between the two and the need for them is equally strong. They are not two comparable cases, as probably he will accept.

Mr. Tilney

Southport wished to go into Merseyside.

Mr. Cockeram

That is so. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. He is making my final point—that the inhabitants of Ellesmere Port do not wish to be included in Merseyside. That applies to the Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber of Trade, the two political parties and the inhabitants. That being the case, I have no hesitation in supporting the proposal in the Bill that Ellesmere Port is, and should continue to be, part of Cheshire.

Mr. Spriggs

Had I been given the chance to draftan Amendment like Amendment No. 966, it would not have been possible to draft one more intelligently. I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) on the way he has tackled the drafting of the Amendment, because it is most important that hon. Members and the Minister in particular should take into account the common interests between the local authorities which are grouped.

St. Helens is a water authority in its own right. It supplies fresh water to many of the surrounding local authorities which are named in the Amendment. Transport, too, is another service which neighbouring authorities share with the St. Helens County Borough Transport Department. Industry is another thing we have in common with many of the local authorities which surround the great county borough. Some 18,000 people are employed in the glass industry at St. Helens. Many of them travel in and out of the town to earn their living, and through the urban districts which are shown in the list. In leisure time, what greater sport could we choose than rugby league? St. Helens has been able to prove that not only can it play the game but it can win the championship. It is a great town which houses not only the glass industry but chemical, engineering and coal and manufacturing industries.

I put the Amendment to my electorate and the local government officers and staff who work not only at the town hall but at the new administrative headquarters, which has been taken on by the corporation only on a rental basis. Perhaps I should qualify "on a rental basis". The local authority wanted to build its own administrative building but the Labour Government refused to give it permission. The same site was built upon by a private developer and we allowed the St. Helens Corporation to rent it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes made it clear that the two authorities to which he referred, Huyton and St. Helens, would each have approximate populations of 200,000. Anyone visiting St. Helens or requiring accommodation in St. Helens has to visit the town only once to see that we have a thriving local authority which is building thousands of houses to rent. The town inherited some of the oldest property in Lancashire.

The local authority in St. Helens has shown how progressive it is. Hundreds of houses which were unfit for habitation have been levelled to the ground and in their place stand hundreds of beautiful new homes rising to house the people who are waiting for them.

Some of my own friends may feel that the split of District 11(c) is an indication that the local authorities named do not want to be part of the Merseyside metropolitan area. Let me disabuse them immediately. We are pleased to be part of the Merseyside metropolitan area. My hon. Friends should consider the matter from the point of view of the people who live on the perimeter of the Merseyside area who find that they have a lot in common with the people in the St. Helens local authority area. In addition, the St. Helens shopping centre is used by hundreds of thousands of people from the Lancashire area every week.

I ask my hon. Friends to consider the points that I have put forward and the assurances by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes and if the Minister feels he is able to accept the Amendment and a Division is called, I ask them to vote in support of the Amendment.

Mr. Frederick Lee

I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 472 and 473 which seek to leave out the name Newton-le-Willows from the St. Helens area and to add it to the Warrington area. I pursue my arguments in spite of what my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) said. I do not dispute for one moment what he said about the homely nature of his constituents, for I know it to be true. When we first saw in the Bill a short time ago that it intended to put Culcheth and New church into Warrington, and Newton-le-Willows, into St. Helens we genuinely thought there had been a mistake, and that in drawing up the Bill the Minister's intentions had become reversed.

I still live in Newton-le-Willows and I am not therefore merely conditioned by briefs which I have received. I know that the local authority has been in touch with the Minister and that, as I will argue, that they have very little affinity with St. Helens and that the magisterial arrangements, the sewerage arrangements and so on are with the Warrington area. That is not so in other parts of my constituency. My hon. Friend mentioned St. Helens. Another urban district of the Newton division, Haydock, is to go into the St. Helens area and that is right and proper. That urban district bases itself almost entirely upon services and shopping centres and so forth in the St. Helens area, but the position with Newton-le-Willows is different. I admire the way in which the right hon. Gentleman can take us through all the Lancashire towns. I wish he had stopped off in Newton-le-Willows. I should have loved to give him a cup of tea and discuss the matter with him. He would not find two people in a hundred who would opt for any move other than to Warrington, if we had to move at all. We would much prefer to be left within the Lancashire county——

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered, That the Local Government Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Lee

The vast majority of women, like my wife, shop in the High Street in Newton or go to Warrington.

It was argued in Committee by the right hon. Gentleman or one of his colleagues that there were more bus services to St. Helens than to Warrington. That is wrong. There may be the through buses to Manchester, Liverpool and so on, but most of my fellow Newtonians will agree that the services to Warrington from Newton are far better than those to St. Helens.

The overwhelming number of people from Newton who are unlucky enough to have to use hospitals go into hospitals in the Warrington area. The local authority has for many years had an agreement with the Warrington Corporation for the treatment of all the sewage from Newton by Warrington's sewage disposal works.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take particular notice of what Government Departments are doing. The head offices of many of the services for the district, such as those of the Department of Health and Social Security and of the Department of Employment, are in Warrington. I am correspondingly with the Secretary of State for Social Services because we are very annoyed about our social security office being demoted. We have organised a great petition, because the Department wants to move it to "the appropriate area". I wonder where the right hon. Gentleman thinks it is going. I assure him that it is not St. Helens. It is going to Warrington. We object to that, because we want to keep it in Newton, but the fact is that each of the Departments looks upon Warrington as the natural place for such services. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman seems to be out on a limb in this regard.

The Magisterial bench, the petty sessions, the county courts, and the police are all at Warrington. The postal services for Newton are based on the offices in Warrington. The vast majority of commuting workers are employed in the Warrington area.

I know that in Committee the question of access to St. Helens from Newton was mentioned. One of my hon. Friends who was good enough to move an Amendment for me spoke of the undoubted fact that it is not possible to get direct from Newton to St. Helens without going through Burtonwood or Haydock. Burtonwood is going into the Warrington area. It seems strange to us in Newton that the right hon. Gentleman should be thinking in terms of forcing us to hop over Burtonwood to get into St. Helens. Those are practical and real reasons why we suggest there should be a transfer to the Warrington area.

If the right hon. Gentleman thinks I am exaggerating, he should come to Newton. I doubt whether he would find two people in 100 who would opt for going to St. Helens. I understate the case. My friends on the local authority say they cannot find one person who would freely choose, between the two options, to go to St. Helens.

I was grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he dealt with my first Amendment. Will he give me the same kind of answer? I think there has been a misunderstanding. The local authorities in Newton and Golborne would be very happy to take advantage of the offer he made to me to discuss with him this matter before it goes to another place. If he would make the same offer in this case, he would be doing a just and proper thing. I should be grateful to accept that offer.

Mr. Heffer

This debate indicates differences in approach in issues involved.

I wish to speak about the question of Halewood. It was accepted policy that Halewood would be part of the new Liverpool district. When the Ford factory was established on Merseyside, Alderman Braddock was deeply concerned. The Liverpool local authority and Alderman Braddock pulled out every stop to ensure that that factory was established in our area, to create employment primarily for the people of Liverpool, but also for Merseyside as a whole, because Liverpool had the highest level of unemployment in the area. The local authority and Alderman Braddock gave an assurance that we, as Liverpool people, would make certain that all facilities and finance would be available, that the Liverpool ratepayers would make money available for the establishment of the Ford factory. That was done. Whiston local authorities at that time knew that the factory was being established as a result of the efforts primarily of the Liverpool local authority and people such as Alderman Braddock. There is no constituency interest in this matter. My hon. Friend says one must fight for one's constituency rights. I do not have any constituency interest. I have a Liverpool and a Merseyside interest.

If we look at the map issued by the Department of the Environment it will be seen that District 11(b) is drawn in such a way that Halewood was a natural part of 11(b). There is no reason whatever why Halewood should be excluded and placed in (c). It will not enter into the arguments about whether (c) should be split. My own view is that it should not be but I will not go into that because it is not my prime reason for speaking. The point is that Halewood ought to be part of the Liverpool district.

I would like to answer that point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes). He said that he had a petition signed by almost 50 per cent. of the people in Halewood. That must mean that over 50 per cent. did not sign it. Why? It may be that if someone went round with a petition for going into Liverpool more than 50 per cent. would sign it. We do not know. I have taken petitions round doors and I have heard it said that it is not easy to get people to sign them. My experience is that people are only too willing and happy to sign petitions just to get rid of the person at the door. They consider that person to be a damned nuisance and it is easy to sign the petition to get rid of him. That is not a serious argument and I do not honestly believe that my hon. Friend believes it to be.

He says that he thinks that if it is put in the Liverpool area sooner or later it might come out of his constituency. We all face this problem. Sooner or later there will be another change in parliamentary boundaries. No one knows what the future holds in that direction and we ought not to mix the argument about parliamentary boundaries with the local government issue. It is clear that Halewood is naturally part of District 11(b). I understand my hon. Friend's view about Hale village. It is a very salubrious area and I cannot afford to live there. It has nice thatched houses. When it comes to Halewood, it has council houses, built by the Liverpool City authority, owned by that authority and sustained by it. If anyone believes that those people have no interest in retaining their links with the people of Liverpool then he does not understand the situation.

Mr. Oakes

My hon. Friend's argument could apply to Huyton, Cantril Farm and Kirkby. Does he seek to bring all those into District 11(b)?

Mr. Heffer

That is true. I was about to make that point. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) talked about the tribal nature of the area. If we were being octopus-like we could say that we ought to take the lot in because they all come from Liverpool, anyway. The constituency of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, Huyton, and Kirkby, all these areas are primarily made up of people from Scotland Road. That is why they are good Labour areas. They come from Liverpool, nowhere else. They are our people. We are not saying that all of them should come in but we are saying that the natural ones, those closest in affinity, should be part and parcel of District 11(b).

I cannot understand why the Government have suddenly decided that they have a great deal of sympathy for my hon. Friend's Amendment. I understand that this is so. I do not know whether it is true, but the Liverpool Daily Post, which I read from time to time, has said this. I do not know why they should have gone back on this decision any more than I know why they should have gone back on the Ellesmere Port decision. I am asking the Minister not to accept this Amendment but to continue with the original proposals that were contained in the Bill.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Frank Marsden (Liverpool, Scotland)

I will be as brief as possible because many people wish to speak and it is going to be a long debate. I wish to speak on Amendment No. 15.

As far as this debate is concerned the Minister should perhaps have represented Ross and Cromarty. As it is, he reckons he is the Member of Parliament for the Crosby constituency, and I know because I have heard him say so. He knows the area like the back of his hand, so it is no good trying to pull the wool over his eyes.

Henry Ford never brought his huge factory to Hale wood in order to do a favour for the workers of Liverpool. He did it because of the financial incentives offered by the Government of the day and because of the pressures of the Liverpool City Council. That council has always been a very great authority on Merseyside. It built a huge council estate to house the Ford workers. That was built with Liverpool money, and now the Minister seeks to take this estate away from us and to take away the huge factory with its high rateable value.

I just want to record the fact that my constituents are firmly of the opinion that the boundaries of District (b) should remain as recommended in the report.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw (Liverpool, Toxteth)

I propose to speak for only two or three minutes. It has been said that we cannot understand why Halewood is being taken out of the Liverpool area. I think it is fairly clear that this is being done in order to make the subdivision of District (c) viable. I would like to ask the Minister, when he replies, whether he would have taken Halewood out—I understand he is in agreement with this Amendment—if District (c) had remained one district instead of being subdivided.

My difficulty is that unless one is completely selfish and says "We want to grab everything for ourselves", once one accepts the subdivision of District (c) I do not believe that one can make out a case for retaining Halewood in Liverpool instead of putting it in the Huyton area. It is difficult with a population of 700,000 and our rateable value. So if the Minister agrees with the subdivision of (c), why has he decided to do this?

It has been suggested that there is a growing population, but even if it increased 100 per cent. it would still not be as large as the Liverpool district itself; so what is wrong with keeping (c) as one complete district instead of subdividing it? The argument has been put that the people on one side are completely different, from those on the other; yet a short time ago we heard the argument about Southport being put in with Bootle. If that argument is true so far as (c) is concerned, surely the argument should be that Southport should be different from Bootle if one goes on the type of people in the particular areas.

I do not believe that these arguments hold water. One can take every argument that the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) put forward for subdividing District (c) and show at least another dozen instances where these are completely countered.

I believe that the orginal plans which were put forward may have been, in many cases, arbitrary, yet had some logic behind them, and because (c) was going to be one area Halewood naturally came into the Liverpool area. Because the Government have now decided that (c) will be divided, in order that it remain viable it is necessary to take away that rateable value of Halewood and put it into the Huyton area. That is where the Government are making a mistake. In a few years' time they will come to the conclusion that the two areas will not be viable, but the damage will have been done.

If it is decided to divide District (c) into two districts, unless I want to be completely selfish I cannot make out a case for keeping Halewood within Liverpool, because Huyton has a greater need for the increased rateable value than has Liverpool, but that is no reason for dividing District (c) into two. That is where the mistake is being made.

Mr. Ogden

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) suggested that one reason why the Government should accept Amendment No. 15 is that they have already made up their minds about the division of District 11(c). My view is that the Minister should first decide the boundaries of the larger area. Let him first decide whether Halewood is to be inside or outside Liverpool and then go on to decide what division he will or will not have to make of the other areas. Let Halewood and this Amendment come first and then let the Minister make his dispositions in the light of that decision.

By the time we have completed the Report stage some days, weeks or months ahead, it may be thought that we shall have discussed every county, region, city, town, hamlet and lamp post in the country. It is right that that should be so. Equally, I hope my hon. Friends will think it right that on this first day we should be discussing the problems of Merseyside.

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) on Amendment No. 385. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) on Amendment No. 17, but he will not be surprised if I oppose him on Amendment No. 15. It is not unusual on this side of the House to say little where we are agreed and to say more when we disagree. I strenuously oppose Amendment No. 15.

The Government White Paper of February, 1971, "Local Government in England", outlined their objectives, proposals and principles for the reform of local government. On page 6 in paragraph 7 is set out a fundamental part of those proposals: If local authorities are to provide services effectively and economically, their areas should be large enough in size, population and resources to meet administrative needs including the maintenance and development of a trained and expert local government service: boundaries should be drawn so that areas take account of patterns of development and travel: and services which are closely linked should be in the hands of the same authority. I will take the phrase: maintenance and development of a trained and expert local government service and see how it applies to Halewood and to Liverpool. Whilst there is some private development in Halewood, most of the development is in council houses and the people look towards Liverpool for services, rents, rates, maintenance and so on. The Ford Motor Company complex is important. Its rateable value either to the Widnes area or to the Liverpool area is important, but we should look at wider things than the local area.

Mr. Oakes

The Widnes area would not gain in rateable value; it is, in fact, the Whiston rural district.

Mr. Ogden

I apologise. I am using Widnes in the sense of the "Greater Widnes Authority" to which my hon. Friend has referred. The patterns of travel and development are towards Liverpool rather than the other way up the river. Rateable value is important, but it should not be the first priority.

The paragraph then said that services which are closely linked should be in the hands of the same authority. In all the services in this area Liverpool is surely not dominant but predominant. We have seen from discussion on earlier Amendments that in respect of South-East Lancashire, North-East Lancashire, South-West Lancashire and the Merseyside the Government have abandoned the principles laid down in their White Paper.

I am afraid that I have to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes that the Government seem to be using his intervention and initiative for their own purposes. My hon. Friend spoke of his conviction that he should speak on behalf of his constituents and his local authorities, and added "especially when one thinks they are right". Looking at the narrow issues, my hon. Friend's Amendment may be right, but every Member of Parliament has a duty not only to his own local constituents and his local area authorities but also to the region and to the county as a whole. My hon. Friend's suggestion would be detrimental to the area as a whole.

It is a tragedy that this Amendment has come forward since it is an example of a failure of consultation, co-operation and discussion between like-minded organisations in an area. I am sorry to say that this is the unfortunate result when one hon. Member decides that he must "go it alone" with the minimum amount of co-operation from his colleagues in the area. I must tell my hon. Friend that his good intentions and support for his local authorities and the people of his area are being used by the Government for purposes which in the long term will not be of any real value or worth for either his constituents or for the people of Merseyside as a whole.

Mr. Robert Parry (Liverpool, Exchange)

I intend to be brief and to speak in opposition to Amendment No. 15.

I am particularly interested in this Amendment because many thousands of my constituents, or former constituents, have been rehoused in Halewood. I have many contacts in the Halewood area and recently attended a wedding there. During the evening I had a number of conversations with people living in Halewood who asked me about the reorganisation of local government in the area. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) that all the people to whom I spoke that night were in favour of continuing their links with Liverpool.

My hon. Friend has tended to exaggerate the support he received from people in Halewood. I tend to go along with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) in the view that if petitions were distributed asking for support for the retention of links with Liverpool a completely different picture would emerge.

I wish to quote from a letter from the town clerk of Liverpool which deals with the Ford factory. The letter says: Apart from the original small village of Halewood, the Parish essentially consists of Liverpool Corporation housing estates and the Ford factory. At the time Ford's came to Halewood it was made clear by the Whiston authority that Ford were coming in the context of Liverpool's unemployment problem, a problem which did not exist to anything like that degree in Whiston, and that Liverpool's ratepayers should accordingly pay for the local government services which were required.… The Ford motor factory at Halewood which was brought to the area by the Liverpool City Council, with the support of hon. Members from Merseyside, and it pays a small amount of its rates to Liverpool and the larger part to the Whiston Rural District It may interest hon. Members to know the figures given me this morning by the town clerk of Liverpool, which show that the present rates paid to Liverpool amount to £49,560. A proposed small extension will increase the figure to £53,000 per annum. The rates paid to the Whiston authority amount to £659,650. A proposed further extension will increase the amount slightly to £661,320 a year. The grand total paid to both authorities, including the two additional amounts in respect of the proposed extensions, is approximately £715,000.

10.30 p.m.

The reason why I quote the figures of rates paid is that, due to the policy of Liverpool Corporation over the years of rehousing people from Liverpool's slums in the suburbs and neighbouring overspill authorities, the city has lost a lot of rate support grant. Figures provided by the city treasurer only this morning show that the estimated loss in rate support grant due to the drop in population is £1.5 million in each of the years 1971–72 and 1972–73. I am also advised by the city treasurer that, of the recent increase of 17p in the £ in rates, it is estimated that no less than 13p is because of the loss of rate support grant.

I feel strongly that Liverpool ratepayers, who have borne the cost of providing services to the Ford factory and of building thousands of houses and flats for Liverpool citizens, should now lose Halewood from District 11(b). The case has not been made out for maintaining the present position under the Bill on either social or economic grounds.

Liverpool City Council has protested at the area split which is now proposed. The opposition comes from both major political parties and has the support of the minority Liberal Party. That shows the strong feeling of the authority. On 29th June, the Liverpool Echo carried a report to this effect, quoting the Liberal leader on the council, Councillor Cyril Carr, as saying that it would be an absurdity to split Halewood from Liverpool in an effort to make the original St. Helens district into two viable districts.

Mr. Oakes

I again make the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). The argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mr. Parry) could apply to Kirkby, Huyton, Cantril Farm and possibly Runcorn and Skelmersdale. What is the difference?

Mr. Heffer

Because it was not the original plan.

Mr. Parry

My hon. Friend the Member for Walton has given the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes.

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Walton pointed out that the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes is a private one. I understand that the Labour Party's temporary co-ordinating committee for the reorganisation of local government on Merseyside has considered the Amendment and decided to vote against it.

The recent visit to this House by the leader of Liverpool City Council, who had discussions with a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends and possibly with the Minister, shows the strong feelings of the people of Liverpool about Halewood being taken from District 11(b). Therefore, I fully support the opposition to the Government's proposal outlined by my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. McGuire

I have a constituency interest in District 11(c) I have successfully argued why part of it—namely, Skelmersdale and Holland Urban District Council—should be taken out, but a small part still remains in the old District 11(c).

We have had representations today from my right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) that we should further carve up District 11(c). This district probably has the knottiest problem in the whole of the metropolitan areas. To find a natural unit based on the St. Helens district poses tremendous problems, and I support the Amendments moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes).

I will deal with the argument which Liverpool City Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), have been trotting out. It is claimed that because of the social and housing investment by Liverpool City Corporation in Halewood, which has been outside the city boundary for as long as anyone can remember, and the fact that it was mistakenly included in the earlier proposals, Liverpool should retain Halewood. My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes dealt with that argument most effectively.

I appeal to my hon. Friends, if they are Socialists, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), who said that we should detach ourselves from our constituency interests here and think of the greater good—

Mr. Ogden rose—

Mr. McGuire

I will give way to my hon. Friend, but not yet. I have not got steam up yet. He suggested that we should detach ourselves from our narrow-minded parochial constituency interests and think of the great Edmund Burke concept. I agree entirely, but my hon. Friend did not advance that argument. The greater good and the greater need is for the new District 11(cc), or whatever we are to call it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) pointed out in a most pertinent speech, the greater need still is for the old District 11(c) because it had social and dereliction problems to overcome which, considering the rateable value, posed a bigger problem for the old District 11(c) and for both of them now than it did for Liverpool. My hon. Friend pointed out that if Halewood is taken out of the Liverpool Metropolitan District it represents infinitesimal terms, the fraction of a penny, for Liverpool, but it means a considerable amount to the new and old District 11(c) to help it overcome the social problems it will have. I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Ogden

I was waiting for my hon. Friend to come to a temporary full stop. I should like to put two quick points. First, Liverpool Members were not trotting out arguments. We were putting forward serious reasons, which we thought would be accepted, for opposing the Amendments.

Secondly, my hon. Friend, who came from the same background, the same union and the same coalmines as I did, might be doing my hon. Friends and me an injustice by suggesting "if we are Socialists". We proved our Socialism long before coming here and since we have been here.

Mr. McGuire

I am sorry that my hon. Friend should take it in that light. He does not need to tell me that I know his background and he knows mine. We have shared the same office for many years. In fact, he wanted to link up with his reorganisation when we moved to another office. My hon. Friend has taken it rather badly. I am used to stating an argument forcibly. I apologise if I hinted he has lost his Socialism.

I was trying to remind my hon. Friends that we are talking about a jam pot which Liverpool naturally wants to keep. Liverpool has adduced arguments to show why Halewood should be included within its boundaries. I am arguing that if we are talking about reorganisation and about viable units the greater need is that of new District 11(c). The amount may be only a fraction of a penny from Liverpool's point of view, but for District 11(c) it is a great deal.

Mr. Crawshaw

Does my hon. Friend think that District 11(c) would be more viable as one district? If he does, would he like to put forward arguments in favour of that? If he does not, would he like to put forward arguments against its being one district?

Mr. McGuire

I do not follow that.

Mr. Crawshaw

The suggestion is to divide District 11(c) into two. Would it not be a more viable district if it were left as one district instead of being divided into two? Would my hon. Friend like to put forward arguments against that being done?

Mr. McGuire

I shall make my speech in my own time, and I am coming to that.

I want to deal with the question of Halewood remaining in Liverpool. Most of the opposition from this side of the House has been against this carve up. It is said that the district of Halewood, although it has never been in the Liverpool City boundary, should now be included in the city. I have tried to show why it should not be.

Would it be right to carve up this area? It would be a more viable district if it were left as the original District 11(c) to include Huyton, Kirkby, and so on. The White Paper gives the answer to this problem. The Minister knows that the most difficult district in any of the metropolitan counties is the St. Helens District, and it has been from the word "go".

Prescot puzzles me a little. I know the area. I live only a few minutes walk away from there, but I consider myself a St. Helens man, living as I do in the Eccleston Park part of the town. I cannot understand Prescot wanting to get away from St. Helens, but apparently that is what it wants to do.

All these authorities have one thing in common, but they are different in character. I do not say that in the worst sense of the word, but just that they have a different outlook on life. They do not play the same games. Unfortunately, Liverpool people are plagued with watching Liverpool and Everton football clubs. They do not play rugby league football.

St. Helens did not want them to leave, but the areas made the case right from the beginning that they were not St. Helens' oriented and were attracted by habit and tradition towards Liverpool. It said that this unit does not have the harmony that is required, that it does not have the necessary community of interest.

I regret that the area is to be carved up. I listened with interest to the speech of my right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee). I refer to his area not as Newton-le-Willows but as Earlestown as it is better known to St. Helens people, I dispute what my right hon. Friend said about people looking not to St. Helens but to Warrington. St. Helens has some attraction but they are more oriented towards Warrington for many of the essential services including, probably, shopping. However, the community divide is nothing like as great as the community divide between Prescot for some part but mainly Huyton and Kirkby under the old District 11(c).

10.45 p.m.

I regret, too, that the Minister has to listen to so much special pleading from hon. Members who are forgetting the Edmund Burke concept. I, like many hon. Members, receive letters explaining why a certain manufacturing concern or activity should be excluded from the operation of value added tax. Similarly, everybody wants to be excused from District 11(c). It is rumoured that there will be a split, with the Liverpool end going on its own and the St. Helens district going on its own.

I hope that the fears about financial viability which are casting a doubt in respect of both suggested districts are unfounded. The miners have a saying "Samson was strong and Solomon was wise, but neither of them could pay Beawt Brass".

I know why the right hon. Gentleman has taken Halewood out of Liverpool and put it where it should have been in the first place—the old District 11(c). If the district is split that is the natural home for it, because it will need the money for it more than Liverpool. I support the Amendment, and, if it comes to it, I shall vote for it.

Mr. Graham Page

To go back to the beginning of this series of debates—it started rather a long time ago—the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) proposed that Southport and Bootle should be hived off from the present district consisting of Bootle, Crosby and Southport.

I must, as the Member for Crosby, declare an interest, but I am sure that the House will forgive the hon. Member for Bootle and me for having a squabble about our constituencies on the Floor of the House.

If it had not been for the obvious sincerity with which the hon. Member for Bootle put forward the case, I should not have thought that he could be serious in suggesting the break-up of the district all of the components of which want to be in that district together. There was nothing from Bootle, after Southport had said that it wished to join the district, to say that Bootle did not want to be in it. I entirely deny that Southport does not want to be in the district. It came in voluntarily and willingly and is working very well with it, a fact which my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Soref) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) will endorse.

I know of no stresses which could endanger the district. The co-ordinating committee has been getting on well with the work. This is an absolutely model district—a balance of industry, commerce, residences; a balance of work and leisure, a balance of recreation, holiday and conference centres, and so on; a broad spectrum of social organisation. I cannot advise the House to accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, which would break the district up.

Mr. Simon Mahon

If that is so, why did not the Government include Southport in the original proposals? When did Southport suggest that it would come in? Why did it make the change? Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that, on the best authority in the whole of that district, there are tremendous stresses already betraying themselves between officials and councillors which will take a great deal of getting over, though they are not insurmountable?

Mr. Page

Of course there are stresses, particularly between officials, when four or five districts have to be combined and their officials have to sort out the very difficult problem of who shall do what in the new district. We are getting that sort of discussion and stress throughout the country. It is nothing unusual, and it will be sorted out, particularly with the help of the Staff Commission.

The people and elected representatives of Ellesmere Port have expressed their wish to be in Cheshire. I do not say that this has been a guiding factor in all cases, especially when that wish has been indicated by a PRO firm conducting a referendum in the district. But it has been much more freely given in the case of Ellesmere Port, and it was a fairly decisive factor in this case. Ellesmere Port is a part of the same belt of development as Runcorn, Widnes, Chester and Ince. In the case of Chester there have been planning studies in operation and the link with Runcorn new town on the other side of the water is very close.

Those links are likely to grow in future. For example, Helsby and Frodsham are fast developing as residential suburbs of Ellesmere Port. The green belt between Ellesmere Port and Chester will be maintained, of course, and it is more of a link than a separation between the two. Therefore, we wish to retain Ellesmere Port within the County of Cheshire.

The main point of the debate concerns the movement of Halewood from the position in which we placed it in the Bill. I must correct what has been said time and time again in the debate about the Amendment taking Halewood away from Liverpool. Halewood has always been a part of the Whiston rural district since 1894. The fact that a large town invests in a rural district does not give it the right to deprive that rural district of that area.

Mr. Heffer

The Minister knows very well that what was being said was that it was being taken out of the proposals originally made by the Government in the Bill. Everyone knows that it has never been a part of Liverpool, but it was in the Government's original proposals. We want to know why it is now being taken out when it was obviously and naturally accepted by the Government as part of the 11(c) grouping.

Mr. Page

The hon. Member said all that before.

Mr. Heffer

I am saying it again.

Mr. Page

I will give the hon. Member a reason. The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) put the case for the proposal very well but at that time I was not convinced that the boundary was wrong. Buton re-examining it I considered that the area which created the growth should be in the same local government area as that which has to support the infrastructure for that growth. In this case Halewood has created the growth for Whiston rural district. It has created it by the Ford factory. Whiston has to support the infrastructure, the sewage disposal, the refuse collection and so forth. Therefore, to apply that principle makes sense of the proposal that the hon. Member for Widnes has put forward.

This was a separate consideration to that of the division of Huyton from St. Helens. In that case there was consultation with all the local authorities concerned; and I pay tribute to the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Widnes for acting as the go-between for the local authorities and for helping me to understand the opposition of the local authorities on the matter. When I found that every local authority in the area was in favour of the division it was a matter we had to consider seriously.

I accept the argument of the hon. Member for Widnes and the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) for the creation of the two metropolitan districts of Huyton and St. Helens. They make sense in local government. I have only one worry about them, and that relates to the hospital service, where there could be problems. We shall be looking into them, but meanwhile I do not think it would be right to allow this consideration to be the main determinant of the new local government pattern.

I come to the problem at the eastern end of these two new local government areas of Huyton and St. Helens—the problem of Newton-le-Willows. I was shaken by the argument of the right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee)——

Mr. Heffer

Before we come on to that, may I ask whether that was really the only argument the Minister will put forward for taking Halewood out of the Liverpool area? If it is, I have never heard anything more disgraceful. It is no argument at all. The right hon. Gentleman has not made out a case.

Mr. Page

I do not intend to put forward any other argument, because that was an extremely strong argument. The only argument the hon. Gentleman put forward for his proposition was that Liverpool wanted the rateable value, the value of the factory at Halewood—that it wanted to deprive Whiston of something that belonged to Whiston.

Mr. Heffer

That is not right.

Mr. Page

That is not a sound argument.

I was touching on the proposition of the right hon. Member for Newton. As on his previous Amendment, he put points with some force, with which I do not at present agree. I find great difficulty in arguing from my no great knowledge of Newton. Though I have been there many times and know the district, the right hon. Gentleman has greater knowledge. The whole urban district lies on the hinge of Merseyside, Greater Manchester and Cheshire. It is a distribution centre, and, therefore, has its contacts with all three. But I thought that the links with the metropolitan county were stronger than those to the south. The decisive factor was the physical location, which makes it more reasonable for the conurbation boundary to run along its southern rather than its northern boundary, and the fact that the western part of Newton-le-Willows shares common problems of rehabilitation with the Haydock and Ashton-in-Makerfield areas, both of which are now in Merseyside, in St. Helens. I had thought that the contacts were greater in that direction than towards Warrington. I am prepared to give the same assurances as I gave on the previous occasion, that I should like to look into the matter again with the right hon. Gentleman and see whether it can be solved. I believe that what the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) said is true, that there is an affinity between St. Helens and Newton, but I should like to discuss that again with the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McGuire

Does not the Minister agree that to include Burtonwood in the new District 11(c) would make more sense than its exclusion? The case for the exclusion of Newton is stronger because Burtonwood is in the Warrington district.

Mr. Page

That is the sort of thing I should like to discuss further.

We have had a long discussion on the Amendments. At one time I thought that I should have drawn the boundary to divide between those areas which play Rugby Union and those which play Rugby League. In my own district we play Rugby Union. We provide all the professionals for St. Helens and Wigan and all the rest. We are the nursery. That is a diversion from local government, but it sometimes shows an indication of the communities and their interests. Perhaps it shows the difference between Huyton and St. Helens.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson (Huyton)

I hope I shall be accorded such indulgence as is appropriate to someone making a maiden speech on this Bill. It is axiomatic that anyone who speaks on local government reform who does not have to wants his head examining.

Any Government embarking on local government reform are likely to make more enemies than friends, both within their own party and on the opposite side of Parliament. That was the case when we set up the Maud Commission. That is the case in respect of this Local Government Bill.

Both sides are agreed that local government reform, including changes in boundaries, is urgently necessary. While we would perhaps have preferred a rather differently orientated scheme, not so much on a county basis working inwards but on an urban basis working outwards, we recognise that the present Government are entitled to put forward this proposal, this Bill and this Schedule.

I must declare that I have constituency interests in this matter, as the right hon. Gentleman has just declared his interest. I hope, in part at least, to be speaking about the wider Merseyside area because most of those who have spoken are Merseyside Members of Parliament.

I have lived on the other side of the Mersey for many years. I can speak with some sympathy about the problems of Ellesmere Port and the area represented by Mr. Speaker.

I propose not to go into the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon), nor to take up the question of Ellesmere Port, nor the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee), of the Newton-le-Willows/Earlestown district. I wish to confine myself to two separate subjects. One is the division of District 11 (c) into the new areas of 11 (c) and 11 (cc).

My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) and I led a deputation to the right hon. Gentleman on the question not of Halewood but of the division of 11 (c) and 11 (cc). We were most courteously received. The right hon. Gentleman listened very carefully to what we were saying. We made it plain to the right hon. Gentleman that we would not discuss the interests of any area that was not represented in the deputation; for example, if there was to be any question of the future boundaries of St. Helens we were not competent to speak on that. We were concerned with the area which we represented.

The arguments for separation have been well put by a number of my hon. Friends, though not all have agreed, and also by the right hon. Gentleman. In part we have heard the arguments about sport which the deputation urged on the hon. Gentleman. We have rugby league in Huyton. Most of my constituents are divided between Liverpool and Everton. St. Helens has different loyalties. But there is more than that.

In so far as what has been called, for shorthand purposes, the ethnic difference, there is a very big different between those who are essentially Liverpool-based and those who belong to the old Lancashire, summarised by some of us as the difference between scouse and black pudding. That is the ethnic difference somewhat simplified.

Mr. Heffer

I never did like black pudding.

Mr. Wilson

I know that my hon. Friend never did like black pudding. That is why some of my scouses do not want to be with St. Helens, with respect to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs), who likes black pudding. I happen to like both.

There was a very serious argument on this matter going far beyond the ethnic difficulties. The area in the proposed area 11 (cc) is mainly characterised by the Liverpool overspill, the highest birth rate in the country and the highest school population and potential school population in the country. The recent census—and many of my hon. Friends have seen the figures published by the Lancashire County Council—show that Kirkby, Huyton and Halewood, for example, are only a little behind the area with the highest proportion of under 15s in the population in the county, probably in the country. This means there is a high cost for this 11(cc) area for educational provision of county schools and denominational schools.

On the other hand, St. Helens has a different problem. It has a high birth rate but an enormous problem over urban renewal. With 11(cc) as it stands there would be a big education burden in the newer areas, the urban renewal and the older areas, particularly when we remember that, contrary to our view, education is a second-tier authority responsibility, not a first-tier authority responsibilty. That is one good reason for splitting the two.

I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for the courtesy with which he received the deputation and for his decision.

I come to the much more difficult problem of Halewood, and here I find myself at odds with my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes, who is wearing his Freeman of Hale tie tonight. We have some little problems here. I shall probably be massacred or lynched in my constituency for what I am about to say, but I am trying to look at the problem in the interests of the wider Merseyside as a whole. I know my hon. Friend will disagree and can produce powerful arguments in his favour. Nevertheless, if we had remained as 11(c) with our educational costs and our urban renewal costs, it would have been essential to press for Halewood to come in. I know my hon. Friend disagrees, for reasons he has already urged, and I do not depreciate them.

With the separation, despite the enormous burdens on the Huyton-Kirkby-Prescot-Whiston 11 (cc) area, we have to consider the question of Halewood. It is a powerful argument used by my hon. Friend. He is the Member for Halewood, and he has told us what the people of Halewood want. This is something which should not be lightly disregarded, and I do not disregard it. We know it has been the Whiston Rural District Council and the Lancashire County Council which have borne, mainly through a rate burden falling on the people outside Halewood, what the right hon. Gentleman called the infrastructure. I do not underrate that. I do not think that there are any politics in this. I do not believe that the numbers on the register in Halewood will make all that much difference to the Labour or Tory balance, whether in Liverpool or anywhere else. It is a question of rateable values, and in a sense that has to be set against the argument used by my hon. Friend.

Studying the interests of wider Merseyside as a whole, I feel some regret that we could not have achieved 11(cc) in another way which did not involve the Halewood decision. I would have hoped—I know great consideration was given to this—that we could have looked elsewhere to make up the vital numbers. The right hon. Gentleman is in great difficulties. He has to face pressures from hon. Members in all parts of the House, from all parts of the country, pressing for smaller authorities, and he has rightly resisted these. It is a fact that if we had taken 11(c) and split it into two, one or other part of it would have been too small to be viable in the terms he has laid down. We understand his difficulty.

I would have preferred that when consideration was given to the idea of bringing in Aintree, parts of Netherton and Thornton into the area that the right hon. Gentleman had made the Huyton area viable with some transfer from the Huyton area to the other. I would have preferred that to the proposal to take Halewood away. I hope it has not been done just to balance up the figures. On balance in the wider interests of Merseyside, despite my constituency interests—and I shall have a rough time when I go there next—I consider that Halewood should have remained as it was in the Bill.

The Minister refers to what he calls the St. Helens area or the Huyton area. I do

not know whether that means that the Government have decided that 11(cc) is to be called Huyton? This is a matter which can be left to the local authorities concerned. There is some jealously between Huyton and Kirby, as the Minister knows. There is the historic area of Prescot which is part of it, and, indeed, the postal address of Liverpool used to be "Liverpool near Prescot"250 to 300 years ago. I hope the Minister will leave the people to choose their own title. Some are canvassing Knowsley for one and St. Helens for the other. I hope that the Minister will not prejudge this.

Mr. Graham Page

Throughout the Bill where names are concerned we have relied entirely on local areas, and if the area which I have for shorthand purposes called St. Helens come forward with another name we shall try to meet local wishes.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes, 48; Noes 95.

Division No. 272.]	AYES	[11.12 p.m.
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)	Forrester, John	Milne, Edward
Ashton, Joe	Gilbert, Dr. John	Ogden, Eric
Atkinson, Norman	Heffer, Eric S.	O'Halloran, Michael
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)	Horam, John	Palmer, Arthur
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)	Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur (Edge Hill)	Pentland, Norman
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Jeger, Mrs. Lena	Prescott, John
Cohen, Stanley	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Concannon, J. D.	Judd, Frank	Roper, John
Crawshaw, Richard	Kaufman, Gerald	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard	Latham, Arthur	Skinner, Dennis
Dalyell, Tam	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Spriggs, Leslie
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)	McNamara, J. Kevin	Urwin, T. W.
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund	Marsden, F.	Vickers, Dame Joan
English, Michael	Marshall, Dr. Edmund	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	Mr. James A. Dunn and
Foot, Michael	Mikardo, Ian	Mr. Simon Mahon.
NOES
Adley, Robert	Crowder, F. P.	Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Astor, John	Dean, Paul	Hunt, John
Atkins, Humphrey	Drayson, G. B.	Kaberry, Sir Donald
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Kimball, Marcus
Benyon, W.	Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)	Lane, David
Biffen, John	Fenner, Mrs. Peggy	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Biggs-Davison, John	Fidler, Michael	Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'field)
Bossom, Sir Clive	Fortescue, Tim	Loveridge, John
Bowden, Andrew	Fowler, Norman	Luce, R. N.
Bray, Ronald	Fox, Marcus	McCrindle, R. A.
Bryan, Sir Paul	Gibson-Watt, David	Mather, Carol
Buck, Antony	Goodhew, Victor	Mawby, Ray
Burden, F. A.	Gray, Hamish	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Chapman, Sydney	Gummer, J. Selwyn	Miscampbell, Norman
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Gurden, Harold	Moate, Roger
Cockeram, Eric	Haselhurst, Alan	Monks, Mrs. Connie
Cooke, Robert	Hawkins, Paul	Montgomery, Fergus
Cordle, John	Holt, Miss Mary	More, Jasper
Cormack, Patrick	Hordern, Peter	Neave, Airey
Normanton, Tom	Sinclair, Sir George	Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Onslow, Cranley	Speed, Keith	Waddington, David
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)	Spence, John	Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)	Stanbrook, Ivor	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Percival, Ian	Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)	Wall, Patrick
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis	Sutcliffe, John	Weatherill, Bernard
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)	Wilkinson, John
Redmond, Robert	Tebbit, Norman	Winterton, Nicholas
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)	Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)	Mr. Michael Jopling and
Shelton, William (Clapham)	Trew, Peter	Mr. Oscar Murton.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 15, in page 194, leave out lines 5 and 6.—[Mr. Oakes.]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 966, in page 194, leave out lines 7 to 20 and insert:

'District (c) The county borough of St. Helens— In the administrative county of Lancaster—

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 101, Noes 36.

Division No. 273.]	AYES	[11.20 p.m.
Adley, Robert	Gray, Hamish	Percival, Ian
Astor, John	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Atkins, Humphrey	Gummer, J. Selwyn	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Gurdon, Harold	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Benyon, W.	Haselhurst, Alan	Redmond, Robert
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Hawkins, Paul	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Biffen, John	Holt, Miss Mary	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Biggs-Davison, John	Hordern, Peter	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Bossom, Sir Clive	Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia	Shelton, William (Clapham)
Bowden, Andrew	Hunt, John	Silkin, Hn. John (Deptford)
Bray, Ronald	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Sinclair, Sir George
Bryan, Sir Paul	Kimball, Marcus	Speed, Keith
Buck, Antony	King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Spence, John
Burden, F. A.	Lane, David	Spriggs, Leslie
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Stanbrook, Ivor
Chapman, Sydney	Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Loveridge, John	Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Cockeram, Eric	Luce, R. N.	Sutcliffe, John
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	McCrindle, R. A.	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Cooke, Robert	McGuire, Michael	Tebbit, Norman
Cordle, John	Mather, Carol	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Cormack, Patrick	Mawby, Ray	Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Crowder, F. P.	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Dean, Paul	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Trew, Peter
Drayson, G. B.	Miscampbell, Norman	Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Moate, Roger	Waddington, David
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Monks, Mrs. Connie	Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
English, Michael	Montgomery, Fergus	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy	More, Jasper	Wall, Patrick
Fidler, Michael	Neave, Airey	Weatherill, Bernard
Fortescue, Tim	Normanton, Tom	Wilkinson, John
Fowler, Norman	Oakes, Gordon	Winterton, Nicholas
Fox, Marcus	Onslow, Cranley	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Gibson-Watt, David	Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)	Mr. Michael Jopling and
Goodhew, Victor	Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)	Mr. Oscar Murton.

NOES
Ashton, Joe	Horam, John	O'Halloran, Michael
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)	Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Palmer, Arthur
Clark, David (Colne Valley)	Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)	Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Cohen, Stanley	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Pentland, Norman
Concannon, J. D.	Judd, Frank	Prescott, John
Crawshaw, Richard	Kaufman, Gerald	Roper, John
Dalyell, Tam	Latham, Arthur	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)	McNamara, J. Kevin	Skinner, Dennis
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund	Marsden, F.	Urwin, T. W.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Marshall, Dr. Edmund	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Foot, Michael	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Forrester, John	Mikardo, Ian	Mr. James A. Dunn and
Heffer, Eric S.	Ogden, Eric	Mr. Simon Mahon.

the urban districts of Haydock, Newton-le-Willows, and Rainford; the urban district of Billinge-and-Winstanley except the areas in Greater Manchester. In the urban district of Ashton in Makerfield, the South Ward. In the rural district of Whiston, the parishes of Windle, Eccleston. Rain- hill and Bold, except the area in Cheshire.

District (cc) In the administrative County of Lancaster— the urban districts of Huyton-with-Roby, Kirkby and Prescot; the rural district of Whiston except the areas in district (c) and Cheshire. In the rural district of West Lancashire, the parish of Simonswood'.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Graham Page

I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 195, line 15, column 1, leave out 'Tyneside' and insert 'Tyne and Wear'.

Amendment proposed: No. 17, in page 194, leave out line 24 and insert: 'the boroughs of Bebington and Ellesmere Port'.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 55, Noes 96.

Division No. 274.]	AYES	[11.30 p.m.
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Ogden, Eric
Ashton, Joe	Heffer, Eric S.	O'Halloran, Michael
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Horam, John	Palmer, Arthur
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)	Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Clark, David (Colne Valley)	Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)	Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Jeger, Mrs. Lena	Pentland, Norman
Cohen, Stanley	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Prescott, John
Concannon, J. D.	Judd, Frank	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Crawshaw, Richard	Kaufman, Gerald	Roper, John
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard	Latham, Arthur	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Dalyell, Tam	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)	McGuire, Michael	Skinner, Dennis
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund	McNamara, J. Kevin	Spriggs, Leslie
Dormand, J. D.	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	Urwin, T. W.
Dunn, James A.	Marsden, F.	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
English, Michael	Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Meilish, Rt. Hn. Robert	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Foot, Michael	Mendelson, John	Mr. Ernest Armstrong and
Forrester, John	Mikardo, Ian	Mr. Joseph Harper.
Gilbert, Dr. John	Oakes, Gordon

NOES
Adley, Robert	Gray, Hamish	Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Astor, John	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Atkins, Humphrey	Gummer, J. Selwyn	Percival, Ian
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Gurden, Harold	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Bell, Ronald	Haselhurst, Alan	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Benyon, W.	Hawkins, Paul	Redmond, Robert
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Holt, Miss Mary	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Biffen, John	Hordern, Peter	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Biggs-Davison, John	Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia	Shelton, William (Clapham)
Bossom, Sir Clive	Hunt, John	Sinclair, Sir George
Bowden, Andrew	Jopling, Michael	Speed, Keith
Bray, Ronald	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Spence, John
Bryan, Sir Paul	Kimball, Marcus	Stanbrook, Ivor
Buck, Antony	King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Burden, F. A.	Lane, David	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Sutcliffe, John
Chapman, Sydney	Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Cockeram, Eric	Loveridge, John	Tebbit, Norman
Cooke, Robert	Luce, R. N.	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Cordle, John	McCrindle, R. A.	Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Cormack, Patrick	Mather, Carol	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Crowder, F. P.	Mawby, Ray	Trew, Peter
Dean, Paul	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Drayson, G. B.	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Waddington, David
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Miscampbell, Norman	Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Moate, Roger	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy	Monks, Mrs. Connie	Weatherill, Bernard
Fidler, Michael	Montgomery, Fergus	Wilkinson, John
Fortescue, Tim	More, Jasper	Winterton, Nicholas
Fowler, Norman	Murton, Oscar
Fox, Marcus	Neave, Airey	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gibson-Watt, David	Normanton, Tom	Mr. Kenneth Clarke and
Goodhew, Victor	Onslow, Cranley	Mr. Hugh Rossi.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this Amendment we are to take the following Amendments:

No. 910, in page 195, column 2, leave out line 27 and insert: 'the borough of Wallsend; so much of the borough of Whitley Bay as lies south of the boundary referred to in paragraph 3AB of Part III of this Schedule".

No. 94, in page 202, line 21, column 2, leave out 'Tyneside' and insert 'Tyne and Wear'.

No. 911, in page 204, line 3, at end insert: '3AB. The boundary dividing the borough of Whitley Bay referred to in Part 1 of this Schedule shall be such as the Secretary of State may by order determine on or near the general line of the access road to Hartley West Farm, Hartley Lane, West End, the northern boundaries of Ordnance Survey parcels 0057, 2657 and 4156 and then north-eastwards to the boundary of the borough'.

No. 114, in page 204, line 27, leave out 'Tyneside' and insert 'Tyne and Wear'.

Mr. Page

This is an Amendment to change the name of Tyneside to Tyne and Wear, in accordance with local wishes.

Mr. Frederick Willey (Sunderland, North)

I wish to thank the Minister for the Amendment. The change was proposed by the Borough of Sunderland and we appreciate the Minister's action.

This is a matter that is not unimportant to us. The North-East has always been an area easily recognisable and to designate, but it has always been difficult to designate its constituent parts. Some years ago, Sir Sadler Foster tried to overcome the difficulty of attracting industry to the region by suggesting that it should be called "The Three Rivers Country", but the suggestion did not prove sufficiently popular to be adopted.

Our proceedings might be even further expedited if the Minister would correct something in later Amendments. The Secretary of State's name has been put to Amendment No. 459. I cannot believe that that is correct, as the County Borough of Sunderland has not been consulted about that subject. I hope that the Minister will be able to set our minds at rest by assuring us that no such view as might be expressed by the name of the Secretary of State appearing on that Amendment will be pursued until Sunderland has been afforded an opportunity to consult him.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Edward Milne (Blyth)

I wish to make two points in connection with Amendment No. 910, which is supported by the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), who is unable to be present. The first is that it is possibly a unique Amendment in the sense that a referendum was held in the village to decide its contents. Secondly, and possibly even more important, it covers the area in which I live. I can give no higher commendation for the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to

Further Amendment made: No. 910, in page 195, column 2, leave out line 27 and insert: 'the borough of Wallsend; so much of the borough of Whitley Bay as lies south of the boundary referred to in paragraph 3AB of Part III of this Schedule'.—[Mr. Edward Milne.]

Mr. Norman Pentland (Chester-le-Street)

I beg to move Amendment No. 275, in page 195, leave out lines 36 to 38.

Mr. Speaker

With this Amendment, it will be convenient to discuss Amendments Nos. 276, in line 47, leave out 'Hetton'.

No. 1041, to leave out 'Houghton-le-Spring'.

No. 459, in line 48, leave out 'Seaham'.

No. 277, to leave out 'and Washington'.

No. 20, in line 52, column 2, at end insert: 'and also so much of the said parish of Harraton as lies west of that designated area and north of the boundary referred to in paragraph 3A of Part III of this Schedule'.

No. 1040, in line 54, leave out 'Dalton-le-Dale, Seaton with Slingley', and

No. 105, in page 204, line 3, at end insert: '3A. The boundary in the parish of Harraton referred to in Part I of this Schedule shall be such as the Secretary of State may by order determine on or near the general line of the link road C8 between Western Highway and Vigo Lane'.

Mr. Pentland

The purpose of Amendment No. 275 is to have the parishes of Birtley and Lamesley retained in the County of Durham and not included in new District 2 of the Tyne and Wear metropolitan authority.

The Minister is aware of the depth of feeling existing in my constituency about the proposals embodied in the Bill affecting the parishes of Birtley and Lamesley. From the outset, everyone concerned has requested me to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman and the Government their intensely strong feelings about the proposals and their desire to retain their long-established and historic identity with the County of Durham. I happen to have lived in my constituency all my life. I know the area, and it goes without saying that I share the concern of my constituents about the Government's proposals. They have my complete support in their objections to the proposals affecting the areas to which I have referred.

The Minister knows that Durham County Council, the Chester-le-Street rural district council, the Chester-le-Street urban district council and the parish councils of Birtley and Lamesley have made the strongest representations to him. They have made them without emotion, but with logic and realism, facing what is in the best interests of sensible planning and realistic local government administration.

My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) and I have met the Minister and his officials at his Department on two occasions. We have had lengthy discussions with him about all the issues involved. I have also presented to the right hon. Gentleman petitions in which the people of Birtley and Lamesley by an outstanding majority—80 per cent. of the population having signed the petitions—have expressed in no uncertain terms their desire to retain their identity with Durham County. In addition, scores of personal letters have been sent on to the right hon. Gentleman from individuals and organisations.

It seems very strange to me and my constituents that the Minister has simply brushed aside these strong feelings, because all along the line he has indicated that the Government would be guided in their proposals by the reaction of the people affected by such proposals. Here is an area where 80 per cent. of the population have expressed their feelings about the Government's proposals. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to cite any other area of the country where 80 per cent. of the people have indicated their desire to remain in a certain local government unit and he has not accepted it. In other cases, the right hon. Gentleman has accepted people's opposition when only 20, 30 or 40 per cent. of the populations have signed petitions and sent them to him.

On 18th January, during the thirteenth sitting of the Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) moved an Amendment standing in both our names. In an excellent speech he explained to the Minister the logic behind our proposal to have Birtley and Lamesley removed from the Tyne and Wear Metropolitan County and retained in the new Durham non-metropolitan county. Like myself, my hon. Friend was completely astonished that at that stage the Minister was not prepared even to accept that reasoned Amendment.

I do not propose to cover the technical issues dealt with so effectively by my hon. Friend on that occasion; nor do I intend to go over the question where realistic boundaries should be drawn for Birtley and Lamesley, because the Minister and his Department are fully aware of the case which has been advanced by my hon. Friend and I, by Durham County Council, by the Chester-le-Street Rural District Council and the other councils involved in my area on the boundary issue. In brief, the Minister knows, probably better than anyone else, that the boundary proposals suggested in the Bill are absolutely disgraceful in terms of realistic local government planning.

However, since the Committee stage something else has happened. The House will be aware that the Local Government Boundary Commission has submitted draft proposals to the Minister for new districts in the English non-metropolitan counties. The Commission proposes that seven new districts should be established in the new Durham County area. It is proposed that Chester-le-Street Rural District Council and Chester-le-Street Urban District Council should amalgamate to form one of these districts. This is acceptable to us. It is also acceptable to Durham County Council.

However, looking at the population strength of this new district we find that it is only 49,919. This means that this district is completely under strength. Indeed, looking at the other six new districts the Commission proposes for Durham County, we find that the population strength of the Chester-le-Street district is 31,680 less than the smallest of these six new districts. It goes without saying that the rateable value of this new district is also most inadequate.

Therefore, we submit that the case we have put forward all along the line to have Birtley and Lamesley retained in the new Durham County has been justified and strengthened very much by the draft proposals that have been submitted to the Minister by the Local Government Boundary Commission.

What are the facts? The facts are that if Birtley, with its population of 12,800, and Lamesley, with its population of 4,200, are excluded, the rateable value for the district will be reduced by almost 50 per cent. and the population by a quarter. In my view, if the Government insist that the parishes of Birtley and Lamesley should be retained in the Tyne and Wear Metropolitan County based on Gateshead, they are guilty of turning the principles embodied in the Bill upside down.

We are advised, and the Minister has advised on more than one occasion, that the object of this reform is to give better government at local level. That aim is completely denied to my constituents if Birtley and Lamesley are taken out of Durham County.

I want to impress upon the Minister that his proposal to transfer these two parishes to Gateshead is based on a false premise. He must know that Birtley is now fully developed and in that context would be of no value at all to Gateshead. Furthermore, the addition to Birtley and Lamesley to Gateshead would only increase the population and the rateable value of the new Gateshead district by a very small amount, whereas if the two parishes were retained in Durham County and formed part of the new Chester-le-Street County district they would be of tremendous value in providing a sensible, realistic and viable unit of local Government.

Like every other hon. Member who feels deeply about the issues involved in the Bill, I could speak at great length about the many aspects involved for my constituents. However, in dealing with the Birtley and Lamesley aspect I want to conclude by again trying to impress upon the Minister that he should recog- nise above all else the strength of feeling that exists among my constituents in the parishes of Birtley and Lamesley about the Government's proposals.

Every organisation, all political parties and the churches are unanimous in their desire to remain in the County of Durham. Like myself, they are dismayed and angry that their long history and traditions as citizens of the County of Durham is to be broken by the Government proposal which makes neither sense nor logic of realistic local government reform.

I appeal to the Minister and to the Government to honour their promise in the White Paper, because they say there that power should go to those people who would exercise decisions locally and ensure that local government is given every opportunity to take that initiative and responsibility effectively. We agree with that and we accept it, but that can be done in this case only if Amendment No. 275 is accepted.

I turn briefly to Amendment No. 277, because the Bill also proposes that Washington will be taken out of Durham County and transferred to District 2(e) in the Tyne-Wear metropolitan area based on Sunderland. Here again I emphasise most strongly that all sections of the population of Washington wish to retain their long historical and traditional links with the County of Durham.

The Washington Urban District Council has convened special meetings on the Government's proposals and the people of Washington have made known their dismay about the Government's intentions. Washington has a distinct and separate identity and is clearly recognisable as a community. Furthermore, it is not linked by continuous development with the Tyneside-Wearside conurbation and as far as I am aware there are no proposals to bring that about.

The facts are that the urban district and the new town of Washington have practically no affinity with Sunderland County Borough or with any of the other communities in the conurbation. The development of Washington new town, the greater part of which lies within the urban area, is a significant factor in the case for excluding Washington Urban District from the metropolitan area.

As long ago as 1961 Washington Urban District Council and Durham County Council initiated a proposal for a new town, and prior to the establishment of the Washington Development Corporation in 1964 it had been agreed that if necessary they would go ahead with such a project as a joint effort between the county council and the urban district council.

12 midnight.

Another fact that cannot be denied is that the co-operation that has existed between the new town development corporation and Washington Urban District Council and Durham County Council has been largely instrumental in securing the successful progress of the new town. The Government's proposals, if implemented, will be detrimental to this progress.

The Minister for Local Government and Development, who has visited Washington New Town, will agree that remarkable progress has been made in industry in the new town. Most of the land allocated in eight main areas has already been developed or is in the process of being developed. The Government have granted further land for industrial expansion. National and international companies are successfully established in the new town. In addition, a long-established chemical company and two large coalmines operate in the area. Unfortunately, one of the pits has to close in October.

The Minister knows also about the considerable progress that has been made in the provision of housing by the Washington Urban District Council and the new town development corporation. A start has been made on the construction of Washington town centre, which will provide the main shopping facility for the new town and the surrounding area. The development corporation is ensuring that almost 1 million sq. ft. of land is made available for the building of commercial and professional offices, a health centre, with regional hospital board and industrial health centre facilities, restaurants, public houses, a police station, a library, and a sports centre which will include eventually a swimming pool.

It should be obvious to the Minister and all others concerned that Washington will become in a very short time more and more self-sufficient as regards indus- try, housing, shopping and other commercial requirements and will be less reliant on other areas.

So I could go on. Once again, I impress upon the Government the strong feeling that the entire population of Washington have about the proposals in the Bill. The people of Washington have historic and traditional connections with the county of Durham which they passionately believe should not be broken.

I therefore appeal again to the Government to accept the traditional and historic links that the people of Washington have with Durham County. If my Amendment is accepted the Government will be acknowledging that sensible and realistic local government administration will continue in the years ahead at Washington.

Mr. Bernard Conlan (Gateshead, East)

I oppose Amendment No. 275. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland) opposed the Amendment with his usual fairness, with sincerity, and with a deep conviction of the Tightness of his case. Although I sympathise with my hon. Friend, I ask the Minister not to accept my hon. Friend's case. My hon. Friend claimed that the areas of Lamesley and Birtley have natural traditions and connections with the county area. Nobody can deny that these areas have for a long time been associated with the Durham County area. That is not to say that this is an ideal arrangement for local government.

The reorganisation of local government gives the South Tyneside area a chance to arrange a system which is sensible and realistic. The areas we are discussing have a greater affinity and a closer connection with the conurbation of Tyneside than they have with the county area. The areas of South Tyneside and Tyneside as a whole have a social and economic attraction to the areas of Lamesley and Birtley. One of the largest industrial estates in the country is situated in the Team Valley and one-fifth of the Team Valley trading estate is situated within the area.

It follows that the area of Lamesley and Birtley is very much dependent economically and socially on the Tyneside area as a whole. A few years ago an independent survey was made by the Universities of Newcastle and Durham in which were analysed the possibilities of local government reorganisation in the Tyneside area. The conclusions of the analysis were that not only Lamesley and Birtley should be part of the Tyneside conurbation, but so also should Chester-le-Street. We are not going that far tonight. If my hon. Friends the Members for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam), and Blaydon (Mr. Woof) and myself had our way we might be proposing this evening that the Gateshead District (c) should not be of the proposed size but should be even larger. We might even propose that it should take in the whole of Chester-le-Street as well. However, in deference to the very strong feelings of other of my hon. Friends, we do not propose to go that far.

In a good British way I think the proposal now before us is a decent compromise. Even though District (c) will have a population of about 220,000 it is still very low compared with the districts in the rest of the metropolitan areas in the country. If the Amendment is accepted it would mean the hiving off of about 20,000 people and that would reduce the population of the area to about 200,000. I believe that to be too small by any standards, including those of the Minister. All the other districts in the metropolitan areas have populations far higher than 200,000. Rather than hive off those 20,000 in Lamesley and Birtley we should be increasing the number of people in area (c) but I shall not argue that tonight. We shall go for the good old-fashioned compromise and tell the Minister that we believe that his proposals are about right.

Mr. Pentland

When my hon. Friend talks about compromise, does not he realise that the Minister obviously is compromising by bringing one area into County Durham at the expense of Birtley and Lamesley? Some of us would like to know why.

Mr. Conlan

I am merely arguing about Lamesley and Birtley being part of area (c). As for compensation where County Durham is concerned, the Minister will have to justify his own case. I cannot do it for him.

I was about to say, in conclusion, that this area of Lamesley and Birtley has for many decades been part and parcel of the conurbation of Tyneside, and it would be wrong if this opportunity were missed to put right a situation that should have been put right long ago.

Mr. Mark Hughes (Durham)

I should like to make a few short comments on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan). It was as long ago as 1070 that the people of Gateshead showed their disrespect to the county of Durham by murdering its bishop, and what my hon. Friend proposed in his speech is little short of homicide on a similar grand scale. His arguments in favour of transferring Birtley and Lamesley to Tyneside against the wishes of their inhabitants is as brutal as the harrying of the North by William the Conqueror, and as undistinguished and unprincipled.

Nothing that my hon. Friend suggested about the historic presence of the Team Valley and Birtley and Lamesley in the conurbation of Tyneside has any reality in economic history. It is a fiction, conjured up out of the warped minds of Gateshead men.

I turn to the most appalling affair the Bill has yet produced. Under Amendment No. 459, Seaham, that creation of the third Marquess of Londonderry and John Buddle between 1820 and 1836, is to be returned, as is quite right, to County Durham, and yet apparently that on which Seaham was created, Hetton, Easington Lane and East Renton, is to be golloped up in the maw of a great Tyneside. The Minister has already suggested that Tyne and Wear should have its boundaries so closely drawn as not to include one acre that has no right to be considered as metropolitan. He has already accepted that the only conceivable reason for keeping Hetton inside such a metropolitan area is that there is to his mind a defective boundary between Hetton-le-Hole and Hetton-le-Spring. As one who perhaps knows the boundary between Hetton-le-Hole and Hetton-le-Spring rather better than many hon. Members do, I say that that is a fiction of an Ordnance Survey map which has no basis in reality. As I suggested on Second Reading, to propose to the people of Hetton-le-Hole and Easington Lane that they belong to Tyne and Wear rather than County Durham is to show a marvellous incompetence in understanding the reality of the feelings of real people that is beyond my comprehension.

12.15 a.m.

There is no political advantage in adding Hetton-le-Hole to one part or another. It is 98 per cent. Labour. It has not had a non-Labour councillor for 70 years. There is no advantage in adding that area to either side. No one on either side of the boundary believes that putting Hetton-le-Hole this way or that would upset the political balance of power. The reality is simple. Whichever way Hetton-le-Hole goes is Labour. It does not matter.

We are faced with the fact that the heartland of East Durham—for that is what Hetton-le-Hole is—should be sent off to some Cloud Cuckoo Land dreamed up in a Ministry but which has no basis in the minds of the people living there. The people living there have not indulged in a public relations campaign. They have relied—like the members of the Durham Light Infantry, of whom they have formed a major part for many centuries—on knowing they are right. To assume that Rommel, any more than the Minister, can stand in the way of the people of Hetton-le-Hole and suggest that they belong to Tyne and Wear is an aberration of which the Minister shall be guilty very soon. To pretend that an area such as that is not part of County Durham on the feeble grounds that there is an inadequate boundary, and to pretend on that ground that Hetton-le-Hole should be transferred to alien country, is a total foolishness.

I urge the Minister to look again at this problem.

We accept there is a great difficulty in finding a satisfactory southern boundary for the metropolitan area in Hetton-le-Hole and Silksworth. No one with a detailed knowledge of that area could pretend there is not. But to pretend that Seaham in Durham, Coldheseldon in Durham, and Easington Lane in Tyne and Wear makes any sense is to show a total misconception of the reality of human occupation, the movement of population, economic activity and everything else which—if this Bill passes through all stages—would make the Government the laughing stock of County Durham.

Mr. John Horam (Gateshead, West)

I should like to return the House of Commons from the blood curdling backwoods of Durham to the shining, modern rationality of Gateshead.

I understand why the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland) has put forward this Amendment. I understand and admire the efforts of the Birtley and Lamesley Action Committee. It said it would "fight like hell for B and L" and like hell it has fought. Supposing the Minister has not withered and disappeared under the avenging finger of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes) before a vote is taken, if a vote is taken, I hope that reason will prevail and the Amendment will be defeated. I believe that it should be, because I believe that to include I amesley and Birtley in the new District (c) of the new metropolitan county of Tyne and Wear is a good, sound local government structure, and good for the citizens of Lamesley and Birtley.

I say that for three reasons. First, Lamesley and Birtley are more naturally linked with Tyneside than with Durham. The people of these places, if they do not work in Lamesley or Birtley, go further north to Team Valley and Tyneside to work. When they want to go shopping on Saturday morning they go to Tyneside. When they want major entertainment, other than television, when they stay at home, they go to Tyneside. While it is true that historically there are strong connections between Lamesley and Birtley and Durham these connections are based firstly on the mining industry which we must accept is in decline and secondly on the Church and the traditional links with the See of Durham. The day has long passed when local government boundaries must coincide with diocesan boundaries.

In the Labour Party we have always striven for wider urban areas. People at the heart of our cities have long been constrained in the narrow straitjackets of urban living and we want to give them freedom to expand in a wider urban setting. That is why, fundamentally, we must include Lamesley and Birtley and areas like that in areas such as the new metropolitan country of Tyne and Wear. In particular we have one great jewel, the Team Valley trading estate, a most important area in the economy and environment of southern Tyneside which should logically be planned as one. If Lamesley and Birtley do come into Tyne and Wear this will be planned as one and that must be right.

The new District (c) is small by any standards. To take away Lamesley and Birtley would make it smaller still. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland) would naturally say that to include Lamesley and Birtley would make Chester-le-Street smaller and that is right. But the fact must be faced that whereas with county areas the major responsibilities are with the top tier, in the metropolitan counties the major responsibilities are with the districts. Therefore it matters a great deal more if we lose out on total population with a district in a metropolitan county than it does with Chester-le-Street, because Durham has the responsibilities for providing services to local authorities.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter (The Hartlepools)

I am following closely what my hon. Friend is saying about Lamesley and Birtley, and why they should be in this metropolitan district. What is the extent of the population he is talking about and what is the rateable value?

Mr. Horam

I do not know the rateable value, but the population is 17,000 I am told. The remaining population in Chester-le-Street would be 49,000 and the total population of Gateshead is 220,000.

Mr. Leadbitter

If the hon. Member has come to this conclusion, is he aware that a number of metropolitan districts in metropolitan counties have considerably less population?

Mr. Horam

Yes. District (c) of the metropolitan county is the fifth smallest of those created, and if Lamesley and Birtley were subtracted, that would make it the second smallest. Three of these small districts are in the Tyne and Wear county and we can ill afford small districts which have to struggle to maintain education. There is fierce controversy over education, and these authorities must struggle to maintain education at its best.

This is why I believe that reason is opposed to the historic links and suggest that we should reject this Amendment.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier (Sunderland, South)

I rise to oppose Amendments Nos. 277, 459, 1040, 1041 and 276.

I am satisfied to leave the other arguments to my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam), but the effect on Sunderland, District (e), would be catastrophic if these Amendments were carried.

Mr. T. W. Urwin (Houghton-le-Spring)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have your guidance on these Amendments? Is it in order for my hon. Friend to debate Amendments which have not been moved? My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street, (Mr. Pentland) moved, I understood, an Amendment, and I understood that we were moving to a Division on it.

Mr. Speaker

I think I called the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street to move Amendment 275 and said that it would be in order to consider the Amendments to which the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) has referred. These are for discussion and not necessarily for Division.

Mr. Bagier

Yes. That is what I understood, that we could speak to the Amendments listed immediately after Amendment No. 275.

If those Amendments were carried it would entirely destroy the concept of Sunderland area, section (e) of the new Tyne and Wear area, and having listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes) I am not sure whether he was speaking as a historian or on this Bill. He sounded like a prophet of doom, but many residents of Hetton and Seaham and those other places he referred to would come to Sunderland, in the Tyne and Wear area and find that the natives there were friendly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland) spoke on the Birtley and Lamesley argument which I am happy to leave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West, but on the question of Washington, under successive Governments, it has been pointed out that for its growth point, Sunderland would look to Washington.

12.30 a.m.

Washington is a new town, one of the best in the region if not one of the best in the country. It has grown and provides employment for the whole Wear Valley. We have repeatedly asked for new industries in the knowledge that Sunderland could not grow sufficiently to provide jobs and we had to look to Washington. In considering the growth of Washington we had to take into account the dormitory aspect of Sunderland.

I know my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street feels strongly about this. He is as proud of Washington as I am. The Government's proposals for the district of Sunderland to include Washington are much more sensible than the Labour Government's proposals in which Washington was not included with Sunderland. The growth point of Washington will be an important factor in determining the growth of District (e).

I suspect that the Amendments in the name of Mr. Secretary Walker are likely to be accepted by the Government. I am alarmed by this because the Amendments concerning District (e) to which he has appended his name are those dealing with Seaham, Dalton-le-Dale and Seaton with Slingley. If the Minister has made up his mind to accept those Amendments, it is a little unfair that Members of Parliament representing Sunderland and Sunderland Corporation have not been consulted about his intentions.

We have been quiet on this issue because we felt that the Government's proposals for District (e) were correct. Taking Seaham out of District (e) would have the effect of producing an imbalance. We are conscious that Tyneside will be dominant in the new Tyne and Wear metropolitan district. The Minister's acceptance of the change of name to Tyne and Wear suggests that he wanted a balance. Yet one of the main Amendments which he is likely to accept will create an imbalance by taking a large section of the community of Seaham out of District (e). Geographically and socially that does not make sense.

According to the latest travel survey, one in every four of the inhabitants of Seaham travels every day to Sunderland for work, shopping and so on. If District (e) is to be a viable section of the new metropolitan area, dealing with education, housing and personal services, with all the costs involved, it must not be too small. I ask the Minister to look again at this issue and perhaps introduce an Amendment in another place. I would prefer him to have consultations with the County Borough of Sunderland and with the Members of Parliament representing Sunderland before making a final decision.

I hope that the Minister will not only resist those Amendments to which he has not appended his name, but will agree to think again on the Seaham one before making a final decision, and will hold the consultations for which I have asked.

Mr. J. D. Dormand (Easington)

I do not wish to be controversial in the two or three minutes for which I shall speak, but my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier), when he says Dalton-le-Dale ought to be part of Sunderland, is, with the greatest respect, out of touch with reality. It has no affinity whatever with that area. I never thought I should be praising this Government for anything they did, but I give them some praise for their initiative in introducing Amendment No. 1040.

It is a belated realisation of the truth. The Minister was kind enough to meet a number of my colleagues and myself to discuss four parishes concerned with Easington rural district. He return Cold-hesledon and East Murton to Easington rural district. It seemed entirely illogical at that moment to leave out Dalton-le-Dale and Seaton with Slingley. We now welcome their return. The Minister will be a popular man in Dalton-le-Dale and Seaton with Slingley if this happens.

Like the occupants of many other villages throughout the whole of County Durham and in the whole of the country they have made their presence felt by writing letters to their Members of Parliament. I have had letters from both parish councils, strong organisations like the women's institutes and from individuals who are concerned. I quote the moving sentences I received from a resident of Seaton: Many of us feel frustrated not only because of what has been said but also because of a feeling of helplessness. It is difficult to avoid an impression that the wishes of people are being swept aside with such little regard that the result will be a further decline in the faith in democracy. What the Minister has done in returning these villages is to restore faith in democracy. It is true to say that both of these villages have been highly satisfied with the administration under Easington Rural District Council and have no desire to leave it. I would dare to say that it is literally true that there is not a single resident in both of these parishes who wishes to go into the metropolitan area. The minister must know of the affinity of Dalton-le-Dale with Murton. Dalton-le-Dale residents work and go to school in Murton; they are connected with the church in Murton; and their whole social and economic links are with Murton. It was an obvious thing to do. I do not want to end on a sour note, but I do not see why the Minister could not have done it in the first place. I welcome it, and I give him praise for having second thoughts on it.

Mr. Urwin

I would like to focus attention on Amendment No. 459, and in making this early reference to it accept the fact that Minister has seen the error of his ways by superimposing his name over that of my own, as mover of the Amendment. This indicates his complete support for the return of Seaham Urban District from the Metropolitan County of Tyne and Wear to the administrative county of Durham. I also applaud the Minister's decision to table Amendment No. 1040 concerning Dalton-le-Dale, Seaton with Slingley. This is long overdue for what I would describe as a tidying-up operation.

This matter has a long history in local government terms. I remember from my personal service in local government extending over many years in this area that a deep sore was felt to exist on the part of Seaton, Hetton and Houghton-le-Spring because of the existence of the large wedge of the Easington rural district which brought with it so many problems in terms of administrative services—adding, one imagines, good deal to the cost of those services in terms of the local authorities concerned and the Durham County Council.

12.45 a.m.

In the passage of the Bill in Committee there were considerable variations of the original text of the Bill, and a number of successes attended the efforts of various hon. Members, some with more influence than others on the Minister's attitude to their special objections. Be- cause of the fragmentation that has taken place, and because of the Minister's rather surprising voluntary acceptance of Seaham in the way I have suggested, it has led to a great deal more speculation than perhaps otherwise would have occurred. Much more activity has been engendered by one or two hon. Members on this side of the House because of the Minister's lack of solidarity towards the Bill which he himself produced.

Against this background, I wish to draw attention to the ridiculous situation created by the right hon. Gentleman in terms of the untidiness of the boundaries which will operate when the Bill is enacted, if it is not changed in another place.

I remind the Minister that attention is now much more sharply focused on the position as it will affect Hetton, subject of Amendment No. 276, and the urban district of Houghton-le-Spring, subject of Amendment No. 1041. These two places have an even greater claim for exclusion from the Tyne-Wear metropolitan county. They accept the statement made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) because, inevitably, if such a decision is taken it will have a weakening effect on the Sunderland district of the Tyne-Wear metropolitan county.

In this new situation, which I am sure the Minister has overlooked, there is an equally strong claim for similar treatment to be afforded to Seaton, Houghton-le-Spring and Hetton as will be afforded to Seaham urban district.

Many of us have lived in this area for most if not all of our lives. I have privately paid tribute to the Minister for Local Government because of what I considered to be a genuine and worthwhile attempt to learn for himself all about the geography of the area in making decisions which will fundamentally affect the lives of many people in the area. Therefore, I wish him seriously to reflect on the repercussions if these decisions remain unaltered and if the Amendments are not accepted.

Let us reflect on the case of Seaham, with an eastern coastal boundary on the one hand, sitting astride the main artery, south-north, of the A19, with three link roads from Easington Lane on the southern extremity of a corridor 7 or 8 miles long, extending northwards to Penshaw in the Houghton-le-Spring urban district, and three link roads from Easington Lane at the southern end. Hetton in the centre and Houghton-le-Spring at the northern end.

The area is well serviced, and the communications are very good in Seaham, a community with a population of 23,310, coming within the administrative county of Durham but separated, paradoxically, from the nearest western district of the new county of Durham—District No. 8—by a large corridor comprising Houghton and Hetton urban districts, within the metropolitan county. This is so ridiculous as to be almost unbelievable, especially as Murton, already the subject of discussions successfully presented to the Minister, lies immediately to the east of Easington Lane at the southern extremity, and remains now, subsequent to the Minister's decision, within the county of Durham.

The corridor to which I refer is populated by 50,000 people. They are resident in this huge corridor between two administrative districts of the new county of Durham. Nothing could be more nonsensical than the new situation that the Minister seeks to create by not accepting at least Hetton and addressing himself to the possibility of a more adventurous idea of a new grouping beyond that just described.

This area of 50,000 people is bigger than the fragments remaining to my hon. Friend and his local government colleagues in Chester-le-Street rural district and Chester-le-Street urban district, and big enough, on the basis of that comparison, to form a single Durham county district. The Minister is the only one who does not know—everybody else knows where the boundary should be drawn. The Minister will create a further difficult situation with the administrative authorities who will have to leapfrog from Seaham on the coast, about 7 or 8 miles inland to service the district on the western side of Houghton-le-Spring and Hetton-le-Hole, which will remain within the metropolitan county.

The Minister will be perpetuating, accentuating and aggravating the difficult problems to which I referred earlier and with which my local government colleagues have had to contend for many years. These problems could be largely avoided if the Minister would only interpret and act upon paragraph 7 of the Government White Paper, in which he says: If local authorities are to provide services effectively and economically, their areas should be large enough in size, population and resources to meet administrative needs, including the maintenance and development of a trained and expert local government service: boundaries should be drawn so that areas take account of patterns of development and travel: and services which are closely linked should be in the hands of the same authority. All the arguments here can be adduced to support the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland), but, with respect to him, I suggest that they can be also adduced to the greater benefit of the areas to which I refer.

The singular decision on Seaham is not in accord with the very sound premises on which paragraph 7 of the White Paper is based, unless the Minister accepts Amendment No. 276, in the name of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes) and Amendment 1041 in my name, for Houghton-le-Spring. Even the Minister must realise that the proposals are so ridiculous as virtually to compel the Boundary Commission to come back later unnecessarily to do work again to redraw these boundaries on a much more sensible basis than he has drawn them. There must inevitably be later changes.

I finalise my remarks as quickly as I can. I know that the Minister has a long night before him and I sympathise with him. I am sure that other hon. Members in this and subsequent debates will not be half as tolerant on their problems as I am on those which affect me and the area I represent.

Where, then, does the Minister now suggest that Seaham should go? Obviously he will be in consultation with Durham County Council. It has submitted eight districts to the Boundary Commission. Will the Minister suggest to Durham that Seaham should go into the Easington Rural District, one of the eight, bearing in mind that this district will no longer be rural, with the addition of Murton and Hesledon, agreed with all the parishes?

Easington Rural District and Seaham Urban District would comprise a population of 107,797, 32,000 more than the minimum requirement laid down by the Boundary Commission. With the best will in the world, I suggest to the Minister that this is perhaps unwieldy. It is certainly numerically much larger than any of the other seven districts in the administrative area of the Durham County Council.

If, as has been whispered abroad, Seaham should become part of the Chester-le-Street Durham County No. 3 district, this would be adding insult to injury. Even though its numbers are sadly depleted and it is a much smaller local government unit than it need be, if my hon. Friend's Amendment were accepted it would add insult to injury to unload Seaham on to Chester-le-Street and create other greater geographical problems.

I hope that the Minister will deliberate long and deeply on the proposal I now make. If he is not disposed to accept Amendment No. 276 from my hon. Friend the Member for Durham and Amendment No. 1041 from myself in respect of Houghton-le-Spring, I ask him to consider the possibility—indeed, the practicability—of a further district within the administrative County of Durham which would have, first, Seaham Urban District—I take it not in order of priority but merely because the Minister indicates his willingness to accept Seaham Urban District within the County of Durham—with a population of 23,310 linked with Hetton and its population of 16,871 and in turn with Houghton-le-Spring, with 31,000 population, with Murton and Hesledon, with respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand), with a population of 9,030, and those northern parishes of Easington R.D.C. with 677 population. This would give a total population of 80,888, or almost 90,000. I would consider that to be an ideal county district, well within the limits prescribedby the Boundary Commission, and a completely viable and economic local government unit.

When some of us met the Minister concerning the very questions we are now debating and we discussed at great length Birtley and Lamesley, we fondly believed that we had converted the Minister to our way of thinking when he accepted the representations of my hon. Friend the Member for Easington and myself. We discussed Murton and Cold Heseldon and we thought that we were winning the battle.

I remember asking the Minister whether he would not be guided in any way by the Parliamentary Boundary Commission's Report. Perhaps I shall be ruled out of order for daring to mention that report, but it is relevant as well as important. For the first time within the memory of people much older than me, the constituency of Houghton-le-Spring has the distinct advantage of belonging to one local government unit. That was achieved by the Boundary Commission's Report, which was accepted by the Government. For the first time the parishes and districts I have mentioned—Houghton, Hetton, Seaham, Murton and Cold Heseldon and the parishes of Easington R.D.C.—will be within the parliamentary constituency of Houghton-le-Spring. This is an ideal situation, probably the most ideal in the British Isles, but the Minister seeks to demolish it at one fell swoop.

The Minister is kind-hearted, friendly and sometimes helpful, but, at the risk of being repetitive, I ask him to think again and, if he will not accept the Amendments, at least to assure us that changes will be made. I shall otherwise certainly seek to pursue the matter in another place through the medium of my predecessor in the House who represented Houghton-le-Spring for 19 years, and I hope that if my efforts are unsuccessful, his will meet with the success they will deserve.

Mr. Graham Page

One of the phenomena of our debates of yesterday and today has been that on almost every occasion I have given a concession suggested in an Amendment by hon. Members opposite only to be slated for doing so. I do not know whether to concede any more, or to show the solidity which I am accused of not showing when I am flexible. I am required on occasions to be flexible and on others to show solidity.

These Amendments deal with the southern boundary of the Tyne and Wear area with County Durham. They deal with towns now in County Durham. They think of themselves as Durham towns, but they have become suburbs of Gateshead and Sunderland and they are part of the continuous built-up areas of the conurbation.

In considering where the line should now be drawn as we reform local government, I have stuck to the statement in paragraph 32 of the White Paper which, dealing with the metropolitan type of structure, said: The boundaries of these areas should include all the main area, or areas, of continuous development and any adjacent area into which continuous development will extend. It may be right to include closely related built-up areas, too. In almost all these instances there is a continuous build-up from the conurbations. Starting from the western end, Lamesley and Birtley are unique in their connection with Gateshead, being part and parcel of Gateshead because they are attached to it both residentially and industrially. I can assure the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland) that I did not brush aside the feeling of the people here. I gave it very deep consideration. But this is not the only factor that one has to consider when reforming local government——

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Pentland

But is not it a fact that in this case 80 per cent. of the people Expressed their will and were turned down, whereas in other areas 20, 30 or 40 per cent. of the people have expressed their will in petitions and the Minister has acceded to it?

Mr. Page

The will of the people gathered, as it has been in areas such as Birtley, by an organised referendum which can be worded to obtain the appropriate answer is only one factor that we have to consider in deciding where to draw the boundaries.

The residential area of Eighton Banks in the north-east of the parish is a suburb of Gateshead. Part of the Team Valley industrial estate extends across the Gateshead border into the northern part of Lamesley. I recognise that the argument that I am putting does not necessarily apply to the western half of Lamesley. Because it is part of a district, perhaps that might be considered later by the Boundary Commission. In fact, I give the assurance that I will ask the Commission to look at the western and southern boundaries of Lamesley to see whether we have them right when we draw the line along the existing authority's boundary. But having considered this thoroughly, I am satisfied that Lamesley, with the Team Valley industrial estate running across the boundary into Gateshead, really is part of Gateshead.

The same applies to Birtley. This is a continuation southwards of the Gateshead complex. It is physically homogenous with Washington on one side. Although the A.1(M) runs between the two, we find now that these major roads are not divisive but attractive to development either side of them. This is no barrier between Birtley and Washington.

In the case of Lamesley and Birtley, therefore, I ask the House to reject the Amendments and to retain these areas within the Tyne and Wear conurbation.

Moving eastwards, I deal now with the Amendments relating to Hetton and Houghton-le-Spring. In the case of Hetton, the work ties are with the metropolitan county. I have to go back rather far in the census on this because reliable figures are not available since the 1966 census, but at that time there were 7,250 residents in employment, half of whom worked within Hetton itself. Of the remainder, at least 2,000 odd were employed within the area of the proposed metropolitan county. Almostall of these were in the Sunderland district.

The boundary has not been drawn south of Hetton merely because, as was suggested, I had not found an adequate boundary between the two. It was drawn south of Hetton because Hetton and Houghton are a continuous built-up area.

Mr. Mark Hughes

There are two points. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that since 1966 the evidence is clear that, rather than it being 7,000 people working in Hetton, 2,000 in Sunderland and the rest nowhere, in fact the lure of Peterlee is meant that the travel to work pull of Hetton has moved back into County Durham?

Secondly, the boundary has gone on the south side because, according to the Minister, there is no boundary between Hetton and Houghton. There is a boundary, except along one road. I agree with that. However, except for that one road, there is a clear boundary between these two districts.

Mr. Page

I think the districts are so much part and parcel of each other and of Sunderland that it is right to include them in the Tyne and Wear complex. Houghton-le-Spring has stronger economic links with Sunderland than with Durham; the urban district council wants to remain in the metropolitan county and also opposes the suggested exclusion of Hetton.

So I am faced with a council decision that Houghton-le-Spring wants to remain with Sunderland and the Tyne and Wear Metropolitan County and to take with it the adjoining Hetton.

Mr. Urwin

Does the Minister understand that that very fine majority decision recorded by the Houghton-le-Spring Urban District Council—I believe it was a majority of one—was very much influenced by the knowledge that it was more than likely that Seaham and Hetton Urban District Councils would also be going into the Tyne and Wear Metropolitan County?

Mr. Page

I cannot speculate on that. I have a council decision that it wants its area to remain within the conurbation.

Mr. Urwin

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Page

I think I had better get on.

Mr. Urwin

Just on one point. I am grateful to the Minister. I know he is being harassed on this issue. There is a direct contradiction in terms, is there not? On the one hand, the Minister pins his faith on a narrow majority decision of one local authority, to wit, Houghton le Spring Urban District Council, and yet, on the other hand, rejects the very strong representations made by the Birtley and Chester-le-Street urban and rural district councils and almost all the people living within that area who expressed similarly strongly their desire to retain their status within the administrative County of Durham. The Minister cannot have both sides of the argument.

Mr. Page

The hon. Gentleman has made his speech and only delays matters if he repeats it. There is a difference between the referenda which I have received from so many areas, on which I do not pin a great deal of faith, and the resolution of the properly elected council.

I now pass to Washington. The new town is part of the conurbation and was built to provide a focal point for the renewal of that conurbation. It is firmly within the built-up area, at the hinge between Tyneside and Wearside, and it would be planning nonsense to have it in Durham. I know the Washington Urban District Council wants to be part of Durham. Sunderland, Gateshead and the other county boroughs on Tyneside support the Government's proposals. From the planning point of view, to remove Washington from the conurbation would not make sense.

I should like to deal with Amendments Nos. 20 and 105, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which deal with a strip of land at Harraton. These are merely tidying up Amendments. This strip of land was inadvertently left out of the descriptions of the areas in the Schedule. Nobody lives on this strip of land. I hope the House will accept these tidying up Amendments.

Turning to the eastern end of this boundary I should deal with Seaham. Here I am glad that I am taking some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite with me, if not others. It was originally an Amendment by an Opposition Member which, after consideration, I am prepared to advise the House to accept.

If Seaham urban district is left in the Durham area and not moved out of it as the Bill proposes, it will be reasonable to take with it the parishes alongside it of Dalton-le-Dale and Seaton with Slingley but not, I think, the other two in the neighbourhood, Warden Law and Burdon, because they seem so closely joined with Houghton that they should stay in the metropolitan county with that district.

I am asking the House to accept the Amendment which would remove Seaham, Dalton-le-Dale and Seaton with Slingley from the Tyne and Wear metropolitan county. I ask that because Seaham is physically separated from Sunderland. Seaham is pretty well self-contained in journey-to-work terms. Again at the time of the previous census 69 per cent. of its economically active population worked in the town itself.

Mr. Mark Hughes

The right hon. Gentleman told the House not five minutes ago that more than 70 per cent. of the population of Hetton worked in the town of Hetton. If he is saying that there is a greater affinity between Hetton and Sunderland than between Seaham and Sunderland, I fear that he is under a misapprehension.

Mr. Page

The hon. Gentleman has made his speech, and I am sure the House took note of it. We are presented with a rather peculiar situation with regard to Seaham and the whole of the Durham coast. Seaham is a place of considerable significance for that coast, and I wish to see the coast administered in future under one local authority.

At present the National Coal Board tips its coal at Nose's Point at the south end of Seaham urban district. The polluting of the Durham beaches as a result is a terrible sight to see. The area which is the source of this pollution ought to be in the same county as the area it pollutes, both on grounds of equity and because it will give local government a stronger hand to play in trying to put things right than would exist if a county boundary separated the polluter from its victims.

Moreover, the most likely alternative method of disposing of the colliery waste will be by barging it out to sea from Seaham, and to put Seaham in Durham would mean that the site of both the problem—that is dirty beaches—and of the remedy—Seaham harbour—would be in the same major planning area. When that is done we shall have cleared pollution in that area. I am sure it will be right for the beaches to be under the same administration, and I think that this is a practical reason for putting the whole of the Durham beaches under one local authority. I therefore ask the House to accept the Amendment relating to Seaham harbour, Dalton-le-Dale and Seaton with Slingley.

Mr. Bagier

Has the right hon. Gentleman had any consultations with the County Borough of Sunderland? Has he given notice of his acceptance of the Amendment?

Mr. Page

This has been debated for the past 12 to 18 months. I do not think it is necessarily incumbent upon a Minister to consult local authorities when he reaches a decision after months and months of debate.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Ernest Armstrong (Durham, North-West)

I now represent, and live in, West Durham, although for a time I lived in Sunderland and was a member of a local authority there; so perhaps I can bring some objectivity to these arguments.

After serving on the Standing Committee for so long and attending so many of its Sittings, I hope that I pay regard to certain criteria and principles in regard to the reform of local government. We all agree that local government must be reformed, and various criteria are used in discussing topics such as those we have discussed throughout the night.

The Minister's reply was disappointing to most of us on this side. He carefully selected certain arguments for certain cases—the very arguments that on other occasions he has rejected. The right hon. Gentleman was most unconvincing. I stress that I do not relish saying that in view of the helpful manner he displayed in Committee. I believe that local government reform must come, because we want efficient local government and we must stimulate far more interest and activity amongst ordinary people. Participation is an "in" word nowadays, but we must create a new local government structure that appeals to the people and is likely actively to secure their involvement.

My hon. Friends from Gateshead do not dispute the wish of the people of Birtley and Lamesley to be in Durham County. My hon. Friends said that we in Gateshead know what is good for Birtley and Lamesley. We had the argument that the Minister in Whitehall or Marsham Street knows best.

Mr. Conlan

My hon. Friend is being unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam) and myself. We are not saying that Gates-head people know what is best for the people of Lamesley and Birtley. We say that we have an objective point of view about what structure of local government on South Tyneside should be. After the new proposals have been implemented for some time, the people of Lamesley and Birtley may well be glad that they became part of area (c).

Mr. Armstrong

My hon. Friend is saying that he did not say that the people of Gateshead know best but that the two Members of Parliament know best what is good for Birtley and Lamesley.

Mr. Conlan

That is absolute rubbish and very unfair.

Mr. Armstrong

The last thing I want to be is unfair. I withdraw what I said. I was only interpreting what I thought I heard.

The Minister was less than fair when he dismissed so casually the referenda which have been held in the area. I have not heard of anybody who has received letters from anybody in Birtley or Lamesley asking to be put into the metropolitan area. The overwhelming will of the people is to come to Durham County.

These proposals mean that the Boundary Commission, acting on the recommendation of Durham County Council, has been compelled to create a district which makes nonsense of the guidelines laid down by the Department's circular. Paragraph 2 of the circular states: Except in sparsely populated areas, the aim should be to define districts with current populations generally within the range of about 75,000 to 100,000". The Chester-le-Street District Council, although far from being a sparsely popu-

lated area, will have a population of less than 50,000. They are being compelled to go against guidelines laid down by the Minister.

I welcome that Seaham will go to Durham. But whatever arguments the Minister uses in that case, they would be so much stronger in the case of Houghton and Hetton. After all the pushing and pulling, after all the changing of minds, after all the different statements about Teesside going into Durham and Durham into Teesside, and Easington and Hesledon and so on going into Durham, the Minister must sit down and take a cool look once again at the area. I think when he gets his maps out again, and when the people of Durham realise that Seaham is coming to Durham and not Hetton and Houghton, and that Birtley and Lamesely are going to the metropolitan area, they will feel that it is such a hotch-potch that the whole arrangement will need revision. I believe that it will have to be revised in the House of Lords and I hope that the Minister will give careful thought to this matter before the Bill reaches the other House.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 24, Noes 77.

Division No. 275.]	AYES	[1.22 a.m.
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)	Gilbert, Dr. John	Pannell Rt Hn Charles
Armstrong, Ernest	Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Ashton, Joe	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Prescott, John
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Kaufman, Gerald	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)	McNamara, J. Kevin	Skinner, Dennis
Dormand, J. D.	Marsden, F.
English, Michael	Marshall, Dr. Edmund	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Oakes, Gordon	Mr. Norman Pentland and
Foot, Michael	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)	Mr. T. W. Urwin.
Forrester, John
NOES
Adley, Robert	Cormack, Patrick	Lane, David
Atkins, Humphrey	Drayson, G. B.	Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Luce R N
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Mather, Carol
Biffen, John	Fenner, Mrs. Peggy	Mawby, Ray
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Fidler, Michael	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Bossom, Sir Clive	Fortescue, Tim	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Bowden, Andrew	Gibson-Watt, David	Miscampbell, Norman
Bray, Ronald	Goodhart, Philip	Moate, Roger
Bryan, Sir Paul	Goodhew, Victor	Money, Ernle
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Gray, Hamish	Monks, Mrs. Connie
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher	Gummer, J Selwyn	Montgomery, Fergus
Churchill, W. S.	Haselhurst, Alan	More, Jasper
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Hawkins, Paul	Murton, Oscar
Cohen, Stanley	Horam, John	Normanton, Tom
Conlan, Bernard	Hordern, Peter	Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Cooke, Robert	Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia	Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Corby)
Cordle, John	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James	Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)	Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Redmond, Robert	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)	Sutcliffe, John	Weatherill, Bernard
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)	Wilkinson, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)	Tebbit, Norman	Winterton, Nicholas
Sinclair, Sir George	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Speed, Keith	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Spence, John	Trew, Peter	Mr. Michael Jopling and
Stanbrook, Ivor	Waddington, David	Mr. Marcus Fox.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 459, in page 195, line 48, leave out 'Seaham'.

No. 20, in line 52, column 2, at end insert 'and also so much of the said parish of Harraton as lies west of that designated area and north of the boundary referred to in paragraph 3A of Part III of this Schedule'.

No. 1040, in line 54, leave out 'Dalton-le-Dale, Seaton with Slingley'.—[Mr. Peter Walker.]

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)

We come to Amendment No. 293 and the large group of Amendments with it, as follows:

No. 294, in page 196, line 12, at end insert: In the administrative county of Staffordshire— in the rural district of Seisdon, the parish of Himley.

No. 278, leave out lines 13 and 14 and insert:

District (d) The county borough of Warley.

District (e) The county borough of West Bromwich.

No. 21, in line 16, at end insert 'except areas in district (h)'.

No. 22, leave out lines 17 and 18.

No. 23, in line 32, at end insert:

District (h) In the county borough of Birmingham so much of the county borough as lies east of the boundary referred to in paragraph 8 of part III of this Schedule. In the administrative county of Warwickshire, the borough of Sutton Coldfield.

No. 295, in page 200, line 34, at end insert: In the administrative county of Staffordshire— in the rural district of Seisdon, the parish of Kinver.

No. 1042, in page 202, leave out line 40 and insert: 'Shropshire The administrative county of Shropshire'.

No. 296, in line 40, at end insert: In the administrative county of Staffordshire— in the rural district of Seisdon, the parishes of Bobbington, Enville, Patshull, Pattingham, Swindon and Trysull and Seisdon.

No. 565, leave out lines 43 to 46 and insert: North Staffordshire The county borough of Stoke-on-Trent In the administrative county of Staffordshire— the borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme; the urban districts of Biddulph, Kidsgrove, Leek, Stone and Uttoxeter; the rural districts of Cheadle, Leek, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Stone and Uttoxeter (part). South Staffordshire The county borough of Burton-upon-Trent. In the administrative county of Staffordshire— the boroughs of Stafford, Lichfield and Tamworth; the urban districts of Cannock and Rugeley; the rural districts of Cannock, Lichfield, Stafford and Uttoxeter (part).

No. 297, in line 46, at end insert 'and except the rural district of Seisdon in the West Midlands, Salop and Hereford and Worcester.'

No. 112, in page 204, line 21, at end insert— 7. The boundary dividing the metropolitan district (e) from the metropolitan district (h) shall be such as the Secretary of State may by Order determine on or near the general line of the motorway known as the M1/M6 Midland Links motorway.

Mr. John Forrester (Stoke-on-Trent, North)

I beg to move Amendment No. 293, in page 196, line 4, at end insert— In the administrative county of Staffordshire— in the rural district of Seisdon, the parishes of Codsall, Lower Penn, Wombourne and Wrottesley. Nevertheless, I wish to concentrate my remarks on Amendment No. 565.

It is a great pity that when the Government were drawing up the boundaries for local government they did not pay more attention to the views of the Royal Commission on Local Government. Those boundary suggestions were made after a great deal of detailed investigation, local discussion and deliberation. Everyone would admit that the boundary proposals were not perfect, but at least they were an attempt to give meaning to the new areas and to bring together those areas which had a community of interest.

It was regrettable that the Minister opted very largely for the archaic county boundaries, which have no meaning in twentieth century Britain. Given the need to reorganise local government—I can see there is such a need—the areas ought to be as small as possible to afford an efficient administrative organisation.

I am not convinced that we need monstrous-sized units of local government to provide good educational facilities, social services, libraries. The ideas about economies of scale do not apply in local government. If we take into account what has happened with the police amalgamations, it is possible that we shall see the opposite effect.

One cannot compare the problems of local government with the problems of industry. Schools, health centres and libraries must be within centres of population. Despite what we may hope about savings we have to have a series of district offices which will report upwards and receive their orders from the fountain-head in some remote place.

The problem of the functions of local authorities is probably contained in another series of Amendments. I refrain from discussing those further this morning. The fewer district offices we have, and the closer those district offices are to the head offices of the organisation, the better that will be for local democracy and participation.

Amendment No. 565 proposes two counties for Staffordshire. If the Minister will concede that point I am convinced that both those counties will be viable. Both will have a community of interest and local democracy will benefit.

In the original proposals submitted by the Minister, there were 13 counties which had populations of under 500,000. In the proposals outlined in this Amendment, North Staffordshire would have a population of 520,000. The South Staffordshire area would have a population of about 425,000. My colleague and I omitted Seisdon because that was omitted from the Minister's original proposals. If the Minister saw fit to put Seisdon into South Staffordshire, that would give South Staffordshire a population of about 460,000-plus.

Dealing with the rateable value of the two areas, North Staffordshire would have a rateable value of £19 million and South Staffordshire a rateable value of £16 million. It is interesting to compare those values with the rateable values of some of the other county authorities which have been set up. Warwickshire and Durham will have rateable values of around £19½ million, Lincolnshire and Cumbria £17½ million, Somerset £15½ million, Cornwall and Shropshire £13½ million and Northumberland just over £9 million. On rateable values these areas would be viable. I have not the slightest doubt that two counties in Staffordshire would be viable and efficient units of local government.

Each would be able to provide the wide range of services required and would be in a position to attract and employ the high calibre staff so necessary in local government. It is a great fallacy to imply that because someone lives in Stoke or Kidsgrove or Biddulph in North Staffordshire he has an affinity of interest with people in South Staffordshire, from Can-nock, Bobbington or Pattingham. About 99.9 per cent. of the people living in Stoke have no idea where Bobbington and Pattingham are. They do not know that they exist and they have no interest in the problems of those areas. I am prepared to concede that it may be our misfortune that we do not know about these places, but I do not doubt that the good people of those areas have no interest in the problems and difficulties of North Staffordshire.

It may be many centuries, if it were ever true, since Staffordshire as a whole had a community interest. I do not believe that if we reorganise the functions in the drastic manner proposed they will ever be drawn together. There will continue to be a gulf and indifference which will exist until the next reorganisation of local government. This would be a pity because a great opportunity to fashion meaningful boundaries of local government, which would leave the people contented, will have been missed.

There is so little contact between North and South Staffordshire as to be almost non-existent. South Staffordshire, culturally, socially, economically and geographically looks towards the West Midlands conurbation and will continue to do so. North Staffordshire is an independent sub-region, owing allegiance for industry and culture not to the West Midlands, the North West or the Manchester conurbation. It will continue to be an area apart from the rest of the county, come what may.

In North Staffordshire, the major services, such as gas, electricity and telephones are organised on this sub-regional basis. The local newspaper, which is often a good reflection of the community interest, circulates roughly in the area outlined for North Staffordshire in the Amendment. It has little or no sale in South Staffordshire districts. The reverse is true of the papers serving South Staffordshire. They have no sales at all in the north of the county. I believe that North Staffordshire would make an ideal unit of local government. It is a distinct and separate community and I hope that the Minister will accept that.

I do not wish to say much about Amendment No. 293 on Seisdon, that rather unhappy piece of country. I understand that other hon. Members may have something to say on it, but I heard the Minister explain the position to his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) in the matter of Poynton-with-Worth earlier. If the Minister applies the same criteria to Seisdon that he applied to Poynton-with-Worth, I have no doubt that he will accept the Amendments in the names of my hon. Friends and myself. On Poynton-with-Worth, the Minister did not accept that local opinion was sufficient evidence to override the facts and there was some argument in the preceding debate on the same line. Seisdon, to use the Minister's own words, is a wart on the body of Staffordshire, and Seisdon is almost completely dependent on the West Midlands conurbation.

There is a great danger, if we have very large units of local government which take away powers from those who have exercised them in the past and replant them in some remote county hall, that that will lead to serious decline in democratic control and local participation.

The big, enhanced, authorities with major powers may, and apparently do, appeal to politicians of all parties, but I wonder whether we are running local government for a handful of people in the majority party or organising it on behalf of the ratepayers of these areas. I still believe that the town hall means something to many people in the country and they still look to this as the place where they can go for help and guidance when they need it. Remote control from an area 20, 30 or 40 miles away is a soulless, impersonal thing and it is unnecessary for the efficient administration of local government in this country at this time.

In the world there is far too much change for the sake of change and there is a lot of this, I fear, in the Bills the Government are passing and in the Bills which the previous Government passed.

I hope that we shall not lightly cast away those things which are good and proven and which are still useful to the community, especially when there is only a slight chance of only a slight improvement in services to the people, and there is a distinct possibility that what we put in place of the present system will lead to a decline in the standards to which we have been used. I hope that the Minister will say that two counties for Staffordshire is not only possible but in the best interests of the whole of Staffordshire, of the people of Staffordshire and of democracy in general.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd (Sutton Coldfield)

In my Amendments I intended to provide a constructive alternative to the proposal to merge Sutton Coldfield with Birmingham which has provoked a sense of overwhelming grievance and outrage among my constituents, but I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister for the care which they have given to receiving many deputations from Sutton Coldfield. The divisions into metropolitan districts give rise to acute feeling among those living in these areas. Many people consider that they are being manipulated in accordance with mathematical formulae and administrative expediency. This is a very strong feeling in the Borough of Sutton Coldfield.

Sutton Coldfield is an ancient borough which for over 400 years has been an independent municipal authority. It is a borough of over 83,000 people, with an efficient administration exercising the maximum powers that a non-county borough can exercise. They include, under delegation, the functions of health, town planning and education. The borough administers over 4,400 municipal dwellings, 45 schools, and a large nationally famous park, and it has embarked on an ambitious redevelopment of its town centre which should be completed by 1975.

Why should this established, efficient local authority, strongly against the wishes of its inhabitants, be merged with the City of Birmingham to form Metropolitan District 15(e) within the West Midlands Metropolitan County?

Birmingham already has a very large population and if the two are conjoined the metropolitan district will have a population of 1,100,000. This is far too large in population and area for a local authority to give the kind of personal service to its residents that the people of Sutton Coldfield have been accustomed to.

Metropolitan District 15(e) with a population of 1,100,000 would be by far the largest metropolitan district in the country. Its population would be virtually 40 per cent. larger than the next largest which is Leeds, and its rateable value would be nearly double that of Leeds. It would, therefore, be overwhelmingly the biggest unit in the Midland County—far too big and disproportionate in size, influence and people when compared with other authorities within the county. The next biggest is under 400,000, only about one-third of District 15(e). Birmingham is too big now; to make it bigger by absorbing Sutton Coldfield within its boundaries would be, in the opinion of my constituents, the negation of democracy and good local government.

The area proposed in my Amendments for another metropolitan district includes the present borough incorporating some areas of the City of Birmingham up to the line of the new motorway. It would give a compact area, with its administrative centre in the middle of the district and would be bounded by a well defined boundary. It would have a population of about 220,000, falling by some thousands, it is true, below that of the Government's so-called minimum population for a metropolitan district, but, even so, bigger than Solihull. There are however, already nine other metropolitan districts in the country below 250,000.

Why must we, in this case, be bound by this magic norm? It would be for only a temporary period, as land exists within these proposed boundaries which will be developed in a few years, and thus the proposed population will soon be exceeded. There is an overwhelming desire in my constituency, which has an intense community spirit and individuality, that it should form the nucleus of an eighth district. Sutton Coldfield is not dependent upon Birmingham. It has a strong individuality of its own; enlarged it could be a viable and effective metropolitan district.

I must make special reference to our park, because it plays a large part in the sense of grievance and anxiety felt by my constituents and in any case is in its own right a most important issue. The park was a gift to the town from King Henry VIII and has been part of the town since 1528. Sutton Coldfield is the trustee forth preservation of this beautiful natural area of 2.500 acres. There is widespread anxiety about the fate of our park under the proposals in the Bill.

Mr. Peter Archer (Rowley Regis and Tipton)

I hope that both my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Forrester) and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) will understand that I am likely to win wider support for my Amendment if I express no views on their Amendments.

I wish to speak to Amendment No. 278. It stands completely alone and has no reference to any other Amendment in this Staffordshire group of Amendments. Amendment No. 278 refers to the Government's proposal to join together Warley and West Bromwich in a single district authority. Presumably, that is the Government's view of what is best for the people of that area. It is not their own view of what is best for them. It is not the view of either council. It is not the view of either political party in either authority. Recently Labour recovered its natural and proper position in control of both authorities, and there will I hope soon be some changes in policy, but on this matter there will be no change.

The hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Stokes), who does not always express his complete agreement with my speeches, has been kind enough to say that his views have not changed in the least since he added his name to my Amendment. The Government's view is not the view expressed by housewives in supermarkets or by menfolk in clubs or by tenants' associations or by ratepayers or by anybody who has to live in the area.

Other debates have reflected the disputes between authorities in particular localities. Here the whole locality speaks entirely in unison. This is the opinion of Government in the face of universal opposition by people whose lives will be affected by this proposal. Traditionally the shotgun wedding is where one of the participants is reluctant, and marched to the altar by the family of the other. Here, the shotgun is pointed at both parties by people who have not been within 100 miles of the area.

The arguments have been fully rehearsed before on many occasions. First, there is the matter of timing. In 1966 a number of ancient authorities in the Black Country were hustled into five big boxes, not only without a "By your leave" but in the face of the clearest evidence that that leave would have been refused. These amalgamations were unpopular then and they have remained unpopular ever since. The people of West Warley feel nothing in common with the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds). People in Tipton feel that they are the forgotten part of West Bromwich.

Members of both authorities have loyally set about trying to forge new communities. I pay tribute to institutions such as the Warley Council of Social Service and the Councils of Community Relations of both Warley and West Bromwich, who have laboured hard to awaken a sense of community in each of the boroughs. But it is a slow and painful process. People are still not convinced. It will take another 10 years at least before the names Warley and West Bromwich stand for anything which evokes a sense of belonging

Now it is proposed that there should be a new identity again, that the authority should be even bigger and that the town hall should be even further away. Already there are people who cannot afford the bus fare to the town hall. Now it will be virtually out of reach.

London was excluded from the consideration of the Maud Commission because it underwent a major upheaval in 1963. The Black Country underwent a major upheaval in 1966. But I do not concede that at any time this would be an appropriate step to take. The Minister of State kindly wrote to me indicating that the Government's reason for proceeding with the proposal was their adherence to the population minimum of 250,000 for a metropolitan district. I concede at once that the population of West Bromwich is 224,000 and the population of Warley is 168,000. It is unconvincing to say that these populations do not represent viable units. They have in fact managed, and they have run their affairs, if not always to the satisfaction of the local population. Such troubles as they have do not arise from under-population or from inadequate size.

I stand to be corrected, but I believe that of the 32 London boroughs, 20 have a population of less than 250,000. One appreciates the need for co-ordination over a wide area for certain services. The five Black Country boroughs have been co-ordinating their activities for some years now. They have a joint committee that will continue to be necessary even if this proposal goes through. Co-ordination for specific purposes between two authorities is possible without merging one into the other.

When this matter was debated as long ago as February, 1970, I said it was a precious safeguard to many ordinary people to know that the services which most affect them are administered by people whose door-knockers are available at tea time, and with whom they can stop to have a word on the way home from work. I warned the previous Government, and I warn the present Government that if they bring into existence a new authority by caesarian operation, performed with an axe, they will lay up trouble for themselves and for the unhappy people who will have to nurture the Siamese offspring.

The people of the Black Country can be persuaded, but they will not be "steamrollered". And at present they have not been persuaded. If I have not persuaded the Secretary of State, he will have his way tonight. I shall not waste the time of the House by calling a hopeless Division on this Amendment, but if the Government have their way with the House now, it does not follow that they will have their way with the people in the area.

I hope that the scheme will work and that the people in the area will co-operate. It is better that there should be a bad arrangement which works than a bad arrangement which does not work. Local government services must be administered. But how much better to be assured of willing co-operation than to throw down a challenge to the obstinacy of the people who live in the area and who are united in this matter against the Government. A local government structure divorced from the feelings and aspirations of people who have to live with it is a sterile, fossilised contraption. The Government propose to call the new authority by the unevocative name of District (d). History will give it a more descriptive name: Walker's Folly.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery (Brierley Hill)

The hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) said that London had had a local government reorganisation in 1963–64 and therefore was left alone this time, Those of us who represent West Midlands constituencies know too well that we had a local government reorganisation at an even later date, in 1966. I feel it is monstrous to have a further reorganisation in this area. Things are just beginning to settle down after the last reorganisation. New identities are being formed in the authorities which were set up at that time, and now suddenly the whole pattern is to be changed again.

I wish to confine my speech to Amendments Nos. 293 to 296. These are all Amendments concerning Seisdon rural district which is in the county of Staf- fordshire, and their purpose would be to dismember Seisdon and to split the rural district four ways. Part would go to Wolverhampton, part to Dudley, part to Salop and part to Hereford and Worcester.

These Amendments stand in the names of the three hon. Members for Stoke and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). It is difficult to decide why those four hon. Members, representing interests in the North of Staffordshire, should suddenly be so interested in the rural district in the South-East of Staffordshire which is a good distance from their constituencies.

Earlier in the year I read in a Stoke newspaper that hon. Members opposite were to make a determined effort to split up the Seisdon rural district. As I was serving on the Committee of the Local Government Bill, I waited with interest for discussion to take place. But day after day these Amendments did not appear on the Amendment Paper, though I was anxiously watching for them. Then one day we struck oil and the Amendments appeared—but at such a late date that the Chairman ruled that they could not be discussed because they had not been tabled in time. I wonder why it took those Amendments so long to reach the Order Paper. That was one of the mysteries that we never solved in the Standing Committee dealing with the Bill.

2.0 a.m.

I suggest that the reason for the Amendment is purely political. Under the changes put forward Staffordshire will have Stoke included in it, but with its inclusion Staffordshire is likely to be a politically marginal county council, and it could be that the rural district of Seisdon will be vital as to which party controls Staffordshire in future elections.

Mr. Forrester

If the hon. Member thinks that the Amendment is political from our point of view he will accept that we are tempted to think that he is being political from his point of view. We were only trying to help the Minister revert to his original proposals in putting down the Amendments in this way.

Mr. Montgomery

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be grateful for the help of the hon. Member. It may be important for hon. Members opposite, but I believe that the wishes of the local people are more important. I assure my right hon. Friend that there is little or no support for the Amendments in South Staffordshire. I admit that at one time there was an unholy alliance between the Socialist-controlled Stoke council and the Conservative-controlled Wolverhampton council, until there was a political change in Wolverhampton, and the new Labour-controlled council there showed no interest in taking over the northern part of Seisdon rural district. Now, all the surrounding local authorities support the Seisdon council's desire not to be carved up.

Seisdon rural district provides a very green and pleasant area, on the fringe of a large industrial area. It survived the 1966 local government reorganisation in the West Midlands. It was felt right at that time that it should be left out of the West Midlands conurbation. It is just as important that it should be left out now. To carve up Seisdon as the Amendments suggest would create tremendous problems, particularly in education. At the moment, all the schools in the area are controlled by Staffordshire County Council, and if a rural district is suddenly split up the children have to be moved into other local education areas.

We all profess to believe strongly in democracy. During last autumn I held a series of meetings on the Common Market. On average, 100 people attended each of those meetings. But when I held a meeting last year on the question whether Seisdon should stay in Staffordshire or be split up, I had an enormous attendance. All but a handful of the people said that they wanted Seisdon to stay in Staffordshire. If we believe in consulting the public, and that we are here to serve the wishes of the people we represent, I ask my right hon. Friend formally to reject the Amendments in the names of the three hon. Members from Stoke and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme.

Mr. Terry Davis (Bromsgrove)

I want to correct one impression that may have been given by the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery), when he said that these Amendments had been put down by hon. Members on this side of the House. The implication was that they were supported by all hon. Members on this side of the House. That is not so.

I want to address my remarks to Amendment No. 295, which affects the parish of Kinver, and would transfer it from Staffordshire to Hereford and Worcester. I know Kinver very well. I was born and brought up in Stourbridge. I could tell hon. Members about my youthful experiences on Kinver Edge, but I do not think that they would be relevant. There are great connections between Kinver and Stourbridge but in recent years I think they have diminished rather than strengthened. Certainly, since Stourbridge is now to be removed from Worcestershire, any reason for transferring Kinver from Staffordshire into Hereford and Worcester on that account has been completely removed.

I accept that there is a link between Kinver and the area to the south of it which will still be in Hereford and Worcester—there is a geographical link and similarity in the countryside—but from what I know of the area and have seen in the local Press, not only the meetings described by the hon. Member for Brierley Hill but Press comment and reports of the views of the people of the area, I am convinced that the people who live in the Parish of Kinver do not wish to be transferred into the County of Hereford and Worcester.

There would be an educational problem if the Amendment were passed. Kinver has a new, very good comprehensive school, the catchment area of which includes, I believe, other parts of the district of Seisdon. It would be very unfortunate if, at this stage, that school were separated from part of its catchment area. That is another reason for opposing the Amendment. It is true that the Government's original proposals would have done what the Amendment suggests. The Government have changed their minds in this respect and I am glad they have done so.

Mr. J. C. Jennings (Burton)

In addressing myself to Amendment No. 565 I shall try to be brief. I shall not try to get out of order by making a Second Reading speech but I should like to say that I do not like the Bill and I do not like such big changes as we are having. I shall not go into the reasons because that would be a Second Reading speech. I wish, however, to indicate my feelings to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Nevertheless, I obviously have to accept the change and try to make it work. Therefore, I wish to say to the House that the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Forrester) is much worse than the scheme put forward by the Government. We have to look at both of them to assess the value of each.

My right hon. Friend says that the administrative County of Staffordshire, with one small exception, should now also include the County Boroughs of Burton-on-Trent and Stoke-on-Trent. That is a scheme I have to accept. It is far better than the scheme adumbrated by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, who wishes to split the proposed new county or whatever it is to be called—Staffordshire—into two.

One has to get down to details. As far as I am concerned, we are dealing with the effect of the hon. Member's proposal on places like Uttoxeter, sometimes called Utcheter, Burton-on-Trent and Tutbury. There is a curious omission from these proposals. When one examines the urban districts, the rural districts and the county boroughs that the hon. Member has listed, one finds the curious omission of Tutbury Rural District Council. I wonder whether it is declaring a UDI.

Tutbury is a very famous place. It is in my constituency, of course, which makes it famous. But we imprisoned Mary Queen of Scots there in the castle. Whether that is good or bad I shall not say. We also had a memorable debate here some years ago about Tutbury when the branch line was closed. We had a debate lasting at least four hours on railway closures—the main debate collapsed—and worldwide fame was given to a famous train, "Tutbury Ginny". I am trying to show that for some mysterious reason the famous town of Tutbury has been omitted, and I should like to know why.

Mr. Forrester

I apologise to Tutbury for this scandalous omission.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

As the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) has had to give such an instruction himself so many times in his life, I am sure that he will not object if I give him the instruction that he must keep to the Amendment.

Mr. Jennings

I am keeping to the Amendment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because Tutbury should have been in the Amendment and I am trying to repair that omission.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman may not repair the omission.

Mr. Jennings

That means that Tutbury is in no-man's land and must declare UDI, and I shall become its first president. It is a no-go area.

The hon. Gentleman has made a great mistake by trying to divide Staffordshire into two, putting into each half places which have no affinity with what would become the centre of each area. What affinity has Uttoxeter with Stoke? Some may ask what affinity it has with Burton, but at least the affinity is closer, because both are in the constituency of Burton.

I urge the House to reject the Amendment. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for not putting Burton and Uttoxeter and Tutbury, these four authorities—there are two councils in Uttoxeter—into the metropolitan area. The great thing is that Staffordshire is being kept as one unit, and the Government are to be commended for that. Burton may lose almost all its local government power and Uttoxeter may lose the right to govern its racecourse—and I hope that the borough will put that right in the near future—and I know that I am getting out of order again, but I had to get in that plug. But the Government have done the right thing. If change had to be made, the Government, not the hon. Gentleman have chosen the right way.

Dr. John Gilbert (Dudley)

I understand the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Mr. Forrester) and I have much sympathy with the purposes of his Amendment, in contradistinction to what has been said so eloquentlyby the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings). We do not need especially large units of government to get efficiency. Staffordshire divided in the way my hon. Friend suggested would be perfectly competent to minister efficiently to the needs of the affairs of the populations of both halves.

However, I am more concerned, as was the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery), with Amendments Nos. 293 to 296. This is one of the few subjects on which the hon. Member and I will find ourselves in complete agreement if not for the same motives. I am particularly concerned about Amendment No. 294, which deals with the future of the rural district of Seisdon.

My hon. Friend is not alone in taking an interest in this area these days although the hon. Member for Burton could not understand his interest. He based his argument on the division of Staffordshire with the exclusion of Seisdon from the southern half as he would wish it to be. But, as I am sure he will agree, that is not the last word, just because the report suggests that Seisdon be excluded.

Seisdon may or may not wish to be split up into its component parts. It is not for me to say either way. We have heard from the hon. Member for Brierley Hill, who represents Seisdon in this House, and I am sure that he is competent to represent the views of the people of Seisdon in this matter. However, I am not surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North saw fit to suggest that Seisdon should be split into four different sections. It is becoming such a turbulent area these days that it might be too much for any one local authority to ingest in one piece.

I am concerned particularly about Amendment No. 294, which says that the parish of Himley in the rural district of Seisdon should be amalgamated with the county borough of Dudley. I am not so much concerned, as the hon. Member for Brierley Hill naturally is, with the effect on Himley of going in with Dudley. I am more concerned with the effect on Dudley of having to take in the parish of Himley.

It was a little unfair of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North to refer to the rural district of Seisdon as "the wart on the body of Stafford shire." I am sure that there are many conscientious citizens in the rural district of Seisdon, and I am sure that it was not my hon. Friend's intention to imply anything to the contrary——

Mr. Forrester

My main description of Seisdon is that it is a geographical appendage to Staffordshire. I was using the Minister's words when discussing a previous Amendment dealing with Poynton-with-Worth. I thought the Minister's phrase more descriptive than any words of mine.

Dr. Gilbert

My hon. Friend was referring merely to the geographical considerations of the configuration of the rural district of Seisdon.

I want to pray in aid some words said by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) earlier about Birmingham. He said that Birmingham was too large, and I endorse that sentiment. The effect of Amendments Nos. 293 and 294 would be further to enlarge the metropolitan area of Birmingham by attaching to it different parts of the rural district of Seisdon, one part to the county borough of Wolverhampton and one part to the county borough of Dudley. This would be a further argument against the merger referred to in Amendment No. 294 and the others grouped with it.

Not only is Birmingham big enough now. In my view, so is the county borough of Dudley. We have no imperialist ambitions in Dudley. I think that that is true of both political parties. We have no wish to engorge Stourbridge or Halesowen. Although the merger is going through smoothly, as a result of the exercise of tact and co-operation on the part of all the local authorities and between and within all the political parties in the local authorities which are now merging into the new metropolitan district to which we do not yet give a name and which will comprise Stourbridge, Halesowen and Dudley, we see no reason further to extend our boundaries.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr Peter Archer) spoke of the difficulties or reorganisation which have been encountered in the Black Country in recent years. He also spoke of the great dedication in his own borough of people of both parties in trying to settle down and marry disparate elements into a new unit of local authority.

We have enough on our plate in Dudley. In 1966 we took in with the old county borough the urban districts of Coleshill, Sedgley and Brierley Hill. We have got that running fairly smoothly. I will not say that it is by any means as smooth as we would want. But there are elements in the County Borough of Dudley, just as there are in Warley, as my hon. Friend pointed out, who believe that they are already neglected on the periphery. Under the new reorganisation, having to take in Stourbridge and Halesowen, it will be unnecessary and unsatisfactory to expect us to be fed forcibly with a diet of further mutilated, dismembered and reluctant local authorities

The people of the rural district of Seisdon and certainly of the parish of Himley lead a different type of social life from the people of the County Borough of Dudley. They earn their living in different ways. They have very different political attitudes. The hon. Member for Brierley Hill told us that they have no wish to be incorporated in the surrounding or adjacent county boroughs.

I have not heard a single voice in Dudley, certainly in that part which I have the honour to represent, in favour of any proposal of the kind incorporated in Amendment No. 294. I therefore oppose the Amendment and hope that the Secretary of State will not accept it.

Mr. Winterton

I rise only briefly to support the Amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd).

Although I have the privilege of representing a Cheshire seat, for my sins I still sit on the Warwickshire County Council. I wish the House to know that Sutton Coldfield and the Warwickshire County Council have no desire for Sutton Coldfield to go into the Birmingham Metropolitan area. However, if the Minister is not prepared to budge, the people of the area—I must emphasise that this view is shared by all parties on the council—believe that Sutton Coldfield should form the centre of a district council within the Midlands Metropolitan County.

My right hon. Friend has clearly indicated that Sutton Coldfield possesses the population to form a very effective and efficient metropolitan district council. Recently many additional acres, or are they now called hectares, have been released by the borough and the county council for residential development. Hundreds of houses will be built providing much needed homes in the area. These will quickly swell the population of Sutton Coldfield to meet the criteria laid down in the White Paper.

I strongly and fervently hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will heed the Amendment and give Sutton Coldfield the opportunity of providing good government at local level as it has for many years.

Mr. Jasper More (Ludlow)

I am a bit of a loner in the debate and I wish to say a few halting words on Amendment No. 1042 which seeks to substitute the name "Shropshire" for "Salop", which I suppose is not all that familiar as a geographical description.

I recall that when we were being reorganised in 1966 and had to vote on what was called the Salop (No. 2) Order, as I went through the Lobbies some of my hon. Friends, despite the clarity with which the Question had been put from the Chair, crowded round me and asked, "What are we voting about, old boy? Is it something to do with salmon?"

There was once a great simplicity in Shropshire. In old English times we lived in a county called Scrobbesbyrigscir. However, when those foreigners arrived in 1066 they apparently could not manage that and they developed the form of Salopescira.

From that we developed two names, Shropshire and Salop, and it was when we started county councils in 1888 that the pedants who formed the authority then thought that there could not be a county with a shire, that there could not be a county of Shropshire, so they called it the County of Salop, a pedantic reason to which nowadays we should not attach any importance.

We have lived with this until recently, but now things are changing, and not long ago I met a constituent who said, "This has all been very well, but now that the Government are going to take us into the Common Market the name of Salop will not do". I was surprised and asked what he meant. He replied, "I am not sure that I want to tell you". My constituent is by birth a Swiss, and there are two things about the Swiss. The first is that they have enough sense not to want to go into the Common Market themselves. Secondly, they know all the three languages used in the Common Market as it is now.

I started on the dictionary. I looked up the Italian, and found nothing wrong. I then looked at the German, and found that there is a word salopp. It is an adjective which means slovenly or sluttish. I thought that we could live with that. French and German are never the same, but for form's sake I looked up the French. I was horrified to find that there is a word salope, which is feminine substantive and that means slattern, slut or trollope. That is what my constituent was alarmed about.

I looked further, and was horrified to see the word saloper, which means to botch one's work. And that is not the end of it. There is another word, saloperie, substantive feminine, which has two meanings. One is filthiness or filth, and the other is trashy goods, trash or rubbish. Then there is the idiom—they have these things in French—dire des saloperies, which I was horrified to find means to talk smut.

Carrying on down the dictionary one finds two words, salopiaud and salopin. I should have thought that that should have meant a proud Salopian, but not a bit of it. It means the same thing as another word, salaud. As my right hon. Friend will be aware, French is a ridiculous language. To begin with they pronounce all the vowels wrongly. Secondly, when there is a consonant like "d" or "p"at the end of a word they do not pronounce it at all. Anyone pronouncing Salop would say "Salo". And if he were pronouncing Salaud in French he would say "Salo".

Salaud is a political word. At the end of a heated debate in this Chamber someone from the Tribune Group is likely to shout across the Floor something like "We will get your guts, shysters", whereas in France it would be "Ah! Scélérats: on les aura, les Salauds". If one looks up the meaning of salaud, one finds that it has two meanings. It is a masculine substantive, not feminine. One meaning is "swine, filthy beast", and the other is "skunk or son of a bitch". I am not sure that it is really "on" to go into the Community like this.

We have had a good precedent this evening—an Amendment moved by the Government about Tyneside to change its name to Tyne and Wear. I think that mine would be one of the easiest Amendments to accept of those that we have discussed tonight. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look sympathetically at the predicament in which we have been placed, not by him, but by his colleague the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and consider seriously whether we might not, if we are to go into this new European destiny, go into it with a real, good rugged British-sounding name like Shropshire.

2.30 a.m.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker)

I will first deal with the penetrating speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr More). I am slightly concerned that he gave us a great analysis of the Common Market interpretation of various words similar to "Salop" but no detailed analysis of the Common Market use of a word something like "Shrop". That might produce equally frightening results.

The Government have no wish to impose upon any locality a name other than the name which has the general agreement of the people in the area. We asked for views on names in the new counties. We have received only one representation about the name for this county—the county council urged that we should retain the name "Salop". If as a result of the frightening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow public opinion in Salop or Shropshire suddenly changes—arising from a fear of the possible consequences mentioned by my hon. Friend—and there is a widespread demand to convert the name to "Shropshire", we should take account of the change in public opinion.

I understand the arguments of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Forrester) in favour of the Amendment concerning the creation of two Stafford-shires, but I greatly agree with the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) on this topic. It would be a mistake to divide this county, particularly as the South Staffordshire part of the proposals would be a county with nothing like the strength of the total county we propose. The North Staffordshire part would be very dominated in numbers by the two major boroughs of Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent. The combined new Staffordshire county, bringing in as it does the former county boroughs throughout the county, will be a very strong and important county.

In any such proposals, obviously, arguments can be made for a sizeable group of of towns and cillages in any locality being a perfectly viable county. I appreciate the sincerity with which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North argues that these would make two good counties. It is the Government's view that we should retain the county of Staffordshire in its entirety and have one strong county in the area. I therefore ask the House not to accept these Amendments.

As for the Amendments regarding the area of Seisdon, I am delighted to have such a formidable array of supporters as the hon. Members for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) and for Bromsgrove (Mr. Terry Davis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) in resisting these Amendments. There is a case for this. It is to some extent a fringe decision. One could argue in other directions. There is no doubt that the balance of feeling among the people concerned is in favour of the proposals in the Bill. I therefore ask the House to resist these Amendments.

I well understand the arguments advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) about West Bromwich. I know the feeling in the Black County that, having gone through the drama of local government alterations once recently, it would be wrong and unfair that that area should be subjected to the process again so soon.

I ask the House to accept that it would have been a mistake to decide that, because one locality had changes but a few years ago, it should become different from the pattern of local government in the rest of the country. The Government having decided upon the principle of a two-tier system, it was important to ensure that we created a system which was similar throughout the whole country, with the one exception of London. The system in London is a two-tier one and it therefore conforms to some extent with the general pattern which we have created in the metropolitan areas, although there are some dissimilarities and there is also the fact that London contains a large proportion of the population and is a unique area.

I am sure I could not convince the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton over his argument that we should not combine the two county boroughs. He feels that these would make two separate districts on their own. I believe that both sides of the House see the merit of the argument that if the districts were to combine to provide a population of a quarter of a million or more they would have advantages in the type of services that a population of this size would need. To carry out the suggestion contained in the hon. and learned Member's Amendments would create the two smallest districts in any metropolitan area and their populations would be well below 250,000. I am sure that what we are suggesting will make a very strong authority to tackle the considerable local government problems in the locality. Therefore, I must ask the House to resist the Amendments,

I pay a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) for the very active rôlehe has taken in constantly trying to present the anxieties of his constituents on the problem. We have given a great deal of detailed attention to the representations that were made. We know what a proud area Sutton Coldfield is and how proud it has been of the services it has created. But in proceeding with this type of local Government reform it must be realised that Sutton Coldfield by itself is nothing like the size required if it is to be a feasible district of a metropolitan area.

The proposal now put forward by my right hon. Friend, although it would increase the population, creates a locality which has nothing to unite it except its proximity to a motorway. Certainly it is not an area which has a natural unity of population of its own. It has always had very close and distinct connection with Birmingham. It may well be that many people have moved to Sutton Coldfield in the past believing it to be a better locality than the one in which they previously lived, perhaps in Birmingham. But there is a great common objective in the two areas. Over 50 per cent. of the employed population of Sutton Coldfield works in Birmingham. Over 80 per cent. of the people in Sutton Coldfield who commuted in fact commute to Birmingham each day. The geographical proximity of the two areas is obvious. The Government's proposals will create a very strong district to cope with many important problems.

I recognise the interest of the people of Sutton Coldfield over the park. I can give an assurance that my Department recognises the enormous amenity value of the park and the pleasure it gives not only to the people of Sutton Coldfield but to the people of Birmingham. It is inconceivable that such an amenity, which is of such enormous value, should not continue as an amenity and should not be conserved and cared for in the best possible way. In fairness it should be noted that Birmingham has a pretty good record in the manner in which it performs activities conducive to seeing that parks are maintained to a very good standard.

Mr. Winterton Only recently the new chairman of the Birmingham housing committee said that he will look at golf courses in relation to future housing developments. Does that give the people of Sutton Coldfield much confidence in the future of their park?

Mr. Walker

My right hon. Friend, not my hon. Friend, speaks for Sutton Coldfield, and I am sure that if I say that my Department and the people of the area put great store in this amenity he will accept that. What other leaders may say about other golf courses does not enter into this argument.

I recognise the very strong feelings of my right hon. Friend and his constituents. I believe that their fears about matters such as the park will prove to be unfounded. I believe that they will have a considerable contribution to make in the future life of this very important district of the metropolitan area, and therefore I must ask the House to reject the Amendments.

Amendment negatived.

Colonel Sir Malcolm Stoddart-Scott (Ripon)

I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 196, line 39, leave out 'Ilkley'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)

With this Amendment we are to take the following Amendments:

No. 261, in page 194, leave out lines 48 and 49.

No. 443, in page 196, line 43, column 2, leave out "Kildwick'.

No. 441, in line 43, column 2, leave out 'Addingham, Kildwick and'.

No. 442, in line 43, column 2, leave out 'Addingham'.

No. 25, in line 49, after 'of', insert 'Harrogate'.

No. 26, in page 197, line 4, leave out 'Otley'.

No. 27, in line 4, leave out 'and Roth-well'.

No. 28, in line 4, leave out 'Rothwell' and insert 'Knaresborough'.

Government Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31, and Amendments No. 32, in page 197, leave out lines 16 and 17.

No. 35, in line 42, after 'Normanton'. insert 'Rothwell'.

No. 36, in—

No. 755, in line 47, leave out 'parishes of Darrington and' and insert 'parish of'.

No. 86, in page 202, line 5, leave out 'Harrogate and'.

No. 87, in line 5, at end insert: the urban districts of Ilkley and Otley.

No. 92, in line 11, leave out: 'except the parishes in West Yorkshire'.

Sir M. Stoddart-Scott

I cannot disagree with a single thing in the Bill; I cannot disagree with anything that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading; and I cannot disagree with anything that is in both the White Papers about local government in England. What worries me is that the Government are not doing what is in the White Papers. They are not doing what they said they would do.

My Amendments are about the Urban District of Ilkley, which it is proposed should go into the Bradford Metropolitan District; the Urban District of Otley, which it is proposed should go into the Leeds Metropolitan District: and some of the rural parishes in the Wharfedale rural district.

Paragraph 32 of the White Paper published in February, 1971, said: The Government are therefore of the view that the metropolitan type of structure should be adopted in the six areas referred to in paragraph 30, and not elsewhere. The boundaries of these areas should include all the main area, or areas, of continuous development and any adjacent area into which continuous development will extend. Surrounding these urban districts in this rural district is a large green belt area which includes the Otley Chevin and Ilkley Moor B'aht 'At. These are green belt areas over which there are no lines of development and over which there can be no lines of development. Otley is a market town with two cattle markets. It has its own industries of leather manufacturing and textile manufacturing and a printing machinery industry. It attracts labour to it and does not send people to work in the city of Leeds. It has its own existence in Wharfedale.

Ilkley is a residential area and conference centre. An equal number of people go to work in Leeds and Bradford. It is separated from both Bradford and Leeds by Ilkley Moor and the green belt.

In one of the Wharfedale parishes which it is proposed should go into Leeds no house can be built at present unless it is for an agricultural worker. These cannot be, and are not, lines of development.

2.45 a.m.

On the Second Reading the Minister said: I want to make it clear that my decision to draw the boundaries of metropolitan areas tightly is made quite intentionally as part of our total approach to the planning problem of the regions. It has been suggested that my duty was to provide the major conurbations with what is described as a breathing space, to provide them with more land to meet their housing problems and their urban needs. Put another way, it is suggested that my duty was so to draw the boundaries of the metropolitan areas that the urban sprawl would continue. I believe this is a mistake in planning terms."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1971; Vol. 826, c. 237.] The Minister laid it down that he did not want to have areas where there were green belts in metropolitan districts and where there was room for more urban spread. It is extraordinary that these three localities—two urban districts and part of one rural district—should be included in these metropolitan districts. Ninety-nine per cent of the people in these two urban districts and rural districts are against going into the City of Leeds and the City of Bradford. I have visited these areas every weekend for the last 27 years. I have found only one man who wishes to go into the City of Bradford. He thinks that if he goes into Bradford it might help to keep the railway lines between Bradford and Ilkley and Leeds open, as Bradford may be prepared to make a larger contribution to the maintenance of those railway lines than if they were outside the Bradford Metropolitan District.

Ilkley now has a council of 18 members. It is going into Bradford and will have one and a half members on Bradford Council, which is comprised of 68 members. Otley has a population of 14,000 and has 18 members on its council. If it goes into the metropolitan district of Leeds it will have one member on the council. If the three parishes, which now have five rural district councillors, go into the City of Leeds they will have only one half of a representative in that city.

How can the interests of these residential and rural areas be looked after with such a small representation on councils with memberships of 68 and 80? Three of the parishes which it is proposed should go into the metropolitan area of Leeds have parish councils. If these parishes go into the metropolitan district of Leeds, as proposed, they will lose their parish councils. There will be no parish councils left.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed) indicated dissent.

Sir M. Stoddart-Scott

I am glad the Minister shakes his head. I was given that information by the clerk of the rural district council. I hope that the Minister will write to me and confirm what he has just indicated so that I can assure these parish councils that they will exist even if they are incorporated into the metropolitan area of Leeds.

Paragraph 8 of the White Paper says that decisions should be taken as locally as possible. I wonder how locally it will be possible to take decisions once those three parishes have been absorbed into the great metropolitan area of Leeds. Will the Under-Secretary tell us why there is a great difference between the metropolitan districts of Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, and those of Yorkshire. Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham have less than 20 ecclesiastical parishes in their areas, whilst in Leeds and Bradford there are nearly 100 ecclesiastical parishes in each of the proposed areas.

I should also like to ask why the boundaries of metropolitan districts cannot be left to the Boundary Commission. All of us feel that we would get a fairer and more logical decision if a boundary commission looked at this rather than if the gentlemen who sit in Whitehall made the decision. Why must the division be a river? Rivers may have been good boundaries in the past, before bridges were built, but now that local authorities are spread across bridges and populations of towns have grown up on both sides of rivers, it is stupid to make boundaries of rivers. It would be much better if the watershed formed the boundaries within different areas. Here the River Wharfe has been taken as the boundary between these two metropolitan districts and that part of my division comprising Otley, Ilkley and rural Wharfedale.

There is the stupid position whereby there is a population living over the river, in the Ilkley part of the urban district of Middleton, which will have to go into Bradford, yet the large Middle-ton Hospital, just outside the urban district area will have to go into the north of Yorkshire. This is one of the problems involved in using a river as a boundary between local authorities. It would appear that in the East Riding and North Lincolnshire the Government have completely given up the idea of river boundaries by creating the Yorkshire and Humberside local authority. They have not stuck to the river there and it seems extraordinary that they should stick to the River Wharfe and not take the watershed of Otley Chevin, Ilkley Moor and Adding-ham. If they had done that I do not think I could disagree with them.

I hope the Minister will look at the position of Otley and Ilkley again and these parishes of rural Wharfedale. If he cannot find a way to meet the point of view I have expressed, held by 99 per cent. of my constituents and all the local authorities, who are unanimously in favour of staying out of these metropolitan areas, then there will be some sad hearts in Yorkshire this weekend. It will lead to a decline in the standard of local government in this area. It will be the destruction, almost the negation of it.

Sir Donald Kaberry (Leeds, North-West)

I should like to share the guilt of my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Sir M. Stoddart-Scott) over the concern we feel about considering this Bill at this early hour in the morning and about how the Government have applied their mind to the implementation of the promises held out in the White Paper. There were many offers made in the White Paper which have not been carried out in any way at all. I want to extract from the Under-Secretary some explanation of why the Government veered away from the proposals in the White Paper and altered them when they produced the Bill.

A phrase constantly used by my hon. Friend concerned the number of smaller towns "going into Leeds" or Bradford. Such is not the case. In fairness to the City of Leeds, of which I am proud to be a citizen, and to the City of Bradford, it should be remembered that in those cities the citizens are giving up a considerable amount of freedom in local authority which they have had for many years. We are losing county borough status. We will lose a great deal of autonomy in our own affairs. We are surrendering that and becoming a second tier authority in conjunction with, in partnership with, in association with all the other authorities listed in the Schedule, so it is a proposal to form a new undertaking and a new association of local authorities.

I have heard many speeches around Leeds from representatives of the adjacent smaller boroughs, looking with some degree of horror on being associated with a larger county borough. They have no need to be concerned or worried because democracy will work its way through and they will have fair representation on the new councils. I should say that, in fairness to the citizens of the two towns, so constantly attacked by smaller authorities at present

What concerned me more than any other matter was that in the White Paper the Government proposed, in the establishment of a West Yorkshire metropolitan authority a series of smaller district authorities, and the second largest in the new area was to be that centred upon Leeds, unit 6 (b) which embraced, and all the surrounding districts, Aireborough, in the north, Harrogate, Knares-borough, Pudsey, Morley, Garforth and districts to the south.

It was a Government proposal, not a proposal from the City of Leeds, or in the adjoining areas, from the City of Bradford or the City of Wakefield. It would have promised to be a good, reasonable, self-governing unit of administration, but something strange happened before delivery of this new authority took place. Some miscarriage occurred and Harrogate and Knares-borough were whisked away before the new authority was spelt out properly in the Bill.

I would like the Minister to tell us, in a few sentences, what were the secrets of why Harrogate and Knaresborough were taken out of Metropolitan Area 6 (b). That is the object of my Amendments.

I do not propose, at this late hour, to go into a long dissertation on the close association of these towns with both Leeds and Bradford, the creation of towns historically dependent largely on Leeds and Bradford, and closely associated with them in every way. I leave it at that, and I ask the Minister to tell us why he did it. I am sure he has a good reason but in taking them away, he shortened the boundary of the metropolitan area to the north and left a very difficult boundary for any development purpose. It would be utterly wrong to shorten that boundary still more now by taking away the two smaller boroughs of Otley and Ilkley and putting them into North Yorkshire. These small towns and units are reasonably self-contained and utterly dependent on either Bradford or Leeds.

Of course, there is a tract of moorland between Leeds and Otley and between Bradford and Ilkley, and so it will remain, I hope for ever, never to be developed, always to remain the green belt we want. But the remainder of the land will be available for the develop- ment of the new metropolitan district generally.

3 a.m.

I hope that the Minister will not be beguiled by the sweet words uttered by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon, and fall for the suggestion of taking out still more land from the new Districts 6(a) and 6(b).

I could go into enormous detail to prove how utterly dependent for almost every part of life are these two towns on the major towns of Bradford and Leeds, but that is self-evident. I live mid-way between the centre of Leeds and the centre of Otley, and I can form my own conclusion on the flow of traffic, both commercial and social. I hope my hon. Friend will say firmly that these two places will remain as stated in the Schedule.

If my hon. Friend feels that Harrogate should be removed from Metropolitan District 6 because it is has no close association with Leeds, Bradford and the remainder of the area, what an opportunity he will deny himself to take a step further. To the south of Leeds there is the urban district of Rothwell.It lies close to the city centre at one point. It is 1½ miles from the centre of Leeds to the junction of the boundary where Hunslet finishes and Rothwell begins. It has been like that for well over 100 years——

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York)

More like 1,000 years.

Sir D. Kaberry

I am reminded that it is 1,000 years—so be it. That is the natural boundary where Leeds finishes and Rothwell begins. It is both the natural barrier and the commercial barrier. Leeds is a commercially developing city and between Leeds and Rothwell, certainly at the Hunslet end, there are natural and artificial barriers. An enormous sewage works has been there since 1910. A large power station, commercial buildings and a large British Railways marshalling yard are just inside the boundary of Rothwell. All these form a natural buffer, and for generations the people of Rothwell have looked to the south and the south-west. They have drawn their existence mainly from the coalfields. They have been drawn towards Wakefield, Castleford and Ponte-fract, never towards the city of Leeds.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

Would the hon. Gentleman explain to me—I am completely impartial—why he wants to take out of this new area the Labour area to the south of Rothwell and bring in the Conservative area of Harrogate? Does it have anything to do with politics?

Sir D. Kaberry

There is a simple answer to that question. I am a believer in democracy and I like a free vote on difficult questions of the day. The people of Rothwell recently had a poll which was impartially conducted, and 87 per cent. of the electorate said that they did not wish to be associated with District 6(b) but wished to remain in the Rothwell urban district and to go into the Wakefield area 6(e). They had an even better reason which may appeal to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon).

Under the scheme for the establishment of the authorities for 6(b) Rothwell would have three representatives. If they go into Wakefield—the 6(e) unit—they will have six representatives. They will have more representation and be far better represented with an area with which they are closer associated and which they know best, think and work best with. It is broadly and simply that.

I see the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Albert Roberts) has arrived. I am glad to support the Amendments which stand in his name and mine, to delete from unit 6(b) the urban district of Rothwell and to put it in the Wakefield Unit 6(e).

Mr. Joseph Harper (Pontefract)

The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) mentioned that an impartial referendum was undertaken in the Rothwell local government area. Did every household receive a voting paper? If they did, were all voting papers collected?

Sir D. Kaberry

Fortunately the detailed answer to that can be given by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Albert Roberts). He was to have spoken to this Amendment in the first place. He will give the details of the poll which was taken. As I understand it, it was an impartial poll. I have no cause to cast any doubt on it. I have to accept the information I have received from Rothwell people themselves who say it was impartially conducted and that it was added up correctly. There was an 87 per cent. majority in favour of going into the Wakefield Unit 6(e). I should have thought that these arguments were so overwhelming that the Minister would have no hesitation in accepting this Amendment.

Mr. Joseph Ashton (Bassetlaw)

I wish to speak to Amendment No. 261. One of the questions that is asked me practically every week in the House is "Where is Bassetlaw?", my constituency. It is actually in North Nottinghmshire, surrounded on three sides by Derbyshire, Yorkshire and Lincolnshire across the River Trent. The boundary of the top of Bassetlaw is the boundary of the Yorkshire-Humberside Planning Area and it distinguishes Yorkshire and Humberside from the East Midlands Planning Area.

The Amendment refers to the village of Finningley, which is the northern tip of Bassetlaw and Nottinghamshire. Bassetlaw sticks up like a sore thumb into Yorkshire, and Nottingham city, the heavily populated part of Nottinghamshire, is at the other end. The village of Finningley is not large by electoral standards, with a population of 771 and an electorate of 462. One of the democratic principles we have in the House and one of the fine traditions of English democracy is that a little village like this can have its case raised, even at this time in the morning.

Public opinion, by a large number, is against going into Yorkshire. There have been two public meetings with over 100 attending each one, and the meetings voted unanimously that they wanted to stay in Nottinghamshire. A petition was organised by the local parish council and 87 per cent. of the population signed it, saying that they wished to stay in Nottinghamshire, for reasons of loyalty and tradition and because they wished to distinguish themselves from the people on the other side of the boundary. Several letters have been received on this subject. The petition was brought down to the Minister, and the parish council would like to say how grateful it is for the way the delegation was received.

The people are satisfied that by staying in Nottingham their rates will be cheaper. They are satisfied that their services are adequate and that the Retford rural council looks after them. They have modern services such as deep sewerage, and a modern plastic sack refuse service which is an unusual service to find in a rural area. There is controlled tipping. A modern primary school for 240 pupils has been built. The local authority has built 28 council houses, 10 old people's bungalows, has given 47 improvements grants and has designated seven acres of land for future building. The parish council is active and well informed about the needs of the villagers. It has provided bus shelters, seats for pensioners, a fine village green, a village pond and a village hall.

Local people have taken a great pride in the advance achieved by them in the local district. It is a restricted village designated by Notts County Council, it will not attract a great deal of overspill and the number of houses in future will be kept to a reasonable minimum.

I am grateful for this opportunity on behalf of the villagers to put the case to the Minister, and I hope that a decision will be arrived at which will be favourable to them and democratic.

Mr. G. B. Drayson (Skipton)

I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 441, 442 and 443 which stand in my name and which deal with two parishes in my constituency. I should like first to say that, although the Bill seems to do some rather drastic things to my constituency, the proposals are generally acceptable in the area. The White Paper was disastrous because a large part of the Skipton rural district council area was transferred to the Bradford metropolitan district. We were very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development took immense trouble to come to our area to listen to objectors. Consequently a large part of the Skipton rural district council was recovered from the Bradford Metropolitan district, except for the two parishes about which I wish to speak this morning.

One parish is Addingham which has an electorate of 1,700, and the other is Kildwick with an electorate of 99. Both parishes have taken local polls and the result was that in Addingham over 60 per cent. were in favour of remaining in North Yorkshire and of not going into Bradford. In Kildwick the number was even higher: some 86 per cent. of the electorate were in favour of staying in North Yorkshire.

The form of the referendum taken in Addingham was simple. Electors were given an opportunity of saying whether they objected to the proposal to include the parish in West Yorkshire Metropolitan District (a). They asked Parliament to transfer the parish to the new North Yorkshire county so that it could become part of the Craven district.

Addingham considers itself to be essentially a rural area. Its links have always been with Skipton rural council and the Craven Dales. Kildwick and the neighbouring parish of Farnhill are invariably coupled together. They share the same main street and it is impossible to tell when one has left one village and entered the other. This, again, is an essentially rural area; in fact, the Department has been supplied with aerial photographs which show this quite clearly.

3.15 a.m.

In the case of Kildwick, I express the hope that the Boundary Commission, which I understand will deal with minor adjustments, will look at the parish and see whether it is possible—even if some of the land area is required in the Bradford metropolitan district, possibly for future developments—that at least the part of the village of Kildwick that joins with Farnhill can be left in North Yorkshire, within the area of the present Skipton rural district.

The Minister for Local Government and Development was good enough to write to me on Monday, 3rd July, telling me that he had given very careful consideration to my Amendments but he felt that he would be unable to accept them. What worries me and will worry my constituents is the fact that my right hon. Friend went on to say: Both of the parishes ought, I believe, to be considered properly in the light of the West Riding County Council's county strategy, which nominated the Silsden area (which specifically includes Addingham and Steeton with Eastburn and which will unavoidably take in Kildwick) and so on. I cannot see why it should be unavoidable. I should have thought that this was one thing that could be avoided, and that there was no need to take in this small village which, as I have said, has an electorate of only 99 people.

Bearing in mind the small number of people involved, I hope that the Minister will find it possible to make a concession for Kildwick and certainly give me some hope that when the Boundary Commission that is to deal with minor matters of boundary adjustments is set up this subject will be brought to its attention, and it will be able to do something to help this parish.

Even at this late hour—a quarter past three in the morning—I hope that the Minister can have second thoughts and accept the Amendments.

Mr. Albert Roberts (Normanton)

I want to speak to Amendments Nos. 27 and 35. As a representative of the Normanton constituency, I am here to support the case on behalf of Rothwell, which is very much in favour of the 1962-63 review, which recommended that Stanley, Rothwell and Castleford be formed into one unit with a population of about 60,000. It is strange how things change in local government. Here we are arguing from one side, and we shall have arguments from the other side saying that the 1962–63 review was wrong. We are speaking about people when we speak about local government. We were disappointed when the review was passed over.

I want to refer to the recommendation that the five towns of Pontefract, Feather-stone, Knottingley, Castleford and Normanton should be made into one unit. Without doubt it would have been a viable unit, identifiable, with areas in close affinity. But that was not to be. We now have a recommendation dealing with the metropolitan area and the various districts. Inside Rothwell there has been a pressure group of independent people, who have provided their own finance. They conducted a referendum throughout the districts. The figures announced by the group showed 80 per cent. in favour of going in with a district based on Wakefield, District E.

The officially accepted economic viability argument seems to be a population of about half a million. Leeds with Rothwell would be about 738,000. Leeds minus Rothwell would be 711,000. Wakefield minus Rothwell would be 275,000, and Wakefield with Rothwell 302,000. Without Rothwell Leeds would still stand above the accepted norm. Rothwell would certainly add to the economic viability of the district based on Wakefield.

It is argued by some people, particularly in my district, that its affinity is with this part of the county, with Normanton, Stanley, Knottingley and so on. They have the affinity, however, that they have been administered by the West Riding County Council for certain services for quite a long time and they are without doubt proud of their education record. Most people who take an interest in education know of our education officer, Sir Alec Clegg. They think that if Rothwell were to be placed in District B, their education services would suffer.

According to the pressure group, the people of Rothwell would like to remain more or less as relations of Stanley, Wakefield and so on rather than go in with Leeds. Their advanced comprehensive plans in education are well to the fore and they think that by going into Leeds their education services would to some extent be retarded. Therefore, as the Member of Parliament for Rothwell, the district in which I live, I feel that it is my duty to put the views of the pressure group which has existed in Rothwell for quite a time.

I should point out that the local council decided in the first place to go in with Leeds. After further consideration it changed its mind. I understand that the clerks of Castleford, Pontefract and Hemsworth had written to the Minister supporting the case of the pressure group in Rothwell. The group undertook the journey to the House of Commons and interviewed many Members of Parliament. Without doubt the group feels very strongly about this issue. It must be appreciated that the group did this entirely on its own initiative, with the support of the local authority. That is why I am here—as has just been said, in the early hours of the morning—to put the case for my Amendments Nos. 27 and 35. The feeling is that to remove the people from the tradition and control of a local authority they have enjoyed for many years would be entirely alien to them and what they had been accustomed to. That is why I am supporting the case put forward in my two Amendments for Rothwell to be placed in District E instead of District B as proposed.

Mr. Stanley Cohen (Leeds, South-East)

It is most regrettable that at 3.30 a.m. we should be discussing a matter vital to a section of the community in the West Riding of Yorkshire. I am surprised that the Amendment has even appeared, but I am also surprised by the inconsistency of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry). At one point he was arguing against contraction of boundaries—

Sir D. Kaberry

In the north.

Mr. Cohen

—in the north, and at the next he was arguing for contraction of boundaries—

Sir D. Kaberry

In the south.

Mr. Cohen

—in the south. There is a marked inconsistency. He emphasised that any area coming into Leeds could rely on the city's democratic principles. Leeds has a justified reputation for treating the public democratically and justly.

Sir M. Stoddart-Scott

Would the hon. Gentleman look at the property that Leeds owns at Fewston and Blubber-houses, the worst property in the whole of the West Riding of Yorkshire?

Mr. Cohen

I should be delighted to take up that offer. Fewston and Blubber-houses are a delightful part of the country. If the situation is as the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests, I should be glad to look into it. However, Leeds council may take credit for the way in which it has treated the electorate fairly and justly and with social equity.

It can hardly be said that although this is the way in which we treat people from the north, there is some doubt about the way in which we treat people coming to the south of the city. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West has probably highlighted one of the major problems in the city. It is that by bringing into the Leeds metropolitan area District 6, only three seats would be created for the Rothwell contingent, whereas if that area goes to Wakefield, six seats will be created for it.

As someone who served for 20 years on a local authority, I sympathise with those who have given years of service to the community and who suddenly, because of the reorganisation of local government, find themselves without a seat to represent the public. One can understand the frustration and concern that this arouses among those affected. At the same time, we have to consider the effect on the community as a whole, and this is the important factor that we and the local authorities have to consider.

What has pleased me during our debates has been that no hon. Member has mentioned the political aspects, and I give credit to all who have spoken for being more concerned about the effects on a community than about political considerations.

Paragraph 8 of the White Paper says: Local authority areas should be related to areas within which people have a common interest—through living in a recognisable community, through the links of employments, shopping or social activities, or through history and tradition. I am certain that if the House bases its decision on that sort of premise, there is little doubt about the decision to which we shall come, and that it will be to reject the Amendment.

3.30 a.m.

In all modesty, I feel that I can speak with some authority, having served on the Leeds City Council for 20 years, about the problems which might arise if the Amendment were carried. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West talked about natural boundaries in the South Leeds area. If a natural boundary can be described as one which runs through the middle of a factory employing people from both areas, which is what happens in the South Leeds and Rothwell area, then I stand to be corrected.

I had the good fortune to represent the parts of Leeds on the city council which immediately bordered on to Rothwell. In addition to the Leeds people whom I represented, people came to me from the Rothwell area under the impression that I was their local representative. The boundary is so indefinable there as to be almost impossible to distinguish.

The people of Rothwell, of whom about 90 per cent. are employed in the south of Leeds, are historically associated with the city. If people are employed to the extent of 90 per cent. in a city, it is not just a matter of their employment and incomes. They become socially and culturally associated with that city.

When one considers the history of Rothwell and Leeds and the integration which has developed over the years, it is a situation which should not be destroyed. The area in which I live, which is represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), was part of Rothwell in 1950. Now it is an integral part of Leeds and is not involved in this argument. But that area is twice as far from the centre of Leeds as Rothwell. We can hardly argue on the one basis that we should take out of Leeds an area which is 2½ miles from the city centre, when we propose leaving in areas which are up to 20 miles away.

I hope that the hon. Members for Ripon (Sir M. Stoddart-Scott) and Leeds, North-West will not press the Amendment. I say that purely on practical grounds. It is impractical to destroy a situation which has existed for so many years. We shall do much damage to the people of Rothwell economically, socially, industrially and culturally if we divide them in the way suggested and move them into the area of Wakefield, which is separated from them by a green belt, talking of natural conditions.

My one fear is that if we carry this Amendment the people of Rothwell will live to regret our unfortunate decision.

Mr. Charles Pannell (Leeds, West)

I represent the western part of Leeds, and I received a letter the other day saying: Rothwell really should be part of the new Leeds authority from almost every point of view. That is a native putting it rather better than I could, because everyone knows that I am a "comer in "and not a local lad. I am an Essex-born near-Cockney domiciled in Kent who has had the honour to represent Leeds for 23 years. Therefore I look at the matter with more objectivity than any local lad such as the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry). He looks at it purely from the political point of view of what it will be like after the next election. I am not afraid of mentioning politics in this context, because the motive of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite in hitching on to this Amendment is the belief that after the next election they can carry the new authority without Rothwell, but that with Rothwell it will remain with its rightful allegiance.

It is a wonderful piece of gerrymandering, and, as my correspondent says: Rothwell really should be part of the new Leeds authority from almost every point of view. The urban district comes within 2 miles of Leeds city centre (at Stourton), whereas in the rest of the city the boundary is between 5 and 6 miles distant. Virtually all the industrial premises in Rothwell are in Stourton on the opposite side of the river from Osmond-thorpe and even the most distant part of Rothwell UDC is still not further away from Leeds Bridge than is (say) Stanningley. Stanningly is in my constituency. Historically Rothwell was part of the Hunslet Union and a good part was in the old Hunslet Rural District Council. I believe that during the period when Hugh Gaitskell represented Leeds part of it was in his constituency.

Sir D. Kaberry

It never was.

Mr. Pannell

At any rate, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. Cohen) said that many people there turned to him rather than to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Albert Roberts) because they looked on him as their Member.

The Bill, at the top of page 197, refers to the urban districts of Aireborough, Garforth, Horsforth, Otley and Rothwell. That was the idea in the minds of the planners at the beginning. That was the main resolution before the meeting. Then suddenly my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton wants Rothwell taken out.

Sir D. Kaberry

The people of Rothwell asked to be taken out. In the poll 87 per cent. said they wished to be taken out.

Mr. Pannell

I am speaking in the context of the debate this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton moved the Amendment in a speech of remarkably little persuasion. His heart did not seem to be in the job. He claimed to speak on behalf of people who had a limited view on the matter. However, when planning for bigger authorities we need a view of greater objectivity, and that view should normally be taken by the Member of Parliament. I understand the original plan would cut straight through my hon. Friend's constituency so that it would be in two local districts. Obviously he wants to keep it in one district.

The natural affinity running through this idea is that this area should be part of the great City of Leeds. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West is proud of his part of the city. He has represented it for a long time and probably has the longest parliamentary links with it as one who was born in Leeds. The hon. Gentleman must have some regrets, just as I have, that it is passing into a larger conurbation, because it is big enough and proud enough to stand on its own. It did not want any of this nonsense anyway. However, if we are going to put it in, we might as well round it off. Looking at the map, if Rothwell is left out it breaks the whole of the continuity. I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton has associated himself with the Amendment.

We are asked at other and better times to consider objectively the idea of going into the EEC, and so on. If some of the useless time which has been given to the European Communities Bill had been given to more mature and leisurely consideration of the problems of Yorkshire and this country generally we would probably come to a better conclusion at the end of the day.

I do not know what the Minister will say. May I have the Minister's attention? Order. May I have the ear of the Minister? Order. When I am speaking I am presumably addressing the Minister, who should pay some mannerly attention. The hon. Gentleman is a relative new boy in this place and I have been here a long time. I hope he has not already made up his mind.

Mr. Speed

I am listening to and following the right hon. Gentleman's argument very closely, as he will find when I come to wind up the debate.

Mr. Pannell

I should imagine that if he is going to follow it intelligently he has his brief written already and his right hon. Friend has made up his mind. I am staggered that the Secretary of State for the Environment is not at the Dispatch Box to listen to the arguments. There is not even present the Minister for Local Government and Development with whom, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, I have had a long interview. [Interruption.] I should not be interrupted by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) who is beyond the Bar.

When I am addressing the House, even at twenty minutes to four o'clock I need two assistants and a ferret to help me get through this business.

I expect the Minister, although he has made up his mind and has his brief, at least to pay attention. These are matters of weighty argument. We are, after all, talking about the fifth city in the country, and I think that the Minister had better improve as he goes up the ministerial ladder. He is hard working, but he should learn to follow the argument intelligently.

I took a garden party in my constituency the other day, and when I asked for questions the first two were about Rothwell. They thought it was an outrage—which it is. They thought it was a nonsense—which it is. They thought that the whole pressure group and the canvass was contrived and unfair and more typical of Northern Ireland than of honest Yorkshire. They thought that the whole thing was a phoney set-up, that the people who originally drafted the Bill were right, and that the only thing that could cause the Government to accept the Amendment would be gerrymandering in the interests of the Conservative Party.

I do not make any apology for that sort of thing. We canvass the votes of all sorts of people to get here in the belief that our political party is the right party to lead them. I do not want the people of Rothwell to be represented by the wrong party in a large conurbation where all the services naturally flow in and from Leeds. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton has done his duty, as I said earlier, I do not think that he did it with great persuasiveness. Adding the Amendment to a well-drafted Bill is something for which the Government should not fall.

3.45 a.m.

Dr. Edmund Marshall (Goole)

May I first draw attention to Amendment No. 755, the effect of which would be to transfer the parish of Darrington in the rural district of Osgoldcross from the proposed West Yorkshire county to the proposed North Yorkshire county. When the area came up for discussion in Committee I indicated that the splitting of Osgoldcross recommended in the Bill was about the best solution that my constituents could hope for within the overall framework of the Bill.

However, some of my constituents in the parish of Darrington were not satisfied with that situation, and over the months since then they have maintained firm, but quite courteous, pressure, indicating that they hoped action could be taken to improve the situation—as they regarded it—so that they could be transferred to North Yorkshire. Petitions came to me, and when I attended a parish meeting it was quite clear that the overwhelming feeling amongst the people of Darrington was that they wished to belong to North Yorkshire.

There are three points that I mention in support of their claim. First, the position of Darrington astride the Great North Road is somewhat akin to other villages in the vicinity, Fairburn and Brotherton, also astride the A1, and also not far from the towns of Pontefract, Knottingley and Castleford. Secondly, the ecclesiastical parish of Darrington contains within its boundaries two other civil parishes which are going to be transferred to North Yorkshire. I refer to the parishes of Cridling Stubbs and Stapleton. If the Bill goes through as now drawn, the ecclesiastical parish of Darrington will be split down the middle by the new county boundary.

Third, many of the residents of Darrington have put to me the view that their village is in large measure one with rural characteristics. They do not feel that this joins them to the more industrialised parts that will be within West Yorkshire. Many of them have also indicated that they moved to Darrington largely to move from the areas to which under the Bill they will be joined.

I hope that these remarks will help the Government in their thinking over this policy, so that, if the issue is raised again in another place, at least they can have had time in the meantime to consider it further.

The effect of Amendment No. 261, which was propounded by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) would be to transfer the parish of Finningley back from South Yorkshire into Nottinghamshire. This would in effect reverse the decision of the Standing Committee. In Committee I moved the Amendment which transferred Finningley to South Yorkshire. I therefore naturally take an interest in the matter now.

I will not repeat the arguments which I advanced in Committee on 18th January. I will simply add further evidence which has reached me in the meantime. In particular, I made a special visit to the village to see it for myself. I came away convinced that the village forms part of the whole community centred upon Doncaster. Finningley is close to the neighbouring village of Blaxton. There are only 200 yards of clear land between the two villages. The railway half at Blaxton is called "Finningley". Finningley Post Office is in Blaxton.

I noticed, too, that there was a marked difference between the standard of lighting in Blaxton and that in Finningley, in that Blaxton, which is now in the Doncaster rural district, was considerably better lit. I therefore hope that if Finningley comes into South Yorkshire the people of Finningley will be able to look to a literally brighter future.

As to the relative merits—from the point of view of the people of Finningley—of local government services being administered either from South Yorkshire or from Nottinghamshire, I am told that the nearest library buildings are 14 miles away on the Nottinghamshire side but only four miles away on the Yorkshire side. As to welfare services, the meals on wheels assistance is not provided for residents of Finningley by the Nottinghamshire authority on account of the remoteness of the village, nor are there concessionary bus fares available for the senior citizens. Both these aspects of welfare services are widely available within the West Riding. The nearest police and fire services to Finningley are eight miles away in Nottinghamshire and four miles away in Yorkshire. When people in Finningley die, most of them are either cremated or buried in Yorkshire. Perhaps that should sound the death knell of the Amendment.

I get the feeling that public opinion in the village has in the main been stirred up by two or three people. I know for a fact that after one of the public meetings that was held in the village there was a letter expressing a very sensible contrary view to many of the other villagers. I am sure that if Finningley is transferred into South Yorkshire most of the residents will be able to see the good common sense of the move and will be able to enjoy the benefits of being within the metropolitan district which is centred upon Doncaster.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Bradford, West)

I first pray the indulgence of the House for having missed many of the speeches so far. I wish briefly to state the view of Bradford County Borough that Her Majesty's Government should pursue resolutely the objective of enacting the proposals for the boundaries contained in Metropolitan County District 6 (a). I say that not with any desire to aggrandise Bradford at the expense of its neighbours. I say it certainly with no desire to cross swords with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Sir M. Stoddart-Scott) whose contribution to public life, not least in the West Riding wool textile district, is probably more highly respected in the City of Bradford than anywhere except his own constituency.

One of the difficulties we have always faced in Bradford has been the dichotomy that has existed in its social and economic life. Those who have earned their substantial livelihoods in the city through its industry, its trade and its commerce have often tended to commute from areas outside the boundaries of the county borough, going home at night to places of fairly substantial rateable values. We have felt in the city that those people have not been able fully to involve themselves as they might otherwise have wished in the economic life of the city. In other words, the concept which the Secretary of State is trying to implement in the legislation for the big cities like Bradford in the metropolitan areas is the correct policy.

There are many local examples one could quote to support the policy which the Government are pursuing. To take one, I believe that my hon. and gallant Friend and I are united in our representations to the Department of the Environment on railway services into Bradford Foster Square station from Ilkley. That is an example of the sort of case where the interests of Bradford and Ilkley unite and the interests of my hon. and gallant Friend and myself unite also. I hope that this sort of happy relationship will be enhanced by the legislation and when the differences of opinion on the matter are past, as I hope they will be in a very few hours, the experience which is being gained by the member authorities of the county District 6(a) in working together will prove fruitful.

County District 6(a) has been extremely forward-looking in trying to involve local representatives and officials of the constituent authorities in working together as much as possible in advance of the implementation of the legislation. That is wholly admirable and bodes well for the future. As long as the district respects the fact that Ilkley has its own identity and its own spirit, its own special charm, worth and value, and its own special place in the affection of Bradford, then the legislation will prove as fruitful as we imagine it will become.

Mr. Joseph Harper (Pontefract)

I have a feeling that we are getting nowhere fast. An interesting feature of the debate is the differences of opinion between hon. Members on both sides. My delight tonight has been to listen to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) being repeatedly interrupted by the word "Rubbish" from his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Sir M. Stoddart-Scott). It came as a splendid surprise. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was born at Pontefract, and, like all those who come from Pontefract, knows what he is talking about.

Hon. Members on both sides have deployed various arguments since the publication of the White Paper. I agree with the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Albert Roberts), that if we had agreed with the outcome of the 1963 review, which started with the three White Papers published in 1955 and 1956, local government would possibly not have had to be revolutionised to the extent that it is having to be revolutionised now.

The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West said that Rothwell should go in with Wakefield because it has had a referendum showing 80 per cent. in favour. When I was approached by my own three local authorities to support Rothwell's application, having seen the excellent letters written by the clerk to the Rothwell Council and my own clerks, which said that Rothwell should go in with Wakefield because of that 80 per cent. majority, I agreed. I replied saying that I would support my hon. Friend if he put down an Amendment.

Then I received a nice letter from a man living at Sturton. I had the opinion that he thought I was an upstanding chap and that he could write to me in secrecy and put his troubles to me. He enclosed two ballot papers, both marked in favour of Leeds, and asked, "Why must I go into Wakefield? We have always belonged to Leeds. Here are the ballot papers to prove what I say. How many more ballot papers marked with crosses for Leeds have not been collected?"

Although I am not a suspicious chap, I immediately thought there was something phoney about what had happened, and this started to colour my vision a little. I passed the letter on to my hon. Friend, who said that I should get in touch with the Rothwell Town Clerk. We have not heard anything from him from that day to this, though that must have been seven or eight weeks ago. I do not know what the gentleman who wrote to me will think. All his grand ideas about me must have died. I am a little worried about it.

4.0 a.m.

The arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West about the artificial boundaries are ingenious. But they are nonsense. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. Cohen) pointed that out. I have travelled that road many times in the past. It is the worst road in the West Riding. I cannot tell whether I am in Leeds or Rothwell. Although I was in sympathy with the application I could not support it.

Mr. Albert Roberts

I think I should give the figures for the public opinion poll of 13th–27th February 1972. There was an electorate of 21,000; 10,782 votes were collected, equalling 51.3 per cent.; the spoilt papers numbered 56. The vote for Leeds was 1,977, or 18.5 per cent. Those who voted for Wakefield totalled 8,749, or 81.5 per cent.

Mr. Harper

Are there any figures which indicate how many papers were not collected?

Mr. Cohen

Is my hon. Friend fully aware of the method by which the ballot was conducted? [Hon. Members: "Misconducted."] I understand that people pushed leaflets through doors and afterwards collected the leaflets. The questions were framed on the leaflet. It left very little option to people in the way they were bound to react. There is no degree of certainty that all the ballot papers collected were returned. I am not suggesting that all the votes for Leeds were destroyed, but there is no guarantee. The ballot was not conducted in a manner we would regard as satisfactory.

Mr. Harper

If all the ballot papers had been collected there would have been a majority.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton on the case he deployed. He reminded me of an excellent barrister with a very poor brief. He did very well with it.

The point was made that local government reorganisation involves a community of interest. We have heard about this on previous occasions when everybody fought to keep their own authority local. I represented Featherstone. We went to London to meet the Commission. We argued that Featherstone, with a population of 15,000, was big enough to administer its own services. It was cheaply run; its rates were low; the housing programme was excellent. Everybody knows that does not fit the bill. We have now got local government proposed on a very much bigger scale, which means the elimination of "local" from local government.

The community interest weighs heavily with me. An old man wrote to me from the depths of the country and asked, "Why are we talking about Wakefield? I do not know such a place." Before the M1 got through I do not expect that he did.

Hunslet Workhouse is now St. George's Hospital. In Rothwell Major Leake's Home was dismantled because of subsidence. But Rothwell is represented on major committees such as the regional hospital board, the employment committee and—lo and behold—it has a seat on Radio Leeds, so we are going places. All that I suggest to the Minister—and I do not suppose that he has listened to a word I have said; he has his brief—is that he should not accept this Amendment. It is seldom that I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, but I do on this point. I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) and agree with all he said so ably on Amendment No. 755.

Mr. Speed

I can tell the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) that, in the sentence before he claimed that I was not listening to him, he said something to the effect, "We have one member on Radio Leeds, so, by Heavens, we are going places." The right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) also seemed to be concerned that I was not listening to him. At that time I was asking the Parliamentary Private Secretary to get me some peppermints, since it is now 12 hours since we began and my throat is getting dry and I want to say a few words on these Amendments. I did not intend any discourtesy.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Sir M. Stoddart-Scott) started the debate on this series of Amendments connected with some cases in his constituency. Perhaps, without being patronising, I could pay him a tribute for the very determined campaign he has fought, particularly on behalf of Ilkley and Otley, with my Department and my right hon. Friend. He has been courteous but extremely persistent in trying to take these two towns from the West Yorkshire metropolitan area. I am sorry to have to disappoint him because I must advise the House to resist the Amendment.

I can give my hon. Friend one or two bits of information which might help. First, I confirm what I said when he asked me about the position of parish councils. He may be interested to know that I have 11 parish councils in my constituency in the West Midlands metropolitan area, some of which are very small. They will continue, and there is provision for them. There is no question that they will disappear. Similarly, he was concerned about the position of Middleton Hospital and other areas in his constituency. I can assure him that the Boundary Commission is to look at such detailed problems after 1974, within and without metropolitan areas.

The other question my hon. Friend put specifically was: why was West Yorkshire being treated differently from Liverpool, Birmingham, or other parts? I refer to the letter my right hon. Friend wrote him on 23rd May. It is true that the West Yorkshire conurbation is loose-knit, more so than my own part of the world, the West Midlands, Liverpool, Birmingham or Manchester or some of the other metropolitan areas. Because of this, inevitably, areas such as Otley and Ilkley will be drawn into the West Yorkshire metropolitan area. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) mentioned that inevitably Bradford and Leeds and adjacent areas have a strong influence on change.

These are areas I know well because I did a lot of my courting in Ilkley when my fiancee was living in Manninghill Lane, Bradford. Undoubtedly Ilkley and Otley are separated by moorland from the main built-up areas of the conurbation but from the main A65 trunk valley route a variety of A routes runs from both towns to places in the conurbation, Aireborough, Shipley, Baildon, Keighley and Horsforth, as well as Bradford and Leeds. All are places to which workers from Ilkley and Otley commute.

There are many buses from Otley to Leeds and Bradford and from Ilkley to Leeds and Bradford. I have the figures here. From Otley to Leeds there are seven buses per hour; from Otley to Bradford there are 52 per day; from Otley to Harrogate 29 a day; from Ilkley to Leeds, four per hour; from Ilkley to Bradford, two per hour; from Ilkley to Harrogate, via Otley, one per hour. From a transport point of view, the predominance is into the conurbation.

Otley has a certain amount of local industry to attract workers from elsewhere. Ilkley is largely a dormitory town and over 40 per cent. of its workers at the last count had jobs outside the town, and two-thirds of that 40 per cent. were employed in the conurbation.

All transport and social links, for entertainment and the rest, and work, inevitably draw these areas into the conurbation so I am afraid that, notwithstanding the forceful arguments my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon has put forward over the past few months, I have to advise the House to reject his arguments on that.

There is the question of the four parishes of Arthington, Bramhope, Carlton, and Pool, all south of the Rivet Wharfe. Their populations are relatively small, but undoubtedly the important point in this exercise is to keep the conurbation boundary at the line of the Wharfe, which should remain without serious breach. One does not have hard-and-fast rules, but if one looks at the travelling, social and work arrangements, one finds a considerable proportion, 87 per cent. of those moving outside the area to work going to in conurbation: Bradford, Leeds and elsewhere. Again, I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but it may be of some comfort to the parishes concerned that the parish councils will continue in the metropolitan area.

Then we had the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North West (Sir D. Kaberry) some of which were substantiated by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Albert Roberts). My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West argued forcibly again that Harrogate should be brought back into the metropolitan area. He has been arguing this, on and off, for a long time. He asked what had happened and why we had changed our view and put Harrogate outside. This was answered fully in Committee on 18th January at cols. 612 and 613, but I shall not weary the House with that quotation tonight. It answers the case fully.

On Rothwell, about which a lot has been said, I reject absolutely the claim made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West that this is a question of gerrymandering. The population of Rothwell is about 30,000, about 4 per cent. of the population of Leeds. Whereas I appreciate that one can argue in political terms about moving a large area like Harrogate, even now, deliberately, I do not know the composition of Rothwell Urban District Council.

4.15 a.m.

I visited Rothwell last Sunday to see the area for myself because I felt it would be helpful. I started from the hostelry known as the "Black Bull" and went round in circles—[Laughter.]—before the hostelry had opened. I drove down the road from Leeds to Rothwell and down to Wakefield to see the links there.

The argument is finely balanced. We can argue about the referendum, but it is extremely easy to phrase questions in a referendum which will give the answers one wants. What is not in dispute—and I do not think the hon. Member for Normanton disputed it—is that it would appear that there is a substantial majority of opinion, both within the council and among the citizens, in favour of joining the Wakefield District rather than the Leeds District. Certainly in the Department we have received no evidence to the contrary. I will not say how good or how bad the referendum may have been.

Something which has not been sufficiently emphasised is that on the publication of the Bill the population of Leeds was 738,000. If Rothwell moves from District (b) to District (e) the Leeds population comes down to 709,512 whereas the Wakefield District (e) goes up from the original figure of 275,000 to 329,000. That figure includes Horbury and Ossett which were added in Committee. I cannot believe that a drop in population of 28,000 for District 6(b) will be critical. It will be of some considerable assistance to Wakefield, bearing in mind that the rateable value of Leeds in £2⅔ million and of Rothwell about £900,000.

Mr. Cohen

Does the Minister recognuise that the concern expressed is not on behalf of the residents of Leeds. There is no question of trying to build up or reduce our total population. The major concern has been on behalf of the 28,000 people in the Rothwell area, many of who mare economically, socially and culturally associated with the city. I hope the Minister will take into account that all the arguments he used in answer to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Sir M. Stoddart-Scott) are applicable to Rothwell—transport, environment and employment. It would be inconsistent to use those same arguments in favour of one course and against another.

Mr. Speed

On the one hand one is speaking of towns outside the metropolitan area and arguing whether they should be inside, and, on the other hand, we are talking about a particular town, where no one has challenged the proposition that the majority of the townspeople wish to transfer from one metropolitan district to another within a metropolitan area. It seems to me that this is a rather different situation. The Government and the House must be concerned about the new local authority set-up for individual people, but they must also take into account situations where there are marginal factors and situations where there are no overwhelming factors.

We have to take into account what the local authorities say, what the local member of Parliament has put forward in the House, and what the local people themselves think about it. We take all these factors into account, and also the fact that the whole situation is clearly marginal. I saw for myself when going along one of the roads into Leeds that there seemed to be a clear division; on another road the built-up area was nearly contiguous with that of Leeds. Having looked at these factors and considered the pressure group, who speak for a substantial section of the population, we have decided that we cannot accept the Amendments in respect of Harrogate. We are prepared to accept Amendment No. 27 in the names of the hon. Member for Normanton and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West concerning Rothwell.

On the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) about parishes in his constituency, I would like to pay tribute to him because he has been battling with my right hon. Friends about these problems in his constituency for some time. We have had a long, hard and close look at the parishes of Addingham and Kildwick. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to my hon. Friend, he was writing partly in the context of the West Riding County Council's strategy for development which was announced earlier this year. The letter stated that the Silsden area had been nominated for secondary growth, that there would be a massive development programme, and that the whole area was to be built up. In planning and practical terms, it means that if these parishes are not to be in West Yorkshire the pressure on Silsden and other areas will be great and there is a likelihood of bad planning. Therefore, I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but we cannot accept these Amendments.

The hon. Member for Bassetlaw put down an Amendment to reverse the decision of the Committee which had transferred Finningley from Nottingham to the Metropolitan County of South Yorkshire. I have little to say to him, because what I intended to say was answered by the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall). He has the advantage over me that he has been to see the area of Finningley. I have not. But everything he says confirms the advice I have had on this matter.

Since he has helped me, I should like to help him with his Amendment, but I cannot recommend the House to accept it. Our view is that which was put to the Committee with respect to his Amendment. We have noted what the hon. Member said in the light of the letter he wrote on this point.

The Government Amendments Nos. 29 to 31 relate to three small parishes with a total population of 1,263. The parishes are not commuter areas for Leeds. The parishes Kearby with Netherby, Sicklinghall and Weeton are being moved from the District of Leeds to North Yorkshire. They have no immediate road links south, and are different in nature from most of the other parishes. They have only a population of 1,200, so I hope that no-one can accuse us of gerrymandering on this. They are Amendments I would recommend to the House.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop (South Shields)

It will come as no surprise to the House to learn that, as we progress with this Bill, we become more dissatisfied, mainly for the reason that the Government have decided to draw the boundaries of the metropolitan counties far too tightly.

We do not accept the criticism of the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Sir M. Stoddart-Scott). We dislike the Bill and we also dislike many of the provisions in the White Paper and, as time goes on, our dislike grows the more because we believe that in practice many of the detailed provisions will not work efficiently.

We cannot support the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member, and in- deed we support the Government's attitude in this respect. However, we regret the decision that the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State has decided to accept Amendment No. 27 in regard to Rothwell. The case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. Cohen) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) was a very powerful one. Therefore, I would ask my hon. Friends, if they have managed to last out until

Amendment accordingly agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 29, in page 197, line 13, column 2, leave out 'Kearby with Netherby'.

No. 30, in line 14, column 2, leave out 'Sicklinghall'.

No. 31, in line 15, column 2, leave out 'Weeton'.—[Mr. Peter Walker.]

No. 35, in line 42, after 'Normanton', insert 'Rothwell'.—[Mr. Albert Roberts.]

Mr. Ronald Bell (Buckinghamshire, South)

I beg to move Amendment No. 56, in page 199, line 7, leave out 'Dorney'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)

I think it will be for the con-

this hour of the morning to vote against Amendment No. 27 and the decision of the Minister.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 27, in page 197, line 4, leave out 'and Rothwell'.—[Mr. Albert Roberts.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 68, Noes 20.

Division No. 276.]	AYES	[4.30 p.m.
Adley, Robert	Gray, Hamish	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Atkins, Humphrey	Haselhurst, Alan	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Hawkins, Paul	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Hordern, Peter	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Biffen, John	Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia	Sinclair, Sir George
Bossom, Sir Clive	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Speed, Keith
Bowden, Andrew	Kimball, Marcus	Spence, John
Bray, Ronald	Luce, R. N.	Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Bryan, Sir Paul	Mather, Carol	Sutcliffe, John
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Mawby, Ray	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Tebbit, Norman
Churchill, W. S.	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Cooke, Robert	Miscampbell, Norman	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Cordle, John	Moate, Roger	Trew, Peter
Drayson, G. B.	Money, Ernle	Waddington, David
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Monks, Mrs. Connie	Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	More, Jasper	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Fidler, Michael	Normanton, Tom	Weatherill, Bernard
Fortescue, Tim	Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)	Wilkinson, John
Fox, Marcus	Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Corby)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Gibson-Watt, David	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis	Mr. Oscar Murton and
Goodhart, Philip	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James	Mr. Michael Jopling.
Goodhew, Victor	Redmond, Robert

NOES
Armstrong, Ernest	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Ashton, Joe	McNamara, J. Kevin	Skinner, Dennis
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Marsden, F.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Marshall, Dr. Edmund	Urwin, T. W.
Cohen, Stanley	Oakes, Gordon
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
English, Michael	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles	Mr. Walter Harrison and
Foot, Michael	Prescott, John	Mr. Joseph Harper.

venience of the House to discuss at the same time the following two Amendments:

No. 57, in page 199, line 7, after 'Wraysbury', insert: 'the Britwell, East and Britwell, West wards of the parish of Burnham'.

No. 109, in page 204, line 13, leave out from first 'the' to end of line 17 and insert: 'line of the boundary between the Wexham ward and the Wexham Court Estate ward of the parish'.

Mr. Bell

The effect of Amendment No. 56 would be to retain Dorney in Buckinghamshire. Dorney is a small village and parish with a population of 850 in the south of Buckinghamshire on the River Thames. It has been a part of Buckinghamshire for nearly 1,100 years—that is, from the time when Buckinghamshire first emerged as a county out of the Kingdom of Mercia. Since it is on the north bank—[Interruption.] I wonder whether I could have the attention of the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), who was so anxious a little time ago that he should be listened to when he was speaking.

Mr. C. Pannell

I am sorry.

Mr. Bell

I am obliged. Unless I can carry the right hon. Gentleman with me, I shall not feel satisfied even if I carry the Treasury Bench.

As Dorney is on the north bank of the River Thames, it is strange that it should ever have been thought of making it part of a county south of the Thames. There is no bridge at Dorney and nor is there one anywhere near. Dorney has been in danger of being dragged into Berkshire with Slough.

However, Dorney does not lie between Slough and the immediately adjacent area across the river in Berks; it lies well to the west and its main interests and connections are north-west to Taplow and, most important, the people of Dorney want to remain in Bucks and, equally, the people of Taplow, who are next door, want to remain in Bucks. Dorney is a beautiful village with a strong sense of community and it would be wrong if it were treated as a mere appurtenance of Slough with which it has little connection and no affinity, and I feel confident that the Minister will advise the House to accept the Amendment.

It is being discussed with Amendments Nos. 57 and 109 to which I must therefore refer, briefly, as befits the hour. No. 57 would put into Berks with Slough that large part of the Britwell estate that is in Burnham. I appreciate that there is a straightforward logicality in that proposal, but it is contrary to the strongly expressed wishes of those who live there who prefer to remain in Bucks and in the Eton Rural District and who do not want to become part of Slough.

I very much hope that the Minister will feel that any examination which there may be of what is really a suggestion to rectify a boundary should be left to the commissioners who are dealing with these matters in 1974 and after.

Amendment No. 109 relates to approximately 50 houses in the parish of Wexham. It may be said that this, too, is in the nature of a rectification of a boundary line and perhaps what I have just said about Britwell will apply to these houses, which, as things stand, are in the parish of Wexhamand not in the ward of Wexham Court which is going to Berkshire and Slough. The only reason why they are caught in the Schedule is that the Bill proposes to make the boundary line make a sort of raid into the parish of Wexham in order to capture a certainhospital there which, for reasons quite unknown to me and quite unapparent to me, it is felt should be in Berkshire because most of the people who use it will be living in Berkshire. But, as the county boundary does not constitute a ditch across the middle of the road, there seems no good reason why the hospital should be in Berks.

Nobody minds much about the hospital, but the 50 houses are grouped together in the loop that the Bill throws out to net the hospital. They do not want to go into Berkshire in this accidental way with the ward of Wexham Court, a village with which they have absolutely no connection and with which they have no affinity. I hope that my right hon. Friend will advise the House that this is not a matter that should be left to the Boundary Commission and that it should be decided by the House tonight by restoring the houses to Bucks.

4.45 a.m.

Dr. Gerard Vaughan (Reading)

I have a good deal of sympathy for these rather modest Amendments. In fact, it is their very modesty which makes me question them. They seem rather tiddly little nibbles at the boundaries in a part of the country where there is a good deal of uncertainty as to exactly where the boundaries should lie. I ask the House to consider them in the slightly wider context of what is happening in that part of the country and in the light of what the Minister said when this matter came up in Committee.

This part of Berkshire is one of very rapid growth in population and in building. This is especially so in the area immediately north of Reading and round Slough. The White Paper and a number of previous impartial reports, including that of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission, followed the principle in their recommendations that the built-up areas round main towns should be brought into the towns, in this case by including in Reading and Slough the built-up areas immediately adjoining. That surely makes sense, and it was this policy that we understood the Government to be wishing to follow when it came to producing the Bill.

It was a very great surprise to many of us that in the Bill the Government abandoned this policy, and took instead a very tight boundary line round Reading and Slough, effectively cutting these two towns off from built-up areas, in which people lived, were educated and sought their hospital services.

I do not propose to go into the various problems which the boundary put to us now would raise. But there are problems on the hospital side, on the welfare and social service side, and on the education side. At Eton, for example, four secondary schools will be taken out, and three out of the seven secondary schools will be put into Slough. There are many difficulties of this kind.

That seemed to be a very serious proposal. But worse was to follow. In the Committee, I tabled Amendments which would have had the effect of bringing the neighbouring built-up areas back into Reading and Slough. There are in fact six parishes concerned which cry out logically to be included. But in the Committee the then Parliamentary Secretary thought that these were too uncertain proposals as put forward in the Amendments. He said: …I have come to the broad conclusion that it probably needs another, cooler look; I use the word advisedly, because I think that passions have been inflamed in the matter…it would be right to leave the matter as it stands so that the Boundary Commission may come to terms with it in the way that we shall be discussing later in the Bill. That was in relation to Reading. Later in the same speech, talking about the very area which is referred to now in Amendment No. 109, he said that there were difficulties over Britwell. He went on: It is our view that this would perhaps be best dealt with by the Boundary Commission who can look at it…in the calmer atmosphere which I think will return to this area as soon as we have dealt with the Bill itself and the Boundary Commission is able to get under way."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 25th January, 1972; c. 856–8.] This seemed a sensible approach to the matter, and we in the county accepted this as a very clear view of the Government. It was entirely on this basis that we withdraw the various Amendments. We hope now that my right hon. Friend will stand by the views of the then Undersecretary of State in Committee and will put the whole matter over to the Boundary Commission for a quiet considered look. I suggest it would be manifestly wrong not to do this. Or I ask the Under-secretary to explain why what seems a logical and understandable way of approaching this complicated issue should now be abandoned and these little nibbles take place which many of us feel will prejudice the work of the Boundary Commission.

There are areas around Taplow, and particularly around Burnham, which are heavily built up and closely adjoin Slough. To accept the Dorney Amendment and then to include the Taplow-Burnham area in Berkshire would mean virtually isolating Dorney as an island or with a very narrow connecting link into the new Buckinghamshire.

So, for a whole variety of reasons, I ask my right hon. Friend to go back, think again, and put the whole matter over to the Boundary Commission for a quiet considered look. I ask that, if in any case this matter goes to the Boundary Commission, even if the Amendments are accepted, it should be clearly understood that Slough remains in the new Berkshire and that these tiny Amendments are not regarded as prejudicial to a completely open look at the boundary in the future.

Mr. Speed

I will respond briefly to the comments which have been made.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) explained why the small parish of Dorney, with a population of 850, should be transferred to the new Buckinghamshire rather than remain in Berkshire. This is a marginal case. The people overwhelmingly wish to stay there. It will not be of any significance to either the new Buckinghamshire or the new Berkshire. Therefore, I advise the House to accept Amendment No. 56.

I cannot be as accommodating on Amendment No. 109 regarding the Wexham Court Estate ward. There is the question of the hospital, and there are strong reasons why it should be within Berkshire. There is also the municipal housing on the Wexham Court Estate which will be included in the same county as Slough.

We accept that the final pattern and boundary of this parish is not good and will have to be looked at by the Boundary Commission. However, I could not advise the House to accept that Amendment.

Turning to Amendment No. 57, in the name of the Opposition, which relates to the Britwell East and West wards, I recommend the House to accept that because, although the final boundary is perhaps not correct, there is an anomaly in that the new county boundary will go through the middle of a large municipal housing estate. Clearly the majority of that estate should be within Slough and the new Berkshire. Therefore, we recommend the House to accept that Amendment.

I confirm that it is the Government's firm intention that Slough is definitely part of and will stay in the new Berkshire. This makes sense because of the general pattern of journey to work and other affinities. This proposal is emphatically supported by representatives of Slough. There is no intention of any change regarding Slough. In view of what we have discussed, it must be realised that these are only limited issues. They do not prejudge what the Boundary Commission will have to do after 1st April, 1974. I accept that the borderlines are tightly drawn, probably to the prejudice of Berkshire, and therefore at an early stage after 1st April, 1974, we expect to take a comprehensive look at the boundaries both to the north of Reading and in the Slough area.

With those brief comments, I hope that we can conclude this debate to the satisfaction of all.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 57, in page 199, line 7 after 'Wraysbury', insert 'the Britwell, East and Britwell, West wards of the parish of Burnham'.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

Mr. Graham Page

I beg to move Amendment No. 58, in page 199, leave out lines 15 to 23.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)

With this Amendment we are to take the following Amendments:

No. 59, leave out lines 16 to 21 and insert 'the urban district of Newmarket,'.

No. 60, in line 22, column 2, leave out from second 'the' to end of line 23 and insert 'parish of Moulton'.

No. 1035, in page 202, line 50, column 2, leave out from 'Suffolk' to end of line 51.

No. 99, in line 50, leave out 'except the areas in Cambridgeshire'.

Mr. Page

Amendment No. 58 would restore the county boundary of Suffolk to its present condition. Amendment No. 59 would merely restore the boundary round Haverhill and Clare parishes but would leave Newmarket in Cambridgeshire. It has been difficult to decide what to do with the boundary at the west end of Suffolk. We have, as the House knows, combined East and West Suffolk into one county. At the south-east end of it we contemplated adding part of North-East Essex and changing the boundary there, but that was not acceptable to the areas which we had considered transferring, and therefore we restored the boundary of Suffolk at that end of the county.

We were then considering the movement of certain areas at the west end of the county into Cambridgeshire, but it affected our consideration of this that there had been no addition to Suffolk at the south-east end and that to continue to deprive the present Suffolk of further area on the western boundary needed careful consideration.

As a result of Amendment No. 58, the new Suffolk will be merely a straightforward amalgamation of the existing administrative counties of East Suffolk, apart from a small area near Great Yarmouth which I shall deal with later, with West Suffolk, including the County Borough of Ipswich, and the new Cambridgeshire will be an amalgamation of Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely and Huntingdon and Peterborough.

When one looks at the map, one sees that Newmarket is a peninsular of Suffolk intruding into Cambridgeshire territory as it were, and it is easy enough when looking at it in that way to come to the conclusion that it ought to be chopped oft and placed with Cambridgeshire, but there has been a difference of opinion in the past among commissions which have considered this boundary.

The industry of horse racing—if I am right in calling it an industry—stretches around Newmarket urban district boundary for some considerable distance, and not only into Cambridgeshire. The stud farms stretch into Suffolk as well, and whereas my idea when first thinking about placing Newmarket in Cambridgeshire was to place the urban district with the stud farms round it, I have been advised that that divides it from the stud farms in Suffolk, so that is no solution to the problem of putting the racing industry all in one county.

5.0 a.m.

Redcliffe-Maud suggested that Newmarket should be part of what it called the "Cambridge-South Fens" unitary area. We, like our predecessors, accepted Redcliffe-Maud's new boundary, in the knowledge that it differed from the view expressed in 1961 and again in 1965 by the Local Government Boundary Commission. In 1961, in its Report on the East Midlands General Review Area, that Commission said: …as the proposed combined county of Cambridge, Ely, Huntingdonshire and the Soke of Peterborough was strong and as Newmarket was a centre for county services for the western part of West Suffolk —that is an important factor— we formed the provisional view that there was not strong enough reason to sever Newmarket urban district from West Suffolk…a number of parishes should be transferred from Newmarket rural district to West Suffolk to improve the boundary and the administration. In 1965 the Commission recommended adding to West Suffolk certain parishes around Newmarket. The Commission did this with the same object as I had in mind when we were placing Newmarket in Cambridgeshire, of uniting in one county the racecourses, the training establishments and the stud farms.

In these circumstances, of conflicting recommendations by the two Commis- sions, the best solution for the Newmarket boundary is not free from doubt. We adopted the Royal Commission's recommendation because that was the more recent. On the other hand, the Local Government Commission's examination was the more detailed. The difficulty is not made easier by the conflict of opinion between Newmarket Urban District Council, which wants to be in Cambridgeshire, and West Suffolk County Council, which wants the town to be in Suffolk and the new boundary to be drawn on the lines suggested by the Local Government Commission.

The best solution is to restore the county boundary of Suffolk around Newmarket and, if it is found when the Boundary Commission reviews the boundary, that a mile or so around some of the parishes which include the stud farms should be included the Boundary Commission could solve the matter in that way. It is impossible, because of the shape of the parishes around Newmarket, to do it at this stage by parish boundaries. It would make nonsense if we chose the existing parish boundaries.

Turning to Haverhill, there is undoubtedly a case for placing Haverhill and some of the nearby parishes in Clare Rural district in Cambridgeshire. The right hon. Member for Deptford will remember that I tried to put that case in Committee and I was knocked about a bit. I went away to think about it again. There is undoubtedly a pull towards Cambridge in travel-to-work, recreation and education; and there is a pull towards Suffolk and Bury St. Edmunds in the same functions. Possibly both sides of the Standing Committee, in arguing strenuously, our side for Cambridge and the Opposition for Suffolk, were a little wrong.

Haverhill is a very self-contained town: a very large proportion of the population works in the town. A small number move into Cambridgeshire to work and a small number move into Suffolk to work.

Because of the fairly strong arguments both ways, we believe now that the right thing to do is to leave the boundary where it is. There is strong local opposition in Haverhill to the proposal to put it into Cambridgeshire. Haverhill Urban District Council is strongly against the idea. West Suffolk County Council and Clare Rural District Council want to keep Haverhill. Without being rude to Haverhill, I must say that Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely County Council and South Cambridgeshire Rural District Council do not want Haverhill.

In these circumstances it seemed to us a satisfactory conclusion to this very difficult exercise, in trying to discover where to put the boundary, to restore the present boundary to West Suffolk.

Mr. John Silkin

It would be ungracious of me, after, as the Minister says, "knocking him around a bit" on the question of Haverhill, not to accept that he has looked into the matter very carefully and has produced a solution which we on this side like very much and for which we are grateful to him. It seems the sensible thing to do and I am glad that he has come to that decision. It now seems a little ungracious also, having said that, to add that I wish he had gone a little further in the matter of Newmarket.

The two factors that weigh with me, apart from belonging to the Chief Whips' union and observing the silence of the Patronage Secretary are, first the peninsular of Newmarket jutting out into Cambridgeshire, and, secondly, what I knew as a undergraduate and am delighted to hear today, namely, that the people of Newmarket still continue to look to Cambridge, because that must be the meaning of the desire of the urban district council to go into Cambridgeshire.

I do not quite know how we can meet this. We are at a very late stage in the Bill. Perhaps I could suggest once again to the poor Minister, who at least seems able to carry on and on without getting tired, that he takes another look between now and when the Bill reaches the House of Lords, otherwise I fear it will be sometime before the Boundary Commission eventually moves the whole of the area into Cambridgeshire, which I am convinced it will do one day. This seems to be the last chance and it is certainly the last chance this morning. I will not press the matter now but I hope that the Minister will have one more look at it before the Bill goes to the House of Lords.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

I do not think anyone could do anything but admire the immense pains which my right hon. Friend the Minister takes when he has to try to handle these matters. There were moments this morning, however, when I could not help being reminded of that passage from the book of Job: Thou art neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. I know that none of us would wish to do the latter part of that but the question of coming down one way or the other as to what is right is inevitably a matter of "nicely calculated less or more," whatever one does, and I do not envy my right hon. Friend the decisions they have had to take.

Nevertheless, I have to say in the interests of two local authorities in my constituency, the City of Ely Urban District Council and the Ely Rural District Council, that the dismay that has been caused in their offices by the decision is very considerable. Perhaps the best way I can describe it is to use the words of the rural district in a telegram they sent me: Ely Rural Council seriously disturbed by reported proposal to retain Newmarket Urban District in West Suffolk stop Council particularly outraged that full year's harmonious reorganisation work between members and officers of two Ely and Newmarket councils should be made abortive stop Council fear decision must entail transfer of part of Cambridgeshire to avoid Newmarket remaining anomalous peninsular in county stop Transfer of Newmarket to Cambridgeshire the correct course and should be adhered to in cause of good local government stop Changes now must disrupt reorganisation programme stop Three afternoons before I received that I had had a talk with the Ely Urban District Council. They too, having heard the rumour that the Amendment would be put before us tonight and that the Government would support it, had asked to get in touch with me, and they expressed equal dismay.

The matter goes back a very long way. It has not merely arisen since the latest round of boundary adjustments have been under consideration. It goes back to the two Ely councils in the old days when the Isle of Ely had a separate county council stretching right up to Wisbech in the north. The two Bedford rivers running from the south-west corner of my constituency in a north-easterly direction to the Norfolk borders cut my constituency into two-thirds north of them and one-third to the south. That one-third to the south has never been very keen to be ruled from anywhere north of the two rivers. Therefore, even in the days of the old Isle of Ely County Council those two district councils were not entirely happy. They have always been looking southwards towards Cambridgeshire, hoping that one day Newmarket would come in with them.

When the Memorandum of Draft Proposals was published during the past year, that was a tremendous fillip to that thinking. On the strength of that, the two councils went ahead with the two Newmarket authorities and parts of Mildenhall, trying to bring about a new authority which would have been the new District 4 shown on page eight of the Memorandum of Draft Proposals. The effect would have been to produce a local authority, on the 1971 census, of 63,430 people, with a rateable value of £2,042,000.

The Amendment will extract Newmarket Urban District, which will result in the total population falling to 50,496. Does my right hon. Friend think that that population would be too small to provide a possible new district authority? I think that it would work harmoniously even without Newmarket Urban District. In view of the scattered distribution of the population in the Ely Rural District and the other rural districts, would my right hon. Friend consider coming so far below the 70,000 figure? That would make a great deal of difference, and I hope he will not rule that out.

I was informed with considerable emphasis by the Ely Urban District Council last Friday that if the Newmarket Urban District and Haverhill were left with Suffolk it would prefer to join Ely Rural District Council, Newmarket Rural District Council and part of Mildenhall Rural district, as in its original plan, less the Newmarket Urban District. Probably the Ely Rural District will go along with that.

Naturally, there has been very little time to consult all the local authorities concerned, but I think there is only one other way in which the matter might be resolved. I say this purely as what I hope is a piece of constructive thinking of my own. I have not had time to consult one of the other councils that might come in. In the draft proposals for the new districts, new District 2 in Cambridgeshire would have included Wisbech Municipal Borough, Chatteris Urban District, March Urban District, Whittlesey Urban District, North Witch-ford Rural District and Wisbech Rural District. Some years ago Chatteris and North Witchford pooled their resources to administer those two authorities in the same office. Chatter is Urban District Council has a population of 5,556 and a rateable value of £189,000. It is just conceivable that if we wanted to make that group of Ely Urban and Rural big enough and if the figure of 50,496 which I have been using was not regarded as being a big enough population, one possible solution—I emphasise that it is only possible, because I have not had a chance to discuss it with the councillors concerned—would be to extract Chatteris Urban District from the new District 2 and to add it to the new District 4.

5.15 a.m.

I would not wish to recommend that unless I was satisfied that those in Chatteris had been fully consulted and wanted it to happen. The effect of doing that would be to re-separate the North Witchford Rural District Council, leaving that with the new District 2 and extracting Chatteris Urban District Council and putting it with new District 4. That is a possible solution. I would not press it if it proved to be against the wishes of the Chatteris Urban District Council and their ratepayers. They have been working on the assumption that new District 2 would come about as set out in the Memorandum of Draft Proposals. It will cause an upset in that grouping if one now starts making extractions, but that is one solution. The best solution now may be to let Ely Rural and Ely Urban District Councils join Newmarket Rural District Council, and Parts of Mildenhall as they had been planning.

The men of Suffolk are robust gentlemen. We recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) is in an invidious position., but this has come as a bombshell to these two councils, Ely Urban District Council and Ely Rural District Council. I hope my hon. Friend will take some account of that. I pay tribute to the dedicated work done at official and councillor level to bring about what they thought was going to be the effect of the Draft Proposals. I hope my right hon. Friend will bend over backwards to help these local authorities who have done so much to find a solution which is still workable.

Mr. Peter Walker

In attempting to create and draw the boundaries for local government formation there are a number of boundaries which are difficult to decide. This was one case where there were considerable difficulties. There were arguments for retaining existing county boundaries as opposed to patterns of movement and work. There were differing views of people in the locality. The Newmarket Urban District Council were in favour of one approach. The County Council representing Newmarket Urban District Council has taken an opposite view on this topic. Immense care was given to this consideration before coming to our decision.

I regret the difficulties and problems of the local authorities which have been working together on the basis of the previous proposals. Officers have, both here and in other places, put in a great deal of work before these changes on the Report stage of the Bill. I appreciate their work. The Department will assist them with the new thinking and work which has to be done as a result of these changes.

I assure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) that the Boundary Commission will give time to the local authorities in the districts he named to allow them to consult each other and local people and to put out afresh their proposals for district boundaries. The tentative suggestions which my hon. and gallant Friend, with his knowledge of the area, has put

South Devon	The County Borough of Plymouth
	In the administrative county of Devon—
	the urban districts of Kingsbridge and Salcombe
	the rural districts of Tavistock and Plympton St. Mary
5	In the rural district of Totnes, the parishes of South Brent, Ugborough, North Huish, Diptford and Morleigh
10	In the rural district of Kingsbridge, the parishes of Aveton Gifford,Bigbury, Buckland-tout-Saints, Charleton, Chivelstone, Churchstow, East Allington, East Portlemouth, Kingston, Loddiswell, Malborough, Modbury, Ringmore, Sherford, South Huish, South Milton, South Pool, Stokenham, Thurlestone, West Alvington and Woodleigh.
and sub-Amendment (a) in line 2, leave out from beginning to end of line 12.

forward, subject to consultation with his local authorities, could be referred to the Boundary Commission, which could decide in favour of such proposals.

We always made clear in the directives we gave to the Boundary Commission that populations of 40,000 in rural areas could be appropriate. Populations of less than 40,000 in certain areas could be considered by that Commission. That is an independent Boundary Commission. It will come to conclusions subject to the advice of the local people and the authorities concerned

I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the type of suggestion he has made will be looked at seriously. We will certainly see that time is given to these authorities to confer again and to put up their proposals to the Boundary Commission, which I know will be happy to look at them.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 61, in page 199, line 36, at end insert:—

Cleveland The county boroughs of Hartlepool and Teesside. In the administrative county of Durham the rural district of Stockton. In the administrative county of Yorkshire, North Riding—the urban districts of Guisborough, Loftus, Saltburn and Marske-by-the-Sea and Skelton and Brotton; in the rural district of Stokesley, the parishes of Castlevington, Hilton, Ingleby Barwick, Kirklevington, Maltby, Nunthorpe and Yarm.—[Mr. Peter Walker.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)

We come now to Amendment No. 63 with which it would be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 65 in page 200, line 4, at end insert 'except the areas in South Devon'.

No. 98, in page 202, line 42, at end insert:—

Dame Joan Vickers (Plymouth, Devonport)

I beg to move Amendment No. 63, in page 200, line 3, leave out 'Plymouth'.

I should like to thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister for Local Government Development for the many times they have received me and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen). Having seen the first circular in February last the then chairman of the Devon Council said: This is surprising news indeed. We had hoped that Plymouth would be retained as a free-standing city, as the county council had suggested. Plymouth was not really welcomed. He went on: We do not welcome the suggestion that it should be included in a Devon first tier authority for a number of reasons, among them the fact that it will create an imbalance between town and country in the administration within the geographical county. I have been told many times that the new district based on Plymouth will be responsible for the administration of a large and important range of functions, so let us in this debate look at these functions. The most important function will be the collection of rates. As for spending them, Plymouth can be outvoted each time. Devon is at present a non-political county and at least 5 per cent. maybe more, of the councillors are not even elected; they stand and they have no opposition. This has been going on for many years. They are really non-elected. They do not really represent anyone except themselves and no one knows which way they will vote.

A total of 80.2 per cent. of the rates will go direct to the county and Plymouth can be out-voted every time. A further 14.1 per cent. will be spent by Plymouth, plus the health rate of 31 per cent. and the water rate of 2.6 per cent. There is no opportunity for a district council like Plymouth having a chance of policy-making.

What will be the functions of this district in future? They will be approving building plans previously approved only by a sub-committee of the city council. They will be to do with housing, but not major roads and sewerage. Plymouth has built 25,000 houses since 1945 and is selling them at the rate of 2,000 a year, so this will be a declining function. There is the collection of refuse. It will be the same in regard to rates? No policy-making decisions will be needed. The local bus undertaking will be run by the City of Plymouth, but the policy will be determined by the county council. There is the maintenance of minor roads in the urban areas and enforcing building regulations which are laid down nationally and the local building inspectors have their book of rules. Slum clearance finished in 1962, I am glad to say. We shall have the power of inspection of restaurants. In regard to museums, we have to make two payments, one for the city and one for the county. We have a clean air function and the air is excellent. The air would be much cleaner were it not for some of the adjectives being hurled about over the Government's actions. We have no community of interest with Devon.

We have, for example, an airport prevented by Devon County, a reservoir prevented by Devon County. When we wished to build a bridge over the Tamar it was impossible to obtain the co-operation of Devon County, but fortunately on that occasion we had the co-operation of Cornwall and between Plymouth and them the bridge was built. Plymouth will have to contribute one-third of the cost of Exeter Airport if it is agreed, but it will be of no benefit to Plymouth.

Devon County is planning a championship golf course in East Devon at a cost of £35,000. How will that benefit the unemployed or the dockyard workers in Plymouth, where unemployment is 4.3 per cent.? Yet, if we have a chance of voting against, we can be out-voted.

In planning for industry, Plymouth has no more land over 15 acres to offer. We asked Devon County to help and there was a joint team to study the feasibility of land at Sparkwell. Plymouth put in a planning application but after waiting two years this was refused, so there had to be an appeal to the Minister.

Plymouth has a Polytechnic, a teachers training college, a college of art, a college of navigation to train for the Merchant Navy, a unique institution, and a college of further education is being built.

With regard to the proposed South Devon County, the new Crown Court covers the area. The South West area is the same as the Plymouth area for employment; the South West Regional Hospital Board is slightly larger than the area proposed; the South Western Electricity Board and the South Western Gas Board also cover the area.

It is also the postal district for all of the towns mentioned in the Amendments except Kingsbridge and Salcombe.

The White Paper says that a strong regional organisation based on the regional offices of the Department of Trade and Industry will be an essential part of the new Industrial Development Executive. It will co-operate closely with local authorities and other bodies and agencies, etc. In this connection a new office is to be established in Plymouth so that the problems of the assisted areas in the South West can be more effectively assessed". According to the White Paper, an important part of the effort to stimulate industrial regeneration in a region will be an attempt to ensure proper co-ordination with the overall planning of land use and other physical resources. In the area around Plymouth, this coordination could clearly be facilitated if the new county authority responsible for major planning decisions involving land use and roads were situated in Plymouth which is due to house the new office of the Regional Industrial Director.

Recently, Manchester University has made a survey—quite unknown to Plymouth—over a period of three years. They have produced an extremely interesting report, based on what is called a nodal response only, about the various villages around, to whose residents it was suggested whether they might like to go to Plymouth or to be attached to Plymouth. They were asked to choose between Plymouth, Exeter or Torbay. They said they were happy to go to Plymouth, and the only one which was happy to do so was Avonwick. Parliament should take account of the feelings of the people.

This survey was undertaken by Mr. P. E. Lloyd, a lecturer in geography at the university. A majority of the people in the South Hants, Salcombe and Outer Hope and Kingsbridge areas preferred to have planning at Plymouth or Torbay. Mr. Lloyd says that the preference for Plymouth is clearly shown and he gives the reasons why. According to the random survey taken over the whole area, including the country districts—the largest being Kingsbridge and Salcombe—the majority much prefer to come in with Plymouth.

5.30 a.m.

He produced a diagram of choices linking the households in the sample with the preferred administration, and I understand that he has sent it to several hon. Members. Almost all the lines on the diagram lead to Plymouth. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has seen both diagrams and I hope he agrees that they are rather impressive. I hope that this survey may have some influence, as the local people have been consulted and it represents their considered opinion.

Communications are difficult and will remain so even when the roads are improved, especially in the summer months. Councillors from Plymouth wishing to attend council meetings in Exeter will probably have to travel by car because the trains, which have recently been cut do not run at appropriate times. By train it takes 90 minute? to do the 52 miles because of the steep gradients and the big curves round the bay of Teignmouth. It will mean for a councillor attending a committee at county hall at least three hours' travelling. Not long ago it took me an hour to travel 8 miles to the airport. Councillors will have to spend at least 1½ hours each way on travelling, and they do not all have a car.

In Devon and Cornwall local authorities are not empowered to discuss matters with the city council. They could do so only if county council members are present, but Cornwall went even further and the chairman of the Cornwall County Council published in the local newspaper the statement that no local council was allowed to discuss matters with Plymouth.

It has been said that genuine local democracy requires decisions to be taken as locally as possible. But how can this be done in a large agricultural county—and I think it is the largest agricultural county in England—which is dominated by a squirarchy and retired persons, 5 per cent. of whom have never been elected? What do those people known about a thriving industrial town.

The South-West Area Planning Council and the Hunt Committee both said that Plymouth should be the development centre of the South-West. There have been in the local Press many protests by local county councillors that they have not had an opportunity to discuss the matter, and that their protests were deliberately squashed.

I draw my hon. Friend's attention to what happened in 1914 when General Fenton said that he could not deal with three towns. Plymouth was then divided into Plymouth, Stonehouse and Devon-port, and a Bill was rushed through Parliament to amalgamate the three towns. Now the Services will have a bigger problem; they will have to deal with the whole county.

There is a point in regard to fire services. There is a great deal of petroleum at Price Rock and Cattledown, and ships offshore, and there are no risks like this in the county. The Holroyd Report recommended that all chief fire officers must be in reach of the major areas of risk, so they must be locally stationed.

In my Second Reading speech I mentioned that Drake's Drum might be heard again and it was heard in Whitehall. [An Hon. Member: "It was not Drake's drum."] It was a replica. You cannot bring the real one up. I also feel that Lord and Lady Astor will haunt this House. Both were devoted to the city after the blitz of Plymouth, which was the most blitzed city after Coventry. Lord Astor as lord mayor, with Professor Abercrombie and Mr. Paton Weston, started to plan as early as August, 1941, for the reconstruction of Plymouth. This was published in 1943, and it was a magnificent achievement.

I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is an expert at re-drawing maps in most unusual circumstances, and I know he understands the difficulties we have in this part of the world. I feel that he will see the justice in the Amendment that I am moving. He must realise that the Redcliffe-Maud Report would have been more acceptable and more beneficial to this particular area.

It should be recorded that Plymouth was the first city to be given a charter, in 1439, and Plymouth almost alone in Devon aided Parliament in the Civil War. So surely Parliament can come to the aid of Plymouth now. There has never, regrettably, been any love lost between Plymouth and Devon, the county being largely Saxon and Danish and Plymouth having more affinity with the Celts.

As the Skevington Report has proved successful and people are at last taking an interest in their environment and the planning of cities, this is now to be denied to Plymouth. In some Government decisions too little regard has been given to the special character of Devon and policies which might be suitable for other parts of England but have little reference to the South and have been imposed there purely for the sake of uniformity.

The right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) recognised the need to enlarge the city of Plymouth and added Plympton to it despite the inspector's view to the contrary. He did not consider any political implications.

He considered only the benefit to Plymouth caused by bringing in Plympton despite the fact that he must have known it would help to keep Plymouth Conservative as we would have lost the election had we not had the members for Plympton. It is interesting to note that since 1945 the city council has been controlled by Conservatives 14 times, by the Socialists 12 times, and there has been one dead heat.

Plymouth was extended only by the consideration of the then local Labour Party who put the city before their party, as they are doing again in this Amendment. Why has Plymouth received the support of the Labour Party in the House, but never since 1955 that of the Conservatives? We lost the airport and the reservoir under Conservative Governments, and had the Labour Party remained in power the composition of the committee dealing with the reservoir would have given us a good chance of carrying out the wishes of the House as we got the Second Reading through by a majority of 123.

In the legislation to add Plympton to Plymouth—a Crossman measure—I regret to say that my right hon. Friend with the present Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) and the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) organised a little exercise against the Bill, which fortunately misfired. I was the only Conservative to vote for the Bill. Regrettably, today it cannot be said that the Government have shown much love for the City of Plymouth.

The difficulties are recognised by the county administration. There are problems of distance and of communication; there is a lack of interest between seaside resorts and the agricultural hinterland. Administration will be extremely expensive. The time wasted in travelling is impossible to quantify, but it is a real factor in increasing the cost of administration. Holiday crowds make quick travel impossible, and there are no community interests between the industrial town of Plymouth and the county.

A Welsh Office Circular of 3rd November said: The proposed East Glamorgan County would lack the essential community of interest which would make it an effective unit of local government. I suggest that this applies to Plymouth. If the City of Cardiff can retain its sovereignty, then Plymouth wants to do the same.

We are to have three Members of Parliament in the area, and I hope that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) will be supporting my remarks. I hope that what I have said will be given further consideration so that any decision will be to the benefit not only of Plymouth, but to the County of Devon.

Dr. David Owen (Plymouth, Sutton)

I shall shatter the peace of the dawn by saying to the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is to reply to the debate, that I consider it an outrage that this discussion is taking place at this hour of the morning—and on a Friday morning, when very few hon. Members are able to be present when major decisions are being made.

The Government and the right hon. Gentleman make great play with how they wish democracy to work. But surely some of the decisions we are now making in the House have more relevance to the practical, day-to-day life of 250,000 people in the City of Plymouth and to my constituents than probably any decision that has been made in the last two decades. We should probably have to go back to the decisions of Parliament on the reconstruction of blitz damage and the payments relating to that matter to find a decision which had as much relevance to people as have the proposals in this Bill.

Yet here we are in Parliament, at this hour in the morning, discussing these and other issues in this disgraceful way. We should start asking ourselves why it is that local authorities are spending, as Plymouth has spent, £10,000 on launching a public relations exercise on the city. One of the reasons lies here in this House and the way in which we organise our affairs. I am against the whole idea of having public relations agents to influence Members of Parliament. We should be able to make these decisions ourselves. We must show that we are prepared to give them serious discussion. And this means at all levels.

The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State must realise that the matter which we are now discussing is one of the most controversial of all his proposals; I do not think there is any dispute about this. It is not just a matter of parish pump politics. It is natural that hon. Members from Plymouth object to these proposals, but it is also true to say that they have excited widespread national concern from people who are looking at the matter dispassionately—whether it be in the House of Lords by people as eminent as Baroness Sharp or by many other people who look at the proposals for Plymouth and see in them major objections.

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the proposals which he is advancing are controversial. Here is a city of 250,000 people, a city that is isolated, an industrial city surrounded by the rural counties of Devon and Cornwall. The nearest major city is Bristol. We are now to see the centre of local government in this city shifted up the road, so to speak, to Exeter. This cannot but cause considerable concern. There is no other significantly large industrial population which will find itself shifted in this way as a result of reorganisation.

We have had to face certain facts. One is the intransigence of the Government on the question of local government. The Maud proposals on unitary government was for Plymouth to fit into an area with Cornwall and Devon.

5.45 a.m.

I do not believe that there were any planning advantages to my party in the proposals; in fact, rather the reverse was the case. It was accepted by my party when in Government, and we would certainly have introduced it, but the elections made a difference, and the right hon. Gentleman then proposed his two-tier structure. Even within a two-tier structure it was quite possible to have the centre of local government round Plymouth, taking in Cornwall and Devon. That was the Tamarside proposal. It was discussed in Committee and voted down by the Government. That was much the best proposal put forward. It was supported by my party in Committee, and I very much regret that it was rejected. But the manner of its rejection was such—with particularly vociferous comments from Cornwall—that Plymouth had to reconsider the proposal.

The Amendment that we have moved this morning is a reasonable compromise. It is not ideal, but it is very similar to that for Cardiff. I am glad to see the Secretary of State for Wales here. I take no view of the Cardiff situation, but if I were a Welsh Member I expect that I should have some criticism of the proposals. My purpose is to show that this Bill is shot through with anomalies, and that it has little that is constructive in it.

We can make a comparison between the split between urban and rural populations of South Glamorgan and South Devon. South Glamorgan has an urban population of 350,000, and the urban population of the proposed South Devon authority is 262,000. The rural population of South Glamorgan is 43,000, and that of South Devon is 53,000. If we consider the percentage of urban to total population, we find that for South Glamorgan it is 89 per cent. and for South Devon 83 per cent. The figure for Humberside is 76 per cent. and for Avon it is 74 per cent.

I submit that the urban-rural mix in the new South Devon authority provided in the Amendment is compatible with what is already accepted, and I suggest that this question should be given serious consideration. The view of the city council is that the South Devon authority could naturally fall into two districts, very simi- lar to what has been conceded in the case of South Glamorgan. My view is that we should take the City Council of Plymouth, less Plympton and Plymstock, which are only recent additions. That would give a population for the urban district of 217,000, or 69 per cent. of the total, and for the remainder of South Devon a population of 98,000 or 31 per cent. of the total. The figure for Cardiff is 284,000, or 72 per cent. and for the remainder, 108,500, or 28 per cent. of the total. The similarity between these two areas is very great.

It could be said that Cardiff is a capital city, and that that was why the Secretary of State listened to all the objections coming in. In a real sense, Plymouth is the centre and the focus of the South-West, and it is necessary to have an understanding of the geography and the difficulty of attracting industry to this area and of the immense task that the city faced after the war. We cannot look at the city without looking at its history, and I submit that its most recent history is the most relevant.

The striking thing has been the way the city has been prepared to drop party dissensions in questions of the long-term future of its citizens. Time and again it has been in this House where the major obstacles to thes progress has come. I must say, without making too strong a party point—because it has been made so well by the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers)—that it has time and time again come up against the intransigence of a Tory Government which has stopped a lot of its progress and shown a remarkable lack of understanding.

One has to ask the Secretary of State what is the reason for this. He knows it but he will not admit it. I expect we will have from him a speech of ultimate reason and rectitude, but he knows as well as most of us that the reason is political and that this is a highly political decision—it needs to be said—of the need to retain five constituencies in Cornwall and the whole argument, at times almost hysteria, which has been generated in Cornwall, and the wish not to offend his hon. Friends in Devon.

I concede that one of the major obstacles and the best argument that the Secretary of State can put forward—no doubt he will do so—is that there are parts of Devon which do not wish to be taken into Plymouth. One has to concede this. Again, in many ways there are strong political arguments for me to want Plymouth to be ruled by Devon County. Devon County has a most enlightened education authority. It has gone comprehensive without any problems. Many people in my constituency advocate this.

We have, however, to look at this matter not just on one or two narrow points but on the broad spectrum of what is good for the city in the long term. When one looks at it in the long term, and whatever one's political views may be about the colour of the city council at a particular time, one is forced to the conclusion, as the Labour councillors and group are forced to the conclusion, that the City of Plymouth needs to have a far greater control of its affairs than it can get under the organisation proposed by the Secretary of State.

It is dangerous for the Secretary of State to make too much of the argument that some of the rural communities outside the city show an anxiety and, indeed, a possible hostility to coming in. This is natural. It practically always accompanies any proposals that an urban area should take over a rural area. It would be a major responsibility on the part of the new authority, in which the rural part would have a major say, to see that those fears were not justified and to go out of its way to make certain that the rural area was able to play as full a part in the life of the new authority as one hopes the rural part of Cardiff in South Glamorgan will be able to do and not be dominated by the city.

We are making decisions in the pattern of local government reform which will certainly last 50 years, and perhaps a century. I think that particularly in this case the Secretary of State has failed in his duty to take the long view and has instead sacrificed an important growth area, a city that is striving hard to increase the standard of living and to provide employment opportunities, not simply in Plymouth but throughout the peninsula.

It simply has to be faced that practically without exception the people in the outlying rural areas shop in Plymouth. Many of them work there. The most recent survey of where they see the natural county seat—the study by Manchester University to which reference has been made—says that they see Plymouth as their centre.

I ask the Secretary of State to consider this matter seriously. If he feels that he does not want to make a decision today, I hope that he will at least consider making an Amendment in another place, perhaps with some modifications of boundaries. This is a major decision. It is probably the most controversial and the most criticised in the whole of the Bill and the right hon. Gentleman would be failing in his duty to the House and to history if he did not consider the whole matter in a more rational and less political frame of mind than he has hitherto exercised.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)

If I may introduce some of the aspects which I think must have weighed most heavily with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he arrived at his extremely difficult decision, I will try to do so leaving out the sort of bathos and bogus drum beating introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) into what I had hoped would be a rational argument about serious local government. No one doubts that this is a question on which there are merits on both sides. That is what must have made it particularly difficult for the Secretary of State to reach his decision.

In Devon we are faced with a county with unique characteristics which make it extremely difficult to administer. It has the greatest mileage of unclassified roads per head of the population of any county in the United Kingdom. It has a considerable imbalance of age of population, and to some extent the population tends to be concentrated in the coastal areas rather than at an inland centre. It has comparatively poor communications over its geographical centre, Dartmoor.

It is not, as it has been represented to be, an agricultural county which happens to have Plymouth in one corner as an industrial area. It is in fact a county with a diversity of employment. Its largest single source of income is now the tourist industry. Agriculture it certainly has in abundance, but industry it also has in abundance outside Plymouth, and we should remember that. To depict it as a county run by squires ignorant of industry shows only an ignorance of the county of Devon.

In my constituency there are four paper factories and a textile firm, a coach building works for vehicle bodies, modern welding facilities and so on, and that is only one constituency. There is an industrial complex in North Devon that is benefiting considerably from development area status. There are the traditional textile industries of the county, such as at Axminster, which go back at least as far as the charter of Plymouth, which has been mentioned.

One of the difficulties of the commission given to Lord Redcliffe-Maud was that he had the task of drawing up a system of local government divorced from its financing. With a county such as Devon, with dispersed centres and an odd population balance, it is especially desirable when setting up a new system of public administration to create a viable unit as far as possible. That is one of the things that local government should be about. Exeter is indisputably much more of a geographical centre than is Plymouth. It is true that the road from Plymouth to Exeter at the moment leaves a great deal to be desired. It is also true that the Government are getting on vigorously with bringing the motorway to the Plymouth side of Exeter and then dual carriageway from Exeter to Plymouth, by-passing the present bottlenecks and reducing the bad gradients. Within the next five or six years, communications between Plymouth and Exeter will improve radically. This is one of the many actions of the present Government for the benefit of Plymouth.

6.0 a.m.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport said that Exeter airport was no use to Plymouth. I find that a remarkable view. Plymouth airport has an absurd runway with a hump in the middle which has not succeeded in providing a livelihood for any airline, because of its ludicrous limitations. A Land-Rover drives across with cans of aviation spirit which are tipped manually through a Brooklands-type filler-apparatus. Seriously to call it an airport and to say that it provides the facilities which Plymouth needs when manifestly it is all that Plymouth can sustain is not a case that I should expect the House to find very convincing——

Dame Joan Vickers

There has been no expansion because of the hospital and the teacher training college. It was made a condition that we did not expand it. We have looked for other sites, two of which have been turned down by the House.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

Yes, but communications by rail to the South-West are so good and so fast that no airport located just to serve Plymouth, by any economic study ever produced, even looks like being viable. The international air services operating from Exeter, on the other hand, will draw more effectively from Plymouth and Torbay once the road structure is completed. Then, we trust, the days of the Exeter by-pass bottleneck will be past.

Exeter is the university town as well as being the traditional capital of Devon and as near the geographical centre as the road system will ever permit. It has modern medical facilities. The new general hospital is nearly complete. It is the centre in terms of mental health facilities for the whole South-West, having four large mental hospitals. It has a specialist ophthalmic hospital for the South-West, including Plymouth. It has a specialist orthopaedic hospital, the Princess Elizabeth Hospital. In many ways it is already the capital of Devon in the real sense of the word. As local government and the National Health Service are more and more interconnected and interrelated, functionally and organisationally, so aspects of this kind must achieve more weight in the difficult balance which has to come down one side or the other, knowing that there will be some disadvantages and some injustices whichever way it comes down.

I do not believe that it is possible for the Secretary of State to arrive at a solution which is perfect from every point of view. This is the cross that every Secretary of State has to bear in this kind of situation. But I cannot see that to have allowed a truncated Devon to come into existence would have been to contribute to the building of effective local government. The most foolish decision to have been taken, certainly in the 12 years during which I have been in this House, was that of a previous Labour Secretary of State a few years ago who, knowing that the recommendations of Redcliffe-Maud would be for large first-tier local government units, set up the new county borough of Torbay, which then spent a fortune on a palace of administration and busily appointed chief officers with pension rights and everything else, knowing that whichever party was in office when this year arrived all of it would have to be dismantled. If that is not an example of a destructive and foolish central Government decision I do not know what is.

This morning having arrived, and this being the final moment when the House can reconsider the arguments which have been put forward, I must stress again that a viable first tier unit of local government in Devon must include Plymouth. If it does not include Plymouth, instead of having a viable unit of first tier local government, with all the environmental difficulties which Devonshire has, we shall have a pensioner of the rate equalisation fund with a considerable area having to be put into Plymouth, not because reasons of good public administration render it desirable or necessary, but because it is absurdly impossible otherwise to continue Plymouth as a first tier local authority for reasons which have already been given. Plymouth has to expand. It can expand only in the context of membership of Devon, or of a Devon that is dissected until it is no longer a viable first tier unit. These are the realities which will increase rather than decrease with the passage of time.

Looking at the population pattern in Devon, we find that the areas of greatest increase are not in Plymouth, but outside. So, even if Plymouthians may feel the initial financial posture after the new County of Devon is formed will be one in which they will be making a fairly heavy contribution to the new county, this is a balance which will, from the point of view of Plymouth, improve rather than deteriorate over the years. Any demographic study of which I am aware shows this clearly. Therefore, the arguments for a Devon which includes Plymouth will become more substantial rather than less with every year that passes.

I am convinced that the merit of the argument continues now, as it has previously, with the decision which the Government announced. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will adhere to this difficult, but correct, decision which was taken after such thorough consultation and consideration.

Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)

I can add little to the extremely forceful and effective speeches which have been made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) on this issue. However, I should like to take a few minutes in seeking to support the argument they have put to the House as I am a native of Plymouth and am horrified that the Government should have proposed such a measure.

I am particularly horrified that the matter should be dealt with at this hour. It is very hard on the people of Plymouth if the Government are to continue to adhere to the decision they have apparently made. It is especially hard that the blow should be inflicted at this hour of the morning—a time when many hon. Members are unable to consider the rights and wrongs of the argument. It is very hard, and will be considered very hard by the people of Plymouth, that a matter which they think is of first importance for their future should be settled at this time and in this way. Therefore, I certainly join those protests.

I am horrified at this proposal because I cannot believe it is made by anyone who really understands the relationship which has always existed between Plymouth and Devon. I do not in any way suggest there is a permanent hostility between the County of Devon and the City of Plymouth. They have their rivalries, but those rivalries are respectable.

However, it does not alter the fact that there has always been a deep lack of affinity between Plymouth and the County of Devon. So far as I can recall, in my youth almost the only connection between Plymouth and Exeter was that Plymouth Argyle used to play Exeter City on Christmas morning, and nobody could say that they were festivals of excessive amiability. They were something quite different.

There has always been this situation which may appear anomalous to those who merely look at the map. Plymouth has its own individual position in the history of this country, but it has never been associated with the whole County of Devon. It is associated with many of the towns and villages around Devon and Cornwall, and that is why many of us thought that the best proposal for dealing with the whole situation was a Tamarside authority. In the report drawn up by Professor Abercrombie in 1943, at the time of the blitz in Plymouth when the city was flat on its back but determined that it was going to rebuilt itself, it was foreseen and suggested that there should be a Tamarside authority.

That was the way in which it was suggested that Plymouth should be rebuilt, and anyone who knows the association of Torpoint and Saltash with Plymouth dockyard knows how intimate that relationship is. But the idea of a Tamarside authority having been rejected, for one reason or another, it is appalling that the Government should propose that we should go to the proposal which does not take into account the requirements, feelings and emotions of the people of Plymouth.

The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) described what he thinks will be the developments in future. Many of the industrial developments will not be those which he described. Many of the developments will be those in Cornwall, and it has been the development of Plymouth that has greatly assisted Cornwall. The original proposals would have been the best way of dealing with the prospective industrial development of the area as a whole. Whatever may be the industrial developments in different parts of Devon I shall not be opposed to them, but to make any comparison between those developments and the dependence of the rest of Devon on industry and the dependence of the great city of Plymouth on them is to make a comparison that is not born out by the facts.

I hope that the Government will reconsider what they are doing. They are committing a deep offence against a great city. They are doing something that other people have attempted to do to the City of Plymouth and have never succeeded in doing. Charles I tried to subdue Plymouth and failed, and Freedom Fields is a monument which bears that out. Charles II tried to subdue the people of Plymouth by establishing a citadel with the guns facing not seawards towards Plymouth Sound but inwards, but he, too, failed.

I am sure that in the end the right hon. Gentleman, if he persists in his course, will fail just as those ignoble predecessors of his failed in dealing with the problem. If the right hon. Gentleman persists in what he is doing, then all who have participated in this debate on behalf of the people of Plymouth will say that they have dealt with the right hon. Gentleman and the Government much too mildly. If the Government are going to perpetrate these ravages to my native heath, we shall have to say, O! pardon me, them bleeding piece of earth, That I am meek and gentle with these butchers". I hope that these butchers will think again and think how deep is the offence which they are committing and how strong is the resentment that will remain if they proceed on this course. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to listen to the representations that have been made from Plymouth and the united protests that have been made by all parties, if he is willing to listen to these protests and remonstrances, he will deserve great credit indeed, and the people of Plymouth will be willing to acclaim an act of genuine magnanimity. I plead with the Secretary of State to consider how great is his responsibility in this matter, because of the way that his decision will affect the whole life of one of the greatest cities in the land.

6.15 a.m.

Mr. Ray Mawby (Totnes)

I will not comment on the bleeding heart of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), as time is getting on. The point raised by my sub-Amendment (a) to Amendment No. 98 is very important, because apparently the great City of Plymouth, which wants to retain its autonomy, is happy to take in areas of Devon which have never had any community of interest with Plymouth.

I am the first to admit that Plymouth has had a Royal Charter for a very long time and has a great name throughout the Kingdom, but there are other towns in Devon which have Royal Charters dating back that far. None of these towns is making this claim.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) said that the population of the urban area would be 217,000, as against the 98,000 that would be brought in from the rural area. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Dame Joan Vickers) said that she had evidence suggesting that Plymouth was not welcome to Devon County Council.

The people of Salcombe have nothing in common with the people of Plymouth. People living in Plympton St. Mary may well travel to and from Plymouth to work. Salcombe is a self-contained community which derives its income from an entirely different source from that from which the residents of Plymouth derive theirs. The urban district of Kingsbridge has little community of interest with the City of Plymouth. The rural district of Totnes, with the parishes of South Brent, Ugborough, North Huish, Diptford and Morleigh, have no community of interest with the City of Plymouth. It may be that once a year a farmer's wife will decide to shop in Plymouth rather than in Exeter. That is as near as any of these villages will ever come to having a community of interest with Plymouth.

These people quite naturally are concerned, taking account of their relationships with those in the urban areas, that they will be wanted only to provide "artificial heads", to make up the numbers in order to justify Plymouth becoming a first-tier authority. They are concerned that they will become the milch cow, having to pay higher rates yet enjoying none of the benefits. How on earth can the remote villages named in the Amendment expect to receive the services that the urban dweller receives?

My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport mentioned a squirearchy. She had not considered that under the new arrangements there will be within the Devon County what she may refer to as a squirearchy plus the present City of Exeter, the area of Torbay and the City of Plymouth, which I believe will give a balance to the Country of Devon of urban and rural qualities.

If a squirearchy does exist—and I do not believe it does—it will not exist any longer, because there will be a propel balance between town and country. Far from Plymouth not being welcome in Devon, as my hon. Friend claimed, I believe that it can play a major part in the new county and that it has a great deal to offer. Plymouth will be welcomed with open arms. With the correct balance we shall have proper representation on the council.

For all these reasons the Secretary of State should resist my hon. Friend's Amendment. If he does not I shall certainly press my Amendment to a Division.

Mr. Peter Walker

The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) mentioned the late hour of the debate but I think that all hon. Members will agree that it has not diminished the general quality of the debate. The arguments by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) and the arguments the other way by certain of my hon. Friends have provided a high standard of debate on this important issue.

It has rightly been said that this is a highly controversial issue, and it has been considerably debated in the country, in the Committee, in the debates on my White Papers and on Second Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport was kind enough to pay tribute to the degree to which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development has taken a detailed interest in the arguments put forward by the people of Plymouth.

As for the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, there are some of us who would consider that Charles was treated pretty badly, and if one represents a constituency like Worcester one looks upon Charles in a different light in dealing with this problem. I must confess that when I heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport about the squirearchy in Devon and then I heard from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton about the progressive and radical educational policies of that authority, I could conclude only that the squirearchy still consisted of the family of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and this doubtless was having its effect upon the locality.

Dame Joan Vickers

It depends on the type of education that is wanted. Devon has comprehensive education. Plymouth is not against comprehensive education. We are about to have three comprehensive schools, but we also have grammar schools.

Mr. Walker

My hon. Friend must be careful. If she continues to argue like that she might convert the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale to see that there are advantages in mingling with the squirearchy in Devon, which has such views on education.

Any proposal concerning Plymouth was likely to be highly controversial. Although people feel passionately about our proposal, others would have argued just as passionately against the original proposals of the Maud Commission if we had persisted with them, or if we had proposed a Tamar county on the lines that the previous Government considered. The people of Cornwall had feelings just as strong and passionate as some hon. Members have expressed today.

I believe that the new county of Devon, containing as it will the existing county boroughs within that geographical entity, will be a successful, strong and well-balanced county. The urban and rural populations will be almost exactly in balance; under our proposals the population of the county boroughs as they now exist is almost exactly 50 per cent. of the population of the new county.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport outlined the difficulties that she felt the present city of Plymouth had had with the Devon County Council on a number of issues, such as industrial land. I believe this is an illustration of the need for a city like Plymouth to have a much bigger rôle to play in the county as a whole. Advantages will come to the city as a result.

But let us not get the impression that the city of Plymouth will disappear under the proposals and not be a major entity and active city in its own right. The powers now to be placed with a district authority like Plymouth retain all the historic associations of the city—the regalia of the Lord Mayor, the traditions of which the city is justifiably proud, the whole range of powers which very much affect the city's character. Under our proposals the basic, detailed planning powers for the city will continue to be with the city of Plymouth, as will all housing functions and powers and the various amenities.

Therefore, the argument is about that range of powers that will be with the new county. One—perhaps the major one—is education. I suspect that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton will not find that too distasteful. The other is social services. My hon. Friend's remarks about some of the existing hospital arrangements show that the diversity of social services that will be operated by a major county with the strength of the new Devon will, while seeing that Plymouth has a high standard of social service, enable it to have a wider range of facilities than would otherwise be available.

The other two major powers to be with the new Devon county are strategic planning and transportation. If they had previously been in the hands of a wider authority rather than in the hands of the county of Devon and its three county boroughs, it is probable that the transportation services of Devon as a whole, and Plymouth in particular, would be rather better today. It must be of advantage for cities like Plymouth to participate in the strategic planning and overall transport strategy of Devon as a whole and to participate in the education and social services, with the advantages that the wider catchment area brings.

The Amendments recommended tonight would provide one of the worst solutions. One could not think of a district basis that would not divide the city. The two-district basis and the four-district basis are put forward. Both of them result in a division of the existing city boundaries.

Dr. David Owen

It only means splitting off Plympton and Plymstock from the City of Plymouth, which was proposed by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Walker

The hon. Gentleman has confirmed my point. A few moments ago the hon. Member said that Plymstock was splendid as part of Plymouth. Now he is proposing an Amendment to take Plymstock from Plymouth Existing services operating throughout the city, such as housing, would have to be divided. That would not be in the in- terests of Plymouth. It would create a new county nowhere near as effective, or likely to provide the best range of services, as the new County of Devon, of which Plymouth will be a part. It would be wrong to recommend that type of political proposal when one has tried to attract a wider area round Plymouth. Under that proposal the hon. Gentleman would have preferred to have the Tamar county concept with part of Cornwall. He considered it was politically unacceptable and went for this bad compromise, which would be nowhere near as effective as the proposals the Government have made on this issue.

I am fascinated by the interesting and remarkable results that the Manchester University survey produced. It produced the result that if one asked people whether they would prefer the civic centre of activity to be at Plymouth, Exeter or Torbay, those who lived nearest Plymouth wanted Plymouth, those who lived near Torbay wanted Torbay, and those who lived near Exeter preferred Exeter. The Government will take note of that fascinating study. It is not one which brings forward the argument that this has proved the case that the pro-

Mr. Graham Page

I beg to move, Amendment No. 66, in page 200, line 8, column 2, at end insert:

posals, which were not even known to the people being questioned, necessarily obtained their support.

I represent an ancient county borough which, although not as large as Plymouth, is proud of its traditions; it is losing its county borough status and becoming part of a new county. I recognise the strong feelings and passions that are roused on this issue. After examining these proposals and trying to obtain the right balance between functions and boundaries, I conclude that the new Devon will be a considerable success. The participation of Plymouth in the new Devon, the impact of Plymouth on the strategic planning, transportation, education and social services over a much wider area will be of immense benefit to Devon as a county, which has for long suffered from not having the full participation of the people of Plymouth in its deliberations and decisions. It will be of immense benefit to the people of Plymouth as well.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes, 22, Noes, 52.

Division No. 277.]	AYES	[6.35 a.m.
Armstrong, Ernest	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Sinclair, Sir George
Blenkinsop, Arthur	McNamara, J. Kevin	Skinner, Dennis
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Marshall, Dr. Edmund	Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Oakes, Gordon	Vickers, Dame Joan
English, Michael	Pentland, Norman
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Prescott, John	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Foot, Michael	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Dr. David Owen and
Fowler, Norman	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)	Mr. Terry Davis.
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

NOES
Atkins, Humphrey	Jopling, Michael	Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Kimball, Marcus	Speed, Keith
Biffen, John	Luce, R. N.	Spence, John
Bossom, Sir Clive	Mather, Carol	Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Bowden, Andrew	Mawby, Ray	Tebbit, Norman
Bray, Ronald	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Bryan, Sir Paul	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Miscampbell, Norman	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Churchill, W. S.	Moate, Roger	Trew, Peter
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Money, Ernle	Waddington, David
Cordle, John	Monks, Mrs. Connie	Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Drayson, G. B.	More, Jasper	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Murton, Oscar	Weatherill, Bernard
Gibson-Watt, David	Normanton, Tom
Goodhew, Victor	Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gray, Hamish	Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)	Mr. Tim Fortescue and
Hawkins, Paul	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis	Mr. Marcus Fox.
Hordern, Peter	Redmond, Robert

the borough of Lymington, except so much of the Bashley ward as lies north of the boundary referred to in paragraph 5A of Part III of this Schedule".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)

It would be convenient to discuss with this Amendment, Amendments Nos. 1039, 117 and 128.

Mr. Page

In case there should be any confusion, I would point out that this does not appear on the list of selected Amendments, because it is a Government Amendment, but at the top of the list hon. Members will see, "All Government Amendments"

Amendment No. 66 deals with the boundary between Hampshire and Dorset and is not, as hon. Gentlemen opposite were anticipating, something to do with Humberside. This is a tidying up of the boundary of Hampshire and moving the boundary of Dorset further east. The effect will be to put the parishes of Ringwood and of St. Leonards and St. Ives back into Hampshire and to transfer virtually the whole of Lymington Borough into Dorset.

There is a minor boundary adjustment to avoid putting any part of the perambulation of the New Forest into Dorset. The proposed boundary brings into one county the whole of the continuously developed coast from Sandbanks to Barton Common; and it puts Hurn Airport into the same county as Bournemouth and Poole which it particularly serves. It keeps the whole of the perambulation of the New Forest together in Hampshire and puts Ringwood into the New Forest, with which it has had a long-standing association. It puts St. Leonards and St. Ives with Ringwood, with which they have associations, and keeps virtually the whole of Lymington Borough together in one county.

6.45 a.m.

When it was decided to place the County Borough of Bournemouth within the County of Dorset, the problem arose of the continuous built-up area from Bournemouth into Christchurch. It seemed wrong to break the continuous development from Sandbanks in Poole to Lymington Borough by any county boundary, either at County Gates between Bournemouth and Poole, or at St. Ives Bridge between Bournemouth and Christchurch. The logical place for the boundary seemed to be either on the east boundary of Lymington Borough, or possibly in an area which gave a gap between a part of the western area of Lymington and the borough.

I consulted the local authorities about the boundary taking in only part of Lymington, or taking the whole of the Borough of Lymington into Dorset. The Lymington authority would have preferred to be in Hampshire, but if it meant splitting the borough, then the borough would prefer to be kept together. I recollect that when I discussed this with the lady mayor of Lymington she made a firm plea on behalf of the borough that it must not be split although she would like it to be in Hampshire.

We have taken the Dorset boundary to the east of Lymington. This will result in a powerful district of Christchurch and Lymington which will have a far greater representation in Dorset than it would have had in Hampshire. A larger number of councillors will represent it on the Dorset County Council and it will therefore have far greater participation in county functions. The District of Christchurch and Lymington will be far more compact than the District of New Forest in which Lymington would otherwise have been, and its councillors will be able to keep in closer touch with the people.

From Poole to Lymington the coastal problem is the same and the population is of a similar type, both residents and holiday makers. To that extent it is wholly different from the other part of Hampshire, and I do not think that Lymington would have been comfortable in the development of South Hampshire if it were tied on its own as a small borough to Fawley, Southampton and Portsmouth. It is far more akin to the area to the west, and I think we now have the county boundary in the right place.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson (New Forest)

I have been saddened by listening to my hon. Friend moving the Amendment because it deals with two of the three local authorities which go to make up my constituency. They are the local authorities on the western boundary of Hampshire. It is clear that, whether we like it or not, my constituency has been sacrificed to create a larger Dorset. This has had serious local effects on the general feelings of loyalty towards the county to which the people have always historically belonged.

I must remind the Minister that in the White Paper, Local Government in England, in the conclusions there are these words, in Section 62: The new rationalised system will preserve wherever possible loyalties attaching to ancient units of local government. By these Amendments we have to some quite considerable extent not kept faith with those words, although it is perfectly true that the Minister has been most generous in receiving myself and members of the local authorities concerned.

So far as the Ringwood and Fording-bridge Rural District Council is concerned, I am happy that the Minister has agreed to keep Ringwood, Sopley and St. Leonards and St. Ives within Hampshire. But those people who live in Christchurch East—and this is in no sense a part of Christchurch and is not in any way similar to the borough of Christchurch—feel very aggrieved because this is a part of Hampshire and it is more typically New Forest than some other parts the Minister has allowed to remain in Hampshire. If an Amendment were put down in another place, would the Minister look upon it favourably?

Christchurch East is essentially an extension of the New Forest. However, the Minister has done something to keep the whole of the New Forest area together. One of the reasons why we in that part of Hampshire wish to retain these parishes and Lymington is that we wish to keep a buffer between the expanding area in Bournemouth and the New Forest, which is one of the most important national parks in this country. We have a genuine fear that if building is allowed to come right up to the edge of the perambulation, ultimately the forest itself must suffer.

The Minister, because of his close association with the area, has made concessions for Ringwood and the Ringwood parishes. But when he made these concessions, which he did in Committee, he made this comment as well: Therefore, having deprived, on a population basis, Christchurch of the possibility of joining with Ringwood, my mind goes to the East, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North, suggested, of taking in Lymington. Lymington is so much the forest part of the southern part of Hampshire that this would be going too far in extending the boundary. We have drawn a boundary between the new Hampshire and the new Dorset which runs right through the built up area of Barton and Highcliffe. I think we are wrong. I propose to take the view of the local authorities in the area for including part of Lymington with Christchurch; that is Barton Ward, Milton Ward. Bashley Ward and Becton Ward. That would take in the continuous built-up area from Christchurch."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 25th January, 1972; c. 908.] The point I am trying to establish is that when the Minister generously looked at the problem of Ringwood and the other parishes and agreed that they should be in Hampshire, he then unfortunately had his quid pro quo, the movement of part of Lymington into Dorset.

We now have a situation in which, because of the desire of the local authority of Lymington to remain united, we have the County of Dorset stretching right over Lymington River as its eastern boundary. Having lived in that part of the world for 30 years, I believe that we have probably gone too far.

Everyone in Lymington is desperately anxious to stay in Hampshire. They are all anxious to do so because the sixth form college at Brockenhurst caters for their needs, because the social services are tailored towards a Hampshire orientation, and because police and voluntary services are also based on a Hampshire headquarters.

We must also remember the importance of making people in the area understand that any change will be a sensible one. I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the conclusion expressed in paragraph 59 of the 1971 White Paper, Local Government in England": The boundaries must be accepted as sensible by people on the spot. My right hon. Friend, knowing the area as he does, will know the motto of Lymington Borough Council: "By sea and forest enchanted". It is no accident that it has chosen those words because Lymington feels every bit as much a part of the New Forest as does Ringwood, By cutting off Lymington at the New Forest edge on the Lymington River, he is failing to explain to the people in the area that these changes are sensible.

I hoped that it would be possible to put a county boundary between the old county borough of Bournemouth and Christchurch, or at least somewhere further to the West, than the situation which now exists which brings Dorset deep under the belly of Hampshire. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development has been helpful to me in all these negotiations and I thank him for the letter which he sent to me yesterday morning setting out his views.

It is clear to anybody who has been here during the day and night that cartography is not an exact science. When one starts changing boundaries, one is likely to upset many people. But it must be realised that the new structure, with Lymington in Dorset, will make many people feel that they are too far away from the centre of the county because Dorchester is a very long way away.

It is true that the whole of the legislation is probably long overdue. Whenever it happened, it was bound to be revolutionary rather than evolutionary. But we have a duty to explain perhaps more clearly than we have done so far to those who are affected the advantages that are likely to accrue from these changes. However, my right hon. Friend has put me in a difficult position. Today he has accepted the view expressed to him a year ago that Ringwood and the four parishes should remain in Hampshire. He has left out the parishes of Christchurch East and Hum, but I must thank him for keeping Ringwood in Hampshire with St. Leonards. St. Ives and Sopley.

I cannot entirely disagree with what he has done about Lymington because he listened to the local authorities and accepted that unity is more important than a division which would put half of the borough in Hampshire. People who live in Lymington will be disappointed that we have not been able to retain the whole of the borough in Hampshire, and it will do a great deal of damage to local loyalties. I therefore hope my right hon. Friend will say whether even now his mind is absolutely made up, or whether he will look further at the situation of Lymington.

Mr. John Cordle (Bournemouth, East and Christchurch)

Christchurch welcomes the prospect of joining with Lymington, but nevertheless recognises the dilemma and the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson) in regard to the New Forest.

I wish to pay tribute to the Minister for all the trouble he has gone to with my local authorities to answer their questions. In this brief intervention I want to press the case for leaving St. Leonards and St. Ives and either part or the whole of the parish of Sopley in Dorsetshire. In short, I want to push the boundary further east, to include these parishes.

7.0 a.m.

This view is strongly held by Dorset County Council and Christchurch Borough Council. The Government proposed this course in the Bill but now seek to exclude the three parishes from Dorset. The three parishes form the immediate hinterland of the Poole-Bournemouth-Christchurch conurbation. St. Leonards and St. Ives are bounded on the east by the mile-wide Avon valley and on the west by the Moors River, and have a population of about 4,850. This population is largely concentrated in the triangle formed by the A31 trunk road, the Three Legged Cross road to the north and the parish boundaries of West Moors and Verwood to the west. There is a lesser concentration to the south of the trunk road towards the Dorset boundary in the area known as Grange Estate.

Development in St. Leonards and St. Ives has continued the pattern of rather diffuse residential settlement extending northwards from the Bournemouth boundary which spreads up through West Parley, Ferndown, West Moors and Verwood. This settlement has come about because of its proximity to the Poole-Bournemouth-Christchurch conurbation, which has generated the demand for much housing. This has been complemented by the founding of an industrial estate at Ferndown and the approval of substantial industrial development at Wools Bridge, in the parish of Verwood, which immediately adjoins St. Leonards and St. Ives.

There is a current proposal to develop the Grange Estate area on a large scale, which, it is thought, will increase the population of St. Leonards and St. Ives by about 7,000 people. There are many close connections between the two parishes and Dorset and Bournemouth, and the parishes depend on Dorset for provision of drainage facilities.

Sopley is, in many respects, in a similar position to St. Leonards and St. Ives. At present, the parish boundary in the south of Sopley cuts an urban community in two. It is of no matter at present where the parish boundary is, as the parish authorities provide few services, but it is quite ridiculous blindly to follow the old parish bounds when fixing the boundaries of the new county.

The three parishes lean towards the Poole-Bournemouth-Christchurch conurbation for all manner of services—shopping, entertainment, recreation, and so on. It is right that the parishes should become part of the same county as the conurbation, so that their interests will be fairly balanced with those of the resorts and so that the whole area may grow and prosper in harness.

The addition of the three parishes to Christchurch, as is envisaged, would also give to the new district of Christchurch-Lymington a sense of balance, for at present the proposed district leans heavily, in population terms, to the east. Christchurch welcomes the prospect of joining with Lymington, but does not want to be overwhelmed by it. It is natural that the three parishes should join with Christchurch, and I ask the Secretary of State to change his mind and propose such a formation. I commend to the Secretary of State the boundary suggested by the Dorset County Council as realistic and in the best interests of the people of the area.

Mr. Robert Adley (Bristol, North-East)

I apologise and seek the indulgence of the House in intervening briefly in the debate on Amendment No. 66. I realise that the House has been at it now for 15½ hours but I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson) in the breadth of his case that my right hon. Friend the Minister might perhaps take a final look at where the county boundary is placed between Hampshire and Dorset.

I was impressed, as I am sure we all were, by the speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) when he made his impassioned plea about Plymouth, which made us realise that these issues run deeply. If I may say so to the hon. Member in his absence and with no disrespect, I thought that his plea showed a strong feeling of genuine concern which was perhaps in contrast with the speeches made by some of his colleagues on a different subject of wider European context during the last few months.

As we all know, on both sides of the House, people are stirred more by these local arguments than by anything else. In that respect, I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister has been courageous and brave in the way he has put forward what he genuinely believes to be solutions in the best interests of all local people throughout the country. If any one thing was certain, it was that he could not possibly arrive at solutions from Land's End to John o'Groats that would please everybody. I know that he has had a tough time and I should like to acknowledge the ever-open door that he has had for my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest and others of us in the representations we have made to him during recent weeks.

The proposals have, of course, aroused opposition, but I am grateful to my right hon. Friend because tonight he has at least given us some of the reasons why the decisions which have been mooted during the last few weeks have been proposed by him and his Department. What has perhaps disturbed a number of people in the area is that they have not understood the reason for the proposal to transfer them from Hampshire into Dorset. It has been extremely difficult to try to explain this to people.

The reason propounded by my right hon. Friend when he opened the debate on the Amendment about the future development of South Hampshire, if I understood him correctly, was that he was saying that in possibly 10 or 15 years' time a South Hampshire metropolitan county could be created comprising the Portsmouth-Southampton conurbation and the recreational area of the New Forest. He suggested, I think, that any areas left in Hampshire but outside the yellow ring of the New Forest could perhaps become overspill development areas. That is a powerful argument. I only wish it had been made clearer earlier that this was one of the reasons why the Government were considering these proposals.

I confirm that the proposal for a second-tier authority comprising the Boroughs of Christchurch and Lymington as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) is a workable and perfectly acceptable solution to both local authorities—that is extremely important—and is a joint authority that will work well. What I think is certain is that most people would prefer it to work well in Hampshire rather than to have it working well in Dorset.

In response to the requests of my right hon. Friend the Minister to support the views of the local authorities, I think it is significant that the Hampshire County Council has pressed for the retention of the present administrative County of Hampshire. That is certainly the line I take in my remarks this morning and which I shall try to pursue.

I do not believe that this is a question of a Dorset grab, because I believe that the new County of Dorset comprising, if it does, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Lymington will bear absolutely no relationship to the present County of Dorset.

I was interested to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister mention the representations. I should be grateful if he could elaborate on this, because I think that one of the general criticisms of the Bill in local government circles has been that there was to be a reduction in the numbers of people who would represent their constituents at county level. If he was saying, as I think he was, that there would be more county councillors for the same area, that would have the effect of making local government more local, certainly in this context. I should be grateful if he would supply the House with any figures that he may have.

The burden of his argument for moving the county boundary to the Lymington River was that he did not want to put a county boundary between Christchurch and Bournemouth. But there has been an administrative county boundary between Christchurch and Bournemouth for many years, and so if he acceded to the request for final consideration of the county boundary being retained where it now is, then, in administrative terms, in local government terms—and, after all, this is a local government Bill—we should not be asking him to do anything new, and I am sure that that would be administratively acceptable to the county council. I do not know whether it would be acceptable to Dorset, but Hampshire is entitled to have its voice heard.

The tactics mentioned by my hon. Friend have clearly been to listen to the local authorities but the local authority has as its first priority not splitting the borough. There are people in parts of Lymington who would prefer a UDI solution to what the Minister has proposed, yet in the short time that I have been involved it has seemed right to me to go for the all-or-nothing solution—to accept what the borough wanted and to accept what the county council wanted—and that is why I make my final specific plea to the Minister.

Throughout yesterday afternoon and evening and last night and today, we have heard both sides of the House urge Amendments. It has been noticeable that some Amendments, especially from this side of the House dealt with very small areas of territory. My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) dealt with the village of Kildwick with 99 people; my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) dealt with Dorney: and also with "50 houses caught in a loop" and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Dr. Vaughan) referred to "tiddley little nibbles". The county boundary question is not a tiddly littlenibble. It has been backed by people in the area who have followed the all-or-nothing approach, and that is why I am sure that those of us who have been taking up these issues on behalf of the local authorities have tried to persuade the Minister not to move authorities out of a county when most of the inhabitants of the areas concerned wish to remain.

I know that time is getting on, but I still have a number of comments to make and I have been here for nearly 16 hours waiting to make them. I have also noticed that some hon. Members have made what might be called the extra-urban argument when they have dealt with the feelings of people moving out of urban areas. But these are not the arguments with which we are concerned here. The position of the county boundary is causing concern to local people. It is not a party political question although there are some people who are using the argument as a stick with which to beat the Government.

I make a final plea to my right hon. Friend. It is a party plea, a local authority plea and a plea on behalf of most local people in the area that the boundary line between Hampshire and Dorset should be the administrative boundary line as it is at present between Hampshire and the county borough of Bournemouth. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest said, if my right hon. Friend would give one last look at this point I am sure that he would maintain a viable second-tier authority yet do nothing to cause either upset or hardship in the future.

7.15 a.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)

My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson) was concerned that some of his country constituents would be put unwillingly into what he imagines to be a built-up Bournemouth when they want to stay out. Perhaps they would not be quite so unhappy about their future if they looked upon their fate as becoming part of a predominantly unbuilt-up county of Dorset, where they could play their part in seeing that the special qualities of Dorset as a predominantly unbuilt-up county were maintained.

As a city Member for another part of the West Country, perhaps I might make one observation. It is that town dwellers who have a respect for the country are prepared very often jealously to guard the countryside more effectively even than some who call themselves countrymen and who live in the countryside. I hope that as a result of this perhaps unwilling marriage of the predominantly built-up Bournemouth area and some of these country areas that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest represents will nevertheless result in great benefit to both sides, with the town dwellers enjoying the pleasures of the Dorset countryside and helping to protect the unique qualities of Dorset so that it may survive for both to enjoy.

Mr. Graham Page

With your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I want first to refute the statement by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson) that this Amendment was a sacrifice to create a larger Dorset. There was no thought of that. This is shown by the fact that the Amendment includes the movement of Ringwood, St. Leonards and St. Ives, and Sopley into Hampshire. It was done to create what I believe will make a good local government area, in county terms and district terms. It was not merely a quid pro quo. The Amendment was offered to the House because it was felt to be right.

The sixth form college of Brockenhurst can still serve Lymington.

It was said that Lymington was too far from the county hall. Winchester is not all that more accessible to Lymington than Dorchester, and I have a feeling that the centre of Dorset may gravitate towards the more built-up areas in the south-east corner of Dorset in the future.

I cannot accede to my hon. Friend's request to leave the position in a state of doubt and flux any more. This has been discussed thoroughly by all those concerned, and I should not like to say that the Government would agree to anything further being done in another place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) asked me to consider St. Leonards and St. Ives again and not to move the parish with Ringwood. But St. Leonards and St. Ives is very much part of the rural area round Ringwood. It is true that there is a river which runs between the two, but that is not divisive. The grouping of the area is round the river. I appreciate the development in Verwood and West Moors alongside the St. Leonards and St. Ives parish. For that very reason, I should like to keep St. Leonards and St. Ives as I have suggested Sopley should be kept, as a buffer state between that development and the new boroughs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) asked whether I could give some figures to confirm what I said about Lymingtonhaving a greater representation in Dorset than it would have in Hampshire. I cannot give exact figures, but I ask my hon. Friend to compare the population of Dorset which is 638,000 with that of Hampshire which is 1,466,000. Therefore, one would expect the area to have about twice the representation in Dorset that it would have in Hampshire. I am sure that must weigh heavily with those who are considering whether this area should be in Dorset or in Hampshire. It would have better representation in Dorset without the same development one sees in South Hampshire or would expect in North Hampshire.

Lymington is part of the Poole Bournemouth development. Therefore, it is right that it should go with those two places into Dorset.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 777, in page 200, line 10, column 2, leave out from 'the' to end of line 12 and insert: parish of Hum and so much of the parish of Christchurch East as lies south-west of the boundary referred to in paragraph 5B of Part III of this Schedule".

No. 68, in line 15, column 2, leave out 'Teesside and Tyneside' and insert: 'Cleveland and Tyne and Wear'.—[Mr Graham Page.]

Sir Paul Bryan (Howden)

I beg to move Amendment No. 288, in page 200, line 21, at end insert—

East Yorkshire The county borough of York. The administrative county of Yorkshire, East Riding, except the areas in Humberside and North Yorkshire. In the administrative county of Yorkshire, North Riding, the rural district of Flaxton. In the administrative county of Yorkshire, West Riding— the urban district of Selby; the rural district of Selby; the rural districts of Osgoldcross and Tadcaster, except the parishes in West Yorkshire; in the rural district of Hemsworth, the parishes of Kirk Smeaton, Little Smeaton and Walden Stubbs; in the rural district of Nidderdale, the parishes of Hessay, Knapton, Nether Poppleton, Rufforth and Upper Poppleton.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)

I think it would be for the convenience of the House if with this Amendment we were to take the following Amendments:

No. 36, in page 197, line 45, leave out 'North' and insert 'East'.

No. 75, in page 200, leave out lines 38 and 39 and insert: 'In the administrative county of Yorkshire, East Riding, the urban district of Haltemprice'.

No. 76, in line 42, leave out 'the boroughs of Cleethorpes and Scunthorpe and insert 'the borough of Scunthorpe'.

No. 382, in line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 201 and insert: the urban district of Barton-upon-Humber; in the rural district of Glanford Brigg, the parishes of Alkborough, Appleby, Barrow-upon-Humber, Bonby, Bottesford, Broughton, Burringham, Burton-upon-Stather, East Butterwick, East Halton, Flix-borough, Goxhill, Gunness, Holme, Horkstow, Messingham, North Killingholme, Roxby-cum-Risby, Saxby All Saints, South Ferriby, South Killingholme, Thornton Curtis, Ulceby, West Halton, Whitton, Winteringham, Winterton and Worlaby; in the rural district of Grimsby, the parishes of Aylesby, Bradley, Habrough, Healing, Humberston, Immingham, Laceby, New Waltham, Stallingborough and Waltham; the rural district of Isle of Axholme.

No. 77, in line 45, leave out 'Grimsby'.

No. 914, in page 201, leave out lines 3 to 8.

No. 965, in page 201, leave out lines 4 to 8 and insert: 'Bigby, Brocklesby, Great Limber, Keelby, Riby and Somerby'.

No. 79, in line 8, at end insert: 'in the rural district of Louth, the parishes of Holton-le-Clay and Tetney'.

No. 290, in line 42, leave out The county borough of York'.

No. 291, in line 44, after 'in', insert 'East Yorkshire'.

No. 289, leave out line 48.

No. 88, in page 202, line 6, leave out 'Selby'.

No. 89, in line 8, leave out 'Nidderdale'. No. 90, in line 9, leave out 'Selby'.

No. 292, in line 9, at end insert: 'the rural district of Nidderdale, except the parishes in East Yorkshire'.

No. 91, in line 10, leave out 'Osgoldcross, Tadcaster,'.

Sir P. Bryan

May I ask that the Questions on Amendments Nos. 288, 36, 75, 290, 291, 289, 88, 89, 90, 292 and 91, standing in my name, be put separately from the others in the group?

My Amendments propose the creation of a new County of East Yorkshire by excluding from the proposed counties of Humberside and North Yorkshire most of the East Riding of Yorkshire and combining with that excluded area the City of York, the urban and rural districts of Selby, parts of the rural district of Flaxton, Hemsworth, Osgoldcross and Tadcaster.

Many hon. Members who have toiled through 50 or more sittings on the Bill may, I think, reasonably ask why so important an Amendment is being moved so late in the course of the proceedings on the Bill. They certainly have a right to some explanation.

The East Riding County Council had no reason to anticipate the concept of Humberside. The idea hardly featured in the pre-Bill consultations. It appeared for the first time with the publication of the Bill. The county council immediately registered a long and reasoned protest.

The council would have had no objections to a Humberside County centred on Hull, Grimsby, Scunthorpe and Goole, all of which have an obvious interest in the industrial and commercial prosperity of the Humber area. But the council expressed a strong objection to a Humberside which was to include large agricultural areas which have nothing to do with the Humber and whose inclusion would make the new county so large and incongruous as to make good local government impossible. This protest made no impression on the Minister for Aerospace who was then in charge.

As the two East Riding Members chiefly concerned—my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) and myself—were at the time both Ministers, it was not easy for us to reinforce the protest in this House. However, the Minister for Aerospace kindly received an East Riding deputation including my right hon. Friend and myself, and at this meeting he said, "Show me that there is a demand for an East Riding county and that this alternative is viable and the Government will consider it even at this eleventh hour". That is my mission tonight, I hope aided by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon).

Since that meeting, a very important event has taken place. The York City Council has unanimously passed a resolution supporting the creation of an East Yorkshire county on the lines of my Amendment. This decision by York opens up the possibility of an ideal county authority.

May I show how it would measure up to the criteria of the Government's White Paper Cmnd. 4884. The White Paper says: Local authority areas should be related to areas within which people have a common interest through living in a recognisable community, through the links of employment, shopping or social activities, or through history and tradition. If that is the ideal to which the Bill aspires, the proposed East Riding county must be the answer to a Minister's prayers.

First, let us examine it for community of interest. If my right hon. Friend will look at a road map of East Yorkshire he will get the immediate impression that all roads lead to York, and his impression will be right. York is the centre of our communications, both road and rail. When I stand on York station waiting for my train to London I see a high proportion of people from the East Riding on the platform. Within a radius of 10 miles of York many people look for their work, for the city has a variety of prosperous industries.

Country people look to York for their shopping. Farmers look to York for the livestock market—and a very modern market we have. A large area of East Yorkshire is served by the York hospitals. People from the area included in my Amendment come to York in their thousands for the races, for the festival, for the theatres, and York is our educational centre, too. What I have said applies not only to the people in the East Riding but also to those who live in the area immediately south of York down to Selby at present in the West Riding but included in the Amendment.

The White Paper requires "common interest by history and tradition". York and the East Riding have exactly that. When £2 million were required to restore York Minster, seven-eighths of that money was found in Yorkshire. York is our city and ought to be our county capital In area, the proposed county would not be excessive at 1,300 sq. miles, especially as it is well served with roads—and pleasantly uncrowded roads at that.

Its finances should be sound. The key figure of rateable value is £36.35. This is certainly adequate, especially as it is an area virtually free of chronic and expensive environmental problems such as urban renewal. The population at 357,000 is not large, but it is sufficient and comparable in resources with new counties such as Somerset. Agricultural counties are by their nature never very large in population. Administratively, the county adds up to a thoroughly manageable proposition.

With regard to community of interest, this new county represents a well-nigh perfect situation. A large but manageable county area, based on a fine city, well placed geographically, with all the resources and communications demanded of a county capital, a rôle for which history has certainly qualified the ancient city of York. So much for viability.

The Minister has asked for evidence that there is a demand for the proposed county from the people who live in it. As to York itself, I leave its Member to put its case. With regard to the large county areas contained by the constituency of Bridlington and my own constituency of Howden, I am convinced of overwhelming support for an East Riding county.

7.30 a.m.

As the Minister needed reassurance, I quote two more independent sources. The East Riding County Council has sent out a simple and straightforward questionnaire, to which nearly 29,000 people have responded. This has indicated that over 90 per cent. of the people in the East Riding wish to have a separate county of East Yorkshire—separate, that is, from Humberside or North Yorkshire. These are the uncomplicated reactions of members of the public to a simple proposition.

The county council also arranged for an entirely separate and scientific poll of public opinion to be carried out by national opinion polls. This was a cold-blooded exercise seeking views on a random basis on a number of selected points. This poll shows that 75 per cent. believe that there should be a separate county of East Yorkshire. The fact that Hull people were included may account for the difference between the 90 per cent. view of East Riding people who responded to the questionnaire.

In an area as wide as this it is hardly possible that there could be a more overwhelming majority against the proposals in the Bill and in favour of the simple and obvious proposition of providing another county for another set of people.

As an East Yorkshire county is so obviously wanted by East Yorkshire people, it only remains for me to establish that such a county would not harm our neighbours.

The clerk to the North Riding County Council, in a letter to the Secretary of State, asserts that the effect of my Amendment would be to reduce the area, the population, and the rateable value of North Yorkshire. North Yorkshire is at the moment embarrassingly large—the largest county of all. To reduce it from 2 million acres to 1,700,000 acres could only be advantageous in terms of efficiency of administration. To try to administer this vast area from Northallerton, with its abysmally poor communications, is a daunting prospect.

I ask the Minister to imagine the lot of, say, a county councillor from the Selby area who had to go to Northallerton for his meetings.

As to population, at 418,000 and with a rateable value per head of £35.79, this reduced North Yorkshire is a thoroughly viable proposition.

In respect of our northern neighbour, therefore, our conscience is clear. My Amendment would improve the ease of administration and merely remove the proportion of the population who have far more in common with the East Riding of which they have always been a part.

With regard to our Southern Humberside neighbours, our conscience would be equally clear. The Amendment would bring their population down to 691,000—a perfectly satisfactory figure. The Humberside area would be reduced to one which really has some affinity with the River Humber. The rateable value would work out at over £40 per head. Humberside would lose a large number of unwilling constituents from such areas as Pocklington and Driffield who have nothing in common with Hull and to whom Brigg, Scunthorpe and Grimsby might as well be in a foreign land.

To sum up, I believe that the Amendment could result in an admirably well balanced county, offering a compatible association of agricultural, holiday and minor industrial areas and the City of York. It could provide a real and workable balance between town and country. Though one of the smaller counties with a growing population of about 350,000, it would be by no means the smallest and would have the great advantage of offering electoral areas of reasonable size and good local representation on the county council. All this could be achieved without injury to neighbouring authorities.

I commend the Amendment to the House.

Mr. James Johnson (Kingston upon Hull, West)

After 17 hours I managed to listen assiduously to the speech by the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan). At this hour I have no intention of making a Committee speech and I will pass only a few comments on what the hon. Member said, and refer also to one of the other Amendments being discussed. The speech to which we have just listened and, I guess, others, too, judging by the presence of other hon. Members on the Government benches, is pure sabotage of the Government's proposals which have the full support of the hon. Members on both sides, including all the Humberside Members. It is not a matter of party politics. Local government produces some queer debates and some unusual alignments. All of us were glad to hear the Minister say unequivocally in Committee that Humberside has come to stay.

Earlier we heard an hon. Member stating that he was searching for the best kind of Government. I felt like shouting out, "Is there a social geographer in the House?" because in committee we were seeking socio-geographical areas or communities and the Humber Estuary is an ideal example, particularly lower down on both banks. The Government believe that Humberside will succeed and so do I. Hence, I deplore the snivelling effects of this kind of Amendment put down at this stage of the Bill.

Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)

They are backwoodsmen.

Mr. Johnson

They are the Bourbons of Louth and the shellbacks of Howden. They are like two whales wallowing about in shallow water, and the Humber has deep channels, too. We have seen the effects of misunderstanding and jealousy between the two banks of the Humber. Today the Lord Mayors, the town clerks and the councillors of the Grimsbys, the Scunthorpes, the Beverleys and the Haltemprices are coming together in a new spirit of unity and saying that the scheme will go on. They are giving the legislators the encouragement to continue with the Bill.

In counter distinction we have the attitude of certain hon. Members opposite. Unless we support the Government and our civic leaders, Humberside will not advance and prosper whatever happens in the coming years. Formerly we lacked the means of uniting both banks but within a year or two we shall have three links. There will be the ferry, and the high level bridge at Hook when the M18 comes through, and we shall have the Humber Bridge which will cross a little to the West of Barton-upon-Humber. There will no longer be the excuse that there is no contact between, and no unification of the two sides.

Already all the ports of the Humber are under the Humber Board. We are seeking similar unity of our local authorities by the Government's proposals. It would be tedious to cite all the relevant surveys on the region and one is enough to support our case. The Humber Feasibility Studies of 1969 say that we have a future and a potential if we all pull together and do not adopt the attitude of the snivelling Amendments.

I come to the flibbertigibbet scheme of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer). What an amazing concoction! To describe it as a wrecking Amendment would be polite. If these hon. Members get their way they will reduce the hopeful local authority that we are expecting into a mere gut on both sides of the Humber, whereas we want a unison of the urban centres, of Scunthorpe, Hull and so on, with the hinter land behind them. Squires in stubble fields of Lincolnshire are the kind of people who are behind the Amendment of the hon. Member for Louth.

The hon. Member for Howden spoke of York as an ideal capital. He is like the Grand Old Duke of York. He can march to the top of the hill, but he has not even one man to march with him. [Interruption.] I am waiting for his speech, and I have more faith in my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) to support me.

This is a non-party issue. I am authorised to say on behalf of the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) that, in contradistinction to what was said about support in East Yorkshire, not merely he but his Conservative Association on the west side of Hull are in favour of the Bill. We must not be churlish. The Government have tried to carry out the pledge they gave in Committee. I am certain we shall get what the Minister promised us in Committee.

My hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) has had to go North, but I know that he also opposes this wrecking Amendment, and I am sure that he would also oppose the Amendment to come. He has authorised me to say that the people of Goode and Osgoldcross do not want the Amendment. He also wishes to congratulate the Government on what they are doing and to stress the need for co-operation after the debate.

I also oppose Amendment No. 382, which concerns what was known as the Kimball Line some time ago. I will not say "Maginot Line", but it was just as bad, just as out of order and just as stupid in the light of history as the Maginot Line.

I oppose Amendment No. 994 as well. It is strange to see how attempts have been made to distort towards the north, and towards the west of Grimsby, the boundary line given to us in Committee We should have had in the Humberside area those parishes which have a connection, whether through shopping or work, with the urban district of Brigg and the boroughs of Grimsby, the Humber bank at Immingham and the petro-chemical works and elsewhere.

I do not understand, in the light of the undertakings we were given, why it is that this distortion has gone north of the A18, the main highway east to the coast. I assume it is because there is a certain E1 Diablo who dwells north of this line. It is important that Conservative Members should be able to maintain contact with their supporters in their Conservative associations.

7.45 a.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball (Gainsborough)

Nothing said by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) has persuaded me to change my mind. I do not wish to move Amendment No. 382, in view of Amendment No. 914.

I would urge my right hon. Friend to resist Amendments Nos. 965 and 79. The argument advanced that the A18 should be the county boundary is not valid. There is no case for making a county boundary of a road.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for putting down Amendment No. 914, which restores the Caistor Rural District Council. The Bill line split Caistor for no other reason than that it was the line proposed in the Radcliffe-Maud Report. That dealt with a different system of local government. There is no justification for the Bill line. In no case are the urban and rural districts split. Amendment No. 914 proposed by my right hon. Friend restores the Caistor Rural District to Lincolnshire and has taken note of the popular feeling expressed in the public opinion poll as a result of the remarks made during the report stage of the Bill, when 77.1 per cent. of the people in this rural district wished to remain in Lincolnshire.

I thank my hon. Friend for his intention to give the Urban District of Brigg a chance to come into Lincolnshire if it wished. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West is right. Brigg Urban District Council no longer wishes to go into Lincolnshire. My right hon. Friend at this last moment, despite the feelings of the people expressed in a public opinion poll, decided to leave the Urban District of Brigg in Humberside.

The Isle of Axholme has said that it wished to go into Humberside. It is not for me to deal with the problems of Grimsby, Cleethorpes and Louth. They have their own Member to put their point of view.

I do not wish to appear churlish at this stage after the Minister's Amendment in favour of Lincolnshire. I must place on record the final view of Lindsey County Council. Today the members of the Council are as much opposed to Humber-side as ever. They remain unshaken in their conviction that the interests of local government are best served by the one county of Lincolnshire. The Humber is no mere boundary. It is a barrier. The river divides. Only time will see who is right, the Lincolnshire Members or the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull.

Everyone in Lincolnshire is grateful to my right hon. Friend for ending the uncertainty and for finalising the boundary of the county. I am grateful to him and his colleagues for the sympathetic way in which they have handled this delicate matter and the way, insofar as it lay within their power, in which they have taken note of local feelings.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

I address my remarks to the proposal advanced by the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) who wished to unite the city of York with certain areas of the East Riding to form a new East Yorkshire county area.

I represent a city which is one of the oldest in the country, going back 1,900 years, with one of the oldest charters in the country, going back over 600 years, and therefore a city which naturally, when it came to losing its county borough status, looked at these proposals with some reluctance. The proposals came forward in much the same way from the Maud Commission. It was notable that Mr. Senior, the dissenting member of the Maud Commission, who put forward other proposals in respect of this area, put forward similar proposals to those of the majority of the Commission and very similar to those of the Government. It is notable that when the Government first advanced their proposal for the area they, too, adopted an area not unlike the original Maud scheme.

I am bound to come to the conclusion that from either point of view there is much to be said for including York in a North Yorkshire area which spans most of the area between the sea and the Pennines. Geographically and under the present proposals it is by far the biggest area in the country. It has over 2 million acres and is the only county to have anything over that figure.

That is not the end of the matter. It has a certain unity in population and in the kind of influences that are brought to bear over the whole area. Most of the peripheral parts of this gigantic area are moorland or open countryside.

The major areas of population are around the Vale of York, from York to Harrogate and from Ripon down to Selby. Is is therefore, a natural centre for cohesion and in my view will make a more cohesive and viable area. My only doubt about the original Maud proposals and the Government White Paper was that, despite the geographical size of the area, its rateable value was so low. One of the things which has plagued the City of York over the years in advancing its services has been the low rateable value of the city, which has meant that we have under-invested in capital growth and we have found great difficulty in extending our services, particularly in relation to planning and services. This new area offered considerable hope.

In addition it has many other opportunities, given a certain imaginative vision on the part of elected representatives, as one of the major tourist areas of the country. It has, first of all, the Yorkshire Dales, than which there is no finer scenic area in the country. It has the North Yorkshire moors and the Vale of York. It has two seaside resorts, now that Whit by has been brought in, and three major conference centres of York, Scarborough and Harrogate. It has about half-a-dozen major castles, four or five of the major monastic remains in the country, including the major existing Cistercian remains. If a local authority governing the new North Yorkshire area did not exploit those advantages to the full it could blame only itself.

Although I faced the future of a city with a history of York submerged in an area of that nature with a certain reluctance, I nevertheless received a certain uplift over the imaginative openings in such an area. Unfortunately the City Council of York, both Labour and Conservative groups, have been unanimous that such openings are to be denied by the kind of parochialism which has been accepted in the initial planning stages by those responsible in the North Riding County Council.

It seems to me a tragedy that this opening should be so denied. It is assumed by all planning the future of the North Yorkshire area from the North Riding that Northallerton will be the county headquarters of the area—a small market town 30 miles north of one of the major cities of Europe. This great city is to be governed from this parochial backwater merely because the old North Riding County Council headquarters have always been there and offices exist there and the new North Yorkshire Area does not wish to envisage building offices in York although there is room there and scope for a major architectural achievement. There is the nub of our problem—on the one hand, all the possibilities this new opportunity gives us and, on the other, the limited vision of those who will apparently control this matter.

The Government could have dealt with this. They could have identified the new county headquarters in this Bill, but neither this Government nor their predecessor wished to take that decision out of the hands of the new local government unit. The Government have decided to keep the existing ward boundaries for new local government representation in the new county set-up which means that the new urban areas in North Yorkshire will be under-represented. In North Yorkshire, York will get 13 seats out of about 89 in the new urban area. If it had had more, perhaps it would have had more say in where the new headquarters should be.

Therefore, the councillors looked elsewhere to see whether some other unit would give greater viability and greater hope of adopting York as the new headquarters. When the proposal came from the East Riding for a new area, they looked at it with favour. They supported it.

I regret that I cannot go along with that view. I still maintain that the most viable area is the North Yorkshire area. I can only hope that the new council will rise to the opportunity and not deny to York its proper place as the new headquarters. Hidden in the argument is a strong case. These are arguments my council would wish to put forward. I can only add these defects. The new East Yorkshire area would be one of the smallest in the country. It has the smallest population and rateable value.

Councillors in York ask, "So what?" They say that it would be about the same size as the East Riding and three times the size of York at present. However, we are not living in the same age. We are told that the new units are deliberately larger because they will be able to attract better men and materials to give better service to their citizens. If York were to belong to one of the smallest areas in population and rateable value, the possibility of better services for the citizens of York would be limited. I do not wish to deny to my electorate the opportunities for advancement that would come from belonging to a bigger unit.

8.0 a.m.

The new North Yorkshire area, on the other hand, is the seventeenth from the bottom in rateable value and the twentieth from the bottom in population, so that, for all its great geographical size, it is roughly middling in terms of population and rateable value. It cannot, therefore, be said that it is too big. It is not. For this reason if for no other I would be apprehensive of the future of York in the new East Yorkshire.

I do not have to say very much about the effect on Humberside. Most of it has already been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson), but clearly it would have some repercussions on Humberside. Humberside would still be a large unit, and a viable unit, but it would be smaller than it need be, and its potential would be reduced.

Therefore, with great reluctance, I cannot share the view of my City Council that we should go into East Yorkshire. But this whole experience indicates where the dangers are if we allow the old parochialism to dominate the new opportunities. I know that the Minister cannot accept the proposal for the East Yorkshire area, but I hope that he will indicate to those who will be governing the new North Yorkshire area that they must look at this new unit with completely fresh eyes. It will include Harro-gate—and I welcome that addition because it will give greater strength to the new unit—a good slice of the West Riding, York, Selby and a fair slice of the East Riding. Therefore, it is not the old North Riding, but a completely new venture, and it should be looked at with those eyes. If it is, York and those areas of the East Riding that will join us will have no fears for the future.

On the other hand, if we are to be dominated by the narrow-minded attitudes that have prevailed so far, we shall have a great deal to fear from what will ensue. I hope that the debate will have been useful in warning the new councillors in the North Yorkshire area of their responsibilities towards York and the East Riding.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer (Louth)

I rise to support the Amendment which stands in my name, and Amendment No. 77.

I have great personal admiration for the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. James Johnston), yet I was shocked to hear some of his comments about the attitude of those on our side of the bank. I have just as much right as anyone else to represent our people in this House and, if they feel strong on an issue, to stand up and say so. It is neither introvert nor backward, when 82 per cent. of the people want something and 18 per cent. do not, to stand up here and defend the 82 per cent.

The people of Lincolnshire would be shocked to hear that they are jealous of Hull. That is the last thing we are; we have never been jealous of Hull—we have been considerably more successful, but not jealous. I do not represent the pheasant-shooting people of Lincolnshire. I have never shot a pheasant or been on a shoot in my life. As for the comments of Lord Yarborough, I have met him only once, when we had a cursory conversation in which Humber-side was never mentioned. On all those counts the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West is wrong.

Mr. James Johnson

I beg the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) to look at the situation in the context of the future. He may well say tonight that he is a mirror an image or echo of tens of thousands of his constituents. He is a Member of Parliament. Will he please face this in the setting of Humberside as a whole and think less about his own circumscribed parliamentary constituency?

Mr. Archer

I assure the hon. Gentleman that in these circumstances what I put forward is not only the view of my constituents but also the view I have reached at the same time. This is not a view I am presenting on their behalf and not feeling myself.

Lincolnshire is a successful county, and the strength of the county is the south bank of the Humber; the strength in rateable value of land and general finance, and in many ways the strength of the people in that area. It is that very area which will be taken away from Lincolnshire, leaving the rest of the county weak and rather second rate. Our rateable value will take us second from the bottom in the league table if this proposal is not amended. We were told originally that we were to have County 22. This was greeted by my constituents without great affection, but we were convinced at the end of the day that it was perhaps the best thing. Then at the last moment—and I believe this is the only case where it happened—we discovered that there was to be a Humberside County.

One of my quarrels is that none of us knew that this was to happen until the last moment. One discovered that it had been turned upside down after spending the last year and a half convincing people that County 22 was a good thing.

If I could have my way I would go back to County 22. But I realise, having talked to the Secretary of State and the Minister, that this was never on. So we made representations that the right hon. Gentleman might consider the compromise put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). The Minister said he would take note of certain things and of the strength of feeling in the area. I did not push him too hard on this, because I thought that if the strength of feeling was only 60–40 then he would be in a position to say so. But at the end of the day 60–40 can turn the other way when they know the facts.

In the two areas I am defending, Cleethorpes and Grimsby rural, we had a poll. In the first 56.6 per cent. voted and in the second 73.2 per cent. The vote of 73.2 per cent. is considerably higher than the poll at the General Election and 56.6 per cent. is a little below. What was the result? There were 83.3 per cent. in favour, and a vote of that size where I come from is something which should be taken seriously and taken into consideration. There was a vote of 16.7 per cent. against. When we had that vote they said the poll was fixed and rigged. So Grimsby decided to have a vote to see how fixed and rigged it was.

Grimsby is desperate to get into Humberside on any terms and the Grimsby Council took a whole page in the local paper. It said "We must go into Humberside" and "Humberside will be better for us". It listed the advantages from the top to the bottom of the page. They held their poll but they did not get 83.3 per cent. saying they wanted to join Hull, but 87.1 percent. saying they did not want to join Hull, despite the council trying to bribe them into it.

I hope the Minister, in reply to the debate, will say why we want a Humberside county. However introverted the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West thinks we on the south bank are, I must tell him that we are doing very well, and we were doing very well before we were told we had to join the hon. Gentleman. We do not want to join him since we have done pretty well up to now.

We have one of the most successful ports in the country, namely Immingham. It has no rivals in terms of its returns and its success grows year by year. That port does not want to join Hull or be dominated or controlled from Hull. When the new council is set up in Hull and has its headquarters there, the voting on that council in percentage terms will be 65 members from the Hull side and 35 from the Lincolnshire side. If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West were on that council as the member for Immingham and had only 35 votes against 65 on the other side, I am sure that he would be frightened about what would happen on the other side of the river when things were not going the way they wanted.

Mr. James Johnson

Does not the hon. Gentleman now understand why I turned on him a little earlier and called him a Bourbon? He is living in the past. We want to live for the future. Let us make an effort to work together, live together and pull together for the future.

Mr. Archer

I take the point, and in fairness the hon. Gentleman must admit that there is an element of truth in what I say. If the hon. Gentleman's area were a great success story, I would want to join him. But Hull is a failure, whereas we are a success. He is going to take our success and perhaps turn it into a failure. That is a genuine fear on the part of my constituents. My constituents genuinely do not want to join the port of Hull and I sympathise with them. I hope the Minister will say in his reply what percentage would influence him in terms of the number of voters when we bear in mind the figure of 83.3 per cent. for compared with 16.7 per cent. against.

I am also here to defend Cleethorpes. Cleethorpes is a borough whose sole industry is that of tourism. It is a small borough that looks south, has been governed from Lincoln and has tourism as its main activity. It is not interested in the bank as such and has no connection with the bank. The people in Cleethorpes feel strongly about being governed from Hull. They also have a natural fear that their borough will suffer because it is not part of the bank and has no connection with the work of the bank.

I take the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West about co-operation. If it works, I shall be the first to stand in the House and say "I was wrongs—it has worked, and is a great success." But if we find the people of Cleethorpes saying that it is getting worse and worse and that they cannot get across the bridge every day because of the fog—and all the meetings will take place in Hull—then that is a different matter.

There is a feeling among Hull Members that if there is a bridge across the river, it automatically means that both sides will work together. But it is strange that everybody on their side is saying that this is the case, but that nobody on our side is saying it. They find it rather strange that we do not automatically welcome the bridge; that we do not automatically want to go to Hull, and that we do not automatically want to be governed from Hull.

8.15 a.m.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West made a strong attack at the beginning of his speech, which I immediately defended. I end on the same note. It is a privilege to represent the people of North Lincolnshire; it is a privilege to represent the people of Cleethorpes, and of Grimsby rural district. They do not want to go in. I hope that the Minister will give a clear indication why we need a Humberside council, and cannot have County 22.

Secondly, I hope that he will tell us why such a high vote did not influence him and, thirdly——

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North)

What about a referendum?

Mr. Archer

It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman does not know what the word "referendum" means.

I hope that the Minister will reply, because even at this last moment my constituents would accept a Humberside authority if there were a really good case for it. I ask the Minister to accept my Amendment and allow Cleethorpes and Grimsby rural district to stay in Lincolnshire, so that it can remain a viable and sensible county. It would not take much from Humberside; Humberside would still be a viable proposition, but it would allow both Lincolnshire and Humberside to have a genuine share of the cake and a genuine chance to remain viable, whereas the present situation represents a triumph for Humberside, as a successful large county, but a total collapse of the old Lincolnshire.

Mr. McNamara

I listened with interest and a considerable degree of amusement to the speech of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer). I have come to the conclusion that the people with the forked tails and horns on their heads are not Lincolnshire imps but the people who live in Hull. The greatest thing that could happen is to build a bridge and create a new county, in order that we may be in a position in which we can enlighten the people from the south bank and try to show them, somehow, that we share many of the same problems and that some of us have the same desire to represent our constituents as does the hon. Member for Louth. Unfortunately, when the hon. Member represents his consituents he wears blinkers. He can see only the narrow, selfish advantage of the moment. He fails to see what development may take place in the estuary.

If the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) and the hon. Member for Louth had their way there would be little left of Humberside. There would be a nibbling here and a nibbling there, and we should be left with a small littoral along the river bank, equivalent to the Gallipoli beachhead and nothing more.

The hon. Member for Howden does his constituents a grave disservice in advancing his scheme. Had he suggested that East Yorkshire went to the North Riding I could have understood. I would, have regretted it; but I could have understood. Had he suggested that more of the East Riding should go into Humberside I could have understood. But to take East Yorkshire out and make it such a poor area—to maintain the old sores and the old suspicions between town and country that have been magnified on Humberside between Hull and the East Riding far more than in any other area—because we have a large city surrounded by a great agricultural area, a little blob of red surrounded by a sea of blue, has created suspicion, a lack of co-operation, and a failure to take the opportunity to use the benefits that could have come to the north bank after the war, when the south bank was developed.

The failure was due to the suspicion of the backwoodsmen of the East Riding and Beverley County Hall—those reactionary people who are now going to do a further disservice to the people who live in the Riding. I have a great affection for those people. Both my brother and I tried to represent them. There is certainly a real opportunity here for people in the East Riding and in Hull to come together, to forget their old suspicions and to work together for something better for them all.

The hon. Member for Louth asked "What is this vision of a Humberside county? What is this thing?" In that he showed his own lack of vision. What it is is a story about the development of the only great virgin estuary we have left, the Humber, of the only area where we can stop and, instead of having piecemeal development like there was on the Mersey, the Tyne or the Thames, we can sit down and plan a great future for both sides of the Humber because we still have the areas to develop.

We have on both banks a very good balance between industry and agriculture, between town and city. Admittedly we have a lot of urban renewal in Hull and many problems about declining industries, but it must be remembered that in North Lincolnshire and the East Riding we have the same problems of declining industries. It is the same problem of declining industry and of employment. As men leave the land in the East Riding and Lincolnshire they must be found jobs just as much as people who lose their opportunities on the docks, in Silcocks or some thing of that nature. Therefore, it is the same problem we have to deal with together.

We have this potential through this great estuary, if we seek to use it, to develop the deep water channels, to develop the Spurn Bight and to develop a great port and industrial complex for ourselves. Whether we go into Europe or not—I hope at this late hour that we shall not—that potential is there to be developed, in or out.

As for the hon. Member for Louth saying "Immingham is my little port and that is the best of the lot", I remind him that Immingham was developed by public enterprise and public money as part of Humberside docks complex. It is part and parcel of the whole unit which is used and administered together. Instead of saying "What will happen to my little port at Immingham", the hon. Member should have been saying "Look. We use these docks, we develop these docks and we do things about Howdendyke, Selby and Gunness and we say you are to use registered dock labour, otherwise we will not let you be used as ports."

It is that sort of thing that creates problems on the docks on our side. The hon. Member should realise it, because public enterprise and nationalised industries put the money into Immingham, took the coal from Hull and put it into Immingham, took the iron ore and put it there to take it into Scunthorpe. This was done by public money and public enterprise and did not have a great deal to do with people who lived on the South Bank.

The opportunities for development on both banks will be tremendous. With the bridge our case for a polytechnic will be unassailable. Think of what this can mean for people on both banks. It should be remembered that there is not a polytechnic from Middlesbrough right the way down the East Coast until well into East Anglia. There are opportunities there for improving the social services on both banks, for the administration and the cultural work on both banks. It is all there with the bridge and the new road networks which are coming. These will give a strength, a force and a vigour to this new Humberside county.

"We do not want it on our bank" says the hon. Member for Louth. Certainly there are many people on his side of the bank who want it. Scunthorpe wants it, as do many other places. As they see it develop, they will say "Thank goodness we did not listen to the blinkered opinions of the hon. Member for Louth but instead we stopped, we went in, we went in with proper suspicions because this was a new idea and a new adventure." It is, however, a new idea and adventure which hon. Members like those for Howden and Louth could do a great deal to make into a real adventure, a real joining together, a real co-operation in going forward to create in our new Humberside a thriving, well-balanced population with opportunities for all its people to develop it. Instead, we have listened to carping criticisms and the backswoodsman attitudes of hon. Members on the Government side against their own Government's very wise decision.

Mr. Graham Page

I will deal first with the Amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) as they deal with the northern part of the new county of Humberside and the proposed new non-metropolitan county of East Yorkshire with a population of some 392,000. The effect on neighbouring counties would be to reduce Humberside by 178,000, leaving a population of 668,000 in the new Humberside county and it would reduce North Yorkshire by 225,000 to a figure of 401,000.

The plain intention of the Amendments is to perpetuate the East Riding and at the same time to avoid being involved with Hull. I say without hesitation that in so doing the Amendments would make a shambles of the Humberside county proposed in the Bill, a shambles by cutting off Hull and Haltemprice from their area of influence to the north and the industrial development to the east.

The East Yorkshire county proposed by my hon. Friend would cut across the economic links of Hull and Haltemprice. Humberside is not a metropolitan county for which tightly drawn boundaries would be appropriate; it is a non metropolitan county and should be combined with different rural areas. To draw the boundary right up to Hull violates the principle that non-metropolitan counties should be a union of town and country.

The links between Hull and East Yorkshire are strong. The East Riding County Council denies that there is an affinity between the East Riding and Hull, but that is nonsense.

Mr. McNamara

Where do people earn their living?

Mr. Page

Where do people earn their living, as the hon. Member asks? There is a great flow of workers into Hull from East Yorkshire and it is significant that there is a great flow of population out from Hull into East Yorkshire. That exchange of population makes it all part and parcel of a county which we now have as the new Humberside county.

There are not only population links but geographical links. Except at a distance of some eight miles to the west, where the Wolds rise some 500 feet, there is no physical barrier between Hull and the most populous part of East Yorkshire, and to the east there is quick and easy access to the northern and eastern sides of the East Riding. To the west roads and railways cut round the southern end of the Wolds at Ferriby or cross them west of Beverley to Market Weighton. There is therefore an affinity geographically.

There is certainly an affinity economically. Hull and Haltemprice are an enormously powerful economic magnet on the rest of the East Riding.

The strength of the combined economic pulls of Hull and Haltemprice may be gauged by the fact that, as I have mentioned, a substantial proportion of the residents of East Yorkshire in the area which we have now included in the new Humberside county find employment in Hull and Haltemprice. But not only the present economic links show an affinity between Hull and Haltemprice and the rural areas behind them. The future economic links, although they cannot be forecast with certainty, are indicated in the feasibility study of Humberside which was made in 1969 by the Central Unit for Environmental Planning. The study assumed that the total population for North Humberside would rise to 902,000 by the turn of the century and suggested four schemes for where future development might take place. Looking at those growth areas or schemes as anticipated in that feasibility study, it would be quite impossible to imagine them without Hull and Haltemprice as the hub or centre from which they should develop.

My hon. Friend the Member for Howden said that York was a very important centre of communications. Of course, it has been a famous railway junction for many years. It is a centre for a wider area than East Yorkshire in that respect. But on the road pattern York certainly is off-centre. It cannot be looked upon as the centre of growth areas conceived by the feasibility study of Humberside.

The reactions of the local authorities have shown that the East Riding County Council's proposals go against the wishes of most of its district councils. Since the county council made its proposals known, Derwent for example is about the only one to have written in their support. There are many who are against the idea. The North Riding County Council has written opposing the attempt to take territory from the new North Yorkshire and attacking the East Riding County Council's publicity campaign for its proposals. Since the campaign of the East Riding for this separate East Yorkshire County Council, in my Department the reaction from the public has been nil, either for or against. We have received no correspondence from the public on it.

I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Howden. They would be wholly contrary not only to the new Humberside county and its concept, but to the concept of non-metropolitan counties in the Bill.

I pass to the Amendments dealing with the southern boundary of the new Humberside county. These fall into two groups, those concerned with the Grimsby—Clcethorpes area and those concerned with the Glanford Brigg—Caistor area.

There are two sets of Amendments which deal with the Grimsby—Clee-thorpes area. Nos. 76 and 77 would take Cleethorpes borough and Grimsby rural district out of Humberside, and those are the Amendments referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer). There are also Amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) which have not been discussed. Therefore, I shall not touch upon them.

The effect of the Amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth would be to wreck that part of Humberside which falls in my hon. Friend's constituency. It is probably quite incidental but possibly quite deliberate that the effect of the two Amendments would be to leave Grimsby county borough as an isolated area of Humberside surrounded by Lincolnshire territory. We should have a sort of Bangladesh in the middle of Lincolnshire. Whatever the cause, the effect would be planning nonsense——

Mr. Jeffrey Archer

I must make it clear that the only reason why I did not include Grimsby was that I did not feel that I had the right to include it. If I had my choice, it would be County 22. But I do not represent Grimsby, and I felt that I did not have the right to table an Amendment including Grimsby.

Mr. Page

I can only deal with the Amendments as they are. It is a blemish of the present system that the two towns are not in the jurisdiction of the same major planning authority. To perpetuate their separation would be a major disservice to local government.

I use these harsh words to my hon. Friend partly because he uses immoderate language, though quite rightly, in defence of his constituents in putting their case. However, he sometimes terrifies me when he gets going and I have to use these harsh words in return.

My hon. Friend's argument seemed to be, "I am all right, Jack." I ask him to persuade his constituents that they can bring strength into this new Humberside County. Cleethorpes Borough Council and its inhabitants are as vociferous as my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and against any link with Grimsby. However, Cleethorpes and Grimsby are, in all but name, the same town with nothing physically to distinguish where one ends and the other begins. I am sure that without a map a stranger would not be able to guess that the boundary between the two runs down the middle of Park Street. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to bring Cleethorpes into the new Humberside County with grace, to realise it is bringing in strength, and that without it there would be a blemish on this plan for the new county.

I need not deal in detail with those Amendments which refer to the area of Brigg, Glanford Brigg Rural District and Caistor. Having looked at these Amendments and the various formulae which have appeared on the Order Paper and in my correspondence—I assure the House there have been many formulae for this boundary through Glanford Brigg Rural District and Caistor—the most reasonable one which seemed to satisfy the people of the area most was to retain the whole of Caistor Rural District just as it is in Lincolnshire.

I know that at a point this boundary cuts across a trunk road from Grimsby to Scunthorpe. However, it does not matter so much that a trunk road, which, after all, is maintained 100 per cent. by central Government, should cut across two counties. We have retained neither the Kimball nor any other line, but the Scunthorpe and Grimsby line. I am determined to keep those two places within the new Humberside County.

Amendment No. 914 merely puts Caistor Rural District into Lincolnshire and I ask the House to accept that one Amendment on the southern boundary, to bring to a certainty that that is now the southern boundary of the new Humberside, and to reject the other Amendments.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop

I beg to move Amendment No. 683, in page 200, line 23, at end insert: 'except the area in Hertfordshire'

Mr. Speaker

With this Amendment it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 684, in page 200, line 35, at end insert: In the administrative county of Essex, the urban district of Waltham Holy Cross.

Mr. Blenkinsop

Weturn from the broad and major issue of the new Hum-berside to a much smaller but, in my view and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, equally important issue of rectification of county boundaries to which we want to call the Minister's attention and ask for his support.

The object of the Amendments is to take the urban district of Waltham Holy Cross, which includes Waltham Abbey, out of the County of Essex and add it to the County of Hertfordshire. One may regret that the Member for that area has not added his name to the Amendment, but we do not feel it right that proposals which are deserving of consideration should not be considered simply because the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit), who is in his place, is not a supporter of them. It seems to us that there is here something of an injustice which could be rectified relatively simply and, as there have been a number of modifications and alterations to county boundaries during the passage of the Bill through Committee and even on Report, I am sure the Minister will not take the view that the proposal is ruled out of court simply because it involves this change in county boundaries.

There is one immediate point of logic in trying to re-unite the Walthams, that is to say, the urban district of Waltham Holy Cross with Waltham Cross on the other side of the River Lea which is part of Hertfordshire. I understand that a little more than a year ago there were discussions between Waltham Holy Cross Urban District Council and authorities on the other side of the River Lea in Hertfordshire about possible arrangements for a linking, and it was probably only the publication of the White Paper which stopped those discussions, which I understand were friendly. I gather that there was some hope that there might have been this rational linking together of these small urban communities.

8.45 a.m.

Geographically, there is the division of the River Lea, but that is more a means of grouping two communities together than a dividing line. There is no difficulty about movement from one side of the river to the other. A development in which I have always taken a good deal of interest is the Lea Valley Regional Park, with the possibility of new developments right along the course of the river. Gradually—far too slowly for some of us—there is the exciting concept of new communities growing up and new recreational facilities based on developments on both sides of the river. This is an example of the communities on either side of the river coming together.

In 1969 the Royal Commission on Local Government stated: When the Lea Valley Regional Park is established, the links between east Hertfordshire and neighbouring parts of Essex will be further strengthened. The future motorway from London to Bishops Stortford will also effect development in and around the Lea Valley and, in our view, the whole of this area should be administered as a part of a single local government unit.

Mr. Norman Tebbit (Epping)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to make it plain that that motorway at that time was to go up the Lea Valley, whereas it now goes up the Roding Valley. The unit of local government to bind together Waltham Abbey and Waltham Cross in that proposal was also to bind together Epping and Chigwell.

Mr. Blenkinsop

The hon. Gentleman has put his point of view. It is still the view of the community in Waltham Holy Cross that there should be this link and that the two communities should be joined with Hertfordshire. In their view, the communications across Epping Forest are nothing like as simple as those they would have into Hertfordshire. Part of the argument is that the effective boundary is much more Epping Forest than what is no barrier at all—the River Lea. The point is made with regard to communications that, if the link were to be, as they wish, with the county town of Hertfordshire—Hertford—the distance is only 12 miles, as against the distance of 25 miles to their county town of Chelmsford.

The social links are in many cases already there. It would mean that the Essex District 6 without Waltham Holy Cross would have a population of just over 100,000, and Hertfordshire District 7, with the inclusion of Waltham Holy Cross, would have a population of nearly 86,000. This is further evidence of the good sense and logic of the link.

The discussions were initiated a little time ago. There is strong feeling in the area in favour of the proposal, despite the strong campaign against it—a strong campaign which appears to have raised many illogical points, including questions about hospital facilities, which are in any case organised on a regional basis.

It is a pity that a matter of this importance, like other matters we have discussed during the night, has to be taken at the end of this long sitting. The Secretary of State may have had a convenient rest for a while and may have returned to us completely refreshed. We have not seen quite so much of him during the night as we have of other Ministers. For him this may not be a problem. For the body of hon. Members concerned with the matter, it may be that the more suitable course would be for the Minister to say that he is willing to look further at the matter, that fuller and more proper consideration will be given to it, and that possibly a proposal along the lines of the Amendment can be accepted in another place.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith (Hertfordshire, East)

I rise to offer a few observations in the matter, because although I am not a Member representing the exporting element, if the Amendment were carried I should be a Member representing the element into which Waltham Holy Cross would be incorporated. The odd thing about the Amendment is the extreme remoteness of those whose names are on the Order Paper in its support from the scene and locality with which we are here concerned.

Mr. Blenkinsop

I explained at the start that it seemed to me and to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we had a right to bring to the House a proposal of this sort, even though the hon. Members whose constituencies are affected did not necessarily offer their support to the Amendment. The matter is one of suffi- cient importance to warrant the matter being discussed in our view.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

I am not querying the right of right hon. Gentlemen on the Labour benches to table such an Amendment. I only observed that as we are here concerned very much with matters of local interest, with local matters, it is perhaps a shade paradoxical that it should be tabled by right hon. and hon. Members representing Deptford, Birmingham, Cardiff, Widnes and Bishop Auckland.

Mr. John Silkin

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will at least receive a reply from the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) who comes from even further a field. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman says is nonsense.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will reply when he has heard the local views of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) and myself.

Mr. Silkin

My hon. Friends and I have heard the views of the local authority concerned, although I admit we have not heard the views of the hon. Members concerned.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

Nor the views of the authorities in my constituency who are intimately affected by the proposals. Be that as it may, I think that it is fair comment that the proposers of the Amendment are very far removed from the local scene and in the event the Amendment has been moved by an hon. Member whose name does not even appear among the five names beside it. I think the good citizens of Waltham Holy Cross might well say, if it is in their everyday idiom, "Non tali auxilio"—that they would not wish to succeed with the help of right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side.

This is a matter involving local considerations and the onus must be on those seeking the change of boundary because the change would involve the alteration of the county boundary in a form not previously recommended at any stage, a single piecemeal alteration not related to a general pattern. To discharge that onus successfully they would have to show, first, very strong support from public opinion not only in Waltham Holy Cross but in the areas affected, that is to say in Cheshunt—Hoddesdon, the present tenants of District 7. They would have to show a compelling community of interest and they would have to show that the suggested fusion is in conformity with the underlying principles of local Government reorganisation. I submit that this case is not made out and cannot be made out.

Of course, there is some support in Waltham Holy Cross for this fusion, but there is also a good deal of opposition within it. The support is by no means the general consensus that the hon. Gentleman suggested. I shall leave my hon. Friend to evaluate that, since his constituents are affected.

Certainly, there is no reciprocal public support in what would be the receiving districts of Cheshunt and Hoddesdon. There the interest in the matter is appreciably less than it probably is in Waltham Holy Cross. Indeed, I have received very little correspondence on it, except for a well-written letter from the Secretary of the Cheshunt Labour Party in favour of the proposals, to which I give very close and conscientious attention. I cannot say that there is any evidence of a general desire in either Cheshunt or Hoddesdon for this fusion to be effected. There is a strong feeling against any future threat of absorption into the Greater London Council area. This awakens vivid memories of 10 years ago, when we had a protracted and successful struggle to prevent the absorption of Cheshunt into the GLC. There are those who feel that the linking of Waltham Holy Cross with Cheshunt would necessarily reopen that unwelcome possibility. On that aspect of the matter there is certainly no passivity or tepid feeling in Cheshunt. It is strongly against that possibility.

There are mixed feelings in Essex and there is no manifest desire for the change in Hertfordshire. It is not exactly a case of joyous wedding bells. Here we have a suitor with honourable intentions, no doubt, but not very strong, with ardour far from unqualified, and the addressee of these advances exhibiting symptoms of indifference or reluctance going far beyond the requirements of maidenly modesty or of playing hard to get. Parliament should certainly not make a marriage from such elements. It would be a shotgun marriage, with the right hon. Gentleman's finger on the trigger.

The memorandum from Waltham Holy Cross stresses the shared services. There are a number of shared facilities, as would inevitably be the case where there is a physical contiguity, but none of these activities—shopping, using the telephone, travelling from the railway station, buying the paper—will be affected if Waltham Holy Cross remains in Essex. It can hardly be suggested that the shopper will pause at the bridge over the River Lea and refrain from going to shop in Waltham Cross merely because he is entering another local authority area.

In any event, the matter should not be looked at solely from the point of view of Waltham Holy Cross. There is no benefit claimed for Cheshunt or Hoddesdon. If there is a case for the revision of the Hertfordshire-Essex border, it should be treated more comprehensively. The Hoddesdon Council has indicted such possibilities as the absorption into Hoddesdon of parishes within the Epping and Ongar Rural Districts. Further north still, the Essex villages to the east of Bishops Stortford would lend themselves better to a general pattern of revision of county boundary if such were to be thought appropriate. They have a wider community of interest, because they are villages that look to Bishops Stortford in all matters connected with village life—a very high percentage for shopping, marketing, hospitals, and general recreational and cultural facilities. Yet no Amendment has been put down in respect of any of those possible revisions of the county boundary and one is left to wonder why.

9.0 a.m.

It is true that the proposed District 7 is relatively small in numbers, with a population of 71,000 against the prescribed range of 75,000 to 100,0000. That does not prove the case for additions, because there is a rapidly expanding population. If there is any addition it should not be done by the incorporation of another urban district, especially one to be further urbanised by Greater London development.

What is required is the addition of rural elements to correct the imbalance between town and country and not to aggravate it as this would do. That could be done without any alteration of county boundaries by proposals to incorporate various parishes in District 7 which are already in Hertfordshire. Those proposals have been put forward and merit the consideration by the Commission which they are entitled to receive. The effect of the Amendment would be to prevent their consideration by the Commission and to confine the District necessarily within a rigid urban framework. That is contrary to the principle of local government reorganisation and to good planning. Therefore it should be rejected on those grounds and on the balance of advantage to the communities affected.

Mr. Tebbit

I, in common with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), wondered what my constituents in Waltham Holy Cross would think about the names on this Amendment. It seems to me that if this amendment were to be put down by hon. or right hon. Gentleman who do not represent the area, they might have found someone who lived a little closer to it or knew a little more about it. They might even have found someone who knew that the motorway proposed at the time of the Royal Commission is not on the route that has now been established.

I could hardly believe my ears when I heard that a strong campaign had been mounted against the proposal being considered, without any mention of a £4,000 public relations consultant's contract going, without the full knowledge of all members of the Council, to a public relations firm to shove the idea down the throats of my constituents against their wishes.

I have known the town of Waltham Abbey, the centre of the Waltham Holy Cross district, since I was a child. Its west boundary is the River Lea. There is still only one crossing of that river in the whole urban district council area of which we are speaking. It is a congested crossing, as are the crossings to the north and south. One would imagine it was the mouth of the Amazon by the number of crossings there are of it at this point.

The boundary to the south is London. To the east is the Epping Forest and the Copped Hall Estate, and to the north the small villages in Epping and Ongar Rural District Council which separate the district from Harlow.

I know this countryside and the town, neither from the public relations blurbs nor from the one-sided reports from one group of people. I have walked, fished, boated, fallen off my first bicycle and motor bicycle there. I even impaled my first motor car on a tree there. One cannot do that without getting to know the countryside.

Sir Derek Walker Smith

Perhaps my hon. Friend bent his first aeroplane there!

Mr. Tebitt

My right hon. learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East suggests that I may have bent my first aeroplane there. I did fly in that area for many years and I know the lie of the land there. I know the towns and villages there very well indeed. I know its lanes, its footpaths, its pubs its churches and, above all, I know the people who live there—a privilege which has been denied to those proposing this Amendment. I have no axe to grind about the place at all. It will not even be in my constituency after the next General Election, but to the local people this is important.

It was not I who went to them to say "Oppose this." It was they who came to me asking me to oppose it. They pointed out to me that Waltham Holy Cross dates back over 900 years, that it has a great history, that the forest of which we have spoken was in those days known as the Forest of Essex—how strange to put it into Hertfordshire! Later it became known as Waltham Forest and later still Epping Forest. They feel bitter that all this is brushed aside by a PR blurb which has been fought by the local council.

I was first approached in this matter some considerable time ago by some local councillors who came to see me and said that they wished to see their urban district council of Waltham Holy Cross linked with Cheshunt and the town of Waltham Cross, rather than with Epping. I pointed out the difficulties, the highly problematical case and I said that I did not wish to oppose it, I had no particularly strong views about the matter.

Since the White Paper and the Bill proposed local government reform to be based primarily on existing counties and county boundaries they would have to make a strong case and to go back to the report of the Royal Commission with its comments about the suitable area in the Lea Valley was highly irrelevant. I told them I took the view then, as I do now, that to put a county boundary on the east side of the town instead of on the west side would do nothing to change the problems inherent in any town on the edge of a county. It merely transfers the problems to a different county. I made it plain then, and it is still my view, that if the people of the area wanted this change I would support it.

Then I heard very little more and throughout the long and highly publicised battle of the north-east boundaries of the county of Essex there was not a word from any of my constituents about any wish to change the county boundary in their area. After the local elections in the spring members of the council again asked me if I would support a move to link Waltham Abbey with Hertfordshire in a local government area.

I pointed out that this had been left pretty late—to propose a change in the county boundary. I said I would support it if certain conditions were met. The conditions were, first that the Essex County Council accepted at the very least, even if it did not support the change; secondly that the Hertfordshire County Council similarly accepted at the very least the change and thirdly that Cheshunt Urban District Council, the prospective partner in Hertfordshire, should also accept if not welcome the change.

Above all, I said that the people in the Waltham Holy Cross Urban District Council must tell me that they wanted that change. I pointed out to the members of the council, perhaps rather foolishly, that I had not had a single letter to suggest that the people of the area wanted this. The councillors then very smartly nipped out and engaged a firm of public relations consultants and asked them as I understand it, to discover reasons why they wanted to join with Waltham Cross and also to whip up support for the proposal.

I have here a copy of the leaflet which was then delivered, to the fury of many of my constituents, to all the houses in the area. I say "to the fury" because they thought it was rather an expensive leaflet and they resented that it had no indication of who published it, although clearly the council had had a hand in it because it was discovered in envelopes which, among other things, had the rateable values of property stamped on them where this had rubbed off the council records.

This said: It is logical to go with Herts, if you agree, support the campaign by writing, yourself, to: Mr. Norman Tebbit, M.P., The House of Commons, Westminster. That is the sort of thing which no Member in his right mind would ask for, for fear of having to answer all the letters. It goes on: …and by signing the petition". The case put rests heavily on common interest with Hertfordshire. It is said that newspaper and entertainment facilities are shared. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East pointed out that this had nothing to do with local government.

Postal and telephone services are shared, but so they are by many in Waltham Holy Cross and the postal address of some is not in Essex or Hertfordshire, it is London, E.4. What do we make of that? Is Waltham Abbey to join Greater London? That would most certainly be resented by everybody there. Bus services and railway station are shared. Yes, but where does the railway line run? Not to Hertford, the county town, but into London. That is case for what the people do not want. Police, social security, and public utilities are shared by both districts.

The gas main, I confess, runs out of Hertfordshire into Waltham Abbey, but that hardly makes for strong feelings about local government.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the other proposed partner in the district is not within the Metropolitan Police area but in the Hertfordshire Police area—that is Hoddesdon?

Mr. Tebbit

I did not appreciate that, because the stuff from the public relations consultants told me that the rest of the area is in the Metropolitan Police area.

It is said that there are sewage disposal and many other services in common. Yes, Waltham Cross is in the same sewage precept area as Waltham Holy Cross—the Greater London precept area—so what has this to do with the move of my constituents against their will into Hertfordshire? It is difficult to say.

Having received this, I was asked to support an Amendment which now appears in the names of far flung hon. Members from other parts of the country. I pointed out that none of the criteria I had set out had been satisfied.

Essex County Council do not wish this change to be made. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East has explained, neither Hertfordshire nor Cheshunt says that it would be a satisfactory arrangement.

Above all, the people of Waltham Abbey have not indicated to me any support for this proposal.

It may well be that there is some support for it. To be absolutely sure, I wrote recently to the urban district council. I wrote, to make sure that I would be on good ground in this matter, on 27th June. I said: If the council itself has any communications on the matter from my constituents I would of course be pleased to take those also into consideration. I had a letter back promptly, on 29th June, telling me that the clerk was away at a conference and my letter would be placed before him on his return, but nothing to say that the council had any information that the people wanted this move.

I read in the local Press that a petition has been raised. As the local Member of Parliament I do not have it; I do not know who does have it. I have asked the council whether they have it, but they do not seem to know.

At the beginning of the campaign, which has been run very efficiently by public relations consultants—so it should have been; the people of Waltham Abbey are being charged a hefty feet to be told that they want to do something that they do not want to do—the leaflet I have spoken of was distributed and it asked people to write to me as their Member of Parliament. They did. It was a good leaflet, effective, and I would not wish to go too far in quoting extracts from the letters I have received. I will summarise the views expressed in them.

As a result of the campaign, I received 58 letters opposed to the change, including letters representing the collective views of two branches of the Women's Institute, the Chamber of Commerce, the Waltham Abbey Historical Society and the Upshire Village Preservation Society, and a letter from a Minister of the Church. I also received a school exercise book which contains 872 names as a petition against the change. It was not hawked round from door to door; it was not taken round by paid canvassers to the local fairground while the fair was in progress as I understand another petition was. It just lay upon the counter of a small news agent's shop in the centre of the town, and 872 customers came in and signed it. Petitions can mean anything or nothing, as we all know, but I also received 413 small slips from pamphlets which were handed round at no cost to the ratepayers by a group of people who did not like the way they were being railroaded by PR consultants. They were all posted to me and bore in total the signatures of 651 electors of the district. No doubt some were among the 872 who signed the petition. I should not be surprised if some of the names were also on the petition expressing the opposite view. These things often happen! I also received a letter from a lady who was uncertain about the merits of the proposal but was a little uneasy in case the boundary change meant that she would not be able to go shopping in the other county.

Here, I should show the House the results of £4,000 worth of public relations consultancy directed towards persuading my constituents to write to me saying that they want to go to Hertfordshire. It is contained in this bundle of 18 letters. We all know that the Post Office is not what it was; perhaps one letter got lost on the way; perhaps I or my secretary mislaid one; perhaps there were 20; but, at £200 a letter, these are the most expensive letters I have ever received. Certainly they are amongst the most expensive letters that the residents of Waltham Abbey have ever had to write.

I am hoping that if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford (Mr. John. Silkin) is to add anything to the case being made for the Amendment he will make a generous offer—or I will make an offer to sell him the letters at £200 a time, provided that he will return the money to the people of Waltham Abbey who have had to fork out this £4,000 against their will.

I thought that this was absolutely disgraceful. There are 18 of them. One came from the Hertfordshire branch of the Labour Party so I am not sure whether we should not reduce the number to 17. One came from the Enfield Highway Co-operative Society. I should explain to Opposition Members who do not know the area that although the headquarters of Enfield Highway Co-operative authority is a Middlesex address, it is within the Greater London area. It does have a branch within Waltham Abbey. I have had a considerable amount to do with that branch of the co-op because, despite protests from all over the town, the historical and amenity so cities and the local council, its main contribution to life in Waltham Abbey has been to allow a beautiful historic building which it owns in the centre of the town to degenerate into a slum, presumably in order that it can be knocked down to develop another supermarket block.

Among the letters is one from a minister of the church opposing the change. There were two in favour of the change. One minister was such a newcomer to the town that he angered his congregation by supporting the change and the church wardens wrote to me saying I was not to pay any attention to him: he was a newcomer and his views did not represent those of his parishioners.

The most bizarre letter of all was from a gentleman who did not live in my constituency, but he did arrange cricket fixtures for local cricket clubs. He said the cricket clubs had more fixtures with teams in Hertfordshire than in Essex, which established that community of interest which dictated that Waltham Abbey be moved from Essex to Hertfordshire.

The idea that a cricket lover could wish to move to a county which does not have a cricket team is bad enough, let alone that he could put it forward as reason for a change in county boundaries. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East says that Hertfordshire has a cricket team. That we must give him. But it is not a team to which anyone, other than those members who have to support it, would want to belong.

What is all this about? What are the compelling reasons? I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford looks at his watch. He tabled an Amendment about my constituency. He might have the grace not to be irritated by the fact that I wish to speak about the affairs of my constituency.

Mr. John Silkin

When the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) has been in the House a little longer he will find out that the Front Benches have a duty to perform, and he will find out that we put down Amendments to the Bill on information we received. Although he probably does not know, he will find out that there have been 2,600 Amendments to the Bill. A great proportion of them have been in the names of myself and my hon. and right hon. Friends, some of whom come from Wales.

On the other side of the House the Secretary of State for Wales, who represents an English constituency, would agree that what we are trying to get in the Bill is the best possible solution to local government reorganisation. Bitter, cynical imputations against other people's fairness of mind is not the way to get that result.

Mr. Tebbit

I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. The ostentatious examination of watches when I am speaking about affairs of my constituents makes it appear to me that there is a move to cut down what I say about the Amendment put down by the right hon. Gentleman. That does not come under the heading of courteous behaviour that I am being lectured on.

If a change had to be made, the case would have to be clearly made out both that the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages and that the people in these areas wanted the changes. The material gain is almost nil. The people of the area do not want this change and they would be scandalised if it were forced on them, even at the cost of £4,000.

I ask the House and my hon. Friend to reject completely this absurd idea of moving a county boundary which has existed for a thousand years, when it is obvious that the town wants to stay in the area in which it is.

Mr. Speed

The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), for whom I have great affection, developed a powerful and compelling case on these Amendments. There were contributions by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) who went fully into the situation.

It is true that none of the neighbouring local authorities favours the change put forward by the hon. Gentleman. Essex County Council does not want to lose Waltham Holy Cross; Hertfordshire County Council takes the line that the present boundary should be maintained and might possibly be reviewed later; Chigwell UDC does not want Waltham to go; and Cheshunt UDC, with which Waltham would inevitably be joined in a new district, opposes Waltham Holy Cross. None of the local authorities wants it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Epping dealt at some length with the various activities on the public relations side. I say nothing about that, but so far as transfer is concerned we have had representations from the Epping Forest Constituency Labour Party, the National Mobile Home Residents' Association, and 53 private individuals. Against the transfer are Waltham Holy Cross Conservative Association, Waltham Abbey Chamber of Commerce, Waltham Abbey Historical Association, Friends of Historic Essex, Sewardstone Village Hall Committee, Sewardstone Women's Institute, Upshire Women's Institute, and 163 private individuals. On the balance of the information we have had it would appear that there was not an overwhelming view by residents that the transfer should take place.

The arguments used revolved round the argument used in the Redcliffe-Maud Report three years ago. Those arguments have been dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend and it can be said that Maud was considering a much larger area at the time. There are no arguments we can see which would incline us to accept this Amendment and I must ask the House to reject it.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Terry Davis

I beg to move Amendment No. 73, in page 200, line 30, at end insert: Herefordshire The Administrative County of Herefordshire. I think it might be convenient to take also the following Amendments:

No. 74, in page 200, leave out lines 31 to 34.

No. 104, in page 203, line 33, at end insert: Worcestershire The county borough of Worcester The administrative County of Worcestershire except the boroughs in West Midlands.

The effect is to keep two separate counties of Herefordshire and Worcestershire instead of having one combined county of Hereford and Worcester, which is the Government's present intention. In fact, there are three local authorities at present, Herefordshire, Worcestershire and the City of Worcester.

Perhaps I should say at the outset that everyone agrees that the City of Worcester should be included in the County of Worcestershire. As far as I am aware, there is no disagreement here or in Worcestershire about his part of the Government's proposals.

The Bill also removes the boroughs of Halesowen and Stourbridge from Worcestershire and transfers them to the West Midlands metropolitan area. This is not welcomed in Halesowen or Stourbridge or the county as a whole, but I think that this transfer is agreed on both sides of the House. The situation has therefore been reluctantly accepted in Worcestershire, and this group of Amendments would not change this part of the Bill.

I make these points because I want the House to appreciate that when I refer to Worcestershire in the rest of my speech, I mean the area which includes the City of Worcester and excludes Halesowen and Stourbridge.

9.30 a.m.

When the Maud Report was published it recommended a further division of Worcestershire. The northern half was to be included in the West Midlands metropolitan area and the southern half was to be linked with Herefordshire. This recommendation was accepted by the Labour Government, but was generally opposed in Worcestershire. It is only fair to the Government to say that the decision to retain Kidderminster, Bromsgrove and Redditch in Worcestershire is a great relief to many people in the area. But this is not the case in Herefordshire. The merger between Herefordshire and Worcestershire is intensely unpopular, and I will return to this point in a few moments.

First, I should like to deal with the other arguments. When I moved this Amendment in Committee, I put forward two basic arguments for keeping Herefordshire and Worcestershire as two separate counties. I shall not repeat those arguments in full this morning. Briefly, they were that there is a tremendous difference between the two counties in character and size. I explained that the local geography, especially the Malvern Hills, separates the two counties into two distinct areas.

Although it is true that both Herefordshire and South Worcestershire are rural areas, this is no longer true of North Worcestershire, and I would remind the House that the Government are including North Worcestershire in this new county. There is no doubt that Worcestershire is much more widely involved with industry and commerce than is Herefordshire. The two counties have different problems. Herefordshire has the problems of a sparsely populated rural area, which is changing slowly. Worcestershire has the problems of an area which is not only more dependent on industry but is also growing very rapidly, especially in the north, where we have a new town and a great deal of other housing development. The addition of Herefordshire, with its different problems, can only be a distraction for Worcestershire in dealing with our own problems.

The second argument against this merger lies in the widespread opposition to it among the councils and the people of Herefordshire. I do not think that there can be any doubt about the sincerity and strength of this feeling. I gave the Committee a long list of organi- sations which had expressed their opposition. I emphasised that it was not only the county council; there were letters from the farmers, the county landowners, the local government officers, the doctors, the lawyers, and the architects—and many citizens had expressed their opposition at parish meetings.

The Government's reply was to the effect that whatever the people of Herefordshire may think, their county is too small to keep its independence. The Government do not rely on financial criteria—probably because they realise that Herefordshire would have a rateable value per head which is higher than four Welsh counties and two English counties in their original proposals. Instead, the whole of the Government's case rests on population. The Government have accepted a figure of 250,000 as the minimum population for a county in the new organisation. Worcestershire meets this criterion, but Herefordshire has only 140,000.

The Government say that this is not enough, and in Committee the Minister pointed out that under the Government's proposals the smallest county in England would have a population of 270,000. That is true as far as it goes. But it is also true that next door to Hereford, across the border in Wales, the Government are creating a new county of Powys, with a population of only 100,000—a little more than two-thirds of the population of Herefordshire.

The Government say that they are treating Herefordshire differently because it is more densely populated. In fact, Herefordshire is three times more densely populated than is Powys. But Herefordshire is one of the most sparsely populated parts of England. Indeed, the density of population in Worcestershire is nearly four times that in Herefordshire, and according to the Worcestershire County Council the disparity is likely to increase.

That is the whole point of the argument. Herefordshire and Worcestershire are different areas. The only thing that they have in common is that they are separated by the Malvern Hills. The Government cannot draw a line along the Welsh border and say that Powys is viable with a population of 100,000 and Herefordshire is not viable with a population of 140.000.

That was the situation when we had the discussion in Committee. The Government defeated an Amendment that I moved, but the people of Herefordshire have not been idle since the Committee considered the Bill. The county council has reaffirmed its opposition, and the views of the district councils have been clarified.

I should like to go into some detail about this because after the Standing Committee there was some controversy. I said in that Committee that I understood all district councils were opposed to the merger. In fact, that was a misunderstanding, and the clerk of Hereford City Council has gone to some trouble to confirm the precise views of each district council in Herefordshire. At the last count only three out of 12 district councils can be taken as supporting the merger. Those three councils represent 20 per cent. of the population of Herefordshire. This means that most of the district councils, representing 80 per cent. of the population of Herefordshire, are opposed to the Government's plans.

Since the debate in Standing Committee the people of Herefordshire have organised a petition which opposes the merger. In view of the references that were made during the previous debate on an Amendment affecting Essex, perhaps I should say that the petition was organised by the people of Herefordshire and not by a public relations consultant.

The petition was presented to the Prime Minister at Easter. It had then been signed by more than 60,000 people. I estimate that that is about 60 per cent. of the electorate in Herefordshire. Even allowing for people who may have signed more than once, there must be about 60,000 signatures and only 72,000 people voted for all political parties in the whole of Herefordshire at the last General Election. Whatever doubts the Government may have had when this subject was discussed in Standing Committee five months ago, there is no room for doubt now.

It is crystal clear that the overwhelming majority of the people in Herefordshire do not want this merger. They have had plenty of time to think about it. It is three years since the Maud Report. It is two years since the Labour Government's White Paper. It is one year since the Conservative Government's White Paper. It is eight months since the Bill was published and five months since the Standing Committee considered this part of the Bill, and the people of Herefordshire still want to be an independent county. Yet the Government seem determined to ride roughshod over their wishes. Without one word of criticism of the services provided at present by Herefordshire County Council, with out any Minister responsible for this part of the Bill having visited the County of Herefordshire as far as I can find out, the Government are insisting——

Mr. Peter Walker

I am sure the hon. Member would now like to withdraw that. I certainly have visited the county.

Mr. Davis

I will certainly withdraw it if the right hon. Gentleman will assure me that he visited the County of Herefordshire and discussed these proposals with representatives of the county council and district councils.

Mr. Walker

I visited Herefordshire. Among others I certainly discussed it with councillors and county councillors.

Mr. Davis

I am delighted to have that assurance and withdraw my comment, which was based on information I had received. My information, perhaps I should explain, was that although the Herefordshire County Council had asked for a delegation to meet the Secretary of State, its representatives indeed met him and had an informal discussion here lasting only 15–20 minutes. The fact remains that in spite of any discussions the county has had with the Secretary of State himself, the people of Herefordshire, the County Council of Herefordshire and the district councils of Herefordshire are overwhelmingly opposed to this merger.

So what about the views of Worcestershire, which is to provide three-quarters of the population of the new county? In Committee I explained that Worcestershire County Council had accepted the Government's proposals but did not advocate them. The Worcestershire County Council has gone much further now. In March it issued a public statement which repeated that the Government's proposals were accepted by Worcestershire County Council but added that the proposals were not welcomed by the council. The council explained that it had accepted the Government's proposals only because they were better for Worcestershire than the recommendations of the Maud Report.

That, however, is not the issue. The choice is not between, on the one hand, the northern half of Worcestershire being detached from the county and the southern half joined with Herefordshire and, on the other hand, a merger of the whole of Worcestershire and the whole of Herefordshire.

The choice before the House this morning is between a merger of two counties and the retention of two separate counties. Worcestershire County Council has publicly stated that neither the county nor the City of Worcester would in the least mind if Herefordshire retained its independence. Indeed, I understand that Worcester City would prefer a new county based on the existing county area of Worcestershire, but has decided not to object to the addition of Herefordshire.

The only justification for the Government's proposals must be that the merger would benefit Herefordshire; but most people and most councils in Herefordshire do not believe that it will. The overwhelming majority have rejected the merger, but the Government continue to insist that they know best. It is unfortunate that the fate of Herefordshire is being debated at this time of the day on a Friday after an all-night Sitting, but even at this hour I urge the Government to change their minds.

Sir Clive Bossom (Leominster)

I know that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Terry Davis) put forward his Amendment in good faith, but I do not agree with his arguments. Nor do I agree with his view of the feeling in Herefordshire. Six months have elapsed since this controversy rose to its full height, and in Herefordshire the mood of local councils and the people is gradually changing.

I agree that at the time local opinion was vocal, genuine and heart felt, but my constituents, in North Herefordshire, are beginning to look at the proposed amalgamation in a different light now that it has been explained to them in more detail. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment personally came to Leominster where he held a large public meeting on 19th May, when he explained in great detail why the merger was so vital for Herefordshire and how by amalgamation Herefordshire could become a viable county.

The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr, Gibson-Watt) and I have already managed to do one thing—we have managed to change one of the Government's rules by having no double-barrelled names. As is known, the name of Hereford will now remain and the new title will be 'the county of Hereford and Worcester'. It will also retain its postcode.

During the past six months, I have held meetings all over my area and met representatives from the county council, the urban and rural district councils and the parish councils, the NFU and the various women's organisations. I wanted to explain why I believed that in the long term amalgamation was the best solution for our county, and I think that that has got through.

In Herefordshire we have a long and proud history. We have old and famous traditions. We have deep-rooted loyalties and, above all, I believe hon. Members will agree, we are one of the most beautiful and unspoiled counties in England.

During the campaign that the hon. Member mentioned—"Save Herefordshire"—there was a petition signed by more than 60,000 people out of a population of 139,000. But many of the people who signed the petition were, I believe, under the misguided impression that not only the name but the entire county was to sink without trace, that we should completely lose our identity, that we should be completely wiped off the map. That is not what is to happen. Our county will not change its character or its identity.

9.45 a.m.

I believe sincerely that by amalgamating we can become a stronger and more viable county. We shall all still live in the county of Herefordshire. The Hereford Herd Book will continue to flourish. So will our farmers, our cider and our hops. We shall still be able to cheer to new and greater victories the Hereford United football team, which has done so extremely well of late.

It would have been a very easy and popular thing for me to have resisted the proposed merger, but it would not have been honest, realistic or forward looking. As their Member of Parliament, I have a responsibility to my constituents to see that all our present excellent services are maintained and continually being improved.

If Herefordshire tried to go it alone with improving services, it would mean a greatly increased rate and a much larger rate support grant. Already the Exchequer support is 72 per cent. But by amalgamating there would be some financial advantage in rateable value terms. Whereas the rateable value per head in Herefordshire is at present £34.5, that of the proposed new area would be £39.6.

I must give the reason why I supported the Government's proposals for Area 17. Not only do I believe that they are right and the best solution in the long term, but I want to change while all the other changes in local government are taking place, and to carry out this major reorganisation in an orderly fashion.

It may be that we could survive on our own for a few more years—possibly another five. Then we should face the unknown and, in the end, we might have to go "cap in hand" to the Government of the day. Possibly they would be a less sympathetic Government, even a Government of another colour. In five years all the other local changes would have taken place and everyone else would have settled down in their new authorities. Herefordshire would be at the Government's mercy. It could be carved up and parcelled out in small pieces to neighbouring counties such as Gloucestershire, Shropshire and Worcestershire, thus erasing the county of Hereford from the map for ever. That is why it would be completely wrong to try to go it alone for a few more years.

The argument has often been put forward that if we go into Worcestershire, we shall be dominated and outvoted on every issue. The draft proposals have allocated 23 councillors for Herefordshire and 67 for Worcestershire. But, being a countryman and knowing a little about human nature, I am confident that on the whole, the farming and rural representatives would gang up. More than 65 per cent. of new councillors will come from rural or agriculture-orientated areas. Their basic interests are the same and, having myself been in local government, I believe that they would work and vote together on many issues.

The hon. Member for Bromsgrove asked what were the benefits in our going in. Worcestershire has a population of 417,000. As the hon. Gentleman said, much of South Worcestershire is very like Herefordshire. Basically, we are both agricultural areas. What is more, we both want to build up more tourist interests.

The hon. Gentleman made great play about the Malvern Hills separating us. Let us be fair. They are not mountains. They are not such a barrier. I live at the foot of the Malvern Hills in Herefordshire in a village called Eastnor. Always in the past our two counties have worked closely together in great harmony. Two very good examples are the Three Counties Agricultural Show and the Three Choirs Festival. Our characters are much the same. The communications by road and rail, although not perfect, are adequate.

By joining Worcestershire we gain two great assets. One is population and the other is industry, both of which we lack in Herefordshire. As I said, our population is only 139,000.

Benefits must flow from a larger authority. A new authority would be able to provide more specialised services, equipment and staff. A larger authority can provide a greater range of technical services. It can also buy in bulk. Then there are the common services, such as direct labour, pooling of transport, and printing. All these could reduce our administrative costs. A larger and wealthier authority can give a greater range of services and, above all, greater flexibility in finance. In the end it comes back to finance and how big the county is.

I am surprised at the attitude of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove towards Lord Redcliffe-Maud's Report. Herefordshire would have been far worse off; it would have been a single unitary authority without a second tier. This is the report that the Labour Party was to implement if it had won the last election. I should add that not a single council in Herefordshire was in favour of the Maud Report.

This Bill will give greater strength to the district councils. It will give them more power and representation. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove should not use all his efforts, as he has in the last few months, to try to block this merger which many people already consider is a fait accompli. We who believe that Herefordshire has a great future—I hope the hon. Gentleman also believes it has a great future—should be using every sinew and muscle in striving to get the new structure of local government right rather than to block it.

We should be sending recommendations to the Boundary Commission on how this large and sparsely populated county should be divided into district councils. To my amazement, the Boundary Commission has suggested that Herefordshire should become one huge district council, with the exception of two areas in my constituency—Ledbury and Bromyard. In everyone's opinion, including NALGO, this is far too large an area. It covers 427,000 acres and has a population of 118,000. Anyhow it is well above the Government's preferred population range. It would also mean that Herefordshire would not have adequate local government representation.

The ideal would be for Herefordshire to have three district councils. The City of Hereford is an historic and famous city with a population of 46,500. Here we have a special case. If Worcester City is to be an authority on its own—it certainly should be—then so should Hereford. That would be Central Hereford. North Hereford would be based on Leominster, and South Hereford would be based on Ross on Wye. So we would have three district councils, each of which could have a population in excess of this "mystique" figure of 40,000. Therefore it would comply with the guidelines which the Government have given us.

If the Boundary Commission cannot see its way clear to recommending three, it must be put forward two district councils to my right hon. Friend. In the meantime, it is so vital to get this right that I hope that some members of the board of the Boundary Commission will come to the counties of Worcester and Hereford and consult at local level so that they can find out where the problems lie.

I have endeavoured to be constructive and put forward the facts as I know them as the Member for North Hereford. There is one more thing that I should like to add, and that is that in our opinion it is wrong to site the new headquarters at Nunnery Wood just outside Worcester City. Bromyard in Herefordshire is about the centre of Area 17, but Malvern in Worcestershire would be very much more acceptable to everyone in our county. I mention that as the type of problem that we should be striving to solve before next year, rather than wasting valuable time, energy and ratepayers' money in fighting a losing battle because, as I said at the beginning, in the long-term most sensible people will realise that the salvation of our county lies in an amalgamation.

I have continually referred to North Hereford. My views are in line with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford. We are both confident and sincerely believe that real benefit could flow from this amalgamation. The two counties would come together in a combined local government unit of sufficient size to realise the full potentialities of major services to our constituents in the years ahead.

For those reasons I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House not to support these Amendments.

Mr. John Silkin

I do not want to take up the time of the House for long. I had not intended to intervene, but there is one matter on which the views of the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir Clive Bossom) might be amplified, and if I can help in that I shall do so.

The hon. Gentleman was correct in saying that Herefordshire opposed the Maud proposals and the Labour Government's White Paper. The reason why it did so—the hon. Gentleman will no doubt correct me if I am wrong—was that it felt that under the Maud proposals it was liable to be dominated too much by Worcestershire. I think that that was the basic point.

Sir Clive Bossom

And not get full representation. Under the Bill we shall get much better representation at local level. We should not have achieved that under the Maud proposals.

Mr. Silkin

I agree about the district council as against the proposed parish council under the Maud proposals. Having said that, the hon. Gentleman is fair enough to concede that the Maud proposals provided for the unity of Herefordshire with about 40 per cent. of Worcestershire, so that in that partnership, while the county had a right to complain—I am not saying that it did not—the Worcestershire influence over Herefordshire would have been less than it is today. That is the first point.

It is always assumed that because Maud made certain proposals and because a White Paper followed they were immutable—that they were like the laws of the Medes and Persians and could never be altered. It was not so. There were many matters that obviously the House would have altered between White Paper and Bill. There was not even a First Reading of a Bill. No doubt, as a Bill had progressed there would have been alterations under the Labour Government, just as there have been alterations to this Bill as it has progressed. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell), who was in the Department at that time, gave a strong clue about them in Committee on, I think 30th November when he said that the whole matter was under discussion at that time.

10.0 a.m.

This is not to destroy the hon. Gentleman's argument. I do not want to do that. I merely want to put the record straight. I do not know that it has great relevance to the present situation, but the record might as well be as straight as it can be set.

Mr. More

I want to say only a few words, representing, as I do, an area of South Shropshire which borders on Herefordshire. I do this particularly as one of my two hon. Friends who represent the county is prevented from taking part in the debate because of his position in the Government.

We all appreciated the good faith of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Terry Davis). Nevertheless, from my personal experience I question one or two of the things he said. The hon. Gentleman laid great emphasis on the Malvern Hills. The area I represent, which is immediately north of Herefordshire, greatly resembles Herefordshire in character. We have an east to west approach in Shropshire, which makes us the equivalent of what Hereford plus Worcester will be.

Going eastwards in my constituency one encounters, not the obstacle of the Malvern Hills, but the much more formidable obstacle of the Clee Hills. To the west of that, there is an area which is as rural and little populated as anything in Herefordshire. To the east there is one of England's developing industrial areas.

I agree with what was said so forcibly by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir Clive Bossom). There is advantage in having a combination of these areas under one authority. It gives Shropshire a population. It gives us industry. It gives a variety of employment and opportunity which otherwise we would not have.

Unkind words have been said also about the problems of Powys. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) has been much attacked about this, on the ground that Powys is an area even more sparsely populated than Hereford. We have this precise problem in South Shropshire. We have it, not at the first-tier level which we are discussing here, but at the second-tier level. We are having to face the precise problem—we shall want the help of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in solving it—that Hereford has had to face, namely: in the interests of conserving historic areas, does one take the risks that are involved now in keeping an area small in terms of population?

This is a real problem, because what has forced this situation on Governments—not only on this Government, but also on their predecessor, because, if anything, the Maud Report is more extreme than what is proposed now—is the realisation that the people can have the services they want only by having areas with populations of sufficient size.

Nobody appreciates more bitterly than a crusty old Tory like myself the resentments which must be encountered, particularly from those in authority such as councillors, when changes are proposed to the existing order of things. Nobody appreciates more than I do the natural ease with which people sign petitions. They cannot be blamed; it is a matter of judgment by those who are in governmental positions and who have access to all the information that is available as to what ultimately is to be for the benefit of the people.

I should like it to be known by the people of Hereford—I speak from a long personal experience—that they could not be represented by two more completely dedicated Members than my hon. Friends the Members for Hereford and for Leominster. I can say this with sincerity and a special sense of gratitude because, before I was elected for Ludlow, we had a long interval in Ludlow and my constituents then had the services of those two hon. Members, who looked after the interests of Shropshire as well as those of Hereford. I do not think that every hon. Member would have sacrificed the time and trouble to the extent that my hon. Friends did.

This has obviously been a matter of judgment and no one has taken more trouble about it than they did. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford has been in the invidious position of holding a post in the Government. If, having formed a judgment, he had decided that the Government's proposals were not in the interests of his people there was one thing he could have done; he could have resigned. But he has not resigned and that is because he genuinely believes that the proposals are correct.

I hope the message will go out, therefore, to the people of Hereford that they are represented here by two men of honour and that they are doing what they are doing because they believe it to be in the interests of the country, not merely for the present but in the future. I believe that in a few years from now their constituents will unite in the realisation that they should be grateful for the firm stand taken by my hon. Friends during those difficult months.

Mr. Peter Walker

I start by following the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More). No matter what view any of us may have on this question, we all know as politicians that it would have been the easiest thing for my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir Clive Bossom) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) to join in what was obviously a popular campaign in the county they represent, and to make great and immediate personal political capital out of it. Neither of them did. They have both taken an immense amount of care to be in close consultation with their councils and the publicat large. They have held meetings and they have put forward their view in an objective way because, on considering all the factors, they both believed that the proposals were in the long-term interest of their county. I believe that in public life if people are prepared to put up with a lot of present political unpopularity to achieve something they feel will benefit their area in the long term it is something we should appreciate. My two hon. Friends have done that.

I find it very surprising for an Amendment such as this to come from the Opposition in view of the policy which they advocated in office. It is no good the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) saying that they did not get to the stage of putting it into a Bill. They published the Maud Report, they considered the matter as a Government and they then published a very definite White Paper. They went into the last General Election quite clearly stating in their manifesto that they would reform local government along the lines of the White Paper. Nothing could have been more unpopular to the people of Hereford than the proposals in that White Paper. It is surprising therefore that they have tabled their Amendment when they categorically put forward proposals which would not just have eliminated Hereford as a separate county but would have left Herefordshire without any district council whatever. There would have been one council, probably based on Worcester or somewhere like that, and that would have been the only form of local government available to the people of Herefordshire.

Therefore to find an Amendment on the Order Paper put down by a group of Labour Members from the Midlands and Birmingham suggesting that they would like Herefordshire to be a separate county is a very remarkable change.

Mr. John Silkin

The Secretary of State is on a very fair point. Obviously if one is intending to do something one must examine what a political party has said in the past. But will he direct his mind to this point? I am also trying to be fair. The Opposition have the duty of taking what we regard as a bad Bill and trying to make it workable within the framework set, not by the Opposition, but by the Government. If within that framework we have come to this conclusion, quite genuinely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Terry Davis) did, I cannot see why it lies in the Secretary of State's mouth to criticise us.

Mr. Walker

The reason is that the basis on which the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends supported the unitary system—[Interruption.]—I hope the right hon. Gentleman will listen to the argument. The reason why they originally supported the unitary principle, and presumably still do support it, as the Opposition have stated quite clearly in the debates on the Bill, is that they consider there is an advantage in size, particularly for certain major services. They do not disagree with us on this. Their argument on education is that it should be with the metropolitan areas and not the districts. They see great advantages there for education, social services, broad transportation matters and strategic land use studies. There has never been any argument from the Opposition that they want smaller councils for those functions.

Therefore it is surprising to find in this case a group of Labour Members putting their names to an Amendment the object of which is to leave Herefordshire, with a population of 138,000, to provide those services. One of the Liberal Members—who have played such an active part in the debates throughout the night—also duly jumped on the band wagon, knowing the general feelings in Herefordshire, and joined in with Amendments saying that it should be left as a separate county.

It was particularly surprising coming from the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Terry Davis), because no one was more relieved by the change in proposals for local government reform than the majority of his constituents.

Mr. Terry Davis

I direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) said in Committee after I had made a speech about this very question of North Worcestershire and the change, which I welcomed, when I said that I would have disagreed with this transfer. Indeed, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) later congratulated me on my advocacy concerning the boundaries of North Worcestershire.

Mr. Walker

I am not failing to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his advocacy. All I know is that before the General Election the Labour proposals on local government reform were very much to the detriment of the people of Bromsgrove, Kidderminster and many parts of Worcestershire. They all very much appreciate the change that has taken place with regard to the new county.

The suggestion that there is a great division as a result of the Malvern Hills was dealt with very effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow. As someone who most weekends walks the Malvern Hills, with one half of the walk in Herefordshire and the other halfin Worcestershire, I know that the top of the hill is the division between the two counties, and I know the speed and relative ease with which one can go from one to the other. The two collaborate in many functions, and there are many friendships between people in the two counties. The Three Choirs Festival and the Three Shires Show have for long been based on considerable unity between the two counties. I believe that it will be a county with many characteristics that the people of Worcestershire and Herefordshire hold in very high esteem and that it will give the people of Herefordshire a far better base on which to cope with the problems of the future.

10.15 a.m.

One admires a small county, in terms of population, that wishes to continue its separate existence. All Members of Parliament admired for a long time the battle Rutland put up, against all logic, for the retention of the county council. Such a fight is always held in high esteem. But with the type of problem that will arise and the scope of the services required in education and social services alone, it means that a county of this size experiences great disadvantages.

It has been pointed out that the neighbouring county in Wales has an even smaller population. Why should that count? With a smaller population that neighbouring county in Wales is not only larger than Herefordshire or Worcester but it is twice as big as the new county we are proposing of Hereford and Worcester. It is only because of the remarkable sparsity of population and the fact that if one joined it to any other county to try to increase that population the size would become so massive and impossible that reluctantly one has to see a county like that suffer from the considerable problems it will incur because of having such a small rateable value and a small population. There is no need for Herefordshire to endure that suffering.

As to the view that the county might be dominated by Worcestershire, the answer was given in two arguments brought forward in this debate, one by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster, who argued that the many mutual interests of people in Worcester and Hereford, the mutual interests of the rural populations of both counties, will ally people in the council chamber.

The argument against was very well expressed by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove. He said that neither Worcestershire County nor Worcester City had said they desperately wanted to have

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made, No. 914, in page 201, leave out lines 3 to 8.—[Mr. Speed.]

Herefordshire. They look upon Herefordshire's coming into the new county as a matter of territorial gain or in terms of the power they would have over that county. They have looked on it as being of advantage to Herefordshire. Such an arrangement would be of more financial advantage to Herefordshire than to Worcestershire. They have looked upon it as a genuine partnership. I am certain that discussions will take place before the new elections. The councils elected after those elections will collaborate and co-operate to ensure that this is one of the finest counties in England. A county that can have the sporting double of Hereford United at football and Worcestershire County cricket team has in any case remarkable advantages.

On every possible ground of planning, transportation, better education, social service facilities, there is a very powerful argument for this new county. It is more powerful for the people of Herefordshire than any other section.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 11, Noes 57.

Division No. 278.]	AYES	[10.18 a.m.
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Lipton, Marcus	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	McNamara, J. Kevin	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Dalyell, Tam	Mikardo, Ian	Mr. James Wellbeloved and
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)	Pardoe, John	Mr. Michael English.
Evans, Fred	Parker, John (Dagenham)

NOES
Adley, Robert	Heseltine, Michael	Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)
Atkins, Humphrey	Hordem, Peter	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)	Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Hunt, John	Royle, Anthony
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Sinclair, Sir George
Bossom, Sir Clive	Kershaw, Anthony	Speed, Keith
Bowden, Andrew	King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Spence, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M)	Lambton, Lord	Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Lane, David	Tebbit, Norman
Chichester-Clark, R.	Luce, R. N.	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Churchill, W. S.	Mather, Carol	Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Mawby, Ray	Trew, Peter
Cooke, Robert	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Moate, Roger	Waddington, David
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)	Money, Ernle	Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Fortescue, Tim	More, Jasper	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Gibson-Watt, David	Murton, Oscar	Weatherill, Bernard
Gray, Hamish	Normanton, Tom	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Page, Graham (Crosby)	Mr. Michael Jopling and
Hawkins, Paul	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis	Mr. Marcus Fox.

Mr. Speed

I beg to move Amendment No. 82, in page 201, column 2, leave out lines 38 to 41 and insert: 'Belton, Bradwell, Burgh Castle, Fritton and Hopton-on-Sea, somuch of the parish of Herringfleet as lies north of the boundary referred to in paragraph 5C of Part III of this Schedule and so much of the parish of Corton as lies north of the boundary referred to in paragraph 5D of that Part'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)

With this Amendment it will be convenient to discuss the Amendments Nos. 119, 120 and 129.

No. 119, in page 204, line 34, at end insert: (i) the part of the existing parish of Corton in Suffolk.

No. 120, in page 204, line 37, at end insert: (l) the part of the existing parish of Herringfleet in Suffolk.

No. 129, in page 205, line 10, at end insert: (4) The part of the existing parish of Herringfleet in Norfolk shall be added to the parish of Fritton.

Mr. Speed

During the Committee stage an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) was made which moved to Norfolk the five northernmost parishes of Lothingland rural district. This was justified because the parishes are immediately adjacent to Great Yarmouth. However, for the parish of Herringfleet, the boundary proposed in the Amendment in Committee needs some tidying up because it divided the village of St. Olave's on the line of the A406.

The Amendments improve the boundary by rewording the Amendment and by taking the whole of the village of St. Olave's into Norfolk. They add the northern part of the existing parish of Herringfleet to the parish of Fritton and constitute the remainder, in Suffolk, as a new parish.

Amendment No. 1039 gives a line slightly different from that in the original Government Amendment No. 110, so as to bring "Weasel Score" and half a dozen houses into Norfolk. This was done at the request of Herringfleet Parish Meeting and with the agreement of the authorities on both sides of the border.

My hon. Friend's Amendment overlooked the fact that between the eastern boundary of the parish of Hopton-on-Sea and the coast there is a very narrow strip, mostly occupied by sea defence works and with no population, of the parish of Corton. This is probably the result of coast erosion. The Amendment puts things right by adding that strip to Hopton-on-Sea, by extending the southern boundary of Hopton-on-Sea eastwards by about 100 yards. The strip is added to Hopton and the remainder of Corton continues as a parish in Suffolk.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 85, in page 201, line 44, column 2, leave out 'Durham and Teesside' and insert 'Cleveland and Durham'.—[Mr. Speed.]

No. 94, in page 202, column 2, leave out 'Tyneside' and insert 'Tyne and Wear'.

No. 1035, in page 202, line 50, column 2, leave out from 'Suffolk' to end of line 51.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

10.30 a.m.

Sir George Sinclair (Dorking)

I beg to move Amendment No. 100, in page 203, line 3, leave out 'except the areas in West Sussex'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)

With this Amendment we shall discuss the following, all standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair): No. 103, in page 203, leave out lines 27 to 32.

No. 111, in page 204, line 18, leave out paragraph 6.

No. 426, in page 204, leave out lines 31 to 33.

No. 427, in page 204, leave out line 38.

Sir G. Sinclair

We have had a very long night and the House is, understandably, very thin. It is sad that an issue which affects the wishes of a whole county should be debated before such a sparse House, when many hon. Members have had to depart for engagements in their constituencies or elsewhere.

The Bill at present provides for the transfer to West Sussex from Surrey of the greater part of the parishes of Horley and Charlwood, an area containing some 18,000 population but including also, within the affected part of Charlwood, the major airport known as London/Gatwick. My Amendment seeks to maintain unaltered the present Surrey-West Sussex boundary in the area of Gatwick Airport.

I seek to show three things—first, that there is no good planning reason for making the change; secondly, that the people in the area affected are very strongly opposed to the move; thirdly, that the whole of Surrey is against this further important encroachment into the county from the south, having in 1963 under the London Government Act lost a great deal of its population and its rateable value.

I shall ask my right hon. Friend, in view of these arguments, to leave things as they are at least for 10 years. I shall ask him to defer a decision on this boundary, leaving it to the Boundary Commission being set up under the Bill. If he cannot meet us in this way, my intention would be to invite my hon. Friends to show Surrey's opposition by their votes in the Lobby.

Neither I nor any other Surrey Member served on Standing Committee D, but Amendments in similar terms to these were kindly moved on behalf of myself and other Surrey Members, and we are most grateful to those hon. Members who studied our case, took it up and presented it so well in the Committee.

When the then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment replied to the debate in the Committee, we heard for the first time the reason by which the Government sought to justify the proposed transfer. At the end of that debate, the Amendments were withdrawn so that between then and Report stage full consideration should be given to the Government's arguments. So much for that stage. Let me for a moment refer to the Government's policy statement on the Bill which I believe are being disregarded in this proposal.

Addressing the Conservative Party Conference in 1971, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said: We are determined to maintain so far as possible the deep rooted loyalties on which our local government was founded in the past…no-one in their right senses is in favour of change for change's sake. The White Paper itself, in paragraph 29, stated: Where possible existing county boundaries will be retained in order to keep the maximum existing loyalties and to minimise the administrative problems. Clearly, the onus lies on those who are proposing a change in local government to demonstrate an overwhelming case. What, then, was the justification which the Under-Secretary of State put forward for this proposal in Committee?

First, my hon. Friend referred to the fact that the Redcliffe-Maud Commission had placed emphasis on the link between Gatwick and Crawley. Certainly, the Commission said that there were close links, particularly for employment, between Crawley on the one hand and Gatwick and the adjoining related area of Horley on the other. Indeed, the Commission proposed that Crawley should be added to Surrey. The Government's proposal is the reverse. Studies carried out by Surrey Council Council confirm the view of Redcliffe-Maud that there are strong economic and social links between the Gatwick area and Crawley, but also show very strong links between the Gatwick area and the Surrey districts to the north, notably Reigate Borough.

Redcliffe-Maud also considered that the links between the two sides of the Hampshire-Surrey border—the Black-water Valley area—were very strong and proposed that north-east Hampshire should be added to Surrey. At first, the Government adopted this suggestion but after strong objections from Hampshire decided to retain the present Surrey-Hampshire border unchanged. Surrey makes no objection to that.

The second point which my hon. Friend made in Committee was that Gatwick was linked with Crawley and the area to the south of Crawley in a major growth area proposal in the Strategic Plan for the South-East—Area 6. But at the time of the plan's publication, Gatwick was expected to become a two-runway airport and to expand vastly and rapidly. The more recent decision, which we welcome, to confine Gatwick to one runway has transformed the whole situation and the whole problem.

The present projection by the county council is that Surrey will be able to provide for up to half the airport's employment growth until Foulness becomes operational and pressure on Gatwick is relieved. The Crawley-Burgess Hill growth area is a major growth area in its own right in the general strategy of providing for the expanding population of South-East England as a whole. It is only secondarily related to the airport. There is no question of the growth area strategy being adversely affected if the present boundary remains unchanged. Surrey and the two counties of West and East Sussex are well-advanced in preparing a sub-regional plan. Moreover, it appears to be agreed with the Department, as also for the growth area on the Surrey-Hampshire-Berkshire borders, that structure plans separately submitted by each county within the sub-regional framework can best give effect to the proposals. In short, the planning will be done just as effectively if the boundary is left as it is.

The third and final reason adduced by my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State was the fact that Crawley is the largest urban area close to the airport. On that I would say only that the Reigate-Horley urban complex to the north of the airport has the capacity to increase by 1981 to 109,000 compared with what is believed to be the expected growth of Crawley to 90,000.

I submit that, far from there being a strong case for transfer, the overwhelming planning argument is the other way—namely, that Gatwick is a London-orientated airport with its major consequences affecting Surrey, since 80 per cent. of its passengers come from north of the airport via Surrey, its flight paths are east and west over Surrey, and the noise effects both near the airport and beneath the air routes are primarily felt by Surrey residents. Projects for ancillary facilities such as hotels, parking, industries serving the airport, and so on, will normally arise on the Surrey side along the lines of communication, notably within reach of the new motorways which are to be London-orientated and will link Gatwick with Heathrow. Moreover, the whole of the Gatwick area drains into the River Mole, which flows through Surrey to the Thames. This means that Surrey will have to cope with the serious drainage and sewage problems from the Gatwick area.

But this strong planning case against change is only half the story. It is powerfully reinformed by the overwhelming desire of the local people in Horley and Charlwood to stay in Surrey, together with the airport. Eighty-seven per cent. of those eligible on the electoral roll signed a petition to that effect, and I had the pleasure of personally presenting it to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development in charge of the Bill. I must thank him for his great courtesy and patience in receiving representations and delegations—on which my fellow Members from Surrey constituencies accompanied me—not only from my constituency but from the whole of Surrey.

In replying to the debate in Committee, the Under-Secretary of State made an offer to the two parish councils that they might stay in Surrey even though the airport were to be transferred. This was a very harsh option to put before them—almost, "Do you wish to be hanged or shot?" At a widely advertised parish meeting in Horley, it was decided by 600 votes to 10 that the people wished the whole of the area, including the airport to stay in Surrey. This amounted to a refusal to exercise the choice offered because they saw no valid reason for the transfer of the airport and they hoped that the Government would withdraw this proposal.

Charlwood Parish Council took a slightly different line. It deferred holding such a meeting in the absence of knowledge as to the exact boundaries of the airport which would be moved into West Sussex, but there is no doubt that a Charlwood parish meeting would have come to the same conclusion as Horley. The Minister subsequently confirmed to the Charlwood Parish Council that the option would remain open even after the Bill had been passed. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the option will remain open also to the affected parts of the Horley parish if, despite all the representations, the Government decide to persist in transferring the airport.

All these people care passionately about this issue. They have demonstrated at packed public meetings. They have blocked main roads. They have carried placards. They have marched to Whitehall. Horley and Charlwood have made it clear that they wish to continue being associated with the Surrey areas to the north with which they have long-established social and traditional ties. In addition, the case of the local people and the county case on planning have received massive support from the rest of Surrey, acting through a committee representative of the county council. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey (Mr. Grylls), whose constituency is on the other side of the county from Gatwick, will, if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, enlarge on this point and show Surrey's determination not to have further encroachments on its area from the south.

This boundary change is not proposed by the Government because of any major matter of principle on local government reform as stated in the White Paper. For example, town and country are closely intermingled in the wider area around Gatwick and will continue to be where-ever the boundary is drawn. Moreover, it is common ground that the situation around Greater London is unique in the country from the point of view of the relation of town and country, of communications and of other planning matters. There is a strong reason for creating and maintaining powerful authorities around London's edge …as a counterweight to the enormous power of the Greater London Council", as was stated by Sir Jack Longland in a minority Royal Commission Report.

10.45 a.m.

Against this background, it would be wrong further to reduce the size of Surrey, bearing in mind that it has already suffered substantial loss. Around Gatwick, the pattern of development, communications and social life is extremely complex. The influence of Gatwick is widespread and it is felt over a substantial area of East Surrey. It is quite impossible, by any boundary change, to place within the one county both the airport and the sphere of its influence. Indeed, the study area for the current planning work being undertaken jointly by East and West Sussex and Surrey extends from Burgess Heath and Hay-wards Heath in the south, to Dorking, Reigate and Oxted in the north, thus encompassing a large area of Surrey as well as of the two Sussexes.

The interdependence of this wider area was recognised by the South-East Economic Planning Council, which was unable to make any logical or reasonable suggestions for boundary adjustments when giving its view on the Commission's proposals to the Government. Thus when one examines the situation at Gatwick in the context of county boundaries in the South-East, it becomes apparent that the planning arguments on which the Government base their case for change are unsound. The growth area and the surrounding inter-related sphere of influence cannot possibly be placed in one county, nor will the Government's proposed change achieve this objective. In that event, it is surely much better to leave the area divided between two counties along a reasonably straight boundary which has existed for many years and which does not cut through the airport or any built-up area.

Moreover, the present boundary runs through an area of green belt land between the airport and Crawley which, as a result of deliberate planning policy supported by successive Governments, has been kept open and undeveloped. We should keep to this boundary. In this way we can ensure that the two future counties of Surrey and West Sussex will continue planning the whole area of Gatwick, Crawley and its surrounding hinterland in a close and fruitful partnership, as indeed now exists through the Joint Advisory Committee set up early in 1971. We see no reason why the collaboration required between counties which, on reflection and after pressure, the Government accepted for Area 6—the Black-water area—on the western border of Surrey should not be accepted also for Area 6 on the southern border on the basis of the existing county boundary.

To sum up, there is a very strong planning case for retaining the airport in Surrey, powerfully reinforced by the local people's desire to remain within the county. Even if the Government felt that the arguments were finely balanced, we say to the Minister that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the county in which the area is at present situated in accordance with the philosophy of the White Paper of maintaing existing loyalties and avoiding change for change's sake.

We accordingly ask the Government to take the view that in all the circumstances the right and proper course would be to make no change in the Surrey-West Sussex boundary at this juncture but to leave the matter over for full consideration by the Local Government Boundary Commission when it carries out its general review of county boundaries in 10 or so years' time and when the situation regarding Gatwick is clearer.

I hope very much that the Minister will feel able to indicate his acceptance of this Amendment in the knowledge and understanding that the Government of the day will have full opportunity in 10 years' time of giving further and full consideration to the whole of the problem in the light of the considered advice of the commission and when the rôle of Gatwick Airport in relation to Foulness Airport will be clearer. However, if the Minister cannot meet us, I must make it clear that the people of Surrey have demanded that we make it clear beyond any peradventure that we challenge in this House, this measure of the Government, and we shall pursue it into another place if, sadly, that should become necessary.

Mr. Peter Hordern (Horsham)

Having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) and having heard a good deal of what Surrey people have said on this issue, I, like the West Sussex County Council, am very well aware of the depth of local feeling which has been aroused in Surrey over the Government's proposals. One is almost led to think that the prospect of the West Sussex County Council forming the administration for what is now part of Surrey is regarded by Surrey as being an encroachment of a tyrannical and despotic administration against which the barricades must be drawn up. I had not previously thought of Dorking being in any sense a no-go area, but these days one cannot be too sure. However, it is time that the case for the Government's proposals should be made and I shall hope to deal with some of my hon. Friend's points during my remarks.

It is certainly true that the response to the petition was a massive one by any standards. I think, though, it would have been slightly happier if the petition itself had not been endorsed in certain cases—even though I fully accept that in the great majority of cases it was an absolutely genuine expression of feeling—in such a way, of which I have direct evidence in at least one case, that the top of the petition was folded over and these lines appeared:

1. "1. Do you want to see your rates increased?
2. 2. Do you want more aircraft noise?
3. 3. Do you want to see Surrey desolated?"

I am bound to say that if I happened to live in that locality I should be running very fast to sign that petition, but I fully concede that this was a genuine feeling of the people of Surrey and that this is what they meant the Government should hear. However, I do not believe that the full story has been set out and I think it right that the Government's proposal should be set out in a somewhat different light.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking said, of course the story goes a good deal deeper than plain sentiment. It has existed since the strategic plan for the South-East was drawn up and supported by the Regional Economic Planning Council. As the House knows, the strategic plan itself has now been supported by the Government, and so far as the South-East is concerned, Area 6 comprises Crawley, Burgess Hill and Gatwick. It has always seemed sensible that the area should be administered by one authority, but, of course, much more important than that, the size of the growth area and the significance of the increase in the population has long been apparent to the East and West Sussex County Councils, and, of course, to the Surrey County Council itself. That is why, as my hon. Friend says, all three counties have been working together for a long time to see how development in the totally new area could best proceed.

This is the point I must stress at the outset, that Surrey County Council has long been fully engaged and wholly involved in the joint advisory committee of the three county councils. It was set up for this purpose. Surrey County Council has known all along, and, indeed, has helped to work it, and agreed to the estimates which have been made about the expansion of the area as a whole and of Gatwick in particular. That county council has been deeply involved in the whole process of estimating both growth and the planning consequences of it. The figures which I have are those which have been agreed by the advisory committee, of which Surrey County Council has formed part, and on which Surrey members have helped over some time to draw up.

One estimate is that of the total growth of population by 1981, and, within that total, the estimate of the growth of Gatwick itself. The estimate in the original strategic plan was that the whole population of the growth area would be increased by 80,000 by 1981, but the advisory committee, including Surrey, advised in a report dated 18th April this year, and in a more recent Press release jointly issued by all three county councils and dated 5th May, that the assessment of population growth needed to meet the labour demand in this growth area by 1981 was 120,000. The report to which I have referred mentioned that the annual rate of population growth to meet this figure up to 1981 had been accepted by all three planning authorities, including, of course, Surrey. But what concerns Surrey——

Sir G. Sinclair

My hon. Friend and I have argued this point before. I wonder whether the basis of that calculation preceded the decision on Foulness, which has basically changed the whole calculation for new employment in the area.

Mr. Hordern

No. My hon. Friend is not right in that assumption because the Press release to which I have referred, given by the three county councils, was dated 5th May this year, so that they were well aware of the third London airport.

What concerns Surrey is the growth of Gatwick itself. This is also in the report to which I have referred. It is to be found in Table I on page 2. Item 3 lists specifically the growth to 1981 associated with a one-runway airport—not a two-runway airport, but a one-runway airport. The figure accepted by Surrey is that the population growth would be 42,000 between 1966 and 1981. Since 1966, of course, the number employed at Gatwick has increased from 5,000 to 8,500, but the estimate of the number to be employed at Gatwick in 1981 has also been increased by the Airports Authority from 14,000 to 17,000. The total population increase as a result of Gatwick's expansion is still expected to be some 42,000. Again, this figure is recognised by Surrey. It has been suggested, though not by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking, that employment at Gatwick may decline after the third London airport comes into being. Of course, this point is one which can readily be checked, and I must tell the House that I have checked this matter with the Airports Authority, which has informed me that up to 1986 and beyond it can see no reason for the labour force at Gatwick declining at all. Indeed, if anything, it would expect it to increase.

11.0 a.m.

We know that Surrey has accepted that the population, as a result of Gatwick's growth, will expand by 42,000 by 1981. The question is: where are these people to go? Of course, they will have to go, very largely, to West Sussex. From the same report, drawn up with the assistance of Surrey, the only allocation made provisionally to Surrey and approved by them was 13,000 out of a total expected increase in the area as a whole of 120,000 by 1981. That 13,000 was at Horley.

The Press release of 5th May also mentioned that at Horley there were still problems to be resolved about drainage and aircraft noise, so that it is by no means certain that Horley can take them. But even if we take 13,000 as the figure, they are not, of course, specially related to the growth of Gatwick itself. This is natural growth to which we are referring. The Surrey County Council has never said that it would specially earmark this development for 13,000 just for Gatwick. If they did, what would happen to Surrey's own natural growth?

All these reports from the Advisory Committee have had to be agreed. The report to which I have referred, that of 18th April, was accepted by the four Surrey Members present. The three planning authorities also accepted it. On their own admission, Surrey, have acknowledged that they can fill only a small fraction of the 42,000 growth from Gatwick alone by 1981. Yet they want to keep the rates from Gatwick. It is a manifestly unfair and unjust proposition, and their own figures prove this to be the case.

All this, of course, refers to the position in 1981. But it is plainly unfair now that West Sussex does not get the rates from Gatwick. Of those employed at Gatwick, there are far more living in Crawley in my constituency than in the whole of Surrey, and nearly three times as many as live in Horley. Why should Surrey enjoy the rates from Gatwick when most of the people who work there live in West Sussex? There is a very close identity of interest between Gatwick and Crawley. A large part of the reason for Crawley's growth—it is now well over 70,000 and is due to increase to 110,000—has been its close association with Gatwick.

Captain W. Elliot

My hon. Friend said that there are far more people living in Crawley who work at Gatwick. Does he know what the figures are?

Mr. Hordern

Yes, though the figures which I have are somewhat out of date. They are the 1966 figures. They come from the 1966 census——

Captain Elliot

They are the latest available?

Mr. Hordern

Yes, they are the latest available. Of a total at that time of 4,420 employed, 2,280 lived in Sussex, of whom 1,640 lived in Crawley; 630 lived in Horley and 750 elsewhere in Surrey. Far more live in Crawley than in the whole of the rest of Surrey.

Both Governments have accepted the principle that Gatwick and Crawley must go together. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) confirmed this during the Committee stage of the Bill. He said on 27th January: I am bound to say that I thought that the Under-Secretary of State made the slightly stronger case for putting the areas together. I listened very carefully to both of them; I do not think that there is any doubt that they must be kept together, and, frankly, it follows that Crawley must go into West Sussex."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 27th January, 1972; c. 1030.] As Crawley has been in West Sussex for a long time, I assume that he meant that Gatwick must go into West Sussex. I look forward to having his support in the Division later.

Mr. John Silkin

The probability is that the hon. Gentleman will not have my support. Mature reflection always sharpens the mind.

Mr. Hordern

I dare say that mature reflection after a long night has had that effect.

There are very close links between Horley and Crawley as well. Crawley College of Technology has 165 students from Horley. They use the schools, the Crawley Swimming Pool, the sports arena, and 400 Surrey residents use the library. They naturally look to Crawley as the nearest large shopping town, and commercial interests in Crawley estimate that between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. of their turnover is attributable to spending by Charlwood and Horley residents. With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think that the argument that Gat-wick's links are with Surrey can be sustained.

It is true, of course, that Surrey knows a good deal about aircraft noise. But so also does West Sussex because both counties use the same consultants and share the costs. There are certainly more people in West Sussex affected by aircraft noise than there are in Surrey. This is a straight conflict of fact between my hon. Friend and myself, but my information and advice is that there are many more people affected by aircraft noise in West Sussex than there are in Surrey. Certainly they are every bit as well organised and vociferous in West Sussex as they are in Surrey.

West Sussex has plainly shown its competence in handling a large and rapidly expanding area in Crawley, and it will, in fact, be responsible for the growth and development of this whole area. Surrey, on the other hand, cannot expand because of the Green Belt and because of the drainage problems of the River Mole, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking has already referred. By their own figures they have shown that they cannot manage to house more than a small proportion of Gatwick's expansion, and for that reason it is elementary justice that Gatwick, Horley and Charlwood should go into West Sussex. That is the only fair and reasonable solution.

Captain W. Elliot

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair). I congratulate him on the work that he has done in this matter and on the clear way in which he has advanced his case.

I do not intend to repeat all the arguments. I merely wish to underline my support for the Amendment. May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) that there is no question of the Surrey people looking on the Sussex administrators as ogres or fiends with whom they would not be associated in any circumstances. As he said, the counties are working well together and I am sure that the people as they pass over the boundaries in either direction to work will get on very well. According to the 1966 figures, more of them passed over the boundaries from Crawley to work in Surrey than the other way. This is according to Redcliffe-Maud.

As we know, local government changes provoke strong feelings. Perhaps they are not always directly logical but they are not necessarily wrong because of that. Local government affairs are not always run on logic. They are run by people, and there are very many factors at work which the planners do not often appreciate. As a result, I am sure that people are sometimes irritated. They use expressions like "parochial" and "parish pump" and all the rest; and indeed there is a certain amount of truth in that because that is what local government is. Of course, their feelings often run counter to the central planners who are looking at maps and drawing lines. But no one would suggest that it is not a good thing that there should be this strong local feeling. We often hear accusations of apathy at local government elections, but we find when serious changes are proposed that there is a great deal of interest in local affairs.

My first point, which my hon. Friend has already made, is that the people concerned in Surrey do not want this change. This applies throughout the county of Surrey as a whole. One reason is that Surrey is a particularly well run county. I do not say that because I am connected with Surrey. It is an admitted fact that Surrey is a well run county, and it has very good relations with its districts. That is one reason why the local people do not want to change.

It seems to me that, sometimes, when we reorganise local government, we go for the lowest common denominator. We find one part of the country where the system is not functioning, so we tear the whole system up by the roots all over the place in an effort to get it right, so that that one area will be right, although all the rest suffer. However, I shall not dwell on that any more.

The Government say that there is a strong planning case for the transfer of Gatwick to Sussex. The Redcliffe-Maud Report took the contrary view. Although we do not agree with the main principles of Redcliffe-Maud—I certainly do not—no one denies that the Commission investigated the whole matter, both generally and in detail, and certainly on detail we must respect its views.

Although the Government say that there is a strong planning case to transfer Gatwick to Sussex, Redcliffe-Maud said quite the reverse, and this must at least raise doubt about whether the Government planners are right. I shall not quote what Redcliffe-Maud says, since I do not wish to take up time, but that point is clear.

The Government say also that Gatwick is linked to Crawley. That is an oversimplification of the matter. It is certainly linked to Surrey, for it is in Surrey. I do not attempt to assess which county is affected environmentally more than the other, but Gatwick certainly affects Surrey very much, and I incline to the view that the configuration of the airfield and the runway tends to affect Surrey a bit more, though perhaps not all that much.

Broadly, the argument as put by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham is based on the major growth area of Crawley and south of Crawley. I do not know the geography or topography particularly well down there, but I understand that to be one of his arguments. Does he seriously suggest that that development will not take place if Gatwick stays out of Sussex? Does he think that major developments there will be held up or not take place on that account? Does he think that Gatwick with one runway is really the deciding factor?

Mr. Hordern

No, I am certain that the development to the south will proceed. The question is whether, with the expansion of Gatwick, involving an increase in population of 42,000, who would very largely be housed south of Crawley, in West Sussex, the rates from Gatwick should go to West Sussex instead of to Surrey.

Captain Elliot

We are agreed, then, that the development would not be stopped if Gatwick stayed in Surrey. As regards the rates, I have always been led to believe that it is the built-up areas which are the source of rateable value. West Sussex would have that, though I agree that, if Gatwick stayed in Surrey, it would not have the rates from there.

My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham produced some figures for 1966 of population employed in Gatwick and living either in and about Crawley or in Surrey. Frankly, there did not seem to me to be all that much difference. There were more in Sussex, but not so many more. Also, although he points out that there is green belt north of Gatwick, there is room for a good deal of development there. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorking gave the figures. All of us with green belt in our constituencies know of the enormous amount of house building which is done in the course of rounding off and filling in. In my constituency I am always astonished at how much is done. So I am certain that there will be housing development, and I do not accept that the disparity of population employed from one side or the other will be all that great.

11.15 a.m.

I put the matter to the Minister in this way. It can be argued closely one side or the other. I am sure, especially since there are two reports giving opposite decisions, that the Government must agree that the argument is not decisive either way. In that case, I argue that it is not wise to make the change, particularly when so many people in the area oppose it.

It will sever people's loyalties to their counties, which is something which we wish to preserve. Also, the position in the county as a whole has to be considered. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorking mentioned the London Government Act, with which I was particularly concerned. Surrey suffered considerable loss on that occasion. The county as a whole must be considered. One has only to look at the map to see that this is a bite into the narrowest part. Looking ten years ahead, if we are still here, we may well be arguing in much the same way that Surrey is to lose more.

I stress that the arguments are evenly balanced now. As my hon. Friend said, the Local Government Boundary Com- mission will be looking at this matter in about ten years. Why not leave it until then? That will be the time to consider the matter. I hope that the Amendments will be accepted.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish (Lewes)

My hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) made the case for Gatwick remaining in Surrey as well as it could possibly be made. He made it forcefully and, if I may say so, charmingly, just as we should expect him to do.

I am something of an intruder here, because I represent Lewes, the county town of Sussex, which is in East Sussex. We are on speaking terms with West Sussex, but no more so than we are with Surrey and Kent. In fact, we get on fine with all three of our neighbouring counties.

Coming from East Sussex, I have studied this question with great care and, I hope, without emotion or sentiment, and I have done my best to reach a judgment on the merits of the case. My judgment may be wrong, but I shall briefly put to the House the conclusion which I have reached, and why.

My conclusion is that Crawley and Gatwick, together with the parishes of Charlwood and Horley, march together. Especially in the light of modern developments, it is, in my view, a historical accident that Crawley happens to be in West Sussex and Gatwick happens to be in Surrey, with the county boundary separating the two. I come to the conclusion, therefore, that the Government's proposals are broadly right and should be accepted by both sides.

My basic reasons are simple. First, as I have said, Gatwick and Crawley are hard by each other; they march together. From the standpoint of community links, the arrow undoubtedly points towards West Sussex more than towards Surrey. My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) made that clear. He is absolutely right, and it has not been denied. The arrow will point increasingly towards West Sussex as further developments take place.

Nobody so far has mentioned education. The arguments in this respect are six of one and half a dozen of the other. because at the moment county boundaries do not matter very much in education and they will not matter very much in future.

The technical arguments have been mentioned. I refer to whether Surrey or West Sussex has the necessary expertise. Too much can be made of this. I freely admit—I am glad to do so—that Surrey has done a first-class job about Gatwick and I am not in the least critical, but I am equally satisfied that if West Sussex had the responsibility, it would do an equally good job.

The most important argument is that mentioned by my hon. Friends speaking from opposite points of view. It is that Gatwick is at the northern end of a great growth area of considerable importance and running the whole way from Brighton through my constituency passing through Hurstpierpoint, Hassocks and Burgess Hill and then Crawley and on to Gatwick. It seems to be only sensible and sound planning for the whole of this area to be planned as one. It is part of the agreed South-East regional strategy.

It also seems only fair, to put it quite simply, that if what I have said is correct, the county that has responsibility for supervising this growth area and the heavy financial burden that goes with that should have the benefits of the rateable value of Gatwick.

Finally, I refer to a subject which several hon. Members mentioned, aircraft noise. We have to be careful not to draw too many planning conclusions from who is most disturbed by aircraft noise. I speak with first-hand knowledge as I live immediately below the main flight path to the east side of Gatwick. I live on the south edge of the Ashdown Forest at Chelwood Gate at the point where the aircraft are flying extremely low as they start to climb and turn, and there is nothing that I do not know about noise!

If noise is the criterion we should all be pleased if we could transfer Gatwick to East Sussex! We know all about noise in East Sussex. Aircraft fly over my house and then right over Lewes and Seaford. However, Gatwick cannot be given to East Sussex and I am not seriously suggesting that it should. But I am glad that the report of the consultants appointed by the three counties, East Sussex, West Sussex and Surrey, is due shortly.I hope that they will go carefully into the future of Gatwick in this respect and that their proposals on the subject of the height of aircraft and flight paths may ensure that there is minimum disturbance.

I thought of moving a manuscript Amendment—if I had been allowed—proposing to close down Gatwick airport and open another airport in Yorkshire, where. I understand, such a development would be acceptable. This is a subject about which we all care whatever view we may take about which county should have control. We should all like to get rid of Gatwick, which is an ugly, noisy and smelly brute in a lovely countryside. I thank heaven that there are not two runways!

But Gatwick will not go away, and we have to live with it and we have to look after it. It seems to me that the Government have studied the matter impartially and with great care and that they have come to the right conclusion by deciding that Gatwick should now be within West Sussex.

Mr. Carol Mather (Esher)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) on his able exposition of the Surrey case. My constituency is not primarily concerned in this reorganisation, but I am a Surrey Member and I know from personal experience that people in Surrey feel strongly about what is to happen, and I hope to reflect some of those feelings this morning.

There are three aspects of the matter on which I can speak from some personal knowledge. First, my constituency was one of the constituencies into which encroachment was proposed in 1963 under the London Government Act. My constituency managed to beat off that encroachment, and it survived as part of Surrey. Only a few months ago, a second attack was made by the GLC, and again it was beaten off, thanks to my right hon. Friend. We are thus extremely sensitive about encroachments on our territory, and I think that that goes for the whole of Surrey. We are very near London and various bites have occurred and the natural instinct of Surrey is therefore to defend itself.

The River Mole runs through my constituency at the point where it joins the Thames. We were affected very badly by the disastrous floods of 1968 when many thousands of my constituents were made homeless and many homes were flooded. The Dittons and the Moleseys were seriously affected, and none of us wants a repetition of that. By that I mean that it is important for Surrey to control the whole of the course of the Mole, but particularly the headwaters, because there is a large area of runoff for the headwaters of the Mole, particularly from Gatwick Airport. We do not know to what extent this increased the flow, but it was increased, and it is important for the people of my constituency to know that the county council is controlling the course of the river.

Secondly, I speak from personal experience on the subject of aircraft noise, not at Gatwick but at London Airport itself. We all know what it means and we should all like the county to control the area where an airport is located. We all know that it is particularly important to keep control once obtained.

I am not qualified to speak on the planning grounds, but I echo what my hon. Friend said when he quoted the Minority Report of Sir Jack Longland of the Royal Commission when he said that it was important to planning for there to be large and powerful authorities surrounding the area of London as the GLC was such an enormous and powerful organisation itself. This is one of the reasons for keeping Surrey strong.

Finally, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give us the benefit of the doubt, the words used in the White Paper, and do something helpful for Surrey and at least to give us 10 years as a cooling-off period while we await the outcome of the consideration of the Foulness project. If he feels unable to do that, I shall have to vote for the Amendment in view of the doubts which are felt in the county part of which I represent.

11.30 a.m.

Mr. Richard Luce (Arundel and Shoreham)

I want briefly to support the views so ably expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern). As a Sussex Member, I thoroughly sym- pathise with and understand the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather). When boundary changes come up, there are inevitably strong feelings, particularly in an area into which there was encroachment in the early 1960s. The strength of feeling in Surrey must be understood, and I think that hon. Members from Sussex understand it.

One of the important reasons for reorganising boundaries is to create greater efficiency in planning and administration. It is on that argument that I believe this change needs to be made. The clear effect of the proximity of Crawley to Gatwick, their close links, which were backed up in the White Paper and by the South-Eastern Regional Planning Council, and the future growth potential of the area south of Crawley seem to be the key factors in planning for this area.

My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham quoted statistics based on the 1966 census. We were told that roughly 50 per cent. of the people who work at Gatwick live in Surrey and the other 50 per cent. in Sussex, of whom 1,640 live in Crawley itself. Clearly there is this vitally important link not only in housing, but in other ancillary services between Gatwick and Crawley.

However, there has been this other discussion about the future expansion of the airport during the 1970s which is very important. I understand the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) that, now that the decision has been taken that there will not be a second runway, we should perhaps reconsider this matter. All the evidence points to a dramatic increase in passenger and aircraft turnover at Gatwick with only one runway during the next 10 years. In fact, the British Airports Authority has already said that it estimates there will be about 5 million passengers this year and that conceivably by 1980 with only one runway there could be about 16 million passengers a year. Therefore, it is clear that there will be a dramatic expansion at the airport over the next 10 years.

My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham explained that the work force at the airport numbers about 8,500, and it is anticipated that it will double in the next 10 years. It is also anticipated that there will be a demand for extra housing for up to 42,000 people.

So we come to the third factor—growth. Which of these areas would be likely to take the largest part of the increase in the population? The arguments have already been ably put. However, it is clear that the South-Eastern Strategic Plan indicates that one of the five main growth areas in the South-East will clearly be south of Crawley in that corridor down to Burgess Hill and Brighton. This is a key factor when considering the planning implications of Gatwick Airport.

If it is true that West Sussex will have to house the majority of those who will be working at the airport in future, then about two-thirds of the work force will be living in Sussex by the end of this decade. This is an important factor.

We then come back to the problem: who should carry the responsibility for Gatwick, a great international airport?

The criteria cannot just be a question of local tradition and sentiment. I suggest it must be based broadly on planning and administrative grounds. For that reason, the argument lies most strongly in favour of placing the airport under the control of West Sussex.

I have listened carefully to some of the arguments put forward by, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and I should like to comment briefly on three points.

First, my hon. Friend stressed that the airport seems to go to the North, because 80 per cent. of passengers who use the airport come from the North. This seems a totally irrelevant argument in deciding who should or should not control the airport. The key factor in deciding who should control the airport should be who provides the supporting services, the work force, the housing and ancillary services.

The second point concerned noise. This is an important argument but it is not just of importance for Surrey; it is equally important for Sussex. Therefore, we should not use this argument as the main criteria for determining who should control the airport.

The third point was that we should wait another 10 years before making any change. That would be absolutely and fundamentally wrong for the reason I have already given: that it is already anticipated there will be a dramatic expansion in passenger and aircraft turnover at the airport, a great demand for housing by the increased population of up to 42,000 in the next 10 years, and that West Sussex will have to carry the can for that.

I do not think that West Sussex can be expected to cope with the consequences, which involve heavy expenditure, of having Gatwick Airport there without controlling the source of the problem, which includes planning control over Gatwick as well as the revenue. That would be manifestly wrong and unjust. Strong representations have been made to me by the local councils in my constituency that that would be wrong and would not be acceptable to the people of Sussex. Therefore, I strongly support the Government in their decision on planning and administrative grounds.

Mr. Michael Grylls (Chertsey)

It is perhaps more in sorrow than in anger that I support the Amendments. I have always been an enthusiastic supporter of the reform of local government. I am glad my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is here, because the Government are to be congratulated on entering into this major reform of the whole of local government in England. It is only Conservative Governments, in the 1963 Act and now in this Bill, who have been brave enough to do this important job. Therefore, to some extent one is sad that we are involved in this problem.

In a major reform of this kind it is inconceivable that there will not be a number of points of proposed change which various people believe are not right. Particularly if change affects a Member's constituency, he would be failing in his duty if he did not raise the matter in the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) brilliantly described in his speech the strong feeling in Surrey that this is a continuation of the erosion process on our borders. Although my constituency is at the opposite end of the county from Gatwick, I have been amazed over these last few months at the strength of feeling which this matter has evoked. It surprised me very much. It seemed almost as if all the cars in my constituency sprouted stickers overnight proclaiming, "Keep Gatwick in Surrey". That vividly brings it home to one.

Surrey suffered under the London Government Act by the removal of 37 per cent. of its population. Surbiton, Merton, Richmond and Kingston-upon-Thames—particularly Kingston-upon-Thames, the very seat of our county government—were summarily taken out of the county. Therefore, this proposal will create a real feeling of annoyance and danger.

This new threat to our boundaries is felt very strongly by the electorate, the responsible local government councils, the parish councils and, perhaps most important of all, the women's institutes who have written to us on every conceivable occasion saying how cross they are about it. There is, as my hon. Friend said, a united feeling against and very strong opposition to this proposal.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in his original White Paper, said that we should not have change for the sake of change; we should have change only if it will make the situation better. Having listened to the debates today, as I have on other occasions when various planning arguments have been rehearsed, I find it difficult to be convinced that there is a sound, unanswerable planning reason for removing Gatwick from Surrey.

The geographical effects will be particularly damaging. If this proposal goes through, in future years the area will be known as the straits of Gatwick; it will be the throttling of a county; Surrey's neck will be wrung just as the neck of a chicken is wrung.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dorking propounded the planning argument. The contrary view was advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern). To be convinced of the rightness of the decision, we must be satisfied that the planning arguments are sound. An ordinary person can listen to respectable people—professional people, particularly—putting opposing views and agree with both sides.

The planning arguments for this amputation are doubtful. I accept that there are some grounds, but they do not convince me. Because I believe in the development of a major organisation such as an international airport, I must look at the strategic regional position. I had some experience of this when I was a member of the Greater County Council, which was a strategic authority responsible for the strategic planning of the whole Greater London area. An airport must fall within a strategic plan. It is difficult to convince people of the proposal merely by saying that it is based on Gatwick's being a southward or an eastward-looking airport.

The argument that a large proportion of the workers live in Crawley or other parts of Sussex is of little importance. A large percentage of my constituents live in Surrey and work in London or in Sussex. One aspect of modern life is that people drive a long way to work. People who have to go to work in the area of another local authority do not believe that something terrible is involved or that they must, for instance, produce a passport.

The Government White Paper touches on the regional aspects of reform but holds the matter in suspense for the Crowther Report. It will become clearer that the regional consideration makes the decision to have this in a tight planning concept rather old fashioned.

The reality is that both counties share the airport. They share the planning, the looking to the future, and the day-today responsibility in joint committees. As far as I know, this works adequately. There is no reason to parcel it up and move it off elsewhere.

It is worth saying on behalf of Surrey County Council that so efficiently has the airport been administered by Surrey—Sussex has taken part in a number of decisions, but under the aegis of Surrey—that many organisations responsible for foreign international airports are sent by the central Government to look at the airport. They would not come to Gatwick if it were a badly-run airport.

A number of administrative arguments are common to large airports. Heathrow is of great interest to my constituents because of the noise problem and also because of the terrible accident at Staines recently, which was dangerously close to my constituency. A few feet would have brought it my side of the river. That terrible accident was dealt with very efficiently by the accident services which came from Surrey, Middlesex, and Greater London.

11.45 a.m.

Heathrow is divided between Greater London and Surrey. As far as I know, its accident services and its administration are perfectly efficient and have not caused any great difficulties.

I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development to suspend judgment on this problem until 1980. He will say that the Government's job is to make decisions, but they must make the right decisions. In this instance there is an overwhelming case for suspending judgment until we have seen the effect of the new airport at Foulness in the early 1980s. I suspect that the development of aviation and airport development will change greatly over the next 10–20years. Such developments as short take-off aircraft will make the over-expansion of Gatwick unnecessary and will greatly transform the situation. Gatwick may even be able to shrink and some of the beautiful surrounding countryside may be put to a different use.

I ask my right hon. Friend not to amputate this part of our county. It would be tragic and painful. For the reasons that my hon. Friends and I have advanced, it would be a wholly unnecessary piece of surgery. I implore the Government to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Andrew Bowden (Brighton, Kemptown)

I ask my hon. Friend the Undersecretary to resist the Amendment, despite the effective and sincere speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair).

I shall concentrate my remarks on the airport. The House may, rightly, ask why I, as the Member for Kemptown—in East Sussex—should have any interest in an airport some miles north of Brighton. I will explain why. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorking made great play of the fact that Gatwick Airport is London-oriented. That is largely true now, but more and more passengers who are flying out of Gatwick are coming from towns such as Brighton and other parts of the South East, I see a dramatic change occurring in the position of Gatwick as an airport in the South East not far in the future.

The new Maplin Sands Airport and Heathrow will together meet 90 per cent. of London's requirements. At the same time, with our entry into the Common Market the pressures upon the South East will grow and grow. Gatwick will become the European airport for the whole of the South East.

Brighton will be dramatically affected by our entry into the European Community, by an increased number of visitors to the town—not only holiday-makers, but those attending major conferences, particularly international conferences, an increasing number of which will be held at Brighton and other South-East resorts.

I see a situation arising in which Governments of whatever political complexion will face increasing pressure to allow Gatwick to continue to expand. At present it may have only one runway. In a few years the whole matter may well have to be reconsidered. Therefore, purely on the argument that Gatwick will alter its whole axis of operation to the South East and to Europe, there is an overwhelming case for the Government acting now and ensuring that Gatwick becomes part of the county of West Sussex.

We know that a large proportion of future growth at Gatwick will have a direct effect on Sussex. At least half the people who work at Gatwick live in Sussex and it is inevitable that that proportion will rapidly increase within the next five or 10 years.

For the sake of Crawley it is vital that planning needs and the organisation of public services should be totally integrated with the same authorities as Gatwick. With the best will in the world, it would not be in the interests of Gatwick or Crawley if they were under the control of different authorities. I hope that the Under-Secretary will resist the Amendment.

Mr. Adley

After 20 hours I intend to make the shortest speech of the night. We must stop thinking about shuffling aircraft noise around and get down to the basic problem of curing it at source. I was brought up in Sussex and I have seen the Crawley and Gatwick area change so much over the years that I cannot help but feel that the Sussex case is a very strong one.

Mr. Speed

I will be brief in answering the debate because many other figures and much of the case I wish to put have been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern). I do not quarrel with any of the figures he gave. I pay a particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair), for the way in which he presented his case not only in the House today but to my colleagues and my hon. Friends over the last few months. He has been the dynamo behind the extremely efficient and effective campaign to ensure that Surrey's case has been constantly before us. Nevertheless I shall have to disappoint him for reasons that have emerged from the debate. I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment.

There have been one or two references about the position of Surrey and the comments of Sir Jack Longland and other people that we need strong counties around London, and we agree with that. But one might almost get the impression that Surrey is moving into the Rutland category. In 1951, excluding areas lost to London, the population of Surrey was 750,000. The population today is a million and it is still expanding very rapidly. The rateable value of Surrey is £59 million and of West Sussex £29 million. The rateable value for Charlwood and Gatwick is about £577,000 so Surrey is not yet on the breadline.

Even with the single runway at Gatwick there is bound to be a dramatic increase in employment and all the supporting services in the area. All the other likely needs for supporting this massive increase in passenger movement and employment are bound to have a substantial effect and are bound to strain the substantial resources in the area. The critical point is that the Redcliffe-Maud Commission said that the area had to be looked at and planned as a whole. I believe that was the view of the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) when we debated the matter in Committee.

Since Redcliffe-Maud said that, the South-East Strategic Plan has been pub- lished and it is quite clear that the growth area has been defined and backed by the Government as Gatwick and the area to the south, not to the north. That is the whole basis of the planning argument when considering the tremendous strains and pressures which will be involved at Crawley with the expansion of employment and the expansion of Gatwick Airport. My hon. Friends who put the case for Surrey so well did not meet that essential point. The Government are not being difficult for the sake of being difficult in coming to this very complicated decision.

Captain W. Elliot

Is my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary suggesting that development to the south will not take place if Gatwick remains in Surrey?

Mr. Speed

I am not suggesting that. My hon. and gallant Friend has varied the question which he put to my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham. If there is to be substantial development, which I think everyone accepts, and if it is to be biased to the south rather than to the north, from every possible point of view it makes sense as Redcliffe-Maud argued, and as the right hon. Member for Deptford and the Government have argued, to have one planning authority. It is even more important in the light of the changes taking place in planning procedures and structure plans and so forth.

When we refer to planning we do not mean an archaic person sitting in a back office drawing up maps. Planning involves housing and commercial and industrial development and all the other things that make life worthwhile. That is why there is so much emphasis upon planning within the Bill and within other Bills going through Parliament.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), made the important point that although Gatwick is called "London Airport, Gatwick", it is not an airport for London only but serves the whole of the South East, and it will undoubtedly have considerable growth potential notwithstanding the developments taking place at Maplin.

I do not wish to be difficult about the villages which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking. My hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said in Committee: If we have to make up our minds about Gatwick, which I think it right that we should, Gatwick should be associated with the nearest major urban area, which is that of Crawley. This leaves what I would regard as a regrettable option, if it were to be exercised, by the people of Horley and Charlwood, that they should be dissociated from the airport in another county. If they felt particularly strongly about being in Surrey, that would be an option for them,"—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 27th January, 1972; c. 1029.] As I understand the situation the people of Horley and Charlwood villages, having been given this option, the people of Horley felt unable to take a decision and the people of Charlwood were not able at the present time to express a view, partly because of the uncertainty about the future boundary of the airport. I received a letter yesterday from Mr. Epson. I am sure he will not mind my explaining the main purport of it. He is the Chairman of the Horley and Charlwood Protest Committee and also, I believe, Chairman of the Charlwood Parish Council. He says that the people of the area share overwhelmingly the wish to stay in Surrey. The second point he makes is that the parishes of Horley and Charlwood are so dominated by and inextricably mixed with the airport that it would be a planning disaster to separate the two. Mr. Epson is obviously speaking on behalf of the Protest Committee and is clearly not speaking on behalf of the individual parish councils.

I do not think that the matter should drag on leaving the option open for ever and a day. That would not be a good thing for the local people or for the sort of conclusions we must reach. If it is helpful, accepting that Charlwood still has an open option, I am prepared to consider representations from Horley within a reasonably short period of time.

Sir G. Sinclair

I am grateful for the undertaking my hon. Friend has given.

It would set a very great difference between the two areas if they did not receive equal options on this case.

12 noon

Mr. Speed

My hon. Friend will understand that although I am not setting a definite time limit, there must be one, for everybody's sake. No doubt those concerned will read the report of this debate.

Many of my hon. Friends have mentioned the suggestion, attractive at first sight, of leaving the whole question for the first review under Clause 50 in 10 to 15 years' time. The Maplin development would then be completed, with aeroplanes flying there and so on. That suggestion, which would merely delay the evil day before taking a decision, putting the planners in the area in an impossible position, was shot down by the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham. If we accept that there is to be considerable development at Gatwick, and if it is to be biased to the south, we cannot put the local authorities in the area in the position of having the matter in deep freeze for another 10 or 15 years. Both in principle and practice that would not be good.

It is getting very late. I have tried to sum up the overwhelming planning arguments. They are not just bureaucratic bumbledom. It is not that we are not conscious of the real human feelings of the people living in the area, which were well expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking and others of my hon. Friends from Surrey. At the end of the day, for the sake both of the people living in the area and of the massive developments in an important growth area in the South-East, I must advise the House to reject the Amendments.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 24, Noes 42.

Division No. 279.]	AYES	[12.1 p.m.
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)	Silverman, Julius
Booth, Albert	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Spearing, Nigel
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia	Trew, Peter
Dalyoll, Tam	Hunt, John	Wellbeloved, James
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	Whitlock, William
Dormand, J. D.	Moate, Roger
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Parker, John (Dagenham)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
English, Michael	Perry, Ernest G.	Sir George Sinclair and
Freeson, Reginald	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)	Mr. Carol Mather.
Grylls, Michael
NOES
Adley, Robert	Gray, Hamish	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Atkins, Humphrey	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Hawkins, Paul	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Heseltine, Michael	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Bowden, Andrew	Higgins, Terence L.	Speed, Keith
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Hordern, Peter	Spence, John
Chataway, Rt. Hn, Christopher	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Chichester-Clark, R.	Jopling, Michael	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Churchill, W. S.	Kershaw, Anthony	Waddington, David
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Lane, David	Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Cooke, Robert	Langford-Holt, Sir John	Wilkinson, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)	Luce, R. N.
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)	Murton, Oscar	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Fookes, Miss Janet	Neave, Airey	Mr. John Stradling Thomas and
Fortescue, Tim	Normanton, Tom	Mr. Marcus Fox.
Goodhew, Victor

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 102, in page 203, leave out lines 5 to 19.

Nos. 575, in line 40 after '1958', insert 'or section 6 of the 1963 Act'.

No. 1043, in page 204, line 1, leave out from 'Brook' to end of line 3 and insert: 'to the end of the Reservoir Dam, thence to Blackburn Road north of Moss Cottages and thence north-eastwards to the ward boundary'.

No. 105, in line 3, at end insert: '3A. The boundary in the parish of Harraton referred to in Part 1 of this Schedule shall be such as the Secretary of State may by order determine on or near the general line of the link road C8 between Western Highway and Vigo Lane'.

No. 911, in line 3, at end insert: '3AB. The boundary dividing the borough of Whitley Bay referred to in Part I of this Schedule shall be such as the Secretary of State may by order determine on or near the general line of the access road to Hartley West Farm, Hartley Lane, West End, the northern boundaries of Ordnance Survey parcels 0057, 2657 and 4156 and then northeastwards to the boundary of the borough'.

No. 1023, in line 3, at end insert: '3AA. The boundary dividing the Heap Bridge ward of the borough of Heywood referred to in Part I of this Schedule shall be such as the Secretary of State may by order determine on or near the general line of the western boundaries of Ordnance Survey parcels 1605, 1800, 2488, 2778, 2769 and 3557, the northern side of Bury Old Road, Moss Hall Road to Brook Cottage and thence westwards to the boundary of the borough'.

No. 1039, in line 17, at end insert— '5A. The boundary dividing the Bashley ward of the borough of Lymington referred to in Part II of this Schedule shall be such as the Secretary of State may by order determine on or near the general line of the boundary of the perambulation of the New Forest. 5B. The boundary dividing the parish of Christchurch East, referred to in Part II of this Schedule shall be such as the Secretary of State may by order determine on or near the general line of the boundary of the perambulation of the New Forest. 5C. The boundary dividing the parish of Herringfleet referred to in Part II of this Schedule shall be such as the Secretary of State may by order determine on or near the general line of Blocka Lane, Blocka Road, Herringfleet Road, the southern boundaries of Ordnance Survey parcels 105B, 80, 77 and 78, and thence to the parish boundary. 5D. The boundary dividing the parish of Corton referred to in Part II of this Schedule shall be such as the Secretary of State may by order determine on or near the general line of an extension eastwards of the southern boundary of the parish of Hopton-on-Sea'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

12.15 p.m.

Mr. Speed

I beg to move Amendment No. 113, in page 204, line 25, at end insert— (b) the part of the existing parish of Altcar in Merseyside. This is a small but most important Amendment. The effect of it is that part of the existing parish of Altcar in Mersey-side shall become a separate parish instead of being merged with the urban area. The Amendment does not affect the county boundary and it is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 114, in page 204, line 27, leave out 'Tyne-side' and insert' Tyne and Wear'.

No. 117, in line 33, at end insert— (h) the part of the existing parish of Christ-church East in Dorset.

No. 119, in line 34, at end insert— (i) the part of the existing parish of Corton in Suffolk.

No. 120, in line 37, at end insert— (l) the part of the existing parish of Herringfleet in Suffolk.

No. 128, in page 205, line 8, at end insert— (3) The part of the existing parish of Christ-church East in Hampshire shall be added to the parish of Burley. (4) The part of the existing parish of Corton in Norfolk shall be added to the parish of Hopton-on-Sea.

No. 129, in line 10, at end insert— (4) The part of the existing parish of Herringfleet in Norfolk shall be added to the parish of Fritton.

No. 132, in line 15, leave out paragraph 3 and insert— 3. The parts of the existing parishes of Birtley, Harraton and South Biddick in district (e) in Tyne and Wear shall cease to be in any parish.

No. 133, in line 21, at end add—

1. PART V
cc1141-2
1. CONSTITUTION OF PARISHES BY REFERENCE TO EXISTING URBAN DISTRICT AND BOROUGH BOUNDARIES 257 words
c1142
2. ADJOURNMENT 12 words
cc1142-50
2. CARAVAN SITE (HAINAULT LODGE) 2,664 words