HL Deb 29 June 1922 vol 51 cc100-3

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD)

My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, stated in reply to Lord Strachie's Question last week, the Government do not intend to proceed with the Second Reading of this Bill in the absence of an agreement between the parties concerned. No agreement has been reached, and as there is no prospect of any agreement being reached, the Government will now withdraw this Bill. I shall not, therefore, make the Motion for the Second Reading.

THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH had given Notice that on the Motion for the Second Reading he would move to leave out "now" and to add at the end of the Motion "this day six months." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Bill is one in which I have taken a considerable interest, and I think I owe the House an apology for the number of alarums and excursions which have taken place in connection with it. I should like to explain why it is that it is impossible for the County of Staffordshire to agree to the Bill. All this inconvenience was entirely due to the extraordinary action of the agents of the Bill. The Bill was down for consideration on the Second Tuesday before Whitsuntide. The agents of the Bill, by some means, got it postponed and there was no discussion. I understand that the reason why they thought that there was a possibility of an arrangement being made was to be found in the change in the form of my opposing Amendment. Originally, I gave Notice to move that it was not expedient for Parliament to consider any further borough extension Bill until a Royal Commission had reported on the whole question. That, I take it, is the view which is now adopted by the Minister at the head of the Department.

THE Earl OF CRAWFORD

I cannot say that.

THE Earl OF DARTMOUTH

He said so in another place a few days ago. However, that does not, for the moment, arise. But whether I moved the original Amendment or the altered Amendment, which was merely for the rejection of the Bill on the Second Reading, the position of Wolverhampton would be exactly the same. Therefore, although I had altered the form of my Amendment there was no reason to assume that any different view would be taken by the Staffordshire County Council.

This question is really a much wider one than the passing or the rejection of any individual Bill. It raises a great principle which I think the County Councils' Association has long been desiring to bring to a head—namely, the manner in which the great municipal bodies look upon the counties as raw material on which they can work. There is no doubt that if this is carried on to any great extent the whole question of county government will be very seriously affected. In the case of Wolverhampton, it is supposed that we are asked to agree because three of the areas concerned have withdrawn their opposition. I would ask your Lordships to remember that, in the first instance all those concerned were represented by counsel and opposed as strongly as they could. In the interval which has elapsed three of them have withdrawn their opposition, and the county council was asked to agree that these three districts he included in the Bill.

I do not know what happened with regard to two of them, Heath Town and Cannock, but I do know what happened in Wednes-field, which is one of the principal areas concerned. The council sent round a polling paper to the ratepayers in the area of the council intimating that they would be guided by the poll. They went on to show the advantages that would be obtained by withdrawing their opposition and pointed out that were the opposition continued—already an 8d. rate had been paid for the inquiry—they would have to pay a similar amount again for the continuance of the opposition. I think it is essential in these times that the ratepayers should be protected as far as they can be. When the poll took place 982 of the voters supported the continuance of the opposition to the Wolverhampton scheme against 791 for the withdraws of it. On these grounds I think we, the county council, are perfectly justified ii refusing to come to any agreement, because most certainly in the case of one local authority concerned the majority of the ratepayers were against incorporation, am glad that the Bill has been withdrawn.

I think the noble Earl, Lord Crawford rather questioned what I said about the Ministry's views on the general question I should like to read what was said in the House of Commons: In the interval we shall call a halt, and should like to take advantage of this occasion t give notice so far as the Ministry is concerned that no contentious proposal for the extension c boroughs and the creation of by county borough will be entertained by the Ministry in the mean time. That, I think, justifies the remark that made that my original proposal was very much in agreement with what the Minister has now undertaken.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

My Lords I thought that in my noble friend's firs statement he had construed the words "ii the meantime" as meaning until the date when a Royal Commission, if appointed shall have reported. There is only that distinction.

THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH

But I not that so? That was how I read it.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

Well, make that explanation. I now ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Bill.

VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL

My Lords, I do not desire to say anything about the Wolverhampton Bill, but wish to press upon the Government that this question of the extension of city boundaries into county districts has reached a point now which makes it impossible for it to be dealt with adequately and justly merely on local considerations. My noble friend, Lord Dartmouth, has pointed out the extraordinary difficulty that these small local authorities have in presenting their opposition. If you oppose a Bill before a Committee in either House it is an extremely expensive operation, and it is practically impossible for these local authorities, even if they unite, which is very difficult for them to do, because the circumstances vary and sometimes differ altogether. But even if they unite the burden of the cost is intolerable.

In these times, when, as my noble friend says, economy is essential, when the burden of Imperial taxation and local rates is becoming almost intolerable, I submit to your Lordships, with confidence, that the Government ought to consider whether the time has not come when they should inform these great cities and towns that they will not accede to their proposals. We have passed through a complete change of conditions in our rural and urban life. It has been said for a very long time that the population of certain towns require accommodation outside, but that can be got in hamlets and places around. The means of communication by rail, by motor vehicles, and so on, are now so good that a man who has his business in a town can easily live a little way out in the country. Parliament has thrown upon the counties the entire responsibility for county government. The county councils have incurred heavy liabilities in order to improve local government, and if you are going to take from these councils some of their most valuable rateable property, I venture to say you will have to reconsider your whole scheme of local government, not only from the rural but from the urban point of view. I am glad that the Bill is being withdrawn, and I hope that the Government will reconsider the whole question and see whether it is not possible to lay down certain principles which will do justice to our rural areas.

Order of the Day discharged, and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.