BOROUGH COUNCILLORS (ALTERATION OF NUMBER) BILL. (Hansard, 10 March 1925)

§ LORD DESBOROUGH
My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. It has already, I think, passed your Lordships' House without amendment, and I will save your Lordships' time by-saying very few words about it. This Bill came up first in 1923. It passed this House and went on to another place, but the time was too short to get it passed through all its stages. It has now already passed the House of Commons, and although on Clause 2 there will have to be a slight alteration in consequence of an undertaking already given in another place, I think you will not wish me to say very much about the Bill. The object of the measure is to save both money and time, to assimilate the law with regard to any increase which may be necessary in the number of councillors in a borough, and to bring it under the same process as now applies with regard to any alterations in the boundaries of wards. It simply applies existing procedure in place 445 of recourse to Parliament, and I do not think, as your Lordships have already passed the Bill through all its stages, that it is necessary for me to say more in order to ask you to accord it a Second Reading.

§ LORD JESSEL
My Lords, in the absence of Lord Peel, who uttered a protest from the Benches opposite last year. I should like to ask the Government whether they arc able to give the same assurance as was given on behalf of the late Government when the Bill was brought in last year. The point, very shortly, is this: that there is a difference between the procedure outside London and inside London in the way in which the alteration is made. It will be noticed that the alteration of numbers can only be made in the country on the petition of the borough councils, whereas in London the Home Secretary, without having received any petition or even consulted with the borough councils, may make the necessary alteration on his own account. I understand that there are some difficulties, because of the alteration of wards, in making the position the same for London as for the rest of the country. On the other hand, it is felt by a great many people in London that the local authorities should be consulted in an important matter of this kind. On behalf of those for whom I speak I would say that we shall be quite content on receiving from the Government the same assurance as was given by the representative of the late Government last year.

§ LORD DESBOROUGH
I imagine my noble friend is alluding to Clause 2 of the Bill, which gives the Secretary of State the power of making the alteration practically himself. I may say that this Bill is warmly supported both by the Association of Municipal Corporations and by the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee. As regards the assurance which my noble friend asks me to give, I think I shall be quite safe in giving it because it was given before in this place.

§ EARL DE LA WARR
My Lords, this is the third time that this Bill has come before this House. It is very much a matter of form and procedure, and is intended 446 to facilitate the operation of what is largely a local concern. I think the noble Lord is pretty safe in giving the assurance which was given last year as I see it was on very vague and general lines. As he has said, the agreement of the County Councils Association and the Municipal Boroughs Association has been obtained. From this side of the House I may say that we hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading and that it will be given full facilities in another place.

§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM
My Lords, I shall have an Amendment to move on this Bill in the Committee stage. Perhaps I need not go into the merits of it now, because I understand that in smother place the Government would have accepted it had it been moved. Owing to an error it was not moved, and I propose to move it—it is to Clause 1—when we go into Committee.