LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION REGULATIONS, 1958 (Hansard, 11 December 1958)

EARL BATHURST
My Lords, I beg to move that these regulations be approved. At first sight, these regulations, as with all regulations, may seem to be formidable, but I can assure your Lordships that this is not so. In another place on Tuesday last my right honourable friend's detailed and clear explanation was received with favour on both sides of the House. Many noble Lords will be experienced in local government affairs and will know that the conditions in many areas of the country are by no means satisfactory for effective and convenient local government to be carried on. The problem of county boundaries, borough boundaries and special areas has long been recognised, and in 1945 a permanent Boundary Commission was set up in an effort to resolve these difficulties. They were to have reported direct to Parliament, but this proved to be not practicable.
The 1958 Act sets up two separate Commissions, one for England and one for Wales—that is, for England excluding the Greater London Area, which is the subject of a separate Commission. The two Commissions will examine and consider the special review areas which have been laid down in the 1958 Act, and will consider the ordinary review areas which they themselves will designate, as they see fit. The findings and recommendations for each review area will be reported by the Commissions to the Minister. Full local discussion and consultation will have taken place in those areas before the Commission's Report reaches the Minister. Before the Minister makes his decision and his order, the Commission's Report will have been publicly circulated in the review area, and objections can be raised before a public inquiry. The Minister will then make his order giving effect to the Com- 234 mission's proposals, with or without any amendments, and they must be presented with the Report to both Houses of Parliament. Any order becomes effective only after the assent of both Houses.
The Commission for England has already been appointed under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Hancock. By the end of this month the Commission hope to be able to announce their programme for the review of one of the special review areas (which are, of course, the five conurbations in England). If any of your Lordships is able to supply me with a better word than "conurbation", I make the solemn promise that I will never use that word in your Lordships' House again. They also have to divide the rest of England into ordinary review areas, which will be approximately the size of two or more geographical counties, as they see fit.
The Commission's problems, your Lordships will realise, are not light ones: in fact, I think they are rather similar to those facing a serious racegoer who has been commissioned by a sporting relative to select a winner in a particular race. The Commissions will have to assess the chances of a great many runners, and out of a big field they will know that only one horse will win the race. As on all racecourses, a great deal of free advice no doubt will be readily given, and it may be that that advice will not necessarily emanate from the stables. It is an unwise punter who pays no attention to the form book. It is for those reasons that my right honourable friend has provided these regulations: that they should be a guide and a yardstick to the Commissions in their deliberations. The Commissions would be rash to pay no attention to these regulations, but nevertheless good local stable information, should the Commissions gain it, may well turn up the result for them for the day.
I would draw your Lordships' attention to Regulation No. 7, which states the nine factors which are generally agreed to be the criteria for reviewing effective and efficient local government. I should also like to draw your Lordships' attention to Regulation No. 11, which warns the Commission to have due regard to the development plan and to the availability of a planning consent, which may or may not 235 exist when they are dealing with the controversial problem of incorporation of part of a county area within a possible new county borough boundary.
These regulations have the broad agreement, in principle, of the local authority associations, and were approved on both sides when my right honourable friend brought them to the notice of another place. Objections are safeguarded by the new arrangement for public inquiries. The resulting orders for each review area must receive the assent of both Houses of Parliament before they can take effect. I commend these regulations to your Lordships and I beg to move.

§ LORD LATHAM
My Lords, the noble Earl has submitted these regulations in an attractive form and with some happy, if not quite correct, allusions to the disposition of the Minister of Housing and Local Government towards the racecourse, gambling and bookmaking. I must say that my rather long association with the Minister of Housing and Local Government never led me to believe that he possessed those attractive inclinations.
As the noble Earl has said, these are regulations made under the Local Government Act of this year. Your Lordships will recall that we on this side opposed that Bill. We took the view that it was misconceived, and that in any case it was inadequate in its structure and in its proposals to deal in a proper and necessary way with the reorganisation in some fundamental respects of local government. However, the Bill became an Act. The Government, as it were, abdicated their functions of resolving this long outstanding and difficult problem by passing it on to Commissions, of which there are to be three—a Royal Commission, which is already sitting and in action concerning Greater London; one for England, which has been appointed, and one for Wales, which I believe is likely shortly to be appointed.
These regulations, notwithstanding what the noble Earl has said, are formiblable. They are fairly detailed and 236 fairly comprehensive. In short, they are a kind of instruction to the Commissions on how to do their job, and the application of some of the desiderata will, I am quite sure from my own experience of local government, lead to quite a number of "headaches" for the members of the Commissions. Indeed, it seems to me that moving about intellectually amidst this maze of factors and considerations may well become a hazardous occupation for the Commission.
The noble Earl referred to Regulation No. 7, with its nine factors, some of them contradictory, some of them conflicting, some related, and others unrelated. I can imagine the kind of meeting and proceedings at the meeting which will go on when the Commission is seeking to determine what are the wishes of the inhabitants in any particular local government area, or what the views of the Commission may be when those responsible for the administration of a local authority district take the view that its administration is excellent, first-class—"no changes needed here, plenty of changes needed elsewhere, but not with us." Local government is a complicated matter, as members of the Commissions will no doubt realise very shortly.
There is, however, one point that I should like to raise which is of importance. The noble Earl made reference to the Local Government Boundary Commission which was appointed in 1945. That Commission had terms of reference not dissimilar from some of the references contained in the Local Government Act. It, too, was the recipient of directives or regulations, although not quite so comprehensive and detailed as those on the Paper this afternoon. But the Boundary Commission had the right—and, indeed, was required—to present its Report to Parliament, whereas the Commissions appointed, or intended to be appointed, under the Act of 1958 are required to submit their Reports to the Minister; and the Minister, when he makes an order is required to submit the Report to Parliament. But, so far as I can see (if there is any provision I should be glad if the noble Earl would indicate where it is to be found), there is no provision in the Act of 1958, whether in Section 23 or elsewhere, which requires the Minister to make an order; and if the Minister does not make an order then the Report of the Commission is not 237 brought before Parliament. It may be for the very reason that the Minister does not propose to make an order that the Report which, presumably, he declines to adopt should be made available to Parliament, and Parliament should have some knowledge of its contents.
In my submission, this deficiency is the more significant if one refers to the last regulation on the Paper—namely, Regulation 22, which says: Before submitting their report on their review of any area in relation to which the Minister has not given any direction under subsection (2) or subsection (3) of section 22 of the Act requiring observations, or a separate report, on any specified matter, the Commission shall inquire whether the Minister proposes to give any such direction, and the Minister shall give any direction he desires to give within four weeks of such inquiry. I should like to ask the noble Earl: Are the required observations of the Minister to be available to Parliament? Is the separate report which the Minister can call for under Regulation 22 to be available to Parliament? Is Parliament to know of the directions which the Minister, under this regulation, issues to the Commissioners in connection with any particular review area? The whole thing is rather disturbing; Parliament may be denied the information which it should have upon the reorganisation and tidying-up of local government as the result of the surveys of these Commissions. As the noble Earl will know, the Minister can vary the Report of a Commission. The Minister can modify the directions and [he regulations; and all that can be done without Parliament being informed at all—unless the Minister makes an order. If the Minister does not make an order, as I see it, there is no obligation on him to submit the Reports of the Commissioners to Parliament.
Moreover, whilst one is encouraged to know, as indeed one expected, that the Minister has discussed these regulations with the local authority associations—and. I believe, by and large, has got their acceptance of them—there is no indication that in regard to any further directions which the Minister may issue under Regulation 22 he will consult with the local authorities. I agree that it may well be that some of the directives which he issues relate to particular single individual 238 local authorities; and in such cases there would be no point in discussing the matter with the local authority associations. Nevertheless, I should think that most of the directions issued, under Regulation 22 or otherwise, will be of a general character, and it would be reassuring to know. if that be the case, that with the proceedings of these Commissioners, the Minister will do what he has done before he settled and finally submitted the regulations which are now before your Lordships' House, namely, consult the local authorities.
Apart from those one or two rather general observations, I would merely add this comment. I am sure that whatever view we may take as to the proposals in the Act, we should all like to wish the Commissioners the best of luck in what will prove, as they will find, a pretty arduous task. It is an unhappy circumstance that in 1958 we should not have proposals which would have achieved a thoroughgoing, properly balanced reorganisation of local government, and the most that we can hope for from the work of the Commissioners, however devoted it may be, is, I suppose, that there will be some reasonable tidying-up of local government in this country. We on these Benches shall not, of course, oppose the passage of the regulations.

EARL BATHURST
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord opposite for his kind remarks with regard to these regulations, knowing full well how the noble Lord feels with regard to the 1958 Act. I want to thank him for his kind remarks especially with regard to the two Commissions which will shortly be sitting and, of course, the Royal Commission which is already sitting. With regard to the question which he raised about the possibility of debating in Parliament the Report and the order, I would say that if the Minister makes an order then of course a Report must have been made, and that Report is bound to come before Parliament. If, however, for one reason or another, the Minister decides not to make an order, then the conditions in that particular review area will stay exactly as they are and there will be no change.

§ LORD LATHAM
And nobody will know why.

EARL BATHURST
There will have been public inquiries over the objections which will have made it impossible, presumably, for an order to be made, and therefore all reasons will no doubt be clearly known. There is, therefore, no reason why a Report should necessarily be brought before Parliament if no order is made. There is again no reason why a question with regard to the Report should not be asked in the normal way in either House. I think that that has really answered the two points that the noble Lord brought forward, and again I know your Lordships will join me in wishing good luck and Godspeed to these Commissions in the most difficult task they have before them. I beg to move.