§ 3.44 p.m.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I trust this may be a convenient moment for me to repeat a statement which my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is now making in another place. This is the statement:
"The House will recall that just over a year ago there was presented to Parliament the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London. I should like to take this opportunity publicly to acknowledge the Government's indebtedness to Sir Edwin Herbert and his colleagues, not only for the exhaustive study which they gave to an exceedingly complicated subject, but also for the clarity and cogency of their Report.
"The broad lines of the Commission's proposals were twofold. They recommended that boroughs in the Greater London Area should be the primary units of local government and should perform all functions except those which can be effectively performed only over the wider area of Greater London. For this purpose the Greater London area should be divided into boroughs substantially fewer than the existing boroughs and districts.
"Secondly, the Commission proposed the establishment of a new, directly elected body to be responsible for those services which need to be administered over the whole of Greater London, notably planning, traffic and main roads.
"Having considered the Royal Commission's Report and the comments made on it by local authorities and other bodies, the Government have decided to accept all save one of the main features of the local government structure proposed by the Commission. They do not think that the future administration of the education service should be divided between the proposed Greater London Council and the boroughs. They consider instead that, outside a central area, education should be wholly in the hands of the borough councils; 1147 within a central area still to be defined there should be one education authority.
"The Government are inclined to the view that, bearing in mind the range of services for which they will be responsible, the new boroughs should be larger than the Commission had in mind. They will now proceed to consult local authorities on many detailed matters including the future pattern of the boroughs and the definition of the Greater London Area.
"As honourable Members will see from the White Paper which is now available in the Vote Office"—
of course, in your Lordships' House it will be available in the Printed Paper Office—
"it is the Government's aim to introduce the necessary legislation in time to enable the changes to operate from April, 1965."
§ 3.49 p.m.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, forgive me if I am a little expansive, but I will promise not to be as expansive as the noble Lord, Lord Mills, was yesterday. This statement is really more preposterous than was the Report of the Royal Commission. That was bad enough; this is worse. The Government are going from foolishness to foolishness; they are incapable of taking care of themselves. Is the noble Earl aware that the scheme of the Royal Commission, let alone this, was opposed by the Conservative county councils surrounding the County of London; that it has been opposed by a special democratic conference of the London Labour Party; that it has been opposed by the regional councils of the Labour Party around London; that it was indeed one of the major issues of the London County Council election this year, featured by both the Conservative and the Labour Parties, and that London declared against the Report? Is he also aware that Her Majesty's Government have no mandate whatever to proceed with a policy of this sort? Is he aware, also, that the major motive of the Government and the Minister—he is a new Minister who cannot have studied it—and I think probably the Conservative chairman of the Royal 1148 Commission on Local Government in Greater London himself, is gerrymandering, to abolish the London County Council and to substitute a vast Greater London Authority where there is a reasonable chance of electing and preserving a Tory majority, because they have failed to get a Conservative majority in London since 1934?
What are the Government proposing to do with regard to central London education? I gather it will cover a population of about 2 million, which means cutting the County of London's education system in half. What is this central London education authority to be—elected, indirectly elected, or what? Will the noble Earl tell us that? How are the boroughs going to carry the whole cost of education on their shoulders without financial trouble? I could go on with a whole lot of questions but I will not go on as the noble Lord, Lord Mills, did, because that would be wrong. But I put it to the noble Earl that this is a mad thing to do, even from the point of view of the management of the Government's own legislative programme. This would presumably have to be carried in the last Session of a Parliament. Why should they walk into this political trouble, not only with us but with Conservative county councils around the County of London? My Lords, the Government is mad.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, with some of the propositions which the noble Lord has just advanced I am hardly entirely in agreement. I should just like to say that the White Paper, which sets out pretty fully the Government's main approach to this admittedly extremely complex problem, has only just been made available to your Lordships, and I really feel that until your Lordships have read, marked and inwardly digested that White Paper you would probably not wish to embark on a debate on this issue which raises wide matters of principle. Therefore, I should prefer myself not to answer all the points which the noble Lord has just made, in slightly intemperate language. But I would give him this answer: he seemed to assume, for some good reason, that my Minister had not had time to consider and study this matter. I can assure him that he is quite wrong.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, we do not want to prolong the discussion on a statement. All I can say is that I most heartily support what Lord Morrison of Lambeth has said on all the counts he has mentioned. It is an extraordinary position, and, whilst I agree that we should have further study of the White Paper, I must warn the Leader of the House that we shall take the earliest opportunity thereafter to have it properly debated.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, is the noble Earl aware that many of us feel that the present system of government in London is capable of improvement? Whether this is the right means or not we shall decide when we have considered the details. Further, could he inform the House when it is intended to present the necessary legislation to Parliament?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I am aware that not everyone in these Islands feels that the present structure of London's government is ideal for the conditions of the twentieth century. As regards legislation, I am afraid I am not in a position to state precisely when a Bill will be introduced—for one reason, I do not think that constitutional proprieties would allow me to do so. But I should like to say that, clearly on matters as complex as this, following this White Paper there must be full consultation with the local authorities concerned. That will be starting straight away, but the Government's considered view is that, in the interests of good local government and in the interests of London, it would be right to press ahead with the changes which have now been announced.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, if it is the desire of the noble Earl and the Government to get into further trouble in addition to the trouble that they are already in, would he say whether the Government propose to proceed also to the cutting up of the cities of I3irmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Glasgow, for surely they must do the same everywhere in the great centres of conurbation as they are proposing to do with London?
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHI did not ask the Leader of the House; I asked the noble Earl.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, it is customary in this House that questions should be addressed to the Government as a whole. I know that the noble Lord opposite feels strongly about this matter, and I realise that he has spoken in heat, but it is more desirable, I think, to use Government statements for the purpose of elucidation than for the purpose of entering into heated debates. If the noble Lord wishes to debate this matter, as he certainly is entitled to do, I think we should put ourselves in order by having a proper discussion properly arranged.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMay I express my—
§ EARL WINTERTONMy Lords, are we not allowed to speak on this side of the House?
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHYes, in a minute. In the first place, may I express my sympathy with the Parliamentary Secretary for what I think is utterly unjustifiable—that the Leader of the House thinks he is not competent to reply.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, I should like to say that I consider that my noble friend has performed his task most competently.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHThen why did you want to interrupt him?
§ EARL WINTERTONMy Lords, may I ask what is, I hope, an uncontroversial question and one which no doubt the Government have in mind? We are probably now half-way through this Parliament. If this most controversial question, which will take a long time to get through another place and probably this House, is going to be put through, it would have to be brought in the next year. I gather my noble friend has that in mind.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, the Government will no doubt note the observation of my noble friend. I would assure the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, that London in this respect has been looked at entirely on its own merits. Different problems will arise in different places.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHYours is a Party political problem.
§ LORD BOOTHBYMy Lords, in view of a certain amount of heat that has been engendered, may I ask the Government whether, after we have had time to consider the White Paper and while the discussions with the local authorities are proceeding, facilities will be given for a comprehensive debate in this House? Is that all right?
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMIf the usual procedure is adopted for arranging for a debate to take place.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I have already indicated that we shall ask for a debate to take place.