HL Deb 24 June 1963 vol 251 cc2-21

2.37 p.m.

Report of Amendments received (according to Order).

Clause 1 [London boroughs]:

THE EARL OF LUCAN moved, in subsection (4), to omit all words after "section". The noble Earl said: My Lords, this first Amendment has been put down by my noble friends because we were not satisfied with the attitude to this particular matter that was shown by the Government on the Committee stage. We were not at all satisfied that the rigidity in the Bill, and in the attitude of Ministers, is one that should be allowed to prevail in the organisation of Greater Landon in the future. We think it is wrong that the organisation of councils, of these units of local government, should be set up without, apparently, any relationship to the size of the electorate. This point of view was put pretty plainly from our Benches on the Committee stage, but I make no apology for repeating what I said before: it is the essence of good local government that the elected councillors should be in close touch with their electors.

That view was, in fact, only repeating what the Royal Commission said in their Report, and I would remind your Lordships that on page 62, paragraph 234, of their Report the Royal Commission state, as the first of the activities expected of a councillor, that He must know his people, those who have elected him, their needs, desires and fears. They go on to say that, of course, he represents not only those who voted for him but those who voted against. He represents all those in the unit by which he was elected. He must know their needs, desires and fears. This means that there is a strict physical limit to the size of the area which can be represented by one councillor.

Various factors come into it; not only the number of electors, but the size of the area, the ease of communication within it and, in fact, the extent to which the area is a homogeneous community of its own. He must know about housing conditions, schools and education facilities, and the arrangements for the welfare of children. He has to be accessible to his electors. They must be able to go to see him about anything that worries them. They may want to complain about the hours of opening of the public baths or the public libraries. They may be worried about road safety and want the councillor to represent their interests in protecting them against the traffic. When they get to know about development plans, they must be able to go to him if they think their interests are going to suffer. The councillor, must have an intimate knowledge not only of the people, but, if he is to give proper judgment to any plans for development, of the buildings, of the bricks and mortar, and the roads within the area. All that shows that the size of the area to be represented by every councillor must be adjusted to the extent to which he can make himself acquainted with the people and the physical conditions in the area.

We maintain that the present proposals take no account of the size of the area. In fact, in looking over what was said on Committee stage, I think my noble friend Lord Walston put his finger on it as well as anybody when he said that the present proposals seem to have been framed, not from the point of view of democratic representation of the electors, but for the administrative convenience of those who have to run the local authority.

The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, when replying to our speeches on Committee stage, complained that we had accused Ministers of taking no account, in their Second Reading speeches, of the human side of local government. I have read those speeches again, and, although the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, certainly referred to the personal services—the local government services more particularly affecting people—it was always from the point of view of the administrator, of the efficiency of the service, and there was hardly any evidence that Ministers were looking at the problem from the point of view of the individual elector. There is nothing more important, if we are to keep local government healthy and in good condition, and at the same time allow it to keep pace with modern developments, than to put oneself in the place of the citizen who wants the help of his councillor in airing a grievance, or whatever it may be.

The comparisons with county boroughs, which the noble Lord used in his speech, are not, to my mind, relevant to the problem. It is not comparing like with like to compare a unit of a quarter of a million citizens in the Midlands—an ancient city like Nottingham or Leicester; or Cardiff, or any other such unit—with a part of London. Their whole history and traditions are different. Those big cities have a long history of their own. They are homogeneous. In London, these divisions are bound to be artificial—indeed, the new amalgamations of boroughs are even more artificial, probably, than the older metropolitan boroughs, urban districts and boroughs.

Finally, I must acknowledge that the Government have, in accordance with the request made by my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, given us the figures for comparison; the figures of the London boroughs as they will be, the number of electors and the number of electors per councillor. We are grateful for that information: it is illuminating. I think I should say that the reason why my figures differed from those of the noble Lord was that I was using the 1960 register and he was using the 1963 register. That brings out a not uninteresting point, which is that nearly all the inner London boroughs, the metropolitan boroughs, have lost an appreciable number of voters over the last three years, so that the total electorate of the inner London boroughs is declining. That surely indicates the probability—I will not say more, because I have no evidence on the subject—that the outer London boroughs are increasing their electorate. In other words, the electorate is not static; and that emphasises our point that the scheme must be flexible. The exact figures do not matter: the point is that the principle of local government demands that the size of the council shall be flexible, and for that reason we have moved to delete the part of the subsection which enforces the maximum figure of 60. My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 20, leave out from ("section") to the end of line 23.—(The Earl of Lucan.)

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, in supporting my noble friend, may I first say to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, since we had some dispute upon figures on the Committee stage, that we were, in fact, speaking with different figures before us. In my case, I said that I was dealing with electors, but in fact I was dealing with population. The fact that my figures showed a much higher comparison as between a councillor and population does not in any way reduce my argument. In fact, it emphasises the case, because the size of the population dictates the type and size of service that has to be provided by the council—the schools, the hospitals and all the other things that make up local government. As I understand it from the Government, they feel that 60 is about the right number of councillors for these new boroughs in London. I think we shall agree with the Government that we do not wish to see local authorities with too small a number of councillors—so small that a councillor cannot give proper service. And we must remember that it is not only in administration that a councillor is useful: perhaps his most important function is that of being freely available to see the men and women of his particular district. Therefore, we should not wish to see so small a number that contact would be reduced nor, on the other hand, should we wish to see too large a number of councillors which would make the council unwieldy and perhaps not give councillors the opportunity to devote time and energy to their duties—the individual councillor may feel slightly frustrated because the duties are spread too thinly over the number of councillors. We should not disagree with the Minister if he said that 60 was perhaps the right number, but I am quite sure that the Minister will not get up this afternoon and say that 60 is always the right figure. He will recognise that throughout the country there are variations.

If the noble Lord would again look at the figures from outside London that he produced, he will see that in the case of Nottingham there are 51 councillors, giving an average number of 4,057 electors per councillor; in the case of Sunderland they have about the same number of councillors, 54, with an average of 2,292 electors per councillor. One could go right through the lists and see that there is a considerable variation between the different authorities, not only in the numbers of electors and population, but in the number of councillors whom the local authority have chosen—and I would stress the word "chosen"—with the approval of the Minister, to represent the electorate. In the case of Stoke, in order to obtain an average of 2,500, they have a council of 72. I would not wish to say that that was too many; but obviously the Government, in their mind of today, would regard that number as too high; but that situation has arisen after the Stoke authority had approached a particular Minister, made a case, and the Minister had approved of it.

This is the first point that I wish to put to the House this afternoon. We are treating these new London boroughs quite differently from any of the other local authorities in the rest of the country. We have heard time and again from noble Lords opposite, when we put a particular problem of London before the House, that we must not treat this authority any differently from authorities in the rest of the country. I think it is correct to say that, apart from the present inner London boroughs, there is no other local authority, he it parish council, rural district council, county or I borough council, that is limited by Statute as to the number of councillors that should be on that particular authority; and I think the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, will agree with me on that point.

Why do the Government wish to see this figure written into the Bill? I can only believe that this is in the spirit of 1963. If the Government make the case that we must treat these local authorities in a similar manner to the rest, then on that account alone they should accept this Amendment. All that it does is to retain the position which exists in the rest of the country: that the authority should go to the Minister, in the first instance, to negotiate and then to have a decision as to the number of councillors there should be on the local authority. As times change and as local authorities change the authority should be able to go to the Minister to ask for an amendment upwards or downwards in the figure.

The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, when he gave us these figures, left out, I think, one of the really important factors that have to be taken into consideration: the size of the authority. In the case of Bradford we have an authority with 25,500 acres; it has an electorate of 198,000; and it has 60 as the number of its councillors. It has, in fact, an average of 3,310 electors per councillor. I would ask the noble Lord to consider the case of Croydon, Purley and Coulsdon. This authority will have, according to the noble Lord's reckoning, an average of 3,798. That is 500 up on the City of Bradford. It will have, however, an acreage approximately that of Bradford.

Let us come back to the point I have been making. In the case of Bradford they would be able to go to the Minister to obtain an increase in the number of councillors and, if the Minister was satisfied, he could then make an adjustment. In the case of Croydon, Purley and Coulsdon, because of the way the Bill is now drafted, if their average increased to 4,000 or 4,500, the Government would have to come forward with a Bill to amend the present provisions in order that there should be an increase in the number of councillors. I should have thought that that was really quite unnecessary.

I would suggest to the Government—and here we will not argue too much on what the figures should be, because as I have said I do not believe you can look at all the authorities as one and have the same rule-of-thumb measure for them all—that if they would accept this Amendment they would then be putting these local authorities in London, with all their varying problems and differences, in a position to negotiate from time to time with the Minister for an adjustment, both ways—let us face it, both ways. They may wish to reduce the number of councillors from 60 to 50; or they might wish to go to the Minister and say, "We need to create, for efficient local government, an extra ward, which makes it necessary for us to have three more councillors." As the Bill now stands, they will not be able to do that.

I would make one last plea to the Government. I do not think myself that these wards should be allowed to become too big, not merely on the question of administration or of loss of contact of the councillors with their electorate and population, but because I am sure that the House will recognise that healthy local government rests, as does national government, upon the healthy participation of political Parties and other interested people in affairs. If you allow wards to grow too big you will create such difficulties and such tasks that the sort of minority interests which have always had a part to play in local government up to present are unable to take part. The bigger the authority becomes the more exclusive does it become of political Parties. As a member of a political Party, I recognise that they must play a part; but I do say that the part of political Parties should not be to preclude the minority and local interests, which are essential to local government. Therefore you should have local government so constructed that all interested parties should be able to play their part. I believe that this Amendment is essential if this Bill is to be what the Government wish it to be for local government.

3.0 p.m.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS)

My Lords, there are two questions to be answered in connection with the Amendment. The first, of course, is whether it is necessary to have a maximum in the Bill. That is the main point of the Amendment, which is designed to strike out that maximum. The second question is, assuming that we are going to have a maximum, is the figure of 60 the right one? May I deal first with the main point of the Opposition's Amendment? The Government believe that the maximum is needed as a guide when the first new councils are being set up. At the moment, the total number of councillors of the various councils affected—county boroughs, boroughs, metropolitan boroughs and urban districts—is 2,900 and, as I said in Committee, under this Bill that number would be reduced by some 1,000. That is a considerable number, and without some clear guidance on this point we feel that there would be a strong temptation—and a very human temptation—for existing authorities, who will have a big say in drawing up the proposals for the wards of the new boroughs, to try to preserve the present arrangement so far as possible.

For the same reason, we think, that a limitation should stay in the Bill for future guidance, because, as the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, pointed out, as time goes on, inevitably there will be changes and shifts in population, both in size and distribution, and the ward boundaries will have to be altered. Again there would be a natural temptation to make adjustments in such cases by adding an extra seat or two and not interfering with existing ward representations, instead of reducing the number, as probably ought to be the case, when the distribution becomes different from what it is now.

We feel that without any limitation there might well be a tendency, as the years pass, for councils gradually to increase in size. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has put forward the persuasive argument that we should at least consider having greater flexibility, and he made it all sound very reasonable. But if we were to write this into the Bill at the present stage, flexibility would become the rule rather than the exception, and councils, knowing that they need only apply for a greater number of representatives to get them, would tend to apply unnecessarily. We think that this temptation should be resisted at this stage.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, is it not the fact that if a council decides to have 50 members they will need to have the Minister's approval? Therefore, whether it is 70 or 50, it will still be subject to approval by the Minister.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, it will be subject to approval when these changes are made in the first place, that is true; but I do not see the point the noble Lord is making. The noble Lord said that it would be absurd not to put this flexibility in the Bill and then have legislation later on. If the Bill really proves too restrictive, although we do not think it will, it would be for the boroughs, or the Greater London Council on their behalf, to ask for a new maximum figure by way of a Private Bill. But we feel that it is unnecessary to make that possible at the present stage.

LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON

My Lords, before the Minister leaves the point he is making, may I ask whether the Minister is not completely safeguarded against excessive numbers by reason of the fact that a council has, in any case, to seek his permission and approval of the number they recommend?

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, we feel that at the moment the number of 60 is right as a maximum with which to begin. This, as noble Lords opposite know, has the support of the local authority associations. They think it would be a good thing to write this figure of 60 into the Bill. We had a letter from one council concerning Borough No. 15, which is the amalgamation of Romford and Hornchurch. Romford want only 45 councillors, and in putting forward their reason for this they said they preferred the smallest number which is practicable to run the new authority. They consider that in this way members can be more intimately concerned with the running of the authority, which tends to become more impersonal the larger the authority becomes. I think this is an interesting example.

The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, recognised that we could have too many. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, emphasised this matter of personal contact with electors and tried to make out that the proportion of electors to councillors is too high. We have produced a chart, which is available in the Printed Paper Office for the inspection of noble Lords interested. It has been produced at the instigation of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, who asked for these details in Committee stage. It shows that the previous Amendment, in which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, suggested the figure of 3,000 as being about right, has been met by the present Bill in at least two-thirds of the boroughs. So I do not think a very strong case can be made by noble Lords based on these figures.

The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, drew some distinction based on acreage, and though I think it was a clever point, if I may say so, I am not sure that it is altogether valid. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, said that we could not compare the position in London with provincial cities; we had to compare like with like. I would point out to him not only that the changes we propose in the number of councillors to electorate are much in line with those of the 13 towns of comparable size, shown in Appendix B for comparison, but also that the provincial councils concerned actually have wider functions than will be carried out by the new London boroughs and have more committees; therefore one would suppose that, if anything, they would require more members to deal with the work than would be required by the London boroughs. So if we are to compare like with like, then I think the argument would be rather on my side than on the side of the noble Earl. I hope that I have given fully enough our reasons for believing that the number of 60 is about right, although admittedly it is arbitrary. But it has been agreed to by the local authority associations.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, before the noble Lord proceeds, may I say that I think he will agree that one of the associations say that this is subject to the Government looking at the matter again. In other words, it was only from experience that they could make their final judgment.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right and I said that on Committee stage. The Metropolitan Boroughs Joint Standing Committee wished to see the figure of 60 put in the Bill but thought that it might be necessary to revise it at a later stage. I have said already in my reply that that could be done by private legislation, and that is the way the Government prefer that it should be done.

I have given my reasons for resisting the main argument and purpose of this Amendment, and also a reply to the contention of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that we should treat the London boroughs the same as the rest of the country. The reason why we are not doing it is because we feel we have exceptional circumstances in London. After all, the metropolitan boroughs which form the core of inner London have always been limited to 60, and only 10 of the 28 have ever felt it necessary to go up to the maximum number. We feel, as we are extending London, that the precedent created by inner London is a reasonable one. In the exceptional circumstances, and due to the fact that there seems to be a substantial reduction in the number of councillors overall, we believe it is wiser to put it in the Bill and to keep it in the Bill for present and future guidance, and to treat any exceptions later on by private legislation, should that ever become necessary. Therefore, I am afraid I cannot hold out hope to noble Lords opposite that we should look at this again, and I would ask the House, if noble Lords do not wish to withdraw the Amendment, to reject it.

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could I ask him to clarify the position? Am I right in making this assumption?—because I do not want to make a false assumption. Both the Government and we on these Benches agree that 60 is likely to be the best figure, but it is not in any way irrevocable and may have to be altered. The question at issue, therefore, is: what is the best way to alter it? We say that we should trust the Minister to decide, whereas the Government say they do not trust the Minister to make the correct decision and insist on the complications of a Private Bill, if alterations should be needed. Is that a fair way of putting it?

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, perhaps, also, I could say a few words before the Minister sits down—that is a Parliamentary phrase which means that the Minister has sat down. I agree with the point that my noble friend behind me has raised. I suppose one ought to welcome the Government's distrust of the Minister, but in this case we do not. We are obliged to the noble Lord for having arranged to put in the Printed Paper Office the statistics about London and the Provinces and how many members a councillor represents. That, I admit, up to a point, disconcerts our argument from the point of view of provincial experience. But there has to be remembered not only the argument about the number of the members a councillor is called upon to represent. It is important, of course, that it should not be too many, because there are so many domestic things that crop up day by day, probably rather more than in the case of a Member of Parliament. That is an important point. But there is a further point, which is not less important, and that is the size of the ward electing the councillors. So far as the electors are concerned, it is not desirable for the ward to have too many electors: otherwise, that involves difficulty both at the election and in keeping contact with the councillor.

But I cannot see why the Government could not have accepted this point. Let the 60 plus 10 (because it is plus 10; and it is plus co-options to committees—in fairness we must remember that) be left in the Bill, but then say that the Minister has power, either on application or not on application, to vary the figure in any way that seems to him to be fit and appropriate to the circumstances of the case. I cannot see why the Government should not do that, because the Minister would still have the ball at his feet: he would be in control of the situation; he need not vary up or down if he does not see fit, and the 60 would remain. Anybody wanting to vary would have to make a strong case to the Minister that it was the right thing to do. I am not clear why that suggested compromise, which I should have thought would meet anybody's argument, should not be accepted.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, I cannot help feeling sorry that the Government are tying themselves up so tightly in this matter, because the circumstances in many places vary greatly, and I am bound to say that this Bill is regarded in some of the suburbs with great apprehension. Therefore, the more flexibility the Government allow themselves, even if they do not choose to exercise it, the easier it will be to get this Bill accepted in places where it is going to be applied. I live in Twickenham. Twickenham has an ancient history of which it is extremely proud and which is both interesting and amusing. We are going to be joined up, I believe, with Richmond, another place with an ancient and quite different history of which it is extremely proud.

I do not ask the House to accept my figures, but I gather that we are going to be a borough of some 300,000 people, to be represented by 60 councillors. It is a long and widely separated area, and it has features which also obtain in the centre of London. It has small communities which are very proud of their village status. Richmond, I think, is particularly in that situation; but Twickenham also has its share of those small communities. It seems to me that where you have places with quite diverse feelings and interests, separated by a river, the more flexibility you allow yourself, at the beginning at any rate, the more likely you are to get these places to join and work happily together. In fact, the Government's attitude in this matter reminds me of what I think is one of the most pathetic things in the whole of British history, and that was dear old George III in conversation referring to the last time he was in his strait-waistcoat and the prospect of having to don it again. That seems to me to be the attitude of the Government over this matter. I hope that they will find some way of allowing themselves a little more flexibility.

LORD AUCKLAND

My Lords, I have listened with care and attention to the arguments of noble Lords opposite and of my noble friend Lord Hastings, and I agree that they all have much conviction in them. What worries me particularly is my noble friend's reference to Private Bills. I have not had much experience of these, and I am not a lawyer, but I should have thought that Private Bills of this nature would take up a good deal of time and expense. While I agree that in a Bill of this kind a certain number of arbitrary things must be laid down, there is, as my noble friend Lord Saltoun has just pointed out, the need for considerable flexibility. Epsom comes off quite favourably under these arrangements; but Croydon is a very different matter. Here the two large areas of Purley and Coulsdon are being tacked on to another large authority, a matter which is bound to bring added problems of town planning and other matters. I should have thought that, rather than rely on the expense and time of introducing Private Bills, it would be quite easy to draft a permissory clause into this Bill. I should not have thought that it would cause any real difficulty, or anything of that kind. I think that, on balance, noble Lords opposite have made out a cogent case for these permissory regulations to be made. I rather regret the Government's stubbornness, if I may say so, in keeping to this arbitrary figure which is, as I see it, quite unnecessary.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, may I, before sitting down, so to speak, reply to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Walston? I shall not reply to any of the others, because I think they were separate speeches, except that of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, who followed on the noble Lord, Lord Walston. The difference is not quite so simple as the noble Lord made it out to be, and we definitely require a figure in this Bill so that there should be some guidance as to what is considered a reasonable size for a council. I am told that in the long run the size of councils is subject to the control of the Home Secretary, because he deals with all matters concerned with elections; and it is difficult to exercise that sort of control without any guidance, and leaving it to the Home Secretary to say what he personally thinks is the right size. Therefore,

it is very useful to have a figure laid down, because people (and I think this was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth) must make out a very strong case if they are going to exceed that figure. To that extent, the difference is perhaps somewhat wider than was indicated by the noble Lord.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, I think we can take it that the Government's mind is completely closed on this matter. In spite of the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, I thought that everything he said indicated that flexibility was desirable in setting up this new organisation. He showed little faith in the good sense of local councils. He seemed to think that, unless there was a rigid limit, a ceiling (he called it a guide, although I do not quite know why; because it was, in fact, putting a ceiling on it, an upper limit), councils would, if they had a chance, try to claim more and more seats. Why I cannot imagine, because he went on to quote one borough which had applied for a much smaller limit, because it preferred a smaller council. I think everything the noble Lord said shows that tastes and circumstances differ in different parts of the area. We have support from the Cross-Benches, and from behind the noble Lord himself, in believing that the right principle in this Bill would be to allow flexibility, and to allow the Minister, on the application of individual boroughs, to vary the number. Accordingly, I think we must ask the House to decide by voting.

3.24 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 44.

CONTENTS
Addison, V. Douglas of Barloch, L. Saltoun, L.
Albemarle, E. Harvey of Tasburgh, L. Samuel, V.
Alexander of Hillsborough, E. Henderson, L. Shepherd, L.
Amwell, L. Latham, L. Silkin, L.
Archibald, L. Lawson, L. Sinha, L.
Attlee, E. Listowel, E. Summerskin, B.
Auckland, L. Lucan, E. [Teller.] Walston, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.] Manchester, L. Bp. Williams, L.
Champion, L. Morrison of Lambeth, L. Williamson, L.
Chorley, L> Rusholme, L. Wilmot of Selmeston, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Ailwyn, L. Fortescue, E. Milverton, L.
Atholl, D. Goschen, V. [Teller.] Molson, L.
Boston, L Hastings, L. Monk Bretton, L.
Chesham, L. Hawke, L. Monsell, V.
Clwyd, L. Home, E. Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Conesford, L. Horsbrugh, B. Newton, L.
Cowley, E. Howe, E. St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Denham, L. Jellicoe, E. St. Just, L.
Derwent, L. Lambert, V. Salter, L.
Devonshire, D. Long, V. Sandwich, E.
Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.) Lothian, M. Soulbury, V.
Dundee, E. Mancroft, L. Stamford, E.
Ebbisham, L. Mansfield, E. Twining, L.
Ferrers, E. Merrivale, L. Westwood, L.
Forster of Harraby, L. Mills, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

3.32 p.m.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH moved, in subsection (7), to leave out "1964"and insert "1965". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. The Bill provides that the first elections for the London borough councils shall be in April, 1964, and that the first elections for the Greater London Council shall be in May, 1964. This Amendment deals with the London boroughs and suggests that the year should be moved from 1964 to 1965. It seems to me that we have an exceedingly strong case for this Amendment. If the Government are lucky, this Bill will receive the Royal Assent at the end of July or the beginning of August this year. If they are not so lucky, they may have to continue it into the autumn before the new Session of Parliament, and while this Session of Parliament lasts. In either case the period between the date of the Royal Assent to the Bill and the elections to the London borough councils will be a mere matter of a limited number of months; and, of course, the number will be more limited if the Bill does not receive the Royal Assent until October or November, as the case may be.

This is a very short period, much shorter than was given under the Local Government Act, 1929. That was a major Act of local government reorganisation, but it involved fewer complexities than does this Bill. So far as London was concerned, that Act transferred the powers of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and most of the powers of the boards of guardians, to the London County Council, and a limited number of other powers to the metropolitan borough councils. This was a mere transfer of functions. It is true that a transfer of staff was also involved, but this Bill creates entirely new authorities with many new functions to discharge. The Greater London Authority is different from anything we have ever had before in London, or have in the provincial parts of the country, in Scotland or in Wales. The London boroughs are a new type of authority, something between a non-county borough and a county borough, but covering very large areas with very large populations.

In these circumstances, the preparatory work for the new authorities to get going will be materially greater than was the case under the Local Government Act, 1929; and that took quite a time, as I know, because I went through it with the London County Council at the time and was in touch with my friends on the metropolitan borough councils. Indeed, at that time, in leading a deputation of the London Labour Party and the Labour boroughs to Mr. Neville Chamberlain, the Minister in charge, we argued that outdoor relief could go to the metropolitan boroughs provided that there were suitable arrangements for restriction on scales and proper equalisation arrangements. He resisted our suggestion and insisted that the powers should go to the London County Council. In fact, during the history of the Conservative majority on the County Council and the Conservative Government, in fact, right through this century, all new powers were, rightly or wrongly, conferred on the County Council rather than the boroughs. Therefore, this new line of the Government that they want to put the boroughs on top and the Greater London Council underneath is a new departure in Conservative and Governmental policy.

The amount of administrative preparation needed under this Bill before the new boroughs can take over and exercise their functions is very much greater than anything that happened either in London, the Provinces, Scotland or Wales under the Local Government Act, 1929. There are staff, committees and standing orders involved. The sorting out of staff itself will be very considerable, with references to who shall do this or that. The changes will also involve the appointment of chief officers and the preparation of a vast new scheme of public administration.

The second point is that in the running of our democracy, whether Parliamentary or civic, the political Parties in our country play an important part. Sometimes they are not quite as responsible as they ought to be—and I am talking of all of them—but in the main they are faithful adherents to our democratic system. They realise that they have an important function to conduct—that of educating the people. Some of it may now and again be regarded as beyond the limits of education, and a bit within the limits of abuse or denunciation; nevertheless, they are conscious that in an unofficial sense, it is part of our pattern of Parliamentary and civic democracy. But from the point of view of the successful running of our democracy it is important that the political Parties should do their job as well as they can, and that they should have adequate time in which to educate the electorate from their point of view. The period in the Bill is not enough for the education of the electorate, and I beg your Lordships to agree with me that it is vitally important that the people should know what they are voting about, what issues and what principles of policy are involved. The time at present allowed does not give any of the political Parties time to prepare that.

Moreover, the organisation of the political Parties ought to change in relation to this Greater London area, in relation to the London boroughs. Neither the Conservative Party nor the Labour Party organisations, nor I imagine the Liberal Party organisation, is shaped to meet the conduct of elections under the new conditions. Therefore, they ought to be given time in which that shaping can adequately take place. Here I am not talking mere Party politics. I am not trying to drag in what some may regard as unscrupulous and untruthful political machines. I am arguing in relation to the successful functioning of our democracy, which is a non-Party argument. Electors in the new boroughs have got to be informed, educated—if possible persuaded from the point of view of the rival political Parties—as to what are the principles involved when they go to the poll in the new boroughs with much extended powers compared with metropolitan boroughs and indeed non-county boroughs and urban districts, and the political Parties will want time in order to conduct that education of the people from their respective points of view; and indeed not only the electors, but they will need to educate their own active members who may do canvassing, public speaking, and so on.

All that is necessary, and the Party organisations will have to adapt themselves to the new boroughs and to the Greater London area, which is no mean task, and nothing of this needed to happen in relation to the Local Government Act, 1929. So I say that if the Government resist this, if they insist upon going forward with these dates, Her Majesty's Government are acting as the enemies of our democracy. They are afraid of the people knowing what they are voting about; they are doing their best to prevent the people from knowing what they are voting about, and I say this is deliberately cheating democracy on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and I think it is a shameful, disgraceful and wicked thing to do. They have even got this in their heads. I forget whether it comes up on Amendment, but there is some point about making the two elections within 12 months. We can argue that later on, but it is a mad idea. They even have an idea of letting the elections come on the same day—entirely mad. That is an idea imported from the United States of America, who make it work somehow, but I do not believe we should.

The important thing is that this is too short a period. The Government started this Bill with the motive of political gerrymandering. That was the primary, fundamental reason for this Bill—political jobbery and gerrymandering in order to legislate out of existence a Labour majority on the London County Council. Now they are trying to rush the elections so that they can get their gerrymandering complete as soon as possible. I ought to admit that it is true that the Bill does not fully operate until 1965, but the councils are constituted side by side with the existing councils in 1964. Another curious provision—the actual administration does not come in until 1965. That is not good enough. It is this rush at 1964. Therefore, we propose that "1964" should become "1965" in both classes of authority, and that the physical operation of the Bill should not take place earlier than 1966.

I got a little worked up in moving this Amendment, but nevertheless I hope that your Lordships opposite will forgive that. Put it aside; vote upon the merits of the case, which merits I have plainly put before your Lordships, with a little bit of colour added which you can forget. This is a test of democratic motives and practical democracy. The British have been good at the practice of democracy, probably better than any other country in the world, except some of the British Commonwealth countries overseas, and in the interests of this I would urge your Lordships, even beg of you, with very great sincerity, to vote for this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 1, leave out ("1964") and insert ("1965").—(Lord Morrison of Lambeth.)