Lords Sitting of 13 May 1963

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL
2.35 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, after Clause 2, to insert the following new clause
Interim payments
".The Minister may make grants to the Greater London Council pending receipt of revenues receivable by them."
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 15 for the insertion of the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List. The purpose of this Amendment is to repair what appears to us to be a serious omission in the Bill as regards the expenditure of the Greater London Council. I think one must admit that this is a slovenly Bill. Already, on the first clause, it has been found necessary for the Government to put down no fewer than six Amendments. If we go on like this London government will become, as it were, a vast litter of debris of discarded proposals. If one glances through the Bill, one will find Amendment after Amendment on matters which should have been dealt with before the Bill was presented to Parliament.
There is a good deal in the Bill, especially in Schedules 1 and 2, with regard to the constitution of the Greater London Council and of the London boroughs; but so far as I can see, there is no provision to make available money
974
for settling out-of-pockets and expenses which will be incurred inescapably prior to the election of the Greater London Council. For instance, it will be the function of the Greater London Council to arrange for the registration of voters, to arrange for the expenses of the returning officer and of the staff which the returning officer will need. There will be the liability for printing. All these expenses will have to be incurred by somebody, and some authority must enter into the contract in respect of them.
It is true that under Clause 67 the London boroughs are required to make what is described as an appropriate contribution to the expenses or the funds of the Greater London Council; but that requirement is only after the Council has been elected. Already, as I have said, considerable expense will have been incurred prior to the election of the Greater London Council, and in respect of that no provision at all is made. That strikes me as being an evidence of muddle and mess on the part of those responsible. It reflects the indecent hurry with which this Bill and the project is being pushed through Parliament.
It is also provided in Clause 67 that the appropriate contribution—that strikes me as a rather unusual use of the word "appropriate"; one does not imagine, in any case, that the contribution would be inappropriate—is estimated to be the product of a penny rate. But, as I have said, this is as soon as may be after the first election. Who pays? Who accepts the responsibility? Who incurs the responsibility? Who enters into the contracts prior to the election? I think it is important that we should know that. It is quite clear that this is a gap in the Bill which ought not to exist and which must be filled. It is to that purpose that I move the Amendment as on the Marshalled List. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Latham.)
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): The Government feel that this Amendment is in fact unnecessary, because we have made provision that the Greater London Council shall have funds until the ordinary arrangements for

975
precepting take effect as from April 1, 1965. The noble Lord who moved this Amendment referred to Clause 67, which deals with the initial expenses of the new authorities. This clause was added in another place during the process of the Bill. It requires the rating authorities in Greater London to pay the Greater London Council the produce of a penny rate
"as soon as may be after the election of the councillors of the Greater London Council."
The Minister is authorised by that clause to make regulations governing the arrangements for the payment of this sum and so will be able to ensure that there is a steady flow of revenue to the Greater London Council throughout the period. The Greater London Council's expenses in the year before it assumes all its powers are likely to be small, consisting for the most part of salaries for their nucleus of staff, travelling and subsistence allowances for their members and staff and payment for the accommodation which they occupy. In case, however, a penny rate is inadequate to cover this expense—and in Greater London a penny rate will produce over £2½ million—Clause 67 also enables the Greater London Council to borrow for the purpose of meeting any expenditure incurred by them before April 1, 1965. In fact the expenses will be quite small. The current cost to the existing ratepayers cannot exceed a penny rate, and it has to be borne in mind that the expenses incurred by the Greater London Council will to some extent be offset by a reduction in the expenses incurred by the existing authorities if, as seems certain, many of the staff of the Greater London Council will be drawn from those existing authorities. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will consider that this answer meets his point and that he will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD LINDGREN: The reply the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has given us is obviously one that has been prepared for him by his Department, and it is one without knowledge of how local government operates. First of all, it is true that rates are payable on demand, but I would venture a guess, without being in any way disrespectful, that there are very few of your Lordships who pay your rates on demand. Most people leave it until the last minute, until they get a notice from
976
the local authority that unless they are paid a summons will be issued and they will have to pay, in addition to the rate, the cost of the summons. This means that for three months a local authority has to operate, paying its costs of postage, printing, wages, salaries and the rest, without any income whatever.
That is why we in local government have an overdraft from the bank, which has to be paid for by the ratepayer, to try to create a working balance in order that between the re-issue of the rate demand and the receipt of the rates we can meet the cost of wages, printing and all the rest of it, which has to go on during the three months before the rates start coming in. It is true that here arrangements are made with the London boroughs or councils within the area that they should pay over to the authority the product of a penny rate, but the authority themselves will not get the product of the penny rate until towards the end of the three months—in exactly the same way as applies to the normal urban and rural districts within the county. The county is not a precepting authority. Rates are demanded by the rural, urban and borough councils within the county. Therefore, the county issues the precept on the minor authorities and has to wait until it comes in—again about three months. This is exactly what happens here.
What is now going to happen? Lord Hastings said, quite rightly, that they have to meet the cost of accommodation printing, stationery, the costs of election, salaries and all the rest of it. They will not get their money from the boroughs for at least three months. What happens? Banks are very accommodating, and they are quite prepared, with a body like a local authority which has behind it the security of the ratepayers and the rate poundage, to give them credit; but although the banks are prepared to provide the facility of a loan they are not prepared to do it for the public good. They do it, in fact, in order to charge interest to the local authority for the loan. Therefore what is going to happen here is that, in addition to carrying out the work, the local ratepayers will be saddled not only with the cost of the work but also with the bank loan charges which are imposed pending the receipt of the money.

977
Those of us in local government do not like paying out money for nothing, even to banks. That is why we try to create a working balance so that we can have the money to draw on until the receipt of our normal income. The district auditor watches our working balance to make sure that it does not get too low and that we do not charge the ratepayers more than we ought to. But in this instance, unless there is a working balance created for the Greater London Council the ratepayers of the area will have to pay the loan charges on the facilities granted by the bank, pending receipt of money either from the Treasury or from the constituent local authorities. I have looked very closely at the Bill, and, whilst there are facilities for the boroughs and the other authorities to pay into the Greater London Council, I cannot see that there is to be any prepayment to the Greater London Council that will give them what I would call a working balance, so that they can carry on meeting their day-to-day costs pending receipt of their normal income.
I suggest, with the greatest sincerity, that the Government, with the Treasury behind them—the people who have created this hotch-potch of local government services—ought to carry the cost, or at least the cost of the provision of the initial revenue, the working balance, so as to enable the authority to carry on. Otherwise the ratepayers of this area are going to have to pay the bank charges on the loans given to the local authority. I agree that there will be no trouble whatever in securing that loan, because the guarantee they have behind them is more than sufficient. Nevertheless, I do not see why the Government should create a situation in which this new authority starts off by waiting for its revenue for three months at least, and is not in the first instance given the working balance with which it can carry on.
LORD SHEPHERD: I must say that I was rather surprised that the Government were not in a position to make a statement this afternoon, in view of the decisive defeat of the Conservative Party in the local government election results over the last week, particularly in the results of those elec-
978
tions within the London area. I am indeed surprised that the Government see fit to continue. However, they propose to do so.
If I understand the noble Lord aright, he is now saying that the very people who are being dealt with in this manner must provide out of their own income the resources for the new set-up that is being created by Her Majesty's Government: that the existing boroughs in London shall pay to the Greater London Council, during the period in which it is being formed, a penny rate. That is one thing that you are asking of the authorities that are to disappear, very much against their wishes. Where they have a mandate to continue, you are requiring them to make this contribution to the authority that is removing them. There is another point; by this provision you are taking away from the people within that area the penny rate that would have been used for the betterment of their local area. I should have thought it would be much fairer to the people concerned that the Government should accept our Amendment and provide the working capital (shall we so call it) for the authority, and not take it out of the income which is perphaps already well committed to expenditure within that area. I do not see why a local authority should go to a bank to get a loan.
LORD LINDGREN: It is quite normal procedure.
LORD SHEPHERD: I know it is quite normal procedure, but in this particular case it is the Government who are creating this authority. I should have thought, then, that it was quite right that the Government, having created this, should see that the working capital was available to carry them forward for the eighteen months until they get their regular income. I think it is pretty cool on the part of Her Majesty's Government to make this suggestion, that we should take out of income money that is very much needed by these local authorities to maintain their present services, merely to provide the capital account—because that is what it is going to be—of the Greater London Council. I hope that the Government will reconsider their position. Surely it is not much. The noble Lord referred to £2½ million, perhaps, and said that that is not a very large sum of Government money, particularly in view of

979
the way the present Government spend it and waste it. If the Government believe that this is the right system, £2½ million is not too much to ask them to put in to finance, to capitalise, this new authority. I do hope that the Government will reconsider the point.
LORD HASTINGS: I am surprised how easily the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is surprised. So far as the Amendment and the proposal made are concerned, I would just say to the noble Lord, Lord Lord Lindgren, that I do not really see why there should be this three months' delay. A penny rate is all that is being asked for. The noble Lord talked about working capital, but I cannot believe that all the boroughs are so "broke" that they cannot pay anything until they get their rates every six months. The second and major point is this: why should the Government carry the cost? Either the taxpayer is going to pay for this initial capital—as noble Lords call it—or the ratepayers will do so, and we do not think it is fair to put this reorganisation on the taxpayer. We are setting up a better and more efficient form of local government for Greater London, and it is perfectly fair that the ratepayers should meet that very small cost at the outset.
LORD LINDGREN: This is most unsatisfactory. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, obviously does not know what happens when in fact you get a running clown in local government. The various authorities within the local government area have not been able to create large balances since the publication of this Bill, knowing that the Government, with the majority they have behind them, are going to get the Bill through. It is equally true, I admit, that so far as the individual authorities themselves are concerned, they have not been prepared to work up big balances which, when it comes to the amalgamations, they are going to hand over to some other authority who is going to have the benefit of their prudent financial arrangements. Therefore these boroughs must themselves carry on their normal services during the twelve months in which this happens, pending the amalgamation, pending the take-over and the absorption of the added problems.
The simple point is that, although rates are payable on demand, they are in fact levied half-yearly, and no local
980
authority starts to "chase" its ratepayers until the end of the first three months. I only repeat again that there are very few ratepayers indeed who line up in a queue on the day they receive their rate demand to pay it over to the local authority. They wait until the end of the three months, which they know they have, before they pay it. Somebody will have to pay the costs incurred until the £2½ million is paid to the authority by the boroughs. That will not be for at least three months, and probably even more.
The noble Lord asks: why should the taxpayer pay it? After all, it is the Government itself which has created this problem; it is not the local ratepayer. I admit—and I admitted quite freely when I spoke earlier—that banks will be falling over themselves to grant the facility of a day-to-day loan for three months to a new authority. They will do it, because they know that at the end of the three months there will be £2½ million coming in by which they can recoup themselves; and there are very few banks which get such good guarantees in regard to loans, which they are asked to make. But the banks will demand a charge; and (unless this new authority is to be given some special facilities) they charge ½ per cent. above the bank rate. I admit that, if the Government made a grant, it would in fact have to be an interest-free loan and if they did that—
LORD JESSEL: The noble Lord said all this before. He is repeating himself verbatim. Is it really quite fair on the Committee to say again what he said before? Before the noble Lord rises might I ask him one question?
SEVERAL LORDS: Order, order!
LORD JESSEL: Why Order? What evidence has the noble Lord for saying that most people do not pay their rates for three months? What is his experience? I question it.
LORD LINDGREN: I have been a member of a local authority—
LORD JESSEL: Which one?
LORD LINDGREN: I have been a member of the St. Pancras Borough Council, the Welwyn Garden City Urban District Council and the Hertfordshire

981
County Council. If there are noble Lords opposite who have a better local government record than I have, let them say so. And if there is a noble Lord opposite who pays his rates on demand, let him get up and say so.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: I do.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: Might I ask the noble Lord whether he pays his rates on demand, or waits for three months?
LORD LINDGREN: I should not like to say that I always pay them on demand. I may now be an aristocrat, but I am a little impoverished. Therefore payment has to wait until there is an opportunity. But let us be quite honest. There are noble Lords opposite who have been engaged in local government; the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, has been and still is, I believe. But it is not normal for a local authority to start receiving its income until towards the end of the three months. Commercial undertakings do not pay
until the end of three months, and very often commercial undertakings are the biggest ratepayers within an area. Really, what we are asking here is that the Government should issue an interest-free loan to the local authority. The Government should carry the cost of the interest, and not the ratepayers. That is the pure and simple issue. I have risen again—and this is the answer to the intervention we had just now—only because it is fairly obvious that the noble Lord handling the Bill on behalf of the Government does not really know how local authority finance is carried on. Local authorities will not have the money. They will either have to get it from the Government or they will have to get it from the banks. We do not want them to have to get it from the banks and to have to pay interest on it. That is the simple issue.
On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 57.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Lindgren, L.

Silkin, L.

Archibald, L.

Listowel, E.

Stonham, L. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Longford, E.

Summerskill, B.

Crook, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Uvedale of North End, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Walston, L.

Henderson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Wise, L.

Latham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Gosford, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Albemarle, E.

Grantchester, L.

Merrivale, L.

Ampthill, L.

Grenfell, L.

Mersey, V.

Amulree, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Mills, V.

Atholl, D.

Hastings, L.

Milverton, L.

Boston, L.

Hawke, L.

Monsell, V.

Buchan, E.

Horsbrugh, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carrington, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Newton, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Howe, E.

Ogmore, L.

Denham, L.

Ilford, L.

Onslow, E.

Devonshire, D.

Jellicoe, E.

Rea, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Jessel, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Effingham, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Salter, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Killearn, L.

Saltoun, L.

Ferrers, E.

Lothian, M.

Sandwich, E.

Forster of Harraby, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Somers, L.

Furness, V.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Soulbury, V.

Goddard, L.

Mansfield, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Margesson, V.

Swinton, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly

Clause 3:
Local government areas in and around Greater London
3.—(1) As from 1st April, 1965—

(a) no part of Greater London shall form part of any administrative county, county district or parish;

(b) the following administrative areas and their councils (and, in the case of a borough, the municipal corporation thereof) shall cease to exist, that is to say, the counties of London and Middlesex, the metropolitan boroughs, and any existing county borough, county district or parish the area of which falls wholly within Greater London;

(c) the urban district of Potters Bar shall become part of the county of Hertfordshire;

(d) the urban districts of Staines and Sunbury-on-Thames shall become part of the county of Surrey.

3.10 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "1st April, 1965" and to insert:
"a date after 1st April, 1966, to be appointed by the Minister ".
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is on an entirely different point from that of Amendments Nos. 11 and 14 which we have already discussed. Amendments 11 and 14 dealt with the dates of elections. This Amendment, although it is related to some extent to a later Amendment (No. 19) on the Order Paper, is different. This Amendment deals with the transition period caused by the cessation of the London County Council and Middlesex and by the dismembering of certain county councils whose areas will now be outside the area of the Greater London Authority. Amendment 19, which we shall discuss later, deals with the transfer of functions within the Greater London area and therefore I do not propose to discuss both these Amendments together.
This is the first mention in the Bill of the date upon which the transition period is to end following the election of the councils in 1964. We all recognise that this will be a period of reorganisation, unprecedented in its magnitude. It will be a period of less than twelve months for a task which the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack said was bound to produce considerable upheaval. I regarded that as a massive understatement of what will have to take place between the elections in 1964 and the handing over of functions in 1965.
984
Almost before the new councillors have begun to find their way about the council buildings which they will occupy, they are going to be faced with what are truly formidable problems. These are problems that would tax the ingenuity of very long-experienced councillors.
As I understand it, this clause provides, in the first place, for the tearing away of those parts of the administrative counties of Essex, Kent and Surrey which are to form part of the Greater London Council area. This, in itself, will involve an administrative change in those deprived counties of considerable difficulty and complexity. They are going to be dismembered; they are going to lose a large part of their population, and certainly a very large part of their rateable value on which they have relied in the past for their services. Surrey will lose some 43 per cent. of its rateable value and 40 per cent. of its population. Essex and Kent also will suffer much the same sort of thing; although to a slightly lesser degree. Nevertheless, it is going to involve great problems for those two counties.
I thought that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, epitomised the difficulties that are going to face these dismembered councils when he said, on Second Reading [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 248 (No. 72), col. 1261]:
"We shall be eviscerated. Our rates will go up; our educational system will go endways, and our traffic will go endways. It will no longer be a county and poorer people will be paying higher rates—we reckon on an increase of anything from 11d. to as high as 1s. 7d. in the pound, which is a lot of money to put en to a poor area."
With the increasing burden of rates, I can well understand the noble Earl's outburst on behalf of the humble people in the County of Surrey. I can imagine that the Councils representing Essex and Kent may very well have said precisely the same sort of thing about the difficulties they will have to face after this Bill becomes an Act, and during this period of transition between 1964 and 1965. The problem facing these counties that are to be dismembered will be to adjust their services to the much smaller area and to their comparative poverty. The staffs have been built up on the basis of large, populous and rich areas. The management of their staffs will be facing contraction, and everyone knows that in the

985
handling of staff it is much more difficult to face contraction than expansion. Indeed, we spent the whole of one day last week discussing the problem of contraction of staff as it affects the railways. Everyone felt sympathy with the railways and with the staff who will be affected. This problem of contraction will face these three counties that I have mentioned.
We shall find for example, that one man, pretty near the top perhaps, together with the whole of his staff, will have to be pared down to fit the new income and the task that they will have to perform. Some other man, perhaps, and the whole of his staff, will have to be transferred to one of the new London boroughs that will come into being under this Bill and will be taking over part of the service which up to now the counties have been doing. I can visualise that pretty well endless negotiations will be required between these counties and the new boroughs over this task of staff transference and the rest. This is going to be a big job and a job that cannot be handled quickly. Those of us who have ever engaged in negotiations between one local government area and another recognise something of the difficulty which is going to be faced, and is bound to be faced, by these counties which have been cut down to the extent that they are going to be cut as a result of this Bill.
Whole staffs of schools, and all the ancillary services which have been built up around the schools, will have to be transferred from Surrey, Essex and Kent to some new London boroughs. This, in itself, is going to be a very great job. Educational areas which have long since been evolved and have been working satisfactorily up to now will be fragmented and divided by the counties under the newly-created London borough councils education committees. School medical officers of counties will suddenly find that half their areas have slipped away. Of course, they cannot be divided into two; they will have to be fitted into what remains of the county or be transferred to the borough councils. That might be a tragedy for the medical officers of health. Perhaps it is. But I think it will be an even greater tragedy for those school children who, up to now, have been part of the services and have been
986
handled in a satisfactory way. It will be a tragedy even greater for the children than for the school medical officers, but of course the school medical officers are part of the staff that will have to enter into our considerations in these arrangements. Arrangements for voluntary schools—
VISCOUNT MERSEY: May I interrupt the noble Lord and ask him this question? Does he consider that, as a result of the general and whole reorganisation of local government, the total staff engaged is going to be less or greater than at present?
LORD CHAMPION: I was not talking here about vesting the whole staff. I was talking about the counties contracting and the problem of transfer, with the consequent disorganisation. I am sure that the noble Lord will recognise that there will be great disorganisation as a result of the fragmentation which will take place under this Bill.
The question of areas for voluntary schools appears to me to present a particularly difficult problem. I understand that provision has been made by the county councils of Surrey, Kent and Essex to locate these schools in relation to the catchment areas within the existing counties. Clearly new boundaries will cut through the catchment areas which have been devised by these counties, and negotiations will have to be entered into with the new borough councils, the religious bodies involved and the local school managers. Noble Lords who have gone through some of the difficulties of negotiation with religious bodies on voluntary schools will recognise that this is not something that can be settled in a few months; lengthy negotiations will have to take place. And what applies to the catchment areas for voluntary schools also applies to further education. The deprived counties (if I may so call them) have sited their technical colleges, grammar schools and secondary modern schools with a view to a free flow of pupils throughout all the stages of the educational system. Some of those schools and colleges will be just outside the new areas, others just inside, and the arrangements to be made to ensure that this free flow continues will have to be negotiated and that, too, will take a long time.
I have mentioned some of the problems which will face the deprived counties and

987
the new borough councils. One could go on citing difficulties to be faced over the whole range of their functions. These difficulties are much too great to be overcome in the transitional period allowed for in the Bill. Those with an elementary knowledge of local government and its problems will know, that they are incapable of negotiation and solution within the transitional period of one year.
The second part of this clause deals with the death of the county metropolitan boroughs, districts and parishes within the Greater London area. I have come to study London local government with a fresh mind. When I first became a member of an urban district council, I studied local government. I used as a textbook a book which had at the end two chapters devoted to London government. I did not open one of them, because they did not apply to the area in which I lived and I thought I could neglect them. But I can claim that I have read most of the words spoken on this Bill in another place and all of them spoken in this House. I have yet to find a single convincing argument in any of the words that have been used in favour of the abolition of the London County Council and of the Middlesex County Council.
Both are well tried units of local administration. Both have been shown to have a very high quality of staff. Both have been working under an elected leadership of expert quality. Under this clause, they are to disappear, to be replaced by an untried system and largely by people who will themselves be untried in local government, if the Government get their way, because, if some of my noble friends are right, the purpose of this Bill is to get a bunch of new councillors on the council who will be mainly Tories, who in any case will be untried. That is the point I am mainly making here. We shall have this hunch of inexperienced councillors coming in to face this difficult task of the transitional period, and the time granted by this Bill of less than one year from the date of their election is quite inadequate for the task which is to face them.
The last point I would make in connection with this Amendment is that I
988
am well aware that the staffs of the L.C.C. and M.C.C. will have begun by 1964 to make their preparations and to prepare their memoranda on the difficulties to be faced and what will be necessary in order to accomplish this transfer without too much upset. But we must not expect too much from those staffs, because they all have to continue, throughout the whole period up to April 1, 1965, to do their normal day-to-day tasks. They cannot all be taken off their jobs in order to consider how they are going to carry out this transfer of functions. Obviously, there are limits to their capacity for additional, work which the Government are trying to place upon them. Heads of departments in this field have already said publicly that this timetable will cause grave risks of a breakdown in London's local government services. This was said by experienced men who really know what will be involved in the transfer of functions to these new bodies. I am not going to discuss in detail the transfer of functions between the L.C.C. and boroughs inside the Greater London area. That will come on Amendment No. 19. I hope that I have said enough to convince the Committee that the timetable proposed in this Bill for ending the London and Middlesex County Councils and for the transfer of functions of counties outside London is much too short, and I hope that this Amendment will be accepted by the Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 18, leave out ("1st April, 1965") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Champion.)
LORD STONHAM: I beg to support the Amendment so convincingly moved by my noble friend Lord Champion. I honestly believe that no noble Lord who has any experience whatsoever of any form of local government administration, using that term in its widest sense, can possibly believe that the, in many ways, unprecedented transfer of functions envisaged can be properly got through in a period of twelve months from April, 1964. I want to deal with only one aspect of the very broad canvas covered by my noble friend, because certain other aspects can be developed in detail on later Amendments. I have in mind the vast question of the mental health service,

989
on which I hope to be able to speak on Amendment No. 18.
The one particular point I want to deal with now is the question of staff redundancies. The noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, asked my noble friend whether in his view there would be more people wanted or less; and my noble friend, quite rightly, refused to forecast. But this we can say: the Government anticipate that there may be, and in fact probably will be, a number of people who will be redundant. In fact there are compensation provisions in the Bill. Therefore, we must anticipate that some experienced officers, perhaps with 25 years' experience, really at the peak of their knowledge and experience, are going to lose their jobs when they have still ten or fifteen years to give to local government service. I think that is a serious matter and a serious argument against the Bill. But what is important is that it is a very potent argument in favour of an extra year, because within an additional year there is going to be considerable opportunity, from natural causes, of losing a number of people.
I am chairman of a group of hospitals in London, and for several years now there has been what I regard as a wise movement to amalgamate adjacent hospital groups. While this is a good thing and highly desirable in every way, it means that senior officers become redundant, because there are fewer jobs. The Minister of Health has accepted all the representations of Regional Boards in this matter, so that these amalgamations have been arranged in such a way that, so far, no redundancies have been created, or if they have, the officers have been found jobs of equal status, with equal or increased salary within the hospital service. This is an important matter, and supremely important to the men concerned, who are people whose interests we should consider. It has been possible to do this only because it is an operation conducted over a period of two or three years; and, indeed, the amalgamation of groups has been so timed in many cases as to fit in with the known retirement of the senior officers, and sometimes with the retirement of a chairman of a particular group. But it could not possibly be arranged in a period of twelve months.
990
My noble friend was quite right in saying that this great local government service in London, Middlesex, Surrey, Kent and Essex, will suffer. I said just now that this was a unique proposal, and it is because of its size and scope, and also because of this utterly indecent haste. I would ask your Lordships to look at this one point. Those local government officers about whom I have been speaking cannot possibly begin to negotiate new terms of service until the new Councils are elected in April, 1964: in other words, they have not yet employers with whom to negotiate. I challenge the noble Lord who is to reply to say whether he can quote any kind of parallel in local government where by Statute you insist on making arrangements which will affect local government officers and their very jobs—and they receive only two-thirds of their rate of salary as compensation if they lose their jobs—and insist that the Bill shall go on the Statute Book and become law within twelve months from the first day, when the officers concerned can begin to negotiate with their prospective employers. I know of no such case.
I think it is really disgraceful when these men and women, who have given great service to their country as a whole, in the field of local government, who have been quite devoted, through no fault of their own are going to be jettisoned and their local authorities annihilated—even a great county authority like Middlesex—and they will have only twelve months, at the outside, to negotiate to see whether they are going to have jobs, with whom they are to work, who is to be the chief officer of a particular new borough, who will be deputy aid so on, right down the scale. Throughout that time they have to continue governing London, Kent and Middlesex, and also with negotiating, not only for their own jobs, but in preparation for the take-over of these vast services. These met unquestionably are worried, will be worried and have a right to be worried. I am sure that, as has been their tradition, they want to, and will, do their utmost to carry out the wishes of Parliament but it is utterly impossible and completely unfair to put on their shoulders a task of this kind. Therefore, I would urge the Government to take serious notice of this important Amendment, and if they insist on putting

991
the Bill on the Statute Book, at least to see that it has a chance to be properly carried out without doing untold damage to local government and the officers who serve it.
3.36 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Lord, Lord Champion, in moving this Amendment said that he did not wish to discuss Amendment No. 19. But that deals with the transfer functions, and this deals with the disappearance of the counties and county boroughs, and the two things happen on the same date; and, in fact, the two speeches to which we have listened have dealt extensively with the transfer of functions. However that may be, I should like to reply quite briefly. I do not wish to appear discourteous or in any way curt to noble Lords, but in fact these arguments were made in connection with the Amendments that we took last week. I did point out at that time that the period of transition, which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, in particular, has referred to as running from the elections of 1964 until the transfers in 1965, is not limited to that period of eleven months. It is starting as from now. So there is a period of two years. I explained how joint committees are already being set up between the boroughs to discuss this aspect, and that they are making good progress. Under Clause 83 there is authority for setting up further committees, and that process is being gone into now, with encouraging results. So I urge noble Lords not to get the idea that nothing happens until the elections of 1964; because that is not right.
LORD LATHAM: Would the noble Lord tell the Committee by whose authority these various joint committees referred to now are set up?
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Under what Statute?
LORD LATHAM: And who pays the expenses for them?
LORD HASTINGS: There is no authority for it.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Shame!
LORD HASTINGS: The borough councils can do what they wish.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD HASTINGS: As noble Lords know perfectly well, the Minister sent a circular to the local authorities pointing out the difficulties and suggesting that they might wish to set up joint committees; and that they are doing, because they are sensible people.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Thank you. Now you are going to abolish them.
LORD LATHAM: The noble Lord must understand that the Minister cannot spend the money of local authorities without proper authority.
LORD HASTINGS: The Minister is not spending the councils' money.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: May I ask one question? Can the noble Lord tell the House on what other occasion has legislation been anticipated in this way?
LORD HASTINGS: I should think frequently; though I do not know. But it is common sense that the borough councils, when they foresee changes of this nature, should consult together. I am quite certain noble Lords will agree with that.
LORD LATHAM: Arrogance.
LORD HASTINGS: It is not arrogance at all.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It is just about as bad as the fact that the Government are doing the whole of this rotten thing without any mandate from the electorate whatsoever.
LORD HASTINGS: I dealt with that argument, and so did my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, on Second Reading. The two Amendments previously were defeated, and we agreed that the elections of the local borough councils, and of the Greater London Council, should take place in 1964. This Amendment, of course, was devised with the intent that the elections should take place in 1965 and the disappearance of the other authorities a year later, in 1966. We have defeated the other Amendments. The elections will take place in 1964, and therefore it is right that the delay should be only another year, until 1965, before these transfers take place. There is nothing more I can usefully say on this matter, and I ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment.
LORD WALSTON: I am rather amazed at what we have just heard from the noble Lord. We had a discussion last week on the general matter of democratic representation and points of that kind. Some of us expressed doubts about the limitation of the size of councils, which we felt was striking a blow against the general democratic form of local government. But here, if I understand the noble Lord aright, we have something far more serious. It is that, in order to save time, negotiations of considerable importance are already being entered into between important and valuable officials in local government and the representatives of existing councils (which will not exist after April, 1965) in order to discuss the actual form that certain important activities of those future councils will take after 1965. Surely, while it is useful to have discussions between, as it were, the permanent officials as to the form they would like to recommend to the democratically elected representatives on the council the activities the new organisation should undertake, it is entirely undemocratic, in every sense of the word, that any detailed negotiations should be entered into, and certainly that no decisions should be taken except by the actual people who have been elected by the voters of that particular district. That must be the time when the real negotiations take place.
By all means have those negotiations, if you wish, and if it can be done without any mistake in financial administration, such as we have already heard or had queried, I hope that the noble Lord is not telling us that when these new councils are finally elected they will be presented with a fait accompli and he told, "This is what has been arranged by your predecessors or the permanent officials"—because the noble Lord is getting close to telling us that. If that is not going to be the case and if, as we sincerely hope (and I hope noble Lords on the other side also sincerely hope), it is to be for the elected representatives to make those decisions, then his whole attempt to rebut the argument of my noble friend falls to the ground—because they will certainly need far more than twelve months which this Bill envisages in order to deal with those negotiations. It is only on the assumption that far more than the general outline of the actual details have been worked out,
994
prior to the elections, by people other than the elected representatives that you can justify the fact that only twelve months is allowed. I ask the noble Lord the Minister to make it quite clear what he is now telling us. Are the new councils to be presented with this fait accompli or left with their hands untied, to make whatever best arrangements they think fit? If it is the latter, as I hope it is, then I hope he will either accept the Amendment of my noble friend or at least bring forward other and more convincing arguments than he has done so far.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: While I agree with the noble Lord when he said that it is sensible to negotiate, I do not quite agree with what I regretfully have to say sounded like an intolerant note: that my noble friend who moved this Amendment was trying to do something that was utterly contrary to common sense. He made certain submissions that were not fully answered. I do not wonder that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, evaded them, and said that he had little to say, but was relying upon what was said by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House or somebody else on Second Reading. My noble friend Lord Champion referred to the fact of the displacement or disturbance of local government areas in Surrey, Essex, Kent, Middlesex and for forth. It has been mentioned (I am sorry to have to repeat it, but I think it necessary) that Surrey will lose a goodly part of their people, their rateable value, their prestige and their status. That applies also to the officials of Surrey and the other authorities that are seriously disturbed.
To quote an example, with whom will the Clerk to the Surrey County Council, which has been reduced to a formidable extent, or those serving under him, negotiate? So far as we on this side understand it, there is nobody outside Surrey with whom those officials could negotiate, since no body seems to have any authority to negotiate and reach conclusions on either salaries, status, prestige of the officials and so forth. If, as the noble Lord seems to suggest, negotiations can be carried on involving the terms of re-employment—because it will almost amount to re-employment, once the boundaries are changed—some body must have the power to negotiate in a common-sense manner, as the noble Lord

995
put it, dealing with facts and figures which apply in the future. With whom, outside the fragmented Surrey County Council can the officials of the forthcoming Surrey County Council negotiate? Who has any authority to negotiate with them, to determine salaries and other incidental but important details? I should like to ask the noble Lord, for instance, whether the Auditor General has given authority to some body of unknown persons that, whatever expense is involved in the negotiations, it will be accepted by the Auditor when he goes to the appropriate authorities who have incurred that expense. Has someone been told from the Auditor General's department that these expenses will be accepted?
It seems to me that this is not the simple question the noble Lord tried to make out. It is, as my noble friend Lord Champion stated, very convincingly I thought, vitally important that negotiations should take place with proper authority so that any decisions reached can be implemented when the time arrives. I should like to say again that if the Opposition wanted to do nothing more than try to help the Government to save themselves, I think they are doing so with this Amendment. The Government have just had an experience in which the country said to them, "You can't do that there 'ere". If a great blunder, no matter how well-intentioned it may be, is made by limiting the time so that sensible negotiations cannot take place and reasonable conclusions reached within the time specified, then clearly the time ought to be extended. It seems to me, as one noble Lord said earlier on in our debates, that it is wiser to get the right decision than to get a hasty decision, and I think that that could not apply more than it does in this particular case.
Although I am not a Londoner, thank the Lord!—and despite my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, I prefer to Feel Yorkshire; I am Yorkshire and wish to remain Yorkshire—I should still like to see this City governed as we think it should, and could, be governed and to remain one of the monumental features of this country; but I am pretty certain that if we try to scamp decisions of this important character we shall do much more harm than good.
LORD AUCKLAND: I must confess I am happy neither with the first part of Clause 3 nor with the Amendment put down by noble Lords opposite. It does not seem to me to be possible to put an arbitrary date on a project of this kind involving so many authorities with so many different numbers within them. I believe, in the case of many of these authorities, that the date of April 1, 1965, may well be quite suitable, but I can speak only for the part of Surrey which has been mentioned by several noble Lords opposite. Take an area like Croydon, which has a population of over 240,000 and which is being saddled with Coulsdon and Purley which have 70,000 to 80,000, and my own area of Epsom and Ewell which will be faced with the difficulty of civic centres. Civic centres cannot be built in a matter of a few months. So I would ask my noble friend to look at this again and possibly to advance the date to October, 1965—I think 1966 is rather late—or to write into the Bill words to the effect of "or a date suitable to the authority concerned", because I belive the present date is too arbitrary for the administration to be carried through properly.
LORD SILKIN: I should like to associate myself with everything that has been said up to now from this side of the Committee and with what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland. I am not going to repeat the arguments that have been put forward, but I cannot help feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, did not give an adequate reply to the very convincing statements that have been made. It seems to me that there may be little doubt that the new local authorities will not be ready by 1965, and it is going to impose considerable hardship on the people themselves.
I am not going to speak about the troubles of the local government officers; I think they are in a position, up to a point, to look after themselves and I have no doubt they will. I am thinking of those of the population who are going to be affected, particularly the school children. A number of children are to-day attending schools in areas which are at present outside the County of London and which will become part of Greater London. Arrangements will have to be made for the children who are in those

997
schools. I imagine that the sensible arrangement will be that they continue to attend the schools which they are at present attending, but there will be financial arrangements to be made in respect of those children.
There will be other children who are about to attend secondary modern schools who would, in the normal course of events, have gone to, say, a school in Surrey or Kent but who will no longer be eligible to go to such a school and will have to go to schools within the county. Whether those schools are readily available or not I do not know, but arrangements will have to be made for them. If they are not available then some arrangement will have to be made between the two respective local authorities that the children should temporarily attend school outside the Greater London Area. All those arrangements will have to be made, and I cannot see how they can be made within the short time that is available. And why should the Government insist, whether these arrangements have been satisfactorily concluded or not, that the thing has got to come into operation on April 1, 1965, when, surely, in their own interests they ought to make some elbow room?
I have referred to education, but there are many other services to which the same thing applies; and in case they cannot make these arrangements, surely the Government could accept the Amendment and take power by order to bring the measure into operation at a later date. The noble Lord said that discussions are taking place already, I presume to surmount this kind of difficulty which is going to arise; but the people who are discussing and negotiating have no authority. I associate myself with the point that they are incurring expenditure, and so on, without authority. Let us assume that it is common sense to discuss this matter in view of impending legislation, but they have no authority because by the time that this becomes operative there will be new elections and it may well be that there will be quite different people, different councillors, different ideas and different bodies to discuss with. The bodies who are discussing at the moment will no longer be the same bodies as will have to operate any arrangements that are made. There will be different
998
bodies entirely, who may want to repudiate, at least not to accept, the arrangements which have been made—the tentative arrangements, if you like, for they cannot be more than that. In all good faith, a smaller Surrey County Council may not be prepared to accept what the existing Surrey County Council is arranging; and the same argument applies to the Greater London Authority, which does not exist.
Many of the arrangements that the noble Lord is thinking about are arrangements which have been made between the sovereign bodies, the Greater London Council, the new London boroughs and the outer London authorities. They do not exist. How can you make any kind of arrangements, say, with the borough of Wandsworth, which is going to be split up into three parts, or with Woolwich? How can you? They will not exist and they will be merged in past into three different London boroughs. It is quite impossible to make an arrangement of this sort, even a tentative one, in this interim period. I am speaking in the interests of wise administration, if nothing else, in saying that the Government should give themselves elbow room. It may not be this Government who have to implement this Act. There should be elbow room in order to permit the making of satisfactory arrangements as regards the transfer of services. I beg the Government to think again about this and not to be rigid about a pure piece of administration. It is silly to be so rigid about it and not give yourself scope in case you need more time, and to insist upon a thing which you may not be able to carry out.
LORD HASTINGS: I hope I am not giving the impression that we on this side underrate the difficulty; not a bit of it. We appreciate everything the noble Lord, Lord Champion, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and others have said. I made a reasoned reply to Lord Silkin's criticism on Thursday when the question of transferred functions was raised. I said we had gone into that most carefully, and we are satisfied the timetable we have set out in the Bill can be kept. Certainly I will bear in mind what the noble Lord said about elbow room, but that is all I can say in respect of that matter.
LORD SILKIN: May I interrupt the noble Lord? When he says he will bear it in mind, what does he mean? In what practical form will this emerge?
LORD HASTINGS: I do not mean that I am going to suggest the noble Lord should withdraw his Amendment and I will come back on Report stage; I am afraid not. I would obviously talk to my right honourable friend about it, but this afternoon I am going to ask the Committee to reject the Amendment. Great point was made about these ad hoc joint committees, some of which were set up before my right honourable friend sent out a circular. He commended them for doing so and suggested other boroughs might like to do the same. Boroughs are quite within their powers to do this sort of thing and spend money upon it. There is nothing secret about the circular. It refers also to the possibility that the county councils should appoint members to the ad hoc committees of the intended new borough groups. That was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Champion. I think noble Lords have overlooked altogether the special staff commission which is being set up by my right honourable friend, being an all-staff conference in this connection. I think those are the main points brought up again. I do not underestimate the importance, but we feel these matters can be carried out, as I have explained.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I must say the longer the debate on this Amendment goes on the more disappointed I feel with the Government's answers. It is pretty shocking, when we raise in a democratic country the question of the right to take action at the expense of the Government and the local authorities, under a Statute not yet passed. The noble Lord has just said that again about the Minister himself, who set up staff conferences to deal with changes in areas not yet existing as separate statutory areas. This seems to me to be a most extraordinary affair. The whole plot—and I take the word especially from my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth—to alter completely the local government of London is now being speeded up in order to rush it through in whatever time this Government have left. That is what they intend to do.
1000
In order to try to make it slightly less difficult for the local authorities who will be concerned, you set up unlawfully, in advance, arrangements to be made, before the Parliament of this country has given final authority in the Statute.
This is a most extraordinary state of affairs. I do not remember any case of this kind in my long experience, which was in local government service as well as well over 35 years in Parliament, where so short a time would have been allowed for making such arrangements as are now being made in this enormous revolution in London government. But I do know this: that where matters are rushed from time to time there is an enormous strain upon staffs. I remember the tremendous revolution in the control and objective of our public education in 1902, under the Balfour Act. I was then starting to work on it in a county council education office, at the age of 18, and for five years we worked overtime without a single penny of overtime remuneration. It was a most harassing period. Of course things have changed since then, and employees, whether they be officials or ordinary staffs, are not going to stand for that kind of thing.
As I have listened to the careful explanation, given not only on the Second Reading but now also by my noble friend Lord Champion, of the conditions which have to be dealt with in the time allowed under this Bill, I say the time is absolutely insufficient. I am certain of that. When the noble Lord says to my noble friend Lord Silkin that he will "keep this in mind", I think of the title of the song that apparently says all that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would get out of the Minister, and that is Thanks for the Memory. Nothing has been offered from the other side of the House to help us in our search for justice for the people and authorities of London—nothing at all.
I am bound to say that we feel reinforced in our first impressions that the real basis and purpose of this Government is a political one, and that they are trying to arrange such an alteration in the structure of the administration of London and Greater London that they will be able to destroy the continued preference of the London County Council electorate for the Party of which I am proud to be a member. That is the real

1001
objective. And they are doing this without a single mandate. The elections which have taken place in the last three days in areas which are affected by the legislation now proposed prove once more that the Government are acting against the will of those electors who go to the polls and express their opinions. That is the actual fact. We say at this time, "If you want to make very big changes in the local government, of greater London, let us have time to see it properly worked out". At present it is not provided for. This is the kind of operation that Lord Montgomery of Alamein would agree is most appropriate for something you have to do in wartime; but I can find no evidence of arty war in this matter except the war of the Government against the Party to which I belong. Apparently the refusal to make anything like decent Amendments as we go through this Bill now is an aspect of political war, to leave a trail of malice behind them.
LORD CHAMPION: I should be very sorry if this Amendment were regarded as part of the tactics in a battle between the two Parties. I must admit that when I considered this Amendment and put it down and spoke upon it, I thought we were not dealing with a Party point at all. It does not appear to me to be a Party point. The point I have in mind is, how is it going to be possible to carry out this Bill once it reaches the Statute Book? And, clearly, this Bill is going to reach the Statute Book if this Government last long enough. That is their job, to carry through their legislation. But I do not think we are here on a Party point at all. It is one which arises from the knowledge of experts who have considered this matter, experts who are now engaged on the Civil Service side of the authorities concerned, and the elected members' point of view also. We have had both. We have heard from the civil servants, and we have heard here to-day, from both sides of the Committee, people who have had experience of guiding the civil servant—and that, after all, is the job of the Council. That is why I support my noble friends Lord Williams of Barnburgh, Lord Silkin and Lord Walston, in saying that while some little preparation might be made by the Civil Service of these authorities, finally the decision must be taken by the new councils after they have thoroughly grasped
1002
what it is all about. This period of time which ought to be granted is important.
I must admit that I was tremendously disappointed in the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. He did not seem to me to be really addressing himself to some of the problems which we have cited in this connection—and these are really important problems. He based his case mainly on the fact that there has already been set up somewhere some ad hoc committee to consider what the effects of this are going to be and to make some preparation for it. But I have felt for a long time that this Bill has been prepared and brought to this stage by people who really do not understand local government in the field, on the ground, doing the job. Indeed, I am sorry to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, because I like him a great deal, that I think he showed a general example of the ignorance of Ministers when he suggested that boroughs can do what they like. They just cannot; they can do only what Acts of Parliament permit them to do. I am doubtful whether any Act of Parliament passed up to now enables these preparations to be made for something which may become an Act of Parliament in the dim and distant future, although it may not be quite in the dim and distant future if the Government get their way.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, supported the principle of the Amendment out of his own peculiar knowledge. I suggest that if the Government cannot accept completely the words of this Amendment they might at least take part of the wording from Amendment No. 19 to ensure that they will not actually carry out this job of taking over until the councils have been consulted at all levels, and all the associations—not the staff associations but the associations of borough councils—have been consulted before a date is decided upon. In Amendment No. 19 we make provision for this. We should not mind giving to the Government these words, provided that they adapt and adopt them for the purposes suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland.
In the past we have had experience of this job of reorganising local government. There was the 1929 Act, when boundaries were altered, when new bodies were created and some were abolished. A number of things happened, and they were considerable things. But the

1003
amount that had to be done under the 1929 Act was trifling in comparison with what has to be done under this Bill, and in that case two years was the period given for reorganisation. I should be more than grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, if he would say, here and now, that he will think over this matter, and give us an undertaking that the
4.27 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH moved, in subsection (1)(b), after "say:" to insert: "the City of London,". The noble Lord said: in order that this Amendment may be understood, I had better read the words of the subsection to which it refers. Clause 3(1) says:
" As from 1st April 1965—

(a) no part of Greater London shall form part of any administrative county, county district or parish "—

although we have since been told by the Lord Chancellor that it is the Government's intention to establish a Lord
1004
Government will consider the words that I have proposed for inclusion in this Bill, with some prospect of their being included. The noble Lord shakes his head. Therefore, I do not propose to withdraw the Amendment.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 63.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Lawson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Amulree, L.

Lindgren, L

Silkin, L.

Archibald, L.

Listowel, E.

Sinha, L.

Attlee, E.

Longford, E.

Stonham, L. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Summerskill, B.

Chorley, L.

Meston, L.

Walston, L.

Crook, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Williams, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Ogmore, L.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Hughes, L.

Rea, L.

Williamson, L.

Latham, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Margesson, V.

Albemarle, E.

Goddard, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gosford, E.

Mersey, V.

Blackford, L.

Grenfell, L.

Mills, V.

Bossom, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Monsell, V.

Boston, L.

Hastings, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Buchan, E.

Hawke, L.

Newton, L.

Carrington, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Onslow, E.

Cholmondeley, M.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Conesford, L.

Howe, E.

Remnant, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Ilford, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Denham, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Saltoun, L.

Devonshire, D.

Jessel, L.

Sandwich, E.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Killearn, L.

Somers, L.

Dudley, L.

Kilmuir, E.

Soulbury, V.

Effingham, E.

Lothian, M.

Spens, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Luke, L.

Strathalmond, L.

Ferrers, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mansfield, E.

Swinton, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lieutenant for Greater London, which seems to me to involve the definition of "Greater London" as a county or an administrative county. Then come paragraphs (b), (c) and (d), which are the important parts:
"(b) the following administrative areas and their councils (and, in the case of a borough, the municipal corporation thereof) shall cease to exist, that is to say, the counties of London and Middlesex, the metropolitan boroughs, and any existing county borough, county district or parish the area of which falls wholly within Greater London;
"(c) the urban district of Potters Bar shall become part of the county of Hertfordshire;
"(d) the urban districts of Staines and Sunbury-on-Thames shall become part of the county of Surrey."

1005
That abolishes all the existing local government areas in Greater London—with one exception. That exception is the ancient City of London.
How often have we been told: "It is time the London County Council was reformed or abolished, and Middlesex as well, because they have existed for about 70 years or more? Therefore, why should the Labour Party be so stuffy, so conservative, that it wants to preserve these bodies which have existed for that period of years?" Yet the Government are here leaving intact the City of London, which has been established, not for 70 years, but since 1346.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Of course, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, says "Hear, hear!", because the City of London is Tory; because it appeals to his aristocratic instincts; because it is reactionary; because it stuffy; because there is no Labour Member on the Common Council at all. That is why the noble Lord the Earl of Sandwich says, "Hear, hear!". So he openly defends this ancient monument; and, on the other hand, joins with the Government in declaring that the London Count Council is itself a body of such great age that we ought not to defend its continued existence.
I want to know why we should think that the City of London is untouchable. I admit that if you go back far enough it has a good, even progressive, even revolutionary, past. Years ago, the City of London long defied monarchs and stood for the rights of the people—as that word was then understood, which was mostly the middle class and the aristocracy. They did that, and therefore at that time they served Parliamentary democracy with great ability. I have before now at the Mansion House congratulated the ancient City of London on its revolutionary past. Moreover, there is in another place a very fine picture showing the escape of the five Members who were threatened by absolute monarchy that they were to be arrested because they were not accepting the Royal will. What did they do? They got into a rowing boat, they were rowed into the city of London and there they were saved from the monarchical vengeance. So not all of the past of the City is bad. But it has
1006
become bad because it has been selfish; it has not shared its wealth, its privileges and its market monopolies with local authorities outside, but has selfishly kept them for the monopoly of the City of London.
I am looking at some notes for an article written by Miss Belle Harris for the Political Quarterly, one of the two editors of which is Professor William A. Robson, a champion of this dreadful Bill and one of the authors of the policy behind it. But he now says that the Government have let him down, because the area of the Greater London authority is not big enough. Given the principles on which the Bill is based, there is a lot to be said for that point of view, and also that it is giving too little power to the Greater London Council and too much power to the boroughs. That is what he says, and to that extent he criticises the Government. I do not forgive him for his original lack of seeing the light, but Professor W. A. Robson, in his pamphlet The Greater London Boroughs, describes the City as,
"a backward-looking body steeped in tradition and largely indifferent to the needs of the modern metropolis."
That is what he says. I do not know that I am in good company, but I am in the company of one who gives general support to the Bill. Even the Bow Group, a Conservative Party group, have suggested that the pageantry of the City should relate to the whole Greater London area. They said:
"The City should be divorced from their historical associations. Such ceremonies would become meaningless and the prestige of the City would rapidly decline."
On the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, the Minister of Housing and Local Government maintained that it was a matter of principle that 60 councillors only should comprise the councils of the new London boroughs. This gave an opportunity for the late Sir Leslie Plummer to ask the pertinent question:
"As a matter of principle, what has happened to the 200 members of the City of London Corporation?"
Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us what has happened to these 200 members of the Corporation.
The qualifications necessary to be a Member of the Common Council are that a person must become a Freeman of the City, either by patrimony, servi-

1007
tude or redemption at a cost of three to five guineas, and the applications to become a Freeman have to be passed by the Common Council. The person must be registered in the Ward for which he is standing, if he becomes a candidate, and must occupy as owner or tenant in that Ward land or premises of a rateable value of not less than £10. So that the person standing for the Common Council of the City must have a property qualification, which has been completely abolished for all other local authorities in the country. Elsewhere a residential qualification is enough, but not in the City. There is a £10 residential qualification, and the person must have a qualification in the Ward for which he stands.
Aldermen are elected. That is another touch of City democracy. They have annual elections for the Common Council, which seems to me rather much. However, as elections usually do not take place it does not matter, though they may increase as time goes on. An alderman is elected for each Ward for life, so it is democratic at one end and undemocratic at the other. But his fellow aldermen can expel him as an alderman, and this indeed has happened. The truth is that this is an ancient curiosity which has a pretty long history. In earlier times it has done some good things; for example, providing Epping Forest and a few other open spaces; a little housing outside the City of London. I do not say that the City is 100 per cent. bad, but it is an ancient monument and it ought to be subject to appropriate reform.
It may be asked: do I propose to abolish the City at once and for all time? No; we have constructive alternatives to put into the Bill, to which we shall come later on. But at this point I say that it is not right for the Government or Parliament to abolish every present local authority in Greater London—I know that some of them are going to be re-created subject to different areas, and so on—with the sole exception of the highly Conservative City of London. I do not think it is fair. I do not think it is reasonable. I say that it is more evidence of political bias on the pant of the Government. Mind you, to be fair to the City, they
1008
claim that that they are non-Party. I must say that it is easy to be non-Party when all the members are Tory.
The Bermondsey Borough Council, unfortunately, from my point of view, has a 100 per cent. Labour majority. I say "unfortunately" only on the general ground that I do not like 100 per cent. majorities, whether they are Tory or Labour. I once suggested that in 100 per cent. Labour boroughs we should give aldermen to the other side, if we really appointed fighting aldermen, but that did not go down well with my people at all. It is a wonder I was not "fired" from being Secretary of the London Labour Party. However, I do not like these 100 per cent. majorities. This is a 100 per cent. Conservative majority, but the City says, "No, we are non-Party". How easy it is to be a non-Party when there is no other Party knocking about! I believe there was once a Liberal there. That will comfort the sole Liberal Peer who sits in his place. We are glad to see him there. But I wish to goodness the Liberal Peers would vote properly.
LORD OGMORE: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, on this particular Amendment. I propose to vote with him, and so do my colleagues. I think that will give him some support.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Then I will not criticise the noble Lord. We are grateful for any votes. As a matter of fact, I am talking Liberal doctrines. If I remember rightly, it was a Liberal Government which appointed a Royal Commission to consider the amalgamation of the City and County of London, and they reported favourably. Unfortunately, I think that particular Liberal Government fell soon after and nothing was done about it. But that Report was right.
LORD OGMORE: May I remind the noble Lord that Mr. Sidney Webb, in the days when he was a Liberal, set up a purely informal committee which proposed this very suggestion that the noble Lord is now making?
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I am much obliged to the noble Lord, and I think it was a right one. I think it was right on the part of the Royal Commission appointed by the Liberal

1009
Government, and it was right on the part of Sidney Webb. It is quite right that the City's magnificence, traditions and wealth should be shared by the larger area, and they could be if this Amendment were to be accepted. This Greater London Council could have become the City Corporation, and I think that ought to have happened.
I was about to say, when the noble Lord so beneficently intervened and stopped my flight of oratory in that respect, for which I thank him, that the City, while it has its points, nevertheless ought not to remain as it is. We do not propose to leave a vacuum there. We have a later Amendment which makes a proposal (I wish we could carry it right to the whole of Greater London, or at any rate to the county; but that is difficult under this Bill) in accordance with the Government's own doctrines of making the boroughs larger while leaving alone this square mile, with its population of between 4,000 and 5,000. The others have argued that there should be bigger boroughs so that they can have larger powers; and yet they propose to give the City all the powers of a London borough.
Now in accordance with the Government's doctrine that all the boroughs ought to be larger, we are disposed to test the feeling of the Committee on making the City cover a larger area, which is quite logical and in accordance with the basic principles of this Bill, by amalgamating with the City of London the boroughs of Finsbury, Shoreditch, Stepney and Southwark. Southwark is a strong case, because Southwark was an overflow of the City. If you go to Southwark now, you will find an underground station which is called "The Borough", and it is called "The Borough", although there are 27 other boroughs in London, because its population was originally an overflow across London Bridge from the City of London: they had to call the place something, and they gave it the short name of "The Borough". It would be good for the City to live in the middle of its poorer neighbours; to share its wealth, its dignity and its tradition with its poorer and more modest neighbours. So we are going to propose that the City should be merged with Finsbury, Shoreditch, Stepney and
1010
Southwark—which shows that this is not a destructive Amendment.
But it may be that the Government will not like the idea of these Labour boroughs being merged with the City. The Government, being strictly non-Party in their approach, may have strong objections to a possible marginal risk of the City of London thereby becoming a Labour Corporation, with the possibility of a Labour Lord Mayor—although we should have to get over the Livery Companies if that were to come off, because they, for some curious reason, appear to have the major hand in the election of the Lord Mayor of London.
LORD STONHAM: The entire hand.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I think the Aldermen come into it a bit, but my noble friend knows much more about it and he may be right and I may be wrong. Perhaps he will put me right in any subsequent observations he may wish to make, which he has a right to do because he was the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury for some years, and he can tell your Lordships that Finsbury is well worthy of becoming part of the ancient City of London. But it may be that Members of the Committee opposite will come to the conclusion that they cannot really stomach a City Corporation which has a Labour majority. They are refusing by this Bill to stand for a London County Council which has a Labour majority. That is the primary purpose of the Bill: all the rest is incidental to it. Its purpose is to get rid of the London County Council, with its Labour majority. So they might say, equally—I think they would be wrong—"We really cannot stand a Labour majority on the Corporation of London". As I say, I do not agree with them.
However, again showing what a reasonable lot we are on this side, we are putting down another Amendment, out of the goodness of our heart, to amalgamate the City of London and the City of Westminster. Now, could anything be more respectable than that—the marriage of two cities? That is quite a different proposition from marrying respectable Hampstead and the former "Red Flag", St. Pancras. No; in order to keep it respectable, it is between two cities. Both have the title of City, although

1011
Westminster is not particularly entitled to it because it is nothing but a metropolitan borough; but it pleases Westminster and does not do much harm to anybody else. We propose the merger of the City and Westminster, both of them Tory—safe Tory, although a few Labour Councillors have recently got on to the Westminster City Council. Now, could anything be more respectable than that? That will give the City a bigger area. What is more, it is a natural marriage. Mind you, so is my other one perfectly natural, because geographically these boroughs surround the City. Just as Birmingham has grown, absorbing the surrounding areas, so the City has grown and should absorb the surrounding areas. Therefore, I think it is a perfectly reasonable proposition.
However, if the Committee is shocked by that proposition, then we will compromise (which is very handsome on our part) on a merger of the City of London and the City of Westminster. I do not mind whether you call it then the City of London or the City of Westminster. The City of Westminster would be a more accurate name, because the square mile is not London by a long way. But the first step is to get the City into this very long list which abolishes everything and everybody except the City. That is not playing the game; that is not fair; that is not the sign of an impartial executioner. You have to abolish all these, and execute them. You must execute the City as well until we have time to put something in its place. In view of these very reasonable arguments, I earnestly trust that the Government and Committee will see their way to accepting this Amendment, which is in accordance with, at any rate, good Liberal tradition, and some of it in accordance with ancient City tradition, as well. I think it is a reasonable thing, and I trust the Amendment will commend itself to the Committee on the understanding that we shall come later to filling up the gap which would thereby be created. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 23, after ("say") insert ("the CITY OF LONDON,").—(Lord Morrison of Lambeth.)
4.46 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: I should like to say a few words—and they will be only a
1012
few words, because I have a committee elsewhere—in support of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth. I feel that for some part of the time he was talking with his tongue in his cheek but, whether he was or not, the actual sounds that were uttered by him make sense. There was one argument that he could have put forward, but did not, to support his proposition that the City of London should be combined with another borough or boroughs, and that is that the present City of London and the present City of Westminster are in fact joined as a Parliamentary constituency, and there is one Member for it.
I remember some years ago, when we were both in another place and the same proposal was put up that is now being put up with regard to joining the City of London with Finsbury, Shoreditch and these other areas, that at that time the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said much as he has said now; that there was a fairly logical case for it, but he felt it would not be fair to the present people of the City of London to join them up with Finsbury and some of these other places. I think he had in mind the particular Member of Parliament who was at that time representing Finsbury, but I may be doing him an injustice there. However that may be, the fact is that at that time, some years ago, the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, did not approve the joining up of the City of London with these neighbouring boroughs, but he did approve—and it in fact came into force—the joining of the two cities, the City of London and the City of Westminster into a Parliamentary constituency; and this is what I would suggest to your Lordships. It makes sense that the two cities should be joined up. In these days it does not make sense for the City of London, with a tiny population at night of something like 10,000 residents—
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Between 4,000 and 5,000.
LORD OGMORE: Then there must be fewer caretakers than when I last saw the number counted; but it is a very small population, and it really makes nonsense. As the noble Lord said, the actual electorate for the City is based on these old, rather mediaeval, City Guilds, where you have to become a Freeman, then you become a Liveryman

1013
and then you get a vote. In these days it does not coincide with the public welfare that this should be so, and it certainly gives a very odd appearance to the rest of the world. When they hear of the great City of London they tend to think, at least, of all the central part of London, if not of the surrounds. Instead of that, there is this tiny area with a completely obsolete franchise.
Now if this proposal is accepted, as it has been accepted in a Parliamentary sense—in fact, the former Member for the City of London and Westminster is here now in the Chamber—the fact is that there is no reason why a great deal of the ancient tradition and ceremonial should not continue. I myself live in the Royal Borough of Kensington; and Kensingtonians are very proud of the fact that they are in a Royal borough, and of their Mayor with his titles of distinction, and that he goes elsewhere with mace bearers and all that sort of thing.
I do not see why some of these ceremonials in the City should not still continue, but continue for the benefit of the citizens and the ratepayers of a much wider area than at present. Those who are councillors should be elected by the ratepayers in the normal way in the new City of London and Westminster, and the aldermen should then be selected by them as all other aldermen are. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has put up an extremely logical case. There is no answer whatever to it in logic, and for that reason I hope the Committee will accept the case that he has so ably put to it.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I would endorse very strongly the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and I am very glad that we have the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and his colleagues with us. I am bound to tell the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that many of us will regard his approach—I know he is riot a completely free man—to this as a test of the bona fides of the Government.
A NOBLE LORD: The Government spokesman will be Lord Hastings.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Then it is to be the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. I am glad for Lord Jellicoe's sake that he has been spared this, test, but I must inflict it upon the noble Lord in his place. There is a theoretical case for this Bill.
1014
I regard it as absolutely false, and many of us do not regard it as sincere. We do not attribute any good motivation to it. But there is a case on paper. However, if you argue that case on paper for the Bill as a whole, I would suggest that there is no ground whatever for defending the treatment given to the City of London.
I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, mentioned—but of course it was in his mind—the fact that, under this Bill, the City of London's influence is to be increased. I am, of course, talking about the City as a Corporation, and not as a place for making your living in. But, in fact, the influence is to be increased because there will be one member from each of the London boroughs, and one member from the City of London with its 4,000 or 5,000 people, on the education authority. It is being given a new and increased standing. That is a most extraordinary result of a Bill which comes forward and claims to modernise our local government. I would repeat what was implicit in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, but I will quote something further, beyond what he quoted, from the Political Quarterly, of which Professor Robson, one of the architects of this disastrous measure, or of the philosophy behind it, is joint editor. To show the Committee that there is no prejudice against the London Government Bill in the Political Quarterly, I would point out that they go so far as to make in a leading article this extraordinary statement:
"The Herbert Commission produced the unanimous report which is one of the great State documents of our time."
They are really almost fanatical admirers of the Herbert Report. But even in this same editorial, which claims this extraordinary approval of the Herbert Report, they say:
"We fully endorse the criticism of the Bill in respect of the City Corporation, which has come from several quarters."
Then they refer to the article that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has quoted. But even in this all-too-enthusiastic leading article in favour of the Herbert Commission there is grave criticism of the retention of the City of London a fortiori, no doubt, because of its increased influence.
It is worth taking seriously the arguments which are going to be presented

1015
and have been presented elsewhere; and as I have not yet addressed your Lordships on the Committee stage, perhaps I shall be forgiven for taking up a few minutes of your Lordships' time. The very able Minister, Sir Keith Joseph, who argued with great self-confidence elsewhere was clearly less at home with this particular topic than with any other. He was, I know, full of knowledge, as always. But he was uneasy. What was his defence? I would have said he made partly an appeal to the emotions of a particular kind, and partly attempted to laugh the whole thing off. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, whatever else he does (I cannot object if he appeals to the emotions) will not just laugh it off. The Chief Minister elsewhere admitted that the critics would point to the discrepancy between (as he mildly said) the practices of the City—and I talk of it as a Corporation—and those of a modern democracy. But what is the point of transferring them? He goes on to say that as it has a lot of money, it can pay its own way and contribute to London as well. When I read that argument I wonder how the Reform Bill of 1832 ever got through. People might well say that here the Parliamentary set-up is quite illogical; here there are wealthy people who pay the electors for their votes, and a lot of what goes on is quite indefensible, but it is as cheap as any other way of doing it and much less tiresome; so why not leave it as it is? If you read this defence—that is a slight but not total exaggeration—you will see that one part of Sir Keith Joseph's argument is that the City can afford to look after itself and therefore ought to be allowed to defy the march of the 20th century.
Then we come to what I call the emotional part of his argument. He says we cannot preserve the advantages of the office of Lord Mayor, renowned all over the world, the magic and the evocative magnetism of the title, and destroy the independence of the local authority of which he is the civic head. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, spoke very well about that and said that he would promise the support of the Liberals. I see that he has retired temporarily from the Chamber, but we have at least one Liberal with us. I hope that the noble Lord will be rescued from the Commit-
1016
tee he is attending in time for the vote. In any event, he dealt very well with that point, as did the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, explaining it would be perfectly well to retain the Lord Major in the new connection. But the interesting thing is that the Minister elsewhere clearly felt this deep emotion in connection with the office of Lord Mayor. I am not suggesting that this arises from any family, historical reasons. His family has a great tradition there. But I do not want to imply that that had anything to do with it. But he and others will tell us that this is of great emotional appeal, evoking loyalties, and it must therefore be preserved.
If I had to choose between the London County Council and the Lord Mayor I would choose the London County Council, and most democratic-minded people would do so. Yet the Party opposite and the Royal Commission, for example, set out to abolish the London County Council without uttering one word of regret. I challenge the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, to find one word of regret for the liquidation of the London County Council proposed in the Herbert Commission's Report. Can no emotion centre round perhaps the most famous authority in the world? Is that not going to be allowed to evoke any loyalty or any communal response? When it comes to the City, to the Lord Mayor and the ceremonies, we are told the City is unlike any other municipality—its wealth, antiquity, the enormous part it has played in the history of the nation; its dignity; its historical ceremonial make the City of London an institution of national importance. Is not the L.C.C. an institution of national importance? But it is disposed of without a word of regret.
If one read the Royal Commission's Report quickly and did not know the subject, one might not notice that the London County Council was being destroyed. There is one treatment for the City and quite another for the London County Council. At this point the Royal Commission, which prides itself on its logic, threw logic out of the window and said openly, "Logic has its limitations and the position of the City lies outside them." Are we to offer to the City a kind of religious allegiance outside the laws of reason altogether and outside logic? That is the kind of phantasy that discredits the Report and casts grave

1017
doubt on the bona fides of the Government seeking to carry it out. We shall hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, what his arguments are. I speak respectfully. Will he tell us why there should be one law of reason applied to the City and another law applied to everything else?
5.0 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I hope it will not be thought wrong if a Londoner should intervene briefly in this debate. I think that I am the only Member of your Lordships' House who was born 100 yards from the Bishopsgate, as were twelve generations of my family before me. So I can claim to have: some interest in the City, although I was born in Stepney, one of the boroughs mentioned by my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth. And in another place I represented the boroughs of Shoreditch and Finsbury.
I have heard with regret some of the views which have been expressed from this side to-day because, despite my view that the Government's position with regard to the City of London is quite indefensible, I shall not fail to pay my tribute to the City of London. In its traditions, its history and its great Guilds, the City of London has a record unmatched by any city in the world. I think that it was due to the courage, the stubbornness, the pride, if you like, of its citizens that London is the only unconquered capital city in the world. Indeed, in the old days, when monarchs fell out or civil wars were raging, though the Londoners would make a bargain, both monarch and pretender knew that he had to get London on his side if he were to succeed—though perhaps that is not the most creditable part of the history of London.
I give way to none in my admiration and pride in the achievements of this great City of ours. At the same time, do not give place to anyone in my pride in the boroughs immediately adjoining the City. The Borough of Shoreditch, which is just on the other side of the Wall, was a village in the time of William the Conqueror. It is still, literally, a village. Its people are utterly different from those in the adjoining boroughs of Stepney or Finsbury. They, too, have their courage and endurance, which I have never seen matched anywhere; and I have lived among them in trying times. The Borough of Finsbury and the people in it have a great history and tradition,
1018
too. Throughout the centuries people famous in the arts, in the theatre and on the field of arms have lived in Finsbury. I do not deride the City of London, and still less its adjoining boroughs, and I do not take it kindly when noble Lords laugh at the proposal to join those boroughs with the City. If they were joined with the City, at least we should have people living in the place they represented and not merely voting because they made money there, though the place is not good enough for them to live in. I think that the only principle on which you can found local government is that votes should be cast in local government areas by the people who live there and not by absentee voters who merely pay caretakers to look after their premises.
I feel that the Government should look seriously at the Amendment which we are putting forward from this side of the Committee. Their basis is quite unanswerable. The position in the City of London is the very negation of democracy. I pay full tribute to the ability of members of the Common Council and of the Aldermen. They are to a man very worthy, able and devoted people, and they do a great deal of good. But it is completely unjustifiable that they should be there, in large measure, because of property qualification—using property in the widest sense, to include money—without any kind of democratic support at all or any kind of reason.
I have been a Freeman of the City of London for some 32 or 33 years. You pay your three guineas and you become a Freeman. Then, if you like, a year or five years later, you pay 30 guineas or 50 guineas and become a Liveryman of a City Company. I have been a Liveryman for 30-odd years, and every year I receive election literature. I have never voted in a Shrieval election, because I believe that it is completely undemocratic and I do not like having my vote canvassed in this way. But a list of candidates is prepared and people come round and ask for your vote under the "Old Pal" Act and that is how they are elected. There is nothing democratic about it. There is nothing which your Lordships could approve or support. That is why I interrupted my noble friend by saying that all the elections are undemocratic, because it is all cut-and-dried beforehand. When it comes to the appointment of the Lord Mayor,

1019
if a member has been Sheriff, in due course, after a sufficient number of years, and if it is thought that he has sufficient money to support the office, which is a very expensive business, he will become Lord Mayor. It is a position of great dignity and of great credit to this country, and all the Lord Mayors that I can remember have conferred considerable credit and dignity on the office—as, indeed, do the Lord Mayors of many other big cities who have become Lord Mayors through the democratic machinery of local government.
There is much to object to in this method of election, and unquestionably there is a strong political bias. I am not going to say which Company, but I was at the luncheon of a Company, of which I have been a member for a good many years, and I was told by the man sitting next to me that I was the senior Liveryman. "How do you know?" I asked. He replied, "Because I am the next one to you, and I am waiting for you to move up." I did not pay much attention to it, but about a year later the clerk rang me up, and asked me, "Have you any enemies on the Court?" I replied, "Not so far as I know". He said: "You should have been on the Court, but you have been blackballed twice." I said: "Let it run again." He did, with the same result. I asked: "Why is it?" The only thing he could think of was that I was well-known as a Socialist. This is an actual example. Of course, I have given strict instructions that my name should not go up again for the further two occasions. I have never attended a function of that Company since, and I certainly do not intend to do so: nor should I have thought would any other person who has any real respect for justice and democracy.
This is the kind of thing with which, in effect, we are now dealing, discussing the electorate of the City of London. This is not to denigrate the City's greatness and the greatness of the acts of the people who have represented, and who now represent, the City. But it is to condemn utterly and completely the method of selection for those offices; it is to condemn utterly and completely the fact that we intend to have this separate local government organisation based on an electorate of some 4,000 people merely for the purposes of a façade. We
1020
on this side of the Committee do not want to destroy, injure or damage that which is good and right, and serves a useful and worthy purpose for our country. But we do not want to, and will not, bolster up something which, in the method of its selection, is—yes, I will use the expression—corrupt, and something which not one single Member of your Lordships' House would support in his own person. That is why I say, as one of the few real Londoners, and perhaps, in the sense of being born within the sound of Bow Bells, the only Londoner, in your Lordships' House, who has lived and worked all his working life in the City and in the areas we are now talking about, and is proud of those areas and of the people in them, of their courage and record, past and present, that we should not shrug this off and say: "Yes, we know about it; but let it go on." We should face up this problem and, as we are having this London Government Bill, we should face up to it now and deal with it justly. And the first step towards doing that would be to accept this Amendment.
5.13 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: I wish to support my noble friends in the moving of this Amendment. I do not propose to cover in great detail the area of the argument, but there is an undoubted case that the City of London does not represent the democratic standing of this country. It cannot possibly do so when we consider the method of election and the requirements that are necessary to have any chance of being elected into the City Common Council. This is important, because, as is provided in the Bill, this great new democratic body that the Government are setting up, the Greater London Council, will have to work very closely with the Common Council. We in this Chamber are an anomaly: we cannot exactly call ourselves democratic. But the years have gone when a person could buy his place in your Lordships' House. I think that is recognised. If it was ever suggested that a man, by the mere fact that he possessed wealth, could enter the portals of this Chamber, I am sure that on all sides Members would rise up and say: "Let us do away with that completely. That is not a necessity in democratic Parliament." Yet in the case of the City, this is, apparently, a necessity.

1021
I want to put two questions to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. The other evening he said that the figure of 60 councillors was the figure which the Government felt should be able to control and provide the right sort of government for a population of 250,000 and 350,000. Can the noble Lord say on what basis the Common Council require 160 members? If 160 members are required to provide adequate and suitable government for the City of London, how is it that only 60 are required for a much larger area, and obviously a much greater population?
This figure of 160 is quite important. If the Committee were to consider other clauses in the Bill dealing with traffic and highways, and particularly the one in which the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, will be interested, the development clause (I think it is Clause 25), these are all clauses dealing with the general strategic plan with which the City of London will be closely connected. All roads lead to London, and all roads in London seem to lead to the City. Therefore, if you are looking at it from the strategic point of view of the long-term planning of highways and traffic, it is important that there should be close harmony between the Greater London Council and the Common Council. But in the case of the Greater London Council, the membership is to be only 100 members. As at present proposed, it will be a rather inferior body, set up by Statute, as opposed to the 160 members of the Common Council, with all its tradition, power and wealth, which perhaps will resist the planning that the Greater London Council feels is a necessity. Therefore I think it would make the overall planning of traffic and the like infinitely easier if the City of London could be brought into the Greater London Council area on the same basis as any other of the boroughs. It should not be able to stand up and use its power to restrain, prevent or delay any broad planning that may be required merely because it affects the City.
Like my noble friends, I recognise what the City has done. The City has probably more car park spaces than has any other authority in London; it may well be able to do it. But I think it is right and fair to those who are in the City, with the contribution they are making to the Greater London area, that they should be party to it and should be able to
1022
participate in the Greater London government. Therefore, I am sure that if the City were to be brought into line with the other boroughs it would be possible to create a much more cohesive and better planned area than we shall have as the Bill now stands, with the City standing in isolation. I hope that the Government will be able to accept this revolutionary suggestion. If logic is required, logic stands on the side of the Amendment.
5.20 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: I must admit that I have been looking forward with mixed feelings to this Amendment, as I felt sure that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, would have his bit of fun. Indeed, he did, and we all enjoyed it. On the other hand, I recognised that there would be a strong case to be met. I will put the noble Earl, Lord Longford, at ease immediately by telling him that I do not intend just to laugh it off. Nevertheless, the noble Lord has not, I suggest, made out his case for the abolition of the City of London. He said that what was sought was not abolition but amalgamation, and he referred to the two Amendments which stand in his name on Schedule 1. He spent a considerable time discussing those two alternatives, and they were referred to at length by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. Therefore, I hope your Lordship will excuse me if I use some arguments which relate to those Amendments as well.
It is true that the City does not conform to the standards of population laid down as desirable for a London borough, though noble Lords have not made a great point of this. They have, however, objected strongly that the City, particularly the system which operates within it, is undemocratic. I think that the whole of their case is based upon that objection. That is to a certain extent true, but there are other considerations which we believe outweigh that disadvantage and to which I shall come in a moment. Returning to this question of lack of democracy in the City, it is, of course, undemocratic electorally. No one attempts to deny that. But I think the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, rather tried to attach the blame for that to the fact that it was aristocratic and Tory. That was why my noble friend Lord Sandwich

1023
(so the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said) said: "Hear, hear", though I do not think he would really sustain that, and I imagine that at that moment he had his tongue in his cheek.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, made almost a passionate speech, on the one hand defending the City and the surrounding areas where he was born and has worked most of his life, while, on the other, making some grave accusations against it. I do not think noble Lords would expect me to reply to the points which were made by the noble Lord in detail; indeed, I should say at once that I am not familiar with the details of the City. I have no connection with it, but I understand that some of the things he said were not entirely accurate, and I should like to leave it at that.
LORD STONHAM: Is the noble Lord going to say what was inaccurate in what I said?
LORD HASTINGS: No; I am afraid that I am not in a position to discuss and argue the particular case in detail.
LORD STONHAM: What I said, in so far as it related to my own knowledge and experience, is 100 per cent. true. If the noble Lord is saying that what I said was inaccurate, then I must ask him to say what was inaccurate, or to withdraw, because everything I said was true within my own knowledge.
LORD HASTINGS: I am not suggesting that anything the noble Lord said about his own personal experience was inaccurate, but that some of his more general remarks about the City were.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Which?
LORD HASTINGS: In the meantime, let me remind noble Lords opposite—
LORD STONHAM: I must ask the noble Lord to allow me to interrupt. I ask him to say that either what I said was inaccurate or that he was mistaken, and to withdraw the suggestion that I was inaccurate, because I was not. It is a matter of my personal integrity, and I would ask him to withdraw this suggestion.
THE EARL OF WOOLTON: I think I may be able to help. I have had considerable experience of the City and City Companies, of which I have been a
1024
Master. No one would deny that what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said was true within his experience—that is, the experience of one City Company. I hope that in fairness he will admit that this is a particular case on which he stands, but that he would not suggest that it was a general case and applied to all other Companies. I can assure him that my own Company has unhesitatingly elected a Socialist to its highest offices, and it is a general rule among the City Companies that they do not allow politics to interfere in the election of their Masters.
LORD STONHAM: I would support that wholeheartedly. I cannot, of course, say from experience that what happened to me necessarily happens in other Companies. I will, of course, endorse what the noble Earl has said; indeed, I have had the great pleasure of being a warmly welcomed guest in recent years of almost all the City Livery Companies. The point I am raising is that what I said was true within my own knowledge and experience.
LORD HASTINGS: In respect of this question of democracy, may I remind noble Lords opposite that it is Her Majesty's Government who are bringing more democracy and more local government, in its true sense, to the people of the metropolitan boroughs than they possessed before? That is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, when he referred to our abolishing all other boroughs, and not the City. We are not abolishing all other boroughs; we are amalgamating them and giving them more powers; and they, of course, are elected on an entirely democratic system.
The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has not made out a case for the abolition of the City. If he has proved that the retention of the City as a separate borough would create impossible problems in the administration of local government services, or would prevent Greater London from being treated as a separate unit for those overall services which need the widest area of administration, that would have been a very different matter. Here I would interject to one noble Lord opposite (the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I think) that the powers of the Greater London Council will not be affected at all by

1025
the retention of the City as a separate unit. But as the noble Lord has not made out a case that these matters become impossible, we have to consider, and Her Majesty's Government have considered very carefully, whether the abolition of the City as a separate entity would bring any advantages compared to the disadvantages which would follow as a result of its abolition.
So far as special services are concerned—and I hope that noble Lords will admit that this is a serious argument—in respect of health and welfare, Clause 5(2) permits joint arrangements between the City and any adjacent borough, thus replacing the present arrangements under the London County Council. As for finance, if this Amendment, or the others affecting the City (which we will come to in Schedule 1), were carried there would be no improvement in the amount of the precept of the Greater London Council, including that to be issued in inner London for education. Nor would any future London equalisation scheme comparable to the present one be affected. When we come to the general grant, the abolition of the City, or its inclusion in any other borough, would have the result that the grant payable to that borough would be less than it would otherwise be. That result would surely hardly commend itself to the ratepayers of the area concerned. Therefore, there do not seem to be any material advantages to be gained from abolishing the City of London, or of annexing it to any other borough.
Now I come to the disadvantages of the noble Lord's proposals. The City of London is, of course, an exception. The Royal Commission admitted that, and proposed that it should be retained: it was not Her Majesty's Government who thought of this idea in the first place. The Royal Commission said so, but Her Majesty's Government happen to agree with them, and the Opposition do not. This, of course, is where the references of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, to emotion come into play; and I may say
that he used a certain amount of emotion very effectively on behalf of the London County Council, and he was fully entitled to do so.
The City is unique, and it is a vital part of the history of England. Noble Lords opposite have recognised that. I cannot do better, I think, than to quote the words of my right honourable friend in another place—different words from the ones chosen by the noble Earl, Lord Longford:
"Here is a living piece of history, with much benefit flowing from it, fulfilling its limited duties as well as other authorities do, doing any harm to no one, bringing benefit to many, whose virtues cannot be transferred, and whose extinction, therefore, would do no one a jot of good."
The City, of course, has at its disposal vast funds which go towards the provision and upkeep of many services of a public nature without costing the ratepayer anything at all. I do not propose to enumerate the many instances where such expenditure is of benefit to the people at large, but they are well known to most of your Lordships. The traditional and ceremonial functions of the City, often of national significance, are carried on at no cost whatsoever to either the ratepayer or the taxpayer. The City and the office of Lord Mayor hold not only a position of unique national distinction but also a position of international renown. As my right honourable friend said, in referring to the Lord Mayor:
"It is not proven that the advantages of glamour, magic, renown and magnetism of the office and the history which lies behind it when used for a national purpose can be transferred to any other body."
That is the answer of Her Majesty's Government to the case that the City is to be retained as a separate unit and, therefore, I hope your Lordships will reject this Amendment.
On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 64.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Champion, L.

Lawson, L.

Airedale, L.

Crook, L.

Lindgren, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Listowel, E.

Amulree, L.

Henderson, L.

Longford, E.

Archibald, L.

Hughes, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Attlee, E.

Latham, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Ogmore, L.

Sinha, L.

Williams, L.

Rea, L.

Stonham, L. [Teller.]

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Shepherd, L.

Summerskill, B.

Williamson, L.

Silkin, L.

Walston, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Fortescue, E.

Merrivale, L.

Albemarle, E.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Mersey, V.

Ampthill, L.

Goddard, L.

Mills, V.

Atholl, D.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Milne, L.

Auckland, L.

Gosford, E.

Monsell, V.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Grenfell, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Blackford, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Newton, L.

Bossom, L.

Hastings, L.

Onslow, E.

Boston, L.

Hawke, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Buchan, E.

Horsbrugh, B.

Remnant, L.

Carrington, L.

Howe, E.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Chelmer, L.

Ilford, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Jellicoe, E.

Sandwich, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Jessel, L.

Somers, L.

Conesford, L.

Kilmuir, E.

Soulbury, V.

Craigton, L.

Lothian, M.

Spens, L.

Denham, L.

Mabane, L.

Strang, L.

Devonshire, D.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Strathalmond, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Malmesbury, E.

Swinton, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Margesson, V.

Teynham, L.

Ferrers, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Woolton, E.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 3 agreed to.
5.40 p.m.
LORD CROOK LORD CROOK moved, after Clause 3 to insert the following new clause:
Establishment of authorities for certain functions
".—(1) If the Minister is satisfied that any functions conferred on the London Borough Councils or the Common Council by virtue of this Act should be more effectively exercised in respect of an area within Greater London greater than the area of any London borough he may by order constitute an authority for the purpose of exercising those functions.
(2) The order constituting any such authority shall—

(a) specify the functions to be exercised by that authority, and

(b) specify the period during which those functions are to be exercised by that authority;

(c) define the area in which those functions are to be exercised:

Provided that the number of London boroughs to be included in whole or in part in any area defined in the order shall not exceed six.
(3) Any authority so constituted shall—

(a) come into existence on such day as may be appointed for that purpose by the order;

(b) consist of one or more representatives of the councils of each London borough within or partly within the area defined in the order, or of the Common Council
1028
if the City is within or partly within that area, and (if the Minister thinks fit) councillors of the Greater London Council and other persons who have had experience of, and shown capacity in, or otherwise have special knowledge of matters relating to the functions specified in the order; and

(c) be a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal.

(4) Any order made under this section may contain such incidental consequential or supplemental provisions as appear to the Minister to be necessary or proper for the purposes in consequence of any of the provisions of the order including—

(a) applying any enactment relating to the functions in question;

(b) modifying any such enactment in its application thereto; and

(c) excluding the application of any such enactment thereto:

(5) Where the Minister proposes to make an Order under this section he shall give notice thereof to the Council of every London borough which or any part of which is proposed to be included in the area to be defined by the Order and to be included in such area and also to the Greater London Council and if within twenty-eight days after such notice has been given to any such Council they give notice to the Minister that they object to the proposal and the objection is not withdrawn any Order made by the Minister shall be subject to Special Parliamentary Procedure."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 18 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Longford, my colleagues and myself. It is a rather long Amendment, based entirely on our idea of an insurance policy. Later on,

1029
in Amendment after Amendment, we shall be moving to leave with the Greater London Council many powers that are sought to be taken away from them, in our opinion quite wrongly. We think it is essential for the efficiency and economy of administration that we should have the largest possible catchment area for many of the things which remain to be done. Aiming at that provision of an efficient service, in case we are not successful in Amendments we shall be moving in the course of the next couple of weeks as this Committee goes on, this Amendment aims to provide for joint committee opportunities to allow up to six boroughs to get together; in other words, a holding action. It provides for the exercise of functions which are thrown out of the powers of the county, to let the Minister by special authority constitute these joint committees, which we do not like but which we think would help us.
In the course of our debates last week on the Weights and Measures Bill—I am not going to repeat speeches made on that occasion—we saw how the breaking up of services of that kind lead to large-scale expenditure and less efficiency, and we think the same kind of thing will happen to many others of the services which are now provided by the London, Middlesex and Surrey Councils when these boroughs are set up. For instance, there is the case of the powers of the children's authority. There we think that the effectiveness of the service is likely to be gravely impaired by the Bill if this kind of thing goes over entirely to the administration of local boroughs. We hope to keep this for the Greater London Council, because of the great success of this method under the operation of the L.C.C.; but if we are unable to do that, the proposal in this Amendment will be better than nothing. As we see it, under this Bill in nine cases out of ten the responsibility for one child will be taken over by an establishment run by a second borough and situated inside a third borough. We shall have the danger of considerably differing practices and different policies between the different boroughs.
I am not going to waste your Lordships' time by arguing which of the services might call for this kind of attempt to join together services which the Bill so far fragments. There is
1030
the personal health service, child care in nurseries, health visiting, maternity and child welfare domiciliary midwifery, home nursing, home help, mental health and tuberculosis after-care, to say nothing of vaccination and immunisation services. If I selected one to comment upon for the purpose of the argument, it would be the domiciliary midwife service as now administered by the London County Council. The London County Council already has nine divisional health centres and divisions, many fewer than the number of boroughs to whom this kind of service will be handed over under the Bill.
In their wisdom and their knowledge of good administration and economy, the L.C.C. has never sent these services to be controlled by these divisional health offices. There have been all sorts of reasons, of course—variation in the number of confinements in the different areas the fact that a third of the home confinements are undertaken by eleven different district nursing associations, and the existence of ten hospitals covering various parts of the area giving services for this purpose. To this is added work done in this connection in Middlesex, parts of Essex and parts of Surrey. So far as London itself is concerned, the Royal Commission Report on which this Bill is allegedly based shows the unique position of London in the economy of its administration and its efficiency, in that it says, in paragraph 66, that its estimate of the need of midwives is in fact twice the actual number of midwives employed in the L.C.C. service. If there was ever a service which cried out for co-ordination it is this one; and if we cannot get later Amendments accepted, the passage of this "insurance policy" Amendment would help us to get something rather better than the proposal to leave it to the boroughs. The same kind of thing occurs with regard to the hostels for the mentally subnormal, on which my noble friend Lord Stonham is much more expert than I am, hostels for the tubercular, the work for the healthy aged, the physically infirm, the chronic sick, the senile, the blind and the handicapped—all wanting this joint service if we can get it.
When in due course we reach the section of this Bill dealing with education I understand we shall see how many problems of that service have not been

1031
covered by the Bill. I am told by friends in Middlesex County Council that as regards assessment and allocation of children to grammar schools, arrangements with other authorities for admission and maintenance of children selected for grammar school courses, arrangements for boarding school education, teacher training and further education in technical colleges—none of that has been covered in the Bill. We must try to secure the best possible arrangements for the necessary integration of the functions and try to see that it is economical as well.
Of course, on other matters which need co-operation between the various boroughs I think we shall find as we go on with this Committee stage that there are many subjects about which the Bill is completely silent. We can find no reference to pedestrian tunnels under the Thames. If ever there was something that calls for co-operation between two boroughs, it is a tunnel that starts in one and finishes in the other. The same comment might be applied to the ferries which cross over on the water. In respect of the river, there are many functions that will require joint committees if we cannot keep them within the power of the new county authority. There are the river walls and embankments. What about the passage of heat under the Thames? I believe that the heat for some of the flats on this side of the Thames comes from Battersea Power Station on the other side of the Thames—from a completely different borough. The pipes and the cables, which again run in channels and tunnels, are not covered in the Bill. They cry out for some measure of co-ordination. There are many miles of them. Our investigation shows that seven of them lie in more than one borough.
In ordinary circumstances, we should have known many of the answers to the problems I have indicated, because they would have received proper discussion in another place and we should have known what the Government's reply was. Unfortunately, owing to the action of the guillotine, these Amendments and many Government Amendments that I am sure should have been moved on these matters have never yet been discussed in Parliament. There are many more powers which should go to the Greater London Council, or at least should be placed
1032
under the largest possible mode of administration. I am not inclined to delay your Lordships to give details of the Performing Animals regulations or of the licensing of employment agencies, and the like. All these are not mentioned in the Bill. Therefore I move the setting up of this joint committee.
If your Lordships have read the rather long terms of the Amendment you will have seen that it provides that one or more of the boroughs concerned shall have representatives on the Committee; that councillors of the Greater London Council shall also take their place on the Committee if the Minister so thinks fit when he sets it up, and that he should have the power to add persons of special knowledge to deal with particular problems that exist. Turning to subsection (4), your Lordships will see the provision for the making of the order. I do not think would be right for me to keep your Lordships by trying to elaborate on what is clearly set out in the terms of the Amendment. Subsection (5) gives an indication of the notice which the Minister will have to give before he makes the order which is proposed to be made under subsection (4). For all those reasons, I urge your Lordships to add this new clause after Clause 3 in the terms indicated in Amendment No. 18. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Crook.)
5.57 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: If this Committee were looking objectively at this Bill and seeking to improve it, as is our duty, I have no doubt that this is the kind of Amendment which would be accepted, either in its existing form or in some varied form. At any rate, it would be accepted in principle, because it provides a piece of machinery which everyone—the Royal Commission; Ministers, in speeches; in fact everyone who has studied the matter—agrees will be necessary. It is recognised that in the case of many services the actual borough unit will be inadequate in that in such services there will be a need to amalgamate boroughs.
The terms of the Amendment are such that the initiative comes from the Minister. He has to be satisfied that any function conferred on the London

1033
borough councils could be more effectively exercised by creating a larger unit. Therefore it rests with him. This Amendment is not mandatory on the Minister. He has merely to be satisfied that in the interests of efficiency of administration greater unity is necessary, and he is given power to create it. As I have said, the actual terms under which such unity is created may be a matter for discussion, but I am quite sure that, objectively, no one could possibly refuse the Minister these powers.
Some of my noble friends will discuss other services, but I have in mind one particular service where it is eminently necessary—the service of housing. It has been discussed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and on a number of occasions in the last few weeks the Minister has stated that what is necessary is the co-operation of a number of local authorities, working together for the purpose of building houses in much bigger units than has been the case in the past. This is the machinery under which he can do it. While it might be said that units of 200,000 population are in themselves fairly large, I have no doubt that the Minister had in mind something even bigger, because he referred to some of the large county boroughs in the country and spoke of a number of them combining for the purpose of building more houses.
There is one other point in connection with housing—namely, that a number of people who have been on the housing list for a particular London borough—let us say, East Ham or West Ham, or one of the outer London boroughs which is excluded from the Greater London authority—will no longer be on the housing list of the particular authority because they will have been amalgamated with others, and they will have lost their opportunity. But by amalgamating a number of authorities of this kind for the purpose of housing, people who have been on the housing list would not lose their opportunity. They could remain on the housing list and, indeed, as the result of the amalgamation of the different boroughs would have a better chance of getting a house, because no doubt housing will proceed more rapidly and more efficiently.
If you take the 32 London boroughs, there are a number of units that lend themselves admirably to the purpose of
1034
co-operation. For example, if you take those that were formerly the inner London boroughs there are twelve of them; and I think five or six are North of the Thames and the others are South of the river. I think it would be possible to have two quite efficient units in that way. There are also four or five areas which at present form part of Essex: some of them county boroughs. The same thing is true of Surrey. By providing for co-operation in that way one would create for specific purposes. I have referred to housing, and possibly one could do the same with regard to planning. One could plan these areas on a somewhat larger basis than merely a borough basis, and in that way get better, more efficient and more economic administration. In view of the fact that this is not a power which is being imposed on the Minister, but is one which he can use if he thinks it would be to the public advantage, the Government would be well advised to accept this Amendment.
I hope that we are not every time going to be met with a blank refusal even to consider our Amendments, however right and reasonable they are. I can well understand that there are some Amendments which the Government cannot accept on principle. We are bound to put them forward and, as I can appreciate, at the end of the day the Government say, "On principle this would so affect the Bill that it would be contrary to our conception of what we want, and we cannot accept it". But where an Amendment is put forward which is offered purely for the purpose of improving the efficiency of administration, I think we are entitled to receive more satisfactory replies than we have been given up to now. I therefore hope that the Government will treat this Amendment rather more seriously than they have done up to now.
LORD STONHAM: I hope the Government will accept this Amendment which, as my noble friend has just pointed out, would in any case not be implemented unless the Minister was satisfied that it was necessary, and would not involve putting together for the carrying out of any function more than six boroughs, or parts of six boroughs. Examples have been given of various types of local authority services where we are convinced that in many cases a single borough will

1035
not be able to carry out the functions as well as they are being carried out now. I can think of no service where this is more true than in the case of local authority mental health services. Indeed, the anxieties on this score among people with knowledge of the subject is very acute indeed. I am glad to see my noble friend Lord Grenfell in his place, because I recently became chairman of the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children, of which he is the honorary treasurer, and I am quite sure that he will bear out what I am going to say. I am also president of the Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association, which is likewise extremely concerned in this matter.
The National Society has more than 20,000 members and some 270 local associations throughout the country, and it is organised on a regional basis, with full-time regional staffs. It is significant that the metropolitian region of the Society, which is particularly concerned with this Bill, at present consists of the entire local authority areas of London and Middlesex. Therefore, we are deeply concerned with the effects of this Bill. We feel that the Government have so far not taken full account of the very proper objections and strong fears which have been put forward. Quite obviously, one of the main reasons for the existence of the National Society is to try to ensure that adequate provision for the mentally handicapped is made throughout the country. This naturally includes local authority provision of training facilities fitted to the needs and abilities of mentally handicapped people, together with the domestic and welfare services necessary to enable them to take their place and play their part in the community.
We are aware that the Royal Commission took the view that personal health (including mental health), welfare and children's services should come under one authority, and that it should be the smallest practical authority; namely, the Greater London Borough. We regard it as clear that the Royal Commission made the grave error of regarding services for the mentally sub-normal as no different in character from other medico-welfare services. Therefore, they obviously failed to see that the mental medical services have implications in
1036
the field of education. The National Society therefore disagree with the Royal Commission's view on this particular point, and indeed reject it, if it means that within, say, two or three years facilities for the mentally handicapped will be transferred to new and comparatively small borough authorities, who in many cases have had no experience whatever in the administration of these services, and at least some of whom have neither the staff nor the facilities to do the work.
Compared with the mass of children who have normal education the number of mentally handicapped children is comparatively small, though we, of course, think it unhappily large. It is therefore extremely unlikely that a single borough could, or would, supply all the services which these young people need, and indeed, are at present available. It seems that the Government have not yet given any serious consideration to the problems involved in the transfer of the services from a major authority, such as the London County Council or the Middlesex County Council, to a borough with a population of a quarter of a million, or perhaps in some cases less than 200,000. Even with the best will in the world, if the existing set-up could be split up and apportioned without major harm, it is virtually certain that improvements which have already been planned would go by the board. It will be a crime against thousands of helpless children, and adults, if services and training now being given are to be impaired or lessened or, worse still, withdrawn.
I put this question to the noble Earl who is to reply. How can training in a stream (by which I mean progress from a junior training centre to a senior occupation centre or to an industrial training centre) be continued if all three centres are in different boroughs, and if the borough boundaries thereby become barriers; if there is to be this break-up without the kind of linking-together organisation which would be provided for in the Amendment? It is quite certain that single boroughs, even these larger boroughs, could not finance every type of centre needed. There must be machinery for linking them up. It does not mean that the boroughs have got to

1037
be linked up, but that in certain circumstances the Minister has the right to say that so many boroughs must be linked together for certain purposes, of which this should be one. The transfer of these services to smaller administrative units with finite boundaries implies that mentally handicapped persons must look to the borough in which they live to provide these services. But, as I said to start with, not every borough will have within its boundaries the special units which are needed. Very few of them will have all the range required. Some will have none at all.
In these circumstances, will mentally handicapped persons be permitted to use units outside the borough in which they live, with all that that implies, including the provision of transport? It will be no good saying that they can use them, unless transport is provided. In the boroughs which have none or have only part of the full range of units, these units will be competing with the other essential services for the available public money. In comparison, the other services benefit a greater proportion of the population, and it seems that the services for the mentally handicapped may be regarded as comparatively expensive. Therefore, will grants be made to enable the boroughs to provide these facilities where none or only part of them exist? Further, will grants be made available to give effect to plans for the improvement of facilities?
The whole range of services is dependent on the staffs who run them. This point crops up again and again in the various Amendments. I must emphasise that the handling of mentally handicapped young people requires highly experienced and dedicated staff. Therefore, every effort must be made to ensure that they are not lost during the transitional period and that there are no doubts about their future careers. It would help if it were known that a number of boroughs could be linked in a service like this. We ought to have assurance on this point at an early stage. The best form of assurance we could have would be the acceptance of this most reasonable Amendment. I cannot see that it involves any question of principle to which the Government can possibly object.
1038
We need the kind of service which exists already in those areas where they place great emphasis on the training needed to assist mentally handicapped people and on training for the mentally handicapped themselves. The position is that the plans which have been drawn up for improvements have been drawn up by local authorities which will disappear. What is to happen to these plans? It does not seem possible that they can be passed on to the new boroughs as they stand, because they were based on providing services over a much wider area than that for which any one borough will be responsible.
The regional chairman of the National Society wrote to the Minister on these matters. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, Mr. Bernard Braine, replied. I have a copy of his reply in my hands. It is this sort of thing which gives rise to concern in these matters. Mr. Braine says this:
"The proposed boroughs are to be larger than the Royal Commission contemplated and will be comparable in population with a good sized county borough. It is our considered view that great advantages will flow from concentrating all the personal services, including those for the mentally sub-normal, with other related services…".
The comparison with "a good sized county borough" gives an indication that the difficulty is not clearly understood. Many a good sized county borough has not got all the services for the mentally sub-normal and the mentally afflicted. They are provided on a county basis. I am not now talking of London or Middlesex; I am talking of other areas. Mr. Braine's letter also says this:
"I have no doubt that the authorities concerned will be able to work out, as they have successfully done elsewhere, detailed arrangements to ensure that the services available to the mentally sub-normal in London will not suffer but will continue to develop."
Mr. Braine has no doubt, but I must say that I have strong doubts. He continues in this way:
"Clause 46 of the Bill, in fact, provides for the continuance by each London local authority, as a duty, of all the services…This is a positive requirement which should ensure that there is no break in the provision of service."
Boroughs of the size we are contemplating, many of them without these facilities, could not possibly supply all these services. I will mention just one type of afflicted child—the psychotic

1039
or autistic child. It may well be that in one of these greater London boroughs there would not be more than six—perhaps six to ten—of such children. It is impossible to contemplate that a borough would provide the necessary education services for these delightful but extraordinary children who want so much understanding and so much thought and care and who, with the knowledge that we now have, can be, if that care is provided, made much more useful members of the community. This is one example. I am thinking in terms of providing for not more than 200 or 300 such children over the whole area. If I were to split up the total number of mentally handicapped persons into categories, I could mention many other examples.
I will quote one other case, not to do with children, but to do with the mentally afflicted. The noble Earl will be aware that for the last two or three years there has been a very successful practice of discharging patients from mental hospitals. It is true that they have been going back at a very great rate, but they are coming out into the community. My Society and the Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association, in conjunction with the London County Council and other authorities, have set up day centres where such mentally afflicted people who have been discharged from hospital can come during the day. The catchment area for these people at the moment is the Boroughs of Shoreditch, Hackney, Stoke Newington, Poplar and Bethnal Green. They cover the areas, or part of the areas, of no less than three of the projected Greater London boroughs under the Bill. They are the catchment area for a mental hospital at Longrove, Epsom. That is a typical position. The mental hospital is at Longrove, Epsom; the area from which the patients come, covering three of the Greater London boroughs, is 25 miles away. It cannot possibly be argued by the noble Earl that that situation could be covered in the Bill as it stands, unless the Minister has the power in such circumstances to suggest that a number of boroughs should get together for certain purposes.
This case is quite unanswerable. There is absolutely nothing whatever of Party in it. There is nothing whatever
1040
which affects the principle of the Bill on which the two sides are, I admit, diametrically opposed. The Amendment contains nothing of principle to affect the Bill. We are asking, merely for a sensible power to be given to the Minister so that if, when the Bill becomes an Act, he finds it necessary to use that power in certain circumstances, he can do so. I think that this case proves beyond doubt that, for the sake of the mentally affected alone, he should take that power.
LORD GRENFELL: It will be within the memory of the Committee that I spoke on this subject of the mentally sub-normal on Second Reading. I have studied this Amendment very carefully, but I feel that it creates an uncertainty for the future. Ministers come and Ministers go, and they have different ideas. In fact it might be argued, although I quite agree it is unlikely, that one borough might feel, "We are not interested in the mentally handicapped. For this reason we shall do nothing at all about them, and the Minister will have to take us over with up to six others." That, I think, is a slight danger.
It will be remembered that I am on record as wishing for the mentally handicapped to come under the Greater London Council. But I have thought this over very carefully, and I think we must give the boroughs a chance to get on with it. I think we hope that they will liaise together. I know personally that the London County Council and Middlesex do liaise a great deal together; and I believe that if they liaise, and get on with alt, we shall probably get a good service. But, as I say, this Amendment—and I do say this in the greatest honesty—may bring uncertainty into the whole situation. Therefore, I would not support it.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Before the Minister answers, may I ask him whether he will answer one specific question? I rather anticipate that he will give a direct negative to this Amendment, but in doing so could he tell the Committee where he proposes to get all those people who are needed to care for the handicapped people we have heard about, the midwives, the nurses—all those categories of workers who are necessary for these services that we have heard about tonight? Would he tell me

1041
whether in any one of these services there is redundancy? In fact, I can tell him that there is not. There is a shortage of workers of every kind in every one of the services that has been discussed to-night by noble Lords. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Crook, mentioned something like ten different services, and in every one there is a shortage of workers. Therefore, in refusing this Amendment—if the Minister does; I presume he will—I should like to hear when, how and where he proposes to recruit staff.
EARL JELLICOE: As the noble Lord, Lord Crook, said, this new clause was put down for consideration in another place and would have been discussed but for the operation of a certain sharp instrument. I am glad that noble Lords have put it down again, since it does touch on very important matters, and because it gives me the opportunity of grappling with them and, I hope, meeting them straight away, for what I should like to say—and I put this quite frankly, although I admit the case for this Amendment has been argued very objectively—does strike right at the basis of the Bill. As I understand it, this Amendment would enable the Minister to form special ad hoc groups or committees of London boroughs for the purpose of administering one or more, or parts, of the various functions which we are conferring under the Bill on the boroughs. The groups would consist of no more than six boroughs. I am not quite clear why this maximum figure has been fixed. It is also not clear to me, although noble Lords have given us some idea, what functions would be subjected to this special treatment. It is not clear how long the groups would last. And it is also not clear how many of these ad hoc hybrids (if noble Lords would forgive me this flowery analogy in this season of flower shows) my right honourable friend would have to raise from this seed.
However, one thing is clear, and that is that this clause, if adopted, would invest my right honourable friend with very considerable discretionary powers—admittedly, subject to Parliamentary procedure. I recognise the force of the argument for this Amendment—although I contest it—but I find it is a little odd, when in other parts of the Bill the noble
1042
Lords opposite are challenging the discretionary powers which are being invested in Ministers. The arguments adduced by noble Lords in support of this Amendment have covered a very wide variety of services. I will not at this stage, save by way of illustration, try to meet all those arguments covering each particular service in detail. We shall have a lot of time later in our discussion to consider the particular services, and this of course is perfectly right. But, as I understand their argument, noble Lords have claimed that for certain services, or for certain parts of them, the new London boroughs will be too small, too cramped and too confined for first-rate administration.
LORD SILKIN: I just want to get this right. That may be the case in respect of some services, but it was not the case I made. The case I made was that certain services, and particularly housing, on the admission of the Minister himself, could be better operated by a combination of authorities. You would get more efficiency, cheaper housing and more rapid output.
EARL JELLICOE: I was going to deal with that. But, if I may deal straight away with the housing point, so far as I know the special consortia which my right honourable friend is encouraging do not involve any special powers being conferred on local authorities. It is quite possible under existing legislation. But most of those consortia are being set up, of course, in respect of local authorities a great deal smaller than the proposed new London boroughs. As for the size of these boroughs, I would merely come back to the argument (and I am repeating something which has been said before) that for the most part these personal services—housing, education, personal health, welfare and the rest of them—are administered throughout the length and breadth of this country by county boroughs. In previous debates the Government have taken the view that the London boroughs will be quite large enough for the efficient administration of those services which are to be entrusted to them. I would merely remark again that the smallest of these London boroughs will be larger than the average county borough in England or Wales, and the largest will be among the largest authorities in this country, unless we are

1043
talking of real giants such as Birmingham and Manchester.
May I say just a word about a very personal service, since it was instanced by the noble Lord, Lord Crook, in moving this Amendment, the children's service, with which I have something to do. I do not like applying a mathematical yardstick to a service as personal as this one, but I must point out that the size of the new boroughs compares very favourably in terms of the number of children in care with county boroughs elsewhere, none of whom have found it necessary to join together for the purpose of administering a children's service. What we are really dealing with here, I would claim, are the personal and human services which touch the individual citizen very closely indeed. We take the view—and, again, we have expressed it frequently—that not only will the new London boroughs be able to administer these services prefectly efficiently, but it is in fact highly desirable that they should do so. I do not think I can put the answer here better than it was put some years ago by someone who was closely concerned with those services. I quote his words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 444, col. 1604]:
"Where the individual is immediately concerned, where warmth and humanity of administration is the primary consideration, then the authority which is responsible should be as near to the recipient as possible."
Those words were spoken by the late Mr. Aneurin Bevan in moving the Second Reading of the National Assistance Bill in 1947, and I personally do not think that these rather anonymous, amorphous and ad hoc bodies which would be set up under this Amendment would meet that criterion.
Having said that, let me concede straight away that there are certain aspects of those services for which few local authorities, in London or elsewhere, are entirely self-sufficient, and which they therefore need to provide in co-operation with neighbouring local authorities. I would also concede that in London, because of its very size, because, partly, of its social structure and because of its very structure of local administration, we may have to face special problems in organising those services. I would concede that there is a difficulty here, and I should like, if I may, to try to meet it once
1044
more at what I consider to be one of its more difficult points: again, it is the children's service.
I would grant that there is a special problem facing the new boroughs in setting up their children's services, and it is a special problem partly sui generis, because the boroughs will be the slices of a larger conurbation. I grant that this does create a very special problem, but although it creates a problem it does not alter the fact that an authority with upwards of 400 children in care should be able to create a children's department quite large enough to attract the skilled staff it needs and to provide, if it so wishes, a very wide range of residential and other establishments. To answer the point which the noble Baroness put to me—and I would answer it, if I may, in this context—I do not see why. Of course, there is a shortage here, as elsewhere, of skilled staff. It applies, as she well knows, to the children's service as to other services. But I do not see that the creation of these London boroughs will augment the need for that staff. It may well be—I am not arguing that now—that by the reduction of overheads it might decrease the number, but I do not see why it should augment them.
I would also agree that in the London area the distribution of premises for these services (and I am thinking very much of the type of service which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, mentioned) is such that there may well be an undue concentration in the areas of some of the new London boroughs and insufficient provision in others. That is because, as he pointed out, the present catchment areas for these establishments do not coincide with the areas of the new London boroughs. But having said that, I sec no reason at all to set up these special ad hoc groups. I believe that to be quite unnecessary in dealing with what is at present an admitted difficulty. It is quite unnecessary, since it will be quite possible for more than one borough to share premises and trained staff. In some cases this may be needed only for a transitional period; in other cases it may well be needed more permanently.
These sharing arrangements work well elsewhere, and I see no reason why they should not also work perfectly well in the Greater London area. I should like to point out that there is ample provision, both in the Bill and in the general Acts

1045
under which these services are provided, for this sort of co-operation between authorities. Again, if I may answer a specific point which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, put to me—I do not wish to answer all the specific points in view of the time factor, which I have in mind—he asked whether mentally handicapped children would be able to use facilities outside their boroughs. The answer to that question is, Yes.
I do not base my objections—and the noble Baroness was quite right in anticipating my objection—to this Amendment merely on the grounds that the arrangements envisaged are unnecessary. I would also claim that they are, at least in certain respects, objectionable. In the first place, I am certain that if such a joint authority were appointed it would delay the provision by the boroughs concerned of their own services for their own population and their equipment of appropriate staff. My second objection is that, while we accept that there will be many transitional problems to sort out—and my right honourable friend has never disguised this—I am convinced that there is no reason why these problems of transfer cannot be satisfactorily sorted out in time for the transfer of these services to the London boroughs by April, 1965.
But I would attach one condition here; that is, that there should be certainty from now on throughout this whole field. Any further uncertainty as to what the future of these arrangements may be—and I was very glad to hear what my noble friend Lord Grenfell said on this aspect—would hamper and delay the formation of the new groupings and would inevitably perpetuate the uncertainty among the staff which we all wish to avoid or do what we can to mitigate.
The noble Lord, Lord Crook, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asked us to consider this Amendment objectively. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, claimed, I am sure quite sincerely, that it was not in any way politically motivated. I would claim in return that I have considered the arguments seriously and objectively and that there is no question of dismissing this Amendment without careful consideration as he suggested there might be. Nevertheless, having said all that, I feel that there are strong reasons, both negative and positive, for asking your Lordships to reject—and reject decisively if it is pressed—this important Amendment.
On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 66.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hughes, L.

Silkin, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Latham, L.

Stonham, L. [Teller.]

Archibald, L.

Lawson, L.

Summerskill, B.

Attlee, E.

Lindgren, L.

Walston, L.

Champion, L.

Longford, E.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Darwen, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Williamson, L.

Faringdon, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Wise, L.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Craigton, L.

Ilford, L.

Albemarle, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Aldington, L.

Denham, L.

Jessel, L.

Ampthill, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Kilmuir, E.

Astor, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Lothian, M.

Atholl, D.

Ferrers, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Blackford, L.

Fortescue, E.

Margesson, V.

Bossom, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Melchett, L.

Boston, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Grenfell, L.

Mersey, V.

Buchan, E.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Mills, V.

Carrington, L.

Harcourt, V.

Monsell, V.

Chelmer, L.

Hastings, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Chesham, L.

Hawke, L.

Newton, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Hertford, M.

Onslow, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Horsbrugh, B.

Rathcavan, L.

Colyton, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Reading, M.

Conesford, L.

Howe, E.

Remnant, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Spens, L.

Teynham, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Strang, L.

Westwood, L.

Somers, L.

Swinton, E.

Woolton, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): It may be a convenient moment now for me to move that the House do now resume. As noble Lords know, we intended to go on with other Business until 8.30 and then to resume further consideration on Committee of this Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Dilhorne.)
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: May I ask the noble and learned Lord a question? I thought there was going to be—I am not saying whether there should be or not—a dinner interval between 7.30 and 8.30. Is that right?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not mention a dinner interval. It will come from 7.30 to 8.30—I thought that had been announced—or, rather, at the conclusion of this Business until 8.30. We resume at 8.30 on the Greater London Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to and House resumed accordingly.

OFFICES, SHOPS AND RAILWAY PREMISES BILL
6.47 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's interest, as far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the disposal of the Bill. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 1 [Premises to which this Act applies]:
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (1), after "railway premises" to insert "theatres". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1 standing in my name. On the Second Reading debate the Opposition sought to include within the ambit of the Bill road transport depôts, dental workshops, hospital premises and theatres. The Amendment which I am moving this evening is limited to theatres, and seeks to bring within the scope of the Bill theatres and places of entertainment. One of the reasons why this Amendment is being moved this evening and is limited to theatres is that it is, relatively speaking, a moderate problem which can be dealt with without in any way impairing the enforcement as regards the 8 million people embraced within the scope of the Bill and without in any way hindering the enforcement of the provisions as regards those premises which are within its scope and its province.
Moreover, the situation in theatres and places of entertainment is very bad indeed—witness the statement, reported in The Times of May 6, by the President of Equity, Mr. Aylmer, who said:
"There is a fashionable theatre in which the limited air available to the underground dressing rooms used to—and probably still does—pass over an open urinal. For many years, until an energetic actor-manager insisted on having the gratings at ground level boarded over, additions to this amenity were contributed by the customers of a neighbouring public house. Laryngitis was endemic, and a throat specialist became almost a permanent member of the staff."
That is a pretty serious indictment of conditions, which I shall show are general in many of the older theatres and places of entertainment. It was found, in a survey made by Equity, that out of 156 theatres, 78 per cent. had neither baths nor showers; 26 per cent. were without wash basins, and 6 theatres examined were without a W.C. or lavatory of any kind or description. In certain theatres, partly because of lack of heating, the premises were perpetually damp; the actors had damp clothes and there were no facilities for drying, except one old gas radiator. There was a disgusting stench under the stage from the

1049
staff urinal, past which lay the only route from one side to the other. In another theatre, there were no toilets and actors had to use public conveniences. There is no means of getting from one side of the stage to the other except by going underneath the stage and through a trap. To cross backstage, one had to go into the girls' dressing room, walk outside, in all weathers, and in at the stage door to the other side. The single toilet for men had to do for 40 artists, musicians, et cetera. In another theatre, the premises were unfit to work in. They were even without a W.C., and could be brought into a fit state for use only by major renovation.
That is a situation which can, of course, be remedied by including theatres within the provisions of this Bill. As your Lordships will recollect, the Gowers Committee recommended that their recommendation should be made applicable as regards new theatres, and that, as regards the older theatres, the provisions, with, I admit, considerable reservations, should be applied according to the circumstances of the case. That means that, so long as these old theatres exist, nothing will be done with regard to the new theatres. I am informed—and it appears in Mr. Aylmer's statement—that of the theatres built since the war, not one complied with the standards recommended by the Gowers Committee. Those recommendations were made some 13 years ago, and naturally the standards are higher now than they were then.
It has been suggested by the Government that the matter should be dealt with by voluntary negotiation. The organisation, Equity, which represents the actors and actresses and others engaged in the entertainment business, are in no way convinced that the application of the Gowers standards to all theatres would have any serious results. They take the view, which I think is a reasonable one, that these old theatres may remain in existence for a considerable period, and that while they are in existence other theatres, which are capable of being made to comply with the standards of the Gowers recommendations, will escape, and sickness, ill-health and discomfort will be the lot of those engaged in those premises.
Moreover, in 1952, in 1955 and again in 1961 the Government accepted the recommendations of the Gowers Committee. They did not reject them on the ground that, if the standard were applied, old theatres might have to close down. Yet we find that in this Bill they are left out on the ground of the Gowers Committee recommendations. I do not know whether we have to wait until the millenium of the '70s. The Prime Minister has told us that this country, from an economic point of view, must modernise itself and become efficient. This Amendment requires that theatres shall modernise themselves and shall be put into a condition which does not endanger the health, safety, comfort and wellbeing of those who have to work in them. It ought not to be the case that space, which would have to be used for applying these standards, is now let for paying seats.
I understand that about 15,000 people would be involved and that the number of premises, even if cinemas were included—and they are mostly modern—in addition to those premises already in the Bill, would not be significant and would not in any way impair the enforcement as regards these other premises. In those circumstances, I hope that the Government may be willing to accept this Amendment and apply the provisions of the Bill to theatres and places of entertainment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, after the second ("premises") insert ("theatres").—(Lord Latham.)
7.0 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I think it was inevitable that we should return to this aspect of the inclusion of theatres within the Bill after the speech, so widely reported in the Press and on television, by Mr. Felix Aylmer, the President of Equity. This came after the Report stage on this Bill. It is true that we had previously moved a similar Amendment, but here was evidence from a man closely concerned with this whole problem, and a man who knows the conditions of which my noble friend has spoken in his speech. If I understand him aright, the Minister has said throughout the progress of this Bill that to apply it to our theatres would be to kill them. All I can say about that is that if they are anything like as bad as the President of

1051
Equity has made them out to be, they do not deserve to live in this day and age. I am not going to quote from Mr. Felix Aylmer, except to say that I was shocked at his report of the B.B.C. rehearsal buildings and facilities. He said that the B.B.C. and theatres in general provide reasonable facilities, but he criticised most strongly the rehearsal facilities provided for the artistes by the B.B.C. If the Minister wants the quotation he will find it in The Times of May 6, but I will not here weary the House with it.
What has prompted me to speak on this matter to-day is that I watched Monitor last night, the B.B.C. television programme, when we had a description of the theatre in Gelsenkirchen, a theatre built in a town with a population about the same as our city of Bristol, a city in the heart of a great industrial area. They have built there a theatre which puts to shame anything we have in this country. To think that we are still worrying about the provision of decent lavatory accommodation for our artistes in this country puts us all to shame. The Minister seems to be worrying in case we do anything to preserve our "crummy" theatres. If they are anything like as bad as the President of Equity has said, the sooner they go the better.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I do not want to take up much of your Lordships' time, but I want to ask the noble Lord who moved this Amendment on the subject of theatres whether he has ever thought of concert halls. Some of the conditions behind the platform in some of our halls, even a hall like the Festival Hall, are far from the acme of comfort, and I doubt whether they will come up to any proper standards whatsoever. The question which no doubt my noble friend will answer is whether either of them come under the scope of this Bill.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I recognise absolutely what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said about the remarks which have ben made by Mr. Felix Aylmer, and the reasons why he raised the subject again. I would remind your Lordships that we had an exactly similar Amendment on the Committee stage, and that your Lordships in a Division decided against putting this in the Bill. So we are really discussing this Amendment for the second time during the course of this
1052
Bill. I do not think the noble Lord opposite will be surprised when I tell him that the reasons which I gave at that time for not having been able to accept his Amendment seem to me as valid now as they did then. I think I should say at once that there is no disagreement between us that conditions in some theatres are not all that they ought to be, and I sympathise a great deal with what has been said. But the Government still consider that the problems of applying this kind of legislation to theatres are such that it is seriously open to question whether we should be serving either the interests of the theatres or, perhaps more important, of the employees by doing so.
Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord opposite of the observations of the Gowers Committee on this subject. The noble Lord quoted some of them, and perhaps I can fill in a little of the gaps that he left. The Committee recognised that in many theatres it would be quite impracticable to apply the welfare standards set out in their Report. In paragraph 96 of their Report they wrote:
"We have to recognise that to insist on these standards would mean that many theatres would have to close their doors with little opportunity of reopening for many years to come. The law would thus inflict great hardship upon the very people whose welfare it professed to further."
I wonder whether the noble Lord has seriously faced the possible implications of what he is proposing for many of the people he is seeking to protect? Let me say again that the Government share the desire of noble Lords opposite, and noble Lords in all quarters of the House, to see better conditions for actors and other employees in theatres. I can assure noble Lords that the Government have noted the observations that have been made by the President of Equity. But, after long, careful and detailed consideration of this point, we have come to the conclusion that the best way of dealing with it is by voluntary negotiation between managements and representatives of the employees. Such negotiations can naturally take full account of the wide variety of circumstances in different cases, and my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour has recommended this course to those concerned. For these reasons, I must ask the House to resist this Amendment.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, I do not think I have ever heard a weaker case submitted by a Minister against an Amendment in Parliament, and that covers quite a long time. If the argument submitted by the noble Lord was ever substantial at all, it was substantial only some 50, 60 or 70 years ago when sanitation was the major problem of the health enthusiasts in this country. The noble Lord suggested that the Government's view is that the best means of dealing with this problem is by negotiation by actors and variety artistes generally with their employers—that is, the owners of the theatre, music hall, or whatever it may be. Noble Lords can imagine what the answer must have been 50, 60 or 70 years ago when people wore demanding better sanitation for their domestic houses, and someone suggested from the Government Benches that the best thing to be done by slum dwellers, who enjoyed no sanitation and no domestic help, was to start negotiating with the owner of the slum property. What a hope they would have had, had it not been for the health authorities themselves taking charge and insisting that the job was done.
I fully appreciate what the noble Lord said about the potential cost of raising these domestic necessities up to a first-class modern state. But, surely, the Government ought to accept some responsibility for calling upon those who engage men and women to entertain others to look after the health and welfare of those entertainers. I should not like to use abusive language to the noble Lord, because he and I have had to look after families of pigs, and it is not always true to say, "Put a pig in a parlour and it becomes a pig sty nevertheless". I have seen a change made even in pig sties where those who have built pig sties have done so leaving accommodation for domestic purposes for the pigs to find out, and they have found out. I think the Government are extremely weak in their approach to this particular Amendment, and I think they ought to accept some responsibility, as our health authorities had to do many years ago, where problems of sanitation and that sort of thing were involved. The health of the nation is now showing the results of what society as a whole forced upon us in those years, and I am pretty certain that if the Government felt strongly about this matter
1054
they could help without necessarily closing down theatres, variety halls and so on, and creating unemployment. It is rather late in the day to invite the noble Lord and the Government to do it, but I should like to feel that they would think again about what is a real Government responsibility in a matter of this kind.
7.10 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has made the problem a good deal greater than it is. I think he would agree that this Bill is largely a question of Minister's regulations; the Minister can make regulations and grant exemptions. If, in order to obtain a minimum standard, we were to include theatres within this Bill, but in any particular case the standards and requirements of this Bill were such that a theatre would go out of business, and over a period it were felt that the conditions required should not be as stringent as those within this Bill, it would be possible for the Minister to grant the necessary exemptions. What we wish to see is theatres as a class brought within this Bill. The Minister can, if the Bill is extremely flexible, grant these exemptions. I expect that it is not a question of a problem or a difficulty, but that it is really a question of will. The Government do not wish to enlarge the provisions in this Bill and they have obstinately kept to those classes which now appear in Clause 1. This is extremely regrettable and I hope that my noble friend will take this question to its logical conclusion.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I feel that I must associate myself with the statement of my noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh, that seldom has a weaker case been put up by the Government in a matter of this kind. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, quoted a statement of the Gowers Committee and referred to hardship. Whose hardship? Is not the hardship on the employees, that they should be subjected to the risk of ill health, laryngitis and other throat troubles, and that they should be without any reasonable amenities? It is they who are suffering hardship, and they have said through their accredited organisation, Equity, that the matter cannot be dealt with by voluntary negotiation between them and the owners of

1055
the theatres, and that the only way in which it can be remedied is by legislation. That was definitely and clearly stated by Mr. Aylmer, not only on the occasion of the annual meeting of Equity held recently, but also in a letter addressed to the Minister in November of last year.
It is difficult, therefore, to understand why the Government refuse to include theatres within the ambit of the Bill. Moreover, I understand that many of the theatres could really be put into reasonable condition by reference to
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the next Amendment is on quite a technical point. I think I shall need a few moments, and I wonder whether in view of the time perhaps this Amendment could be postponed until after dinner.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Do I take it the noble Lord is not moving the Amendment?
LORD SHEPHERD: No. I said in view of the points I wish to make it might be convenient to adjourn this until after dinner. I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.
the standards of the Gowers Committee for, relatively speaking, a modest expenditure. As my noble friend Lord Champion said, those theatres which are so bad that they need a large expenditure to put them in order are best out of the way. In those circumstances, unless the noble Lord is willing to accept this Amendment, I am afraid I must press it.
On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 54.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Faringdon, L.

Shepherd, L.

Airedale, L.

Henderson, L.

Silkin, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Hughes, L.

Stonham, L. [Teller.]

Archibald, L.

Latham, L.

Summerskill, B.

Attlee, E.

Lawson, L.

Walston, L.

Champion, L.

Lindgren, L. [Teller.]

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Darwen, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Williamson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Ferrers, E.

Margesson, V.

Aldington, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Melchett, L.

Ampthill, L.

Fortescue, E.

Merrivale, L.

Astor, V.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Mills, V.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Monsell, V.

Boston, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Harcourt, V.

Newton, L.

Buchan, E.

Hastings, L.

Onslow, E.

Carrington, L.

Hawke, L.

Reading, M.

Chelmer, L.

Hertford, M.

Remnant, L.

Chesham, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Colville of Culross, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Conesford, L.

Ilford, L.

Somers, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Strang, L.

Craigton, L.

Jessel, L.

Swinton, E.

Denham, L.

Kilmuir, E.

Teynham, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lothian, M.

Westwood, L.

Dudley, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have called the Amendment. I want to know whether the noble Lord proposes to move it.
LORD SHEPHERD: I propose to move it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Lord propose to speak on it?
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, it might be convenient if I move that this debate be adjourned during pleasure, so that my hard worked members may get some dinner.
Moved, That the debate be adjourned during pleasure.—(Earl Alexander of Hillsborough.)
EARL ST. ALDWYN: We had hoped we might have concluded this business in time to adjourn for dinner at half past seven. I think we must conclude this stage of the Bill, and therefore I am afraid I cannot accept the suggestion of the noble Lord that there should be an adjournment at this moment.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I strongly object to that. We made an arrangement that if business permitted we would change over from one subject to the other at half past six. It was nearly ten to seven when that
Resolved in the negative, disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 2 [Exception for premises in which only employer's relatives or out-workers work]:
7.33 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (2), after the second "Act" to insert "except section. 49 thereof". The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2 and, with permission, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 8; and I draw the attention of the House to the fact that Amendment No. 8 is the crucial Amendment. Reluctantly, we must accept the fact that the Government will not meet our point, either in regard to Clause 1 or to Clause 2 on exemptions. Therefore, at this stage, there is really
1058
happened. We have not been unduly delaying on this debate. I strongly object to a domineering Government saying to a handful of people like ourselves "You have got to go on because we must finish this and we have got to do the Scottish Bill before we go to dinner". This is physical pressure upon us, and I strongly object and I will not have it.
On Question, Whether the Debate be adjourned during pleasure?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 47.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Faringdon, L.

Shepherd, L.

Airedale, L.

Henderson, L.

Silkin, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Hughes, L.

Stonham, L. [Teller.]

Archibald, L.

Latham, L.

Summerskill, B.

Attlee, E.

Lawson, L.

Walston, L.

Champion, L.

Lindgren, L. [Teller.]

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Darwen, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Williamson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Ferrers, E.

Margesson, V.

Ampthill, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Melchett, L.

Astor, V.

Fortescue, E.

Merrivale, L.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Mills, V.

Boston, L.

Hailsam, V. (L. President.)

Monsell, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Harcourt, V.

Newton, L.

Buchan, E.

Hastings, L.

Onslow, E.

Carrington, L.

Hawke, L.

Remnant, L.

Chelmer, L.

Hertford, M.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.)

Chesham, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

St. Oswald, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Somers, L.

Conesford, L.

Ilford, L.

Strang, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Jessel, L.

Teynham, L.

Denham, L.

Kilmuir, E.

Westwood, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lothian, M.

Wolverton, L.

Dudley, E.

Malmesbury, E.

nothing much more we can do. We have fought with as much tenacity as there is within our small number. I believe that the case is with us, but the power is with the Government.
Having accepted that, after the Report stage I considered the administration of this Bill when it comes into force, and it seemed to me quite clear that the exemption under Clause 2 which can be arrived at merely by not registering with the authority, would create a desperate position for the local authority. We have in Clause 49 the requirement that all offices or shops coming within the definition of Clause 1 should register with the authority, except of course those who come under Clause 2. Experience has shown, as we heard earlier today, that where cost or capital expenditure is

1059
involved there is an understandable unwillingness by concerns and individuals to take the necessary move forward which would result in their having to undertake that cost. If a firm fails to notify an authority, there is, as I see it, under the Bill, a penalty of £20. It could hardly be said that this is a deterrent. In fact, I would suggest that when one considers the possible cost to an office or shop occupier to gain a delay of perhaps two or three years, when perhaps a new tenant may be taking over the premises, a mere penalty of £20 would be sufficient for the man to say, "I think I will do nothing about this in the meantime."
Obviously, if this Bill is to be of any value, enforcement is the critical point. Enforcement cannot come until the local authority is itself aware of all the premises that would come within this Bill. As I have said, I can well imagine that of those premises that come within it, there would be a reluctance to notify and there will be considerable delay, and in order to find out the premises which should come within the Bill no doubt the inspector would have to carry out an inspection. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, would not challenge my figures. I believe we are dealing with in the region of one million premises—400,000 offices and 650,000 shops. In the main, these premises will be concentrated in certain areas, and I can well believe that the task of the inspector in finding out which of those premises have not notified is going to be formidable.
I believe that if you had a system whereby all premises coming within the definition of Clause 1 were to notify the local authority, two things would happen: first of all, those who believe it is right and part of their duty to carry out the provision would immediately notify the authority; but there are people also with the exemption, being family businesses, who would themselves be willing and would notify the local authority, because immediately they would be able to obtain exemption and would not be involved in any cost. Therefore, this system would mean that you would reduce the number of premises which have not been notified. This would therefore reduce the task of the local authority and the inspector in ascertaining which premises should be
1060
within and which should be outside the Bill. Therefore, merely on the question of administration I would say that my Amendment is worthy of consideration.
But there is another point. As I have said, we must, reluctantly, accept the principle of Clause 2; but these family businesses are obtaining an exemption from what may perhaps be heavy costs in which competitors will be involved. We debated on Committee and Report the fact that there may be many businesses in competition with a family business, run perhaps by a widow or a widower who, by sheer circumstance, is forced to have employees and immediately comes within the provisions of the Bill. Therefore, you would not have fair competition. If the Government say that these family businesses should be exempt, then of course they must have exemption, but I think they would recognise immediately that it would be quite wrong for exemptions to arise merely by not notifying; that if a firm is entitled to exemption from the provisions of a statute, provisions which are being put upon other people to perform, they should themselves contract in; that they should make a statement to the effect that they come within the definition (1) but that, as they are a family business, they meet the provisions of Clause 2 and therefore are exempt. This would mean that the inspector would be in a much stronger position later on if it came to his knowledge that this was a family business; that, having been declared a family business, it came within the provisions of Clause 2, but in fact it had on its premises employees whom it had failed to notify. This would obviously give more teeth to the Bill. It would give more justice to those firms in competition with the family businesses which are exempt.
I have put down my Amendment merely to relieve the administrative problems that undoubtedly will be there. It will make it easier for the inspector and the local authority to be able to sort out those firms that come within the provisions and those that are exempt. If we were in business and were setting out to carry out a similar operation, or if the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in his Navy was having to find some means whereby a particular part of the Navy was exempt from one thing, this is the way in which he would proceed about it. I cannot believe the noble Lord, or any noble

1061
Lord opposite, would proceed with this type of exemption in which one is exempted merely through not carrying out notification. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 33, after ("Act") insert ("except section 49 thereof").—(Lord Shepherd.)
7.42 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, this is the tenth occasion during the passage of this Bill, and, with any luck, the last, on which I have had to protect the maidenhood of Clause 2 from the attentions of noble Lords opposite, with all the strictness, and some may think prudery, of a Victorian mother concerned about the virtue of her teenage daughter.
LORD LINDGREN: There is no virtue in this Government!
LORD NEWTON: I must have appeared to noble Lords to be the original immovable object, and that has given me no pleasure at all. I have obviously not succeeded—I expect it is my fault—in convincing noble Lords opposite that it is right, as a matter of principle, to exclude small family businesses from the provisions and the consequences of the Bill. I can only regret that I have failed to convince them.
As regards these four Amendments put down by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, their effect would undoubtedly be to give local authorities more information than they would otherwise have had about premises in the areas for which they are responsible; but I doubt whether this advantage would outweigh the disadvantages of requiring more paper work and form-filling. Clause 53 gives enforcing authorities adequate powers to enter any premises, including premises with which Clauses 2 and 3 are concerned, for the purpose of verifying whether the Bill applies to them. Such visits to ascertain or confirm the position would still be necessary under the procedure proposed by the noble Lord in these four Amendments. Thus, I cannot see that there would be any significant reduction either in the work of administering the Bill or in the number of staff required to do it. In any event, I imagine that inspectors will begin by examining conditions in the larger premises or in those of which complaints have been made, rather than at
1062
the outset seek to compile comprehensive records about premises to which the Bill does not apply.
I must also explain—this is the technical point—that the procedure proposed by the Amendment to Clause 49 does not fit, and cannot be made to fit, the present structure of the Bill. The occupiers defined in Clauses 2 and 3 are outside the ambit of the Bill. It is therefore unnecessary for them to claim exemption from it. But even if they were required to claim it, and failed to do so, they would still be outside the Bill—unless, of course, there were a penalty clause dealing with failure to claim exemption.
LORD SHEPHERD: There is a penalty clause, is there not?
LORD NEWTON: Not for failure to claim exemption on the part of the occupiers referred to under Clauses 2 and 3. It would have been possible to adopt the procedure under which occupiers covered by Clauses 2 and 3 were required to inform enforcing authorities that they were so covered; but if that position were not to be meaningless it would have been necessary to back it up by powers of enforcement and penalties for failure to notify. So once again we come up against the issue of principle which I have argued before your Lordships so many times. Surely, it would be red tape to the point of absurdity, and wholly contrary to our legal traditions, to make it a criminal offence if the occupiers of small family businesses omitted to fill in forms merely for the purpose of showing that they were not affected by a Statute, which by its own expressed provisions did not apply to them.
Once again I must invite the House not to accept this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, at an earlier stage used a cricketing metaphor about me. He said that I had batted stubbornly and kept my wicket, but he said that it would be good for me, and the Bill, if I let something slip past. I may not have scored many runs in the debates we have had on Clause 2, and I have had some very accurate bowling at me, a sustained onslaught from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, some fast ones from the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton (who is not here at the moment), some teasers from the noble Lord, Lord Champion; and

1063
there has always been the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren ready to whip off the bails behind the stumps. I have not made many runs but I am still at the wicket, and, as this is the last over in this innings, I hope your Lordships will permit me to carry my bat.
LORD SHEPHERD: No doubt the noble Lord is quite safe when one sees his tame majority trooping through the Division Lobby, but the noble Lord is quite inaccurate when he says that it would be quite wrong to make it a criminal offence for a firm not to declare merely because it was exempt from the provisions. Is it not a fact that whether or not you have to pay income tax you have to declare your income? Is it not a fact in regard to National Insurance that you have to carry out the same provisions?
LORD NEWTON: I cannot speak again, I know, but what I was trying to say was that the point about this is that the Bill expressly excludes these categories of people.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It should not.
LORD NEWTON: That is not true of the Income Tax Acts.
LORD SHEPHERD: In the case of income tax a certain class of people are exempted from it by the Finance Act which is passed every year, yet they still have to declare their income.
LORD HAWKE: I think the noble Lord is slightly inaccurate there, because
I think there it a limit below which they do not have to declare.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am sure that they have to declare their income.
LORD HAWKE: Not if they have a very small income.
LORD SHEPHERD: I will not pursue the point. I take my view, the noble Lord takes his, as he is entitled to. I return to the main question. I reluctantly accepted the principle of Clause 2.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My noble friend should not have done so.
LORD SHEPHERD: I know I should not have done so, but for the purposes of my argument I did so. By moving this Amendment I have tried to make the life of local authorities easier. I have tried at least to tighten matters. Some storekeepers might regard some of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, as an incitement not to do anything. I hope that the noble Lord will read his words to-morrow. The noble Lord's words might encourage them to take a long time to comply. The noble Lord said: Perhaps we shall deal with the larger businesses first. This could well be construed as meaning that a man in a small way of business need not worry. I strongly believe that the Amendment should be accepted. If the Government cannot accept it, I must ask my noble friends to support me.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 43.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Latham, L.

Silkin, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Lawson, L.

Stonham, L. [Teller.]

Archibald, L.

Lindgren, L. [Teller.]

Summerskill, B.

Attlee, E.

Lucan, E.

Walston, L.

Darwen, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Williamson, L.

Hughes, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Chelmer, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Ampthill, L.

Chesham, L.

Fortescue, E.

Astor, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Auckland, L.

Conesford, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Harcourt, V.

Boston, L.

Denham, L.

Hastings, L.

Brecon, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Hawke, L.

Buchan, E.

Dudley, E.

Horsbrugh, B.

Carrington, L.

Ferrers, E.

Ilford, L.

Kilmuir, E.

Mills, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Lothian, M.

Newton, L.

Somers, L.

Luke, L.

Remnant, L.

Strang, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Rockley, L.

Westwood, L.

Melchett, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Woolton, E.

Merrivale, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD SHEPHERD: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 43, at end insert—

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hughes, L.

Silkin, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Latham, L.

Stonham, L. [Teller.]

Archibald, L.

Lawson, L.

Summerskill, B.

Attlee, E.

Lindgren, L. [Teller.]

Walston, L.

Champion, L.

Lucan, E.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Darwen, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Williamson, L.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Dudley, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Ampthill, L.

Ferrers, E.

Melchett, L.

Auckland, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Merrivale, L.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mills, V.

Boston, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Newton, L.

Brecon, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Remnant, L.

Buchan, E.

Hastings, L.

Rockley, L.

Carrington, L.

Hawke, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Chelmer, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

St. Oswald, L.

Chesham, L.

Ilford, L.

Somers, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kilmuir, E.

Strang, L.

Conesford, L.

Lothian, M.

Westwood, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Luke, L.

Wolverton, L.

Denham, L.

Clause 3 [Exception for premises where only 21 man-hours weekly normally worked]:
LORD SHEPHERD: I beg to move.
("Provided that nothing in this subsection shall exclude any person or premises from the operation of section 49 of this Act.")—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 40.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 44, after ("Act") insert ("except section 49 thereof").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 40.

Lothian, M.

Newton, L.

Somers, L.

Luke, L.

Remnant, L.

Strang, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Rockley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Melchett, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Westwood, L.

Merrivale, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Wolverton, L.

Mills, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.15 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, after Clause 41, to insert the following new clause
Special provisions as to London
".—(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section any premises to which section 29 of this Act applies which form part of a building from all parts of which means of escape in case of fire have been provided in accordance with the requirements of Part V of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939, and are maintained, shall be entitled to receive a fire certificate under the said section 29 and pending the receipt of the certificate no offence shall be deemed to be committed by reason of the employment of persons in any such premises in contravention of that section.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to any premises if since the means of escape were provided any action has been taken of which notice would, if a certificate under the said section 29 had been granted, have been required to be given to the appropriate authority under subsection (3) of section 30 of this Act."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Amendment standing in my name. Your Lordships will no doubt recall that a similar Amendment was dealt with on the Committee stage and the noble Lord, Lord Newton, undertook to look into the matter. This he did, and he reported on the Report stage that, for a variety of reasons, which were set out in his speech, he was unable to accept the Amendment. I should like, first of all, to say that this Amendment is a matter of administration, and that it possesses considerable administrative advantages. This afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Newton, has referred to the desire to diminish the paper work in connection with the enforcement of the provisions of this Bill when it becomes law. This Amendment, asking for special administrative arrangements in respect of the London County Council, is a sensible, efficient way in which to reduce and avoid duplication of paper work. There is no advantage otherwise, and no privilege, to the London County Council; but it seems to them—and I concur in this view—that it is difficult to justify a very large duplication and wasteful use of labour and of material when all the
1068
requirements of the Bill are dealt with and are satisfied by the proposals put forward in the Amendment.
Moreover, it is annoying and irritating to the owners or occupiers of premises that they should be visited twice in respect of what appear to be, and in fact are, the same requirements. So the proposal was put forward that special arrangements should be available to the London County Council. Here, my Lords, is an opportunity of reducing or avoiding the increase by duplication of paper work and of administrative activity. I thought that, having regard to the fact that we have been repeatedly told, in justification of the rejection of our Amendments, that this was an immense task; that the coverage was enormous and that we should not seek to widen it; that the enforcing authorities will have so much to do, and that, if we did widen it, it was in danger of breaking down, the noble Lord would have welcomed with joy in his heart this proposal to reduce the paper work: that he would, as it were, rise up and call the London County Council blessed for seeking so to do.
The noble Lord set down the objections to this Amendment, and I will briefly deal with them. There was, first of all, the question of the single occupation in relation to the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act, 1939. The answer to the fears of the noble Lord is as follows. Difficulties are considered unlikely to arise in respect of a building in single occupation where the means of escape have been approved by the Council, and experience in enforcement has indicated that action is best taken against an owner, particularly where structural work is involved, as an occupier is seldom in the position to execute such work. Section 10 of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act, 1939, does, however, contain provisions to enable an owner of a building to have an occupier charged as the actual offender in the event of court action in respect of a contravention of the means of escape provisions, and provides that the occupier may be convicted of the offence. Now we take the view that that statement fully meets the case, and shows

1069
that there no difficulty or confusion or avoidance is likely if the proposal of the London County Council is accepted.
The next point is with regard to the means of escape. In that connection, in approving the means of escape from a new building in a planning stage the Council may impose a condition, and where the actual occupation and layout of equipment and plant, et cetera, is unknown, a condition is always imposed to require the submission of further drawings before specified parts of the building are occupied. Any conditions which are imposed are binding on the owner and the occupier. The Council, when approving means of escape from a building, have regard to the number of persons resorting to the premises, and frequently impose a restriction on numbers. The Council's code on means of escape lays down standards for widths of staircases, et cetera, based on the number of occupants. That, it seems to me, meets very adequately the points which the noble Lord advanced on the Report stage.
The next point was the question of exemption under the London Building Acts. In that connection, I should like to say that it is true that certain exemptions may be allowed from Part V of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act, although in practice this is not done. In any case, the proposed new clause in the Bill would apply only to those cases where means of escape have been provided. Other buildings, including exempted buildings, would be controlled under the Bill, and there is nothing in that connection to worry about.
A further point concerned the assumptions by the owner of old buildings, and the non-compliance with the London Building Acts. In that connection, it should be said that under Section 35 of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act, 1939, the owner of a building cannot assume that his building complies with the provisions of this Act if not served with a notice. Until the Council serves a notice, which it may do at any time, requiring means of escape works, and until these works have been completed a building will not be one in respect of which means of escape in case of fire have been provided in accordance with Part V of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of the Bill would apply.
In those circumstances, and with that, I hope, reasonably adequate explanation
1070
of the point of view as regards the submissions made by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, I hope that the Government may be able to accept the Amendment. As I say, it will result in saving an immense amount of time and avoid a good deal of irritation and annoyance justly felt by owners or occupiers if they have to go twice through the rigmarole, in respect of one set of conditions of premises. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 41, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Latham.)
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this Amendment has now been moved three times—in Committee, on Report and again on Third Reading this evening. As the noble Lord, Lord Latham, said, in Committee I expressed no definite view upon it, but asked for time to consider it further. This, my Lords, I did. On Report, I explained why I thought the balance of advantage was against the Amendment. The result was that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, withdrew the Amendment, on the understanding that he would look at my words carefully, and perhaps consult some of his friends: but he did say that I appeared to have a very strong case for rejecting the Amendment. My Lords, I have listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has said.
LORD LATHAM: I wonder if I may just interpose? Of course, my noble friend Lord Shepherd did not have the advantage of the considered views of the L.C.C. when he made that statement.
LORD SHEPHERD: I said it appeared to me that the noble Lord had a strong case, but I left it at that.
LORD NEWTON: The noble Lord said that I "appeared" to have a very strong case for rejecting the Amendment. Of course, he had not had the opportunity then to study carefully what I had said, any more than I have had the opportunity this evening to study carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has just said in an attempt to repudiate the arguments which I advanced on Report stage. But I must say to him that, without having had the advantage of being able to read what he said, what I heard has not shaken my opinion that I was right to invite the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to withdraw his Amendment

1071
on Report, and that the noble Lord was also right to accept my invitation. Between the Committee and Report stages I did consider this Amendment with an open mind and with a will to accept it if it seemed reasonable to do so. But I concluded, for the reasons which I gave at some length on Report, that it would be wrong to incorporate it in the Bill. I will summarise those reasons quite simply and as succinctly as I can.
First, there would be confusion as to the respective responsibilities in London for means of escape, since the London Building Act puts the responsibility on the owner, whereas under this Bill many occupiers will be responsible. Secondly, it is far from clear that the London Building Act requires the same attention to the operational use of buildings as will be necessary under this Bill. Thirdly, the London Building Act provides that means of escape in new buildings may be exempted from its provisions, as the noble Lord, Lord Latham recognised. There is no such exemption in this Bill and it is deliberate policy not to put any exemptions in this Bill.
Fourthly, it would seem—and this is perhaps the most crucial point of all—the owners of old buildings in London

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Latham, L.

Silkin, L.

Archibald, L.

Lawson, L.

Stonham, L. [Teller.]

Attlee, E.

Lindgren, L. [Teller.]

Summerskill, B.

Champion, L.

Longford, E.

Walston, L.

Chorley, L.

Lucan, E.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Darwen, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Williamson, L.

Henderson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Luke, L.

Ampthill, L.

Dudley, E.

Mabane, L.

Auckland, L.

Ferrers, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Melchett, L.

Boston, L.

Fortescue, E.

Merrivale, L.

Brecon, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Mills, V.

Buchan, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Newton, L.

Carrington, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Remnant, L.

Chelmer, L.

Hastings, L.

Rockley, L.

Chesham, L.

Hawke, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Coleraine, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

St. Oswald, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Ilford, L.

Saltoun, L.

Conesford, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Somers, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Kilmuir, E.

Westwood, L.

Denham, L.

Lothian, M.

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
would automatically and without examination be entitled to receive a fire certificate under the Bill, so that there would be a risk that London would have a lower standard of protection than the rest of the country. I cannot believe that anybody in any part of this House would want to see that risk being taken. Fifthly, and finally, the same authority would administer both the provisions of this Bill and the London Building Act, and would therefore be able to ensure harmonious working of both Statutes. I am sorry to say that I must again advise the House not to accept this Amendment.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I am not at all convinced, and I cannot overlook the fact that the London County Council have had years of expert administration of the London Building Act and also as the fire authority. I should have thought that they had probably had more experience that the advisers of the noble Lord. But the noble Lord has said that he cannot accept the Amendment, and in the circumstances I must ask my friends to support me.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 45.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Carrington.)
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I do not allow that to go without saying something about it. You think eventually that with your strength you can play ducks and drakes with the limited Opposition. I have never come across anything more brutal than the leadership of the House as it has been to-night. We had a very clear arrangement through the usual channels that we were to adjourn the House at seven-thirty and that we should be given from six-thirty to seven-thirty to deal with the other measures in between. We have not had either of those arrangements kept. There is not the slightest possible reason for the brutality of the Government to-night. We intend, if we possibly can, to finish what we had promised to finish to-night, the Bill with regard to Shops land Offices and also the Scottish Bill, which was the cause of a special journey from Dundee by my noble friend Lord Hughes to see the last stage of this Bill. And the Government, as they have acted in other directions for a long time now, feel they can wave their power about, irrespective of what the electorate think, whether the London or the national electorate, in by-elections or in local council elections.
This is a brutal treatment of what they know is a limited Opposition. Although you might not move a guillotine, as in the Commons so that this great unman-dated Bill was never properly discussed, you think you can get the same effect by putting down this sort of arrangement? It is not the right management of the House of Lords, I shall resent, and I shall resent bitterly, as I am sure all my colleagues will, if you refuse us this right, having sat right through the time when we ought to have been for our dinners, while the rest have been well fed. You then adjourn and go on to something else, leaving this business left over. It is scandalous arid I hope all my colleagues will vote with me, against this.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I have done my best to ascertain what is the feeling of the House on this matter and it is true that there is a certain amount of resentment on this side of the House as well as on that.
1074
The feeling expressed to me on this side of the House is that the breach of arrangements came from the Opposition. I think that the Opposition have been most ill-advisedly led. This is not the way business should be conducted in your Lordships' House.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Viscount has made the allegation that there was a breach of arrangement by the Opposition. Will he tell us what that breach was?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I understand from my noble friends—the noble Lord will acquit me of any personal participation in these negotiations—that the arrangement was that we should devote the time after the moment at which the London Government Bill was adjourned to these two Orders, since when the Opposition has deliberately tried to defeat the conduct of business of the House.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I wish to associate myself with my noble Leader in the strong protest which has been made at the Government's behaviour. As members of the Government know, by arrangements made with the Minister of State, Scottish Office, I have come down specially for the Third Reading of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill and am due to travel back to-night. Because of commitments in Scotland to-morrow and on the succeeding day, I cannot possibly be present in the House then. It is the Government's desire that this Bill should go through not later than the 15th of this month. It was not any of our responsibility that the Government's timetable went wrong in another place.
A few minutes ago I was offered the opportunity of having the Scottish Bill debated and dealt with to-night if I was prepared to let it go through, in the words of the Government, "on the nod". I had previously agreed to confine my remarks as much as I possibly could and to speak for not more than ten minutes, because of the illness of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton. I was informed that the noble Lord was in extreme discomfort because he was suffering from food poisoning, it was believed. Out of sympathy with the noble Lord, I agreed to co-operate to the full and to speak for not more than ten minutes.

1075
However, when I was asked if I was prepared to let the Bill go through on the nod, I felt, because of the Government's attitude, freed from any promise I had made to keep my speech down to the very minimum. The Scottish Bill is a measure which is in itself an indication of the way the Government, as my noble Leader has said, are treating the electorate. The people of Scotland have been led to believe that the Scottish Bill is a measure to compel local authorities to increase rents. It is not such a measure. It is a measure to deprive local authorities of the Exchequer Equalisation Grant.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Lord may be in order in making such a speech at a later stage, but the only Motion I have moved so far is that the debate on the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill, which has been obstructed by the Opposition, be adjourned. If the noble Lord wishes me later to move a Motion about the Scottish Bill, it will be then in order for the noble Lord to describe what it does and does not contain, provided that it is relevant to the Motion then before the House.
LORD HUGHES: As I understood it, the Motion which is before the House is, That this House do now adjourn.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: No. The Motion before the House, unless I made myself extremely obscure, is that "this debate" be now adjourned, and "this debate" is on the Third Reading of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill is a Bill which is for the benefit of humanity who work for their living. It deals with people who work in offices, shops and railway premises. It is a Bill which is within the Government's mandate. It has been promised over three Parliaments. Now the Government wish to adjourn the debate. It is all very well for the noble Viscount to pout. After all, we are concerned with the people, their health and their wellbeing. The Government have no mandate for the London Government Bill. It will not upset anybody if the London Government Bill does not go through. It is the Government who are being vicious. They issue this threat to the Opposition, "If you will not
1076
let us have the London Government Bill, we will not let you have the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill, which you want for the benefit of the people who work for their living".
My Lords, this is a new stage in the conduct of proceedings in this House. Some of us have come here having had experience of Parliament in another place. If noble Lords opposite want a lesson in how to keep going and wear folk down, some of us are prepared to teach them. We are certainly not going to be threatened. We might even be more rude to the noble Viscount than Cambridge was. He will not even get a majority of twenty, perhaps. This is not the way to treat noble Lords. When we were told that we were coming to this House, we were also told that the method of debating and the general approach was much more leisurely, much more easy, and much more dignified than the rough-and-tumble of the House of Commons. We had some "roughhouses" in the House of Commons, but I do not remember a Government there treating the House or the electorate with such contempt as those leading the House of Lords are doing at present.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House, who I know is invariably frank, if he will be frank with the House just for one moment in answering this question? Do we understand from his last observation that, if the Motion to adjourn the debate on the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill is carried, that will leave the Scottish Bill available to be dealt with?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: That must depend on how long this Motion takes.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, the House is in a bit of a Parliamentary muddle, having been led there by the Government. I will not say that it has been led there by the Leader of the House personally, because he has not been able to be here all the time, for reasons which I appreciate. We really are in a muddle. This afternoon we started on the London Government Bill. We made a certain amount of progress. At the request of the Government, the proceedings on that Bill were suspended. Your Lordships' House then proceeded to the Third Reading of the Offices, Shops

1077
and Railway Premises Bill, which was to be followed by the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. Now the idea is, apparently, my Lords, that we should resume the London Government Bill. This may be the way that your Lordships' House deals with these matters. I cannot remember this kind of procedure in another place, but I am not making any great point of it.
My Lords, we are in a muddle. Evidently the Government were not satisfied with the progress made this afternoon on the London Government Bill, and they got short-tempered and decided to punish the Opposition by abolishing the hour's adjournment for the dinner period. They decided to let everybody get dinner as best he could. As a matter of fact, I have been along to the Commons tea room and had quite a good time. I had a pork pie, a hard-boiled egg, a piece of chocolate cream and some cold milk. I hear my noble friend Baroness Summerskill, speaking as a doctor, saying that I have asked for trouble. My Lords, I have done it before and I have survived.
I sympathise to some extent with noble Lords on the Back Benches opposite. Your Lordships went away to have a quiet dinner for an hour. Unfortunately, your Lordships have been dragged in and out, on Division after Division. So have I. This is the sort of thing which happens when the Government lose their head and treat an Opposition in the way described by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition. If we get a bit cross, it must be remembered that we are only following the bad example of the Government Front Bench. My Lords, we ought not to get cross, but it is only human for human beings to get cross when they are treated brutally, inhumanly and unjustly.
In another place I always took the view that it was best to treat the place

CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Carrington, L.

Ferrers, E.

Albemarle, E.

Chelmer, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Ampthill, L.

Chesham, L.

Fortescue, E.

Auckland, L.

Coleraine, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Bossom, L.

Conesford, L.

Grenfell, L.

Boston, L.

Denham, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Brecon, L.

Devonshire, D.

Hastings, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Hawke, L.

Buchan, E.

Dudley, E.

Horsbrugh, B.

well and even to suffer fools gladly. In your Lordships' House we are not fools, and that must be admitted. We know our stuff. In the other place we even suffered tools gladly, especially when everyone got bad-tempered in about the month of July. The Government now say to your Lordships, "All right, we will teach you. We will punish you". What is the result? We have not been punished to all that extent. I got my supper in three instalments, although there was not much of it.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Lucky man!
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Yes, I was lucky. The noble Lords opposite have been interrupted all the time. At the back of it all is really the Government's determination to press through, to hang through, and to steamroller through this highly unpopular London Government Bill. This Government never learn. Last week's local government elections swung heavily against the Government, especially in the Home Counties, which are traditionally Conservative. Places in the provinces do not know when their turn is coming and when their local government structure will be treated in the same way. The Government are therefore silly. Electorally they are losing the battle.
My Lords, in the ordinary way we should not divide on such a matter. However, as my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition has indicated, in view of the way we have been treated we must register our protest. At the moment the only way to register our protest is to divide, if the House is ready to divide.
On Question, Whether the debate be now adjourned?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 23.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Merrivale, L.

Somers, L.

Ilford, L.

Mills, V.

Spens, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Newton, L.

Strang, L.

Kilmuir, E.

Onslow, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Long, V.

Remnant, L.

Waleran, L.

Lothian, M.

Rockley, L.

Westwood, L.

Luke, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Wolverton, L.

Malmesbury, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Woolton, E.

Melchett, L.

Saltoun, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Airedale, L.

Hughes, L.

Silkin, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Latham, L.

Stonham, L. [Teller.]

Archibald, L.

Lawson, L.

Summerskill, B.

Attlee, E.

Lindgren, L.

Terrington, L.

Champion, L.

Longford, E.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Chorley, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Williamson, L.

Darwen, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and debate adjourned accordingly.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
8.58 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the proceedings on this Bill be adjourned till to-morrow and taken as first Order.
Moved, That the proceedings on the Bill be adjourned till to-morrow and taken as first Order.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think this is more of the brutality to the noble Lord who has come from Dundee specially for this Bill. This is an action taken deliberately by the Leader of the House, in spite of what has been said. When first the adjournment of the debate on the previous subject under discussion was moved, no explanation was given, and yet the adjournment was made. Nothing was said about what Business was to come after—not a word. This has been conducted in such a way as to try to get the individual Member of my Party, who wanted to speak in this debate, to take it on the nod and withdraw whatever he had to say. No word of this was mentioned to me, or through any of the usual channels, so far as I can find out. If this is the way that the Government leadership of the House is going on, I cannot have very much respect for it. The
1080
noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House has made a deliberate attempt to punish my noble friend from Dundee because of what he said to-night, I suppose to prevent him from being here to see through what he ought to see through, the remaining passages of this Bill. He is the only active Scots Peer I have at the moment. The Leader of the House must know that. It is exceedingly unfair and unjust, and all I have to say is this: if this is the conduct which is now to be expected from the Government because they have to rush through unmandated legislation, then we shall know how we have to deal with the whole constitution and the future of the House of Lords.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I can only say that my sympathies are with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. He has to thank his own Party for what has happened.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Nonsense!
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I must object most strenuously to that. I should think that what I have to say cannot possibly be ruled out of order, and I hope for the latitude of the House in what I am going to say. I did not propose to be particularly controversial about the Bill, especially in view of the circumstances which were related to me. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, spoke to me at 6 o'clock and said that it appeared that it was most unlikely that we should reach the Third Reading of this Bill before half-past seven and asked whether it was possible for me to indicate the

1081
lines I proposed to take. In the circumstances, I did so, and said that I should not be speaking for more than ten minutes at the very outside and would confine myself to two clauses of the Bill—to the controversial Clause 3, which generally met with a great deal of opposition in Scotland and, as Members of your Lordships' House know, was vigorously opposed in another place, and to Clause 15.
The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, said that that was most acceptable to him and, in view of the fact that I was going to refer to Clause 15, he would stay on himself, because he did not think it fair to impose that on a colleague who had no particular knowledge of this aspect of the Bill. He proposed, therefore, to stay on himself. But after 7 o'clock, it reached a position where it was apparent that the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, would be doing himself a possible injury if he stayed any longer, and by agreement with him I said that, if anything, I would cut my remarks down still further. It is quite obvious that the Government are serving no useful purpose in what has now been moved by the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House, because, in fact, I am just making the speech I would have made.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, let me say at once that if we could be assured that this Bill would receive the expedition which the noble Lord has indicated it is his desire to give it, I should willingly withdraw my Motion.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I do not know how my colleagues would feel in the circumstances, but I know this: until what took place a few minutes ago there was no intention that anyone on this side of the House would be speaking on the Bill other than myself, and if the Government had sought to get information instead of applying threats it would have been easily forthcoming to them. I have no reason to believe the situation is any different, although the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House could not be surprised if we were to change that situation. But, to the best of my knowledge, I am still the only speaker on the Third Reading from this side of the House.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, may I say to the noble Earl the Leader
1082
of the Opposition that I am sure his noble friends would take any advice he proffered them, and I, too, am anxious to meet the convenience, not only of the House but of the noble Lord who has come so far to speak on this Bill. If I can be assured that this situation is as I am told now, I shall be only too glad to withdraw my Motion.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House might have thought of that before. If he had proceeded with his Motion we should have had to discuss it and vote against it, but if he is willing to see that the case of my noble friend is heard I am in agreement, if the noble and learned Viscount withdraws his Motion.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: On that understanding, I ask leave that the Motion be withdrawn.
On Question, Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
9.6 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, it is not my intention to add much to what I would otherwise have said if this Bill had been dealt with in the ordinary way. As I intended a few minutes ago, and still intend, I will confine my remarks to Clauses 3 and 15 of the Bill, and, if I might take them out of order, I would first of all refer to Clause 15. One of the least satisfactory features of the revaluation proposals in Scotland was that up and down the country assessors objected to appellants against revaluation quoting cases from other parts of the country, although, in many cases, it was the most obvious way to appeal a case, particularly where there were examples of firms building identical types of houses in many different parts of the country. Even where these were situated as close to each other as three miles, but in separate authorities, it was held by the assessors and accepted by chairmen of valuation courts that only comparable subjects within the area of the valuation

1083
committee could be used as the basis of an appeal. It was not, I believe, the view of the Government that that was the correct reading of the situation, but, of course, the Government are not in a position to advise valuation authorities of local authorities what their interpretation of the law is. The interpretation of the law, if it is tested, is a matter for the courts. The result was that the position more or less went by default.
In this Bill, Clause 15 makes it abundantly clear to everybody concerned that in appeals against valuation it will be proper to quote cases from other areas; either that the assessor may do so or the appellant against the assessor's valuation may do so; and I think that this is a move which will be generally welcomed by the people of Scotland. What I wish to suggest to the Government in this connection, because this is such a complete departure from what has gone on in the last three years, and as in many cases valuation appeal committees have part-time officers and are not always served by full-time officials of local authorities, is that it might achieve the best purpose of the Government's intention if the Secretary of State were to make arrangements that all valuation appeal committees were notified of the change in the law in this respect as soon as is practicable after the Bill receives the Royal Assent.
In relation to Clause 3, my remarks, as the noble Marquess would expect, come in a different category altogether. I started off at Committee stage by objecting to the timetable which was imposed in the Bill. I abandoned that, because it was obvious to me that it was a waste of time. I, like many other people, thought that the purpose of this Bill was to impose penalties on local authorities which were fixing the rents at an unreasonably low level, and it was only after I put forward the Amendment that I discovered, like many other people, that I was completely in error. In fact, there was no such penalty in the Bill at all. There is a depriving of local authorities of Exchequer Equalisation Grant, but, to my surprise, it worked equally whether they put the rents up or not. As I think I mentioned to your Lordships at Committee stage, the position is that in the first year of the Bill a notional percentage of 85 is imposed. If the local authority's
1084
rents are less than 85 per cent. gross annual value it is assumed that that figure is in existence and the difference between their actual rents and 85 per cent. becomes the measure of the percentage deduction of the Exchequer Equalisation Grant which they receive. If they increase the rents to the percentage stated in the Bill they are in exactly the same position, because an actual rent and an actual income product is substituted for a notional rent and notional income product, so that the end result is the same.
I felt a bit guilty about not having known that as late as the Committee stage of this Bill, but during the weekend I read up a large part of the proceedings which took place in the Scottish Grand Committee in another place, and I felt a little consoled for having done that, because I found that my ignorance of the Bill was shared by the Minister who was in charge of it in the Grand Committee. I think that if I conclude by reference to one or two things which the Under-Secretary of State said in another place it will show that I was in ministerial company in not knowing what the Bill meant, and this is after the Second Reading and two days spent on discussing the principles of the Bill in another place.
On February 7 this year (in column 184 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings in another place) Mr. Leburn said:
"This clause does not fix rents. It leaves it to the local authority to choose whether to leave them low and suffer a reduction of grant under this clause or to raise them and make a large gain."
The only gain the local authorities can make is the amount of the rent increase, and surely no one in this House would suggest for one minute that any Scottish local authority needs to have an Act of Parliament to draw its attention to the fact that if it increases rents by £100,000 it keeps the £100,000. What they assumed to be a large gain was a gain in Exchequer equalisation grant. On February 19 the Minister said:
"It can either keep its rents as they are or incur a deduction "—
and I think the word "or" is a misprint for "and", because it does not make sense otherwise—
"under Clause 3 or increase its rents and avoid a deduction."

1085
In no circumstances can a deduction be avoided. On the same day, resisting another series of Amendments, he said:
"If we were to accept the Amendments there would be no reason at all for local authorities to increase their rents."
I think I may be forgiven if I did misunderstand the intentions of the Government in this matter. If members of the Government themselves did not know what they were putting forward, a poor, ignorant Back Bencher travelling down occasionally from Scotland for the purpose must be given a little more latitude than they themselves would claim.
I would conclude by saying this. I am consoled in my inability to make any changes in this measure by the knowledge that my Party has stated quite definitely that when they are the Government they propose to destroy the present iniquitous grant arrangements and to return to the system of specific grants for specific subjects. When that is done, it will matter little that there are certain injustices to Scottish local authorities, and I think that possibly (if I might use a word which some Members of your Lordships' House will have to look up) they will thole it for the year in the knowledge that something better is coming along.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I should like briefly, first of all, to apologise to the House, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the absence of my noble friend Lord Craigton to-night. As the noble Lord and the House know, my noble friend was not feeling at all well and has had to go home. In the circumstances I hope that the noble Lord will acquit me of any discourtesy if I do not follow him in his remarks to-night. As he appreciated, I have only just been handed the brief about this Bill, and, indeed, the Bill itself. But I will certainly draw my noble friend's attention to what the noble Lord has just said regarding Clause 3. I can assure him, regarding the matter which he raised at the beginning of his speech on Clause 15, that the information he required concerning local valuation appeals, will be circulated to local authorities throughout Scotland after the Bill becomes law. I conclude by thanking him for the way in which he has, with qualifications, welcomed this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

London Government Bill
9.15 p.m.
House again in Committee.
[The LORD AIREDALE in the Chair.]
Clause 4:
General provisions as to exercise in Greater London of existing local authority functions
4.—(1) Subject to any provision to the contrary effect made by, or by any instrument made under, this Act or any other Act passed during the same session as this Act (and in particular any provision conferring functions on the Greater London Council), and without prejudice to any express provision so made, the provisions of this section (being provisions designed to confer on the councils of London boroughs as respects their boroughs and on the Common Council as respects the City the functions exercisable by the councils of county boroughs as respects their boroughs or by the existing London county council as respects the metropolitan boroughs or, as the case may he, the City) shall have effect as from 1st April 1965 as respects any enactment (hereafter in this section referred to as an "existing enactment") contained in any public general Act passed before this Act or in any other such Act passed during the same session as this Act.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved, in subsection (1) to leave out "1965" and to insert:
"1966 or a date thereafter to be appointed by the Minister after consultation with the Greater London Council and any association or committee which appears to be representative of the London Borough councils".
The noble Lord said: After the spirit of amity which has ruled in this House for the lest few minutes I almost feel I ought not to make a speech upon this Amendment; but I do regard it as an Amendment of some importance. I must say that I regard speeches in Parliament as being of some importance. From time to time I happen, as most of your Lordships, I am sure, will have done, to lecture on Parliament. Time after time I have been asked, "Why do you speak on measures when you know perfectly well that at the end the Party in power is going to get its way?". I have always replied in defence of Parliament that speeches do matter in the long run, if not on the matter immediately before Parliament; they do change climates of opinion. I am bound to say that when I first went to the other House I felt that everything on my side was white and everything on the other side was

1087
black. After fourteen years in the other House I came to realise, as a result of speeches to which I listened most carefully, that it shaded through every possible shade of grey between black and white.
If I persist in this Amendment, which I am doing, on the question of the date, your Lordships will realise that I am hoping eventually to persuade the Government to change their opinion on this matter of the transitional period, before the transfer of power which is to take place under this Bill, from the existing councils to those that are to be set up under the Bill, from the L.C.C. and the rest to the boroughs and in some cases to the Greater London Council. I have said it before, and perhaps I shall be forgiven for repeating it: this is going to be an impossible task in the time allotted. I am not going to make any tremendously long reference to the staggering problems which will be involved, because I made some reference to them in my speech on the previous Amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, I think, dealt adequately and well with the problems to be settled.
He stressed, and I would stress too, that there are anxieties in the minds of officers of those councils to be overcome. Career prospects will clearly be ruined as a result of these mergings that are going to take place. Chief officials and others, I feel sure, will feel like getting, out of the London government service—and who could blame them in the circumstances? I am particularly worried about the personal health services of the London County Council, the services of child care in nurseries, health visiting, family planning, maternity and child welfare, chiropody, problem families including special case work services, recuperative holidays, domiciliary midwives, home nursing, home help, mental health, T.B. after-care, vaccination and immunisation, all of which will have to be transferred under this Clause 4.
I understand that all of these services are today exercised mainly through nine divisional offices. I understand, too, that these nine divisional office boundaries and areas do not necessarily coincide with the new authorities which are being set up. So there will be—and this is
1088
quite inevitable—a process of reorganisation, of unprecedented upheaval. If it is done too quickly, staffs will suffer and, even more important (and I feel sure Lord Grenfell must agree with this) not only will the staff suffer but there will be a danger that those who should benefit from these services will suffer, too. We all feel that it is a most important point, but we shall have to come back to some of the detail about all this when we get to that particular Part of the Bill dealing with these matters.
I want to refer here to education. Under this Bill we are creating new bodies, new borough councils, which will become education authorities for the first time. Up to now most of the boroughs in London, if not all of them, have had no experience of education. They will have to start from the beginning to undertake the duties of education—I am speaking of those outside the inner council area. Then there is to be this Inner London Education Authority, with its clear setup, and it will have to sort out the problem of education after it has had elected to it representatives from the new borough councils. So, first of all, they will have to be elected to the boroughs and then the boroughs themselves will have to appoint their delegates to this new Inner London Education Authority.
The existing education staffs of London and Middlesex will have to merge and then allocate functions for the new Inner London Authority. The new Authority will then have to sort out which of the principal officers will be in charge; who will be the second in command, and so on. It will also have to decide how specialists in the work of schoolchildren and students are to be allocated. The Government are here breaking up something which works, and it will take more than twelve months to put it together again. It is rather like Humpty Dumpty falling off the wall, but I hope that something more than "all the King's horses and all the King's men" will be able to put this together again. I think seriously that the time will be much too short.
It is no part of my job to drag this out. One could go through the whole functions of county councils and borough councils: roads; slum clearance; sewerage and trade effluents; civil defence; parks and open spaces, will all provide problems of adjustment which will

1089
frighten men who really understand this problem. Our Amendment proposes, in the first place, a longer period of adjustment to 1966 so that, before a final decision is taken by the Minister, he should consult the appropriate bodies—the Greater London Council and the associations representing the boroughs. This is something I suggested when I replied to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, on my previous Amendment. This might well be done before taking the final decision. Let the Minister take power which will enable him to have these consultations before taking decision on the final date. I think this would be well worth while, and I beg leave to move the Amendment.
Amendment move—
Page 4, line 24 leave out ("1965") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Champion)
9.25 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: I think the noble Lord will at least agree that this Amendment is to a large extent consequential on Amendment No. 16; and the Amendments together would have the effect of postponing for at least a year the date on which the new authorities shall take over their full functions. So we come back to the argument expanded pretty well on both sides of the House, and particularly on that side, of the possibility on this operation. I would refer back to the point made by the noble Lord on a previous occasion when he said that before pressing his Amendment we were surely not dealing with a political point. That is perfectly true. It is not a political point, and if I am to refer to other noble Lords' remarks about mandates and General Elections and so on, this point is bound to come up after a General Election. So that, from that point of view, it cannot be a political question.
I have said before (I said it last Thursday) and I will try to emphasise it even more, that the Government have considered the question of a timetable very hard and very long before putting in this date. After considering the number of suggestions for postponing or staggering the changeover to the new system, the Government have decided on the timetable shown. After consultation they have come to a decision that a clean break as soon as practicable would be the best. During the interim period there is bound to be uncertainty among the staff, and
1090
we feel that it should be brought to an end as soon as possible in the interests of those staffs and of the actual local government services. We think it best to make a clean break and give the new authority all its functions as soon as it is ready, instead of staggering the changeover. Any interim arrangement—for example, allowing the county council officials to hang on to the county services so that the officials could settle down—would only prolong the period of uncertainty, and the boroughs would be unable to plan their new services while the existing councils would have difficulty in holding staff. My noble friend Lord Auckland suggested postponing certain matters for another six months but, if there was any postponement, it would have to be for a year because any change in the middle of a financial year would only make difficulties worse confounded.
To sum up. From our discussions with local authority associations and officials we feel that April, 1965, is practicable, and that it would be undesirable, in the interests of the staffs and the services, to adopt any later date. I could not find much new to say, but I have tried to enlarge on this point and to make it clear that we are disagreeing about doing a certain thing. We have been into this point very carefully, and feel that it is desirable precisely in order to avoid a prolongation of uncertainly.
LORD CHAMPION: Before the noble Lord sits down, if I may use that old Parliamentary device, may I ask him what local government associations or bodies he consulted about this matter? Because my information is that the experts of the London County Council have considered this matter and felt that 1965 was an impossible date.
LORD HASTINGS: Consultation with the usual local government authorities which I mentioned before—the Association of Municipal Corporations and the Standing Joint Committee of Metropolitan Boroughs. I have said previously that they agreed to advancing the election date—in fact, they asked for it; the noble Lord will remember that I said that—for April and May, 1964. I am not saying that they have given official agreement to those dates of the transfer of functions; but we have studied the matter

1091
with them and with local government officials and, as a result of those studies, we believe that this matter is a practical possibility. It certainly is agreed that the sooner it can be done in an orderly manner, the better for the staff concerned.
LORD CHAMPION: What I was worrying about was the consultation with local government officials. I really wanted to know who they were, not so much the Association, (because I remember the noble Lord, or someone else, referred to that aspect of it), either the Municipal Boroughs or Municipal Corporations, whatever it is called. I remember his saying before that they had been consulted. I was wondering who were the local governmental officials.
LORD HASTINGS: I do not think I can give any individual names, but in general, of course, the officials of the various boroughs concerned in this reorganisation.
LORD STONHAM: I think the real difficulty of the noble Lord is that he cannot give an answer to my noble friend, because, in fact, the full weight of opinion of local government officers is against the belief that these matters can be satisfactorily settled by April 1, 1965. I am quite sure that if the Government have consulted the National Association of Local Government Officers, which is the most representative body in this matter, certainly they have not received from them any kind of assurance that these matters can be satisfactorily settled in one year from the date of the election of the new boroughs, because our information is quite to the contrary: they are wholly of the opinion that these matters cannot be satisfactorily settled.
It ill-behoves me to contradict the noble Lord, or to presume to guess at the consultation which the Government have had on this matter; but unquestionably I am obliged to say that our information is that no responsible organisation of county councils or municipal corporations believes that this matter can be properly resolved within the time allotted in the Bill. Therefore the honest answer, I should have thought, from the noble Lord to my noble friend's question was, "No, we have not had any confirmation from any responsible local authority organisation that they agree with us that
1092
the matter can be satisfactorily settled". In fact, this is a euphemism which the noble Lord has used for consultation—in other words, you call an organisation before you and tell them what your views are; they disagree with you entirely and tell you that it cannot be done; and then, quite properly, you say, "We have consulted them". What you neglect to say is, "They have entirely disagreed with us and they say we are foolish to go on; but, nevertheless, we are going on."
The noble Lord told my noble friend that this Amendment was virtually consequential on Amendment No. 16; therefore, we come back to the argument which he had previously discussed and answered. The trouble is that the argument has never been answered. That is our difficulty; the noble Lord has not, in fact, answered it. He says that this is a technical point and that the discussions are now going on. On an earlier Amendment some time this afternoon we had this particular discussion and, somewhat incautiously it seemed to me, the noble Lord revealed that already these ad hoc committees were being formed and were having discussions. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, realises just what is involved in this—the apparently small points which mean so much to the people concerned, and so much, of course, to the citizens of the areas which are administered. For example, on this burning point when three or four boroughs are being amalgamated in one county borough, who is going to be the chief administrative officer? There are three or four of them, all town clerks. Naturally, every single one of them hopes that he will get the job. Not only do they hope it, but in all probability the borough councillors support them in their view. In no case is that matter resolved yet, with all the discussion.
Then there are such questions as to which is going to be the administrative centre. For example, looking into Middlesex, where you have the boroughs of Wood Green, of Hornsey and of Edmonton which, under this Bill, will be amalgamated into only one borough, you will find that two of them are of a political complexion favouring my Party and one of them is decidedly of the noble Lord's Party. There is the question of where the Town Hall will be. At the

1093
moment, in present circumstances, it will probably be in the new centre at Wood Green; but even now that is a negotiation which is going on among the present representatives. But the people who have to decide it will be entirely new representatives for a new administrative area after new elections.
These are the real problems which have to be faced. They really cannot begin to be faced until after April 1 next year when these elections will have taken place. That is the beginning. It cannot begin in any real sense until then. What the noble Lord is continually asking us to say is that it does not matter about that. It does not matter that until after April 1 next year—a most appropriate date!—these matters cannot be resolved. Nevertheless, everything will be settled within the following 12 months; they will decide which town hall they are going to use out of three or four; they are going to decide which Town Clerk or another to have out of three or four; who will be his deputy; all his compensation and his promotion difficulties will be decided, Everything will be agreed by an entirely new elected body having no relationship at all to the people who are now having discussions. If the Government believe that that is going to be the case, it beats cock-fighting.
Of course it is not going to be the case, and of course it cannot he settled within twelve months. I have never been a member of any local authority, not even a parish council; but I have been a Member in another place of more than one Parliamentary constituency, and I have at times been amazed, astounded, even abashed at the passions which are aroused in local government, first of all among councillors, over the election of mayors and all that kind of thing—things that you and I would probably think should not arouse any passion at all. I have also been impressed by the natural concern of local government officers, for whom I have the greatest respect, about their future—and here we are considering a measure which arbitrarily is going vitally to affect their future. Everyone is agreed that they are first-class public servants, nevertheless they are also men who have a career and promotion before them, they have wives and families, and naturally they are concerned for themselves, quite apart from being
1094
concerned about the job they have to do. All these things—the location of the centre of administration, the people who will do the administration, the services that they will administer and the extent to which those services (and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, agrees with this) cannot be carried on in one single borough and therefore will have to be spread over more than one borough—the Government consider can be satisfactorily decided, without detriment either to the service or to the staffs, between April 1, 1964 and April 1, 1965. I do not believe, nor do my noble friends—nor I think does anybody on the Government side believe—that it can be done properly in the twelve months starting from scratch on April 1 next year.
All that my noble friend Lord Champion's Amendment asks is that another year should be taken to settle these problems. It may well be that some of this case has been argued on a previous Amendment, but that does not alter the fact that the case is unanswerable. If the Government do not concede more time, then it can only be for political reasons because they are determined to stampede Parliament into acceptance of this major use of their majority while they still have a majority, in the absolute certainty that if they do not use it now their majority will vanish and their chance will have gone.
LORD LINDGREN: I am sorry to intervene in the debate, but I did not hear the earlier statement. That is not my fault but the fault of those who are in control of the Business of the House, who made it impossible for us to get a meal without missing what was going on. I have only just returned from that. I understood the Minister to say that there had been discussion with local government officials. This is all very well, but local government policy and decision lies with the elected representatives. We are not yet in a state, in spite of the Tory Party's addiction to it, in which the bureaucrat, the paid employee of the council, is the one who consults with the Government and the one who makes the decision on behalf of the elected representative.
In local government it is for the elected representative to determine policy and for the local government official to carry out that policy so determined by the elected

1095
council. In exactly the same way with the Government, it is for the Ministers and the Cabinet to decide the policy and for the Civil Service to give effect to it. Yet here, if I understood the Minister rightly, the Government, through the Civil Service, are having discussions with local government officials with no relationship whatever with the elected representatives of the people whose function it is to determine policy. This is the state we have got to. This Government, for purely political purposes, are destroying the London County Council and, in order to make it effective, they are having behind-the-scenes discussion, not on a democratic basis with the elected representatives, even of the existing local authorities, but with the officials of local authorities.
I am one of those who have the greatest respect for local government officials, as I have for the Civil Service. There are many Ministers, poor though they are, on the Front Bench opposite who would be a sight poorer if it were not for the advice they get from the civil servants in their Department. But so far as the local government official is concerned, he is in a very delicate position. After all, jobs are going and we are all human—and do not forget that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the permanent secretaries, the deputy secretaries, and so on, all have an influence on certain people who have responsibility for appointments. I am not going to say that any local government official, difficult though it may be for him at the present time, is going to "blot his copybook" with the Civil Service, or with Ministers, in order that he might perhaps be a little short in the running when it comes to appointment within the new local government set-up, where there is bound to be, whatever happens, a number of redundancies because of amalgamations. All that is by the way.
What I am really worried about is the fact that these behind-the-scenes consultations are going on with local government officials. This is not the first time, and some of us who have been associated with planning are very worried. What do the Ministry of Housing and Local Government do? Behind the backs of those of us who are elected and who have the responsibility of giving effect to
1096
Acts of Parliament, the Ministry call planning officers, I will not say to a secret hide-out, but to a very nice country house—which both the noble Earl and I know—in order to discuss with them future legislation on planning. There is some hole-in-the-corner work going on and we are worried as to what extent things are being "fixed up". Normally, we have always understood that, unless an Act of Parliament was on the Statute Book, there ought not to be action by the local authority in anticipation of legislation. In the past, district auditors have been very careful with local authorities in regard to expenditure that has gone forward without authority of legislation.
This matter before us is in anticipation of legislation. I agree that a Government has the right to anticipate that it is likely to give effect to this Bill if in fact it is going to be in power for a sufficient time; but to go to the extent of ignoring the elected representatives is bureaucratic action which the Government ought not to encourage.
9.49 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I would recall to the House—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: It shows how moderate I am being—I am glad that noble Lards opposite appreciate my restraint and moderation. I would recall to the House the interchange between myself and the noble Lord, Lard Hastings, on Thursday, the first day of the Committee stage on this Bill. In the course of that speech Lord Hastings—and, after all, he is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government—said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 249 (No. 81), cols. 929–30.]:
"I agree with noble Lords that we must make sure that the Bill provides sufficient time for us to arrange elections in the spring of next year. This is a matter which has, in fact, been discussed with the local authority associations in great detail because of the technicalities of defining wards in the new boroughs and making electoral arrangements. It was at the express wish of the local authorities that the date of these elections was advanced. The White Paper, I would remind noble Lords opposite, suggested they would be in the autumn of 1964, but the local authority associations were convinced that it would be possible and advantageous to fix the elections for next spring.'

1097
I then said:
"Would the noble Lord say which associations they are?
LORD HASTINGS: Certainly.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I imagine that it might be the Association of Municipal Corporations, who really are not particularly competent to speak for Greater London. Does he mean that the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee were simple enough to advocate this?
LORD HASTINGS: They did.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Amazing!"
What I want to know is this. When the noble Lord said that the local authority associations had been consulted, did he include among them the London County Council, which, when local authority associations are called to Whitehall, is recognised as a separate authority and is invited? Were they there? What did they say? When he refers to the "Metropolitan Boroughs Joint Standing Committee", does he mean the whole Committee—which is unlikely, I agree—or a deputation officially appointed with authority on behalf of the Committee to ask for the elections to be hold earlier than was first intended by the Government? Or does he mean the Chairman of the Standing Joint Committee? Or does he mean municipal officials who were brought into consultation? Did they really seek on their own initiative for the elections to be held even earlier than autumn of next year, and did they accept the Government's decision to have them in April and October of next year?
I should like explicit replies, because this term "local authority associations" can be rather misleading. Sometimes it may mean officials, who I should have thought would not be foolish enough to jump into an element of policy of this sort. There would certainly he trouble for them if I were leading, their employers. On the other hand, I find it very difficult to believe that the Standing Joint Committee, as a representative collective municipal body, sought to make these elections earlier. I should find it most surprising if that were so. If I am wrong I shall have to be told, but I shall be shocked once more if that should be the case.
The Amendment has been so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Champion, who I must say, though he is not
1098
a native of London, has come to grasp the realities of London government with very great ability on which he is to be warmly congratulated. On the merits of my noble friend's Amendment there is this to be said. First, that we do not think, and find it difficult to accept, whatever anybody else may have said—and anything that these bodies say we shall treat with respect—that even if they did urge this amazing proposition the machinery for elections could be ready. I mean not only the official machinery, but the Party machinery of all the Parties, Labour, Conservative and Liberal, which is an essential part of the conduct of elections. Part of their business is to explain to the electorate what are the issues about which they are voting; what are the conflicts in policy between the Parties. It is no good being scornful about these arguments between political Parties. They are an essential part of our democracy. They are very largely the channels through which the education of the people passes, and they must have time to perform this essential task, if the electors are to know what they are voting about when the elections come. I put it to the Government that this is part of the democratic process, and it is profoundly important that it should be observed.
We do not believe that all this official machine—the registration officer and the returning officer—will have done its job, and above all that the political Parties will have done their job of education, in the time that is allowed, which will be about nine months after the passage of the Bill if the Bill passes this Session, which will be a pity. But if it does pass, there will be about nine months during which all that has to be done. But suppose it were done, or suppose it were thought that it was probably going to be all right. I do not believe that it is all right at all; neither does my noble friend who moved the Amendment. But suppose that the Government came to the conclusion, "Well, there is a reasonably sporting chance that there will be readiness"—which would be the most they could assume, and I think that would be an unsound conclusion to come to—surely the Government would be wise to say to themselves, "But there is an element of doubt about it. There is some uncertainty as to whether in fact the

1099
official machine and the Party organisations are going to be sufficiently ready to carry this through." In that case my noble friend makes provision for something else, and he first of all omits "1965" and substitutes "1966", which I honestly and sincerely believe to be sound on the merits of the case, because this is the second period. The elections take place in 1964, but that is before effective power passes to these new local authorities; 1965 is the time by which the effective power of these local authorities begins to operate.
I myself argued last week, I think with conviction and I think conclusively, about the Local Government Act, 1929, which was a much better Parliamentary measure than this. It was Mr. Neville Chamberlain's. It was passed in the summer of, I think, 1929, and its first date of operation was April 1, 1931. If I am not mistaken—I may be wrong—that Act provided that the Minister had power to appoint an appointed day, which was not an unwise provision because the Government did not know how soon or how late they would be physically ready, and the local authorities would be physically ready, to operate the new Act of Parliament. I think they provided that the Minister could appoint an appointed day. That would not be a bad thing with this Bill, except that I think the Government could say, haywire, that they might appoint a day for the appointed day three months before the day that is in the Bill, so I should be nervous of giving them that power.
But my noble friend says, first, that he believes 1965 is too early to begin the physical operation of the Act of Parliament. By that time the Bill assumes that all these local authorities, the London boroughs and the Greater London Council, will be ready to move off on the physical operation of the new Act of Parliament; that the administrative set up will be completed; that the standing orders will be settled; that consultations with Government Departments will have been completed; that broad policy will have been well determined, and that they will he ready to go off. I do not believe it. But my noble friend says that even if the Government feel reasonably sure that they can do that, they cannot be certain. Therefore,
1100
he has another provision in his Amendment to leave out "1965" and insert,
"1966 or a date thereafter to be appointed by the Minister after consultation with the Greater London Council and any association or committee which appears to be representative of the London borough councils."
This really is a sensible, constructive Amendment. This is not destructive; it is constructive. It is helping the Government out of what may well be, potentially, a very grave difficulty to them when they get to that time, and I think they would be wise to accept it. So I ask whoever is to reply to be precise about who was consulted: who urged that the date should be brought forward, and with what authority, on behalf of the parent body, did they speak?
Secondly, I ask whether the Government are really dead certain—no peradventure about it, but absolutely certain—that the whole machine, this vast new organisation with new authorities, all of them new, will be ready physically to operate by 1965 or even 1966, and whether they are quite sure that they do not need elbow room or any elasticity in case, as the time approaches, they find that they are not ready and would like to extend the time a little more. I put it to the Committee that these are rational sensible proposals which ought to occur to anybody who has a sense of administration about these things, and I hope that the Government can give us a clear and satisfactory answer to these points.
LORD HASTINGS: There are just three points to answer the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth. To the best of my information, we are sure—and I said so in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Champion—that these matters can be carried out. As regards elbow room, I repeat what I said, I think, to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that I cannot give way on this matter, but I will discuss the matter with my right honourable friend.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Which matter?
LORD HASTINGS: The question of having elbow room, as the noble Lord put it. But I am not going to give way on this Amendment, as I have not on the previous three. As regards the matter of consultation, there was nothing mysterious or "hole in the corner"

1101
about this. They were official consultations. Official invitations were extended. I am not in a position to tell the noble Lord precisely who attended, and I am not sure that that would be proper in any case, but they were certainly official consultations. I do not know who was there, but whoever came were officially representing their associations. As regards the L.C.C., of course, as the noble Lord knows very well, at the stage when matters of this sort were going on they were not particularly cooperative, and therefore their views were not put forward in the way that they might otherwise have been. I think those are the only things to which I have to reply.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: With great respect to the noble Lord, I raised this matter early on as to who and what were the people who came along and asked that the date should be earlier. Was it the whole Joint Standing Committee, a deputation duly authorised in that behalf, or the chairmen or officials of those local authorities? Earlier in my speech I raised that point, and the noble Lord could have got the answer. He has officers in the Box, who I am sure would be ready to supply him with the information. Now the noble Lord has used the term, "It was officially convened". That, in my mind, begins to convey that it was a meeting of officials. Is that so? Because there is nothing indelicate about telling us whether they were officials or elected persons; there is nothing indelicate or improper in that. I gather the London County Council was not represented there. I agree they were non-co-operative with the Government, and I think that they were quite right. I do not see why anybody should co-operate with the executioner in having his head cut off. It is had enough having one's head cut off without co-operating with the executioner to get it taken off; and I do not blame them at all. But they were not there, I gather. I should like to know who went along. Because there are a lot of consultations that take place on the official level, and sometimes they go a little too far.
I will go on a hit until the noble Lord gives me a nod or a wink, and then I will give him a chance to answer this point, but I really think that it is im-
1102
portant to know about the Joint Standing Committee, in particular. The A.M.C. is neither here nor there on this matter; it is an important body, but it is important in the provinces rather than in London, and the important point is for us to know who acted on behalf of the Joint Standing Committee. Was it with the authority of the full Standing Joint Committee, representing the whole of the 28 metropolitan boroughs plus the Common Council of the City; or was it a deputation, but fully authorised in that behalf; or was it the chairmen or officials who were summoned in the way of official consultation; and at that point did they ask the Government to bring the date forward, and did the Government tell them what date that would be? I hope that is all clear, and perhaps now the noble Lord—I am much obliged for the trouble he has taken—is in a position whereby he can answer these very important points.
LORD HASTINGS: The answer that the noble Lord wants, I think, is that it was the officials of the Joint Standing Committee of the Metropolitan Boroughs who came to this meeting in conference; and after consultation they expressed the opinion that the elections should be advanced.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: The officials did?
LORD HASTINGS: Yes; of the Joint Standing Committee.
LORD LINDGREN: Without authority of the elected representatives?
LORD HASTINGS: If they are officials representing the Joint Standing Committee of the Metropolitan Boroughs they must surely have authority.
LORD LINDGREN: No local government official can act on behalf of his authority without the sanction of the authority—at least he should not; and so far as I am concerned in my responsibility in a local authority, if in fact I get officials going behind the scenes and making agreements and then asking the authority to "whitewash" them, I very much object, and ask them at least to come and get the sanction of the elected representatives. I very much doubt whether normally the only Government representatives—and remember, the Joint Standing Committee is a Committee of

1103
all the authorities—and the officials are there as officials, not of the individual boroughs of the Joint Standing Committee. I object to the Civil Service, on the instructions of Ministers, obviously calling together other local government officials and completely ignoring democracy and the elected representatives.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: On the "Old boy" basis.
LORD LINDGREN: On the "Old boy" basis, as my noble friend says. This is a Government that is talking about democracy, getting the people nearer—
LORD JESSEL: May I interrupt the noble Lord? What is the objection to asking professional opinion? After all, the local councillors, splendid people as they are, are not used to running the machine. They are the people who have got to do the job whether the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, is their representative or not. These are the people who have to work it. What is the harm in asking them whether the thing is workable or not? What is terrible about that?
LORD LINDGREN: There is nothing terrible about it in so far as the Civil Service in their functions and the local government officers in their functions are concerned. They are first-class bodies of men.
LORD JESSEL: He has to do it.
LORD LINDGREN: No, not at all. It is the elected councillor's responsibility to determine policy. I know the Tories are really lazy. They do not want to work. They have never been used to it. But the function of a Government is to govern. The task of a Cabinet is to decide policy and then give it to the Civil Service to put into effect. In local government it is our job, as elected councillors, to determine the policy.
LORD JESSEL: I have been a councillor myself and I do not want a lecture on the functions of councillors. The noble Lord is not the only person who knows about it. Everybody depends on his officials for advice and experience and I cannot see any harm in asking officials their advice.
LORD STONHAM: It is the officials who are depending on their elected representatives for a decision. I have never heard of any responsible authority allowing their officials to make the decisions.
LORD LINDGREN: I agree with the noble Lord who has just intervened. It is a fact. One relies on the official for advice and the results of his experience. The representatives set out what could be done and the effect of what is or is not to be done. These are their functions. This is a decision affecting the machinery of government of a new body—
A NOBLE LORD: Not at all. It is advice. They did not make the decision. The Government made it.
LORD LINDGREN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for intervening. I do not really need a lot of excuses to keep on talking, but if he keeps interrupting he gives me fresh points to deal with and I can make my speech last longer. What the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said last Thursday was that the Standing Joint Committee had been consulted. I am going to say they have never been consulted.
LORD HASTINGS: That is quite untrue. They were written to officially and asked to appoint their own deputation to the meeting, and they appointed it. The people were all officials and I do not see anything wrong with that.
LORD LINDGREN: Now we are learning. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, did not say that before.
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Lord jumped to all sorts of conclusions.
LORD LINDGREN: We have got to check this up. No elected representatives were there. We knew that before we started this discussion; but in the light of what has been said we can leave it there and check up afterwards.
LORD CHAMPION: The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said that he had consulted these bodies on the date of the election. I am not sure that he said there had been firm consultations on the transitional period. Perhaps he would indicate that there were consultations on the transitional period.
LORD HASTINGS: There were general consultations.
LORD CHAMPION: So we now have some idea of what took place. But no firm statement has been made by the Minister that they had a consultation on the period of transition. I am not going to make a long speech now. I dare not speak at any great length, because the Committee heard the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, praise me for the fact that I have managed to grasp something of this Bill. If I spoke at any

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Latham, L.

Silkin, L.

Archibald, L.

Lawson, L.

Stonham, L. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Lindgren, L.

Summerskill, B.

Chorley, L.

Longford, E.

Walston, L.

Darwen, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Henderson, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Williamson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Devonshire, D.

Mabane, L.

Aldington, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Melchett, L.

Ampthill, L.

Dudley, E.

Merrivale, L.

Astor, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mersey, V.

Auckland, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mills, V.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Fortescue, E.

Milne, L.

Bossom, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Newton, L.

Boston, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Onslow, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Remnant, L.

Buchan, E.

Grenfell, L.

Rockley, L.

Carrington, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Chelmer, L.

Harcourt, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Chesham, L.

Hastings, L.

Saltoun, L.

Coleraine, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Somers, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Ilford, L.

Spens, L.

Colyton, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Strang, L.

Conesford, L.

Jessel, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Kilmuir, E.

Swinton, E.

Croft, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Teynham, L.

Cross, V.

Lansdowne, M.

Waleran, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Long, V.

Westwood, L.

Denham, L.

Lothian, M.

Wolverton, L.

Derwent, L.

Luke, L.

Woolton, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall be agreed to?

CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Chelmer, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Albemarle, E.

Chesham, L.

Dudley, E.

Aldington, L.

Coleraine, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Ampthill, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Ferrers, E.

Astor, V.

Colyton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Auckland, L.

Conesford, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Bossom, L.

Croft, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Boston, L.

Cross, V.

Grenfell, L.

Brecon, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Bridgeman, V.

Denham, L.

Harcourt, V.

Buchan, E.

Derwent, L.

Hastings, L.

Carrington, L.

Devonshire, D.

Howard of Glossop, L.

length I might expose my ignorance and lose his encouragement. For that reason, I am not going to take this risk; but to pile further argument upon argument produced from this side would be to pile Pelion upon Ossa, and I do not propose to do that. I hope that my friends will divide with me.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 70.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 19.

Ilford, L.

Melchett, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Merrivale, L.

Saltoun, L.

Jessel, L.

Mersey, V.

Somers, L.

Kilmuir, E.

Mills, V.

Spens, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Milne, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Molson, L.

Swinton, E.

Long, V.

Newton, L.

Teynham, L.

Lothian, M.

Onslow, E.

Waleran, L.

Luke, L.

Remnant, L.

Westwood, L.

Mabane, L.

Rockley, L.

Wolverton, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Woolton, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Latham, L.

Silkin, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Lindgren, L.

Stonham, L. [Teller.]

Archibald, L.

Longford, E.

Summerskill, B.

Champion, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Walston, L.

Chorley, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Darwen, L.

Shepherd, L.

Williamson, L.

Henderson, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 4 agreed to accordingly.
10.30 p.m.
LORD ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, it is now 10.30, and I think that this is the appropriate occasion to move the adjournment of the debate. We had understood, in general, in earlier conversations through the usual channels, that the aim would be to adjourn at 10.30 at night. We are in a very difficult situation, with a very small number able to stay to late Sittings, and this is wholly unfair to an Opposition of this kind. It is perfectly true that, in other circumstances, when our own Party were the Government with a small minority in this House, reasonable arrangements were made from time to time in dealing with the business. We shall never cease to be grateful for that. On the other hand, we have felt what was the power of this unelected House. We have not forgotten, in connection with issues like this London Government Bill, how this House has treated such matters as being unmandated in the past.
We are doing our best to have examined properly in this House the clauses of the Bill which were guillotined without any discussion in the other place. This is due to the people of this country, and certainly even more due to the people of Greater London. Also we are conscious of, and we are bearing carefully in mind today, the treatment which we have been having here and what happened in regard to one great issue on which there was no real accommodation when we were in a minority in this House, although in a great majority in the other place, as a Labour Government. The threat was then held over us that, unless we were able to give the same concession as we ask for on this London Government Bill, that Bill would have been thrown out. That was the issue. Do not forget it, my Lords, and do not forget that the treatment we get on this Bill now in exactly the reverse circumstances will form the backbone of the opinion of Labour in this country on this House and how they treat these matters. And I think that during the course of this evening some of these points have been overlooked in the leadership of the House and by Members opposite.
1110
The Iron and Steel Bill had to be put back a whole year till after the following Election. Here we have a Bill absolutely unmandated, with a political objective only; to break the power Labour has had in local government for over thirty years. Make no mistake, the threat that Mr. Brooke made all those years ago is still with him and still with members of those who support the Party opposite. We have worked pretty hard today. We want to get these new clauses in the Bill, especially the clauses that were never discussed in the representative House because of the guillotine. We want to have them properly examined and to do so in reasonable hours. We on this side are a very small handful and you must treat us fairly. If not. I can assure noble Lords opposite that they will not gain any time in the end. We will be reasonable, but we will not be bullied by a great majority whom we cannot control in that way.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition rose to move the Adjournment of the debate, and in the course of moving it he repeated observations that he has made on Second Reading and on many subsequent occasions, which I must confess seem to me to be wholly irrelevant to the question whether this debate be adjourned.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Nonsense!
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl may say "Nonsense" as much as he thinks proper. So far as I am concerned, I adhere to the view that the observations he made about mandates and which he has repeated ad nauseam are wholly irrelevant to the question, and his observation about a plot is, again, wholly irrelevant to the question. If I might remind your Lordships what happened last Thursday, the noble Earl has talked about discussions through the usual channels. I am not going to refer to what may or may not have passed through the usual channels. All I would say is this: I do not think it would have been thought unreasonable if we had reached the end of Part I of

1111
the Bill last Thursday, and after half-past ten last Thursday night I moved, That the House do now resume; I said we had made fair progress, but not the progress we might reasonably have expected to make, and I indicated that I thought we should have to try to get to the end of Schedule 1 to-night.
To-day we have had a debate on this Bill. I am not going to comment on the way the debate has gone or on the length of time it has taken, but we took several hours over the first three Amendments. We discussed this Bill from shortly after 2.30 until about 6.45, with a number of Divisions. We resumed discussion at 8.30. This careful examination of clauses that have been guillotined consists apparently in voting against clauses, as we have just done, without any discussion of the contents of the clause at all. I do say in all seriousness to the noble Lords opposite that I really think we must make further progress with this Bill. One perfectly well understands the attitude of the Opposition, but putting the case for the Opposition is not really strengthened by making the same speeches over and over again. The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, on one Amendment made two speeches which were almost word for word the same, and the noble Lord, Earl Alexander of Hillsborough has made the same observations time and time again. I am all in favour of meeting the Opposition with great fairness and reasonableness, but I am concerned here only with the London Government Bill and it would not be reasonable that at this stage of this Bill the debate be adjourned. I do ask noble Lords opposite to see whether they could not make some greater progress on this Bill and let us see how we go.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: As someone without any special position here, I would support strongly my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. I wonder whether noble Lords opposite see themselves—or could venture for a moment to see themselves—as we see them from here. We have found no disposition on their side whatever to
1112
answer arguments put from this side of the Committee. I am a fairly good judge of this because I have sat here throughout the debate; I have intervened only once for ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, and the Lord Chancellor should not make remarks about the comments on local government of my noble friend Lord Lindgren, whose knowledge about it is probably many times greater than that of the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor cannot say I have wasted the time of the Committee at any rate until now, and we have been here many hours.
We have been depressed by the poor intellectual quality of the arguments coming from the other side. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, if I do not embarrass him by saying so, made a sort of effort; he was a kind of quisling in the discussion because he tried to argue with us, and clearly he was there departing from the agreed line. It was noticeable that he actually took part with us in a sort of dialogue. Otherwise, we saw noble Lords opposite frequently half asleep or, at any rate, obviously in no condition to study matters carefully; they were doing no more than simply presenting a barren front. It was obvious from the beginning that they were not going to concede anything.
Does anybody suggest that at any time to-day there has been any disposition whatever to listen to any argument with an open mind. Noble Lords have come down here with an instruction to ram this measure through somehow, and the noble Conservative will be most popular who shows least disposition to listen to any arguments from our side. We have been shocked and disgusted by their attitude. They calculate they have several hundred votes; they can afford financially (I am not complaining myself) to stay here much longer than can most noble Lords on this side. That is a well-known fact. Noble Lords know perfectly well that most of us on this side are not financially in a position to stay here or to go to clubs or hotels and come back. This is a difference of finance which does not include everyone, but includes most noble Lords opposite and most noble Lords here. They have numbers and finance, and they are also determined to push this through regardless of the rights of minorities. We view their behaviour with disdain. We have no intention of being bullied, and if they

1113
can sit up all night, so can some of us, and we intend to do so if necessary.
LORD SALTOUN: Is not this whole business out of order? The noble Earl opposite moved, That the House be now adjourned. But we are not a House; we are in Committee, and surely the proper Motion should be, That the House be resumed.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Airedale, L.

Latham, L.

Silkin, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Lindgren, L.

Stonham, L. [Teller.]

Archibald, L.

Longford, E.

Summerskill, B.

Champion, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Terrington, L.

Chorley, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Walston, L.

Darwen, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Denham, L.

Luke, L.

Albemarle, E.

Derwent, L.

McCorquodaic of Newton, L.

Aldington, L.

Devonshire, D.

Melchett, L.

Ampthill, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Merrivale, L.

Astor, V.

Dudley, E.

Mersey, V.

Auckland, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mills, V.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Ferrers, E.

Milne, L.

Bossom, L.

Fortescue, E.

Molson, L.

Boston, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Newton, L.

Brecon, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Onslow, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Remnant, L.

Buchan, E.

Grenfell, L.

Rockley, L.

Carrington, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Chelmer, L.

Harcourt, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Chesham, L.

Hastings, L.

Saltoun, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Somers, L.

Colyton, L.

Ilford, L.

Spens, L.

Conesford, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Jessel, L.

Swinton, E.

Croft, L.

Kilmuir, E.

Teynham, L.

Cross, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Waleran, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Westwood, L.

De Freyne, L.

Lothian, M.

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 5 [Delegation of functions in Greater London]:
LORD LINDGREN LORD LINDGREN moved, in subsection (1) to leave out the words "may, with the concurrence of" and insert "shall, if requested by". The noble Lord said: My noble friend, Lord Crook, apologises both for putting in this manuscript Amendment and also for the fact that he is not here to extend his apologies himself or to move the Amendment. He has an official function to attend and lie has asked me to move the Amendment on his behalf. This is a very necessary clause, because it deals with the delegation of powers by the Greater London Council to the boroughs. This
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I moved the adjournment of this debate.
On Question, Whether the debate be now adjourned?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 69.
gives the power to the Greater London Council to delegate certain functions, and it requires that the borough shall be prepared to accept the delegated power if it is offered.
This question of delegation is one of the thorny problems of local government. There are many minor authorities which, quite wrongly, expect a county council to delegate some of their functions as a major authority to the urban and rural authorities within their district, but, as so often happens in these things, it is six of one and half a dozen of the other. It is true that there are some county councils who refuse to delegate various functions—planning functions are a case in point—and there are others who are quite prepared to do it. My noble friend Lord Crook resides in Surrey, and both

1115
the Amendments on the Order Paper arise from representations made to him by the authorities there.
As I understand it, the Surrey County Council has been generous in its delegation of powers to the minor local authorities; that is to say, the relationship between the urbans, the rurals, the municipal boroughs and the county has been of a very good standard. It is possible that, under this Bill, it will not be possible for the functions which many of these authorities have and which are to be transferred to the Greater London Council to be exercised by the individual borough to which they are attached, because the Greater London Council has not delegated the power. In the view of these authorities, and I make it quite clear that this is a representation from local authorities in the County of Surrey, there ought to be some right of the new boroughs to be able to request—I understand from a short discussion I had with my noble friend Lord Crook, that they really asked to be able to demand, but he felt that was too strong a word—delegated powers from the new Greater London Council; and the Greater London Council ought to be able to delegate powers to the newly created councils if it so wishes. It is important from the point of view of good relationships.
One cannot say what the Greater London Council would do. All that one can go by is the general relationship that there has been in and around the Home Counties between the county councils arid the minor authorities within them. There relations have been exceptionally good. There they have had a liberal amount of delegated functions from the county council. They really want to continue that when they are merged into the newer boroughs, but they are afraid that it will not continue. Therefore, this Amendment is really to give the right to the newly created authorities, particularly those associated with boroughs outside London at the moment, in the Home Counties, who are joining with the new London boroughs—of course that right would go to the other boroughs as well—to ask for delegation of powers, as well as to give the right to the Greater London Council itself to consider
1116
offering the delegated powers. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 2, leave out the words ("may, with the concurrence of") and insert the words ("shall, if requested by").—(Lord Lindgren.)
LORD HASTINGS: I think there are two legs to this question and I am not quite sure whether what the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, is asking is exactly what the Amendment would in fact bring about. I will first of all reply directly to the Amendment and its effects, and then I will take up his particular point about the representations he has received from Surrey. The effect of this Amendment would be to make the Greater London Council delegate a function on the request of a borough, and the Bill at the moment leaves the Greater London Council to take the initiative. But, of course, this refers to powers which the Greater London Council has and are given by the Bill. It is one thing for the Greater London Council to ask, say, all 32 boroughs to act as its agents for a particular function, but it is obviously a very different matter for one or any number of boroughs to oblige the Greater London Council to yield up one of its functions.
The Bill is concerned with a distribution of functions in the Greater London area, which is, by definition, subject to common problems and for which a common sort of organisation is proposed. The Amendment could, as far as the Greater London Council is concerned, upset the balance completely. The point the noble Lord brought out in respect of Surrey is, I think, looked after under subsection (3) of this clause, because there it is stated that the Greater London Council, the London borough councils and the Common Council may agree with
"any other local authority within the meaning of the Local Government Act, 1933, whose area is contiguous with any part of Greater London…"—
and they can agree for—
"the undertaking by one party for another of any administrative, clerical, professional, scientific or technical services;"
There are paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). There are powers there, and I do not think the noble Lord's Amendment will improve the situation. I think that the powers he asks for are already in that

1117
clause, and that the Amendment as drafted would have the particular effect, as I said, of depriving the Greater London Council, without its agreement, of the particular powers for which it has been made responsible. I do not think that really could be said to be at all a desirable thing. I hope I have answered the noble Lord's question.
LORD LINDGREN: I would agree, frankly, that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has to a great extent answered the Amendment. I would admit straight away that the Amendment is dangerous, because it makes it compulsory—"shall, if requested, delegate". Of course, it would be functionally wrong, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, if in fact there was a delegation of a function to one of 32 or 28 boroughs and not to the others. With a great authority such as the Greater London Council, it is totally different from the situation one would find in a normal county, where there are rural and urban authorities and sometimes municipal boroughs, varying in size, standard, equipment, rateable values and the rest, and where in fact there can be a variation.
But it was assumed, I think, by my noble friend Lord Crook that there would be a local authority association, such as we have in the Joint Standing Committee for London Boroughs at the moment—that there would be bound to be an association of local authorities within the Greater London area for joint consultation, very much as we have with the Joint Standing Committee at the present time. It was the assumption by my noble friend Lord Crook, I think, that it would be associated with that authority, for which they would all ask. But, as the Bill says that they can delegate to any council, it was felt that the appropriate Amendment would be to make it at the request of any council. It equally means, if I might say so to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, that the Greater London Council, under his argument, cannot give delegated powers to one authority and not the other. I do not think it would be desirable, and I do not think they would do it. But it is equally true that they should ask for it. In view of the noble Lord's statement and the fact that, with its present wording, I think it would be a dangerous Amendment from some points of view, I
1118
will withdraw the Amendment, and no doubt my noble friend can look at it again in association with the Surrey authorities who made the representation to him.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Alteration of boundaries of or within Greater London]:
11.4 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN LORD LINDGREN moved, in subsection (2) to leave out the words
"unless he is satisfied that the proposals ought not to be entertained".
The noble Lord said: Here, again, is one of the problems that comes from sitting at this time of night. My noble friend Lord Crook, who ought to have been here to move these two Amendments, is not here, and I must admit right from the start that I have not all the sympathy and enthusiasm I should like for the two Amendments he has asked me to move.
This Amendment seeks to reduce the Minister's power, in so far as the clause is concerned. Under the clause, twice, the Minister states there shall be a local inquiry unless the Minister is satisfied that the proposal ought not to be entertained. It is the apparent view of some of the local authorities in the Surrey area that the power of the Minister to refuse ought not to be in the Bill. Their suggestion is that it is dictatorial because they have no yardstick of whether or not he is satisfied or what is likely to satisfy him. Their view is that where you have contiguous boroughs agreeing on the arrangements for revision of boundaries there ought to be a public inquiry, whether outside the Minister's jurisdiction or not. But that is the view. So far as I am concerned, I must say I have had no representations from any other local government group who have made the same request. My noble friend has this from the Surrey authorities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 19, leave out the said words—(Lord Lindgren.)
EARL JELLICOE: I am not quite certain how much intellectual effort I should make in answering this, in case the noble Earl, Lord Longford, may pile unpleasant epithets on me. Nevertheless I shall make as much intellectual effort as I am

1119
capable of to answer the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved so quietly and objectively. I am inclined to ask the Committee to reject the Amendment. I shall be inclined, having made an explanation of why that is so, to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, that he himself may be inclined to withdraw it, because I hope to be able to convince him that the Amendment is not necessary on merits. The proposals in Clause 6(2), as the noble Lord will see, will be those coming from one side only of a boundary. The proposals in subsection (3) of Clause 6 will be those coming from both sides and may well be agreed. Since the proposals in subsection (2) for frontier changes will not be joint proposals, they are very likely to be contested. I think we can take that as a probability. That being so, I can assure the noble Lord straight away that it would be my right honourable friend's almost invariable practice in such an event to hold an inquiry without any further ado.
I think it would be wrong to place, as this Amendment would place, an absolute obligation on the Minister to hold an inquiry. It is just possible, for instance, that a proposal might contravene an absolutely cardinal principle which is written into the Bill. The sort of principle written into the Bill which we shall be talking about under Schedule 1, if and when we get to it, is that the boundary of the Greater London authority should be, so far as possible, coterminous with the built-up area. That is a fundamental principle which has underlain our thinking on the Bill. If a proposal were to go flat against that principle, then the Minister, even after an inquiry, would be almost bound to resist it. In such a case I think that for him to be bound to set up the whole machinery of inquiry and get the whole process going would be a complete waste of public money. I would repeat, in most cases these proposals are almost bound to be opposed, and therefore the Minister would most invariably set up an inquiry.
In some respects, it may sound undemocratic. I do not think it is, and there is a sound precedent for this procedure. The Bill on this point substantially follows Section 140 of the Local Government Act, 1933, relating to proposals to amend county boundaries
1120
generally. For those reasons—because it seems reasonable that there should be some discretion left to the Minister and because there is a perfectly sound precedent in our existing local government legislation, I would suggest that the Amendment is unncessary and, in fact, undesirable, and I hope that in the light of my explanation the noble Lord may be inclined not to press it.
LORD LINDGREN: I thank the noble Earl for his reply. Again he has quoted Section 140 of the 1933 Act, and I do not remember an occasion on which there has not been a local inquiry. That is all that is desired here. In view of what has been said, I will reserve the position for the moment.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I do not want to keep the Committee on this point, but I am disappointed in the noble Earl's reply. I do not think he went so far tonight in promising procedure on this matter as on the last occasion. I spoke then of the extraordinary boundaries of Croydon, Coulsdon and Purley, and of the strong objection in the urban district, and said that surely they would have a clear right to have a public inquiry on the alteration of their boundaries. The noble Earl has spoken, gently and courteously, but rather all round the subject, compared to what he said then. I felt more satisfied last time, because I thought that he meant that it would be almost certain that there would be a public inquiry.
There is something to be said for Ministerial discretion in these matters, but probably, if a decision is going to be in the affirmative and alteration takes place, then we ought to have a public inquiry; and if it is going to be a decision not to alter a boundary, there is for more room for the discretion of the Minister whether he should have an inquiry. I think that that is how it should be looked at, and I hope the noble Earl will get his colleagues to have a look at this matter. On this great Bill, which I repeat, in spite of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, is unmandated and which means alteration in all these areas, it is important not only to do right but to let the people see that you do right.
LORD LINDGREN: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.15 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (c) to insert:
"(d) By 300 electors of any London borough a part of the boundary of which coincides with the outer boundary of the Greater London area, for the making of an alteration to the said Boundary."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and in the name of my two noble friends. This Amendment is similar to one which was moved in another place, not by one of my honourable friends but by one of my opponents, the Member for Orpington. The Amendment requires that it should be possible to ask for an alteration of the boundary between the Greater London area and one of the adjoining areas, at the request of 300 local government electors of the particular borough on the fringe which desires an alteration.
The kind of alteration that is contemplated is where, after experience, it turns out that an area is rural and is quite different in character from the rest of the Greater London area. There are examples of this. For instance, in Area No. 19 there are several villages which are completely different in character from the built-up area of London. I have in mind particularly the village of Knockholt. This Amendment is not designed to help Knockholt particularly, but it is merely an example. In Area No. 20 which comprises the County Borough of Croydon and the urban district of Coulsdon and Purley, there are a number of rural areas which are quite different in character from the built-up area of London. As I understand this Bill, the intention is to get the whole of the built-up area of London under one authority. But it is not the intention to incorporate into it any parts of the Green Belt, or areas which are not populated in the same way as the rest of the area.
This Amendment seeks to enable such an area, with 300 local government electors, to ask the Minister to consider the question of an alteration of the boundary. The Minister is under no obligation to agree, but they can make this request under my Amendment, in the same way as under Clause 62, paragraphs (a), (b)and (c), where other local authorities within the London area can make application. It is then for the Minister, unless he is satisfied that the proposals ought
1122
not to be entertained, Ito cause a local inquiry to be held. If an application of this nature under my Amendment is regarded as frivolous by the Minister, then of course he would be under no obligation to cause a local inquiry to be made. I have explained that it may be because of the rural character of an area—but it could be because the character of an area has changed, and that it is no longer appropriate, even if it was at the outset—that it should form part of the Greater London area, and then, in either event, he could, if he thought it right, cause a local inquiry to be held. If he thought it wrong, he would not.
Up to this point, it seems to me perfectly reasonable that a number of local government electors of such an area should be able to make representations to the Minister, leaving the Minister to decide whether he will have a local inquiry or not. It may be criticised that the number of 300 is too few, but I have in mind particularly areas which are thinly populated, such as villages and rural areas. In respect of such areas, the number would be quite substantial compared with the population. Therefore, by fixing the number of 300 I have tried to get a substantial proportion of a thinly populated area to request such an inquiry, and unless that number could be obtained, of course there could be no request. I hope the Minister will see some justice in such a request. Other-wise, there is no provision at all in the Bill for altering the boundaries between Greater London and its neighbours whatever the circumstances and whatever change there may be, and this is one method by which this can be achieved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 18 at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Silkin.)
EARL JELLICOE: I am glad that we are reaching the end of the first 20 laps of our long-distance race. I think, incidentally, that we jumped the gun on the last Amendment, but one which in fact should have come after this one. I only hope that I shall not break down on this particular lap, although I must admit I do feel in slight danger of so doing because the case I am going to have to argue against this Amendment is, to my mind, not an altogether easy one and the noble Lord has argued his

1123
Amendment both winningly and persuasively. First, may I say just a word or two in explanation? The area of Greater London is shaped and set out in Schedule 1 to the Bill. The London boroughs in the Greater London area have been formed wherever possible by merging existing local authorities and only in a few unavoidable cases have new boundaries been devised. Broadly speaking, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, the Schedule 1 area is meant to comprise a continuously built-up area of the Greater London conurbation.
There are, of course, as there are bound to be, exceptions to that, because if one is trying wherever possible to keep local authorities together, there are bound to be, as we find, certain local authorities on the periphery of the Greater London area which have fingers of Green Belt intruding into them, and I think that the case which the noble Lord instanced of the village of Knockholt in grouping No. 19 is a case in point. I think he was referring there to the rural area in the south of the Urban District Council of Orpington; and that indeed is, without dispute, not only a Green Belt area but, of course, a rural area pur sang.
May I say just a word or two about why that finds itself within the Greater London area as delimited in Schedule 1? The district has been included without any boundary alteration because the main built-up area of Orpington itself is part of the continuous development of Greater London. We felt that the circumstances in this particular case—and they all have to be judged on their merits—did not warrant a departure from the general rule that districts should be divided only when it was felt to be strictly necessary. There is in this case no substantial area of development separate from the built-up area of Greater London as a whole but still comprised within the district of the urban district council as there is in the different case, where we have come to a different decision, of Epsom. But should make clear to the noble Lord, in saying that, that the machinery of Clause 6 as it stands, without Amendment, for triggering off frontier changes would apply to the particular area which he mentioned.
Having said that, I must make clear that no attempt has been made in the
1124
Bill itself to tackle the minor difficulties and anachronisms in the Greater London boundaries. This, we felt, was a task far better tackled after the main frontiers, the strategic frontiers, as it were, had been settled. However, machinery must be provided to allow boundary adjustments to be made later. That is the machinery provided in Clause 6 to which I have already referred. So we are dealing here not with the strategic frontiers of the Greater London Area, which we shall be discussing when we come to Schedule 1, but with, as it were, the possibility of tactical frontier changes. Nevertheless, although we may be dealing here with relatively minor frontier problems. I do not for a moment seek to minimise their importance or belittle the degree of public interest and, indeed, public emotion which these relatively minor changes may very well involve.
Subsection (2)(a) of the clause as it stands relates to the alteration of the outer boundary of Greater London, and it provides that proposals may be made either from inside or from outside that boundary by any county council or county borough concerned. The Amendment would, in addition, enable this process of amendment to be triggered off by a demand made by a body of 300 electors. I think that a similar Amendment in another place stipulated 250 electors. I am not quite certain, despite the noble Lord's explanation, by which obscure process of mathematics or political economy the number has gone up by 50.
LORD SILKIN: May I clear the noble Earl's mind on that? There was no obscure process of mathematics or anything else. On consideration, I thought that 300 was a more reasonable figure than 250. The noble Earl may like that answer or not, but that is the reason.
EARL JELLICOE: If I may say so, I find that answer perfectly acceptable and understandable.
The principle in the Bill is that the machinery of Clause 6 should be triggered off only at the instance of one or more of the authorities concerned. It may be thought that this is undemocratic, but the requirement in the Bill that such applications must come from a local authority and not from a body of persons follows a perfectly well-established principle of local government. On

1125
this point, the Bill is clearly based on the Local Government Act, 1933. I think that there is a good reason for this. Boundary alterations raise an enormous number of detailed matters which it is extremely difficult for those not deeply engaged in local administration to be able properly to assess. I suggest that it is really the local authorities which are in the best position properly to weigh the varying considerations involved in this sort of thing. The noble Lord's Amendment would cut clean across this principle and precedent, and, so far as I know, there is no provision within our body of legislation whereby frontier changes affecting a county boundary itself can be initiated by a body of electors in the way proposed in the Amendment.
In conclusion, I urge these two further considerations on your Lordships. I am sorry if, at this—as think we can fairly claim for once—somewhat late hour, I have to go into this question in some detail, but the noble Lord put a persuasive case which, I think, deserves a full and fair answer. What the public feel on questions of this sort is, of course, a matter of real consideration, but it is not the only consideration. I think it is true to say that most people favour local government reform even if it involves boundary changes in theory but when it comes to their own county or county borough they find all manner of reasons to object to what may have been proposed. Indeed, if in these matters public opinion were to be the sole criterion, perhaps we should get very little local government reform at all.
That said, let me not be taken as belittling the importance of what people feel in these matters. Of course it is important, and vitally important. But I suggest that what we are arguing about here is not the principle of people being entitled to have their say in matters of this sort, but how they should have their say. I would suggest that in matters of this sort, which involve very difficult considerations, the right way to have their say is through their local authorities. If the local inhabitants of a certain part of the area included in this Bill feel they should be excluded from it, and in certain circumstances they no doubt will, there are many ways in which they can bring pressure upon their own local authority, and indeed upon
1126
Parliament. If the pressure is strong and widespread and maintained, I think it is a very unwise authority who would ignore that. I hope I have not shown myself unsympathetic to the purpose behind this Amendment. I am fully aware of the anxiety felt in many areas around the periphery. However, I would suggest that we should be unwise to adopt the remedy suggested in this Amendment, and wiser in these circumstances to base ourselves upon past form and precedent in what is, I frankly admit, not at all an easy matter.
LORD WALSTON: May I take up the noble Earl on one particular expression he used in this regard? He used the expression "triggered off" on several occasions. It is perfectly true, as he said in a very persuasive and gentle manner, that these proposals are to be triggered off by certain people, but he seems to have ignored the fact that there is an extremely effective safety catch which will prevent the triggering off in the shape of the subsequent paragraph which says that the Minister shall, unless he is satisfied the proposals ought not to be entertained, cause a local inquiry to be made. It seems to me that this very reasonable proposal of my noble friend can never be frivolously brought into play with all the paraphernalia of local inquiry because of that safety catch. The arguments the noble Earl put forward about my noble friend's proposals do not seem to me to carry so much weight because of that safety catch which is there. I would entirely agree with him if simply any 300 citizens could come along and demand a local inquiry that would be unreasonable, but so long as the Minister is given power to withhold consent I suggest the proposal is an eminently sensible one which will not be abused for that reason.
LORD SILKIN: I am very grateful to the noble Earl, and I must pay him tribute, in that he has taken this Amendment seriously and given it due consideration, and I certainly feel that he has made certain points which are worthy of consideration. I hope I have, too, in the Amendment. I thought the strongest point the noble Earl made was that this particular method of altering boundaries was not incorporated in any other legislation, that it was novel. I do not think it is any the worse for

1127
that. There is a great deal of novelty in this Bill, and one more novelty would not damage it. I should have thought that this is so sensible an arrangement—the Ministry and all concerned are so fully protected—that it is worthy of further consideration. I am prepared to do a deal with the noble Lord if he is amenable at this late hour to do a deal.
EARL JELLICOE: I may be very unwise in interrupting the noble Lord before he discloses what his deal is about, but I would say straight away two things. I was not arguing that 300 electors—Lord Silkin's 300 electors would be frivolous, but I am arguing that the right way for them to bring pressure would be through their local authority. But, that said, I am not particularly worried about importing a novelty in our legislation. I was merely pointing out that the existing clause was based on fairly firm local government precedent. Yet I say straight away that there is a point worth looking into here, and if the noble Lord agrees not to press his Amendment, I, for one, should be very willing to take the Amendment back and look at the whole position between now and the Report stage.
LORD SILKIN: That is exactly what I was going to propose. I should like to do it again. Let us both look at it again. There is some merit in this and a case for making a step forward, compared with the legislation of 1933. In these circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: There is a second manuscript Amendment to Clause 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crook.
LORD LINDGREN: That is not moved.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
11.38 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I do not know whether noble Lords opposite think that it would be wise to adjourn now. There are strange things going on. I understand that another place adjourned at eight minutes past eleven but we are still
1128
sitting, and, except for a moiety of expenses, for no salary. Members of another place have gone home, unusually late on an ordinary day for them. We are still here. I understand that the light has been shut off over Big Ben so that Parliament is not now officially sitting to the public outside.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Cannot we have it switched on?
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Something ought to be done about it, or at least a light put over this House as well, which is sitting on the pursuits of the Government. Ought we not to consider this before we go any further on this Bill?
One other thing. The sort of sitting we are having tonight throws great hardship on to the staff. So far as I can find out—I hope I am not incorrect—the shorthand writers do not get overtime. The ordinary Hansard staff do not. What are our considerations for the general staff when we sit hours overtime? It is 3s. or 3s. 6d. for a meal; that is our reward to them, and I say it is preposterous and about time we came to an end of it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry that the noble Earl should have got a little heated about this. I quite agree with him that it is extremely inconvenient for the staff when we have these late sittings, but we really must make progress on this Bill. I do not grudge the noble Earl his speeches about mandate and that sort of thing. I should like to suggest to noble Lords opposite that, now we have reached the point that it would not have been expecting too much for us to have reached last Thursday—that is, the end of Part 1—we really ought to seek to make some progress with regard to Schedule 1. Indeed, I should have thought it not impossible that, with good will on both sides, we could complete the discussion on that Schedule in a short space of time, for this reason—the noble Earl shakes his head.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That is not possible.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If that is not possible, I am afraid we must go on. But what I was going to suggest to the noble Earl, in all seriousness, was

1129
this: so far as I can see, in Schedule 1 there are no fewer than 32 Amendments, which, of course, have to be taken but which raise precisely the same point—namely, the question of whether the number of councillors on the Greater London Council representing the various boroughs should remain as they are in the third column of Schedule 1 or whether they ought to be doubled. There are 32 Amendments to double it. That raises the same question of principle throughout. What I was going to suggest to the noble Earl, in the hope that it would save some time and would not inhibit proper discussion of that principle whether the number should remain as it is or whether it should be doubled, is that it would be to the convenience of the House, to the convenience of your Lordships and to the convenience of the staff if the principle underlying all these 32 Amendments was considered in one discussion and one debate, and not on 32 separate occasions. To discuss that on 32 separate occasions would really be bringing the proceedings of this House rather into the nature of a farce, although it would of course clearly illustrate the Opposition's attitude to this Bill.
LORD SHEPHERD: Oh!
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Really, you have done it now.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Is the noble Lord opposite feeling ill?
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Obviously, that last remark of the Lord Chancellor has upset people on this side.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry, because it was not meant to upset and was not meant in the least to be provocative. All I was saying was that if we did have a separate debate on 32 Amendments which all raise precisely the same point, then I think that ought to give reason for reflection.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I do not think it is the sort of thing that ought to be discussed tonight, anyway. Perhaps we ought to discuss it tomorrow morning, when those of us who did not have a proper dinner have got over the unfair pressure that the Government have put on us. Per-
1130
haps we might meet tomorrow morning and discuss it, but not tonight.
Schedule 1 [The London boroughs]:
11.43 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD THE EARL OF LONGFORD had given Notice of a series of Amendments to increase the initial number of councillors on the Greater London Council from the proposed new London boroughs, the first being to increase from 4 to 8 the number from Borough 1. The noble Earl said: I do not think it is for me to offer any comments about the way in which later Amendments will be moved. I will address myself solely to this one, and it will be for those of us on this side, under the guidance of our noble Leader, to decide how to handle them. But the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor will not, I am sure, wish to curtail my remarks, in spite of his strange effort at diplomacy which we witnessed just now. This is a subject on which I do not propose to speak at exceptional length, or yet briefly. I shall speak as though the time were about a quarter-to-three instead of a quarter-to-twelve. That, surely, is how the Committee would wish it handled. There is a point of principle here, which may or may not occur in other Amendments. The point of principle that arises here is whether the numbers of the proposed Greater London councillors should be raised from 100 to 200 councillors. That is certainly a vital issue. Does the noble Viscount wish to say something?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I was trying to signal one of the noble Earl's friends. If I am disturbing his remarks, I hope he will continue with them.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I thought the noble Viscount was hoisting a white flag, but I notice that that is not so.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: That is a flag I have never yet hoisted.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: This is certainly an issue of great importance and some difficulty, as was admitted by the Minister. We have made various attempts, and shall make other attempts, to claim that certain Amendments do not raise any Party issue. That is true in the sense that many of them would not bring any special advantage to our political Party, but it is also true that in some cases what we suggest might

1131
disturb the general outlook of the Bill. No one could claim that the number of 100 councillors is any more inherent in the principles of the Bill than the number of 200 which is proposed.
May I remind your Lordships of what was said by the Minister elsewhere—this was on Report stage when he was resisting an Amendment of this kind, but not perhaps quite finally:
"We would like to increase the number rather more than it is now, but I still feel chary about increasing it to as much as 200, even taking the benefit of jettisoning the aldermen on the Greater London Council."
He agrees that 100 is not a perfect number, but finds that 200 is too large. The Government admit that they have not the right number. It is difficult to fasten on any number between 100 and 200 because it is felt necessary under this extraordinary Bill to relate the number to the number of Parliamentary constituencies. So at the moment let us consider it as involving a choice of between either 100 and 200 councillors, and let us hope that the mind of the Minister is not finally made up.
The present membership of the London County Council totals 147, and although the Greater London Council will have fewer executive functions than the L.C.C. it must be borne in mind that the area will be six times as great, and the population for which it will be responsible will be nearly three times the size. Those seem to me very important points. If one talks to someone who contemplates the possibility of being elected to a body of this kind, one finds in his mind considerable doubts whether he will be able to get round the area as he would wish to; and I think the size of the area is a considerable factor.
In the view of the London County Council, a view which I am prepared to share, from their experience 100 would not be a sufficient number for the proper manning of all the committees and subcommittees. The London County Council at the moment has 18 committees and 21 sub-committees, with a membership ranging from 3 to 35. There are other onerous obligations involved in being a member of the Council, and it is the experience of the London County Council that it is difficult to find a sufficient number of members for all these pur-
1132
poses. There is an inevitable tendency to put too much on those people whose circumstances will permit them to take the burden.
We must recall that within the area of the present administrative County of London the Greater London Council will be the education authority—I will say a word about that in a moment—and will retain most of the present functions of the L.C.C. under the London Building Acts, throughout the Greater London area. It will deal with traffic, main sewerage, trade effluent, refuse disposal, and will have important functions in connection with metropolitan roads, highway improvements, vehicle and driving licences, housing, civil defence, parks and open spaces, and provision of information on matters affecting Greater London, and so on. At any rate, it will have a large range of functions. In the calculation of the L.C.C., the Greater London Council will probably need about 15 main committees. I do not think that is much disputed because the Minister elsewhere reckoned that it would in fact need something between 13 and 16 committees. So it is generally agreed that probably about 15 committees will be needed. It is reckoned by those whose experience is most nearly comparable that 100 councillors would simply not be enough. There is, of course, the highly desirable result that, if you double the number, the number of persons each councillor will represent, which at present is about 80,000, will be halved.
The Minister at one point seemed quite favourable towards Amendments of this kind, from a purely practical point of view. At the Report stage he suggested that 200 would be too large, and he then gave various examples of how certain large county boroughs managed with less. Of course their area is very much smaller. He ignored the fact—at least I think he did—that those members who are elected to the Greater London Council from the present L.C.C. area will be responsible, or will bear most of the burden, for education. I was talking to somebody who is now prominent on the Education Committee of the L.C.C., whose services are very valuable in education, who is now doubtful of being able to do the education job and serve adequately on the Greater London Council. So we must think of this Greater London Council as carrying all these burdens;

1133
and, in addition, we must think of 40 of its members—those sitting in the present L.C.C. area—as carrying the main responsibility for the education service.
For all these reasons, looking at it simply from a practical angle and really without reference to philosophy or politics, or any unhappy subjects of that kind, I do suggest to the noble Earl that the very least he can do tonight is to tell us that the Minister's mind is not closed. I would think it remarkably disappointing, if he came down here and said that, even before he heard the discussion, he was instructed to reject this out of hand. So I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 13, in the third column leave out ("4") and insert ("8").—(The Earl of Longford.)
EARL JELLICOE: There are two matters which I think I can agree straight away with the noble Earl, Lord Longford. He said that this is an important Amendment. I agree with that. He has also said that we are really dealing here with an entirely practical and non-Party issue, and I agree with that, too. Having said that, I would remind your Lordship that we had a rather long discussion last week on how many councillors we needed for each of the new London boroughs, and my noble friend Lord Hastings then said that we were faced here with two opposing requirements: on the one hand, to have as close a link as possible between the councillor and his electorate—we all want that—and, on the other, the need for efficiency and to have a council so composed, which usually means a council as small as is reasonably possible, as to lead to efficiency, and I think we all want that. I think, too, that we are faced in this instance with these somewhat conflicting pressures in determining the ideal size for the new Greater London Council.
I should like to remind your Lordships, at the outset of what I have to say and what I say will be no more and no less conditioned by the clock than what the noble Earl has just said—that the size of the Greater London Council is linked with the method of defining the electoral divisions. This is an important point here, and the noble Lord touched
1134
on it. The Royal Commission proposed that the Parliamentary constituencies should be used. The Government have substantially adopted that recommendation, though with a slight alteration where the constituencies cross borough boundaries. I think they were right here. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, thought it surprising that we had felt it necessary under this extraordinary Bill (to quote his words) to adopt this procedure. I think it is right. So far as I know, it is a decision which has been, broadly speaking, acceptable, at least judging by discussions in another place, and I think it is certainly for the convenience of all the political Parties. What is much more important, I think it should really help to keep local democracy vital in London if, broadly speaking, the constituencies are the same as the electoral areas. But—and this is the important point here—if we use these electoral divisions we can have no halfway house between a council of 100 councillors with their attendant aldermen, and a council of some 200, again with or without their aldermanic reinforcements. We have, in fact, to opt either for one councillor per constituency or two.
Noble Lords opposite would opt, and opt on purely practical grounds, as the noble Earl has said, for double the number; and, in so doing I think the noble Earl has used two main lines of argument. The first is that, if the Council is smaller, each councillor will have far too many constituents and too large a constituency; and the second argument is that, with a Council based on this small membership, it will be very difficult to man the essential committees of the Council properly. I should like briefly to examine those two arguments. In so doing, I must again remind the Committee that the Greater London Council will not have the wide range of personal and intimate services which produce the constituency cases, and it would therefore be quite misleading to compare the Greater London Council with a county borough in this respect—or, indeed, even with the L.C.C. Its principal duties will be concerned with the strategic functions of local government.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I do not want to interrupt the noble Earl, but he probably will—I hope he will—deal with the fact that 40 of its members, those

1135
who cover the L.C.C. area, will of course have one of the most personal and, as the Royal Commission suggests, most important services of all under their responsibility: I refer to education.
EARL JELLICOE: As the noble Earl surmised, I was about to deal with that, by an almost inevitable process. It is true that the Council will have not only one but two intimate and personal services in its charge. It will have certain housing functions, and in inner London it will have, as the noble Earl has said, educational functions. But I do not think this alters the fact that, in the main, the Council will not be responsible for personal services. Moreover, in the Bill housing is based on the proposition, right or wrong, that the boroughs will be the main authorities. The council is not going to be the main authority here, and I think that the aspects of housing with which it will be dealing will not be throwing up the constituency cases. Secondly, I should like to remind the noble Earl that in the inner London area, the area of the Inner London Education Authority, the 40 councils drawn from the Greater London Council will be reinforced by twelve drawn from inner London boroughs and one, to please the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, from the City.
If I may, I should now like to turn to the other side of the argument: that the Greater London Council, on the basis of the numbers proposed in the Bill, would have too small a membership in order that the essential committees could be properly manned. The number of committees which must be established is obviously related to the range of the Council's functions. I think the noble Earl questioned the validity of the comparison with a county borough. A county borough has a far wider range of functions than the Greater London Council will have. I am not saying they are more important, but a far wider range of functions; and the majority of county boroughs have a smaller membership, in some cases a far smaller membership, than the 100 or 116 proposed for the Greater London Council here. But I would agree that perhaps the comparison with a county borough is not in all respects a valid
1136
comparison, in terms of distance, for example.
Perhaps it is true to make the comparison with a county council, and there I would say only that the Greater London Council will in fact have important local government functions which normally go with a county, but it will not have the full range, even, of county functions. Of the five county councils most closely concerned in London government—the L.C.C., Middlesex, Surrey, Kent and Essex—three have councils of the same size as, or indeed smaller than, that now proposed for the Greater London Council. Clearly they do not find the committee problem insuperable.
LORD SHEPHERD: Not insuperable; but in certain cases with extreme difficulty. I hope the noble Lord will grant that.
EARL JELLICOE: I will not argue between "difficult" and "not insuperable".
LORD SHEPHERD: It is a difficult problem.
EARL JELLICOE: Yes, I would admit that it is a difficult problem, as my right honourable friend made clear, but if we could "up it" slightly we should like to do so. Assuming that the Greater London Council has about 15 main committees, each with 20 members—and I think, so far as one can judge at this stage, this would be a fair assumption—this would mean 300 committee places in all to be filled. With a total membership of 116 which is proposed in the Bill, each member of the Greater London Council would be a member, on an average, of 21 committees. If the Council make good use of their power to co-opt—which is written into the Bill—the average could be lower, although this would not necessarily be wholly desirable, because one does not want a council composed entirely of experts specialising in one particular function of government only, since they will be ranging over the whole strategic area of London.
The other night my noble friend, Lord Mersey did not press his Amendment about aldermen. We are, therefore, talking in terms either of a council of some 116 with aldermen or some 232 with aldermen, and I feel we should make it clear that, faced with this position, the

1137
Government have no doubt in their mind that the smaller number would be preferable from the point of view of manning the committees and also from the point of view of establishing a really business-like and efficient body. I think, too, that this view commands very widespread support among people versed in local administration, although not necessarily from the Benches opposite.
I respect the experience and expertise which the noble Lords opposite bring to matters of this sort and I do not claim the same expertise myself, but I hope I can claim to have considered and to have discussed this Amendment with the Committee with the seriousness that I am sure it deserves. The Committee may recall that in another place my right honourable friend undertook at the Committee stage to have another look at this business; and that is why I am afraid I am going to disappoint the noble Earl, Lord Longford, much though it disappoints me to do so. Having given that undertaking, my right honourable friend took this matter back and gave it a very careful consideration indeed. He came to the conclusion that we are right to go for the smaller membership on practical grounds. Not having heard from noble Lords any arguments other than those produced in another place, I can only ask the Committee to endorse my right honourable friend's firm and considered opinion.
12.5 a.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: I would first of all immediately concede that the noble Earl has approached this matter with the seriousness that it deserves, and I am sure that my noble friends are grateful to him for it. We on this side, as was said on Thursday, feel that the Government are wrong to have this fixed limit set in the Bill. I think it was the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack who said that this piece of legislation was to be for the provision of local government through the century. It may well be that in the early stages the provisions and duties laid upon this authority are merely strategic and do not involve the more intimate services. The Government themselves recognise that there may have to be changes. It may be necessary to put added duties on the Greater London Council. Power to do so is in the Bill. If the Government feel
1138
that this is necessary, they may find that the 100 they are putting down as the maximum may be insufficient to provide local government as we recognise local government in this House.
The noble Earl said that Parliamentary constituencies were to be the basis upon which members were to be elected. But the duties of a member of the Greater London Council and a Member of Parliament are quite different. Members of Parliament perform many duties and are able to provide an intimate service to their constituents, but only because they receive a salary. I would ask the noble Earl what type of man it is hoped to attract to the Greater London Council. It is not proposed to pay a salary, so members have to find time outside their work to perform these duties. I am sure that the noble Earl agrees with me that we must try to attract the right type of man and woman and it is difficult to find experienced individuals who have to make their way in life and are able to give service. Very few people are prepared to give service, if they depend on earning an income. This faces us with a considerable problem. I know that both Parties in Surrey have had great difficulty in finding people prepared to stand for the urban district councils. They have to give up two or three afternoons, sometimes four or five afternoons, a week and although they may get their salaries, they feel that they are losing opportunities of promotion.
I should like to ask the noble Earl to try to give us some indication of what is involved. Does he expect these members to give two or three hours a week or ten to fifteen hours a week? This is very relevant when we consider the number of members of the Greater London Council, on which there are many duties to be performed. I understand that there will be 15 full committees and there may be no end to the number of sub-committees, all of which these relatively few people will be called upon to man. I ask the noble Earl to give this careful consideration. It is not a Party matter. If we are going to set up this Greater London Council, let us have the necessary manpower, the right kind of man and woman, who can earn a living and at the same time give service to the community.

1139
I feel that the Government would be wrong to stand fixedly on this proposal. I appreciate the noble Earl's difficulty: it must be either 100 or 200. My noble friend would not stand on the figure of 200. I am sure there is some other way round it. We are not really wedded to it. We are not bound to accept the Parliamentary area for the election. This is a mere recommendation of the Royal Commission. The Government have made new boroughs and new areas, and surely it is within their province to find other areas so that we could have, say, 120 or 150 members. If the Government have the will, I am sure they could find the way.
LORD CHAMPION: Before we go any further, might I ask if it is the intention of the Government to freeze us out in this Chamber tonight? I can understand the purpose, but I do not think it is quite desirable.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I should have thought that the temperature had been rising too high. If the noble Lord would like a window shut, I am sure somebody will take notice of what he has said.
EARL JELLICOE: I should like to say three brief things in reply. The first is a point of correction of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. The number of the Greater London Council is not fixed immutably at the figure of 100. It is fixed only for the initial stage in Schedule 1 and, dependent upon the reviews of constituencies provided for in Schedule 2, that figure may vary. It is not an immutable 100.
LORD SHEPHERD: You are not therefore tied to the Parliamentary constituency.
EARL JELLICOE: Yes, one is tied. The electoral quota may vary and, therefore

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Crook, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Darwen, L.

Shepherd, L.

Archibald, L.

Henderson, L.

Stonham, L. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Lindgren, L.

Summerskill, B.

Chorley, L.

Longford, E.

Walston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Auckland, L.

Buchan, E.

Albemarle, E.

Bossom, L.

Carrington, L.

Aldington, L.

Boston, L.

Chelmer, L.

Ampthill, L.

Brecon, L.

Chesham, L.

Astor, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Colville of Culross, V

the number of councillors may vary. It comes out at 100 at the moment, but in the future it might not. Unless there is a big change in population it is likely to stay at around 100. The second point is on the question of the quality of the councillors. I agree that this is an extremely important point, but the consideration I should like to put before your Lordships is that if you give councillors too little to do, you are unlikely to attract a really good type of councillor. We want the best we can get for this council, which is going to be a council of the greatest importance. We think that to have a council of 232 members, far larger than any other council in the country, is not the way to go about attracting the best type of person.
The final point I should like to make is that my right honourable friend's mind is again not fixed or immutable on this. I should like to repeat what he said in the Report stage in another place, which was that, without saying that 116 is the perfect number, he felt on balance that it is preferable to moving up to 200. Having listened to the arguments, that remains the Government position in this matter.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am disappointed about that. I thought that perhaps we were going to get somewhere on this matter. I feel that the choice of a Parliamentary Division for one member of this sort for each man elected is not the proper basis for local government. I do not want to repeat the arguments I made last week, but the Government had better promise to look at this again, otherwise we will be bound to divide now.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Not-Contents, 58.

Colyton, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Melchett, L.

Conesford, L.

Grenfell, L.

Merrivale, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Mersey, V.

Croft, L.

Harcourt, V.

Mills, V.

Cross, V.

Hastings, L.

Molson, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Newton, L.

Denham, L.

Ilford, L.

Onslow, E.

Derwent, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Remnant, L. [Teller.]

Devonshire, D.

Jessel, L.

Rockley, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lansdowne, M.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Dudley, E.

Lothian, M.

St. Oswald, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B

Luke, L.

Teynham, L.

Ferrers, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Waleran, L.

Fortescue, E.

Margesson, V.

Wolverton, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.20 a.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD THE EARL OF LONGFORD had given Notice of two Amendments to add the City of London to the existing areas proposed as constituting the new Borough 1. The noble Earl said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, I move this Amendment in the two parts as it appears on the Paper, Amendment No. 22. It would have the effect of grouping the City of London with the metropolitan boroughs of Westminster, Paddington and St. Marylebone. I do not wish to resume the main argument about the City which was dealt with, not adequately, in our view, in the reply from the Minister this afternoon, but I wish to submit, in a relatively friendly way, to the Minister that although he argued and, apparently, convinced himself and his own supporters that on no account must we lose certain priceless attributes of the City, to the best of my recollection—he will put me right if I am wrong—he did not give us any serious attempt at a reply to the suggestion that the City might be grouped with one or more boroughs, in this way retaining what is most valuable and attractive in the ceremonial side of the City and the Lord Mayoralty in particular.
If the Minister says that I am wrong, perhaps he will remind us briefly of what he said in answer to that suggestion. At this stage, I move the Amendment that the City be grouped with these other boroughs, and, although I do not expect the Minister to go again over all the ground, I hope that he will explain clearly why the advantages of the City could not be retained within the grouping suggested here.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 14, leave out ("and"); and at end insert ("and the City of London.")—(The Earl of Longford.)
LORD HASTINGS: I am sorry the noble Earl does not think he or his noble friends received an adequate reply earlier this afternoon in respect of the City. I treated the matter very seriously and gave an answer at some length in respect of the annexation of the City to any other borough. I adduced certain arguments of a financial nature and I can remind the noble Earl very briefly that I sought to show there would be no point either in abolishing the City or annexing it to another borough from the standpoint of finance. I said that there would be no improvement in the amount of precept of the Greater London Council in the event of such amalgamation. I also said that any future scheme comparable to the present one would be unaffected when it came to general grant. I said that if the City were included in any other borough the grant payable for that borough would be less than it would otherwise be. Noble Lords will understand why that is, because in the way of calculating the general rate the City is a negative quantity, and there it would have the effect of decreasing the amount payable to the borough to which it was annexed. There were no material advantages, therefore, to be gained from joining the City to Marylebone or Paddington or any of the other boroughs mentioned in later Amendments.
As for the question of retaining the ceremonial aspect, the traditional aspect of the City, we say that really that is not possible if you join it to any other borough. I think the noble Earl himself quoted something that was said by my right honourable friend in another place when he pointed out that we are

1143
discussing the independent survival of the City as a local authority and it is evident that we cannot preserve the Lord Mayor, or rather the office of the Lord Mayor, which is what matters, unless we also preserve the structure of which he is the head. That is the essence of the matter.
Only on Thursday we were discussing how to find a more dignified name for the Greater London Council, and I promised to look at that matter, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, withdrew his Amendment. It is really the same problem here. It is generally recognised, I think on all sides of the Committee, that the traditions and ceremonies and unique position of the City are tied up with history and antiquity, and prestige goes with those things. We want to give prestige to the Greater London Council in one way by finding a better name. It does not really seem possible, if we join the City with any other borough, to retain the office of Lord Mayor as it is today if we remove the structure from beneath him and joint it to Marylebone and Westminster. That really is the whole of the argument on both the financial side, which I have repeated, and on the traditional and ceremonial side, and we do not think it is possible to carry out the suggestion which, I realise, is made in all seriousness. It has the effect which noble Lords desire of doing away with the City because it is undemocratic, but we do not think it will be possible to achieve the results which we desire of the particular position and value and benefits of the City, if it is joined to any other borough, whether St. Marylebone, Westminster or Southwark.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: There are so many abnormalities and anomalies about this Bill and about the Government's scheme that I should have thought that reorganising the office of the Lord Mayor of London was something which the Government would have taken in their stride. Noble Lords will have noticed that the City, for Parliamentary purposes, is already joined with Westminster, so there would be no great change in that. My noble friends think that to divorce the ceremonial side of the City from the administrative side would be fairly simple.
1144
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, mentioned something about the financial effect of this proposal which was not altogether clear to some of my noble friends. Would he elaborate a little and say whether it was the equalisation grant which would be affected by the amalgamation of the City of London with one of the London boroughs? If I understood him aright, he said that the addition of the City to a borough would decrease the grant which that borough could expect from an equalisation grant.
LORD HASTINGS: General grant.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: So in the case of one of the wealthier boroughs, like Westminster, that would still have the effect of reducing the general grant?
LORD HASTINGS: I could go a little more into detail. Broadly speaking, while there is a rate deduction factor in the general grant distribution formula, the City will get no general grant. Arithmetically, its share of the grant is in fact a negative amount, because its penny rate product is so large and its population is so small. Its inclusion in Borough No. 1 would have the effect that the general grant payable to the enlarged Borough No. 1 would be less than that paid to the borough as proposed by the Bill.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am grateful to the noble Lord, and if I caused him to spend a moment on repeating something, I apologise, because that was not premeditated on my part. But he has not satisfied me or any of my noble friends that it would be impossible to combine the office of Lord Mayor with an association of the kind suggested. The matter was not considered in this form, so far as one can judge, by the Royal Commission. They had the idea of a Lord Mayor who would not be head of the municipality but would combine the office of Lord Mayor and Chairman of the Greater London Council. That was the idea which was not accepted. But the suggestion made to-day does not appear to have been considered by them, and we find the noble Lord's answer unconvincing. I hesitate to ask him to repeat something, but having had it set out with embellishments, we remain of the same opinion.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Darwen, L.

Shepherd, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Henderson, L.

Stonham, L. [Teller.]

Archibald, L.

Lindgren, L.

Summerskill, B.

Champion, L.

Longford, E.

Walston, L.

Crook, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lansdowne, M

Albemarle, E.

Denham, L.

Lothian, M.

Aldington, L.

Derwent, L.

Luke, L.

Ampthill, L.

Devonshire, D.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Astor, V.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Margesson, V.

Auckland, L.

Dudley, E.

Melchett, L.

Bossom, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Merrivale, L.

Boston, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mersey, V.

Brecon, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mills, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Molson, L.

Buchan, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Newton, L.

Carrington, L.

Grenfell, L.

Onslow, E.

Chelmer, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Remnant, L.

Chesham, L.

Harcourt, V.

Rockley, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hastings, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Colyton, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Conesford, L.

Ilford, L.

Teynham, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Waleran, L.

Croft, L.

Jessel, L.

Wolverton, L.

Cross, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 15, in the third column leave out ("3") and insert ("6").—(Earl of Longford.)
12.43 a.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Might I make an appeal to noble Lords opposite on this series of Amendments? The noble Earl, Lord Longford, moved Amendment No. 21, which was the last but one, and if noble Lords will look at the Schedule they will find that these Amendments are all on the same point; that is to say, it is a series of Amendments which is simply concerned to double the number of councillors on the Council for the respective boroughs as each comes down the list. The last one which we discussed was simply interpolated in order to add the first list of boroughs to be amalgamated in the list, the City of London.
Of course, we realise that the Opposition wish to discuss this Bill at length, but there is a great deal of force in what the Leader of the Opposition said. There are some of our Members who are not
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 58.
as young as they were; there are members of the staff whose interests we have to safeguard. I seriously ask the noble Lord whether there is any purpose in discussing a series of Amendments the principle of which has already been decided by the Committee. I know that noble Lords opposite are just as jealous as we are on this side of the name of the House. I myself cannot see any purpose that can be served by such a procedure, and can see a great many purposes which would not be served.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I think we had better have a Division on the first one. I think there is a good deal in what the Leader of the House says about what is possible, but we are of course in a very strongly protesting mood. We will divide on the first one, and I do not think we shall divide again until we come to the ninth one, and then we will have one final Division. That is just to show we are in a protesting mood.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Earl is, of course, a very famous Protestant. But, on the other hand, I would ask him even now to reconsider what he has just said. This is no gain, so

1147
far as I can see, either to the principle of discussion or to the time of the House. What he has said about the staff of the House has had a great deal of force. But I feel myself that he is not really doing justice to his fellow Members of the House by insisting on even that degree of protest.
LORD LINDGREN: The noble Viscount has suddenly become sympathetic. But I lost my last train at 11.28 p.m. and I cannot get a train till 5.40 in the morning, and I would sooner sit in this Chamber than sleep on a chair in the other room. Earlier this evening we asked the noble Viscount to give us a break. I sat in this Committee from 2.30 until 7.30 with neither a meal nor a drink, and the noble Viscount was not prepared to let the Committee break in order that we could have a meal together. Unless the noble Viscount is prepared to work reasonably well with us, then we are not prepared to work reasonably with him.
I will give him a little advice, to consult his friend the noble Earl who sits beside him, who is the Under-Secretary at the Home Office—I am sorry, I should have said, Minister of State. The demotion will not affect his salary. The fact that we are now in another day, having started the Sitting yesterday, does not mean that we shall get double pay for to-day. The Water Resources Bill went through with a very conciliatory attitude being shown by the noble Earl. It was a very complicated Bill concerning vested interests about which we felt very keenly. The whole Bill went through without our having a Division. That was very largely due to the fact that the noble Earl handled it very reasonably and in a conciliatory manner. If the noble Viscount is prepared to do the same so far as this Bill is concerned, and facilitates all those of us who cannot stay in London and who have now lost their trains, then we are prepared to look at his suggestion, a little more reasonably.
LORD CONESFORD: I wonder whether I might point this out to the Committee. What seems to have been

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Darwen, L.

Shepherd, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Henderson, L.

Stonham, L. [Teller.]

Archibald, L.

Lindgren, L.

Summerskill, B.

Champion, L.

Longford, E.

Walston, L.

Crook, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

overlooked by the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, when he said, "Let us vote on the first Amendment" is that he has already voted on the first, which was Amendment No. 21. Had Amendment No. 21 been decided the other way, he could have got up to move No. 23 and simply used the one word "Consequential". All these other Amendments, I think he will agree, are consequential on No. 21. Had No. 21 gone the other way he could have said, "Consequential" to this. But that Amendment having gone the way it did, I should have thought he would not even want to move this, because although I can quite see the point of wishing to show that he dislikes the whole Bill I should not have thought it helped his case to vote for nonsense in the Bill. Amendment No. 21 having been decided in the way it has, if he voted in favour of No. 23, he would be voting to make the Bill complete nonsense, and I should have thought that was not really his object.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I have been very much pressed by my Party to vote on a lot more of these Schedule points than I have actually proposed. I was so moved by the appeal of the Leader of the House that I can reduce it, at least from say, 18 to 3. That is not a bad concession, I think, on the whole. But I am so moved by what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Conesford, that perhaps I will go one further. We will let the first one go. We will divide on the ninth and the eighteenth.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.51 a.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 35, in the third column leave out ("4") and insert ("8").—(Earl Alexander of Hillsborough.)
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 57.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Cross, V.

Jessel, L.

Albemarle, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Aldington, L.

Denham, L.

Lothian, M.

Ampthill, L.

Derwent, L.

Luke, L.

Astor, V.

Devonshire, D.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Auckland, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Margesson, V.

Bossom, L.

Dudley, E.

Melchett, L.

Boston, L.

Elliot of Harwood B.

Merrivale, L.

Brecon, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mersey, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Fortescue, E.

Mills, V.

Buchan, E.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Newton, L.

Carrington, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Chelmer, L.

Grenfell, L.

Remnant, L.

Chesham, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Rockley, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Harcourt, V.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Colyton, L.

Hastings, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Conesford, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Teynham, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Ilford, L.

Waleran, L.

Croft, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I beg to move.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Darwen, L.

Shepherd, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Henderson, L.

Stonham, L. [Teller.]

Archibald, L.

Lindgren, L.

Summerskill, B.

Champion, L.

Longford, E.

Walston, L.

Crook, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Cross, V.

Jessel, L.

Albemarle, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Aldington, L.

Denham, L.

Lothian, M.

Ampthill, L.

Derwent, L.

Luke, L.

Astor, V.

Devonshire, D.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Auckland, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Margesson, V.

Bossom, L.

Dudley, E.

Melchett, L.

Boston, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Merrivale, L.

Brecon, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mersey, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Fortescue, E.

Mills, V.

Buchan, E.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Newton, L.

Carrington, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Chelmer, L.

Grenfell, L.

Remnant, L.

Chesham, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Rockley, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Harcourt, V.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Colyton, L.

Hastings, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Conesford, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Teynham, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Ilford, L.

Waleran, L.

Croft, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
1.0 a.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am moving this Amendment because all three local authorities concerned in this matter are against the proposal. I would ask
Amendment moved—
Page 103, line 37, in the third column leave out ("4") and insert "8").—(The Earl of Longford.)
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 57.
the Government to have another look at it. If they do not, I am afraid I shall have to ask the House to divide. Coulsdon and Purley are adamant, and there was a great deal of correspondence and a long discussion on it, as many of your Lordships may have seen. They wished to stay in Surrey for many good reasons.

1151
Surrey wish to keep them, and I think it would soften the blow that has been struck at Surrey which, as I said before, has been seriously eviscerated by this Bill. Last, but not least, Croydon does not want them, and they have said so. So why are the Government going to steamroller three local authorities into doing something they do not want? They are good local authorities. If your Lordships look at the map as planned, you will see that Coulsdon is a great appendix coming out of an otherwise tidy circle. I would ask the Government to look at this matter again, and, if they will not, I am afraid I must ask the House to divide. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 103, line 42, leave out from ("Croydon") to the end of line 43.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD AUCKLAND: Very briefly, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Onslow in this Amendment. I know Purley slightly, because my wife and I were looking for a house in that area when we were first married. We went over the Purley area all round Foxley Lane and other areas which are predominantly rural. Croydon already has a population of some 240,000 people. Added to this, if the Bill goes through in its present form some 85,000 people will be heaped on to them from Purley and Coulsdon. This will strain the civic resources of Croydon, who, as my noble friend has rightly said, do not want this federation; and vice versa. There is, as noble Lords can see from their map, an enormous area of Green Belt, particularly in the Purley and Sanderstead areas, and one has only to look at the results in the local elections to see what the local populace thought of these proposals. I have said before, and I say again, that, broadly, I support many of the proposals of this Bill, but it seems to me to be completely illogical to merge two already quite large areas into one enormous area. Unless the Government can give a very convincing answer to our case, my noble friend and I will have no alternative but to divide the House.
LORD LINDGREN: The noble Lords in charge of the Bill have, from time to time, tried to impress upon your Lordships that they have the support of local authority associations. I can declare
1152
an interest: I am a Vice-President of the Urban District Councils' Association. I have their authority in my hand to say that their Association, without equivocation, support the request of the Coulsdon and Purley Urban District Council not to be included within the borough. They make the point which has already been slightly made by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, that, in fact, the Croydon authority do not wait to take them within the borough—and if you are going to have amalgamations, one of the first essentials is that the partners should be willing to amalgamate.
I know and concede that noble Lords opposite have a point with regard to some of the Middlesex authorities. There is a willingness by a number of normal boroughs to accept the amalgamation and the status of the all-purpose authority. But here it is an unwilling amalgamation, and the exclusion of this urban district council would in no way endanger the local government viability of Croydon within itself. On the basis of rateable value of its population and the rest, it is still a viable local authority unit. Therefore, I support the plea that has been put forward by noble Lords opposite, and if they go through the Division Lobby I will go with them.
1.13 a.m.
LORD HASTINGS: This Amendment raises the whole question of the outer boundary of Greater London, since it is the first of three Amendments which are concerned with this difficult yet crucial problem. The other two cases will be dealt with by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, and I will not infringe upon his territory. Nevertheless, there are certain broad considerations which are common to all three, although I would not, of course, claim that each case is exactly similar. Indeed, I well recognise the dissimilarities and the necessity for judging each case on its merits. Each case engenders strong personal feelings, and I, for my part—and I know my noble friend is at one with me in this—have no intention of ignoring those feelings or of brushing them lightly aside. On the contrary, when your Lordships are asked to make decisions which affect the interests and general wellbeing of a community which forms a minority, it is encumbent upon the Government spokesman to meet the objections made by that community with well reasoned arguments and with

1153
the maximum of human sympathy. After all, it is the aim of Her Majesty's Government to act in the long-term interests of such a community and not against them.
I said that there are certain broad considerations which affect the determination of the outer boundary of Greater London. At this point, I quote from the Report of the Royal Commission. In paragraph 895 the Commission said:
"We have formed the view based partly on our travels in the Review Area, partly on evidence brought before us, and partly on special studies, that there is an entity which is so closely knit, so interdependent, so deeply influenced by the central area and so largely built up, that it truly makes up the London of today."
In paragraph 899 the Commission went on to say:
"It is clear that the questions for each area must be these: How strong is it as an independent centre on its own? How strong are its ties to London? How strongly is it drawn towards the country rather than inwards towards London?…For some districts the answers are debatable: in such cases we have tried to disturb existing administrative boundaries as little as possible."
Thus, the Commission.
Your Lordships will remember that it was for this last reason that the Royal Commission recommended that the urban districts of Banstead and of Caterham and Warlingham should also be included in Greater London. But for the decision of the then Minister of Housing, Dr. Hill, to exclude those areas it is likely that today we should be discussing the case of Banstead rather than that of Coulsdon arid Purley. It is worth recording, I think, the fact that it never occurred to the Royal Commission that Coulsdon and Purley ought not to form part of Greater London.
I think all your Lordships—even those who support this Amendment—will agree that the words of the Royal Commission as to the closely knit, interdependent entity that makes up the London of today are fair and reasonable, and that the questions which the Royal Commission have posed are also fair and reasonable. Ater all, it makes sense that, when we are trying to lay the foundations of a new system of local government for the next half-century, we should be careful not to leave out an integral part of the area which is really closely knit to London and forms part of it for the vital purposes of overall town planning, main roads and traffic management, and, of
1154
course, of co-ordinated housing policy and overspill. It is only when the principles stated by the Royal Commission are applied to individual cases that we begin to find disagreement.
Now, my Lords, let us apply these tests to the case of Coulsdon and Purley. How dependent upon London is it? How much is it drawn towards rather than away from London? In one of the special studies referred to by the Royal Commission it is revealed—page 345—that 32 per cent. of the working population of Coulsdon and Purley travel to central London for their daily work: that is, the highest percentage in any of the fringe areas.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: May I interrupt a moment? That is not really very useful, because in most of Surrey a large number of people travel to London every day. Yet they will remain in Surrey, and the number will probably be more than that in terms of percentage. The comparison is not very helpful.
LORD LINDGREN: British Railways derive a very good revenue from the season-ticket-holding commuters travelling from Brighton. Are we to have Brighton and Sussex included?
LORD HASTINGS: I will take the point further, because it is relevant. On turning to the next page of the Report, we find that, if the inner part of Greater London is added to the central area, no less than 64 per cent. of the working population of Coulsdon and Purley travel to London to work. It is difficult to describe such a community as essentially rural, my Lords. It is hardly surprising that the town clerks described Coulsdon and Purley as of a "predominantly dormitory character".
The figures I have just given do not indicate that Coulsdon and Purley possesses an independent existence of its own. In fact, on page 346 of the Report your Lordships will find that all the fringe areas which are to be included in Greater London, most of them without protest, show lower percentages of people dependent upon the inner London area for their work, with the single exception of a part of Chigwell urban district where, however, only 7,000 people are concerned. In the case of Coulsdon and Purley we are talking about 75,000 people.

1155
The next test that we must apply is whether there is a continuously built-up area contiguous to London. It has been contended that the built-up connections between Croydon and Coulsdon and Purley are narrow and that there are extensive natural breaks between Coulsdon and Purley and the built-up area to the North. When considering these claims, I am perfectly happy to use the map which has been included by the Coulsdon and Purley U.D.C. with their memorandum which they sent to me, and which has no doubt been received by a number of noble Lords. Here I should just like to quote one sentence from paragraph 900 of the Royal Commission's Report, as it is relevant to our argument. It reads as follows:—
"The green belt is partly for the benefit of London and partly for the benefit of those beyond."
We shall see how this fits in with the case we are now considering.
On the West of the map to which I have referred, your Lordships will notice an open space adjoining Coulsdon and Purley, but which is partly in the Municipal Borough of Beddington and Wallington and partly in the Urban District of Carshalton, both of which are included with Sutton and Cheam in the new Local Authority Area No. 21. Coulsdon and Purley adjoins Wallington and stretches continuously to Croydon Airport, and then across until it reaches more open spaces, the bulk of which form a vital part of the County Borough of Croydon. Therefore, the only open space which really makes a break between the West and the East at the North end of Coulsdon and Purley is Croydon Airport, and that, my Lords, as we all know, is very soon to be substantially built up as a residential area. Of 340 acres only 100 will remain as playing fields and open spaces.
A little way to the South-East of Croydon Airport lies Purley Downs Golf Course, but a golf course is very often an essential and a most desirable feature of town development, and this one, as your Lordships will see, is surrounded on all sides by houses.
The essential point I have tried to make about the Green Belt in this area is that some of it lies within Carshalton, Wallington and Croydon, and is for the
1156
benefit of London. There is a substantial area of Green Belt lying to the South and East of Coulsdon and Purley which is first for the benefit of the inhabitants of that area, but there is really no reason why it should not also be for the benefit of London as well as for those who live outside London. There is no reason to suppose that because this area is to be included with Coulsdon and Purley in Greater London it would fall a victim to the predatory intentions of the Greater London Council. On looking at the map again, a case might be made for the exclusion of that Green Belt area, together with the tongues of development which lead to the South and join up with Cater-ham and Warlingham. And no doubt, should the local authorities concerned so desire, they will apply for the exclusion of this area in accordance with the procedure laid down in Clause 6.
Perhaps, I should just make some reference to the complaint that members of the Royal Commission have not thought fit to accept invitations to inspect the district. It might be implied from this that the people referred to do not know the district and have not visited it. That, of course, is not true. I would remind your Lordships once again of the words I quoted from the Royal Commission Report in paragraph 895, where reference is made to the travels of the members through the review area.
I have tried to put the facts before your Lordships without embroidery and without distorting them in any way. I believe the facts speak for themselves and show that Coulsdon and Purley is closely knit to and interdependent with London, deeply influenced by the central area and itself largely built up. I adduce from these facts that Coulsdon and Purley has strong ties with London and is strongly drawn towards it rather than outwards towards the country.
I said at the beginning in my reply that I had no intention of ignoring the feelings of the people or of brushing them lightly aside. I hope I have not done so. May I remind your Lordships that in 1958 Parliament approved without a division the Local Government Regulations for England and Wales which gave guidance on the matters to be taken into account in making proposals. The wishes of the inhabitants were one of nine factors; the others included community of

1157
interest, development and expected development, economic and industrial characteristics, financial resources measured in relation to needs, physical factors, the size and distribution of the population, the record of administration of the authorities concerned, and the size and shape of the areas of local government. There is certainly nothing against the record of administration of the authorities of Coulsdon and Purley, and we admit that at the moment the inhabitants are against their inclusion in Greater London. But we have to look to the future, my Lords; and in respect of all the other factors to be taken into account I think it is virtually impossible and unrealistic to contend that Coulsdon and Purley does not now, and will not increasingly in the future, belong to London. London is a proud name, my Lords, and I have no doubt that in due course Coulsdon and Purley will learn to be proud of it.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I listened with interest to the speech of the noble Lord who has taken some trouble to answer his noble friends Lord Onslow and Lord Auckland; but the reliance he places on general extracts from the Report of the Royal Commission is not good support for his argument. It is true that towards the end of his speech he quoted certain other parts of the Report, such as those dealing with community interest, and finance, but to upset two contiguous communities who both object to being joined together, and at the same time to upset a great administrative county which does not want to lose an urban district, is something we cannot understand. To talk about whether A or B are joined outwards or inwards seems to me an abstract sort of argument not worthy of consideration.
When two great communities like Croydon and the urban district of Purley are dead against this, why do the Government not face up to the facts and agree to the matter being specifically reconsidered, not for the purpose of accepting our Amendment if the Government will not go so far as we have asked. Here is evidence of the wishes of the community. When I look at the map and the contour of the whole thing and think of what it means to the rest of the county, I think also of what it means to the educational county of Surrey. To
1158
do this sort of thing and for the Government to argue against two of its most loyal supporters, does not make a good case. Whether this comes to a main issue on this stage of the Bill or on the Report stage, I hope all those concerned with the educational aspects of the Bill, if no other, will help us to get justice in the Division Lobby.
1.29 a.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: It is with some reluctance that I support this Amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has voted on this Bill with us and gone through practically all the Division Lobbies with us—and all credit to him! But the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, is quite prepared to support the Bill. He has supported the Government on every occasion. The noble Lord shakes his head, so I will say that we are grateful once or twice for his assistance, or when he abstained from voting. I have a personal interest in this. I occupy an office in one of the new buildings in the centre of Croydon—and all credit to the borough council for what they are doing! They may be facing some of the difficulties which are facing the City of London, but they are making a great contribution to the district. I also live in Oxted. Therefore, I proceed to my office in the morning either through Caterham or through Warlingham, whichever I decide to make my route, the high road or the low road.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said that the Government came to the decision that Caterham and Warlingham, because of their posture, because they were out-ward-looking, did not come within Greater London. I think that was his case. I must tell him that I see no difference between Warlingham and Caterham as opposed to Purley or Coulsdon. They are of identical character and they are in the same locality. I suspect that the same number of individuals proceed to the City of London from Warlingham as do from Purley, and from Caterham as do from Coulsdon—the same percentage, the same type of person, except that perhaps in the case of Warlingham there will be more striped trousers than there are from Purley. But the character of these four districts is identical. The people who live there are identical; they have the same interests.
I ask the Government to think on this, because I do not put this as any Party

1159
issue. If the Government have conceded that Caterham and Warlingham should be exempt, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Hastings, and to the Committee in all possible sincerity, that Coulsdon and Purley fall into the same category. I do not think there is any doubt about it. If the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, is not prepared to accept this from us, I would suggest that between now and the Report stage he drives around the district in his car and he will see that what I say is correct. These districts are identical. There are many more that can be found. But for certain

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Crook, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Airedale, L.

Darwen, L.

Shepherd, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Lindgren, L.

Stonham, L.

Archibald, L.

Longford, E.

Summerskill, B.

Auckland, L. [Teller.]

Lucan, E.

Walston, L.

Champion, L.

Mersey, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Derwent, L.

Jessel, L.

Aldington, L.

Devonshire, D.

Lansdowne, M.

Ampthill, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lothian, M.

Bossom, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Luke, L.

Boston, L.

Ferrers, E.

Margesson, V.

Brecon, L.

Fortescue, E.

Melchett, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carrington, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Mills, V.

Chelmer, L.

Grenfell, L.

Newton, L.

Chesham, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Remnant, L.

Colyton, L.

Hastings, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Conesford, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Cross, V.

Ilford, L.

Teynham, L.

Denham, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Waleran, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
1.40 a.m.
LORD AUCKLAND LORD AUCKLAND moved, in the reference to Borough 23, to delete all words after "Surbiton". The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Somers, who is associated with me in this Amendment, wishes to apologise to the Committee that, due to unforeseen circumstances, he is not able to be in his place. The hour is very late, but I hope your Lordships will bear with me for a few moments while I move what is a very important Amendment. Epsom is the only borough which is being hived off in the manner in which it has been decided so to do. The three northern wards of Epsom—mainly, Cuddington, Ewell Court and Stoneleigh—are to be merged with Kingston, Malden and Surbiton.
reasons you have excluded the two districts. Those reasons will apply to these areas and to many more.
It is with some reluctance, not so much as regards the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, but perhaps as regards the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, that I support this Amendment, because I believe the evidence and that the case has been made out.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 42.
May I first turn to the historical aspect of this question? It has been argued that London has moved towards Epsom. In actual fact that is a fallacious argument and the converse is true. Cuddington can go back in history to the thirteenth century and one has only to read Professor Dent's book The Quest for Nonsuch to verify this point. I have to declare an interest here, although not a financial one, in that for four years I lived in the area of Stoneleigh which, as I pointed out on the Second Reading of this Bill, is a relatively new town, if one can call it a town. Much of it was constructed only in the middle 1930s.
The whole affinity of Stoneleigh is with Epsom. Take the railway line. There is no direct railway link between Stoneleigh and Kingston; there is between Stoneleigh and Epsom. Residents of Stoneleigh do their shopping and have

1161
their social contacts with Epsom and Ewell. I can only suppose that those responsible for making the decision for this boundary took a look at the map, drew a straight line and said, "Right; here is Stoneleigh, here is Kingston. We will merge them", without any thought for its implications.
I turn now to the consultations. So far as I know, no member of the Royal Commission visited this area. There was a committee of three Town Clerks from Cheltenham and elsewhere who paid visits to some of these areas. I have read their report. It is interesting, but it omits that the majority of the residents of that area desire to remain in Epsom. I know that figures cannot always be regarded as convincing, but I would just quote to the Committee the results of a meeting held at the Epsom Baths on March 7, 1962. I know that I mentioned this on Second Reading, but this is a very important point because this meeting was not organised by the local council: it was organised by the local residents' society. I attended it, and it was addressed by a number of important local people, including the Member of Parliament, who is now the Solicitor General; by the Charter Mayor, Mr. Chuter Ede, who is respected very highly by all Parties throughout Surrey; and by a number of councillors, including representatives from the Surrey County Council: and, without a single dissentient, over 1,000 people at this meeting voted that Epsom should remain as an entirety. Of those who were interviewed as to whether Epsom and Ewell should remain in Surrey, 95·38 per cent. said that they wished to. That is a pretty staggering figure.
I would also point out to the Committee that in these areas there are very strong residents' associations, and especially in Stoneleigh. These residents associations do not consist of upstarts: they consist largely of people who have an interest in, and who have done great service to, local government; and they have unanimously requested that this merger should not take place. In another place the Minister made a number of points as to why the Government's policy should go through. But the fact of the matter is that there is a goad deal of green belt land in this area, and one of the nubs of this is the
1162
area of the Hogsmill, where there is a great deal of land and considerable concern as to what will happen to it if the Greater London Council takes it over. The Minister, I know, saw a deputation, but they got little joy from it.
Since 1939, nine of Epsom's Mayors have come from the three wards which, under the Bill, will go into the Greater London authority, so at least civic pride can be counted as one convincing reason why this merger should not take place. As I said, I have myself lived in the area. I now live at Ashtead, next door. But if this merger takes place we shall, of course, be affected and a large part of high rateable value will be lost. We shall have an opportunity of discussing that aspect in more detail when we come to Clause 68. I would ask the Government really to think again on these points. The feeling of the local people is in itself quite convincing and it is not as if these areas are new towns or anything like that. They are areas with a great tradition behind them, and it seems to me to be quite wrong that they should be put into this new conglomeration—for that is what it will be. I doubt whether Kingston really want it. They have enough to contend with, as it is. Under the Bill, Surrey may lose its county town. Some people may not mind that, but I cannot see that the interests of local government will be furthered by this move. It may be argued that this is a parochial point, but, unless the Government can give an assurance that at least this will be seriously reconsidered, I shall have no option but to divide the Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 104, line 10, column 2, leave out from ("Surbiton") to the end of line 13.—(Lord Auckland.)
1.52 a.m.
LORD McCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: I should like to support my noble friend in issuing a very strong appeal to Her Majesty's Government to think over this unique proposal very seriously before they attempt to drive it through Parliament. I was privileged to represent the Borough of Epsom and Ewell for many years in the House of Commons, and I have personal knowledge of the depth of devotion and the cohesion of that borough. The Town Clerk,

1163
who has been Town Clerk for 20 years, has, I think, communicated with my noble friend Lord Hastings, his personal views and his personal knowledge of the extent of feeling of this borough at being dismembered. I would quote to the Government the words of the Leader of the House in another place, the senior Minister:
"It has been one of the major principles that so far as possible local authority areas should not be divided."
There is no "so far as possible"; there is nothing to stop this local area of Epsom and Ewell being maintained as one, except the wish of some people in Whitehall that parts should be taken out and handed over to Surbiton. Believe me, to hand over part of Epsom and Ewell to Surbiton is adding insult to injury.
At risk of keeping the Committee may I go back a little? These local areas were established before the war under the best auspices, and they have been upheld since the war on no fewer than four occasions. In 1947, the then Minister dismissed an appeal for people to be allowed to build houses on the green belt between the northern parts of Epsom and Ewell and Surbiton. In each case—and I quote:
"The Minister dismissed the appeal and refused to allow building development on the ground that it was desirable to retain an open wedge between the urban communities of Surbiton and Epsom along the line of the Hogsmill River and to prevent their coalescence."
That was what the Ministry said in 1957 to prevent their coalescence; now Her Majesty's Government come along and say that, in spite of that, they must coalesce. I do not know why it is that Whitehall wishes, and has wished for so long, to dismember Epsom and Ewell. It has nothing to do with the racecourse, but I cannot think of any other reason.
In 1946, the Parliamentary Boundaries Commission tried to dismember Epsom and Ewell, and suggested that seven wards of the borough should go to Cheam and the remaining three to Surbiton. There was such an outcry at that time—and I well remember it—from all political Parties and all sections of the Epsom and Ewell people, that the Boundaries Commission hastily retreated
1164
and confirmed that Epsom and Ewell should remain as one. The view taken in 1954, when another similar scheme was proclaimed by a Parliamentary Committee, was that eight wards should go to Banstead and the remaining two to Surbiton. Again—I must confess to your Lordships partly led by myself—there was a tremendous outcry from every single section of the community in Epsom and Ewell. I never had such support in my life, from the Labour Party and others, opposed to this scheme. Again it was hastily dropped. Inquiry showed that conditions were best when Epsom and Ewell were allowed to get on and govern themselves and be represented together in Parliament. I claim that they made a very good choice in that case. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, gave some reasons on the Amendment about Coulsdon and adjoining areas, but they do not apply in one iota to this case. He asked: how strong are the others on their own? Epsom and Ewell are very strong on their own and have shown, and will continue to show, that they make an exemplary borough.
How strong is the pull outwards? The pull of the three northern wards is towards the centre of Epsom and Ewell, and there is no possible suggestion of any sort of pull across the green belt, across the Hogsmill river and the Kingston Bypass—and that is dangerous enough to go across—in order to go to Surbiton. I cannot see, for the life of me, why this suggestion was ever put up. To dismember Epsom and Ewell in this way is contrary to all the inquiries that have been held over the last fifteen years, which have maintained, without any sort of contradiction, that Epsom and Ewell should remain together.
I beg the noble Lord sitting on the Front Bench to have it thought over again. I ask members of the Royal Commission, who kept well away from this area (they would have had pretty rough treatment) to come down and look at the position in an impartial way. We will guarantee, if they do, that they will not be molested in any way But, seriously, there are 70,000 people in Epsom and Ewell, and I do not believe that a single one could be found who would agree to the dismemberment of their borough. This is a very serious thing for any Government to do. It is contrary to the statement made by the Leader of the House

1165
in another place; it is contrary to all the professions that have been made for many years about the sanctity of local government, and I hope that, even at this late stage, we can persuade the Government to look at the matter again.
2.0 a.m.
EARL JELLICOE: When we were in Croydon just now my noble friend Lord Hastings outlined the general considerations which had been in our minds in seeking to determine the outer boundary of Greater London. I will not repeat his arguments. But I would re-emphasise that our primary yardstick here has been whether or not a local authority, or, indeed, an area of it, now forms part of the continuously built up area of London. The whole of the borough of Epsom and Ewell was originally included within the boundary provisionally sketched out by the Royal Commission as your Lordships know. After meeting representatives of the Council the then Minister, Dr. Charles Hill, agreed a year ago that part of the borough to be included should be restricted to the four northern wards. In response to further pleas from the Council, he finally came to the conclusion that we should base the boundary on the Hogsmill river to the west and on the north-west limit of Nonsuch Park to the East. That means including three, not four, wards in Greater London.
Now the first point your Lordships have to consider in seeing whether this decision is justified, is whether any part of the borough of Epsom and Ewell is within the continuously developed area which constitutes Greater London. Both my right honourable friend, the present Minister of Housing and Local Government, and his predecessor, went into this matter at great length and in great detail. They met representatives of the Borough Council on no fewer than three occasions, and my right honourable friend refreshed his recollections of the area by a personal visit. It is quite true that the Royal Commission did not pay a personal visit to the area; but my right honourable friend has done so, and he was not lynched.
LORD CROOK: He never said he was coming.
EARL JELLICOE: Be that as it may, the conclusion to which both he and his predecessor came, without the slightests
1166
shadow of doubt, is that the northern wards of the borough must be regarded as part of the continuous development of London. There is now no break in the development between these wards and the boroughs of Maldon and Coombe, and Sutton and Cheam, which lie to the north. On the other hand, there are distinct breaks in development along the line defined in the Bill along the Hogsmill river and Nonsuch Park, and those are the lines which have been adopted. It is true that between those two breaks there is a narrow waist, through which the road runs and which is built up, but it is a very thin waist, an Edwardian waist.
LORD McCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: There is no distinct difference between the northern wards and the contiguous area north of that. I do not think the noble Earl is quite correct. The northern boundary of the borough (and I read the statement put forward by the Council) lies about 150 feet behind the avenue. In spite of what the noble Earl said, that avenue has no intersecting roads running into it from the adjoining boroughs of Maldon and Coombe. This has proved a most effective boundary since it was fixed in 1894. The Ministry confirmed in 1933 that it was a good and proper boundary for the new area. On the north-east, of course, there is the railway which provides an impenetrable barrier without a single bridge for a considerable distance. Therefore, there is this boundary between the three wards.
EARL JELLICOE: I am afraid that I would still contest that view. It is true that in the north-east there is the railway, but, as you go a little south the railway divides Stoneleigh from the other northern ward. You might as well suggest that Stoneleigh should be hived-off to Sutton and Cheam because of that railway. I do not think the argument of the railway is a conclusive one. I am not claiming a close acquaintance with this area personally, although in one way and another I am not entirely unfamiliar with it. But I have refreshed my memory by having a look on the ground, though I took the precaution of not announcing my visit.
I sought to look at the matter objectively and, in all objectivity, I must say that whether one approaches Epsom by

1167
rail or by road it is really impossible, given the physical evidence of the facts, to sustain the view that these northern wards are not part of built-up London. Accepting that, it was quite clear to my noble friends that these northern wards should be included and then the alternatives narrowed themselves to two; either to bring the whole of the borough into Greater London or to divide it. If the whole borough were included it would mean bringing in also the town of Epsom and the village of Ewell, neither of which, we think, is part of the continuous development of London. It was quite clear, faced with this choice, that local opinion much preferred that the borough should be divided and Epsom Town and Ewell excluded, even though it meant parting company with three of the borough's ten wards.
It is now being claimed that in opting for this solution—and this is also the claim of the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton—the Government have breached their own principle that existing local authority entities should not be split. But I must remind your Lordships that we have never said that in no circumstances would a district ever be divided. The words used by the Leader of the House, when winding up the debates on the White Paper in another place, were:
"It has been one of the main principles that, as far as possible, local authority areas should not be divided."
But there is here another principle—the principle that the boundary of the Greater London area should be co-terminus with the built-up area of London as a whole, and in this case that principle overrides, I suggest, the principle of not breaking up the entity of a local authority. But never did the Leader of another place say that in no circumstances would a local authority unit be broken up.
I should like to deal shortly with one or two of the further points which have been made. There was the green belt point, to which my noble friend Lord Auckland referred. It is true that parts of the borough of Epsom and Ewell have in them large areas of green belt, and, as I have said when speaking on another Amendment earlier on in our discussion this evening, that around the periphery of London fingers of green belt will intrude; but I think there is only a tiny
1168
strip of green belt in these three northern wards.
LORD AUCKLAND: I would contest that strongly. Particularly in the Tolworth area, that there is a good deal of green belt on the edge of the northern ward. In fact, there is one very large strip. May I now ask my noble friend two questions arising from this? First, he mentions the fact that his right honourable friend paid a visit to the area. May I ask how long his right honourable friend spent there, and which areas he visited? Secondly, what logic is there in these proposals when related to Esher, where there is a continuous area, and Esher has been completely spared?
2.10 a.m.
EARL JELLICOE: May I just deal with the point about the green belt, on which I was speaking when I sat down to allow my noble friend to intervene? I was saying that within the three wards there is only a tiny strip of green belt, to the best of my knowledge; and I stand on that. Within the three wards, there is a tiny strip north of the Hogsmill river. True, there is an area of green belt outside the three wards in the area which my noble friend mentioned; but that is outside, not within.
LORD McCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: It is between Surbiton and those three wards, where they join.
EARL JELLICOE: Precisely. I assure my noble friends that those two strips of green belt will be just as inviolate and just as secure whether these three northern wards are or are not included in the Greater London area. I make that point about the green belt here. As regards my noble friend's visits, I regret that I have not at this precise moment information as to how many seconds he spent looking at this, but I assure your Lordships that my noble friend is, if nothing else, a very thorough man; and if he went to look at it, he looked at it very thoroughly.
The third question raised by my noble friend was, why we are doing this to Epsom and Ewell when Esher has been let off more lightly. All I would say is that the question of the inclusion or exclusion of Esher, or parts of it, was also considered very carefully both by my right honourable friend and by his

1169
predecessor. Of course, there is development in Esher—indeed, there are fingers of development stretching out along the main roads south of London in many directions. There are fingers of development stretching out virtually as far as Reigate and Dorking. But, in my right honourable friends' view, rightly or wrongly, the development in these parts of Esher—the northern parts of which my noble friend was speaking—is more tenuous and less solid, and did not justify the inclusion of Esher or, indeed, of those northern parts of Esher in Greater London. I do not think that there is a contradiction there at all. But, of course, all these matters are in the last resort, questions of personal judgment.
In conclusion, I turn to what I feel is the most difficult part of the argument to meet. The noble Lord has claimed that local opinion in Epsom and these northern wards is hostile to the Government's proposals. I say that once that I fully recognise the strength of local opinion, and I do not think that noble Lords who have spoken have in any way exaggerated the strength of local opinion. I recognise fully the sincerity with which my noble friends have argued the case. The last thing my right honourable friend and his predecessor wished to do was in any way to ride rough-shod over local opinion here.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Oh!
EARL JELLICOE: I think I can claim with justice that this has been shown by the very great care which both of them have given to the problem and by the many representations and deputations which they have received. At the same time, I suggest to your Lordships that it is an almost universal truth that people approve of reorganisation for others but see no reason why changes should affect them. Yet in matters of this sort local opinion cannot be the sole criterion. In the last resort, the Government must do what they think right, if need be, in what they think—rightly or wrongly—to be the larger interest. In this case, a really important principle is, in our view, at stake: whether or not we should have the boundaries of this city based on the rational principle that they should be coterminous with the area of built-up development. Judged by that yardstick, there is, I think, no doubt that the pro-
1170
posals in the Bill are right. In view of this, although I have listened carefully to what my noble friends have said, I cannot recommend your Lordships to accept the Amendment.
LORD McCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: Before my noble friend concludes, may I ask him to reply to one further question? When rebutting a previous Amendment, my noble friend Lord Hastings used the test: in which direction was the area being strongly drawn? I reinforce that argument strongly on our side and apply it to Epsom and Ewell. There is no doubt that these three northern wards are strongly drawn towards Ewell, the centre of old Ewell, and to Epsom, and they are not drawn one iota towards Surbiton. If what the noble Lord, Lord Hastings said on the previous Amendment was true, it surely must be true of this case, too.
2.15 a.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I have no interest to declare in the neighbourhood which has been under discussion now for quite a long time, but I must tell your Lordships that, as I lived in either Twickenham or Teddington for a great number of years, Ewell and Epsom was a constant source of joy to us as a part of the motor rides we used to have around the area. I know this district very well. Moreover, I have talked about Ewell and Epsom when in the other place for a long time to Jim Chuter Ede who was the Charter Mayor at Epsom. I have driven over and over again, in my movement from the Thames Valley, sometimes through Kingston, sometimes in the other direction to Esher and on to Ewell and Epsom that way.
In my judgment, there is no real case for suddenly transferring that community, which has been so wonderfully built up and become such a steady and progressive democratic organisation in a comprehensive unit of its own, into another municipality in order to create a greater borough within the extension of the government of Greater London that has never really been mandated. I cannot for the life of me understand it. Epsom and Ewell has been within my knowledge, and I have travelled through it and visited friends there, ever since I first came to London and settled in

1171
Twickenham in 1921. It is beautiful countryside. A great part of it has been left unspoiled. I even wish that some of that built over had been left unspoiled. It is in a unique position. I do not believe it has in any way been drawn, as is suggested, towards Kingston.
I suggest that the great tragedy tonight is that such an important issue is being debated at twenty minutes past two, when the House is not fully representative on either side. In the other place there was a very narrow majority, considering the size of the Government, in respect of this matter. Therefore this particular issue ought to be properly debated, and voted on, with a reasonable attendance on both sides of the Committee. I think it is a great pity that the view of the community affected has been turned down. Over and over again on these issues I complain about the abstract assumptions of experts, whether they are surveyors or architects or municipal engineers or anything else, to have a few words taken from them, or a visit from them, taken and used as a challenge to the assessed and accumulated

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Crook, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L. [Teller.]

Airedale, L.

Cross, V.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Darwen, L.

Onslow, E.

Archibald, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Shepherd, L.

Auckland, L. [Teller.]

Lindgren, L.

Stonham, L.

Champion, L.

Longford, E.

Summerskill, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Lucan, E.

Walston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lothian, M.

Aldington, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Luke, L.

Ampthill, L.

Ferrers, E.

Margesson, V.

Boston, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Melchett, L.

Brecon, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Grenfell, L.

Mills, V.

Buchan, E.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Newton, L.

Carrington, L.

Hastings, L.

Remnant, L.

Chelmer, L.

Ilford, L.

St. Aldwvn, E. [Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Jellicoe, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Denham, L.

Jessel, L.

Teynham, L.

Derwent, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Waleran, L.

Devonshire, D.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
2.28 a.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Might I suggest now that it is not a bad time to adjourn. I think
achievement of a community of people who have built a municipality of their own with advantage to everybody concerned. It is the community that counts. I believe that the noble Lords who have put the case from the other side to-night for this area have a good case, and if they go into the Lobby I shall go with them.
LORD AUCKLAND: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jellicoe who, as usual, has taken a great deal of trouble to reply, but I must say that I am totally unconvinced by what he said. Theer are many other points that I could have made in support of my case, but I do not intend doing so at this stage. The points made by my noble friend Lord McCorquodale of Newton, who was Member of Parliament for Epsom for many years, and who served it very well, and by the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, added further facts; and I have no alternative but to press this matter to a Division.
On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 37.
we have done our share. It is nearly half past two, and it is just possible that some of us might be able to get a morning train home to the suburb where we stay until the week-end. We have done our share. I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am not sure whether that Motion is the proper Motion to put. I think the proper form is, "That the House do now resume". I am advised that this is the correct form, and it makes not the slightest difference in which way it is put.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am glad to alter it and to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Earl Alexander of Hillsborough.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think we have made good progress in the last period of time, and I do not propose to reply at length to the noble Earl, because I do not want to delay matters. But I think that when we have got so far it would be as well tonight to finish the First Schedule. So far as I can see, it looks to me—I may be wrong—as if there may be two debates, two issues to be settled, which have not arisen before, and there is one Government Amendment. I should not have thought that that would take long.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It will take an hour.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That may be a pessimistic estimate. I am a little more optimistic than that, and I hope that we might proceed to finish the First Schedule tonight.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I do not think this is reasonable. I have heavy meetings tomorrow morning. I have no secretary. The Ministers opposite have great advantages. Not only have they very good secretaries, they have very good staffs. If we work until this time of the morning, half past two, we ought to have a few hours in bed so that we shall be able to deal with our morning tasks.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, Hear!
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Therefore, if you will not agree to the Motion, we shall divide on this as well.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The Question is: That the House do now resume?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know whether it would be in order for
1174
me to say this. The noble Earl moved his Motion; I did not know he was going to do so at that moment. I have now had an opportunity of considering the matter, and I can tell the noble Earl that if we can be sure of getting to the end of Schedules 2 and 3 to-morrow, I shall be very willing to accept the Motion moved by him.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: All I can say, if I am going home now, is that we shall do our best to be as reasonably helpful as possible. I cannot say more than that. Obviously those people who are even closer to the Greater London local government problem than I am, will have to be asked about what arrangements and appointments they have made. But we will do our best. I cannot say more than that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I may say so quite shortly, that is good enough for me.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.