London Government Bill

HL Deb 13 May 1963 vol 249 cc1086-174

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.' 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 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 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, 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" 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- 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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- 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 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 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- 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; 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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.

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 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. 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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- 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 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 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.