Lords Sitting of 14 May 1963

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

RAIL CLOSURE SAVINGS
2.35 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will issue a White Paper showing the estimated net saving on each line closure proposed in the Report, The Reshaping of British Railways, and comprised in the total of 5,000 miles of railway line which it is proposed to close to passengers to effect a net saving of £18 million.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, I would refer the noble Lord to the reply given to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, on April 10. The Railways Board has already agreed to provide Area Transport Users' Consultative Committees with current information on receipts and direct costs attributable to the service in all cases where an objection is lodged to a passenger closure proposal under Section 56(8) of the Transport Act, 1962. The Committees, for their part, will make this information available to objectors. It would not be appropriate for the Government to give the sort of information requested in advance of the Committees' consideration of the cases.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, why should not Parliament know how this figure is made up? Is the noble Lord not aware that many figures in the Beeching Report have now been questioned and that some are known to be wrong; that many local authorities think that their railways are viable, and that private-enterprise firms may well want to contribute to keep their railway going
1178
if they know what the loss is? Is there any reason why, since the information is available, it should go only to Transport Users' Consultative Committees and not to Parliament, not to local authorities, and not, in fact, to the people most closely concerned?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord will recall that, on the occasion of our recent debate, I made a very careful explanation of exactly what was the status of the Beeching Report and the proposals made in it to all our calculations at the present time. He knows, also, that it is the Board who are responsible for producing these figures, and not the Government. It must also be remembered that, until the Board give notice of a closure, the machinery for deciding whether it should take place does not come into operation, and decisions need to be taken in the light of current information about costs. By that, I do not mean that the figures which the railways have put forward are not fairly and properly founded, but that a particular proposal may be some little time away from when the Report was compiled; that there may have been a change in circumstances, and that it is the latest figures which will be required.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think the noble Lord would agree that it has been generally recognised that, where a closure takes place, it will be a political decision; a decision made by the Minister and, therefore, open to Parliament to criticise or approve. That being so, will the noble Lord say that, before the Minister finally makes his decision in regard to a closure, the facts and figures on which he bases his decision will be made available to Parliament?
LORD CHESHAM: I cannot exactly say that, my Lords. I can say that the figures will have to be available to the Minister, and that he will have to take them into consideration.
LORD SHEPHERD: But how can Parliament exercise its political duty in a political decision if this vital information is not available to Members of both Houses of Parliament?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, there is no secrecy about these figures. These figures are compiled by the members of my own union in the normal course of

1179
their duty. Quite rightly, when it comes to joint consultation with the staff, the officers of the Board disclose the figures to all grades of staff at their L.D.C. meetings and sectional council meetings; so apparently the only people who will not know are those in Parliament.
LORD CHESHAM: If the figures are published, then Parliament will know. The point I am making is that there is no secrecy about these figures, in any case, but it is not for the Government to produce them in a White Paper.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I say that I do not know how far these figures are well known to the public? The public are the people who are going to suffer so far in respect of passenger traffic, over quite long lengths of line in places, and the people in those areas cannot judge whether or not, as part of the population so affected, they ought to make representations to the Government unless they have the figures we are asking for.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the figures will be available at the time.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: When?
LORD CHESHAM: At the time the closures are considered.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Then, of course, you will want to shut the door after the horse has gone. That is not fair to the public. I have never heard such an astounding proposition.
LORD CHESHAM: No, my Lords. And it is not fair to the Government, either, to say that; because, as I am trying to make clear, the figures will be available at the time the closure is considered.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the reason for not publishing them is that the figures are not reliable?
LORD CHESHAM: I would not agree with anything of the kind. Experience in the past has shown that these figures are reliable.
LORD STONHAM: But we are not able to judge whether or not they are
1180
reliable unless we know what the figures are. The noble Lord said a great deal of what I knew, but he refuses to tell me the one thing I want to know, and that is what these individual closures will save. I cannot recall any occasion when a thing which should be properly known to Parliament has been withheld or suppressed in this way. Can the noble Lord tell me: if a Question is put down, either written or oral, about an individual closure or closures, will the Government refuse to answer it?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I have already referred the noble Lord to a previous answer that I made to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. I repeat that it is not for the Government to give these figures. They will be published and made available in the manner stated at the time any particular closure comes up for consideration.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that there is already a considerable feeling of frustration among the commuters on the feeder lines in Sussex which are alleged to be going to be closed, and is he aware of the fact that they cannot ascertain from any quarter the degree of profit or loss on these particular lines?
They would like now to start considering ways and means of making these lines profitable rather than having them closed.
LORD CHESHAM: The operative words are "alleged to be going to be closed". These figures will be made available when a proposal to do so is actually put forward.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, these closures which are alleged to be made are referred to the in the Beeching Report, which we have been told must be accepted as a whole—
A NOBLE LORD: No.
LORD STONHAM: But, my Lords, the Beeching Report said so. Can the noble Lord say whether any proper public service will be served by the suppression, temporarily or otherwise, of this important public information? Will the noble Lord also say what useful public services will be served by deferring the publication of this information?—because if it were made available now it

1181
is likely that many proposed closures would not come to a Transport Users' Consultative Committee?
LORD CHESHAM: I do not agree, in the first instance, that there is any question of suppressing the figures, and the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary I have already dealt with.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, is the noble Lord not suppressing information when we have given a global figure of £18 million justifying the recommendations of the Beeching Report? Why cannot people in the neighbourhood know now how they are to be affected? On the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, many people had to make other arrangements regarding business and residence.
LORD CHESHA: When notice is given in regard to a proposal the information will be available and there will be adequate time for people to consider any objections.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a simple question as a Parliamentarian? What purpose is the noble Lord's silence serving?
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Answer!
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Can the noble Lord be allowed to answer my question? The noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House has pulled him down. Is the noble Lord afraid that a woman might strike at the truth?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, my noble Leader pulled me back because the noble Baroness was still on her feet. In point of fact she had not sat down after asking the question. The noble Lady asked what purpose is served and, apart from the fact, as I have already explained, that it is inappropriate for the Government to produce these figures at the present time, I cannot see that there is any particular object furthered by producing them at the present time, when notices of closures have not yet been made.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that
1182
when it comes to the point of a closure and a hearing before the Transport Users' Consultative Committee, even if the figures are then available it is impossible for any member of the public to address an argument on them, to cross-examine the Board, or to have anything to do with them? They are simply treated by that time as something between the Board and the Transport Users' Consultative Committee themselves.
LORD CHESHAM: I should not have thought that that was the position.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: It is so.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, would the noble Lord, if he considers that it is not for the Government to produce these figures, kindly ask Dr. Beeching to release them?
A NOBLE LORD: We want an answer.
LORD WOLVERTON: We must have regard to the cost of improving many of these roads. Some of the roads in the Highlands, especially in the Inverness and Wick area, where closures are contemplated, are not at all good roads. Large sums of money must be spent to improve those roads and one must compare the overall costs. If we do not know the figures this cannot be done.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, as I have already indicated, that is precisely the kind of consideration to which my right honourable friend must have regard.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, may I have an answer to my question, please? I asked whether, as the Government state that it is not for them to produce the figures, the noble Lord would ask his right honourable friend the Minister of Transport to beseech Dr. Beeching to release the figures.
LORD CHESHAM: I am always happy to consider any constructive suggestion from the noble Lord.
LORD STONHAM: Is the noble Lord aware that his answers in this important matter have been quite disgraceful, in the Parliamentary sense, and also that every answer given has cast reflection, and undoubted reflection, on the accuracy of these figures? Indeed, we already know

1183
that many are inaccurate. The only way to resolve the doubts would be to publish the figures and let us know.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I do not consider that my noble friend's conduct has been disgraceful in any sense. He has shown admirable patience when quite disgracefully tried.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I did not say that the noble Lord's conduct had been disgraceful. I said that the answers had been disgraceful in a Parliamentary sense, and I am sure that every Member of this House thinks so.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, while not wishing to enter into a dispute with my noble friend Lord Stonham, as I represent a trade union whose members include a number of people who presented these figures and who are responsible for their compilation, may I say that on the basis on which they were asked to compile them, these figures are as accurate as they can be?
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, might I ask what Motion is before the House?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, there is no Motion. We are dealing with the first Question on the Order Paper. It is, of course, for the House to say how long it wishes to pursue this particular matter by question and answer. I thought myself that we were reaching the point at which the House might wish to pursue the next Question.

MOTOR VEHICLE TAXATION
2.50 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will institute an inquiry into the advantages, such as economy of administration, and relief of road congestion, likely to arise from the substitution of a single tax on motor fuel, for the three forms of taxation now levied on motor vehicles.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, the Government, both in deciding their general transport policy and on financial grounds, keep such matters as that to which the noble Lord refers constantly under consideration. I do not think that a special inquiry is necessary.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful for the answer given by the noble Earl.

ATLANTIC AIR LINES
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg to ask the Government the Question of which I have given Private Notice: Whether they will make a statement with regard to the dispute which is proceeding with regard to the air lines across the Atlantic?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, there is at present nothing I can add to what was said in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation yesterday, but as and when there is something which should be added perhaps it would suit the noble Earl if I were to inform him, so that a further Question can be put down in due course.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am obliged by that offer, but surely when the matter has already been under discussion, as apparently it was in another place yesterday, it is reasonable that your Lordships' House should be informed to exactly the same extent.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, if the noble Earl will tell me that he wants a statement repeated, of course I shall always, if I can, arrange for it to be done. I was not myself aware of the pendency of the statement yesterday, and I can assure the noble Earl that no discourtesy was meant either to him or to the House.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged by that. In view of what has been said before, I shall look to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, to have due

1185
notice when a statement can be made, because I think that it should be made urgently to the House.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I understand that this was in answer to a Question and, of course, it is a matter for some discretion whether an Answer to an oral Question put in another place should be repeated here. I am anxious to do it, whenever it would be for the convenience of the House, but there will be from time to time a difference of opinion as to whether it is appropriate, and there will be from time to time cases when I miss a Question on the Order Paper of another place. I think that the best thing in such cases is to read the Answer in Hansard and, if further answers are wanted, either to communicate with me or to put a Question on the Order Paper.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged. Perhaps I shall put a Question down in this respect for to-morrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I at this point raise one or two questions on Business? First of all, may I ask what are the Government's exact intentions now with regard to the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I was very disappointed, of course, when the debate had to be adjourned yesterday and I take it that other noble Lords besides myself must have shared this feeling. I think that a question of this kind could appropriately be dealt with through the usual channels. If any difficulty arises, of course, I am always available to the noble Earl. But I do not conceal the fact that the loss of yesterday's Business has disconcerted me a little, and I would hope that we could arrive at some mutually convenient arrangement.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I can see nothing that happened last night that would call for the necessity of the Motion that was made to adjourn the debate on this Bill, especially in view of certain things that were said. But the Government want this
1186
Bill, we understand. Is that so? I have been told so before. The workers in industry want the Bill urgently, and I understood that the intention was to have the conclusions of this House referred to another place in time for the Bill to be included in to-morrow's Royal Commission. I just do not understand what could have led the Government to take such actions as they took yesterday.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not want to enter into any recriminations about what happened last night. So far as I am aware, it was not the intention of the Government to include the Bill in the Royal Commission. It is quite true that the Government want all their programme completed and, with a certain amount of good will, no doubt we can achieve that.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, cannot we possibly settle all this now? I understand from my noble friend Lord Latham that all that remains to be considered in the Bill will occupy about half an hour. Surely this could be included—it is too late presumably for to-day—but in to-morrow's Business. I should think that, with this understanding, the noble Viscount could have given a favourable answer, because everybody wants the Bill through. I hope that the Government want it to go through. Certainly the trade unions concerned would like it through. I should have thought that, on an understanding of that sort, we could easily have it added to the Business for to-morrow.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think on the whole that it is better, with respect, to deal with the Business of the House through the usual channels, and I would prefer to deal in that way with this and other matters, but I do not myself believe—I have had no previous notice of this—that any great public disservice would be achieved by considering it in connection with the whole programme of the House, so as to suit the convenience of all noble Lords.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, can we be assured that the noble Viscount's association with the rattle earlier in the day had no effect on his conduct last evening?
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, in view of the

1187
point at which we left any further discussion with regard to the remaining Business on the Government's London Government Bill, I would ask whether the noble Viscount is aware that I have taken the necessary steps, as I told him I would, to consider the business of the day and for us to do as much as we can reasonably be expected to do of the Bill to-day. Subject to only one thing, there is no reason at all, from what I can see of the work to be done—the remaining portion of Schedule 1 and Schedules 2 and 3—why it cannot be completed provided that we can be assured that the House will close at 10.30 notwithstanding the Business which is to be inserted to-day in between the discussions, and after due provision for dinner for the House.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl that Members on this side of the House enjoy their dinners every bit as much as Members opposite. If the noble Earl will keep in touch with me from time to time, I do not think that there will be any difficulty on that score. If I may venture respectfully to make a suggestion, if the noble Earl who leads the Opposition with such skill feels at any time that matters or arrangements can be improved in any way, or facilitated in any way, I hope to be available, as much as could be expected of any Leader of the House, and if he would approach me, either across the Floor or preferably outside the Chamber, so as not to disturb Business, I will do what I can to help.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged. I am not quite sure whether the suggestion I made as to the timing to-day is accepted.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, it is always a little difficult to take in what is in a slightly complicated sentence. I have taken the precaution of getting a record of what was said at the end of proceedings earlier this morning, and it seems to me that there was a new note of friendliness between my noble and learned friend and the noble Earl, and I was in no doubt that they were going to co-operate together. If I can be of any assistance to help this happen, I will gladly do so.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I have only one other point to raise upon Business, which I think can perhaps be left to further discussions between the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and myself, but of which the House should be aware. I am very concerned at the amount of Business proposed to be got through in one day concerning both housing and town planning. This is a very serious proposition. Moreover, because of the immense changes which are to take place in the administration of the provisions for education in Greater London under the Bill, we do not see how we can hope to get right through all this in the one day which has been allocated to education. Perhaps we can have further discussions on this.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, of course we can have further discussions, and there is nothing I should welcome more. But the noble Earl will forgive me for saying this—without the slightest desire to cause offence to anybody. My one desire, and I know it is the desire of my colleagues, is to use this House for the purpose for which it is best suited—namely, for full discussion of controversial legislation. But that necessarily involves a certain self-denial on both sides of the House. Certain methods which are appropriate enough in another place, with a different tradition and a different atmosphere, are sometimes quite inappropriate here. Although I have been a Member of this House for only about thirteen years, I have had to learn that some of the things we learned in another place have to be forgotten here.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I have been in this House long enough to learn something of that attitude, too. On the other hand, when we are faced with very important unmandated legislation such as we are faced with in this Bill, it is seemingly curious to us that the only real speeches we have had—there have been hardly any others—are those from interested Members who want important local area alterations, who move Amendments accordingly and vote on them. For the rest, on the Government side, the ordinary Members seem to be under some constraint of silence.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I can assure the House that if I did attempt to put my supporters under any constraint of silence it would only induce them to talk.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, perhaps they would take a little more interest and speak for themselves if Cabinet Ministers would show a little more interest in the debate.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not think the noble Earl can complain of that. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has been taking a most lively interest in the Bill, and is in fact in charge of it. I think it is not for the benefit of the service of the House to insist that those who hold junior office, some of whom have not had the advantage of service in the other place, should not be given responsible work; and I should hope that both sides of the House would welcome it when they are.

DOVER HARBOUR BILL
Read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

UNIVERSITIES OF DURHAM AND NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL
3.4 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I had intended on the Second Reading of this Bill to say a few words in welcome to the Bill and to make a point which I think is of some importance. Unfortunately, the Question was put rather more rapidly than I had anticipated, and some of your Lordships may recollect that my attempt to speak was, quite naturally, called to order. I should, therefore, like to say a few words now, and I shall not take up too much of your Lordships' time.
On behalf of those who are interested, and particularly the universities, I welcome this Bill. These two institutions
1190
have each played a great part in university education in recent times, and I am sure that each will go on its way as a full university with distinction and will add to the lustre they have already won. But a point of general interest arises from the fact that more and more these Bills which are being brought up in confirmation of Royal Charters establishing universities are going into detail and setting out the Statutes of the universities. We are having more and more new universities set up, which is very right and proper, and it seems to me that the time has come when some attempt should be made to secure rather more uniformity in regard to these matters.
The point is of particular importance in connection with the dismissal of university teachers, which in the universities in recent years has been attracting a good deal of attention as a result of one or two unfortunate incidents which have taken place. If I may just refer to Clause 38 in the Durham Bill, which I think is in much the same terms as the Newcastle Bill, it establishes a right, which is quite reasonable and proper, that on the recommendation of a dismissal an internal tribunal should be set up to investigate the case, to which the man who is under dismissal may make representations. That is, as I say, quite proper; but it is not as liberal as the practice which exists in some other universities, because this applies only to a person holding an appointment until the age of retirement. Anybody who is familiar with what happens in the universities knows very well that the large majority of university teachers are not appointed until the age of retirement, but are appointed for much shorter periods. It is not really fair that it should be only senior professors and readers and men holding appointments of that kind who are entitled to have their position considered by an internal tribunal of this kind. In some of the other universities this is general practice.
We now have a position in which men are moving about a great deal from one university to another. They might have been appointed in a university where a general right of this kind was established by the Statutes, and go on to another university where the clause is restricted in this way, or even more restricted than the one which exists in this Bill. You cannot expect people,

1191
when they are given a chance to take up a better post in another university, to go through the Statute with a magnifying glass to discover exactly what the differences are. I suggest that the time has now come when the Lord President's Department, which I understand is responsible for looking after these things, to make an effort to establish some uniform system in regard to matters of this kind; to select the most liberal of the Statutes which govern this sort of situation, and to see that this is made general over the country. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is important, at a time when so much in this country is depending on the right thing being done in these universities, and with many of our best young men being attracted into this profession, that points of this kind should be looked at. I do not want to take the matter further, because it is important that this Bill should go through without delay. However, I should like the Lord President and his officials to take up the matter, because if it comes before us again in this way I may feel it necessary to put down an Instruction.
3.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, may I, with a good deal of knowledge of the proposed University at Newcastle, make some comment on what the noble Lord opposite has said? There are two sets of Statutes with provisions of the kind to which he has alluded: the continuation of Durham University, in Schedule 1, and others for the new University of Newcastle, in Schedule 3. The noble Lord will find, on examination, that both sots of procedures are far more careful of the rights of academic staff than are the present conditions in the combined universities in Newcastle and Durham, in the name of Durham University. This matter has been looked into carefully by those at the University concerned, and these provisions, to my knowledge, at any rate, in the case of Newcastle, are those put forward by the present members of the academic staff, carefully considered and
1192
approved by the Council of the division of Newcastle and the University of Durham and approved by the Court of Durham University. I do not think we could have gone further in making provision for what the noble Lord has in mind. Personally, from what knowledge I have of university administration, I believe that it would be a disaster if a standard set of provisions were enacted for all universities in this country, whether new or existing, and I very much hope that universities will continue to have the freedom proposed in Bills of this sort in Statutes which they think will be most suitable to them.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, may I explain to the noble Lord that I am not proposing that there should be uniform conditions throughout. These matters of deciding that a member has been properly dismissed are of great importance to university teachers, and I will sand to the noble Lord the Statute of another university which is much more liberal than the one to which he has just referred.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed and returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords on behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 41 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of taking the Fort William Pulp and Paper Mills Bill this day through its remaining stages.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL
3.11 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Schedule 1 [The London boroughs]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in the reference to Borough 28, to leave out "The Boroughs of Wembley and Willesden/4" and insert "The Borough of Willesden/2". The noble Viscount said: This Amendment raises a local matter, but one which is slightly different from the type of discussions your Lordships were having late last night on the Surrey side of the river. It refers to the borough of Wembley in Middlesex, and although I have no interest whatever as a resident of either Wembley or Middlesex, I perhaps ought to declare an interest in that I am a director of a company which owns a large television studio in that borough. I hope your Lordships will acquit me of any connection between that fact and my moving these two Amendments.
Your Lordships might allow me to speak both to this Amendment and to No. 52 together, as they are really part of the same matter. The borough of Wembley, like the adjoining boroughs of Harrow and Willesden, are right in the middle of Middlesex, and there is no question whatever but that they should be part of the Greater London Area. I am not suggesting that they should be left out in whole or in part. The difficulty arises from the proposed grouping of Willesden with Wembley, and the effect of my two Amendments is that, instead of Wembley being grouped with Willesden, it should instead join up with Harrow. I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I explain, I hope at not too great length, but at any rate fairly fully in this case, because, on account of procedure in another place, only one minute was spent on it, and consequently this is the first
1194
occasion on which either House of Parliament has dealt with a matter which is strongly felt locally and should receive sympathetic attention from this House.
My noble friend Lord Auckland referred last night to the four Town Clerks who, at the behest of Her Majesty's Government, went round and examined the groupings of the local government units for the purposes of this Bill. It was, in fact, the learned Town Clerk of Oxford who dealt with the particular group to which I am now referring. He is a man for whom I have very great respect. Nevertheless, I am afraid that I shall have to question his decision because, set the terms of reference as he was by the Government—that is to say to look at the map which was put forward provisionally as a solution—he decided to stick to the provisional arrangement of leaving Wembley and Willesden grouped together. He was, of course, dealing with the matter in the light of the two other terms of reference, which were to deal, mainly by amalgamation, with existing local government areas (and this is a principle with which I agree, and from which I am not departing), and to consider a basic minimum population, if it was possible to achieve it, of 200,000 persons for each of the new boroughs. He had to have regard further to certain matters with which I will deal later.
The three boroughs in this case are Harrow, which, as it is at present, has a population of 208,000, so that on its own is sufficient to pass the population test; Wembley, which has 125,000 population, and is clearly well below it; and Willesden, which on paper has a population of about 170,000, but I think probably on account of the fact that there are large numbers of people who live there in such a way that they do not get counted very easily, has a population considerably higher than that. Consequently, it is possible that it is sufficient to stand on its own if necessary. All three of these boroughs, as I think is not perhaps surprising, would have preferred to remain London boroughs on their own. Harrow is the only one which has achieved that, and it is interesting to note that in the course of the discussion before Mr. Plowman, the Town Clerk of Oxford, they were prepared to annex, if necessary, Ruislip and Northwood, but were not

1195
prepared to give up any of their territory to anyone else—and this again is not altogether surprising. Wembley, on the other hand, could possibly stand alone only if it were to take considerable bites out of several of its neighbours. This is what it proposed, and this was what was rejected.
The Amendment which was moved very briefly in another place proposed bites out of Wembley's neighbours, and, to be perfectly honest with your Lordships, I do not think this is the correct way to deal with it at all. I shall therefore suggest to your Lordships no such thing to-day. Willesden also would have liked, according to its evidence before the Town Clerk, to remain on its own, for reasons which are set out in the Town Clerk's report; but, if the worst came to the worst, they also were prepared to contemplate taking bites out of several of their neighbours, though again I would not suggest that to your Lordships to-day. I do not think it is possible to have three separate boroughs: because, however you tinker with it, you are bound to end up with three which are all below the population of 200,000. If there is any magic in that figure—and there certainly seems to be, from the way it has been treated—the whole proposition would not hold water at all.
As I said, I do not propose that there should be any chunks taken out of the neighbours of any of these boroughs, or any meddling with the boundaries around the existing units. So the position remains that you can either group Wembley and Willesden, and leave Harrow on its own, or you can group Wembley and Harrow, and leave Willesden on its own. The Town Clerk and the Government have so far chosen the former, and I am proposing to your Lordships the latter. I think it is interesting to see why the Town Clerk of Oxford eventually came down (and I think he regarded it as a borderline case) in favour of joining Wembley with Willesden. First of all, the Council of Wembley told him that they did not want to join with Harrow at all, arid it may seem a singular volte face that they have now apparently agreed with the Amendment I am putting forward to your Lordships. Indeed, they have agreed with it, after having said that to the Town Clerk. But I think
1196
it might be explained to your Lordships that the case they were putting forward to Mr. Plowman was really a last-ditch stand in favour of remaining in a borough of 100,000, which was what the Royal Commission recommended, rather than enhance the numbers to 200,000. They were really directing their case towards the 100,000 borough, and they said to the Town Clerk that a merger between Wembley and Harrow would consequently be much too large.
The second reason, I think, was that Harrow had not considered the matter, so they said. And the latest information I have is that they have still not considered it, because they now think that it is too late. I am sorry they should have taken this attitude, because I believe that it is not too late to get this matter put right and that, with good will all round, it should be possible to find the correct solution. Perhaps it may be they can still be persuaded to do something about it.
The third consideration was that the minority view on the Willesden Council were prepared—again, if the worst came to the worst, and they were not allowed to take chunks out of their neighbour—to tie up with Wembley; and it was on this last point I think that the Town Clerk of Oxford seized. In my view it is not a very substantial point, however, because it was, first of all, the minority who put it forward; and, secondly, their view was that this should take place only if they could not otherwise stand on their own. Of course, my suggestion is that they should stand on their own and, therefore, I do not think that the reasoning in that particular point stands up any longer, so I think the matter is really at large. Wembley are now hoping to join with Harrow, although I have not heard that Harrow would be happy to join with Wembley, but I do not think they would necessarily be broken-hearted if it came to that in the end.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: In case I missed it, could the noble Lord say what is the attitude of Willesden?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I did, in fact, tell the noble Lord, but I believe he was in conversation with his noble friends at the time. The main burden of Willesden's case to the Town

1197
Clerk of Oxford was they would much rather stay on their own; and, so far as I know, this is still their view.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I do not think it would be suitable to go into all the facts, and I am sure your Lordships would not: wish me to go into the merits of the two schemes. But there are certain matters which were specifically directed to the Town Clerk's attention; and they appear in the terms of reference. I think I might very briefly run through them, as they affect the two proposals, the one in the Bill and that in my Amendment.
First of all, when they made their recommendations, the Town Clerks were directed to have regard to past and present associations of existing local government areas. So far as Willesden and Wembley are concerned, there are no past associations whatsoever. Despite the fact that they have 3½ miles of boundary common to them, no historical record of any association between them can be found; and this is in itself a rather startling thing. At present, the only thing that can be discovered is that they are both members—I do not think necessarily very consonant members—of the same Central Area Planning Committee of the Middlesex County Council, and they also meet, and on occasions war, on the No. 6 Area Health Committee in Middlesex. That is not, I feel, a very remarkable collection of associations, either past or present. On the other hand, so far as Wembley and Harrow are concerned, their history is based upon the single ecclesiastical parish of Harrow; indeed, I believe that now there are almost countless associations between the people who live in these two boroughs. Voluntary organisations, such as the W.V.S., the Scouts, churches, old people's organisations and all sorts of things of that nature are run indiscriminately between the people who live in both boroughs. I do not know that there are many local government associations—probably no more than there are between Wembley and Willesden—but at the population level there is a great deal of similarity of association between the two.
The next point that is dealt with in the terms of reference is the lines of com-
1198
munication; and here again it is a most remarkable fact that, as between Wembley and Willesden, there are in this 3½ miles of common boundary only two roads which cross it (I do not mean main roads, I mean only two roads altogether: there are no footpaths, no side roads—nothing), and also two railway lines which occasionally carry local passengers. The main lines which go through do not stop at stations in either borough. The reason for this can be seen quite clearly from the actual boundary between the two boroughs, and it is, I think, so unusual that it might be worth telling your Lordships what it is.
If you travel from north to south along the line of the River Brent, which forms the boundary, you find that Wembley is effectively divided from Willesden by, first, the Welsh Harp reservoir and its open spaces, then industry, power stations, railway yards, a former sewage works, a transport depot, more railway yards, refuse disposal tips and more industry. It is not surprising that someone has likened this to a Middlesex "Iron Curtain". In fact, it is almost impossible to get from the one to the other. When it is the rush hour both the two roads are completely solid; and for that reason alone, it is not altogether surprising that there is no association between the two boroughs.
The third point is the pattern of the development in the two. This is, perhaps, a thing which is best seen on the ground itself, and I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Hastings has followed the good example of his noble friend Lord Jellicoe and has been to see the two boroughs. Your Lordships are no doubt well aware that Willesden was built almost entirely before the First War, and that Wembley and Harrow were built between the wars. If you look at them it is quite impossible to tell where one ends and the other begins; and I believe that quite a number of the people who live in Kenton do not know the boundary at all. Certainly it cannot be seen on the ground. Whereas between Wembley and Willesden the difference is as chalk from cheese.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Which is which?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am not sure which would be the correct comparison.

1199
Finally, the last criterion is that of the location and areas of influence of service centres. And on this point, whereas the residents of Wembley do not go to Willesden, or vcie versa, the people who live in Wembley make much use of Harrow, which has one of the largest area shopping centres: it is a natural place for them to go to, and they do go to it. So that, again, there is no association between the two boroughs proposed by Her Majesty's Government to be joined, whereas there is every possible association between the two which my Amendment seeks to merge; and I can only conclude that the reason why these two have ben joined together is that their names both begin with "W".
I do not think that the result of the merger I propose would be in any way unwieldy in population, rateable value or any other criterion of proficiency in local government. I am certain that Willesden could stand on its own; it would not be too small or too poor, and it bears comparison with many other of the small boroughs proposed. Therefore, even although this is a late stage to consider this fundamental change in the grouping at this end of the Middlesex picture, I trust that it is not too late for my noble friend Lord Hastings to give very sympathetic attention to what I have attempted to say to your Lordships, and, I very much hope, to accept this Amendment and the one which goes with it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 104, line 25, leave out (" he Boroughs of Wembley and Willesden/4") and insert ("The Borough of Willesden/2").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
3.29 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I regret that I was called away to the telephone at the beginning of the noble Viscount's very full speech—indeed if he sat on our side he would be accused by the Lord Chancellor and the noble Viscount the Leader of the House of obstruction. I have no such objection, because he had a case to present and it was right that he should present it adequately, just as it is right for us to present our case adequately as we go along. I thought that he was a bit ungracious to me when I very politely asked what was the attitude of Willesden.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I apologise. I did not mean to be ungracious.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I know the explanation. The noble Viscount has been watching the attitude of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House and the Lord Chancellor. It has led him temporarily into bad habits, because he is usually a very courteous Lord. I thought he was a bit ungracious, especially as I intended, and still do, to give him sympathy in the proposition he is making. I know that Willesden does not wish to be combined with Wembley, and I know from one of the Members of Parliament for Wembley that they do not want to be mixed up with Willesden. There may be a little class ideology about it; but I understand it. And it is not unnatural that Wembley, which has a considerable number of Labour people in it, and some industry, would prefer to be married to Harrow rather than to Willesden. Whether it applies the other way round I do not know.
It is rather curious the way these four provincial town clerks were brought in to arrange the boundaries of London municipalities. This is a curious Ministry that got them to do it, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I am inclined to think that the noble Lord may be right: that the only motive the Ministry had was because both boroughs begin with W. They are eminently capable of that, judging by our experience. I think that where certain boroughs do not want to be associated in this "shot-gun marriage" business there is reason for the Committee to be sympathetic to them in their feelings, if local government is not thereby being ruined—or, at any rate, more ruined than the Bill is ruining it. Therefore I think that, on balance, the noble Viscount—and he will agree it is a matter of balance in these matters—is right, and I would recommend my noble friends to give him support.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I should like to say a very few words in support of my noble friend. I am a director of a local weekly newspaper which circulates extensively in Harrow and Wembley and also of one which circulates in Wembley alone. The paper which circulates in both Harrow and Wembley is far more popular, even in Wembley, than the one which

1201
circulates in Wembley alone, because they happen to like reading about news that happens in Harrow. The people who live in Wembley definitely consider that they have a community of interest with Harrow and not with Willesden in any way at all. It is also interesting to note that shops in the other place advertise fairly extensively in both of these newspapers, whereas in neither of them is there any advertising which originates in Willesden or to that side of Wembley. I therefore hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will agree to this Amendment.
3.35 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): The noble Viscount has, as usual, made his case with great logic, great clarity and great ability, as well as, if I may say so, persuasively. There is, of course, a case to answer. As he said, these are the only two Amendments which affect the inner reorganisation of London, apart from the City, which is a special case on its own. We have to remember, and I am sure my noble friend will agree, that the task which faces us is the creation of a pattern of boroughs which makes sense not only individually but also collectively. We cannot look at one area in isolation and set up one strong and effective group without considering how the arrangements will affect neighbouring parts of Greater London.
Reference has been made to the town clerks. It seemed to the Government that an independent view of the problem was most desirable, and I feel that, on the whole, it will be agreed that in view of the comparatively small number of objections to the proposed amalgamations in general the town clerks are to be congratulated on performing a somewhat thankless task successfully and in a very fair manner. It is not altogether surprising, however, that in trying to rearrange all the local authority areas over such a large and heavily populated region one of the proposals for amalgamation should be the subject of an objection. It is as though two pieces of a vast jigsaw puzzle, the final two pieces, were fitted together in order to complete the picture, and it was seen that they do indeed fit but that the edges of the pieces
1202
have been roughly cut, so that the resulting fit is not a very comfortable one. That is the position with Wembley and Willesden.
The objections made by both parties to the amalgamation are similar, and the noble Viscount has made a lengthy reference to them. He spoke of the lack of communication and stressed that the railway was unsatisfactory. But I do not think he mentioned the two branches of the Bakerloo line, the Underground, which goes through; and in London most people, I believe, travel either on the road or underground. The fact is that there is a perfectly good communication system running direct between Willesden and Wembley on the Underground on two lines.
LORD SHEPHERD: And steam.
LORD HASTINGS: And steam. And the road system can hardly be described as inadequate. In any case, the road system is surely something which is not static; the modernisation and improvement of roads generally will form an integral part of the Greater London development plan.
Then there is the matter of the so-called "Iron Curtain" formed by the River Brent, general industrial development, refuse disposal tips and so on. The noble Viscount referred to those examples of our modern civilisation, as unusual, but I do not think they are at all unusual; they are not very different from the sort of development to be found in big towns. In these days of modern transport I do not think that this can be said to form an impenetrable barrier, nor even a difficult one. I know the area. I live not far away. I often go in the direction of Willesden and Harrow. Though I may not know at any given moment in which one I am, I do not find it difficult to get to either place.
I am afraid that the basic objections are on the grounds of incompatibility. This is very unfortunate, but it ifs only fair to point out that there are other boroughs where this difference in development, character, or class already exists and where local government has not suffered as a result. Indeed, it might be argued that it would be unhealthy and undesirable to amalgamate only districts which are wholly compatible and whose problems, or the lack of them, are the same, and to perpetuate a cleavage, as

1203
it were, which was hinted at by the noble Lord opposite, between the rich and the poor. I think that is something that might be considered by both these parties. This whole problem was thoroughly investigated in the Town Clerk's Report. It received, I think, more lengthy and special consideration than any other amalgamation in that section by the Town Clerk of Oxford. Both sides put forward alternatives which meant cutting across boundaries, and certainly the Government have been trying to avoid splitting existing local authority areas. And, of course, the proposals were objected to by the local authorities affected.
Therefore, I come to the noble Viscount's alternative proposal, namely, to unite Wembley and Harrow, leaving Willesden on its own with a population of 175,000, which admittedly would not be the smallest of the new London boroughs. That is a possible proposition, and if both councils supported this idea Her Majesty's Government would no doubt give the matter further consideration. The noble Viscount put his case to your Lordships. None the less, the case should be put, I imagine, from Wembley to Harrow or from Harrow to Wembley, and the fact is there is no agreement; and at one stage, as the noble Viscount said, Wembley made what evidently was a rather half-hearted suggestion to Harrow, and as matters stand Harrow will have nothing to do with Wembley. I cannot enlighten the noble Viscount as to why this should be so. Perhaps Harrow were under the impression that they had been invited to amalgamate with Eton, in which case I can only say that they do not know a gift horse when they see one. I am sorry I cannot give more comfort to my noble friend, but in all the circumstances Her Majesty's Government feel that they are unable to accept his Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: First of all, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth. I am sorry if I did him an injustice; I had not observed that he was out of the Chamber at the time when I was talking about this matter, but I am grateful to him for his support. My noble friend Lord Hastings, while starting off in an extraordinarily discouraging discussion,
1204
ended with what I thought was a ray of hope. Perhaps he would go as far as this. The proposal that is now before your Lordships is, I think, a comparatively novel one. It is hard on all these boroughs that they should have to amalgamate with anybody, and I think it does Wembley credit that they are no longer taking a stand but are now perfectly agreeable to going in, provided it is with the right borough, the right partner in the marriage. Would my noble friend confirm that I heard him aright—namely, that if Harrow council were to agree to this, Her Majesty's Government would not be averse to looking at it again? Of course, the other two councils are in agreement already.
LORD HASTINGS: I did say that if the two councils agree to this Her Majesty's Government would no doubt consider it. I think that is the same as saying that they would look at it again, but I cannot of course prejudge the result.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am grateful to my noble friend. It looks as though some activity will have to take place at high speed. In the meantime, I think it would be better to reserve this until the Report stage of the Bill, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.42 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN LORD LINDGREN moved to delete the urban district of Barnet from the new Borough 30. The noble Lord said: I think this is the last of the Amendments on the Marshalled List asking for an exclusion from a proposed new Greater London Borough. This Amendment is designed to delete Barnet from Borough No. 30, which is intended to co-ordinate Finchley, Hendon, Friern Barnet, and East Barnet with Barnet itself. The Hertfordshire County Council, which is affected by this proposed exclusion, have not been greatly affected by the proposals of the Royal Commission, and in fact they have taken no great part with the other Home Counties who have been drastically cut about. Their general attitude has been that, on balance, there is not much difference. Under the proposals, East Barnet and Barnet go, and Potters Bar goes from the Middlesex county council into Hertfordshire. The

1205
Council take the view that if the authorities within this area want to go into some other area, or feel that their community of interests is there, they should be able to go without any opposition from the county council. Therefore, quite readily, the Hertfordshire County Council put forward no opposition to East Barnet's going into the Greater London Borough; that is the desire of the East Barnet Urban District Council and, I would presume, of a large section of the community within that urban district.
The situation so far as Barnet is concerned is entirely different. That really is part of Hertfordshire. Historically, it goes back to the days of Queen Elizabeth I. In fact, there one has the Queen Elizabeth grammar school for boys and the girls' grammar school, both having foundations going back to about 1500. The local authority as now constituted is one hundred years old. The local government board for Barnet was created in November, 1863, and of course it became an urban district as the result of the Local Government Act, 1894. It is true, of course, that its boundaries have been slightly increased, taking in part of what was then the Barnet rural district council which is now the Elstree Rural District Council. So far as Barnet is concerned the community of interest is with Hertfordshire, and certainly not with Finchley and Hendon.
Normally I do not take a great deal of notice of petitions. Generally my experience has been that anyone will sign anything so long as you do not ask them for any money, and petitions, and the getting of signatures for a petition, are not always evidence of strong feeling. But here a petition was organised. The town council placed it in a room of the council offices, and nearly 2,500 people from the urban district took the trouble themselves to go into the town hall or, this being an urban district council, into the council offices to sign the petition. From my own experience, I know that the feeling for remaining within Hertfordshire is very strong indeed in all sections of the community.
Last week-end we had local government elections. My colleagues in the Barnet Urban District—I do not blame them; after all, they are politicians—knowing of the feeling that there was in a generally residential
1206
area against inclusion within the Greater London Borough, used that to the full in their propaganda, of course blaming the Tory Party and the Tory Government for the threat against Barnet. Whether that had some effect on the net result I am not too sure; but the fact is that there was—I ought not perhaps to say a surprising gain, but there were gains which were most unusual in the Barnet Urban District area for Labour candidates at last Saturday's election. I venture the opinion that the influence, or the effect, of the proposals in this Bill resulted in that decision of the electors. Then, Barnet is the focal point of the South Herts divisional executive for education—it is in fact in the centre of Barnet where the college of further education is sited. Over 1,000 pupils a day take instruction at the college. Of course, it also serves the catchment area of the Elstree rural district as well as the Barnet Urban District. While on education, the teachers themselves have presented a petition with about 2,000 signatures asking to remain within the county of Hertford. So all the interests are concerned with Barnet's remaining within Hertfordshire; all the desires of the people are to remain within; all the services are there from Hertfordshire and they wish to remain there.
There is an exodus, of course, which was mentioned last night by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, on another Amendment, because there is a commuter service. It would be idle not to admit that there is a certain amount of commuter service from Barnet into London. But it is equally true that there is a commuter service from Barnet to Hatfield, for quite a number of the de Havilland workers at Hatfield live in the Urban District of Barnet. Here is a quite effective industrial area, and it is not the normal type of what one might call a commuter area.
Barnet is within the Metropolitan Police area, as also is the Elstree Rural District. Elstree has a population of 30,000 and has 3,000 houses built on a very nice estate, with social services, by the London County Council, yet, of course, Elstree Rural is excluded. The film-making industry resides there, too, which provides a considerable amount of local employment for the tenants of

1207
the London County Council estate. The exclusion of Barnet from the other four authorities—Finchley, Hendon, Friern Barnet and East Barnet—would in no way endanger the viability of that new borough. It would have a population of 300,000 and would be larger than 24 other authorities which are included among the list of 31 or 32. Therefore, I would ask that Barnet be allowed to remain within Hertfordshire and that this Amendment be agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 104, line 28, column 2, leave out the first ("Barnet").—(Lord Lindgren.)
3.51 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE): The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, has put his case fairly. He has been quite fair with your Lordships in saying that, as a man of Hertfordshire, he agrees that there is not a great deal in this allowing for the swings and balances with Potters Bar. He also said quite fairly that Barnet is at present within the Metropolitan Police area. At the risk of wearisome repetition, I should like to remind your Lordships that in defining Greater London the main yardstick we had in mind was to try to ensure that the whole of the continuously developed area was included within the new boundary. This has been the test we have applied for Greater London.
Some of your Lordships may not be as familiar with this area as is Lord Lindgren, and I should like to go quickly over the ground. The Barnet Urban District includes two built-up areas. The southern and smaller area of Totteridge is an extension of the built-up parts of Finchley. There is no break in the development of the urban district council boundary, and the main built-up area to the north is part of the continuous belt of urban development which runs into East Barnet and Friern Barnet. Indeed, in the early discussions on the outer boundary the Barnet council themselves stressed the continuity of development between their own district and the neighbouring parts of East Barnet; and East Barnet—there is no dispute about this—is going to be within the Greater London boundary, and East Barnet is perfectly happy about that. It is true
1208
that there is a large wedge of open land dividing these two built-up areas of Barnet one from the other, but it does not divide the developed parts of Barnet from neighbouring development on the London side. This Green Belt land is all on the outer fringe of the Greater London area and itself affords no basis for excluding Barnet from Greater London. That is the main reason why, under Schedule 1, Barnet is included within the proposed new Greater London boundary.
Having dealt with what is the main burden of our case, I should like to turn to some of the more detailed points made by Lord Lindgren. He talked about Barnet's educational links being more with Hertfordshire than with London, and instanced the South Hertfordshire School of Advanced Education. That is a case in point. I think that I can meet that particular case because it shows that, if anything, the tendency is rather to the contrary. It is quite true that at present the majority of the students or pupils at that college are drawn from Hertfordshire, and I do not dispute that for a moment; but I think the noble Lord will find that a very large proportion of those students are in fact drawn from East Barnet. That means that the catchment area of that particular college lies within what will be Greater London rather than outside it.
The same argument applies, broadly speaking, to the pattern of employment in regard to those who commute. Here again the noble Lord was perfectly fair in what he said. He did not claim that all the inhabitants of Barnet commuted outwards to St. Albans or to the north. I think the statistics here are significant. Over 80 per cent. of the employed population of Barnet commute inwards towards London. I do not say that this is a decisive factor, but it is an important element.
The noble Lord has also spoken of public opinion. Last night we heard a lot, quite rightly, about public opinion in these various contested frontier areas. I would merely repeat what I and my noble friend said in this context last night. We do not underestimate the importance of what the man in the street feels here. At the same time, we do not think it can be the only criterion.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Did the noble Earl learn something from the local government elections in the Home Counties last week? There is no doubt that this is further evidence that the people do not like this Bill, and that the Government are consciously and deliberately flouting public opinion.
EARL JELLICOE: I think one could read the local government elections in many ways. At the moment we are talking about whether Barnet should or should not be within the Greater London area.
When we are discussing the matter of public opinion, I think it should be said that if it is decided—and I think it should be decided—that Barnet should be included within the Greater London area and within the proposed grouping, it would be quite possible thereafter for the escape machinery from Greater London, which is written into Clause 6 of the Bill, to be operated in respect of certain areas of Barnet which would be included, in particular the Green Belt areas, if a strong case can be made out. There is that saving grace, for what it is worth.
I would claim that what is vital in this Bill is our belief that Greater London is, in fact, a single city which includes all the continuously developed area. For the purposes of reorganising local government on a firm foundation for the next fifty years or so, we feel it right to include the whole of the city as it physically exists today. There can be no doubt in my mind that the built-up parts of Barnet are part of this continuous development and should be included in the new system. I think myself—and 1 would grant this—that some of the various frontier questions which we have discussed in the last two days may be more contentious and more open than this one. I personally feel that this is one of the least difficult and the more clear-cut of these particular issues. For all these reasons, I suggest to your Lordships that you should not pass this Amendment should it be pressed.
LORD LINDGREN: I must thank the noble Earl for his statement to-day, and, if I may pass a comment, it is quite nice to start off to-day in a friendly
1210
atmosphere. I am only too sorry that the noble Viscount who leads the House is not here to see how even a rebellious soul like myself can be handled. It is always a soft answer that turneth away wrath. But the noble Earl was quite right. There is a building out to Barnet from London. I am old enough to remember cycling from Highgate Woods, right up the Great North Road, past Tally Ho into Barnet, through fields all the way. The built-up areas to which the noble Earl has referred are the result of speculative building in the inter-war years. It was because of this stretching out of ribbon development, very largely to London, that my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth and the L.C.C. started their propaganda for the Green Belt. The only tragedy is that that propaganda could not have become more effective a little earlier, and then instead of the Green Belt being just behind Barnet to save it from going out towards Hatfield and St. Albans, it would have been in front of it at the bottom of the hill. Barnet would have been isolated by the Green Belt in front of it.
The noble Earl did not really deal with what is a community of interests. It is true that there are commuters, and I have admitted that; but the vast majority of those commuters are young persons—again, perhaps, because of our bad planning—coming into London for office employment, not for industrial employment. The whole of the local employment or industrial employment is from Barnet towards St. Albans, in the Elstree Rural—the film studios and the trading estate—and, of course, towards Hatfield for de Havillands.
Again, if I may talk about the College of Further Education, it is true that Hertfordshire County Council, being a sensible authority, made its catchment area contiguous to the building that is going to be used. Barnet is in the centre from Elstree Rural, which is also part of the catchment area, and from East Barnet which is on the side of it. I feel that Barnet has made its case, and I hope that your Lordships will support me in this Division on the last of these Amendments, in order that we can at least save Barnet in Hertfordshire, and in order that people will remain within the county which they desire.
4.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Latham, L.

Silkin, L.

Amwell, L.

Lawson, L.

Stonham, L.

Archibald, L.

Lindgren, L. [Teller.]

Summerskill, B.

Attlee, E.

Listowel, E.

Walston, L.

Burden, L.[Teller.]

Longford, E.

Williams, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Lucan, E.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Champion, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

Crook, L.

Rusholme, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

St. Davids, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mersey, V.

Airedale, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Meston, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Freyberg, L.

Milverton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Furness, V.

Molson, L.

Amulree, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Atholl, D.

Grenfell, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Haddington, E.

Ogmore, L.

Bossom, L.

Hanworth, V.

Onslow, E.

Boston, L.

Hastings, L.

Ormonde, M.

Bridgeman, V.

Henley, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Carrington, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Rea, L.

Chesham, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Cholmondeley, M.

Howe, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Cettesloe, L.

Ilford, L.

Sanderson of Ayot, L.

Craigton, L.

Ironside, L.

Sandys, L.

Davidson, V.

Jellicoe, E.

Sinha, L.

De La Warr, E.

Jessel, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Denham, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Suffield, L.

Derwent, L.

Killearn, L.

Swinton, E.

Devonshire, D.

Kilmuir, E.

Tenby, V.

Dudley, L.

Long, V.

Teynham, L.

Dundee, E.

Lothian, M.

Twining, L.

Eccles, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Wellington, D.

Effingham, E.

Mansfield, E.

Wigram, L.

Ferrers, E.

Margesson, V.

Wolverton, L.

4.13 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH moved to add to Part I:
"33 / The City of London. Finsbury, Shoreditch, Stepney and Southwark."
The noble Lord said: I do not propose to detain the Committee for long on this Amendment, for the reason that I really outlined the case for it in the course of the debate yesterday. At that point I was moving for the elimination of the City of London, but I said that we would come along with constructive proposals whereby something would take its place. One of these proposals was that there should be merged with the City, or that the City should absorb, Finsbury, Shoreditch, Stepney and Southwark. These are boroughs which surround the ancient
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 79.
City of London. Originally they were almost certainly growths from the City of London: a spillover, to use modern language, from the ancient City.
There are two or three arguments for it. One is that, that being the case, the City should take under its umbrella these surrounding boroughs, and that they should bring strength, population and, probably, capable municipal officers to join with the officers of the City in the improvement of interests common to all concerned. The other thing is that the City is, we think, wrong in adhering to its square mile. It is rather selfish. It is hanging on to its money, its City cash, the Bridge House Estates and other funds of a considerable character which are familiar to local government and which are very useful to the City of London. We think they ought to share with their poor neighbours which surround the

1213
City. These are the reasons for the proposed merger.
It is not a matter of politics, because the City itself says that it has no politics. Therefore, in this connection, I have no politics, either. Politics have nothing to do with it: it is a natural merger. Moreover, the Government themselves say that it is important that the new London boroughs should increase substantially, both in area and in population. Indeed, although the Royal Commission recommended boundaries for the new boroughs which represented a substantial increase on the Metropolitan boroughs in London and the country districts outside, the Government have made them still bigger with this solitary exception of the square mile of the City of London. The Government cannot bark both ways. They cannot say that there should be a minimum population of (I forget what the figure is) 200,000 or 250,000—and the range is from about 200,000 up to about 350,000—and then, when it comes to this square mile of the ancient City, leave it as it is, with its resident population of between 4,000 and 5,000. That seems to me to be illogical. I argued this at some but quite modest length yesterday, and I do not wish to overdo it by repeating the argument too much; but I commend the Amendment to the favourable consideration of the Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 104, line 33, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Morrison of Lambeth.)
LORD OGMORE: I gathered during the course of our debate yesterday that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, was proposing to combine the Cities of London and Westminster.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: That will come up if this one fails. It is an alternative proposal.
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Lord might like to know that we dealt with that proposal last might, and that that Amendment was rejected.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: We are both wrong.
LORD OGMORE: From this multiplicity of counsel, I must try to ascertain what the situation is. The situation now appears to be that it is this or nothing.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Yes.
LORD OGMORE: I must say that, of the two, I would much have preferred the City of London and the City of Westminster.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Did you vote for it?
LORD OGMORE: I did not vote for it, because I thought it was coming up to-day, but I voted for the principle yesterday—that is the point. If the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition wants the support of independent people, he ought to treat them a little more kindly; because, in fact, not only did I speak to the Amendment set down by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, but I voted for it, and he was good enough to thank me for so doing in the very courteous manner which I would have expected from him, from his Parliamentary experience. However, I would have much preferred the amalgamation of the City of London and the City of Westminster. I think that is the real fusion between these particular areas. I am very surprised at the fact that the Government did not accept that proposal. On the whole, I am in favour of this Bill. I believe it is time that London government was cleared up, and I think there is something to be said for a regional authority like this and far more powerful London boroughs. I believe the London boroughs have suffered a great deal by not having enough power.
But there is nothing whatever to be said for leaving the City of London in its present anomalous state. It runs quite counter to the whole object and purpose of the Bill. It adds nothing to the clearing up of London government, and it is an anachronism which has nothing to be said for it. The only question now is whether we think the City should be joined up with Finsbury, Stepney, Shoreditch and Southwark. These are boroughs and areas of very different types and are none the worse for that; and there is a great deal in what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said. It is "second-best", as the noble Lord himself described it, but I urge the Committee to accept it as a second-best possibility.

1215
All these areas are spill-overs, particularly Southwark, from Landon itself in the days when it was a walled city. After all, the people who live there work, on the whole, far the great City companies, for the docks and for the other institutions and organisations on which the City has built its name. It seems to me illogical that people who are working in this way to support and maintain the City and add to its wealth should have no say whatsoever in its organisation or in the election of the Common Council. People who really have little to do with the City and who have some association (sometimes of a fictitious kind, like some of the Livery Companies) have a vote, in some respects, in the City government. I find that quite illogical and untenable in these days. Although I think it is very much a "second-best" I will vote for this Amendment because I believe that nobody in this second half of the twentieth century ought to vote to keep the City of London in its present position.
If the Committee passes this Amendment and then the City finds itself joined up with Finsbury, Stepney, Shore-ditch and Southwark it will have no one to blame but the Government: because if the Government had accepted the natural flow of events to join up the City and Westminster (which are already joined up from a Parliamentary point of view) then this position would not have arisen. We have just heard a statement from the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, on the question of the severance of Wembley and Willesden, in which he pointed out how important it is not to join areas of the same class and kind. He spoke eloquently on the desirability of having different kinds of boroughs and different classes of people joined together. All those arguments can be applied with equal, if not more, strength to the joining-up of the City of London with the interesting and varied boroughs of Finsbury, Stepney, Shoreditch and Southwark. Therefore I ask your Lordships in Committee to give your vote to this Amendment and support it, so that we may see this "second-best" come into being.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Just to let noble Lords on the Front Benches opposite see that we are not being gagged
1216
on this side by the Front Benches, I should like to say a few words. First, it is regrettable that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, should so lightly try to destroy one of the most interesting traditions of this country, if not of the world. The only other comment is that the noble Lord, with, I fear, his tongue very much in his cheek, tried to make out that this was not a political Amendment. He entirely destroyed his own argument, such as it was, by saying that the City of London, which he has already described as "reactionary", "Tory," "aristocratic", "Conservative" and every other word which to him is a term of abuse, is selfish is not sharing its wealth with the surrounding boroughs. The four surrounding boroughs are all bastions of the Party to which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, belongs. If he suggests that the City of London should be plundered for their benefit, then I think his contention that the Amendment is not a political one is rather weak.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It is very nice of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, to come in on this matter. He made a very useful contribution the other day in the weights and measures debate. I am always glad to see him come back into debate again. I am sure he himself would not have needed to repudiate the question of his being gagged. The point I want to mention is this. The suitability of the link between these four boroughs which are encircling the City of London is that the City, to be absolutely fair—and this my noble friend mentioned the other day—has taken quite a social and somewhat municipal view of helping some of these boroughs. It is, in fact, the owner of housing property in Finsbury. I am not sure that they have not some in Southwark. My noble friend thought that they had some in the Old Kent Road. That is a very good beginning, I think.
That is a justification for what the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said with regard to the desirability of boroughs and of what some might call superior or upper class people being made into a unity with others of a different kind. There is something reasonable about that. Therefore I hope the Government will give some continued support. They have supported us, really in principle, except for the one bogy that the City of London stands

1217
absolutely alone in respect of its municipal democracy. That they seem to rule out altogether. They have their own rules of playing their own game and nobody else must interfere with it. But when you consider that almost charitable interest in housing in the other boroughs surrounding them, you can see that that is a very good start, and perhaps the Government may be able to invite them to do something more.
4.28 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: Of course it is quite true, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has said, that Southwark has ancient historical ties with the City. Some other authorities also include a good deal of commercial property of a similar character as that in the City. Historically, and by the nature of the development, parts of the area proposed could be regarded as having something in common and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, reminded me (and this was emphasised by the noble Earl, the Leader of the Opposition) there is nothing against outwardly incompatible areas being put together for the purpose of local government services. I produced that argument on a previous Amendment and I have no desire to go back on it.
But that is not the whole picture. If one looks at the map provided with the Town Clerks' Report setting out the boundaries of the various proposed boroughs, one sees that the noble Lord has taken Stepney out of Bethnal Green and Poplar. One wonders what would become of them in the new borough. There would be only 110,000 or so people left in a rather peculiar dogleg there, and he has not made any proposals how they would be treated if this Amendment were carried. That is a disadvantage. The areas he has suggested, though I do not make a big point of it, would be of awkward shape.
I want the noble Lord to know that I treat his Amendment seriously. We discussed this last Thursday on Clause 1, when the noble Lord first mooted these ideas, and I gave my reasons rather more fully in resisting the amalgamation of the City with other boroughs yesterday, when the noble Lord was not here and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, moved his Amendment to poin the City with Westminster and Marylebone in
1218
Borough No. 1. I repeated what I had said on Thursday about the financial implications. There will be no financial improvement accruing to any borough that the City is joined to and the ratepayers would not be likely to receive as much as they would without the City, because the City does not qualify for any general grant.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: It may be my fault, but I do not follow this argument. If there is a merger between these metropolitan boroughs and the City, they will form something like a London borough, with a population of a quarter of a million. The rateable value of the City would be shared with these other boroughs upon the amalgamation. The City funds, the Bridge House Estates, and so on, would be shared by these boroughs, and they would be bound to benefit financially. Whatever happens about this Amendment, the City will in any case contribute to the rate of Greater London. Surely, if we merge these boroughs and the City, the great wealth of the City will be shared by these boroughs and they will be better off.
LORD HASTINGS: I do not think that I can sustain a long debate on the high finance of local government in London, but I am informed that, in regard to the general grant, the effect is as I have stated. I think that the noble Lord is referring indirectly to the equalisation fund, which means that local authorities raise 30 per cent. by rate and rely on the fund to make up the difference. At the present time, the City of London puts a lot more into the fund than it draws out, and in that respect it is helping the whole of Greater London. I am not clear that that would necessarily accrue to any borough. Be that as it may, I do not think that the financial advantages are as expected by the noble Lord.
LORD LATHAM: I take it that what the noble Lord said refers to the proposal discussed last night with regard to Marylebone, Westminster and the City of London. But it does not apply to the amalgamation of the City with Finsbury, Shoreditch, Stepney and Southwark. The situation is entirely different, financially as well as otherwise.
LORD HASTINGS: I am not sure if that is so, but I do not think that the advantages are quite as expected.

1219
I come back to the argument, which has also been deployed before, that the Opposition, for reasons connected with democracy, want the City to disappear as a separate entity. We say that in its present form the City does no harm, but a great deal of good. We do not wish to destroy the prestige that goes with its antiquity, its tradition and its ceremonial, and we say that we cannot retain the Lord Mayor of London, if we remove the structure from underneath him.
LORD LATHAM: The Government wish to destroy Shoreditch.
LORD HASTINGS: We are not destroying Shoreditch. I do not know why the noble Lord says that. There is no proposition to destroy Shoreditch. But we are saying that we cannot amalgamate the City with any other borough without destroying the entity of the City and the Lord Mayor, and thereby losing all the advantages which accrue to the nation from all its international interest and significance, as my noble friend Lord Mansfield said.
LORD LATHAM: Are we to understand that the real reason for maintaining the City is to preserve the office of Lord Mayor? Is that the only reason?
LORD HASTINGS: It is not the only reason, but it is a very important reason. We do not wish to destroy the traditions which go with the City of London, because we believe that they are of great benefit to the country. I have been over this argument before.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: The mere amalgamation of the City with four other metropolitan boroughs does not carry with it the abolition of the Lord Mayor. He will be Lord Mayor of the new City—namely, of the City plus these four boroughs. He could still be used for these ceremonial purposes, which, I agree, are often useful.
LORD HASTINGS: That is a very complicated suggestion and my advice is that it is not possible. There are the mayors and aldermen of the other boroughs to consider, and we do not see how it could be done. The basic difference between us is that the Opposition wish to get rid of the City because of undemocratic aspects. We wish, while admitting its undemocratic aspects, to
1220
respect its traditions, its antiquity and its value to the nation. We started this argument on Thursday, continued it last night and I do not think that I can go beyond what I have said. I hope that your Lordships will believe in the case that the Government have put for retaining the City in its present form and reject this Amendment.
4.39 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord asserts that if we remove from the Lord Mayor and the Common Council the local authority responsibilities, the Lord Mayor's position in ceremonial occasions of national and international importance will automatically disappear. I suggest that that is not true. There was a time when the Monarch of this country was the Government and, as we have moved towards democracy, the Monach has been relieved of political control; but that has not put the Monarch in a less recognised position. In fact, in many ways, the Monarch is more respected and admired, and has a greater following; because the Monarchy is divorced from the Government and Administration. The noble Lord has asserted the fact, but he has never shown why it would arise. I think it would be possible to take away from the City the mere administration of local government within the City, and let the Lord Mayor stand, with all the Livery Companies to support him, as an image and perhaps a power, but not a power over the lives of people who live within the boundaries of the City.
The noble Lord recognised yesterday, and I believe last Thursday, that there cannot be any vestige of democracy in the City. I think there are many who would like to see democracy brought to the City, so long as we maintain the position of the Lord Mayor. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, to consider the growth of affection towards the Monarchy, and yet at the same time we have relieved the Monarchy of political power. I suggest that this could well be done in the same way in the City. I am sure that if the Government wished to find a way out—we are not particularly wedded to, or perhaps rather fearful of, the moneybags of the City—they can do so.
LORD OGMORE: I should like to correct one thing which was said by

1221
the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. He said that we—and I presume he meant me as well as noble Lords on my left—wished to do away with the City. I do not wish to do away with the City. I want to make it a reality; I want to make it mean something in modern terms. As your Lordships know, it is based on the type of suffrage which was common in the Middle Ages, for a very good reason, which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, explained yesterday—namely, because then organised trades and professions were the only things which could have representation. But that is not so to-day.
It seems to me that this is one of the most important parts of the Bill, which, on the whole, I accept and support. This is a Bill to organise and bring up to date—or this is what its advocates say; and I believe there is something in it—the government of London. I support that, and I support the Bill, because it sets up a regional organisation and underneath it a series of boroughs, all of which have power and authority and are, broadly speaking, the same in size. In the middle of this you have this absolutely antiquated mediæval City, which is an illusion. It means nothing; and, to a large extent, it destroys the credibility of the Bill. To some extent it destroys the credibility of us as a nation, when we have here in the centre of an international capital like London this curious anachronism. That is why I object to the present situation.
I should much prefer to see the Cities of London and Westminster joined together as one City. That the Government have refused to accept. This I accept as a second best proposal, because, at all events, it will mean that the City is a city. Why cannot the Lord Mayor carry on in the new City as he did in the old—in fact, far better, because he will have a city, a reality, to represent, instead of a few finance
houses, businesses and caretakers, as he does now. Does not the Lord Provost of Edinburgh represent the capital city of Edinburgh? Does not the Lord Mayor of Cardiff represent the capital city of Wales?
LORD SHEPHERD: They are elected.
LORD OGMORE: Yes. Does not the Lord Mayor of Belfast represent the capital of Northern Ireland? What about the great cities of Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Bristol—are the Lord Mayors of those cities mere puppets, not to be compared with the Lord Mayor of London? They all manage to exercise their important functions and represent the regions from which they come. I think the argument that has been put up by the Government is a fictitious one and not worthy of your Lordships. It is an important matter. I want to see London government as it should be—that is, really representative of this country in the second half of the twentieth century.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, alludes to Lord Mayors and Lord Provosts outside the City of London and suggests, apparently, that they are comparable with the Lord Mayor of London. That they certainly are not. The Lord Mayor of London is a unique institution; and whether it is a combining with the four boroughs, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, or merely with Westminster, the result would be that the Lord Mayor of London would change his status to one infinitely inferior to that of the Lord Mayor of Birmingham or Cardiff or the Lord Provost of Edinburgh or Glasgow.
4.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 79.

Walston, L.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Wise, L.

Williams, L.

Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Freyberg, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Ailwyn, L.

Furness, V.

Morton of Henryton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Grenfell, L.

Newton, L.

Atholl, D.

Haddington, E.

Onslow, E.

Bessborough, E.

Hanworth, V.

Ormonde, M.

Bossom, L.

Hastings, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Boston, L.

Hawke, L.

Remnant, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Horsbrugh, B.

Robertson of Oakridge, L

Carrington, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Chelmer, L.

Howe, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Chesham, L.

Ilford, L.

Salisbury, M.

Cholmondeley, M.

Jellicoe, E.

Slater, L.

Colyton, L.

Jessel, L.

Sandys, L.

Conesford, L.

Kilmuir, E.

Somers, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lloyd, L.

Strang, L.

Craigton, L.

Long, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Davidson, V.

Lothian, M.

Suffield, L.

Denham, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Swinton, E.

Derwent, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Tenby, V.

Devonshire, D.

Mansfield, E.

Teynham, L.

Dudley, E.

Margesson, V.

Twining, L.

Dundee, E.

Merrivale, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Eccles, L.

Mersey, V.

Wellington, D.

Ferrers, E.

Milverton, L.

Wigram, L.

Fortescue, E.

Molson, L.

Wolverton, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD HASTINGS: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 106, line 43, after ("borough's") insert ("charter or").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Greater London and the Greater London Council]:
LORD CHAMPION: After this Amendment was put down in my name, I had an opportunity to do a little further examination of the Bill. So far as I can see, paragraph 11(2) of Schedule 2 and the Schedule to the 1933 Act cover both the points that we sought to make in this Amendment. But in order to be absolutely sure of this, I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 108, line 9, at end insert—
("(4) In relation to the Council the following sub-paragraphs shall be substituted for subparagraphs (2) and (3) of paragraph 3 of Part I of the Third Schedule to the said Act of 1933:—
'(2) If the chairman of the council is absent from a meeting of the council, the
1224
vice-chairman or, in his absence, the deputy chairman (if any) of the council, if present, shall preside.
(3) If the chairman, vice-chairman and deputy chairman (if any) are all absent from the meeting of the council, such member of the council as the members present shall choose shall preside.'").—(Lord Champion.)
LORD HASTINGS: I think the noble Lord is quite right in his belief. Certainly this question of the deputy-chairman is covered in paragraph 11(2)(d) of the Schedule. There is provision also for the other matter, except that, before a member of the Council is appointed, it should be an alderman; otherwise a member.
LORD CHAMPION: I had noticed that very slight difference, but I do not think that would cause me to press this Amendment to a Division. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.57 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN LORD LINDGREN moved to add to paragraph 1:
"(4) The Council shall be regarded as a borough for the purposes of section 259 of the Local Government Act 1933."
The noble Lord said: The last paragraph of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill states that provisions in regard to

1225
judicial arrangements, and for the creation of the Lord Lieutenancy, will be dealt with in a separate Bill. But there is no provision within the Bill, so far as I can see, for the creation of Freemen. I admit straight away that at the present time county councils have not that power; nor, for that matter, have urban and rural districts. It is a function at the moment confined to boroughs, and that is why in this Amendment I propose that Section 259 of the Local Government Act, 1933, shall be applied to the Greater London Council as though it were a borough.
The status, standing and order of a Freeman, is granted to citizens who have done a great deal of work or have honoured the area in which they were born or lived, and it is a very valued honour. Quite rightly, it is used very sparsely by the boroughs. But now that we are creating a new Greater London Council it occurred to me that we might as well give this Council the opportunity to create Freemen of Greater London. After all, it will be perhaps the biggest municipality in the world; and if not the biggest, certainly one of the most important. That being so, why should it not have this function of being able to recognise men of distinction who originated within the authority's area, or men who have been associated with the Council in some way or other whose services should be recognised by the granting of this honour? This is one of those Amendments which I think we can really claim is non-political. It is a coveted function among boroughs and, as I have said, is used with distinction and very sparingly. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 108, line 9, at end insert the said subparagraph.—(Lord Lindgren.)
LORD HASTINGS: I appreciate what lies behind this Amendment and it is a most reasonable and laudable suggestion that the Greater London Council, or whatever its more dignified name, if we find one, shall be, should be able to confer some honour on eminent citizens for service. But we are not quite sure that this is the right solution or that it can be done in this way. We are running, I think, into the same sort of difficulties which we had when discuss-
1226
ing the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, about the "Corporation of Greater London," which he suggested.
Freemen and the freedom of the borough, as the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, pointed out, are conceptions historically confined to boroughs. In both these cases there is an effort to increase the dignity of the Greater London Council, and it is suggested we should borrow the titles and honours of boroughs. We should like to look at this suggestion at the same time as we are considering the name, and if the noble Lord would like to withdraw his Amendment it will have further consideration, as we agree with the purpose that lies behind it.
LORD LINDGREN: This is as near to success as I have got this week and I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I willingly withdraw it and live in the hope that we shall be able to find some way in which we can bring this about.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved, in paragraph 3, to leave out "in the year 1967 and each third year thereafter" and to substitute: "accordingly each third year after their election." The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 on the Marshalled List, of course, go together. Paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule to this Bill makes provision for the terms of office of the Council of Greater London. These Amendments propose that the G.L.C. councillors should hold their office for four years in the initial period commencing in the year 1964.
Our purpose is to secure two things. The first is that the elections for the local governments in London will be held after the initial elections in 1964. We seek to prevent the elections to the G.L.C. and the London boroughs falling in the same year. Under the present provisions of the Schedule and the Bill itself, every year for the remainder of this century and the period for which this Bill is designed we shall be holding, perhaps within a month of each other, the elections for the London boroughs and for the Greater London Council. This is a matter of considering the convenience of the political Parties and others who will be interested in these elections. As I have just said, we are

1227
making provision in this Bill for the remainder of the century, but, clearly, under the Bill as drafted, we shall get these elections occurring in the same year; and that seems to those of us who have had any experience of local government elections to be placing an unnecessarily heavy strain upon the political Parties and upon all who will be interested in these elections.
Much has been said in the progress of this Bill about the necessity for stimulating interest in local government elections in London and, of course, elsewhere. Those of us who are knowledgeable in these matters know perfectly well that there is nothing more likely to stimulate interest in a body than an election to that body, and this applies equally to Parliament and to local government elections. Running up to the election there is always a heightened interest in the body and in what it has been doing. The Parties brace themselves for the effort; the workers and the prospective councillors consider the faults of the existing administration and begin to understand or become heightened in their judgment of it, and they adjust their tactics accordingly. Interest is definitely heightened at this period running up to an election. And in all this work of elections we have to remember that, in the main, the people engaged are amateurs. They have to do their ordinary jobs first and this one in their spare time.
My noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, speaking of the initial elections in 1964, said on Thursday last [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 249 (No. 81), col. 935];
"You are going to have two elections. This is another bright idea—not only two elections in the one year (which we ought to take great pains to avoid in local government) but two elections, one a month after the other."
No one, I think, would question the qualifications of my noble friend to talk knowledgeably about local government elections, and he will know something of the difficulties of holding these two elections in London within one month of each other. If we have accepted, as we have, the Part of the Bill which says that the initial elections are to be held in 1964, there is not the slightest need, so far as I can see, for these triennial elections to be held so that they clash, the borough elections with the
1228
G.L.C. elections, after that period; and if this Amendment is accepted the clashing of these elections would be avoided. In this connection, too, I think we have to remember that a good many council officials have to be taken off their normal duties in order to prepare for these elections and it would be rather better if this happened in two years, one year following the other, rather than in the same month or in the same period of a year. It would be much better to spread these elections over two years rather than to cram them into one.
The second point I would make in this connection is that the G.L.C. councillors under this Amendment would have a period of running in this great Council of four years, as against the three proposed in the Bill. We all realise the magnitude of the task that will be placed upon these councillors. We know the difficulties, and we talked at some length yesterday about the transitional period. Our proposal would enable the councillors to be there not only for this transitional period but also for a further period of three years in order to ensure that, after the initial period is over, they will be able to bring this Council to a point where it is running smoothly. We say that there is nothing sacrosanct about this three-year period for local government councillors, and that nothing would he lost if the G.L.C. were elected in the first place for a period of four years. Moreover, this would avoid all the difficulties we have mentioned, such as the subsequent elections clashing and so no. This is not a Party point; it is just a matter of the mechanics of the job and of the convenience of everybody who will be working in these local government elections from 1964. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 108, line 15, leave out from ("together") to end of line 16 and insert ("accordingly each third year after their election").—(Lord Champion.)
5.10 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: The two Amendments to which the noble Lord has spoken, really hang upon the second one, which would produce the result the noble Lord has described. If I might turn my attention first to an effect of this Amendment which I think has not been dealt with very much by the noble Lord,

1229
I must admit that I thought one of the main purposes of this was deliberately to give the initial Council a four-year term, instead of the normal three-year period, on the ground that the first year was only a preparatory period. However, I gather that this is not so.
Nevertheless, there are objections, which I think I ought to put to the Committee, to allowing the Council to continue for four years in the first instance. After all, the Council will be occupied in establishing their organisation and making preparation for the assumption of full responsibility, and I think it is reasonable to assume that the period which immediately follows the changeover to the new structure will also to some extent be one of transition. Not everything, we realise, can be tied up neatly immediately, and it will take a little time, even after 1965, for the new authorities, to establish themselves completely. Therefore, I think it would be wrong to suppose that the effect of agreeing to the Amendment would be to give the first members a year's preparation followed by a three-year spell of what might be called normal council work. In fact, it will still be largely a transitional period. Therefore, we feel that the electorate should not be deprived of the normal practice of the right to review the work of the new councils after the normal three-year period.
But the main point, of course, the noble Lord has made is in respect of the time of the elections. The reason I did not quite realise that this was his point was that the Government have done this for precisely the opposite reason: we feel that it is a desirable thing that the two sets of elections—the Greater London Council elections and the borough elections—should be held in the same year as county council elections generally throughout the country. We take the view that this has advantages, because it will help to concentrate public attention on local government affairs not in one part or in another but everywhere, on a national basis at the same time; and we think there is a good deal to be said for that. The noble Lord also said that it would be difficult, or arduous to attempt to hold elections, one after the other, within about a month. I think that possibly there is some misunderstanding here. It is true that the first elections
1230
to the new London boroughs and the Greater London Council will be held within a month of each other, in April and May, respectively, of 1964; but after that they will be held on the same day, not within a month of each other. The elections to the Greater London Council and the local borough councils will be held on the same day, and we consider this an advantage rather than otherwise, as it will not mean the splitting of effort from one month to the other. After all, the Greater London Council and the local borough councils are an integral part of the whole and I should have thought the politics that come into it would be directed to both sorts of council equally effectively, and perhaps even more effectively, if elections were held on the same day. That is a point noble Lords may have misunderstood.
LORD SHEPHERD: May I put this point to the noble Lord? In the first instance, it is true, you will be fighting a borough election, and you will be fighting for the Greater London Council on the basis of a borough. In subsequent years you will be fighting a borough within a borough area, and, the noble Lord suggests, on the very same day. The political Parties—and they have to be taken into account, because they provide the candidates in most cases—will be called upon to fight nearly a Parliamentary election, because they will be fighting, on a Parliamentary basis, a Parliamentary area of 70,000 to 80,000 people. The mind of anybody connected with political organisation must boggle at the idea. I do not put this in a sharp way. I wonder if there has been any consultation with the Central Office of the Conservative Party. I am quite sure that the Government would get from them the same answer as they would get from Transport House—that it would be impossible; there would be chaos. I hope the noble Lord would look at this idea again, because I do not believe it would work.
LORD HASTINGS: I cannot tell the noble Lord whether we have consulted the Central Office or Transport House, but we evidently completely disagree in our views on this point and on what is possible. This argument was not expected, I admit, from the other side; we thought they had something quite different in mind. I cannot possibly say that it is

1231
likely we shall come back on this, but I am willing to look at it again and take it back again to my right honourable friend and discuss it with him and put the view noble Lords have raised. But I cannot commit myself to any sort of hope that we are likely to change our minds.
LORD WOLVERTON: It might be that the same person would be representing a borough and also putting himself up for election to the Greater London Council. On county councils you have men of distinction who are also members of borough councils. I have never been a borough councillor, but there are men who are on borough councils as well as county councils. If they had to fight two elections in one day, I cannot see how it would be possible.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I think the noble Lord, as I understand it, has raised a real point for consideration. I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and I beg him to realise that this is not Party politics; this is a question of administration and good constitutional doctrine, quite apart from politics. He was briefed on an understanding of the Amendment which, with great respect, was completely wrong. That is why I sympathise with him. I wish he would tell me which Department briefed him. Was it Housing and Local Government or the Home Office? Could he tell me? This is not a Vassall case I am trying to bring. My opinion is that it was Housing and Local Government; it is sufficiently bad to be Housing and Local Government.
LORD SHEPHERD: You brought it up yourself on Second Reading.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I did. I brought up this very point.
LORD HASTINGS: With respect, I think the other point I did bring up about the four-year period was quite relevant.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Quite wrong.
LORD HASTINGS: And quite an important argument worthy of recognition.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My belief is that if the noble Lord had been briefed by the Home Office, instead
1232
of by this extraordinary Department, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, he would have had a different brief. It is an extraordinary Department; its mind runs to passion for uniformity and synonymy and so on. They now want both elections on the same day. Anybody would think we were in France. We are British. You might go back and tell that Department that we are British and have British tradition. I am trying not to get cross, because I do not want to upset the noble Lord. I want to persuade him to keep a much more open mind than he has manifested at the moment.
These are two distinct local government organisations. They have different functions. I do not want them to be landed in the position which the Government have almost laid down: that if you vote Tory for the Greater London Council you must vote Tory for the borough council because the Ministry of Housing and Local Government likes everybody to be the same all the time. Nor do I want it the other way round. It will happen that you may vote Conservative at one election and Labour at the other. I know thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of citizens—not personally, but I know that it happens—who in the County of London have voted Conservative at a Parliamentary election and have voted Labour at the London County Council election. It is because they like us; we have proved our worth; and that is why the Government are so annoyed and want to abolish us. I assure your Lordships that that is true.
I remember a most able election agent at Woolwich, William Barefoot, one of the best Labour election agents there ever was. At the London County Council elections of 1934 in West Woolwich, which is predominantly Conservative as a rule, though it is marginal, he said: "Herbert, I can't make this election out. I have watched the ballot papers coming out of the tins, and those which have been almost solidly Tory before were one-third or half Labour this time". That was true, and it has been true ever since. It is partly because they love the London County Council education authority and their housing authority and so on. At a borough council election they may not vote the same way as at the L.C.C. election, although I think

1233
they do at Woolwich. But it does not follow that it is so in every borough. I dislike the idea that a citizen must cast votes for two distinct local authorities on the same day. It really is wrong. If I am speaking with a little warmth, it is not because I am out of control, but because I am so annoyed that this Department should give the Minister a wrong brief. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, ought to go back and have a row with somebody, and I think I know whom.
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Lord must not try to make difficulties between me and the Department. I had a perfectly good answer in my brief about the political, or rather the electoral, implication, and it was to the effect I told the noble Lord, Lord Champion: that we are saying this after complete consideration of this matter and of the fact—the noble Lord will remember this no doubt, but probably would not like to be reminded of it—that it was a recommendation in the Royal Commission Report. It was produced for consideration by the Government, and we came down on this side in the belief that it was a good thing to have the election in this way. That was all part of my brief, but I did not know that the noble Lord opposite was going to argue in exactly the opposite sense. That is all.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I know. The noble Lord was landed with a brief which, like the flowers that bloom in the spring, had nothing to do with the case. The Royal Commission recommended this curious idea, did they?
LORD HASTINGS: Yes.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: That is another case against the Royal Commission. This is, quite honestly, a simple point. My noble friend did not move this Amendment in order that the Greater London Council could have a running in period, like a motor car. It had nothing to do with that. My noble friend moved the Amendment because neither he nor I want two important local government elections—because they are both going to be important—in the one year. It is going to strain the Party organisations. I ask your Lordships to realise that if you strain the Party organisations so that they cannot do their propaganda and educational job right,
1234
you are thereby straining them in such a way that the electorate will not have sufficient knowledge of what they are voting about. This is a most serious matter.
Is it therefore desirable that elections should be in two separate years. This was done by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the Representation of the People Act, 1948. It was the concern of Mr. Chuter Ede. There, I persuaded the Government that somehow we had slipped into the situation whereby the London County Council and the metropolitan borough elections were in the same year. At the beginning, one was in March and the other in November; but we developed into a situation whereby, under pressure, the borough elections were transferred from November to May—a change as to the wisdom of which I am still doubtful.
That brought it too near the county council elections and there was deliberately put into that Bill a provision whereby the next county council was to last for four, instead of for three, years, and the councils of metropolitan boroughs for three years. That was acceptable to Parliament; everybody accepted it. So far as I know, the advisers of the Secretary of State at the Home Office thought it was sensible, and advised accordingly. That is why it is such a pity that the Minister advised was not the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, advised by the Home Office, instead of the poor Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I sympathise with him because he has been put in such a bad position, having been advised by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on this matter which, as in the case of a number of others, they do not understand.
I beg your Lordships to accept my assurance—I say this in all sincerity—that it is disastrous from the point of view of maintaining health at local government elections, and a healthy interest in these important local authorities, to have elections following within a month of each other or—somewhat worse—being held on the same day. I said that that was following the method in France. I am not so sure about that. Certainly, it is following the practice in the United States of America. I have seen a ballot paper for an American election which is nearly as high as this roof—that is an

1235
exaggeration, but it is of that order. It almost drives the electorate to press a button in order to vote Democrat or Republican right the way through. We do not want that here. I want the electors to use their own intelligence. I want those in power to treat the electors as individual persons, with individual judgment, and not as a herd of cattle who have to be led to the polling booths to vote the same way at both sets of elections.
I have tried not to be rough with the Parliamentary Secretary; I have tried to be rough with the Department, which is the villain of the piece. What I ask is for the Parliamentary Secretary to undertake that, between now and the Report stage, he will give fair and impartial consideration to this matter; that he will consult such people as are knowledgeable about these things, and that he will approach it in an open, fair frame of mind, because I sincerely think that the way the Government are moving is disastrous from the point of view of civic democracy in our country. If the logic were sound you might as well have a Parliamentary election at the same time, which would embarrass the electors still more. But, thank God!, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government do not deal with Parliamentary elections; otherwise they would put them on in the same week. This would be in the American style.
I beg the Parliamentary Secretary not to close his mind to this matter, but to think about it; and if he would like a friendly talk with me in another place not far from here, each of us suitably drinking the other's health, I should be glad to have a talk with him, because I think he is an intelligent man, he is open to conversion, and I sincerely assure him that the line that he has been advised to take is a great mistake.
LORD SHEPHERD: I should like to say one extra word on this. I hope the Minister will recognise that this is very serious, because the health of local government depends on political Parties and other interested organisations putting candidates forward. There is a lot to be said for taking the advice of my noble friend, who is perhaps one of the astutest political managers we have
1236
in this country. May I suggest to the noble Lord that it would not be unreasonable for the Government to seek the advice around the table at the Conservative Central Office, the Labour Party at Transport House and the Liberal Party? During the war my father, as National Agent of the Labour Party, sat with his Conservative and Liberal equivalents in that position, and they spent a number of months, if not a year, going through all the electoral machinery and the provisions. They were able to come to an agreed decision, and advice was given to the then Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill. It was possible for that to be done in the case of a national Election.
Taking into account the importance of 8½ million people being properly represented, the mechanics and methods should be made available to them. I should have thought it right for the Government to approach the three main political Parties, and any others interested, to find out the best way of providing the opportunities for elections to be fought on a proper basis so that there should be a broad opportunity, not only for the main political Parties to participate, but also for the Independents, who still play a big part in local government. I suggest to the Government that they would render a great service to this House if they would undertake to have that type of consultation.
LORD LATHAM: As my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth has said, this is a very important matter. There is one aspect of it to which attention should be given. This proposal to hold the elections on the same day will inevitably result in the most complete confusion. We must bear in mind that there are different constituencies. The constituencies for the Greater London Council are the Parliamentary constituencies, with voters numbering between 70,000 and 80,000; whereas the constituencies for the London boroughs are the wards, and they of course are entirely different. There will be complete confusion if this idiotic suggestion is passed.
LORD HASTINGS: I agree that this is a very important subject, and we have discovered an important difference of opinion. I am perfectly prepared to discuss this further and to come back on

1237
Report stage, either with a more reasoned argument for maintaining our stand or with new proposals.
LORD SHEPHERD: Could the noble Lord give us an indication before Report stage whether the Government intend to put an Amendment down, so that we may have consultations to see whether or not we could put forward an Amendment?
LORD HASTINGS: I will inform the noble Lord on that matter.
LORD CHAMPION: I am grateful to the noble Lord for so frankly admitting that we had presented a point which he had not considered before. Having regard to the noble Lord's undertaking that he will carefully consider the matter before Report stage, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.35 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: I should like to suggest that this Amendment be considered together with Amendments 68, 69, 70 and 71. They are all drafting Amendments and all relate to the orders which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will make after the Parliamentary constituencies have been reviewed defining the electoral areas each of which will return one Greater London councillor. In the case of a borough which contains a group of constituencies none of which spills over into the neighbouring borough, no difficulty arises. The Parliamentary constituencies there will be the electoral areas for the Greater London Council elections, and this is provided for in paragraph 71(1)(b) of this Schedule. So far it is perfectly plain sailing.
The difficulty arises when a Parliamentary constituency straddles a borough boundary. The Bill lays it down that each Greater London Council electoral area must be contained wholly within a London borough. Clearly, these areas cannot follow constituency boundaries when a constituency is partly in one area and partly in another. The Greater London Council electoral areas will have to be defined from scratch. In these cases any order defining such areas or amending them must be governed by paragraph 8(1) of the Schedule. That obliges my right honourable friend to follow the same procedure as is set out in Part III of the First Schedule for orders amending ward boundaries.
1238
This Amendment and the other four which your Lordships have kindly consented to take with it are drafting Amendments designed to ensure that such orders are covered by this requirement in paragraph 8(1) of the Schedule. Amendments 69 and 70 remove superfluous reference to paragraph 6, Part III of Schedule 1, because paragraph 6 is not concerned with the procedure for making orders. Provisions corresponding to these in paragraph 6, Part III of Schedule 1 are contained in paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 2. I have gone into this in some detail although these are drafting Amendments, because, on the face of it, it does appear rather complicated. I hope that I have put the position clearly to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 108, line 43, after ("order") insert ("(being, except in the case of a borough or other area falling within paragraph 7(1)(b) of this Schedule, an order by virtue of paragraph 8(1) of this Schedule)").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD SILKIN: There is, of course, no objection to this series of Amendments, but it reinforces the case we have put over and over again that there is undue haste about the whole of the procedure here. It reinforces the argument because in certain cases the constituencies have not even been settled. Public inquiries may be involved before constituencies are finally agreed upon. People have a right to object, and yet you are proposing to have an election in April and May of 1964. By all means let us pass these Amendments—which are not self-evident, I must say: they did need an explanation—hut would the noble Earl say in how many of the 32 London boroughs this procedure will be necessary? In how many cases do the constituencies cut right across the London boroughs? Would it be in the majority of cases or in a limited number? Can the noble Earl say roughly in how many cases it would apply?
EARL JELLICOE: I regret that I do not have that information. I should have it, and I shall be glad to inform the noble Lord privately.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, after paragraph 5, to insert:
". The provisions of section 79 of the Representation of the People Act 1949 shall apply to elections for the Greater London Council."
The noble Lord said: May I stress the words "Greater London Council" in this Amendment? For those noble Lords who may not be aware of the provisions of Section 79, it goes under the title of Propaganda at parliamentary elections. It says that:
"A candidate at a parliamentary election shall, subject to regulations of the Postmaster General, be entitled to send free of any charge for postage to each elector one postal communication containing matter relating to the election".
Under subsection (2) similar matter may also be sent to a proxy, and under subsection (4) similar matter may be sent to a person who appears to be on the register as an elector but who may be living outside the boundaries at the time of the election.
First of all, I would say to the Committee that we must now consider of what type elections will be after the first elections. We shall then be dealing with parliamentary constituencies. We shall be dealing with electorates of 70,000 to 80,000 persons. We shall in some cases be dealing with areas of a considerable square mileage. Therefore we are dealing with an electoral problem quite different from that seen in local elections. So my case to-day, about the treating of elections of the Greater London Council, is quite apart from any points that might be raised in regard to local government elections.
As I see it, the Greater London Council falls between these two stools. They are neither parliamentary nor are they local. But they will perform a local government office. They will attract people, we hope, who will have an interest in local government affairs. These may come from the main political Parties, but I am sure noble Lords opposite will recognise that in local government there are many Independents, smaller associations, which put forward candidates to represent a particular point of view. I would not wish to deny those smaller associations the opportunities and the rights of taking part in local government elections. But I would suggest that, with the size of these constituencies, the number of electors, the problem of these smaller societies or these Independents is infinitely greater than they have faced in regard to local
1240
government. No doubt the political Parties themselves will be able to deal with it, but the noble Lord, Lord Chelmer, who has had vast experience in local government elections and parliamentary elections, recognises the task that falls upon the local constituency parties of either Party in putting their case before the general public in an attractive and informative way.
If you are dealing with local government, the address that the candidate wishes to make should go to the elector, just as it does in the case of a Parliamentary Election. It is just as important. If the Government wish local government to have a new life and a new interest, I would suggest that we should make it possible for the main political Parties and others to be able to put forward their propaganda (if that is the word) and their policy to the electors. Just as they can do that in Parliamentary Elections, so they should be able to do it in local government. I believe that if the Government were to accept this Amendment—and I stress that this is limited to the Greater London Council—they would take a great step forward in local government electioneering.
I hope the noble Earl, if it is he who is to reply, will recognise that the interest in local government does not come just from the hearth or from the home. It is really derived from the political Parties and the associations that are interested. You must be able to give these machines (if that is the right word) the tools for putting their policy and their propaganda forward. It may well be that the Government will say, "This is an extra expense to be borne by the Postmaster General." It would occur only once every three years, unless there was a by-election. I believe that the money spent would be well worth while. It would be well spent in the interests of the Greater London Council. It would be well spent on behalf of those people who wish to see that their policy is put before the public, and put into effect in the council chamber itself. If the Government wish, as I believe they do, to see the Greater London Council as an active political forum, then I would suggest that, if they accepted my Amendment, they would be taking one step to making it easier for organisations—and I would

1241
stress particularly the smaller organisations or individuals—to put their story across.
May I just quote the case of an individual? One noble Lord opposite, if he were in a borough or a rural district, might wish to be able to stand and to put his story across by the local newspaper or by a canvass. How could one man or one small group of men tackle 70,000 to 80,000 electors, in an area the size of a Parliamentary constituency? It is not right, and I do not believe it could be done. I would beg the Government to accept this Amendment as a serious step forward. But perhaps they would also consider what further steps they could make in dealing with the problems of the Greater London elections, because they will be quite different and more formidable than those of boroughs and even of county councils I should like to see the official poll card being sent by post to each elector by the returning officer. I think that would be another step forward in making local government work in London.
I know it is a fact that in local government absent voters—that is, persons who have left I he area—do not have a postal vote. This may not make a great deal of difference in deciding which side may win and which may lose. My experience is that the Conservative Party always gain by the postal vote, because their machinery, it is alleged, is more efficient. Therefore, I am really making a case for the Conservatives here. But I do not mind doing it, because I think it is right. In the case of these absent voters, in a Parliamentary Election they would be able to vote by post.
I would suggest that in the case of Greater London it is not unreasonable that that principle should also apply. I say that because you may be voting on an old register. There may be quite a large percentage, an effective percentage, of persons who have left, and who would have been entitled to a vote. It may be that they are no longer electors of that particular area; but, as I said earlier, we do not regard the Greater London Council as though were some ordinary local authority, some borough. This is an organisation somewhere between Parliamentary government and local government. Therefore I hope that the
1242
Government will not just stand fast and say, "This is local government; you must not make a move because it might prejudice the interests of other types of local elections". I ask the Government to recognise that this is quite unique. There is no other organisation which is similar; and, therefore, it should be treated with discrimination. I hope that the Government will see their way clear to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 108, line 44, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Shepherd.)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I should like to support my noble friend on this Amendment. I take it that Members in all parts of the Committee are anxious to improve the health of local government. We all deplore—Ministers, in discussing this Bill, no less than others—the smallness of the proportion of the voters who take part in local elections. There are a number of reasons for that, no doubt. National Press publicity and other things are lacking in the case of local government elections, in contrast with Parliamentary elections. But the lesson will have been learnt by everyone who has taken part in elections—local elections and others—that voters do not come out just because they hear there is an election. They need reminding, constant reminding; and if you are unable to reach all the electors with a written message your chance of arousing their interest sufficiently to bring them to vote on Polling Day is very much less. As my noble friend pointed out, in local elections the numbers to be reached are smaller, but where it is a case of an area equivalent to a Parliamentary constituency it is beyond the means of anything, apart from a powerful Party organisation, to distribute literature to all the voters, and it is beyond the means financially of, I should think, all the Parties to pay for postage. Therefore, this request of my noble friend, that the privileges of free postal delivery should be extended to the Greater London Council elections, is entirely reasonable.
I should like to support him, further, in encouraging the Government to think of other ways in which an extra tonic can be administered to local government and local elections. There is, in particular, the case of the postal vote. It

1243
is true that those who qualify as absent voters by reason of the nature of their employment or the nature of their health—if they are invalids—can, in local elections, vote by post, but those people who have changed their residences can vote by post only in Parliamentary elections. That is, I will not say an overwhelming factor in the polling at local elections, but a substantial one, because we must not forget that, even with the Spring election in April or May, the register is by then eight months out of date—although, as the noble Lord will point out, there is a claim period in December.
Again, experience shows that, no matter how many notices appear in the Press urging electors to check the draft registers and make sure of their names, the number who do so is infinitesimal. So errors resulting when the register is compiled on October 10 still persist when the polling is held in April or May. Therefore, anything we can do to overcome these minor handicaps is a help. Members of the Committee will be aware that the Representation of the People Act lays down the qualifications of those who can obtain postal votes in local elections; and it crossed my mind that I might here move an Amendment to the Representation of the People Act, because Section 23(1) of that Act, which sets out the qualifications, does not, of course, include absence from residence as one of the qualifications. I suggest that Her Majesty's Government look at the Representation of the People Act in the light of this new situation and come forward with some proposals to amend it, because I should like to see this particular clause put in.
I would ask one further question of the Minister. It has, I believe, always been the custom for the Home Office, when considering any amendments of the electoral law, to call into consultation the national agents of the main political Parties; and I believe—my noble friend will confirm this—that no amendment to the electoral law is made without general agreement. I should like to ask the Minister whether, in drafting Schedules 2 and 3 of this Bill, such consultation took place with the political Parties.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: With this Amendment I have very great sympathy, because I feel that it would be most
1244
unfortunate if the new body were to perpetuate the great monolithic blocs into which the present London County Council is divided. For nearly 30 years I have had the inestimable privilege of being a member of a county council which has no Party polities at all, and where everyone considers each problem on its merits. This happy state of affairs does not, unfortunately, exist over most of the country to-day. That is a great pity, because in every unit of local government, large or small, there are a great many administrative matters which could he and should be considered on a purely non-Party basis. If, therefore, anything could be done to enable representatives of smaller Parties—or, still better, independents—to sit upon this new body, I think it should he encouraged. Surely, all Members of the Committee must realise that the excellence of the debates in your Lordships' House, which on many occasions are highly superior to those in another part of this building, is due to the fact that we have large numbers of noble Lords who are able to express personal views, personal experience, without (at least on this side of the House) having the Party Whips breathing down their necks.
When I was a Member in another place I had there as fellow Members two eccentric Independents, both of whom did a great deal of good for the proceedings of the House. On the right was A. P. Herbert, still happily with us; on the left the late Eleanor Rathbone. The contribution which those two made to our debates was very valuable indeed. My chief grouse against my own Party is that they failed to implement their promise to restore the University seats and so restore to another place a certain number of independent Members who could say what they liked, when they liked. For that reason I hope that Her Majesty's Government will give sympathetic consideration to this Amendment, even if not in its present form.
6.1 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: One often starts by saying, "this has been a useful discussion," but in this case one can say this with particular truth. I should like to express a good deal of agreement with many of the sentiments I have heard expressed. I entirely agree with what has been said about the Greater London

1245
Council and about its special status. I also agree, as I have said before in Committee, about the need to attract the best possible candidates to that Council and, therefore, about the need to equip both candidates and Party machines, in so far as that power lies with us, with the tools for the job. I would also agree with the noble Earl's remarks on the health of local government and perhaps in this context I might just remind the Committee that recently (I do not have the precise words in my mind) my night honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government announced that he was proposing to set up a committee to look at the general aspects of the health of local government, including the question of calibre of local government representation. That committee—I do not think it has yet been established—will have within its purview many of the points which the noble Earl brought to our attention.
Before I come to answer the point I should also like to say that I regard this as a completely non-Party matter; and I personally have approached it with an open mind. I am reinforced in that view by the fact that the Amendment has been supported from both sides of the Committee. Perhaps it might be useful if I could give some idea of what would be involved if we were to accept this Amendment. As I understand it, Section 79 of the Representation of the People Act gives a right to candidates for Parliamentary election to send, post-free to each elector, one communication relating to the election. This Amendment would extend that right to candidates for the Greater London Council. With an electorate of some 58,000—and this is the sort of electorate we are dealing with—the cost of posting one communication at the 2½d. printed paper rate to each elector would be just over £600. Taking an average of 2½ candidates—two for the major Parties and a half for the others—the total cost might work out at something in the nature of £150,000 per election. That is what we are talking about.
LORD SHEPHERD: That is over the whole of the Greater London Council area.
EARL JELLICOE: Yes. That compares with the £750,000 cost for a Parliamentary General Election. I notice that the noble Lord did not refer (at least I did
1246
not hear him refer) to who is going to foot the bill here. But it is rather a crucial aspect. In the case of Parliamentary elections the Exchequer foots the bill. It is true that the State has an interest, as we all have, in the quality of the candidates for elections to the Greater London Council. Nevertheless, I am not certain that everybody would feel it right for the Exchequer to subsidise expenses of such candidatures. I do not know. Equally, the ratepayers might well object to the use of rates to subsidise such expenses. It would put up the rates, and those of us who find it a little difficult—
LORD SHEPHERD: Be fair. After all, it is a figure of £150,000. What would that mean on the rate for 8½ million people?
EARL JELLICOE: I was not resting very heavily on that particular argument. I was merely about to remark that those of us who may be a little late in paying our rates may be that much increased in number from time to time. I think perhaps that this question of expense, which the noble Lord, advisedly perhaps, did not mention, plays an important part here. I must confess that I do see difficulties—more difficulties naturally than the proponents of this Amendment have seen—with this scheme.
The noble Lord has said that we should make a clear distinction between the Greater London Council and any other local authority. He rested heavily on that argument. I agree that the Greater London Council will be (at least in functions) unlike any other local authority, and much larger than any other local authority, in this country. But, under this Bill, it will be a local authority constitutionally. Therefore I am not certain one can claim that for this purpose one should not consider it as a local authority. If one cannot really sustain that argument—and it is difficult—then it will be extremely difficult to limit this concession merely to the Greater London Council. There would be pressure for it to be extended to other local authorities. I should have thought that county councils, for example, given their very scattered counties and great distances, would be able to make a pretty strong claim. Another difficulty which I foresee is that such a scheme might lend itself to a certain amount of abuse.

1247
At Parliamentary elections the deposit is a check on frivolous candidates. We shall not have that check in these other elections and the Exchequer or the ratepayers might find themselves involved in an expense of £600 for perfectly frivolous candidates. That is a difficulty. Having said that, I should like merely to add two things. First, this was, I must confess, a fairly new idea to me. The Amendment has not long been upon the Order Paper. The last time when, according to my historical research, a somewhat similar Amendment was put down (though it was not taken) was in 1948, on what is now the Representation of the People Act. It stood in the names of Gallacher and Piratin—I have nothing against the Amendment on that particular score, because it has now been sanctified by having the mantle of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, cast over it. But this is rather a new idea. We have as yet had no chance of consulting local authority opinion about it. The second point I would mention is that I think it is fraught with rather more difficulties than those who supported it were perhaps inclined to appreciate. If I had to advise the Committee at this stage on what to do with this Amendment, if noble Lords were to press it, I should have to advise the Committee to vote against it. But I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed, because I should like the chance of looking into the whole question in the light of the arguments which have been or may be deployed.
LORD SHEPHERD: I must again respond to the noble Earl. He has raised many points, some of which are new and which we ourselves should like to consider. As we have proceeded through the Schedule, I think it must have become clear to the noble Earl that we should be well advised to look over the provisions and present ideas with regard to the elections for Greater London. I will not press the Amendment, but I hope that the noble Earl will be able to consider the various points I have made. I thank noble Lords who have supported me and beg the noble Earl to discuss with the Home Office the question of the elections.
EARL JELLICOE: I had hoped that we could avoid this dichotomy, this great gulf, between the Home Office and the
1248
Ministry of Housing on these matters. Of course, they are side by side in Whitehall and we work closely together.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am not going to make disparaging remarks about the Home Office, and I am not even going to flatter the noble Earl's Ministry. But I know that in any business it is best to go to the experts on the subject in which you are particularly interested. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, will not take this ill; but the fact is that the Home Office are more experienced in electoral matters, and I feel that this is something for them to look at. If we must have this Bill, we want to see that it is as good as it can be made, and I think that improvements can be made on these electoral arrangements. On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL JELLICOE: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 109, line 9, after (" order ") insert "(being, except in the case of a borough or other area falling within paragraph 7(1)(b) of this Schedule, an order by virtue of paragraph 8(1) of this Schedule) ".—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 110, line 6, leave out (" 6 ") and insert (" 5 ").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 110, line 12, leave out "6" and insert "5".—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 110, line 20, leave out from ("6") to end of line 21 and insert ("or by virtue of paragraph 8(1) of this Schedule").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD THE EARL OF LONGFORD moved, in paragraph 11(2), after sub-paragraph (c) to insert:
"(d) in paragraph 2(5) of Part I after the words annual meeting of the council,' there

1249
shall be inserted the words 'or except in the case of a matter of urgency brought before the meeting in accordance with any standing order made by the Council;'".
The noble Earl said: If the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has studied this Amendment and is going to reply to it, he and I may be two who understand what the Amendment means, but it is not the kind of Amendment which the ordinary Member of the House will perhaps grasp very easily. May I therefore explain what it means without explaining why it means it? Under paragraph 2(4) of Part I of the Third Schedule to the London Government Act, 1939, urgent items can be taken by the London County Council at council meetings with the Chairman's permission. The Act of 1939 is washed out by the Bill we are discussing, so we are now back under the Act of 1933. Under that Act, and, under the present Bill, unless it is amended, only items on the agenda can be taken by the Greater London Council at its meetings. I think the noble Lord will agree that that is a correct statement of the position under the Bill.
The effect of this Amendment is to enable matters of urgency to be brought before a meeting of the Council, in accordance with any standing orders made by the Council. I cannot suppose that the noble Lord will think that this is harmful. I can only hope that he will think it valuable. Certainly, the power to bring up urgent reports which cannot conveniently wait until the next meeting is frequently used by the L.C.C., whose General Purposes Committee meet the day before the General Council meet. It often happens, as my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth will confirm, that something comes up in the General Purposes Committee, there is not time to give notice of it and it is necessary to cope with it at the meeting of the Council next day. It is considered that a similar power would probably be useful to the Greater London Council. The Minister resisted this proposal in the Standing Committee in another place, but agreed to look at the point again. I hope that the noble Lord will say that this at least is one Amendment which he is prepared to accept. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 111, line 24, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Longford.)
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Earl is right in saying that the Local Government Act, 1939, allows the L.C.C. to operate in this manner to deal with urgent business at short notice. But this does not apply to metropolitan boroughs. It is a special provision in the case of the L.C.C. I am afraid that I must warn the noble Earl that I am going to disappoint him. The normal rule applicable to all local authorities, except the L.C.C., is that items of business to be considered at a meeting of the council must be specified in the notice calling the meeting, which must be circulated three clear days in advance. There is no evidence that the general rule creates any difficulties for local authorities up and down the country. It is a rule of long standing and there is no apparent reason why it should not apply to the Greater London Council. Indeed, I think it is reasonable to argue that the nature of the G.L.C.'s functions makes this exceptional provision even less necessary than otherwise might be the case, because the Council will have to deal largely with impersonal functions—or, as we prefer to say, strategic functions—which are not likely to raise sudden emergencies.
There are other reasons than that of preferring that the G.L.C. should be the same as councils in the rest of the country. Added force is given to the desirability of keeping to the general rule about three clear days' notice of council business because of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act, 1960, under which the Press are entitled to obtain the agenda for council meetings together with supporting documents, provided they are not confidential, at the same time as members, expressly so that they can make arrangements to report items of public interest; and I think, particularly in the case of the Greater London Council, that is a valuable provision to retain. New business is normally dealt with by a committee of a local authority before it reaches the council, and the statutory rule about three days' clear notice does not apply in those cases. Committees are, therefore, able to deal with urgent matters in a much more flexible way. I think probably this is the way round the problem, if there is indeed one, in the case of the Greater London Council. It

1251
is true that this Amendment was considered only briefly in the other place and my right honourable friend said that he would have a look at it. But, on consideration, we feel it is best, for the reasons given, to apply the general rule to the Greater London Council. I am afraid, therefore, I cannot respond to the noble Earl and accept his Amendment.
LORD WOLVERTON: I wish my noble friend would have another look at this. In my council we do not deal with the item "Any other business", but there is covered on the agenda any matters of urgency which the chairman wishes to lay in front of the council. Next Monday he has an important item to put in front of the council because yesterday the Boundary Commission for East Anglia and Lincolnshire made their report. If he did not have some permission to do it, he could not report. The point has been made, and I think it is one that we ought to look into.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: There must have been some reason for the London County Council's having this exceptional flexibility, and if that were so in the case of the London County Council, I should have thought it would follow that it would be much the same case in regard to the Greater London Council. It is the case that sometimes things arise after the council agenda paper is printed and it becomes convenient for a committee to issue a supplementary report, or for the chairman to take recess action in that respect, with the assent of the chairman of the council, on grounds of urgency. I should have thought it was desirable to have this power that my noble friend has moved to be conferred upon the council. A borough council is rather another matter, because it is nearer the ground of operations. But the Greater London Council is going to cover a very large area.
How this all arose, I do not know. When I was Mayor of Hackney I found that they had on the agenda the item "General business". Nobody knew what it meant—the town clerk did not know what it meant—but the Opposition used to bring up business under this "General business" item, sometimes of importance, which was really introduced without
1252
proper notice. It was an abuse. Being a young and vigorous fellow, I, rightly or wrongly, decided to instruct the town clerk to leave this item "General business" off the agenda, whereupon there was argument as to whether I should have done it. Probably I ought not to have done it; I should have taken it to a committee of the council. But that is how it was done. They were never convicted of illegality, and matters were brought up under this curious item of "General business", which I have never met anywhere else.
But in the case of a big authority one sometimes has to move quickly in the public interest. It is like a good many other things—the higher you go in government, the more speedy it becomes. A metropolitan borough had its own procedure. It would spend quite a little time on motions of sympathy for a member who was ill, even if the illness was slight. On the London County Council, it would be taken no notice of, unless he died, and even then, unless he was of a certain rank on the council, the chairman would simply say, "The council has heard with regret of the death of Mr. So-and-so". When you get to Parliament, all that happens is that the Speaker says "The House will have heard with regret of the death of So-and-so". The machines work more quickly. The Parliamentary machine works more quickly than the London County Council; the London County Council is quicker than the metropolitan borough, and so on. It has this elasticity and speed, because otherwise the public interest might be endangered.
I do not know, according to the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, whether or not the committee can bring up a report after the printing of the agenda paper three days before. I know that on the L.C.C. committee agendas there is a line at the end, which is very sensible: "Competent matters of urgency which have arisen since the printing of the agenda paper". That is much more effective than, "Other business, if any", which can be abused. I would hope, therefore, that the Government would reconsider this, because I think the Amendment my noble friend has moved has a lot to be said for it.
With regard to the Press, I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Hastings,

1253
need worry about that. In the case of the London County Council, the Press get the agenda paper automatically at the same time as the councillors do; and if there is a supplementary agenda paper, or supplementary reports come out later, they go to the Press at the same time as they go to the councillors. So that is taken care of. With my noble friend, I hope that the Government can be sympathetic about this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have listened to the debate on this Amendment and it is really a question of machinery and which is the most convenient machinery. If the noble Lord who moved the Amendment would be good enough to withdraw it, I should be grateful because, without entering into any commitment, I should like to discuss this point with my right honourable friend with a view to seeing whether any adjustment can be made which will improve the machinery. Although I know the noble Lord's view about this Bill, if it goes through, as it will, we do want the best machinery that is possible. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord who moved the Amendment to withdraw it, and when he has done so I think a convenient moment will have been reached to adjourn the Committee stage.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. We seem to have reached a better trend of events altogether, and I have much pleasure in withdrawing the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I agree with the last remarks made by the noble Earl. I think we have made very good progress to-day on this measure. This is a convenient time for me to move that the House do now resume, and to express the hope—and I have some grounds for it—that after the Dinner Adjournment the rest of to-day's programme will not take long, so that your Lordships and the staff will not have to stay up until an unduly late hour. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House be now resumed.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

SAINT DIONIS BACKCHURCH CHURCHYARD BILL [H.L.]
6.29 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. In doing so, may I just say that your Lordships may remember that on February 28 the House instructed the Committee to which this Bill would be committed to give to the House a special Report on the Bill, in the terms set out in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, on that occasion. I should like to say now that, in accordance with the Instruction of the House, the Committee have made this special Report. Copies have been available since the beginning of this month in the Printed Paper Office, and no doubt your Lordships have had access to them.
I do not propose to read the Report, but I should like to emhasise the penultimate paragraph. The Committee were posed two questions, and they say:
"The Committee therefore answer the questions raised by the Instruction as follows:—

1. Clause 4 of these Bills does not increase any persons' liability to pay compensation.

2. Clause 4 of these Bills could, if the owner of either of these churchyards were to require the Common Council of the City of London to purchase the churchyard, substantially increase the price which the Common Council would be required to pay on the purchase."

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, will feel that the Committee have carried out the Instruction which he proposed. I should only like to add that there are Amendments to these Bills, but the Amendments are not connected in any way with the subject matter of the Report. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I think it would be appropriate if, on behalf of any of your Lordships who are interested in this matter, I were to express thanks to the Committee for this extremely clear Report on an extremely involved matter. When I moved this Instruction, it was not intended in any way as a criticism of

1255
these particular Bills. It was merely that there had been a considerable number of such Bills coming, it seemed to me, more and more frequently before your Lordships' House, and that there was probably a difficulty arising from them for the planning authority if it desired to retain these graveyards as open spaces. If the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman of Committees, will forgive me for a suggestion of criticism of the Report, it does not seem to me to have answered quite the whole of the Instruction, which went on to say:
"…or in any other way acts to the detriment of the planning authority concerned…"
The Report does not give an opinion as to whether the planning authority will be obliged to pay the market price—in other words, the price of building land in a closely built-up area, where land is extremely expensive—and whether that will act to the detriment of the planning authority. I should have thought that almost inevitably it does.
However, I am most grateful for this clarification of an extremely complicated position. It occurs to me to wonder whether perhaps the Minister could not send out to local authorities a short memorandum, indicating what is the position in these cases. I took these cases as typical, not as particular examples of which I was critical but simply because these two Bills were almost common form for this purpose. Should not the local authorities be told that, if they desire to preserve graveyards as open spaces (and this kind of graveyard always occurs in a very closely built-up area of the town in which it happens to exist), then the way they must do it is by opposing the Bill when it is presented to your Lordships' House? It also occurs to me to wonder whether the Unopposed Bill Committee, on suitable occasions, could require the Promoters of a Bill to see that any developer buying land for development should be put under a compulsion to make an equivalent quantity of land available as open space within the neighbourhood of the development. I repeat that I am most grateful to the Committee for the elucidation of this position, and I hope that it will have served a useful purpose.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, if I may speak briefly in reply to the noble Lord, I wonder whether he has studied the paragraph, on the second page of the Report, which begins with the words
"Section 129 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962…"
May I emphasise part of that sentence, which says that
"…the owner may in certain circumstances compel the local authority…to purchase the land."
That refers, of course, to Section 129 of the 1962 Act. It goes on to say—and this is, I hope, the answer for which the noble Lord was looking:
"The purchase price of the land would broadly speaking be its market value; and that value would no doubt be greatly enhanced by the removal by clause 4 of the restrictions attached to a disused burial ground."
I hope that that answers the noble Lord, because I can assure him that the Committee had no intention whatever of evading any of the noble Lord's questions. If that extract does not answer the noble Lord, I will go into the matter again and let him know.
With regard to the other point which the noble Lord raised, the suggestion that the Unopposed Bill Committee might take certain action on future churchyard Bills, I hope that I shall be excused if I do not commit the Committee to action of that kind in the future. I believe the noble Lord will agree that this Committee, like any other, must consider every Bill as it appears before them; and I could not give any undertaking that they will take any action in the future on such Bills. I can only say that they will bear in mind what the noble Lord has said.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, if the noble Lord will excuse me, I thought I said that the Committee would, at their own discretion, and in what seemed to them to be suitable cases, take the action that I suggested.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I admit that the Committee could do so, but I should not like to go so far as to promise that they would. I think that would be going too far.
LORD FARINGDON: I only asked them to consider it, my Lords.
LORD MERTHYR: I am sure the Committee will consider what the noble Lord has said.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, may I add one word to the noble Lord by way of comment on his remarks? He is quite right, of course, in thinking that the position of a local authority might be prejudiced if they wished to retain open spaces where these burial grounds were to be abolished. But, of course, they would have to petition to oppose the Bill, and that is the only way. I understand that the practice in London is for the Church authorities themselves to consult the local planning authority informally before promoting such a Bill, and certainly the implications of Churchyard Bills are carefully considered by the Minister, and the views of the local planning authorities sought, before he makes his Report to the Unopposed Bill Committee, if those views of the local authority are not already known. So I do not think there is much danger that a local authority will be put into an unhappy position financially unless it wants to be in that position; and in such a case it would not be unhappy, because it would mean that development could go on.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SAINT NICHOLAS ACONS CHURCHYARD BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

FORT WILLIAM PULP AND PAPER MILLS BILL
6.41 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I must say I get rather a "kick" out of it because this is the first time in fourteen years in your Lordships' House that. I have been allowed to speak on what is in essence a Scottish Bill. This Bill empowers the Board of Trade to make loans to Wiggins, Teape & Company Limited for the purpose of building and equipping a pulp mill and associated paper mills at Fort William, Inverness-shire, Scotland. The Bill places a limit
1258
on the total amount of such loans and the period during which they may be made and provides that interest shall be charged at 5½ per cent. per annum. The Bill further provides for grants to be made to the Company equivalent to the amount of interest payable in respect of the period ending December 31, 1966, and authorises the Board of Trade to make an agreement or agreements with the Company defining the other terms and conditions of the loan, including the repayment conditions. Copies of such agreements are to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
The amount of the charge on public funds which the Bill authorises in respect of loans is £10 million. It is intended that not more than £8 million of this total will be advanced during the period ending December 31, 1966. The total of the grants which the Bill authorises the Board of Trade to make in respect of interest payments falling due during this period must not exceed £1·3 million. The Bill provides that all the sums required are to be paid out of monies voted by Parliament, and that any sums received by the Board as interest or repayment of loans are to be paid into the Exchequer.
May I say one word about the mill itself? The mill has a capacity of 80,000 tons of bleached chemical pulp a year, to produce which it will require 400,000 tons of timber, or 12 million hoppus feet. Of this, 8 million hoppus feet will be Scottish softwood, the smaller sized coniferous roundwood, mostly spruce, pine, larch and Douglas fir. The balance of the raw material will be hardwood, which will have to be imported, and is likely to come from South Africa. The Forestry Commission will supply the bulk of the softwood, up to 6 million hoppus feet per year, starting in 1965, from the supply area north and west of a line Huntly—Perth—Helensburgh. This includes some of the Commission's largest and best known forests in the Argyll and Queen Elizabeth National Forest Parks, the forest of Inverliever, and Speymouth Forest. Another 2 million hoppus feet of softwood is expected to come from other sources, private woodlands and sawmills.
A modern pulp and paper mill is not a large employer of labour in relation to the capital invested. The mill itself will employ about 750 people at the start,

1259
rising to some 1,200 by the completion of the second stage. In the forests the supply of softwood to the pulpmill will provide employment for over 1,000 additional men, engaged in felling, extracting, transport and ancillary work. In addition, a further 350 may be required to deal with the increased production of sawlogs. These numbers are in addition to the 700 men engaged in this work in the supply area.
There will, of course, be a general stimulus to employment in the district which cannot be calculated. Fort William itself, though in a Development District, is not an area where there is surplus labour. The people to fill these jobs will have to come from elsewhere. Principally, they will come from Development Districts elsewhere in Scotland and, of course, we hope that there will be an opportunity for people who have left Fort William to work elsewhere, because work was not available there for them, to come back to Fort William. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Derwent.)
6.47 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I would congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, on his maiden speech on Scotland, and well realise that he got a "kick" out of it. I am not, unfortunately, making my maiden speech on Scotland, because the numbers of Scottish Peers on this side of your Lordships' House being somewhat depleted, I was long ago dragooned, quite willingly, into speaking about Scotland, a country and people that I know and admire tremendously. I must say at once that the "kick" that I get out of this Bill is the fact that it is going to find employment for some 3,000 people all told—that is my estimate of it—in an area where for far too long, almost for centuries, the labour has been drained away because there was not work for the men to do. It is for that reason that my noble friends on this side of the House and I give this Bill a very warm welcome indeed.
I do not propose to go into the financial details, except to say that, although they may be generous, nevertheless I would not cavil at that for one moment. It is a very fine conception, and I would say at once that I should wish there were
1260
many more of them. It could be argued, perhaps indeed it was argued in another place, that this is a private enterprise measure and we should have taken a share in the equity, and so on and so forth. But what I am concerned about is employment where it is most needed. I hope noble Lords opposite will not take it amiss if I point out that this venture would have been quite impossible and could not have started at all if it were not for a number of publicly owned enterprises: first of all, the great work of the Forestry Commission, which over the years has made it possible for the raw materials for this factory to be available. Indeed if the work had gone forward without check, and if in 1932, when my own Party was not in power, there had not been a most unfortunate check when millions of young trees were burned, we should have had a lot more timber in the Highlands for this new mill to use.
Then there will have to be—and I hope the noble Lord will say something about this—much better provision of roads, which will provide a lot of employment. There are in that area many single-track roads. They will have to be widened or strengthened. I hope, too, he will say something about a decision on the new bridge which will be needed at Fort William over the River Lochy. He mentioned that there is little or no unemployment in Fort William at present, and that the labour will have to be drawn from other parts of Scotland where there is unemployment. I hope he will say something about the Government's intentions to assist the local authority to provide the housing which will most obviously be necessary.
I mention those points because, really, although Wiggins, Teape are going to build and work the paper mill as a commercial enterprise—and good luck to them!—nevertheless, in essence the whole thing is really a public enterprise built round the private one. I have mentioned, too, the railways, not at any great length because my noble friend Lord Lindgren knows much more on this subject than I do, but because it is proper to mention that this factory would not have been possible, and indeed Wiggins, Teape would not have gone there, unless British Railways had changed a previous intention and agreed to carry on the line to Fort William.

1261
They have got a 20 year contract from Wiggins, Teape.
I mention this because it is so important to Scotland—I am delighted to see that tithe noble Earl, Lord Dundee, is here—and because if the Beeching Plan had come forward, say, even two years ago and had been implemented, there would have been no question now of a paper mill at Fort William because the railway would not have been there. There are other parts of Scotland where, although at present they badly need it, there is not yet a major project, and if the present plans in Dr. Beeching's Report go forward and the railway is taken away, then it means writing off those areas and making impossible the kind of project which we are warmly welcoming in this Bill.
I believe that it is as important to us who live in London that men and women should be profitably, happily and busily employed in the Highlands of Scotland, as it is to them. It is absolute madness if we permit our policies to be—I will not say so constructed, but so to deteriorate that from such areas people are drawn away until the United Kingdom consists of one continuous subtopia from the Mersey to the Straits of Dover. Then, the whole of this country would be much poorer in every possible way and would scarcely be worth living in. It certainly would not be the Britain that we have known and loved.
Therefore, warmly as I, on behalf of my noble friends, welcome this Bill and congratulate the Government on its introduction, I do say that, so far as Scotland is concerned, one swallow does not make a summer. Welcome and important as this venture is, it is not nearly enough. What we want is to see that this is the forerunner of many more such sound projects, which are going to use local labour and, so far as possible, local materials. I say again that we believe that in all circumstances, whether the venture is publicly or privately owned, it will in all such areas depend on, and only become possible through, other publicly owned services, which must be provided and continued. As I say, the railway is one of them. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us some hope that, because of this particular project and others like it, the Government are feeling that at least the North-Western railway
1262
up to The Kyles must continue. I think that is going to be absolutely essential to service this factory. This is the kind of occasion that we can all be happy about, and on which we join together in wishing this venture every possible success and hope that it is the forerunner of many more.
6.55 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, it will not be necessary for me now to detain your Lordships for more than a second or two, because my noble friend Lord Stonham has covered the ground so ably and fully. My sole intention in intervening to-night is to call attention to the fact that, while we support this Bill absolutely and to the full, had this project come along twelve months later it could, as my noble friend has said, never have been sited where it is. The railway facilities in this area were under consideration for closure, and they would have been closed because the profitability was not there.
My noble friend Lord Stonham referred to roads. The roads in this area are completely inadequate. Had it not been for the railway facility which, of course, is only there now because of the gurantee arising from the placing of these mills at the spot, there would have been no possibility whatever of the mills being there, because the road system just could not have carried its traffic. My point in intervening is this. At Question Time this afternoon we were talking about Dr. Beeching's Report. During the discussion we had on that Report I tried to draw the attention of the House to the close association between transport and the planning of the distribution of industry and population. You cannot plan the distribution of industry and population without, at the same time, planning adequate facilities for a transport system—road, rail and the rest. Delighted as we are that this project has come forward now for this part of Scotland, we hope that many other areas in Scotland will not be so depleted of transport facilities that, should something come along, they will not be able to accept it, as Fort William has gladly been able to accept this project.
6.57 p.m.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, I should like in a few words to add my

1263
congratulations to the Government and to comment on this Bill. I congratulate the Government on bringing forward what is, even by modern standards, a most formidable undertaking, as it involves a great deal of public money. As a grower of timber myself, I appreciate the great encouragement and stimulus that this will give to forestry in Scotland, both to the Forestry Commission and to private growers as well, because it will give them an assured market for the disposal of their thinnings. That has been a great trouble in the growing of trees over the past few years. Our principal markets were the Coal Board and, to a certain extent, British Railways. These have largely closed down. The Coal Board are using far more steel than timber props, and I believe that the same applies to British Railways, who are using more steel than timber in their waggons. So this project is going to be a great thing, and, as the noble Lord has explained, the Mill will give a great deal of employment. It may well do more than that, because it seems to me that often when an industry gets established it attracts other industries. There are many by-products to timber, and subsidiaries may collect round this big pulp mill and may still further widen the area of employment. It is a great thing for Scotland. I wish it every success, and I am sure it is going to bring a real gleam of prosperity to the Highlands.
6.59 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said that he got a kick out of this Bill. I can assure him that any kick he may receive will be entirely self-administered, because so far as Scotland is concerned it is more likely to be a hearty pat on the back. With other speakers, I greatly welcome this Bill. We hope that it is going to renew prosperity over a large area of the Highlands. For many years past I have bored people both inside and outside your Lordships' House by reiterating that only the growing, the conversion and manufacture of timber can possibly maintain the population in the Highlands, let alone put it back. We have heard that this Bill is going to put a good many people back into the High-
1264
lands. As the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, has said, one of the most important things we now have to face is what we are going to do with our thinnings; and up to date a very large proportion of those thinnings, which could have been turned into pulp, have been destroyed simply because there has been no means of so doing.
This is a very worthy scheme, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, said, there are other parts too, and I very much hope that in my own area of Central Scotland we shall get a mill sooner or later, because it is not going to be economic for us to send up to Fort William. There too, although the unemployment problem is not so serious, it would be an excellent thing if we could get another factory going there and be given this amount of work. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, rather smugly attributed practically all of this achievement to the Forestry Commission. I would remind him, however, that an immense amount of ground has been planted by private owners, and that private forestry has got nearer to attaining the total area originally envisaged, proportionately, than has the Forestry Commission.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am sorry. I hope the noble Earl will forgive me, but I was rather hurried and I did, as he says, fail to pay tribute to the private forestry owners.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: The noble Lord's apology is not really necessary. I thought it as well to point that fact out. Those of us who have been planting for many years, as I have been doing ever since the war, have been doing it very largely on faith, because we have not known whether we are going to get any market even for our large timber, let alone for our thinnings. This should do a great deal to restore confidence, but it is perfectly true that the Forestry Commission and the Government—any Government for that matter—are more involved than anyone else. They have planted, and are continuing to plant, a very large amount of ground, and it is not going to be in the national interest if the timber from those great areas cannot be profitably employed. Once more, while thanking the Government for making this development possible,

1265
I would urge them to look at the possibility of setting up some such factory in the centre of Scotland within a reasonable space of time.
7.4 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I do not think it would be right to let this Bill go through without saying a word of thanks for the enterprise of Messrs. Wiggins, Teape, who are taking a very considerable risk. Not only are they committing themselves to interest on the Government loan, but if there is a running loss on this mill they will have to stand it. After all, they are in competition with the forestry industries of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, and the rest, who are very old professional hands at the game. I hope that their enterprise will be copied by other people because, if the Government Actuary is correct in his latest forecast that we shall have 72 million people in these islands before a great many years are out, we shall certainly need to have the Highlands repopulated.
7.5 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to noble Lords for the response they have given to this Bill. They will not want me to-night to go into the question of industry in Scotland, because we have recently had a debate on the subject; but I am sympathetic with anybody who wants to grow trees, because I am a timber grower myself and do not see any chance of my getting a pulp mill at the moment in my part of Yorkshire. This matter, particularly when it applies to Scotland, is always being watched very carefully. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, for mentioning Messrs. Wiggins, Teape. I will not go into the history of the project, but it has not been easy. They have been very enterprising in this matter. They believe they are going to make it work; they are extremely efficient, and I hope they will make a very great success of it.
I am grateful to the noble Lords opposite, Lord Stonham and Lord Lindgren, for raising certain practical questions, because it will give me the opportunity of replying as I think people ought to know about them. Transport facilities are there, although the roads will need improving. What is also
1266
important is the necessary supply of fresh water and facilities for disposing of the effluent. What in fact may be as important as anything else when the mill is operating is that there is a good deep-water anchorage. This is going to be of the utmost importance. One word about roads. Only 30 per cent. of the timber will have to travel over roads with a weight limit of 10 tons or less—that is for the smaller roads. Plans are being made to reduce this proportion further. Plans are also being made—this is being done rather piecemeal, but that is the best method of handling it—to improve bottle-necks on the main road from Fort William to the pulp mill site.
As regards the railways, British Railways intend to retain their railway from Glasgow to Fort William and Mallaig. The section between Crianlarich (halfway from Glasgow) and Fort William will be used for conveying timber from Argyll and Perthshire to the mill. Crianlarich will be the collecting point. As regards housing, the Inverness County Council and the Fort William Burgh are putting up housing in the Fort William area for employees at the mill. We expect this work to start this summer. I hope that I have answered all the questions put to me by noble Lords. Once again I should like to thank noble Lords very much for their reception of this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL
7.8 p.m.
House again in Committee.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
LORD HASTINGS: This Amendment is purely drafting. The words concerned were inserted as a paving Amendment for an Amendment inserted in another place but removed on Report stage. Therefore, they are no longer necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 111, line 47, leave out from ("and") to ("shall").—(Lord Hastings.)
EARL JELLICOE: May I just ask the noble Lord, Lord Latham, something which is worrying me somewhat? I was told that we were to go on until 7.30, but I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, was not here to move his Amendment. I was wondering whether there was any hitch in the arrangements. It is agreed by all concerned, is it, that we should go on?
LORD LATHAM: Yes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, after paragraph 12, to insert:
"12A. As from 1st April, 1965, and until such time as other terms and conditions of service under the Council in relation to persons whose duties are wholly or mainly administrative, professional, technical or clerical (such persons being in this paragraph referred to as 'officers') are settled by agreement or award and come into force, the conditions of service, the method of grading offices and the scales of salaries or remuneration and emoluments applicable to officers transferred under or by virtue of this Act to the employment of the Council immediately before they were so transferred shall continue to apply to them."
The noble Lord said: This is a long Amendment. It is also a very important one for it relates to the interests of the administrative, professional, technical and clerical grades who will take employment with the new Council when it comes into existence. This Amendment is in contrast in its subject matter to Clause 82, which we shall later have to consider, in that the Amendment deals with groups of staff in the various categories which I have recited, as distinct from dealing with them as individuals.
The staff to be transferred to the service of the Greater London Council are likely to be in five groups with different conditions of service, different conditions of grading and different salary structures. There will be the former London County Council staff, the former Middlesex County Council staff, and the county borough and metropolitan borough council staff If the Water Board is transferred there will be the former staff of the Metropolitan Water Board. There will also be civil servants from the Ministry of Transport. It is estimated that upwards of 80 per cent.—in the region of 12,500—of the administrative, professional, technical and clerical staff of the Greater London Council will be former
1268
London County Council staff, whose conditions, gradings and salary structures are particular to the London County Council. The next largest group will be about 1,500 coming from the Metropolitan Water Board, whose conditions are different again. About 10 per cent. will come from the local authorities other than the London County Council, and they will be on conditions, salaries and gradings laid down by the National Joint Council for Local Authorities, dealing with the administrative, professional and technical staff, which I shall henceforth refer to as A.P.T., if I may. Only a small number of civil servants are likely to come from the Ministry of Transport.
There is at this stage, therefore, no certainty about the service conditions in the Greater London Council, and it may prove difficult to negotiate them before that body comes into existence or even in the early stages of its life. There is accordingly a distinct possibility that as a result of the Bill as it now stands the existing staffs of the London County Council and the Metropolitan Water Board would suffer a worsening in the standards on which they were employed. The possibility derives from the radically different staffing structures of the London County Council and the Metropolitan Water Board from that adopted by other local authorities. The service conditions on which the London County Council staff are employed are in general superior and reflect the higher educational standards which are demanded for entry to the London County Council service. For example, the intake of the London County Council basic administrative grade ranges between 50 and 60 per cent. from honours graduates, whereas the recruitment of graduates to the local government service elsewhere is of a much lower order. By stating that, which is a fact, I am not in any way casting any reflection upon the staff of other local authorities.
The difference between the L.C.C.'s and other staffing structures may be illustrated by examples. The London County Council administrative officer Grade 3, has a salary scale which goes from £655 to £1,295, and spans four of the total of five administrative grades of other local government authorities. If the general local government structure were adopted by the Greater London Council, a London County Council officer, Grade 3

1269
on transfer would have to be placed in one or other of these, and, although he might be allowed to advance in salary to his present maximum of £1,295 on an individual basis, he would find himself in a post graded as A.P.T.3, with a normal maximum salary of £1,040. This would mean that the transferred L.C.C. administrative officers Grade 3 would find themselves at various points in the A.P.T. structure related to what was considered to be the appropriate grading of the post occupied, but would all be paid on the same salary scale. The difficulty would be even more acute among the professional grades, whose basic London County Council grade has a career run-through from £860 to £1,555, which would range over A.P.T. 1, 2, and 3, the whole of 4, and most of 5. Similar difficulties would arise throughout the whole of the London County Council's A.P.T. and C. structure.
It is not the purpose of the Amendment to substitute ministerial powers for the normal negotiating procedures, once these have been established. All that this Amendment proposes is that the present vacuum should be filled by a statutory prescription that the service conditions, gradings and salary structures of the various groups of staff coming to the Greater London Council shall continue until such time as the authority and the staff organisations have got together and reached agreement between themselves in the matter. It does nothing to fetter negotiations, or to prejudice the form of negotiating machinery for settling service conditions of the Greater London Council; nor does it prejudice the issue itself. It does no more than provide an interim structural basis and leaves the parties concerned—namely, the Greater London Council and the representatives of its staff—free to vary them as time goes on.
It will, however, make clear to the staff likely to be transferred to the employment of the Greater London Council that the interim arrangements which will apply to them will be those operative under their existing authorities. It will thus help to remove some of the uncertainty which exists in the minds of the staff who are liable to transfer. It will help to dispel the apprehension that they may suffer a worsening in their standards of pay and
1270
prospects, and it will assist them in reaching their personal decisions as to where their futures lie. The staff are no doubt, and understandably so, anxious as to the future. The Amendment will remove the anxiety in these respects. The Government will wish, I am sure, to treat the staff fairly, and therefore it would be helpful if the Government could say so in definitive terms by accepting this Amendment, which has the purpose that I have indicated. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 112, line 14, at end insert the said sub-paragraph.—(Lord Latham.)
LORD LINDGREN: In any big redistribution of functions and work there is bound to be disturbance of staff. In regard to the Beeching proposals we have just been through problems arising on the railways. Therefore I have more than a normal feeling for the staffs concerned in these jobs. I think it is very probable—in fact, more than probable—that every person now employed within the local government service, particularly within the L.C.C., who wants to transfer to one authority or another will be able to do so. Therefore the question of just a job does not arise: a job will be available somewhere. But for somebody who has accepted the responsibility of a mortgage, perhaps, or even hire-purchase payments and the rest, the possibility of a change in status, standing and income is very disturbing, not only to the man or the woman but to those who associate with them in their families.
As I understand the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Latham has moved, it is just a simple request: that here is a disturbance of staff through no fault of their own. They had every reason to believe that their jobs would continue undisturbed so long as they behaved themselves; and it is not unreasonable, in those circumstances, that they should not only be guaranteed a job but should also be guaranteed, at least until things have settled down, the same standing and status—perhaps "standing and status" is not the correct term, but the same financial position—that they have now. In other words, having been transferred to other work their present gradings and salaries, at least, should carry on. If the man is promoted to a job carrying a

1271
higher rate of pay and greater responsibility, then he should get the rate for the job. That is the simple point. It will very likely happen, but if we in this Committee could say to those engaged in the local government staff of London, "Whatever happens, your present salaries will continue when you are absorbed; of course, the question of the job, gradings and all the rest of it will have to be righted, but for the time being things remain as they are", then not only would the transfer be made easier but the minds of the staff would certainly be much easier as to their general conditions.
7.23 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Lord, Lord Latham, has raised a very important subject, and we wish to deal with it in a most sympathetic manner. As the noble Lord pointed out, these problems connected with staff are really divided into two main parts. First of all, there are the safeguards to be given to employees as individuals. The safeguards of this kind are dealt with in Part IX of the Bill, especially in Clause 82. Part IX of the Bill is the right place for such safeguards, because they must give equal protection to all local government employees, irrespective of which council employs them now or which will employ them in the future. These safeguards will be discussed fully when we reach Part IX. I should, however, just like to refer to my right honourable friend's undertaking during the Report stage in the other place, when he promised to give further consideration to the possibility of strengthening the safeguards set out in Clause 82. I cannot say anything further about that just yet, but the Government expect to be able to put down Amendments which will commend themselves to the Committee when we reach that stage in the Bill.
The second main group is the one with which the noble Lords opposite have been dealing, and that is connected with staffing matters in relation to the terms and conditions of service on which future staff of the Greater London Council will be employed. Here we are looking at the terms and conditions of service which will attach to posts rather than to individuals. I think the noble Lord referred to it as "groups".
LORD LATHAM: Categories.
LORD HASTINGS: Categories: to posts which, in the course of events, will fall vacant as the years go by. Also, we are concerned with new posts created to meet the Council's need. The Government's view is that the staffing structure of a local authority—that is to say, the grading of 'the jobs it offers and the terms and conditions of service which attach to those jobs—ought properly to be left to the local authority to settle in discussion and consultation with the appropriate negotiating bodies in the local government field. But, as your Lordships have been made aware by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, the London County Council has special arrangements negotiated separately from those which apply to other authorities. Now the fundamental question raised is really whether, and to what extent, the Bill should indicate to the Greater London Council that they should follow the L.C.C. staffing arrangements or some other.
Admittedly, the Amendment does not say that the L.C.C. terms and conditions should apply to all posts under the Greater London Council, but I think what it does intend to ensure, if I understand the noble Lord aright, is that where a post under the Greater London Council is initially filled by a former employee of the L.C.C., then that post shall be graded according to the L.C.C. arrangements until other arrangements are negotiated or settled. Similarly, posts under the Greater London Council initially filled by former employees of the Middlesex County Council or the Civil Service, for instance, would be graded according to the positions pertaining in the Middlesex County Council. That could lead to some curious anomalies in practical operation, because if during the transitional stage those posts were to be vacated in some cases, and the people who were then employed in them came from a different organisation, they would be going into a category which had been originally negotiated by the Middlesex County Council or, say, the London County Council, and it might not give them the same grade. I hope the noble Lord sees what I mean. That could happen.
Now the Government well recognise that one of the main purposes of the Amendment is, as the noble Lord said, to provide a way in which the present

1273
staff employed by London authorities can be reassured about their future prospects and be told how the posts under the new authorities will be graded. The Government hope that the preliminary discussions on the joint committees to be set up under Clause 83 and Clause 83(2), will enable early decisions to be taken by the new councils. However, Her Majesty's Government regard it as a matter of principle and of some importance that staffing matters in the field of local government should as far as possible be settled through the local government negotiating machinery, without any interference from outside.
I should like to make a suggestion to the noble Lords opposite. There are, as we agree, two parts to this problem—the individual aspect and the one we are now discussing relating to posts or categories. It is perhaps difficult to see the whole matter in perspective at this stage. When we come to Clause 82, as I have said, the Government expect to table Amendments bringing about improvements as a result of comments in another place, and perhaps when we see those Amendments noble Lords opposite may be able to see the whole matter more completely. Then, if it is necessary to come back, in the light of those Amendments, to this particular aspect of the problem, perhaps we can do so at a later stage. It would probably be a matter, if necessary—and I do not say it will be—of inserting a new clause in the Bill under Miscellaneous Provisions, and not trying to deal with it under this Schedule. If that is agreeable to the Committee, I hope that what I shall have to say on a later occasion will meet the requirements of noble Lords opposite.
LORD LATHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think his proposal, which was made in a very co-operative spirit, should help in resolving what is a very difficult problem. As one who was a member of the Staff Committee representing the London County Council when I was Leader of the Council, I know how complex these categories can get. I think the statement made by the noble Lord will bring some comfort and will allay the anxiety which is naturally felt by those concerned in the transfers. In those circumstances, with the understanding that we can come back to it at a
1274
later stage, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL JELLICOE: I think it might be convenient now to adjourn until 8.30, as was agreed, and I beg to move that the Committee adjourn during pleasure until 8.30.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
The Sitting was suspended from half-past seven and resumed at half-past eight o'clock.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved to leave out paragraph 13. The noble Earl said: This Amendment is designed purely to pave the way for Amendment No. 251A. The Opposition Amendment, No. 77, which immediately follows, is also linked with this subject. I understand that the Opposition have now transferred their No. 77 to an Amendment to No. 251A, which appears as No. 251B. I should like to move Amendment No. 76A formally, on the understanding that our substantive discussion of the whole matter will be deferred until we get to No. 251A later on. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 112, line 15, leave out paragraph 13.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD CROOK: On behalf of noble Lords on these Benches, I accept the suggestion which the noble Earl has just made. Directly I saw the noble Earl's new Amendment I took the precaution of putting down an Amendment, to which he has referred. I am sure the noble Earl appreciates what his right honourable friend said in Committee in another place: that the Government felt that in the acceptance of the words contained in Amendment No. 77 there was a grave risk that they might be accepting a principle which applied to the whole of local government service throughout the country. They were prepared to accept in principle, if they could, what had been suggested in another place, but not in respect of the whole country. I am referring to the discussion in another place merely to remind your Lordships that the Opposition were given to understand that the Government were going to be helpful on this matter. Having put down Amendment No. 251B, it may be that

1275
the noble Earl will be able to tell us in advance whether our form of words pleases the Government. If it does not, I should like to assure the noble Earl that I should be happy to co-operate, on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches, in trying to get what we should all like. I think that our Amendment No. 77 will automatically fall on the passing of the noble Earl's Amendment.
LORD BURDEN: This Amendment has been put down by the noble Earl, following representations made in another place on behalf of the National Association of Local Government Officers. I am authorised to say that the Association is thankful that the Minister has accepted those recommendations and put down this Amendment, which will be rounded off by the Amendments to be moved later. I feel that the Minister is entitled to that commendation, in view of the action he has taken.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.35 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: This Amendment is linked with Amendments Nos. 81 to 84, and it may be convenient to take them together. The effect of the Amendments is to exclude borrowing from the scope of the annual Money Bill to be promoted by the Greater London Council which will be confined to authorising capital expenditure and lending to other bodies and persons. Borrowing for these purposes will be directly authorised by paragraph 29 of Schedule 2, as amended. The procedure for the Greater London Council will be identical with that followed by the London County Council. The importance of this Amendment lies in the fact that the annual Money Bill relates to a financial period of eighteen months. Because of the timing of stock issues and so on, it may not be convenient for the Greater London Council to borrow within that period the whole amount necessary to finance the expenditure and the loans authorised for the same period. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 115, line 2, leave out from ("expenditure") to end of line 3 and insert ("by the Council on capital account or on lending to other persons").—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD LATHAM: I gather that the noble Lord assures the Committee that this Amendment does not in any way diminish the powers of the Greater London Council in comparison with those possessed by the London County Council as regards capital expenditure authorisation and the like. In those circumstances, we can support the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, after paragraph 28, to insert:
"28A.—(1) If the whole of the amount authorised by an annual money Act to be expended for any authorised purpose in the first twelve or last six months of the relevant financial period aforesaid is not required to be so expended, the Council may with the approval of the Treasury expend for any other authorised purpose in those twelve or, as the case may be, six months (in addition to the amount authorised in relation to that other purpose) an amount not exceeding the unexpended portion of the first-mentioned amount.
(2) If by reason of unforeseen circumstances the amount authorised by an annual money Act to be expended for any authorised purpose in the first twelve or last six months of the relevant financial period aforesaid is found to be insufficient, the Treasury may on the application of the Council authorise the Council to expend for that purpose such further sums as it is shown to the satisfaction of the Treasury to be necessary or desirable for the Council so to expend, not exceeding in the aggregate such amount as may be authorised in that behalf by that Act in relation to those twelve or, as the case may be, six months.
(3) In ascertaining for the purposes of paragraph 27(2) or 28(3) of this Schedule the amount which may be expended for any authorised purpose in the last six months of the financial period aforesaid to which an annual money Act relates, there shall be taken into account the extent to which the sum authorised to be expended for that purpose in the first twelve months of that period has been expended under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph for any other authorised purpose.
(4) The provisions of paragraph 28(6) to (8) of this Schedule shall apply to any loan under this paragraph as they apply to any loan under that paragraph.
(5) In this paragraph references in connection with an annual money Act to expenditure for an authorised purpose are references to expenditure—

(a) on capital account for a purpose mentioned in that Act; or

(b) on loans to persons of a class either mentioned in paragraph 28(2)(a) to (f) of this Schedule or specified in that Act."

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to give the Greater London Council power to re-allocate expenditure on capital account of lending authorised by the annual Money Bill from purposes where there is a surplus to purposes where insufficient provision has been made, and to enable the Treasury, within limits laid down in the Money Bill, to authorise further expenditure by the Greater London Council beyond the amount stated in the annual Money Bill. The London County Council already have a comparable power in the London County Council (Loans) Act, 1955. The Amendment is proposed at their request and has been agreed in detail with their officers. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 116, line 31, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD LATHAM: Generally speaking this Amendment preserves the right of what is known as the procedure of virement as regards expenditure, and the Committee can accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 79. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 116, line 34, leave out from ("of") to ("authorised") in line 36 and insert ("expenditure on capital account or on lending if, but only if, the expenditure is").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: This again is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 116, line 37, leave out ("borrowing") and insert ("expenditure").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: This is also a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 116, line 37, leave out ("thereto").(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: This is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 116, line 39, at end insert ("to any borrowing for the purpose thereof").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.42 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN LORD LINDGREN moved to add to paragraph 29:
"The Council shall pay, out of the General Fund, such scale of salaries to its members as the Minister shall from time to time prescribe".
The noble Lord said: I admit at once that this is perhaps one of the most difficult problems associated with local government at the present time. As I shave said on a number of occasions in this House, I have been associated with local government now for 40 years. In my early days we received neither travelling expenses nor any contribution towards loss of pay. I must admit that in those days it was very difficult indeed for those of us who were dependent upon our weekly wage or salary, when we lost time in order to carry on local government.
Many times I have wondered whether I was doing the right thing as an individual to lower the standard of life of my wife and family in order to carry out the functions of local government. On some of those occasions, when husbands and wives have little arguments, my wife has often told me that I was carrying on local government work to the detriment of the standard of life of her and the children. That is an unfair condition to put upon people. That situation has been improved, inasmuch as there is now a contribution towards the loss of salary or wage when the individual attends meetings. There is also a subsistence allowance, if a person is away from home for more than four hours attending local government meetings. Again, that does not meet the loss under present-day standards of wages and salaries, and there is not a person engaged in local government who, if he has to lose time and charge the allowance against the council, covers himself in regard to the actual loss.
This is a difficult situation. After all, if we started to pay a salary for local government service it would tend to require a much greater degree of attendance, and definite attendance, than it does at the

1279
moment. The employee now has to make the decision himself. If he has a meeting at 10.30 to-morrow morning, if he wishes to attend he has to ask for time off. If he does not think his working arrangements can allow it he does not attend and does not apply. I am mentioning councillors, because, frankly, I appreciate that if this Amendment were passed and were applied to the Greater London Council there would be no argument whatever against its being applied to other bodies—Hertfordshire County Council, Kent County Council, Surrey County Council, indeed any county council—many of whose members have to travel long distances, far greater distances than any of those associated with the Greater London Council will have to travel. And, of course, travelling to and from a meeting takes time and it means time off from the work they are doing. I refer to councillors because although this Amendment is proposed for insertion in this Bill, I appreciate that if it were passed there would be an obligation and it would have to apply to other persons as well. That may be one of the problems.
There are certain difficulties. I referred in an earlier Amendment to the fact that we were getting into local government a greater number of married women, and they are performing a valuable function. I was going to say that married women are their own masters; but that would not be quite true, or at least it would not be politic, to say it. At any rate, married women do not have to ask for time off and do not lose pay. Therefore in local government they do not suffer any of the loss of remuneration that applies to the male wage earner or the female wage earner. But it is equally true that in a large number of cases where married women are engaged in local government there are added costs in covering certain household duties that have to be paid for and which they would normally be doing themselves. Therefore, if we had a payment it would not have to be a payment in regard to loss of pay but payment for the councillor as a councillor.
The Amendment is put down to this Bill because it seems to many of us that the duties arising from the Greater London Council are likely to be very heavy. Whether they will be as extensive and as arduous as, for instance, are the duties
1280
of the existing members of the London County Council it is hard to say, until we see this new Council in operation. My own view is that, with questions of sub-committees that are likely to arise, the time and thought and energy these people will have to give will be even greater than that associated with the London County Council. There may be members of the London County Council who, seeing the division of functions, will say it is less. But, whatever it is, it means a considerable time must be given to this work.
We have said that the difficulty of getting people to come into local government because of its effect on chances of promotion, and the reluctance of employers to give extensive time off to local government members, all militates against suitable persons; and if you are going to get them then you must see that they are paid. As many Tory councillors have reason to believe to-day, as compared with last week, even local government politics is hazardous. Many of them who were elected three years ago as Tory councillors can now no longer call themselves "Mr. Councillor". If you are going to get people who are required to give two-thirds of their time to local government and pay in relation to that, I doubt very much whether it is going to improve the standard of service.
But we have to face these problems. While I put down the Amendment, I have no authority to speak for my colleagues on this side of the House. This is one of those problems which I think deserves investigation—not by a Royal Commission, of course, but by a committee of persons who could study the problem extensively in the whole field of local Government. One of the problems is that we see only the field in which we ourselves operate. My suggestion is that a group of persons experienced in local government, in the Civil Service and in administration, should look at this problem. It is admitted that the present system is not satisfactory, and that there has to be something much more satisfactory, if we are going to get the right type of person into local government. Whether this is the correct way to do it, I am not quite sure; but, in any case, in order that we can can have a discussion in which perhaps other noble Lords will join, and to which certainly the Minister will reply, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 116, line 39, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Lindgren.)
8.52 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My noble friend Lord Lindgren has moved this Amendment in a sensible, balanced and able speech. At the end he said that there are problems about this. There are difficulties about what to do about this problem, and he suggested some sort of impartial inquiry which would take evidence, would look at the pros and cons and at various ways in which the problem could be met, and at the objections to those solutions and other ways. If I may say so, I think that that was a sensible course for my noble friend to take. I admit that I start with something in the nature of a puritanical bias. I went on to local government in 1920, as Mayor of the Borough of Hackney, and later as alderman. I later went on to the London County Council, which was a heavy job, in due course became Leader of the Labour Party, and then Leader of the Council; and somehow I got a snobbish pride out of doing, all this work for nothing.
The job of Leader of the London County Council, as my noble friend Lord Latham, who has held this position, would agree, is not far short of the office of a Cabinet Minister who gets £5,000 a year. My noble friend and I got nothing, but I must say that I got a rather snobbish "kick" out of doing this job, worth nearly £5,000, for nothing at all. It pleased my spirit, which was a Socialist spirit, of voluntary public service, just as it could a Conservative spirit. On the other hand, I was working as Secretary to the London Labour Party, and there I got a modest salary, starting at £1 a week, part-time, finally getting £500 a year maximum. That is all I got. But I had nothing for the County Council work—nothing at all; but, as I say, if got a "kick" out of it, and of doing a glorious job for no reward whatever. In a way I wish we could all do it; even here, we cannot quite manage it. We get three guineas a day. I hope we shall never get a salary here; I would sooner we put up the three guineas to something else, because it is a more satisfactory way of checking on people who come and those who do not come.
1282
I agree that this is putting the other side of the coin to that which my noble friend put. I admit that you may get the case of a workman on the bench, or an the railway, or in the factory, indeed some other people, too, who may be brain-workers, who are asked, at any rate, to go on to a major public authority. I am not talking about a borough council, where they may be able to manage; but these London boroughs are going to have duties as heavy as, and possibly in some respects heavier than, those of the Greater London councillors, and they may have to meet in the day time. That is one objection to the Bill, but we will let that go for the moment. It is hard on the workman at the bench, unless he has an employer who is generous—as the railways were not but have since become, and so with some other employers. It may make it very difficult for a working class man or woman to become a member of a local authority unless some special provision is made.
The late Mr. Aneurin Bevan brought in under the Labour Government a provision whereby expenses could be paid; that is to say, travelling expenses, a more or less fixed payment which varied in accordance with the hours involved, and then a payment for loss of remunerative time. It is not easy to discriminate between the working engineer on the one hand and a skilled and popular barrister on the other. In fact, they both got the same because there was a maximum. Then there was a provision whereby a married woman could get compensation for the employment of domestic help—and a few of them have stretched that a little bit from what was originally intended. Indeed, a number of them, both male and female, have "gone the pace" a little bit.
I have tried to persuade the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to require local authorities to publish, say quarterly, a return of the expenses claimed, splitting them up into three or four columns, so that the public knows what is being claimed. They have not had the courage to do it, neither have the local authorities, but I think that it is right and proper that it should be done. So there are problems both ways, so to speak.

1283
There is a good deal to be said for a salary: it is paid, and there is no argument about it, because it is laid down. From that point of view the idea of a salary is simpler and more straightforward. But then there arises the problem, what should the salary be? The work of a councillor, even on the Greater London Council, is not going to be such that it will reasonably demand a substantial salary, such as, for example, that paid to a Member of another place—not that they, poor souls! are getting enough; nor are we. It is true that neither of us is getting enough, especially in view of the way we have been going on lately.
LORD LINDGREN: It is unpaid overtime.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: And it is not only on this matter that we have sat late. There have been late Sittings on other matters, too. We are increasingly getting into the bad habits of the House of Commons in respect of long hours—a thing which I would not encourage.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I am glad to hear those considerable murmurs opposite, because they may produce some sympathy. You could not expect the members of a local authority to be given the salary of a Member of Parliament, even though that salary at the moment is, I think, inadequate.
How is it to be fixed? If it is £500 a year—which it could be—then the poor chap has got to make up some more. Where is he going to get it? There are possible temptations here as to ways in which he can get it. Or he might eke out a rather miserable existence on the £500 a year, or even £750 a year, and not do too well out of it. So the question of what is the proper salary will be a real problem. Then there is the question of whether he should attend a reasonable minimum number of committees and council meetings. I do not know whether or not he should; it is not required in the House of Commons. A Member could attend that House on one day a year but he would still draw the salary. Mind you! he would be "rumbled" by his constituents sooner or later. But here is another problem.
1284
I entirely agree with my noble friend that there is here a real problem, partly related to the efficiency of local government and partly related to democracy in its application to local government. I agree with the conclusion of my noble friend Lord Lindgren, who has a long and valuable experience of local government, that you could get some sort of departmental committee—it is hardly worth the while of a Royal Commission; and anyway we have had one Royal Commission too many—of sensible, public-spirited, impartial persons, to go into all these difficulties, on both sides, and to make recommendations and proposals after they have surveyed the problem and brought out the facts. I think my noble friend is right in saying that there is a great deal to be said for handling the matter in that way. If the Government could say that they will give consideration to that proposition, that would save us the embarrassment of voting for or against an Amendment for immediate application. I do not think we have yet found the right solution to this problem. But I hope the Minister will undertake that the Government will at any rate give consideration to the proposition of having some sort of informed, objective, impartial inquiry by a mixed body of people, some of whom, but not all, should be experienced in local government. I think that would be a sensible and useful thing to do.
LORD AMPTHILL: I have listened with the greatest possible interest to the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren and Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and I agree with them that this is a very difficult problem. I have been faced with it myself. In one of our Northern Ireland factories, one of my friends (because I call all of them in those factories my friends) was a maintenance fitter in a tobacco factory. He was also a Senator in the Northern Ireland Parliament. When I last heard of him he was P.P.S. to the late Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. So you can see that besides being a jolly good fitter he had also made quite a name for himself for political service in Northern Ireland. When he took on this job I saw him myself, and we gave him leave of absence from the factory. My firm gave him pretty liberal treatment about time off, and I think I am right in saying that I satisfied myself that he, at any rate, suffered

1285
no out-of-pocket expenses, because the Northern Ireland Parliament gave him travel expenses or something like that. I cannot remember the details now.
The only reason I rise to my feet tonight is to say that I agree with the noble Lords opposite. This is a very difficult problem, and I personally do not know the answer. I am torn in two about the idea of an expense arrangement. My own view is that it is very difficult. Because who is to check the time off? Who is to check the out-of-pocket expenses? On the whole I think that a salary is probably the right answer. But what should the salary be? I do not know. I think there is great merit in the suggestion of both noble Lords opposite that there should be some sort of departmental inquiry; because, frankly, I think that people who have been in the same position as myself do not know what is the right answer and what is the fair thing to do.
9.5 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: I think I shall not be far wrong if I say that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, is of a somewhat exploratory nature. I think he himself said that he had put it down in order, not so much that it will be accepted, because he knows the inherent difficulties in accepting it in its present form., but so as to initiate a discussion on this problem and to gain recognition that the problem exists. That, of course, has been reinforced, as we have just heard, by my noble friend Lord Ampthill behind me, and in between those two speeches we listened to a discussion by and the reminiscences of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, which I am sure interested everybody in the Committee and which I think had a great fascination, if I may say so with respect. He said at the outset how, after many years' service, he got a snobbish "kick" out of doing good public service for nothing—and that, of course, is and always has been one of the most valuable assets of local government service. On the other hand, he recognised and asked us to face up to the problem of modern days, when it is becoming increasingly difficult for people to give public service for absolutely nothing: and there is no doubt that here is a problem which has got to be faced.
I am not familiar enough with the subject, and I have not myself had the sort
1286
of experience, to enable me to follow the noble Lords in a long discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of pay. There is no doubt at all but that it does raise a fundamental problem, and not only in local government service: it is a problem of the society in which we live, of democracy itself, and is something which must be gone into most thoroughly. I think noble Lords are probably aware—and I am quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, who moved the Amendment, would be aware—that there was a similar Amendment which was carefully considered in another place at Recommittal stage, and which was withdrawn following my right honourable friend's statement. I should just like to remind your Lordships of what my right honourable friend said on that occasion—and I quote:
"The Government have recognised that while the present system of travelling and subsistence expenses and financial loss allowances where members have incurred a loss is, on the whole, working well, there are a number of difficulties that justify a reconsideration of the whole problem. I have therefore asked the local authority associations to prepare for a full discussion with my Ministry on the whole question of the present method of making good either expenses or financial losses of local authority members."
My right honourable friend said that he did not begin this with any great liking for the idea of paying members of local authorities, but that if, out of the discussions, there emerged a need for a radical change, it would be considered, and he undertook to report back.
I am afraid that at this stage I have nothing new to report, but I think that at least it will interest members of the Committee to know that the associations which he has notified of his intentions and with which he intends to confer as soon as may be are the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Urban District Councils Association, the Rural District Councils Association, the London County Council and the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee. Of course, they are all technical people or (shall we say?) professional people in the business which we are talking about; and I think the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, in particular, suggested that there might be some sort of more independent inquiry. I think, in the first place, it cannot be

1287
but a good thing to have a general conference of all the people directly concerned in this matter to try to assess the position, the facts, and to analyse them. After that, I cannot say what might happen; but I think perhaps this is a good start in any case. I therefore suggest that, meanwhile, it would not be wise to attempt to make special provisions in this Bill in the case of the Greater London Council in advance of the decision of local government as a whole; but I cannot predict exactly the course these discussions will take or what might follow after. But we are certainly embarking on this project and we shall see what comes out of it.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: May we assume that this consultation with the local authorities' associations would be consultation with councillors—that is to say, members of local authorities rather than officers of local authorities?—because officers are in a different category. They get a recognised and reasonably adequate salary. I presume this will be consultation with councillors. The only doubt I have is whether it would be better to have a departmental committee; say, a mixture of 50–50 between people of responsible local government experience spread among various categories of local authorities (which would not be too much) and some public-spirited, intelligent men and women. I am wondering whether that would not be better than to take it on the basis of evidence from local authorities' associations.
LORD HASTINGS: Certainly this is a most complicated and vital problem and I will certainly talk to my right honourable friend and tell him what the noble Lord has said in respect of this particular matter. I cannot answer it immediately, but I think probably he is right in this case that there must be elected members. But I should be glad to let him know about that. Full note of his other suggestions will, of course, be taken.
LORD LINDGREN: I thank the noble Lord for his reply and I agree with him entirely that this is a most difficult problem. I think it is a good first step to get local authority associations thinking about the problem. I do not think they
1288
will come to any satisfactory conclusion, because there is bound to be conflicting opinion by reason of the different spheres of influence. But I agree that it is a first step. I hope it will be successful. I agree that this is not the right place to put it in. We really put it down for discussion. I appreciate that if we apply it here, then it must be applied to other authorities. Therefore, I feel the Minister's suggestion that it should be discussed is really correct; and I should like to ask permission to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.14 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: This is an Amendment to apply Part XII of the Local Government Act, 1933 to this Bill and to the power of the Greater London Council. It really is giving the Greater London Council the opportunity to make by-laws for good government and to give authority to other persons to enforce these by-laws for good government. It also sets out the procedure and determines the penalties. This Amendment is put down because it is one of those very good sections of the 1933 Act without which local government bodies would not be able to do many of the good regulatory jobs which they do now, and because it has been missing from this Bill. There may be some good reason for it, but at the moment I cannot see it. In order that we can be given an explanation of the reason, or told that there was an oversight on the part of the Ministry, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 118, line 24, at end insert—
("(i) Part XII of the Local Government Act 1933;").—(Lord Lindgren.)
EARL JELLICOE: I think that I can put the noble Lord's mind at rest straight away by saying that it was not an oversight on the part of the Government. Frankly, I am not very enamoured of the Amendment, and I will explain why we have omitted this section. I would remind your Lordships that by-laws made under Section 249 of the Act of 1933, which is the operative section of Part XII of the Act, deals with minor matters. I think they can be described briefly as good conduct by-laws. We feel that borough councils are the right people to deal with local nuisances. In any event, it is to the borough councils that complaints are usually made. In our view,

1289
these by-laws are better made by the borough councils than by the Greater London Council. The need for by-laws, especially of this type, can vary very much from area to area. Every borough can make by-laws on subjects which particularly affect its area and in the form most suitable for its area.
The third reason is that we feel that the delegation of by-law-making powers is confusing to the public and is unnecessary. Fourthly, we have been guided by the fact that this delegation does not exist in any other part of the country at the moment.
LORD LINDGREN: I interrupt the noble Lord so that he will look at his notes again. Surely that does not apply now. The 1933 Act applies to county councils, who give authority to urban district councils to apply by-laws within their areas. It is the county councils who have the power now.
EARL JELLICOE: I understand that that position does not apply in the L.C.C. area. In the L.C.C. area, this by-law-making power is operated concurrently by the L.C.C. and the metropolitan boroughs. But I speak subject to correction on this point. It is our view, on my assumption that these were concurrent powers, that the omission from the authority of the Greater London Council would bring London into line on this matter with the rest of the country. Perhaps I might mention, as a matter of interest, that the L.C.C. have exercised their by-law-making powers only very occasionally—to be precise, only four times—in the last 30 years. That being so, it would not seem that the omission of this by-law-making power from the authority of the Greater London Council is stripping the Council of an important and much-exercised power.
Those were the reasons why, not as a matter of oversight, but quite deliberately, we omitted this power from amongst those which we propose to confer on the Greater London Council, and those are the reasons why, at least at first sight, I am not particularly enamoured of the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD LINDGREN: I entirely disagree with the noble Earl on this occasion. I agree that there is a difference between area and area in the requirement for the application of by-laws. Therefore, I
1290
think the present system, which operates under the 1933 Act, where the major authority which is the county council has the power under the Act, and if one of the minor authorities in the area applies for the power to apply and administer the by-law within their area, it is looked at and granted by the county council, is far the better way of doing it. Here I think it will be better, so far as the London area is concerned, if the Greater London Council has the general power, so far as by-laws are concerned, and then, in so far as the boroughs are concerned, they apply to the Greater London Council for authority to operate within their area, if they think it necessary, that being given together with the power of enforcement within the area. However, this is not one of those things for which I would die in the last ditch. I agree that in the main it is associated with nuisances, such as dogs on footpaths and things like that, which are somewhat disagreeable. At this late hour I would not ask my noble friends to divide on the Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Parliamentary and Local Government Elections in and around Greater London]:
9.23 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved, in paragraph 6(1), to leave out "any existing county" and insert:
"the county of London or of Middlesex or of any existing".
The noble Earl said: I apologise for the slight delay, but I have lost my notes for the moment. Speaking from memory, I can say that this is a drafting Amendment. It is rather technical in nature, but if noble Lords would like me to explain its purpose, I will gladly do so.
LORD LATHAM: Could the noble Earl indicate briefly what it is?
EARL JELLICOE: Yes. The intention of paragraph 6(1) of the Schedule is that, so far as county council elections are concerned, there should be no elections in 1964 of councillors for those counties which will cease to exist—namely London and Middlesex.
LORD LATHAM: They will not cease to exist; they will cease to be. The councillors will not cease to exist.
EARL JELLICOE: The counties will cease to exist, not the councillors. If such elections were held in 1964 the councillors elected would serve only until April 1, 1965. The Bill therefore provides that the county councillors in office on the passing of the Bill should main in office until April 1, 1965. That is quite straightforward.
Paragraph 6(1) of the Schedule as drafted refers to the
"election of councillors of any existing county…wholly within Greater London."
This does not, however, catch Middlesex, because Middlesex will not be wholly within Greater London: the urban district of Potters Bar, as the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, remarked some moments ago, is to become part of Hertfordshire; and Staines and Sunbury are to become parts of Surrey. The Amendment will achieve what was the original purpose. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 120, line 25, leave out ("any existing county") and insert the said new words.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: This shows the dangers and risks of moving too quickly. We have come along at such speed that we have overtaken the Minister of State, Home Office, with the result that he has not had time to grasp the meaning of the Amendment. I confess that I have not had time either, but I have been looking at it, and my impression is that, whereas the wording of the Bill, by bad drafting, refers to existing counties and metropolitan boroughs, by the time the Bill becomes an Act two whole counties and chunks of others and the metropolitan boroughs will be missing. I may be wrong; and the noble Earl will correct me if he has better information. My impression is that by the time this Bill becomes an Act, they will be dead. Therefore, the Government have had to put some more words in in order to make the situation intelligible, if and when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. That is my interpretation, but I may be wrong, just as the noble Earl realises that he may be wrong. So we can sympathise with each other and
1292
hope to goodness that what we are doing will make sense at the end of the day.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, Part I, as amended, agreed to.
Parts II and III agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: I think we have reached the point at which it was agreed we should aim this evening. I also feel that, judging by post progress on this Bill, we have made very good progress indeed. In view of that, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I am much obliged to the Minister of State for the Home Office for having moved as he has done, I must say that we have got along more quickly than we thought we should. It could be argued that we have got along more quickly than we should have done, but I hope that will not be held in evidence against us in trying to exploit our honest labour on any future occasion. As a matter of fact, both sides deserve credit that we were a little quicker to-day. The Government have been more forthcoming. They have been a little more reasonable and more willing to undertake to give consideration, rather more than as a matter of form, in a number of directions. That helps. As a matter of fact, we are entitled to the credit for that, because over the days we have been teaching the Government good Parliamentary conduct. Now you know that you can get along more quickly if you are kind, and if people do not get sore and bad tempered about it—and I think the Front Bench, in the shape of these two gentlemen, the Minister of State, Home Office, and the Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Local Government, have learned something about the business. They are getting on. The trouble with the Lord Chancellor and the Leader of the House is—this is a very controversial, large and technical Bill and I sympathise with those two noble Lords—that it is obvious, in so far as they have talked about it, that they do not understand the Bill or the problems behind it. I am not saying that in any superior or even invertedly

1293
snobbish way. I sympathise with them. Even the Leader of the House cannot know everything, and neither can the Lord Chancellor.
But we have got on more quickly, partly because the Government have learned better Parliamentary handling, and partly because out of the charity of our Christian hearts on this side we have responded to that improved spirit on the part of the Government; and so we have reached the end of the day an hour before the contract of service. But I only say I hope that will not be held in evidence against us and that the Government will not add an hour to our labours on another day because we have beaten the clock on this occasion. In any event, it has been a remarkably smooth and kindly day. None of us can promise on either side that this kindliness will continue into every day for the consideration of this beastly Bill. But it has been a nice day, and I think everybody is to be congratulated, both on the other side and ourselves—I would only add, particularly ourselves.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.