HL Deb 14 May 1963 vol 249 cc1193-253

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 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 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 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 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 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- 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.

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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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- 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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.