Lords Sitting of 21 May 1963

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

BALDOCK BY-PASS
2.5 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government the estimated date of commencement of the construct ion of the Baldock By-Pass.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, a precise date cannot be given at this stage, but we expect that work will start in the spring or summer of 1964. The scheme for the road and orders covering improvements to its associated side roads have been published, and objections and representations are now being considered.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for his very helpful Answer. May I further ask him whether he is aware that both the local shopkeepers and the residents are very much in favour of this by-pass, which is not always the case in schemes of this kind?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am delighted to become aware of that fact, which, as my noble friend says, is by no means always the case.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, it does not look as if that is going to be the case near Newbury, does it?

RAILWAY FACILITIES AT STEVENAGE
2.7 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are their proposals regarding the building of a station for Stevenage New Town.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the decision whether or not to build a station for Stevenage New Town rests in the first place with the British Railways Board. It would have to be included in the Board's investment programme, which is subject to the approval of my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport, but unless the works are to cost £250,000 or more they would not, under present arrangements, require his specific sanction. I understand that the Eastern Railway Board are carrying out studies in order to decide whether a new station would be justified.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his very helpful Answer, may I further ask him whether he would consult with the British Railways Board and get an assurance that the old station will still be kept?—because many people still travel to town from Stevenage Old Town, while much of the New Town which is expanding is several miles distant. Therefore, two stations are needed.
LORD CHESHAM: As I understand the matter, it is precisely that sort of consideration as to the future use of the old station and the likely use of the new one which the Board are actively considering at the present moment.

INSPECTION OF GOODS ON THE HIGHWAY
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what representations have been received by the Board of Trade from

139
the British Road Federation concerning the suggested withdrawal of the right, held by inspectors of weights and measures for seventy years of stopping vehicles on the highway; and if any representations to the contrary have been received.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, the Board of Trade have received no formal representations from the British Road Federation on the proposal in the present Weights and Measures Bill that weights and measures inspectors should not have power to stop vehicles on the highway. I understand, however, that the Federation are in agreement with the provisions of the Bill on this matter. On the second part of the Question, a number of representations in favour of giving inspectors such power have been received.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this really is quite extraordinary? Does he recall that this is the fourth Question I have put down to the Government within the last few days asking for information on this particular matter? Is he aware that in none of the Answers, including his own to-day, have we been given any factual reason why the Government are persisting in this recommendation which, so far as I can see, finds favour with nobody at all?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am afraid I do not understand the noble Baroness's protest. She asked me if we had received representations from the British Road Federation, and the answer is, No; but we have reason to believe that they approve of the terms of the Bill. The other part of the Question asked whether we had received representations in a contrary sense; and the answer there is, Yes.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I expect the noble Lord probably feels that there is no pleasing some people, but what I was asking him was whether he is aware that I have been honestly trying to find out why the Government are bent on pursuing this particular course of action, which does not find favour with the Institute of Weights and Measures Inspectors, with the local authorities, or with the trade. I am asking him if he recalls, from the
140
Answers given to me over the last few days, that in no case, including his Answer to-day, have we been given any factual evidence by the Government for their attitude.
LORD DERWENT: With great respect, I have been asked for no factual information to-day except the factual information I have given.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform your Lordships that at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be making a statement on Central Africa.
KILLINGHOLME JETTY BILL
Read 2a, and committed, to a Select Committee.

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL
2.11 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.]
Clause 24 [Local planning authorities]:
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, after subsection (7), to insert:
"( ) The Greater London Council, after consultation with the London borough councils and the Common Council, shall prescribe standards of plot ratio, density, car parking, daylighting and such other matters of a like planning nature in relation to applications for planning permission under the Planning Act as the Greater London Council shall think fit.
( ) Before a London borough council or the Common Council grant permission on an application involving a substantial departure from the standards to be prescribed under the last foregoing subsection, the application shall be referred to the Greater London Council, who may give to the referring council directions as to the manner in which the application is to be dealt with."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment standing in the name

141
of my noble friend Lord Latham. This Amendment falls into two parts. The first part provides that the Greater London Council should prescribe standards of plot ratio, density, car parking, daylighting, and so on, of a planning nature, which world be applicable throughout the Greater London area. The second part provides that before a borough council makes any substantial departure from these standards it should refer the application to the Greater London authority for their observations. I do not think there can be any serious dispute as to the desirability of having common standards for the whole of the Greater London area. It would be ridiculous if you had each borough council adopting its own standards in the various respects that I have set out in the Amendment: for instance, daylighting, plot ratio, facilities for car parking, and so on.
I mentioned density, but that does not mean, of course, that there must he a uniform standard of density throughout the County of London. I hope the noble Lord who is going to reply does not interpret my Amendment in that way. But there should be a common principle of density; that is to say, that in similar areas there should be similar densities. Obviously, density will vary from place to place throughout the Greater London area. There will be some places where the density will be high, others where it will be low. The same might apply to some of the other items mentioned in respect of which it is proposed to lay dawn standards. But the general advantage of having standards for the whole of Greater London cannot be denied. As I have said, it would be absurd if you had one London borough adopting one standard and an adjoining borough adopting another. I think that that principle has been accepted in another place.
The question in my Amendment is really this: what is the best form for getting these principles carried out? My Amendment proposes that the Greater London Authority should itself lay down these standards after consultation with the borough councils; that they should be flexible and capable of being altered as is the present system to-day—the London County Council frequently changes, as circumstances dictate, the standards in these various respects; that
142
they should be capable of being altered without any great legal or constitutional difficulties. As I understand it, the Government take the view that these standards should be laid down in the written statement submitted by the Greater London Council as part of the Greater London plan, and that the statement can be reviewed from time to time as the plan itself is reviewed. I think I have stated what is the real issue.
The objection to the latter course is this. Once you have these standards laid down in a written statement, and you make it part of the plan, it can be altered only at the next general review. Any departure from the standards involves a departure from the plan itself. So if, for instance, somebody wanted to put up a building which was rather higher than the height laid down in the standards, this would be a material alteration of the development plan, which would require to be dealt with by the Minister and would probably involve a public inquiry. That, I submit, is making heavy weather of what might be a relatively unimportant matter. If somebody wanted to build to a somewhat higher density, it may be, than that laid down in the standard, it might be thought that that would be something to which in the special circumstances of the case no objection need be taken. But if it formed part of the development plan itself, and were incorporated in the written statement, the planning authority—neither the borough council nor the Greater London Council—would have the power to depart from it; it would be a matter which would have to go to the Minister for determination. In a relatively simple case to which no objection would he taken there might not be a need for a public inquiry, but if there were any objection it would be in the Minister's discretion and I think that normally he would hold a public inquiry.
It is because we feel that this procedure is an unnecessary one, unnecessarily complicated, time-consuming and expensive, and inflexible and rigid, that we want to give the Greater London Council the power to lay down these standards and to be able to alter them from time to time as circumstances dictate. We also want the London boroughs to be required to inform the Greater London Council of any application which departs from these

143
standards, so that there can be discussion between them and, in proper cases, a departure can be made.
So, as I understand it, unless the noble Lord who is going to reply tells me otherwise, the difference between us is simple: whether these standards should be laid down in a written statement and should form part of the plan which, as I say, would be unduly rigid and restrictive and would lay itself open to the objections that I have set out; or whether it should be done by way of laying down the standards by the Greater London Council, which would be flexible and could be changed from time to time as circumstances dictated, and where it would normally be unnecessary to trouble the Minister or to hold a public inquiry. It is for these reasons that I am moving this Amendment. In another place the Minister promised to consider the matter, but in view of the haste with which the Proceedings were taken there, he never found the opportunity for making a statement as the result of his consideration. I hope that the result of that consideration may be favourable this afternoon, and that the noble Lord will be able to say that he accepts the principle of this Amendment, even if he finds that some words may need altering, in which case should be very happy to withdraw the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 18, at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Silkin.)
2.20 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has put a reasoned case in favour of his Amendment. I believe that the London County Council do in fact treat matters in this way. Anyway, they keep outside the development plan these matters of plot ratio, car parking, densities and so on. Therefore, it might be supposed it would be convenient to the Greater London Council to pursue the same method. This Amendment would in fact make any departure from the proposed standards prescribed in the first paragraph of the Amendment equivalent to a departure from the plan, but the standards would not be subject to the procedure of publication, inquiry and
144
approval to which the development plan itself is of course subjected. The noble Lord thinks that this might be a convenience, but I think we are bound to ask ourselves if that is really right.
As the noble Lord himself said, he realises that the Government did take the opposite view. This matter has been gone into very carefully. We feel that these matters which are mentioned in the noble Lord's Amendment are very important ones, and if they are to be formalised at all—and we agree that they should be prescribed; we entirely agree that there must be common standards in these matters, at any rate within practical possibilities, within the Greater London area—they should be included in the development plan written statement. The effect of that would of course be to give such formalisation statutory significance. In that way, as a result, the machinery of publication and right of objection would enable those affected to express their views, as can be done for any other development plan provision. The noble Lord has argued that this would be too rigid and too complicated; that it would not be possible to make changes. But I would point out to him that amendments to the London plan in general are in the pipe-line, so to speak, all the time. It is a continuing process. The plan is being considered continually; and they would not have to wait for a five-year review before changing any particular standards if that were to be agreed upon. Such an alteration can be made by amendment of the plan at any time.
We do feel that these standards have a great impact, for instance, on the cost of development and on land use, and they should not be varied very often or lightly. Therefore, when they are, we think it is appropriate that they should be scrutinised just as carefully as any other development requirement. An individual departure does not necessarily mean that that departure would have to go to the Minister for his decision. It could be quite a simple departure from the plan, as the noble Lord said; and, if it is not substantial, it could be settled by the Greater London Council and the local borough in consultation together. We do not think, therefore, that there would be a

145
whole string of needless public inquiries foisted upon the public purse. On the other hand, we do think that as in the Bill all the normal planning procedure is to remain in operation, and people are to be given opportunities of raising their objections in respect of many matters in the Bill, it is better to continue that throughout also in respect of standards. We feel that they are so much part of the general development plan—and that the facilities for changing them when necessary are there—that people should really be given the opportunity; and we think they have the right to be able to express their views when there is any considerable change from the standards.
Therefore, on consideration, or on reconsideration, we are not really able to accept the noble Lord's Amendment in favour of the other course, although we appreciate that he is trying to cut out any deadweight, so to speak, that there might be in the process. We feel, on balance, that this is the right course; that people will have advice, and they should have advice, in such charges; that it will not lead to an undue quantity of public inquiries, and that it will not lead to a stratification or stagnation of the plan, which will be adaptable from time to time as may be agreed between the Greater London Council and the local authorities. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord may feel it unnecessary to press his Amendment.
LORD FARINGDON: I am really rather surprised by what the noble Lord says. He seems to be unaware that the procedure which he is now proposing must inevitably entail very considerable delays and be complicated. It has been the practice of the L.C.C. for many years to vary standards as and when it has seemed necessary for such variations. There is, of course, a right of appeal to the Minister. But the necessity to make variations rapidly and quickly has been found to be present. Indeed, I would suggest to the noble Lord that no objection has ever been made to this course, and it has been a way in which the Council has avoided that rigidity and that slowness of action of which it is sometimes accused, I think unjustly. I do suggest to the noble Lord that he should take this back and reconsider it. We have a system working at the present time. You can judge from
146
its work how well it functions, and I see no reason at all to introduce another system, and one which is inevitably—and I repeat, inevitably—extremely complicated and dilatory.
LORD SILKIN: I want only to say that I do not think the noble Lord really appreciates what is involved in going to the Minister and applying for a review of the existing plan. He seems to think that these reviews are always in the pipe-line, and that it is simply a matter of going to the Minister and getting a reply by return of post, and so on. I can assure him that every review is a matter not of months but of years. It takes a very long time before you get a decision from the Ministry on any review of a plan. I have known cases where it has taken more than two years. I think he really underestimates what is involved, and the difficulties there will be if the Greater London authority, wherever in the light of experience it thinks it necessary to change its standards, has to go through the procedure of putting this change through the pipeline. As my noble friend has just said, this has been going on for years and years.
The other day I referred to my chairmanship of the Housing Committee. I was also chairman of the Town Planning Committee for five years. We frequently changed our standards, and there was never any difficulty about it. The thing worked quite smoothly: nobody ever objected. It was done after full consultation with the metropolitan boroughs and the public had every opportunity of expressing their dissatisfaction with the standards. They could appeal to the Minister; and that was a much quicker process than a review of the plan. This is not a matter we can argue about at great length. I feel, in the light of the arguments put forward, that it is a matter which ought to be reconsidered to see whether we can devise something much simpler than going through the machinery of having a review of the plan itself with all the consequent delay.
LORD HASTINGS: Naturally, I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon. I do not think we can say this is a matter of principle. We want to get the thing right, and I should like to reconsider this point. I cannot accept

147
the noble Lord's Amendment; but I think he has said sufficient for me to take up this matter and see which side has the better arguments. I should like to do that and to come back at the Report stage and tell noble Lords the result.
LORD SILKIN: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I hope he will give me the opportunity of a discussion about this matter if he is still of the same mind before the Report stage; otherwise we might very well have simply a repetition of the Government's argument. But, having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment, with thanks to the noble Lord for the reconsideration.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 25 and 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Supplementary provisions as to development plans]:
2.33 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
"(4) The London borough councils and the Common Council, before preparing their respective local development plans or any proposals under Clause 26(3) of this Act, shall consult with the Greater London Council, and before submitting the said plans or proposals to the Greater London Council shall give that Council an opportunity to make representations with respect to the plan or proposals, and shall consider any representations so made."
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I have to refer first of all to Clause 27(3), which reads:
"The Greater London Council, before preparing the Greater London development plan or any proposals under section 26(1) or (2) of this Act, shall consult with the London borough councils and the Common Council or, in the case of any such proposals, with such of those councils as are affected by the proposals, and before submitting the plan or proposals to the Minister shall give to each of those councils an opportunity to make representations with respect to the plan or proposals and shall consider any representations so made."
It will be seen that in the preparation of the Greater London plan, or when proposals are made to alter that plan under the quinquennial review, the Bill makes provision for the boroughs and Common Council to be consulted by the Greater London Council. They are to
148
have the right to be consulted at the formative stage of the Greater London Council's preparation of the development plan or initiation of any proposals to vary that plan. My noble friends and I think that this is the right way to do it, so far as the Greater London Council's plan is concerned; but we also think that this Bill should make provision for the converse right, the right of the Greater London Council to be consulted by the borough councils when they are in the process of formulating their plans.
Under the provisions of the Bill the functions of the Greater London Council in relation to local development plans are limited, as the noble Lord knows, to making observations when forwarding, the plans, as transmitting agents, to the Minister. The Greater London Council, it is true, will have the right to require the boroughs to reconsider any provisions in the local development plans which, in the Greater London Council's opinion, involves a departure from the Greater London Council's development plan itself; or to veto any such provision, if the boroughs agree. In the event of any disagreement over the use of this veto, the Minister, of course, will have to be brought in, and he will take the final decision. Those powers given to the Greater London Council in relation to the boroughs' development plans are not inconsiderable powers, but they are very much in the nature of negative controls. We feel that it would be preferable if provision were made here for a more positive and constructive rôle to be played by the Greater London Council.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill, said that the Greater London Council will be a very different body from a joint board with advisory consultative or co-ordinating functions. They will be a body with very wide and real powers. I gathered from that part of the noble Lord's speech that the Greater London Council would be in a much stronger position, from the advisory consultative or co-ordinating point of view, than a joint board (and that, I believe, is in the mind of the noble Lord), and also that these functions would, in fact, be an inherent part, though only a part, of much wider powers than those which a joint board, possessing all the powers we have been talking about up to now, would have.

149
It is because the very functions mentioned by the noble Lord are not made available to the Greater London Council by this Bill that we propose this Amendment.
The object of the Amendment can be summarised as follows: it would enable the Greater London Council to play a constructive part in the preparation of a borough's development plan; it would ensure that such plans are properly co-ordinated with those of adjoining authorities. That is essential in this continuous built-up area which the Greater London Council will cover. The Amendment would enable the Greater London Council to ask the boroughs at a very early stage to consider some proposal which they might have in their mind and which, although not a departure from the Greater London Council's development plan, might nevertheless be undesirable from the wider and more regional point of view.
It would also, as I have said before—and I stress this—give the Greater London Council powers in the converse direction to those that we are giving under this Bill to the London boroughs. It would enable, too, the Greater London Council to consider any novel point that might be in the boroughs' minds at a very early stage—for we have to remember (and it was mentioned in the reply to the previous Amendment) that the Greater London development plan is expected to be a very general one in character. We want this Bill to give to the Greater London Council strong powers to see that sensible interlocking and effective plans are made by the boroughs that cover the central area—to use the words that were used by the Minister in another place. Instead of a development problem between the Greater London Council and the borough being resolved by the Minister after all the procedure has been gone through, it would be much better for such a problem to be tackled at an early and formative stage in the preparation of the borough's development plan. Our Amendment would not prevent boroughs from insisting that their proposals go forward to the Minister, but it would insist on the maximum of consultation between the boroughs and tint council: that upon the Council must fall the task of ensuring that London as a whole has a sensible
150
development plan and that the boroughs' development plans both interlock with one another and fit into the overall plan. For these reasons, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 41, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Champion.)
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Lord, Lord Champion, has naturally drawn attention to the fact that the Greater London Council has to consult the borough councils in respect of the Greater London development plan before sending it to the Minister, and he reasons that it would be only logical that the reverse should happen when the borough councils are making their plans and that these should be submitted formally to the Council. The reason why we thought it right to make the Greater London Council consult the borough councils over its Greater London plan before sending it to the Minister is that, if there was no such provision in the Bill, it would be possible, although perhaps not likely, that the Council could make its overall plan without consulting the borough councils and without taking into consideration what they may have to say about it.
When we consider that the borough councils are going to be controlled by the Greater London plan and will be responsible for the development plans in their own areas, it is only common sense that they should see the Greater London plan in advance and be able to make observations upon it. The development plans for the London boroughs will not be going straight to the Minister. They will be going, in any case, to the Greater London Council, which will be able to get anything contrary to the Greater London plan deleted or altered in the borough plan. We think it unlikely that the borough council would go far with its local plan without consulting the Council on an informal basis. We think it better to leave matters like that and to encourage early informal exchanges rather than to write specific requirements into the Bill. When the Greater London Council and the borough councils are in the saddle, and if this arrangement does not work out as expected in any particular instance, the Minister can deal with it by regulation under Section 10(2) of the Planning Act. So that, in order to

151
correct things, this Amendment is not necessary.
The matter really comes down to a question of whether formal or informal consultation is preferable and likely to be the more effective. The noble Lord will realise that formal consultation will mean discussion in full council and that these technical matters can be dealt with much more expeditiously and effectively by informal consultations. We feel that things can work as they are without any difficulty and without leading to the production by the boroughs of plans which are going to be thrown out by the Council, and thus wasting time.
LORD FARINGDON: There seems to me, little between the two sides on this point; indeed, both seem to want exactly the same thing. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said that he expects the kind of consultation which my noble friend has asked for in his Amendment. But the informal consultations to which the noble Lord refers may not take place. Evidently the noble Lord thinks, as we do, that it is highly desirable that they should take place before the London Development Plan is crystallised and before a certain amount of amour propre has perhaps become involved; and therefore it is easier to discuss the matter in advance. If it is not put into the Bill, as suggested by the Amendment, we may always find a case where the informal discussions have not taken place. As the noble Lord desires this to occur, it seems to me that he might easily accept this Amendment, and with advantage.
LORD HASTINGS: I do not think I can accept the Amendment. As I said, the Minister has power to deal with this situation. But, as the noble Lord said, there is little between us, and I do not mind reconsidering this point to see whether it is really desirable to put in statutory consultation or not. I do not feel very strongly about it, and I should like to find out first whether other people do. If I may consider this, I should be willing to do so.
LORD MOLSON: I would ask one question about this statutory consultation. Would it not be the case that it would have to be formal consultation, and therefore would have to wait until the appropriate committee of the local authority met? As heard only to-day, a
152
prominent builder has called attention to the delay which arises over applications for planning permission. I hope that the Government will bear this in mind and make certain that there will be informal consultation, because formal consultation might result in a delay of anything up to six months when committees do not meet frequently. I am glad that the Government are going to consider this matter again. I hope that they will bear in mind that anything written into the Statute requiring formal consultation is likely to slow down even more the already slow process of obtaining planning permission.
LORD HASTINGS: What the noble Lord says is quite right, and that is why we are rather reluctant to put it into the Bill. It seems to me that noble Lords opposite have been arguing in opposite directions on the last two Amendments. On the last Amendment, they wished to have matters speeded up, and the effect of this Amendment would be to cause delay that we are anxious to avoid. It is clear that these are matters easily balanced one way or another.
LORD CHAMPION: The noble Lord twits us with being a little inconsistent on these two Amendments. I have quoted before the words of Emerson:
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines".
We are perfectly consistent about these two Amendments, which deal with two different points. I am bound to recognise the force of some of the arguments used by the noble Lord and by the noble Lord, Lord Molson. We do not want to clutter up this machine with too much formal consultation. On the other hand, we did want to make sure that at the appropriate stage the Greater London Council should come into the consultations. If that can be done informally, all the better. The noble Lord has also reminded us of a power which the Minister has to deal with any difficulties which might be seen to arise in the regulations he may make under another clause of the Bill. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, and look forward to any proposal that may be put forward on the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Buildings of special architectural or historic interest]:
2.51 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON moved to add to subsection (2)(b):
"and with copies of any applications for planning permission received by the borough council or the Common Council affecting any building included in any supplementary list of buildings of architectural or historic interest compiled or approved by the Minister".
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is intended to help an object which is, I think, of interest to all Members of the Committee, be they Londoners or not, because I am sure all of us are interested in the preservation of our national monuments and fine buildings, which, alas! are disappearing only too rapidly, not only in London but all over the country. Most of your Lordships will probably be aware that the really crucial matter in the preservation of historic buildings is the speed with which the authority is informed of their danger.
Historic buildings have been put by the Minister on two lists. There is what is called the statutory list, which was the earlier list to come into existence, and on which the most obviously important buildings of this city are included. There is also what is called the supplementary list. As I say, the most important buildings will be found on the statutory list, but the fact that a building is on the supplementary list and not on the statutory list is not necessarily an indication of its lesser importance. Its importance may not have been noticed at the time when the statutory list was being drawn up, but discovered later, and it has been put on the supplementary list. I would add that the procedure of putting a building on the supplementary list is much simpler and depends entirely on the Minister.
All that the Amendment suggests is that (as has happened in the past) the borough councils and the Greater London Council shall be informed of the buildings which are on, not only the statutory list but also the supplementary list. I suggest that this is of great importance in protecting our city: for if you do not inform the authorities concerned of the buildings which are on the supplementary list, it may well be that irreparable damage will have been done before the planning authority
154
knows what is happening. In fact, the same procedure takes place in an authority, be it a borough or the central authority, in order to obtain preservation; that is to say, a building preservation order is applied and the owner may apply for a compulsory purchase order against the authority. That order can be put on any building, whether it is listed or not; but, none the less, the really essential thing, I suggest, is that the authority should be informed in time of the threat. To this end, I have put down this Amendment, so that the buildings on both lists will be circulated to the appropriate authorities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 44, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Faringdon.)
LORD MOLSON: I hope the Government will give sympathetic consideration to this Amendment. Its purpose, as I read it, is only to bring to the attention of the local authorities a list which has been compiled under the direction of the Minister; and that there should be the fullest information given in good time, before any decision is taken, would seem merely to be making more effective the procedure of having the list prepared.
EARL JELLICOE: The noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, has put the case for this Amendment very clearly and, I would add, very fairly, and I think we are all well aware of the contribution he has made, and is making, in this field in London. I think it is also fair for me to remind your Lordships that the clause in the Bill, as it now stands, was strengthened with the Government's approval in another place. As originally drafted, the powers which the G.L.C. are going to have under the Bill were only to run in certain prescribed areas, and not, as now, over the whole of the Greater London area.
I think I might also add by way of introduction that we feel it right that the Council should additionally be informed of planning applications affecting listed buildings—that is, Grade I and Grade II buildings in London—as well as receiving formal notices under the 1962 Act, and we propose, as my noble friend Lord Hastings mentioned on Second Reading, to provide accordingly in the regulations

155
to be made under the Clause 24 machinery which we discussed at some length yesterday evening. I should also like to mention that it is our hope that the G.L.C. will take over the historic buildings section of the L.C.C., which, as I am sure we should all agree, possesses a unique blend of scholarship and practical experience in this field. I am convinced that we have been right to give the G.L.C. concurrent powers with the boroughs in this field, as is now done under subsection (2), I think it is, of this clause.
The noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, supported by a doughty preservationist, if I may so term him, in my noble friend Lord Molson, wishes to go a stage further and to include the supplementary list buildings—namely, the Grade III buildings—also under this umbrella. I am not quite certain as to how I should advise your Lordships on this matter. I should like to remind the Committee of the factual postiion here. On the whole, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, said, Grade III buildings are those which are considered in the main not to be of sufficient merit or importance to justify being brought within the requirements of Section 33 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962. They are not listed in any legal sense, and the supplementary list is purely an administrative creation. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, said—and I have a great deal of sympathy for what he is saying here—they are, on the whole, of relatively lesser and rather more local interest than Grade I and Grade II buildings. For these reasons, I have some doubt as to whether we should by Statute automatically involve the Greater London Council in matters affecting the preservation of these buildings. Of course, if needed by the borough concerned, as it might well be, the Greater London Council's advice on such buildings could well be sought.
Having said that, I should like to add a further word—and I hope that it may go some way towards reassuring the noble Lord. As I am sure he well knows, a certain number of Grade III buildings in London have recently been promoted to the statutory list. They are, for the most part, Victorian buildings or groups of less important Georgian houses. Where there is a group, although the individual
156
building may not be of great merit, the group itself is sometimes of the greatest importance to a street scene. I am willing to give the noble Lord an assurance that if the London County Council consider that there are groups of buildings at present in Grade III on the supplementary list which should be promoted to the statutory list, then the Minister is willing to consider sympathetically the possibility of upgrading them. Given that assurance, and given the fact that we have already in another place enlarged quite considerably the scope of this subsection, I would suggest to the noble Lord that he should not press this Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: I think we ought to press this matter a little further. One of the dangers about all this is that often the public never get to know of the applications involving buildings of this kind until it is too late and permission has been given. The noble Earl, no doubt, has his own experience of this. Over and over again we have found that an application for the demolition of a building in the supplementary list has been granted, though the building is worth preserving and of importance, and, if attention had been drawn to it, might well have been upgraded. No publicity is normally given to these applications for permission to demolish: they are dealt with by the local planning authority in committee, often en bloc, in large numbers, and the decision to allow an application is given without any opportunity for the public to make representations. This would be one way at least of giving some publicity to the matter.
If the borough councils were required to notify the Greater London Council, in many cases the Greater London Council might take the view that no harm would be done if the application were granted. On the other hand, if they felt that some step ought to be taken, it would give an opportunity, a breathing space, for some publicity and action to be taken. Therefore, while appreciating that the Government have somewhat modified their view as compared with the Bill as originally drawn, I do not think that as drawn, it goes far enough, and I believe this is a matter which ought to be reconsidered by the noble Earl.
LORD WALSTON: The noble Earl seems to have been convinced in the

157
course of his speech by his own eloquence. He started by saying that he was in some doubt as to what to advise your Lordships to do about this. He finished up by advising your Lordships completely certainly, what to do about it. It can have been only his eloquence that convinced him. It certainly cannot have been his logic, because his argument, as he developed it from the logical point of view, surely points entirely towards supporting my noble friend's Amendment. If he had been able to maintain that the Grade III list was solely a list of relatively unimportant but quite attractive buildings, then he might have carried your Lordships, including myself. But when he comes out and tells us that in point of fact in recent times some of the Grade III building have been promoted to the statutory list, he makes it quite clear that Grade III is not an absolute but a purely relative term and, therefore, continually changing, as tastes change, as buildings get older, as certain buildings disappear, and others become rarer examples. That surely means that, as we know that the statutory list cannot be modified from week to week—it must take some time to keep it continuously up to date—it is more than ever essential that the local councils should be made aware of what is on the Grade III list. So I hope your Lordships will pay more attention to the logic of my noble friend's case, rather than to the eloquence of the noble Earl's case (not that my noble friend Lord Faringdon does not have equal eloquence at his command also), and will support this valuable Amendment.
LORD MOLSON: My noble friend the Minister of State gave us one reason for resisting this Amendment, which was that the Government have already gone some distance in another place and put in an Amendment to include provision for other historic buildings. I would say to my noble friend: let the Government not weary in well doing. If they admit that in their original Bill they did not go far enough, and they took one step forward in another place, let them not hesitate here to take another step forward. Let my noble friend not show himself more indifferent to the importance of historical buildings than his colleagues in another place.
I should like to advance two special reasons why this modest Amendment
158
should be accepted. Anyone who has had to deal with the preservation or listing of historic buildings comes up against two problems—the problems of date, and the problems of locality. As regards date, during the last few years, and largely as a result of the activities of Mr. John Betjeman, people have come to perceive architectural merit in many buildings which only 30 or 40 years ago were not regarded as of any value at all. Opinion is constantly changing, and buildings which were wantonly and thoughtlessly destroyed only a short time ago are coming to be regarded of interest. Therefore, there may well be many buildings in this supplementary list which at a future time, when taste has changed or developed, will be regarded as being sufficiently important to be in this statutory list.
The second argument is one of place. It often happens that there are buildings of some merit in particular parts of the country where there has been recent industrial development and where there is not a great deal of wealth, which are considered to be of interest and are appreciated in that area, although they would not be regarded as anything at all outstanding if they were in more happily circumstanced parts of the country. That is a problem with which we have always had to deal. It may well be that in the case of Greater London there are some buildings which cannot possibly be regarded as of great architectural importance, and yet they are of charm and interest to the people who live there. Therefore, for those two reasons, the fact that opinion is changing and new styles of architecture becoming appreciated, and because you cannot lay down the same standard to apply all over the country, I hope the Government will change their minds on this particular point. It is not holding up development; it is not giving some absolute protection to these buildings: it is ensuring only that before a decision is taken the fact that the building is on the supplementary list should be made known to the Council.
LORD FARINGDON: I hope the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, will have been moved by the extremely cogent arguments which have been put forward by noble Lords who have supported this Amendment, and whom I thank very much indeed for their support. I appreciate that the Government have done a

159
good deal for the protection of historic buildings in the process of developing this Bill. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Molson, said, let them not weary of doing good, and let them accept this rather modest Amendment, because in actual fact the noble Earl—if he will forgive me for saying so—is not quite correctly informed.
The truth of the matter is that there is not very much difference—and I could prove it to him with photographs—between buildings on the statutory list and buildings on the supplementary list. In particular, buildings are either like those to which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, referred, which have particular value on account of the arid circumstances in which they find themselves, or form those groups of which the noble Earl himself spoke, coming for the most part on the supplementary list. This I do know from experience and, therefore, I urge once again that the noble Earl should return, as my noble friend Lord Walston suggested, to the opening of his speech and make that, rather than his closure, the dominant note.
EARL JELLICOE: I am very happy to respond to that invitation and return to the opening words of my speech, which were that I was in some doubt as how to advise your Lordships on this particular Amendment. I still am and my doubts, if anything, have been deepened by the discussion, and I should very much like to have a further opportunity of looking at this matter in the light of the arguments which have been advanced. I was very struck by two arguments which have been advanced; one is that there is a pretty narrow and uncertain frontier between some Grade II buildings and some buildings on the supplementary list, and the other is the argument advanced by my noble friend Lord Molson that the standards vary on this throughout the country and, of course, in London; and indeed also in Greater London, where the standards are rather high, there is a very large proportion of good buildings which find themselves on the supplementary list, of which the noble Lord is well aware, and this is an important point here.
I am certainly not able to advise your Lordships to accept this Amendment, because I think there would need to be
160
consequential Amendments if one were going to accept the substance of it. I should hope, however, that the noble Lord would agree to withdraw this Amendment if I am prepared, as indeed I am, to have another look at this whole problem. And, of course, I have been greatly influenced by the argument that the Government should never weary of well-doing; and, knowing that this Government never weary of well-doing, I am prepared to have another look at this particular Amendment.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I must say that I do not quite understand the answer. First of all the noble Earl says he had doubts about it and that when he looks further into it he seems to have increased doubts, and then he goes on further to say that if it is withdrawn he will look at it again—but, of course, he could not accept the Amendment as it is or the whole substance of it. I do not really know what we are able to rely upon, except that he will look at it again and come back.
EARL JELLICOE: I think the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition is making rather heavy weather of what has been, I should have thought, an extremely well-tempered debate on an important issue. I think he can rely on my word on this matter. I have said that I am prepared to look at this matter again, as indeed I will, in the light of the arguments that have been advanced in your Lordships' Committee this afternoon.
LORD FARTINGDON: I think that all Members in this Committee take the words "to look at it again" as being a semi-acceptance, subject to reconsideration; and in the light of that, and with the knowledge that the noble Earl himself has a considerable interest in this matter, I optimistically beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Miscellaneous modifications of Planning Act]:
3.15 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "68(1), 71,". The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 146 is a paving Amendment for No. 147,

161
and the Government have an Amendment on the Order Paper, No. 147A, which also has a bearing on this very point we are now making.
LORD HASTINGS: Could we deal with them together?
LORD CHAMPION: The noble Lord has indicated that it would be an advantage to the Committee to take them together, and with that I am of course in complete agreement. Sections 68(1) and 71 of the Planning Act to which the Amendments refer relate to the acquisition of land in comprehensive development areas for the purpose of securing the development of that area or because it is expedient in the public interest that the land should be held together with the land so acquired. These Amendments seek to give the Greater London Council the same unfettered power—and I stress the word "unfettered"—to acquire land compulsorily or by agreement as is conferred by the Bill on the London boroughs. I say "unfettered power" because subsection (2) of this Clause 29 restricts the power of the Greater London Council in such a way as to prevent their compulsorily acquiring land for the purpose of development or redevelopment except in the cases where the Minister thinks it expedient for them to do so, after the Minister has consulted with the Greater London Council or the borough or boroughs concerned.
Subsection (3) relates to the acquisition of land by agreement and provides that the Greater London Council must seek the consent of the borough, the Common Council or the Treasurers of the Temples before exercising this power. If the consent is withheld, the Minister's consent must be sought. In connection with the necessary consent of the boroughs et cetera, subsection (3) imposes no time limit on those bodies within which consent must be granted or withheld.
We all know that to-day land is a highly competitive market and the delays inherent in this procedure of obtaining consent and so on may very well militate against acquisition by agreement on reasonable terms. This power of acquisition by agreement is one which we say the Greater London Council will certainly need, and will need in a form where it can be used without unnecessary delay. Acquiring what the planners call "non-conforming industry" is one
162
example where this will be important, for this is a function which the boroughs will have to leave to a great extent to the Greater London Council because that Council are to be closely associated with the problem of re-locating industry. If the non-conforming industrialist does not want to go out of business he will want to know pretty quickly where it is going to be possible for him to set up his industry again and get the whole thing going.
If the Minister who is to reply to me says that the re-location of industry is more likely to arise in the sphere of a London borough than in the sphere of the Greater London Council—which is really a summary of what Mr. Corfield said in another place in answer to a similar Amendment—I am bound to say here, to forestall the Minister, that the number of cases where an industry will move to within the borough boundaries will be very small indeed in London. There might be some cases in the outer boroughs and so on, but we do know the difficulties in this closely built-up central area of London, and the problem of re-locating industries within a borough would he very difficult indeed in those particular areas.
The London County Council, of course, have great experience of this problem and have great resources at their disposal. They deal with an area of some 117 square miles, but even that Council have found it necessary to go outside their own area in order to solve the problems of relocating the industries displaced by their own development. In addition, the L.C.C. have started industrial estates within the county to serve the county as a whole, and these industrial estates have been set up without any reference to the sort of boundaries which will be set up under this Bill in the new London boroughs. Great development is required, and I believe that plans are in preparation, or have already been prepared, for the redevelopment of Knightsbridge, the South Bank and the Elephant and Castle areas; and in that redevelopment the Greater London Council will clearly have to pay a tremendous part. But it seems to us that the Government's proposals in relation to the acquisition of land will to some extent hamstring the Greater London Council in the task they will have to perform in this relocation of industry and the rest.

163
Further to these arguments, I must add that the Greater London Council will be the overspill authority for rehousing London's overspill population. I will not make much of this point, because the Government themselves have recognised this overspill, both for the rehousing of people displaced from development areas and for slum clearance, and have recognised the necessity for giving the Council power to acquire land outside the Greater London area. That, of course, is the purpose of the Amendment No. 147A, and I can say straight away that that Amendment goes quite a long way towards meeting the points I had proposed to make in Amendments Nos. 146 and 147. But his Amendment does not go far enough. It relieves the Greater London Council of the necessity for going through the tortuous procedure of first seeking the consent of the borough or, failing that, of the Minister, before the Council can acquire by agreement the land of an industrial commercial undertaking incidental to removing that industry outside the area of the Greater London Council.
In this connection, perhaps I should mention the fact that the L.C.C. have in being an industrial centre which has proved remarkably effective, because it can offer guidance and help to industries seeking guidance in tackling the problems caused by planning in London—the problems of movement, of relocation and the rest. That London County Council industrial centre not only helps industries which want to remove in total but also industries which, for one reason or another, wish to expand but are nevertheless tied to the London area. The L.C.C. have also in use special industrial estates and unit workshops which it can use to meet this problem of the expanding industry within this London area. We presume that the Greater London Council will be able to take over this industrial centre, but we also say that its effectiveness will be greatly diminished if it comes to be regarded as concerned only with moving firms from within the G.L.C. area to outside it, and not with tackling the problem as a whole; that is, shifting industry and helping industrialists both within and without the Greater London Council area.
164
I recognise, and I have already said, that the Government are making a considerable step forward in their Amendment No. 147A. It will enable a step to be taken in the right direction. The only question I have to ask is: is it logical to stop just there; to stop at the provisions the Government are making for the expansion outside the Greater London Council area? Surely, for the reasons that I have advanced the Government should take another step and relieve the Greater London Council of the necessity for going through the procedure which is contained in Clause 29(2) and (3) for the acquisition of land for its essential development purposes. Because we regard this as being of some importance, I have taken some little time over it. It is a technical matter, but I move this Amendment, hoping that the noble Lord will accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 20, leave out ("68(1), 71,").—(Lord Champion.)
3.26 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: There is one difference between us, I think, on these two Amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, said that the Government Amendment did not go far enough, but I am constrained to say that the noble Lord's Amendment goes too far. The noble Lord said, quite rightly, that under the Bill as it is now the powers of compulsory purchase will be exercised by the borough councils, and by the Greater London Council—and incidentally this refers to purchase by agreement as well—only after consultation with the borough council. If the borough council disagreed, then the Minister would settle the matter, and that, so far as we are concerned, is a fundamental aspect of the Bill. The reason for this is that the borough councils will be the main land-holding authorities in the new organisation.
As the noble Lord said, these purchase powers are directed to securing the redevelopment of land and are widely used in particular to buy up non-conforming industries. We come back to the main argument made by my right honourable friend in another place, Mr. Corfield. The borough councils will be on the whole more likely than the Greater London Council to have a use for any

165
land so bought. They will need some for redevelopment for housing. As the authority receiving all and dealing with most planning applications, they will be more likely to know when a firm is on the move or hoping to move. We think it would be wrong to have the two authorities—that is to say, the London borough and the Greater London Council—competing with each other for purposes of buying up these non-conforming industries, except in the case which we have put down in the Government Amendment which relates to industries definitely moving out of Lone on and thereby helping towards the general objective of planning, and in particular enabling the Greater London Council to organise overspill operations, either in New Towns or expanded towns. Therefore, we agree that this is a very useful power that the Greater London Council should have, to be able to purchase without consent, so that it can seize the opportunity when it arises and when a firm is moving out of London altogether. Of course, the quicker this can be done the better, and sometimes the opportunity is not there for a very long time.
But when we come to industry which is being relocated within the Greater London area, we feel that this is a job which is particularly the affair of the London borough. When we come to the next Amendment, or the one after that, which noble Lords are moving, also in relation to the distribution of industrial estates, I shall have more to say on that particular point, but I do not think it really arises on this Amendment we are discussing now. But we consider that the London boroughs should retain their powers in respect of compulsory purchase and purchase by agreement, except in this one instance in which we feel that the Greater London Council should be authorised to exercise the same powers, and without consent. Otherwise it is a principle of the Bill that the Greater London Council should purchase land only by consent of the borough councils, and if there is any disagreement then the Minister can decide between them.
The noble Lord's Amendment would not only give to the Greater London Council the comprehensive powers to buy anywhere in Greater London without consent, but it would also have the effect of striking out subsections (2) and (3). In the Government's view, these subsections
166
are fundamental to the Bill, especially as we wish to limit the powers of the Greater London Council. Under our proposed Amendment we are extending the Minister's power under subsection (2) to authorise the Greater London Council to buy in certain instances—one is thinking there, of course, of areas of comprenhensive development. We do not want to lose that, and we certainly wish to retain the principle that it should be the London boroughs who will have powers of compulsory purchase and for purchase by agreement. For these reasons I am afraid that, whereas on the previous three Amendments we had not only a friendly discussion but were able to reach a certain measure of agreement, in that we are going to look at matters again, in this case (although I hope the discussion has remained friendly) I am certainly not able to agree with the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD CHAMPION: I recognise that the noble Lord has dug in his toes or his heels (whichever happens to be the appropriate part in this connection); but, of course, when we put down our Amendment we had no Amendment No. 147A on the Marshalled List. That has considerably affected the whole matter. To that extent, I feel disposed to withdraw the Amendment. I cannot wholly agree with the noble Lord when he says that our proposal would inevitably bring the boroughs and the G.L.C. into competition over the purchase of land, and perhaps would drive up the price. In other Acts there are many instances where concurrent powers have been reposed in two authorities and they have led not to competition but, rather, to co-operation—I would instance housing, which we discussed last night. But because I feel that the noble Lord has gone so far to meet us in his Amendment No. 147A, I do not propose to press my Amendment at this stage. I should like to use the old threat of returning to it on the Report stage, but in the meantime I seek leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

CENTRAL AFRICA
3.35 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, it may be convenient to the House if I repeat a statement which is now being made by my right honourable friend the First Secretary of State in another place on the subject of Central Africa. I will use his own words: they are as follows:
"I have for some weeks past been in touch with the Governments in Central Africa about the immediate steps to be taken to secure consideration of the orderly dissolution of the Federation and of the consequential problems involved. I would like to inform the House that I am communicating with the Federal Government, the Government of Southern Rhodesia and the Government of Northern Rhodesia about arrangements for a conference to start at the Victoria Falls or Livingstone on a date to be agreed in the second half of June.
"The House will be aware that over the same period correspondence has continued with the Southern Rhodesia Government on the subject of the future independence of Southern Rhodesia. The point has now been reached when it appears desirable that these discussions should be continued through personal contact between the two Governments. I have accordingly invited the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, with his advisers, to come to London for discussions which will begin on 27th May."
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are grateful to the Lord Chancellor for giving us this statement. We are aware of the considerable difficulties which have been involved up to the present date. We hope that the meetings which are now proposed will perhaps bring some good. There is only one possible thing that might be considered. Nyasaland will know its position pretty well already, but might they not want to attend one or other of the meetings as observers?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he has said. With regard to
168
his question in relation to Nyasaland, I can assure the noble Earl that my right honourable friend will be maintaining close contact with the Government of Nyasaland about their interest in the subjects falling for discussion at the conference.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while welcoming at any rate the first part of the statement made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and thanking him for it, may I ask him whether the Government are aware of the urgency and the importance of creating, at the earliest possible moment a continuing organisation for the common services in what is now the Federation—such services as post, telegraphs, railways, airways and the like? Secondly, may I ask him whether, so far as the proposed conference in London is concerned, relating to the future of Southern Rhodesia, the African leaders are also being consulted?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with regard to the first part of the question, I think the noble Lord may Test absolutely assured that the Government are fully aware of all the problems in relation to the dissolution of the Federation, and the problems which will arise in consequence of that dissolution. With regard to the second question, my right honourable friend has, of course, informed the other Governments concerned of the statement being made this afternoon.

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL
3.38 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD HASTINGS: I formally move this Amendment. We have just discussed it, and I need not say any more.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 5, at end insert—
("or
(e) in relation to land in any of the areas aforesaid without any such consent as aforesaid if the land is used for the purposes of an industrial or commercial undertaking and is to be acquired incidentally to the removal of that undertaking from Greater London.").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH moved, after Clause 29, to insert the following new clause:
Industrial and commercial lands
".—(1) On 1st April, 1965, there shall vest in the Greater London Council any land which immediately before that date was held by the London County Council or the Middlesex County Council in an area zoned in any development plan for industry and commerce, being land so held and used for the purposes of industry or commerce, or held for re-development for those purposes, in pursuance of any of their functions under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962; but, not later than 31st March, 1970, or such later date before 1st April, 1975, as the Minister may direct, the Greater London Council shall, after consultation with the London borough councils, prepare and submit to The Minister a scheme with respect to that land—

(a) containing proposals as to what part, if any, of that land it is, in the opinion of the Greater London Council, necessary or desirable to transfer to the councils of specified London boroughs for use for or in connection with tie exercise of the functions of those councils, and giving their grounds for that opinion;

(b) in the case of any of that land proposed to be transferred indicating any necessary modifications of any local Act or other instrument with respect to the land in question;

and the Minister, after consultation with the Greater London Council and any London borough council concerned, may by order give effect to the scheme either without modification or with such modifications as the Minister thinks fit.
(2) The Minister shall not make any order under section 81 of this Act in relation to any land to which this section applies except for the purpose of giving effect (either with or without modifications) to a scheme submitted to him under tiffs section."
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment of some importance and practical utility. It is the case that the London County Council, and I rather think the Middlesex County Council as well, are holding a fair amount of land for development purposes. In the case of the London County Council the land has, not entirely, but largely, been acquired under Housing Act powers. But when an area is acquired under a clearance order, then there is likely to have been on that lard residential, industrial and commercial property. The land that survives inbuilt upon, or on which there are buildings ripe for demolition, vests in the authority that has made the order, and the question then is what to do with it. A lot of this land is valuable to the county councils, at any
170
rate to the London County Council, for the purpose of finding industrial sites for businesses or firms which have been compulsorily closed down as part of a comprehensive clearance order. Then at the proper time it is for the local authority to decide what to do with that land, particularly in the light of the convenience and the well-being of the firms whose commercial offices or factories have been demolished as part of the slum clearance or the redevelopment scheme.
There is something about this problem in Clause 23 of the Bill, but it does not primarily meet this case. The Government may be anxious that this surviving property arising out of these development plans shall almost at once vest in the London borough councils, and of course I agree it is right that the case for vesting some of this land in a London borough council or councils should be considered. It is a complicated problem and has its difficulties, and time must be allowed whereby the owning authority can have a chance to survey such land as is inherited by the Greater London Council in London and Middlesex in 1965, and to continue negotiations with the industrialists or commercial users to see whether an arrangement can be made to the mutual convenience of the local authority and the former private owners concerned.
I am sure the Committee would wish it to be administered in the spirit of being fair to the local authority, but fair also to the industrialists or commercial people who have been disturbed in their businesses and their ownership and who therefore require alternative provision, unless they find it through ordinary business channels. The other point is that if they do not want it, or it is not convenient for it to go that way, it may well be that if the area is zoned for commercial or industrial use the local authority would be able to let on lease or otherwise to suitable firms in order that employment might be preserved and that the balance of industry and residential population might be taken care of.
All this will take time, and therefore we propose that at April 1, 1965, this land should vest in the Greater London Council if, prior to that date, it was vested in the London County Council or the Middlesex County Council. It is proposed that thereafter there shall be

171
a review as to which is the most appropriate authority for dealing with that land after a certain date, namely the Greater London Council or one or more of the London borough councils which will exist in due course—at least, that is the Government's hope—throughout Greater London.
The question is: how long should that period be? We think this will occupy round about ten years—not that the whole ten years will be devoted to this, because after April 1, 1965, all these local authorities will be new. They are not merely authorities which are receiving transferred powers from one local authority to another established local authority; they will all be new, with new areas, new populations, new wards and new electoral divisions. It will take them time to settle down and get into their stride. Therefore, we do not think that 1975, which is ten years after the actual coming into existence of these bodies, but not ten years after they have got into their stride, is an unreasonable date to set out. However, in case we may he wrong, we have provided in the Amendment that, alternatively, it can be such later date before April 1, 1975, as the Minister may direct.
Apart from the Minister's powers of direction at a date which he thinks is appropriate for this purpose, it is proposed that the Greater London Council shall enter into consultation with the London borough councils and that arising out of those consultations they should prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme with respect to the land as set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1). Then the Minister, after consultation With the Greater London Council and the London borough councils which are concerned or affected by the proposals, may by order give effect to the scheme, either without modification or with such modifications as the Minister thinks fit Subsection (2) is, I think, more or less consequential upon those provisions. Something has to be done about the future of these lands and properties. We do not think it is adequately covered by the Bill and we think this is the right course to take. In all the circumstances, I hope that the Government will see their way to take a favourable view of the Amendment which I now move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 29, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Morrison of Lambeth.)
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Lord has introduced an important Amendment. This is an important subject and I welcome the opportunity to discuss it. As explained at the outset, this refers to land held by the London and Middlesex County Councils, land which is either used for industry and commerce or held for redevelopment for those purposes. This Amendment would put the initiative for disposal with the Greater London Council and they would have up to five, or possibly up to ten, years to act, and they would transfer land to the borough councils only if they thought it was necessary or desirable to do so in the exercise of their functions.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I hope I am not anticipating the noble Lord, but he will realise that the scheme of the Greater London Council for the distribution of these lands has to go to the Minister. The Minister then has to consult both the Council and the London boroughs before making a decision.
LORD HASTINGS: I was not misrepresenting what the noble Lord said. I understood, naturally, that it would be after a period of consultation with the Minister. I think this is a very attractive argument. This land must be dealt with, and the whole point is how to secure that the available sites or factories are used in the most effective way. The sites vary, of course, in extent. Some may actually have housing on them at the moment and they are zoned for industrial purposes. Some of these sites are small and some are large, and it is a complicated matter.
The Government maintain that the order-making procedure in Clause 81, which is referred to briefly at the end of the noble Lord's Amendment, can in fact provide exactly what the noble Lord wishes to see. For instance, if it seems right that a property should go to the Greater London Council this can be done by the Minister's order. If, on the other hand, it is felt right to transfer the obligations of the actual ownership to the borough council in whose area the property lies, and at the same time retain some control for the Greater London Council in respect of tenancies, that, too,

173
could be provided by the transferring order. Such a provision could also include machinery for resolving any disputes which might arise, probably by way of a reference to the Minister. The Government feel that this is the better way to deal with the problems.
Apart from the arguments put forward, there is the point that continually crops up in our discussions, and that is the question of assignment between the G.L.C. and the borough councils, in that the latter will be dealing with day-to-day development control which will bring to light industrial or commercial users who need to be resited. The machinery which we have in mind for transferring the property by order will enable the concern of both parties to be taken into account, and my right honourable friend gave the assurance in the other place that he would consult the authorities concerned as soon as practicable, so that when orders were made under Clause 81 all the factors could be taken into account.
The sites will vary in size and there will be clear cases where small sites will be most valuable for London boroughs to hold in order to resite non-conforming industries in small areas. In other cases, Woolwich for exam ale, there are large industrial sites substantial parts of which, quite clearly—I cannot say what sort of proportion—must be reserved for the problem of re-locating industry in Greater London as a whole. That is the sort of problem which the noble Lord has foreseen, and which must be sorted out. Here we come to an important consideration in favour of the Government's suggestion, and that is the time factor. The noble Lord has said that it will take a long time to sort this out. I think that perhaps he is unnecessarily pessimistic about this, and we certainly feel—
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Perhaps I am a little at fault there. I mentioned in the first place 1975, but later I said that it could be at an earlier date. It will be seen that the Amendment itself provides that the Greater County Council should submit, after consultation with the boroughs, proposals to the Minister by 1970, unless the Minister gives them permission to make it later, but not later than 1975. So they will be aiming at five years.
LORD HASTINGS: We still feel that this matter can be tackled more immediately with quicker results under Clause 81. Certainly it is the intention of my right honourable friend to gather all the information from the boroughs and to sift the facts and then, as soon as possible, to attempt, by agreement between the new London boroughs and the G.L.C., to sort out the likely needs of both and to start allocating the property between them.
In case the noble Lord thinks that that might not work very well or that it might be too arbitrary, these orders of the Minister would be subject to annulment by Resolution of either House of Parliament, so there is a safeguard in that respect. We feel this way will see results quicker than the way which is suggested by noble Lords opposite; there is going to be no delay in this and we are going to get on with it as soon as we possibly can, realising full well the problems both of the London boroughs in respect of the sites they need for their own use, and of Greater London in resiting industry generally; that is to say, industry which is not actually going out of London but needs a new area. There are larger estates which will serve for that purpose. It is my right honourable friend's intention to proceed on those lines as soon as possible.
LORD SILKIN: So far as I understand the noble Lord's speech, he appreciates that there is a problem here. We are talking of sites which have already been acquired by the London County Council and the Middlesex County Council for specific purposes, generally speaking, under the Housing Acts or under the Town and Country Planning Act. There are 100 of these sites within the Greater London area and a considerable number outside, but we are not dealing with those outside the Greater London area, but with the 100 sites involving about 200 acres. On the face of it, it would seem that the most satisfactory way would be for the Greater London Council to make up their minds as to what are the sites that they really need to carry out their purposes and to deal with them. As to the rest, under the Amendment, they can make their decision before the five year period. The Amendment says "not later than … 1970", but it may be earlier. I think that that

175
is the most sensible procedure. The alternative is that the Minister will go into each of these 100 sites piecemeal, and go to Parliament in respect of each one or a group of 100 of them with their statutory orders and expect Parliament to scrutinise them one by one.
Of the two procedures, the one suggested in the Amendment is obviously the most simple and the most satisfactory. Since there is no serious difference between us as to objectives, I think the noble Lord agreed that there would be some of the 100 sites which it would be more convenient and more appropriate for the Greater London Council to retain and deal with. There would be sonic which could conveniently and properly be handed over to the borough councils. There may be disagreement as to individual sites, but that can be settled.
Since we are agreed on what we want to achieve, I believe that the method in the Amendment is certainly the simpler one: that you leave it to the Greater London Council to sort these things out, in the light of knowledge which they have and which the borough councils have not. That is the original intention behind acquiring a site. In the light of all the data they have as to the use they intend to make of it, they have to sort the thing out and within five years, certainly not later than 1975, they are to make up their minds. I suggest that if the noble Lord is not able to give a definite decision on this now, if he feels he cannot accept that this Amendment is worthy of serious consideration, the most sensible thing would be that we should both think about this again. But if the noble Lord is not able to give way and feels very strongly about it, we feel equally strongly that we have got the right method in this Amendment.
LORD HASTINGS: I do not know whether I said, or whether I gave the impression, that substantial sites would be actually owned by the G.L.C. I am not quite clear whether that would in fact be so. I know that I did mention, and we have very much in mind, the desirability of the London boroughs owning the properties and having sections of reserve on tenancy agreements for the tenants of the Greater London Council. That will be a system which I think we shall
176
favour. Of course, I believe there will also be instances where the Greater London Council would actually own the property, but these are matters to be gone into and threshed out.
I do not think I could accept the noble Lord's Amendment. I do not mind discussing this subject further with my right honourable friend, but I think we have the right method here, and therefore I do not want to accept the noble Lord's Amendment. But I know we are both striving at the same object and I am prepared to think it over again and to talk it over again, although noble Lords opposite should realise—and it is only fair that I should make this clear—that we wish to stand as much as possible on the principle that ownership of land should be in the London boroughs. I think to that extent we may not be on quite the same lines as the noble Lords opposite. There is that difference of opinion. But, having said that, I do not mind thinking over this matter, if the noble Lord wishes to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: Let me be quite clear. What we are suggesting is that there should be an objective inquiry without bias, without prejudice at all, as to whether it is better, in the light of the responsibilities which are being conferred upon the Greater London Council, that it should retain possession of the sites which it has acquired; or whether in due course it should be transferred to the borough councils. The noble Lord's view is that, whatever the merits of the case, whatever the advantages may be of the retention by the Greater London Council of possession of the site, it must eventually go to the borough councils. If that is the view, then of course there is a fundamental difference between us.
LORD HASTINGS: I think that is extending my words a bit beyond their meaning. That is one reason why I should like to consider this matter a little more closely, and I might be able to come back with more detailed information to give to the noble Lord. But I do not think he is right in saying there would never be any cases where the Greater London Council would own industrial sites.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: What my noble friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked was that the

177
noble Lord would go into the matter with an open mind, a fair mind, and would possibly come hack with a decision on the part of the Government. That, apparently, he is not willing to do. He is willing to look for further information—presumably further information for the purpose of resisting this Amendment; and although he did not say that in every case the property should go to the London borough, he made it clear that there was a very, very strong bias that it should go to the London borough. That is not a right attitude on the part of the Minister, especially when he may be called in for purposes of arbitration. I have not said that all the land should be held by
Schedule 8 [Modifications as from April 1, 1965, of Housing Act, 1957]:
LORD HASTINGS: This Amendment appears to be identical in intention, and almost word for word the same, as an Amendment tabled by the noble Lords opposite, which must be No. 151B. The
the Greater London Council. I think it should be fairly considered between the Greater London Council and the boroughs, in the hope that they would agree. But it is quite clear that there is a difference of approach between us on the matter. The noble Lord is entitled to his opinion and we are entitled to ours. I think that the best course, the inevitable course, therefore, is that the Committee should divide.
4.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 148) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 68.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Henderson, L.

Silkin, L.

Amwell, L.

Latham, L.

Stonham, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lawson, L.

Summerskill, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Listowel, E.

Walston, L.

Champion, L.

Longford, E.

Williams, L.

Chorley, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Williamson, L.

Faringdon, L.

Rusholme, L.

Wise, L.

Francis Williams, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Greenhill, L.

Shackleton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Exeter, M.

Merrivale, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mersey, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Meston, L.

Allerton, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Milverton, L.

Atholl, D.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Monk Bretton, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Grantchester, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V

Beauchamp, E.

Grenfell, L.

Newton, L.

Blackford, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. Preside)

Ormonde, M.

Boston, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L

Carrington, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rochdale, V.

Cholmondeley, M.

Hastings, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Colgrain, L.

Henley, L.

Salter, L.

Colyton, L.

Howe, E.

Sanderson of Avot, L.

Conesford, L.

Ilford, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Ironside, L.

Somers, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Soulbury, V.

Denham, L.

Kilmuir, E.

Spens, L.

Derwent, L.

Lloyd, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Devonshire, D.

Long, V.

Swaythling, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor)

Lothian, M.

Swinton, E.

Dudley, E.

MacAndrew, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Wigram, L.

Effingham, E.

Margesson, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

purpose is to retain, adapted to the new system of authorities, certain provisions in the Housing Act, 1957, which permit departures from local building regulations in the case of schemes approved by the Minister. As it seems to meet the views of noble Lords opposite, perhaps I need not say anything more about it. I hope they will be willing to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 159, line 30, at end insert—
("4A. In the proviso to section 145(1)—

(a) for the words ' the administrative county of London ' there shall be substituted the words ' Greater London other than the outer London boroughs';

(b) for the words ' the county ' there shall be substituted the words ' that area'; and

(c) for the words ' London County Council ' there shall be substituted the words ' Greater London Council '.

4B. In section 145(3)—

(a) for the words ' the administrative county of London ' there shall be substituted the words ' Greater London other than the outer London boroughs ';

(b) for the words ' London County Council ' there shall be substituted the words ' Greater London Council '; and

(c) for the words ' metropolitan borough' there shall be substituted the words London borough'.").—(Lord Hastings.)

LORD CHAMPION: This Amendment does, in fact, meet the points that we had in mind when we set down our Amendment, and we shall therefore be glad, for our part, to accept the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: The effect of paragraph 15 of Schedule 8 is to enable subsidies in respect of houses completed during the first year of the new authority to be calculated by reference to the housing revenue account of the authority for that year instead of the previous year, as is required by Section 4 and Part II of the First Schedule to the Housing Act, 1961. The effect of this Amendment is simply, by the insertion of sub-paragraph (a)(ii), to extend this principle to the calculation of supplemental payments under Part I of the First Schedule to the Housing Act, 1961. Without this Amendment there will be no provision for the making of supplemental payments in respect of houses completed during the first year of the Greater London Council. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 160, line 38, leave out from beginning to (" is ") in line 43 and insert—
("(a) in relation to a dwelling completed in the financial year 1965–66—

(i) that year shall be the relevant financial year; and

(ii) Part I of that Schedule shall have effect as if the words ' preceding that '
180
wherever those words occur in paragraph 1 or 2 thereof were omitted;

(b) the financial year 1965–66 shall be the earliest financial year which may be determined by the Minister under paragraph 5(2) of that Schedule;
(c) where the financial year 1965–66").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: This is not much more than drafting. A very brief description might help. Sub-paragraph (1)(2) of Part I of the First Schedule to the Housing Act, 1961, enables the calculation of the rates made in the area of the London County Council to be the weighted average of rates made in the metropolitan boroughs and the City of London, while sub-paragraph (1)(5) defines "rate". The effect of this Amendment is to enable similar provisions to be made for the Greater London Council. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 160, line 50, at end insert—
("(2) In the said Schedule—

(a) in paragraph 1(2)—

(i) for the words ' London County Council' there shall be substituted the words ' Greater London Council ';

(ii) for the words ' metropolitan boroughs and the City of London ' there shall be substituted the words rating areas in Greater London ';

(b) in paragraph 1(5), at the end there shall be added the words ' and except that it includes any rate in the nature of a general rate levied in the Inner Temple or the Middle Temple'.")—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30:
Local education authorities
30.—(1) As from 1st April 1965, any reference in the Education Acts 1944 to 1962 or in any other Act to the local education authority shall be construed—

(a) in relation to any outer London borough, as a reference to the council of that borough;

(b) subject to subsection (6) of this section, in relation to the remainder of Greater London (which remainder shall be known as the Inner London Education Area) as a reference to the Greater London Council acting by means of a special committee thereof constituted as mentioned in subsection (2) of this section;

and the Greater London Council, when acting as aforesaid as the local education authority for the said Area, shall, except for the purposes of any document of title, be known as

181
the Inner London Education Authority, and any reference in this or any other Act to a member or officer of that Authority or, in relation to that Authority, to a member or officer of a local education authority shall be construed as a reference to a member of the special committee aforesaid or, as the case may be, an officer appointed for the purposes of the functions of the Greater London Council as a local education authority.
4.19 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD THE EARL OF LONGFORD moved, in subsection (1), to leave out from "reference" in paragraph (a) to "constituted" in paragraph (b), and insert—
"In relation to those areas of Greater London which comprise respectively the London Boroughs numbered 1–12, 13–17, 18 and 19, 20–24 and 25–32 in Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act as a reference to the Greater London Council acting by means of special committees thereof (to be known respectively as the Inner London Education Area Committee, The West Essex Education Area Committee, The North-West Kent Area Education Committee, The East Surrey Area Education Committee and The Middlesex Area Educational Committee)."
The noble Earl said: I hope the Committee will forgive me if I spend quite a considerable time on this Amendment. We have now reached education, and, while I disagree with, a large number of things in the Report of the Royal Commission, there are some good things said there, and one of the wisest things is said at the beginning of Chapter X, where they refer to education as "the most important of all local authority functions". They say:
"So many local authority functions deal with the physical conditions of life, this one deals with the stuff of life itself."
They say much else to the same effect, all of which is very true. There are not, in fact, a great many Amendments down about education; but I venture to say that those which are down, and particularly several of them which will be strongly pressed, are among the most important which we shall be discussing during the consideration of the Bill. Therefore I hope the Committee will forgive me if I spend quite a time over this one.
This Amendment, putting it very shortly, would establish five educational authorities in the area, instead of 21 as suggested in the Bill. These are, one for the London County Council area, and four outside, instead of one for the L.C.C. area and 20 outside. The
182
Amendment is strongly supported by the County Councils Association and also by the Labour Party. Those are far from identical bodies. If I follow to a considerable extent their arguments (indeed, the very documents supplied by the County Councils Association) it will be partly because of the intrinsic merits of the arguments, partly because of the importance of that Association and partly because I hope in that way to convince noble Lords that this is, rightly, not a Party issue. Everyone is aware that the County Councils Association is a non-party body and does not lean in the direction of the Labour Party.
Before coming to the arguments of the County Councils Association may I briefly refer (particularly for the benefit of noble Lords who have not studied this question) to the existing situation? At the present time (I am dealing with this broadly; if I make any small slips, and I hope I shall not, then I hope they will be pointed out, because this is a very complicated question) the following authorities are concerned with education in the Greater London area: the London County Council, Croydon County Borough, East Ham County Borough, West Ham County Borough and the Counties of Middlesex, Essex, Kent, and Surrey. That makes eight, if we leave out Hertfordshire, as perhaps we may. We must bear in mind that Essex, Kent and Surrey would be dealing with areas much larger than those which will be enclosed within the Greater London area under the Bill. The Royal Commission put the matter mildly when it said that the arrangements under these various authorities are very different one from another. In the three county boroughs of Croydon, East Ham and West Ham the administration is completely centralised; in the administrative county of London the administration is decentralised to nine divisional offices; but in London the metropolitan boroughs do not play any part, even as agents.
In the other four counties, leaving out Hertfordshire, the administration is here delegated as a rule to "excepted districts", or to another kind of entity called "an ad hoc divisional executive". In the case of excepted districts the local authorities, such as the boroughs, do not become education authorities but act in important matters on behalf of the county.

183
This is the case with the ad hoc divisional executives; they are not educational authorities themselves, but they act on behalf of the county. In the case of a divisional executive, a number of boroughs or districts are brought together. For example in South-West Middlesex the division consists of Feltham urban district, Staines urban district, and Sunbury on Thames urban district. I should remind the Committee that in all local education authorities there are boards of governors of secondary schools and managers of primary schools.
These arrangements are peculiar and difficult to grasp, and hard to remember; they derive from history, and I could imagine no choicer subject for a noble Lord who was foolish enough to indulge in a filibuster than the history of local education. But I have no intention of pursuing this course. At the present time there are twenty-five excepted districts in the Greater London area, but of these sixteen are in Middlesex, six in Metropolitan Essex, three in Metropolitan Kent and none in Surrey. There are great variations in areas that might seem, on the face of it, to be similar. Few of us would claim, when we first read these facts, or indeed later, when we came to study them, that the present arrangements are perfect. I am therefore not one of those who would think it monstrous to alter the existing set-up. The right solution is not coercively obvious, as the Royal Commission themselves found.
I have quoted once favourably from the Royal Commission and I must quote again, because their comment sets out what we all feel about education:
"We have had projected on us a flood of information, argument and recrimination about education, mainly as to administration, organisation and finance, all of which are important. But we have constantly had to remind ourselves that all these things, important as they are, are means to an end, and that the end is to fit children to play their part as responsible citizens in the world, to earn their livings, to develop their personalities and talents to the full, to take their part in the community, giving as well as receiving, and, if possible, to be aware of the age-long process of man's discovery of the truth about himself and the spiritual and physical worlds in which he lives."
That is, of course, quite a task for any child to master; but it is finely said,
184
and we can all applaud that approach of the Royal Commission. I have spelled it out to convince noble Lords that those moving this Amendment are not obsessed with some fanatic interest in some particular administrative plan but are concerned, as everyone is, with the children. It is not too much to conclude, if one takes the premise of the Royal Commission that education is the most important of all local government subjects, that any plan for local government reform that is totally unacceptable from the local government point of view would make nonsense. That is how we are compelled to stigmatise the general proposals of the Royal Commission.
Let us leave out that argument, and just remind ourselves about the fate of the Royal Commission's educational proposals. Their educational proposals were liquidated by the Government without a dog barking in defence. And no voice has been raised in their favour. The Government came forward on this complex problem with two successive proposals. One of them was abandoned, under the tremendous protests from the teachers and parents affected, and the other proposal is the one contained in the Bill. Sir Keith Joseph, when he moved the Second Reading, summarised the education proposals as follows.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 669 (No. 30), col. 58]:
"… the Government are satisfied that the borough councils will be competent to carry the full responsibility of local education authorities except … the present London County Council service is to be taken over by a special education committee of the Greater London Council …"
So that, rightly or wrongly, under the Bill symmetry is abandoned; there will be one system for the L.C.C. area and another for the rest of the area.
The Minister said that this committee of the Greater London Council will have full powers to run the service as the Inner London Education Authority. It has been made plain since this speech that the education committee will really be an independent single-purpose authority. The Minister added:
"There is need, however, to explore fully the possibilities of direct participation of borough councils in the service in this central area, and that will be the principal objective of the review which the Minister of Education is required to carry out."

185
I am not going to say any more about it because my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger will deal with this effectively, I will not say in a few moments, because that is taking too optimistic a view of my speech and of other speeches that will be made on this Amendment; but before night falls my noble friend will make plain her attitude to this review.
What we are seeking to do under this Amendment is to ex tend the proposal in the Bill for the L.C.C. area so that it covers the Greater London area as a whole. By that I do not mean—for the benefit of noble Lords who have not had a chance of studying this—that under our proposal a single authority will cover the whole area of the London Education Authority. What I mean is that the same kind of plan will be applied to the whole area and that under the Amendment there would be five authorities—the London Education Authority and four others—compared with the L.E.A. plus the 20 proposed in the Bill. These other four authorities in the Outer London Area would be organised on the same lines as the L.E.A. which the Government themselves propose.
I may be asked whether what I am proposing is, in my view, an ideal solution. I cannot say that. An ideal solution is difficult in any case, but it is least of all likely to be discovered within the framework of the present Bill. Taking the L.C.C. area to start with and the proposals as a whole, looking at the matter as if this Amendment were carried and leaving ever this lamentable review clause, which raises an issue on its own, I think the proposal of a single purpose authority, which is concerned with education alone, is neither ideal nor so good as what we have at the moment. I argued on Second Reading that the multi-purpose authority, one which, for example, combines responsibility for education and housing, is likely to be much more effective in the field of educational planning, and there are many other well-understood arguments for the multi-purpose, as opposed to the single-purpose, authority. The only analogy I can think of is perhaps provided by the smile of the Cheshire cat. Long after the cat had disappeared, the smile remained. After the Government have liquidated the L.C.C., they hope to keep the educational authority still, as it were, floating in the void. So nothing in this
186
proposal is an ideal solution. But I say that, taking the Amendment as a whole, it is much better than the alternative in the Bill.
I will turn in a moment to the general statement of the case as put forward by the County Councils' Association, but before I do that I should like to deal with this matter from one particular aspect which has caused special concern. How will this proposal affect the right of parents to obtain the religious education they desire for their children? I speak primarily from the point of view of the Roman Catholics; I cannot speak for others, though I know that there are many anxieties which are shared by other denominations. I had rather hoped that one of the Bishops would have been able to be with us, but that must have proved impossible.
The Catholic hierarchy are concerned, in the first place, that if the Bill goes through as it stands they will be forced to negotiate with 20 separate educational authorities outside London. In their eyes, that is a source of great difficulty and, it may well be, of confusion. But that numerical point, so to speak, is not the whole story. Another point is that the increase in the number of educational authorities will greatly multiply the number of local government boundaries. The Government propose, I am sure very sincerely, to provide for free movement of pupils within the area. Of course, that objective is entirely laudable, but as The Times has pointed out, there is need for clarification of this idea. I certainly hope that, apart from the effect of this Amendment, the Minister concerned—have we the honour of a reply coming to us from the noble Viscount who leads the House? The noble Viscount has taken so many notes that I thought he must be considering what I am saying.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): I am considering what the noble Earl is saying, but I do not propose to reply to it.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I must not say that I am disappointed, but perhaps, in the end, the noble Viscount will supplement the noble Lord, Lord Newton, if that should prove necessary. At any rate, this idea of free trade between the areas, which the Government have accepted on paper, needs a great deal of

187
clarification, and the Government seem to feel that they have met this point already. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, will be able to improve on previous statements, because I am afraid that anxieties have not been relieved. What has been said already amounts to the declaration that a borough must not refuse pupils solely because they come from outside the borough. That is as far as the Government have gone. But it has been pointed out elsewhere—though I cannot quote anybody in another place who is not a Minister—that it is extremely doubtful whether it is possible to secure the existing freedom of movement by any wording in the Bill or by any regulation, however well intentioned. It is extremely doubtful whether the so-called free trade can be provided securely in a Bill such as this. Can we be given an assurance—and I hope that the noble Viscount who leads the House was dealing with this precise point, because I am sure it will help the noble Lord, Lord Newton—that payment of transport for the children will be as helpful in the future as in the past? I hope that the noble Lord will be able to say something about a guarantee of assistance with that service.
There is a still larger point than that. One can say to a borough, as I think the Government propose to say, that they cannot refuse a child because he comes from across the border of the borough; but can one say to a borough, as the Government claim this Bill does, that when they make plans for future school building they must include provision, where necessary, not only for their own children but also for children from adjacent boroughs? At some future moment, we may easily reach the situation where a child from another borough is refused, not on the ground that he comes from another borough, but simply because there are not sufficient places. I put that clearly to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and perhaps he will deal with it as an essential point in his reply. How does he propose to make sure that in future there will be this provision for children from other boroughs to the same extent as has existed and has been found necessary in the past? If that is not secured, we cannot blame a borough when it refuses a child, but in fact the effective inter-borough movement, which on the whole we have now, would be destroyed.
188
No one wants to make each borough an island, but how can we stop it under the Bill in its present form? I am sure the noble Lord will wish to cope with all these points.
The Roman Catholic leaders are gravely concerned at the proposed multiplication of authorities without adequate protection for the children who would normally move from one area to another. They would be much happier if the number of authorities proposed were much reduced. As I have said, I can speak for only one denomination, but speaking for the Roman Catholic leaders involved, I can say that they would welcome an Amendment on these lines, which has nothing to do with Party politics, emanating as it does, in the first instance, from the County Councils Association.
The Government may reasonably be required, even with the Bill in its existing form, to make some move towards a solution of this difficult problem. They may reasonably be required, and we may reasonably look to the noble Lord to-day, to hold out better prospects than hitherto. But one is bound to assume that they will find it very hard to go much further than they have gone already. To do so may, indeed, be impossible with the Bill as it stands now. No doubt we shall hear from the noble Lord. But failing any major change in the proposals before us, one is bound to conclude that free trade—I do not like the term particularly, and perhaps I should say free movement under the Bill as it stands—will be seriously jeopardised. The argument, therefore, is greatly strengthened for the Amendment, with its five large authorities instead of the one large and the twenty small ones in the Bill.
I should like to deal with one or two points brought forward specifically by the County Councils Association. They are impressed with the distinction, drawn by the Minister in his closing speech on the Second Reading in another place, between a single administration of the strategic and planning services, on the one side, and on the other, the unified administration of all the personal services by authorities which can bring the pressure of local information, local ambitions and local visions to bear upon this development of local services. Without saying that I necessarily endorse the

189
conclusions of the Minister in that, or, for that matter, in any other respect, I see what he is driving at. But the County Councils Association—I am not sure to whom I should address myself—
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: If the noble Earl addresses himself to the Committee he will not go far wrong.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Newton, has returned. I was afraid we had lost the services the noble Lord for good, but I have no doubt that an important change of policy is now on the way. I was saying that there is this distinction drawn by the Minister between the strategic needs of an area and the local needs. The County Councils Association feel, as we do on this side of the Committee, that r either the strategic needs in education are met by the compromise adopted by the Government. The object of this; Amendment is to secure that there can be adequate strategic planning by these five large authorities and, on the other hand, there will be the application of local information, local ambitions and local visions through the work of strong governing and managing bodies. The experience in the area of the London County Council, and increasingly in the outer areas of Greater London, has shown that over a wide range of the educational field local boundaries have little significance. The truth in that the interests of parents, children and teachers alike call for equal opportunities, uniform standards and common administrative arrangements over areas much larger than those of the twenty proposed education authorities.
The County Councils Association would like to see a solution based on three ideas. The first is strategic units large enough to plan and provide the full range of educational services; secondly, the existence of a sufficient number of grants for divisional officers to serve the local administrative needs; and, thirdly, strong managing or governing bodies. That is the point of view of the County Councils Association, without reference (I am sorry to keep repeating this) to any Party politics, although it is a point with which we are in broad agreement. Such a pattern of provision is ready to hand. The area of the London County Council and Middlesex, and those parts of Surrey, Kent and Essex falling within Greater
190
London, already have an organic existence. But surely it would be folly to destroy all the advantages of their organic existence for the sake of the illusory gains which the Government hope to obtain under the Bill.
At the risk of wearying the Committee—I shall not speak for much longer—I should put on record what are felt by the County Councils Association to be the kinds of strategic services—there are fifteen of them, so they will take a little time to enumerate. They include (1) assessment and allocation of children to grammar school courses; (2) arrangements at fee paying schools for the admission and maintenance of children selected for grammar schools; (3) arrangements for boarding school education; (4) the advisory services; (5) teacher training and teacher courses generally; (6) conditions of service for teachers; (7) special educational treatment; (8) further education in technical colleges; (9) awards to students; (10) maintenance allowances; (11) youth employment services; (12) school health services; (13) architects and school building programmes; (14) supplies and equipment; and (15) links between schools and further education. Those are all regarded, I think rightly, by the County Councils Association as being strategic services.
If that is so—and it is not necessarily to be accepted because the County Councils Association regard them as such—then the argument of the Minister about the need for a central planning of strategic services would apply to services of this kind. I will not go through them all, but perhaps one should say a word about further education. Here it is certainly self-evident that local boundaries within the conurbation of Greater London have no significance—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Newton, will concede that. This would apply also to the youth employment service, and also have special relevance to the part to be played by local educational authorities under the new legislation for industrial training. All the Government spokesmen have emphasised the obvious fact that further education ought not to be separated from primary and secondary education. Indeed, the Minister of Education said elsewhere:
"I am sure that it would be a very great error to attempt to separate the administration of further education from that of the schools."

191
This point alone is enough to condemn the proposal to establish twenty educational authorities in the outer areas of Greater London. I hope that the noble Lord will deal, in particular, with the problems of further education under the proposals of the Government.
The needs of primary and secondary education point irresistably to the same conclusion. When we come to free trade—well, I have talked a little about that already, and I am not talking from the point of view of denominational schools—the argument for free trade and the difficulties in providing it under the present Bill are not in any way confined to denominational schools and their pupils. Other difficulties are administrative complexities of inter-authority arrangements and financial adjustments; the dissatisfaction of parents or students, thrown to and fro between the authorities; the difficulties which arise from variations in matters such as selection of pupils for secondary education, maintenance allowance and all sorts of other matters. Then there is the difficulty caused by a large number of children attending schools in which the school health service is provided by an authority other than the home authority. Then there is special educational employment.
There are just two other points. There is the question of standards of work. These depend greatly, as of course an ex-Minister of Education such as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House knows so well, on the advisory services, or what some of us would call the inspectorate; and this is a matter on which the Minister acknowledges that there will be many difficulties inherent in the new proposals. As a result, he was compelled to say elsewhere:
"I certainly intend to encourage the new authorities to club together to provide an even wider spread of specialised services than they would be likely to have individually."
So the Government, having disintegrated the Greater London area, are trying to find some second-hand way of getting as close as possible to the present arrangements.
The Government, I think it is fair to say—and the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—are not bringing forward their present proposals here on educational grounds. I do not mean by
192
that that they admit damage will be done, but I do not think they would argue that they would go to all this revolutionary length in order to obtain any educational advantages. I think it is fair to say, and the Government claim, that there is a fine balance of advantage, if there is one, in their proposed arrangements. One would have thought that if that is so, the present arrangements would have been maintained or improved in some other way, if only because of the clear preference to teachers. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, I am sure, will agree that the teachers are against the Government's present proposals.
I have spoken for rather longer than one usually speaks on an Amendment, but this is a matter of the greatest importance. It is a matter which I think we all agree goes quite outside Party politics. We are solid on this side in firmly backing this Amendment, and I hope that after the noble Lord, Lord Crook, and any other noble Lord, has spoken, the Minister will be able to move in our direction. I cannot guarantee, of course—who can?—what form the debate will take after that. But there is strong feeling in favour of this Amendment, both inside and outside the Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 34, leave out from the beginning to ("constituted") in line 39, and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Longford.)
4.52 p.m.
LORD CROOK: I rise to support my noble friend, and in doing so regretfully say to your Lordships that I may speak rather longer than one usually keeps the Committee in speaking to an Amendment. It will be because my support is general, but I will use as argumentation material as to boroughs Nos. 20 to 24 and the establishment of the East Surrey Area Education Committee referred to in the Amendment. The reason for that is that throughout the whole of these discussions there has been so much said about the existing London County Council, and not sufficient, perhaps, about the Surrey County Council, to which I made some reference on Second Reading. I reminded your Lordships that I had had the pleasure of working with a large number of members of the Government Party who run the Surrey County Council, and who have fought an election on this very

193
subject. I want, therefore, to try to tell your Lordships something of the problem that Surrey had, and has, and the problem which would arise under this Bill and which we hope would, in part, at any rate, be cured if this Amendment were adopted.
The present County of Surrey has a population of 1,480,000 and there are to be transferred to the new Greater London Council under this Bill 678,000 of them, leaving 802,000 in the future county. The County of Surrey as a whole have indicated to the Government how completely opposed they are to the whole Bill, and the serious problem of co-ordination that would arise in respect of the education services because of the basing of educational services on the new and, so far as education is concerned, arbitrary administrative boundaries. It is felt that there would be an almost insoluble problem to provide specialised services, and for their future, and for the increases which are inevitable. They have said to the Government that they see a great problem with regard to the development plans, and they think it an essential part of the fundamental duty of an L.E.A. to set down its policy to guide education development for the area. They feel—and this is what we are trying to say to your Lordships this afternoon—that the new areas proposed will be too small to provide as wide a variety of schools as is the case in the existing authority. They feel that if the Government had to go ahead with the plans they were proposing, some co-ordination in some way would become essential.
The problem of the new building programmes would, they feel, be so great as to retard the execution of even the present programmes, without having regard to the large-scale programmes of future development that are wanted. They suggested that the creation of the autonomous boroughs in areas lacking natural boundaries would inevitably create border problems and would interrupt completely the unity which was desired. They felt, and we feel now, that the border problems would be multiplied. As I think the noble Earl who moved the Amendment pointed out, children who have received their primary education in a particular school have got into the habit of expecting to attend a secondary school which they know but which will now be over the
194
new border. Either they will have to be turned away from that school, as the noble Earl has said, or be treated as special cases, which will give rise to considerable administrative work.
The noble Earl has already referred to the limitation of parental choice of school, which was one of the things we thought was very much in the mind of the present Minister. If freedom of choice is to be available, as in our view it must be, additional schools offering specialised facilities will have to be provided, or a good deal of transfer across borders will become essential. The entry to selective schools under the Government's proposals will be controlled by each borough, and so far as we can see the boroughs will be free to use different criteria for selection; and it may well be that in each case there will be varied levels of grammar school and other special provisions inherited from the existing local education authorities. They, of course, have made their provisions with reference to a much greater area.
So it is that the new boroughs which the Government are seeking to carve out of Surrey and the rest of the area around London under this Bill will be neither individually nor collectively self-contained. The Surrey County Council have gone on to say where they stand in relation to this Bill. Realising that the Bill had gone as far as it had, the Education Committee of the Surrey County Council, in a resolution to the Council in February of this year (as the Bill was coming to your Lordships' House) minuted that it would be better if the districts in "London" Surrey, excluding the County Borough of Croydon, could be grouped for purposes of overall policy into one unit of educational administration.
The Amendment we are moving goes a little further than that. It tucks in Croydon as well as the others for reasons of administrative simplicity. The Council, when it accepted the recommendation of the Education Committee, went on to record in its report that it hoped that, even if this fragmentation plan went through, the boroughs who were given education powers would co-operate to the greatest possible extent with each other and with the new Surrey County Council, so as to ensure that matters requiring consideration over an area

195
larger than one particular borough would be effectively co-ordinated in the interests of the children.
These new boroughs, Nos. 20 to 24 inclusive, are a very mixed bag. I should like to look at the five new boroughs and offer a few observations about them in this connection, and say something of their future problems. The Amendment, as we se it, avoids the fragmentation of some 680,000 people between five completely separate and new local education authorities. There are 83,000 children in this area who are in maintained schools hitherto administered by the Surrey Local Education Authority. Now they are to be split into these five, and four of them are very small boroughs—even less than the 200,000 figure which was being bandied about so much at an earlier date. Borough 21 will have 169,000; Borough 22, 188,000; Borough 23, 165,000; Borough 24, 181,000. They will lack a full range of specialists and advisory staffs, and will be costly to administer. One borough will have too many grammar school places, while a neighbouring borough will have too few. In fact, the choice of school will be severely limited compared with the present position.
Surrey has to-day 33 grammar schools from which parents are able to choose; and, if I may weary your Lordships for two or three moments, I should like to refer to the details of one or two of the new boroughs. My own borough, No. 21, containing Carshalton (where I live) and Beddington and Wallington existing borough, and Sutton and Cheam existing borough, is the smallest but one of the new London boroughs proposed in the Bill. This borough will have a population of 169,000 and will have to cater for 10,000 primary and 8,000 secondary school children. It is not self-contained, and will be incapable of being self-supporting for educational purposes if the standards customary hitherto in Metropolitan Surrey are to be maintained. It will have insufficient grammar school places for girls. In the last three years the average number of girls annually offered grammar school places has been 162, but only 91 places were available at the maintained girls' grammar school inside the area. The same story is true for boys. The number of places available
196
at the two maintained boys' grammar schools in Sutton and Wallington is approximately equivalent to the annual demand for places; but in the past three years about a quarter of the boys living in the proposed new borough accepted places at schools outside the borough.
Turning to a comment made by my noble friend who moved this Amendment, there will be no Roman Catholic secondary schools at all inside the new borough, the three nearest each being in a completely different borough. The borough will also be without special schools for physically handicapped, deaf and delicate children, and will lack sufficient places for educationally subnormal children. I complete the sorry story by telling your Lordships that a large proportion of the primary and secondary schools in the proposed new borough require rebuilding on extended sites. With the present cost of land in Surrey, to say nothing of the growing cost of building, very heavy capital expenditure will fall on the borough in the redevelopment of their schools and will be something quite beyond them.
Borough 22 has the same kind of story. There are five maintained grammar schools in the area. In the last three years the average number of places available was 250. The average number of boys and girls living in the area for whom grammar school education was thought by the local education authority to be suitable was only 183. The places not required were taken up by children in Borough 23, the smallest of the 32 boroughs proposed in this Bill, with a population of 165,000, which inevitably must be heavily dependent upon its neighbours. They have suffered during the past three years, for with an average number of 150 to 180 boys and girls suitable for places in grammar schools, only 90 places each could be found.
That is a part of the picture of the fragmentation of the 680,000 people inside the Surrey area who are to have their educational considerations placed between 5 completed and independent local education authorities. I regard this matter, as moved by us this afternoon and the way in which my noble friend moved it, not as an Amendment which turns upon the political views of those who sit on this or the other side of the

197
Committee, but entirely as a matter where the educational opportunities of the children are concerned. It is the children whom we ought to have in mind, and who I think would benefit if this Amendment were carried to allow the establishment of these additional educational authorities. I therefore support the Amendment of my noble friend.
5.7 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LORD NEWTON): This Amendment proposes a major alteration to Clause 30, which is perhaps the major clause in this part of the Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, said he considers that this Amendment is one of the most important we shall be discussing during the proceedings of this Bill, and I would not dissent from that at all. This is a matter of great importance, and what I want to try to do is to explain to the Committee why the clause contains what it does—particularly the provision which the noble Earl's Amendment seeks to delete.
Your Lordships know that the Government consider—and this is why this Bill is before the House—that the whole of local government in Greater London needs to be recast and that an authority larger than any existing one is required for the purposes of traffic and planning. But I do not think there can be much doubt—at least, I have not read or heard of much doubt about this—that an authority large enough for these purposes would be too large to administer the personal services, including education, without delegation. If this is so—and I am convinced that it is—the question to be decided is: where, then, should education go? Should it go to the upper tier authority, or to the lower tier authority or be divided between them or the special ad hoc committees as proposed in the noble Earl's Amendment?
The Government believe that it would be wrong to divide education between two tiers of local authority for the reasons which were argued cogently in the Royal Commission's criticisms of two-tier administration as it works at the present time in Middlesex. On the other hand, the Greater London Council, with a population of 8 million, would be too large to be an education authority without delegation. The Royal Commission's recommendation for relieving the Greater
198
London Council of day-to-day administration seems to the Government to be open to the same objections as the present arrangements for Middlesex which the Royal Commission so strongly criticised. This leaves as the only possible alternatives either giving the education service to the London boroughs or setting up special committees for education such as we are proposing for inner London in the Bill. This second alternative suffers from the disadvantage of separating education from the other personal services. Nevertheless, the Government have accepted this disadvantage—what they consider to be a disadvantage—in inner London rather than break up the London education service which has grown up as a single whole.
The noble Earl's Amendment will apply the same solution to the problems of education in outer London, and indeed, a scheme on the lines of the noble Earl's Amendment was considered very carefully by the Government before they produced their own proposals which are now in this Bill. It was, in fact, one of the four possibilities which I have already mentioned to your Lordships. But the arguments which apply to inner London do not apply to outer London. It is one thing to preserve a long-established system notwithstanding that it separates the personal services, which is a disadvantage, and quite another to create similar systems which not only have that disadvantage but also fulfil no other local government function.
Throughout almost the whole of outer London, as the noble Earl himself indicated, there are divisional executives responsible for some part of the education service. All of these have experience of administering education and many have experience which goes back far beyond the Education Act, 1944. These are what are called the Part III authorities, that is to say the authorities who under the Education Act of 1921 were responsible for elementary education. These areas would certainly resent it bitterly if the administration of education were taken entirely out of their hands, and the Government do not see that there is any valid reason why it should be taken entirely out of their hands.
Boroughs of the sizes proposed in the Bill will be quite large enough to administer the service efficiently. The smallest will be larger than Brighton or

199
Reading, most will be about the same size as Plymouth or Portsmouth and a few will be as large as Nottingham, Hull or Coventry. I want to put this argument to your Lordships. To suggest that the outer London boroughs, the populations of most of which will be more than or around 200,000, will not be large enough to provide and administer good education services is to imply that the cities which I have just mentioned do not and cannot do so. I do not think that is a tenable proposition and I have not heard it suggested, but that is the implication of saying that the outer London boroughs will not be large enough to provide an efficient education service. The inevitable implication is that boroughs in the rest of the country are not efficient now and never can be.
The fact that the outer London boroughs will happen to be situated next door to the I.L.E.A. does not have any relevance to the question of whether the outer London boroughs will be viable in their own right. As I say, and as I hope to demonstrate to your Lordships as I go on, we are satisfied they will be viable as education authorities.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: The noble Lord is using an argument which I think is understandable, but I wonder how far he means to press it. He is saying the system of education we have in Oxfordshire, where I was a member of the city council and of the education committee, should be applied in Middlesex. At other times the Government keep telling us London is one city and there are all sorts of properties peculiar to this unified area. Is the noble Lord going to tell us that exactly the same arguments are going to apply outside the L.C.C. area in the Greater London area as apply in Oxfordshire?
LORD NEWTON: What I suggested were two things. First of all, I suggested that the area of the Greater London Council, embracing 8 million people, would be too large for an education authority without delegation. The second point is this. If it is suggested—the noble Earl did not suggest it in his speech, but it has been suggested—that the outer London boroughs are going to be too small as education authorities, it inevitably follows from that that the county boroughs which are education authorities
200
in the rest of the country cannot be efficient. I leave it to your Lordships.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I put a question to the noble Lord which he has not answered.
LORD NEWTON: What I want to go on to say is that it does not follow from the argument I have just made that the new local education authorities will be self-contained for such purposes as further education and special schools. No local education authority can be. They have to make regional arrangements for co-ordination. Such arrangements take place mainly in further education and special schools. But it is also quite common for primary and secondary schools to take some children from outside the boundary of the local education authority which contains them, particularly in county boroughs. For instance last year, 1962, about 120,000 children in England and Wales were being educated outside their home area. London were educating 3,767 pupils from Middlesex and Middlesex were educating 1,319 pupils from London. These figures include pupils in maintained nursery schools, primary schools, secondary schools and all types of special schools. Such arrangements generally rest on informal agreements between the two local education authorities concerned. But there is provision in paragraph 3 of Part II of the First Schedule to the Education Act, 1944, for establishing joint committees for some specific purpose.
The extent to which a local education authority relies on the schools of another is a matter for agreement between the two authorities, and it is a point which naturally will come up for consideration when development plans are drawn up as provided in Clause 31 subsections (1) to (3) of this Bill, and when those plans are submitted to my right honourable friend the Minister of Education for his approval. One of the things he will do when he receives those plans is to consider whether or not the authorities drawing up the plans have paid proper regard to the plans of adjacent authorities. I have noticed there is on the Marshalled List an Amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Crook and Lord Shepherd, seeking to make consultation about primary and secondary schools a statutory requirement. I must not anticipate what I shall say when we

201
reach those Amendments, but perhaps it will be in order for me to say that I hope what I then say will be agreeable to the noble Lords. The same consideration applies to schemes of further education, but because institutions of further education commonly serve more than one local education authority there is an express provision already in Section 42(4) of the Education Act, 1944, that a local education authority when preparing its scheme should consult the local education authorities for adjacent areas.
For special schools there are also regional arrangements of one kind and another throughout the country, under which it is decided which local education authority should maintain which school. No one local education authority can hope to provide by itself for the rarer types of handicap. Similar arrangements will have to be made for maintaining the special schools at present maintained by Middlesex County Council. The local authorities which succeed Middlesex will have to share them out between themselves, and the Middlesex Excepted Districts Association has already given some consideration to this. Apart from special schools maintained by local education authorities, there is a certain amount of provision in voluntary special schools, but a change in boundaries will present no difficulty here because these schools already serve more than one local education authority and recover the cost by charging an economic fee.
I should like now to explain briefly the position with regard to responsibility for the institutions at present maintained by the outgoing authorities, and particularly Middlesex. In the main it is expected that property will go to the area where it is situated; but there is provision for exceptions. This will be considered carefully by the local authorities concerned. In particular, it is envisaged that the Ministry of Education will bring together the new local education authorities which will replace Middlesex in order to consider which should be responsible for each of the various special schools in Middlesex.
Next, I will say something more about the future of further education, which I think the noble Lord would like me to do? This is something about which fears have been expressed to my right
202
honourable friend the Minister of Education. It has been said, in particular, that the distribution of colleges of further education among the new outer London boroughs will be uneven. That, I think, is one of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Crook, had in mind. This may well be so, but I do not think there is any reason why it should create difficulties because, from the point of view of the student, access to further education colleges in the whole of Greater London is guaranteed by Clause 31(7). From the local education authority point of view, the cost of educating students from other areas will be recovered either from the authority in whose area the student lives or from the pool. There have been suggestions made, though not so far to-day in your Lordships' House, that the new local education authorities will be tempted to compete with each other in providing courses for further education, and that this will lead to uneconomical duplication. But any such tendency can be dealt with, so far as advanced courses are concerned, by the Regional Advisory Council.
I turn now to the rights of parents to choose schools in the areas of other London boroughs and the effect of the new boundaries on the schools themselves when their catchment area is bisected. Clause 31(7) secures that boundaries in Greater London shall not be any obstacle to admission. The operative words are:
"it shall not be a ground for refusing a pupil admission to, or excluding a pupil from, any"
county or voluntary school or further educational institution
"maintained or assisted by a local education authority in Greater London, that the pupil resides in the area of some other local education authority in Greater London."
In effect therefore, as a result of the provisions of this Bill, Greater London for this purpose is treated by statute as a single unit. This is an important improvement on what the noble Earl called the "free trade" as it exists at the moment, because, for the first time, free trade is going to be a statutory requirement written into this Bill for the whole of Greater London.
Again, I have observed that the noble Lords, Lord Crook and Lord Shepherd, have set down an Amendment to extend this provision to authorities outside

203
Greater London. Again I hope that when we come to discuss this Amendment noble Lords will not be dissatisfied with what I have to say. Furthermore, the arrangements for preparing and approving fresh development plans and schemes of further education under subsections (1) to (3) of Clause 31 will enable my right honourable friend to safeguard the interests of third parties and ensure that local education authorities do not plan their provision without reference to the needs of their neighbours. There is a special safeguard here for the voluntary schools about which the noble Earl rightly expressed concern.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Has the noble Lord finished with that part of the matter?
LORD NEWTON: No; I want to explain it a little more. Subsection (2) of Clause 31 applies subsections (3) to (5) of section 11 of the Education Act 1944, and this includes a provision that a local education authority shall—and now I quote:
"before submitting their development plan to the Minister, consult the managers or governors, or persons representing the managers or governors, of all schools other than county schools, whether within or without the area of the authority, which would in the opinion of the authority be affected by the execution of the plan, and shall, after submitting the plan to the Minister, forthwith furnish to the managers or governors of every such school such particulars relating to the plan as are sufficient to show the manner in which the school would he affected by the execution thereof."
That leads me on to the question of transport, which was also a matter raised by the noble Earl. I do not think there is any reason to fear that the new local education authority will be less generous than the old in paying for transport to voluntary schools of the parents' choice. In the experience of the Ministry of Education, the local education authorities are generally willing to provide transport, where this is necessary in order to enable a child to attend a voluntary school of the parents' choice and the journey involved is reasonable. My right honourable friend would certainly be ready to use his good offices with a local education authority if a voluntary school considered that its pupils were not being fairly treated; and in the last resort he has a power of
204
direction, under Section 75(1) of the Education Act, 1944, if an authority's general arrangements for providing transport are inadequate. It has only rarely been necessary to use this power, but it is there; and therefore there is no need to take any fresh powers in this Bill.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Can the noble Lord say which borough pays the transport costs in the case of children going to school in a borough not their own? Is it the exporting authority, so to speak, or the importing authority?
LORD NEWTON: I think it is normally the exporting authority.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Even all over Greater London?
LORD NEWTON: I think so.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: It will be an expensive matter.
LORD NEWTON: It is open Ito local authorities to pay for places in independent and direct grant schools if they need them, but they are under no obligation to do so if they do not need them. As the need for places in their areas fluctuates from time to time, the number of places they take up also varies. It would not be feasible to require one of the new local education authorities to take up a fixed number of places in perpetuity, regardless of their needs, simply because a former local education authority had done so; but there is no reason to think that the new education authorities will make sudden and unjustifiable changes. They will need to discuss with the schools concerned what their future policy will be when they come to draw up their development plans, and there is a special safeguard in Clause 33 for pupils who have started on their courses in independent and direct grant schools with grants from former local education authorities by April 1, 1965. The new local education authorities are required to continue the awards until the pupils have completed their course.
I am afraid that I, too, have spoken perhaps for rather too long. The noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Crook, were kind enough to give us their views also at reasonable length. I would sum up my argument in this way. The special considerations which apply to inner

205
London do not in the opinion of the Government, apply to outer London boroughs. It would be a mistake to divorce education in outer London from the other personal services. The outer London boroughs will be large enough to provide, either by themselves or by regional arrangements, education services which will be satisfactory in every way. Those are the reasons why Clause 30 is in the Bill and the reasons why I must advise your Lordships that the noble Earl's Amendment should not be accepted.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: The noble Lord has not answered the case that was made by my noble friend Lord Longford. What he has done is to demonstrate that Her Majesty's Government have got themselves into a thorough mess about this and have been driven by legitimate public opinion in the County of London, and the opinions of the parents and teachers, in two stages to concede the Inner London Education Authority. I do not think it is an ideal arrangement, but it was a triumph of some sort for the views that the Labour Party and educationists generally have taken about the educational provisions of this Bill.
The noble Lord has not made a case, except for complete lack of logic and some degree of muddle as a consequence of this Bill. The primary purpose of the Government in bringing in the Bill was to abolish the Labour majority on the London County Council, which it could only do by abolishing the London County Council itself. It acted on the principle that if one cannot win an election one legislates the body out of existence. Having started it, they met a great amount of opposition from teachers, educationists and parents, because the London County Council educational system is popular.
At first they resisted. They were going to give education to each of the London boroughs in the existing County of London. Then they had to modify their view and one Minister of Education conceded that there should be an Inner London Education Authority dealing with a population of about 2 or 2½ or, possibly, 3 million.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: 3 million.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: No, the first proposal was for 2 to 2½ million.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: It was 2½ million, not 3 million.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Three.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I am sorry, I would not disturb the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House from having a little sleep at any time, but he should not interrupt if he does not know what he is talking about.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Three.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: It is very dangerous for a man who is half asleep to interrupt, because he may say the wrong thing.
LORD HAILSHAM: Three.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: The noble and learned Viscount—especially learned—does not know what he is talking about. He goes on like a man in some sort of condition which I would not dare to describe, saying "Three"; but because he says "Three" in that funny voice it does not make it three. It was 2 to 2½ million at the outside. That was the first effort by this extraordinary Government of strong men of powerful minds. That was the first surrender in principle. But the pressure went on and of course this Government accuse us of politics. If ever a Government thought about politics from beginning to end, it is in this Bill. I am sorry for the noble Lord, Lord Newton, poor chap!, having to come here and defend a Bill of this sort. He might be capable of defending a good Government but he is incapable of defending this one.
So the pressure continued, but it still meant cutting up the London County Council educational system, which had become popular and admired not only in the rest of the country but in large numbers of countries throughout the world, loved by the London teachers, popular with the parents, and liked by the children. So the agitation went on. Deputations of teachers came along—and teachers are very clever at deputations. They are non-political and, in the circumstances, I am not going to say that they are wrong. Their unions are non-political, and as a result they can bring pressure to bear on political Parties perhaps greater than some other bodies can do. At any rate, they came along and interviewed Members of Parliament, and

207
the Government then extended the Inner London Education Area, which is a dreadful title, to the whole of the present administrative county of London, including—may the Lord Mayor forgive them!—the ancient City itself.
So that was the second move. I would remind the noble and learned Viscount, if he is still conscious, that that is the second one, and that is the one he forgot. Having done that, and started on the basis that they wanted these boroughs to be full-blooded education authorities, and having surrendered the boroughs in the Inner London Education Area, at any rate until 1970, this brilliant Government—they really are a pantomime Government; they have no political brains; they are committing suicide; it is a suicide club all the time—then said, "What are we to do with the outer London boroughs?". Then they said, "We will fall back on our dear London boroughs who are our cherished legitimised children".
So the outer London boroughs are themselves to be education authorities for all classes of education; and if they cannot do it, they can form a joint committee or authority of some sort within very strict limits—not like this—or they can contract for free trade. I must say that I do not like that term being applied to human beings, especially children. It almost reminds one of the Common Market.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Or the white slave trade.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: So, outside the County of London, without rhyme or reason, the Government make these London boroughs the full, complete education authority, from the nursery school to the technical colleges—if the Ministry of Education still lets them have them—and higher education and further education all round.
The noble Lord, Lord Newton, says that this is quite a sensible thing to do because in these areas, there is no London County Council. No, but there are other county councils. And the County Councils of Essex, Kent and Surrey are great education authorities; and so is Middlesex. It is perfectly true that they did delegate some powers to county
208
districts, although not so much in Surrey as in Middlesex, which I think overdid it. As a matter of fact, Mr. Butler was not all that enthusiastic about the excepted authorities under the Education Act, 1944. He had to submit to some pressure about that, and I am sorry he did. So Surrey, Middlesex, Essex and Kent County Councils were great education authorities, and the lesser local authorities, the county districts, had themselves some powers in education. But it is no good assuming that the Government start with a slate that is clear of trouble, and that outside the County of London the education authorities were the county districts. They were not. The major education authorities were the county councils, and the three county boroughs.
So the Government get into another muddle and they propose to make the boroughs full education authorities in the counties surrounding the County of London. That is the situation as we meet it, and all this talk that they can exchange, and they can make contracts and have free trade, is not what is really wanted. Nor does it meet the argument of my noble friend to say, "Well, county boroughs of limited populations have done this". They have, but then a county borough usually is a town on its own—not always, because sometimes in South-East Lancashire, for example, they bump into each other, but in probably the majority of cases it is a recognisable town. The trouble with this Greater London area is that there is no recognisable town within it. It has become all built up. Therefore, the argument about the county boroughs is totally irrelevant.
The noble Lord, Lord Newton, has been in politics long enough to have learned that elementary fact. These are not towns. These are now arbitrarily described as "boroughs" in a more or less continuous built-up area. That is a totally different administrative problem from the problem in the provincial county boroughs, indeed, in London the Government had to concede the point, because if they are right in regard to the continuous built-up areas in the counties outside, they were wrong to concede in London in regard to the London education authorities. They should have stuck to the boroughs. I am glad they did not, but logically they should have done so. Therefore, the argument about

209
the county does not work. Having tried to destroy the London County Council for political reasons, the Government had to destroy substantial parts of the counties around London, and with it their pretty good educational systems.
Then there are the special schools and all the problems associated with them, as well as those in the residential schools, which in none of these counties can be properly allocated or confined to the operations of a particular individual London borough. Special arrangements must be made, possibly for joint authorities to run them, which in that case are not good.
In the circumstances my friends looked into what was the best thing to do—not the ideal thing to do, because none of us would say that this is ideal, but it was the best thing we could think of, namely, that as in the County of London, as it now is, an inner London education authority should be brought about, then we would have education authorities for the County of Middlesex similarly run and supervised, and the cut off parts of Essex, Kent and Surrey. Having conceded the inner London education authority, the Government cannot logically resist the other. If this were conceded there would be a case for the Greater London Council itself, with these important education authorities in existence in association with it, becoming a sort of coordinating body for the education of Greater London and responsible for the estimates. It is wrong for the education estimates to be passed by an education authority as a precept on other authorities. It ought to be passed by a body which has other services and has to consider the finance's of the area as a whole. That is where the Government have gone financially wrong, and I wonder the Treasury did not pull them up.
I must say, with great respect, that I think it is very remiss that the Established Church is not represented by its Bishops in this Committee this afternoon. I never quarrel with any religious denominations; I respect them all. But certain Bishops are Members of this House; the Established Church is represented here; and if ever they had a duty to be here it was this afternoon, not only because the voluntary schools, of which they are an important part, are directly
210
involved, but because they as good citizens ought to be interested in education. I hope it will reach them that I think it is a dreadful thing that not even the Bishop of London is here.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: He could not be here.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: All right. But people know that these things are coming up, and should arrange for a colleague to be here. Neither of the Archbishops is here. And this is a very important Bill which affects both education and the welfare of the people. I want to say, with such quietness as I can, and with great respect to the Established Church, that if Bishops are going to serve in this House we expect them to do their duty, especially on matters in which the Church ought to have voice. If one Bishop could not come, he could easily arrange for another Bishop, or an Archbishop, to be with us.
Let us consider the difficulties of the voluntary schools. These are largely solved in the County of London because they have dealt with the London County Council. I have had arguments about this with some of them, including my late friend who is no longer with us, the Bishop of Pella—we had arguments, but got on all right at the end of the day. They had one education authority to deal with, which was a great advantage to the Church of England, the Catholic Church and other denominations with schools of their own. Outside London, instead of having this restricted number of counties and county boroughs to deal with, they will have a considerable number of boroughs to negotiate with; and I think that is a disadvantage to the denominations, and is not good for them.
We have discussed this proposition in a way that has left it threadbare and incapable of defence, but if noble Lords opposite wish to continue to debate and defend the situation, or if any of my friends wish to continue the debate, that is all right, it is a free country, so far. But when we have finished, we will have to go to a Division, because the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, was utterly unsatisfactory and ill-founded.
5.47 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has obviously enjoyed himself

211
this afternoon. I suppose that if we accepted this Amendment he would at once jeer at us at the next session, and say, "Now we are in a worse muddle than ever." His theory seems to be that if the Government do not accept any Amendment it is not open to argument, but if they have accepted any, or make any concession to public opinion, or listen to the advice of teachers or others, then they are getting into a muddle. Surely it is a good thing that the Government should promulgate its proposals following upon the Royal Commission's Report, and should give plenty of time for all concerned to criticise them and bring deputations and make suggestions. If concessions are made, it shows that the democratic Parliamentary system is working: it does not necessarily show that there is a muddle.
The noble Lord has come back on this Amendment to his favourite theme: that the Government, with practically no other object in mind, are solely concerned—I think his words were—with destroying the Labour majority on the London County Council.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: I felt sure that I should get confirmation of my interpretation of what he said. In order to do that, they must destroy the London County Council itself. We must remember that this London County Council, which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, admires so much, was founded by Liberals and Conservatives. It was occupied by Liberals for a third of its lifetime, by Tories for another third, and then by the Labour Party for the last third. It is therefore by no means true to say that this is a Socialist London County Council. It is the London County Council, a noble edifice to which all Parties have, in their time, made their contribution and of which we can all be proud.
There is no justice in talking about destroying the Socialist Party there, or destroying the London County Council itself. Surely we are seeking to change it for something of which it will be one of the largest elements in its tradition. The new Greater London Council will inherit a great part of the splendid
212
organism which the London County Council is; and being as large as it is, representing at least half the population of the new Council, it will make at least half the contribution—and probably a much greater share—towards the evolution of the new Council when it comes into being. Great parts of the skills which have been designed over the last 70 years in the London County Council—not only in the last 25 years—will go forward into this new body and will be perpetuated. I deny, therefore, that the Party had any intention to destroy the Socialist London County Council.
If that fear is really in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, may I ask him why he should be so afraid of the voters? Why is it only one group of voters—namely, those in the inner 4 million ring—that he is so sure of? Can it be related to the design which he has himself made over the years of the advantageous housing arrangements in that circle, which have done him so well in those constituencies where there were marginal votes? Can it be that he is, in fact, the one who is afraid; and that it is he who for the last days and hours has been playing politics, because the evolution now proposed is going to upset the empire which he has so admirably and nobly built in London, or which he has taken part in building, but which, incidentally, has built great power for himself and his Party?
It might well be said that the London County Council is the spiritual home of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth. That I well understand. I was there, as a youngster, some 40 years ago, when he and I entered that London County Council before he had made his great name and before I had begun my political career. Out of a small Labour Party of six or seven, hitherto having held no office in London at all, he built up over the years a machine which was capable of beating the Municipal Reform Party and coming into power. But that does not give the Labour Party a monopoly of the London County Council's conscience, or its life or its tradition.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? Before he ends his very interesting speech, can I hope that he will

213
address himself to the Amendment and to the educational issues involved, or do they lie outside his province?
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: I am greatly obliged to the noble Earl. I hope that all I have said was relevant, not only to the Amendment but especially to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth. The proposal in the Amendment, as I understand it, is to secure that Middlesex, Surrey, Kent and Essex shall now set up some sort of ad hoc authority (or is to be elected? I do not think that has been explained) which is to provide education in this part of the territory to be hived off. Is that not so?
The argument runs: because the Government have conceded that the London County Council, under the management of Liberals, Tories, and Socialists for 70 years, has set up such a splendid education authority, and because of its integration, its central position and the great number of skilled people involved—teachers, administrators and others—this central authority is to manage education for the central part of London. Therefore that, the noble Lord, Lord Morrison says, is a muddle; although he then proposes—or his friend the noble Earl, Lord Longford, proposes—that we shall apply this same muddle to five other counties. The noble Lord cannot have it both ways: either it is not a muddle or it is a muddle. He had better make up his mind. I cannot myself see, the case having been granted that the central authority, with its great prestige and its great history, should run education, that it necessarily follows that you should invent five new half-baked, almost illegitimate, pieces of education control in five other different places. There cannot be much sense in that. I hope that the noble Earl may feel that I have tried to address myself to the Amendment. It seems to me that the Government ought to resist this Amendment, if on r o other ground than that one which I repeat, that we do not want yet another five muddles.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, was to speak—but perhaps his opinions were voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee. The Minister was kind enough to reply to
214
points, some of which were made and others of which were not made. I made a great many points in a speech which may have been unduly long. Very few of them, as will be seen by a study of Hansard, were replied to. In fact, the whole question of strategic services, and the method of dealing with them, was something with which the Minister was not equipped to deal. So we felt that his answer, through no fault whatever of his, was quite inadequate.
I cannot pretend to have sat through all these debates with, for example, the fidelity of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. But the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, is one of the relatively few noble Lords on the Government side who have come staunchly to the assistance of the Ministers. Those who have been through the whole business tell me that he is the only one, and if so he deserves the greatest possible credit. He, of course, attacked the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, in quite a vigorous way; but everybody enjoyed that, so no one is going to complain. Just at the very end he did turn his mind—rather prompted and impromptu—to the Amendment. He brought up one argument which I think one should at least do him the courtesy of mentioning. He said that we say that the Inner London Education Authority is a muddle; so why extend the muddle? What we do say is that it is a second best. But it is better to extend a second-best arrangement, than to create a third-rate arrangement—which is what the Government are at present proposing. That is the simple answer to the noble Lord.
But taking the matter more generally, we have put forward a very careful argument. I do not think that even the noble Lord, Lord Newton, denied that, and I am grateful to him for his answer which was certainly very brave in the circumstances. He stuck to his guns and he never departed from anything that he had been asked to impart to the Committee: he went on his way, irrespective of many of the arguments advanced. But I do not blame the noble Lord. As the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said, if he had had a good brief he would have delivered it well. As it was, he delivered his brief, which was a very bad one, very bravely, and one cannot

215
pay a man a greater compliment than to congratulate him on audacity. So I will therefore ask the Committee to support this Amendment, remembering that it comes from the County Councils Association, in the first place, and that it is supported by the Labour Party, and,
6.8 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: In considerable trepidation, I advise the Committee that this is a drafting Amendment. At any rate, in my judgment it is a drafting Amendment. Clause 30(1)(b) as it stands makes the Inner London Education Authority the local education authority for the purposes of any reference to a local education authority in the Education Acts, 1944 to 1962, or other Acts, subject to subsection (6). Subsection (6) is the subsection which provides for a review and a report to Parliament by 1970 of the administration of education in inner London, and empowers my right honourable friend the Minister of Education to lay regulations before Parliament. It has to be read with subsection (7), because subsection (7) provides for what
I hope, by all men of intelligence in this House.
6.1 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 153) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 59.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Henley, L.

Shackleton, L.

Airedale, L.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Amulree, L.

Kennet, L.

Sinha, L.

Archibald, L.

Latham, L.

Summerskill, B.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lawson, L.

Walston, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Listowel, E.

Williams, L.

Champion, L.

Longford, E.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Crook, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Williamson, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

Faringdon, L.

Nathan, L.

Wise, L.

Grantchester, L.

Rea, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Henderson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Devonshire, D.

Mancroft, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor)

Margesson, V.

Albemarle, E.

Dudley, E.

Merrivale, L.

Allerton, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Milverton, L.

Atholl, D.

Eccles, L.

Molson, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Effingham, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Exeter, M.

Newton, L.

Boston, L.

Falmouth, V.

Ormonde, M.

Bradford, E.

Ferrers, E.

Remnant, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Carrington, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Rochdale, V.

Colgrain, L.

Grenfell, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Colville of Culross, V.

Hailsham, V. (L. President)

Somers, L.

Colyton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Soulbury, V.

Conesford, L.

Hastings, L.

Swinton, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Hawke, L.

Teynham, L.

De La Warr, E.

Howe, E.

Waleran, L.

Denham, L.

Ilford, L.

Wellington, D.

Derwent, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Wigram, L.

Devonport, V.

Lothian, M.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

may be put into any regulations. Subsection (7) ought, therefore, to be included in Clause 30(1)(b) along with subsection (6); and that is what this Amendment does. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 35, leave out ("subsection (6)") and insert ("subsections (6) and (7)").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER moved to leave out subsections (6) and (7). The noble Baroness said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Taylor, who is abroad, I have been asked to move this Amendment. The Committee must have in mind that subsection (6) of Clause 30 is a unique provision. The Bill proposes to make many and radical changes in the whole structure of government of the Greater London area, as covered by the proposed Greater London

217
Council; but this is the one and only case in which the Government are apparently so afraid of the changes they are proposing that they dare not allow them to continue without an obligatory review within seven years. This is the one case in which the Government, apparently, have no confidence in the lasting qualities of their own proposals. This is, therefore, a quite exceptional provision in the Bill. It is exceptional, also, because the review which the Government are to make of the working of the Inner London Education Authority is an obligatory review.
One would have thought there might be a case, with a new authority established of a new kind, for some review to take place after a period; and one would have thought the judgment of whether or not the review was necessary was something which would be made by the Government of the time. But, with very unusual prescience, the Government are proposing that this review should be mandatory and that it should occur not later than 1970—indeed, that it should be completed not later than 1970. If this Bill becomes law, and unless further legislation is passed, the Government of the day will have no option but to institute such a review. It is curious, too, in another sense. Because, again with remarkable prescience, the Government apparently foresee, even years from now, what the important issues will be in the judgment of the Government that will have to make this review. It is not to be simply a review of the working of the system; it is not to be a review of the system from the angle of educational efficiency; it is to be a review to see whether or not a particular thing ought to be done.
The terms of reference are prescribed pretty narrowly, seven years beforehand. It is to be a review
"for the purpose of determining whether, and if so to what extent, in what part or parts of the"
inner London
"area and subject to what, if any, conditions, all or any functions of the local education authority … should be transferred to, or to a body including a member or members appointed by the appropriate council, that is to say, as respects the City the Common Council or as respect; an inner London borough the council of that borough …"
In other words, it is being reviewed to see whether some part, geographically
218
or administratively, of the education service is to be given to the boroughs. The terms of reference are determined as narrowly as that. The review is not to cover other questions, such as whether some part or the whole of the service might be given to the Greater London Council. It is a review aimed at fragmentation, and fragmentation only.
One can understand that perhaps the Government have some doubts about the efficiency of this rather curious new authority which the Inner London Education Authority will be. It was said, I think, more than once in another place that it was a unique and novel type of authority; and indeed one might well agree that it is a curious animal. At the least it is a mutation; it might more correctly be described as a monster. The Inner London Education Authority is primarily a committee of the Greater London Council, and added to it there will then be the nominees of the inner London boroughs. Starting thus as a committee of the Greater London Council, it will itself operate through its own education committee. It is, in other words, a body which is constituted on the principle of indirect election carried to the third degree. Certainly it is a curious animal; and one can understand why the Government are not entirely happy about its future. By comparison with the simple directly elected body which is now responsible for education in the inner London area, we are quite prepared to agree that this is something of a monstrosity.
The review is to take place some time in the next seven years. We have been talking about it here, and it has been publicly discussed as taking the form of a review in 1970. But it is not a review in 1970: it is a review which is to be carried out before then; and not later than March, 1970, a report is to be laid before Parliament. When one thinks of the long period that usually elapses between the appointment of a committee and the receipt of its report, it is quite clear that this review, at the very latest, is going to be started long before 1970. Since the clause says simply that the Minister shall carry it out and complete it not later than March, 1970, there is nothing preventing him from starting it straight away. The period of uncertainty is going to begin from the word "go"; from the moment the Inner London Education Authority is set up.
I would remind the Committee that this will be a new type of authority and will need to get its experience. It will consist, no doubt, of some former members of the existing Education Committee of the London County Council—or so we hope. But it will consist also of a number of persons who have no experience of administering a great education service. It will consist of the nominees of the boroughs whose service, if they have previously been borough councillors, will not have given them any experience of the administration of education. It will probably be deprived of the services of some of the aldermen who have given yeoman service on the London County Council Education Committee. It is apparently the case that the education committee of the inner London Education Authority will itself have power to co-opt; but it will not have provided, as it were ready-made, some of the most experienced members who now serve as aldermen on the London County Council Education Committee. In other words, it will be a body which will have to gain its experience as it goes along; and it is to be allowed only this short period before it will be the subject of review to determine whether it is to be deprived of all or any of its functions.
Even if the review is deferred to the latest possible moment; even if it is done very quickly, so that the report can be presented early in 1970—after perhaps only a few months or a year of investigation—it is bound to fall within the school life of a very large number of children. No child can enter school now confident that the general administrative set-up will be the same at the end of its school life as it is at present. Still less can any teacher enter the service of the Inner London Education Authority with any confidence that the Authority will be a permanent employer. No doubt there will be arrangements for the transfer of the services of the educational staffs to any other bodies who take over some of the functions of the authority, but transfer does not mean quite the same thing as going on in the service of the same employer, the same authority. And every teacher is now sure that, unless he is within seven years of retirement, another great change is due to fall within his period of service.
Altogether, I suppose, the London educational service will have suffered from continuous uncertainty, with its effect upon recruitment of staff, with its effect upon the prospects of children and with its effect upon parents, for a good seven years. The uncertainty began with the publication of the Royal Commission's Report, and it is now guaranteed by this provision, if it becomes law, that the uncertainty will continue for at least seven years more. Think of some of the things that this uncertainty effects!Think of the position of an authority wishing to build new schools, which may no longer be its own after ten years! Think of the position of an authority wishing to develop new types of schools, of experimenting with new forms of specialised education, none of them with the confidence that it can retain these for more than seven years! This uncertainty is extraordinarily damaging. And I am delighted to see that the Government themselves are well aware of the damaging effect of this kind of uncertainty.
In connection with an earlier Amendment proposed to this Bill, which dealt with election procedure in the local government elections in the Greater London area, the Government expressed great concern at the uncertainty which the proposed Amendment would have created. I quote from the words of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who I am sorry to see is not at the moment in his place:
"In this context, to provide for a review at an early date—and it would be quite an early date—would put an element of uncertainty into the affairs of this great city which is what we wish to avoid."
So, on the right hand, the Government are reluctant, and rightly, to put an element of uncertainty into the affairs of this great city, but, with the left hand, they put it in in this clause of the Bill. This is as convincing a statement from the Front Bench opposite as one could wish to have of the dangers of introducing this kind of uncertainty in what is by common consent the most important of all the services of local government—namely, the education of children.
The attitude of the Government seems to be extraordinarily equivocal. On the one hand, the clause says that there must be a review and it must ask these particular questions about giving these

221
functions to the borough councils and the Common Council of the City. They are determined to have it, so it must be going to do something important; but when that point was raised in another place, the common reply was that it was very unlikely that it would do anything or, at any rate anything very important, and there was really no need to be alarmed.
The Minister of Education assured us, on the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, that the advice of the Government of the day—he seemed to know a lot about what the Government of the day, in 1970, would be and do—would be determined by the balance of advantages from the educational point of view. When the Bill was in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary assured the Committee that the Government had no changes in mind and that, more specifically, the Government of 1970 would be very unlikely to give education wholly to the boroughs. Maybe the Parliamentary Secretary had a shrewd idea of who the Government in 1970 would be and his prophecy might be well founded.
Surely this clause would never be here if it were not for the curious history of this matter. The clause is here not because the Government want particularly a mandatory review on merits to decide these things seven years from now. The clause is here because of the history of the question; because, in the first instance, the Royal Commission wanted to give education to the boroughs for, among others, one of the strangest reasons—namely, that there were a lot of people in the boroughs who would like to serve on education committees. The Royal Commission wanted originally to give education to the boroughs, the boroughs as conceived by the Royal Commission; the boroughs have cast covetous eyes on education all through; and the Government clearly share the view, at the bottom of their hearts, that the boroughs have some claim to education. I am sure that the Government have a suppressed wish to throw a sop to the boroughs in the form of some part of the administration of this service. This seems to me a most strange reason for settling now, seven years ahead, that this covetousness on the part of the boroughs, which in their new form are not yet born, must be promised a potential
222
reward, after the lapse of so short an experience. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 20, leave out subsection (6) and (7).—(Baroness Wootton of Abinger.)
LORD SOMERS: I have listened with close attention to what the noble Baroness has said, because we all know that she has great experience of this subject, but I could not help feeling that she is making rather heavy weather of this clause. After all, the person who has the greatest knowledge of educational problems is not the Minister of Education or the official of local government; it is the school teacher himself or herself. Surely, any clause which is going to make it possible for the Minister to get more closely in touch with these problems and to find out how things can be improved should be welcomed.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Let us agree that school teachers are the best judges, but is the noble Lord aware that they are violently against this review? I am taking him up on his own argument, directly and bluntly.
LORD SOMERS: That I am not aware of, and I have not heard of it from the school teachers with whom I am closely in touch.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: School teachers in the L.C.C. area have fought this change strenuously. They are 100 per cent. against the Government on this.
LORD ILFORD: Not 100 per cent.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: The teachers collectively are 100 per cent. against. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that. One could hardly get a more overwhelming opposition against any Government proposal. I am speaking in particular of the L.C.C. area. If the noble Lord is going to call in aid the teachers, and there is no reason why he should not, I hope that he will vote with us in the Lobby. He has, if I may say so with the utmost respect, very little option.
LORD NEWTON: The noble Baroness is clearly worried by the uncertainty which she feels this provision in the Bill will create. She mentioned uncertainty several times. I could not help

223
feeling that if I were worried at the uncertainty which may be caused, I should conclude from that that it is a good thing that the uncertainty will be over by 1970. The longer the period you write into the Bill by which time reviews will be completed, it seems to me, the more you will prolong the existing service. The noble Baroness said that the position of the Government over this review is very equivocal. I want to try to convince, not only the noble Baroness, but all your Lordships, that this provision in subsections (6) and (7), which the noble Baroness wishes to leave out, is not an infernal machine for the purpose of destroying the London County Council's education service; it really is not a trick to provide for execution by 1970, and there is not any deep-laid plot at all. I do hope that I shall be able to convince your Lordships of that.
What subsection (6) does is to require my right honourable friend the Minister of Education to carry out a review by 1970, and it empowers him, in the light of the review, to transfer any area of the functions of the I.L.E.A. to the inner London boroughs or the City or to a joint board. I would strongly emphasise that, although these subsections empower my right honourable friend to do that, they do not require him either to do that or to make any changes at all. The drafting was specifically altered in another place to make this clear beyond any possible doubt. The noble Lady referred to what my right honourable friend the Minister of Education said in the course of his speech in another place on Second Reading. What he was concerned to do, by my reading of his speech, was to make it clear that the matter is left open without prejudice. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 669 (No. 31), col. 246]:
"It will be perfectly open to the Government of the day to advise Parliament in 1970, if they so decide, that the balance of advantage lies in retaining a single local education authority in the inner London area."
He repeated that, or words to that effect, several times. Later on in his speech, he said [col. 247]:
"It would be quite wrong to suppose that the general nature of the Government's proposals for Greater London make it reasonable to assume at the moment that education will become a borough service after 1970. This matter is left open without prejudice …".
224
Surely, nothing can be clearer or fairer than that. Incidentally, the noble Baroness said that she thought these subsections were unique. I think they are very nearly unique, although there is an exactly similar provision in Clause 34(4) for providing for a review of the youth employment service, and I rather think the noble Baroness has an Amendment down to delete it. But the reason for providing a review is that the I.L.E.A. is itself unique; it is without parallel anywhere else in the educational service. It seems to us that it is only sensible to allow an opportunity to review its working and, if necessary, improve it.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I should like to ask the noble Lord this question. Would it not be perfectly possible to hold this review without this provision in the Bill?
LORD NEWTON: That I do not know; I should rather doubt it.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: It is rather an important point.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: Surely the noble Lord will accept the fact that it is open to the Government to set up an inquiry into any part of the administration.
LORD NEWTON: That might be so. But if you make provision for it in a Statute, there can be no doubt about it. Everybody will know that it will be taking place and can be prepared for it.
I quoted words from my right honourable friend the Minister of Education speaking in the Second Reading debate, and I should like now to quote a passage from my right honourable friend the Minister of Health when winding up the debate in another place on Second Reading. He said [col. 335]:
"The review will relate to the question whether the inner London boroughs will be able in future to participate more fully or directly in the administration of the education service. It would be wrong … that we should at this stage close our minds entirely to the possibility that we can find some effective way of bringing the boroughs who will be administering all the other human and personal services still more closely into contact with the administration of education."
It has been made clear in the course of proceedings in another place that the interests of the education service will be the paramount consideration when the

225
review takes place. The Government have accepted, as your Lordships know, for inner London the disadvantage of separating education from the other personal services, because it is outweighed by the advantages of keeping in being the London education service as it is today. It is envisaged that the L.C.C.'s educational service will be handed over, as it stands, with its staff, to the I.L.E.A. The service has grown up as one whole under a single authority; the school catchment areas bear no relation to borough boundaries and the metropolitan boroughs have no experience of administering education. These are important considerations, and they are the main considerations on account of which the Government provided that the I.L.E.A. shall be the education authority in inner London. Therefore, these considerations will obviously continue to carry great weight in 1970. But experience may suggest ways in which the inner London boroughs could play a greater part, and if it does, surely it is only reasonable and sensible to provide for the necessary changes, which is what these subsections do.
As regards the form that the review will take, the Minister of the day will presumably wish to consult the I.L.E.A., the councils of the inner London boroughs and the Common Council, and will also no doubt take into account the views of other interested bodies, such as the voluntary schools.
I suppose it is arguable—although I do not think the noble Baroness took the point—that changes of this kind, if any, should be effected by legislation rather than by regulations, which is the position. But I think if anybody feels that, he is presupposing that the changes made, if any are made, would necessarily be major ones. I do not want to speculate as to what, changes, if any, will be made, but it is possible that any changes might be quite minor ones, yet in themselves worth making. For example, it is conceivable that a need might be established for giving the boroughs representation on the governing bodies of secondary schools. I do not that changes of this order would warrant the taking up of Parliamentary time; and your Lordships know as well as I do how difficult it can be sometimes to fit even quite small Bills into Parliamentary timetables. The
226
Minister will be required not only to lay before Parliament a report of his review, but also to lay before Parliament a draft of any regulations he proposes to make; and no such regulations are to be made under the Bill unless they have been approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament. I hope I may have achieved what I set out to do at the beginning of my speech, which was to convince your Lordships that there is nothing sinister about this proposal and it is right it should remain in the Bill.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: This is the first time that I have spoken on any of the Amendments that have been put down to this Bill, and that is for this reason. I have felt that if I tried to bring about major alterations in the Bill, or in the structure of government in London as proposed in the Bill, I would not be successful. Therefore I decided that I would limit my interventions to matters of administration in the Bill affecting the services; because they are matters on which the Government could yield without yielding on any matter of principle, and on which the Committee would be free to judge without considerations as to Party politics having to enter into the judgment. I hope that this Amendment will be considered in that way. It is a proposal that affects the administration of the education service which it is proposed to put under the new Inner London Education Authority; and we feel that the review which the Government have in mind would be extremely harmful to the education service. This, I hope, is a matter which will be considered on its merits, and quite apart from political issues which have arisen during the consideration of the Bill.
The reason why we consider that this provision for a review, to be completed by 1970, would be harmful to the education service in inner London is that given by my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger when she put forward the Amendment, namely, the uncertainty that it will cause in the minds of those who are affected. This uncertainty is bound to affect very harmfully the teaching staff in the education service in the inner London area. In his reply, the noble Lord, Lord Newton, did not deny that uncertainty would be harmful to the education service, but he said that it would be worse if it lasted for a period

227
longer than seven years. I have seldom heard a weaker reply to any argument than that: to say that uncertainties are a bad thing, but that they will, after all, continue only until 1970.
Let us consider the effects of this uncertainty. No wonder the teachers are worrying! The teachers will not know whether they will be able to go on serving the Inner London Education Authority, or whether they will be transferred to a London borough at the end of the seven-year period. How can it be supposed that the Inner London Education Authority will be able to retain the services of some of its senior teachers if, when they have this threat hanging over their heads, they are offered a post by another education authority in another part of the country? How is the Inner London Education Authority to maintain the flow of recruitment? I know that already what many of the officials of the London County Council are afraid of is not transfer to the Greater London Council, but transfer to the boroughs; and it is this fear that is going to affect the teaching staff in the London schools.
The other point, of course, is how is it possible to undertake educational planning if you can plan only for a period of seven years? I am saying all this because I served for many years on the London County Council. I was not a member of the Education Committee, but I, naturally, knew pretty accurately what was going on. I saw the plans that my colleagues had, for instance, for a school building programme which extended over a much longer period than five to seven years. It is not going to be possible to do educational planning on the long-term basis on which it should be done if there is a possible break at the end of seven years; and the effect of this possible break will, of course, become worse as the end of the seven-year period approaches. In four, five or six years' time the effect of the uncertainty will be very much worse even than it is now.
But surely, if it is admitted, even by the Government, that this uncertainty is undesirable, they ought to make out a case for the necessity of this review. The education service which is to be run by the Inner London Education Authority is substantially the Education Service of
228
the London County Council. It will be operating under another body, but it will be the same service, covering the same area of inner London. Up to now there has been no substantial criticism, either in the Press or in Parliament, or anywhere else, so far as I am aware, of the London County Council Education Service. Why then, at this particular moment, should the London Education Service be subject to a review?
One reason offered by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, was the neatness of the Inner London Education Authority. And that, of course, is true. My noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger pointed out that the Inner London Education Authority would be a hybrid, that there are two aspects of this authority. One is its composition and the other is its functions. Its uniqueness cannot consist in its functions, because these are the functions that are now being carried out by the Education Service of the London County Council; so the functions will be the same. Its difference, its uniqueness, will be the composition of the Inner London Education Authority itself. Here, of course, you have very sharp differences as compared with the Education Committee of the London County Council. You have what my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger described as a hybrid. You have a body that is not directly elected, a body that will represent the boroughs as well as the members of the Greater London Council. But if the case is for a review of the composition of that body of this Inner London Education Authority, surely that could be done, and could be provided for, if necessary, in the Bill, without any provision for a review of the functions which this body will be authorised to carry out. And if that were done, then this fear, uncertainty and doubt would not cripple the inner London education services, as I am sure it will if this provision is kept in the Bill.
I hope that your Lordships will consider this as a matter of administration that affects one of the most important services which will be performed by the Greater London Council, and that the wisdom, or otherwise, of providing for a review will be decided by what your Lordships regard as its proper effect on the efficiency of the education service, and on no other ground whatever.
6.50 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: I am quite sure that the Government are right in seeking statutory authority for this review. It is all very well to say that the Minister can review this or that as he likes, but it does not necessarily follow that the parties whose circumstances he is to review, will accept his review and take part in it. Indeed, this Bill might perhaps have been improved in some directions if a great local authority which was invited to co-operate had agreed to do so.
It seemed to me that the noble Earl who has just spoken displayed an undue anxiety about what he regarded as the uncertainty which he feared that this proposal is likely to introduce. I will not say that either he or the noble Baroness displayed an exaggerated anxiety; but it was, indeed, an acute anxiety. Of course, all changes bring about uncertainty, and it would be impossible to transform the local government of Greater London without, to some extent, producing a degree of uncertainty. I listened to the noble Baroness who said that there would be uncertainty among the children because "of the changes in the general administrative service." I should not have thought that a small child attending a London school was much affected by changes in the administrative service. Over the long term that may be so, but I should not have thought that the repercussions of these administrative changes would have sunk so deeply as the primary and secondary schools of London.
Then the noble Baroness was apprehensive that there would be uncertainty in the mind of the special authority itself. I see no reason for that. This new committee which is to be set up will function much as the Education Committee of the London County Council functions to-day. There is no reason for any marked degree of uncertainty in their approach to their task. Then we were told by the noble Earl that the teachers were collectively 100 per cent. opposed to these proposals. I am not quite sure how many teachers are on that basis opposed to these proposals.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: May I reply to that point? I think the noble Lord wishes to twist my tail a little over the expression "100 per cent." He is
230
fully entitled to do so. May I put it this way: that it would be difficult to find any body of professional men in this country who were more opposed to anything than the teachers as a whole in London are to this measure, including the review clause?
LORD ILFORD: It was the expression "collectively 100 per cent." which puzzled me.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: If I must explain what is meant—I thought the noble Lord would have grasped the point—it was a joke. Perhaps that is a fatal thing in politics; it is a disgraceful error on my part; but it was a joke.
LORD ILFORD: Well, I am glad to hear that the noble Earl was not serious in telling me that the London teachers were 100 per cent. opposed to this scheme.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: The noble Lord does not know a joke when he hears it. If he persists in approaching what I said pompously, I will say, with the utmost pomp and ceremony, that teachers in London are overwhelmingly opposed to this measure and its review clause. I said it because one noble Lord said that we must call in the teachers and that they are the people who know. If I cannot make myself plain to the noble Lord I must not interrupt him any more.
LORD ILFORD: The noble Earl has made himself quite plain. I think what happened was that a meeting took place at which a small proportion of the teachers attended and passed a resolution by a majority condemning these proposals.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: That is quite wrong.
LORD ILFORD: The noble Earl says that I am quite wrong. I should tell your Lordships that I, too, was a member for many years of the London County Council, and I was once a school manager in London—indeed, I was once chairman of certain school managers. I am quite sure that there are a great many London teachers who would be very glad indeed to serve an authority which was a little nearer to them than this great authority with over 400,000 children in its schools has been able to

231
be. I should be the last person to disparage the London County Council educational service. I have a great admiration for what has been done, and London has benefited immensely. But there are certain defects. These defects, as I see them, are defects which have their origin in the vast size of this authority. I do not myself believe that we can satisfactorily administer a population of over 3 million persons without certain defects, which I will not trouble your Lordships to mention but which are well known. But these defects, I am sure, spring from the fact that the authority is of such an abnormal size.
I will not detain your Lordships for more than a moment longer, but may I say just this? There is, of course, an essential difference between the conditions in the administrative County of London and the conditions outside with regard to the administration of education. The noble Baroness recognised—I was glad that she did—that it is a particularly essential condition of success that there should be experience both in the elected representatives of the education committee and in the authority itself. The metropolitan boroughs have never at any time in their history had experience of the administration of education. It is for that reason that I am sure that the Government are right in providing for this period of transition when the boroughs will be able to organise themselves and build themselves up before they have to accept responsibility for education.
In Greater London the situation is entirely different. I think all the authorities in Greater London, with one exception, were what were called Part III authorities under the old law. Many of them—indeed, most of them—are excepted districts under the Act of 1944, and they have had now nearly 20 years' experience of the administration of all classes of education. I believe that to be the essential difference between the position in the administrative county and the position outside, and it is for that reason that the Government have, in my judgment wisely, arranged for this temporary period before the responsibility for the education service is transferred to the inner London boroughs.
6.58 p.m.
LORD ECCLES: I should like just to add one word here in support of the Government, but for a reason which I expect they do not themselves expect. This is one of those questions where the different requirements of education from other social services are most marked. It is quite clear that the area in which one can best organise the schools, technical colleges and training colleges, is not likely to be the same area in which one can best organise other social services, and of course a compromise has to be attained. We started off with the Commission making a bad recommendation, in my belief—namely, to break up the L.C.C. area and give the education service to the boroughs. The Government, quite rightly, rejected that, but of course not without some difficulty, because naturally people whose appetite has been whetted were rather sorry that they were not going to get these powers.
I am fairly clear in my own mind that a good deal more work will have to be done over the next ten years or so to find out what are the right sizes for local education authorities. They are not right in many parts of England to-day, and they need to be changed. Gradually, they will be changed. I always hoped that as a result of this Bill and the special education authority for the central London area, we should have, as it were, a research department which would look into this great problem of whether or not, for the sake of example, the training colleges—or for that matter, some of the technical colleges—ought not to be administered over a larger area than the old L.C.C. area. One does not know. These things must be looked into, and I am glad there is going to be a review because I think that when the review comes about noble Lords opposite can be fairly sure that there will be recommendations for some of the services to be added to the central London authority. They will not lose anything, because by that time the educational reasons will make themselves felt.
On the other hand, what the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, was saying about some of the boroughs is also correct. They feel that they have been a little left out. In my humble opinion, the

233
great mistake which the L.C.C. made over the years was in not associating local borough people with the governing boards of schools. This is what upset so many people and made it much harder to get the right educational pattern. I think there might be some give and take at the end of this period, but I foresee that we shall be administering education over larger, rather than smaller, areas as time goes on, because education, I hope, will offer more and more opportunities to every child, and therefore it will be necessary to have a wide range of schools and colleges for the children to choose between, and we shall need wider areas of free trade in pupils.
I have only one other matter to touch upon, and that is to support my noble friend Lord Ilford. I am fairly clear that the teachers will not mind the uncertainty. They often have this kind of thing, but the uncertainty would rest rather hardly on the administrators of the central London authority, although they have won the major part of the battle. As time goes on, I am sure it will be seen that the central authority is necessary. Therefore I am glad that there is going to be a review, and fairly quickly, because I think there will be some considerable change both ways. I rather wish subsection (6) had in it a phrase to the effect that more powers might be added, as well as shed, by the authorities—but never mind about that. When the review comes, I am certain that the political atmosphere in which this controversial Bill is being discussed will have died down and the educational considerations will triumph.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I am sorry I was called out during part of this debate, but I am glad I have returned in time to hear the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, who, as we all know, is a former Minister of Education. There are some things he said with which I agree, some I am not sure of, and some I do not agree with. I think, for example, that the teachers really are worried about the uncertainty, not only about the security of their position but about the uncertainty facing education, and I think that is perfectly genuine. I doubt whether the boroughs were as unsatisfied as all that; the metropolitan boroughs honestly did not ask for education,
234
as the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, will know.
There may be a case for looking into the question of the appointment of school managers and governors of higher educational institutions, but the local authorities are in a real difficulty about it. The metropolitan boroughs, for example, are represented on the managements of primary schools. I forget whether it goes any higher than that in the educational scheme, and I think it is right that that should be so; but, on the other hand, one has to be careful, because if the representative element becomes exclusive, so that the appointments are completely outside the control of the education authority, then the question of quality may be injured.
There is a lot to be said for two points which the noble Lord made. First, he asked whether we ought to be dogmatic about what is the appropriate size for an educational authority. The Government's bias is in favour of the smaller authority. Nevertheless, the L.C.C., over a substantial area, as is admitted all round, has been eminently successful, and indeed that is admitted by establishing the Inner London Education Authority. However, I agree with the noble Lord that there is something to be said for our considering whether we should put down an Amendment at Report stage, or whether the Government should, and, if we cannot get rid of this 1970 uncertainty, to extend the 1970 survey over the whole of the Greater London area. There is, at any rate, a case for consideration—the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, did not go beyond that, and I will not—that the Greater London authority itself might be the local education authority for Greater London. It is worth investigation and consideration.
Coming more directly to the Amendment of my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger, I think it is a sound Amendment. It is bad that the Government, having conceded this Inner London Education Authority, have left it on tenterhooks, and so some time between now and 1970 we shall have a survey, or an inquiry, or investigation, as to whether a change should be made. One is all the more apprehensive and suspicious about it because of the conflicting and wavering answers given to critcism by the Minister of Education and the Parliamentary Secretary.

235
It is really most objectionable that this kind of thing should be done. The Government ought to have a mind of their own, and, as my noble friend who moved the Amendment said, if the Government are going to be ready to pronounce—I nearly said "pounce"—in 1970, then this inquiry, which will be a pretty big thing, will have to start well before 1970. Therefore there is an element of doubt all the time.
Although I do not wish to dwell on this matter unduly, I want to say, once again, that I am very sorry the Bishops' Benches have been empty all the afternoon. It is regrettable that on this important subject, on which the Church ought to have a voice, the Bishops have not been here. Last week, the Ecclesiastical Measure was before the House—a Measure for which it is quite likely that in the end I would have voted. I had not seen so many Bishops in the House for a long time as there were on that occasion. It is giving a bad impression if they turn up on their own business and fail to turn up when the vital interests of the country are being discussed. So I hope somebody will give them my compliments and respects and say that I could not help "ticking them off a bit" this afternoon.
LORD WALSTON: I should like very briefly to support what my noble friend, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has just said, not with regard to the Bishops but in the earlier part of his speech, and to a lesser extent what the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, has said. I accept the argument of my noble friend, Lady Wootton of Abinger, concerning the difficulties of uncertainty, but I personally should be prepared to accept the uncertainty on the grounds that these proposals are far from perfect. We on this side of the Committee consider they are considerably less perfect than do noble Lords opposite. It is therefore quite reasonable to say that during the course of the next period, whether it be seven years, ten years or an indeterminate period, it is right and proper that the arrangements should be looked at again even though that may lead to some uncertainty among those most directly concerned.
My great disagreement with these particular subsections, and especially subsection (6), is that the terms of reference
236
of the body that is to look into the workings of this are so severely limited As the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, said it may well be that this particular area that has been defined is too small Surely it would be far better, instead of defining so closely what this investigating body should do, to give them complete freedom to investigate exactly what they think are the improvements which should be carried out when this review takes place. If that were done, if they were given that freedom, I for one would have somewhat more hesitation in supporting my noble friend. But as it is, with these very restricted terms of reference, I can see no argument whatsoever in favour of the retention of these two subsections.
May I remind the Committee of some thing which possibly does not seem to be very closely allied to this subject, the case of the Covent Garden Market where the terms of reference of the new authority, against the advice of many of my noble friends and other noble Lords, were very closely defined and the area in which they could operate was severely limited? It appears now that on wider investigation some wider area outside that in which they are allowed to operate is to be recommended, and that necessitates presumably a new Bill, taking up Parliamentary time, which is just what the noble Lord, Lord Newton said he wished to avoid. I can well see exactly the same thing happening with regard to this particular subsection in this particular Bill because of the close definition that has been insisted upon by the Government. If investigators recommend, as the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, suggested they may recommend, a wider extension, as I see it there will be no authority in this present Bill to enable their recommendations to be worked out. For those reasons I do strongly support the Amendment, and in particular the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: The noble Lord, Lord Newton, pointed out that I was not strictly correct in suggesting that this subsection is completely unique. There is an Amendment coming later on to delete a similar proposal for a review of the youth service, and I am afraid I was regarding the youth service as so closely integrated with the education service that they

237
seemed really in substance one and the same thing. But technically I stand corrected.
LORD NEWTON: That did occur to me afterwards.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: Technically the noble Lord is right. I am sure the noble Lord will forgive me if I say that I have seldom heard him so unconvincing. He clearly does not share the view which I quoted from the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, as to the dangerous effects of uncertainty. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said that what we wished to avoid was putting an element of uncertainty into the affairs of this great city. I was astonished to hear the noble Lord, Lord Newton, say that he was in doubt as to whether it would be possible to hold a review without this provision. I should have thought that that was surely a matter on which the Government should have made up their mind before they brought this Bill to this House.
In any case, surely, his uncertainty is unnecessary, because if the subsection were drafted in a permissive form he would be completely covered. There is nothing in his argument to show that he has to have the subsection to make the review obligatory. If he takes powers under this subsection to make a review possible, then he is completely covered. Even if he did not do that, any review of anything is possible, though of course it might mean legislation rather than procedure simply by order.
The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, doubted whether the children in London's schools were quite as aware of these problems as was suggested. He referred to the small children who may not be aware, although the small children are acutely aware of the policy of different education authorities in the matter of their selection for secondary education. And older children are equally aware of the different provision that different education authorities make for young people who are proposing to go on to a university or to further education. I think children have a view on this and are concerned in this uncertainty quite as much as their elders.
However, the substance of the matter, surely, is that the Government cannot have it both ways. Why is this subsection
238
so terribly important? Why does the review so far ahead have to be obligatory? The noble Lord, Lord Newton, assured us, as the Members of another place were assured more than once, that there was nothing to fear, nothing more would happen. Perhaps it would be desirable to put borough representatives on the boards of governors of secondary schools—surely an alarming and revolutionary change! That is the kind of thing which the noble Lord, Lord Newton, had in mind. If that is so, why is it necessary at this point of time to make an obligatory review for seven years ahead?
On the other hand, other members of the Government speak with rather a different voice. On the Second Reading of the Bill, the Minister of Housing and Local Government said that there was no need to explore fully the possibilities of direct participation by borough councils in the service in the central area. This suggested very much more radical changes. Either radical changes are intended or they are not. When we suggest that the clause is hinting at radical changes, then we are told that nothing is intended and that, in any event, it is impossible to forecast what will happen seven years from now. Yet it is held to be essential to have it.
The noble Lord, Lord Eccles, must surely oppose the inclusion of this provision because the kind of change which the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, wants, and for which indeed there is much to be said, is not, as I read it, possible under this clause. This clause simply contemplates a review which is devoted solely and only to the particular point of whether the boroughs of the inner London area should have a greater share of education, and appears to have nothing whatever to do with the proposal to enlarge the functions of the inner London education authority. I should have thought that, on those grounds alone, it would be impossible for the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, to take any other view than to support the Amendment.
The attitude of the Government seems to be still quite equivocal: smooth words when we suggest that they may perhaps be trying to commit the future to radical changes, and yet an absolute determination to take this enormous steam-hammer of an obligatory review seven years hence,

239
to crack what at other times they suggest to be very small nuts about the composition of the governors of secondary schools. They cannot have it both ways.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed

ANIMAL BOARDING ESTABLISHMENTS BILL
7.27 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, at the present time anybody can turn any premises into a boarding establishment for dogs and cats. Many of these boarding establishments are quite satisfactory, but for a long time R.S.P.C.A. inspectors have been worried about a certain number of them, and it is thought that there are probably about 50 per cent. of such establishments in this country which are unsatisfactory. Some of them spring up merely during the holiday season to take care of the pets of people who go away. In 1956 the Huddersfield Corporation brought in a Bill, which was passed by your Lordships, by which they took
7.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 154) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 51.

CONTENTS

Amulree, L.

Henley, L.

Shackleton, L.

Archibald, L.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Attlee, E.

Latham, L.

Strang, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lawson, L.

Summerskill, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Listowel, E.

Walston, L.

Champion, L.

Longford, E.

Williams, L.

Crook, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Faringdon, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Henderson, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Devonshire, D.

Margesson, V.

Aldington, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Milverton, L.

Auckland, L.

Dudley, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Dundee, E.

Monsell, V.

Bossom L.

Eccles, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Boston, L.

Effingham, E.

Newton, L.

Bradford, E.

Exeter, M.

Ormonde, M.

Brecon, L.

Falmouth, V.

Remnant, L.

Carrington, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rochdale, V.

Chesham, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Colgrain, L.

Grenfell, L.

Swansea, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Swinton, E.

Conesford, L.

Hastings, L.

Teynham, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Ilford, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Waleran, L.

Denham, L.

Kilmuir, E.

Wellington, D.

Derwent, L.

Lothian, M.

Woolton, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

powers to control these boarding establishments for cats and dogs, paying particular attention to temperature, size, lighting, ventilation et cetera. The Bill which I am now proposing to your Lordships roughly follows that Act of Parliament.
I should like briefly to outline what the Bill seeks to do. Clause 1 provides that no person should keep a boarding establishment for dogs or cats who has not a licence granted by a local authority—that is, by a county borough, a county council, a metropolitan borough, or the City of London; or, in Scotland, a county or burgh. The person applying for that licence will pay a fee of 10s. a year—which I do not think is an unreasonable sum to put forward, because the charges made by these establishments for taking care of their dogs and cats vary. The charges for dogs can be 7s. 6d., 10s. or 12s. 6d. per day; whereas the charges for cats can vary from 2s. 6d. to 5s. 6d. per day.
The points which the local authority have to consider when they are granting

241
a licence is that the construction of the establishment is satisfactory, that it is of a reasonable size, that there are not going to be too many animals there and that there shall exist facilities for giving the animals exercise. At the same time, the temperature, lighting, ventilation and cleanliness must be of a satisfactory state. The construction at the present time among the unsatisfactory establishments ranges over an enormous variety of buildings, from stables to huts made of chicken boxes with corrugated iron roofs, packing cases, timber and old pieces of crate et cetera. I have a number of photographs of these but I do not propose to show them to your Lordships now. At the same time there must be available a supply of food and drink and bedding material in suitable quantities, and somebody must be available to visit the animals, if need be, at suitable intervals.
Precautions must be taken to prevent the spread of infectious or contagious diseases, and adequate isolation facilities must be provided should one of the animals be taken sick. A further provision is that appropriate steps must be taken to protect the animals in the case of fire or other emergency. A provision which is new is that a register shall be kept, giving the date of arrival of the animal and the date of departure, together with the name and address of the owner; and that register is to be opened for inspection to an officer of the licensing authority or to a veterinary officer authorised under Clause 2, subsection (1), of the present Bill. There is an appeal to a magistrates' court in England, or to the sheriffs' court in Scotland, if an application for a licence should be refused. The licence shall extend for one year. Suppose the licensee were to die during the year, the licence remains automatically in force for one month, and then the local authority may grant licences at monthly intervals until the estate has been wound up and the establishment can be disposed of finally.
Clause 2 gives the local authority power to authorise inspection by any of its officers or by a veterinary surgeon or practitioner. The third clause is the penalty clause: there is to be a fine of £25 or up to three months' imprisonment, with discretion to cancel a licence or to disqualify the holder. Clause 4 gives powers to a local authority in England and Wales to prosecute for offences in its
242
area. Clause 5 makes a sensible provision among the interpretations: that the terms of the Bill shall not apply to people who take in one dog or one cat for a friend who is going away for a short holiday. That, I think, is a very sensible provision. Clause 6 provides that people who have been running these establishments before the passing of the Bill may continue to work those establishments for one month before they need apply for their licence—that is to say, provided they have not been disqualified in any way before that.
My Lords, this measure has the modified approval of the Association of Municipal Corporations; and the British Veterinary Association has approved it, too. I trust, therefore, that I have said enough to show that this is quite a useful little Bill which will enable some bad establishments either to be improved or to be suppressed altogether. It is part of the general work towards the betterment of conditions of animals in this country, and it really carries on the work which was started by the Pet Animals Act, 1951, which made certain requirements in shops where pets may be sold. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Amulree.)
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has explained the purpose of this Bill with his usual clarity. I do not wish to add anything to what he has said, except to tell your Lordships that the Government regard this as a useful measure which should be of assistance to local authorities in checking the abuses that undoubtedly exist at the moment, and in seeing that dogs and cats which are boarded out in this way get a reasonably square deal. I am sure that this aim is one which will commend itself to the whole House; and I hope, therefore, that the Bill will be given a Second Reading.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Marquess for regarding my Bill with a mild and magnificent eye.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended at twenty-five minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at twenty-five minutes before nine o'clock.]

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL
8.35 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 31 [Primary, secondary and further education in Greater London]:
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert:
"In revising the development plan the council of each outer London borough shall consult with the council of adjoining Local Education Authorities to ensure that the revised development plan shall have regard to both the use made of schools outside the outer London borough by children resident in that borough, and the use of schools within that borough by children resident outside."
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friends I beg to move this Amendment, the purpose of which is to ensure that those children who will be living in the counties of Surrey, Essex and Kent, and who are to go to schools in those areas which will be assimilated into the Greater London area shall, in the first instance, he able to continue their schooling. To this end arrangements will have to be made in regard to the payment to be made to the authorities who will be responsible for those schools in the future. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Newton, will appreciate that there are transport difficulties, and that until the counties themselves have been able to find other accommodation suitable for those children, arrangements should he made for children within these counties to continue to attend the schools in the Greater London area. On the point of the considerable transport difficulty, I can speak from personal experience in the case of Surrey. Our railway lines all go as though to the centre; there are only bus services around the radial part of the Greater London area, and those are not very efficient or frequent. Therefore it will be extremely difficult for those persons who will be living on the outskirts of the Greater
244
London area in these counties to send their children to the right type of school (whether they be grammar, secondary or primary schools) unless the facilities which they have been able to enjoy in the past are available.
I would point out to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, that their parents, as ratepayers, have paid, in their share of the rates, a considerable amount for the provision of these schools in the areas which are being assimilated into the Greater London area. It is quite clear (though I have not the figures with me) that for a good number of years the emphasis of the Surrey County Council in capital expenditure for schools has been concentrated in the very areas that are now being brought within the Greater London area. These areas have a greater concentration of higher-education schools. In the last two or three years the Surrey County Council have changed the balance. They are trying to develop their grammar schools and the like in the urban districts; but a great deal has still to be done.
Unless we make it possible within this Bill for the children in these areas adjacent to the Greater London area to go to these schools which now come into the Greater London area considerable hardship will be caused. I think the Committee will recognise that if children are to do well at school the reduction of travel time is an important consideration. I know of one child in my neighbourhood who travels 1½ hours in the morning and 1½ hours in the evening in order to obtain the right type of education. I cannot see that that child stands the same chance as others who have merely ten or fifteen minutes' travelling time to school. Unless this Amendment is accepted considerable hardship will be done to parents and above all to the children. I think this is a matter which deserves the Government's sympathy and attention. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 11, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD CROOK: I should like to support my noble friend, who has so adequately moved this Amendment that there is little left for me to add. When we were trying to get an Amendment for a larger education authority, but failed, I

245
stressed in regard to Boroughs 22 and 23, the need for the exchange of people. This Amendment is something like an insurance policy in that regard, because it will minimise the effect of the new administrative boundaries on free trade between schools. Incidentally, it will prevent the L.E.A. from making competitive and wasteful attempts to produce the full range of educational needs within the area and will reduce the part to be be played by the M mister of Education by avoiding the duplication of school places and the wasting of public money by co-ordination at local and not national level. In other words, it combines the benefits of a large scale educational system with the benefits of local administration. I commend the Amendment to your Lordships and hope that the Government will find themselves able, if not to accept the words, the drafting of which may not be as perfect as could be, at least to accept the principle of what we desire.
LORD GRENFELL: The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, told us about a child who had to travel for one and a half hours in a bus to school. That is quite a long time, but my daughter, when she was with a foster-mother near Twickenham, had to travel for an hour in a bus to school. We must face the fact that if we are going to have the areas divided up, it is inevitable that there will be travel by bus. There is inevitably travel by bus today and it will be inevitable later. I do not think that is a very great argument.
LORD NEWTON: I am happy to be able to inform your Lordships that I should like to accept the principle behind the Amendment. The Amendment requires that the outer London boroughs should do by Statute what I am certain they would do in any case. All the same, I think it will be a good thing to have this provision written into the Bill. I am not so happy about the drafting. The noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Crook, will realise that the Amendment appeared on the Marshalled List only to-day, and I have not had much time to consider the drafting, but if the noble Lord is prepared to withdraw his Amendment, I will undertake to put down at a later stage an Amendment which will achieve his purpose.
LORD SHEPHERD: I will certainly respond to the noble Lord, Lord Newton. The entire credit for this point should
246
be given to my noble friend Lord Crook, who drafted this Amendment. The only reason I moved it was that, unfortunately, my noble friend did not arrive in the Chamber in time to take on the duty. I think that it is right that this should not be left to the good will of the boroughs and should be written into the Bill. I must say that I regret the view of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. Things are wrong sometimes, but there is no reason why they should continue. Where things are wrong we should make an effort to try to correct them, and in this particular case the Government have responded. For this limited point, we are grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CROOK LORD CROOK moved, in subsection (7), after the second "London" to insert:
"or local education authority outside London but adjoining the London boundary ".
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this further Amendment which is not unrelated in principle to the one we have just been discussing. As I looked at the Bill over the weekend, it appeared to me that, although some thought had been given by all of us to the position occurring in respect of boundaries within the new county, none of us had thought about the boundaries outside. So we have the position that even if we make adequate arrangements for exchange within boroughs inside, we should have people living upon the edges of new county boundaries who might be placed in difficulties. If I give an example from my own district, it is not because I think that is the only one, but because it is the one I know. I am sure that the noble Lady who will shortly speak about Middlesex and others sitting here, could give other examples from around the various edges of the boundaries of the new suggested counties.
So far as I am concerned, girls who live in Coulsdon and Purley, which is now to form part of Borough 20, will be cut off from the Whyteleafe County Girls' School, which is a girls' grammar school in Caterham and Warlingham, which the Government's Bill now puts into the new Surrey. Hitherto, twenty or thirty girls a year have gone into this school from Coulsdon and Purley. Another example, which is a historic name that will be

247
familiar to many of your Lordships, on the edge of my own district, is Nonsuch County Girls' School at Ewell, now to be in the new Surrey. It is the chief maintained girls' grammar school for the existing borough of Sutton and Cheam, with its population of 78,000. I pointed out earlier, and again just now, the position of Boroughs 22 and 23. While the clause, as drafted, will cover Borough 23 using surplus grammar schools placed in Borough 22, it will not cover the use by Borough 23 of the grammar school placed just over the border, only a few yards within the new county. Children who live in the three wards of Epsom and Ewell (this is a new and important point which was not in the original plans of the Government), which have been taken out from Epsom and Ewell borough and are now to be joined with Kingston, Surbiton, Malden and Coombe, in Borough 23, will no longer have guaranteed access to the nearest grammar school, Nonsuch County Girls' School, over the county boundary, although very near.
I do not want to keep your Lordships by quoting particular schools, because I am certain that if other noble Lords looked around their own boundaries of the new counties they would see that this kind of thing is bound to occur. I hope that the Government will look at this Amendment with sympathy, and that we may have satisfaction from the noble Lord's reply.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 1, after ("London") insert the said words.—(Lord Crook.)
LORD NEWTON: This Amendment, also, appeared on the Marshalled List only this morning, but again I am delighted to be able to say that it is acceptable. I should like to consider the drafting further, but if the noble Lord will be good enough to withdraw it now, I will undertake to put down at a later stage an Amendment to achieve his purpose.
LORD CROOK: I have no difficulty at all in asking your Lordships' permission to withdraw this Amendment. I have no claim to be a Parliamentary draftsman. Both of these Amendments were ideas that occurred to me on Sunday, and that the Government have been so helpful is something for which we can all be grateful, although it is about the
248
first thing for which we have been able to be so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL BARONESS SUMMERSKILL moved to add to the clause:
"(10)(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section during the period of five years commencing on 1st April 1965 the functions relating to education mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection shall not be exercised by the council of any London Borough the area of which immediately before 1st April 1965 is wholly or partly within the administrative county of Middlesex (the areas of which boroughs shall together be known as ' the Middlesex Education Area ') but those functions shall be exercised by the Greater London Council by means of a special committee of the Greater London Council constituted as mentioned in subsection (11) of this section and otherwise subject to the provisions of this Act as if references to the ' Inner London Education Area ' and the ' Inner London Education Authority ' included references to ' the Middlesex Education Area ' and the special committee constituted under subsection (11) of this section respectively.
(b) The functions referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection are the following—

(i) the assessment of the ability and aptitude of pupils for secondary education and the allocation of pupils for grammar school courses;

(ii) the making of arrangements for admission to and maintenance of pupils allocated for grammar school courses at schools not maintained by the councils of the London Boroughs in the Middlesex Education area;

(iii) the making of arrangements for the admission of pupils in boarding schools;

(iv) the provision of an advisory service and the employment of education specialists to advise upon and for the purpose of improving the educational facilities provided for the Middlesex Education area;

(v) the training of teachers including the provision of teachers' courses generally;

(vi) the provision of special educational treatment appropriate for persons suffering from any disability of mind or body;

(vii) the provision of facilities for further education under section 41 of the Education Act 1944, other than Youth and Community Service and Evening Institutes;

(viii) the granting of scholarships, exhibitions, bursaries and other allowances in respect of pupils and students over compulsory school age other than those in full-time attendance in schools maintained by the London Boroughs.

(11) The special committee referred to in subsection (10) of this section shall consist of

(a) such of the councillors of the Greater London Council as have been elected by the local government electors for the Middlesex Education area; and

(b) one representative of the council of each outer London Borough within the

249
Middlesex Education area appointed by the Council of that borough from among the members thereof

and any person appointed in pursuance of paragraph (b) of this subsection shall, unless re-appointed, retire on the fourteenth day after the ordinary day of retirement of London borough councillors falling next after his appointment, but may resign his membership of the special committee at any time by notice in writing to the clerk of the council by whom he was appointed thereto."
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, has observed how exhilarated the Committee have become after his recent announcements, and I hope he will listen to what I have to E ay with equal sympathy and for the third time during this Committee say that he is prepared to accept an Amendment. Your Lordships heard my noble friend Lord Longford tonight move an Amendment, and the Amendment I propose to move is similar in principle but much more limited in scope. I feel particularly honoured tonight because I have been asked to move this Amendment by the Middlesex County Council, which I had the privilege to serve for a number of years and which, I think all your Lordships will agree, has always been held in high regard by other councils in the country. I need hardly stress the importance of this Bill to the Middlesex County Council, for if it is put on the Statute Book in the form of an Act it will mean the disappearance of Middlesex as an administrative unit and the complete disruption of the services which are at present enjoyed by the people of Middlesex, particularly those very human services dealing with education, children and welfare.
We heard tonight the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, in a mild attack on my noble friend Lord Longford, say that my noble friend charged the Government with creating a muddle and then told the Committee that if they did what was suggested things would be put straight. The noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, added at the result would be an even worse muddle than that which it was said the Government were creating. He asked, "Is this logical?" Not for one moment do I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, that my noble friend is trying to create a muddle, but I ask the noble Lord, Lord Newton, to bear this in mind: that all that Middle-
250
sex is asking for is to be included in a pattern of administration which the Government has established and which is already agreed to. I ask him therefore—and I have listened to the arguments which he has deployed tonight—to recognise that Middlesex wants only what the Government have already accepted for London, and to view it in that way.
I want to be concise on this matter, because Middlesex feel very strongly about the position, and they moved this resolution in January requesting the Government
"to reconsider its proposals and to amend the Bill so as to provide at least for education in Middlesex being controlled by a Committee of the Greater London Council—on lines similar to those provided for the Central London area—and to give adequate opportunity for the position to be examined in detail before commitment to premature and radical changes which, in the view of this County Council, will prove most harmful to the children and students of the County ".
This was a resolution which was not lightly arrived at, and represents the views of a considerable body of public and professional people and virtually the whole of the teaching profession. I look at the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, and I am sorry when I say "virtually the whole of the teaching profession" for I cannot interpret "virtually" in terms of percentages; but I was assured by people who understand the position in Middlesex that the teaching profession are behind this recommendation. I would also remind the noble Lord, Lord Newton, that it is strongly supported by the opinion and proposals of the Royal Commission itself.
Your Lordships will agree, I am sure, that despite the difficulties which have encompassed education in Middlesex since the 1944 Act, its education service is highly regarded throughout the country, and that the educational development for which the county is responsible in its primary schools, the successful pioneer work which has been done in its secondary schools, and its arrangement for special educational treatment, and work in the development of further education in the technical colleges, make it incumbent upon us all to ensure that there is no sudden halt to, or disruption of, continuity and further progress. This is what Middlesex is asking your Lordships. Again, I want to emphasise that they are asking to be included in the pattern of

251
administration which inner London is to enjoy.
While it is true that some of the boroughs previously had direct responsibility for elementary education under Part III of the 1902 Act, the educational picture has changed vitally since the 1944 Act and there is now a county system of education which will make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the boroughs to act as full education authorities. You have had this argument deployed to-night by my noble friend Lord Longford, but I want to emphasise on behalf of Middlesex, that the radical nature of the proposed changes whereby the education service is wholly vested in the London boroughs, is such that it demands the most careful consideration before commitment to a course from which there can be no retraction. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, will agree with me that, once committed, we cannot of course retrace our steps.
It is the considered opinion of the council that, at least in certain fields of education, an effective service requires integration and functional viability over an area much greater than that of the individual London borough. Again I say that this is the view of many educationalists and was expressed by the Royal Commission. Surely, there are aspects of the county service which should not be destroyed unless and until they are taken over by some other authority without a major break. All that the council suggests is that an Amendment should be included in the Bill based on that which it is already decided should operate for the Central London area. I want to say to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, that I want him to answer the specific question: why should not Middlesex be treated as the Central London area is being treated, at least for a transitional period?—for the education service in the present county of Middlesex should then be vested in a committee of the Greater London Council.
The council believe that this would remove the threat to continuity. They feel that it would give them a breathing space for a much-needed examination of the proper locus of the borough in education, for instance, on questions of conferment and delegation. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, himself, if
252
he were asked to-night to give in detail precisely how a certain service was to be delegated, and to tell us more about conferment in Middlesex, would be unable to answer. Thirdly, they say that this breathing space would give them time to think about a second-tier authority and whether it should exist. Should the examination of the position prove the need for such a second tier, then these decisions could be made without the council and the Government being committed at an early stage. Furthermore, of course, it would avoid the possibility of yet a second disruption with regard to certain parts of further education should the Robbins Committee propose, and the Government agree, to change the present proposed relationship with the borough education authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Newton, has no idea at this stage what would happen, and I would remind your Lordships that the non-viability of the London boroughs for all aspects of education was recognised by the Royal Commission, and indeed in the White Paper and in the Bill itself. Whereas the Royal Commission recommended the two-tier system for the area, the White Paper and the Bill have declared for a one-tier system. I have been asked to make it quite clear that the Middlesex County Council does not wish to deny the boroughs a proper function in the education service. It recognises the strength of the argument in the 1944 Education Act that the education service should be an entity. It is further even more firmly convinced of the dangers of a complete reversal of the decisions arrived at in the 1944 Act, and it must be abundantly clear that the time intervals are such as not to allow for the transfer of all functions without a dangerous element of breakdown. I have listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and he has not specifically assured the Committee in these debates that the Government feel satisfied that there is no danger of breakdown.
There are certain aspects of the education service where there is real cause to believe that an effective service requires integration of functional viability over an area much greater than that of an individual London borough. The County Council wants me to say that it is further convinced that there is a county system of education where (to quote the whole

253
argument given in the White Paper for a central London education authority),
"the absence of administrative boundaries and the consequent complete freedom of choice for pupils and students, is of special value".
We have heard it called here "free trade", which seems to me a most extraordinary expression to adopt. We have heard the arguments deployed on behalf of these children who must travel a long way to get to school, and the injustice of establishing some kind of scheme whereby small children are deprived of education just because they happen to live in one area, whereas had they lived in another area, perhaps a mile away, they would have had a much more satisfactory education. Is this justice?
That seems to me to be rather a stupid, spiteful way of treating small children. I admit that Middlesex have not used the word "spiteful"; but, at any rate, it seems rather a small way to treat children. One would have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, would have got up and said, "In no circumstances can this happen. The Government will assure the Committee that there will be no discrimination against children because they live in a certain area". Again the County Council says that even if it were educationally desirable, it is quite impracticable for a similar service to be made effective by April 1, 1965, on a borough basis.
I believe that there is a growing awareness of the complexity of some of the problems which result from a simple and total transfer of functions in education to the boroughs. What is required is a concerted investigation preferably led by the Minister of Education. Let him examine the position, and then let him make certain recommendations. But, of course, to do this requires a "holding" action on the part of the Government, and I would ask the noble Lord whether the Government are prepared to have a holding action in order that our fears may be dispelled—because he must realise that these fears are very real; and, indeed, fears have been expressed on both sides of the House. It seems to me that to destroy and then to rebuild not only is an unhappy solution but must mean a period during which the service suffers severely. It would be tragic to destroy the second tier and then to discover that a second tier was essential, if during the interim period the services
254
suffered. The Middlesex County Council submits that this "holding" action can be secured by an appropriate committee under the umbrella of the Greater London Council.
Surely the practical approach is to examine the whole question under two heads: those functions which can immediately be conferred on the boroughs; and those functions where doubt exists that a borough organisation is the best solution. I have been asked that a detailed examination of these functions should be made thereby enabling a considered judgment to be made as to their allocation. The county council earnestly suggests that there should be an Amendment of Part IV of the Bill, by which certain functions are excepted from conferment, and that these functions should include at least the following. I have been asked to give these specifically to the noble Lord so that there should be no doubt about what the Middlesex County Council feel on this matter. The functions are: assessment and allocation of children to grammar school courses; arrangements with fee-paying schools, and with other authorities, for the admission and maintenance of children selected for grammar school courses; arrangements for boarding school education; the advisory services; teacher training and teachers' courses generally; special educational treatment; further education in technical colleges; awards to students.
I hope that your Lordships will be in sympathy with the aspirations of the Middlesex County Council, which has served the country and the people of Middlesex in a very fine way. They are asking to share what the Government have already agreed to establish—and this, to me, seems fair and just. I therefore hope that you will approve the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 30, at end insert the said subsection.—(Baroness Summerskill.)
9.8 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: The noble Baroness speaks on behalf of the Middlesex authorities. I have no special grounds for addressing your Lordships, but I should like very strongly to support her Amendment, as all on this side wish to do so. She has really made all the main points, but I should like to underline one

255
aspect, particularly in its relationship to the Amendment which I moved earlier and which was rejected on the advice of the Government. Naturally, I moved that Amendment feeling that it was the right Amendment, but the noble Baroness's Amendment should be a good deal more acceptable to the noble Lord—apart altogether from the fact that since Dinner he seems to have been in a good mood because he has accepted 100 per cent., if I may use that expression—
LORD NEWTON: With great respect, I did not accept 100 per cent. because I did not accept the drafting of either Amendment.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Well, then, 99·9 per cent., as we said earlier, but that is enough for the moment. If the noble Lord accepts this, even though he does not accept the drafting, he will make us all happy. If he can maintain his post-prandial record we shall be very satisfied. I should like to emphasise one respect which should make this Amendment easier for the noble Lord and the Government. As the noble Baroness explained, it refers only to Middlesex instead of to the whole of Greater London outside the London County Council. But that is not the only point. It is not only more limited in space, but is more limited in its provisions because it would leave a number of important educational functions to the boroughs.
Under my Amendment, leaving out altogether the question of space and geography, the only education authorities would be the counties. Under this Amendment, even just taking Middlesex, important educational functions will lie with the boroughs. I think the noble Lord will agree that, whether or not the other Amendment was acceptable, this should be more easily acceptable. I think he would hardly dissent from that. It is more in keeping with the Government's philosophy than the one I moved which was rejected.
Indeed, I would venture to put it before him and the House in this way. At the present time it is quite true that the only education authorities for the counties are the counties themselves, if we leave out the L.C.C., Croydon and East and West Ham. But a number of the boroughs, particularly in Middlesex, have important functions delegated to
256
them, and although they are not education authorities, strictly speaking, they perform educational functions of considerable significance. Admittedly under the earlier Amendment those functions would have been removed from them so they would have clearly lost on balance. The gains, of course, far outweighed any loss, but still there would have been that loss of functions to the boroughs.
If you take the boroughs in Middlesex or elsewhere—and it is difficult to speak accurately and shortly, because the situation is so complex in Middlesex that general statements tend to be not quite precise—you will find that those boroughs with educational functions certainly will not lose under this Amendment. Indeed, I am advised that in practice they will gain, because the functions reserved to the Greater London Council under the Amendment of the noble Lady are already reserved to the counties. The functions which under her Amendment will reside in the boroughs are those which reside at any rate in a number of the boroughs already. While on the face of it, therefore, their position will be unchanged, they will in practice become educational authorities instead of just educational agencies. They will actually be asked to raise money themselves and will have new responsibilities cast on them. So if one is going to ask whether their position will be stronger or weaker, or whether their responsibilities will be greater or smaller, you can say that in Middlesex their responsibilities will be greater under this Amendment than before. I think it is right to underline that point, because while very few of us on this side agree with the philosophy behind the present Bill, if one is trying to fit in with the Government's philosophy this Amendment goes far more in the direction of the Government than did the earlier Amendment; and not only because it refers to one county only where there are special circumstances, but because it does not diminish, but actually increases, the responsibility of the boroughs.
LORD NEWTON: I wish I could be as indulgent towards this Amendment as I was towards the last two, but if I were I think it would be self-indulgence on my part, and too much self-indulgence is probably not good for one, even after dinner. I thought the noble Baroness

257
argued the case for Middlesex very persuasively indeed and marshalled all possible arguments in support of her case, but I ought to point out to her that her argument ignored the criticisms in the Royal Commission's Report of the working of the administration of education in Middlesex. What this Amendment does is to give effect to a proposal which was recently put to Her Majesty's Government by the Middlesex County Council. Its main aim, as she made clear to us, is to transfer those services described' in the proposed subsection (10)(b) of her Amendment to the outer London boroughs.
This proposal of the Middlesex County Council has been strongly opposed by the Middlesex excepted districts, of which there are 16 in Middlesex, out of a total of 20 divisional executives. And, of course, these excepted districts have a great deal of experience in the administration of education. The Government have every sympathy with the wish to smooth the transfer, but I am bound to tell the Committee that they do not regard it as necessary, or even desirable, to continue the County Council's administration of education for an extra five years—for one reason, because of the criticisms in the Report of the Royal Commission. We do not think it is necessary to provide for this delay, because the outer London boroughs will be large boroughs, as I argued earlier
this afternoon, fully capable of exercising all the functions of local education authorities and with previous experience of administering education.
We do not think that this delay is desirable because, once it is settled that, sooner or later, the outer London boroughs are to be the local education authorities for all purposes (and it is implied by the noble Lady's Amendment, is it not, that eventually, after five years, this transfer will take place?) it will be difficult to keep staff, let alone recruit them, for a purely temporary purpose for a specified time. If only for this reason, we do not regard the proposed arrangements in the noble Lady's Amendment as practicable. I do not see how staffs can reasonably be expected to remain at their posts in the definite knowledge that their jobs will come to an end in five years' time. That is why I am unable to accept this Amendment, and I hope that the noble Baroness may think that the reasons I have advanced against it are, on the whole, pretty conclusive.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I am afraid the noble Lord has not convinced me, and I must ask my noble friends to come into the Lobby with me.
9.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 155) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 55.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Attlee, E.

Latham, L.

Stonham, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lawson, L.

Summerskill, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Longford, E.

Walston, L.

Champion, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Wellington, D.

Crook, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Williams of Barnburgh, L

Faringdon, L.

Shackleton, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Henderson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Devonshire, D.

Kilmuir, E.

Albemarle, E.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lansdowne, M.

Allerton, L.

Drogheda, E.

Lothian, M.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Dudley, E.

Mersey, V.

Auckland, L.

Dundee, E.

Mills, V.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Eccles, L.

Milne, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Effingham, E.

Milverton, L.

Blackford, L.

Falmouth, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Bossom, L.

Ferrers, E.

Monsell, V.

Boston, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Newton, L.

Brecon, L.

Grenfell, L.

Ormonde, M.

Chesham, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Remnant, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Hampden, V.

Rochdale, V.

Colgrain, L.

Hastings, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Conesford, L.

Hertford, M.

Swinton, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Ilford, L.

Teynham, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Ingleby, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Denham, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Willingdon, M.

Derwent, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Co-ordination of school and other health services in inner London]:
9.25 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL BARONESS SUMMERSKILL moved to add to the clause:
"(7) Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section or any scheme approved there-under shall derogate from the power of the Inner London Education Authority to appoint—

(a) a principal school medical officer in general charge of the school health service and responsible to the Authority for the efficient conduct of the service in the interests of the health and welfare of pupils; and

(b) a principal school dental officer in charge of the school dental service and responsible to the principal school medical officer for its efficient operation."

The noble Baroness said: I must apologise for inflicting myself on your Lordships again. I have heard that on the radio voices are changed at intervals so that the audienc ewill not go to sleep. It happens that these two Amendments contain matters in which I have a special interest, and therefore I have been asked to move them. It will be recalled that when Clause 32 was discussed in another place, the Government accepted the principle of that part of the Opposition Amendment which makes provision for the revocation of schemes, but they did not accept that part which would allow the Inner London Education Authority to appoint a principal school medical officer and a principal school dental officer. I propose to-night to ask your Lordships to consider the position and support an Amendment which asks that these two officers and their staffs should be appointed.
In the course of the debate in another place, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education said:
" … If the Inner London Education Authority had a principal school medical officer of its … who had general responsibilities for the activities of the medical officers of health in the inner London boroughs and their conduct of school health services the individual concerned would be in the rather disadvantageous position of covering only a part of the field—the school health service—and would be unable to view that in relation to all the other services for which a medical officer of health is responsible…".
He went on:
"… so that … the position itself would not be likely to attract a person of first quality in view of the restricted nature…"
260
of his or her work. In making this reply, the Government seem to be completely unaware of the fact that in the service of a large authority there are people who specialise in work with school children and students.
The Council in the past has been very well served in this field, and it is simply inaccurate to say that the Inner London Education Authority would not be likely to attract a person of first quality. In my view, it might even be easier to attract such a person, because he or she would be in charge of the service and not responsible to a county medical officer of health, and in this it might prove attractive. Moreover, unless there is such a principal school medical officer responsible to the Inner London Education Authority, it might well be much more difficult to retain specialists, who will not want to be responsible to a number of medical officers with different ideas and different standards. There is no dispute, of course, that the clause as it stands does not rule out the appointment of a principal school medical officer by the Inner London Education Authority. But the schemes which have been approved by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education could prohibit such an appointment. I believe that, if the noble Lord looks at these schemes, he will agree with me there.
At least, the Government have now admitted the facts. On the Second Reading, I think, there was some confusion, because the Minister of Education made play of the fact that the London County Council had said that the school health service was to be broken up in 1965 and that the Government had no intention whatever of breaking it up. It seems to me that the Government have thought a little more deeply on the subject since then, for it is quite clear, from the discussions in the Standing Committee, that the Government are aware that what they are proposing is the fragmentation of the school health service, as at present constituted in inner London, into thirteen different independent parts. Indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary referred to
"the medical officers of health and their conduct of school health services."
Perhaps when the noble Lord replies he will explain precisely what that means. But the Government have not

261
made any attempt to show how the system would work. They are proposing that the Inner London Education Authority should be responsible to the Minister of Education for the conduct of a school health service, yet that Authority is to be prohibited from carrying out the requirements of the School Health Service Regulations, 1959, which make mandatory the appointment of a principal school medical officer and a principal school dental officer.
It seems that the Government are ignorant of the way in which the school health service is administered. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the rare occasions which would necessitate the appearance of medical officers of health at committee meetings of the Inner London Education Authority. Nothing could be further from the facts. It is very rarely that a medical officer does not need to be represented at the meetings of the special education subcommittee. Indeed, I have made inquiries on this matter, and over the last four years, at approximately one out of every two of the fortnightly meetings of the education general purposes sub-committee there have been one or more items calling for a medical officer's attendance. I do not think that could be disputed. I would ask the noble Lord to examine the figures, and I am sure he will find that I am correct.
Moreover, at one of every two meetings of standing joint advisory committees of the teachers and officers over the last five years the medical officer in person, or one of his more senior colleagues, has taken part in the discussion. My experience over the years tends to make me think that this is perhaps a modest estimate of the amount of time which the medical officer gives in this field. Before breaking up something that works, the Government ought to be sure that the pieces will work when separated. If the pieces have to be put together again in order to work, one is bound to ask: why pull the service apart in the first place? All we are asking for, and pressing for, in these debates is an assurance from the Government that this very complicated and detailed scheme will work.
Then again, it is said that there will be full consultation, if the two Ministers knew how the service would work, presumably they would say so. No amount
262
of consultation would help if there is no solution to be found to provide as good a service as now exists. If this clause goes through as it stands, some way will have to be found of making the best of a bad job, if only because the Inner London Education Authority will be on trial for up to five years. But it is bound to be much more unsatisfactory for children, for the schools, for the Inner London Education Authority and for the thirteen medical officers. Where will be the close consultation which those who are accustomed to county affairs know exists between the education officer and the medical officer? And most important consultations they are, when important decisions are taken. But if the Government refuse to appoint the necessary officials, these consultations which are so necessary for the conduct of the health services simply cannot take place.
The Inner London Education Authority will almost certainly have to lay down detailed instructions to the medical officers who will be under their direction. What I want to ask the noble Lord is: on whose advice will the Authority act? On that of the spokesman of the thirteen medical officers? One wonders how far the thirteen will agree. The spokesman will be in no position to issue instructions to his thirteen independent colleagues; and I can assure the noble Lord that doctors are individualists, not easily regimented, and it is not easy for him to say: "There will be thirteen of then; surely we can choose one who will direct the others."
It has been argued that there are already medical officers who work for two authorities; so that it should not be impossible to resolve this simple problem. But the issue is not whether a medical officer can work for two authorities—that is not in dispute. It happens now in Divisions 2, 4 and 9; and it works because these medical officers form part of the co-ordinated School Medical Service and are responsible to the principal school medical officer. That is what the Council is suggesting should happen in the future with the Inner London Education Authority. We want one individual appointed who will be responsible.
I now come to the question of the special schools, about which, again, the

263
Government seem to be quite vague. In the first place, it will be not a question of a scheme. Obviously, if the Government insist that the thirteen medical officers are going to operate, there must be thirteen schemes; and they may be identical. Is it not perhaps the intention that the two Ministers will not approve them unless they are? Are they intending (and perhaps the noble Lord can tell me this? for they can have the last word, to force a scheme on the boroughs and the Inner London Education Authority? Then, again, the reference to special schools is undefined, and I think there should be an accurate definition. It is obviously inappropriate that the borough medical officer should be concerned with the 23 boarding special schools situated outside the area of the Inner London Education Authority and the four boarding special schools and homes in the area. Surely there must be uniform standards of ascertainment and medical supervision of the children in schools.
Will the noble Lord also tell me what is the Government's intention about day special schools? They are not decided in the boroughs. Are they to be included in the scheme and an arbitrary division between them and boarding schools erected? Advice on the need for day or hoarding schools surely must be co-ordinated. It is very doubtful whether any thought at all is being given to the process of recruitment for special schools. How are the pupils to find their way into these special schools in the future? The position now is that some cases are picked at medical institutions or by reference from hospitals, and most are put forward by schools for special examination on psychiatric diagnosis. At present there is uniformity of ascertainment in inner London. What do the Government think is going to happen now under the new plan? Nobody has said what is to happen. Will the thirteen school medical officers advise on these cases? Will they decide, in these thirteen fragmented areas, who will go to the special schools? Will they not surely have to pass them through the special advisers who deal with special schools? The borough medical officers will know little of the types of special schools, because undoubtedly no borough will have the complete range of divisions.
Hitherto the whole matter has been centralised; the children have been
264
picked carefully and sent to the appropriate school. So the position is that they will neither be able to attend the needs of the children in the light of what the schools provide or to supervise them adequately after admission as specialists in each of the appropriate fields are needed for this. The case for a school medical officer from the co-ordinated service is proved on these grounds alone. I hope that in this most detailed and technical matter I have convinced the noble Lord of that. Obviously in the special schools in each area there may be only a bare handful of children who suffer from some form of psychiatric or congenital complaint. Obviously there are only a few, but we must have some central medical officer who is responsible for allocating these poor, pathetic little children to the proper special school. So far as I know, nothing has been said, except that the Government have said that in no circumstances are they going to appoint this medical officer for whom we are asking.
It is no good the Government saying that the arrangements proposed work perfectly well elsewhere. There is no parallel to the situation which we have been describing here this afternoon. That is not surprising, since the Inner London Educational Authority will be unique. What is so surprising is that the Government can contemplate, with apparent equanimity, a situation in which the Inner London Education Authority will be responsible for a service over which it lacks effective control. I should have thought that the Government would be most anxious to ensure that this important education authority, which, after all, it established as an afterthought, should operate in the best possible manner.
I would draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Home Office even went so far as to say—perhaps it was a slip on her part in her first speech for the Government in a Standing Committee:
"Under Clause 32 the school health authorities and the local authorities will be under one roof, so that there will be close links at that level, and that is the level that matters."
The noble Lord must realise that if that means what it says, the London boroughs would have responsibility for school health. I am asking that the Government should make this clear.
This is a most important matter—one which concerns the people of London closely. I would ask the Government to make this decision. This is not a major decision. Here is a case where it is necessary to appoint a key worker of a professional kind. I ask the noble Lord to consider this. I hope the Government will recognise that the only way to conduct this school health service in a satisfactory manner is to accept this Amendment, which I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 35, at end insert the said subsection.—(Baroness Sumerskill.)
9.44 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: The noble Baroness has so effectively deployed the argument for this Amendment that I do not want to take up the time of the Committee in supporting her at any length. There are one or two incidental points which I should like to place before the noble Lord—I do not know whether he has had time to consider them. I wonder whether it has occurred to the noble Lord that the medical officers of some of the boroughs, and perhaps all the boroughs, will have their hands full without these additional duties which the Bill unamended seems to place on their shoulders. Has that struck the noble Lord? I do not know whether he would feel, when he comes to reply to that suggestion, that unless there is something done on the lines suggested in the Amendment, the medical officers will be seriously overworked. It had no doubt occurred to him, he being a health Minister, that the functions or duties which fall on the borough medical officers will vary a great deal in scope owing to the fact that the boroughs will be so different in various ways. I am particularly anxious to ask him whether he has considered the point, and, if not, whether his advisers will consider it—that the borough officers may be seriously overworked.
I would ask him to assure us, following the argument of the noble Baroness, that he does not take seriously the suggestion that the Inner London Education Authority would not be able to obtain a school medical officer of a proper capacity. That seems to be one of those incredibly feeble arguments which occasionally are used, even by an excellent
266
Minister. I do not know whether it crept into the brief or into the noble Lord's mouth apart from the brief, but it is one of those arguments which I hope he would not uphold, and I hope he will repudiate, so far as he can, any suggestion that it would be impossible to obtain an officer of that calibre.
Would the noble Lord make it a little plainer as to whether the Government really intend to refuse to approve the appointment? Do the Government intend to prohibit the appointment of a principal school medical officer? No doubt the Minister will tell us, as was stated elsewhere, that in the clause as it stands there is nothing to prevent the appointment of a principal school medical officer, if the Minister, elsewhere or here, is simply offering the opinion that it might well not be necessary to appoint such an officer, that is one thing. We are always grateful for obiter dicta by Ministers and we should not be unduly worried about it. However, the Minister elsewhere managed to convey the impression that the Government intended to prohibit the appointment of such an officer. Will the noble Lord make the position plain? We should very much like to know whether he still intends to prohibit the appointment of such an officer, because if he and his colleagues do so intend there is no doubt that we will divided against them.
I suppose the argument which the noble Baroness put so well can be summarised in a single sentence. No doubt the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but we understand that this Inner London Education Authority will be responsible for the conduct of the school health service. It is not a question of the Inner London Education Authority saying, "Health is nothing to do with us; we are concerned with teaching, and health is somebody else's affair". That is not the position at all. They are going to be held responsible for the health of the children, and we are saying that they should be at least enabled, even if they are not positively assisted, to discharge that responsibility.
On the face of it, it seems extraordinary if the Government are seriously saying that when the Inner London Education Authority come and say, "In order to discharge this responsibility in the field of health, we need to appoint a school medical officer", the Government have

267
decided in advance that the authority are going to be prohibited from doing that. I may be misunderstanding the intentions of the Government—I hope I am—but I would put these questions clearly. First, will the Inner London Education Authority be held responsible for the school health service? Secondly, have the Government decided that even if they press to be allowed to appoint a school medical officer they will not be allowed to appoint one, even if they are insistent that it is the only way in which they can discharge their responsibility?
Perhaps before the debate proceeds further, we may ask the noble Lord to reply to the noble Baroness and also to the questions I have just asked. From our point of view, it would be in the administrative sense rather wicked—I do not use that word in the moral sense, but in the sense that it would be an enormity—to say to an authority, "You are responsible for the health of the children, but if you come to us and ask to be allowed to appoint a school medical officer, we have decided in advance that on no account will you be allowed to do that thing which you regard as essential". Perhaps the noble Lord, when he replies to the noble Baroness, will answer those questions specifically.
9.50 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: When the noble Baroness moved this Amendment she apologised quite unnecessarily for moving two Amendments running. I could not help feeling that if any apology were needed, it would be from me for speaking so much on Part IV of the Bill. I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment, but I am reasonably hopeful that I may be able to satisfy both the noble Baroness and the noble Earl. I do not say more than "reasonably hopeful".
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: One hundred per cent!
LORD NEWTON: The purpose of Clause 32 as drafted is to ensure the integration of the school medical services, which will be the responsibility of the Inner London Education Authority—and I think that is the answer to one of the noble Earl's questions—with the personal health service, which will be the responsibility
268
of the boroughs in inner London. Throughout the country arrangements for the health—
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: May I interrupt the noble Lord? He says that he has answered one of my questions. I asked whether the Inner London Authority would be held responsible for school health services. I gather the answer to that is "Yes ".
LORD NEWTON: Yes. The position throughout the country is that arrangements for the health and education authorities (which are under the same councils although they operate through different committees) to share professional staff are virtually standard practice, and the posts of medical officer of health and school medical officer are nearly always held by the same person. These arrangements work very satisfactorily, and that is why the Government have thought it right to ensure similar integration of the I.L.E.A.'s school health service and the personal health service of the boroughs in inner London. In reply to another question put by the noble Earl, I am bound to say that I have not seen or heard anything to suggest that we shall be putting an unnecessary burden on the borough medical officer of health or that we shall be overworking him. However, I will certainly make inquiries to see whether in fact this has been suggested before. It is a new suggestion.
Nowadays the school medical service is primarily a preventive service—I think the noble Baroness will agree with me about that. It has changed its character down the years. Under it children are inspected periodically so that those who need treatment may be identified. If they are found to be suffering from minor ailments they are treated in school clinics by the staff of the school medical service, and if more serious defects are found consultants are called in. It is also a function of the school medical service to identify children in need of special educational treatment. Similarly, under the school dental service school-children are inspected to discover any dental defects, and these are treated in dental clinics. The local health authority maternity and child welfare service does the same for children under five, expectant mothers, and mothers with young children. The two services—that is to say, the services of the education authority and those of the

269
local health authority—employ similar professional staff on similar duties, and often in the same premises. To avoid uneconomical duplication of staff and the difficulties which would arise from separate staffs using the same premises, the most efficient and economical arrangement is for them to be employed jointly by the two authorities and to work under the direction of one medical officer responsible for both services.
This system of joint appointments has the great advantage of enabling the same staff to deal with children from birth until the time when they leave school. I need not stress the obvious benefit to all concerned of this continuity which is secured by this arrangement. If the I.L.E.A. had a principal school medical officer, with general oversight over the borough medical officers of health in the discharge of their responsibility for the school health service within their boroughs, it would mean that the borough medical officer of health would not have full responsibility for the school health service in his own area. He would, in fact, be subject to the instructions of the principal school medical officer.
But the principal school medical officer—and I think this is rather an important point—would cover only the school health service, and he would have no responsibility for the other health services with which we think it should be closely integrated, as it is so often all over the country. Thus he would not be able to look at the school health service in its full setting of looking after the child from birth until school-leaving age; and that he could supervise the borough medical officers of health who would have this wider view would surely be a most undesirable arrangement and not particularly attractive to him. That is why I am afraid, with all respect to the noble Baroness and to the noble Earl, I must support my honourable friend in another place, in thinking that the inherent disadvantage of an appointment of this kind is that it would not be likely to attract people of the right quality, because the field of activity would be so very restricted. The principal school medical officer would take no direct part in the health services himself. He would just be an administrator. It really seems to me, and, I can say, to my professional advisers on this matter—those members of the medical profession who advise me
270
in my Department—that it would be unlikely to appeal to a really keen doctor.
I now come to what I agree is the most important point, the giving of professional advice to the I.L.E.A. on matters of policy. I certainly recognise that the I.L.E.A. will want to receive professional advice on matters of policy affecting the school health services throughout this area. It is possible, as the noble Baroness suggested, that a committee could be formed of the medical officers of health who are the school medical officers in the London boroughs, and they could appoint one of their members as their chairman and spokesman and he could attend committee meetings of the I.L.E.A. That is just one possibility and I am not saying that it is an ideal one. Alternatively, the I.L.E.A. could itself appoint one of the 13 medical officers of health as its adviser on policy, and there is nothing in the Bill to prevent this. The same things goes for the dental officers. However, I would suggest that the best thing to do is to leave matters of this kind to be settled by discussion between all concerned.
But I should like to make clear that the jointly appointed staff will be responsible to the I.L.E.A. for the school health service, just as they are, or will be, responsible to the boroughs for the personal health service as well. So it would not be correct to say that the I.L.E.A. will be without professional staff. The clause as it stands does not preclude the appointment by the I.L.E.A. of some staff of its own, not shared with the boroughs. For example, the I.L.E.A. may need a medical officer to supervise its work with handicapped children in the special schools, about which the noble Baroness was concerned—and this, again, is a matter which can be gone into in detail when the schemes required under Clause 32 are prepared and submitted to my right honourable friend.
I also want to make quite clear to the Committee that Clause 32, as drafted, does not preclude the appointment by the I.L.E.A. of medical or dental officers of its own, not shared by the boroughs, at any professional level, if this is agreed, after consultation between all the interested parties, including the I.L.E.A., the boroughs and the responsible Ministers,

271
to be desirable. I am not myself convinced that it would be a particularly good idea; but it could be done, provided that they all agreed. On the other hand, the Amendment would allow the I.L.E.A. to take unilateral decisions on this matter, irrespective of the views of the other authorities and of my right honourable friends the Ministers of Education and Health. It seems to me that this would be undesirable, in view of the great importance, to which I have already referred, of ensuring that in London, as elsewhere in the country, the school health service shall continue to be planned and administered in the closest possible relationship with the other personal health services of the local health authority. That is why, as I said at the beginning, I cannot accept this Amendment. But I hope that I have made the position rather clearer than it was before, and shown that, in fact, if everybody wants to, they will be able to achieve a very large measure of what is behind the noble Lady's Amendment.
10.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: If any of my noble friends had been in doubt at any time about the justification for our opposing this Bill and this Part of the Bill, the speech of the noble Lord has given us full measure. I have never heard such shifts as he was put to in seeking to justify this extraordinary operation that is going to leave a disjointed skeleton, with responsibility unclear, and the whole thing dependent on ad hoc, almost haphazard, discussions, conversations and agreements between a lot of different people. It is a piece of administrative machinery to make one cry. Responsibility for education is given to the superior authority, the Inner London Authority, but they are not given the means of ensuring that the health education and the preventive health services are adequately carried out in those schools. Instead, that responsibility is given to thirteen different authorities.
LORD NEWTON: With great respect, that is not so. The thirteen borough officers are employed by the I.L.E.A. for carrying out those duties in the schools in the boroughs.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: The borough school medical officer, then, will be additional
272
to the borough medical officer of health—is that so?
LORD NEWTON: No. It will be the same man, but he will be appointed, for the purpose of his work in the schools, by the I.L.E.A., and, for his responsibility in regard to the medical health authority services, by the borough.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Then which has the say in the appointment?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Who is the captain?
LORD NEWTON: He will be appointed jointly.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Any noble Lord who has ever sat on an appointments committee would see that that really is absurd.
LORD NEWTON: I am sorry to keep interrupting; but that is what happens throughout the country. You have in an ordinary county a county medical officer and a schools medical officer. It is the same man appointed jointly by the health committee and by the education committee.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: He works for one authority; which is a vital difference. The twenty-eight metropolitan boroughs each now have their borough medical officer of health, one qualified man. These new London boroughs are to be three times the size. Is it proposed that they will still have only one medical officer of health and, besides his public health responsibilities for this enlarged borough, he will also look after the schools? I think the noble Lord ought to make that clear. I think we still have not had a clear answer to the question of my noble friend Lord Longford, who asked whether, under the Bill as it is, the inner London authority would be prohibited from appointing a school medical officer. The noble Lord has told us that they can appoint their own staff for school medical services at any level, I think he said. I am not sure whether that means at the top level or not. In any case, the scheme is that the inner London authority will have to submit to the Minister if it proposes the appointment of a principal school medical officer and dental officer. Will the Minister turn that scheme down? That is what we want to know.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am astonished by the speech of the noble Lord. I am relieved that in this debate I have not heard many Government speeches on that sort of level. The noble Lord will stimulate me to listen with a view to trying to point to the extraordinary inconsistency and folly of what the Government are saying. I understood the noble Lord to say (and perhaps he can make it abundantly clear) that the principal medical officers in each borough will be jointly appointed by the Inner London Authority and by the borough. This is what he implied. This being so, these officers already have a divided allegiance.
He then went on to suggest that similar professional staff—not the same professional staff but a similar professional staff—would use the same premises. In a situation like this confronting any large organisation, whether it be private or public enterprise or local government, it is clearly necessary to have somebody functionally responsible. The noble Lord has made it clear that the Inner London Authority have this responsibility. They are allowed an adviser; but the authority will presumably go through a non-medical individual. This seems to me to be a weakness. The classic answer, well applied elsewhere, is that somebody functionally in charge should be appointed. The purpose of this simple
Amendment is that there should be such a principal officer. What the Government say is that you can take one of the individual borough officers and appoint him. But if you can do that, why not allow the Inner Authority to appoint somebody not specifically tied to one borough, who does not have the wider responsibilities for health but who functionally will discharge what, in fact, is laid upon the Inner London Authority? I suggest the noble Lord might turn his attention to this particular argument which he will find will certainly be advanced by those who study public administration.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Having listened to the noble Lord, I feel very sorry for him. It seems to me that the noble Lord has been instructed to say, "No"; but his heart and mind showed him that he really did not have a case. Everything he said seemed to prove my contention that, unless we appointed these officers, it would not be possible to conduct the business of a borough effectively. In these circumstances, I feel that I might divide the Committee.
10.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Amendment (No. 156) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 56.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Latham, L.

Shackleton, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Lawson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Listowel, E.

Stonham, L. [Teller.]

Crook, L.

Longford, E.

Summerskill, B.

Faringdon, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Walston, L.

Henderson, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Hughes, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Derwent, L.

Kilmuir, E.

Albemarle, E.

Devonshire, D.

Lansdowne, M.

Aldington, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lothian, M.

Allerton, L.

Drogheda, E.

Mersey, V.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Dudley, E.

Mills, V.

Auckland, L.

Dundee, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Eccles, L.

Monsell, V.

Beauchamp, E.

Effingham, E.

Newton, L.

Bossom, L.

Falmouth, V.

Ormonde, M.

Boston, L.

Ferrers, E.

Remnant, L.

Bradford, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Rochdale, V.

Brecon, L.

Grenfell, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Swinton, E.

Colmondeley, M.

Hampden, V.

Teynham, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hastings, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Conesford, L.

Hertford, M.

Waleran, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Ilford, L.

Wellington, D.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Ingleby, V.

Willingdon, M.

Denham, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Youth employment service]:
THE EARL OF LONGFORD THE EARL OF LONGFORD moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Earl said: This Amendment would remove from Clause 34 the review of the administration of the youth employment service which is to be held not later than March 31, 1970. Unless the Committee wish it, I will not deploy the arguments on such a review, which are certainly strongly held on this side, because they are almost identical with those which were deployed so well by my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger and others against a review of the education service. I should not, however, like the Committee, and the Minister, in particular, to think that we feel any less keenly about the absurdity of this review, and in a moment, unless the Minister feels that he has some last minute seductiveness—
LORD SHEPHERD: Repentance.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: —repentance, or, anyway, some last minute something or other, which he can deploy in aid of the Bill, we will go into the Division Lobby. I should just say, as we are now concluding the educational part of the Bill—and it is difficult to say this without disrespect to the Minister who has struggled heroically—that the official replies have been remarkably feeble. We realise that is not in any way the fault of the Minister, Lord Newton, who is not in charge of education, but we regard it as rather lamentable that the senior Ministers of the Government should not have come to his assistance at all. In a matter of this kind, we should have thought that high-ranking Cabinet Ministers would have assisted their ardent but youthful colleague. As he faced the fire from this side I was reminded of the lines of Siegfried Sassoon:
"Speeding glum heroes up the line to death ".
That was rather the rôle of the Cabinet Ministers who were present. They were speeding up the line to death the noble Lord, Lord Newton, who, if not a glum, was a rather doleful, hero. In saying this I do not want in any way to reflect on his loyalty or gallantry under fire, but I ought to assure him and his colleagues
276
that we have been somewhat shocked by the utter futility of the Government's replies to these various educational Amendments. Unless the noble Lord wants to take up any more time on this matter, I suggest that we divide as soon as possible. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 22, leave out subsection (4).—(The Earl of Longford.)
LORD NEWTON: The noble Earl said quite a number of things to me in the course of the debates on Clause 30, but this is the first time he has said I was either glum or doleful. I have not taken exception to anything said so far about me, but I do feel a little hurt.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am sure it is much better than being called "complacent", which is the only other adjective which comes to mind.
LORD NEWTON: I should not have been very pleased at that either. The noble Earl said that the arguments which were adduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, when she moved her Amendment No. 154 really applied to this one too; and, equally, I can say that the arguments which I used then apply now. This Amendment clearly stands or falls on Amendment No. 154 on which your Lordships supported me in the Lobby. If that had not happened and your Lordships had accepted the invitation of the noble Baroness to leave out subsections (6) and (7) of Clause 30, and thereby to make no provision at all for a review by 1970 of the Education Service, it clearly would have been my duty to advise your Lordships to accept this Amendment which the noble Earl has moved. But your Lordships did not accept the invitation of the noble Baroness and, for this reason, I hope the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw this Amendment or, if he does not, that my noble friends will once again support me in the Lobby.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I should like to say one sentence only. It would appear that this is a happy ending to an otherwise not too happy day. It would appear on both sides, comparing the arguments on this Amendment, that the early arguments are so good that they can be used again.
10.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 158) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 57.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Hughes, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Latham, L.

Shackleton, L.

Champion, L.

Lawson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Crook, L.

Listowel, E.

Stonham, L. [Teller.]

Faringdon, L.

Longford, E.

Summerskill, B.

Henderson, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Walston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Denham, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Albemarle, E.

Derwent, L.

Kilmuir, E.

Aldington, L.

Devonshire, D.

Lansdowne, M.

Allerton, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lothian, M.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Drogheda, E.

Mersey, V.

Auckland, L.

Dudley, E.

Mills, V.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Dundee, E.

Milne, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Eccles, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Bossom, L.

Effingham, E.

Monsell, V.

Boston, L.

Falmouth, V.

Newton, L.

Bradford, E.

Ferrers, E.

Ormonde, M.

Brecon, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Remnant, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Grenfell, L.

Rochdale, V.

Chesham, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Cholmondeley, M.

Hampden, V.

Swinton, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hastings, L.

Teynham, L.

Conesford, L.

Hertford, M.

Waldegrave, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Ilford, L.

Waleran, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Ingleby, V.

Wellington, D.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.30 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: This is a drafting Amendment which is designed to clarify the intention of subsection (4). At the moment that subsection refers only to subsection (6) of Clause 30. This could be construed as meaning that the Minister was to be given only the powers specifically referred to in subsection (6) and that he was not empowered to include in the regulations any necessary "incidental consequential, transitional or supplementary provisions"—these being matters which are referred to in subsection (7) of Clause 30.
Clearly, if regulations are to be made there must be power to include in them transitional and similar provisions. This has indeed always been the intention of the clause. In view, however, of the slight possibility that the subsection could be interpreted in a very narrow sense, it is desirable to make it clear beyond peradventaure that my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour is to have, for the purpose of making regulations after the review, all the powers conferred upon my right honourable friend the Minister of Education by subsection (7) of Clause 30 as well as those conferred by subsection (6).
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 32, leave out ("the said section 30(6)") and insert ("section 30(6) and (7) of this Act ").—(Lord Newton.)
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I have not studied this Amendment as closely as I should, but I have such complete personal confidence in the noble Lord that I take it that it is entirely valuable and good, and therefore we accept this Amendment.
LORD NEWTON: I am much obliged.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: (LORD DILHORNE): This is the first time I have spoken to-day, but I am not speaking now in consequence of anything which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has said. My noble friend who has spoken from this Bench found himself so able to rebut all the fire, cross-fire and every other kind of fire that there was no need for me to speak. Therefore, there was no need for the rest of us to say anything at all. Having spoken for the first time to-day in these debates, as we have made such very good progress with my noble friend in charge of this part of the Bill, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, that the House do now resume.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

PROTECTION OF DEPOSITORS BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
LUCAS ESTATE BILL [H.L.]
Reported, without Amendment.
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL
Reported, with an Amendment.
MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (BOLTON) BILL
Reported, without Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment agreed to.

UNIVERSITIES OF DURHAM AND NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before Eleven o'clock.