LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL

HL Deb 23 May 1963 vol 250 cc423-44

2.45 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 35 agreed to.

Clause 36 [Expenditure on sewerage]:

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS)

This Amendment is to cover the case where the whole or part of a London borough or county district is drained ultimately to a main sewer or sewage disposal works of the Greater London Council and the borough or district or part of it so drained is, therefore, part of the Greater London Council's sewerage area, yet the main sewer serving the borough district or the part of it in question remains vested in the council of the borough or district. This should arise as only a temporary state of affairs, because it would be the duty of the Greater London Council under Clause 35 to vest the main sewer in themselves not later than April 1, 1970 (I would refer noble Lords to subsection (5)); but while it remains vested in the council of the borough or district, it seems right that their responsibility for it should be taken into account as indicated in the new subsection. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 54, line 21, at end insert— (" (4) The Greater London Council shall reimburse to the council of a London borough or county district any expenses (including an appropriate proportion of administrative expenses) agreed by the two councils, or in default of agreement determined by the Minister, to have been reasonably incurred by the borough or district council in the discharge of their functions in connection with a main sewer which is vested in the borough or district council and primarily serves the sewerage area of the Greater London Council, and any sums reimbursed by the Greater London Council under this subsection shall be treated as expenses incurred by the Council in the discharge of their functions relating to sewerage and sewage disposal.").—(Lord Hastings.)

LORD SHEPHERD

May I ask the noble Lord whether there is any special financial arrangement involved in the proposal?

LORD HASTINGS

Not specially. It merely says that the Greater London Council shall reimburse to the councils of the London borough or district any expense which they agree between themselves in this respect. If they cannot agree, then the Minister will arbitrate on it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 37 [Application of enactments relating to sewerage and sewage disposal]:

LORD HASTINGS moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Lord said: Amendments 158AB to 158AI are all consequential on the following Amendments in Clause 39, and perhaps it would be for your Lordships' convenience, if it is in order, to speak to Amendments Nos. 158J and 158K at the same time. The intention of these Amendments has always been that the new sewerage code will apply to substantially the whole area drained by the Greater London Council's sewers and sewage disposal works. The Amendments to Clause 39 provide that the sewerage area of the Greater London Council shall itself be an area defined by Order of the Minister. The first Order is to be made to come into force on April 1, 1965, and subsequent Orders redefining the area as occasion may require. The Amendments, therefore, do away with the need to refer separately to the original part of the sewerage area and the area where the new code is in force. Part V of the Bill need refer only to one area, the sewerage area of the Greater London Council, where the new code will automatically apply. The effect of Part V of the Bill will remain substantially the same, but it is thought that these Amendments considerably improve and simplify the drafting. This is a rather complicated and technical matter, but the Amendments are really a method of cutting out unnecessary verbiage and clarifying the meaning of the clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 54, line 22, leave out subsection (1).—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 54, line 39, leave out (" in which this subsection is in force ").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 55, line 2, leave out (" in which this subsection is in force").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 55, line 4, leave out (" the said parts of ").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 55, line 11, leave out (" those parts of ").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 55, line 13, leave out from (" London ") to (" as ") in line 14-and insert (" outside the sewerage area of the Greater London Council ").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 55, line 25, leave out from first (" the ") to end of line 27 and insert (" sewerage area of the Greater London Council ").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 55, line 28, leave out subsections (6) to (8).—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 38 agreed to.

Clause 39 [Supplementary provisions relating to sewerage]:

LORD HASTINGS

I beg to move this Amendment formally.

Amendment moved— Page 57, line 10, at end insert (" an area defined by an order made by the Minister as being ").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 57, line 23, at end insert— (" (2) An order under subsection (1)(b) of this section defining the sewerage area of the Greater London Council as constituted on 1st April 1965 shall be made so as to come into force on that date and subsequent orders redefining that area shall be made thereunder as occasion may require. (3) The Greater London Council shall keep, together with the documents relating to the business of the Council, a map or other document showing the extent for the time being of their sewerage area, and that map or other document shall be open to inspection by members of the public.").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 40 [General application of Public Health Acts]:

On Question, Whether Clause 40 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD SHEPHERD

I wish to raise a point of which I have given notice to the Minister in regard to this clause. It concerns responsibility for providing public mortuaries. This is a subject of which I have no personal experience, and I raise it merely in view of certain information which has been passed to me during the last two days. Unfortunately, I have not had time to put down a suitable Amendment to meet the concern that is felt in responsible circles. If I were to put down an Amendment, the object would be to remove the responsibility for the provision of public mortuaries from the boroughs to the Greater London Council.

I think it is right to say that when this Bill was first before Parliament the Government had in mind that these public mortuaries should be within the province of the Greater London Council, but at some time they changed their minds. Therefore, I hope that the Government will be able to give us some of the reasons for this change. The present position is that the boroughs provide the public mortuaries in the Greater London area. Their condition varies, of course, from borough to borough, but there are many which are unsatisfactory. The purpose of these mortuaries is two-fold. First, it is to provide, where the home conditions are not suitable, a temporary resting place for a dead body prior to burial. I understand that this requirement is slowly disappearing, mainly due to the fact that the undertakers are now providing private chapels.

The main reason why I am bringing this subject before the Committee is because of the other function of these mortuaries—an important one, I would suggest: that of receiving bodies, on the instruction of a coroner, in order that a coroner's autopsy may take place, and providing the right type of accommodation for such an autopsy. I think the Committee would accept that, for whatever purpose a public mortuary is provided, the conditions within it should provide dignity for the deceased person. We have a fairly complicated position. In the first instance, a coroner is appointed by the Home Office, and the London County Council—and, I suppose, in future the Greater London Council—will have the responsibility of providing coroners' courts. Where, for various reasons, a body comes within the province of a coroner, it becomes the property of the coroner until he signs the certificate handing the body back to the family. The coroner controls the court and the offices. He orders the autopsy, and pays the pathologist the fee required for the duty performed. I think it is right to say that the total expense of this service is paid for at present by the London County Council, and presumably in the future will be paid by the Greater London Council. It is also true that the coroner decides where the body should be taken should an autopsy be necessary.

The letter of which I came in possession, and which is the reason for raising this matter, came from Dr. Francis Camp, one of the leading pathologists in this country. His description of the position in the public mortuaries in London is very disturbing. He writes: Briefly the present position is now unsatisfactory and also in many cases extravagant and inefficient, and in my view is leading to working conditions for the employees which I would have thought were intolerable; and in some cases the employees are inadequately paid although this position varies from borough to borough. Some boroughs, in order to overcome their difficulties, provide this joint public accommodation, but there are others who try to carry on—perhaps they are forced to do so simply because other boroughs are not prepared to join forces with them. I think it will be accepted that it is important that adequate and proper accommodation should be provided for the person in his last moment's before being buried.

I think it would also be accepted, when one considers the need, as was very much emphasised in a recent conference in London of leading pathologists, that there should be an adequate type of accommodation, not only for the pathologist, but for all those who are employed in providing this service. On the occasion of that conference there were many scathing comments made on the type of facilities available. In fact, if my memory is right, one of the pathologists went so far as to say that there may be quite a number of crimes of murder taking place in which a pathologist is not aware of what has occurred mainly due to the lack of facilities and certainly the lack of training of experts in the matter.

I understand that some of the working conditions that exist in these mortuaries is one of the reasons why pathologists are difficult to obtain. I believe that if this service is as bad as I am led to believe, or as poor as I think some will generally accept it is, we should try to make a strong improvement in the conditions. Therefore, I think we have to ask ourselves whether the boroughs can provide the desired type of service and accommodation. It is true that the boroughs, as envisaged in this Bill, will be larger and stronger, but whether these boroughs themselves will be able to provide the facilities which this very important service requires is doubtful.

The advice that I have received, and I have taken it, is that it would be far better for this responsibility to be passed over to the Greater London Council. It is suggested that this type of service can best be provided on a county basis. I know that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, will say that there are other boroughs throughout the country who themselves provide this service, but, as the noble Lord well knows, while we recognise that some boroughs are able to do it, we are trying to see an improvement, and if we have the instrument of obtaining improvements, and it lies within the Greater Loudon Council, we should see that it is provided. I cannot believe that the borough councils, who are being given tremendous responsibilities and duties under this Bill, would in any way raise objections if this service were taken away from them and given to the Greater London Council.

This Amendment, as I have been advised, to bring the public mortuaries up to the required standard with the proper equipment and employees, may be quite an expensive undertaking and some boroughs may be reluctant to provide it. Some have been reluctant. Therefore, I rather take the view, from the facts I have been given, that it would be well that this very important service be passed over to the Greater London Council, and then they can make their plans on a county basis and not on a borough basis. I do not know whether the noble Lord can, at this stage, respond to the points I have made, but, if he cannot, perhaps he would consider them, and the many others that are available, between now and the Report stage.

LORD HASTINGS

If I may respond very briefly to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, the situation is a little curious and perhaps I should explain it to the Committee. As the Bill stands outside the L.C.C. area Section 198 of the Public Health Act, 1936, applies, and it says that: A local authority or a parish council may, and if required by the Minister shall, provide (a) a mortuary…; (b) a post-mortem room; and that section I refer to is one of the provisions made by Clause 40 of the Bill without modification to London borough councils. When the Bill was introduced into another place there was a provision, I think, effecting the transfer to the London County Council that the noble Lord wishes to see put: into Schedule XI. Then, an Amendment, which was passed, was put forward there deleting it.

LORD SHEPHERD

May I get this right? It was the Government's original undertaking that this would be Greater London Council's responsibility?

LORD HASTINGS

It was put into the Bill in that sense but, apparently, there had been informal consultations with representatives of some of the outer boroughs and the B.M.C.—only informal, I am not making a great point about this—and they appeared to object. That is the situation in the Bill at the moment.

I have listened to what the noble Lord has said. He has made a case, I think, and we feel that it would be a rather curious thing to do to put the London borough councils on a lower level than local authorities and even parish councils in the rest of the country who are dealing with efficiency with this matter. But, there again, I realise that the arguments about big conurbations, and so on, do not make the comparison absolutely accurate, and I think we should like a little more time to study the implications of it, and take it up from where the noble Lord has suggested, because there seems to me a little confusion in the first place by putting this into the Bill and then taking it out. I think if we could consider it a little more than we have, I could undertake to inform the noble Lord before the Report stage what our intentions are.

LORD SHEPHERD

I am most grateful for the noble Lord's reply, and may I put this to him? It is not only a question of consultations with the boroughs, although that, of course, is important. But I think there should be close consultation with the other interested parties, the pathologists, perhaps the coroners, and the like. These are the people, not merely the boroughs, who have to operate the service. Therefore, I should hope that the conversations they will have will not be limited to the boroughs but will go outside it to the professions.

On Question, Clause 40 agreed to.

Clause 41 [Port health authority for Port of London]:

3.8 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Common" and to insert "Greater London". The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to explore the position in which the Government have continued with the responsibility of the Corporation of the City of London as the port health authority. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has described this as a Bill which is to take us through the century so far as local government is concerned. Therefore, I think it is right, if that is the case—and it may not be the case, it depends on what change there may be at the next General Election—that we should consider the very important aspect of the port health authority for London.

According to my researches, prior to 1872 the responsibility for health in the port rested with the officers of Her Majesty's Customs, but the conditions were so chaotic during their administration that the Government, in a sort of desperation at the time, felt it necessary to appoint a local authority to deal with this important problem. To the best of my knowledge they decided that the City of London was the only local authority that was in a position to provide this essential service and, perhaps quite rightly, that they should look to the City of London, since its wealth and importance rested so largely on the Port of London with its shipping and insurance. As I understand it, in 1936 the Act which laid this responsibility upon the City became law and the City became the real authority for this duty. It may well be that the City (and I think this is recognised) has provided a first-class public health service in the port. But that is not necessarily a reason why this, in some ways, peculiar position, should continue. In fact, the Government themselves have been quite happy to abolish the London County Council, even though it is recognised as having provided a first-class service to the London community.

One must look at the area involved. I believe, that in the West it goes as far as Teddington, in Surrey, and, going West reaches right down into the River Medway. It is a very large area, embracing practically the whole of the Greater London area. It is bounded by the Thames, in the case of Surrey, and also in Essex. This raises the point of whether the City of London, seeing that we are now dealing with the local government of Greater London throughout the century, should retain its present powers. I think there is a considerable case for saying that the Greater London Council, since its area is so much involved, should become the port health authority, or at least should be in a position to sit jointly with the City of London to see that the services are developed, as they no doubt will have to be, with the march of time and the increased importance of the London Docks.

I fully recognise that the City of London have provided a first-class service. But since the City of London no longer provide the service out of their own rates (they are receiving a grant from the Government, I think, to the extent of 50 per cent. of the cost) the question of who shall pay is not a very great one. In my view, there is a considerable case either for transferring fall responsibility to the Greater London Council or for having a joint board of the City and the Greater London Council to see that this very important service should develop and be maintained. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 58, lane 34, leave out (" Common ") and insert (" Greater London ").—(Lord Shepherd.)

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LORD NEWTON)

As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said, the City Corporation have been the port health authority for the Port of London since 1872. I am afraid that I did not inquire as to why it happened at that date, but the noble Lord evidently did, and I am not in a position to argue as to the reason. The position to-day is that the City Corporation have a large and experienced staff of medical officers and port health inspectors, and rodent inspectors as they are nowadays called. The port medical officer is also medical officer of health for the City in respect of its functions as sanitary authority under the Public Health Acts. About 15,000 ships which visit the port annually are inspected, and over the years the City has built up a high reputation in the world of port health; in fact, the Royal Commission said in their Report that they were satisfied that the functions of the port health authority for the Port of London were at present being carried out efficiently and economically by the Corporation of the City of London and they saw no reason to recommend any change in this arrangement. The Government have not had any hesitation in accepting that recommendation.

The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, mentioned the size of the area for which the port health authority are responsible. I would suggest to him that it is not really incongruous that an authority of the City should be port health authority for the whole of the territory of the port, which runs from Teddington to Sheppey, and that it would riot be more appropriate that the Greater London Council should be the authority. The port area does, in fact, go far beyond the boundaries even of the Greater London Council.

Port health functions have invariably been conferred upon authorities or joint committees of authorities which are also sanitary authorities for the purpose of the Public Health Acts. This is not just a matter of chance but one of function. Port health authorities perform much the same functions in relation to ships in harbours, docks and so on, as sanitary authorities do in relation to the land areas under their control. The port health authorities also have certain other functions that can arise only in ports. For example, duties under the many regulations, such as the Public Health (Imported Food) Regulations, dealing with the fitness of imported food. In many ports the same staff are employed on port health and sanitary authority functions. In London the volume of shipping entering the port is so great that the port health work justifies a whole-time staff; but even so the service benefits from the fact that the City is also the sanitary authority. In the City there is a single committee, a single Medical Officer of Health to run both services. The inspection of meat at Smithfield Market is carried out by the City's public health inspectors, and the fact that these officers work to the same standards and under the same medical officer of health as the port health inspectors, who inspect meat imported by ships, simplifies the work of both the inspectorates and makes easier the job of following up any doubtful consignment. On the other hand, the Greater London Council will be a new authority with no related functions in the field of public health, and few of its members could be expected to have knowledge or experience of the problems of administering port health.

The main objection, in the Government's view, to the noble Lord's Amendment is the success with which port health authority functions have been carried out over the past 90 years by the City authorities. The noble Lord recognised that they have done a very good job; in fact, the Port Health Authority for London is one of the most progressive and forward-looking in the whole country.

LORD SHEPHERD

So was the London County Council.

LORD NEWTON

We are not talking about the London County Council at the moment. As well as its routine duties, the Port Health Authority has been most enterprising in research. For instance, it is at present engaged on a long-term study of the bacteriological condition of imported food, and it has been active in demonstrating port health techniques to students and visitors from many foreign countries and the Commonwealth, and over the years it has built up particularly happy relationships with the Port of London Authority.

These are a group of functions—I do not think there is any disagreement about this—which are being carried out efficiently, I might say very efficiently, by the City Corporation. They are not functions in any way related to the functions of the Greater London Council under the Bill, and I do not believe that there is any good reason at all to justify making any changes in the present constitution of the port health authority; and I do not think, either, that there would be any advantage in transferring its functions. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I thought, moved his Amendment fairly and reasonably, but there seems to me to be a case for saying that this job has been done so long and so well, as the Royal Commission themselves said, that there is no point in changing it.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

There seems to be no logic in the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary at all. He says that the City has been doing this work since 1870 something—

LORD NEWTON

Since 1872.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

About 90 years ago. The London County Council was born in 1889 under the Local Government Act, 1888. But when we consider the London County Council the Government say, "Do not be so stuffy. This is an old authority. It has existed for 70 years and you must be ready to change." The City has existed since 1300 and something and the port sanitary authority, for some reason or other, since 1872. Therefore, when the Government say, as they repeatedly do, with the Royal Commission, that the London County Council is a most efficient authority and has been such, and then the Minister comes along and says that it is a most efficient authority and therefore because it is most efficient there is no need to make a change, he abandons the argument about the length of age by which it exceeds the London County Council by nearly twenty years and falls back on the point that the City is the best port sanitary authority. I cannot pronounce on that because I do not know enough about the work of the City to do it.

The noble Lord says that the City authority is a sanitary authority. Well, it is a sanitary authority for a square mile, for a population of about 5,000. It is a tin-pot authority as a sanitary authority. On that reasoning, you might as well make the Woolwich Borough Council, or the Greenwich Borough Council, or the Poplar Borough Council the port sanitary authority, because they are sanitary authorities with larger responsibilities in that field than is the Corporation of London. The truth is that the Government are being partial; they have their favourites in the local government sphere and, above all, they are anxious to cut London up. Therefore, they defend anything that is liable to limit the powers of the Greater London Council and, on the other hand, defend anything that will preserve all the powers of the City of London.

I object to an authority covering a square mile being an important authority right along the Thames, I think from the Nore to Teddington or something like it. It is utterly illogical and absurd, and I cannot see why the Greater London Council should not do this job. Even if this is not a public health authority in the ordinary way, what does that matter? They can easily, and soon, learn the job and, if Parliament so decided, the City Corporation would aid them in learning the job. They might even take over these inspectors from the City; I think probably they would. Therefore the service would not suffer. But it really is absurd in this matter that the City should have functions extending many miles outside the City area. There are other functions of the City that affect London as well, like the Central Criminal Court and the markets. This I think is a clear case for the Greater London Council.

The noble Lord says that the Greater London area does not spread so far towards the mouth of the river or up river. That is true; but it extends many times further than the area of the City Corporation. So this is another aspect of the utter illogicality of the Government's determination to be a friend of the City and other authorities, and to belittle and limit the powers of the Greater London Council. After all, the Greater London Council is far nearer to the whole of the Port of London area than is the City. I can see nothing here, except the Government's affection for the Conservative square mile of the City of London and their basic, obstinate, continuous dislike of the Greater London Council, which they have felt they must bring into existence but with a desire to make its powers as near as possible to those of the old metropolitan Board of Works. I hope that we shall press this Amendment.

LORD REA

I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in this suggestion. I am afraid I do not support altogether the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, because I have not this criticism of the City of London Corporation which he has. It seems to me from what I have heard from both sides that a most efficient job will obviously be done by whatever authority takes it on. The area is so wide, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said. Perhaps through a slip of the tongue, he took us through from Teddington West all the way to the Medway, which is about 24,000 miles. I think if he took us the other way it would be little nearer the point. At any rate this area seems to be one which would be more appropriately looked after by the larger body than by the smaller body, without the slightest reflection on the City of London Corporation on what they have done so excellently in the past.

LORD OGMORE

May I add just one word to the remarks of my noble Leader? I entirely agree with what he has said. I think it is ridiculous that an authority comprising the area of the Square Mile should handle this wide area, and obviously it is quite inappropriate that they should do so. As I see it, the whole object of the Bill is that we have the wider regional authority and then there are a number of lesser authorities comprising the various boroughs; and this is the sort of activity and authority jurisdiction which should come under the wider authority. But I have another objection, and it is my objection to the present franchise of the City of London. However well they may have done it in the past, I think that was because they had a chief medical officer from the City of Cardiff who had been properly trained in the capital of Wales, where of course the electorate is based on the adult suffrage of the population as a whole and not on a fancy franchise comprised of people who buy themselves the right to vote for various officers of the Corporation. Furthermore, if you go to the City you find there people who say they are members of the needle-workers' or the needle-sharpeners' guild, or the saddlers' guild or the spurmakers' guild, but none of them has anything to do with needle-sharpening or saddlery or spurmaking; they are nothing whatever to do with it. I think that to give any more authority, or even to give the same sort of authority, at this particular time, when we are looking into the whole future of London, to a Corporation, based on that absurd fallacy that the present Corporation is, would be quite wrong. I think the Government have spoilt this perfectly good Bill, which I support in principle—I do not agree there with the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth. They have ruined this Bill by keeping this ridiculous anachronism, the present City of London, as a borough. They should, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said, have joined it up to the City of Westminster. For that reason, as well as the reason put forward by my noble Leader, I strongly urge your Lordships to support this Amendment.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

I intervene only to utter one sentence. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord Ogmore. Lord Rea did not quite agree with my speech. That, I understand. What I said about the City was, I assure him, really quite gentle and mild stuff compared with what the general body of Liberals, especially in London, said about that ancient Corporation at the early part of the century.

LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON

Before we leave this particular clause, am I to understand that the Bill, which is most complicated here, seeks to endow the City of London Corporation with similar powers to those to be enjoyed by the new boroughs? If so, I think some defence for such a strange proposal should be forthcoming from the Government.

LORD NEWTON

I think the point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, is much wider than that which is raised by Lord Shepherd's Amendment. I do not think it is much good my saying anything more about this. Your Lordships have variously taken up your positions on the City, and even if I were the Archangel Gabriel I should not succeed in convincing the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, that the Government's intentions were honourable.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

That would be a bit hard on the Archange!

LORD SHEPHERD

While my noble friend, Lord Morrison of Lambeth may have used this Amendment for his quite genuine comments on the City of London, which he is fully entitled to make and in which his Liberal friends immediately joined, the purpose of this Amendment goes wider. I put it down not as an attack on the City of London, because I recognise the service that they have provided. All I am saying—and this is the purpose of my Amendment—is that since one is setting up the Greater London authority, and since for the most part the London port will be within the area of the Greater London Council, it seems to me 100 per cent, logical that you then should place this important responsibility on the authority which is responsible for this wide area. The issue is as simple as that.

LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON

Before we pass from this matter, I should like to say this, because, in all seriousness, it is an important point. The City of London is a most picturesque and valuable historical survival, and I, for one, would be the last to suggest that it should be abolished in the march of progress; but to endow it with the wide powers which are to be enjoyed by these new boroughs is surely to misunderstand both the history and the function of the City. It would have been much better if a special case were made for the City of London as to the enjoyment of certain historical powers and functions—which could easily have been done; and the day-to-day

Clause 41 agreed to.

Clause 42 agreed to.

Clause 43 [Modifications of London Building Acts]:

LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON moved, in subsection (1), after "Act" where the word occurs the second time to insert: "and to subsection (7) of this section ". The noble Lord said: The Amendments to this clause which

utilitarian requirements of a modern borough could be secured by joining the city to a neighbouring borough for that purpose. I do not think it is widely realised that the city is being elevated by this Bill into a super borough.

3.32 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 158A) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 72.

CONTENTS
Addison, V.	Inman, L.	St. Davids, V.
Airedale, L.	Kennet, L.	Shepherd, L.
Alexander of Hillsborough, E.	Latham, L.	Silkin, L.
Attlee, E.	Lawson, L.	Sinha, L.
Baldwin of Bewdley, E.	Lincoln, L. Bp.	Stonham, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.]	Listowel, E.	Summerskill, B.
Champion, L.	Longford, E.	Walston, L.
Crook, L.	Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Williams, L.
Harvey of Tasburgh, L.	Morrison of Lambeth, L.	Wilmot of Selmeston, L.
Henderson, L.	Ogmore, L.	Wise, L.
Hughes, L.	Rea, L.	Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS
Ailwyn, L.	Denham, L.	Margesson, V.
Albemarle, E.	Derwent, L.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Devonshire, D.	Merrivale, L.
Amherst of Hackney, L.	Dilhorne. L. (L. Chancellor.)	Mersey, V.
Ampthill, L.	Dudley, E.	Mills, V.
Atholl, D.	Effingham, E.	Milverton, L.
Balfour of Inchrye, L.	Elliot of Harwood, B.	Molson, L.
Beauchamp, E.	Ferrers, E.	Monsell, V.
Bethell, L.	Freyberg, L.	Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Bossom, L.	Geddes, L.	Newton, L.
Boston, L.	Goschen, V. [Teller.]	Perth, E.
Braye, L.	Grenfell, L.	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller]
Buchan, E.	Hailsham, V. (L. President.)	St. Oswald, L.
Carrington, L.	Hanworth, V.	Salisbury, M.
Cawley, L.	Hastings, L.	Salter, L.
Chesham, L.	Hayter, L.	Saltoun, L.
Cholmondeley, M.	Howe, E.	Soulbury, V.
Clwyd, L.	Jellicoe, E.	Spens, L.
Conesford, L.	Jessel, L.	Strathcarron, L.
Congleton, L.	Long, V.	Suffield, L.
Coutanche, L.	Lothian, M.	Swinton, E.
Cranbrook, E.	Mabane, L.	Wellington, D.
Craven, E.	MacAndrew, L.	Willingdon, M.
De La Warr, E.	Mansfield, E.	Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

were put down in names of some of my noble friends and myself have, I gather, been accepted by the Government, and perhaps they will allow me to congratulate them on seeing the wisdom of the courses we suggested. It means that the procedure for the revision of the naming of London streets is a matter which, to avoid duplication and confusion to citizens, fire brigades and ambulances, must be continuously kept under review. These matters have long been the care of the London County Council, and I have myself for some years in the past sat on these committees. I am glad to see that the Government see the wisdom of allowing the central authority to retain these powers over the whole area.

There remains, however, one matter which is covered by Amendment 161. This is a very complicated point, but I will try to explain it—perhaps the Government will correct me if I go wrong. As I understand it, the London Building Acts, which are administered by the central authority—at present the London County Council—include provisions for the procedures in those cases where people wish to build with projections beyond the permitted building line. The procedures for dealing with these projections—bay windows are one case in point—beyond the general line were properly dealt with in the building code which had legal authority under the London Building Acts.

As the Bill is now drafted, I am advised that this matter falls outside the normal procedure of the building code, and the Government have seen in this case also the wisdom of the Amendments which we have suggested. So much so, that they have sought to discuss the matter with the London County Council, to see how the Bill can best be amended so that the code will be continued. However, I gather that, so far, the technical difficulties have defeated them. Unless they can find a way of bringing the appropriate provision into conformity with those applicable to the rest of the code, it will be a very great nuisance to people who seek to build beyond lines approved. Instead of a wide range of practices being approved generally, in the form of a code, each separate case will have to be the subject of some sort of representation and appeal. In these circumstances, it would be very helpful to all concerned if the Government would give some explanation of what they propose to do and, in addition, confirm what I believe to be correct and what I have said: that the point of Amendment No. 159 has been accepted by the Government and embodied in their own Amendments. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 60, line 15, after (" Act ") insert the said words.—(Lord Wilmot of Selmeston.)

LORD HASTINGS

The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, has put me into rather a difficult position, because he has managed to move so many Amendments at once that I have great difficulty in replying. But, to make the situation clear, I should point out he is not strictly right in saying that we accept his Amendments. It is true that we have put down other Amendments.

LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON

I think the Minister has misunderstood me. I do not blame him—it is rather complicated. The only Amendment I discussed was No. 161. It is not now necessary to press No. 159, because the Government have embodied that in the clause.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR)

The Amendment called was No. 159. That is the Amendment before the Committee at the moment.

LORD HASTINGS

That is the difficulty. We have not reached No. 161. We shall get to it. But, if the noble Lord would allow me to reply to the first part, which is No. 159, which relates to the naming of streets, it is quite true that by the Government's Amendment No. 159A we are accepting that part. We have put it in the draftsman's words; and so the power for street naming will be exercised over the whole of Greater London by the Greater London Council. Amendments Nos. 159B, 159C, 160A, 160E and 161A are all consequential on that particular change; and if I might therefore move 159A, we shall reach the others in due course.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD HASTINGS

I have just spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 60, line 17, leave out from first ("and ") to second (" and ") in line 21 and insert (" Part II of the Act of 1939 and any regulations thereunder and any other relevant provisions of the London Building Acts which relate to the said Part II shall, notwithstanding anything in section 4 of the Act of 1930, extend to the outer London boroughs; and

1. (a) the Greater London Council shall have the functions of the London County Council under all the aforementioned provisions; and
2. (b) the councils of the inner London boroughs and, in the case of provisions which extend to the outer London boroughs, the councils of the outer London boroughs shall have the functions of metropolitan boroughs under the said provisions.

(2) In accordance with the foregoing subsection, in the relevant provisions of the London Building Acts.")—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 60, line 26, leave out from (" council ") to (" that ") in line 33 and insert (" there shall be substituted references to the Greater London Council, except that for references to instruments of any description made by, or resolutions of, the London county council there shall be substituted references to instruments of that description made by, or resolutions of ").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 60, line 34, at end insert— (" (bb) for references to the council of a metropolitan borough there shall be substituted references to the council of an inner London borough or in the case of a provision which extends to the outer London boroughs, references to the council of any London borough, and references to a local authority shall be construed accordingly ").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

This is substantially a drafting Amendment, just to make clear that references to the London Building Acts mean the Acts of 1930, 1935, and 1939, and do not extend to the other Acts mentioned in subsection (5) of this clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 60, line 38, leave out from (" to ") to (" other ") in line 39 and insert (" the Act of 1930, 1935 or 1939 ").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL JELLICOE

This Amendment to Clause 43 is a paving Amendment for the Government Amendments to Clause 50, Amendments Nos. 187 and 191. There is another linked Amendment in Schedule 7, Amendment No. 288. They give effect to an undertaking given by the Government on the Report stage in another place that responsibility for the licensing of stores of petroleum spirit will be placed upon the Greater London Council instead of upon the councils of the London boroughs as the Bill stands. I should like to suggest that we might agree to this paving Amendment without prejudice. In that event, if the Committee decide not to make the Amendments to Clause 50 in the form in which they are set out on the Order Paper, we could perhaps reconsider subsection (2) of Clause 38 at a later date.

Amendment moved— Page 60, line 43, leave out subsection (2).—(Earl Jellicoe.)

LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON

I think the Minister's proposal can be agreed to.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

House resumed.