CHARLWOOD AND HORLEY BILL (Hansard, 28 January 1974)

§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BARONESS YOUNG)
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill deals with a unique boundary issue which stems from the Local Government Act 1972. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment indicated when he introduced this Bill in another place, it raises no issue of local government principle; it is simply a question of the Government carrying out a pledge to the people of the parishes of Charlwood and Holley. The villages of Charlwood and Holley lie immediately to the north of Gatwick Airport, which is itself contained in Charlwood parish. Immediately to the south of the airport is the substantial urban growth area of Crawley New Town and beyond. Economic growth and urban development is also taking place in the Horley area. The existing county boundary runs between Gatwick and Crawley. So the whole of Horley and Charlwood are at present in Surrey.
When my right honourable and honourable friends came to consider this area in the context of the reorganisation of local government they considered that because of the links to the south it was essential to move Gatwick airport from Surrey into West Sussex. It also made sense to move Holley (17,000 people) and Charlwood village (about 1,000) into Sussex with the airport, and it was so provided in the Local Government Bill. This had the effect of bringing the whole growth area under a single strategic planning authority—West 112 Sussex County Council. There was, however, strong local feeling that Horley should stay in Surrey, even if it was therefore separated from Gatwick. So an undertaking was given in Committee in another place that if there were an overwhelming expression of opinion by the people of Horley that they should stay in Surrey, even though it meant being separated from the airport, they would be allowed to do so. A similar assurance was given to the people of Charlwood village, which adjoins the airport. Though on the merits of the case it was felt that both parishes belonged in Sussex, the case was sufficiently evenly balanced for the local view to be decisive. The new district structure would be viable on whichever side of the border were the people concerned.
But the Surrey interests pursued their battle to retain the airport, as well as Horley and Charlwood, right up to Committee stage in your Lordships' House, as was open to them, instead of arranging for a poll of public opinion upon the separation of Horley and Charlwood from the airport. They were once again defeated. It was only at that stage, after the issue of the airport had finally been decided, that the local people were really faced with the choice between their county loyalty and their links with Gatwick. A parish meeting followed by a parish poll were held straight away in Horley, and this poll showed a heavy majority of those voting in favour of the area staying in Surrey. Charlwood also pronounced in favour of staying in Surrey. But by this time it was the end of October and the Bill had received Royal Assent. It was thus too late to give effect to the undertakings by a simple amendment of the Local Government Bill, as had been contemplated. This is what makes the case unique, in that a parish poll could not be held until it was quite clear that Gatwick was going to Sussex, so that the residents were directly faced with the dilemma that they could either stay with Surrey or stay with the airport, but not both. And by the time the poll was held the Local Government Bill had been enacted.
There is no other case in which the Government gave assurances, as was done here, and were then unable to give effect to them in the Local Government Bill itself. I would emphasise, that it is this 113 inability to carry out, within the Local Government Act itself, an undertaking given in good faith, which has led to the Bill which is now before your Lordships. After Royal Assent to the Local Government Bill, there were then two possible further courses of action open. The obvious course was to employ the permanent procedure under the 1972 Act for the Local Government Boundary Commission to review the boundaries. But no change under this procedure could be brought into effect by the reorganisation date of April 1, 1974. So the area, involving nearly 20,000 people, would have had to move into West Sussex on April 1, 1974, and then move back again into Surrey later. Apart from all the administrative disruption that this would cause, it would involve considerable personal difficulties for the local authority staff serving the area. During the summer Recess the local authorities concerned on both sides of the county boundary came together and presented agreed proposals for a new county boundary. This new boundary would leave the airport in West Sussex but transfer almost all the inhabited parts of Charlwood and Horley, about 18,000 people on the northern side of the airport, back into Surrey. I think I should emphasise that this boundary was agreed by representatives of all the local authorities involved at county, district and parish level. We have accepted their proposals, and they are embodied in this Bill. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

§ LORD GARNSWORTHY
My Lords, I should like to express thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for the exposition she has given as to the contents and purposes of this Bill. She has, indeed, with brevity, explained the background. I think it right and proper that what she said should be placed on the Record because this is quite a unique Bill. I give it a warm welcome. As she said, it represents the fulfilment of promises given earlier. I think those of your Lordships who have followed this matter will appreciate that some of us felt a long time ago that it was not a matter that ought to be left to be dealt with by the Local Government Boundary Commission; and, indeed, we had something 114 to say about that. I think it is a pity that we did not have the Bill earlier: it might have avoided some of the difficulties that the Government have met in another place. But we have it, and we are grateful. Those of us who live in Surrey—and I think I can speak on behalf of the county council—are grateful that the Bill has passed through the other place and has now been brought before your Lordships' House. I should like to express the hope that in future Surrey will show that it has learned the lesson, and that if it wants to protect its territory it is not going to succeed by the kind of defensive action that it put up in regard to the area of Surrey under the Local Government Reorganisation Bill. I think it will have to show that it is on the attack. I should have liked to have seen Crawley brought into Surrey; it would have made much greater sense. I still feel that the taking away of Gatwick from Surrey was and is inexcusable. But there it is; what has happened is past and is now history.
This evening I have received confirmation that what is proposed in this Bill undoubtedly accords with the views of all the local authorities concerned at county and at district level, and certainly it conforms to the wishes of the majority of those who took advantage of the poll to which the noble Baroness referred. From this side we shall do everything we possiby can to hasten this Bill. The quicker it is on the Statute Book the better. There is great need of urgency if we are to have regard to the wellbeing of local government in the area.

§ LORD REIGATE
My Lords, may I make it quite clear that there is a totally bi-partisan approach to this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has supported it, and I, too, as I know this area very well, would like to support it. I think the Government, and indeed the Minister who made the pledge, are warmly to be congratulated on the implementation of that pledge. I cannot help thinking, with great respect to Mr. Graham Page, who made the pledge, that if he had realised that it would involve legislation he might have thought twice before giving it. But I am delighted he gave it, and I congratulate all those concerned on having implemented it.
115 I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, that half a loaf is better than none. Charlwood and Honey remain in Surrey. On that point there should not have been any question. To anybody who knows the area there could never have been any question of their being separated from Surrey. My only feeling is of deep regret that the mistake was made of transferring Gatwick to West Sussex by those who, quite frankly, cannot have known the area and the implications.

§ BARONESS YOUNG
My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, and the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, for the welcome that they have given to this Bill. I think it is important that agreement on this matter has been reached between everyone concerned, and I am very glad to have had the confirmation from the noble Lord. Lord Garnsworthy, that everybody at county, district and parish level is agreed. I am grateful for the welcome that the Bill has received.