HL Deb 10 February 1994 vol 551 cc1719-48

5 p.m.

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 1.

Lord Hooson moved Amendment No. 4: Page 48, line 39, at end insert: ("Montgomeryshire Sir Drefaldwyn The district of Montgomeryshire together with (from the district of Glyndwr) the communities of Llanrhaeadr-ym-Mochnant, Llansilin and Llangedwyn.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was reassured when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in replying to the previous debate emphasised the importance that the Government attached to the views of the community councils in the area immediately surrounding Cardiff, in particular those of the Vale of Glamorgan. He reminded us of the principles that are set out in the White Paper whereby the Government would seek to provide a unit of local government which accorded with the traditional loyalty of the people in that area. At this time, those principles and the weighting in favour of the views of the localities should also be exercised in favour of Montgomeryshire, Brecon and Radnor.

The noble and learned Lord should be aware that not a single community council in Montgomeryshire is in favour of a unitary authority for Mid Wales, or Powys, as it is proposed by amendment to call it. Historically, Brecon and Radnor have no claim to be part of Powys, but I agree that as a name Powys is a more acceptable description than Mid Wales.

Noble Lords will know that I am totally convinced that the proposal for a Mid Wales unitary authority is wrong and totally unjustified. I have spoken on this subject during our debate on the Queen's Speech, at Second Reading and at Committee stage. I shall not repeat my arguments save to summarise them in this way. Historically, all the arguments are in favour of such a proposal. In terms of ancient history, Montgomeryshire was a Tudor creation and prior to that was part of the old Kingdom of Powys. The modern history of Montgomeryshire is that it had a very successful county council and it was particularly famous for its education system. From 1974 it has been a very successful district council.

Secondly, I should like to refer to the geography and communications argument. I can sum up the matter by quoting a letter that was circulated by the Director of Education for Powys, dated 19th January 1994. It was addressed to every school governor in Powys and invited them to a government training session at Newtown High School. The last paragraph, which was written entirely unsuspectingly, without knowledge that it might be quoted in this debate, reads as follows: This letter is being circulated to all Powys Governing Bodies although it is appreciated that the distance might be too great for some to attend".

Newtown is no further from the southernmost part of Powys in South Breconshire than Llandindrod Wells is from the most north-eastern or north-western part of Montgomery. Under the Government's proposal people will be expected to make that journey every day, or every time that they are required to attend the new Unitary Council.

The third matter concerns the attitude of and the promise that was made by the Secretary of State. In 1991 when the consultation paper was issued he was in favour of a Montgomeryshire unitary authority. Consultations took place and in 1992 he announced that he was in favour of that unitary authority. The somersault between 1992 and 1993 is still unexplained. A promise of a Montgomeryshire unitary authority was made to the Conservative meeting at Llanfechain in Montgomeryshire during the election campaign.

The fourth argument is that the national opinion poll that was taken in Montgomeryshire showed that 76 per cent. of the people were in favour of a Montgomeryshire unitary authority—what price democracy, what price the attention paid to the views of local people?

The campaign for Montgomeryshire has all-party support. It has been totally supported by the local Conservative Association. I am informed by a very prominent Conservative who is on my committee, Mr. Lesley Morgan, that the area committee for the Conservative Party in Wales was overwhelmingly, with one dissentient, in favour of a Montgomeryshire unitary authority.

I should now like to comment on the arguments that were advanced by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in the previous debate when he stated that there were serious doubts about the ability of smaller authorities to manage their resources. There were no grounds for that statement. An analysis has been made from models drawn up by the Welsh district councils and it has been checked by Touche Ross. It indicated that the probable difference between two unitary authorities in Powys, one based in Montgomery and the other in Brecon and Radnor, was eight senior officers.

That exercise was relied upon greatly by the Welsh Office, which accepted it for many purposes. One ought to remember, too, that the Powys unitary authority that was then being considered preceded any proposals for the area committees that are now proposed in Clauses 26 and 27. If those area committees are to mean anything and if they are to be manned properly, the number of senior officers will have to be very much larger.

I conclude that the two-authority unitary structure without area committees will be cheaper than one unitary authority structure for the whole of Powys with area committees.

The Secretary of State and the noble and learned Lord have referred to the Mid Wales population problem. However population is only a factor in considering the right unit for a unitary authority, it is not "the" factor. It has to be balanced against other factors and in the case of Mid Wales, a more important factor is the nature of the area and communications.

A question was raised as to the ability of a smaller authority to attract staff of calibre. In Montgomeryshire experience has proved that it is possible to attract very good quality staff. They are often attracted at a young age to chief officer posts in small authorities such as Montgomeryshire. I indicated previously that three successive directors of education in Montgomeryshire have gone on to greater and larger things. They served much of their creative life in Montgomeryshire and left a great legacy behind them. People are attracted there by the quality of life which has less hassle. For ambitious people, as no doubt those three people were, it is a stepping stone, having first obtained a proven record in a smaller authority.

It has been stated that there is a need for joint arrangements and that the smaller the authority the greater the need for such arrangements. Joint arrangement is related not to the geographical size but to the problems that arise from, for example, strategic arrangements for traffic, land use, refuse disposal, economic development, transportation etc. I suspect that in areas like Cardiff, for example or Torfaen, because of their very nature it is much more important to have cross-boundary arrangements than it is in a large rural area like Montgomeryshire.

The findings of the structures group, which were relied on considerably in previous debates, did not as a whole argue against smaller authorities. Of course the county chief executives who serve on that structures group did so, but for a specific purpose. They wanted to retain many of the very large county councils. The arguments on the structures group were rejected by the Government, or the Bill would not be before us today in this form. Therefore to rely on its arguments for ammunition against Montgomeryshire is nonsense.

I should like to remind the noble and learned Lord of the recent Rowntree report on the impact of population size on local authority costs and effectiveness. That report concluded that: It would not be possible to conclude that there is a 'right' size of authority … for a particular service or services".

That must be right. It depends on a number of factors —the loyalties of local people, what they feel about local government and what they associate with it, as well as geographical conditions. All those factors have to be borne in mind when deciding on the right unit of local government.

There is one aspect which concerns me particularly and which I know has caused a great deal of anxiety and anguish in my part of the country. Why on earth did the Government change their mind between 1992 and 1993? They have not published any report as a basis for that change. They have not given us any proper explanation. It is time that they did so. What caused the Secretary of State for Wales to make statements in 1991, to repeat the same statements, after consultation, in 1992 and yet to change his mind in 1993 and announce that there would not be a unitary authority for Montgomeryshire?

There is a widely held suspicion, which is even shared by Conservative supporters in Wales, that it was entirely a political decision connected with what Mr. Redwood said last week when he visited Radnorshire. He said that he was very conscious of the sensitivities of Radnorshire. The local MP has said the same. I remind them that there are sensitivities in Breconshire as well as in Radnorshire, and the same applies to Montgomeryshire.

I share the view, although I recognise that it is not widely held in your Lordships' House, that even an authority as small as Radnorshire is quite capable of providing acceptable standards of local government as a unitary authority. I remind your Lordships that there are unitary authorities in Scotland with smaller populations than Radnorshire, and which cover as great an area, which have successfully acted as unitary authorities for many years.

I believe that it is necessary to look at the whole question again. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has come to the subject fresh from distant Scotland. We have been very impressed by the courtesy and care which he has shown in dealing with our queries. I feel that he understands our concerns far more than the Secretary of State. From the latter's reactions it appears that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has a deeper understanding and appreciation of our feelings on this issue than the Secretary of State himself.

The whole of an ancient county is pretty well united in the view that it should be a unitary authority. It is the only part of Mid Wales which is steadily growing in population. It has successful international businesses which were born and developed in the area. Because of its geography and history it has little connection with the former counties to its south. Why on earth then have the Government taken the view that they have? It is time that they indicated their reasons to the House and set out in detail their thought processes in reaching that conclusion. I beg to move.

5.15 p.m.

Lord Swansea

My Lords, I should like to add a few words in support of the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. I take it that he was speaking to Amendment No. 5 as well as to Amendment No. 4.

The Government seem to have got it into their heads that big is beautiful. I should like to express my disagreement with that view. Powys is much too large as it stands. It covers a quarter of Wales. As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, pointed out, it covers an area which is as great from north to south as the distance from Bristol to London.

I wish to hark back to my remarks at Committee stage when I made that very point. Local government should be local. It depends on the councillors having an intimate knowledge of the needs of the people they represent. They should have intimate local knowledge. Montgomery can easily stand on its own as a viable unitary authority. Brecon and Radnor could also form a viable unitary authority.

I should like to draw attention to a misprint on the Marshalled List. Brycheiniog is printed as two words and should be one. Perhaps my noble and learned friend could take note of that.

I believe that Brecon and Radnor would make a much more manageable unit, and Montgomery should stand on its own feet. Small is beautiful.

Lord Moran

My Lords, the amendment which we are considering is, as I see it, no different in substance from that which we debated at Committee stage, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kenyon, and rejected by your Lordships' House. The present amendment has been moved with eloquence by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. I believe that this is the fourth time that the noble Lord has put the case for a unitary authority in Montgomeryshire. I admire his determination and persistence. But I believe that what he urges us to accept is still unsatisfactory, because to meet the aspirations of Montgomeryshire it would be necessary, as I sought to explain at Committee stage, to override the wishes of the people of Radnorshire.

I have no doubt that the majority of people in Radnorshire do not want to be put together with Breconshire, which has a population that is nearly twice as large. They feel that they would be swallowed up. I was glad that when he summed up at Committee stage the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, said that the Government believed that a Breconshire and Radnorshire unitary authority would not meet the best interests or the wishes of residents of the areas, particularly the residents of Radnorshire. I believe that the Government are right to take account of those wishes and not to thrust them aside.

There are also practical reasons against having two or three small unitary authorities. As I sought also to explain at Committee stage, they are all too small for the services that local authorities are required today to provide for their populations. There is also the danger that if there were two or three authorities in Mid Wales they would be compelled to make joint arrangements with large authorities outside the area of Mid Wales, which would be unsatisfactory.

I am convinced that a single unitary authority in Powys would devolve local matters to local decisions by the shire committees. The same members would serve on those committees as would serve on the main council, and they would all come from Breconshire, Radnorshire or Montgomeryshire, as might be the case. I repeat my hope that if we have a single authority for Mid Wales—whatever it may be called—there should be the maximum degree of devolution to the shire committees. I believe that that is important. I am convinced that Powys would do that. I am also impressed by the degree of support among the business community and many others for retaining a single unitary authority for Mid Wales.

Lord Elis-Thomas

My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord's arguments on the structure of Mid Wales. I deployed some of the arguments with regard to Merioneth at Committee stage. I shall not repeat them. I believe that the arguments which I then put forward still apply with regard to Amendment No. 4 involving Montgomeryshire—or Sir Drefaldwyn, if I may treat both languages on a basis of equality.

The noble Lord referred to Powys decentralising to the constituent shires. It is not just a matter for Powys. The Welsh Office and the Secretary of State will approve all the decentralisation schemes, and similarly where a case is made out for joint working. As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and I have argued previously, it is possible to make out a case for a strong regional authority serving Mid Wales as a joint authority rather than a principal council, for strategic regional purposes. That authority would interrelate with the work of the development board, tourism council and the other regional bodies which already exist for Mid Wales.

However, the decision about joint working rests finally with the Secretary of State. Similarly, the establishment of joint authorities is again a matter to be decided by the Secretary of State. With regard to Montgomeryshire, I wish to ask the question that I posed with regard to Merioneth when we debated a similar issue in Committee. The Secretary of State and the Welsh Office determine the appropriate areas and functions for all the units. Let us not pretend that we are dealing with a simple unitary authority structure in the Bill. We are dealing with what will be a complex multi-layered system of local government. We shall have area committees, joint working arrangements, joint boards, principal councils, and community councils to which we shall refer later. If we have that structure, what is the difference between the Secretary of State overseeing the functions of a unitary authority based on Montgomeryshire—as the Bill provides—and an area committee based on Montgomeryshire? It is for the Welsh Office to determine in the final instance the appropriate function to be carried out, and at what level.

When I considered at the final stage the detailed paper on the powers of area committees, I was not impressed with the amount of decentralisation that the department appears to allow. I believe that we are still right in arguing for a series of smaller unitary authorities that will be able to participate in joint working arrangements under the umbrella of the Welsh Office —at present the Secretary of State, but one day, sooner rather than later, under the umbrella of an elected Welsh assembly.

Lord Gibson-Watt

My Lords, at an earlier stage, I referred to the fact that any government which tackles local government reform takes a great risk. The Labour Party thought about tackling it and wisely did nothing. In our wisdom, between 1970 and 1974 the Government decided to come forward with a solution. Most of what we did then was right, but some of it was wrong. The aspects that were wrong related to Dyfed and North West Wales—Anglesey.

So far as concerns Mid Wales—Powys as we now call it—we were right. The past 22 years have shown that we were indeed right because that council has worked extremely well. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and the way in which he defended the interests of his supporters in Montgomery. I should not like to be on the other side of a court arguing the toss with him. However, the fact remains that if a system has worked well, and if there is a measure of support for what the Government now propose, I hope that the Government will not change their minds and will continue to keep a unitary authority in Mid Wales which they will call Powys.

Lord Hunt

My Lords, I feel very torn in loyalties and persuasions in the light of the discussions. On the one hand, I am one who believes that over the years Powys in its enlarged state has done a good job. I should not have been sorry if no change had been made. I also believe that in its proposed reduced state it will do, if anything, a better job. Therefore my personal inclination is to agree with the Government. I hope that the area will be called Powys and not Mid Wales.

On the other hand, I have a great feeling of respect and loyalty to my noble friend in his contention that Montgomery should have its own status as the local authority. However, if that is so—and without it having been formally moved I speak now to Amendment No. 5 —I should feel very bad indeed in supporting Montgomery, while Radnorshire and Breconshire are lumped together. I believe that that would be an unhappy and difficult liaison. In arranging that pairing, Radnorshire, with its smaller population and lesser influence, would probably lose something to Breconshire. That would be a great pity.

My experience of Radnorshire over many years is that it is now perfectly capable—it may not have been so—of assuming the status of a unitary authority. I merely express to your Lordships my state of indecision, with a mild preference for the Government's proposal for Mid Wales. I hope that that area will be called Powys. However, if my noble friend's Amendment No. 5 is moved, I shall support it. In that case I would not support the lumping together of Breconshire and Radnorshire.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, surely the same arguments apply to the unity of Breconshire and Radnorshire as those advanced by the Government in regard to the larger authority of Powys. If it is argued that Montgomeryshire can still have many of the powers delegated to an area committee, the same can be true of Radnorshire. It would not be overwhelmed by Breconshire, as my noble friend feared, because there are already provisions in the Bill for many functions to be dealt with at a lower level. Radnorshire could assume as many of those functions as it was fit to carry out.

That is the answer that I would put to the people in Radnorshire who are anxious about the proposal in my noble friend's amendment that they should be lumped in with Breconshire. The same provisions apply to them on devolution as would apply from the Government's side for devolution from the unitary authority of Powys to the three constituent counties that that would include.

5.30 p.m.

Lord Kenyon

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, pointed out, I moved this amendment at Committee stage and I am pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, at Report stage. When we discussed the amendment at Committee stage, my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate expressed concern that the division into smaller authorities would increase the number and complexity of joint arrangements. True, it would increase the number, though I have no reason to believe that it would necessarily increase their complexity. What my noble friend failed to add was that it would reduce the number of decentralisation schemes, and those will be infinitely more complex than any joint arrangement.

The other concern that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate saw as a more important impediment to agreeing to the amendment was the proportionately greater central overheads that would be required to run two separate authorities as opposed to one larger one. Although that may be true, the debit side—which is the cost of running the decentralisation schemes, which will be unavoidable for that authority—must also be taken into account. I remain convinced that this new authority is not in the interests of the residents of the areas and that a far better quality of local government will be achieved at very little extra cost by agreeing to the amendment.

Baroness White

My Lords, I suspect that I am probably the only Member of the House present who has not lived in Radnorshire but has lived in both Montgomeryshire and Breconshire. Therefore, I have personal experience. I feel that the best argument used so far is that which we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Kenyon. Knowing the Montgomeryshire pattern, I am strongly of the view that it is perfectly able to manage its own affairs on the basis that we have been discussing for the authorities in general. The difficulty is that Radnorshire has a small population; of course, it makes up for that in its quality, I have no doubt. My noble friend Lord Williams is a Radnorshire man. No one impugns the quality of Radnorshire, merely its rather low population.

My view is that it would, frankly, be much better to let the three units do as much as they possibly can under the provisions of the Bill, and that they should do it in local matters at least as separate units. One can see the difficulties of putting them all together. The physical difficulties of distance are quite serious, particularly with staff. It seems to me that the more one can do in each of the three separate units, the better. We shall obviously have to have joint arrangements in certain areas, but that can be managed. There are so many possibilities under this complicated Bill that I do not believe it is beyond the skill of the noble and learned Lord to find some way of sorting out the genuine problems and also the good opportunities for a Mid Wales administration. I use the words "Mid Wales" by a slip of the tongue, because I shall certainly support the name Powys rather than Mid Wales. Aberystwyth is in Mid Wales, so why should anyone suppose that "Mid Wales" would be an acceptable term? However, that will be dealt with in the next amendment.

Lord Howe of Aberavon

My Lords, I hope that I do not surprise colleagues by rising momentarily on this amendment. Many years ago, in 1959, together with Tom Hooson, the late cousin of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, I wrote a booklet about the Welsh economy. We still mourn his death deeply. In the book, we put forward proposals for local government at that time and proposed the establishment of the county of Powys. We visualised it then as being a two-tier structure, as it became. I can see the justification for the larger authority in that context.

I have been impressed by the arguments of my old but still friendly opponent, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, in favour of his amendment and by those that have reached me from Conservatives within the county of Montgomery. I would not pretend to have close proximity to the details of the argument, but one question which has been repeated several times by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, is: how come the Secretary of State changed his mind? If the original proposal was for a unitary authority of Montgomery, endorsed on more than one occasion, what has been the reason for the change of mind? I have no doubt that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate will have an ample flow of words with which to answer, but they will need to be convincing.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has campaigned for years for the restoration of the status and powers of the ancient county of Montgomery. It seems to me that he has at least the satisfaction of knowing that the Government have been obliged to acknowledge the strength and the merits of the case. It is widely accepted that that is the true explanation for the rigid decentralisation in Clauses 26 and 27, which would have devolved some power to the Montgomery area committee, with the consent of the Secretary of State.

Of course, having designed that theoretical solution, it seems to me that the Secretary of State thought that he could now set Montgomery on one side and concentrate his efforts on wider issues. However, the people of Montgomery have not been satisfied. The point has been made that if there is to be a Montgomery area committee, with the consent of the Secretary of State, it becomes very difficult indeed to deny that historic county the status and powers of a unitary authority. For those reasons, we support the amendment. I add that, if Powys is to be retained, we would have thought also that the name "Powys", with its historical associations, should also be retained.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

My Lords, in responding to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Kenyon and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, at Committee stage, I outlined the considerations which the Government had taken into account in looking at the proposals put forward for small unitary authorities. I do not intend going through those considerations again today because, like the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, I do not wish to weary your Lordships with repetition.

As I have said on a previous occasion, the very fact that at one stage in 1991–92 there appeared a proposal for a unitary authority of Montgomeryshire shows that the Government have not taken any a priori hostile decision against Montgomery. There was no hostility at all because that was at one time envisaged.

However, what has happened since then is that the matter has been further considered by the Government. Although I understand that noble Lords have found nothing which has been said hitherto in any way convincing, I do not believe that I can greatly elaborate upon what has been said, except that the basis was that the Government have all along had two matters in mind. I have mentioned them already today: the local community loyalties and the delivery of high quality services.

In considering the matter, the Government have come to the conclusion that it would not be possible to deliver services of the quality required simply on the basis of having a unitary authority for Montgomery, perhaps leaving some other arrangements for Breconshire and Radnorshire.

The very facts that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and many others have spoken so eloquently for Montgomeryshire and that the case for Montgomeryshire was originally envisaged by the Secretary of State at that time show that the weighing-up process has been gone into carefully and that the decision was reached despite the strongly held views. Those views were not ignored. It would be very easy in one sense to say we accept those strongly held views and that is the reason to give way on this matter. But we had to consider the other aspect; namely, whether at the end of the day it would be a way to deliver the best and most efficient services.

Despite the strong emotional and historical arguments—all of which have been recognised, not ignored—the Government have come to the view that the structure that is proposed is the correct one. In taking that decision they have had regard to such matters as the increased overheads which would be involved in having a series of smaller authorities. I acknowledge that there will be some costs from the system of area committees. But for the reasons that I gave at Committee stage, the judgment of the Government is that on this occasion it is correct to have a unitary authority for the larger area which has been called Mid Wales.

In reaching that decision the Government have taken account of the fact—not exclusively but among other considerations—that the population in the case of Montgomeryshire would be about 55,000; in Breconshire about 46,000; and in Radnorshire, however high the quality, it would be only 23,000. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, meets that point head on and says that that figure would nonetheless be enough for a unitary authority. But the Government's judgment is that it would not be enough for a unitary authority. In that event one would be forced back to a situation where, if one removed Montgomeryshire, there would then be left Breconshire and Radnorshire. It seems quite clear that an authority bringing together Breconshire and Radnorshire would not be a popular authority, especially with the people of Radnorshire. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State referred to the sensibilities and sensitivities of those in Radnorshire. I am sure that he will take that factor into account, just as he takes into account the acknowledged sensitivities in the case of Breconshire and Montgomeryshire.

The Secretary of State has looked at this matter in such a way as to take account of those local sensitivities and of the fact that people in Montgomeryshire, Breconshire and Radnorshire, as in other parts of Wales, may wish to have their particular local services dealt with at a more local level. For that reason the Secretary of State has come forward with the proposals, sometimes called the Powys proposals, for decentralisa-tion. It is not a rigid formula, as was suggested; on the contrary, it is a flexible formula which can be adapted to the demands of any particular area of Wales.

The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, spoke at one point about joint working, and said that at the end of the day all these matters were subject to the Secretary of State. In fact, the powers of the Secretary of State in Clause 29 that relate to joint working are only reserve powers. What is envisaged is that local authorities will themselves wish, of their own volition, to enter into appropriate arrangements. It is only in a situation where they have not provided, where it is necessary, the appropriate local arrangements for joint working that the Secretary of State would come into the picture in the exercise of his reserve powers under Clause 29. In no sense would it not be open to local authorities to deal with matters themselves.

I believe that the combination here of the larger authority with the possibility of using decentralisation delivers that combination, which many noble Lords have recognised, of the need for local services to be delivered locally yet within a larger picture. The Government see that as the way to go forward on this matter. For that reason the Government are not able to accept the amendment.

I repeat what I said before: the Secretary of State has considered the points that have been made. I am certain that he has considered them carefully and sensitively. As I have said, it is not and could not be because the Government are unaware of the arguments that were put forward. The Government have not swept them aside. They have been considered. Nonetheless, at the end of the day the Government are satisfied that the structure which is proposed in the Bill is the appropriate one. In the circumstances I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, to withdraw his amendment.

5.45 p.m.

Lord Hooson

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the courtesy of his reply, which I must say again I found totally unconvincing. It seems to me that the Government have a preconceived idea now of population size and are trying to squeeze a very large area which has a particular historic background into a formula. I hope that the Government will reconsider this whole matter. I am very grateful to noble Lords from all sides of the House, from the Labour Benches, the Cross-Benches and the Conservative Benches, who have spoken in favour of this amendment and to those who have spoken against it. We are all concerned about a particularly difficult area of local government.

I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate whether he will go back to the Secretary of State and ask him to look afresh at this question. We have to live with this decision for many years. In 1972 in another place I raised doubts about Powys. I opposed it; and here we are 20 years later having a unitary authority for Powys thrust upon us and doing away with the district councils which were put forward then as the answer to the problem.

I return to what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon. I acknowledge that in the old days we were frequent opponents in the courts as well as in politics. I remember his book written with my late cousin, Tom, on the economic regeneration of Wales. It may well be that because of its particular problems the Government would find that the people of Mid Wales would prefer the status quo to anything that is being proposed now; that they would prefer the county council and three district councils to a unitary authority the size of Powys and area committees. If we cannot have unitary authorities, there is a good deal to be said for going back to that situation.

My own preferred solution would be that of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, who referred to the proposed development by the Forum for Mid Wales to set up an agency to provide some of the services. Historically Mid Wales has always included Cardiganshire. They have two universities there. Many of the specialised services could be provided on an agency basis by the universities. The Government need to look again at this whole problem. Rushing this matter through in this way will not do any good. This solution will not last.

I had dearly hoped to force a Division this evening. But I am advised that the government forces are present in strength and I have come to the conclusion that I cannot win because many of those who would vote have not heard the arguments or the debate. I am very sorry about that. However, the great thing is to make sure that we have the right solution for Mid Wales. I am quite certain that so far the Government have failed to find it. Having said that, I wish to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]

Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 6: Page 49, line 2, column I, leave out ("Mid Wales Canolbarth Cymru") and insert— ("Powys Powys")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the question that I should like to put to my noble and learned friend is why there should be this change. Why is there to be a change from "Powys", which is a short word of five letters only, to "Mid Wales", which is a much longer term and conveys nothing to many people? The boundaries of Powys are barely affected by this Bill. It is simply change for the sake of change. Whatever one may think of the concept of an enormous area such as Powys, we have lived with the name for almost 20 years. We have got used to it and are reluctant to change it. As my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt has said, it works very well. To my mind the area is still far too big, but that matter is behind us now. Let us leave the matter as it is.

I remind my noble and learned friend of the American saying: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The name serves very well as it is. We are used to it and have been living with it for nearly 20 years. There are already too many super-counties, amorphous bodies with names to match. I can cite only the gaffes of Teesside, Greater Manchester and that abomination to end all abominations, Hereford-Worcester.

The expense of changing the name to Mid Wales, as the noble and learned Lord himself said a few moments ago, will mean increased overheads in the way of increased expense to local authorities in changing all the letter headings. That applies to firms and individuals as well. It would involve them in expense which will be uncalled for and quite unwelcome to them. It increases the expenses of ratepayers, firms and individuals.

Spare us Mid Wales. I beg to move.

Lord Kenyon

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Swansea in this amendment. I am sure that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate will be pleased to know that the amendment does not involve any movement of boundaries. It is a very simple amendment. It simply seeks to remove the eminently functional name of Mid Wales, which conveys very little to anybody. I might suggest that noble Lords would not wish to be referred to at the moment as being in South-East England.

The name of Powys has been associated with the county since 1972. If, following the failure of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, it is to exist, then I believe that the name Powys is a far better name for the area than Mid Wales.

Lord Hooson

My Lords, I very much support the amendment. In fact there is a movement of boundaries, but that happened in 1972. Historically, Brecon and Radnor were not part of Powys, save possibly in Welsh mythology for a period of about 12 years when the son of Hywel Dda was said to have taken over Powys and extended it to the banks of the Wye, though it is believed now that the banks of the Wye referred to were at Llangurig and not further south.

Having said that, I am quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, is right and so is the noble Lord, Lord Kenyon, in supporting him. I thank them both for their sustained support on the whole subject of Powys and its relationship with local government reform. Obviously, it is better to have a romantic name like Powys rather than the utilitarian name of Mid Wales, which in any event indicates to most Welsh people five counties including Cardiganshire and Merioneth.

Lord Gibson-Watt

My Lords, I am glad to support the amendment and also, on this occasion, to be on the same side of the road as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. I should like to know one thing. So far the Government have not produced any reason whatsoever for the present Powys to be called Mid Wales. I quite admit that it is in the middle of Wales; but the reasoning behind the change has not been given to us. The expense to which my noble friend Lord Swansea referred would be quite significant for the local authority and in particular for each individual householder, who would have to change the address at the top of his notepaper. I ask the Government to think again on this matter.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, I merely wish to indicate once again that we are in full support of the amendment. We very much hope that the Government will give it sympathetic consideration.

Viscount St. Davids

My Lords, in April last year the Secretary of State's predecessor launched a consultation on names for the new authorities which invited views from local authorities, members of the public, the Welsh Place Names Advisory Committee and the Welsh Language Board. There appeared to be no strong support for retaining the name Powys for the new authority. My right honourable friend the present Secretary of State considered that Mid Wales would be more desirable, since it would not overshadow the historic names of Montgomeryshire, Radnorshire and Breconshire, with which so many people in the area seem to identify. The name Mid Wales for the new unitary authority would also remove the possibility of confusion with the preserved county, which will retain the name of Powys.

For those reasons the Secretary of State wishes to retain the name Mid Wales in the Bill. However, he will be taking very careful note of the points made today by your Lordships and any that may subsequently be made in another place. With those assurances I hope that my noble friends Lord Swansea and Lord Kenyon will be prepared to withdraw the amendment. In any case, they may like to know that under the Bill as drafted (that is to say, paragraph 20(5) of Schedule 14) the councils of the new authorities will have the opportunity to change the name of their area in due course.

Lord Swansea

My Lords, I must say that I am slightly disappointed in the response given by my noble friend. Every noble Lord who has spoken on this amendment has been in favour of it. He indicated that the Government may have second thoughts about the matter, particularly when it goes down to another place. Nevertheless, this is one occasion on which one might test the feelings of the House.

5.58 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?

*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 88; Not-Contents, 60.

Division No. 2
CONTENTS
Airedale, L. Hunt, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Jeger, B.
Avebury, L. Jenkin of Roding, L.
Bath, M. Jenkins of Hillhead, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Jenkins of Putney, L.
Bonham-Carter, L. Kagan, L.
Braine of Wheatley, L. Kennet, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L Kenyon, L. [Teller.]
Cadman, L. Kilbracken, L.
Carter, L. Kinnoull, E.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Kitchener, E.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L. Leigh, L.
Colwyn, L. Lovell-Davis, L.
Craigavon, V. Lyell, L.
Craigmyle, L. Marlesford, L.
Crickhowell, L. Mayhew, L.
David, B. McNair, L.
Davidson, V. Merlyn-Rees, L.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B. Milner of Leeds, L.
Dormand of Easington, L. Milverton, L.
Elis-Thomas, L. Molloy, L.
Ezra, L. Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Faithfull, B. Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Falkender, B. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Feversham, L. Newall, L.
Finsberg, L. Norfolk, D.
Fisher of Rednal, Norrie, L.
B. Gainsborough, E. Park of Monmouth, B.
Gibson-Watt, L. Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Gladwyn, L. Prys-Davies, L.
Goold, L. Richard, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B. Skelmersdale, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. St. John of Bletso, L.
Hanworth, V. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B. Stodart of Leaston, L.
Hollick, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Hooson, L. Swansea, L. [Teller.]
Howe of Aberavon, L. Swinfen, L.
Howell, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Howie of Troon, L. Teviot, L.
Tordoff, L. Williams of Crosby, B.
Turner of Camden, B. Williams of Elvel, L.
Wharton, B. Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
White, B.
NOT-CONTENTS
Aldington, L. Lane of Horsell, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Lauderdale, E.
Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L. Long, V.
Arran, E. Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Astor of Hever, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord
Astor, V. Chancellor.]
Birdwood, L. Macleod of Borve, B.
Blatch, B. Mancroft, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. McColl of Dulwich, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Merrivale, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Mersey, V.
Campbell of Croy, L. Miller of Hendon, B.
Carnock, L. Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Chalker of Wallasey, B. Mottistone, L.
Chelmsford, V. Munster, E.
Clanwilliam, E. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Cox, B. Orkney, E.
Cranborne, V. Orr-Ewing, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Oxfuird, V.
Cumberlege, B. Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Denton of Wakefield, B. Rodger of Earlsferry, L.
Dixon-Smith, L. Sharples, B.
Downshire, M. St. Davids, V.
Elton, L. Strange, B.
Ferrers, E. Strathclyde, L.
Goschen, V. Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.
Harrowby, E. [Teller.]
Henley, L. Trumpington, B.
Hooper, B. Ullswater, V. [Teller.]
Howe, E. Vivian, L.
Hunt of Tanworth, L. Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

[* The Tellers for the Contents reported 88 names. The Clerks recorded 87 names.]

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

6.7 p.m.

[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]

Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 8: Page 49, line 22, column 2, leave out from ("Ogwr") to end of line 24.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I return to the three small and historic communities of Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick, having a total population of about 3,200. They are currently within the area of the Ogwr Borough Council. The whole of the Ogwr district, except for those three communities, will be comprised in the new county of Bridgend. But those three communities will be transferred to the adjoining Vale of Glamorgan authority against their strongly expressed wishes.

Last June the Electoral Reform Society conducted a poll of the electors on the question of whether their communities should be transferred to the Vale of Glamorgan authority. The turnout was 76 per cent. and, of that high turnout, 86 per cent. voted against the Government's proposal. That confirmed that the overwhelming weight of local opinion is against the proposed transfer.

I explained in Committee that for centuries those three communities looked to the town of Bridgend for their principal services. They gravitated towards Bridgend in terms of social, business and cultural activity. We can also say that the vast majority of residents look to Bridgend for their health services, social security services, consumer protection services, the main Post Office services and their banking and financial services. That is not surprising as Bridgend is only two miles from one of the villages, three to four miles from St. Bride's Major and six miles from the third village.

Ever since the local authorities were set up at the end of the last century those communities have been part and parcel of the administration based at Bridgend, and they have been well served. I do not believe that even in Committee the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate indicated that there would be any improvement in the delivery of services. Under the Bill the local authority services will be administered by the Vale of Glamorgan. In that situation the important principle of coterminosity is totally ignored. As I said, there is no ground for believing that there will be an improvement in the quality of the services delivered to the people of the community.

The principal office of the Vale of Glamorgan council will be in Barry, which is 13 to 15 miles away. There is no direct regular bus service to Barry and there are no passenger trains serving the area. On the other hand, there is a direct and regular bus service to Bridgend. Therefore if things go wrong it would be far more inconvenient and costly to attend at the Barry offices of the council to sort out a problem and to seek a remedy. Local government services are extremely important to people and ease of access to the town hall is a significant consideration.

Those are some of the special and powerful reasons why the electors wish to be part of the Bridgend unitary authority after reorganisation. Their case is supported by the two district councils themselves and by the community councils serving the locality. Indeed, earlier on the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate prayed in aid the opinions of the community council. This proposal is being imposed on the people of these three communities against their wishes—this by a government who so freely propound in the Citizen's Charter and elsewhere the doctrine of consultation and choice. We ask whether it is fair that these people should be denied or deprived of a democratic choice.

These three small historic communities have another justified complaint to make against the Welsh Office. They are not being treated equally with other small communities up and down Wales which have protested about being transferred to adjoining new authorities against their wishes, although I take note of what was said earlier on by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. But apart possibly from those villages—I am not briefed about their position—and apart from the historic county of Montgomery, the Welsh Office has taken full account of the complaints of all other communities and rescinded the proposed transfer or, as Ministers call it, the scheduled transfer.

This comes out very clearly in the Notes on Clauses. Perhaps I may trouble the House by reading a few extracts. Paragraph vi explains that, the communities of Cynwyd and Llandrillo have been included in Denbighshire … These amendments reflect the weight of representations from the areas concerned

Paragraph vii explains: The decision to amend the White Paper proposals to include in Flintshire the whole of Delyn reflects the overwhelming weight of local opinion".

Paragraph x explains: The communities of Ystradgynlais and Tawe Uchaf have been added to Mid-Wales since the White Paper was published in accordance with the strongly expressed wishes of local residents".

Why then have the strongly expressed wishes of the overwhelming majority of electors of Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick not been similarly listened to and respected by the Welsh Office? On this the Notes on Clauses offer the explanation that they are, largely rural and agricultural, have more in common with the Vale of Glamorgan authority than with the town of Bridgend and with the industrialised valleys to its north".

Your Lordships will recall that this was the only justification advanced by the Lord Advocate when we discussed this amendment in Committee. Now that I have been reminded of what happened in Ystradgynlais and in Tawe Uchaf, this is a particularly inadequate explanation because it has been noted in Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick that the explanation did not prevent the Government from adding industrialised Ystradgynlais and industrialised Tawe Uchaf to rural Powys when that was the strongly expressed wish of local residents. So the people of these three communities ask why they are being discriminated against.

In order to ameliorate the position, it seems to me that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was suggesting in Committee on 17th January that this problem could be reviewed by the Local Government Commission when conducting its post-reorganisation review. But that review is in order that, anomalies can be identified and corrected".

Surely this is more than an anomaly or a boundary irregularity which has yet to be identified. Already it is a glaring mischief which is standing out a mile.

I very much hope that the Welsh Office will consider the case of these three communities very carefully indeed. But if the schedule remains unaltered, I have no doubt that they will appeal to the Boundary Commission. Then we ask: in a case such as this, why should the electors have to be burdened with the task of petitioning the Boundary Commission to remove a glaring mischief? Why should the Government treat the objections from those three communities so blatantly differently from those of the other communities which I have named?

I trust that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will see that these three small ancient communities have a genuine complaint against the Welsh Office on both grounds —that their voice is not being listened to and that they have been discriminated against. I very much hope that the House will support the plea of the communities and that the Welsh Office will reconsider its position. I beg to move.

6.15 p.m.

Lord Morris of Castle Morris

My Lords, I am usually quite ready to leave it to the silver-tongued eloquence of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies to plead for any amendment to which he puts his name. But on this occasion, I beg leave of the House to add just a little to what he has said in pleading for justice and fairness for this little group of communities. These are the tiddlers; these are the small people in this reorganisa-tion. Many of us feel, and feel strongly, that they are being swept aside and that proper notice is not being of them.

Since we discussed the subject of the amendment at the Committee stage I, like many others, have had further strong representations on this matter from the local area. I can assure the noble and learned Lord that feeling is strong in the whole of that area. I remind the noble and learned Lord that the electoral reform ballot which was held found that each of the community councils had an overwhelming majority of residents who were opposed to the proposal to transfer them to the Vale of Glamorgan—a 74 per cent. turnout on something like this and a vote of opposition of 87.5 per cent. Indeed, it was difficult at that time to find any support for this proposal except from within the Government in Cardiff and in London.

Quite apart from the clear message from the residents themselves—the people—there is unified opposition from the Ogwr Borough Council, from the Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council and from all three of the elected community councils themselves. On the basis of historical background, community interests, communications and bringing local government nearer to the people, these three communities wish and surely must remain with the new Bridgend council. Indeed, as was stated by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies at the Committee stage, and as he mentioned again today, the only public organisation or public figure supporting the Government's proposal is that of the present Conservative Member of Parliament for the Vale of Glamorgan parliamentary constituency. Why should his voice prevail against all others?

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

My Lords, at Committee stage I stated that the Government included these three communities—I do not believe it has been denied that they are predominantly rural and agricultural —in the Vale of Glamorgan authority in the belief that the areas concerned had in effect more in common with communities in the Vale than with those which make up Bridgend.

Wick is a small community situated in the Vale countryside. It is in effect an isolated community. Its character in that respect is very similar to the character of other villages in the Vale such as Colwinston. St. Bride's Major and Ewenny are likewise predominantly rural in character and to that extent they more resemble other small communities in the Vale than they do Bridgend.

Although I am aware of all the representations which have been made by the residents, it is true to say that, nonetheless, they show themselves in certain aspects of their daily lives as having a sense of being part of the Vale. That is to be seen by the fact, for example, that the residents of these three communities sometimes advertise their houses as being in the Vale rather than being in mid Glamorgan. In that sense they are in the Vale and they are not identifying themselves with Bridgend.

Geographically, these communities are a natural part of the Vale and they are separated only by an artificial boundary which really does not have anything to do with topography, the rivers or anything else. Again, that is shown by the fact that in winter it is snow-ploughs from the Vale which clear the snow from the roads in the Wick area. These are matters which show that these communities have a very real connection with the Vale. It is also true to say that the other two communities are close to the existing Vale boundary and parts of them are further from Bridgend than other places like Colwinston which are already in the Vale —a point which no one is disputing.

These are the factors which the Secretary of State has had in mind as I explained on a previous occasion. I also pointed out on that occasion that the Secretary of State will be asking the Local Government Boundary Commission to look at the boundary between the Vale and Bridgend when they undertake their post-reorganisation review. In that review the commission will be able to consider splitting existing communities so that, as noble Lords have already indicated, any obvious anomalies can be corrected. The report and recommendations of that body will be considered carefully by the Secretary of State.

I have explained to your Lordships the Government's position on this matter. Nonetheless, I recognise what has been said not only today but on the previous occasion in Committee. I have already conveyed the remarks made on the earlier occasion to the Secretary of State. I shall certainly not hesitate to put forward again to the Secretary of State what has been said today.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord take account of the fact that the inhabitants of the three villages want to stay with Bridgend? Does he regard that as an important factor?

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

My Lords, I hope that at no time have I suggested that that is not a factor. Since it has been stressed by noble Lords, it is a matter which the Secretary of State will have to bear in mind. I simply say to your Lordships that he will wish to take into account not only what has been said here, but also what may be said in another place by the elected Members.

Lord Morris of Castle Morris

My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down perhaps I may offer to help him a little on the question of estate agents and the selling of houses. I really do not believe that that cock will fight nor that horse run. If you are selling a house you are dealing in money. The Vale of Glamorgan is posh; Bridgend is not so posh. If you live in certain parts of London you say that your house is not in Kilburn, it is in West Hampstead because you can make a bit more money that way. The inhabitants of Wick, Ewenny and St. Bride's Major know which side their bread is buttered.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, because it is posh the Government may well be thinking that these three communities can help the Conservative Party to secure the Vale of Glamorgan parliamentary seat which they are holding with a majority of about 18. If that is the true reason and explanation for this astonishing provision in the Bill, we say that it is really an improper use of legislation. I am disappointed by the reply. The noble and learned Lord gave us about three or four indicators of association between the villages and the Vale which I shall not deny. I should have thought that there are about three times that number of indicators showing their association with Bridgend.

There is another point which was raised by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn. There is overwhelming evidence that the people of these three communities want to remain associated with Bridgend. At the moment I cannot recall the precise paragraph in the White Paper, but I have the firm conviction that it is stated there that the express wishes of the population can only be set aside if there are strong arguments on the ground of improved delivery of services. That is my impression and it is something that we shall have to check on.

Nevertheless, the noble and learned Lord said that he has reported the discussions in Committee to the Secretary of State. He did not give us an indication of how he responded. I sincerely hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will seek to persuade the Secretary of State to see that there is here a risk of grave mischief and injustice. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 9 to 12 not moved.]

Lord Howe of Aberavon moved Amendment No. 13: Page 50, line 7, at end insert: ("Port Talbot Porth Talbot The district of Port Talbot")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose to detain your Lordships very long in moving the group of amendments which stand in my name. They all have the same single purpose. They are designed to secure the survival of the borough of Port Talbot as a unitary authority rather than see it merged with the adjacent borough of Neath, as proposed in the Bill.

The case which I am making has been mentioned already in your Lordships' House; first, at Second Reading by the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, a former Secretary of State for Wales. He is currently out of the country and unable to support the amendment today, but he would certainly wish to do so. He and I, and another former Secretary of State for Wales, the right honourable John Morris—the present Member for Aberavon—also expressed support for it to the previous Secretary of State for Wales some months ago.

In Committee I was able rather guilefully to ride upon an amendment that was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for the survival of Llanelli and to commend this provision then. I do so now in a more orthodox fashion. The reasons underlying the amendment are extremely conventional—and none the worse for that. They were summarised in a sentence in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, on Second Reading when he said that it was upsetting the deep-seated loyalties of communities in Wales and that that is something for which the Government will not easily be forgiven.

It is difficult to overemphasise the importance of the separate sense of community that attaches to the borough of Port Talbot by contrast with the adjacent borough of Neath. Port Talbot has a long history. Although the borough was born by that name only in 1921, that was a renaming of the previous borough of Aberavon, a name that I am proud to bear as part of my present title. Aberavon can trace its history back to the first Lord of Afan at the end of the 11th century. I was proud to find in a location near Madrid not many months ago a map of the British Isles that was printed in Rome in 1677 which showed only three communities in the county of Glamorgan: Llandaff, Cardiff and Aberavon. That shows what an ancient history Aberavon has, and what a proud history Port Talbot has in its place.

However, they are two distinct communities, concentrated in two quite distinct valleys. Port Talbot has the more modern industrial history and was advertised in the days of the Steel Company of Wales by the phrase, "The City of Steel that never sleeps". The Abbey Steel Works there now employs under 5,000 people—about 4,700 people. In the days when I contested the constituency—in 1955 and 1959—when I counted BISAKTA, the British Iron, Steel and Kindred Trades Association (the steel workers' trade union) as my most important client at the Bar, almost three times as many people were working in that steel works. Port Talbot has gone through an industrial revolution on a painful but dramatically successful scale. The Port Talbot steel works is now one of the most modern and successful in Europe. That is one factor that gives a sense of identity and community to the borough of Port Talbot.

The borough of Port Talbot now extends up the Afan Valley to include many of the old communities that used to be in the former Glyncorrwg district council, such as Abergwynfi, Cymmer/Croeserw, Glyncorrwg itself, Abercregan, Duffryn, Cynonville and Cwmafan. All are separate communities that regard themselves as attached to Port Talbot and having not much to do with places like Ystalyfera and Gorseinon on the Neath side of the county. There is a serious difference of identity.

A long time ago now I was born in a house overlooking the Aberavon rugby football ground. I have with me a poster advertising the regular Boxing Day match between Aberavon and Neath. I am sorry to have to say that Neath won last Boxing Day. It was a temporary accident. For the Government to be proposing to merge those two participants in a sustained local derby is to risk the most fearful consequences. We like people from Neath as long as they keep their distance and I hope that they take the same view of we people from Aberavon, but there could not be two more distinct communities. It would be a mistake to merge them.

Port Talbot Borough Council—I have no doubt that this applies to Neath also—has a good track record of success in delivering services to its people and wishes to continue to build on that success. A unitary authority in the present location of Port Talbot has been estimated as likely to make substantial cost savings of about £1 million, without any adverse impact on the quality of the services that are delivered there, whereas if there were a merger we would end up with two authorities, each with a present civic building, which in neither case would be large enough to house the merged authority. Inevitably, some new municipal structure would have to be constructed at substantial expense and at least one of the old buildings would have to remain. One would be creating an authority which had all the qualities of remoteness which are currently leading my former constituents in East Surrey to favour a unitary authority which takes them away from the county of Surrey because, for the folk in Caterham, Kingston is a long, long way away, just as for the people in Taibach, Margam or Glyncorrwg, places like Ystalyfera and Gorseinon will be a very long way away.

Therefore, I think that there is a very serious case to be made against the merger which is proposed. Moreover, the survival of Port Talbot has commended itself to 95 per cent. of the local people in an opinion poll that was taken on this, and the survival of Neath has commended itself to more than three-quarters of the people in that community.

The case that I made to the previous Secretary of State for Wales which, as I have said, is supported by the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, and by the present Member for Aberavon, is being made on behalf of a borough with a strong histrionic history. There are now five notable preachers who can trace their birth to Aberavon. The noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, is one of them. I am another. Sir Anthony Hopkins is a third; Richard Burton is a fourth, and perhaps the most histrionic of the lot of us is, alas, not heard so much these days. I refer to Clive Jenkins. The House may count itself lucky that it is the least histrionic of those five characters who is the advocate now presenting this case to the House. Imagine what it would be like if all the other four were here at the same time, singing in some cymric chorus. I commend my amendment to the House.

I wrote my first political pamphlet in 1953. It was called The Lifeblood of Liberty and was on the subject of local government reform. The title page bore a quotation from a Dutch author whose name now escapes me, I am afraid, but who wrote that local self-government is the lifeblood of liberty. If that cause can commend itself to the Government, the Government will commend themselves to the people of Port Talbot. I beg to move.

6.30 p.m.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

My Lords, all noble Lords will be pleased that on this occasion my noble and learned friend Lord Howe is present to move his amendment. If I may say so, it was no less effectively moved for being spoken to slightly less histrionically than he thinks might have been the case if it had been moved by others. It was moved most effectively and eloquently.

The Government are aware—who could not be aware?—of the fact that the people of Port Talbot, just like the people of Neath, have a very strong sense of their own area, its history and their community identity. The Government are also aware that the rugby matches that take place between those two areas show them to be in rivalry in at least that sense.

Therefore, this is another occasion when, having taken account of history and the local sense of identity, the Government have had to take account also of the other factor that is mentioned in the White Paper. I refer to the need to choose unitary authorities which are able to secure the effective delivery of local services and which have the necessary population base for that. In the case of Port Talbot and Neath, partly for the reasons that my noble and learned friend has mentioned, the population and demographic trends over some decades have suggested that both areas would benefit from the kind of merger that is envisaged here, with the addition of the communities from the Lliw Valley, so creating a unitary authority which would have a large enough base to co-ordinate the strategic delivery of services. It would be an authority in which no single area would be able to dominate the others. That is something that must be taken into account when there is a sense of local rivalry.

The Government have acknowledged the strength of community identity in the areas by making a change which your Lordships may regard as being small but which in the light of the previous amendment is not so small. They have changed the name from West Glamorgan to Neath and Port Talbot. Furthermore, under the terms of Clauses 26 and 27, it will be possible for these areas, if they so desire, to apply for the setting up of area committees. That will ensure that certain aspects of the services will be decided upon and delivered by a committee which represents the local area.

Given the fact that that option is available, the Government believe that the unitary authority as proposed in the Bill is the best solution for this area. I urge my noble and learned friend to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Howe of Aberavon

My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate has dealt with these complex and sensitive Welsh issues with enormous sensitivity and skill. I join in paying tribute to him. I cherish the hope that his elegant style of advocacy will be deployed within the Welsh Office so as to convince the Fellow of All Souls who now presides in that distinguished place to accept this argument. A Scotsman addressing an Englishman on this Welsh issue yet has a chance of success, and on those terms I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 14 to 18 not moved.]

Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 19 Page 50, line 27, column 2, after ("Llangedwyn") insert ("and the district of Colwyn").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hasten to say that this is a probing amendment. It is not a takeover bid by Gwynedd of Clwyd. I wish to discover why Aberconwy and Colwyn has been split between the preserved counties of Gwynedd and Clwyd. I can foresee problems as to which preserved county official will do what, when and where. For instance, if there is a royal visit, which preserved county official will do what? Who will meet the royal visitor? Will it be the Lord Lieutenant of Clwyd or the Lord Lieutenant of Gwynedd?

I am also somewhat perplexed by the logic of splitting a county borough between two preserved counties. I had thought that one of the objects of the Bill was to encourage local affiliation and a sense of belonging. If my noble and learned friend can explain the Government's reasons for the division, I and many others will be most grateful. I beg to move.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

My Lords, my noble friend was kind enough to write to me indicating that he would raise this matter. The preserved counties are being retained for non-local government purposes only; that is, for the lieutenancy, the shrievalty, the magistrates' courts and, importantly, the parliamentary constituencies. In that sense, their retention is no more than an administrative and geographic convenience. My noble friend will have noticed that the Bill provides for the boundaries of the preserved counties to be coterminous with those of the unitary authorities. That will entail only minor changes in areas such as Llanelly, the Vale of Glamorgan/Bridgend boundary, which we have already touched on, and the Mid Wales/Wrexham boundary. These changes, however minor, are considered desirable in terms of facilitating administration and identification. It would be confusing, for example, for Llanelly to be covered by a different lieutenancy from the rest of Mid Wales. That highlights the reason why my noble friend has brought the amendment forward.

In three cases—Aberconwy and Colwyn, the Heads of the Valleys and Caerphilly—the new principal area is virtually bisected by an existing county boundary. In those cases, the Government consider that the changes needed to accommodate the new area wholly within one preserved county are too substantial to be undertaken without first having a thorough review of all the implications for the functions concerned. For that reason, the Government propose in these three cases to leave matters as they stand at present, but will ask the Local Government Boundary Commission to undertake a review as soon as possible after Royal Assent with a view to making proposals to amend the boundaries of the preserved counties as it thinks best. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule 2 to the Bill make provision for the Boundary Commission to undertake reviews of this type and thereafter to make proposals to the Secretary of State.

I hope that in the light of that explanation my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that detailed explanation, which will be a great help locally. One of the reasons why I moved the amendment was that I noticed that most of the preserved counties coincided with the unitary authorities. However, I understand that there is a difficulty in this case. It would have been nicer if we could have decided the matter now rather than have to wait for the Boundary Commission, but I understand my noble and learned friend's reasons. I am grateful for that answer and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 20 to 22 not moved.]

6.45 p.m.

Schedule 3 [Establishment of Principal Councils]:

Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 23: Page 54, line 21, leave out ("the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 was passed") and insert ("notice is given of elections to the new principal councils").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come to an old friend, an old chestnut, and refreshingly a topic which is not a boundary dispute between two areas. I hope that we shall not hear from the noble and learned Lord any dismal phrase about taking note of what was said in another place before anyone can do anything whatever about anything at all.

As I said when we discussed the amendment in Committee, it is simple. Its purpose is to shorten the period in which casual vacancies must remain unfulfilled. The months after the Act is passed will be extremely busy and difficult for all local authorities. They will need a full crew on board to stoke the engines. We can see no reason why there must be such a long period of unoccupied time, which could cause great problems for a new council if a key person happened to fall under a bus.

As it stands, the Bill could lead to casual vacancies in the elected membership of existing councils being unfilled compulsorily for a period of up to 21 months. That could mean that communities are unrepresented, which could lead to the political balance of councils being arbitrarily changed.

As I listened to the noble and learned Lord in Committee, I thought that I detected a whiff of willingness to accede to my plea on this topic. I raise the amendment tonight to ask what progress has been made and what he can do for us. I beg to move.

Viscount St. Davids

My Lords, when this House debated this matter in Committee, I advised your Lordships that the Government were prepared to consider a later cut-off date than that proposed in the Bill, but felt that the date on which notice of elections is given would cause problems for the reasons that I explained on that occasion. We are still considering a number of options. Our present thinking, however, is that 31st December 1994 might be an acceptable cut-off date. But the Secretary of State wishes to reflect on this further and will come forward with a firm proposal in another place.

Lord Morris of Castle Morris

My Lords, that is indeed a refreshing answer. I have heard a murmur from my noble friends on these Benches, from a quite improper sedentary position, of something that was going through my mind as I was rising to my feet. If the Secretary of State is to reconsider this matter, why can a proposal not be put before this House rather than another place, and very soon? However, I take note of the fact that the noble Viscount agreed that the ball is very firmly in the Government's court. I note also that the Government are minded at present to consider 31st December 1994 as a cut-off date. I too must think about that. It is not a bad offer but we might be able to do better than that were we to exert a little bit of pressure. Reserving my right to exert pressure on any part of the noble Viscount which comes my way, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 [Change of status from county to county borough]:

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 24: Page 3, line 45, leave out from ("purpose") to end of line 2 on page 4

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deletes subsection (2) (b) of the new Section 245A, as it will be, to be substituted in the Local Government Act 1972, on the grounds that the subsection is superfluous. The provision of subsection (2) (b) that notice of the meeting should give: a clear indication of the purpose of the meeting", would merely repeat the requirements of Part XII of the Local Government Act 1972. Those include that three clear days' notice of any meeting must be given and that the agenda must be published. I beg to move.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, I rise merely to say that the explanation given by the noble and learned Lord is to our satisfaction, and we are pleased to approve the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 8 [Community meetings and continuation of community councils]

Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 25: Page 6, leave out lines 8 to 10 and insert: ("(2) For the purpose of exercising functions on and after 1st April 1996, there shall be a community council for every community in Wales.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments to Clause 8 enable us to have a short debate on the role of that most important tier of local government; namely, the community councils. The effect of the amendments would be to establish a statutory framework of community councils throughout Wales; to make it easier to establish effective local accountability through those community councils; and to make it less easy to dissolve them. There is a later amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, which pursues that issue further.

The system of parish councils does not cover the whole of England; but since 1974 there has been a system of 900 community areas throughout Wales. The overwhelming majority of those—more than 750—have community councils functioning for their communities. There is a strong argument for ensuring that community councils should exist at that level of local government throughout Wales to represent the views of communities throughout Wales.

The suspicion that some of us have had is that the Government regard community councils as some kind of optional extra. Even in their early discussion document, although they paid lip-service to the role of community councils, they did not seem to be clear as to their functions and effectiveness. We feel that the principle of town and community government at that level should be written more firmly on to the face of the Bill.

There is another specific issue that I should like the department to look at. Following the reorganisation and creation of principal councils, there will be an uneven distribution of community councils within the areas of the new principal councils. In other words, in a number of areas there will be a principal council which will have part coverage and part non-coverage by community councils. That is an important issue. It may well be that the Boundary Commission should consider that matter. It seems to me that an unevenness of representation and tiers of local government may be created if some new principal councils are divided into non-community council areas and areas where there is representation by those community councils.

It is important to emphasise that community councils are not an add-on to the structure of local government. Many of us —decentralists and devotees of the principle of subsidiarity—have envied the strength of the community and mayoral system on mainland Europe. Many of us would wish to see such a strength existing at community level in Wales. We are well aware that we are not addressing a decentralising Government. We are addressing a Government who are increasingly centralising powers within the Welsh Office. I believe that in this case, a piece of democratic centralism would be welcome in the Bill, whereby the Welsh Office could ensure that every community in Wales has a community council of its own. That may then signal the reflowering of genuine local democracy. I beg to move.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, on this side of the House we share with others a commitment to the community councils. We wish to encourage their establishment. They can make a contribution towards harnessing local loyalties, and they encourage participation in the life of a community.

I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said; but I part company with him on the question of compulsion. The reality is that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to compel communities to set up councils. But apart from that measure of dissent, I support the amendment.

Lord Hooson

My Lords, I support these amendments. It seems to me that community councils are an extremely important part of local government. To most people, their immediate community is of the greatest concern. The further away you move from the immediate community, the less is the concern. After all, people take pride in their own locality, parish and town. Therefore, it is extremely important that we should promote community councils within Wales.

One of the most important functions is to give them some finance. If they have no finance, they face grave difficulties. The more responsibilities they take on, the more they find that they have to put an additional burden on the rate in their area. Some means must be found by which to overcome that particular problem.

I am all for getting local government as close to the community and to the roots of society as possible. It seems to me that the means of doing so is through community councils. One of my doubts about the proposed area committee system for Mid Wales (or Powys as it is now to be called) is the question of how it will affect the role of community councils.

7 p.m.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

My Lords, for my part, I would not disagree with much that has been said. The Government certainly recognise that community councils, where they exist, can play an important part in the life of their communities. As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, indicated, it is also correct that, where they exist, they may very well represent a very important level of local democracy. Nonetheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, recognised, they do not exist in all areas, the reason being that the people of those areas have not wished to have a local community council. Over all, I believe it is the case that they are more common in rural areas; whereas, for example, in Cardiff, they are less common. That probably tells us something about the kinds of communities with which we are dealing.

Where I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, and where, in effect, the Government join the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is in saying that compulsion would not be desirable, nor would it work. There is no proper basis for forcing communities that do not wish to have a council to establish one. If communities did so only because they were compelled, there is no reason to think that such a council would ever work or that it would satisfy local people. It would almost certainly be seen as the imposition upon them of an additional financial burden. For all those reasons, and while fully recognising the importance of such councils where they exist, the Government cannot accept the noble Lord's amendment.

Lord Elis-Thomas

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for taking the opportunity to emphasise the importance of community councils. I am certain that those communities which at present do not have such councils will take note of what he said. During the course of the Bill's passage through this House and the other place, I hope that there will be a further opportunity for both associations representing community councils in Wales to make further representations to the department on the lines of the amendment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Viscount St. Davids

My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage begin again at five minutes past eight.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Back to