Sitting of 11 December 1962

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  PAISLEY CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  GIBRALTAR

    Dr. J. E. Martin
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what representations he has received from Dr. J. E. Martin, now resident in Guernsey, asking that he should be allowed to return to Gibraltar; and what are the obstacles which prevent Dr. Martin's return.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Nigel Fisher): Dr. Martin has appealed against the Governor's decision that he cannot be given a certificate of permanent residence in Gibraltar. The grounds of his appeal are that he lived in Gibraltar prior to 1938 and that he has always intended to return there. Under the Gibraltar Immigration Ordinance the Governor-in-Council has absolute discretion to grant or refuse certificates and my right hon. Friend is not prepared to intervene in this case.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is there any criminal charge against Dr. Martin? If not, does the hon. Gentleman realise that Dr. Martin is a British subject and that Gibraltar is a British possession? Is it not somewhat anomalous that a British subject cannot reside in a British possession?
    Mr. Fisher: I know of no charge at all against Dr. Martin. He was refused when he applied in 1944 because of shortage of accommodation. This continues. The total area of Gibraltar is very small and there is an acute housing shortage. Further, Dr. Martin has never practised as a doctor in Gibraltar and there are plenty of doctors there.
    Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Gentleman has himself raised the question of engaging in medical practice in Gibraltar. Is it not absurd to tell me that, because there is a shortage of housing accommodation in Gibraltar, a British subject cannot reside there even temporarily? Is there not something strange about this?
    Mr. Fisher: Dr. Martin has not applied recently. If he cared to do so, there is no objection at all to temporary visits. Permanent residence there is governed a great deal by the housing shortage, and obviously must be.

  MALAYSIAN FEDERATION

    Brunei
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proposals have now been made by the Sultan of Brunei in relation to the Malaysian Federation.
    The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I have nothing to add to what I said in reply to Questions yesterday.
    Mr. Sorensen: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the House more information about the proposals of the Sultan regarding the Malaysian Federation, concerning which I believe his Answers yesterday were by no means complete? How long ago was he aware of the growing resentment against these proposals lest the considerable wealth of Brunei was to be dispersed over the other Colonies? Further, is not the cry of the rebels "Brunei for the Bruneians" in view of the wealth which they fear may be lost?
    Mr. Sandys: It is usual that those who have wealth are not too keen to share it with others.
    Mr. Healey: Without wishing to press the right hon. Gentleman too far on the current events in Brunei, may I ask him

    185
    at least to acknowledge the fact that the party which opposes federation won a clean sweep at the elections in Brunei last August and that the Sultan himself has not yet declared himself to be in favour of these proposals? Would he not agree that precedents in Central Africa and the West Indies make it most important that countries should not be compelled to accede to federations against their will?
    Mr. Sandys: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. As far as I know, nobody is trying to compel Brunei to enter the Federation of Malaysia against its will. It certainly is not in our power to take a decision of this kind. As I said yesterday, this is a matter which the Government of Brunei must decide on their own.

  NORTH BORNEO

    Piracy
    Mr. Turnerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many cases of piracy have been notified to the North Borneo Government in the first 10 months of 1962; and how many pirates have been arrested and successfully prosecuted in the same period.
    Mr. Fisher: Thirty-two cases have been notified. Nineteen pirates have been arrested and convicted.
    Mr. Turner: May I congratulate my hon. Friend and the North Borneo Government on the tremendous visible efforts that have been made since I last raised this case with his right hon. Friend's predecessor? I am certain that this visible effort by the armed forces to put down piracy is greatly appreciated by the people of North Borneo?

  KENYA

    Governor of Kenya (Replacement)
    Mr. Healeyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the resignation of the Governor of Kenya.
    Mr. Sandys: As has already been explained, my predecessor informed the Governor some time ago that, in the final stage of Kenya's advance to independence, it was proposed to replace
    186
    him by a man with political experience of a wider character. It took some time to find an available person with the necessary qualifications. But last September I was fortunate in securing Mr. Malcolm Macdonald's acceptance of the appointment. I am glad of this opportunity to express once again my appreciation of Sir Patrick Renison's distinguished service in Kenya and in other posts.
    Mr. Healey: While welcoming the fact that Mr. Malcolm Macdonald has agreed to accept this very onerous responsibility, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us are disturbed at the suggestion that administrative ability alone was an adequate qualification for the governorship in Kenya for the last year or so? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us are disturbed by reports, emanating apparently from the Governor himself, that there is disagreement between them on the pace of advance towards the elections in Kenya? Most of my hon. Friends believe that it is vitally necessary that the elections should be held in Kenya as soon as is absolutely possible, because the present uncertainty is damaging to every community in the area.
    Mr. Sandys: Regarding administration, the House knows that Mr. Malcolm Macdonald has had very extensive administrative experience, though he has not served in Africa.
    Mr. Healey: I was talking about the political qualifications of the previous Governor.
    Mr. Sandys: I allowed the hon. Member to put his supplementary question without interruption. I hope he will allow me to answer him in the same way. I was going to say that, of course, administrative experience is of great importance, but, in addition, Mr. Macdonald has proved himself outstanding as a conciliator and peacemaker and I believe that these qualities may prove to be very valuable in the state of intertribal tension which now exists in Kenya. I do not believe there is any basis whatever for the hon. Member's remark that, emanating from the Governor, there have been rumours that the change in governorship has been due to differences of opinion on policy. As I explained, this change was announced to the

    187
    Governor many months ago by my predecessor, and I am glad to have this opportunity today to make it quite clear that I fully share the hon. Member's feelings that the urgent and important issue now in Kenya is to get on and to get ourselves into a position to hold elections at the first possible moment.
    Mr. Turton: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the change-over of Governor at this critical time will not increase delay over administrative decisions, bearing in mind the fact that there have been complaints in Kenya of a certain amount of delay?
    Mr. Sandys: I can certainly give my right hon. Friend that assurance. There will be no delay. Those who complain of delay I think underrate the magnitude of the task of drafting the new constitution, about which I will have something to say in reply to a later Question.
    Mr. Healey: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the main complaint, both in and out of Kenya, has been about the extraordinarily dilatory nature of the Government's decisions to appoint the various commissions which must report before the elections are held? The Commission on the Northern Frontier district, for example, was not appointed until October, although the requirement of the Commission was announced in the spring. In view of his apparent desire to have elections held as early as possible, can he say whether he is yet in a position to state when the elections may be held?
    Mr. Sandys: I cannot say when the elections will be held. All I can say is that it is my firm objective to see the necessary preparations—which must be made before the election can be held, including the completion of the new constitution—expedited as soon as possible.

    Land Board (Chairmanship)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet appointed the Chairman to the Kenya Land Board; and when he will take up his duties.
    Mr. Sandys: I have appointed General Sir Geoffrey Bourne to be Chairman-Designate of the Kenya Land Board. He
    188
    will take up his duties early in the New Year.
    Mr. Turton: Can my right hon. Friend say what experience in African land this distinguished soldier possesses and whether he will be assisted in his chairmanship by anyone who has skilled knowledge in dealing with land in Africa?
    Mr. Sandys: One of the great difficulties has been to find somebody who was not mixed up with African affairs.

    Aged Sick and Impoverished
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of Kenya possess a list of those who through age, infirmity, remoteness of residence or other reasons can be regarded as security risks in the even of disturbances occurring in Kenya; whether such persons receive priority on compassionate grounds in cases of farm purchase; and what steps are being taken to assist them to move to safer areas or to Great Britain.
    Mr. Wadeasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking to assist the aged sick and impoverished who are now leaving Kenya, or are anxious to leave but have not the financial resources to do so.
    Mr. Sandys: About half the farms occupied by persons in these categories will come within the scope of the Settlement Scheme already announced. I am in consultation with the Governor about methods of dealing with the balance of the farms and with the problem of other types of compassionate cases.
    Mr. Turton: Will my right hon. Friend answer the first part of my Question? Is there a list? How many are on the list, and how many are on farms or outside the farm area? Is he aware that there is considerable concern about the plight of many of these people, some of them bedridden or old, who, if there is disturbance in Kenya, should be brought out to safer areas as soon as possible?
    Mr. Sandys: The Governor of Kenya has very full information about these cases. It is a little difficult to say how many there are, because it is not possible

    189
    precisely to define someone who is old, infirm or living in an exposed situation, but I assure my right hon. Friend that very full particulars are available to the Governor of Kenya about these cases.
    Mr. Wade: Do not the aged, sick and impoverished people we are concerned with here deserve very serious consideration on humanitarian grounds, quite apart from any political issues involved? Has the Minister no complete statistics on the subject? Further, what arrangements, if any, have been made for the welfare here of those who are able to come to this country?
    Mr. Sandys: When they return here, they will be like any other British subjects living in the United Kingdom.

    Constitution
    Miss Vickersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in preparing the draft of a new Constitution for Kenya.
    Mr. Sandys: The broad framework of the new Constitution was agreed at the Kenya Consititutional Conference earlier this year. The filling in of the details of the settlement of outstanding issues was left to the National Government of Kenya in consultation with the British Government. During his visit to Kenya in July, my predecessor decided that, although a number of important policy issues had still to be resolved, the drafting of a Constitution could begin. This was put in hand at once.
    The drafting of this lengthy and complicated Constitution, which contains many features for which there are no exact precedents, has proved an onerous task. Six of about fourteen chapters have been sent to Kenya for consideration by Kenya Ministers and one has already been received back with their comments. A further chapter is being despatched on Friday and the remainder will follow as quickly as possible.
    Miss Vickers: In view of the many changes 'likely to take place in Kenya in the near future, does my right hon. Friend intend to go there to see matters for himself?
    Mr. Sandys: I am planning to go to Kenya early in February. After consultation with the Governor, I am satis-
    190
    fied that that would be the most useful moment when a number of these issues will be ripe for discussion and, I hope, decision.

  HONG KONG

    Schools
    Mr. A. Royleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many new schools have been opened in Hong Kong since 1st January, 1962; and what is the present rate at which schools are being built and opened in the Colony.
    Mr. Fisher: In the first nine months of 1962, 159 new schools were registered, including schools in adapted premises. In this period 40 new schools were built and 17 extensions were made to existing premises. These new school buildings and extensions have provided 38,000 primary school places and 5,670 secondary school places. School building at this rate is still continuing.
    Mr. Royle: In view of that astonishingly impressive record, will my hon. Friend congratulate the Government of Hong Kong and press the Lord Privy Seal to obtain terms in Brussels which will enable Hong Kong to continue to thrive?
    Mr. Fisher: I thank my hon. Friend very much for the first part of his supplementary question. Regarding the second pant, I think that that raises a different question.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. A. Royleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what percentage of Hong Kong's exports to Great Britain could surmount the Common Market external tariff if it were applied by this country.
    Lord Balnielasked the Secretary of State far the Colonies if he is aware of the concern felt in Hong King regarding the Common Market negotiations; and if he will make a statement on the safeguards that it is planned to obtain in Brussels for the colony.
    Mr. Sandys: It is not possible, because of many unknown factors, to estimate the percentage of Hong Kong's exports to Britain which would be excluded, if the common external tariff

    191
    were to be applied by Britain. I am, however, aware of the concern felt in Hong Kong, and the representations I have received have been carefully considered. The European Community did not feel able to agree to the proposal which we made at the beginning of the negotiations that Hong Kong should be eligible for association. We are accordingly seeking alternative methods to safeguard the Colony's essential interests. The negotiations 'are still proceeding.
    Mr. Royle: Will my right hon. Friend keep the House advised on this matter during the coming months?
    Mr. Sandys: Certainly.
    Lord Balniel: Is it not a fact that one-third of the total population of Hong Kong are refugees from Communist China? Is it not expected that there will be an adverse swing in the competitive position of Hong Kong's trade with this country amounting to about 45 per cent. unless special terms are obtained for Hong Kong in the final Common Market negotiations? Would that swing not be very damaging to the position of the West in that part of the world?
    Mr. Sandys: Of course, I am well aware of the congestion problem created by this steady flow of refugees from China across the border. As regards the negotiations in Brussels, I do not think I can say mare than that we are very well aware of the quite exceptional importance of exports for Hong Kong, which really has no other means of livelihood.
    Mr. Healey: Since the Common Market countries appear to have agreed yesterday that Singapore, whose economic problems are similar to those of Hong Kong, should have the same sort of rights for exports and manufactured goods as proposed for India, Pakistan and other Asian countries, cam the right hon. Gentleman at least say whether Her Majesty's Government are requesting these rights for Hang Kong and, if so, what is the attitude of the Common Market countries towards that request?
    Mr. Sandys: I do not think that I can go into the details about exactly what is going on in Brussels in reply to a supplementary question.

    Grants
    Lord Balneilasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what grants the Colony of Hong Kong received from the United Kingdom, during 1961 and 1962; and how these compared with grants to other Colonial Territories.
    Mr. Fisher: In 1961 and 1962 three new colonial development and welfare schemes providing for a total grant of £238,125 have been approved and contributions totalling £12,369 have been made on account of epidemic and national disaster. Details of grants to other territories are contained in the Annual C.D. & W. White Paper and in the annual estimates; but any comparison of grants would also have to compare available local resources.
    Lord Balniel: Since Hong Kong has received so little financial assistance from this country and is almost self-sustaining through her own efforts, is not our moral obligation to protect her interests redoubled and would not failure to do this be very damaging to the export position of Hong Kong?
    Mr. Fisher: Hong Kong has considerable problems, but it also has a buoyant revenue and substantial reserves and we must allocate the available development and welfare funds where they are most needed.

    Housing
    Mr. Turnerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many new multi-storey housing blocks have been opened in Hong Kong since 1st January, 1962; and what is the present rate at which housing is being constructed in the Colony.
    Mr. Fisher: This year, under Government schemes, 43 blocks have been opened, housing 86,000 people. It is planned to provide accommodation for 168,000 in the next twelve months. On the average, one block is going up every nine days.
    Mr. Turner: In view of the incredible development in rehousing Hong Kong's homeless people over the years, on which both the Hong Kong Government and my right hon. Friend are congratulated, would my hon. Friend take the opportunity, if it is possible, to make available to hon.

    193
    Members any films there may be of redevelopment of this type in Hong Kong, so that hon. Members themselves may see what magnificent efforts are being made?
    Mr. Fisher: I will certainly look at that suggestion, and I thank my hon. Friend for his compliment.
    Mr. Lipton: Could arrangements be made for the Minister of Housing and Local Government to go to Hong Kong to see these developments?

    Wages
    Mr. Longdenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the percentage increase in wages paid in the Colony of Hong Kong since 1957.
    Mr. Fisher: Information is not available for a direct comparison with wages in 1957 owing to changes in the basis of statistics. It is, however, possible to say that during 1960 wages generally increased by about 15 per cent.
    Mr. Longden: May I again ask my hon. Friend to do his best to ensure that these increases in the living standard—increased in spite of the steady flow of refugees—are not imperilled in the Brussels negotiations?
    Mr. Fisher: We shall do our best, of course. I should further point out that the retail price index has been steady throughout 1960, the year to which I referred, and that therefore the wage increases represent a real improvement in the general standard of living.

    Defence Contribution
    Mr. Clive Bossomasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what sum is being paid annually by Hong Kong as a contribution to the United Kingdom's defence budget.
    Mr. Fisher: The Colony's annual defence contribution is £1½ million.
    Mr. Bossom: Will this large sum be endangered if satisfactory safeguards for the Colony's industries are not obtained in the Brussels negotiations?
    Mr. Fisher: I think that the contribution which the Colony makes is well within its economic resources at the present time, and I hope that that position will continue.

  FIJI

    Employment
    Mr. Loughlinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking to alleviate unemployment in Fiji.
    Mr. Fisher: The numbers of registered unemployed have fallen in recent months, but there is certainly a need to expand employment opportunities for the rapidly increasing numbers of school leavers. The main step being taken is the development of the land, as recommended by the Burns Report. This will provide employment directly, and also through the growth of related industries.
    Mr. Loughlin: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that there is great deal of feeling in the whole of the community about the difficulties that are being experienced? It has, of course, been suggested that a little more democracy might be shown to trade union leaders. Will the hon. Gentleman look at the possibility of instituting some public works to alleviate the unemployment in Fiji?
    Mr. Fisher: As I said, the unemployment figures have, in fact, fallen rather steeply. There were only 110 people —not very many—registered as unemployed in October, but I admit that this may conceal a certain amount of unemployment due to people not registering. As the hon. Member will know, many projects are being undertaken at present. I do not know whether he would like a list of all these public works—it is rather a long list.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: Will the hon. Gentleman look closely into prospective unemployment among school leavers on his visit to this part of the world during the Christmas Recess?
    Mr. Fisher: Yes, I will, indeed.

  MALTA

    Broadcasting Ordinance
    Mr. Loughlinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply he has given to the petition from the Parliamentary Labour Party in Malta requesting amendment of the Broadcasting Ordinance.
    Mr. Fisher: My right hon. Friend has mentioned this matter to the Prime Minister of Malta, who is looking into it and will let him have his considered views.
    Mr. Loughlin: Does the Under-Secretary consider that in this case "mentioning" is the appropriate action? Does he not think it scandalous that the main political party is refused facilities for broadcasting its political point of view, whilst other parties not representative of the people of Malta have full facilities? Where is this democracy to which we pay so much lip-service? Does he not think it about time that something was done?
    Mr. Fisher: Perhaps I should have said that my right hon. Friend has discussed this matter with the Prime Minister of Malta and not merely mentioned it to him. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Mr. Mintoff has put forward this petition. We have, naturally, sent it to the Prime Minister of Malta for his observations, and we are now expecting his detailed comments very shortly.
    Mr. Healey: But would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Malta Labour Party has been at some disadvantage in broadcasting during elections in Malta because of the way in which this Ordinance has been interpreted by the local courts? Is it not the fact that the Secretary of State still has the ultimate authority in this matter? And can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that when a reply is finally given to Mr. Mintoff's petition it will be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT SO that the House may know what it is?
    Mr. Fisher: Certainly, but the Malta Labour Party's proposal is to amend the Broadasting Ordinance in Malta without it going before the Legislative Assembly, and that the Ordinance should be amended to delete the reference to religious sentiment, so I do not think that we have yet come into the matter. We have had no representation on the subject from the Government of Malta, and no legislation has been brought forward in Malta.
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies by what authority the Governor of Malta enacted the Broadcasting Ordinance of 28th July 1961.
    Mr. Fisher: The Ordinance was enacted under powers given to the Governor in Section 22 of the Malta (Constitution) Order in Council, 1959.
    Mr. Dugdale: The Under-Secretary is well aware that the Broadcasting Ordinance contains in Section 7 (1, a) the statement that nothing is to be included in programmes which offends against religious sentiment. Is he aware that, unlike any other part of the Commonwealth, as far as I know, it offends against "religious sentiment" in Malta to vote Labour, or to be a member of the Labour Party? Does he think it right that people should be refused absolution if they vote Labour, which is what happens in Malta today? Does he think it right that they should be refused the rites of the Church if they vote Labour? Does he think it right that a country that operates such a system should be allowed to have a Broadcasting Ordinance based/on what is called "offence against religious sentiment"?
    Mr. Fisher: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman's definition of religious sentiment as being entirely political would not find general acceptance in Malta.

  ADEN

    Prisoners (Caning)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will report on the recent sentences of caning in the Aden prison, details of which have been sent to him by the honourable Member for Dundee, East; and what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on whose instructions the trade union prisoners in Aden jail were caned.
    Mr. Oramasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what further inquiries he has made into the caning of trade union prisoners in Aden; and what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. Sandys: On the authority of the Superintendent of Prisons, five prisoners were caned on 12th November, and four on 13th November for acts of concerted insubordination. The regulations were duly observed except for the fact that,

    197
    in the case of the first five, the Superintendent regrettably overlooked the rule that there should be an interval of 24 hours before such sentences are carried out.
    Before this occurrence, the Governor had already been asked to review the provisions for corporal punishment for prison offences; and the Executive Council has decided to make certain amendments. Henceforth offences for which such punishment may be awarded will be restricted to mutiny, repeated assault on another prisoner and attacks on a prison officer. Sentences will require to be confirmed by the chief magistrate.
    Mr. Thomson: I welcome the changes made in that respect in the prison regulations, but is the Minister aware that, as these people were imprisoned for political offences, this was a very serious breach of regulations? Is he further aware that the four men caned on the second day were caned after having been on hunger strike for 24 hours? In those circumstances, will not he institute an inquiry into the administration of the prison and, if necessary, take disciplinary action against those responsible?
    Mr. Sandys: I said in my Answer that the regulations relating to medical examination had been carried out—or, if I did not say that, I said that all the regulations had been carried out, and they include medical examination. As for disciplinary action, the only person who might be considered in that connection would be the Superintendent. The Governor has decided that no further action is required in this case. He has gone fully into the matter. After visiting the prison myself—I took the opportunity when I was at Aden the other day —and speaking to the Superintendent, I am satisfied that that decision is entirely correct.
    Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he cannot just say that it is entirely the fault of the Superintendent? Is he aware that the announcement of the first lot of callings was made over the radio and that the Governor can have no excuse that he knew nothing about them? Is he aware that the second lot of callings did not occur until 24 hours afterwards and that the Governor did nothing whatever to stop the second lot, and that, if anybody is to
    198
    blame, the Governor is as much to blame as the Superintendent?
    Mr. Sandys: No breach of regulations took place in regard to the second canings. It was only on the first ones where the delay of 24 hours prescribed by the regulations was not observed. The second canings were carried out fully in conformity with the regulations.
    Mr. Oram: Will the right hon. Gentleman go further into the question of the medical examination in this case? Is he aware that on a recent visit to Aden I was informed by some of the men who were caned that five of them on the first day had been declared fit for punishment but that five had been declared unfit and that the five declared unfit were subsequently caned 22 hours later, despite the fact that they had had no food in the interval? Is not this prima facie scandalous? If they were unfit on the first occasion, then surely after a day without food they were unfit on the second occasion. Can the right hon. Gentleman feel satisfied that the second decision was taken on purely medical grounds and that no other authorities had intervened in the meantime?
    Mr. Sandys: It is no good my expressing a view about the fitness of people who were examined some weeks ago in Aden, but I have no reason whatsoever to suppose that the doctor did not act in strict conformity with the high principles of his profession.
    Mr. W. Yates: As my right hon. Friend has since seen this prison and the conditions himself, does he not now agree that the Governor is responsible for the prison and his Administration are solely and absolutely to blame fl or what occurred?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Healey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the caning of political prisoners for going on hunger strike as a protest against what they believe to be the refusal of the prison administration to have one of their number given dental attention is a clear example of political intimidation? In view of the fact that the Governor of Aden should have known about these callings, or at least the second series, for the first series was announced on the radio before the

    199
    second series took place, is there not a clear dereliction of duty? Will the right hon. Gentleman not take some stops to inform the Governor of Aden that the people of this country are most concerned that such a violation of justice should be committed in their name? [An HON. MEMBER: "Express regret."]
    Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member is making a great deal of a very simple breach of the regulations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The breach was that in the case of five out of the nine prisoners the delay imposed by the regulations of 24 hours before the caning was not observed. That is the extent of the complaint. As for talking about political prisoners, these people were serving a sentence imposed by the court for an offence against the law. [HON. MEMBERS: "A demonstration."] The offence which they committed in the prison was not just a hunger strike. It was also refusal to do work in the prison which all other prisoners are required to do.
    Mr. Dugdale: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

  BRITISH GUIANA

    Financial Assistance
    Mr. C. Royleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what economic aid, in grant or loan, is being offered to British Guiana, as a result of the breakdown of independence talks and the present financial problems of the Colony.
    Mr. Fisher: We are already providing some £12¾ million towards the current development programme, which covers the period 1960–64. By the end of this year it is expected that something of the order of £4 million will still remain to be drawn.
    Mr. Royle: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that very serious financial difficulties have arisen in British Guiana, particularly as a result of delay in the coming of independence? Does not this call for some extra aid from Her Majesty's Government?
    Mr. Fisher: I do not think that any particular extra difficulties have arisen out of the delay on independence, which
    200
    certainly was not the fault of Her Majesty's Government in any case; it was the fault of the two parties, who completely failed to agree on almost every single thing that we discussed. As for the economic situation, probably the root cause of the whole trouble there is the contraction of trade due to the loss of political confidence. That is something about which we cannot do anything here.

    Discussions
    Mr. C. Boyleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what discussions, of which Her Majesty's Government were informed, took place during the British Guiana Conference between the Government Party and the Opposition Parties on the future of the Colony; what proposals were put forward by the British Guiana Government during these discussions; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Sandys: The agreed report on the proceedings of the Conference was presented to the House on 6th November as Command Paper 1870. I have not been informed of any discussion between the parties or of any proposals which they may have made to one another outside the ambit of the Conference.
    Mr. Royle: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that my Question was put on the Order Paper before the issue of the White Paper. May I ask him, therefore, whether it is not a fact, arising from the White Paper, that the negotiations broke down on three questions only and that on each of these three questions Dr. Jagan had been prepared to compromise? Does not this seem to show that there might have been greater insistence on the part of the right hon. Gentleman himself on keeping the parties together so that independence would be achieved? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that there seems to be some feeling in certain quarters that Her Majesty's Government are anxious to bring about the downfall of Dr. Jagan at any cost?
    Mr. Sandys: The last suggestion, of course, is completely without foundation. As for the other point, I can assure the House that I did my utmost to try to bring the parties together, but

    201
    anybody who studies the Report will see that even at the formal opening meeting in public, in front of the Press and the television cameras, when it was intended that the delegations should confine themselves to an exchange of courtesies, they already began to speak in a most inimical way about one another. That atmosphere, I am afraid, continued throughout the whole Conference, and more so when we were in private session. Of course, various proposals were made on both sides, but in all cases they went so little towards the point of view of the other party that they did not offer any basis for a compromise solution.
    Mr. Gardner: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the manner in which he attempted to get the parties together in this Conference, may I ask whether he will bear three important facts in mind before granting independence to British Guiana. First, that Dr. Jagan, the Prime Minister of British Guiana, has declared himself to be a Communist with Communist ambitions; secondly, that the majority of the people, if given the opportunity in British Guiana, would now vote him out of office primarily because of that fact: and, thirdly, that the holding of a general election is an essential stage before any agreement on independence can be reached?
    Mr. Sandys: I have noted my hon. Friend's opinions, but I am sure he will understand that if I am to have any chances as a mediator in these matters it would not help if I were to comment on what he has said.
    Mr. Healey: While recognising that this really is a most difficult problem and that there are genuine fears among the various communities in British Guiana, may I ask what steps the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take to try to encourage a rapprochement between the two leading parties? Would he not agree that Dr. Jagan has already agreed to hold elections before independence, although there is still disagreement between the parties about the system under which the elections will be held? In view of the fact that both sides, as the right hon. Gentleman has confessed, have made certain proposals for compromise, will he not use his own effort to try to see that compromise is finally achieved?
    Mr. Sandys: As for the holding of elections, I think I am right in saying that Dr. Jagan, certainly at the Conference— I do not know what he has said since, I have not noticed anything—did not say that he was prepared to hold elections before independence. That was one of the issues at stake. As for future action, I think that the next step is for the Governor to discuss the position arising out of the Conference as soon as the leaders of the three parties have returned to British Guiana. Then, in the light of the Governor's report, I will have to decide about the question of reconvening the Conference.

    OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeauxasked the Prime Minister if he will consider introducing legislation to amend the Official Secrets Act with a view to preventing the disclosure, in written OT other farm, of any actions or operations carried out by members or former members of the British Secret Intelligence Service or other secret Government services.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The provisions of the Official Secrets Acts are already adequate for their purpose; and, in general, they work satisfactorily.
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: If my right hon. Friend considers that the Act is adequate for its purpose, will he agree that it has not been enforced? For instance, does he agree that the recent publication of the book, "The Quiet Canadian", discloses the most flagrant breaches of the Official Secrets Act by one or mare people, showing that the Act is not being enforced in the way it was after the First World War? If no action is taken under the Act as a result of the publication of this book, will it not be impossible to prevent other secret agents exploiting their own experiences for money and, moreover, impossible to prosecute them if they do?
    The Prime Minister: I am informed that this book, "The Quiet Canadian", did not in fact prejudice current security in any way. I am informed also that any breach was inadvertent and due to a misunderstanding. In general, the requirements of the Act are widely understood and are well observed.
    Dame Irene Ward: In view of my right hon. Friend's rather surprising statement about what is in "The Quiet Canadian", will he say whether the book was submitted by Mr. Montgomery Hyde to the usual authorities far passing or whether Mr. Montgomery Hyde got some other individuals to look at the book? It is most important, in the interest of preserving the secrets which are essential to our security, to know exactly what happened in the procedure relating to this book.
    The Prime Minister: The Question is a general one to which I gave a general Answer. If my hon. Friend will put dawn a Question about the circumstances of that particular case, I shall answer it.

    MINISTER OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SPEECH)
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Minister of Housing and Local Goverment and Minister for Welsh Affairs, at a Press conference at Cardiff on 23rd November, about house ownership represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister: At the Press conference referred to, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs made no speech or declaration of policy. He was simply replying to questions about a local problem in the City of Cardiff.
    Mr. Thomas: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Minister's remarks to the Press, which were widely reported, indicate that the Government's policy is to ignore the plight of the victims of the 1957 Act whose houses are to be demolished yet who will have to continue paying on mortgages for houses which they have not got? Are we to understand that it is the Government's policy to take no steps to help these people who are plainly the victims of the legislation passed in 1957?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that in this particular case, which, I agree, is a very unusual one, the Cardiff City Council granted mortgages on a number of houses which they now propose shall be demolished under slum clearance orders. The clearance orders are still under consideration by my right
    204
    hon. Friend and, therefore, the matter is still for him to make his decision about.
    Mr. Thomas: Will the Prime Minister hold out hope that, when a decision has been taken on these clearance orders, he and the Government will look art the question of protecting people who have to pay under mortgages for houses which no longer exist as a result of an order by a public authority?
    The Prime Minister: This whole problem of clearance orders for the purpose of slum clearance has been dealt with on many occasions in legislation by the House. As I have said, this is rather a special case, and I shall certainly be in touch with my right hon. Friend concerning how it can best be dealt with.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Would it not be dealt with quite simply by the Cardiff City Council, which made loans on these properties and which now proposes to order their demolition, not requiring those to whom they made the loans to continue with mortgage repayments when the houses have been destroyed?
    The Prime Minister: That would certainly be a very satisfactory solution for those who have entered into such agreements.

    LORD CHANCELLOR (PENSION)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to ensure that any waiver of pension by any former Lord Chancellor shall in each case be made permanent.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Lipton: Does not the Prime Minister realise that the good repute of ex-Lord Chancellors, who normally do not sell themselves in the market place, is even mare gravely prejudiced when, as in the latest case, the pension is drawn for a period, then waived, but with an entitlement nevertheless to draw it again? Why cannot Plessey look after its own employees on their retirement?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member has introduced this subject in a rather unnecessarily offensive way, referring to an old colleague of ours who is deeply respected in all parts of the

    205
    House. It seems to me not unreasonable that he should draw his pension when he is entitled to draw it and renounce it when he is earning from another source.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that it is now widely thought that he is treating this grave matter rather too flippantly, that there is real concern about it, and that it cannot be brushed off with a flippant answer?
    The Prime Minister: Mine was a courteous reply to a very rude supplementary question.
    Mr. Grimond: Would not the Prime Minister agree that it is extremely unsatisfactory that the head of the whole judiciary should go straight from the Woolsack into private industry? Would he not also agree that a large pension was arranged for ex-Lord Chancellors with this very difficulty in view—that they should not he under any temptation, or any necessity, to find their living in another way? Was it not also part of the reasoning behind the pension that they should be available for judicial work in the House of Lords? Is it contemplated that if he gives up his present post with this firm and draws his pension he will return to sit as a judge in the House of Lords?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has got the facts quite right. There has always been a pension for the Lord Chancellor, and I think that in the old days the understanding was that the pension was partly because he could not easily return to his own profession. It was a convention that an ex-Lord Chancellor, while his health allowed it, should sit to add his help in the judicial work of the House of Lords, but that if his health did not allow it he should continue to draw the pension. If he is not drawing the pension, I do not see what grievance arises.

    PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT KENNEDY (MEETING)
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister (1) whether, on his forthcoming visit, he will propose to President Kennedy that, in view of Prime Minister Castro's agreement to a system of investigation on the spot, provided it
    206
    could be used by Cuba for investigating charges against other countries in the Caribbean as well as by them against Cuba, an international agreement under the auspices of the Security Council should be concluded which provided for such a system, based on the principle of reciprocity;
    (2) whether, on his visit to President Kennedy, he will express the opposition of Her Majesty's Government to the establishment within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation of a European nuclear force with nuclear weapons of its own.
    Mrs. Castleasked the Prime Minister whether, during his forthcoming visit to the United States of America, he will discuss with President Kennedy the implementation of the United Nations resolution on economic sanctions against South Africa.
    The Prime Minister: As I told the House on 29th November, I expect to discuss with President Kennedy the general international situation in the light of events since our last meeting; but I think these discussions would lack spontaneity if I were to attempt to rehearse them in this House.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Is not the Prime Minister aware that since 29th November a great deal of public concern has been aroused about the prospect of a conflict between the British Government and the American Government on the issue of General de Gaulle's demand for an independent European nuclear force? Will he give an assurance that he will not pay this price for entering the Common Market?
    As to my first Question, is he not aware that the United States President is keeping the threat of invasion suspended over Cuba to impose a unilateral system of investigation? Will he not insist on the principles of the Charter being observed in this matter?
    The Prime Minister: I think that it is the general view of the House and the country that the President has acted in the Cuban crisis both with great skill and courage and prudence and good sense. It would be a very bad thing in any way to try to oppose his efforts to get this matter resolved in accordance with the undertaking given by the Chairman of the Soviet Republic. As to the

    207
    hon. Gentleman's first supplementary question, there is no connection between the two matters of the Common Market and a nuclear force.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the Prime Minister aware that he has not answered my Question? Is he not aware that on 7th November last the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution, by an overwhelming majority, calling on all member States to boycott South African goods and to refrain from exporting goods to South Africa, including all arms and ammunition? As member States will have to report what action they have taken under the resolution at the next meeting of the General Assembly, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that Britain and the United States, who claim to be supporters of the United Nations, should prove it by co-ordinating their action in support of this resolution?
    The Prime Minister: It is certainly the case that this resolution was passed by a two-thirds majority, but it has the force only of a recommendation. Her Majesty's Government's position was fully explained by our delegation during the debate.

    STATE RECORDS
    Mr. M. Footasked the Prime Minister whether he will set up an independent body to consider and advise upon the rules governing access to State records, particularly Foreign Office Archives and Cabinet Papers.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. This is a subject for which the Government of the day must remain fully responsible.
    Mr. Foot: Since it is evident from recent practice that a special privilege in this respect is accorded to Conservative ex-Prime Ministers, does not the Prime Minister think that it is rather invidious for him to suggest that no change in the present arrangements is required?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member has made a statement which is not wholly in accordance with the facts. This privilege, if it is a privilege, is that any Minister may refresh his memory by looking again at official papers which he saw when he was in office. That is quite separate from the general rule governing the publication of papers as a whole. Up
    208
    to now, at any rate, it has been the view that to publish them at an earlier date would make two difficulties: first, it would tend to destroy the collective responsibility of the Cabinet; secondly, it would have the great disadvantage of making public the advice given by officials to Ministers.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Would not the Prime Minister agree that the present situation is rather unsatisfactory precisely because a distinction is drawn between the fifty-year rule for historians and former Ministers to whom it now seems to be legitimate to refer to almost anything which happened in any Cabinet before and during the war? Will he consider this matter again and consider whether it is really necessary to maintain the fifty-year rule in its strictest severity in one case and yet not apply it in the other?
    The Prime Minister: I see the difficulty. I think the right hon. Gentleman realises that in a great war such as the last war a certain laxity comes into the practice for the period and perhaps for the period immediately before the war. Personally, I think that the practice is working reasonably well. On the question of Ministers' rights, it would not be unfair to say that they are writing their own accounts and are not posing as impartial historians of the day. The fifty-year rule was reached after a good deal of consideration. One might question whether the matter should be reopened, but I do not feel inclined to do that at the moment, and I do not think that there is any great demand for it.
    Mr. Foot: The Prime Minister said that there was something inaccurate in my original supplementary question. Is it not the case that both the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) and Lord Avon, for example, have been given permission to publish much more detail of discussions at Cabinet meetings than has ever been accorded to other Ministers?
    The Prime Minister: I have seen memoirs of that period from other Ministers which seemed to me to be just as detailed.
    Dame Irene Ward: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this matter is complicated in view of the fact that the United States and many other countries publish their documents long before we do? Does not that leave us in a very

    209
    vulnerable position? We never seem to have a chance to publish our case. American documents have been published very recently regarding the Baltic States, and I should very much like to see our documents on the subject.
    The Prime Minister: Of course, the American system does not enjoy or suffer from—I do not know which is the right term—the principle of collective Cabinet responsibility. It is a wholly different system. The President has the responsibility, not a Cabinet. Nor is there anything like the relations between the permanent civil service in that country and Ministers that we have developed in this country.
    Mr. Shinwell: Why should anybody be afraid of disclosures about what has happened at Cabinet meetings? Is it not desirable that in a free demorcacy the public should be fully informed, apart from matters relating to security, on what has happened at Cabinet meetings as far back as we can go and in recent days?
    The Prime Minister: That opens up a new and fruitful line of thought which I should like to consider.

SERJEANT AT ARMS (APPOINTMENTS)
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now make a statement about appointments to the office of Serjeant al: Arms.
As I promised the House, I have consulted the Queen on this matter. She has informed me that, on any future occasion when the office of Serjeant at Arms falls vacant, she will, before exercising her Prerogative, initiate informal discussions with you, Mr. Speaker, as she and her predecessors have done in the past.
At the same time, it will be welcome to the Queen if you, Sir, were then to take soundings in whatever manner may be convenient to enable you to inform her of any feelings there may be in the House before she exercises her Prerogative.
Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister aware that although possibly this arrangement will not go as far as some hon. Members desire, nevertheless I think that the House as a whole will be grateful to him for having made the arrangement with Her Majesty?
Mrs. Castle: Would the Prime Minister approach Her Majesty and ask her whether she would graciously consent to handing over the Palace of Westminster—
Mr. Speaker: Order. In no sense does that arise out of this statement.
Mr. C. Pannell: I am sure that the House is grateful for these consultations, because they bring an ancient office more in line with modern needs. While thanking the Prime Minister for his statement, may I ask whether he will have another look at the Stokes Report, which specifically referred to this matter and suggested the setting up of a body of commissioners of the House before which these great appointments might come so that, as was the case with the last Serjeant at Arms, any new occupant of the great office comes to this place with the full confidence and not the misunderstanding of the House?
The Prime Minister: I do not think that I undertook to do more than two things. The first was to make it plain to the House, which, I think, all hon. Members accepted, that Her Majesty, in this case, as in every other case in which she has exercised her Prerogative, and following the precedent of her predecessors, has acted in strict accordance with what has always been the custom.
Secondly, in order to make this informal consultation with you, Sir, more effective from the House of Commons' point of view, she would welcome any steps that you, Sir, in consultation with leading Members of the House, may devise to make this informal counsel more effective.
That was the point that I undertook to deal with. The hon. Gentleman has raised much larger issues than the issue which arises from this particular exercise of the Prerogative.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): With permission, I should like to make a statement on business.
On Thursday, 13th December, the House will be invited to consider the Lords Amendments to the Pensions (Increase) Bill.

211
This Business will be taken instead of the Motion on the British Transport Reorganisation (Cornpensation to Employees) Regulations.

EGYPT (COMPENSATION PAYMENTS)
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement about the Government's proposals for the settlement of Egyptian claims.
Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked that this statement should be made before the Report stage of the Foreign Compensation Bill, which will be tomorrow.
The Government have five proposals. First, we propose to lay before the House a new Order in Council that would provide that compensation on assessed claims against the Egyptian Compensation Fund should be paid on the following increased and final scale: on the first £10,000 of each claimant's assessed losses, 100 per cent.; on the next £40,000, 75 per cent.; on the next £450,000, 50 per cent.; on the next £500,000, 30 per cent.; on the next £1 million, 25 per cent; and on the part of any claim exceeding £2 million, 20 per cent.
This new scale will give a 100 per cent. payment to over 90 per cent. of the claimants and substantial increases to all the other categories up to £2 million. Claims exceeding £2 million will also benefit by the increased percentages on the lower parts of their claims. We estimate that to enable the Foreign Compensation Commission to pay compensation on these scales, Her Majesty's Government will need to pay into the Egyptian Compensation Fund about £5,500,000.
Secondly, we propose to lay before the House an Order in Council that will enable the Foreign Compensation Commission to pay on the same scale claimants in respect of certain additional claims, which, although arising out of the Suez incident, could only be registered but could not receive compensation under the Orders in Council following on the Anglo-United Arab
212
Republic Financial Agreement of 1959. We estimate that this will require approximately a further £1 million.
Thirdly, we propose that the balance of approximately £33,000 by which the compensation paid by the United Arab Republic for the British officials dismissed in 1951 fell short of the sums advanced to the Officials' Association by Her Majesty's Government should be written off.
We further propose to waive the repayment of £8,904 advanced by Her Majesty's Government to the Association for the payment of legal expenses, and, as a final settlement, to make an additional grant to the Association of £200,000. As it is proposed to make this payment without delay an advance will be obtained from the Civil Contingencies Fund and Parliament will in due course be asked to vote the amount by means of a supplementary estimate.
Fourthly, we have carefully considered the difficulties of those British nationals who were obliged in 1956, at very short notice, to abandon their property in Egypt, where it was then sequestrated. This property—much of which is not in liquid form—has now been desequestrated, and in most cases returned to its owners or their agents, and they still remain its legal owners. But the majority of them cannot use their property or derive any benefit from it—apart from the first £5,000 Egyptian which they can now transfer to this country.
We propose to make available up to £2½ million to relieve, by way of grants, cases of comparative hardship among these persons, as well as to assist with certain other kinds of claims, such as compensation for severe personal injury, that will not be eligible for compenation out of funds distributed by the Commission.
Fifthly, we propose to allocate up to £500,000 for grants towards the payment of agents' fees and expenses by owners of desequestrated property who have had to employ agents to negotiate the release of their property and the transfer of assets.
We propose to set up an independent committee to investigate cases of hardship among owners of immobilised assets and to make recommendations for grants.
Mr. Mitchison: I trust that I shall not take up the time of the House unduly on this occasion. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these claims arise in special circumstances? They are being met from British funds because the Government recognise their responsibility for the Suez adventure and these are claims coming from that adventure. In those circumstances, since the United Arab Republic has contributed £27½ million, does not the hon. Gentleman think that the British Government are being a trifle stingy with some of these claims in Limiting what is now offered to around £10 million, if I get the figures right, particularly in the case of the dismissed officials, with whom Her Majesty's Government would be wise always to have sympathy, and also in the case of those who have sequestrated assets in Egypt and who, even when those assets are in liquid form, are finding great difficulty and delay in getting them to this country?
I trust that there will be opportunities of discussing the matter in more detail at later stages on the Bill and on the Orders in Council which have been foreshadowed. Is the hon. Gentleman able, however, to assure the House that when he comes to these matters he will consider the possibility of full compensation in at least some of these cases because of the Government's ultimate responsibility for the whole incident?
Mr. Thomas: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me if I do not enter into debate with him over the Suez incident. The Government are anxious to have a fair and reasonable settlement of these claims and to meet hardship wherever necessary. The hon. and learned Gentleman will not, therefore, expect me to agree with him when he describes these very reasonable, and, in some cases, very generous, terms as being stingy. The hon. and learned Member will appreciate that the dismissal of the 1951 officials has nothing to do with the Suez incident.
As to the question of debating these issues, as the hon. and learned Member knows Orders will have to be laid before the House and the relevant Order on the Egyptianisation claims and the sequestration losses will be subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure and, therefore, will be debatable.
Mr. Hirst: In thanking my hon. Friend for his promised statement, may I ask whether the £5½ million which he has mentioned will be distributed in addition to the total amount now remaining in the fund at present undistributed and whether he can give a total figure? May I ask, secondly, whether this is the final answer and whether there will be further allocations of sums in the future, as there still remains unfairness to the much larger claims, which in many instances are those of companies with small shareholders and not, as might appear to be the case, single owners?
Thirdly, do the additional claims include sums that were deposited in Egyptian banks for the payment of assets sold to Egypt before the Suez venture, but 'which, because of it, the Egyptian Government have never remitted?
Mr. Thomas: In reply to my hon. Friend's first question, the £5½ million will be in addition to sums already in the Foreign Compensation Fund. This Fund, which originally was £27½ million, rose to about £29¾ million. Therefore, the total sum which will be used for the payment of Egyptianisation claims and sequestration losses will amount to £35 million.
My hon. Friend asked, secondly, whether this was the final answer. My answer to that is, "Yes". It is intended that this shall be a final settlement of the Egyptian claims.
If my hon. Friend looks at the figures he will see that the larger claimants will benefit by the increased scales below the £2 million figure. Under the new scale, a £2 million claimant, for instance, will receive £176,000 more than he would have received under the old scale. It is, however, the smaller and needier claimant whom we have had in mind in working out these proposals, since these people are hardest hit by the losses which they have sustained.
I could not answer my hon. Friend's last question with any degree of accuracy without notice.
Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. Gentleman has stated that a further bill of approximately £10 million is to be met by the taxpayer in respect of the Suez adventure and all that flowed from it. If this

215
is the final settlement, can the Under-Secretary tell the House what is the total amount of money which has been disbursed by the Treasury in respect of all the expenses flowing from Suez? Will he also tell the House what he imagines would be the position of, for example, a borough or urban district council, faced with a public auditor, when large sums of indebtedness have been incurred at the expense of ratepayers? Would not such an authority be surcharged by the public auditor?
Mr. Speaker: The surcharge of local authorities does not lie within the realm of responsibility of the Under-Secretary of State.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Concerning the 1951 officials, will the extra £200,000 be distributed among the remaining spouses of deceased claimants? Secondly, is my hon. Friend aware that one can give only a somewhat melancholy welcome to a total of £400,000 eleven years after the claims which, in 1951, totalled £660,000?
Mr. Thomas: I could not answer my hon. Friend's first question without notice but I will find the answer and let him know.
As to the second part, the figure of £660,000 was the maximum figure which was submitted by the Officials' Association, not to Her Majesty's Government, but to the Egyptian Government, as a basis for negotiating the compensation claim. Her Majesty's Government were not called upon either to approve or to contest it. We consider that the settlement which we are now proposing, which is, in effect, a grant of £244,000 in addi-
216
tion to the £165,000 which has already been received from Egypt, is not only eminently reasonable, but is as generous as is possible in the circumstances.
Sir H. Oakshott: Particularly on the question of persons falling within the second and fourth of the Government's proposals, can my hon. Friend say how long this will all take after approval of the Orders in Council? He will be aware that there have been considerable delays in the past. Will he give an assurance that these delays in assessment, approval and payment of claims will be cut to the minimum?
Mr. Thomas: Yes, Sir. I certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance.
Mr. Mitchison: Will the Under-Secretary answer my hon. Friend's question: What is the whole cost of Suez now?
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must try to confine ourselves to the business in hand so that we do not consume too much of our time for other matters.

BILL PRESENTED
  CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT
  Bill to require a minimum period of notice to terminate the employment of those who have been employed for a qualifying period, to provide for matters connected with the giving of the notice, and to require employers to give written particulars of terms of employment, presented by Mr. John Hare, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. R. A. Butler, Mr. Iain Macleod, Mr. Michael Noble, and the Attorney-General; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 48.]

INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (BYSSINOSIS)
3.48 p.m.
Mr. Leslie Hale: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision for the definition of byssinosis and for the hearing and determination of cases relating to industrial disease.
I wish to dispel the rumour, which was widely circulated last week, that the incidence of smog in London was one of the new and juicy ideas invented by the Minister of Transport for the delectation of denizens of the Royal Parks. In saying that, I should like to call the attention of hon. Members on both sides of the House—because we all have some shame to bear in this matter—to the point that the London Press last week called very proper attention to the fact that the risk of respiratory disease to Londoners, because of fog, was something like I in 10,000 of the population, whilst in Oldham people are still exposed to the risk of respiratory disease in cotton card-rooms and blowing rooms which, to the older workers with a long record of employment, is now accepted as rising to 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. of the persons working in certain departments of certain mills.
After long employment, 50 or 60 per cent. of the workers in some cardrooms are almost certain to suffer a long and lingering agony, an incurable disease and ultimate death in respect of a disease which is almost wholly preventable by the installation of modern machinery and in which the whole ingenuity of Ministers of Pensions and National Insurance over many years has been used to deprive sufferers from the provision of any form of industrial benefit.
I put it to the House, and I say this quite frankly, that I have with some reluctance drafted a very simple Bill in the hope that it will commend itself to the House in these circumstances. There are many things which I should have liked to include in it, and there are many things which workers in Oldham would expect me to include when dealing with this subject. But I want to get the Bill through. I have produced a Bill of only two Clauses, for the second of which I believe to be merely declaratory of the law. It merely states that when an
218
application is turned down, a later application can be made when fresh or more recent evidence is obtained. The House gave me leave to use a Clause of that nature as recently as last week.
I believe in a declaration of the existing law, and if only I could see the Parliamentary Secretary nodding it would be the first piece of acquiescence I have received from him since he became Parliamentary Secretary. As far as I know, there is nothing to preclude this being done, but no one seems ever to have realised that that right previously existed.
The House may regard the first Clause as being stated in somewhat unusual form. It provides that if a man who has complied with all the other conditions—and I ask the House to remember that before he can establish a claim for industrial benefit for byssinosis he has to prove long employment in the appropriate industry or sections of the industry, to prove disablement by a severe respiratory pulmonary disease, and has to prove exposure to dust, and so on—and after all that first, added to that, he has to prove all these circumstances and that he is suffering from a pulmonary disease which is medically indistinguishable from byssinosis, then it shall be regarded as byssinosis. I emphasise this point.
This is a very modest demand. Hon. Members might say that if it is indistinguishable from byssinosis, then it must be byssinosis, but in a large number of cases it is labelled bronchitis. After all the employment, the exposure to dust and all the statistics of industrial health, it is still called bronchitis, and that is the end of it.
Is there any method of distinguishing bronchitis from byssinosis? The whole of informed medical opinion in this country agrees there is no physical test. The Nuffield Professor of Industrial Health at the University of Manchester, Dr. Schilling, conducted a whole series of experiments—as to the incidence and epidemiology rather than the pathogenesis of the disease—in industrial circumstances, its relevance and its diagnosis, and Professor Gough, of the Welsh School of Medicine, conducted a long series of investigations into the post-mortem indications of the disease. It is conceded that in a large percentage

219
of cases there is nothing physically and medically either on the radiological examination of a living person or on the pathological examination of a dead patient by which one can say definitely that this disease can be distinguished from bronchitis.
So we come to a very curious, very remarkable and very unhappy state of affairs. The man makes his claim for byssinosis and is examined by a medical board, in the case I have in mind, one of the board being a medical officer on the staff of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. One has to approach the subject with some caution, and say, "Do you feel any special symptoms?" The applicant usually says, "There are times when I feel as if I had an iron bar round my chest" and he means it. He is then asked, "Do you feel this at any special time?" and he may reply, "When I am at work". He is then asked, "Do you feel it on any special day?"—and this is where we reach the nub of the question, because if he says "Monday", he is half-way through, if he has got all the other symptoms.
The next question will be "Always on Mondays?", and if he says "Yes" to that, he has got byssinosis, and if he says "Mostly", or "Often" or "Occasionally", then he has not. These are the early stages of the disease. This is what happens, and I have a judgment of the tribunal which studied this.
May I flow refer to one specific case; and I am trying very hard to keep within the allotted ten minutes. May I make one introductory remark? I asked the Parliamentary Secretay some Questions about byssinosis some time ago, and he thought I was making some criticism of this particular case, in which he knew I had been engaged. Nothing was further from my mind. The Industrial Commissioner heard this case with the utmost courtesy, patience and attention to detail, and I have no complaint to make about the Insurance Commissioners at Grosvenor Gardens, Westminster, or of their staff, who I am sure received everybody with the utmost desire to help and to master the facts. The case lasted for part of two days, and I do not make any suggestion about that.
220
Having said that, now let us look at the particular case. Fred Mills was employed in the cotton mills for 47 years, and for 37 years at least in the cardroom, which had none of the modern contrivances for the elimination of dust. He was exposed to it for 37 years in its maximum form. Quite by chance, at a radiological survey looking into tuberculosis he was told "You had better have your lungs looked at: you are in a bad way". That was in 1955. In 1960, he made application for industrial disease benefit for byssinosis. He was examined by a medical board of two doctors and in that examination he established all the employment conditions and questions qualifying him for benefit. But the Ministry doctors decided he had not got byssinosis. By that time, his disability was so serious that he died a few months later. He did all that, but he failed to qualify on the final question, in that in reply to the question, "Always on Mondays?" he said "No, occasionally". The Board then said "It is not byssinosis, but bronchitis". He died within 18 months, having never worked after that examination, and having spent some weeks in Oldham General Hospital under observation. When his body was examined by the brilliant and talented pathologist in Oldham General Hospital, Dr. Garrett, it was said, "This is byssiriasis". An inquest was held, and the coroner, who is experienced in these matters, recorded a verdict of "Death from byssinosis". An application was made for an industrial diseases pension, and it came before the local tribunal which said, by a majority, "Yes, a pension for byssinosis".
I have already conceded that the pathologists could not say that there was this or that symptom which made it quite clear for them to be able to say, "This is not bronchitis," because there are no such symptoms and there is no pathological definition. At that stage, on an examination by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance doctor, and on the determination in favour of the widow by a Ministry-appointed medical board, the insurance officials in Oldham decided to appeal on a question of fact. The case went before the Commissioner, and on the evidence he heard, and there was not much, and on the certificate given by

221
the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance doctor—who did not turn up at the hearing, when another doctor came along to say, "I have read what he said and I think it is right"—the widow was deprived of a pension. [An HON. MEMBER: "Always on Monday"?] Certainly, "Always on Monday?".
I will explain that. I have not come to the important point. He said "Occasionally on Monday". I think that Dr. Schilling's views are accepted fairly generally, and it is rather interesting to refer to an interesting correspondence in the British Medical Journal and a letter from Dr. A. Bouhuys, of the Laboratory of Clinical Physiology of Leyden, and Dr. S. E. Lindell, of the Clinical Research Laboratories of the University of Gothenburg, in Sweden. They take a different view of this and say that experiments have shown that respiratory activity can be limited by other causes. That was last week.
I must conclude the case of Fred Mills, because I have not yet stated the decisive point. He said, "Occasionally on Mondays". When we investigated the matter, we found that during the last five years of his employment in the cotton mills he had been a member of the maintenance crew which rarely worked in the cardroom on Monday, so that for five years, on Mondays, he had only occasionally been exposed to the risk of displaying these symptoms.
Dealing with a difficult and complicated subject, I have already said as much as would exhaust the time normally allotted to me, and I cannot therefore deal with the matter to the extent to which I had hoped to do, but the evidence is there. I tried to put these cases to the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. I have tried to suggest to the House that in the whole area of industrial disease if a man has a chronic disease it does not matter how it is caused. We should see that he gets the same benefit. In my maiden speech in the House in 1945 or 1946 I raised the question of industrial disease in relation to the form of tribunal which
222
was being allotted to that and the use of State doctors to decide State matters which would cost the State money.
In what is called a Welfare State we have been told to regard the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance as something like the Sacre Cœur, in Paris, gleaming pure white in the mists of the evening and a shining message of hope and benison to all the inhabitants of the city. Sacre Cœur is very near the Place Pigalle. The attitude of the Minister is set out in the opening words of Jean Genet's remarkable play, "The Balcony", in which the bishop, who has been equipped with the Athenian tragedian's cothurni to enlarge his size, and padded shoulders to improve his importance, says:
"In truth, the mark of the prelate is not mildness or unction. But rather the most rigorous intelligence. Our heart is our undoing. We think we are master of our kindness; we are the slave of a serene laxity.
In fact it is something quite other than intelligence that may be involved."
In fairness to the bench of bishops, I should add that later in the play we find that the person was not a bishop at all but, appropriately enough, a man from the local gas works who was dressed up as a bishop to gratify his fetishism in a maison de tolerance.
These are the grounds on which I ask for the leave of the House to bring in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Leslie Hale, Mr. Allaun, Mr. Fenner Brockway, Mr. Fernyhough, Mr. Dingle Foot, Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Loughlin, Mr. Mapp, Mr. Monslow, and Mr. Sydney Silverman.

INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (BYSSINOSIS)
  INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (BYSSINOSIS)
  Bill to make further provision for the definition of byssinosis and for the hearing and determination of cases relating to industrial disease, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 49.]

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [10 th December], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Question again proposed.
Mr. Godfrey Lagden: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, if the appropriate authority were at this stage to ask for a Motion to be introduced to extend the time allotted for this debate today, would you be prepared to accept such a Motion, having regard to the fact that some time has already elapsed, and that many hon. Members for London constituencies who have a real interest in and knowledge of matter in hand are anxious to speak on behalf of their constituents?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member receives my sympathy in every respect. I think that he knows with what enthusiasm I listen to short speeches, because they permit more hon. Members to get into the debate. I could not accept a Motion of that kind now, because we are already on the Bill. We are past the business stage.
4.5 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Willey: I think that the plea of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden) demonstrates the point that it is for the Government to facilitate his plea by ensuring that the Bill should be considered by a Committee of the whole House.
I reopen the debate by commenting on the fact that on this bench we happen to be the same team which opposed the Government's proposals when they were first presented to the House in February. In fact, we are following the same batting order, but there is a different row of Ministers facing us. Gone is the right hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill). This is a pity. I enjoyed his endearing charm. I am sure that he would not take offence if I said that he always reminds me of a character in Durham market who used to sell half-hunter gold watches. One had to follow him carefully to appreciate that the gold was Californian gold, whatever that may be. Gone is Lord Eccles. Most of us will remember his languid disinclination to
224
support the Government's proposals vigorously. The Leader of the House intervened only to assure us that Middlesex would still play at Lords, but he has retired from this battle.
In their place we have the "new look". We have the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who, at any rate, presents his Departmental brief very seriously, and we know that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Education always treats himself very seriously. We are to await the winding-up speech of the Minister of Health, who, again, will be very serious, wearing his hair shirt and reminding us how wretched things are under a Tory Administration. But this is just a new look, just a new appearance, that is all. The Government are putting on respectable clothing. The bottles and labels are new, but the wine is no better. It is the same old poison.
What we had hoped for was something better than we considered as the Government's proposals when we last debated this very difficult problem. I concede that it is a difficult problem, and I continue this bipartisan approach by emphasising two things. I concede—I am not making a party political point—that both parties have failed to grasp the nettle of local government reform. It follows that this is piecemeal, partial, local government reform, but for this reason we have to consider what the Government are doing in the context of their general policy.
We talked yesterday about housing, development, and so on. We know the problem of south-east England—the drift of population—but this is a difficulty which is not to be tackled only at the receiving end. My constituency is on the North-East Coast. When the Government spokesman, the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, visited the North-East Coast recently, the only advice he gave us was that if we could not find jobs we should migrate. This is the problem. If we are concerned about the drift of population, we want action by the Government to provide more effectively for the location of industry.
Again, we know that one of the major problems affecting Greater London is that of transport and traffic, but, as was pointed out yesterday, this is a problem

225
more of the ring encircling London than of London itself, and it is not reassuring to us to reflect that the Minister of Transport has brought upon us a chaos which would have been quite unbelievable only a few years ago.
Again, if we are talking about development, and the difficulties of authorities in this densely built-up area, we must be concerned about the use of urban land, but we have endured this Parliament so far without any Government proposals to assist authorities which are faced with the appalling problem of the best use of urban land, and of overcoming the rocketing prices for it.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned—as though it were a revelation—that this was a preliminary step to a correlation of the problems affecting south-east England. If that is the problem that he is tackling here, he is tackling it the wrong way round. He is dealing with the part before dealing with the whole, and we are entitled to know, first, what proposals the Government have in mind for regional organisation.
There has been a deterioration in the position since our last debate, when I referred to the Tory slogan, "Conservative Planning Works". That has been withdrawn by Tory Central Office. The Government are not making any effort. That is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that no helpful measures can be taken in the next few months. Steps have not been taken. We have had an abandonment of effective economic planning, and this bears heavily upon the situation in London.
I emphasise again the cardinal point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), that the primary need is to direct our attention to the services provided by local authorities. The Commission concluded that the most important of all local government functions was education. My hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) said that probably 60 per cent. of the total expenditure of all the local authorities within the Greater London area is devoted to education. That may well be an underestimate.
What we must remember is that although the most important of all local government functions is indisputably edu-
226
cation, it was not because of any difficulties which arose in the administration of education that the Commission was driven to make its recommendation. On the contrary, the advice that the Minister of Education tendered to the Royal Commission was:
"There is no part of the area in which the present system of educational administration does not work at least tolerably well. The weaknesses that exist are either not of such a nature or not so serious as to call for a surgical operation to cure them. Accordingly the Ministry are not disposed to suggest on education grounds any division or amalgamation of the areas of the existing local education authorities."
The Commission recommended the creation of a Greater London Council not on the ground of any difficulties in the administration of education, but on other grounds. The Government, however, seem to have failed to appreciate that this recommendation, concerning the transference of responsibility of the most important local government function to the Greater London Council, was absolutely essential to the recommendations. It was only with that recommendation that the Commission's proposals had any validity.
We must remember that we are now considering an enormous local government authority with a direct election from enormous constituencies. We must, therefore, consider the character of the organisation, to see whether it can sustain itself. The Commission rightly came to the conclusion that if such a local authority, directly elected, were to be created it would inevitably have to carry with it responsibility for education.
This is the dilemma that faces the House. I want to remain bipartisan in my approach. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that this proposal cannot be accepted on educational grounds. Hon. Members on both sides have stated repeatedly that the Commission displayed a lack of appreciation of local government administration of education. That is why this proposal fails absolutely; it would not provide a proper form of local government to administer the main function of local government.
But if we abandon the Commission's recommendation with regard to the Greater London Council we abandon it entirely, because it no longer has validity. The House must realise what it is doing

227
by setting up an authority such as this with such limited powers. We must consider the relationship of this body to the admittedly new and powerful borough councils. Education is the key to the relationship between the two bodies.
The proposed new council has been described as a Frankenstein monster. This is not being melodramatic. I warn the Government that if they create this body it will prove to be very rapacious. An inherent instability will be created within local government if the Government pursue their present objective. We must reserve the right to recast the preposterous shape of local government that the Government are intent on providing, but the impetus and drive towards such recasting lies within the organisation itself.
I now turn to the Commission's complementary proposal, which is all part of the pattern. The Commission said that for education there should be a two-tier, divided responsibility, although—as I pointed out when we last debated this point—the boroughs were being provided with minimal powers in the day-to-day running of education. The Commission was trying to provide an organic relationship between the boroughs and the Greater London Council, and in this respect it accepted the advice which the Minister of Education conveyed to it.
But the Government now say, "Not only do we reject the major proposal of the Royal Commission but we also reject its further proposal," on the rather remarkable ground—in view of the advice tendered to the Commission by the Minister—that the Government are against divided responsibility in education. We have a complete abandonment of the Commission's proposal. What nonsense for the Minister of Housing and Local Government to tell us that the basis of the Bill is the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission.
The right hon. Gentleman is talking through his hat. If he had attended the debate we held in February he would have known that the Government then reiterated the slogan, "Challenge the pattern—challenge the principles." That is what the Government have done, and
228
it is of essential importance to this present proposal. It means that the Government are proposing to legislate solely on their own responsibility. They cannot call in aid the Commission's Report. They cannot call in aid any substantial volume of local government opinion in London. This is an entirely novel situation, and it is entirely contrary to what is happening to local government in the rest of the country.
On top of that, it is implicit in the Government proposals that they have rejected the two cardinal principles which run through the Commission's Report. In whose mouth does it lie to make an allegation of politics? This is politics. The Government have the right to do it, but they must at least recognise what they are doing. They are making a political proposition which runs counter to the Commission's principle of healthy Government as far as the Greater London Council is concerned and counter to its principle of efficiency as far as the education services of the boroughs is concerned. This is not only politics, but politics in face of such advice as the Royal Commission gave.
It is not only in face of the advice of the Royal Commission—and I make no party point about the Greater London Council in this context, for we all agree that the Royal Commission's proposals for it were untenable—but in face of all the advice tendered by the Minister of Education to the Royal Commission. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Ministry was not disposed to suggest any division or amalgamation of areas. The Ministry went further. It submitted a glowing testimonial to the work of the London County Council. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to retract any of that testimonial, but it is on record. Dealing with comprehensive secondary education, the right hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the tactfulness and exercise of discretion by the L.C.C. in implementing its policy.
When the right hon. Gentleman dealt with Middlesex, we got an historical review of the difficulties of divided responsibility there. What we are concerned with is the conclusion which the Minister of Education offered to the Royal Commission, and I quote:
"There is no reason why the present system of divisional administration should not operate

229
well—as it does in some other parts of the country. Every effort needs to be made by all concerned to improve its working in Middlesex."
Again, that is not a proposal for reorganisation but an appeal, to which there would have been a ready response, to improve the working of divisional administration.
Then, when dealing with the county borough to be created on the fringes of Essex, Surrey and Kent, what did the right hon. Gentleman tell the Commission? He said that such a cluster of county boroughs would bring "serious educational disadvantages."
The Minister of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): The hon. Gentleman keeps on saying "What did the right hon. Gentleman tell the Commission?" For the sake of accuracy it should be made plain that it was the last Minister of Education but one, and not me. I shall have something to say. I do not want to run away from the evidence which my Department presented to the Royal Commission, but for the sake of accuracy I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make it clear that the "right hon. Gentleman" he keeps mentioning is not me.
Mr. Willey: It is true that the Minister concerned was not the present holder of the office. Of course, we all know that the present Minister has had previous responsibility as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman intends to discount that as well. We know that his appointment to his present office was subsequent to the last debate we had on London government.
Mr. George Brown: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with his predecessor?
Mr. Willey: I take it that he intends to take the opportunity later to dissociate himself from the Government and from his predecessor.
Mr. G. Brown: Obviously he must, in view of what his predecessor said.
Mr. Willey: Undoubtedly, whatever the case may be for the Government's proposals in other services, they will seriously prejudice the administration of education as a local government responsibility, notwithstanding the fact that it is
230
conceded by everyone that education is the most important local government service. Why should the Government do this? Why should they not only abandon the advice of the Royal Commission, but reject the advice tendered by the former Minister of Education?
There are probably three essential reasons. The first is something I have complained about repeatedly but unavailingly during the life of this Government. This is that we get far too great a bureaucratic interference in political decisions. I am convinced that the bureaucracy is afraid of a too powerful independent local government.
The second reason bears more closely upon the Minister of Education. We all know that over the next years we must face a rapidly increasing expenditure on education. I believe that the bureaucracy is, however, afraid of this.
Sir E. Boyle indicated dissent.
Mr. Willey: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman should seem so surprised. This was a major argument in our debates on the block grant. We know that the pace in education has been forced in by some of the authorities now threatened with destruction. I believe that the Treasury is unhappy that there should be education authorities who, in the need for increasing expenditure on education, can force the pace.
The third reason is that there is a clear, doctrinaire determination to destroy the London County Council—and that cannot be denied. It is not an exaggeration. Let us recall earlier debates. We had, first, the proposal to create the boroughs as single-tier education authorities. But it was obvious to everyone that this would cause absolute chaos in Central London. So the Government then brought forward their half-baked and meaningless proposal to set up an authority to be responsible for "a population of about 2 million people". That was absolute nonsense, but it was politics. The Government were making quite clear to their supporters that there was no question of a reprieve for the London County Council. That was the only purpose of the exercise.
Then we got the reprieve announced on 3rd May last, and I welcomed it. Yet it is different from the sort of

231
reprieve exercised on condemned criminals. It is not absolute—one need only look at the Bill to see that. I shall not waste time discussing the proposals of the Bill. [Laughter.] Yes, it would be a waste of time, and the Minister of Education knows why. We have only to look at the form of the proposed education authority and the method of financing it to realise that it will only be temporary. Yesterday, the Minister of Housing and Local Government himself revealed that it would only be temporary.
There is another illustration of this—the preposterous divorce between care committee work and education committee work in the central area. The school health service provisions are, purposely designed to provide for the breakup of the central London area as an education authority.
Lord Eccles spoke about the necessity for planning fifty years ahead. But here, at the heart of the Commonwealth, where the education facilities and provisions are greater than anywhere else in the Commonwealth, the Government are not looking fifty years but five years ahead. They know the effect of their proposals. They mean the breaking of the morale not only of the architects, but of the whole of the education administration. I emphasise, as the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor emphasised, that we are not talking about an establishment on paper but about an establishment that has been built up over the years, a team with balanced, expert knowledge. That is being broken up and will be further broken up over the next few years as this threat lies over the heads of this magnificent, excellent and unparalleled administration.
When Lord Eccles looked fifty years ahead, he said that we must have a large education authority which would provide variegated services and a wide freedom of choice. In a philosophic sort of way he said that we have to temper this prophetic vision by having regard to the desires of parents. Let us return to the central London area. We know the views of parents. There has been a demonstration by parents in the area which was quite unprecedented. They have said that they do not want
232
any change. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Education can tell us what the London teachers told him last night.
The purpose of the Bill—let us be frank about this—is not to temper this prophetic vision to the will of parents. On the contrary. It is to thwart and frustrate the expressed wishes of parents in the Central London area. It is hoped to gain a few years and then quietly to dispose of the inner London education administration.
That is not only my view. It is the view of the The Times Educational Supplement, which stated:
"It seems likely that primary and secondary education will eventually become a borough responsibility throughout Greater London."
I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to something significant in that conclusion. It is confined to primary and secondary education. There is no assumption that further education will survive within the Greater London area as a local government responsibility. This, again, will give those who have a bureaucratic dislike of the exercise of the functions by local authorities an opportunity to exploit the inability of the boroughs to provide further education and to take this away from the local authorities to hand over to Whitehall. If we consider the proposals of the Government in this light, obviously the only motivation is political.
As was said yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, this was admitted by Lord Eccles. I will remind the Minister of what he said:
"I am sorry to have to say this"—
at any rate, Lord Eccles expressed regret—
"but I am aware—because they have made me aware of it—that some of my hon. Friends feel that the L.C.C. has shown itself so doctrinaire in its educational planning that it would be worth almost any price to hand over its responsibilities to the new boroughs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1962; Vol. 654, c. 245.]
"Worth almost any price". Worth the disruption of the present services and the fragmentation of the provision of education in the Greater London region.
In anticipation of what the Minister may well say, I will say at once that this had nothing to do with the efficiency of the county boroughs. Here we are not dealing with local government reform.

233
We are dealing with London. I represent a county borough, and if we are to justify my own local authority, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham said, bring me a map. Incidentally, I have been given some good arguments in favour of the expansion and extension of the boundaries of my local authority. But here we are dealing with a continuously built-up area within which the Minister of Education said that the education authorities should be for 1 million to 1¼ million.
First, let us think about disruption, the literal destruction of some of the finest education authorities, if not the finest, in the country; and their replacement by 32 new authorities, 32 directors of education and 32 education departments. This will land a heavy load of trouble on the shoulders of the Minister. Why do it now? At the moment, the right hon. Gentleman faces appalling difficulties, including the teacher shortage, which could be called his personal responsibility because of the critical time when he was Parliamentary Secretary. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman now appreciates the difficulty that at short notice we have to create with speed variegated and different forms of education. This will make intensive demands on the Ministry of Education and those who have to administer education locally, and it is at this time that in London we are to be faced with this frightful disruption.
Last night we were told that there were 130 vacancies in architects' departments. Here we are dealing with what are unquestionably the finest architectural departments in the country, those of London and Middlesex. If we think of the authorities to replace them, we have to face the position that at present only 13 of the existing borough and urban district councils in Greater London have architects' departments with an architect as the chief officer. If we contemplate the 20 new boroughs in outer London which will undertake housing and educational building, only five can be said to be certain to form an architects' department. What a prospect.
The Minister of Education's predecessor—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will do the same—properly called attention to the magnificent work on school building which has been
234
achieved since the end of the war. This work has been done, not by his Department alone, but by his Department and these magnificent teams of architects which have been working for these authorities. This is what the Minister proposes to break up, and, as his Ministry expressed as its opinion to the Commission, we cannot create these teams overnight. An education administration and an architectural administration has to be built up.
All this is to be torn down, and it will take years to re-create it. During these years his Department will face immense difficulties because of the demands upon education. If we are to face this disruption surely it is a burden on the Government to say that as a result, consequent upon the disruption, there will be an immense improvement. I have listened to the debates, but that has never been argued from the benches opposite. The most that has been done is to say, "We will cause this fragmentation and, with a great deal of hard work, things may not be much worse than they are now." That does not justify the enormous disruption of education, which is an essential fundamental local government service within the London region.
Recently, the right hon. Gentleman will remember, we debated the situation of deaf children. Such handicapped children will suffer most, the children attending special schools and, as was said in the debate in February, the children attending denominational schools also will suffer. We know what the Ministry envisages in relation to secondary schools as the minimum size for an authority to provide secondary education with sufficient choice. We know her Department's view about technical education. I wish to remind the Minister of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Southall last night. Unfortunately, this break-up will react particularly harshly on those who can least protect themselves.
All we have by way of a reply is that these authorities will do their best to mitigate the harm that is expected. The right hon. Gentleman knows all the difficulties there are about extra-district schooling. I know that he will use his good offices as an arbitrator in helping

235
in those difficulties. My constituency is not only a county borough, it is a shipbuilding centre. All the difficulties we have in demarcation in shipbuilding are as nothing compared to the difficulties that the Minister will have to face if he remains responsible for education in London when these proposals are carried out.
These changes will provide a less efficient, less imaginative, less sensitive and less sympathetic form of administration of education. The real tragedy is that this will not be the result of the administrators being less imaginative, less sensitive or less sympathetic, but merely because of the conditions imposed on them, which will deny them the opportunity of doing what many of them are able to do now.
There has been no question about arguing against the necessity of some real improvement of local government in London. I am convinced that if we concentrate attention on the major function of local government, that of education, we can see quite clearly that what we needed was an adaptation of a form of government which has been patiently and laboriously built up by people of all parties over the past few years.
Lord Eccles said that the two tests were efficiency and humanity. There is not the slightest question that the result of the Bill, if implemented, will be to lessen efficiency. There is not the slightest question, in the light of this debate, that it will lead to less humanity. It will particularly affect the old and the young. It will particularly affect the handicapped and the specially talented. I am convinced that there is a fourth reason, a fourth motive, which has impelled the Government to take this action. By doing this they believe they can contain and limit the further growth of the Welfare State.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I believe that that is what they are deliberately doing.
Mr. Gordon Walker: It certainly is a consequence.
Mr. Willey: Some of the great London authorities have set the pace in the administration of the welfare services. They have also set the pace in providing an opportunity for children on as broad a base as possible. In resisting this Bill,
236
we are not only seeking to protect the people of London but we are seeking to protect the people everywhere.
4.43 p.m.
The Minister of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): I know that there are many hon. Members who wish to take part in this debate and I therefore propose to confine myself to those provisions in the Bill which relate to education. I must say, however, that few hon. Members present this afternoon while the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) was speaking would have imagined that this was to be one of the Opposition's great demonstrations in the course of this Session.
Hon. Members will have seen that the main provision in regard to education is in Clause 30. The effect of that Clause will be that in outer London education will be administered by 20 new boroughs instead of the present eight local education authorities, while within the present L.C.C. area education will be administered by an ad hoc body to be called the Inner London Education Authority. As the hon. Member rightly pointed out, this is quite a different scheme from that recommended by the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission advocated a two-tier system whereby the Greater London Council would itself have acted as the local education authority for the whole area, both outer London and the present L.C.C. area, with statutory delegation to the London boroughs of most matters of day-to-day administration.
This always seemed to me a surprising recommendation because the Commission, having started by being highly critical of the Middlesex system, seemed to come down eventually on the side of wishing to extend that type of arrangement over the whole Greater London area. To judge from past debates, which I have read, I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House were critical of the Royal Commission's proposals in this respect and saw the force of the Government's reasons for rejecting them.
However—this is why I begin with this point this afternoon—I have detected during recent weeks some lingering support here and there for a two-tier system, mainly on the ground that certain parts of the education service, especially further education, ought to be administered on a regional scale.

237
There is already regional machinery for the co-ordination of further education, and I think that it is significant that the region which includes London extends far outside Greater London as defined in this Bill. The truth is that for the purposes of regional coordination Greater London would not be large enough; whereas for the purposes of administration—as Lord Eccles so rightly pointed out—an authority area containing more children than in the whole of Scotland must be too large. In any case, I am sure that it would be a very great error to attempt to separate the administration of further education from that of the schools.
One of the developments which have struck me most on my return to the Ministry has been the steady extension during recent years of co-operation between the schools and the colleges of further education. I am sure that it would he quite wrong, in any part of the country, to attempt to separate the administration of these two stages of education. I think it even more misleading to suppose that, within the purview of local education authorities, there is something rather mysteriously called "higher education" which could be administered separately from the rest of further education. I very much hope that I shall at least carry the whole House with me in resisting any proposal for a divided local education service, either in the Greater London area or anywhere else.
Instead of the Royal Commission's scheme, the Government are proposing two different solutions to deal with the respective circumstances of outer and inner London. In outer London there will be a cluster of contiguous local education authorities. In inner London we shall have one single local education authority whose constitution has no precise parallel elsewhere, since the Inner London Education Authority will have no other functions apart from those of a local education authority.
I think that the reasons why the Government are proposing two different solutions for outer and inner London are by now fairly well known to the House. Obviously, we have to strike a balance between two sets of considerations. On the one hand, there are the advantages of an all-purpose borough authority
238
where all the human services are the responsibility of the same council. On the other hand, there are the advantages of an ad hoc local education authority which can cover a much wider area. The Government's approach has been, in general, to prefer the borough solution, which avoids the problems of dividing one human service from another, but they have also recognised that inner London constitutes a special case.
The reason, as my predecessor so clearly pointed out to the House, is that as one gets towards the centre of London so the pattern of schools and technical colleges becomes less and less related to borough boundaries. Furthermore—again, this was a point Lord Eccles made in the February debate—the transport system gets more and more closely integrated so that parents in inner London now take it for granted that their children can travel quite long distances to school.
So much for the general principles behind the Government's proposals. I now want to deal in rather more detail with the arrangements for outer London. I fully realise that there is bound to be some concern at the prospect of the education service in this area being divided among 20 local education authorities instead of eight as at present, but I think that there are a number of points to be made on the other side. Surely no one can pretend that the pattern of local authority administration in outer London is satisfactory as it stands. It surely could not make sense for the three County Boroughs of Croydon, West Ham and East Ham, to go on being treated entirely differently from the rest of the built-up areas of outer London.
I think that the House has recognised this on a number of occasions. During the first two Parliaments which I can remember, between 1950 and 1955, there were a number of Private Bills promoted which were designed to give county borough status to Ealing and Ilford. I think that most of us in the House at that time, whichever way we voted on those occasions, recognised that we should not try to deal with Ealing or Ilford in isolation, but that here was a problem which would have to be faced in terms of outer London as a whole. I also think that the two tiers of educational administration in outer London were somewhat difficult to defend. In Middlesex there

239
are at present, besides the County Council, no fewer than 20 divisional executives, of which 16 are excepted districts. Metropolitan Kent, Surrey and Essex are also at present divided into divisional executives.
As things are now, voluntary organisations, like the Churches, with schemes affecting a wide area may need to get the agreement not just of one or two councils, but of several different bodies to what they propose. In future, the total number of different councils involved, taking both tiers of administration together, will be considerably smaller than at present, and I believe that there will be real advantages in this.
My next point—it is one which the hon. Gentleman particularly mentioned this afternoon—concerns the size of the new outer London education authorities. I think that the hon. Gentleman gave perhaps a slightly false impression in repeatedly using the word "fragmentation", because I think that we have to remember that the new local education authorities will all be substantial in size and some of them will rank with the largest county boroughs in the country—apart from half-a-dozen cities like Birmingham or Manchester which, from the point of view of size, are in a class by themselves. Even the smallest of the new outer London boroughs will be larger than, say, Brighton or Reading. Most will be of the size of Plymouth or Portsmouth and, incidentally, all but one or two will be larger than Sunderland, so I think that the reference to fragmentation was in a way an unfair one. The largest will be about the size of Nottingham or Coventry.
I do not take nearly such a gloomy view as the hon. Gentleman about the future of London. I want to refer to a point which the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) made yesterday. He raised the point about the provision of highly specialised forms of education and he suggested that the ending of the county services in outer London would make this much more difficult. I make two points to the hon. Member in reply. One is that these highly specialised demands are met not by a centralised
240
staff of the local education authority but by specialist teachers in colleges of further education and to some extent in the schools. These will be quite undisturbed by the changes. The provision in Clause 31 (7) for pupils and students to be able to cross borough boundaries will surely mean that the facilities will be just as widely available as they are now.
Secondly, the existing county advisory services, which are not mainly concerned with such specialised courses as the hon. Gentleman referred to, are certainly doing excellent work which I would want to see continued in the new boroughs. Boroughs of a population of 250,000 are really quite large enough, as provincial experience shows, to provide good advisory services, and in any case I certainly intend to encourage them to club together to provide an even wider spread of specialised services than they would be likely to have individually.
The hon. Member for Fulham said yesterday that this shows that the idea of sovereignty is an illusion. It is surely accepted by all of us that no local education authority lives entirely to itself. There is no inconsistency in believing on the one hand, that a borough of 250,000 can handle an adequate education service, and, at the same time, recognising that local authorities, like nations, must recognise a considerable degree of interdependence.
There are two things which I would add on these boroughs. Of course, the minimum standards laid down by my Department will apply to these new authorities as they apply everywhere else. I hope that no one will underrate the importance of the pressure of public opinion in these new boroughs in pressing for higher standards. I judge from letters from hon. Members that those who live in outer London are very well aware of the importance of higher educational standards and educational advance, and I hope that the pressure of public opinion will do a great deal to hasten the development of the service in the new boroughs. There will remain, I agree, a number of problems which can be resolved only by co-operation. I know that many hon. Members are anxious about them. For example, there is the situation where an existing school draws

241
its pupils from an area which the boundaries of the new local authorities will bisect.
I am thinking here especially of voluntary schools, aided denominational schools, and I know that a number of those who are responsible for these schools are worried about the possibility that in future their catchment areas may be restricted. Then there are also the Middlesex special schools to which the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) referred yesterday, many of which could not be run economically unless they served more than one local education authority. And the same is true of several of the courses at colleges of further education.
Let me take the special schools first. This is an aspect of the service about which we in this House feel a particular concern and we are aware that it is especially important to get our arrangements right. It is no new problem for special schools to serve an area wider than that of the authority responsible for maintaining them. I do not myself expect any serious difficulty over day special schools. For example, there is already a regular movement of children into some of the Middlesex day special schools from the London County Council area and vice versa.
The new borough authorities which assume the responsibility for taking over schools of this kind will do so on the clear understanding that they are catering for a much wider area than their own, within which all children must be given the same chance of admission. I agree with the hon. Member for Southall that a rather more difficult problem arises in the case of the 11 boarding special schools maintained by Middlesex. Why this is more difficult is because 10 of these are located right outside the Greater London Area. This is a matter which clearly needs discussion, but as I see the position each of these schools will have to be taken over by one of the new boroughs within the present Middlesex County area, and it will have for the time being to continue to serve the areas which it serves at present.
More generally, there is the provision in Clause 31 for the outer London boroughs to review the needs of their areas for schools and for further education
242
and to submit their plans to my Department, just as the present local education authorities did originally with their own development plans. In those cases where this review affects voluntary schools, the local education authority must first consult the voluntary school interests, and the revised plans will be subject to my approval. I hope that this part of the Bill will reassure the Churches, because it will ensure that voluntary school provision in one area is planned with due regard to the needs of its neighbours, too; and that, I think, is of very great importance to the Churches.
My last point on the arrangements for outer London is the most important of all. In accordance with the general approach which I outlined in the early part of my speech, I am especially concerned to safeguard the freedom of choice of the individual parent. A fairly large minority of children at present cross what will become a borough boundary to get to a school, and I know that some parents are worried lest this may not be possible in future. Lord Eccles gave an undertaking to see that the existing range of choice was safeguarded, and hon. Members will have seen that this undertaking has been honoured in Clause 31 (7), which provides that within Greater London borough boundaries shall not in themselves constitute a reason for refusing a child admission to a school.
Of course, this will not guarantee automatically that a parent can get a place in any school he wants, any more than now—for example, if a school is full or if his child does not measure up to the standard of entry. But Clause 31 (7) means that the fact that a parent lives on the wrong side of a borough boundary will not of itself handicap him in getting a place.
I know that some of my hon. Friends are concerned that this provision in Clause 31 (7), enabling pupils to go to schools and colleges outside their own areas, does not apply to those parts of Surrey, Kent and Essex outside Greater London, and I will say a word about this. The reason for this is simply that this Bill deals with local government in Greater London and the Government did not feel that it would be suitable in such a Bill to place obligations on authorities which will be wholly outside Greater London. But I am sure that the

243
county authorities will agree that they should make sensible arrangements to admit pupils from Greater London boroughs and to pay in appropriate cases for their own children to be educated within Greater London. I can tell my hon. Friends that when the new authorities are formed, I intend to discuss the operation of this Clause with them, and I hope that the outer counties will join in the discussions, too, so that as far as possible the distinctions which we have to make will not matter too much to the parents and the children concerned.
So much for outer London. Now I turn to the arrangements for inner London. Here, of course, there is one major difference between the proposals in the White Paper which the House debated last February and the proposals in the Bill. The White Paper envisaged a single local education authority for a central area with a population of about 2 million, whereas the Bill proposes a single authority for the whole area at present administered by the London County Council. I make no apology for the Government's change of mind on this point, partly because it was a genuinely difficult matter to decide and still more because I am convinced that the Government's final proposals are entirely reasonable.
I said earlier that the whole system of schools and colleges in the L.C.C. area has been developed to meet the needs of the area as a whole and bears little or no relation to borough boundaries. That is why we are deliberately avoiding any disruption of the existing education service in the inner London area. The Inner London Education Authority, that is, the special committee of the Greater London Council which will administer education in the present L.C.C. area, will take over the education service of the L.C.C. as it stands, together with its staff.
The Inner London Education Authority will consist of the 40 councillors elected to the Greater London Council from the inner London area together with 13 nominated representatives of the inner London boroughs and—in the absence of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), I may add—the City.
As for the functions of the Inner London Education Authority, these can be
244
described under two headings. First, the Inner London Education Authority will appoint its own education committee in just the same way as do other local education authorities—that is to say, the Education Committee of the Inner London Education Authority will have the same power as other education committees to co-opt members with experience of education, such as teachers and the representatives of the churches.
Secondly, the Inner London Education Authority will decide how much money it needs and how much of this money should be raised by loan; and the Greater London Council will then precept for it on the inner London boroughs. In effect, therefore, the whole control of the education service in inner London is placed in the hands of the Inner London Education Authority, for all practical purposes exactly as it is entrusted elsewhere to a county or county borough council.
The Greater London Council, as a whole, will have no residual functions relating to the administration of education. It is true that the Greater London Council will raise the money required, but the sums raised will have to be those specified by the Inner London Education Authority. Hon. Members may ask why, in that case, the Government have linked the Greater London Council with education at all, and why they have called the I.L.E.A. a committee of the Greater London Council.
There are two reasons for this. The first, as I have said, is that 40 out of the 53 members of the I.L.E.A. will be the constituency members elected to the Greater London Council by the inner London boroughs, and it is because they have been elected as members of the Greater London Council for the inner London boroughs, and for no other reason, that they will also have their responsibilities as members of the Inner London Education Authority.
The second reason why we have called the authority a committee of the Greater London Council is that there is the practical advantage of preserving some formal link between the Greater London Council and education, in that it will facilitate the joint use of same common services—for example, an architect's department. But I emphasise once again that the preservation of this formal link does not mean that the Greater

245
London Council has powers over education which it has remitted to a committee. On the contrary, the whole control of the education service in inner London under the Bill will be placed in the hands of the inner London education authority.
At this point I will refer to the review and report to Parliament specifically required of the Minister in Clause 30 (5). I know the interest which has been felt over this subsection, quite irrespective of political considerations, by a number of teachers in the London area. I will state the doctrine first and then will answer the hon. Member for Fulham on what I might call the points in the text.
It is surely reasonable that the inner London boroughs should have an interest in education matters, partly because of the heavy precept which they will have to pay to the Greater London Council towards its cost and partly through the members whom they will nominate to the inner London education authority. But it is too early to say whether it would be right at some later date to arrange for them to participate more directly.
I say to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North that this is particularly in my mind since I talked with the deputation of London teachers last night: the idea may be in some people's minds that, because of the general nature of the Government's proposals for Greater London, there must be a presumption that education will itself become a borough service after the review. I can assure hon. Members that such a view is mistaken. There has been no change in the Government's policy since my right hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) made his statement.
Mr. Mellish: What the Minister is doing—and I am not quarrelling with it—is making many of his hon. Friends, especially those who supported him on the L.C.C., first-class humbugs, because they thought that education would be handled by the boroughs.
Sir E. Boyle: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen to the whole of my statement. I am saying that the presumption to which I have referred is mistaken. The special nature of the Government's proposals for education in inner London would seem to me to
246
justify the proposal for a review when we have had some years' experience of the new local government organisation for Greater London as a whole. It will be perfectly open to the Government of the day to advise Parliament in 1970, if they so decide, that the balance of advantage lies in retaining a single local education authority in the inner London area.
Dr. Alan Glyn: Will my right hon. Friend clear up one point? From what he has said, I think that we can assume that the fear which teachers have been under recently about their own personal future is not warranted.
Sir E. Boyle: What is not warranted is the fear that because of the general lines of the Government's proposals there must be a presumption that education will become a borough responsibility after this review. I believe that there is a strong case for having this review, but as I have just said, it will be perfectly open to the Government of the day in 1970, if they so decide, to advise Parliament that the balance of advantage lies in retaining a single local education authority.
Mr. Willey: We should get the presumption quite clear if we are going to make a presumption. If we cannot make the presumption that the boroughs will become education authorities, can we presume the likelihood that the Inner London Education Authority will remain?
Sir E. Boyle: No. What I am saying is that it is wrong to make presumptions at all. The presumption has been made by many people that education will become a borough service after 1970. I am pointing out that such a presumption is entirely unjustified, because the purpose of subsection (5) is to hold the position open without prejudice.
Mr. Albert Evans: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the fears of teachers and others are not allayed and that the uncertainty will remain until 1970 is reached and passed.
Sir E. Boyle: Obviously, I am not able today to give a pledge about what will happen in 1970, but I am concerned to make this point. It would be quite wrong to suppose that the general nature

247
of the Government's proposals for Greater London make it reasonable to assume at the moment that education will become a borough service after 1970. This matter is left open without prejudice by the provision in subsection (5). In 1970 it will be open to the Government to give whatever advice to Parliament they like when they have considered where the balance of advantage lies from an educational paint of view.
Yesterday the hon. Member for Fulham raised the question of the wording of subsection (5) and said:
"The clear implication of that Clause"—
the hon. Gentleman meant the subsection of that Clause—
"is that the Minister has not to decide whether the service should be broken up but to what extent it should be broken up."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1962; Vol. 669, c. 76.]
I have taken advice on this point since yesterday and I can now say this to the hon. Member for Fulham. I have been advised that the words "if any" in page 41, line 18, apply to the phrases
"to what extent"
and
"in what part or parts of that Area"
as well as to the immediately preceding phrase
"subject to what conditions".
I am perfectly ready with my right hon. Friend to look at this drafting before the next stage of the Bill. But I do not want to leave the House today in any doubt as to what is the unequivocal intention of the Government. The firm intention of the Government and the purpose of subsection (5) is to hold the position open without prejudice.
Mr. Michael Stewart: Will the Minister clear up this point? Earlier he gave some reasons why it is important to treat education in inner London today as a unit. He mentioned, for example, the ease of travel in that area and the fact that parents and children can travel long distances. Are there any grounds for supposing that those causes which make it desirable to treat education in the middle of London as a single unit today will be less operative in five years' time? For instance, will it be more difficult after the Bill has been in operation for five years for children to
248
travel long distances in central London than it is today?
Sir E. Boyle: Obviously I cannot anticipate the discussions that we shall have when the review takes place. The hon. Member cannot reasonably expect me to do that. On the other hand, I have absolutely no doubt that when the review takes place the sort of considerations to which the hon. Member has just referred will be highly relevant, just as some other matters may be relevant. The hon. Gentleman is asking me to prejudge the result of that review. That I cannot do. He gives me the opportunity to repeat once again, which I gladly do, that this decision, when the time comes, will be taken purely on educational grounds on the basis of what is best for education in inner London and will not be governed in any way by the decisions which have been taken on other services in the London area.
There is one other Clause connected with education to which I want to refer. Hon. Members may have noticed that there is a special provision in Clause 32 for co-ordinating the school health service in Inner London, which is the responsibility of the I.L.E.A., with the public health service which is the responsibility of the London boroughs. I must say that the London County Council has very exaggerated ideas as to the purpose of this Clause. In its memorandum to its members it said:
"It will be observed that, as regards the School Health Service, the break-up is threatened not at some unknown date but in 1965."
Let me make it quite clear that the Government have no intention whatever of breaking up the School Health Service in inner London, Which will be the responsibility of the I.L.E.A. All the Bill does is to require the I.L.E.A. to prepare schemes jointly with each of the constituent boroughs and the City for the joint use of professional staff and buildings, and for consultation as to the qualifications of the professional staff concerned with both health services. [Interruption.] I can assure the House that there is nothing sinister about this. It is the normal practice throughout the country for the School Health Service and the general Health Service to share their professional staff, and this works perfectly well. There is nothing special

249
to London about this. The only reason for making it a statutory requirement in inner London is that in this case different councils are involved, instead of, as elsewhere, different committees of the same council.
Mr. R. J. Mellish: The right hon. Gentleman cannot see the faces of his hon. Friends behind him. That is just as well. If he could, he would see they look pretty sick. I am all for a central authority having a greater measure of control, but this breaks down the whole Tory concept of having more control concentrated in local hands.
Sir E. Boyle: It is always a pleasure to watch the hon. Member opposite, though I sometimes regret that I cannot see my hon. Friends more often. I was simply pointing out that the London County Council had read something sinister into this simply through failing to understand the reason for making this a statutory requirement. The Clause does not in any way preclude the appointment by the I.L.E.A. of some staff who will not be shared by the local health authorities. For example, they may very well need a medical officer to supervise their special schools. But this is a matter which my Department will be very ready to discuss with the I.L.E.A. when it has been sot up and when the time comes to prepare the schemes required by Clause 32.
I should like finally to add a personal word. Education in the London area is not, to me, just an academic subject. I have already spent more than three years at the Ministry of Education, either as Parliamentary Secretary or as Minister. During that period I suppose I have visited more schools and colleges in the London area than anywhere else. When I look back on my visits, the schools that remain longest in my memory are not only what one might call the showpieces, the fine new schools, of whatever denomination, built since the war, impressive though many of them are.
I have been just as impressed with the work done in many of the older schools in the central areas, schools in which a devoted staff have not only equipped children to take their place
250
in the world but have also met with real success in doing something to compensate many of these children for the narrowness and limitations of their home lives. I also know very well the great contributions to educational progress which have been made by the counties surrounding London. I have seen for myself the work done by Surrey in its special schools and Hertfordshire in acting as pacemaker in school building.
I have every sympathy with those who are determined that London and the area surrounding it should continue to make this great contribution to a service on which not only our economic efficiency but the whole social health of our community so largely depends. That is why both my predecessor and I have regarded it as one of our major responsibilities to ensure that the Government's plans for London government were of such a kind as fully to safeguard the interests of education. I am convinced that we have carried out these responsibilities and that those who care most about educational progress can confidently give their support to this important Bill.
5.21 p.m.
Mr. Ede: I intend to make a short speech on what is the most tremendous Bill I have ever been faced with in this House. Here we have 205 pages in a Bill divided into nine Parts, with 86 Clauses and 17 Schedules. If ever a Bill was introduced marked by the Chief Whip for speedy transport by the tumbrels to the Guillotine, this is the Bill.
I dislike being faced with a Measure on which I do not think it is possible to arrive at a voluntary timetable. I believe, and have practised the belief, in a voluntary timetable in dealing with important Government Measures, for that is the only way to ensure that a Bill will be adequately discussed in Committee. I am uttering no threats. I am making no promises. But ask anyone who has ever been confronted with a Committee stage of a Bill how many days in Committee this one warrants if it is to be properly discussed and I am quite sure that the absence of the Chief Whip this afternoon indicates that he knows that no answer that could be given to that question would be helpful to him.

251
I have read the Bill and I have come across two lines with which I am in cordial agreement. Clause 3 (1, d) states:
"the urban districts of Staines and Sunbury-on-Thames shall become part of the county of Surrey".
I congratulate the two urban districts but regret to say that the teachers involved have written privately to me to express the wish that I will see that they do not suffer under that transfer.
We have listened to the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of Education and I was particularly impressed by the right hon. Gentleman's peroration a moment ago. But I ask myself how can he give such a promise when he tells us that we must make no presumptions about what will happen in 1970. Between now and 1970 the education of London will be lived in the knowledge that in 1970 a decision will be reached on the future. One can rest assured that those who believe in two-tier and one-tier Government for education will each be trying during those eight years to see that the scheme is so manipulated as to give them a good chance of getting their view adopted in 1970.
I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman in this terrible task of arranging for the administration of education. The present Chief Secretary in 1944, when we considered Clause 6 of the Education Bill of that year, gaily announced to the Committee that that part of the matter was the responsibility of the Parliamentary Secretary; that he would be dealing with it—and the First Schedule of the Education Act, 1944, is my major contribution to the legislation of this country. I see, though, that the Government are now trying to use it for the reverse process to that for which it was designed. It was the price the education service had to pay to secure that education should be conducted on a county and county borough basis. There is now an attempt being made in Part IV to use that Schedule for the reverse process and in Clause 30 (4) of this Bill we read:
"Part II of Schedule 1 to the Education Act 1944 shall have effect in its application to the Inner London Education Area as if—

(a) paragraph 7 from "or has been" onwards and paragraph 11 were omitted;

(b) in paragraph 8, the reference to the power to borrow money or to raise a rate included a reference to the power to make such a determination as is referred to in subsection (3) of this section;

252
and Part III of the said Schedule 1 (which relates to the delegation of functions of local education authorities to divisional executives) shall not apply to Greater London."
When I examine the First Schedule and strike out the words now to be omitted I am astonished to find that the Government should have thought that what is left will enable them to deal with the problems raised in that Part.
I am concerned with the effect of the Bill on education in what I regard as the most important part of the development of education in the next 20 years—the filling out of the proposals of 1944 with regard to further education. I always regard the people who come within the purview of these provisions as being the most important in education. They come within it because they want to. There is no compulsion about it. They come because in the course of their work, to which they will devote their lives, they find that, no matter what schools they come from, there are some subjects in which they are lamentably deficient. They come along and take classes in various technical colleges and other institutions to equip themselves for their part in the commercial and industrial life of the nation.
They are very important people indeed—people who have that willingness to fit themselves for the part they have to play in our economic development. It is gratifying to see the way, since the Act of 1944 was passed, in which those pupils have come forward and the way in which local education authorities and the Ministry have had to make provision to meet them.
In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman says, there will remain the great difficulty of arranging these institutions in such a way that there is no wastage of staff owing to the unnecessary duplication of opportunities as, for instance, where an institution now exists but local pride makes the people somewhere else want a similar institution, although the existing body could well cater for them.
I was faced with the same thing over the renewal of local government of fire brigades. After I had seen my friend Herbert Morrison, now Lord Morrison of Lambeth, climbing the ladders to the turntables, I was convinced that if I returned the fire service to every urban district council and borough in Surrey

253
there would be at least one such machine in every one of them. I therefore decided that it was best to make it a county service and so avoid unnecessary duplication.
That is one of the things we have to avoid in the extension of further education. A teacher may occasionally get the great responsibility of having to deal with a pupil who is naturally gifted in some of the more abstruse subjects, such as mathematics. He will find that he will have to work very hard at his subject in order to keep just one jump ahead of that pupil. There is nothing more humiliating for any teacher than to be told, "I said all that yesterday".
These exceptional pupils ought, as far as possible, to be grouped into an institution that can carry teachers of adequate professional calibre to deal with their problems. Unless we are very careful, we shall see that force of educational service dissipated over a far wider area than it should be. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who, I know, has this problem of further education very much at heart, will see that the really first-class teachers in these subjects that we deal with in the further education institutions will be so situated that they can use their tremendous talents to the great advantage of the population over a fairly wide area; and that institutions will be encouraged to recognise that there is in an individual institution a man or woman who is capable of dealing with that type of student. I am quite convinced that the demand for further education of the kind of which I have been speaking will not decrease in the 10 or 20 years immediately ahead of us.
I wish the right hon. Gentleman well in his efforts to arrange for sound educational administration, but I think that he will have to look well outside the pages of this Bill if he is to succeed in his efforts, and I should not be surprised to find amending Bills being proposed in the next four or five years to free him from some of the limitations that Part IV places on him.
Apart from that, I regret to find that Epsom and Ewell, the borough in which I reside, and its inhabitants, my fellow burgesses, will suffer under the Bill an indignity that the Leader of the House
254
promised us was unlikely to befall anybody. There is a proposal to divide Epsom and Ewell. If hon. Members will turn to Part II of the First Schedule—page 91—they will read
"The boundary of the London borough numbered 23 in the said Part I in the existing borough of Epsom and Ewell shall be a line beginning where the existing borough boundary departs from the centre for the time being of the left bank tributary of the Hogsmill river below the site of the former Ruxley sewage works and running north-eastwards along that centre to the junction of that tributary with that river, thence along the centre for the time being of that river to the eastern boundary of the railway between Ewell West and Stoneleigh stations, thence northeastwards along that eastern boundary to the north-eastern edge of Kingston Road, thence south-eastwards along the north-eastern edge of that road and of the Ewell by-pass (passing between that road or by-pass and the service roads) to the north-western edge of London Road, and thence north-eastwards along that north-western edge to the point where it crosses the existing borough boundary."
I have traced that boundary on the map, and it looks like the edge of a very old and badly-used saw. It pays no respect to history. It does not group a community. Local government in that area has, since the Surrey Review Order of 1933, devoted its energies with great success to creating a community within the borough as it exists now—and in local government there is nothing more important than the creation of a community which is inspired with the knowledge and belief that it is a community.
When the area was being created in 1933 under the Surrey Review Order, the inhabitants of the area now forming three wards of the borough urged the Surrey County Council Review Committee to include them in the new urban district—this was before the place was incorporated—of Epsom and Ewell, because they felt that that was the place with which they had most affinity, and although efforts have since been made by the Parliamentary Commissioners and others to lop off some of those wards and put them elsewhere, they have consistently resisted at every public inquiry any effort made to break up the borough. I was first elected a councillor of that borough in 1908, and I have seen the place develop, the community grow, and the community spirit obtain greater recognition amongst the inhabitants.

255
What this astounding new boundary does is this. Merely to make up the numbers in a borough that is centred on Kingston, it is proposed to lop off these three wards, and the inhabitants of the wards have not been slow in making their point of view known. In the three wards there are 14,824 electors on the register. A local committee, consisting of the representatives of the three political parties, all the residents' associations and many other organisations connected with the social life of the neighbourhood, carried out a referendum. It managed to obtain from the 14,824 electors the voices of 10,260, which is a very high percentage for any municipal matter at all. Of those, 9,779 expressed a wish to remain in the borough of Epsom and Ewell and in the county of Surrey, 200 expressed the wish to go into Greater London, and 281 said that they did not know what future they would prefer. They were people like the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Education who put it off to 1970.
One could not have a more explicit expression of the views of the inhabitants on what they want with regard to their future. Recalling what the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir G. Black) said last night, if they were in Malta or in one of the emerging States of Africa, Ministers would be rushing off every day to inquire what local opinion was and how it was arrived at. I say to the Government that self-expression and self-determination ought to be recognised in this country as well as elsewhere and that a voice as big and as loud as the one I have just quoted ought to be respected by them.
I hope that the House will allow me to quote some words written by Hilaire Belloc about just this kind of problem. They are:
"It has been debated and cannot be resolved, why these great lines of chalk north and south of the Weald achieve an impression of majesty. They are not very high. Their outline is monotonous and their surface bare. Something of that economy and reserve by whose power the classic in verse or architecture grows upon the mind is present in the Downs. These which we had travelled that day were not my own hills—Duncton and Bury, Westburton, Amberley and all—but they were similar because they stood up above the sand and the pines and because they were of that white barren soil clothed
256
in close turf, wherein nothing but the beech, the yew, and our own affection can take root and grow."
I believe that there is in this borough for which I speak vicariously tonight that deep affection for the community which they have created and for the land on which it has been built.
I shall oppose the Bill, and I urge the Government to see that some Amendments will be put down to rectify the injustice which is being done to my fellow-burgesses so that it may not be perpetuated in this Measure.
5.44 p.m.
Sir John Vaughan-Morgan: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said that he would make a brief speech. I am not complaining, but he spoke for 24 minutes. If I do not comment on his speech it is out of respect for my colleagues on both sides of the House who equally wish to speak, and I shall therefore speak more briefly.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government will be very relieved that at least one hon. Member on this side of the House will support the Second Reading. This being so, I hope that he will listen to my pleas with respect, in order at least to retain my support in the later stages. I am a Surrey Member, like my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for whom the right hon. Member for South Shields spoke in the latter part of his speech. My own constituency is not within the review area and is not affected other than consequentially. I also served briefly on London County Council in the distant past, and in even the more distant past I was a member of a metropolitan borough council. At least, I can say that I see the problem from various angles.
London government, of course, needed reform. It has been for 30 years as more unrelated to the geographic and demographic realities, which incidentally were substantially accentuated by the changes brought in, mainly by the party opposite, after the war, which in their turn made for the withering away in many respects of the lower-tier authorities. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) in his extremely able speech yesterday spoke of "thinking in terms of a regional authority for the whole of South-East

257
England" but let hon. Members note that the word is "thinking" and not "acting". Regionalism may come, but let us face it that an elected regional authority today would be premature and quite impracticable. If the present Bill is two generations overdue, at least it is in some way consonant with reality.
The trouble is that all of us are for reform of some sort provided our own area and our own authority and its functions are in no way changed. It is rather like St. Augustine who prayed:
"Give me chastity and continency, but not yet."
So it is here. "Let us have reform but do not in any way affect my particular parish interests." No reform of any sort will take place without treading on many toes, and I think that we all admire the courage of the Government in carrying out this major reform in the teeth of various vested interests.
If I criticise the details of the Bill it is against the background of wholehearted support for the principles.
London has always grown at the expense of its neighbours. I had a great uncle who was a Surrey Member of Parliament. He sat for Battersea. Then, in 1887, he was transformed into a London Member. This is a reminder of how London has grown. I well understand the feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) who suffers the same fate as my great uncle and will find himself overnight a London Member instead of a Surrey Member. My hon. Friend is not now in his place, but may I say that he has rendered very great services to the county. If there were any justice in the world we ought at least to be able to exact a handsome transfer fee for his services.
I should also like to echo the tribute which the Royal Commission paid to the Surrey County Council, in contrast with some other authorities, for having achieved such happy relations with the lower-tier authorities. I see no reason why they should not continue in the new county. The fact is, however, that the new Surrey will be, or should be when suitably amended, what the old Surrey has not been—a true county far more homogeneous when it has shed its metropolitan fringes. We must be realistic and
258
must appreciate, when it comes to planning or traffic or roads and very many of the local government functions, that there is little in common between the metropolitan fringes and the country outside in the green belt. Therefore, the boundaries must be drawn as realistically as possible between the urban and the rural districts. It is not possible to draw them exactly right, but they should be drawn as realistically as possible.
The Minister has greatly improved the proposals by excluding many of the peripheral authorities within the green belt. I urge him to make further concessions in order to be consistent. If Esher is excluded, why not Coulsdon and Purley, which is identical in situation and characteristics? If my right hon. Friend says that that is impossible, then can he, if necessary, divide the district along the built-up line? If his reaction to that is that he is not willing to divide local authorities, then why is he doing it to Epsom? He must try to be rather more consistent than his Department has been so far. I remind my right hon. Friend that the more consistent he is in the drawing of the boundaries the more likely is he to find his proposals acceptable.
Now, finance. Obviously, I welcome Clause 66, which provides for transitional assistance to certain of the counties affected, although I say frankly that the scale seems to me to be niggardly. There is a reference, first, to 6d. in the £. I take it that that is after the new valuation and not on the present valuation. I should like to know, because it makes a substantial difference. Why have a minimum, anyway? Why only five years? It sounds a lot, but it is bogus because it involves a tapering contribution and it is, in fact, equivalent, to only three years' purchase of the rate loss. In my view, it should be at least five years in full and then taper away.
The difficulty is to see what is the true bill. The Surrey County Council, in the course of its campaign against the Bill, made the flesh of the outer districts creep by telling them that the rate would go up by 1s. 10d. in the £. The effect of this bombshell was slightly muffled by the fact that it coincided with a rate increase of 2s. in the £, anyway. I now understand that the Surrey County Council's

259
estimate is 1s. 4d. in the £ for the outer districts.
Whether the county council has been conducting similar propaganda in the inner districts and breaking the news to the metropolitan areas that they have been subsidising the outer areas for years I rather doubt; nor am I entirely satisfied that even then this figure represents a true bill. One can calculate where the rates are paid, but one cannot be sure where they are spent.
There will be dislocation, expensive in all probability, and I think that the losing districts should be compensated during a reasonably generously computed interim period. Compensation should be levied on those districts which gain from the separation. However, I see no reason why Bermondsey or Fulham should compensate Guildford, though I see every reason why Wimbledon should. I think that that would meet with some approval even on the benches opposite.
In considering the structure of local government under the Bill, I shall carefully try not to repeat arguments which have already been used. I welcome the reforms for two main reasons. First, we are now to have a more or less—I choose my words with care—unified responsibility for traffic. All of us have cursed the Minister of Transport for his failures without realising how much his hands have been tied by his obligations to the multiplicity of authorities in the Greater London area. But I still have qualms about whether the Bill goes far enough in its rationalisation and whether it leaves too much to the Minister.
I echo the plea made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) that at least control of street lighting in London should be centralised. Let us get rid of the kaleidoscopic chaos from which we have suffered for many years. It is really intolerable. One is bathed in orange light in one borough, in green light in another, and then one may be plunged into "darkest" Chelsea before one knows where one is.
Captain John Litchfield: Oh!
Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: At least, in parts of it. I apologise to my hon. and gallant Friend.
I welcome the return of the personal health services to the boroughs. I was
260
on the London County Council when, in 1948, the county councils, including the London County Council, protesting quite a bit, surrendered their hospital services to the National Health Service. It seems that, as a quid pro quo, the county councils were then given charge of the personal health services. Those services, which are essentially personal, were torn from the boroughs. The London County Council very soon divided London into administrative areas which were, as I remember them, roughly the size of the boroughs proposed under the Bill. That was obviously right and, if the metropolitan boroughs were too small, then the county council was obviously too large.
I welcome Clause 23, which holds out a ray of hope for those authorities which have Landon County Council out-county estates. I shall not elaborate the point because, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) will, I am sure, deal with it.
As to membership of the Greater London Council, I echo the plea in The Times that here should be no aldermen but more elected councillors. The aldermanic principle is well established and very useful in certain authorities, but there is no reason and no need for it in this completely new organisation. The idea behind having aldermen can and should be met by co-option to the committees of the council.
Also, I make a very strong plea for the payment of members of the Greater London Council. Membership of the London County Council is not full-time but, as I know from experience, it is what one might call rather distracting from other employment, and membership of the Greater London Council will be even more so.
I am glad that the Greater London Council is to take over the Metropolitan Water Board, on which also I sat once, which suffers from having far too many committees, anyway. But what an opportunity has been missed in not making the Greater London Council the central markets authority for London, including, incidentally, the new Covent Garden Market Authority, which is busy doing now what the Minister of Agriculture so foolishly would not let it do, that is,

261
looking forthwith outside the area for a site for a new market.
I add a further plea in support of what the right hon. Member for South Shields said, perhaps in a rather different spirit. We have already been told that we are to have extra time on the Floor of the House for Clause 1 and the First Schedule. We have had a warning that the Bill will be fought line by line. I hope that the Leader of the House will take steps early to see that there is a proper timetable for the Bill so that those of us who support its main principles, but have detailed criticisms, may have a chance to voice our views.
Finally, I want to refer to the London County Council's curious attitude in refusing to co-operate with the Government during the transitional phase. I am delighted that the Surrey County Council, as I would expect, is showing common sense and reason in this matter. It seems to show that the L.C.C. is interested only in perpetuating itself. It proves that in this matter it is reckless of the well-being of its citizens and, above all, of its own staff and employees.
In this matter, history is repeating itself. During the last few days, I have been reading some of the early history of the L.C.C. The creation of that body in its day was fought tooth and nail by the vested interests of the existing parish pump. Punch had a cartoon at the time. It showed a memorial tombstone to the Metropolitan Board of Works, which was the precursor of the L.C.C. From the epitaph I cull words which apply to the L.C.C. so well seventy-five years later:
"Fighting to the end, it was more anxious to leave an inheritance of spite to its successor than to retire from the scene of its late labours with dignity to itself."
6.2 p.m.
Mrs. Freda Corbet: I do not want to enter into a debate with the right hon. Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan), but I recall a period, a very short period, during which he served on the London County Council. Perhaps that accounts for his showing such lamentable ignorance of the value of the services created by the London County Council for the people of London.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that in its attitude to this legislation the L.C.C. has been actuated by a realisation that there is
262
about to be destroyed something fundamentally good in the nature of existing local government in the central London area. It sees that as a tragedy for the people of London and is, therefore, opposed to the scheme root and branch. It would not have been helpful in these interim stages to have offered co-operation to the Government, which could have been only a matter of constant argument between the parties about whether to proceed with the scheme.
The L.C.C. can and does praise itself on occasion, but a number of tributes have come from outside sources during the course of all the proceedings in connection with the proposals for the reorganisation of local government, right back to the evidence given by Government Departments themselves to the Royal Commission and extending to bodies of architects, child care workers, teachers' unions and all those with an intimate knowledge of the efficient and humane work of the L.C.C. Those tributes to the work of a great Council have been spontaneous and sincere.
While hon. Members can easily say that the machinery of local government in London is out of date because the built-up area now extends further than it did in 1888, may I remind them that in 1920, only thirty-two years after the creation of the L.C.C., the built-up area extended far beyond the L.C.C.'s boundaries of those days. Is that to be an argument for a complete upheaval in local government every thirty years? If so, I beg the House to beware, for there will be other extensions and other developments in the South-East.
The unit of local government now chosen is seven times that of the L.C.C. area, though it is not to have as much power as it should if it is to be of any use. However, it will undoubtedly acquire those powers, because they will be seen to be necessary for the welfare of the Greater London area. One must foresee the possibility of that authority in its turn being replaced by an even greater authority, so that the country ultimately becomes saddled with the kind of regional authority which most people consider to be not democratic local government.
I was extremely disappointed with the speech of the Minister of Education. He is a man for whom I have a great deal of respect, and I can only imagine, knowing his clear foresight, that he, like his

263
predecessor, has been dragooned into supporting a case in which he does not believe. What an exposure of a desperate effort to repair the damage being created by the Bill. He tried to show that the L.C.C. had given a wrong impression about the school health service. Has it? The right hon. Gentleman said that the Inner London Education Authority, together with 13 boroughs, including the City, must prepare joint schemes to share buildings and staff, buildings and staff belonging to the boroughs, but no longer under the complete control of the educational authority.
The right hon. Gentleman even said that the service might have a medical officer of its own for special schools. The special school service in London is such that it will need a medical officer's department, not just a medical officer. If it is to have a medical officer's department for special schools, the authority might as well continue to look after the health of the school children by one unified service.
The right hon. Gentleman was far too hopeful about special education, namely, that the boroughs will provide accommodation, which they need in only a small degree, for other boroughs. The L.C.C. does this now. It provides remand homes and approved schools for other authorities. It does not do so with any great ease, and L.C.C. members do not like it very much. They like to provide something which is under their control and which provides for their own citizens. The new proposal is contrary to the nature of autonomous local government and I hope that the Minister of Education does not place too much reliance on such a system.
That is education as the Minister sees it, but the London County Council and I see it in a different light. We see it as a closely integrated service with 15 other departments of the Council. It is integrated with the staff and finance department, which utilises the services of well-qualified clerks and controllers; with the school medical service, served by qualified doctors and specialist staff; with the school meals service, served by specialist catering staffs; with the town planning, architect's and surveyor's departments; with the engineer's, valuer's and solicitor's departments; with the department for the provision and maintenance of new schools and
264
colleges; with the services of the housing department which rehouses families when sites have to be cleared to provide new buildings; with the materials, fittings and equipment which the supplies department obtains in large quantities, and cheaply; and with the parks department, which lays out and maintains the playing fields.
I also see education as a service which, because of its unique size and resources, is able to maintain an independent inspectorate which once carried out its own inspection of schools but relieving the Government inspectors of this job, although it has agreed not to do so any longer. It acts as a watchdog or guardian service. It carries new ideas from school to school, arranges training courses and gives teachers the benefit of the experience of other teachers all over the area. It is a service which has the use of a fine education library. It can avail itself of the resources of the supplies and equipment division. It can have the benefit of the nature study scheme and many other things.
We see the London education service not as an ad hoc service on its own, but as an integrated service benefiting from the skill and knowledge of the specialist and highly qualified staffs of all the other departments of the Council. Surely the Minister must take this into consideration.
The L.C.C. is, naturally, anxious that this service should continue. We are told that it will last in its truncated form for at least five years, during which time there will be the greatest uncertainty about its future. At the end of that time, as we have heard, there is no guarantee of what will happen to it. The only guarantee is that by then the Minister of Education will not be Minister of Education. This uncertainty must hit the staffs on the administrative side of the education authority. I assure hon. Members that an administrative staff of high quality and with skill and experience is essential if the education service is to continue with the same degree of quality which has earned it not only the admiration of the Royal Commission, but the Government's grudging concession to continue it in part.
As with education so with the other services of the L.C.C., although there is

265
so much in the Bill that one is not able to understand exactly what will happen. A quick survey shows 108 instances enabling directions to be given by Ministers, or requiring consultations, consents or agreements to be obtained or reached between the Greater London Council, the London boroughs, the Common Council and the Minister. While it is extremely difficult to visualise the effect that the Bill will have, there is no doubt that the Government have been obliged to revise their idea about creating new boroughs and a Greater London unit and transferring certain services to the secondary units and certain services to the larger authority.
There is a number of instances of this. They concern not only special arrangements for education, but arrangements for the parks. The idea was that responsibility for the parks should go straight away to the boroughs; they were to belong to the boroughs. But closer examination shows that this process, if it is to be accomplished, must be accomplished over a course of years in the light of experience. The same thing applies to the London County Council's stock of houses. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Ledger) has been agitating over this matter for many years, and I have opposed him vehemently on it in the House. He hoped that his authority would get the thousands of houses which belonged to the L.C.C. and which are monopolising his borough. The L.C.C. has always sympathised in this matter and has tried to do its utmost about it. However, this stock of houses is not to be released far the simple reason, I suppose, that it would not do the job which the Government know must be done.
One of the objects of the Bill is to secure the proper development of the London area. Another object is to give the Greater London Council certain power in the important road programme. Another is to ensure that the education authority has sites on which to build new schools. It would not be possible to rehouse families on sites where roads have to be constructed or widened, where new schools have to be built, in areas where the development plan requires the relocation of industry without any housing profit or in areas whore there are houses but which the
266
plan says should become open spaces. For all these purposes the Greater London Council will require in the area of London alone precisely the same number of houses as the L.C.C. has required, and will go on requiring, each year. As far as I can see, it will need that pool of houses for many years.
The Government have been forced to admit that certain things which look easy are not so easy and must be carried out gradually over a period of years. They have had to give housing powers to the Greater London Council at which, I understand, the boroughs are looking askance. I do not think that the boroughs can deal with their own slum clearance programme. The L.C.C. has dealt with more than half of slum clearance. It always carries out the bigger schemes. It always carries out the schemes from which there is no profit. It always carries out schemes in areas which are zoned not for houses but for industry, open spaces, school building or roads. The Council has done the major portion of all this and has done more slum clearance than all the Metropolitan boroughs put together. Even if some boroughs can cope with it, it is doubtful whether other boroughs can do so.
Part of my case is that it appears to be necessary for the Greater London Council to have powers which were not contemplated in the first instance. One of those powers is to carry on for an indefinite period with the schemes which the London County Council has in hand. There are a great many such schemes, including, for example, the new Erith scheme, which, incidentally, the Greater London Council would not be able to do because the land would not have been its own, it would not be able to build in another borough without consent and it would not have the planning powers that the London County Council now has, because these will pass to the individual boroughs. Such a scheme as Erith would want a great deal of putting together again. Humpty Dumpty would have to be pieced together carefully to allow of such schemes to be carried out in future.
Not only are the Government bestowing extra housing powers upon the Greater London Council, but critics are

267
saying that it will not have sufficient power given to it by the Government to build as the London County Council has done. The L.C.C. builds not with the consent of the boroughs, but as it judges to be right and proper. The Council has never built against the will of the boroughs. Although there has been no requirement for consent, the Council has always taken great care to be friendly with the boroughs and to agree what parts should be done in the boroughs by the boroughs themselves and what part should be done by the Council.
I stress precisely what the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) said yesterday. The hon. Member said that there was no blueprint for a coherent London plan because there is no coherent London area or unity.
The Royal Commission theoretically spent three years—it spent a few days in between with each local authority—in finding out the things that the local authorities knew. There was no need to have taken three years. The Royal Commission could have been told or could have read what was happening. The Royal Commission came out with one scheme, the Government produced another in their White Paper and now they have brought forward yet another. There is no doubt that before we have finished and by the time they have taken account of the representations of all the bodies affected—for example, the services and departments relating to children, teachers, architects and all the others, as well as the people who are worried about the boundaries and size of their boroughs—there will be another great change in the arrangement.
Do not the Government consider that they would be wise to take the advice of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black)? Should they not have done so before? The hon. Member spoke about a round table and of the possibility of getting a measure of agreement that would have enabled us to keep all that is best of what we now have, to which modifications could have been introduced without this tremendous upheaval.
Sir Percy Rugg makes no bones about admitting that it will be a tremendous upheaval. He says that that is what London needs. A tremendous upheaval is the last thing that London needs. What it wants is the necessary modification
268
made with the least possible disarrangement of a system of local government that is functioning reasonably well—at least, a system of government at which nobody has cast a stone, except in two directions, one of which is traffic.
I could have told the Royal Commission about the traffic because I travel by ordinary transport. I could have told the Royal Commission what I have observed over the years at the Oval. For thirty years, I suppose, I have been travelling to Camberwell, my constituency, via the Oval. I have counted the cars with only one occupant as against the number of buses. I have done it for years. I am now watching the results of the direction of traffic by the Minister of Transport in the centre of London, where it is moving more quickly. What is happening to traffic at the Oval or as far out as Mitcham or Purley, which, one hon. Member has said, is not part of the built-up area? It is one long stream of traffic, blocked up in the outer London areas as a result of what a traffic director is managing to do in the centre. I do not know the answer to this.
The other day, during another debate, I heard an hon. Member make a very interesting point. All sorts of things are reported in the Press, but, unfortunately, that was not. I have not been to Philadelphia, but if Philadelphia has managed to restore the priority of public transport above that of private transport, surely, if that is the answer—and it is not an answer that any local authority in the London area has the power to put into effect—that power could have been given to local authorities years ago had the Minister so desired.
There is no traffic authority in London. There never has been. The only traffic authority in London is the Minister himself. The London County Council is not a traffic authority; it has no power. It is purely a highway authority for the construction of highways, but not for their maintenance. The borough councils have certain traffic powers, but only to recommend certain schemes, to argue against schemes, to ask for traffic lights and be refused them by the Minister or by the police or to ask for a pedestrian crossing to be installed, again to be refused by the Minister or by the police.

269
Local authorities have been asked by the Minister and by the Government to deal with parking, which is a highly expensive matter, so much so that St. Marylebone the other day had to abandon a projected multi-storey car park. The local authorities were asked to deal with parking without any grant from the Government.
There is chaos because no Minister has ever had the courage to get up and say that what is needed in London is a director of traffic. What will happen with the Greater London Council I do not know, because, unless I am mistaken, it is not to have a director of traffic.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph)indicated dissent.
Mrs. Corbet: I am sorry. Of course, the Greater London Council is to appoint a director of traffic. He will have a whale of a job unless he is to be free of all the representations of the local areas, even though there will be only 32 instead of the existing 100 or more. Every district will create the same fuss as the inhabitants of Highgate Hill or the people of Oxford Street do whenever the Minister wants to run lorries in certain areas or to introduce a one-way traffic scheme.
A director of traffic, to produce anything at all sensible, must be a real dictator, and must not listen to anything whatever in the way of representations from local authorities. But this is a problem in which traffic cannot be allowed to dictate to London. London's amenides must be preserved, and this is where the London County Council comes in. The body which looks after the amenities of a neighbourhood is the planning authority. This is the authority which sees to it that people's lives are not ruined by the needs of traffic, and where we shall get when the Greater London Council has a director of traffic, and the boroughs, for the purposes of Part III of the Bill, are the actual planning authorities, I do not know. This is a lack of co-ordination and a divorce of the planning work which the London County Council now does and which has enabled it to deal with the question of amenities on any road traffic scheme. This divorce will be disastrous.
270
I have talked much too long, and I am sorry, but the House will recall that I have a very great interest in the affairs of the L.C.C. I have been on that body for nearly thirty years, and I do know a bit about it, not everything, by any means, but something. I have an intense love for it and also a great admiration for its services. I beg the Government to think carefully before they destroy the fine services for children, housing, welfare, health and education which have been built up so patiently over the years, not by the members of the L.C.C., but by the staff, who have been of such quality because, owing to the size of the resources of the L.C.C., it could command the best.
The staff have been inspired by a progressive Council, and, not only have they been inspired, but they have done the job well. They constitute the teams that ought to be held together. What is done to us as members of the L.C.C. we will accept, but what is done to these fine teams may be a loss to London. I beg the Government to think carefully and not to perpetrate this mischief.
6.33 p.m.
Mr. Richard Thompson: I will endeavour to be as brief as I can on this very important subject, because I appreciate that there are many of us who have sat here for the greater part of two days hoping to say our pieces on it.
I support the Bill, not without reservations, but because I think that it is long overdue, and I join with those hon. Members who, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan), have commended the Government's courage in bringing it in. It is quite a feat to legislate in respect of recommendations which a Royal Commission has made, even if not in quite the same terms, within a couple of years of receiving its Report. Usually, the complaint has been the other way. Usually, a distinguished body spends years making its report, which then moulders away in a Government pigeonhole because nobody has the political courage to implement its findings and to do the things that have to be done.
The background to all this is that Government after Government have failed for years to grasp this nettle, and

271
we on this side of the House have a share of the blame for it. We have failed to grasp the nettle, and I am glad that it is being done now. There is not an hon. Member of the House with any sort of interest in this debate who has not got his own private reservations about the Bill, whether he supports or opposes it in principle or not. Indeed, the proper time and place to bring these matters out is during the Committee stage, and, therefore, I shall confine my remarks to the broad principle of the Bill, and also say a word or two about a particular constituency interest which I have.
I am sure that the question to which we must apply ourselves is simply this. Do we want to bring the good government of London today into line with the contemporary environment and conditions of today or not? If the sum total of our personal objections to doing anything at all is allowed to mount up, we might as well say that there is no hope at all, with any kind of local government basis, be it central, regional, or the structure proposed in the Bill, of solving the housing, the traffic and the other problems which the passage of time since the 1880s, when the present structure, broadly, was set up, has so greatly exacerbated.
The fact is that there can be no change in the present situation which does not cause some misgivings in many quarters, but even if we sought another kind of solution, if we went in for the regional one for the whole of the south-east area, to which the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) made reference yesterday, or if we went the other way and chose a very much stronger authority at the centre, which I suppose hon. Members opposite would like to see, in the form of an expanded and greatly fortified L.C.C., we should all be here making our individual points because the alterations in boundaries, the transfer of powers and the rest would certainly cut across some constituency interests if we were in any way involved in the Greater London area.
I have said that, whatever view one takes of these proposals, such sweeping proposals were long overdue and had to come. There is no hope whatever of bringing rationality and sense into the arrangements for the government of
272
Greater London unless we do something on a big and imaginative scale. The sheer physical spread of bricks and mortar outwards has had as much to do with creating these new conditions as anything else, and the other thing has been the impact of the motor car which has made absolute and complete nonsense of the original conception on which the powers of the local authorities in this area were founded. I very much fear that, unless we seek a drastic solution like this, we shall find that local government, which, I should have thought, most of us here are anxious to preserve, will wither away because it will not be capable any longer of dealing effectively with these new challenges presented to it.
The hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet), who spoke so eloquently and feelingly, related most of her arguments to the L.C.C., which is quite understandable, but she also had a word to say about traffic and was good enough to refer to a speech of mine in which I mentioned the way in which the Americans handle these things in Philadelphia. The fact is that the Minister of Transport was compelled, under the Road Traffic Act, 1960, to remove practically all the powers of the local authorities and to arrogate them unto himself for a period of five years, because there is no possible sense in having 90 or 100 or more authorities all with limited powers in this field. That could not make any possible sense.
I fear that unless we do something like this reorganisation over the whole area we may find that other Ministers will make raids into local authority responsibilities. We shall then see very considerable responsibilities belonging to local authorities being filched to the centre simply because the local authorities in today's conditions can no longer carry them out properly.
I said I would say a word about a constituency theme, and I am glad that I have had the opportunity of catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, because the County Borough of Croydon, which I have the honour to represent, with two other hon. Members, is one of the three county boroughs, which, under these proposals, is vitally affected. It will become a Greater Landon borough. It will lose its county borough status and will undergo some changes in its boundaries.

273
I ought to say that if my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) were here—the is unavoidably abroad, on doctor's orders—the would certainly be adding his voice in opposition to the scheme, which would be consistent with what he has said in the past. Again., if my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice Admiral Hughes Hallett) were able to speak in this debate—he cannot because he is a member of the Government—he would most certainly support the scheme. I have the permission of both my colleagues to say what their positions would be.
The difficulty of Croydon is that its present system of administration, its county borough status, dates from a time when it was wholly outside, physically and in every other way, the great wen of London. Naturally, a county borough type of administration has grown up there, which encourages its citizens to believe, quite rightly, that they are a wholly separate entity, having nothing to do with London. I can well understand and applaud that belief, but the difficulty has been, once again, that the remorseless spread of bricks and mortar over the past seventy years has engulfed the borough. That is at the bottom of Croydon's difficulties.
My right hon. Friend the Member, for Reigate said earlier that in the 1880s his uncle was a Member of Parliament for Battersea, which was at that time part of the County of Surrey. Soon after it became part of London. This, at several years removed, is what is now happening to Croydon. The remorseless spread of bricks and mortar, wily-nilly, is taking Croydon into the great London complex.
Croydon has every reason for wishing to remain a completely independent authority. It is an extremely progressive, first-rate authority, with a most enviable record in health, education and social services. Quite recently, it has been working out a most imaginative scheme for entirely redesigning and reconstructing the centre of the borough. I am glad to say that that scheme is very nearly completed.
In the course of it, the council has not only put up more commercial property, but has catered for the arts as well,
274
which not many local authorities do. It has built a theatre—imagine a theatre in the provinces—which is a marvellous thing. It has built a great concert hall. It has built a great art gallery. The practical side to serve these things is a new multi-storey car park. It is catering for on the most imaginative scale and the Council naturally feels that a county borough capable of producing all this is giving the surest possible demonstration of its ability to manage its own affairs without particular help from anybody.
I can well understand that sentiment, but, of course, the council's very success in a way has sown the seeds of the very process which is engulfing Croydon, because, in putting up these vast office blocks—I wish that it had managed to include a little more housing as well, but perhaps that is almost carping criticism—it has encouraged hundreds, indeed thousands, of people outside the borough to come into it. These people formerly worked in London and now, gratefully I think, work in Croydon. Indeed, it has had the effect of bringing Londoners into Croydon in enormous numbers in a way which would have been inconceivable before the great reconstruction scheme was launched.
I think that in all this it is not so much the loss of the powers which will go to the Greater London Council that irks. There is a perfectly sound technical argument for the transfer of such things as the ambulance service, the fire service, refuse collection and overall planning. There is a perfectly sound technical argument that in an immense urban mass these services are better run centrally, because such things as ambulances and fire engines do not always confine their activities within the boundaries of the borough in which they originate.
There is a great deal of give and take now, as there should be if these things are to be efficiently run. But I think that what really sticks in the craw of Croydon is the loss of county borough status. Status symbols are enormously important in the world today and however much the other Greater London boroughs may be upgraded and enlarged it is galling to feel that one is losing one jot or tittle of one's influence and reputation.

275
It is said that there is not much in a name. But I wonder whether my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government could not think of a more imaginative name than "Greater London borough". Frankly, the people of Croydon do not consider themselves Londoners. One may consider that sentimentality, but I do not agree. They are, historically, not Londoners. If my right hon. Friend could think of a more imaginative name, it would do a great deal to remove this feeling that people in Croydon do not want to become just another part of the great conurbation. If my right hon. Friend agrees to think on those lines, I may be able to offer some suggestions in Committee if I am so fortunate—perhaps that is the wrong word; if it so turns out that I am selected to be on the Standing Committee considering the Bill.
Nevertheless, I am sure that in the long run the town stands to benefit from the better ordering and better development of the community by which it is now, willy nilly, surrounded. I know that I shall not carry my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) with me when I say that, personally, I think that it makes sense for the Coulsdon and Purley urban district to be added to Croydon.
Mr. Charles Doughty: My hon. Friend cannot even carry his own borough council with him in that view. It is clear that Croydon Council does not want east Surrey in Croydon.
Mr. Thompson: I am, naturally, aware that Croydon Borough Council is washing its hands of any desire to take in Coulsdon and Purley and is marching arm in arm with Surrey County Council, which, no doubt, is opposed to giving Coulsdon and Purley up. I did not suggest that I was carrying Croydon Council with me. I was acknowledging that my hon. and learned Friend would not wish to see this development. Nevertheless, it makes sense to me.
The people involved in Coulsdon and Purley already, to a very great extent, regard Croydon as a centre, for it is already part of a built-up line extending as far out as Purley, and they utilise Croydon for its incomparable communications, excellent shops and magnificent facilities for recreation and amusement.
276
One more thing. If there is a tendency in the Croydon development plan which is unwelcome, it is that it is producing a certain imbalance in the borough. Almost too many office blocks have been put up in the centre and all the people working in them have to live somewhere. The whole object of the decentralisation from London operation will be lost if the people concerned have to travel far to come to work.
In the Coulsdon and Purley area there are certain facilities for additional residential buildings. I know that a great deal of the area is green belt, but not all, and I believe that it would be welcome to the borough, and very valuable. It would provide, were it sensibly used, a counterpart to the enormous commercial development which is going on.
Mr. Doughty: If my hon. Friend will visit my constituency some day he will know what nonsense he is talking. We regret that most of the trains stop at East Croydon. Apart from that, there are no additional facilities which could be provided. Our own shopping facilities are excellent. The whole nature of the two places is entirely different.
Mr. Thompson: I did not hope to carry my hon. and learned Friend with me 100 per cent. and I readily acknowledge that he may see this situation through a different pair of spectacles. Even so, I adhere to my view that this is a sensible development, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will not be deflected from his plans in this respect.
I end as I began, by welcoming the Bill. During the Committee stage I hope to be able to bring forward many other matters which may be discussed more appropriately at that stage. I believe that such proposals may improve the Bill and make it more acceptable to those of my constituents who question its value. I hope that all hon. Members, at any rate those on this side of the House, will signify their approval of this great measure of London reform by firmly deciding in favour of it in the Division Lobby.
6.53 p.m.
Mr. Eric Lubbock: We have heard from the speech of the

277
hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. R. Thompson) and from the interventions by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) that in Croydon opinions on this subject are as divided as in other parts of the Greater London area. I suppose that in a county borough, or a constituency forming part of a county borough, one's attitude is likely to be slightly different from that which would be adopted by a representative of an urban constituency. I did not think that the exact title to be given to the Greater London boroughs was a matter of very great importance. I thought that matters in the Bill which would concern us were other than that.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South said one thing with which I agree, that Governments over many years have failed to grasp the nettle of local government in the Greater London area and, as was said by one hon. Member, this Measure is at least two generations too late. It is quite probable that the Bill will prove the most controversial to come before this House during the whole of the lifetime of the present Parliament. The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) said that it was politics in the raw, and a number of hon. Members who have spoken seem to me to confirm that impression.
But I wish to echo what was said by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in his opening speech, that anyone who opposed the Bill should do so on constructive grounds and not merely for the sake of preserving ancient institutions and customs to which one might be attached. I have a personal interest in this matter, in that my grandfather took the chair at the very first meeting of the London County Council. But I should be extremely ashamed if sentimental associations of that nature were to influence me and prevent me from forming a dispassionate view of the proposals contained in the Bill.
The enormous spread of Greater London across the existing administrative boundaries would be a good enough reason for us to doubt whether the machinery set up at the end of the last century is any longer appropriate in 1962. From speeches made so far we seem to be agreed at least that some measure of re-
278
form is necessary. Nevertheless, it would be quite wrong to ignore the continuity which has given life and vigour to the institutions of our capital for many centuries. Merely to replace these institutions by tidier administrative arrangements would, in the words of the Royal Commission, be
"as unwise and unrealistic as it would be to drive a motorway through St. Paul's."
I wish to consider some of the constructive suggestions for altering the proposals in the Bill and I am encouraged to do so by the promise of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who said that constructive criticism with a view to improving the Bill would be welcome. It has been axiomatic among all the investigators of this problem that the area of Greater London forms one unit and that the upper tier authority to replace the London County Council should have jurisdiction over the whole area. It seems to me that that is about the one point on which there is common agreement among those people who accept the need for these measures of reform.
When we come to consider the exact boundaries of the Greater London area, that may be the subject of many different opinions, each of which may be supported by strong arguments. Some consider that the whole of the south-east region should form one large administrative unit with very wide powers which are at present national responsibilities.
Among the experts who take this view is the Greater London Group of the London School of Economics, which says in its report that this does not weaken the case for an authority to cover the built-up area alone. Yesterday, the Minister of Housing and Local Government said that there must be correlation in planning, transport, overspill and housing on a regional basis and so, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman is himself thinking in these terms; and we have the assurance that it is not the end of the story and that we need something else to cater for these problems.
At the other end of the scale people believe that some of the areas, included in the orbit of Greater London, should have been excluded from it and should remain within the counties from which they have been detached. I wish to return to this question later and to illustrate it

279
from the point of view of my own constituency. Meanwhile, it appears to me that insufficient attention has been paid by the Minister and his predecessor to the views expressed in very strong terms by some people who live in the areas of the peripheral authorities. These views should be given the greatest weight in determining any question of outer London and Greater London.
A second essential keystone to any plan for Government in Greater London is the size of the second tier authorities. We have heard of a difference of opinion between the Royal Commission and the Government. The Commission came to the conclusion that a population range of between 100,000 and 250,000 was appropriate. It thought that there was a certain minimum size below which boroughs could not have the resources to discharge the responsibilities which would devolve upon them.
On the other hand, the Commission said that at the upper end of the scale there was a limit beyond which boroughs would have no cohesion or unity. Something of a disadvantage would then ensue. In paragraph 238 of its Report the Commission stated:
"Unless the body of councillors is to be unmanageably large, each councillor will represent a large number of people spread over a wide area. If this number or area becomes too big it is impossible for the councillor to be fully aware of their needs."
I do not think the Government have taken this point of view into account sufficiently in making their decision to have much larger boroughs than those recommended by the Royal Commission. Nearly all the revised boroughs will have populations above the upper limit set by the Commission. Yet the Minister, in his opening speech, said that the services about which he was speaking need to be conducted by a local authority in as local a way as can conveniently be arranged. By increasing the size of the boroughs, he is departing from this principle.
A second feature of the Royal Commission's proposals has been disregarded. It was contained in paragraph 930 of the Report, which said:
"We are also of opinion that there is generally a strong case for creating boroughs of greater population in the inner areas, where the populaton is closer together, than on the periphery, where an equivalent population would mean that many of the citizens would be remote from their centre of government."
280
In my constituency this principle has certainly not been followed, because we are to be part of borough No. 19, which is right on the edge of the review area. In spite of that, we are the eighth largest of the 32 metropolitan boroughs to be created, in terms of population, and the largest of all in terms of area.
The terms of reference given to the four town clerks, when they reviewed the proposed groupings, set out in the Ministry Circular 43/62 said that, inter alia, they should have regard to the pattern of developments within the boroughs. The town clerks no doubt would have been informed that the population of Orpington is estimated to be rising at such a rate that it will reach 100,000 in the early 1970s. In fact, if the rate of increase continues to follow the trend which has been established in the last decade, that figure will be reached by an earlier date.
Nevertheless, the four town clerks, in their Report, opposed the suggestion, which has been made by my council to the effect that Orpington should be joined with Chislehurst and Sidcup to form one of the new boroughs. They opposed it on the general ground that it would divide metropolitan Kent into three boroughs instead of two and leave those three boroughs seriously deficient both in population and, even more so in financial resources, by comparison with the other boroughs. That view fails to take into account the explicit statements of the Royal Commission, which I have already quoted, or the expected growth of population in metropolitan Kent as a whole.
If one looks at the populations of Orpington, Chislehurst and Sidcup at the moment, one finds that there is a combined total already exceeding that of borough No. 23, and the two remaining boroughs in metropolitan Kent would be of a greater size than borough No. 23. With these expected growths of population, by the time the Greater London plan takes effect it is very likely that our combined population will be larger than that of borough No. 21 and approaching that of borough No. 16. We would by no means be the smallest.
The financial argument used by the town clerks is, in my view, a "red herring", because of two factors. One is the increase in rateable value which

281
will result from this certain rise in population. The other, and main one, is because of the powers under Clause 64 of the Bill, by which the Minister can make schemes for the purpose of reducing disparities of rate incomes.
The right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) made a different proposal in her speech yesterday. Her council believes that it would be better if the whole of Chislehurst and Sidcup were to be merged with borough No. 19. I disagree with that view, because in that event the combined total population of borough No. 19 would be 338,000. It would be the second largest authority in the whole London area. That would be directly contrary to the principle which the Royal Commission enunciated, and with which I entirely agree, that the peripheral authorities should be of a smaller size than those at the centre.
It seems as I look at the map which accompanied the circular from the Ministry that the arguments I have employed in the case of Orpington apply with almost the same force to some other groupings. The third largest of the groupings is to be formed in our neighbour, Croydon, with Coulsdon and Purley with a combined population of 327,000. On the northern periphery of the Greater London area we would have the fourth largest borough, No. 30—Hendon, the Barnots and Finchley, with a population of 318,000.
Neither of those two very large boroughs will be anything like equal in area to borough No. 19. Conversely, we have in the centre of the Greater London area boroughs with very small populations, such as Bethnal Green, Poplar and Stepney, which could muster a population of only 205,000 among them. I dare say that it was very difficult for the Royal Commission and the Government to stick to the principle laid down to achieve the grouping which follows the principle of correlating population with distance from the centre and, at the same time, to adhere to the principle that the
"existing boroughs and county districts should be retained or amalgamated without a change of boundaries."
That was a principle which the Government have stuck to with very few minor exceptions, most of which have caused
282
a little heart-searching on the part of hon. Members whose constituencies have been divided.
Without prejudice to what I said about borough No. 19, I think that a better solution could have been achieved if a more flexible approach had been made towards the question of the boundaries and, indeed, if greater attention had been paid to the natural affinities of various districts. In my constituency the Royal Commission pointed out the contrast between the northern parts, which are primarily built up, and the southern parts, which are almost entirely rural. It admitted that there were some grounds for debate whether the southern parts should he excluded from the review area.
The Commission made the same point about Caterham and Warlingham and Banstead urban districts, but in those two cases the Government decided to exclude the districts altogether from Greater London. They could not find any such tidy solution in the case of Orpington which has a very much larger built-up area in its northern parts. It would have been illogical to exclude the whole constituency. In spite of repeated requests I have made to the Minister, he has refused to consider, prior to the passing of the Bill, any approaches which have been made by the villages which would like to remain in Kent. He has left the matter open, however, to be re-examined after the passage of the Bill.
A letter has been sent by the Ministry to the clerk of my council, in which the writer says:
"I am directed by the Minister to say that he does not propose to pursue these suggestions …"—
suggestions for altering the southern boundary—
"as part of the re-organisation of London government. He has come to no conclusion, however, as to the merits of the proposals and it will be open to one or more of the local authorities concerned to bring the matter forward at a later stage."
If the Minister has come to no conclusion it means that he must require additional information on which to base a final judgment. If he tells us now that no modification's are to be allowed, we might as well know about it because it would save us putting forward Amendments when the First Schedule to the Bill comes before the Committee.

283
Clause 6 provides the mechanism by which alterations to the boundaries can be achieved after the passing of the Bill. One sees that agreement between the various local authorities is required. They can then make a proposal to the Minister who will institute an inquiry. He may give effect to the proposal by advising an alteration of the boundary. It seems to me quite inevitable that with the volume of work which will face the new authorities and this unavoidably complicated procedure which they will have to follow with regard to boundary alterations that this protest will have to wait for many years in the queue. I should have thought that at least some of the adjustments which are desired by some of the local population in these areas concerned could have been written into the Bill in the first place.
I do not think that the Government have appreciated that we are not planning for five or ten years but for fifty years, although Lord Eccles has been quoted as having said this very thing. On these matters, I think that we are bound to run into trouble a long time before fifty years is up, and probably our children will be just as loud in their criticism of the present Government as we have been of previous Governments, when the long sequence of inquiries and Royal Commissions has to begin again.
Before I leave the question of boundaries, there is one other glaring defect in the Bill on which I must comment. That is the failure to take the opportunity of integrating the City of London into its neighbouring borough. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), in a speech yesterday, called the City of London a "ludicrous anachronism," which, I think, is a very good phrase. There are certainly no logical grounds for preserving the City as a separate entity. If we are to bring local government in the Greater London area up to date, we cannot permit the continued existence of an institution, whose main object in life is in the words of Professor Robson, "to oppose, change and preserve its privileges".
Professor Robson's idea of a large central borough which would include the City and would also take in Holborn, Finsbury, Westminster and parts of
284
Marylebone, St. Pancras, Shore-ditch and Stepney seems to me an excellent one because these areas include the whole of the buildings and places of historical and national importance. When we talk about the importance of tradition and the reputation which the City has abroad, surely this large borough would have a much higher reputation and standing with our friends in other countries, and it seems to me that this modification which I am proposing would be entirely practicable in the framework of the Bill, if we could abandon our rigid adherence to the existing boundaries.
I turn to the division of responsibility between the boroughs of the Greater London Council under the Bill. We on this bench endorse the view expressed by the Royal Commission and echoed by the Government in their White Paper that the borough ought to be the primary unit of local government, possessing as wide a range of powers as it can conveniently undertake, and that the Greater London Council should be responsible for those functions which are best dealt with over the whole area.
Following this line of reasoning, the Government's main difference with the Royal Commission was, of course, their manner of treating education, which they delegated entirely to the boroughs. In the words of the White Paper the Governnment
"… think that, given larger boroughs, education could and should, over the greater part of the area, become a borough service."
Under the Bill the principle will be established that the outer boroughs will be responsible for education and the Inner London Education Authority will be established.
There are two criticisms which I should like to make of the proposals as they stand. First, I do not think that it is necessary for boroughs to be as large as 200,000 in the outer London area in order to discharge adequately most of the duties of an education authority, and secondly, the provision which is made for a review of the Inner London Education Authority before 1970, which, as so many hon. Members have said, is bound to cause uncertainty and anxiety.
Taking the first point, there are many county boroughs with populations of fewer than 200,000 which are providing an adequate and efficient education service now, and the Minister of Education

285
made that point in his speech. He said of the outer London education authorities that the smallest was larger than Brighton or Reading and that all but one or two were larger than Sunderland, and, therefore, the Minister of Education is himself supporting the argument which I am putting forward.
I do not believe that it is necessary to have such a great increase in the size of the boroughs merely to make them responsible for education. Naturally, with smaller boroughs there would have to be more co-operation in providing some specialist services, particularly for further education, but, in my opinion, this sort of co-operation will be necessary even with boroughs as large as 300,000. I am sorry, but so far as I can see there is no provision for co-operation between the outer London boroughs in providing these services under the Bill. I do not see how they are to provide within their own boundaries the technical colleges, the schools for handicapped children and so on.
The sensible answer is that they should not all try to provide the full range of educational facilities, but that they should divide the responsibilities among them in a logical and orderly way. The Minister talked about encouraging the local education authorities in outer London to club together. I cannot see anything about that in the Bill, but I think that it would be a good thing if we could have this point amplified. All this can be done just as well if the minimum size of the boroughs were reduced, and I suggest that there should be a minimum of 150,000. Whatever size one suggests, it must, of course, be a matter of compromise.
As regards the possible break-up of the L.C.C. education service, there is unanimity among responsible authorities in condemning this as likely to have a serious effect on the high standard which has been set, and I can see no reason why it should be disturbed, other than administrative tidiness. I quote one letter which I have received out of many from teachers who are constituents of mine and who serve the L.C.C. This correspondent writes:
"I have served the L.C.C. as a teacher for fourteen years and I can cite many instances of this authority's progressive outlook, under-
286
standing and generosity. I have held my present post for over six years and I have seen my present school grow into a fine educational institution."
This is a comprehensive school.
"Many '11+ failures' have passed their O-levels, some have gone on to A-level and four of these boys have obtained State scholarships, one of the latter obtaining an open scholarship as well. These achievements are the result of team work between the officals at County Hall and much devoted teaching."
That expresses the concern that I feel at the possible demise of the Inner London Education Authority. I think that there is a very real reason for regarding education in inner London as different in character from that suitable for the outer boroughs. I hope that the Government will remove this sword of Damocles which they have suspended over the Inner London Education Authority by deleting Clause 30(5) of the Bill. The Minister says that it is wrong to make presumptions about how this Clause is to be operated. Why, then, was it put in? There are many other aspects of the Bill which will require to be reviewed over the next five years, but this is the only one singled out for mandatory review on all these important matters.
Much the same arguments I have used in discussing education apply to the accommodation and welfare of the old and disabled and also to the care of children. In all these spheres the L.C.C.'s existing services should be preserved intact and there should be statutory provision for co-operation between the outer London boroughs. We are talking about responsibilities which require the employment of specialist personnel and specialist teams and we should do this without considering any forms of arbitrary boundary divisions.
The architects' services come into this category. I would like to emphasise that the L.C.C.'s architects' service has expanded in such a way that it has helped with the school building programme of the whole of the Greater London area. Everyone has said how marvellous has been the co-operation between the Northampton County Council and some of its neighbours in its school building programme and what a tremendous effect this has had on the costs of that programme. We now have a chance to do something on a much wider scale.

287
I now deal with road traffic. Part II of the Bill starts off well, by saying:
"It shall be the duty of the Greater London Council so to exercise the functions conferred on them by or by virtue of sections 10 to 19 of this Act as to secure so far as practicable the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including foot passengers) and the provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway …"
That sounds fairly comprehensive, but if one reads a little further one finds that the Minister is retaining powers over trunk roads, that he can revoke or vary any order made by the Greater London Council for traffic regulation, that he can direct the Council to make any orders he considers necessary and that the control of parking is divided between the Council and the boroughs.
On this subject The Times of 23rd November used fairly strong language. It said:
"… it appears that the Minister of Transport is to be left in possession of his dictatorial powers".
This was in spite of the fact that the White Paper, Comnd. 1562, stated that the
"ultimate responsibility for traffic management and main roads should be placed on the Greater London Council."
That certainly does not seem to have happened and the advantages which might have been secured under the Bill—of a unified control of the whole road communications system—seem to have been partially lost.
A surprising omission in this connection is the absence of any reference to co-operation between the Greater London Council and the public transport undertakings operating within Greater London. I hope that when the Bill is in Committee machinery for such co-operation will be written into the Measure and made mandatory. It would be impossible, in a short speech, for me to cover all the points that I would have liked to have dealt with. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have been waiting for two days to speak—
Mr. Mellish: So have many other hon. Members.
Mr. Lubbock:—and although I have the Floor it would be impossible for me to cover all the relevant points. I have
288
no doubt that I will be told later, "You have not put forward a view on such-and-such." I can assure the House that had I had time there would have been many other topics that I would have liked to have spoken on.
I want, however, to refer to the question of the granting of planning applications. This is made a borough responsibility and this seems right in principle. However, in the central area of London there are planning problems which are very different from those obtaining in the outer London area. As the Bill stands, as many as six different authorities are concerned with planning in the hub of the capital and this is a strong argument in favour of the proposal I made earlier for a strong and large central London borough to include all the areas of historical and national importance.
Even if this were done we should consider whether the Greater London Council should retain certain reserve planning powers. Among these might be included the right to veto buildings which would not be in aesthetic harmony with the surroundings, particularly in the Central London area. While considering planning problems, why should we not write into the Bill a categorical statement to the effect that no compensation is payable under the Third Schedule to the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act when the planning authority refuses to permit the extension of an office building by 10 per cent. of its cubic content? This is necessary if proper control is to be exercised. The planning authority should have power to prevent an increase in the floor area of commercial property and I hope that the Government will add a Clause to this effect.
Since time is pressing, I will leave out a lot of what I had intended to say, but I must add a few words about the position of the professional staffs in the reorganisation. I can assure the Minister that, from the conversations I have had with friends who are officers of the L.C.C., the metropolitan boroughs and the urban districts, there is a great deal of apprehension about the effect of these proposals on the careers and lives of the men and women concerned. I have already said that it would be folly to break up the specialist departments of

289
the L.C.C. which have been built up over many years merely for the sake of administrative tidiness.
The Government must also seek to convince the staffs of the outer London boroughs, urban districts, the L.C.C. and others involved that the opportunities open to them will be greater and not lesser than before. This is by no means the impression which has been given to them by the Royal Commission or the Bill and I believe that the Government have a duty to give specific assurances to those whose livelihoods will be effected. That means particularly that the terms and conditions which they will be offered when they are re-employed by the Greater London Council will be at least as good as those they now enjoy in their employment with the L.C.C.—and there must be an adequate mechanism to negotiate compensation for those who are not so re-employed.
The local government of London is a complex and enormous subject and we are touching only the fringes of it in a debate of a few hours duration. My party has always claimed that successive Governments are to blame for failing to initiate the radical alterations which have been so badly needed. The present Measure falls short of what we would like to see in many ways, some of which I have touched on in my speech.
Nevertheless, with all its faults, the Bill is the first new approach to the subject since it was tackled by the young radicals of the late 1870s and 1880s. Vested interests of all kinds have inhibited successive Governments from tackling the subject and even now the retention of privilege has out-weighed the need for reform. There have been many obsolete forms and traditions retained and it is our hope, albeit a remote one, that the defects in the Bill may be rectified in Committee. I therefore recommend the House to give the Measure a Second Reading. If, how-over, our efforts towards reform are ignored by the Government, I may as well warn them now that we shall vote against the Third Reading.
7.29 p.m.
Mr. Compton Carr: If I may say so with respect to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) I am glad that I am able at any rate
290
to congratulate him on his honesty, for he did not begin his speech by saying that it would be a short one. However, I intend to be rash and say that mine will be a short speech.
I am one of two hon. Members in the House who is proud to serve on the London County Council. I have not served for nearly as long as the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) but I am as proud as she is to have served on that Council. Many who serve on the L.C.C., on both sides of it, are proud of the work it has done and I am especially proud because since I joined that body I have served on the education committee. I have also served all that time on the staff sub-committee and its head teachers' section, which sees every teacher who applies for a head teacher's post in the London area. I know very well, as we all do, the fine calibre of the people we have working in London and the tremendous work which the staff, the committee and the Council have done over the years.
That is not to say that we should stand still. The hon. Lady the Member for Peckham—she is not in her place, but this is no criticism of her—said that by 1920 the London area had swollen to such an extent that the old 1888 boundaries were useless to all intents and purposes. It is fair to comment that Lord Morrison in the 1920s expressed the opinion that it was about time that something was done about London government.
We on the London County Council have a habit—I was about to say "a bad habit"—of talking about ourselves as representing the people of London. This is not true. I am lucky in being a Member for a constituency which I regard as in London. Ten minutes' walk down The Mall will take me into Middlesex. A walk across the bridge to Barnes will take me into Surrey. They are both built-up areas completely contiguous with and almost exactly like the area which is still London just across the border. London has obviously expanded and the London County Council has produced a tremendous pattern for government of its type.
Many points which have been raised in this debate are really Committee points. The one thing which I regret,

291
and which I take time on Second Reading to mention, about the L.C.C.'s attitude is not necessarily its present attitude but its attitude when it appeared before the Royal Commission. I am sure that if the L.C.C. had then said, "Not only are these the facts"—the L.C.C. did put facts before the Royal Commission—"but from our experience we recommend so-and-so", we should have had a far better Bill to start with.
I do not want to expand on this, because the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) is not in his place, but he implied that the borough council representatives and their employees were not as humane and efficient as those of the L.C.C. I am sure that he did not mean it as bluntly as that, but if he reads his words tomorrow he will see the implication of saying that this transfer to the boroughs means greater inhumanity and less efficiency.
It does not mean that at all. I am proud to represent a part of a borough, namely Fulham, which, although it has not opted for the Bill as a whole and is already in communication with me about possible Amendments, has said that it welcomes this opportunity to do something forward-looking for the government of London. This is the attitude of mind which one ought to expect from boroughs all over this great—I am sorry to use the word—conurbation. When talking of London we who are London Members tend to think in terms of a very much smaller area than that which is now the built-up Greater London. Not only in the centre, not only in the present L.C.C. area, but right outside, boroughs are capable of taking on the jobs assigned to them in this Greater London government and are more than anxious to do so. I see no reason why doubt should be cast on that.
Finally—I really mean that, Mr. Speaker—one thing has been said more than once which has caused some people a great deal of worry. There has been an implication that the small unit is not efficient. I do not believe that this is true. I do not believe it is true educationally. I do not believe it is true of the welfare services. We in education—in special education, at any rate—and in welfare services have been moving for years towards the smaller unit. We do not want large institutions where
292
children are kept in large numbers. I personally am, and always have been, a supporter of the comprehensive school. I do not believe in the very large comprehensive school, but I have always believed in the comprehensive school, and I have always said so.
We have tended to split up the comprehensive school internally into small and manageable units. This has been the modern trend. I do not believe that a small welfare home for a dozen children with a housemother, or a small special school—of necessity small, because there are only small numbers of these children in a borough—is any the less efficient than one which has been made small by logical progression by a larger authority such as the L.C.C. We have been keen to have small units in the L.C.C. and I see no reason why we should have inefficient units in these new boroughs.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) mentioned autistic children, in whom he knows I am interested. In the L.C.C. area we can have only two or three autistic children per teacher, because that is the only way one can deal with them. If a borough has only two or three autistic children, the mere fact that there is a specialist for those two or three children does not make for less efficiency or detract from the personalised treatment which they require.
Mr. Speaker, I have been watching the clock very carefully. I have not taken the 10 minutes which I allotted to myself. I am grateful for the opportunity of saying these few words. I shall be very happy now to give way to others.
7.38 p.m.
Sir Leslie Plummer: In the interests of brevity I am sure that the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Compton Carr) will not mind if I do not pursue the line of country which he followed, for I, too, promise to be as brief as I can in the interest of hon. Members on both sides of the House who want to make contributions to the debate. I shall not even make a constituency speech. I shall eschew the temptation to get my name in the local papers by making some flattering remarks about my own constituency.

293
I want merely to say this specifically. The Government propose that in the interests of bringing local government and the constituent closer together the people of Deptford will now have to take a 9d. bus ride to get to the town hall instead of walking there quite easily. The character of my constituency is bound to be altered, because it is to be amalgamated with a much larger area which is regarded by many of my constituents as being pretty well foreign territory.
I want now to direct myself to some of the remarks made by hon. Members opposite. It has been interesting to note how many Conservative Members have praised the Bill with faint damns, have expressed reservation after reservation about it, although making it clear that ultimately they will support it, but who have also said that it is a most forward-looking Measure. They claim that we are deliberating a Bill which will revivify the whole of local government; they say that it is a courageous and progressive move.
I have my suspicions about this. One of my first suspicions is the speed with which the Government have produced the Bill on the basis of a Royal Commission Report. It is not customary for the Government to act swiftly on the publication of a Royal Commission Report. Their desks are cluttered with Royal Commission Reports, and it is therefore a matter of suspicion that so soon after the publication of the Herbert Report the Government have produced the Bill.
The readiness of Conservatives in London to support the Bill adds to my suspicions. Is this a forward-looking Bill? The Minister of Housing and Local Government has left the Chamber, but I ask the Minister in charge for the time being whether I may have a reply to this question: is it wise when basic changes are being made in the structure of London Government, to base them on a situation assessment which was made beginning in 1957, especially when it is not proposed to bring these changes into effect until 1965? I believe that this means that the Bill is not forward-looking. One of the great features of the Bill is the absence of power given to the Minister, by orders needing affirmative Resolution, to make necessary changes
294
arrived at as a result of experience gained over the years. I think that what the Bill will do is to ossify London government for a long period. It may well be that at the end of the decade we shall find that there will have to be another drastic upheaval, possibly followed by another Royal Commission and another long and tedious period of debate.
The needs and context of London local government are developing so rapidly that we should not ossify the structure for the 1970s and the 1980s on the experience of the 1950s. This is not a flexible Measure; it is quite inflexible.
Let me give an example where it applies to education. The Government have recognised, belatedly enough, the dangers of the fragmentation of the splendid administration built up by the L.C.C. Nevertheless, they say that by 1970 there will be an investigation into the way in which the inner boroughs are carrying out their educational functions. The Minister of Education this afternoon stated that it would be unwise—I am paraphrasing his words—to forecast what the position will be in the 1970s. But why is it that the administration of only the inner boroughs' educational service will be judged? Why not the outer boroughs? There is nothing in what the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon or in the Bill which entitles the Government to say to the outer boroughs, "You are doing a bad job and we shall change the structure." They would have to introduce a new Measure, presumably after another inquiry, before they could do that. This is not flexibility. It is a one-way stretch. It is not working in the interests of ensuring that both the London inner and outer boroughs are doing their jobs properly.
The Bill also proposes to make child welfare a wholly borough service. Supposing the experience of the next few years shows that the Home Secretary is not satisfied with the service given in this respect? Supposing that the boroughs themselves agree that they are not capable or competent to carry out the sort of service which ought to be provided. The Greater London Council will have no power to go into the business of looking after children.

295
The Bill specifically excludes the Council from operating a child care service. The Greater London Council will not be able to provide a clearing house of information for children's officers throughout the whole of London. They will not have the power to do it. They could not maintain an accommodation register, or even provide a committee clerk for a consultative joint committee. None of these things could be done unless the Government introduced fresh legislation.
I believe that in the Bill the Minister should have variation powers under affirmative Order procedure and so be able to tell the House, "Both in the inner and outer boroughs there are failures in the operation of their services, and in the light of experience we have to deal with these immediately". I hate giving Ministers too much power, but I would rather that the Ministers had these powers than see what I regard as the ossification of London government. I am not arguing against changes in the structure of London government. But these arguments come ill from some hon. Members who today and yesterday have talked about the necessity of reform but who have resisted reform. I want to see change, but I do not want to see changes made in such a form and such a manner that we find ourselves lagging behind, as one hon. Member said this afternoon, the needs of the people because we are shackled by a Bill which is so rigid in its conception and so out of date in the information on which it is based that nothing can be done in a reasonable time to alter it.
I have another suspicion about the Bill. When I received it, I did what I always do with Bills—looked at the names of the sponsors. I recognised that the main sponsor was the Home Secretary and that we were therefore up against something pretty suspicious for I recalled, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) yesterday, the Home Secretary's statement in 1945 that his job was to destroy the Labour majority on the L.C.C. for ever. When I listened to the Minister of Housing and Local Government speaking, it was clear to me that although the voice was the voice of Joseph, the hand was the hand of Henry. This Bill has been in the
296
office of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government for some time.
Mr. G. Brown: Even further back than that.
Sir L. Plummer: Perhaps even further back than that. I can see in it the malign inflluence of the Home Secretary. It is suspicious that this Bill, which proposes the reform of London government is sponsored by the man who is responsible for the fact that 20,000 tenants in London today suffer each year from the creeping decontrol which he introduced, that the man who had been responsible for making a daily occurrence of evictions should now be sponsoring a Bill that is supposed to deal with the reform of London local government.
I think that the task of those unfortunate enough to be drafted to the Standing Committee that will deal with this Bill will be difficult. It will be difficult to make the Bill as flexible as is possible. I hope that long before the terms of this Measure come into operation there will be a change of Government which will mean a change in the attitude of the House to the Bill.
7.50 p.m.
Mr. Charles Doughty: I want first to deal with one or two matters mentioned by hon. Members opposite. First, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), echoing the voices of several hon. Members opposite, criticised the Bill's treatment of the City of London. I thoroughly disagree with that criticism. I speak as one who has been a City of London local government elector for many years, and I am at this moment a Parliamentary elector there.
The City of London is neither illogical nor an anachronism. It is peculiar, because it is the centre of the world's commerce, where the biggest banking, insurance and other trades are carried on by people who do not reside there. It cannot be combined properly with any other boroughs in that part, with which it has no affinity—
Mr. Michael Cliffe: I suggest that it would be an excellent idea, and would certainly be an improvement on the present proposals, if Shoreditch, Finsbury and the City were joined, rather than being dealt with as is proposed in the Bill.
Mr. Doughty: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to tell him, in the Chamber, what I think of that idea. To suggest that we should join the City with Shoreditch and Finsbury, which have no relationship at all to the City, which are highly populated, and which are certainly not centres of trade and commerce, as is the City—
Mr. Cliffe: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that there is no relation between the two boroughs and the City, yet the City Corporation has built one of its largest housing developments in the Borough of Finsbury.
Mr. Doughty: That is true, but that is one part of Finsbury. I am against dividing boroughs. I agree that there is the argument that one could take small parts of those boroughs into the City, but I am sure that Shoreditch and Finsbury would object to that, and that there would be a great deal of strength in what they said. The City of London is neither illogical nor an anachronism. It is extremely old, and it is democratically run. I have frequently voted in the elections there. It may be that the results of the elections do not always please hon. Members opposite.
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) always interests us on whatever matter he speaks, and whether or not we agree with him. He referred to the length of this Bill, and to the time-table that might possibly be put on it. The Bill is extremely long, but I do not think that such a complicated matter could have been dealt with more shortly. Whether or not a time-table will be put on it has nothing to do with me, but I do not think that our Parliamentary system is capable of dealing with a Bill of this length.
Even assuming—and I always assume the best of everything in the best of all possible worlds—that there will be no delaying tactics, that nobody will try to spin out discussion on any Clause, I do not believe that we have the time to go fully into the Bill, because I say at once that it requires many Amendments. I agree that the Government have taken a very bold step in tackling the problem of Greater London, but many changes will have to be made in Committee, though I shall not go into them now.
This problem has not been tackled since the 'eighties. Since then there have
298
been enormous changes in the size, type and spread of population in what is called Greater London, but it is when we come to consider Greater London that we face the difficulty. What is Greater London? Where are the boundaries? This Bill is founded on the Herbert Report, in whose terms of reference we find one of the fundamental errors that we are still trying to correct but have not yet finally succeeded in correcting.
The Herbert Committee's terms of reference gave as the area into which the Committee was to inquire the area of Greater London. I do not believe for one moment that the Herbert Committee would have reported on those boundaries if it had been able to decide for itself. The Report is extremely well written, but there must be many matters in dispute, because on such a subject as this no one can be in complete agreement. Indeed, the Government themselves have not accepted all the Committee's findings. When we look at the map of London and appreciate that in the Herbert Committee's terms of reference are included thousands of acres of green fields, the Epsom racecourse and part of the North Downs, it will be seen that those terms of reference are indefensible and unmanageable.
When they came to the point, the Government could not accept that definition of Greater London at all, and the White Paper of November, 1961, scrapped all those boundaries. Paragraph 25 of the White Paper told us that larger boroughs were to be formed and that the peripheral areas were to be loft for future discussion. Those discussions took place, and on 19th and 20th February last we had a debate when, unfortunately, I was unable to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
Those resident in the peripheral areas, and concerned with their affairs, have made it abundantly clear from the start—and I have been concerned with this matter now for over six years—that they do not want to be part of Greater London, and are not geographically part of it. The present Leader of the House was then right to say, speaking on behalf of the Government:
"The intention and, indeed, the sense is to include in London only the area enclosed by the green belt. There is, of course, the difficulty, which my hon. Friend recognised

299
—I have it in my own constituency in relation to these problems—that many of the boroughs and districts round the edge include, in varying proportions, parts of the continuous built-up area and parts of the green belt. This is true of my constituency. …"
As he was referring to his own constituency, I went so far as to refer to my own constituency, an area very similar to Epsom, saying:
"What my right hon. Friend has just said will give tremendous satisfaction to tens of thousands of people who live in such areas"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th January, 1962; Vol. 654, c. 330–1.]
So it went on, and my right hon. Friend said that the Government did not intend to divide boroughs whose shoulders were in the green belt and whose feet were in Greater London.
I then thought—as, I am sure, many others did—that areas like Coulsdon and Purley, which are in my constituency, must be excluded, because the green belt goes right through there, and the only built-up area, in the sense of continuous housing, is on the north side, where we have the Brighton road. They did not want that little bit taken off, and they had had that assurance. One can imagine the astonishment of myself and those who live there and are concerned with the affairs of the district, when they found that it was included in the Greater London area, of which it forms no part, and was to be joined on to Croydon, despite what the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. R. Thompson) said—about which I shall have more to say in a few minutes.
This area is 55 per cent. green belt and open spaces, and nowhere is the building continuous with any part of the rest of the Greater London area according to the plan, except in the north on the Brighton road. Even that road cuts off a great deal of open space on the north where the old Croydon Airport stands. The only bit that joins it with any part of the rest of what is now proposed as the Greater London area is a strip a few hundred yards wide between there and Croydon. The population of the area is nearly 74,000. I assure the Minister, and he must accept it from me, and if not he can go and find out for himself, that the vast majority of that population have no wish to be included in the Greater London area.
300
We are not dealing here with lines on a map but with people, and when we are dealing with people we cannot ignore their views entirely. We are dealing with people who wish to have their views expressed, and as far as lies in my power I shall express them here. I had the honour yesterday to present a Petition signed by nearly 23,000 local government electors in that area. They were petitioning against this plan. This was the voice of the people explaining fully to the Minister that they are not and have no wish to be part of the Greater London area. I assure the Minister that these are genuine views expressed by the people of the locality.
There are many reasons why Croydon, Coulsdon and Purley should be left out, and I appeal to the Minister not to make up his mind to include this part of Surrey. I have already referred to the fact that it is against the wishes of the inhabitants. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) so carefully put it, if they had been peoples of a dependent territory they would have had better treatment in the discussions.
I am not criticising the Minister. He has only recently taken over this unfortunate and difficult task, I believe that if he had been there earlier we would have had more discussions and agreement than we have had in the past. Contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South said, it is against the wish of Croydon to join Coulsdon and Purley. The Croydon Corporation has expressed the view that the grouping of the Borough of Croydon with Coulsdon and Purley is neither desirable nor necessary. I agree with that view. I have told the Minister that Croydon could be more efficiently administered as an effective and convenient local government unit if it were allowed to continue as now, instead of being enlarged by a grouping with other authorities.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South is not in his place. He might have guessed that if I were called in the debate I should be referring to him after what he said in his speech. I am also sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) is not here. He

301
would have joined me in criticising the inaccurate remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South, who cannot know his neighbours in Surrey if he passes remarks like that. His reference to residential land, where there is none, will increase fears that people from London boroughs will come out to that area to change its character completely.
A shotgun marriage of the kind proposed in the Bill between Coulsdon, Purley and Croydon can never be successful, and I hope that rather than have divorce proceedings later we shall not go through with the marriage ceremony in this Bill. The two areas are completely different. The Borough of Croydon has three times the density of Coulsdon and Purley and is of an entirely different character. Except for this slight jarring note in the debate from my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South, we have always had the best relations between the Members and the people of Croydon, Coulsdon and Purley, but that does not mean that we want to be in the same borough.
If the change I ask for were made, it would remove a quite irregular part of the proposed outer boundary which at present abuts into other parts of Surrey land it would make no consequential changes beyond that. This is important, because I see that last night in his winding-up speech my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government said:
"One cannot consider even minor alterations to single boroughs unless one is satisfied that the ramifications throughout the neighbouring boroughs and beyond will not produce an impossible pattern elsewhere."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1962; Vol. 669, c. 162.]
There is absolutely no pattern to be changed elsewhere here, because the County Borough of Croydon has a population of over 250,000 as it is, and it can be left as it is now as a borough without the inclusion of Coulsdon and Purley.
The change I suggest would prevent the formation of a borough which would be very unwieldy and unworkable. The area would stretch from Norbury and Norwood in the North to Merstham in the South and would prevent the inclusion of part of the County of Surrey which is not in any sense of the word
302
part of London. Many arguments have been put forward to try to stretch points almost to the ridiculous. It is said that many residents of Coulsdon and Purley work in London and therefore that area should be included. On that basis, Brighton, Haywards Heath, nearly all of Kent and an area to the North up to 40 or 50 miles from London should be included. We can dismiss that remark as showing the weakness of the case.
The plan proposed under the Bill would prevent good local government. The distance which local people have to travel to council offices would increase the remoteness of local government. At present they have it on their doorsteps, and they have their councillors on their doorsteps. They would have to go quite a long way into Croydon if this plan were carried out.
It would cause a certain amount of resentment among those concerned with education, because Croydon has a plan—though admittedly it is only a plan—for education which would abolish grammar schools, and there are two excellent and popular grammar schools in Coulsdon and Purley. It would cause grave local resentment if anything were done gradually to abolish them. I am sure that if they remained in Surrey nothing of that sort could possibly happen.
I am sure that if I took longer over my speech—which I do not propose to do—I could enunciate many more reasons against this plan. One should not pass one's own opinion about one's own remarks, but I think that my remarks are unanswerable. This plan is a mistake. It is something left over from the original mistake in the terms of reference given to the Royal Commission. Gradually these mistakes are being whittled away. This is one of the last. I believe that if this one is taken away finally there will be a much better boundary for the Greater London area.
Mr. G. Brown: The hon. and learned Member has persuaded me that the constituents of that part of his constituency believe this proposal to be a bad thing and that they ought not to be asked to join it. I am sure that if it is such a bad thing for them they would not want to fasten it on to anybody else. Would the hon. and learned Member be willing

303
to vote against the Bill in defence of other people even if Coulsdon and Purley are left out?
Mr. Doughty: The affinities of Coulsdon and Purley go south, not to the north and east. This is a very bad part of the Bill. Even though I have been called late in the debate and we shall soon come to the closing speeches, I hope that I may still hear something from the Minister, or whoever is to wind up, on his directions, which will enable me to do what I should like to do. If not, in the interests of those whom I represent, I shall have to take the final and only step which a Member can take when he disagrees or finds something which sticks out of a Bill like a sore thumb and which he regards as quite indefensible.
8.10 p.m.
Mr. Michael Cliffe: The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) has left me a little puzzled about whether he is for or against the Bill. He began by congratulating the Government on what they had done, but he went on to criticise all the proposals and recommendations. If there is any doubt about the sort of thinking which the Tories are presenting not only in the House, but in the country—
Mr. Doughty: I did not criticise the whole thing. I said that there were so many details that I did not propose to go through them all. What I criticised, and criticised strongly, was the inclusion of a particular area in the south. That is all.
Mr. Cliffe: All I can say is that the hon. and learned Gentleman's contribution to the debate was critical of what the Government are attempting to do even if his criticisms related only to that small area.
I hope that the Minister of Education will forgive me if I do no more than congratulate him on at least having avoided proceeding with the original proposals for the complete fragmentation of education in London. Now, there need not be such anxiety since there is no likelihood that education will go to the local borough councils, as was originally feared. I am convinced that the Government's change of mind is the result of pressure from this side of the House, from
304
the parents of children attending schools in London and, not least, from the teaching profession itself. The opposition became too strong for the Tories to face and they ran away from it.
I shall prove what has been suggested many times by my hon. Friends and has been suspected in the whole London area, that the entire exercise upon which the Government have embarked is designed, first and foremost, to get rid of the London County Council as it now is. The boroughs have been brought in as an incidental merely to give the idea that this is not the intention, but I shall establish that what has long been suspected is the fact.
As regards the local authority services, there are no differences at all in the measures proposed with the exception of that which deals with personal services. As a local government man who has been leader of the council for fourteen years in a central London borough and chairman of the housing committee, I say quite definitely that, if the Government continue with their present proposals for the return of the personal services to the boroughs, they will do the greatest possible disservice to all the disabled and the many who depend upon the established institutions to which they can go today for proper treatment, care and attention.
Quite apart from the financial implications, about which nothing is said in the Bill, where will the boroughs find the staff or the premises? There will be eleven months between the establishment of the new borough councils and the time when the Greater London Council comes into being to take over its responsibilities. Do the Government seriously believe that it is possible for the boroughs to take over these responsibilities, which it has taken years to develop and fulfil? How can the boroughs find the people to staff the services in the time available?
The right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) congratulated the Government because, she said, they would bring real government to London. Nothing can be further from the truth. What is proposed in the Bill is a deception, as we suspected all along. The Government party cannot win control of the London County Council by the accepted processes of

305
democracy, so they are trying to do it by legislative means in the House of Commons.
Turning to the other services, I take, first, housing. At present, the local authorities have to prepare plans and submit them to the London County Council for approval. They have to get the Minister's approval in order to qualify for the necessary grants. It is said that, under the new proposals, the enlarged local boroughs will be town planners. Possibly—I do not wish to be rude—they could build toilets and that sort of thing without offending anyone or doing a great deal of harm. But the powers will remain basically with the Greater London Council. It is said that the Greater London Council will be able to do comprehensive development in the boroughs if they obtain the consent of the boroughs, and, in the event of failure to reach agreement with a borough council, the Greater London Council will be able to take the matter to the Minister for decision. This merely follows the pattern of what is done today. There is very little difference, except that the Government are trying to convince the local authorities that they will now be town planning authorities for building purposes.
I am very proud of London's achievements for old people. No other place in the world, I believe, has done for its old people as much as has been done by London, despite all the restrictions put upon it by the Government. In my capacity as a leader of a council, I know of the many schemes which have been instituted to provide old people with a fortnight's holiday for the nominal sum of £1, and so on. Such schemes are constantly being introduced and developed in many directions. The London County Council has given a tremendous amount of encouragement to local authorities in the efforts which they have made. By virtue of its measure of control over the area, the L.C.C. has made it possible for land to be used for the development of old people's services whenever this was called for.
The only difference I can see in the new proposals is that, according to what the Government say, we in the boroughs will be able to provide more accommodation for old people. I have never heard such nonsense. I say that it is
306
a deception, and here is evidence of it. There is not a single local authority—I am prepared to give the same credit to the Tory boroughs within the metropolitan area—which is not anxious to provide accommodation for old people. What are the restrictions? In the first place, they already have thousands of people on their present housing lists. In the second place, perhaps most important of all, there is no land available for building purposes. There is nothing there to build on. To put something on the Statute Book when it is impossible to carry it out is a piece of utter deception.
On 19th and 20th February it was said that responsibility for open spaces was to go to the local boroughs. I am convinced that the idea was to reach some sort of understanding between the local authorities and the London County Council. However, it is now suggested that when open spaces cut into two boroughs, they should remain the responsibility of the Greater London Council. This sort of example could be repeated with all the services, with the exception of those which I mentioned earlier, and I am sure that most of them will remain very much as they now are.
I am one of those unfortunate hon. Members who, when able to take part in local government debates, are called very late in the debate and then asked to speak for only five minutes. Nevertheless, before I conclude I want to say a few words about boundaries. Although the right hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill), who was then the Minister of Housing and Local Government, praised to the hilt the tremendous work of Sir Edwin Herbert, one can see from the Bill that the Royal Commission was wasting its time, because the Government have completely run away from the findings of its Report which they themselves have described as a great and cogent document.
With the exception of one or two Conservative-controlled boroughs, and then with a good deal of reservation and largely more out of party loyalty than acceptance of the logic of the proposals, London as a whole has objected to the boundary proposals. My constituency has a history as long as that of any London constituency, and although the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East said that it was facetious

307
to suggest that the City should be included with Shoreditch and Finsbury, I think that it is an excellent idea.
If the Conservative Government are to destroy one of the world's finest institutions, the L.C.C., I see no reason why the City should be considered sacrosanct simply because it is the hub of the Commonwealth, merely because the Bank of England, the Mansion House and the Stock Exchange are there. People speak of the, Lord Mayor of London, but he is the Lord Mayor of one of the smallest bits of London. I was the mayor of a borough with a population much larger than the City's. It would be a wonderful thing if Shore-ditch and Finsbury were linked to the City of London. We could spend a great deal of the City's money which is made on the Stock Exchange. The money is made quickly enough there and we could help spend it in those boroughs where it is needed.
Mr. Mellish: If there were a constituency of Shoreditch and Finsbury and the City of London, my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Cliffe) would obviously become its Member of Parliament, and that would give him the right to wear a top hat and sit on the Front Bench and tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer what to do with his Budget.
Mr. Cliffe: I would walk about the City of London and Shoreditch and Finsbury, and even go to Bermondsey, wearing a bowler hat and carrying a rolled umbrella.
However, I do not want to delay the House by being facetious, because there are other hon. Members who wish to speak. I conclude by saying that there is a marked difference between our way of life and that of the totalitarian countries. The totalitarian countries may have a praesidium, or a central committee, and the Right-wing totalitarian States, the Fascists, their little groups of thugs, to decide what is to be done. People are instructed, and heaven help those who do not obey the instructions!
In spite of the fundamental political differences between the two sides of the House, what we have in common is that we treasure democracy. Only 5 per cent. of the review areas agree with the Bill
308
and 95 per cent. are opposed to it. There is not a single professional organisation which is not on record as protesting against it—the architects, the teachers and the doctors. Even today I have had letters from the teachers asking me to oppose the Bill.
What kind of democracy can we claim to have when, against the wishes of everyone, the Government say, "We know what is best for you and you are going to have it whether you like it or not". That is dangerous thinking. The Bill is not only bad for London, but it is bad for the country. If this is the kind of democracy which the Tories practise when they are in power, heaven help us if we cannot get rid of them at the next General Election.
8.27 p.m.
Mr. Charles Curran: The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Cliffe) knows a great deal about local government and speaks with knowledge about it. However, I ask him and those who agree with him to consider the Bill from a different angle. We should not decide about the Bill's merits merely by considering it in terms of existing local authorities, existing municipal politicians, existing staffs and existing employees. We must take a wider view and consider the existing pattern of local government and ask ourselves whether it makes sense in the conditions of 1962.
When one considers the matter, the first thing which emerges is that this pattern is over 70 years old. When this House, in 1888, decided to create the London County Council, by what yardstick did it create its area? Did it inquire to find out to whether the area which it was giving to the new L.C.C. was the effective area of London? No, it did not. All that it did when it created the frontiers of the L.C.C. was to say that it should have the same frontiers as the Metropolitan Board of Works, which it was superseding.
The Metropolitan Board of Works was created in 1855, so that the L.C.C. took over as the basis for its administration an area which Parliament created in 1855. If one goes back to 1855 in order to discover how Parliament decided the frontiers of the Metropolitan Board of Works, one finds that it simply said, "We will give the Metropolitan Board

309
of Works the frontiers given to the Commissioners of Sewers in 1848". Therefore, the frontiers of the L.C.C. are precisely the same as those which were given to the Commissioners of Sewers in 1848.
I invite hon. Members on both sides to agree that, whatever may have been the merits of saying that the area of the L.C.C. was London in 1848, it is idle to say in 1962 that the frontiers are the same now. Obviously, the L.C.C. was obsolete as an administrative area from the moment it came into existence, and even before. It was far advanced in obsolescence when it was created and it has been moving nearer the grave ever since.
Plainly, in the more than 70 years since the L.C.C. came into existence, the whole pattern of London has been transformed. It was probably accurate to say in the middle of the nineteenth century that London was a small area administered by the Commissioners of Sewers, but this was long before the railways, before the tubes, before the motor car and before the great expansion of London which has been continuing steadily decade after decade. Yet in more than 70 years we have never attempted to make the administrative pattern of local government in the London region correspond to any of these changes. That is the basic case for the Bill.
Like other hon. Members, I have been sitting in the Chamber during the last two days of criticism, most of it special pleading on behalf of this or that threatened vested interest, but no one, as far as I can recall, has asked the question which seems to me to be fundamental to these changes, namely, do we or do we not want municipal democracy in the London area? I understand that the basic purpose of the Bill is to create units which will have not only a democratic basis but also powers which will make democracy sufficiently magnetic to get people to vote. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I invite hon. Members to listen to what I have to say on this point because it is central to the argument.
The L.C.C. has existed since 1888. It holds elections every three years. In the more than 70 years of L.C.C. elections, only once has it been possible
310
to get 55 per cent, of Londoners to take part in them. Never in the history of L.C.C. elections has 60 per cent. of the voters participated in them. The last time that it was possible to get 50 per cent. of Londoners to take part in of L.C.C. elections have 60 per cent, of century ago. The usual percentage of Londoners taking part in L.C.C. elections is about 33. In the last election I believe it was 36 per cent.
We therefore have a settled pattern for L.C.C. democracy, which is that one Londoner in three takes part and two Londoners in three do not.
Mr. Cliffe: I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows better than I do why the number of people voting in L.C.C. elections is as low as it is. The reason is that the Press, with the exception, perhaps, of one newspaper which claims to support the Labour movement, deliberately plays them down. If L.C.C. elections had anything like the publicity given to General Elections, the number of people taking part in them would be greater. As I say, the Press plays down L.C.C. elections. The hon. Gentleman, through his connection with the Press, might know that.
Mr. Curran: I am not talking about now and generalising about the present position. I am dealing with the whole pattern. When the L.C.C. was created there were not two but nine evening newspapers in London. A newspaper was created for the exclusive purpose of reporting the L.C.C.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: Where is it now?
Mr. Curran: No one bought it because no one was interested in it. That was the trouble. It died because no one took any interest in it. If there was a public interest in the proceedings of the London County Council, two things would follow. First people would vote, which they do not do now, and secondly, it would be worth while for newspapers to report what the Council was doing, because people would be sufficiently interested to buy those newspapers.
Mr. Mellish: There is a lot in what the hon. Member says about the apathy of Londoners at municipal elections. Let us assume for the sake of the argument that we agree with the hon.

311
Member. Is he saying that with the Greater London Council the electorate will be much more enthusiastic with one councillor for 80,000 electors and diminished powers? Is the hon. Member suggesting that in these circumstances everybody will dash to the poll?
Mr. Curran: I am glad to hear that intervention and will be happy to deal with the point later. I am asking the House to agree that a system of administering London which fails to attract two-thirds of the electorate to take any part in London County Council elections is a system which, on that ground alone, is not compatible with any idea of democracy.
What would we do about the House of Commons if in our elections it was impossible to get more than 50, 40 or even 30 per cent. of the voters to take part? We all know that at every General Election it is easy enough to get 80 per cent. of the voters to participate. That is the normal figure.
Mrs. Corbet: It is not the normal figure. Taking my own constituency as an example, on only two occasions has there been as much as an 80 per cent. vote.
Mr. Curran: If we take the London County Council area and elections, we find that over the whole area about one-third of the electorate participates. I am saying that by contrast in a Parliamentary election, over the whole country about four-fifths of the electorate participates. I am inviting the House to agree—it seems to me to be pretty well self-evident—that if we ever reached a state of affairs when two-thirds of the voters did not take any interest whatever in Parliamentary elections, we would say that Parliament was moribund and that Parliamentary democracy was pretty well finished.
When we consider the proposals in the Bill, we have to look primarily at the question of whether those proposals appear likely to generate interest in local government. That is the primary test. For myself, I decline to measure the Bill by reference to the vested interests that are involved in it. Important as they are, however, I do not dismiss them.
The primary test must be whether it is likely that the boroughs which we create will generate an interest in muni-
312
cipal democracy greater than the interest which is now shown in the London County Council mechanism and, to be fair, in the county council mechanisms around it, because the London County Council is no worse than the Middlesex County Council. It is just as difficult to get people to take part in county council elections and in borough elections, too. [Interruption.] The figures for the metropolitan boroughs are no better, as the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) knows.
We have to reckon in the London region that municipal democracy has become very largely a sham. It is becoming more and more of a sham. I suggest that the Bill deserves support primarily because it gives us at least a chance of revitalising democracy in local government.
I invite the House to consider the ways in which, as I think, the proposals in the Bill will reactivate local government. The basic proposal in the Bill as far as most of us are concerned is that instead of the administrative jungle of authorities scattered all over the London region—the county councils, the local authorities and the ad hoc bodies of one kind or another which have been set up over the last 70 or 80 years—the Bill substitutes two lots of local authorities.
The Bill proposes to give to the enlarged boroughs powers as education authorities. I invite the House to agree that by putting education into the hands of the enlarged borough councils, which the Bill will create—
Mr. Mellish: Not in London.
Mr. Curran: I shall deal with that point presently. Meanwhile, I invite the hon. Member to let me put my case in my own language. I did not barrack him and I ask him to allow me to put my case without interruption. I am saying that, leaving out the Inner London Education Authority, in all the rest of the area it is intended by this Bill to make education a borough council responsibility. I suggest that by do so we shall take an immensely important step towards re-magnetising local government. Again, I suggest that in this matter we have to consider What the ordinary Londoner is like, what pattern of life he or she

313
has now adopted and the ways in which the ordinary Londoner now looks upon local government.
I suggest that, for a variety of reasons, partly because of increasing affluence, partly because of the greater dispersal of population and partly because of the coming into existence of the self-centred family, which now looks inwards, assembles at home and takes little interest in the outside world—because of all these changes—we are finding it harder and harder to get the ordinary household to take any part in local government.
When we look at this kind of family, what do we find? We find that what they are interested in more than anything else is the education of their children. I do not want to quote, though I could very easily, the verdict given by a good many sociologists on the sort of family pattern now forming in the England of the 'sixties, but I suggest that we are seeing—and we can see it throughout the Greater London area—the creation of this new pattern of family, the inward-looking family, which does not want, if it can help it, to take much interest in external affairs.
The way to get that family interested in local government is to give that family an educational reason for being interested. By making education a local responsibility, I suggest that we stand a very good chance of getting these withdrawn families to take an interest in local affairs. I do not believe that it is much good talking as if education was something in which most people are not interested, and as if, in order to get more money for education, we have to smuggle it through block grants or out of the taxpayer in a way which does not allow the people to know what is being spent. I believe that if we are to have an educated democracy, we have to recognise, and not only to recognise but to encourage, the interest which the normal family is now taking in education. In order to tap that interest for the benefit of municipal democracy, I suggest that we must welcome the proposals in this Bill to make education a local responsibility.
I want to deal with one other point about the Bill, but I do not want to make any criticism in detail of it. There are a lot of criticisms in detail which we
314
could make, but we shall have the opportunity of doing so at a later stage. I want to make one criticism which I think is almost the only valid criticism that can be made of the Herbert Report. I wish very much that when Sir Edwin Herbert and his colleagues were doing their study of local government they had gone to America and had had a look at the ways in which the Americans had approached the problems, which are very similar to our own, of generating and maintaining interest in local government.
It is broadly true to say that if we want to see what England will be like tomorrow, we look at what America is like today. The Americans have had to cope, as we have had to do, with the decline of interest in local government, brought about by the same general reasons—the dispersal of population, the increased popularity of television, the motor car and the absence of sense of locality. All these things threaten the vitality of local government. I wish that the Herbert Commission had gone to America and had seen how the Americans have tackled what are very much the same problems as our own, because it seems to me that, in making its proposals for the reform of local government, the Herbert Commission has not given sufficient weight to what is really the basic problem—how to get people of sufficient competence to take part in it.
How are we to man these borough councils and the Greater London Council? How are we to get people of sufficient confidence to do the job? In answering these questions, one should look at the United States, which has been driven to adandon the idea that local government can be run efficiently by large numbers of unpaid volunteers.
In New York City, for instance, which in many ways faces the same kind of problems as London does, the citizens have long since abandoned as impracticable any idea that they can get effective local government by electing a large number of unpaid amateurs. With the people of other American cities, they have put their local government into the hands of a small number of persons elected for four years and paid substantial salaries.
The contrast between the methods by which New York City is administered and those by which it is proposed that

315
London should be administered is striking. The Greater London Council will consist of about a hundred members. The City of New York governs itself with a council of 25 members, elected for four-year terms and each paid a salary of the dollar equivalent of £2,500 a year, with office expenses and other facilities.
New York City also found that in order to generate interest in local government it was necessary to have a four-yearly election for mayor. Apparently the process of electing a mayor generates a great interest in local government. In this country, however, we have always taken it for granted that a mayoral chain should be passed from hand to hand like a baton in a relay race, on the principle of "Gubbins's turn next".
I wish that the Royal Commission had looked at the possibility of electing the chairman of the Greater London Council by direct election. If we were to do that we might well succeed in generating greater interest in the process of government in London than there is at present.
It will be necessary to face the question of whether we will get people of sufficient confidence to devote themselves to service on the new council unless we are prepared to make payment for their services. As far as I can see, members of the council will probably have to meet in daytime and devote a great deal of their time and energy to the job. What are our prospects of getting sufficient numbers of competent people to do this unless we are prepared to make some payment? I am not answering the question but asking it, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will take up the point in reply.
I think that all those with municipal experience will agree that it is becoming steadily harder and harder to get people to take part in local government. There are a variety of reasons. But if we want to reverse the trend it will be necessary not only to revitalise the interest of the voters by putting real power, especially power over education, into the hands of the local councils, but also to make it easier for people to take part in local government. We shall thus have to consider the question of payment.
I wish to try to reinforce the Minister, who has been much attacked, and who,
316
I am sure, will be continually attacked by all who have a vested interest in the existing set-up. I wish to remind my right hon. Friend that not all the people who contemplate London's local government take the same view as that adopted by some of his critics. I should like to quote from a book, a municipal classic, called, The Government and Misgovernment of London. It is, I think, the most interesting book about the government of London ever written. The author is Professor Robson, Professor of Administration at the London School of Economics, who wrote the book before the war. It was published in 1939.
Professor Robson is certainly not a man of the Right. I do not presume to define his politics with precision, but he is not carrying any torch for the Tory Party. He is one of the editors of the Political Quarterly, a journal which is certainly not run by the Tory Party or controlled by Tory Central Office. Professor Robson makes a devastating analysis of the jungle of local government in London and I wish to quote a few phrases from his book.
"It is utterly impossible to reform local government in London on the basis of agreement among the existing authorities because the strongest opposition to reform is likely to come from the local authorities in the Metropolis. They are inspired by a common desire to survive at all costs. From the county council down they all regard the continuance of their own existence not merely as an absolute good in itself but somethng compared with which any scheme of reform intended to benefit the larger metropolitan community is but dust in the balance."
Professor Robson insists that if any action is to be taken to reform the administrative jungle of Greater London it must be taken by a Minister prepared to act, even though vested interests are in opposition to him. He states:
"The Minister who treads warily in case he should disturb sleeping dogs may save himself the trouble. The path to safety and sanity is more likely to be gained by facing obstacles in administrative demeanour than trying to slink round by the side door while nobody is looking."
I suggest that the Minister in charge of the Bill might well remember that if he is to cope with this jungle he will not do so simply by trying to placate and conciliate vested interests. After all, this is primarily a question not of existing authorities or their members or

317
staffs or officials. It is primarily a question of what pattern of government is good for London.
I should like my right hon. Friend to remember something said by a former Member of this House after having had experience on the Government Front Bench as a member of the Cabinet. It was Lord Macaulay who said:
"No man is fit to take public office unless he is prepared to disoblige the few who have access to him for the sake of the many whom he will never see."
I suggest that is a good maxim for my right hon. Friend. Instead of listening attentively and exclusively—I will leave out "attentively"—to the few who have access to him, to the few who are able to put pressure on him, I invite him to think of the 8 million Londoners whom he does not see, whom he will never see, but whose interests, as I believe, will be furthered by the proposals contained in the Bill.
8.54 p.m.
Mr. John Parker: I hope that hon. Members will not mind if I leave out a number of things I wanted to say and make a short speech, because I have sat here for two whole days, trying to get into the debate.
In reply to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran), may I say that we on this side of the House resent the Bill because we believe that it is a party political Bill. We have been told that it is "politics in the raw". It certainly is. If London County Council can be destroyed for political reasons, so can the City of London Common Council. We on this side of the House, when we get back into power, could also play politics, just as hon. Members opposite.
Although the London County Council boundaries go back to 1848, the boundaries of the City of London have been unchanged since the time of Edward IV, and they were already out of date in the reign of Henry VIII. I do not think that anyone can say anything in favour of the City of London that cannot also be said in favour of the London County Council.
In Dagenham, there is a great deal of feeling about being wiped out as a community. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields
318
(Mr. Ede), who said that in the outer London area many communities have come into being during the last twenty or thirty years. I have had the honour of being Member of Parliament for Dagenham for twenty-seven years. When I first came here, Dagenham was just a slice of a London County Council estate, but during the period since the estate has been completed by the L.C.C., there has grown up a sense of community which is very strong. That is due largely to the energetic work of the local council building up its services and giving the people a sense of belonging. That will be destroyed by merging with other bodies.
I wish to make one or two criticisms of points in the Bill. First, the Greater London Council. In the debate in February much was said about the need to strengthen the Greater London Council. The original proposals would have given the new Council mainly administrative services. I said then that it would be very difficult to get good councillors to serve on it because of lack interest. Now it is to have a lot more powers. It is to deal with the provision of water and with education in the old L.C.C. area; the Metropolitan Police are to deal with the whole Greater London area. But, as the Observer said, it will still be a very anaemic body, for its powers are not great enough to make it a really effective body to do its job properly.
We have been told in this debate that the powers over transport and planning are not adequate. The same applies to education. In regard to the children's service it should be remembered that London has one of the highest illegitimacy birth-rates of the country. That is largely because a great many unmarried women come to London to have their babies. The areas in which the rate is high are around the big railway stations. Are we to divide up the way in which illegitimate children and their mothers are treated in the London area? We should have a common policy throughout this area, not a different one in one part of London from another. That is a further argument for keeping the children's service as a complete unit.
We are told that the areas not now in the Metropolitan Police area are to be brought in, but, on the other hand, those

319
parts outside the new Greater London Council area will still remain in. Why not tidy up the whole thing and make the boundaries of the police area coincide with the area of the Greater London Council? It seems ridiculous not to do that. Why should we keep a separate City police force? At present, the Fraud Squad is subordinate jointly to the Metropolitan Police and to the City Police. The Home Secretary can get away with it when questioned, because it is a joint committee for the Metropolitan area and the area of the City of London police. That ought to be rectified.
The uncertainties which are left by all these Government proposals extend over a wide field. That is so in connection with education and we also do not know which parks will be under the Greater London Council and which are to be administered locally. We do not know which housing estates will be transferred. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet). We ought to have the L.C.C. estates in Dagenham handed over to us as soon as possible. For thirty years we have been a transit camp to which the L.C.C. has brought new tenants while our own young people have had to go elsewhere to find homes. That is not a satisfactory arrangement. It ought to be altered as soon as possible. I hope that the Bill will be amended in Committee to deal with that point.
We are told that the Greater London Council is to have 100 members. Is it always to have 100 members, or can it be enlarged as the population grows? Are its constituencies always to coincide with the parliamentary constituencies? Is it the intention eventually to cut down the representation of London in Parliament? I support the view that Greater London Council members should be paid to do their job properly.
In regard to local Dagenham boundaries, the town clerks suggested in their Report two important changes, but they were to be considered after the Bill has been passed. If we are to have changes made in boundaries they should be made in the Bill. Otherwise, we should find that words which have been decided on will be upset afterwards. Any such changes of boundaries should be
320
incorporated in the Bill. I hope that the Government will look sympathetically in Committee on suggestions made about boundaries.
9.1 p.m.
Mr. George Brown: We have had several debates on this matter. This is not the first but it is the latest in a range of debates, and equally it will not be the last. My feeling, as I come towards the end of it, is that each of these debates produces a tremendous effect of cynicism. One gets the impression that the Government are not listening to anything that is being said in the House or to criticisms outside. We get Ministers reading competently, but with no feeling, the briefs that have been written for them, sometimes introducing—I will come back to this in a moment with regard to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Education—some suggestions that they are not involved, which is hardly justified, and one begins to wander what a free Parliament can achieve.
Let us establish what we are talking about. We are talking about how more than 8 million people are being locally governed. We are talking about a vast area of our rateable value and a vast area of our population. I have heard the figures one-fifth and one-third mentioned. This could not be a more serious, a more drastic business. We are to upset, rightly or wrongly, an established way of handling their affairs.
Party politics aside, my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) yesterday, by all accounts—not just ours—made a tremendously powerful critique of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, who is to follow me, did not hear him or does not believe that, he has only to read today's Daily Telegraph, which is not normally biassed in our favour in writing up speeches which we make from this side of the House. There has been absolutely no answer to it; there has been virtually no reference to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) followed today on the subject of education. Maybe it was too much to expect the Minister of Education to reply to what he had not heard. It is for the Minister to reply tonight. The look of surprise on

321
the Minister's face shows that he will not reply to those criticisms.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) made a tremendously powerful speech from the other side of the House. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary did not even pretend last night to deal with it. He just assumed that it had never been made. Outside this House, the teachers, every kind of social worker, magistrates, local government officials, members of local government bodies—all of them have been critical and condemnatory. This has all happened since the White Paper, and yet we get the Bill virtually as though none of this has happened. Briefs are read which do not relate to the criticisms, and one gets the impression that the Government intend to force through a Measure which everybody who cares and knows about London believes to be wrong.
Mr. Robert Jenkins: The right hon. Gentleman said that the local authority organisations were all against the Bill. I point out to him that the Association of Municipal Corporations, which represents 58 per cent. of the electorate of the country, is in favour of it.
Mr. Brown: I could have said "everybody except the A.M.C.", and if the hon. Member takes credit from that, let him do so. It is not the London boroughs. If it pleases the hon. Member to have the A.M.C. exempted, we will exempt it. But the A.M.C. has offered two major criticisms and has said that it will support the Bill "only if" … It does not appear to be very strongly in support of the Bill.
The impression is that the Government are forcing through the Bill without listening to the criticisms. The right hon. Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) called upon the Leader of the House today to produce a timetable early and I suspect that this is what is in the Government's mind and that they intend to force through the Bill in every single sense of the word. I believe that they are already thinking of forcing it through by the Lobby fodder behind them. We shall see. The right hon. Member asked them to do it earlier, and if they are not thinking of it they will have to show much more willingness
322
to listen to argument than they have shown as yet.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon suggested that the reason for all this was the feeling of prestige in the minds of hon. Members opposite. I think that there is a much simpler explanation. Two points arise: first, some, but not all, of them hate the words "London County Council", and I suspect that the present Home Secretary is more responsible for this Bill than is anybody else; and secondly, they are devoted to the writings and speeches of the Minister of Health on dismantling the Welfare State. He has written so much and said so much about parents paying for their children at school, about charging for in-patients' board and lodging, about hating the poor, the sick and the lame. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I did not write it. He wrote it.
It is not without significance that he is to reply at the end of the debate. The Minister of Health does not normally reply to a debate as constitutionally wide-ranging as this. He is the man more than anyone else, except the present Home Secretary, who is devoted to the idea that we are spending too much money on the Welfare State and that people could be made to pay more. Of course, if the Government break down the machinery by which the Welfare State is operated, they are going a long way towards breaking down the Welfare State. I think this is what is behind it. In this I differ from the hon. Member for Wimbledon.
Yesterday the Minister kept on praying in aid the Royal Commission. The Bill is not the Royal Commission's Bill. The Government have overthrown the Royal Commission on almost all the big issues. This is their own party political Bill. On the area to be involved they have thrown out the recommendations of the Royal Commission. On education in London they have thrown down the Royal Commission. After two bosh shots of their own, they have still thrown down the Royal Commission. On the number of boroughs and on the size of boroughs they have thrown down the Royal Commission. On the traffic powers and on the planning powers they have thrown down the Royal Commission. This is not a Bill which can be fathered on the Royal Commission.

323
As my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham said yesterday, many of the arguments, which we thought were wrong, which were produced in favour of the results which the Royal Commission represented, have been totally destroyed as a result of the Government's actions in the Bill. They are now in form recommending what the Royal Commission recommended but far reasons totally different and with supporting evidence totally different from that which the Royal Commission represented. So they must stand up for this by themselves.
During the course of this debate many objections have been registered to the Bill. I repeat that none of them has yet been answered. At this stage of the debate I can only list what seem to me to be the major ones, but there have been many other than those I can now mention. They have not been answered. I do not know whether it is the intention of the Minister of Health to answer them or to give us another Departmental brief. We have already had three. When we get to a situation of debate in the House where every Minister Who speaks reads a Departmental brief and no Minister answers the debate, we are getting a very long way from a genuine and free Parliament.
I will introduce no new matter. Indeed, I will not canvass the whole of what has been said. I will try to reduce it to five major points. The first clearly is the question of education in the inner London area. Here the great problem is one of uncertainty. Yesterday the Minister of Housing and Local Government said this:
"… let me make it plain that the Government have always had in mind that there should be a central area for education. The only thing they have had to consider has been the precise size it should be.—"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1962; Vol. 699, c. 61.]
That was not what we thought. It was not what many other people thought.
Today the Minister of Education made very heavy weather of allaying teachers' fears which he had heard last night. Incidentally, he did something which I have seldom heard in the House. When my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North said, "The right hon. Gentleman gave evidence to the Royal
324
Commission on behalf of the Ministry of Education to say how good the L.C.C. education service was", the right hon. Gentleman rose and said, "It was not me. It was my predecessor but one". When I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he intended to tell us whether he disagreed he said, "Yes, I will come to that in my speech". He did not come to it in his speech.
Since then I have done a little research. The right hon. Gentleman was the Parliamentary Secretary at the time that the evidence was tendered. The right hon. Gentleman, who was then the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education, was in that office from 1957 to 1959. The evidence I have with me was tendered on 10th June, 1958—half-way through his tenure of that office—so what was the point of him saying that it was his predecessor but one?
The point is that when the Minister was in that office, the Ministry, on his behalf and in his name, said that it was such a good thing that it should not be interfered with. However, it is being interfered with—or it was until the right hon. Gentleman got into difficulties. Now he says that he met the teachers last night and that he thought they had some misconceptions and had made a presumption. Their presumption was that in 1970 the Inner London Education Authority would be broken up. The right hon. Gentleman said today that that was a totally wrong presumption for them to have made. Nevertheless, under pressure from my hon. Friends, he finally said that there was no presumption; that it could not be presumed that it would be broken up or kept, for the whole thing was totally open.
Surely the Minister of Health, when replying on behalf of his colleagues, will clear this up. The Minister of Housing and Local Government said, in effect, "Let me make it plain that the Government have always had in mind the fact that there should be a central area but the only issue has been its precise size." Now that the Government have decided on that precise size, why should there be a review in five years' time? Why, as the Minister of Education said, should it be open for consideration?
In any case, what is open for consideration? Is it the extent of the area or whether there should be an Inner London

325
Education Authority at all? What is open? The Minister of Education said that the whole question of whether there should be an Inner London Education Authority was open for consideration in five years' time. The Minister of Housing, on the other hand, said that there had never been any doubt, and that there would always be one. What is the position? Let the Minister of Health now say just what is open, why it is open and why there should be this uncertainty for the service—a service which the teachers, parents and everyone concerned, including the Ministry of Education when the present Minister was Parliamentary Secretary, have said is the best education service we have.
Then we must consider the children's service. We have received no answer from the Government on this topic and the Minister of Health must surely deal with this when he replies. Some time ago I took a deputation—of friends of mine, admittedly—comprised of people of tremendous experience and devotion to the children's service in London to meet the present First Secretary, who was then the Home Secretary. The Under-Secretary was there.
I do not intend to trespass on what exactly transpired, although it was an official and not a private meeting. We expressed to the then Home Secretary our worries about what was to happen to the children's service in London if it was not treated in the same way as the education service. I do the First Secretary no disservice if I say that he persuaded us that he, his Under-Secretary and his officials all shared our concern. And I came away feeling clear in my mind that the present Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and various other hon. Members opposite were obstinate and difficult.
Nobody told us at that interview, nor have we been told since, why the arguments which apply to education do not apply to the children's service. I have in mind the arguments concerning cross-posting and cross-provision. There are difficulties caused by having the facilities in one borough and the problem in another. I have with me certain figures to prove this and, although I do not have time to elaborate the statistics, the Under-Secretary knows about them. He knows that the boroughs in the East End
326
will have a tremendous problem if they are divorced from the facilities at present provided by the L.C.C.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government was much less than fair yesterday to the London County Council when he talked of these five large homes. He must know that in recent times the L.C.C. has built 125 small homes. He must know that it cannot board out as easily as outer authorities can, yet it has 3 per cent. of its children totally boarded out, which is a bigger percentage than others have. The night hon. Gentleman talked of five large homes, but he must know that those large homes are themselves sub-divided into cottages, and that the cottages themselves are again subdivided into smaller units. But the Minister did not say that. He spoke of these large homes in order to introduce a piece—
Sir Godfrey Nicholson Sir Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham) rose—
Mr. Brown: No, I cannot give way. I held back, and I have not much time.
But the children's service and the mental health service have as much to be said in favour of being kept as centre area services as has the education service, and nobody has yet explained—and I hope the Minister of Health will—why the Government are doing for those services what they are not doing for education. My own explanation is that the parent-teacher associations terrified the life out of them politically and, regrettably enough, there are not the same pressure groups in the other two services, so the Government are not acting in the same way.
Housing is a major issue. My brother leads one of the boroughs of London where housing is a great problem, and it does the best it can but, good gracious me, think of the confusion this Bill will create, and of the additional problems it will create. If we strip the L.C.C. of housing estates, at some stage—admittedly, it has not yet been said when—some boroughs will have enormous housing lists but will not get many houses or flats because they will not be built there. Others will get new houses and flats on new estates that will be loaded with enormous debt, while others will get older houses and flats virtually free of debt. There will be no one to build the

327
houses for the homeless or others in need of houses irrespective of where they live, because the authorities getting the houses and flats will look after their own people in their own boroughs. This will add tremendously to the existing problems.
We are to give to the new London authority the business of housing outside its area, and that housing will be built at present-day costs. The authority will have no older houses with which to average out, which is what the councils now do. The rents will be enormous. It is the most ridiculous way of trying to tackle London's housing problem, and no one has told us why it is being done—no one at all. There is no reason for ii unless, as I said at the beginning, one hates the words "London County Council" and must break up the L.C.C. The Minister must tell us how this housing problem is to be dealt with.
Another issue is the size of boroughs, We are told so much about making local government truly local. I live in Camberwell. That is to be put in with Bermondsey and with Southwark—and the party opposite thinks that that will look and seem local. And we are not the worst, by any means. The Minister had better walk the boundaries. Where does he think the town hall will be, and how far does he think our people will be from it? This will never be a local government. The Government could make it far bigger than that if they really wanted to be big; they are now well over the region of local government. It is absolutely absurd.
Then there is the size of the Greater London authority. I discussed this on the last occasion and I hate to repeat these things, but to regard an area stretching from Epsom to Barnet as a local authority is totally absurd. This is not a local authority at all. It is not big enough to do the traffic and planning jobs, which is the only explanation for setting it up, and it is too big to do the real local jabs, which are what, in the end, it will get to do. This is totally absurd.
Then there is all the planning confusion. This is no planning authority. We shall have all this moving up and down, with the Greater London authority supposed to be making the overall plan, the London boroughs doing the survey,
328
and the whole thing pushed up to the Minister whenever they disagree about what comes out, as they always will. This, apart from such things as the L.C.C. architect's department, are the remaining outstanding criticisms of this scheme to which no Minister has yet given an answer. We wait to see whether the Minister of Health tonight will take it on or give us another Departmental brief.
Again, there is the degree of opposition to the whole scheme, and here I pray in aid again the remarkable speech of the hon. Member for Wimbledon. Unlike many of my hon. Friends, I did not need his last night's speech to know. I always knew that he had it in him. He showed in his speech the degree of opposition. It is not we on this side of the House who are against this: all who care within the London area about their community or about the services are against it.
I received tonight, by a happy accident, a circular from the Streatham Conservative Association. He is not here, but the circular starts prefectly properly by saying, "Dear Member." It goes on:
"The Streatham Conservative Association has at all times supported the main aims of the Government in the proposed reorganisation of local government. We are however aghast at the proposed division of the Borough …"
Later, it says:
"Looking at the matter from a purely party point of view (which is not unimportant) the proposals of the Minister are disastrous."
Hon. Members opposite do not need me to tell them. The Local Government Chronicle of 24th November reported at great length a discussion at the Conservative Local Government Conference, under the heading:
"Local Doubts at Stormy Session"
After Sir Percy Rugg had argued the matter, it was decided not to put the issue to the vote. If hon. Members read the rest of it they will not be at all surprised.
There is no support for the plan, not even in the ranks of the party opposite where people are concerned about local government. There is no mandate for it and hon. and right hon. Members opposite might now look up the speeches which they made against us when they thought we had introduced a Bill for which we had no mandate. There is no claim that this plan will improve the services. Not one of the three Ministers who have spoken has claimed that

329
it will. What they have said is, "When we have pulled it down, if we work very hard and we create new joint bodies and an ad hoc body, and everybody co-operates, it ought not to be very much worse than it is now". I am not misrepresenting them. That is certainly what two Ministers said this afternoon and yesterday.
Why go to all this trouble to tear down what exists in order to say, "If we put ourselves out a whole lot, it may be that we can make it not very different from what it is now"? Why do it unless they hate the London County Council? That is the only reason. They are trying to put back what exists minus those words.
This is an attempt at gerrymandering. The City remains. There is no case for the City remaining and having these powers except that it is a Tory stronghold which the Government believe they can hold. But are they sure that what they are doing will work? This will not be the first attempt at gerrymandering which did not work. It is worth remembering why the London boroughs were first set up. They were established in 1899 because the then Lord Salisbury wanted to thwart the radical and Socialist London County Council at that time. The London boroughs were set up in the hope that they would get in the way. What happened in fact? Forty-five years later, they gave us the strongest area of consistent Labour government which has ever existed in this country.
The Government should not be too sure about the outcome. They can make their attempt at gerrymandering, but they may find a similar result in the end. As the Streatham Tories say, the boroughs may well be—I think that they will be—continuously Labour. This is what upsets the Streatham Conservative Association. The Greater London Council could well be a Labour authority. The Inner London Education Authority will have a built-in Labour majority. Since the reason that the Tories want to destroy the London County Council is that they do not like comprehensive schools—[Interruption.] This is what disturbs them. As one of my hon. Friends put it this afternoon, that is what they object to. This is what they said they would pay any price to destroy. But the Inner London Education Authority
330
will have a built-in Labour majority, as it happens. The Tories may well find that their attempt at gerrymandering, like others before it, will rebound upon them.
The Government have put no case for the Bill at all. They have answered none of the criticisms which have been made. Many hon. Members opposite have grave doubts about it. We ask hon. Members in all parts of the House to join with us in rejecting the Bill as a totally unworthy Measure.
I now turn to the Liberals. I heard this afternoon a speech that I thought I never should hear. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), after say-that he was against the Bill on every ground that I take in opposing it, said that he would vote for the Second Reading. I ask Liberal Members, as I ask every good supporter of decent government for decent Londoners, to join us in the Lobby in voting against what is a most unworthy and disgraceful Bill.
9.34 p.m.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Enoch Powell): The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) seemed surprised that it was I, as Minister of Health, who was to wind up the debate on the Bill. I will tell him why. As Minister of Health, I am happy and proud to wind up this debate and to commend the Bill to the House because I know that in the whole range of the health services there is no more important element, no element which is changing and developing more rapidly, than the health and welfare services of the local authorities which are part of that growing body of what are known as the community services. In all the range of services of local government, none stand to gain more than these from the reorganisation of the government of Greater London which is enshrined in the Bill.
The challenge has come from the other side of the House that we should show not merely that the services which Greater London enjoys will be maintained at their present level, but that they will be improved and made better as a result of the Bill. I accept that challenge with enthusiasm, on no ground more—[HON. MEMBERS "How?"]—on no ground more—[Interrupton.] If hon. Members opposite thought that there was a case to answer that they had

331
made in these two days of debate, they would be prepared to listen. In no area is that claim more valid than in that of the services for which I am responsible.
First, I make a general observation from which I imagine, there is no dissent on either side of the House. It is this: that it is overwhelmingly desirable, wherever it is practicable, that all the personal and human services of local government in an urban area should be administered by the same authority, an authority not too large to be in touch with the people served. One can illustrate the rightness of that proposition over a wide field. The relationship of housing with the welfare services, particularly those for the old, is so intimate that the two ought not to be divided where that can be avoided. The services for children—and I am coming to them in more detail later—cohere intimately with the other services which tend to the support and preservation of the family.
True as this was in the past, it will be true even more with the development of the children's services which will come about as a result of a Bill now in another place. Child health, school health, all the elements of the human services hang together, and where they can be administered by the same authority, an authority in touch with those whom it serves, that is overwhelmingly the best farm of organisation.
The benefit of this form of organisation is given by the Bill to Greater London, not only to inner London—with the sole exception of the special education arrangements which are there necessitated by the way in which the education services have grown up over two or three generations—but also for the first time, to the larger area and the greater population of outer London, which has never enjoyed these benefits in the whole of its history, with the exception of the three county boroughs of East Ham, West Ham and Croydon.
To obtain these undoubted benefits of local government in an urban area it is necessary that the administrative areas should be neither too large—the objections to that are obvious enough—nor too small for the effective conduct of all the services. This is, therefore,
332
essentially a matter in which a mean must be struck, a mean between administrative areas which are too large and those which are too small and weak and limited to administer the whole range of the human and personal services. I maintain that the mean which has been struck in the Bill fully secures effective administration over the whole range of the personal services.
I will take, first, the health and welfare services, together with the public health and housing functions—other than overspill and major redevelopment—functions which should go with health and welfare and which are already exercised by the second-tier authorities both in inner and outer London.
I noticed that the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), who contributed in an important way to the former as well as to the present debate, said that
"the transfer of power in the health or welfare services to the boroughs is something practicable and to be welcomed".
How I agree with him. I agree with him for the reason which he went on to give in a specific example. It happened to be that of welfare services for old people. The hon. Member referred to an authority which
"was able to close down a large, depressing old people's home"
and to replace it
"by 15 smaller homes to accommodate the people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1962; Vol. 654, c. 66–8.]
The whole modern trend today in the development and expansion of these services is away from the institutional approach, which is obsolete and which we are rapidly getting rid of, towards the truly community form of services which bring care and support to the individual or the family in the home or in circumstances as near to those of home as can be contrived.
Mr. M. Stewart: Does not the Minister understand that the breaking down of a large home into 15 small units can only be done by an authority which can find 15 sites? That is much easier if the authority is the size of a county rather than of a borough. If the right hon. Gentleman reads exactly what I said, he will find that that was what I was arguing.
Mr. Powell: I hope that it is not the hon. Gentleman's contention that old people in the boroughs of both inner and outer London, whose numbers will grow, have to be collected together and exiled from the places where they have lived, perhaps, for all their lives.
This trend, which characterises the whole development of the community services in our time, will be powerfully assisted and pushed forward by the pressure of public opinion and local interest in the new boroughs which will be administering these services. For a time it will be necessary to have joint use of the existing, particularly the larger existing, establishments of the L.C.C. in inner London. But that is essentially a transitional situation which will be superseded as those homes are replaced by the new and better methods of caring for and housing our old people and as the development of the community services goes on.
Mr. Cliffe Mr. Cliffe rose—
Mr. Powell: I am sorry, I cannot give way. I have little time and I have a lot of ground to cover.
What I have just said applies to the great majority of those for whom these services will care, but, of course, there is a minority—those, for instance, who are specially handicapped, people who are doubly and trebly or severely handicapped—for whom there will always be a need for specialised care and specialised institutions.
But it was always the case that, in order to give these people the best care and attention, we necessarily had to draw from a very large catchment area and that their special services had to be provided co-operatively on a regional, and sometimes even on a national, basis. That is why the L.C.C. used many such establishments which were far outside its own boundaries and outside its own control. I will not weary the House with many examples. I merely recall such examples as the school at Leatherhead for those both blind and otherwise handicapped, the residential centre at Croydon for severely handicapped spastics, and the epileptic institutions in various parts of south-east England.
All these specialised institutions, which are not L.C.C. institutions and which are already, and are bound to remain, co-
334
operative in the South-East, as in the rest of the country, are of the essence of providing for these special requirements; but they are no criticism of the principle, nor in any way inconsistent with it, that for the great majority of those for whom these services care, borough administration and borough authorities are the natural, competent and proper providers.
Two special cases were mentioned in the debate last night by, I think, the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), to which I would like to reply, as in both cases there was, possibly, a misunderstanding, which it is good to remove. One related to the Camberwell centre. That is a centre provided not under local government powers, but by the National Assistance Board through the agency of the London County Council. The Assistance Board can either continue to provide it through the agency of a local authority—the Board pays the costs entirely—or the local authority can provide it or make other arrangements. The future of the centre is in no way affected by the reorganisation.
The second point made by the hon. Member was the question of the 24-hour continuous mental health service for dealing with emergencies. It is the duty of all mental health authorities to make provision for emergency cases. Indeed, all mental health authorities have arrangements whereby there is access round the clock to specialised help. There is no reason why this service should be affected under the organisation which the Bill proposes.
Therefore, I make perfectly plain that in the Government's view the London boroughs will be entirely adequate, authorities for the health and welfare services and will be able, just because they are more local, to develop these services more rapidly and bring them to a more satisfactory development than they have attained at present. All the trends which we are seeking to favour in these services will be assisted by the reorganisation under the Bill.
I therefore do not propose to use my powers under Section 19 of the National Health Service Act to create joint health authorities. This does not prejudice the question of the future constitution of the Health Service executive councils. This was referred to by a number of hon. Members during the debate and I should

335
like to make it clear that other considerations there apply. Before taking a final decision, however, as to the new organisation of the executive councils, it would clearly be right to take the views of the embryo health authorities which will be coming into existence.
Despite what the right hon. Member for Belper has said, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education this afternoon dealt thoroughly with the organisation of education which the Bill will bring about. I only emphasise again that in outer London—the greater part of the population and of the area concerned—the Bill will bring education together in the same hands with the health and family services and with the children's services, with which they naturally belong. This is guaranteed in the outer London boroughs by the organisation proposed.
So important is this that, in the inner area, despite the common organisation of the education service, the Government have thought it right to provide specifically in the Bill and in mandatory form—the word is "shall"—that there shall be common use of both medical staff and premises, so that there is as close as possible a coherence between the health and welfare services which the boroughs are providing and the health and welfare aspects of the education service.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me a specific question regarding the five-year review of the inner London education organisation. The review will relate to the question whether the inner London boroughs will be able in future to participate more fully or directly in the administration of the education service. It would be wrong, and no hon. Member of the House should associate himself with the proposition, that we should at this stage close our minds entirely to the possibility that we can find some effective way of bringing the boroughs, who will be administering all the other human and personal services, still more closely into contact with the administration of education.
I come now to the children's services. It has been said that the new boroughs will be too small effectively to discharge these important tasks, which are growing in importance. In fact, the London
336
boroughs will have an average of 450 children in care, which is far above the average for county boroughs with these powers in the country as a whole. The great majority of them will have considerably more than most county boroughs. Here again, there will be transitional use, perhaps for a considerable time, of the larger homes—as well as direct use of the many smaller homes—which are at present provided by the L.C.C. outside the London county.
The use of these homes will be nothing exceptional in the exercise of children's powers. East Ham which, at the moment, has powers as a children's authority, has four-fifths of the children under its care outside its own boundaries. But gradually, as these larger homes are run down, they will be replaced by smaller ones, more suitable and more conveniently situated. Borough control will speed up this provision and this improvement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because there will be local interest and local pressure of opinion, the thing which is the great driving force in local government.
Here, again, the specialised services for the small minority of children, either with physical handicaps or mental defects, can be provided, as they are provided throughout the country, cooperatively, without prejudice to the rightness of the general administration of the children's service by the London boroughs.
In general, the contention of the Opposition that the London boroughs cannot discharge the whole range of functions in the personal and human services is really grotesque. The average population of these boroughs will be nearly 100,000 larger than the average for county boroughs in the rest of the country. There will be only six county boroughs larger than these anywhere in Britain; and there will be only about a score larger even than the smallest.
I must say that, coming as I do from a borough with a population of 150,000, which may be increased on present proposals to 225,000, which has long believed that it has provided this range of services and has developed them with great enlightenment and a progressive mind, it strikes me as astonishing that hon. Members opposite should argue that boroughs of this size, and with

337
these resources, are not fit to be trusted with these powers. I believe that their contention will be widely resented.
A vote tonight in the "No" Lobby is a vote of censure upon local government in this country as it is carried on in wide areas of urban Britain.
Mr. G. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman knows better than that.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Powell: I have only five minutes left.
Why have the Opposition got themselves into this ridiculous position? They pretend to treat this Bill as a political manoeuvre. Well, they have had their answer today from the organ of their own party, in words which they are now trying to drown, because they are afraid of them. This is the Daily Herald of today:
"It is backward-looking and unrealistic of Labour critics to treat proposals for change as if they were only a Tory Guy Fawkes plot to blow up a Labour political stronghold."
The gravamen of the charge has been that it has been the object of the Government and of this party to destroy the L.C.C. Whence came the proposition that the L.C.C. was obsolete and must he superseded? Somebody said, "From the London boroughs." No, it did not. It came from the unanimous opinion of the Royal Commission. The great central proposition of its Report was that London government could not be effectively carried on with the present L.C.C. or L.C.C. area.
In the formation of the boroughs the Government have adopted without alteration the recommendations of the Town Clerks who were asked to work out these boundaries, though, of course, as the Bill is now submitted to the House, it will be right for the House to consider in detail proposals for boundaries. These matters must be looked at in detail on their merits in Committee. Finally, the areas which have been excluded from the review area in the Bill
as it stands are areas in which there is an overwhelming Tory majority.
I do not conceive that the Opposition seriously believe that there is a party political motive behind this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] The reason for their opposition is their determined reluctance to recognise the facts of change over seventy years in the metropolitan area. They refuse to recognise that seventy years of growth of London and of development of local government services have rendered the present system of London government utterly inadequate to give the people the services needed in the remainder of this century. They refuse to recognise that, so far from being the best of all organisations in the best of all possible worlds, as it still seems to he to the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet), in the words, once again, of the Daily Herald,
"the plain fact is that a revolution in the government of London is needed."
The principle of the Bill recognises the two undeniable facts about London as it is today. First, that the continuous built up area, inhabited by 8 million people, calls far a single administration of the strategic and planning services. Secondly, that within this Greater London there is the potentiality and opportunity for unified administration of all the personal services by authorities which can bring the pressures of local opinion, local ambitions and local vision to bear upon the development of local services.
This Bill offers to the Metropolis the renewal of civic life in modern terms. To large parts of Greater London it offers for the first time the opportunity of government which is at once really local and really responsible. I ask the House not to deny these benefits to the capital city of the Empire.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 236.

Division No. 15.]

AYES

[10.0 p.m.

Agnew, Sir Peter

Atkins, Humphrey

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Aitken, W. T.

Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

Bell, Ronald

Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

Balniel, Lord

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Allason, James

Barber, Anthony

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

Barlow, Sir John

Berkeley, Humphry

Arbuthnot, John

Barter, John

Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Ashton, Sir Hubert

Batsford, Brian

Bidgood, John C.

Biffen, John

Green, Alan

Maginnis, John E.

Biggs-Davison, John

Gresham Cooke. R.

Maitland, Sir John

Bingham, R. M.

Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

Marlowe, Anthony

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. C.

Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

Bishop, F. P.

Gurden, Harold

Marshall, Douglas

Bossom, Clive

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Marten, Neil

Bourne-Arton, A.

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

Box, Donald

Hare, Rt. Hon. John

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Braine, Bernard

Harvey, Sir Arthur vere (Macclesf'd)

Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. c.

Brewis, John

Harvey, John (Walthastow, E.)

Mills, Stratton

Bromley-Davenport, M.-Col. Sir Walter

Harvie Anderson, Hiss

Miscampbell, Norman

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hastings, Stephen

Montgomery, Fergus

Brooman-white, R.

Hay, John

Morgan, William

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Morrison, John

Browne, Percy (Torrington)

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Bryan, Paul

Hendry, Forbes

Nabarro, Gerald

Buck, Antony

Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

Neave, Airey

Bullard, Denys

Hiley, Joseph

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Burden, F. A.

Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Warden)

Hirst, Geoffrey

Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Hobson, Sir John

Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Hocking, Philip N.

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Holland, Philip

Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

Cary, sir Robert

Hollingworth, John

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Channon, H. P. G.

Holt, Arthur

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Chataway, Christopher

Hooson, H. E.

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

Hopkins, Alan

Partridge, E.

Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)

Hornby, R. P.

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Cleaver, Leonard

Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)

Peel, John

Cole, Norman

Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

Percival, Ian

Cooke, Robert

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Cooper, A. E.

Hughes-Young, Michael

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Pilkington, Sir Richard

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Hurd, Sir Anthony

Pitman, Sir James

Corfield, F. V.

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Pitt, Dame Edith

Costain, A. P.

Iremonger, T. L.

Coulson, Michael

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Pott, Percival

Craddock, Sir Beresford

James, David

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Crawley, Aidan

Jennings, J. C.

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Critchley, Julian

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Prior, J. M. L.

Crowder, F. P.

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

Curran, Charles

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S)

Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

Currie, G. B. H.

Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Dalkeith, Earl of

Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

Pym, Francis

Dance, James

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Quennell, Miss J. M.

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

Ramsden, James

Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Redmavne, Rt. Hon. Martin

de Ferranti, Basil

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Rees, Hugh

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Kershaw, Anthony

Renton, Rt. Hon. David

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

Kimball, Marcus

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

Drayson, G. B.

Kirk, Peter

Ridsdale, Julian

du Cann, Edward

Kitson, Timothy

Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey

Duncan, Sir James

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Roberts, Sir Peter (Healey)

Eden, John

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Robson Brown, Sir William

Elliott, R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)

Leavey. J. A.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Emery, Peter

Leburn, Gilmour

Roots, William

Errington, Sir Eric

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Ronner, Col. Sir Leonard

Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Rovle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Lilley, F. J. P.

St. Clair, M.

Farr, John

Lindsay, Sir Martin

Sandys. Rt. Hon. Duncan

Fell, Anthony

Linstead, Sir Hugh

Scott-Honkins, James

Fisher, Nigel

Litchfield, Capt. John

Sharples, Richard

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)

Shaw, M.

Forrest, George

Longden, Gilbert

Shepherd, William

Foster, John

Loveys, Walter H.

Skeet, T. H. H.

Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(Stafford&Stone)

Lubbock, Eric

Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

Smithers, Peter

Freeth, Denzil

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Gammans, Lady

McArthur, Ian

Speir, Rupert

Gardner, Edward

McLaren, Martin

Stevens, Geoffrey

George, J. C. (Pollok)

McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Gibson-Watt, David

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Stodart, J. A.

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk Central)

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy(Bute&N. Ayrs.)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

Storey, Sir Samuel

Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Studholme, Sir Henry

Goodhart, Philip

McMaster, Stanley R.

Summers, Sir Spencer

Goodhew, Victor

Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold(Bromley)

Talbot, John E.

Gough, Frederick

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Tapsell, Peter

Gower, Raymond

Macpherson, Rt. Hn. Niall(Dumfries)

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Grant-Ferris, R.

Maddan, Martin

Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

340

341

Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Whitelaw, William

Teeling, Sir William

Vane, W. M. F.

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Temple, John M.

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Vickers, Miss Joan

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Thomas, Peter (Conway)

Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

Wise, A. R.

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Wade, Donald

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Thompson, Richard (Croydon, s.)

Wakefield, Sir Wavell

Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

Thornton. Kemslay, Sir Colin

Walder, David

Woodhouse, C. M.

Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

Walker, Peter

WooHam, John

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

Worsley, Marcus

Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

Ward, Dame Irene

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Turner, Colin

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Webster, David

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Mr. Chichester-Clark and

Mr. Finlay.

NOES

Abse, Leo

Forman, J. C.

McLeavy, Frank

Alnsley, William

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Albu, Austen

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Galpern, Sir Myer

Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Ginsburg, David

Mapp, Charles

Bacon, Miss Alice

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Marsh, Richard

Baird, John

Gourlay, Harry

Mason, Roy

Barnett, Guy

Greenwood, Anthony

Mayhew, Christopher

Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, w.)

Grey, Charles

Mellish, R. J.

Beaney, Alan

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Mendelson, J. J.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Millan, Bruce

Bence, Cyril

Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

Milne, Edward

Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Gunter, Ray

Mitchison, G, R.

Benson, Sir George

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Monslow, Walter

Black, Sir Cyril

Hannan, William

Moody, A. S.

Blackburn, F.

Harper, Joseph

Moyle, Arthur

Blyton, William

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Mulley, Frederick

Boardman, H.

Hayman, F. H.

Neal, Harold

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. C.

Healey, Denis

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)

Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

Oram, A. E.

Bowles, Frank

Herbison, Miss Margaret

Oswald, Thomas

Boyden. James

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Owen, Will

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

Padley, W. E.

Bradley, Tom

Hilton, A. V.

Paget, R. T.

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Holman, Percy

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Houghton, Douglas

Pargiter, G. A.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

Parker, John

Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Parkin, B. T.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Hoy, James H.

Paton, John

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Pavitt, Laurence

Callaghan, James

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Carmichael, N. G.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Castle, Mrs. Barbara

Hunter, A. E.

Peart, Frederick

Chapman, Donald

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Pentland, Norman

Cliffe, Michael

Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Collick, Percy

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Popplewell, Ernest

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Prentice, R. E.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Janner, Sir Barnett

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Cronin, John

Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

Probert, Arthur

Crosland, Anthony

Jeger, George

Proctor, W. T.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Rankin, John

Dalyell, Tam

Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)

Redhead, E. C.

Darling, George

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Reid, William

Davies, G. Eifed (Rhondda, E.)

Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Reynolds, G. W.

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Rhodes, H.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Deer, George

Kelley, Richard

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Delargy, Hugh

Kenyon, Clifford

Robertson, John (Palsley)

Dempsey, James

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Diamond, John

King, Dr. Horace

Rodgera, W. T. (Stockton)

Dodds, Norman

Lawson, George

Ross, William

Donnelly, Desmond

Ledger, Ron

Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

Doughty, Charles

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Russell, Ronald

Driberg, Tom

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

Skeffington, Arthur

Edelman, Maurice

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Lipton, Marcus

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

Loughlin, Charles

Small, William

Evans, Albert

Mabon Dr. J. Dickson

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Fernyhough, E.

McCann, John

Snow, Julian

Finch, Harold

MacColl, James

Sorensen, R. W.

Fitch, Alan

MacDermot, Niall

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Fletcher, Eric

Mclnnes, James

Spriggs, Leslie

Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Steele, Thomas

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

342

343

Storehouse John

Tomney, Frank

Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)

Stones, William

Wainwright, Edwin

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)

Warbey, William

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

stross, Dr. Barnett(stoke-on-Trent, C.)

Watkins, Tudor

Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

Swain, Thomas

Weitzman, David

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Taverne, D.

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

White, Mrs. Elene

Wyatt, Woodrow

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Whitlock, William

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Wigg, George

Zilliacus, K.

Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

Wilkins, W. A.

Thornton, Ernest

Willey, Frederick

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Timmons, John

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Mr. G. H. R. Rogers and

Mr. Short.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Mr. G. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I, under Standing Order No. 38, move, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House?
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman raises a very difficult point for me. So far as I know, none of my predecessors has ever been faced with tit. I have looked at it with some diffidence. Regarding Standing Order No. 38, as a whole, I cannot find in it a sufficient indication of legislative intent on the point. I shall have to take refuge in the practice of the House—I am sure that that is right—by which I look first in the direction of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill. I am afraid that that means that the answer is, "No".
Mr. Brown: I understand that, Mr. Speaker. But may I, further to the same point of order, ask—although I understand why you have ruled as you did—whether I may be allowed to move a manuscript Amendment to the Motion which you feel that you have to accept by practice to leave out the words:
"Clause 1 of, and Schedule 1 to,"
which would make it much easier for us since we do not want to vote against this Motion? We could then test the theory of the House by means of a manuscript Amendment.
Mr. Speaker: I follow the delight of doing so from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that under paragraph 3 of the Standing
344
Order it is open to me to do so. It leaves no room for me to adopt that course.
Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move,
That Clause 1 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House; that the remainder of the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee; and that, when the provisions of the Bill considered respectively by the Committee of the whole House and by the Standing Committee have been reported to the House, the Bill be proceeded with as if the Bill had been reported as a whole to the House from the Standing Committee.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has already explained, the Government have taken the view that it will be for the convenience of the House if Clause 1 of the Bill and the First Schedule, which affects the interests of hon. Members who sit for constituencies in the Greater London area, be taken in the Committee of the whole House.
Mr. Speaker: The Question is—
Mr. Mellish: Am I in order in making one point? May I say to the Minister, through you Mr. Speaker, that so far as the Motion is concerned it may be acceptable only if an assurance is given—
Mr. Speaker: No, that is wholly out of order. I am obliged to put the Question at once, subject to allowing a statement in opposition, of which no one apparently desired to avail himself This House has no procedure for putting a question to Ministers through me.
Quesion put and agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: The Motion for the Instruction is out of order.

LONDON GOVERNMENT [MONEY]
[Queen's Recommendation signified]
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).
[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to local government and the functions of local authorities in the metropolitan area, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(i) of any expenses incurred by any Minister under that Act; and

(ii) of any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment;

(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by any Minister under that Act;

and in this Resolution the expression "Minister" includes the Board of Trade.—[Sir K. Joseph.]
10.17 p.m.
Mr. Michael Stewart: We should not let the Money Resolution on as important a Bill as this pass without comment and we should not let it pass without opposition, because the Division showed that a Government which could muster a majority of over 100 for its Landon proposals in February can now muster only a majority of under 80. In view of this declining enthusiasm, we ought to press the inquiry a little further.
There are, moreover, a number of important interests concerned in the Bill who will want to know what is implied in the Money Resolution. As I read the terms of the Resolution, it is quite widely drawn, but if we read what is said in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum—
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. Sir William, would you ask hon. Members at the Bar to keep quiet? I cannot hear a word that is being said.
The Chairman: Order. It has been drawn to my attention that there is so
346
much noise that hon. Members cannot hear the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), who has the floor.
Mr. Stewart: I was saying that while the Resolution is widely drawn, the Financial Memorandum to the Bill suggests that the Government do not think that they are likely to be run into very much expenditure as a result of the Bill. That raises a number of questions. There are certain expenses which arise out of the Bill which one would normally say fall on local authorities but, with block grants, rate deficiency grants and so on, it is difficult to say, when an expense falls to be met in the first place by a local authority, whether indirectly some money is not money provided by Parliament. I want to ask, therefore, whether certain types of Amendment which would involve increased expenditure for local authorities and therefore, possibly indirectly, charges on Parliamentary moneys will be in order under the terms of the Resolution.
For example, the view has been expressed from both sides of the House of Commons that the members of the Greater London Council ought to be salaried or, at any rate, that more generous provision ought to be made for their needs than is made under the existing general law of local government If an Amendment were introduced in Committee providing that a salary should be paid, one would normally assume that the salary would be paid out of moneys raised by the Greater London Council. There again, some element of Government grant one way or another might come in. We should not want to be told later in the proceedings that for that reason an Amendment to provide that the members of the Greater London Council should be salaried would be out of order.
It is a legitimate anxiety to express that an Amendment of that kind might be out of order and we are entitled to ask the Government whether such an Amendment would be in order. I see that the Government are not certain of the answer and are obtaining it. This at least is not one of the arguable points of the Bill that would be argued strictly on party lines. Hon. Members on both sides have urged a salaried council.
The next question concerns the transitional arrangements that are to be made for the severed remnants of Surrey, Kent

347
and Essex. The opinion has been expressed—not so much in debate during the last two days, but in the Press and in various journals—that there is some responsibility on the Government to find the money for transitional relief to the severed counties, whereas in fact as the Bill now stands it will be the ratepayers inside the Greater London area who will have to find the money with which to compensate the truncated remnants of Surrey, Kent and Essex.
There is a legitimate case for arguing that the money ought to come from Governmental sources rather than from the ratepayers of Greater London, because this is not simply a removal of rateable value from what is now Surrey into Greater London. If that were all there was to it, it could then be said that that part of Surrey which is now in Greater London and which takes its rateable value with it ought to pay up to help the truncated part left outside.
Further, the mere fact of truncation will make the rendering of the services mare costly, at any rate at the beginning, on both sides of the border. If, for example, as Surrey has, there is an organised fire brigade on a county basis and the Government step in with a Bill as a result of which the administrative headquarters of the fire brigade are on one side of the boundary and most of the individual fire stations are on the other, it is as if a living organism has been cut into two pieces and neither piece can function quite as well after that process as it did before. Both pieces have to set to work to create the missing part. One side has to create a new administrative headquarters.
This is the kind of expense which is caused. It is a completely additional expense. These is not merely the transfer of rateable value from one authority to another. There is a new expense created by the tiresome character of the provisions of the whole Bill. In these circumstances the Government who introduce the Bill should help to find the money or, more strictly speaking, to pursue a local government analogy, it ought to be raised by a surcharge on the Ministers responsible for the introduction of the Bill. Failing that, there is at least a case for saying that this additional expense thrown on Surrey, Kent and Essex
348
through no conceivable fault of their own ought to be regarded as a sort of national disaster, as other acts of the present Government are regarded, and met out of public funds provided by Parliament. I want to know on that point whether such Amendments designed to give help to the severed counties would be in order.
The third and, perhaps, the most important question is that affecting compensation to the staffs of the authorities concerned, one may say particularly the staff of the L.C.C.—and I will explain why I particularise in this case. It is not merely a question of that partial affection from which we all pray to be delivered at the beginning of each day's sitting. There is a special reason why I mention the staff of the L.C.C. in this connection. It is because the L.C.C. at present offers its staff greater opportunities for rising in the service from comparatively minor posts to posts of great responsibility. It also offers a much wider range and a greater variety of work than any other local authority in the Kingdom, whatever its kind.
This is shown by the type of intake it gets. Of the people entering what is called the major or administrative grade of the L.C.C. service this year, 60 per cent. have been honours graduates. There is no local authority in the Kingdom with a position anything like that and it is fair to say that people who enter the L.C.C. service are not really weighing up in their minds whether they should go to the L.C.C. or some other local authority. They are choosing between the L.C.C. and the service of the central Government. It is on that level that they are thinking.
That is the point made in a circular letter which all hon. Members have received. That is the point in that letter which I particularly remember because I found, when a goad many years ago I was teaching at a school in east London, that that was true of a number of one's more gifted senior pupils. They were in a position where they could decide whether to enter either the Civil Service or the administrative grade of the L.C.C. service.
We are, therefore, dealing with a service of considerable importance, and I should like to know what is to happen to these people. Some of them—a great

349
many, I dare say—will enter the service of the Greater Landon Council, but although that body has a wider area than the L.C.C. it has not so wide a range of services. It is open to question with regard to many people now doing administrative work for the L.C.C. whether they can expect a career of such width and promise as is open to them in their present service. If they cannot, what provision or compensation is to be available for them?
They will not be able to get into the service of the Greater London Council, and, indeed, it would be wrong to suggest that automatically they should all be moved into it. But suppose some of them must seek employment in the London boroughs or with provincial authorities? For the reasons I have mentioned, it is no disrespect to those authorities to say that service with them is not the same thing as service with the L.C.C. For these reasons, the question of what guarantee can the Minister offer is an important one.
What guarantee can be offered regarding future employment, salary scales, prospects or—and this is most germane to the Committee and the Money Resolution—if those things cannot be guaranteed, what will be the arrangements for compensation? I have mentioned chiefly the staff of the L.C.C. because it is, for the reasons I gave, the most striking example. There will, however, be a very great many other people in the employ of many local authorities who will have considerable reason for anxiety over the Bill.
10.30 p.m.
That anxiety will perhaps not affect the younger ones so much, but there will be older men who could reasonably have expected to have continued, perhaps not for very many years, in the service of their present authority but cannot expect confidently to pick up a totally new job with a new authority when they are not very far from their retiring age. Again, we must ask, what is to be their position? If it is not possible to give them any sort of guarantee, what compensation will be available to them? Particularly, is the whole cost of any such compensation to fall on the local authorities concerned, or, once again, will the Government be prepared to bear some share of the cost?
350
I think that I have said enough to show that we have good reason for inquiring into the real range of the Money Resolution, and into the type of Amendments that will be in order under the Bill. I must say that my hon. Friends will think it right to vote against the Money Resolution, because we are totally opposed to the purposes for which it is required and, if I may say so, anybody who was opposed to the Bill before the Minister of Health spoke will not be likely to have changed his opinion by the time the Minister had finished.
If I may say so, it was a very shoddy speech, and unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Since that matter has been raised, I will refer to one point. The Minister of Health ventured to say that I had approved of the transfer of the health and welfare services—
The Chairman: Order. I hope that the Committee will not be led into going further than a debate proper to the Money Resolution.
Mr. Stewart: I find it a little hard, Sir William, that I should be met with a provocative remark from the other side to which I am apparently debarred from replying but, if that is the position, I shall put up with it. There will be other opportunities in our dealing with this Bill when I shall hope to demonstrate that what the Minister of Health said was totally untrue.
Leaving that remark aside for the moment—I know that it is the behaviour which we have to expect over this Bill from some hon. Members opposite—I have said enough to show that we have anxiety over the terms of the Money Resolution, and that we are entitled to ask the Government for assurances about what kind of Amendments will be in order. As I have said, we shall feel it right to vote against the Money Resolution. The Government, with their majority—even though it is rather less than it was in February—will no doubt get their Morley Resolution but, out of justice to the staffs concerned, to the severed counties and the other interests involved, I hope that they will be prepared to answer my questions about the scope of the Money Resolution.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): As the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) stated, the Financial Resolution has been drafted widely, covering local government and its functions in the metropolitan area. In drafting it in this form, the intention was not to inhibit discussion and not to restrict consideration of any matter falling within the heads of local government and the functions of the local authorities in the Greater London area.
The hon. Gentleman asked how this applies in three specific cases, of which the first was salaries. I am advised that salaries would come within the Money Resolution because, as a normal basis of local government in various parts of the country, there are provisions for meeting expenses.
The second point was about the transitional payments for meeting the extra expenditure which might be cast upon the truncated counties. This, I understand, is part of the normal local authority function in the metropolitan area, as I think is the wording of the Resolution. It is extremely doubtful, therefore, whether any provision to meet these expenses directly from central Government funds would be included in the Resolution. I think that these general remarks also apply to the last point which the hon. Member made.
After all, the reorganisation of local government is not something entirely new. It has happened before. The general principle is that compensation to staff is the liability of the authorities which take over. This is the normal principle and consequently it is the normal function included in the Resolution. Therefore, any payment by central Government funds would not be covered by the Resolution.
Mr. R. J. Mellish: On this question of the liability of central funds for what we think will be the higher expenditure as a consequence of the Bill becoming law, without any party spleen may I put an obvious fact of which even the party opposite must be aware? It is that when the local government bodies become the Greater London boroughs it is inevitable that the new services they will undertake will lead them to great and increased expenditure. I want to be clear about this from the
352
beginning. It is the subject of fears which have been expressed to me. If they can show that this expenditure is entirely and directly due to the passage of the Bill and they are involved in expenditure which normally in their present condition they would not have to face, will they receive direct grant from central funds to relieve their financial situation?
Mr. Corfield: Is the hon. Member referring to the present metropolitan boroughs or to the new London boroughs?
Mr. Mellish: They are the present metropolitan boroughs which will be merged and become the Greater London boroughs. This matter was ignored in our earlier debate and I realise that I should be out of order if I explored it now. Inevitably, financial restrictions will be imposed on the rateable value in some parts of London, irrespective of Exchequer equalisation grant, and it might well mean that these boroughs might not be able to run these services.
There is also the fact that there is to be a complete review of all rateable values in this part of the country. Here we have rateable values being changed and the consequent levying of a larger sum of money on the community via the rates, together with the fear of councils about the increased services which they will have to supply. I ask for a straight answer. Do I understand that the Money Resolution is so worded as to enable the central Government, where it can be shown that hardship has been inflicted on the new boroughs, to pay a direct grant to enable them to overcome that hardship?
Mr. Corfield: The general grant, which, as the hon. Member knows, is calculated on a national basis, is entirely outside the Bill. Its distribution to the new London boroughs will depend, when they are formed, on their resources and their rateable value, neither of which can be forecast until they are formed and the new rating lists are out. But the general principle will be that they will be financed, so far as the contribution from the central Government is concerned, through the general grant, and, where they qualify, from the rate deficiency grant. It is not the intention that there should be a direct Government grant outside the ordinary general grant formula.
Mr. Mellish: But does it not follow that the Greater London authorities will have, on the one hand, householders bitterly complaining about the increased rates which they will have to pay, plus, on the other hand, increased charges to bear for the increased services? Will there not be an enormous financial burden imposed on them far beyond anything experienced at present?
Mr. Corfield: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the general grant is related to the cost of these services; and the rate deficiency grant distribution is based on a parallel calculation in relation to authorities which carry out the same services, so this is taken care of in the formula.
Mr. E. G. Willis: I am sorry that I, a Scottish Member, have to intrude but, of course, Scottish Members are very much concerned with the financial provisions which the Government make. We have always displayed an interest in these matters when it is possible that they may affect Scotland.
The question I put to the Parliamentary Secretary is this. Will the new arrangements for the government of the Greater London area affect the calculations made in respect of Exchequer equalisation grant and, in turn, affect Scotland? This is an important matter. In most of these Financial Resolutions there is a paragraph providing that any increase in Exchequer equalisation grant is authorised in respect of Scotland, or it is authorised that any increase in respect of Scotland which may arise as a result of what happens in England shall be paid.
In this Financial Resolution, there is no mention of any increase being permitted in Scotland. I am sure that my hon. Friends and other Scottish Members will want to know whether Scotland is affected by the Resolution.
Mr. William Ross Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock) rose—
The Chairman: I hope that hon. Members will not pursue their point too far. There is nothing whatever in the London Government Bill which has to do with Scotland.
Mr. Willis: But, Sir William, quite a number of English Bills are passed with Financial Resolutions empowering the Government to meet expenses in con-
354
nection with them, and, although those Bills have nothing to do with Scotland, there is nevertheless a paragraph that, if they affect the Exchequer equalisation grant—and in Scotland it is all based upon the amount paid in England—consequential provision is made. In such Financial Resolutions, Scotland is usually specifically mentioned. I want to know whether this Bill affects the Exchequer equalisation grant in such a way as to affect the Exchequer equalisation grant in Scotland. Surely, that is in order.
Mr. Ross: Sir William, I wonder whether your remarks about carrying on, and about something not being in order, were directed to me. As far as I remember, I had not opened my mouth. You tempt me, Sir William, because you, like me, are a Scottish Member and the Committee is being asked to authorise the expenditure of money and, as far as I know, Scotland still contributes to the Exchequer and Scottish Members want to know how much is involved. It is usual in Money Resolutions to indicate how much is involved for a possible
"increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment".
I want to know what Scotland's share is likely to be and what the estimated expenditure will be.
The reference to "any other enactment" includes enactments which enable the Secretary of State for Scotland to get moneys in respect of expenditure incurred by English Ministers. You must know, Sir William, that there is a direct link between expenditure in respect of the equalisation grant in Scotland and rate deficiency grant in England and Wales. In that calculation, London is often excluded, but London is now to be changed and if a greater area is now to be excluded from calculations from which Scotland's equalisation grant is fixed, injustice will again be done to Scotland. Why is there not some provision in the Money Resolution to cover that?
The Money Resolution also says:
"…in this Resolution the expression 'Minister' includes the Board of Trade."
I never knew that the Board of Trade was a Minister, and I wonder why the expression is not "President of the Board of Trade."
10.45 p.m.
Mr. Corfield: I can answer these questions very shortly. The general grant is not affected and the rate deficiency grant could affect Scotland only if it were at all likely that the reorganisation of London would suddenly make the richest part of the country the poorest. The rate deficiency grant is based on the product of a penny rate per head of the population as against the national average and the Resolution will not affect the quota from Scotland in any way.
Mr. Willis: This is most unsatisfactory. It does not matter what the rate deficiency grant is based on if the total is different and the amount paid to Scotland is consequently different.
Mr. Corfield: The rate deficiency grant is not a fixed sum.
Mr. Ross: That is what we are worried about.
Mr. Willis: I am surprised by this deplorable exhibition from the Government. I should like to know why the Scottish Ministers are not here, because right hon. Gentlemen opposite apparently do not know how the Exchequer equalisation grant is calculated. The Exchequer equalisation grant for Scotland has a direct relationship to the figures for England and Wales. Therefore if these figures are in any way changed, the grant will be changed in respect of Scotland.
If that is not so perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will explain. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I see he does not intend to reply. We cannot let the Government get away with this. If he cannot explain, I am prepared to carry on speaking until we get the Secretary of State for Scotland here to explain. This is important.
This fact is recognised in almost every Financial Resolution affecting local government in England passed by this House. They include a subsection which makes allowances for it. Why is it not in this Resolution, although the Parliamentary Secretary suggested that there will be a difference in the totals? We are entitled to an explanation.
Mr. Corfield: The rate deficiency grant in England and Wales—I do not know what happens in Scotland, though no doubt the hon. Member does—arises from the difference between the product of a penny rate per head of the population as compared with the national average. It does not make the slightest difference to that sum what the boundary of Greater London is or is not. The population of London and the rateable value of the area remain precisely the same whether the Bill is passed or not.
Question put:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 264, Noes 210.

Division No. 16.]

AYES

[10.52 p.m.

Agnew, Sir Peter

Brooman-White, R.

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Aitken, W. T.

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

Bryan, Paul

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Allason, James

Buck, Antony

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

Bullard, Denys

Drayson, G. B.

Arbuthnot, John

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

du Cann, Edward

Ashton, Sir Hubert

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Duncan, Sir James

Atkins, Humphrey

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Eden, John

Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

Cary, Sir Robert

Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)

Balniel, Lord

Channon, H. P. G.

Emery, Peter

Bartow, Sir John

Chataway, Christopher

Errington, Sir Eric

Barter, John

Chichester-Clark, R.

Farr, John

Batsford, Brian

Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

Fell, Anthony

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)

Finlay, Graeme

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

Cleaver, Leonard

Fisher, Nigel

Berkeley, Humphry

Cooke, Robert

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Bidgood, John C.

Cooper, A. E.

Foster, John

Bitten, John

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(Stafford&Stone>

Biggs-Davison, John

Corfield, F. V.

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

Bingham, R. M.

Costain, A. P.

Freeth, Denzil

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Coulson, Michael

Galbraith, Hon. T. C. D.

Bishop, F. P.

Craddock, Sir Beresford

Gammans, Lady

Bossom, Clive

Crawley, Aldan

Gardner, Edward

Bourne-Arton, A.

Critchley, Julian

Gibson-Watt, David

Box, Donald

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

Gilmour, Sir John

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

Crowder, F. P.

Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

Boyle, Rt. Hon, Sir Edward

Curran, Charles

Goodhart, Philip

Braine, Bernard

Currie, G. B. H.

Goodhew, Victor

Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SlrWaltei

Dalkeith, Earl of

Gower, Raymond

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Dance, James

Grant-Ferris, R.

Green, Alan

MacLaren, Martin

Scott-Hopkins, James

Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

Sharpies, Richard

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs)

Shaw, M.

Gurden, Harold

Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

Shepherd, William

Hall, John (Wycombe)

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

McMaster, Stanley R.

Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chlswick)

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Smithers, Peter

Harvey, John (Walthamatow, E.)

Maddan, Martin

Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

Harvie, Anderson, Miss

Maginnis, John E.

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Hay, John

Maltland, Sir John

Stodart, J. A.

Heald, Rt. Hon. sir Lionel

Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Hendry, Forbes

Marten, Neil

Storey, Sir Samuel

Hicks, Meach, Maj. W.

Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

Studholme, Sir Henry

Hiley, Joseph

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Summers, Sir Spencer

Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Mawby, Ray

Talbot, John E.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Tapsell, Peter

Hobson, Sir John

Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Hocking, Philip N.

Mills, Stratton

Taylor, Edwin (Botton, E.)

Hollingworth, John

Miscampbell, Norman

Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

Holt, Arthur

Montgomery, Fergus

Teeling, Sir William

Hopkins, Alan

Morgan, William

Temple, John M.

Hornby, R. P.

Morrison, John

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

Nabarro, Gerald

Thomas, Peter (Conway)

Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)

Neave, Airey

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

Hughes-Young, Michael

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

Hurd, Sir Anthony

Orr, Capt. L.P.S.

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

Iremonger, T. L.

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Turner, Colin

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Jennings, J. C.

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Peel, John

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Percival, Ian

Vane W. M. F.

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Pilkington, Sir Richard

Vickers, Miss Joan

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S)

Pitman, Sir James

Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hail Green)

Pitt, Dame Edith

Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

Pott, Percivall

Wakefield, Sir Wavell

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Walder, David

Kerans, Cdr, J. S.

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Walker, Peter

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Prior, J. M. L,

Ward, Dame Irene

Kershaw, Anthony

Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

Webster, David

Kimball, Marcus

Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Kirk, Peter

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Whitelaw, William

Kitson, Timothy

Pym, Francis

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Lambton, Viscount

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Ramsden, James

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Wise, A. R.

Leburn, Gilmour

Rees, Hugh

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Renton, Rt. Hon. David

Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

Woodhouse, C. M.

Lilley, F. J. P.

Ridsdale, Julian

Woollam, John

Lindsay, Sir Martin

Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey

Worsley, Marcus

Linstead, Sir Hugh

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heely)

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Litchfield, Capt. John

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Longden, Gilbert

Roots, William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Loveys, Walter H.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Mr. J. E. B. Hill and

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

St. Clair, M.

Mr. Michael Hamilton.

McArthur, Ian

Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

NOES

Abse, Leo

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Deer, George

Ainsley, William

Bradley, Tom

Delargy, Hugh

Albu, Austen

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Dempsey, James

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Diamond, John

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Dodds, Norman

Bacon, Miss Alice

Bullus, Wing Commander Erie

Donnelly, Desmond

Baird, John

Butler, Mrs. Jovce (Wood Green)

Doughty, Charles

Barnett, Guy

Callaghan, James

Driberg, Tom

Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

Carmichael, N. G.

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

Beaney, Alan

Castle, Mrs. Barbara

Edelman, Maurice

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Cliffe, Michael

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Bence, Cyril

Collick, Percy

Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Evans, Albert

Benson, Sir George

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Fernyhough, E.

Black, Sir Cyril

Cronln, John

Finch, Harold

Blackburn, F.

Crosland, Anthony

Fitch, Alan

Blyton, William

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Fletcher, Eric

Boardman, H.

Dalyell, Tam

Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Forman, J. C.

Bowles, Frank

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

358

359

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Loughlin, Charles

Russell, Ronald

Galpern, Sir Myer

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Short, Edward

Ginsburg, David

MacColl, James

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Mclnnes, James

Skeffington, Arthur

Gourlay, Harry

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Greenwood, Anthony

Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

Grey, Charles

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Small, William

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)

Snow, Julian

Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

Mapp, Charles

Sorensen, R. W.

Gunter, Ray

Marsh. Richard

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Hannan, William

Mason, Roy

Spriggs, Leslie

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Mayhew, Christopher

Steele, Thomas

Harper, Joseph

Mellish, R. J.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Mendelson, J. J.

Stonehouse John

Hayman, F. H.

Millan, Bruce

Stones, William

Healey, Denis

Milne, Edward

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)

Henderson, Rt.Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

Mitchison, G. R.

Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent,C.)

Harbison, Miss Margaret Hill, J. (Midlothian)

Monslow, Walter

Taverne, D.

Hilton, A. V.

Mulley, Frederick

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Holman, Percy

Neal, Harold

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Houghton, Douglas

Oram, A. E.

Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

Howell, Denis (small Heath)

Oswald, Thomas

Thornton, Ernest

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Owen, Will

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Padley, W. E.

Timmons, John

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Tomney, Frank

Hunter, A. E.

Pargiter, G. A.

Wainwright, Edwin

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Parker, John

Warbey, William

Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

Parkin, B. T.

Watkins, Tudor

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Pavitt, Laurence

Weitzman, David

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Janner, Sir Barnett

Peart, Frederick

White, Mrs. Eirene

Jeger, George

Pentland, Norman

Whitlock, William

Jenkins, Roy (stechford)

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Wilkins, W. A.

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Popplewell, Ernest

Willey, Frederick

Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)

Prentice, R. E.

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Price J. T. (Westhoughton)

Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)

Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Probert, Arthur

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Proctor, W. T.

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

Kelley, Richard

Redhead, E. C.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Kenyon, Clifford

Reynolds, G. W.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

King, Dr. Horace

Rhodes, H.

Wyatt, Woodrow

Lawson, George

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Ledger. Ron

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Zilliacus, K.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

Mr. Charles A. Howell and

Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

Mr. John McCann.

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Ross, William

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to local government and the functions of local authorities in the metropolitan area, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(i) of any expenses incurred by any Minister under that Act; and

(ii) of any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment;

(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by any Minister under that Act;

and in this Resolution the expression "Minister" includes the Board of Trade.
Resolution to be reported.
Report to be received Tomorrow.

POLICE PENSIONS REGULATIONS
11.4 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse): I beg to move,
That the Police Pensions Regulations, 1962, a draft of which was laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.
I believe that these consolidated Regulations will be welcomed by the House, but, late though the hour is, I think I owe the House a few words of explanation both of the complexity of the Regulations and the reasons why it has not been possible to lay them before the House earlier.
My starting point is the Police Pensions Act, 1961. The House will recall that the powers in that Act have enabled us for the first time to consolidate the very complicated police pensions code. The results of the work undertaken on

361
the consolidation are now before the House.
The reason that this could not be done before arises from the form in which the Police Pensions Act, 1948, was cast. It was cast in the form which it took because there were fears at the time that the change from a scheme enshrined in Acts of Parliament to one set out in Regulations might, if care were not taken, weaken the safeguards of existing pensioners and serving officers, and in order to allay this misgiving the 1948 Act was so drawn that the pension conditions of existing pensioners could not be worsened and the conditions of those still serving could not be changed in a number of vital particulars unless the officers concerned so desired. These were genuine safeguards —that is to say, they applied at the date of each subsequent alteration of the pension code.
Desirable though this obviously was, it had unfortunately one, probably unintended, consequence, which was that the drafting of the Act did not make it possible for us to consolidate the Regulations, and the result is that the Regulations are now very numerous, very complicated and very considerably amended. The Scottish Regulations are in a similar state.
As further amendments are made—and there are bound to be amendments from time to time—for example, to give effect to new pension increase Measures, the Regulations tend to become extremely complicated, and this is particularly the case since amendments have to be made not only to the current 1955 code but to the now obsolescent 1948–49 code. Naturally, there has been criticism both in the House and in another place of the resulting complexity of the existing codes, but for the reason which I have explained it was not possible to bring together all these Regulations under a single Instrument until the Act of last year gave us the power to revoke and restate the existing Regulations and therefore to consolidate in the fullest sense.
I am glad now to be able to seek the approval of the House for the consolidated Regulations, which revoke in their entirety the Regulations made since 1948. They provide a code for the future and they also restate existing pensioners' entitlement to their rewards. I should like
362
to stress that the consolidated code which is now before the House does not in the slightest degree affect the safeguards for serving members written into the 1948 Act, nor does it affect the position of existing pensioners, their rights being preserved under the new consolidated code.
If hon. Members look at Regulation No. 104, headed "Transitional Provisions", they will see that in the new consolidated code there is a provision that
"These Regulations shall have effect as if … anything done under or for the purposes of any provision of the former Regulations had been done under or for the purposes of the corresponding provision of these Regulations",
and this means that pensioners who originally received their awards under the old Regulations will in no circumstances find their pensions reduced. There is no need for any serving members of a police force or any pensioners —and in that I include widows and dependants of, pensioners—to fear that their right will be in any way affected.
There are one or two changes which have been introduced in the process of consolidation which I hope that the House will agree are improvements. I should like to draw attention briefly to the most important of them. There have hitherto been two sets of Regulations, those applying to England and Wales and those applying to Scotland. They were identical except on some minor points. The sort of minor points which I have in mind can be seen if hon. Members look at Regulation No. 37, which deals with Glasgow policewomen of unattested service before 1924, and Regulation No. 79, which refers to the widows or children of former lieutenants in the Scottish police, a rank which has been abolished. These are not minor considerations for those affected by them, but they are extremely few and it does not seem reasonable to have two long sets of Regulations which are identical, except for a few small items of that kind.
It therefore seemed to all concerned with the police pension code, including the local authority and police associations, as well as the central departments, that there should be a single code applying to England, Wales and Scotland as a whole. The consolidated code now before the House achieves that object.

363
I assure the House that it has been drawn up in close consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and has been approved after consultation with the Police Council for England and Wales and the Police Council for Scotland, which is a necessary step before any such Regulations can be brought forward.
I should like to take the opportunity of thanking all those concerned in bringing these complicated Regulations to their present state of exactness. Although they are complicated, I can briefly summarise the purpose of them. It is basically to re-state existing entitlements in a more compendious way, but a number of minor amendments have been introduced for the sake of clarification. I need not trouble the House with those.
I ought to mention two or three amendments of substance. I stress that these are virtually the only changes of substance embodied in the Regulations. First, there is a provision by which an officer to whom the Overseas Service Act, 1958, applies will be able to count his service under that Act as pensionable service, which hitherto was not possible. At the same time, we have taken the opportunity to provide in draft Regulation No. 53 a procedure for appeal tribunals to be set up to hear appeals by overseas policemen aggrieved by the refusal of a grant or the amount of a pension. These tribunals fall within the definition in the First Schedule to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958, and are under the supervision of the Council on Tribunals, which has been consulted and is in agreement with the provisions in Regulation No. 53.
Only two other changes of substance call for brief mention. Both have been introduced as result of agreed recommendations made by the Police Council for Great Britain. The first is in Regulation No. 80, where provision has been made to secure from forfeiture, otherwise than for one of the serious offences far which a pension actually in payment must be forfeited, the pension rights of regular policemen who decide to stay on in service after having completed 25 years. This followed a review set on foot by a recommendation of the Royal Commis-
364
sion on the Police in its Interim Report. The suggestion of the Commission was that the proposal to secure pensions in this way might serve as an inducement to officers to stay on after completing 25 years when they might otherwise have retired. There was a similar provision in the original Police Pensions Regulations, 1948. It was dropped in 1949 and is now reinstated.
The second change, which is again made on an agreed recommendation by the Police Council, is that consent to transfer will no longer be required, except in the case of chief officers of police and probationer constables, by officers seeking to transfer from one home police force to another. Another exception is for officers transferring overseas. At present all these would require consent if pension rights were to be preserved automatically. It is generally agreed that transfers in certain ranks between police forces should be encouraged in the interests of efficiency of the service and this amendment is designed to make that possible.
I must sound a note of warning. Although we have brought together in this code a number of existing Regulations in a briefer and simpler form which will make it easier for the police authorities to do their job—since they will be able to find all the Regulations in one place—I am afraid that it is too much to hope that the consolidated code will remain unamended for any great length of time. As changes in the pensions code are agreed, it will be necessary for us to ask the approval of the House for fresh amending Regulations.
However, I can say that now that the provisions of the Act are available it will be possible for us, at appropriate times, to repeat the process of consolidation and I think I can assure the House that the pensions code will never again become as complex as it has been in recent years.
Finally, I must apologise for a small typographical error which led to the draft having to be withdrawn and tabled again. Since this error, a small one, has been corrected and now that the draft is as exact as the skill of the many hands that have gone into it can make it, I submit it with confidence to the House.
11.16 p.m.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: My hon. Friends also welcome the presentation by the Government of this consolidated code dealing with the somewhat complicated subject of police pensions, both for policemen and their dependants, and I am sure that the House will be grateful to the Minister for the detailed explanation he has given of the reasons why this Statutory Instrument is before us tonight.
Hon. Members may have noticed that on the Order Paper appears a sentence in connection with this matter which states:
"The Instrument has not yet been considered by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments."
That was true when the Order Paper was printed and it may interest the House to know that the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, of which I have the honour to be the Chairman, at a meeting this afternoon considered this Statutory Instrument and decided, as might have been expected, that there was nothing in it as regards form which made it necessary for the Committee to direct the special attention of the House.
In fact, I think that I may properly say that it has been largely as the result of initiative and pressure from the Select Committee that we have now arrived at this happy state of affairs when the rather chaotic state of the Police Pensions Regulations has been put to an end and we now have a consolidated code.
The Minister explained in substance why this could not be done before the Act of 1961. We had been pressing for consolidation for a number of years, but what we were told—and what the Government were told on advice—as being the position was that the Act of 1948 did not in its terms confer on the Home Secretary the power to make any Statutory Instruments with any retrospective thoughts. Therefore, if the Home Secretary had decided to consolidate, it would have involved the repeal of existing Regulations and the making of new ones. He might, thus, have found himself in this difficulty. Someone would have said, "But the consolidated Instrument has a retrospective effect, because it retrospectively deals with a number of matters relating to the
366
pensions which have been in force for a long time and would have been valid under the repealed Regulations but are no longer valid under the new Regulations." It was to overcome that technicality that the Minister or his predecessor will recall that we pressed for the passage of the 1961 Act to remedy that difficulty. I remember congratulating the Government when the Act was passed, and we are now very happy to find that the opportunity has been taken of making use of the Act by bringing into force this bundle of consolidated Regulations which, I am sure, will be of the very greatest assistance to all those who have to study them.
The hon. Gentleman indicated that the subject was still one of such complexity that he might, in future, have to ask the House to approve further amendments and changes in the existing code. I can assure him that if there are many such amendments, we shall continue to press that, without undue delay, they should again be consolidated, so that there may be one complete bundle of Regulations dealing with this complicated subject.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Police Pensions Regulations, 1962, a draft of which was laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.

SUMMER TIME
11.21 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of section 2 of the Summer Time Act 1947, praying that the Summer Time Order 1963 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 29th November.
I should say a word or two about the background to this Order, and about the Government's intentions in moving it. The House will be aware that the Summer Time Acts of 1922 and 1925 provided that Summer Time should run from the Sunday after the third Saturday in April until the Sunday after the first Saturday in October, except in years when Easter Day falls on the former Sunday—that in April—in which case Summer Time starts a week earlier. An Act passed in 1947 provided that

367
Summer Time could be varied in any one year by Order in Council, and it is in pursuance of the provisions of Section 2 of that Act that this draft Order has been laid.
The background to the Order is that three years ago the Government conducted an inquiry in which a large number of bodies, representative, as far as we were able to make it so, of all sections of the community, were invited to express their views about the period of Summer Time. The replies we had to those inquiries showed that the weight of opinion was strongly in favour of the extension of the statutory period fixed by the first two Acts I have mentioned.
A considerable number of organisations went as far as to propose the adoption of mid-European time, which would be tantamount to having Summer Time all the year round. Others, including some which are of special importance in the interests they represent, favoured a more limited extension of Summer Time. After carefully considering the, points of view that had been expressed, the Government decided to propose, on an experimental basis, a modest extension by six weeks, made up of three weeks in the spring and three weeks in the autumn. This was done in the hope and belief that it would best suit the needs and wishes of the majority, and the proposal was debated in December, 1960, when there was scarcely any opposition, approval being given for its introduction in 1961.
The arrangements proved generally popular, and Parliament authorised its continuance in the following year. We have considered the matter again in the light of public reaction to the operation of the experiment over the last two years. The result is that we have had notice of adverse comment from only one of the organisations consulted in 1960—the National Farmers' Union of Scotland—and we have had only a very few disapproving letters from members of the public. My right hon. Friend believes that it is justifiable to take this as evidence that the extended period of Summer Time commends itself to the public at large and we have, therefore, decided to propose the continuance of these arrangements next year, so that
368
Summer Time in 1963 will begin on 31st March and end on 27th October.
The draft Order giving effect to this proposal applies only to 1963 and does not prejudice in any way the position in future years. The Government's proposals for those years will naturally take account of any public reaction there may be to the continuance of this experiment.
11.26 p.m.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: I support this proposal. As far as I know, there is no opposition to it in any part of the House. My experience, and that of those whom I have had the opportunity of consulting, goes to show that the experiment of having an extended period of Summer Time has been generally welcomed. I am not sure that it is now generally realised that during the last year or two, as will be the case next year, we shall have had Summer Time for about seven out of the twelve months of the year.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has referred to the alternative of going over to mid-European time, which, in effect, would mean having Summer Time throughout the year. It is my belief that there is no demand for that. Indeed, there might be some opposition to it. Those with whom I have discussed this feel that this year in particular, when we had such a remarkably fine month of October, it was a considerable boon to have the added advantage of the extra hour of daylight in the evenings. Although we cannot have an extra hour both in the mornings and in the evenings, as some people would desire, particularly those who get up early in the morning, the balance of convenience obviously is in favour of having that extra hour of daylight at the latter end of the day rather than at the beginning. I hope, therefore, that the Order will commend itself to all quarters of the House.
11.28 p.m.
Mr. B. T. Parkin: I welcome the Under-Secretary's indication that this matter is still experimental. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) that there never will be a demand for a continuation of the system into Central European Time. It seems from what the Under-Secretary said that the clue to the

369
acceptance of the present extended period is that people have discovered that it is not so onerous as it used to be to get up in the dark and go to work. The period was originally fixed at a time when people could just get to work in the daylight and get home and enjoy long light evenings.
We should bear in mind two things. The first is that since Mr. Willett originally devised this idea a tremendous revolution has taken place in the systems and cost of artificial lighting and the objection to working in the hours of darkness has largely disappeared. In the light of this technical progress, the demand in future will be for more and more leisure time in daylight. I should have thought, therefore, that if the Under-Secretary will keep open his inquiries, with an alert ear to the ground or an eye to the sky as to what the changing desires of the population are, he will find that he will best meet the need of the raised standard of living that we hear so much about by helping to meet what is the finest improvement in the standard, that is, greater leisure. Greater leisure means more opportunity to choose the way in which one spends it. Hitherto, we have been able to think only in terms of the evening. The long-term objective should, I suggest, be to secure the maximum amount of free time during daylight and the maximum amount of work done during the hours of darkness, as is now possible.
There must be very few offices and shops in London, for instance, where artificial lighting is not used throughout the day, and there must be many factories where the same applies. It is now no hardship to work under artificial light, but it is a great hardship to have to take one's leisure only during the hours of darkness. I suggest, therefore, that, if the Minister is inclined to press on from year to year, urging people to accept the extension of this idea, he will be in step with a developing desire of public opinion.
I am very glad that he does not choose to rest upon Mr. Willett's device. Mr. Willett's device does not settle the matter for all time, any more than Mr. Plimsoll's line solved the problem of safety in ships. It sometimes happens that a device or scheme of this kind stops progressive thinking because
370
people imagine that the problem is solved by an Order in Council and do not consider it further. Of course, it is not solved for ever, and public opinion will continue to develop its view. If the Minister will be aware of it in good time, this wild be a good thing, and I am glad to have this opportunity tonight to say so.
Mr. Woodhouse: If I may have leave to speak again, I can reply in one sentence. I think that there is a good deal in what both hon. Gentlemen have said, but it is my right hon. Friend's view that at present it is premature to consider legislation for a permanent alteration.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of section 2 of the Summer Time Act 1947, praying that the Summer Time Order 1963 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 29th November.
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

EMPLOYMENT, TOTTINGTON (RAYON WORKERS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]
11.32 p.m.
Mr. John C. Bidgood: I am very glad to have this opportunity to raise the subject of employment prospects for workers in the viscose rayon industry in Tottington. The House will recall that, earlier this year, there was a great deal of furore both here and in the country about the designs which I.C.I. had on the Courtauld enterprise. As the smaller of the two giants, Courtauld adopted an air of injured innocence.
I am raising this matter tonight because the tears shed by the Courtauld directors earlier this year are now being shed by 760 employees of a company which Courtauld has since taken over and who have been told that the two mills concerned are to be closed at the end of this month.
The arguments advanced by the Courtauld board when the noose was

371
around its neck somehow do not seem to count when it is wielding the stick itself. To explain the matter to the House, I shall go through the chronological details, which started only a week or two after the debate which we had in the House and the statement by the President of the Board of Trade about the proposed I.C.I.-Courtauld merger which came to naught in the end.
On 16th February, I visited Kirklees Ltd., in my constituency, to congratulate it on its export record. I found the directors in very good heart. They told me that they could not wait for the Common Market because they felt that they could compete on equal terms with any of their competitors in Europe. They also told me on that occasion that they were Courtaulds' only competitors in viscous rayon yarn.
Three months later, on 7th June, I received a letter from Courtaulds advising me that discussions were in progress between them and Kirklees whereby Courtaulds would acquire the whole of thy, issued capital of Kirklees. I wrote to the chairman of Kirklees expressing the hope that if the amalgamation came to fruition it would not adversely affect the Kirklees employees. He replied to the effect that he hoped that the outcome would be as favourable as possible for the employees who had rendered such loyal service to the company for a period of years.
On 29th June, the formal offer was posted from Courtaulds to the shareholders of Kirklees and in the offer the Kirklees chairman recommended acceptance as being a rational step as
"shareholders could continue to retain an interest in their business as part of a large group."
On 10th August, it was announced that the offer had been accepted by 90 per cent. of the shareholders and that the remainder of the shares would be acquired compulsorily.
On 18th September, in a display of what I can only consider indecent haste, Courtaulds announced its decision to close down Kirklees at Tottington and Bolton, and 620 employees were affected at Tottington and 140 at Bolton. Shortly afterwards, I saw Courtaulds executives in London and remonstrated with them
372
about this decision, but, unhappily, I made no progress. It is obvious that Courtaulds took over Kirklees with the express intention of closing it down.
Why did not Courtaulds say so in its offer to the shareholders? It is possible that some of the shareholders would not have agreed to sell. Some of them are local people who might have let their local loyalties intervene and would not have accepted the offer, not wishing to see local employees thrown on to the scrap heap. It may be said that the 620 Kirklees employees in my constituency can get other jobs, but, although that is possible for some of them, the great majority are married women whose standard of living has been geared over the years to two wage packets coming into the house. Many of these women will find it impossible to find alternative employment. As hon. Members know, this has happened so often in Lancashire that it is a classic example of the "other nation" about which we have been reading so much in the Press during recent weeks.
When I asked a Question in the House on this issue the other day, I was told that viscous rayon yarn had to compete with man-made fibres. But I remind my hon. Friend, as the Kirklees chairman said in his letter recommending acceptance of the offer, that Courtaulds is the largest manufacturer in this country, if not in the world, of man-made fibres, so the question does not arise.
My hon. Friend, I am sure in a desire to be helpful, said that Courtaulds itself had closed some of its plants. This is true. But what was not disclosed was the fact that many of these plants had been taken over for that very purpose, as happened in the case of Kirklees, and this, I am unhappy to say, is the last link in the chain of that operation. Courtaulds now has a complete monopoly in viscose rayon yarn, and I am sure that that cannot give satisfaction to those employees of Kirklees who have given a lifetime of service
For a moment I want to deal with the financial aspect. How much did it cost Courtaulds so effect this operation? The capital of Courtaulds is almost £100 million. In exchange for scraps of paper—share certificates—it has increased its capital by 0·6 of 1 per cent. to enable it to close down its only

373
competitor in this field. Nobody on the shareholders' list of Courtaulds will notice this infinitesimal addition to the list of shareholdings. The only people who will notice it are the 760 employees of Kirklees who are put out of work.
During the discussions earlier this year in the House when the country was very concerned about the suggested I.C.I.-Courtaulds merger, the President of the Board of Trade said 'that the Government had no power to refer that issue to the Monopolies Commission. He also said that if the merger—if it too place—gave rise to conditions where there were grounds for reference, he would certainly do so. I suggest that here is his opportunity, for whereas in the proposed I.C.I.-Courtaulds merger we were talking about a purely hypothetical case, here we are talking about something that has actually happened.
In the I.C.I.-Courtaulds discussions, the President of the Board of Trade said that the advantages or disadvantages could only be judged by results. That merger did not take place, but the results of the Courtaulds-Kirklees merger are there for all to see.
I believe that my hon. Friend will reply that the Government have no power to intervene in this matter. He will possibly say that he can visualise no injury to the national interest. Well, I maintain that putting 760 people out of work in the north of England, which, as we all know, is particularly prone to unemployment at present, is a national injury and I believe that this is an occasion, a classic occasion, when he should suggest to his right hon. Friend that the whole thing should be gone into quite explicitly.
Earlier this year we had the spectacle of two large corporations criticising one another in public on the I.C.I.-Courtauld issue. Sir John Hanbury was well able to stand up for the Courtaulds shareholders, against Mr. Chambers. Who have the Kirklees employees to stand up for them against Sir John Hanbury? I hope that it will be the President of the Board of Trade, who has now seen the threat to the public interest and is now faced not with a hypothetical situation, but with one fraught with very real danger to people in my constituency.
During a similar discussion earlier this year my right hon. Friend said that we
374
must wait and see. We have waited and we have seen, and I ask my hon. Friend whether he will see that this matter is either referred to the Monopolies Commission or to the committee of inquiry which, we are told, is sitting. If the House has no powers to act in circumstances of this sort, I think that it is high time we took them.
11.46 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): I am sure that the House will agree that at any time it is a blow to a town of the size of Bury when a factory employing over 600 people closes down. But, equally, the House would agree that the seriousness of that blow obviously depends upon the prospects for employment within the town itself or within reasonable travel-to-work distance of it. Before I discuss some of the social consequences of the closure of Kirklees, I should like to acquaint the House with the background history of the decision raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood).
As I understand, Courtaulds has known for some time past of the increasing difficulties of Kirklees in maintaining its position as a small and independent producer of rayon with the limited resources at its disposal. These difficulties have arisen very largely from the small scale on which Kirklees has been operating and have been accentuated by the fact that the total demand for viscose rayon, and, in particular, crepe rayon, has been falling off.
As a result of these difficulties, Kirk-lees has been able, during the last eleven years, to pay a dividend on only four occasions. In 1959, it emerged from a very difficult period, during which it had not paid a dividend for seven years. But, regrettably, its relief was only temporary and in the year ended 30th June, 1962, it made a total net loss before tax of £102,000.
Mr. Bidgood: May I tell my hon. Friend that between 1941 and 1962 Kirk-lees has shown a loss on only two occasions?
Mr. Price: With respect, in 1960, before tax, it made a net profit of £132,000. By 1961, that had fallen to less than half, £57,000. This year it made

375
a loss of over £100,000. This shows a fairly serious deterioration in the financial position of the company.
Earlier this year it had become evident that Kirklees could not continue on its own much longer and Courtaulds concluded that it would be in the interests of all concerned if the inevitable rundown could be achieved in an orderly fashion, rather than by the liquidation of Kirklees. It was, therefore, agreed by the directors of Kirklees that Courtaulds should make an offer to the shareholders for its shares and, subsequently integrate the Kirklees business with that of Courtaulds. This offer, the acceptance of which was "strongly recommended" by the Kirklees directors, has now been by over 90 per cent. of the shareholders, and the remaining shareholdings have been compulsorily purchased.
As a result of this integration, severe dislocation has been avoided. Although it has been necessary to close down the viscose yarn plant at Bury and the yarn processing plaint at Bolton, it has been found possible to continue the garment making section of Kirklees' activities at Farnworth, and to make a number of arrangements about the displaced staff and operatives. I shall say more about those arrangements in a moment.
During the last decade there has been substantial over-capacity of viscose rayon plant in this country and overseas. Courtaulds itself has been forced to scrap plant on a considerable scale and to concentrate production in larger and more economical units. In 1961, Kirklees' production of viscose yarn was approximately 4 million lb., or less than 7 per cent. of total United Kingdom production of viscose textile yarn and a little over 1 per cent. of total United Kingdom viscose yarn and staple fibre production. This was much smaller than the total capacity of any of Courtaulds remaining mills and this, together with the fact that financial stringency had prevented Kirklees from keeping its plant fully up to date, made it very probable that this plant would be the one which would have to close down in any further rationalisation of the industry.
The position has been made more difficult by the fact that viscose rayon filament is now only one of many types
376
of man-made fibres manufactured in this country. Viscose rayon, particularly in some of its recently improved varieties, is still a most useful fibre, but over the last few years it has faced severe competition from the newer filament yarns. These include Tricel, the acetate rayon manufactured by Courtaulds, Nylon and Terylene, as well as the acrylic fibres like Acrilan and Courtelle, another Courtauld product.
As a result of this competition, the total United Kingdom production of viscose textile yarn, 59 million lb., in 1961, was lower than in 1938. Because of the elimination of high-cost excess capacity, the prospects for viscose textile yarn have been greatly improved and the industry is in a stronger position to face competition at home and also in an enlarged European market.
I turn to the question of Courtaulds efforts to ease redundancy problems. I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that if Kirklees had simply "gone broke" it would have been harder to make reasonable arrangements to assist redundant workers. Courtaulds is doing everything it can to lessen the impact of the closure on those who work in the mills. The earliest possible notice has been given 4o those likely to be affected. In September all Kirklees employees were informed that the plant would be closed at Christmas, although some employees would be required for some time into 1963 to remove existing equipment and prepare the factory for a new user if one could be found. Courtaulds has long had well established redundancy arrangements for terminal payments to staff no longer required and who could not be transferred to other work within the company, and these arrangements are being applied to Kirklees employees.
Mr. Bidgood: My hon. Friend said "If Kirklees had simply 'gone broke'". Is he suggesting that Courtaulds took them over for philanthropic motives?
Mr. Price: I am suggesting that there is an element of just that in it. I am not saying that that was by any means the sole motive, but it has certainly been possible to make better arrangements to deal with redundancy than could have been made if a firm had been facing bankruptcy.

377
I was about to point out that all the arrangements have been fully discussed with the trade unions concerned and have been accepted by them. There have also been discussions with the local authority. In addition to making arrangements for redundant employees, Courtaulds has also been making strenuous efforts, in conjunction with the Board of Trade regional office and others, to find a new occupant to take over these premises.
I turn to the present unemployment situation. The Kirklees mill at Bury employed about 620 people. The mill at Bolton, which is also to be closed, employed 140 people. According to the information available to the Ministry of Labour, the labour force at the Bury factory had fallen to 374–271 males and 103 females—by 7th December. Only 60 workers were originally given actual notice, but the majority of these have found other jobs before they were due to leave, as, of course, have most of the 180 workers who have already left on their own account.
A special count was carried out at Bury Employment Exchange yesterday, and it showed that only three former employee's of Kirklees are registered as unemployed; these comprise three men, two of whom are 56 years of age. Of the workers currently employed, 170 have been given notice to terminate on 14th December, of whom about 50 are understood already to have found other work. About 100 other workers have also been given notice to terminate their employment by the end of the year. The remainder, numbering about 100, are pretty certain to be retained at least until next March.
Unemployment in Bury and the immediately surrounding area is well below the national average. The fact that in the Bury Employment Exchange area only 1 per cent. were registered as wholly unemployed in November and the fact that most of the workers who have so far left the Kirklees factory have secured other employment suggest that there are reasonable opportunities for finding other work in the immediate area. Individual placing problems must, however, be expected, especially where workers are elderly.
Because of the low level of unemployment in Bury, the Board of Trade is not
378
encouraging industrial expansion in this area, but if any serious and lasting unemployment developed the Board would do what it could to encourage development, subject, of course, to the overriding needs of the development districts.
My hon. Friend raised the question of monopolies and the merger aspect. I think that he recognised that the acquisition by Courtaulds of Kirklees could not have been investigated by the Monopolies Commission before the merger took place. I think that he knows that under existing legislation my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has no power to ask the Monopolies Commission to investigate mergers before they take place.
My hon. Friend also knows that there is currently going on a review of the whole of the monopolies and restrictive practices legislation which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced in the House on 14th February. During the course of this review the question of powers to investigate mergers is being considered. Interested persons have been invited to give evidence and representative organisations have already given their views. No decisions have yet been made.
As I explained earlier this afternoon, in a Written Answer to a Question from the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), no report is likely before the end of the year, and then my right hon. Friend will need some time in which to study it.
But the Board of Trade have power to ask the Monopolies Commission, under Section 2 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act, 1948, to investigate the affairs of any industry where "monopoly conditions" as defined in the Act appear to them to exist—that is, usually, where a single firm controls at least one-third of the supplies in this country of a particular product.
Mr. Bidgood: Is not that precisely the case here? Courtaulds now controls 100 per cent. of the viscous rayon yarn manufacture in this country.
Mr. Price: I was about to say that in this technical sense Courtaulds was in a monopoly position as a producer a long time ago and the Board of Trade could have referred the supply of viscous rayon to the Monopolies Commission.

379
The acquisition of Kirklees has introduced no basically new element from the standpoint of the 1948 Act, because the previous position clearly met the definition in the 1948 Act. However, we do not make a practice of asking the Commission to investigate industries in respect of which we have no evidence of abuse. So far, though my hon. Friend has made a new suggestion tonight, there has been no suggestion that Courtaulds has abused its position.
Unlike the American legislation, our legislation does not say that where monopoly exists it is per se contrary to the public interest. It is up to the Monopolies Commission to decide whether a monopolist is abusing his monopoly power. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that it has been right, therefore, not to refer firms to the Monopolies Commission simply because they have a technical monopoly, but only where there is evidence, as a result of complaints made to the Board of Trade through the normal channels, that there is a possibility of abuse taking place.
My hon. Friend ought to look at Section 14 of the 1948 Act, which defines the public interest. Section 14 (c) says that one of the considerations which the Monopolies Commission must bear in mind when determining the public interest is
"the fullest use and best distribution of men, materials and industrial capacity in the United Kingdom".
380
I will not develop the point further. I merely draw that to my hon. Friend's attention.
The technical arrangements for, but not the economic justification of, takeover bids were considered by the Jenkins Committee, which concluded that takeovers are an essential feature of economic growth and development. The Committee pointed out, however, that, like other convenient arrangements, this procedure has on occasion been abused, but in practice it is generally a convenient method of amalgamation.
I recognise that my hon. Friend raised at the end of his remarks a number of rather wider issues which I believe can be considered only in the context of a whole review of the field of monopoly and restrictive practice legislation. I hope that what I have told the House tonight will at least have reassured my hon. Friend on the specific human problem of the redundancy likely to arise from the closure of the Kirklees factory in his constituency.
As to the other matters, I can assure him that these are under—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at two minutes past Twelve o'clock.

WEST INDIES
  Federation
  Federation
TRISTAN DA CUNHA
  Refugees
  Refugees
HONG KONG
  Air Traffic Rights
  Air Traffic Rights
  Medical Officers (Equal Pay)
  Medical Officers (Equal Pay)
BRITISH HONDURAS
  New Capital
  New Capital
ADEN
  Registration of Societies (Ordinance)
  Registration of Societies (Ordinance)
  Minister's Visit
  Minister's Visit
  Jordanian Troops (Government Statement)
  Jordanian Troops (Government Statement)
GAMBIA
  Education (Expenditure)
  Education (Expenditure)
  Financial Aid
  Financial Aid
  Future
  Future
KENYA
  British Citizens
  British Citizens
  Governorship
  Governorship
  Aged and Distressed Europeans
  Aged and Distressed Europeans
FIJI
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Trade Union Legislation
  Trade Union Legislation
MALTA
  Bailey (Malta) Ltd. (Report)
  Bailey (Malta) Ltd. (Report)
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  Colonial Office Archives
  Colonial Office Archives
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Hyde Park (Public Highway Extensions)
  Hyde Park (Public Highway Extensions)
  Royal Hospital, Chelsea
  Royal Hospital, Chelsea
  Building Industry (Dimensional Co-ordination)
  Building Industry (Dimensional Co-ordination)
  Contracts (Firm Price Tenders)
  Contracts (Firm Price Tenders)
  House of Commons (Air Conditioning System)
  House of Commons (Air Conditioning System)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Wales
  Wales
  Exchanges, Wales (Automatic Working)
  Exchanges, Wales (Automatic Working)
  Shared Services
  Shared Services
  South Yorkshire
  South Yorkshire
  M.1 Road (Telephone System)
  M.1 Road (Telephone System)
  Northumberland and Durham
  Northumberland and Durham
  Buchan
  Buchan
POST OFFICE
  Northern Ireland (Christmas Period)
  Northern Ireland (Christmas Period)
  Contracts
  Contracts
  Stamps
  Stamps
  Director-General (Signature)
  Director-General (Signature)
  Staff (Day Release Classes)
  Staff (Day Release Classes)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Breconshire and Radnorshire (Water and Sewerage)
  Breconshire and Radnorshire (Water and Sewerage)
  Central Redevelopment Schemes
  Central Redevelopment Schemes
  Local Authorities (Capital Investment)
  Local Authorities (Capital Investment)
HOUSING
  Building Societies (Loans)
  Building Societies (Loans)
SCIENCE
  Autism
  Autism
  Linear Accelerator, Glasgow
  Linear Accelerator, Glasgow
  Coal Tar Research Association (Scientists)
  Coal Tar Research Association (Scientists)
  Scientists and Technologists
  Scientists and Technologists
  Physicists, Chemists, Bio-chemists and Biologists
  Physicists, Chemists, Bio-chemists and Biologists
  Physicists (Emigration)
  Physicists (Emigration)
  Motor Vehicles (Exhaust Smoke)
  Motor Vehicles (Exhaust Smoke)
  Depleted Uranium
  Depleted Uranium
  British Ship Research Association
  British Ship Research Association
  Smokeless Fuel
  Smokeless Fuel
  Coal (Research)
  Coal (Research)
  British Coal Utilisation Research Association
  British Coal Utilisation Research Association
  Biology (Royal Society Report)
  Biology (Royal Society Report)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Parliamentary By-Elections
  Parliamentary By-Elections
  Robberies
  Robberies
  Fires
  Fires
  Commonwealth Immigrants Advisory Council
  Commonwealth Immigrants Advisory Council
  Betting Offices, Willesden
  Betting Offices, Willesden
  GERMANY
  GERMANY
  BERLIN
  BERLIN
  SOCIAL SERVICES
  SOCIAL SERVICES
  DIRECTION OF INDUSTRY
  DIRECTION OF INDUSTRY
  WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
  INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Grey Seals
  Grey Seals
  River Boards (Precepts)
  River Boards (Precepts)
EDUCATION
  Local Authority Education Committees (Teachers)
  Local Authority Education Committees (Teachers)
  Educational Services and Research (Grants)
  Educational Services and Research (Grants)
  Universities and Teacher Training Colleges (Students)
  Universities and Teacher Training Colleges (Students)
  Teachers (Salaries)
  Teachers (Salaries)
EMPLOYMENT
  Average Weekly Earnings
  Average Weekly Earnings
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Local Employment Act
  Local Employment Act
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
ROADS
  Quarries, Stoney Stanton (Surplus Soil)
  Quarries, Stoney Stanton (Surplus Soil)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Share Transfers (Duty)
  Share Transfers (Duty)
  Profits (Research and Education Expenses)
  Profits (Research and Education Expenses)
  Child Allowance
  Child Allowance
  Gross Fixed Investment
  Gross Fixed Investment
  Income Tax (P.A.Y.E.)
  Income Tax (P.A.Y.E.)
  Game Licences
  Game Licences
  Gun Licences
  Gun Licences
  Cutlery Industry, Sheffield (Cellulose Nitrate Plastics Materials)
  Cutlery Industry, Sheffield (Cellulose Nitrate Plastics Materials)
  Betting Duties
  Betting Duties
BRITISH ARMY
  Woolwich Barracks (Site Clearance)
  Woolwich Barracks (Site Clearance)

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

MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN
THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships two Messages from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. The first is as follows:
"I have received your Address praying that the International Coffee Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1962, be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.
"I will comply with your request."
The second is in these terms:
"I have received your Address praying that the provisions of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, be applied to the Orders hereafter to be made under the enactments mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Draft Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) (Substitution) Order, 1962, laid before your House, in substitution for the provisions in those enactments providing that such Orders should be provisional only and should not have effect until confirmed by Parliament.
"I will give directions accordingly."

RETAIL AND FARMERS' PRICES
2.37 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are in a position to make an interim statement on the negotiations being conducted with the National Farmers' Union on the pro-
534
vision of information showing the difference between prices obtained by farmers and prices charged in the shops.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, I regret that I am not able to make any further statement at this time. There are in fact no negotiations, only discussions, and those discussions are continuing.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, while hoping that that reply is as unsatisfactory to the noble Lord who has given it as it is to the House and myself, may I ask whether he could help us a little further? Is he aware that on November 27 he told us that there had been exchanges of view between the National Farmers' Union and the Ministry as to whether additional sources of information could be developed. He went on to say [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 244 (No. 13), Col. 1097]:
"My right honourable friend is quite ready to consider the practicalities of this".
Would the noble Lord not consider that at least that seemed hopeful? In addition, does he remember that he told the House that the President of the National Farmers' Union raised this matter with his right honourable friend in May of last year? Does he not think it is time we were able to get more information?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I referred to discussions, and these discussions are a quite ordinary exchange of views between the statisticians of the National Farmers' Union and my Department which may or may not lead to a definite result. The National Farmers' Union have indicated that they would like made available to them rather more detailed information on the retail prices of meat than is already published, and I am referring to the information published by the Ministry of Labour, which is, of course, available to the noble Lady and everyone else. The House, I hope, will not underestimate the difficulty of comparing prices of fat stock and retail prices of particular joints and cuts of meat. I cannot at present say whether it will prove possible to resolve the difficulties provided by these complicated matters.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, does not the noble Lord recollect that last week, and, I believe, the week before, in answer to two Questions by my noble friend, he gave information which made it clear that the price of wheat to the British farmer has dropped and the price of imported wheat has slightly risen. The weighted average in correct proportion to those two prices means that wheat has remained the same; yet the price of bread has risen by 4 per cent. Similarly, in the case of milk the price of milk to the farmer has dropped, the retail price to the consumer has risen. Would not the noble Lord feel this offers at least some basis for the sort of comparison my noble friend referred to, and will be not pursue with the National Farmers' Union some negotiations or discussions of a sort likely to lead to a result which would enable housewives to understand what is taking place?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord knows that I dislike being evasive on any occasion, but the noble Lady's Question refers precisely to certain discussions with the N.F.U., and those discussions relate to questions on meat which the N.F.U. have precisely asked to have answered. The discussions are restricted, at their request, to meat. I should like to know what sort of statistics the noble Lord would like to have, and I should like him to know what I think he is in fact asking for. In order to satisfy the noble Baroness, and to satisfy myself that I was not being unduly evasive, this morning I went to a butcher with whom I am in contact in London and asked for the retail prices for various cuts of meat. Mrs. Beaton describes 18 different cuts. I gather that there are about three times that number recognised by this particular butcher, and I will, if the House will forgive me (because the noble Lord has requested a full reply), recite to him the prices I was given: fillet of steak, eye fillet, no fat, 12s. per lb.; rump steak, 9s. per lb.; top rump steak, according to cut, 5s. 6d. or 6s., per lb; H-bone steak, 5s. 6d. per lb.; chuck steak, 4s. 6d. and 4s. 8d. per lb.; beef for mince, 3s. 4d. per lb.; flank, with bone, 1s. 8d. and 1s. 10d.; flank, lean, no bone or fat, 3s. 6d.; leg of beef 3s. 8d. and 3s. 10d.
536
I was not content with pursuing it as far as that. I then telephoned the butcher with whom I deal in Yorkshire. Some of these terms he did not recognise at all, and where he was able to give me prices for the similar cuts of meat they varied in every case from the prices in London; in fact, there was in one case a difference of 33⅓ per cent. Still uncontent with what I had discovered, I telephoned a large store in London less than a mile away from the Chelsea butcher shop to which I first referred, and there I was informed that all the prices again varied from the Chelsea butcher's shop. On top of that these prices relate only to one form of meat, beef, and I was informed in all three shops that the prices vary from day to day. It is possible that if the army of inspectors necessary for the great task which the noble Lord requires could be enlisted it might do something for the present temporary unemployment problems, but whether such an army of inspectors would be usefully employed I rather doubt.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, after that wonderfully lengthy speech at Question Time, I suggest that the noble Lord puts down a Motion to support the conduct that he has pursued.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am sure the House approves of the diligence of my noble friend. But I would remind the House that the Question asks only for an interim statement.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I should still like information about sirloin and top-half roll.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, being uncontent but considerably impressed with the Answer, the result of the noble Lord's industry, I would ask: is he aware that I do not wish to be submerged in meat? I am after something much more simple. Is he aware that what I want to know is the price that farmers receive for various commodities, not only meat, and the price charged in the shop, so that we can find out whether or not the difference between those two is a fair

537
one? Will he ask his right honourable friend whether he will look into that matter?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I must remind the noble Baroness again that her Question referred to certain discussions going on now, and those discussions relate only to meat.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, if the noble Lord should find himself unemployed for a few hours, will he also tell your Lordships what proportion of the animal the various cuts he has referred to represent?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, that is yet another question. I can assure the noble Lord that if he and other noble Lords are as diligent in putting questions to me I am most unlikely to have three hours at a time (in which to study this question.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, is it not the case that the degree of difference, between the bankruptcy court and a profitable butcher lies practically in the knife of his cutter and that therefore a considerable amount must be left for human error to-day as it used to be?

SHIPBUILDING AND UNEMPLOYMENT
2.45 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are taking any steps to encourage shipowners to place orders while there is so much unemployment in the shipyards.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, a principal cause of the present lack of orders throughout the world is that there are too many ships already. This is an international commercial problem, and my right honourable friend welcomes the initiative that has been taken by deep-sea tramp and independent tanker owners to start international discussions to try to find ways to overcome it. In the meantime, the 40 per cent. investment allowance on new ships, combined with the increased depreciation allowances
538
announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last month, must constitute an encouragement to British shipowners to place orders.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, and welcoming the fact that some steps are being taken to deal with this problem, I would ask this further question. Would he not agree that the relief of taxation does not have an enormous impact when, as is the case at the moment, owners are unable to run their ships at a profit? Will he press forward with any schemes that can be suggested for the streamlining of shipyards for scrapping and building by shipowners, so that when war or disaster creates the inevitable shipping boom in the future our Maritime Marine will be the most modern and up to date in the world?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, of course I was aware that such allowances are not much help where the owners are not making any profit. But if shipowners are unable to make a profit, some of them certainly find it difficult to visualise building more ships when world circumstances of shipping trade are adverse. I should like your Lordships to know that the Shipping Advisory Panel set up by my right honourable friend has brought the ship-owning industry and my right honourable friend much closer together than ever before, and I am quite sure that such matters as my noble friend suggested will not be overlooked by them in their discussions.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, would it not help if a few more orders were forthcoming for ships for the Royal Navy?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, of course if there were further orders it would no doubt help; but that is something which my two right honourable friends are constantly discussing.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, in order to get the matter in perspective, is it not the fact that, while shipbuilding is doing badly, ship repairing is doing very well?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I understand that that is so, and that While world conditions for shipping are not good, they are not as completely impossible as is sometimes suggested. Most certainly the ships that are actively employed require repairing as much as ever.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that we are all glad that ship repairing is doing fairly well; but the greatest part of that work is being done in yards which are almost exclusively devoted to ship repairing the whale time, such as Middle Dock, on the Tyne, and other places that I know well. I hope that they will not lead to our halting at all about providing new construction.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, one certainly hopes not. I do not see Why it should, because the hope of new construction would surely avoid the danger of switching over from constructional use to repair work, which would create a surplus of repair facilities.

MULTIPLE ACCIDENTS AND SLIPPERY ROADS
2.50 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lards, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have made any inquiry as to the cause of road accidents of a "pile-up" nature during the last two weeks; and, if such cause is due to ice-covered roads and the failure of highway authorities to carry out the elementary precaution of adequately gritting such roads, whether they will draw the attention of highway authorities to their responsibilities in this regard.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, particulars of accidents during the past two weeks are not yet available, but my right honourable friend knows of no reason to suppose that highway authorities generally fail to take precautions. On roads for which be is the highway authority much has been done to improve the speed and efficiency of preventive measures, and this is showing good results. On motorways in particular, salt is spread on receipt of frost warnings to prevent the formation of ice. Experience gained with new materials, appliances and techniques is made available to local highway authorities, who can adopt on
540
their own roads those which prove successful. Local highway authorities are alive to the importance of timely and effective action, especially on the busiest and fastest traffic routes, and the continuing exchange of information Which goes on seems more likely to bear fruit than mere exhortation. If the noble Lord has any particular accident in mind and will communicate with me, I will make further inquiries into the circumstances.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Is the noble Lord aware that a number of these very serious accidents, involving anything up to twenty vehicles, were caused by the culpable negligence of some highway authorities in not even gritting their roads at all, not even after the thaw? Would he not agree with me that the accident statistics of this country are high enough without their being added to by the culpable negligence of some of these highway authorities? May I further ask him this? As in the ordinary course of events we can unfortunately look forward to another bout of ice and snow covering the roads in the month of January, will he alert all the highway authorities to see that they are fully seized of the necessity for taking remedial action before the event, not after it?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord will, of course, appreciate that in all circumstances it is not possible to spread grit on slippery roads until the roads have become slippery, but I will certainly see to it that authorities are alerted in this way. I do not know of any cases of culpable negligence, to which the noble Lord refers, which have been the cause of multiple accidents. A preliminary line of thought would seem to suggest that in recent circumstances fog had quite likely been as much the contributory factor as anything else; but before very long we shall probably know more about it. My right honourable friend and I have been particularly seized of this problem, and as recently as September advice and reminders were sent out to local authorities.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I should like the noble Lord to know that I am not blaming the Minister. In my view the Ministry have done nearly

541
all they can do. But this responsibility rests firmly on the local highway authorities, and when the noble Lord receives the reports of his local divisional road engineers—perhaps these are early days for him to receive them—he will find out that some of the most serious accidents have been caused by a total absence of any gritting on the roads by these local authorities.
LORD CHESHAM: I shall be pleased to look at the reports, as and when they come, to see whether there is anything such as the noble Lord says. I certainly agree with him that effective, quick action is in the circumstances most important.

BRITISH SUBJECTS' EGYPTIAN CLAIMS
2.54 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to make a statement about Egyptian compensation. Some months ago I promised noble Lords that I would put before the House proposals for a final settlement of claims arising from the nationalisation and sequestration of property by the Egyptian Government following the Suez operation. In laying before your Lordships the following scheme Her Majesty's Government have had very much in mind the points made in debate in this House and in another place.
The Government have five proposals. First, we propose to lay before the House an Order in Council that would provide that compensation on assessed claims against the Egyptian Compensation Fund should be paid on the following increased and final scales: on the first £10,000 of each claimant's assessed losses, 100 per cent.; on the next £40,000, 75 per cent.; on the next £450,000, 50 per cent.; on the next £500,000, 30 per cent.; on the next £1 million, 25 per cent.; and on the part of any claim exceeding £2 million, 20 per cent. Of course, the 100 per cent. on the first £10,000 and the 75 per cent. on the first £40,000 will operate right through the scale.
This new scale will give a 100 per cent. payment to over 90 per cent. of the
542
claimants and substantial increases to all the other categories up to £2 million. Claims exceeding £2 million will also benefit by the increased percentages to the extent of an extra basic payment of £176,000 on the lower parts of their claims. We estimate that to enable the Foreign Compensation Commission to pay compensation on these scales, Her Majesty's Government will need to pay into the Egyptian Compensation Fund about £5,500,000.
Secondly, we propose to lay before the House an Order in Council that will enable the Foreign Compensation Commission to pay on the same scale claimants in respect of certain additional claims, which, although arising out of the Suez incident, could only be registered but could not receive compensation under the Orders in Council following on the Anglo-U.A.R. Financial Agreement of 1959. We estimate that this will require approximately a further £1 million.
Thirdly, we propose that the balance of approximately £35,000 by which the compensation paid by the U.A.R. for the British officials dismissed in 1951 fell short of the sums advanced to the Officials' Association by Her Majesty's Government should be written off. We further propose to waive the repayment of £8,904 advanced by Her Majesty's Government to the Association for the payment of legal expenses and, as a final settlement, to make an additional grant to the Association of £200,000.
Fourthly, we propose to allocate up to £500,000 for grants towards the payment of agents fees and expenses by owners of desequestrated property who have had to employ agents to negotiate the release of their property and the transfer of assets.
Fifthly, we have carefully considered the difficulties of those British nationals who were obliged in 1956, at very short notice, to abandon their property in Egypt, where it was then sequestrated. This was the point made by my noble friend Lord Lloyd and others on the various occasions upon which we have discussed this.
This property—much of which is not in liquid form—has now been desequestrated, and in most cases returned to its owners or their agents, and they still

543
remain its legal owners. Some of them cannot use it or derive any benefit from it—apart, of course, from the first £E.5,000 which they can now transfer to this country. We propose to make available up to £2½ million to relieve, by way of grants, cases of comparative hardship among these persons, as well as to assist with certain other kinds of claims (such as compensation for severe personal injury) that will not be eligible for compensation out of funds distributed by the Commission.
We propose to set up an independent Committee to investigate cases of hardship among owners of immobilised assets and to make recommendations for grants.
Your Lordships will be aware that the Foreign Compensation Bill, which the Speaker may well certify as a Money Bill, has been under consideration in another place. The Bill is due for Report and Third Reading to-morrow and should be received by this House on the same day or on Thursday. Arrangements have therefore been made for your Lordships to consider the Bill during the course of next week, when I hope it will pass through all its stages in time to receive the Royal Assent before the House rises.
My Lords, I was anxious to make this statement myself before I go to the N.A.T.O. Council and to the Bahamas because I promised your Lordships to do my best to make a proposal which would satisfy your Lordships and bring this matter to an end.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure we should all like to thank the noble Earl, the Foreign Secretary for the statement he has made, and to say at once that, in all the circumstances, it is to be regarded as a generous settlement of the claims which are outstanding arising out of the unfortunate circumstances which we all know about. As to the rapidity with which this Money Bill would become law, I think it will largely depend on Members of your Lordships' House as to how long we want to take to discuss it. For my part, I should like to see it passed as rapidly as possible.
THE EARL OF HOME: I am obliged to the noble Viscount.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Leader for the statement he has made.
THE EARL OF HOME: Not the Leader.
LORD LLOYD: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. Particularly, I should like to thank him personally, because I know the amount of trouble he himself has taken to obtain some advance on what has been a very slow and difficult matter. It is a little difficult at short notice on what is, I think he will admit, an extremely complicated affair, especially in view of the two categories of claimants and the fact that I believe a great number of claims have still not been finally formulated, to assess how far the Government have gone, particularly with regard to the sequestrated claimants. I would have said, having heard the statement, that those whose property has been nationalised have fared very well and have been treated generously. I should prefer to reserve judgment on the others, because, without studying the statement further, I think it would be difficult to form a conclusion. Perhaps when we have had a little longer to study the matter it might be possible to have a short debate on it, if we felt there were any points which needed raising.
THE EARL OF HOME: Yes, of course. I think the statement is complicated and deserves study.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the thanks which have been expressed to the Minister. We are all most grateful to him and to his Department. We have caused him a lot of trouble. It has dragged on for years and years, and it has been a most tiresome subject. We have known his heart has been with us in a lot of it, but it is not always easy to wring blood out of the Treasury stone. I feel that we owe him a great debt of gratitude, and that is very genuinely said. Having said that, it is very difficult, as my noble friend Lord Lloyd has said, to say much about the scheme, because we have had only a few minutes to look at it. It is quite involved. Speaking, as I do, for the people in whose claims I am interested, there must always be a tendency to look a gift horse very carefully in the mouth before expressing

545
complete joy and satisfaction. For instance, I see that the document says that it is in final settlement. We all hope it is in final settlement, but it should be in fair settlement. That is what we all want, and it is what the Minister himself wants.
I do not wish to get involved in facts and figures now, because this is not the occasion, but, on the face of it, from a very quick glance at this document, I should say that the scheme involves a contribution from public funds of about £10 million. That may be quite wrong, but it is roughly what I make it. We have got £27½ million from Egypt, and we were told last week we had the interest of £2½ million, so that is roughly £30 million. On the other hand, we were very conveniently told by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, last week that there were assessed claims of something like £76 million.
LORD COLYTON: Unassessed.
LORD KILLEARN: Yes, I think the assessed claims are about £44 million. Against that we have in the kitty, if I may put it that way, £29½ million from Egypt and the £10 million extra, which makes approximately £40 million, and there is a shortfall of £46 million outstanding. So on the face of it, it is not a particularly good deal from the claimants' point of view. I do not want to get involved in the facts and figures, because there will be an opportunity for that later on, but I do think there is a good deal more to be said for the claimants than is said in this scheme, grateful as we are for it.
I am particularly grateful for the reference to the unfortunate people who have their assets still in Egypt. That is a real puzzler. They cannot get their stuff out, so what is the good of £5,000 down and possession of their goods in Egypt which they cannot touch? That problem still remains, so far as I can make out. I think it is touched on here, but it is not finally cleared up. Anyhow, I revert to what I started by saying: namely, that we are all most grateful to the noble Earl for what he has done for us. It is not quite what we hoped for, but that will not surprise him.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend who has taken so much interest in this matter. I
546
am not sure whether or not he called me a gift horse with a heart of stone. His mathematics are quite good, but he will notice that a very large amount of the assessed claims are claimed by large companies or firms, and, as I have said, over 90 per cent. of the people will get 100 per cent. of their claims. In answer to my noble friend Lord Lloyd, I have given particular attention to the people who suffer hardship from sequestrated property, and we have calculated that the sum of £2½ million ought to cover these claims.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, as one who has been concerned in these affairs since the Suez incident, I should like to add my thanks to the Foreign Secretary for the immense trouble he has taken over these unhappy people. It is very difficult at this short notice to follow the exact details of the scheme, but I can assure him that we will look into them very carefully before the Bill comes before the House.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to have an understanding on this matter with the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. He knows that we have been told, through the usual channels, that the Government's business arrangements will entail our sitting late on a number of the interim stages of Bills between now and Christmas. I want to see the Foreign Secretary's request fulfilled and this important legislation passed and operative before Christmas. I hope, therefore, that all sections of the House will bear these two things in mind. I think it is a very generous settlement.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am grateful for that to the noble Leader of the Opposition. Of course, I share his view about it, but, naturally enough, I am in the hands of the House in this as in other matters.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, it has been arranged through the usual channels that the Committee stage of the Water Resources Bill should be adjourned from 7.30 to 8.30 p.m. for dinner. Dinner will be available in the Restaurant, and I would ask noble Lords who wish to avail themselves of dinner there to inform the authorities in the Restaurant.

BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES BILL [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BETTING DUTIES BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

WATER RESOURCES BILL [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Clause 6 [Constitution of river authorities]:
LORD WISE LORD WISE moved, in subsection (3) (a), to omit "one" and substitute "two". The noble Lord said: I think it would be convenient to your Lordships if, in addition to this particular Amendment, we also discussed Amendments Nos. 12, 14, 15 and 16. They all refer to more or less the same matter in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, suggested on Thursday that these Amendments tied up with an Amendment I then moved. That was not quite the case, although that was partly so. He refused to consider an increase of ten in the membership of a river authority, and I realise that my original Amendment had partly taken account of the additional membership which this present Amendment would cause if the Government accepted it.
The object of this Amendment, and of the others I have mentioned is very definite. It is to impose upon the Minister the duty to appoint at least two members in respect of each of the categories referred to in the subsection. Under the present wording, the Minister can limit his appointments to only one member in each case. That member must fit the qualification of possessing experience in
548
land drainage, fisheries, agriculture, public water supply or industry other than agriculture. All these are extremely important parts of our national life, and it seems totally inadequate that they may have a representation of only five members between them, against a probable eleven or more representatives of county councils or county boroughs. In that respect, it is quite possible that borough and district councils will not be represented at all.
On Thursday last week the noble Lard, Lord Cornwallis, touched upon the inadequate direct representation of industry on the river authorities, and other noble Lords will no doubt put forward reasons for greater representation in respect of that and the other categories. I hope that such will be the case. Altering the minimum figure here from one to two representatives of these categories will increase the membership of authorities by five or less, and this slight increase may commend itself to the Minister, who thought that an additional ten members was too many. I have moved the Amendment with some brevity, and I hope the Minister will show even greater brevity land accept it in a very few words. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, fine 40, leave out ("one") and insert ("two").—(Lord Wise.)
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: Before the noble Lord replies to this Amendment, I am sure he will recall that when this series of Amendments was put on the Order Paper it was side by side another Amendment, to Clause 6 (1), which sought to vary the minimum number of members of any river authority from 21 to 31. I appreciate that that Amendment was rejected by the Minister, but if this series of Amendments were now to be accepted there would be very serious trouble with the constituent councils, who provide most of the revenue for drainage, flooding, fisheries and pollution work. That was never our intention. It would be a very bad start to what might ultimately Abe a good Bill.
I should like to ask the noble Lord two or three questions before concluding by not supporting this Amendment. For example, who will decide the number of members, between

549
21 and 31, on each river authority? Will the Minister decide, or will it be the existing river boards, who know more about the functions than anyone else, including the Minister? And, if it should be the Minister who has the final decision, what will happen if the existing river boards and the Minister disagree about the number of members required? I presume that the Minister will have the last word, but I should like to know from the noble Lord whether or not that is so.
I should also like to know what is meant by the words in subsection (2), "but not more than sufficient." Subsection (2) says:
"Such number of members of a river authority as is sufficient (but not more than sufficient) to constitute a majority of the total membership of the authority…"
shall be appointed. As I see it, the minimum number of members to be appointed on any river authority is 21. On the assumption that no Amendment is accepted to subsection (3) of Clause 6, there would be five members appointed by the Minister representing the various interests, leaving sixteen members for the constituent councils. We are all very anxious to know exactly why those words were imported, and I hope the noble Lord is going to enlighten us. With my noble friend Lord Wise, I should like to see reasonable representation of land drainage, fisheries, agriculture, water undertakers and industry, but certainly not at the expense of the constituent councils. For, after all, I repeat, it is they who provide most of the revenue for land drainage, fisheries, work against pollution and flooding and so forth. In the circumstances, the words I have just quoted seem to me to be utterly useless and redundant. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us why they are there, or whether, contrary to our fairly clear conception of most things, we are very dim on this point as to why the words are imported into the Bill at all.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): As the noble Lord, Lord Wise, said, this series of Amendments, Nos. 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16, is not directly consequential upon his previous Amendments relating to the total numbers on the river authorities, but
550
it is, as he pointed out, indirectly consequential upon them; and, therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, surmised, it would be very difficult for us to accept these Amendments not having accepted the others, which were withdrawn by the noble Lord, Lord Wise. There are, however, one or two misconceptions that I should like to correct at once.
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, seemed to think that because of the present wording of the clause, which says that at least one member for each of these five categories shall be appointed, there would, in certain circumstances, be only five members, and that the balance would be made up by members nominated by the constituent councils. That, of course, ties up with the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, as to what is meant by the words, "not more than sufficient". I think I referred to this point when I was replying to the previous Amendment last week. "Not more than sufficient" means that there will in fact be only a majority of one. Therefore the Committee will see that, in the case of the minimum-sized council of 21 members, there are bound to be ten nominated by the Minister. So that disposes of the possibility that there could be only one member for each of those five categories.
If we were to accept this Amendment, which says that there should be at least two members, then, when you come to a river authority of the smallest size—namely, 21 altogether—the ten members appointed by the Minister would choose themselves by virtue of this Amendment, were it accepted, because the Minister would be hound to appoint two of each, making up his full number of ten. I hope that is quite clear.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: No.
LORD HASTINGS: If this Amendment is accepted the Minister would have to nominate two members representing each of these five categories of persons. Five times two, according to my calculations, makes ten; and therefore there would be no scope for flexibility at all. There could be only ten.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: I think the noble Lord has misunderstood my sotto voce interjection. I was

551
perfectly clear that, if we multiplied five by two, we might reach ten. But what I was not clear about, and what I am still not clear about, is where the extra members are coming from to constitute a river authority if the constituent councils are going to have only eleven out of the twenty-one. Where are the other ten coming from?
3.20 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: I am afraid I still do not understand what is puzzling the noble Lord. The ten are coming from nominees of the Minister, to represent agriculture, fisheries, drainage, public water supply and industry. If we accepted this Amendment they would each have two members, and that would make the ten. But the whole point, of course, is that there should be flexibility, and I hope it is not suggested by noble Lords opposite that there should always be the same number of members nominated by the Minister to represent each of the five interests. That is not the point of this clause at all. We must have flexibility to represent the interests in proportion to the predominance or otherwise of each interest in relation to each other in that particular river authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, may ask who will decide how the proportion of such interests is going to be made up. He will remember we passed an Amendment last week which lays the statutory obligation upon the Minister to consult with all interests in that area before deciding upon the numbers that will constitute the entire river authority—between 21 and 31 in all. It might well be 27, in which case there will be 14 appointed by the constituent councils and 13 by the Minister, and those 13 would be divided proportionately between the five interests I have mentioned after full consultation with them.
I hope it is clear that there will be all this consultation, and we hope that the interests will agree it is a fair proportion which is arrived at in each case; but naturally in the event of disagreement the Minister must decide. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, is interested in the river authority for East Suffolk and Norfolk and the present constitution of that river board (not the new authority) is, apart from the county council and county boroughs representatives, four members representing fishery interests and ten
552
members representing drainage. In the new authority we have in addition to bring in industry, public water supply and agriculture; but, if we stick for the moment to drainage and fishery authorities, one might presume they would expect to keep the same sort of proportion to each other in the new authorities. Therefore the drainage interests might expect to have twice as many members as the fishery interests. If this Amendment is passed it would make it quite impossible. Therefore, in order to retain flexibility and also for the reasons I gave in rejecting the previous Amendment (that we want a reasonably small and compact body in which everybody will work together, not on behalf of their separate interests but on behalf of overall duties of the river authority) I must ask the House also to reject this series of Amendments.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: I think I ought to say, before we depart from these Amendments, which I am not pressing and which my noble friend Lord Wise does not wish to press, that I am staggered to learn from the noble Lord this afternoon that he is going to restrict, through the words I quoted, the membership on river authorities to a majority of one while the constituent councils from whom these members will be drawn are responsible for almost all the revenue for drainage, pollution, flooding and fisheries. The others, until the Conservation Board gets into operation and starts spending money, will make a comparatively small contribution compared with that of the constituent councils. I should not be surprised if the noble Lord is not in very serious trouble when the county councils and borough councils really understand what is meant by those words.
LORD HASTINGS: I must disagree with the noble Lord. Precisely the opposite was argued last week by my noble friend. Lord Cornwallis, who pointed out that the public water supply interests and industrial interests after a preliminary period in some river authorities may find themselves, owing to the new functions of these river authorities, contributing more than the local authorities with their precepts. Therefore we have tried to strike a balance and we think we have done it right. Incidentally, I do not think the

553
noble Lord who sits on the Front Bench beside Lord Williams of Barnburgh will agree with him on this Amendment.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: There is one question I should like to ask the noble Lord. Who will be responsible for navigational matters apart from fisheries? Is it the fishery representative or not?
LORD HASTINGS: There is special provision in the Bill to appoint additional navigational members if it is necessary in certain circumstances.
LORD WISE: In view of the explanation the Minister has given, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. But my noble friend and I were on two different points. I was concerned at the back of my mind with the possible increase of five in the 21, making it 26. That would have covered the point of the noble Lord opposite that the Minister could add two or three or even only two of one particular section.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (3) (b), after "Minister" to insert:
"after consultation with any association or person appearing to him to represent a substantial fishery interest in the area of the authority,".
The noble Viscount said: If the Committee will allow me, I will move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry. It is, in fact, a comparatively short point but I believe it might be convenient if it were to be discussed with Amendment No. 19 which is down in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Wise, Lord Williams of Barnburgh and Lord De Ramsey. I will confine myself to the narrow aspect of the points which have been put down by the noble Duke, but broadly speaking it is the same set of circumstances as apply in the case of the other Amendment. Last time we were discussing this Bill, in answer to another Amendment which I moved, the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, was congratulating himself and the draftsmen of this Bill on the degree of consolidation they had achieved in it. He said that since it would have been inconvenient to refer backwards and forwards between this Bill and the River Board Act, 1948, they had incorporated as much as possible of the 1948 Act in this Bill and repealed the 1948 Act.
There is one thing, at any rate, which they have not reproduced which was in the 1948 Act. The purpose of this Amendment is that a proper consolidation should take place and the provision thought suitable in the case of river boards under the 1948 Act should also appear for the purpose of river authorities in this Bill. That provision is that before the Minister appoints to the river authority his one or more members who are qualified in respect of fisheries he should consult with any association or person appearing to him to represent a substantial fishery interest in the authority's area. This was a provision which appeared in Section 2 (2) (c) (ii) of the 1948 Act and it has proved to be convenient and most helpful. I think it would be a retrograde step if such prior consultation were not now to take place under this Bill. I see no reason why it should not. Whether or not that applies to the wider interests in which the noble Lord, Lord Wise, is concerned, I do not know; but it seems to me reasonable that such consultation should go on in the case of fisheries. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 43, after ("Minister") insert the said words.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: The noble Duke's Amendment, so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, seeks, as he said, to include in the Bill consultative provisions on the lines of those included in the 1948 Act, and, arguing along those lines, I can sympathise with his point of view. But I think that he will agree that it would be difficult to separate fisheries from the other four interests and make consultation mandatory for fisheries and not for the other four. I should make it clear to my noble friend that the Ministers will consult representative associations of those interests before appointing people to the new authorities. The difficulty lies only in working out a provision to do this in this clause. Differing circumstances require different approaches and differing circumstances here, though they do not affect fisheries, do affect the provisions in the Bill.
The later Amendment, No. 19, which is being sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, and other noble Lords, would take this into account and require consultation on all

555
five interests. In the past there has been formal consultation with various bodies. The Government's experience has been that a formal statutory consultation procedure may result in too much rigidity and publicity, and this has sometimes militated against securing the best man for the job. It is a difficulty which arises more particularly when consultation has to be with bodies which are very formally constituted and conduct their business in a formal way. On the other hand, where bodies which have to be consulted are less formal in their procedure and possibly more homogeneous in their character, the Government's experience has been rather different. In such circumstances, it has invariably turned out that appointments can be made which meet with the approval of both the Government and the body concerned.
The result is that the Government do not feel able to accept this Amendment providing for a formal consultation now that these new interests have been added to the others. As my noble friend Lord Jellicoe put it, in replying to the debate On Second Reading [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 244 (No. 12), col. 1093]:
"Let us by all means have informal consultation which everybody would desire, but I am sure that many noble Lords would grant, at least in certain respects, that as soon as all this gets unduly formalised then off we start to slide down the slippery slope which leads to the question of 'Buggin's turn'."
I repeat, however, the assurance which I gave at the opening of my remarks. The Minister will carry out informal consultations with interests concerned in making appointments to river authorities—and since I know that Hansard does not employ italics in order to register emphasis, I should like to say that the word "will" is here emphasised. In so far as drainage and fisheries interests are affected, there will be no practical change from the procedure carried out under the 1948 Act, which, as my noble friend said, has worked so well.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: I am sorry that I did not precede the noble Lord, for I wanted to say that there is a unity between the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount and Amendment No. 19. As I am not anxious to make two speeches on the one point—it is a big Bill and everybody
556
wants to make progess—I should like to say that what was done in the 1948 Act, in saying that consultation would take place and embodying it in the Bill, met with a very large measure of success. I learn from authorities with whom I have had some consultation that there have been few disagreements throughout the fourteen years of the currency of the 1948 Act. I see no reason at all why the Government should not have repeated the words in the 1948 Act and, as the noble Viscount suggested, make a real consolidation, particularly since it has been generally satisfactory and fishery interests in particular were delighted when they realised that they were going to be consulted. So far as I know, they have not only been consulted but have recommended and chosen the best men for the job. In fact, the Act has worked so well that it has been unnoticed in the background. If the noble Viscount feels disposed to withdraw the present Amendment and support Amendment No. 19, I think that perhaps we could carry the Committee with us.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I had not intended to go altogether so far as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, has suggested I should, because, to be honest, I see the difficulty which drafting for a wholesale adaptation of this consultative procedure might involve in this Bill. It is to be remarked that the duty of consultation in the 1948 Act is laid upon the Minister only in the case of fishery interests and it does not occur in the previous paragraph, where he is appointing a person to represent land drainage interests. I am not sure, therefore, that it would not be better to rely on the emphatic and secure assurance which my noble friend Lord St. Oswald has given us, that not only in the case of fisheries but in the other four categories as well the same sort of scale of consultation would go on between the Ministers and the relevant organisations under the Bill as went on under the old Act. In such circumstances, I am certainly inclined to withdraw my own Amendment. I think that I must wait and see how the noble Lord, Lord Wise, and his friends move their Amendment when it comes to the point. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.38 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved to add to subsection (3):
"(f) one or more members appointed by such body of persons as may be designated by the Minister as being specially concerned with the preservation of the amenity of the countryside".
The noble Lord said: As I pointed out on Second Reading, the amenities interests are not given any representation in this subsection. It has been pointed out more than once this afternoon that these specialised interests are given specific and definite representation on the new river authorities and I do not think that anybody feels that wrong, certainly not we in the amenities movement since, on the whole, our relations with most of these interests are cordial. But we do not feel that they can be left to look after the amenities point of view. Sometimes there is a distinct conflict between the two. As I have no doubt the Minister will point out in due course, there is an amenities clause of a general character in the Bill, but that I criticise for the rather weak way in which it is drafted. Even if strongly drafted, that clause would not obviate the necessity for having a definite amenities representative on these new and important organisations.
I appreciate that adding another is a difficulty, but it is a little one, if I may say so, and in modern life and in this country at the present time, natural beauty and amenities generally have become a matter of the greatest importance and at least on a par with the other interests which receive specific representation in this Bill. It so appears, no doubt in a less important context, in the case of the New Forest, which was the subject of a Bill, with which the Minister is no doubt familiar, regulating the position in the New Forest, in 1949, where in the very first section of the Act this problem of representing different interests is dealt with. We there have it provided, in Section 1 (c), that four verderers are to be appointed who shall hold office in accordance with the terms as therein set out, and they are to be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Forestry Commissioners, the local planning authority,
"and one by such body of persons as may be designated by the Minister as being specially
558
concerned with the preservation of the amenity of the countryside."
I suggest that this is a precedent which should be followed at the present time. There is hardily any area of England which does not contain sections of country of outstanding natural beauty, and some of our areas of natural beauty are among the most beautiful in the world. Surely the Government can see their way to follow the admirable precedent established in the New Forest Act, 1949, of agreeing that sufficient representation should be given to amenities in this case. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 7, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD MOLSON: I hope that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to the Amendment. Already large areas of the most beautiful country in the British Isles have been taken over as gathering grounds for water supplies. It is, of course, the intention of this Bill to make provision for a great increase in the demand for water, and that means a great increase in the areas that will have to be taken for gathering grounds. Therefore, I think it is of the utmost importance that when policy on this matter is being considered there should be adequate representation of the amenities interests. It is not always realised to what extent in some parts of the country the most beautiful areas are already occupied by the water authorities. In the Peak District, the constituency which I used to represent, as long ago as 1948 a map put before one of the sub-committees of the Central Advisory Water Committee showed that roughly one-third of that National Park was already covered by an uninterrupted mosaic of gathering grounds. I hope, therefore, that the Government will be sympathetic towards the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Charley, and will take into account the great importance of considering the preservation of amenities.
LORD HURCOMB: I, too, should like to express the hope that the Government will give sympathetic attention to this Amendment. I would venture to suggest to your Lordships that it makes a great difference to the attitude of bodies of this kind if they have someone among

559
their own membership who can speak with authority and knowledge on these aspects of their problem. It can no doubt be said that any authority will consider reports or representations which it may receive. But while that is true, it is also possible for an authority which is so minded to deal quite formally with representations it receives from outside. But if there is someone in contact with the problems and the particular administrative difficulties, then I think they are themselves helped to come to a more impartial and wider point of view which would have regard to all these important considerations to which attention has just been drawn.
I appreciate all the difficulties of increasing the number of members of these bodies. The point might perhaps be considered again in relation to the central authority. If there were someone who was able to bring these considerations prominently into account at the stage of approval or the shaping of a general plan, that might be another way of meeting the point. The important thing is that these considerations of the increase and change in population, and the growth in demand, which have been so rightly stressed, and which are going to be so much more important in their effect on the appearance of the countryside, should be brought into view at a sufficiently early stage.
I have had some experience in the past of problems of this sort, particularly in connection with the electricity industry, and I know only too well that when once the engineers have formulated their own ideas and precipitated their own plan, and it has been adopted by an authority, it is difficult to move them to change their point of view or to accept suggestions which they had not originally taken into account. But it can be done. I would venture again to say that in the case of the electricity industry, largely as a result of the Amendment which the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, accepted in his Bill some three or four years ago, the most valuable co-operation has been received on that very point; that is to say, bringing into consideration not only questions of amenity but all those questions of nature conservancy at an early stage before the promoting authority and their engineers have precipitated their own ideas. If there is consultation,
560
though the result may not be fundamentally to alter the project, it can be, and has been, to modify considerably the way in which it is carried out, while still preserving its main objectives in the interests of the economy of the country and yet meeting many of the objections which those interested in amenities or nature conservancy would otherwise have to bring to bear.
I would just remind your Lordships of what was said on the Second Reading of the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Fleck, who paid a remarkable tribute to the value which the industries with which he is connected attach to the intervention of the Nature Conservancy at an early stage in the formulation of his plans. I hope, therefore, that the Government, even if they cannot accept this Amendment in this particular connection as it stands, will give sympathetic consideration to the point which has been raised.
3.49 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: I have noticed that there are quite a few Amendments down on the Marshalled List which bear directly or indirectly on this important question of amenity. As I said on Second Reading, we feel that the Bill, as drafted, affords adequate safeguards for amenity. But I would not be so bold as to claim that we have necessarily got this 100 per cent., and we shall certainly be glad to look at the various suggestions as we proceed with the consideration of the Bill.
I wonder whether it might be helpful if at this stage I were to attempt to outline, since there are a number of Amendments to come on this question of amenity, some general considerations which we have borne in mind in drafting the Bill. I know that we all want to make as much progress now with the Committee stage as possible, and this will take a little time, but it might be time which we will make up in the end if I try to outline our general standpoint here and now rather than let it come out in dribs and drabs as we come to particular Amendments on amenity. If there are to be new waterworks in areas of high rainfall, those areas are only too often identical with areas of great beauty. As the logic of the distribution of rainfall on these islands may in fact lead to that consequence,

561
two things are of vital importance: we must in the first place choose the site which has the least harmful impact on landscape and other aspects of amenity and, having done so, we must secondly make certain that the resulting works are designed as well as possible.
I would straight away remind your Lordships—or reinforce the reminder which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has given—that so far as amenity in general is concerned, each river authority is to be under a duty (and that duty extends to the Minister and to the Water Resources Board) to take into account the effect of any of their proposals upon the natural beauty of the countryside and upon other matters customarily embraced in the general term "amenity". I think it is a pity if one underestimates the value of that clause. It will, of course, bite not only on the siting of works commissioned by a river authority, but also on the design and detail of any such works. So far as design is concerned, that, of course, is primarily to be achieved by employing good designers. There I would remind noble Lords that many water undertakings have been specifically required to employ landscape architects on reservoir schemes. I should like to assure noble Lords straight away that it is our intention that river authorities, who will be developers in this field of general water conservation, should be encouraged and, if necessary, required, to avail themselves of the same sort of specialised help.
May I now come back to the first requirement, the right choice of the site? This demands, of course, a detailed study of all the possible ways of meeting the particular demand for more water. This means weighing up and balancing all the information on each alternative, the pros and cons from both the water point of view and the amenity point of view. Of course, there is already in existence an organisation well equipped to deal with the amenity side of the job, the local planning authority, together with the planning system as a whole, but up to now we have not had an adequate organisation for dealing with the water side of the job for ascertaining and investigating all the possible alternatives from the water point of view. Your Lordships will recall that one of the criticisms levelled
562
against Manchester last February was that they sought powers for Ullswater and Bannisdale without having adequately explored all the possible alternatives. But a water undertaking seeking a new source of water at a long distance from its own area is not at all well placed to make a really comprehensive study of all that is involved. They cannot be expected to have complete local knowledge. And then, of course, water undertakers are concerned only with one aspect of water management, the abstraction for the public supply.
In this Bill we are proposing to set up for the first time a new organisation, the river authority, which will be equipped and required to deal comprehensively with the water side of the problem. The creation of such an organisation, I suggest, would in itself lead to a strengthening of the defences for amenity. The planning authority responsible for amenity in all its aspects will now be able to deal with a body responsible for water in all its aspects. These two authorities together should be able to secure that water requirements and amenity requirements are married in the best possible way. I would therefore suggest that the best way for them to set about doing this work is to work closely together and not for either of them to try to do the other's job, as might tend to be the case if amenity representatives were included on the river authority, or if water representatives were included on the local planning authorities.
What I am accordingly proposing is that the right way of safeguarding amenity here is through the planning system, and that we should certainly think carefully before trying to establish a sort of parallel control of the river system within the river authorities themselves. It follows from this that if we accept that logic we should be confident that the planning system bites effectively on projects or proposals covered by this Bill, or resulting from this Bill, which would affect the countryside. I claim that that is in fact the case.
As regards building and other works, the scope and efficacy of existing planning controls are not affected by the Bill. The Bill expressly provides in Clause 67 (3) that nothing in the Bill is to be taken as authorising the carrying

563
out of development without planning permission, where such planning permission is required under the planning Acts. Statutory water undertakers will require planning permission for development to precisely the same extent as they do now, and the new river authorities will require planning permission for water conservation works such as reservoirs, pumping stations and the rest. In addition, statutory water undertakers will in future, as at present, require an order under Section 23 of the Water Act. 1945.
Finally, noble Lords will not have failed to observe that a river authority, putting forward an order to secure compulsory powers to do works under Clause 63, will be obliged by the procedure under Schedule 5, paragraph 2, to serve notice on every local authority within whose area the works are to be done. And, by the definition in Clause 117, "local authority" includes joint planning boards such as are the planning authorities in two of our National Parks. Nor does the Bill in any way weaken the present controls over the acquisition of land by public bodies.
What about the level of water in our rivers, and the effect of that on the right to make particular abstractions? We are all aware of the crucial importance of this for amenity. I have in mind, for example, what was one of the most beautiful stretches of water in the world, the upper reaches of a river in the Dordogne in France. That has been quite ruined by a hydro-electric, scheme which has reduced the flow in that lovely river to a mere trickle. Noble Lords must be aware of examples closer to home. But under this Bill, as regards minimum acceptable flow, the river authority is required to serve notice of its draft proposals upon every local authority—and this again includes a joint planning board—whose area includes any inland water to which the statement "the minimum flow" applies. This will, I suggest, afford plenty of opportunity for making objections and for the holding of a public inquiry where that is necessary.
Again, minimum acceptable flows to be specified in the draft statements are to be determined, as stated in Clause 19 (5), having regard to the character of the river and its surroundings, a wording
564
which is certainly intended to embrace amenity considerations of every sort. I see from a later Amendment on the Marshalled List which stands in the joint names of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, that there may be some doubt in their minds as to whether the importance of the minimum flows to amenity is fully recognised in that subsection as it is certainly intended to be. But that, of course, we can discuss when we get to it. In any event, it seems to me that at least here the terms of reference which will be given to each river authority in determining minimum acceptable flows, with all their possible consequences for amenity, and the procedure for dealing with the draft statements of those flows, fully safeguard amenity.
The general argument which I have been trying to advance can be summarised in three or four short propositions. First, the Government fully recognise the importance of amenities here in connection with this Bill, and we are fully seized in the context of this Bill of the great importance of doing all we can to preserve natural beauty. And I think that Clause 93 is a demonstration of that. Secondly, the general effect of this Bill—which is to establish for the first time a structure capable of dealing comprehensively with our water affairs in each river authority area—should in itself strengthen the defences of amenity. Thirdly, I suggest that we should basically seek to ensure that our existing planning system bites effectively on the provisions of this Bill rather than to import a sort of parallel amenity organisation within our system of water administration. Fourthly, I would claim that, generally speaking—although I grant that here and there, as we go through the Bill, there may be room for improvement—under the Bill our planning controls do in fact bite, and more effectively than in the past, on water matters.
In the light of those rather general considerations your Lordships may not be entirely surprised to learn that, sympathetic as I am to the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and supported by my noble friend Lord Molson and the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, I am a little doubtful about

565
this particular wording. But, apart from general doubts, I have two specific objections to it. In the first place it would have a damaging effect on the Minister's power to determine the corn-position of the river authorities. Unlike the other members appointed under Clause 6, subsection (3), the appointments desired by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, would be made not by the Minister but by a body to be designated by the Minister. I think that this in itself would be a quite invidious distinction. In fact, I think the Minister might find himself faced with a rather invidious choice in some cases in choosing between rival amenity bodies.
But there is a second specific difficulty. As the noble Lord's Amendment is worded, the Minister would not even be in a position, as he is with all the other categories, to prescribe the number of members to be appointed by the favoured body. That body, as the noble Lord's Amendment is drafted, would itself have discretion in this matter. They would be able to appoint one or two, or 20 or 2,000 members to a river authority. Let us assume that they restrained themselves and appointed only two. Let us remember that we have provided for a bare majority of local authority representation within each river authority. If we have the amenity members this means we shall either have to squeeze out some other ministerial appointments (and I do not think that that would commend itself, at least to a number of noble Lords in this House), or we should have further to enlarge the river authority. There are, I think, clear objections to both courses.
Those are the reasons both general and particular why I cannot advise your Lordships to accept this Amendment. I apologise for having taken so much time in trying to explain the general background against which we have considered this Amendment but I thought it might perhaps be useful at this stage to do so.
LORD CHORLEY: I am sure we shall all feel very grateful to the noble Earl for this very interesting exposition of the Government's point of view on these matters—certainly I personally am. It is very helpful and, up to a point, encouraging; but I am afraid only up to a very moderate point, because the noble Earl has not really met the arguments
566
put forward not only by myself but also by the noble Lords, Lord Molson and Lord Hurcomb. I quite appreciate that he has some technical objections to the Amendment as it is at present on the Order Paper. It is taken from the New Forest Act, and in the New Forest Act the amenities society chosen by the Minister is, in effect, given the option of appointing a particular representative. I am sure we should not mind if the Minister were given the whole right to appoint an amenity representative, provided that this representative was clearly assigned for the purpose of watching amenity interests. I shall ask your Lordships to allow me to withdraw this Amendment to-day, in order that at the next stage I can put down another that is more in accordance with the noble Lord's criticism, which I think is valid to that extent. At that stage I may well ask your Lordships to decide whether it is not really a matter of substance which ought to be put into the Bill.
I should like to take the opportunity of going a little further, and to suggest to the noble Earl that, so far as meeting criticism, particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, is concerned, he has not faced up to it at all. The noble Earl talks, in effect, of having two parallel watchdogs for amenities, the new authority and the planning authority, and he says that the planning authority has the teeth because under Section 63 (I think it is) no actual development can take place unless it is brought before the planning authority. This is perfectly true. But that, of course, is just what the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, is trying to persuade him is not the Tight way of doing this sort of thing; because if you have once reached the stage where the technical people have spent much time, trouble and money in working out plans it is very difficult to shift them.
The noble Earl himself has already been in office as a Minister long enough to know—and all of us who have had any sort of position in Government, particularly as heads of Government departments, like the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, who speaks with a great deal of authority on these problems and has given specific illustrations from his own experience, know—that it is really second best to bring in at a late stage a planning authority when, if it had

567
been brought in at the early stages, around the table when these things are hammered out in the first place, some improvements could have been obtained which would [have carried the whole thing forward on a proper basis. I suggest that the provisions in this Bill do not make adequate allowances for dealing with these matters lat this stage, and I therefore hope that the noble Earl, who is very sensitive to the needs of protecting natural beauty and the other amenities in these circumstances, will feel, on second thoughts, that he can go rather further than he has been able to go this afternoon. In all the circumstances, I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.9 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: This is a very simple Amendment. So far as I can see, there is nothing in the Bill at present to prevent a Minister from appointing a Cornishman, shall we say, to a North Country or North of England river authority. As noble Lords know, local knowledge is important, and a man with local knowledge is far more likely to look after the requirements for water and also the amenities of the countryside than a man who has not got that knowledge. I hope the Government will be able to accept this Amendment, and I beg move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 12, at end insert ("in the area of the river authority in respect of which the appointment is to be made").—(Lord Grenfell.)
LORD HASTINGS: To adopt a restriction of this nature would be to run the risk of depriving a river authority quite unnecessarily of a valuable member. Ministers making appointments to river authorities will be very anxious to secure the best possible members for the purposes of that particular body, and it can be said that Ministers will attach great importance to knowldege of matters within the area of the particular authority. But it is not only knowledge of matters within the area that is relevant. Industrial water problems, for example, are not specially characterised by area, and it would be unwise to preclude the possibility of appointing a person with appropriate qualifications in the industrial field merely because he
568
had gathered that experience in the area of the next river authority.
My noble friend Lord Grenfell is worried that the Minister might appoint a Cornishman to a river authority in the North or East Anglia, but the probability of that is virtually nil. Obviously, residence must have something to do with the matter from the point of view of practicability and attending meetings. It may well be that somebody has recently moved into the area who is qualified in respect not only of industry but other respects, having gained his experience outside that area, and it would be a thousand pities if he were not available to the Minister to be appointed to that particular river authority within whose borders or near whose borders he is living. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will appreciate that although we sympathise with what his aims are, in point of fact he might be obtaining the very opposite from what he desires by pressing this Amendment and if it were accepted. Therefore I would advise the Committee that we cannot accept this Amendment for the vary practical and logical reasons given.
LORD GRENFELL: I understand the difficulty in which the Minister is placed. I hope the river authorities will as far as possible engage local men who know the local troubles and difficulties. I do not intend to press this Amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD WISE LORD WISE moved, after subsection (4), to insert—
"( ) Before appointing any member of a river authority under subsection (3) of this section the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Minister (as the case may be) shall consult with such persons, or bodies representative of persons, concerned as they consider it appropriate to consult."
The noble Lord said, This is an Amendment on consultation. It was mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, but he referred to it only in regard to fishing; this particular Amendment is all-embracing of the five different categories of membership to be appointed by the Minister. We realise that the Minister said a few days ago, in dealing with a more or less similar Amendment of his own in regard to the constitution of the river authorities, that the Government were prepared to put that

569
Amendment into the Bill formally, but they remained convinced that it would be a mistake to formalise consultation over the choice of particular members of a particular river authority. We accept that, but we are anxious that consultation should take place, informally if you like, with bodies who do represent specialist opinion and specialist experience on matters contained in these five categories. I hope that the Government may be able to give us the assurance that consultation will take place at every possible opportunity. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 12, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Wise.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: I am in a slight difficulty here, in that I had asked if it would be agreeable to take this Amendment together with No. 13 which was moved earlier. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, who was within striking distance of the Dispatch Box, and I thought he was going to be the spokesman on (the present Amendment. I naturally do not want to repeat the whole speech I made on that occasion, but the assurance I gave, which I think, in view of what the noble Lord has said, will perhaps satisfy him, was that Ministers will carry out informal consultations with the interests concerned in making appointments to river authorities. I had earlier argued the difficulty of putting this actually into the Bill but had given a verbal assurance and emphasised that such consultations would be carried out; and I judge that that is what the noble Lord really wants.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: The noble Lord must know that we wanted something more than a promise. We wanted the words embodied in the Bill, so that all the various interests would know that, when the time came for a person to be chosen to represent that industry or service, or whatever it might be, at least they would be consulted, and we should almost inevitably have the right person. I am sorry that the noble Lord does not feel he can do in 1962 what I had the courage to do in 1948 and which turned out a real success. I am sorry that he is not following my very good lead.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I cannot really accept the implication that we are
570
refusing to do exactly what the noble Lord did then. He is implying that this Amendment would merely repeat exactly what he did then. But of course what this Amendment proposes was not done in the 1948 Act to the same extent, and did not involve comparable bodies. The river boards, for instance, were not concerned in matters of water conservation, which will now require the membership of those qualified in respect of public water supply to industry other than agriculture, whose presence will be required and is allowed for on the river authorities. So I think he is perhaps being slightly mischievous in suggesting that we are refusing to repeat exactly what he did on that occasion.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I think the Government might accept this Amendment. It has been the general principle always, on either side of the House, to say, "Why not put it in the Bill?" I kept saying it from the other side of the House when the Labour Government were introducing their nationalisation Bills, and exactly the same thing was said to me from the Labour side when I was piloting a number of Bills through this House. I think the words are so reasonable. It is not that the Ministers have to consult a certain number of people laid down; they have to consult only such representatives of persons and bodies as they—that is the brace of Ministers—think it appropriate to consult. What wider latitude could they have? I am sure that these Ministers would carry out an undertaking, but we are legislating here for all time on these water authorities, and I think that we ought to insist on Ministers' carrying out reasonable consultations such as the noble Lord opposite has proposed. Why cannot the Government accept this Amendment?
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: Before the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, spoke, I was thinking about getting up and asking Ministers on the Front Bench to think again on this subject. I cannot think it would do any harm to put in these words.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I think my undertaking that this form of consultation will be carried out is as far as I can go. Again, it seemed to me that my noble friend Lord Swinton was suggesting that all we are being asked to do

571
is exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, did in 1948. It is not so. It would involve other bodies, and we think that the obligation to consult a far greater number of formal bodies working in a formal way would, in fact, slow down the choice of the representative and would not be likely to give the best results.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: With great respect to the Minister, who says that he would have to consult a number of people whom it would be a waste of time to consult, he has only to consult the representatives of the authorities whom he thinks it appropriate to consult. That limits it a great deal. I am now getting a little suspicious about this matter. This seems to be a good instance of the gentleman or lady in Whitehall knowing best. It is all right for noble Lords on the Front Bench to say that they will do this, but I do not know that one can say that of their permanent officials. I have more than a great respect for permanent officials. I know that quite a number of Ministers have considerable fear of them. I am not at all sure that when the permanent official says, "We should not bother to consult with these people; let us appoint so and so", that will not be done. But if a Minister is able to say to the Permanent Secretary, "Look here, it is in the Bill; I must consult some people on this", then one is on safe ground. I hope that the Government will promise to reconsider this matter. This is a long Bill, and there are over 140 Amendments to be dealt with. We all want to make progress; we are all in favour of the principle of the Bill. But, if I may respectfully say so, it is not the best way of getting a Bill through the House to refuse to accept what are reasonable Amendments, put forward on merit from all quarters of the House.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: In a last word, I do not want either to detain the Committee or to make the Minister less happy than he was a moment or two ago. It is true that the Amendment goes slightly further than subsection (2) of Clause 2 of the 1948 Act, which imposed the obligation to consult any person who was likely to represent land drainage or fisheries. I agree with the noble Lord that this Bill
572
is a slight extension, in that now one would have to consult those associated with agriculture—that should not be difficult; those concerned with water supply—that ought not to be difficult; and those interested in general industry—that ought not to be a terrifying responsibility. However, I hope that the words of the noble Earl who has just spoken will be thought over again, and that at least the Minister will tell us to-day that between now and another stage serious consideration will be given to doing what all noble Lords think ought to be done now.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I cannot accept that this is only a small extension, because we think that if this were put in the Bill, quite a large number of authorities and bodies would expect to be consulted compared with those who had to be consulted under the noble Lord's Bill. The river board area which I have in mind as one example is the Yorkshire Ouse. The noble Lord must also have it in mind, because we both live in the same area. That, for instance, has nine land drainage representatives and four fisheries representatives. The land drainage representatives are appointed after consultation with the Northern Branch of the Association of Drainage Authorities. That consists of almost one half of the country. So the land drainage representatives require consultation with one body for nearly half the river board areas in the country. The four fisheries representatives in this particular area are appointed after consultation with two bodies—the Yorkshire Ouse Consultative Association and the Esk Consultative Association—only two bodies need to be consulted. However, rather than that my own innocent attitude to this Amendment should excite suspicion, I will certainly undertake to look at it again.
LORD WISE: I thank noble Lords opposite for their great assistance in regard to this Amendment, and on the assurance which has been given by the Minister that he will have a further look at this point, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.26 p.m.
LORD CAWLEY LORD CAWLEY moved to add at end of subsection (5):
"and for the purposes of this subsection special circumstances shall be deemed to exist

573
in the case of any river authority of which the area is a combination of river board areas".
The noble Lord said: If special circumstances exist, the Ministers have an unfettered discretion to appoint more than 31 members to the river authority. This Amendment does not seek to affect that unfettered discretion in any way; it seeks to give the Minister some guidance as to one of the meanings which the words "special circumstances" have, the words being rather difficult to interpret. They are, one might almost say, a lawyer's delight. Certain of the potential victims of amalgamation are much afraid that special circumstances do not cover the mere process of amalgamation.
The first pair of authorities who are afraid are the Lancashire and Cumberland authorities. They are afraid from the point of view of fisheries. There are now 14 fishery representatives in this rather large combined area in which fisheries are extremely important, and, of course, local knowledge is also important. They expect that in the normal process of amalgamation these representatives will be reduced to about three, which number they think is inadequate. Of course, this Amendment will not force the Ministers to appoint more than three representatives, but it will give them power, if they see fit, to appoint those representatives. Similarly, with the Nene and Welland amalgamation: in this case fisheries are not important—there are merely coarse fish in those rivers. But most of the rates in this area are spent on the Fens, where, of course, land drainage is extremely important, and the land drainage authorities, when the amalgamation takes place, will be reduced from about fourteen to about five. This Amendment will make it clear to the Ministers, if they see fit, and only if they see fit, that they may appoint more than 31 members to deal with the drastic reduction of land drainage members Which has come about through pure amalgamation. I think that this Amendment ought to be acceptable, because it is merely a question of interpretation, and it in no way alters the absolute discretion of the Ministers. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 19, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Cawley.)
LORD HASTINGS: The Bill follows the White Paper in this clause, Clause 6 (5), where it says that by reason of special circumstances in a particular river authority area, more than 31 members may be specified in the order constituting the authority. The circumstances in which more than 31 members will be justifiable will not emerge in detail until the task of constituting the authorities is in hand. Broadly speaking, the need will arise where the range of interests in the area cannot adequately be covered within a total of 31 members. But it is a question of range and diversity, and not of mere size. In general, the Government consider that 31 members will be sufficient to man the river authorities proposed. There may be local reasons why more should be provided for, and factors resulting from amalgamation will obviously be taken into account. But although as the result of amalgamation some of the river authorities will be larger than all but the largest river board areas others of the new areas will still he relatively small and compact. It will be unsound, therefore, to admit of amalgamation as invariably producing conditions which require more than the standard number of members on the authority. I am sure the noble Lord appreciates that the aim is to keep the numbers down to the minimum practicable in all the circumstances.
We can, of course, go over the argument of the Proudman Committee again and again, and we struck a balance between a small river authority of 10 to 15 members and a large one of some 31 members. I think it is accepted that the aim is to keep the average down and not to increase where unnecessary. But in respect of the numbers, I again repeat—and I hope that I do not irritate noble Lords in doing so, but this tends to be overlooked all the time—that there is statutory consultation in respect of the total number of every river authority. As a result of that consultation it will quite clearly emerge whether it is impossible to satisfy the necessities and requirements of any particular interest within the given numbers of 31. It will be the maximum size of a river authority, allowing 15 members to be appointed by the Minister. If within those 15 it is not possible to give every interest a proportional and sufficient representation, then the Minister,

575
after these consultations, will be able to decide to increase the number.
But, if I may say so, I do not think that this Amendment adds anything either to the consultative process or to the Minister's power; because I notice the noble Lord said that he was leaving it purely in the discretion of the Minister—, not that the Minister shall act if these special circumstances, including amalgamations of river boards, are present, but that even in the case of an amalgamation he may consider the special circumstance only if he sees fit to do so. So the Amendment is not really adding anything to what the Minister will be doing, because he will be taking into consideration the amalgamation and the possibility of representing all the interests sufficiently. Therefore I ask the noble Lord to withdraw this Amendment. I was going to ask him to do so on the ground that it would tie the Minister's hands unnecessarily. But, in view of his remark that it would still be discretionary, I would ask him to withdraw it on the grounds that the Amendment is altogether unnecessary.
LORD CAWLEY: I am very glad to hear that the Ministry's lawyers are so satisfied that they know what "special circumstances" means. If that is so, I will, of course, withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.34 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved to add to subsection (7):
"or a joint planning board established under section 2 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 as the local planning authority for a united district any part of which is comprised in the area of the river authority".
The noble Lord said: As your Lordships are aware, there is no special provision for including in the new river authorities representatives of local planning authorities. Of course, most of the planning authorities will in fact be represented because members of the local authorities themselves, of which the local planning committees are just a part, make up a very substantial part of the personnel of all these new authorities. Therefore, in a way the local planning committees will be represented on the new authorities.
But there are two important cases which the noble Earl has mentioned, where the local authorities have ceased to be planning authorities in certain very Important areas of the country. Those are the cases where joint planning boards have been established under the National Parks Act. The noble Lord specifically referred to the one in the Peak District and the other in the Lake District. There is no part of the country where it is more important that the local planning authority should be represented on the new river authority than in those two areas, which, as the noble Earl said, are two of the areas of outstanding beauty in the country—areas of very great importance from the amenity point of view. Such representation would appear not only right and proper, but indeed, essential if we are to get these discusions going at the early stage to which the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, referred; that is, at a time when the local planning authority can take a really effective part in this.
I understood from the general observations of the noble Earl that he felt this was a most important matter, but he seemed to think that it would suffice if they were brought in at a later stage. We are not in agreement on that. After all, the local authorities themselves are brought in from the beginning, and undoubtedly it is on the planning side that they are, if not basically, at any rate to a very large extent, interested. I have already drawn your Lordships' attention to the fact that in the New Forest Act (and this point the noble Earl did not take up in his reply) there is not only an amenity interest representation but also a planning interest. There was specific representation among the four people who were appointed verderers. The importance of getting the planning authority on to this sort of organisation was very much appreciated by the framers of the New Forest Act. I suggest that that is a very useful precedent to us, which we should consider very carefully, and I think that we might very well follow it on this occasion.
This Amendment would include the two joint boards. It is just possible, I suppose, that others might be established in the future. There might be one in North Wales—that appears to be a possibility, though perhaps not a very real

577
one. If this Amendment were accepted, it would not mean a great deal, from the point of view of altering the composition of the river authorities as already planned in the Bill as it stands. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will be able to see his way to accept this Amendment, which I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 24, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Chorley)
EARL JELLICOE: During his speech on Second Reading the noble Lord suggested that, as the. Bill is drafted at present, these boards would not be represented on the new river authorities, and that that was a serious weakness in the Bill as it stands. I must differ from the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, here; and in so doing I hope that no one will take my words as in any way reflecting on these two joint boards, of whose excellent work I have a certain amount of personal knowledge.
My deeper reason for not being able to recommend acceptance of this Amendment to your Lordships is basically the same reason as I advanced in support of the noble Lord's earlier amenity Amendment. I believe that the Bill as drafted pays due regard to amenity; that the really important thing is to ensure that the important decisions flowing from this Act are going to be subject to an effective planning mechanism, which is provided for in the Bill; and that it is neither necessary nor desirable to try to set up some parallel mechanism, built into the constitution of the river authority itself, to reinforce these defences. I would also remind noble Lords that, where national parks are concerned, it is accepted, certainly by the Government, that special criteria of amenity within their confines should apply, and that specific projects must be judged against those criteria.
Apart from those rather general reservations about the noble Lord's Amendment, I see other difficulties. The major justification for local authority representation on river authorities is that much of the income of those authorities is going to be raised by precept on the local authorities concerned. Logically, of course, that would lead to the rating authorities being represented as such. But my noble friend Lord Hastings ex-
578
plained on Second Reading why we had decided to depart from that idea and to provide, in the case of river authorities, as in the case of river boards, that the members should be appointed by the councils of counties and county boroughs, who are in fact the "constituent" authorities for the purpose of Clause 6.
But if it is intended—and this is certainly how I tread the noble Lord's Amendment—that the joint planning boards, like the constituent councils, should be represented on the river authorities, having regard to their appropriate penny rate products—and that, of course, is the basis of local authority representation written into the Bill—this could be done only at the expense of the county and the county borough councils within those river authority areas. The joint planning boards have no independent financial resources. As noble Lords know, they obtain their income by precepting upon the counties and the county boroughs, and the contribution which they would be required to make, as a consequence of the river authority precepts, would have to be met by the very councils at whose expense they would be represented on the river authorities. I suggest that that is a real difficulty, and it might very well be—in fact I should have thought would be—resented as being an unfair consequence.
The noble Lord referred to the New Forest Act precedent, and I regret that I did not cover this point in answer to his first Amendment. I would suggest that the New Forest Act is somewhat suigeneris—rather a special case. The New Forest Act was concerned with the management, as I understand it, of a specific and very limited area of country, all of which, so far as I know, is of very high amenity value. The appointments, which the noble Lord mentioned as being specifically provided for in the Act, were clearly pertaining to the whole of the works in which that particular body was going to take part. But the situation is not the same, I suggest, for the whole range of functions, and indeed for the territory, with which the river authorities will be dealing and covering. But that said, I would repeat that I believe the very important and legitimate interests of these two admirable joint boards are already safeguarded tinder the Bill. I

579
do not believe that the Amendment, if accepted, would strengthen those safe-guards, and it would, moreover create unfairness to the counties and county boroughs concerned. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will not wish to press the Amendment.
Before I conclude, may I add just a couple of points? The noble Lard, Lord Chorley, referred to the fact that it would be quite possible for the members of the joint planning boards concerned to find their place in these river authorities as members of their county councils. That seems to me the best way around this particular problem. I believe (though here I speak subject to correction) that in the case of same river boards this is already the case. But I certainly do not see why this should not, in practice, result from the Bill. It seems to me the sensible and logical thing to happen. It is certainly a process which should be encouraged by the authorities concerned. This is a matter that could come out in the consultation regarding the constitution of the authorities which is now written into the Bill.
In that particular consultation it might well be suggested—and I think it would be very desirable—that the joint planning board representation should be covered in the local authority representation, the same people representing the two at one and the same time on the river authority. I think that that is a practical way of going about the matter, and I should have thought that that desirable objective would be quite easy to obtain.
But I also agree that it is important, especially in the national parks, that we should strengthen any amenity defences or close any amenity gaps which we think may be open. So far as the national parks are concerned, I should be very glad to consider whether an arrangement could be worked out, for inclusion in the Bill, to secure that certain classes of applications for licences under the Bill, thought to involve particular risk to amenity, might in national park areas be brought specially to the notice of the local planning authority concerned by the river authority. I think that such a provision could be written into the Bill without any great difficulty, and I
580
should be very glad between now and Report stage to consider putting down an Amendment to that effect.
I grant at once that there is already provision in the Bill for licences to be advertised, and that might be thought to cover this position. But we all know the sort of thing that can happen: things slip through more or less unnoticed. I believe that it might well be desirable, especially in the national park areas, to try to find a more watertight arrangement by which the joint boards, who are the planning authorities, would know straight away of anything of this nature affecting their interests. That would avoid slips, and I think it might mean that they would become aware more quickly than they would do under the Bill as it stands of developments affecting their interests. I should be very glad to consider bringing forward an Amendment of that sort. But as to the specific Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, I feel that it is open to the objections I have indicated.
4.49 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: I should like to thank my noble friend for what he has said in reply to this Amendment. I had been disposed to support the Amendment, but we have had from the Government an offer of co-operation and help which I think may well work better than the proposal put forward by the noble Lord. I should like to see whether I understand exactly what the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has in mind. Perhaps I might take an example with which I am familiar, and with which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is also familiar, because he is President of an amenity society much concerned with the High Peak. There one has a number of reservoirs and sources of water supply to a large number of towns, all of which have their gathering grounds in the Pennine range around Kinder Scout.
If I understand the noble Earl's argument aright, it is this: that if the river authority desires to increase the supply of water from there, they will have to obtain planning permission from the joint planning board, and he feels that the planning considerations are better preserved by having the two different authorities for this, the river authority, seeking further supplies of water, and the

581
joint planning board, having the right to refuse planning permission, rather than seeking to dilute the membership of the river authority by the introduction of people who are primarily concerned with amenity rather than with water.
I am impressed by that argument, but I was also very much impressed by the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb. Speaking with immense experience of these matters, both as the permanent head of a Government Department in the past and also as the head of, I think it was, the Electricity Generating Board—
LORD LINDGREN: The Transport Commission.
LORD MOLSON: I think it was also electricity; but it all shows how extremely wide his experience is. He did urge upon your Lordships that it was desirable, in order to avoid a head-on collision between authorities of this kind, that there should be preliminary discussion at an earlier stage. Once either a Government Department or a board has committed itself to a certain policy, it is extremely reluctant to scrap that policy and adopt a different one as a result of representations from another, and perhaps a rival, authority. I was not quite sure whether the idea of having individual members of the board representing another kind of interest would be effective for the purpose that he had in mind. After all, in all the early stages these things are prepared by the permanent officials and the engineers, and it is only at a fairly late stage that the members of the board, who meet perhaps once a quarter or once a month, become aware of exactly what is going on.
I am therefore all the more attracted by what the noble Earl the Minister of State has said in his proposals: that we should have an Amendment put down by the Government which will have the effect of ensuring consultation between these different interests at an earlier stage, and that that should be, so to speak, upon an official basis. I think that the noble Earl has gone a long way to meet the points that we had in mind, and we shall look forward very much to seeing the Amendment put down by the Government which will give effect to what I think is an admirable suggestion.
LORD CHORLEY: I am not sure that I go quite as far as the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat in giving the Minister an alpha-plus, but at any rate I certainly give him a beta, because he has, I think, made a proposal which could be carried rather further than, as I understand it, he proposes to carry it. Because if this can be done in areas where there is a joint planning hoard, why should it not be done in all cases? I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Molson, is right, dotting the i's and crossing the t's of what the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, said earlier on, that the sooner the planning authority is brought into this business the better. If the noble Earl's Amendment could go so far as to indicate that at an early stage these matters should be brought to the notice of the local planning authority, even before the representatives appointed by the county council itself get to know about them, that would, I think, be a very useful innovation.
Naturally, in the circumstances, I do not wish to press this Amendment this afternoon. I shall look forward to the noble Earl's proposed Amendment with very great interest. And I should like to assure him that we are very grateful to him for at any rate going so far as to meet the real point which is involved in this Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL moved to leave out Clause 6. The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is merely to repeat a point I made in my speech on the Second Reading of this Bill, and the point is that industry is still not happy about the constitution of the river authorities. As the noble Lord, Lard Cornwallis, pointed out last Thursday, industry is the largest single user of water. He also pointed out that it has no parent Minister, and under this clause it is to get only one or more members as the Ministers think fit. As I see it, any addition. is to be balanced by added local authority members.
I much prefer the suggestion put forward in the White Paper of April, 1962, which recommended a body not exceeding 24 members, of which half would be appointed by local authorities and half nominated by Ministers in consultation

583
with other interests concerned, to include persons with experience and knowledge of industry. Even the Minority Report in the Final Report of the Proud-man Committee stresses—and here I quote:
" …that a proper balance of representation is important and in particular that it is right that an effective majority of members should come from those bodies providing the major portion of the revenue."
Surely it must be right that the basis of membership of a river authority should be related, first, to the use of water, and, secondly, to the financial contribution to the river authority. I submit that the existing clause does not reflect these principles, and I therefore feel that a new clause is required.
The noble Earl, Lard Jellicoe, will no doubt argue that his Amendment last Thursday (Amendment No. 2, I think it was), which was an Amendment to Clause 3, subsection (1), and which provided for consultation with interested parties far the establishment of river authorities, is sufficient protection for industry; but I do not think it goes far enough. I should like to see a clause with something much more positive in regard to industrial representation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 6.—(Lord Jessel.)
LORD HASTINGS: If I may say so with great respect, this Amendment which is put forward by my noble friend Lord Jessel is what is known as a wrecking Amendment; but in view of the moderate way in which he has put it forward, and his opening words, I do not believe he actually intends to use it as such. Its effect would be to delete from the Bill the Whole of Clause 6, which prescribes the constitution of rivet authorities, while leaving in it Clauses 7 and 8, which contain supplementary provisions relating to constitution. Therefore it would make a nonsense of the provisions of the Bill relating to membership of river authorities; and, unless the noble Lord moved at a later stage to insert a new clause, the constitution of the river authorities would be left to the Ministers to determine without any guidance from Parliament as to size and character.
The provisions of Clauses 6, 7 and 8 follow the proposals outlined in para-
584
graphs 29 to 34 of the White Paper. There are three main reasons for rejecting the majority proposals of the Proud-man Commission for bodies of 10 to 15 members, which proposals were supported by the noble Lard and industry. The reasons are these. Land drainage income will continue to be raised by precept on local authorities; that is a rate will be paid; and while that is so there must be local representation. While the Majority Report of the Proudman Committee did not rule out local authority members, there can be no adequate representation for the local authorities on a body of 10 to 15 members.
It is true that in due course income from charges far licensed abstracters might well equal or even exceed that from precept, but there is a real difference, which industry overlooks, between a charge for a benefit (that is, a right to abstract and an assurance of abstraction) and a rate which is levied on all ratepayers irrespective of benefit. Given no escape from a large element of finance from the rates, river authorities must have mare of the character of a local authority than a board of directors; and the latter would, moreover, not really be appropriate to discharge the whole range of functions Which include, in addition to water conservation, land drainage, fisheries and the prevention of pollution.
The quota of Ministerial members will be divided between the various interests concerned according to the circumstances of the area. It is not quite fair to suggest that there will be a solitary industrialist on an authority hostile to industrial needs. In an urban area—and industry is concentrated in urban areas—there will be urban local authority members and public water supply interests, each of whom will probably share the industrialists' outlook. The composition of the authority will reflect the character and needs of the area. I do not think there is very much more I can say to the noble Lord. I know his objection and we have tried to meet it by moving the Amendment which he referred to. We believe industry will not be overlooked. It will have sufficient representation; and in the larger authorities, which presumably would be where there are larger rates and which are industrial urban areas, out of the 15

585
members appointed by the Minister one might well conceive of at least one-third, possibly even more, representing industry. I cannot commit my Minister or myself in that respect but one can conceive a situation where comparatively few of the fifteen would be representing agriculture, fisheries and drainage; the bulk would be representing industry and public water supplies. We have had attempts, far from reducing the number of members of the river authority, to increase them in order to get extra representation for other interests. Really I think some of the previous Amendments which we have rejected contradict the Amendment which the noble Lord is now moving.
Therefore, I hope he will feel that the Government intend to keep the right balance and to satisfy all the interests it needs to satisfy in order to make a success of the new river authorities. I would end by quoting from what was said by my noble friend Lord Waldegrave in the Second Reading debate. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 244 (No. 12) col. 1036]:
"I believe that it is absolutely essential that the various interests work together and do not take up positions and light for their own existing rights. That is why a middle position, a compromise position, a proper balance, is so essential … this is … not the time to go out and buy hatchets with the feeling that this Bill means that those interests must defend themselves against their great rivals".
The Government entirely agree with my noble friend's words and I hope my noble friend Lord Jessel will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD JESSEL: I thank the noble Lord for this reply. Of course I had no intention of making this a wrecking Amendment, but I wanted to elucidate a little the views on the representation of industry. I am heartened by the words the noble Lord used when he said that possibly in appropriate areas one-third of the 15 members nominated by the Minister could be representative of industry, and I will remember that. In view of what he has said, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
LORD LINDGREN LORD LINDGREN had given notice of his intention to move, after Clause 7, to
586
insert a new clause. The noble Lord said: When discussing the Amendment to Clause 6 on Thursday last I indicated that this Amendment was really consequential upon the insertion we made at the end of subsection (2). I only take the opportunity, as an Amendment of mine is on the Order Paper, to do what I would have done on Thursday had there been time; that is, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, for his observations at the end. I appreciate that they were brief because of the Royal Commission which was to follow but they were appreciated and I can assure him that those associated with water undertakings will make themselves available to him and his collegues for consultation if they require it. With the permission of the Committee, my Amendment will not be moved.
LORD HASTINGS: We shall look forward to having some discussions on this matter.
5.8 p.m.
LORD WISE LORD WISE moved, after subsection (4), to Insert:
"( ) Where the whole or any part of the Sea Fisheries District of a Sea Fisheries Committee established under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1888 is comprised in the area or areas of a river authority or river authorities, the Sea Fisheries Committee shall appoint one additional member of that river authority or (as the case may be) of each of those river authorities".
The noble Lord said: We now proceed to a different method of appointment of members of the river authorities. The Amendment which I wish to move, a new subsection at the end of line 35, page 7, is as shown on the Marshalled List. Clause 8 deals with the appointment of additional members to river authorities. It provides, among other things, for one additional member to be appointed by the National Coal Board to each of two authorities. The Minister of Transport can also appoint one member in certain circumstances when the Question of navigation comes before him. The Minister of Agriculture can also appoint not more than two additional members to represent occupiers of chargeable hereditaments in an area where a drainage charge has been raised and levied on such occupiers.
My Amendment seeks to add the Sea Fisheries Committees to those who have the privilege of appointing additional

587
members. I understand that in the past the river boards had the right to appoint representatives on the Sea Fisheries Committees, but that right was not reciprocal and there was no right on the part of the river boards to accept members of the Sea Fisheries Committees on their committees. I base my suggestion in this matter partly on the Report of the Bledisloe Committee. The question of representation of the sea fisheries on river boards was dealt with by the Bledisloe, Committee and at the end of paragraph 207 of their Report, they said:
"We consider however that there is a good case for the Sea Fisheries Committee to be given representation on any river board exercising jurisdiction in their area and recommend that provision should be made for the appointment by them of an additional member to each river board for this purpose."
Another paragraph in their Report says:
"The Association's case is applicable to the proposed new river authorities on the same grounds and to the same extent as it was to river boards, since the new authorities will have, under Clause 5 (1) (a) of the Bill as it is before us at the present time, precisely the same powers as the boards have in relation to fisheries."
Clause 6 (3) (b) of the Bill empowers the Minister of Agriculture to appoint one or more members to represent fisheries, but that clause does not differ substantially from the current procedure in respect of river boards which, as I have said, the Bledisloe Committee think should be amended.
This matter has already been referred to the Minister of Agriculture by the Sea Fisheries Committee and the Minister's reply is that, in view of the new water conservation responsibilities of river authorities, fishing representation would be reduced. That is what we want to avoid, if possible. The Minister's reply added that there is no question, therefore, of introducing an Amendment. Surely that sentence was out of order, because it must be in the power of this House and of the House of Commons to raise a question and, if possible, amend the Bill. I think that it was rather premature on the part of the Ministry officials to suggest that there is no question—it is very definite—of introducing an Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 35, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Wise.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: I fully appreciate the motives that have led the noble Lord to move this Amendment. The idea behind this comes from a recommendation of the Bledisloe, Committee, as the noble Lord said, and at first sight it seems right that as river boards are represented on Sea Fisheries Committees, Sea Fisheries Committees ought also to be represented on river boards and in due course on the river authorities that are going to replace them. But while I have every sympathy with this Amendment and appreciate the work done by the Sea Fisheries Committees in regulating inshore fisheries, I am afraid that I must ask the Committee to resist the Amendment.
Sea Fisheries Committees are not directly concerned with salmon and fresh water fishing. It is true that some inshore fishermen fish for salmon and also for white fish and herring. They come under the Sea Fisheries regulations or under the river boards regulations according to which fish they are attempting, to outwit. It is also true that both bodies may have some interest in the control of pollution in tidal waters. Be that as it may, it does not necessitate representation. If we were to give representation to every body which has a peripheral interest in the activities of the new water authorities. we should be faced with large-sized bodies. I am sure that the Committee agree with the general proposition that we should have small and relatively compact authorities. If that is to be so, we cannot make an exception for one organisation.
Furthermore, I hope that the noble Lord will appreciate that in addition to one more member under the Amendment, this increase would need to be offset by an increase in the number of local authority members so as to maintain the latter in the majority required by Clause 6 (2). I must also point out that the interests of the Sea Fisheries Committees are much less than the interests of salmon and fresh water fishermen themselves. Any decision of a river hoard which affects sea fishermen will certainly affect river fishermen much more. Moreover, there are many different kinds of fishermen whose activities are regulated by the river boards.

589
It may be difficult enough to accommodate representatives with knowledge of all these types on the new river authorities, even without the need for accommodating the representative affected by the new functions. It would be seen as intolerable to those interests to see sea fisheries representatives on the new authorities while there were, for example, no game fishermen, no course fishermen and no netsmen on the authorities. Perhaps I should tell the Committee that the National Association of Salmon Netsmen have written and said that they did not in the least like the Bledisloe Committee's recommendation that sea fisheries committees' representatives might normally represent them.
I hope that I have given the Committee sufficient reason to reject the Amendment, if the noble Lord should feel like pressing it, which I hope he will not do. However, I would say finally that the river authorities and the sea fisheries committees must work closely together in matters of common interest and the Minister will remind the new authorities, when they come into operation, of the desirability of keeping the committees informed of any action which they may have in mind which is likely to be of interest. He will also suggest that, in forming their various committees, they should bear in mind the possibilities of co-opting people from bodies such as the Sea Fisheries Committee, which have a certain though small field of common interest.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: But does the noble Lord think this is sufficiently flexible to allow a river authority to appoint a person here and there, in view of the fact that, according to the noble Lord's reply to me earlier in the afternoon, the constituent councils under Clause 6 have only a maximum of one of a majority?
LORD ST. OSWALD: I am not quite getting the noble Lord's point here. The passage in what I have just said, to which he is referring, was that a sea fisheries representative would have to be offset by a local authority representative in order to maintain the majority, which the noble Lord considers small enough.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: There is the margin between 21 and 31 members.
LORD ST. OSWALD: There is, but within that margin it may be that other interests will expect to be represented and press for representation. The aim is—and I think that the majority of the Committee are behind this aim—to keep the authorities as compact as possible.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: Yes, but I still think that the noble Lord is congratulating himself and his right honourable friend the Minister too soon in suggesting that the small river authority, with all their present obligations and the addition of water conservation responsibilities, and with the subcommittees they will have to appoint, if they are going to fulfil their duties and functions, as we hope they will, will be best. By making the authority too small the noble Lord may find ultimately that they have made a mistake in that direction.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The subcommittees will naturally play their part and enable a small committee to get its work done. But the whole philosophy behind this part of the Bill is to keep the river authorities small rather than flabby.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: Does the noble Lord suggest that river boards in the past, with their 40 members, have been flabby?
LORD ST. OSWALD: No. I am not suggesting that at all; I know well that the opposite is the case. But it has been considered and argued (and I do not think noble Lords would want me to argue it again) that these authorities should be even more compact in proportion to what they have to do than the river boards.
LORD WISE: I am afraid I cannot enter into the conversations which have taken place since I was addressing your Lordships last, but in view of the final remarks of the noble Lord in regard to my proposal, in which I found some encouragement in regard to consultation, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Areas of river authorities for purposes of transferred functions]:
LORD ST. OSWALD: This Amendment is entirely a matter of drafting. Schedule 2 (paragraphs 1 to 4) to the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, made adaptations of the River Boards Act, 1948, for the purposes of the 1951 Act. These paragraphs will now be spent in relation to the 1948 Act which is to be repealed, but provision relating to the area of the river authority for prevention of pollution functions is necessary. It is more convenient to make this in the clause dealing with areas, as the Amendment proposes, than by intricate adaptation of the Schedule to the 1951 Act. The content of the Amendment is virtually re-enactment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of the functions of a river authority relating to river pollution, the area of the authority shall include those tidal waters and parts of the sea adjoining the coast of the river authority area to which any of the provisions of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951 for the time being apply by virtue of an order made, or having effect as if made, under section 6 of that Act, in so far as those waters and parts of the sea are not included in the river authority area apart from this subsection.").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Maps of river authority areas]:
5.22 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: This is also a drafting Amendment. By virtue of Clause 3 (4) (a) the river authorities will not begin to discharge their new or transferred functions until the "second appointed day". Between the "first appointed day" (when the authorities come into existence) and the "second appointed day" they will be deciding on such matters as procedure, location of offices, appointment of any additional staff likely to be required over and above staff to be inherited from river boards. Until they begin to discharge functions there will be no need of a map of their area to be on deposit for public inspection. Accordingly, this Amendment pro-
592
vides that the Ministers are to send the map
"on or as soon as practicable after the second appointed day."
I do not think there will be any difference of opinion on this. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 6, leave out from beginning to ("appointed") and insert ("On or as soon as practicable after the second").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ST. OSWALD: This is another drafting Amendment, which is necessary to achieve consistency with the reference to "second appointed day" in line 24. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 16, leave out from beginning to ("appointed") and insert ("On or as soon as practicable after the second").—(Lord St. Oswald)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ST. OSWALD: This is a further drafting Amendment. As the clause stands, the Minister of Agriculture is under no obligation to do anything with any map of main river which he may approve under subsection (4). The new subsection (5) in this Amendment requires him to send it to the river authority concerned who are required by the new subsection (7) of this Amendment to keep it available for public inspection at their offices. The new subsection (6) in the Amendment replaces the existing subsection (5) and reproduces in slightly amended form, but without major change in substance. Section 6 (3) of the River Boards Act, 1948, dealing with the power of the Minister of Agriculture to vary the map of main river. The subsection then provides that, having varied the map, or having decided not to vary it, the Minister of Agriculture must send the map back to the river authority. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 18, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 27 and insert—
("(5) The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food shall send to the river authority any map prepared by him under subsection (3) of this section, in the form in which the map is approved under the last preceding subsection.
(6) A river authority may apply to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the variation of any map sent to them

593
under this section (otherwise than under subsection (1) thereof) and for that purpose shall send the map to that Minister; and on any such application that Minister—

(a) may vary the map, whether in accordance with the proposals contained in the application or otherwise, after giving notice of his intention to do so in such manner as he thinks best adapted for informing persons affected, and after considering any objections made to him;

(b) if he varies it, shall as soon as practicable send to the river authority either the map as varied or a new map prepared by him in substitution for it;

(c) if he determines not to vary the map, shall as soon as practicable send it back to the river authority.

(7) Subject to the last preceding subsection, any map sent to a river authority under this section, except a map which has been superseded by a subsequent map sent there under").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ST. OSWALD: This is another drafting amendment which recasts the existing provisions of subsection (7), partly in consequence of other Government Amendments. I should however, mention one point. The original subsection (7) continued a reference to the Documentary Evidence Acts 1868 to 1895. In doing so it followed Section 6 (4) of the River Boards Act. 1948. Now that the river authority will hold the original maps prepared by the Ministers or the Minister of Agriculture (instead of copies of those maps, as is the case with maps under Section 6) the question of applying the Documentary Evidence Acts needs to be reconsidered. If, thereafter, it seems necessary or advisable to do so opportunity will be sought to include a reference to the Acts in this subsection at a later stage of the proceedings on the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 31, leave out from ("map") to end of line 40 and insert which in accordance with the last preceding subsection is required to be kept at the principal office of a river authority—

(a) if it is a map sent under subsection (1) of this section, shall be conclusive evidence for all purposes as to the boundaries of the river authority area, and

(b) in any other case, shall (in the form in which the map is for the time being in force) be conclusive evidence for all purposes as to what is the main river").—(Lord St. Oswald.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12:
Establishment and principal functions of Water Resources Board
12.—(1) There shall be established a Board, to be called the "Water Resources Board", which shall come into existence on such day as may be appointed by order made by the Minister.
(2) The Water Resources Board shall be charged with the duty of advising river authorities with respect to the performance of their new functions, and of advising the Minister with respect to the performance of his functions under section 1 of the Water Act 1945, as extended by section 1 of this Act, and with respect to such other matters (if any) as may be referred to the Board by the Minister.
(3) Without prejudice to the last preceding subsection, it shall be the duty of the Water Resources Board—
5.29 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "new". The noble Lord said: I am sure that no one regrets more than I do that my noble friend Lord Silkin is not here to move this extremely important Amendment. I am sorry that he is ill, and even more sorry that I have to move the Amendment, because I am sure I shall do it inadequately. This appears to be a quite simple Amendment, but it would have great consequences if accepted by the Government or carried by the Committee. It seems to me that neither the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, nor the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, dealt on Second Reading with the restriction on the Water Resources Board who will have a duty to advise river authorities only on their new functions.
Many noble Lords referred to this aspect in the Second Reading debate, and there was some reference to the general powers of the Central Authority during the debate on the White Paper which we held some time ago. Both noble Lords who spoke for the Government on that occasion rightly stressed the fact that the Bill provides for a much more powerful Board than was originally envisaged in the White Paper. They have improved upon their statements at that time by the inclusion of the powers that are now to be given to the Water Resources Board, and it is a much more powerful body. But I am still in the dark as to why the Government have decided to exclude from the functions of the Board the important aspects of land drainage, flood

595
control and pollution. I agree that we want the Water Resources Board to be interfering in matters which clearly could best be decided locally by the river authority concerned. But land drainage and flood control are so intimately bound up with conservation that it is quite impossible to separate them.
Naturally, in approaching a Bill of this sort, during the past few weeks one has read many expert opinions on the matter—and I have read quite a few in these last few weeks. Every report that I have read, from the Heneage Committee's Report onwards, have stressed the relationship of flood control, land drainage and water conservation. The Heneage Committee set up a technical panel to consider the effect on land drainage as a contributory cause of floods, on the one hand, and water shortages, on the other. The Report, it is true, makes it quite clear that these aspects of their work are inseparable. Their recommendations, however, were inconclusive, but chiefly—and "chiefly", as I understand it, is the operative word here—through the lack of observational data.
The Report of the Welsh Water Committee refers time after time to the necessity far regulating reservoirs for flood control and water conservation. The Proudman Committee, to which we have all referred from time to time in Committee and at the Second Reading stage of this Bill, says:
"The proper management and development of these resources involve physical works of different sorts and also control of abstractions and of the quantity and quality of the water returned. At the same time land drainage and flood control works need to be designed as far as practicable to complement the operation of conservation measures."
The last expert opinion to which I shall refer is that which I find in this galley "pull" of the Symposium from the Civil Engineers' Conference, which was held on water conservation. They say:
"No flood control works are contrary to the principles of conservation and most schemes will be beneficial but it is most important that a broad view be taken in assessing the overall benefits of flood control measures in relation to their capital costs."
I am sure we shall all agree to that. They go on to say:
"Each proposal should be judged on the wider basis of the national rather than the local benefit."
596
It is those last words, "the national rather than the local benefit", that one must stress in this connection. All the experts say, so it seems to me, that you cannot drain land without an effect on flood control; and you cannot control floods without regulating reservoirs and the like to conserve the water which would otherwise flow wastefully to the sea.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, in introducing this Bill, said that the Board has a key rôle in planning the development of water resources. I think it ought to have that key role. But if it has, then surely we ought not to hamstring it by confining it to advising on the new functions of the river authorities. I think this is a very great mistake. If we do that and carry out the proposals as now embodied in the Bill, I can see many squabbles in the future as between the Water Resources Board and the river authorities who will have to do their job under this Bill when it becomes an Act—squabbles as to what is new and what is old in their functions. I regard this Bill, and particularly the inclusion of the Water Resources Board, as a very grand conception, but I would warn the Minister, or advise him, or ask him, not to mar it at the outset by limiting too closely the duties and functions of the Water Resources Board. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 1, leave out ("new").—(Lord Champion.)
LORD DE RAMSEY: I can easily understand the philosophy behind this Amendment. At first sight it seems logical that the Water Resources Board should advise on all matters affecting water. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has pointed out, so often supposed that conserving water and preventing flooding go hand in hand. Sometimes they may. But it is like trying to kill two birds with one stone—it seldom comes off.
That, however, is not the main reason why I oppose this Amendment. I oppose it because I do not think that land drainage properly comes within the scope of the Water Resources Board. No doubt there are large-scale drainage and flood protection schemes—the Great Ouse is an outstanding example. Nevertheless, land drainage is a matter requiring local knowledge. It is often effected

597
not by means of far-ranging schemes, but by the combined effects of a large number of smaller ones. It is doubtful whether the Water Resources Board would offer useful advice on such schemes or, indeed, whether the giving of such advice by the Board would be a proper use of its time and talents. If I am correct, then this would only be adding more machinery in order to get land drainage schemes through, with no benefit to them. Already these schemes have to be vetted by the Agricultural Land Service, as well as by the land drainage divisions of the Ministry of Agriculture. That causes considerable delays. I hope that we shall not do anything this evening to add to those delays.
Again, the function of the Water Resources Board is a national function, and one of its main duties may be to advise on the transfer of water from one authority to another. But flood water cannot be transferred from one area to another. Broadly speaking, flood water must go the way nature intended, and the areas of the old river boards and of the new river authorities have been drawn so that they form natural catchment areas, or combinations of catchment areas. The problem of draining a river authority area is, therefore, essentially a local problem peculiar to each area. As to fisheries, this position seems to be much the same as with land drainage. The problem is to deal with the fisheries in each river separately. To sum up, land drainage and fisheries present local problems which must be dealt with within each separate area. They are not suitable for being dealt with on a national scale and, therefore, there is really no proper scope for the advice of the Water Resources Board.
5.40 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I should like to support the Amendment which has been so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Champion. He put up all the arguments for the Amendment and there is only one point I should like to emphasise. As he said, water conservation and all the other functions of a river authority are intimately interwoven, and there may well be cases where there is a real conflict of interests between the Water Resources Board and the river authority. It seems to me that
598
the Water Resources Board, with their responsibility for looking at the problem as a whole, may come to a river authority and say, "We think you ought to be able to supply and conserve more water". The river authority may well reply, "We, in our opinion, do not think we can". The reason may be that there are pollution problems or all sorts of other problems. It seems to me that in that case the Water Resources Board—which is a fairly toothless animal in any case; it can only advise—should be in a position to give advice to the river authority on how they could overcome this problem.
That raises the whole question of what sort of body the Water Resources Board is to be. Is it to be concerned entirely with the conservation of water, or is it to be qualified to look at the problem as a whole?—the question of conservation, of drainage, and, in particular, of pollution, which, of course, is the thing which comes under the same Minister. The Water Resources Board ought to be able to look at them as a whole, but as the Bill stands, it cannot really do that. At least, if it does that, it still cannot advise the river authorities. I also feel that the Board should have people on it who are qualified to look at all the aspects of a function of a river, and if there are people of that sort on the Board then it seems to me they should be in a position to give advice. After all, the Board is not giving direction; it is purely giving advice to a river authority.
LORD WALSTON: May I intervene briefly to underline a point which the noble Lord, Lard Amherst of Hackney, mentioned, as it seems to me a very important one in this matter? It really depends on what the Water Resources Board is supposed to do. If it is solely a matter of conservation and of the new activities of the river authorities, it is hand to see how it can do its job properly, because it must have an overall view of all the water questions over the whole country; the questions of conservation as well as the question of disposal. But if it is not allowed to give any advice to the river authorities on matters of drainage, but can give them advice only on matters of conservation, then clearly it will not have in its makeup, on its staff, people who understand

599
the drainage side of the question, which, as the noble Lord, Lard De Ramsey allowed, is a very important part of the whole water question. Therefore we shall find that the Water Resources Board is set up with people who are concerned to look at only one, if a major aspect, of this whole matter.
If, on the other hand, this Amendment is adopted, the Water Resources Board will have added responsibility and will, therefore, have to look at the overall picture and not just at one section of it. Unless it is given these advisory duties, as has been pointed out, I do not see that it will ever be able to fulfil the function which I think the Government and all noble Lords would like it to fulfil, of being the overall advisory body on water questions. For that reason, if for no other, I hope that this Amendment will be adopted.
5.45 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: I wonder whether it would be helpful if at this stage I said something about what is in the Government's mind here. First, however, I should like to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, in expressing regret that his noble friend Lord Silkin was not moving this Amendment this evening. I should also like to say that I listened with close attention to the careful and serious speech by the noble Lord on this matter, rightly so because It is an important one. If your Lordships approve this Amendment you will, of course, be making a marked change in the principle underlying this Bill. Let us be quite clear about this at the outset. That may be right or may be wrong, but you will be making a very significant change in the whole principle which underlies this Bill.
Its acceptance, as noble Lords have said, would have the effect of making the Water Resource's Board responsible not only for conservation, as we have proposed—and let us not for one moment belittle the importance of conservation. It is important now and that particular aspect of the Water Resources Board's responsibility is going to be a great deal more important in 10, 15, 20 Or 30 years' time. In fact, it is going to be a matter of vital national importance with which they are charged. The effect, therefore, will be to extend those responsibilities
600
from this very important matter of conservation to advising river authorities on land drainage, flood prevention, fisheries administration and the prevention of pollution. The Government's view on this was stated quite plainly in paragraph 52 of the White Paper last year. May I just, since it was briefly stated, read the relevant extract?
"The sphere of the central authority will be water conservation only. The other main functions of river authorities—land drainage, prevention of pollution and fisheries administration—are local in character and produce problems which can in general be solved within the individual river basin."
When we debated the White Paper last May, at some length (and I recall it pretty well myself), this view was not, so far as I can recall, queried. In any event, the Government still take the view that the reasoning and conclusion in the White Paper are valid. In our view, the Water Resources Board should be required to advise river authorities only with respect to the performance of the authorities' new but quite vital function of conservation. The movers of the Amendment seek to extend this advisory responsibility vis-à-vis the new river authorities to include the existing functions of the river boards. I think therefore that my first task should be to run through those functions and see whether that is logical and right or not.
So far as land drainage and flood protection are concerned, I would argue that the need to undertake works in one river basin does not in itself give rise to the need for such works being undertaken in another river basin, save, where one such river basin is tributary to another, and in that case both basins are likely to be within the same river authority's area in any case. We are building the river authorities upon units of area which are of proven validity for land drainage purposes, and land drainage is essentially a local function, as the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, stressed. That is why, as noble Lords who are familiar with the work of river boards well know, the promotion of land drainage schemes is not a matter in which the central authority, which in this case is the Ministry of Agriculture, normally needs to take the lead. The need for them is felt locally and the initiative for them comes locally. I would grant at the same time—and here I would go

601
along with the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney—that the Board will inevitably in its work touch upon land drainage and flood protection and might very well have an interest in schemes, for example, to increase the rate of run-off from a particular area.
In developing techniques of river management and control, even with the function of conservation in mind, the Board will be bound in some instances to impinge on matters of land drainage and flood protection. That, I would certainly concede. But I would stress that the engineering works required for water conservation are usually only partially compatible in both time and place with those required for flood control, and this was recognised perfectly frankly in the Proudman Committee's Report. I will just read lone sentence from paragraph 50 of that Report:
"In general the engineering works required for water conservation and for flood control are only partially compatible in time and place."
But again in the development of management and control techniques the advantages of flood forecasting are clearly there.
Nevertheless, although I would acknowledge that there is bound to be some interchange of ideas and some cross fertilisation of ideas between those working on water conservation and those concerned with flood protection, this does not in my view, and in the Government's view, imply that there is a case for imposing on the Water Resources Board the duty of advising river authorities with respect to the performance of their land drainage functions, which would, of course, be the effect of the acceptance of this Amendment. I would rather argue that those functions are part and parcel of an efficient agricultural industry, and impinge in fact in great detail not only on the functions of internal drainage boards but even upon the activities of individual farmers.
I would also argue it is not really appropriate that a Board of the nature of the Water Resources Board, concentrating, as we think they should be, on the planning and supervision of the conservation of water on a national scale, should be required—and I underline required—as this Amendment would require them,
602
to advise on the discharge of the day-to-day local land drainage functions of the river authorities. I would agree that if the Board were concerned with a big conservation scheme Which had obvious implications from the viewpoint of flood protection, they should be able to lay those implications frankly before the river authorities concerned, but there is nothing in the Bill to prevent them from so doing, and nothing to stop them from advising the river authorities in that sort of case.
What the Amendment would do would be to lay a requirement on the Water Resources Board to advise the river authorities on land drainage and flood prevention measures; there would be a definite requirement, and such advice could well intrude on purely local and purely day-to-day matters. I feel that, generally speaking, advice on land drainage is best left to the central authority with the organisation and the resources to handle it, in this case my right honourable friend, the Minister of Agriculture, and that there is really no valid ground for the interposition of the Water Resources Board between the executive land drainage authorities and that Minister. I am sure that this division of responsibility best corresponds with the present division of responsibility between the two Departments concerned, the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Agriculture. I am sure, too, that the noble Lord's Amendment interposing this new tier of responsibility between the river authority and the Ministry of Agriculture in these matters would not commend itself at any rate to many of the agricultural interests affected thereby. I am equally certain that the same is likely to apply so far as fisheries are concerned.
Could I now turn to another function, an old function, using this phraseology, water pollution. Here again, I should like to grant straight away that quality of water as well as quantity is an element in water conservation policy. I have noted the very widely held and expressed view among industrialists and water undertakers and others, that the Board should have some responsibility relating to pollution because of that interconnection between quantity and quality. But I think there is here perhaps some misapprehension among

603
those who urge that prevention of pollution, a transferred function under Clause 5 (1) (c), should not be left outside the range of the new Board's sphere of action. Perhaps it might serve to allay possible misapprehensions if I were to make two points quite plain. The first is that we fully recognise—and here I come back to what I have just said—that the Board in discharging their conservation responsibilities must have regard to quality as well as quantity. That is perfectly obvious, so obvious that I personally see no need to spell it out further in the Bill. But that is quite a different matter, I would submit, from requiring the Board to advise river authorities on, and exercise direct and day-to-day supervision over, the discharge of their existing prevention of pollution powers.
Secondly, I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that, under Clause 12, subsection (2), of the Bill, the Board are already charged (and this is perfectly clear) with the duty of advising the Minister—and here I quote the words of the clause:
"with respect to such other matters (if any) as may be referred to them by the Minister ".
In this context, "the Minister" means my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Furthermore, I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the Minister is empowered, by Clause 95, to give directions to river authorities in relation to, among other things, their prevention of pollution functions. It will therefore be quite easy for him to obtain advice from the Board on the broad problems concerning the quality of water if he so wishes, and to see that effect is given to any advice which he obtains from the Board and accepts. It seems to me that these two clauses, Clauses 12 and 95, read in conjunction should meet at least this part of the argument deployed by noble Lords.
I am convinced that it would be a mistake to place this absolute and binding requirement on the Board to advise the new authorities over the whole range of the river boards' existing functions. But at the same time I hope that I have made it clear that we fully recognise the connection between conservation and flood prevention, on the one hand, and between conservation and the provision
604
of water of the right quality, on the other hand. Moreover, I can see no reason why, with the Bill as drafted at present, the Board should be inhibited when it so wishes from advising river authorities on flood prevention and matters relating to the quality of water when these are obviously part and parcel of water conservation policy. Again, in discharging their important research responsibilities, the Board will obviously wish to bear this close connection between conservation and these two other matters very much in mind.
To sum up, the Water Resources Board will be equipped to discharge the functions for which it is being set up. It is not the toothless animal which my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney has stigmatised it as being, and I hope that I shall be able to show him that this is not so when we come to the next Amendment. It will be equipped to plan and supervise the conservation of water on a national scale, to encourage and assist river authorities in the discharge of their functions relating to water conservation and to stimulate them, and also the other agencies concerned, in the discharge of those functions. But I think it would be a grave mistake to deflect the Board from this main and vital task, and to place a statutory obligation on it to advise river authorities to discharge functions like land drainage, fisheries and the prevention of pollution which they are perfectly capable of discharging themselves.
In emphasising this, I must again make it plain that where, in the judgment of the Board, action of a particular nature or in a particular direction is required in the interest of conservation—and this affects land drainage, flood prevention, pollution and indeed, I suppose, fisheries—then the Board will of course be able to have its right and proper say. Nevertheless, I cannot advise your Lordships to accept an Amendment which would take the Board's eye off the main ball, water conservation, and necessarily, as I at least see it, involve it in the day-to-day affairs of the new river authorities and in matters which those authorities are, in my view, quite competent to deal with by themselves.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: Before my noble friend sits down, may I

605
ask him, to facilitate my own peace of mind, why these facets of compensation water and minimum flow cannot be interacted between river authorities and the Water Resources Board? It seems to me that they cannot be separated. I do not think we want to make the Water Resources Board advise too much; it will be quite busy enough, and we do not want any more direction from above in order to get on with our work. I cannot see why compensation water and minimum flow are not interacted, and are not one and the same thing, so that they ought to be looked at as one thing. Does the noble Earl see my point? Somehow, I think that they cannot be separated and remain just compensation water and minimum flow.
EARL JELLICOE: I think I follow my noble friend's point. It is not my view (and I am speaking subject to correction in saying this) that these two matters are separated in the Bill. But I should like to come back to that point with my noble friend at another time.
6.7 p.m.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: One of the happy things that I have noted in your Lordships' House is that no Panty need always be unanimous. Sometimes that is a most helpful thing for the whole nation. I call to mind, for instance, yesterday. I think that my noble friend is to be congratulated upon moving the Amendment, if only to receive from the noble Earl his explanation as to how much out of place such an Amendment would be. For my part, I confess that I have disagreed in Parliament with my noble friend, perhaps for the first time since we were Minister and Parliamentary Secretary, and were together like Siamese twins.
This Amendment is a rather extraordinary one, and whilst I know that my noble friend is well meaning, I cannot help but agree with the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, when he suggests that drainage is a local rather than a national question. I have in mind an area in What was my own Parliamentary Division for 37 years, where we were having constant floods, with from 600 to 800 people being flooded out of their homes for seven or eight weeks. This happened three times in two years. This called loudly for a great drainage scheme
606
on the part of the nation. With the best will in the world, and thinking in terms of the best seven members of the conservation board being the best seven in the country, I cannot see any contribution they could have made, any help they could have given to the Great Ouse Catchment Board from 1930 onwards, or to the river board who continued the catchment board's work. Yet this is exactly what this Amendment calls for.
The Water Conservation Board is to consist of seven persons—seven wise men, I hope! But if Schedule 1 to this Bill is not amended there will be 26 river authorities, and the Amendment asks that these seven wise men should not only deal with the major problem tackled by this measure, to conserve water, but Should teach the river authorities who have been in existence since 1930, first as catchment boards and then as river boards, and who are now to become river authorities; but the new seven persons making up the membership of the Water Conservation Board are to be advised to do, and almost to insist upon doing, the work that the river boards have been doing up till now. I do not think it is possible for them to do this. I referred to the scheme in my own Parliamentary Division where floods were constant, where it was merely a question of widening and deepening a river for fifteen or twenty miles. The Water Conservation Board would not have been interested in such a scheme. But the catchment board and river board had to be Interested in it: and it cost over £2 million before they found the real remedy and completed the scheme. There may be similar schemes in other parts of the country—I do not know. But what I feel is that if we gave the Water Conservation Board the power to advise the river authorities on their functions, as distinct from water conservation, we should be dividing their activities over such a wide area that water conservation would be lost in the process.
With the best will in the world, while I should like to support my noble friend who has moved this Amendment, if, having been responsible for supporting the Drainage Bill, 1930, and having established the River Boards Act, 1948, I were to sit here and by my silence imply

607
that the river boards have failed in their job and need seven wise men—the Water Conservation Board—to tell them how to do it, I should feel very small indeed. I felt that I just had to say those few words, because it is perfectly legitimate for Members on these Benches, as well as those on the other Benches, to divide on odd occasions, and when there is a division invariably it is a case of where the minority are right. I feel that this is the case at this moment, where I am in a minority of one but also feel that I am right.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: We are grateful to the Minister of State for the very logical argument he put forward, but it seems to me there are certain weaknesses in the case he has submitted to the Committee. First, he did not explain the impossibility of the isolation of advice on conservation, redistribution and augmentation of water resources from the functions of land drainage, pollution prevention and fisheries which the river authorities will take over from the river boards.
Secondly, he said that this made a marked change in the Bill. I rather doubt whether it does make such a marked change as the Minister thought. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, who spoke just now rather dealt with the point in the same way as the Minister of State: that is to say, in some confusion between the executive functions of the river authorities and the advisory functions of the Water Resources Board. The Water Resources Board would be responsible for advising, but there is no question that that Board would be taking over the executive functions of the river authorities in respect of those particular activities which we are debating in this Committee. There is no obligation upon those responsible for the execution or land drainage works, for the prevention of pollution, and for fisheries to take the advice which is given them by the Water Resources Board. That is given to them to accept or reject as they so wish, and such advice would be given having regard to the broad national picture, as the Water Resources Board sees it, which would then be applied (or not applied) in respect of the local works
608
which the river authorities will be responsible for executing.
Then I thought that the Minister rather gave away the case when he said that there is nothing to prevent the Water Resources Board's advice from being given, and he gave as an example, in respect of conservation, where there was some particular aspect locally upon which the Minister felt the Water Resources Board should give advice. In fact, the Minister admitted that there would be an overlap in the frontiers of advice and of executive duty of the Water Resources Board on the one hand, and of the river authorities on the other. What the Minister has said is "Ah! but the Minister responsible could go to the Water Resources Board and ask them for their advice. Then when the Minister has got that advice he would send it to the river authority." It seems a rather round about way of doing something which could be done much more simply if what I would term the optional acceptance or rejection of advice given by the Water Resources Board as proposed in this Amendment were in fact in operation. I think the Minister was making very heavy weather when he said that it was making a marked and fundamental change. I hone he will think this matter over, because it is a very interesting and fundamental point in the Bill. I trust that the points I have submitted to him will at any rate have his consideration.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I do not know whether the Minister will intervene again, but I think it would help your Lordships if he did not fall into the same trap as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, fell into when he consistently called this authority the Water Conservation Board". It is known as the Water Resources Board, and I think the confusion arose because, in opposing the Amendment, the Minister rather went out of his way to play into the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, in giving the Board a new title. In the Bill it is the Water Resources Board, and that is its title. It may have been in the original White Paper that it was to be solely concerned with conservation, but much water has flowed under the bridge since then and we have had a great deal more time to consider what this Bill is about. I beg leave to doubt

609
whether this Water Resources Board, which we had all hoped was to be a sort of general planning staff for the whole complex water resources of this country, is to be confined solely and absolutely to the details of conservation.
EARL JELLICOE: I should not wish to take up too much of your Lordships' time at this stage, but in reply I should like to say this—and I hope my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye will forgive me if I do not follow all the points he has made, as I should like a chance of considering the arguments he has advanced on this Amendment, and indeed those of other noble Lords. It seems to me there is a clear and logical distinction between conservation and these other matters. One is that conservation is essentially a national matter involving the transfer of large amounts of water, and they are going to be increasingly large in the future, from one part of the country to another, and from one river authority to another. That demands, in our view, fully comprehensive national planning. The logical distinction I would make is that the existing powers of the river boards and their existing functions are essentially local and can be discharged, as in the past, perfectly properly within the confines of their river basins. I think there is a logical distinction there.
The other point—I hope I am not making a debating point here in reply to my noble friend—is his query whether acceptance of this Amendment would involve a fundamental change in the whole concept. I can assure him that, as I see it, it would; and he himself said that this was a fundamental matter. If it is a fundamental matter, surely, if we are going to accept the views of those who think this is a fundamental matter, we are making a fundamental change. I am sure noble Lords will not wish me to go into great length at this stage, but I do see great force in the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, that what we are really accepting here, if we accept this Amendment, is that the seven wise men should teach their twenty-six elderly and respectable grandmothers how to drain their eggs.
LORD CHAMPION: I think this debate has proved how right it was to put this Amendment down. It has indeed been a very satisfying debate from
610
many points of view. I must admit straight away that I was sorry to find the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, against me in this matter. I regard him as something of an expert, and were I in a more harsh debating chamber I could say, "Well, what is one expert among so many—the many that I have quoted?" I think that all the experts I have read are against him in this matter. I do not think the point he made about the transfer of flood water from one area to another, saying that it would be largely the job of the Water Resources Board to try to ensure such transfer, has very much validity, because, surely, if you are going to control floods you are hound to have regulating reservoirs, and if you have regulating reservoirs you can then transfer the water in such reservoirs from one area to another.
I must say how deeply disappointed I was to find the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, against me. As he so rightly said, we were for some time inseparable twins inside the Ministry. I think he also said that we agreed on every point. I agreed with him, I must admit, because his knowledge of the subject was so much greater than my own that I could not do anything other; his mastery was complete in this connection.
I honestly think that in his reply the noble Earl has met most of the points that I had. He has made it clear that there is bound to be an interchange of ideas between the Water Resources Board and the river authorities, on all the things that appear to be excluded by this clause as it now stands. Indeed, his whole speech has made that perfectly clear. The only difficulty that remains, as I see it, is that under the Bill as drafted it will always be for the river authorities to say to the Water Resource's Board, if they touch on anything outside conservation, "This is our function. Keep out! Keep away from this. This is our function and we do not want your meddling", although it might well be the case, as the noble Earl said, that the advice of the Water Resources Board would be very good indeed. I do not want to detain your Lordships too long on these points of reply, because, having regard to the excellent debate and the assurances of the noble Earl, I am now going to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.23 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN LORD LINDGREN moved, in subsection (2), after "functions" to insert:
"and, where necessary, of securing the performance of those functions by giving such directions to river authorities as the Board consider expedient,".
The noble Lord said: This is perhaps a very fitting Amendment, following the excellent discussion we have had on the previous Amendment. The purpose of the Amendment is to enlarge the powers of the Water Resources Board, which we have been talking about, and to enable that Board to give directions to the river authorities where such directions are considered necessary.
In Clause 12 there is a long list of duties of the Water Resources Board. Later, when we come to Clause 16, we find that the Water Resources Board is given a certain limited power of direction to require the river authorities to do certain things; in particular, to provide information to enable the Board to assess the water resources of the country and the likely demand for water. Thus the Water Resources Board has the powers and the duty to build up a national picture of water resources, which was referred to by the noble Earl in his reply just now. The Board also has the duty to plan on a national basis. Unfortunately, from my point of view, although it has the power to build up a picture and is required to plan, there is nothing in the Bill to give the Board the power to put the plan into effect. To my mind this is a fundamental weakness in the Bill. Local water authorities for many years, because of the difficulties they experienced over a period of time, have urged the setting up of a Water Resources Board as a key to the national planning of water resources. It must he accepted that the present Bill does not provide a strong enough central body, which I should have thought was the body desired by those associated with the water supply industry. If I may say so, looking back on the debate on the White Paper in April last, many noble Lords made very much the same point. To borrow a phrase that was used on the previous Amendment, this Amendment is intended to give teeth to the Water Resources Board, so that when it has its plan it will have the authority to put that plan into effect. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 1, after ("functions") insert the said words.—(Lord Lindgren.)
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: In the remarks that were made on the previous Amendment I thought I detected in some quarters an almost ready acceptance of the inevitability of this Water Resources Board's functions being completely or almost completely advisory. I hope that is not the case. In the debate on the White Paper last May, and also in the Second Reading debate, a number of noble Lords made it clear that they felt very strongly that the Water Resources Board should have some functions beyond the strictly advisory functions. As the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, said earlier, at present it looks like rather a toothless animal. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, as he has promised, will be able to reassure us that there are more teeth there than we can see at a glance.
I believe that this Amendment touches on a cardinal point of the declared purpose of this Bill—the declared purpose to set up a new system of managing the water resources of England and Wales; a system of management. We have, of course, the river authorities with a responsibility, in the first place, for direct action in the field of conservation; and, secondly, responsibility for the transferred functions of the river boards. In that latter connection, may I say that I hope that, when those authorities are set up, some way will be found, by a system of co-opting on to sub-committees and without making the river authorities themselves too large, of preserving to those river authorities, however large their respective areas may be, experience and knowledge that has found expression in the admirable work done by the river hoards throughout the country. I do not think that is necessarily at all inconsistent with a small river authority.
So we come then to this Water Resources Board. Here it is surely obvious that its primary duty, that of helping to secure that the best use is made of the water resources available, involves the formulation of a plan on a national scale; and, for maximum efficiency in local conservation and for the best use of the country's resources, it will

613
surely be necessary to provide for coordination between the lines on which the river authorities set about their own job and this overall plan formulated in the light of the hydrological surveys and the information about existing and prospective demands for water which will be assembled. The Proudman Committee made it abundantly clear. The White Paper seemed to accept the argument yet shied away from it, and saw some objections to the Central Authority (as it was then called) having any executive powers at all.
In the debate last May I think there was considerable support for the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the Central Authority should not be purely advisory and should have some executive powers; and in reply to that debate the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, after explaining why the Government had come down on the side of a body of primarily an advisory character, said—and I hope he will not mind my quoting him [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 240, col. 1040]:
"We believe that in this wide field the new central body will in fact have a crucial rôle to play, and because of my right honourable friend's appellate responsibilities it is also desirable that what I would term promotional' work should be separated as much as possible from my Ministry. For that reason we envisage the proposed central authority as being the expert body responsible for seeing that there is a broad and consistent approach to water conservation and for planning and co-ordinating conservation measures on the national scale".
"Co-ordinating conservation measures on the national scale" does seem to me to imply something more than the advisory functions described herein. Therefore, I think there is great weight in the arguments used by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, in moving this Amendment. I find it disappointing that in the Bill, and particularly in this clause, there is no reference whatever to promotional functions or to co-ordination, and the only reference to planning, I think, is in paragraph (e), where it is said that it will be the duty of the Water Resources Board
"to encourage and assist river authorities in the formulation of such plans as the Board think necessary for augmenting water resources in a river authority area by transferring water from another river authority area; ".
It is true, I think—I am sure the noble Earl will elaborate this—that paragraph
614
(a) might be held to mean that the Board should formulate an overall plan, because it could hardly give the advice that it is there required to give without having done so. But if that is so, would it not be possible, and indeed wise, to say so specifically; and would it not also be wise to specify the co-ordinating function? The whole emphasis in this Clause 12 is, I am afraid, on the advisory function. If the Government take the view that the literal interpretation of the Amendment which has been moved is inconvenient, embarrassing, and might even be held to suggest, taken literally, that it gave the Water Resources Board a direct responsibility for the efficiency of the river authorities (which I am sure is not the intention at all), could they not, in considering whether or not the substance or the general purpose of this Amendment could be accepted, find some form of words to give effect to that and, at the same time, give this Water Resources Board more power within such limits of authority as may from time to time be delegated to it by the Minister?
6.35 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, for the thoughtful way (I hope he will not think it impertinent of me to say so) in Which he has moved this Amendment, and I think the Committee as a whole must also be in the debt of my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve for his remarks on this important aspect of the Water Resources Board's functions and responsibilities; and I can assure my noble friend that I never mind being quoted. I will come back to the quotation, if I may, in a few moments.
As I understand it, the Amendment would write into the Bill a power for the Water Resources Board to give directions to the river authorities as to the performance of their new functions (and, if the noble Lord had his way, it would be the old functions as well), their water conservation functions, the directions being such as the Water Resources Board consider expedient. I think that the Amendment disregards the fact that, under the unamended Bill, the Board will possess powers to give directions to river authorities—namely, those in connection with, first, the provision of information (Clause 12, subsection (4));

615
secondly, the form and content of hydrometric schemes (Clause 15, subsection (3))—not unimportant given our dearth of hydrometric knowledge in this matter; thirdly, the provision of information obtained under hydrometric schemes (Clause 16, subsection (1)); and, fourthly, the formulation of proposals to investigate the presence of water in any underground strata (Clause 18, subsection (1)). Those powers are consistent with the Government's views of the nature of the Board—
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am very sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but those references are very important. Would he kindly repeat the first one?
EARL JELLICOE: Clause 12 (4), Clause 15 (3), Clause 16 (1) and Clause 18 (1). Those powers are consistent with our view of the nature of the Board and with the proper discharge of its intelligence functions, and, of course, those directive powers which I have been talking about really bite on this intelligence function. The Amendment, on the other hand, in proposing to confer on the Board a general power to give directions to the river authorities, runs contrary to the Government's considered view of the proper chain of responsibility which, under this Bill, we should be attempting to create.
I must, if I may, again refer back to a fundamental point which I tried to make, not only in our debate on the White Paper but also on Second Reading. That point is that if you consider that the Minister in this matter should remain basically accountable to Parliament, then you cannot have a Board with fully executive powers. If you concede that, then it is right that the Minister should answer first-hand for any directions given to river authorities other than those which I have mentioned, and which I think do fall into a somewhat special category. But if you accept this it does not mean, I would urge, either that no action will follow so far as the Board is concerned or that the Board will not be able to discharge its proper responsibilities.
I know that my noble friend Lord Hastings has already done so on Second Reading, but I should like again, if I might, to draw your Lordships' atten-
616
tion to the fact that the Bill already contains a quite definite and clear-cut provision in Clause 14, subsection (1) (c), which makes it a duty for every river authority to formulate proposals for action on the lines laid down by the Water Resources Board under Clause 12. As I see it, that is absolutely clear cut—those two clauses, 14 (1) (c) and 12, read in conjunction. I think I can assure my noble friend Lord Albemarle that, since Clause 14 (1) (c) covers Clause 12, if he will direct his eyes to Clause 12 (3) (c) he will find that that covers parts 3 and 4, and part 3 deals with the question of minimal flow, about which he asked me. Moreover, by virtue of Clause 14 (3) the general duty imposed upon the river authority by Clause 4 to take all such action includes the duty of taking action to carry out the proposals they are under obligation to make to the Water Resources Board. The river authority, therefore, cannot evade the issue when it is a question of doing something within its sphere of responsibility required by the Water Resources Board—particularly when it is recalled that the whole business is backed up by the more general power of direction in Clause 95 of the Bill. I apologise for springing all these clauses upon the Committee at short notice, but I can assure the Committee that the Minister will stand ready to use this power conferred by Clause 95 of the Bill, if enacted, to secure the execution of a national policy for water, which is what we are all basically after.
The noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, in quoting me, referred to what I said during our debate on the White Paper about the separation of the appellate functions and the promotional functions under this general umbrella. If you read Clauses 12 and 14 (1) (c) together you will see that they confer, taken together, promotional powers in the sphere of water conservation upon the Water Resources Board. What I said about the Bill's embodying a broad and consistent approach towards conservation and the desirability of co-ordinating conservation matters on the national scale is precisely what we intend to do. I would not retreat one inch from that, because that is precisely what we are intending to do. It may be we have not succeeded, but it is our intention. I think in those two clauses, read in conjunction, it can be seen that not only does

617
the Minister have sharp teeth in the execution of the policy, but the Board's teeth though I would grant they may be limited, are not false ones.
LORD HAWKE: My noble friend has referred to various powers existing in various parts of the Bill, but it is difficult to follow precisely how these would work in practice. Could he give a practical illustration of how in future some of these powers will work? That is what exercises some of us. Suppose a great city like Manchester finds itself short of water in ten or fifteen years' time. What means will be taken to enable a valley in North-West England or Wales to be drowned in order to supply further water for Manchester? Who would do it? Who would pay for it, and how? A practical illustration like that would convey a great deal more to my mind than these odd references to paragraphs in the Bill.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Before the Minister replies, may I say I would not agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down. These odd references to paragraphs are very important. I think I ventured to interrupt the Minister in order to get them right. These powers the Minister quoted and the explanation of the conjunction between certain paragraphs will go a very long way to help those of us who want to see this general planning staff, this Water Resources Board, fully able to carry out its functions. After hearing the noble Earl's reply I, for one, felt very much happier. There are two speeches which must be read in conjunction in considering this point; the speech the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, made now and the speech he made in May. He detracts from neither. I believe we have gone a long way this evening, but I still think that the thought put forward by my noble friend, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, may be of use when we are considering this Bill at a later stage, and I hope the noble Earl will not close his mind entirely to it.
Apart from the executive powers that the Water Resources Board has in the various clauses mentioned by the Minister, it may be right that there should be, somewhere in the Bill, a specific right of the Minister to delegate certain specific functions within limits, from time to time, to this Water Resources Board. There can be no
618
delegation except where it is established in the Bill. I think delegation has to be established specifically always. It may be that not only in the four clauses the Minister mentioned but somewhere in the Bill there should be something which gives slightly wider powers to the Minister to delegate specific functions under due safeguards to this Board.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: I thank the noble Earl for the care with which he has dealt with my obvious misapprehensions. I should like to explain that in reading this Bill, and particularly Clause 14, I must confess that the directional powers which the Water Resources Board were to have seemed to be related more to powers to acquire information rather than to power to secure action on the plan formulated on the basis of this information.
LORD HAWKE: Is my noble friend going to reply to this specific point: how a big city will get water from an area when its own river board area is without it?
EARL JELLICOE: I was hoping my noble friend was going to let me off. I will do my best and I speak subject to correction; but this is the way I think it will go. Manchester is a very good example. Manchester, like many other industrial conurbations, is going to have an increasingly great thirst. This is the sort of thing we as a nation have to plan for. What I think will happen under the provisions of this Bill, broadly speaking, is that when this sort of need is seen to be developing there will at once be consultations between everybody concerned. A lot of that consultation will be more or less obligatory. Where a scheme, say in Manchester—but let us not take Manchester; let us think of some less thirsty place, say Newcastle; indeed, it may be safer ground. If Newcastle sees it is going to need a great deal more water it will approach the river authority and its officials will speak to the experts of the river authority, stating what their need is. Since, when the need is very great, there will almost inevitably be a need for inter-regional transfer of water, the river authority will put that straight away to the Water Resources Board. If it is a very large-scale plan, the Water Resources Board may straight away

619
refer the matter to the Minister and he will call in the final scheme. But this matter would get into the machine at once and the Water Resources Board, who would have the national picture, would grapple with the problem and would be able to require the river authority to submit proposals on how it should be tackled. Broadly speaking that is how it would be dealt with.
LORD HAWKE: We acre now talking about adjoining or distant river authorities. Who is going to finance the works, because they lie out of the area of the original city or town?
EARL JELLICOE: As my noble friend knows, from his intense perusal of this Bill, the works are financed within the river authority concerned, but when there is a transfer, then the beneficiaries will be required to pay.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: I want to ask about the size of the problem. This looks like reference to the Water Resources Board instead of initiation by the Board, which I want to be a semi-independent body, able to give us a clear-cut blueprint of the resources within the country, so that other people can read their reports and see where they came in. I so fear that these overburdened seven people will always be referred to by the 26 authorities and will be left with no time to make out that big blueprint we all have been wanting.
LORD LINDGREN: I would thank the noble Earl for the courteous way in which he has dealt with the Amendment, but I do not think that it has been dealt with satisfactorily. If we take the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, on which he gave a real poser to the Minister, the noble Earl replied that, having looked at it, the Board would require the river authority to submit proposals to them. Even if the river authority has a supply of water and submits proposals, there is no power in the Bill to require the river authority to supply. To my mind the only saving grace is a statement by the noble Earl, which he made on Second Reading in reply to a point I made, that a local authority or statutory undertaker would still have power to promote a Bill. I
620
thought that that power would be lost under this Bill. But it seems that, in the end, Manchester and Newcastle have to go to the Water Resources Board, which has power of direction for promoting a Bill, and Parliament will have to decide.
I think that the noble Earl has really made out the case for the Amendment because, as the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, said, all the powers to which the noble Earl referred are really powers of investigation. They are intelligence functions. And the Minister hides behind the right of Parliament, through the Minister, to have executive power. We do not have it in other things. After all, water is a commodity essential to public health, industry and agriculture. So is electricity. Yet we set up a Central Electricity Board with power of production and power to direct smaller units in distribution. If it is possible to have central powers in regard to electricity, when we have a Minister of Fuel and Power, I do not think that the Minister of Housing and Local Government is losing any of his dignity, standing or status if he is not in fact the final arbiter in executive power and in answering to Parliament.
The noble Earl referred to Clause 14 (1) (c), which says:
"to formulate proposals as to action to be taken by the river authority (whether by way of executing works or securing the execution of works by other persons …"
et cetera. But nothing is said there about power to do anything if they take no notice. We have all been associated with organisations, in which people at the top have given instructions and found that they have not been carried out. Sometimes it has been a good thing. But there are no real teeth in this, except that the Water Resources Board cart finally go to the Minister and say, "The river authority has been asked to do this, that or the other. They have not carried out our request. Will you instruct them to do it?" Is that not really making an extra tier in the chain of command? A little earlier the noble Earl was decrying the setting up of extra cogs in the wheel of the machine.
I think that this Amendment would be a great advantage to the Board and would relieve the Minister and the Ministry of a number of difficult tasks.

621
I think, too, that it would save Parliamentary time, by not requiring what I think will otherwise be required in particular instances, such as Manchester—I may say that they are short of water now; it is not merely the case that they will be in twelve years' time, as mentioned—and that is, the promotion of a Bill. I think that that is unsatisfactory if we are going to set up a Water Resources Board which is going to survey the whole country, make a plan of resources and likely demand, sand channel the supply where it is required. Like other organisations, they must have the power of direction. But in the light of the attitude of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, I can do nothing but reluctantly withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY had given notice of his intention to move in subsection (2), to Heave out "Minister" (where that word last occurs), and to substitute "Ministers". The noble Lord said: This Amendment would allow the Minister of Agriculture to refer matters to the Water Resources Board. It would have been much more important had my last Amendment been proved to widen the powers of the Board, and it will be important if several other Amendments are carried; but probably it would be better for me not to move the Amendment but, if the other Amendments are passed, to reinstate it on the Marshalled List.
EARL JELLICOE: I think that this Amendment is consequential on the previous Amendments, but in the light of what my noble friend has just said, I can give him the assurance that, if this Amendment is required because of subsequent Amendments, there is plenty of time to come back to it at a later stage of the Bill.
7.0 p.m.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved in subsection (3), after paragraph (e) to insert:
"( ) to advise the Minister on measures for ensuring economy in the use of water ".
The noble Lord said: In reply to a previous Amendment, my noble friend the Minister of State referred to it as being a great disadvantage of that Amendment that it would make a fundamental change in the principle of the Bill. I should like to begin, therefore,
622
by trying to show that there is nothing inconsistent with the general line of development if the additional responsibility involved by this Amendment is imposed upon the Water Resources Board. If we begin with the White Paper, we find in paragraph 7 that the sub-committee had its terms of reference extended in order
"to consider whether there are any substantial economies in the use or cost of water which could be made without reduction in standards."
As a result of the inquiry that they then undertook, the sub-committee found as follows:
"Finally they recommended the setting up of a separate central authority, accountable to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, to promote an active policy for the conservation and proper use of water resources."
Then we find at page 11 that the Government, having considered this Report, decided to set up a central authority, and the White Paper states:
"They thought that the main functions of this authority should be: to promote an active water conservation policy and secure its execution by river authorities … to initiate, where necessary, schemes of works, especially schemes for the transfer of water between the areas of river authorities."
Clearly, if there is to be a scheme for transferring water from one area to another area, it is necessary that it should be shown that that water is really required and is not asked for merely because it is being wasted. If we have a national water policy, then it is in the national interest that there should be no waste of water, even if it may be the case that there are some parts of this country which are so happily placed that they have plenty of water, even if they are wasting it.
In paragraph 50 the Government come to their final conclusion, and they say:
"The right course in the Government's view is to establish an expert body responsible for ensuring that there is a broad and consistent approach to water conservation problems and for planning conservation measures on a national basis."
It appears to me from these four extracts, which show how the Government came to their decision to set up a Water Resources Board, that they did intend that there should be a national policy and that water should be conserved. It seems to me quite clear that the word "conserve" not only means acquiring

623
as much water from the rivers and hills as possible, but conserving the water even after it has been brought into, so to speak, captivity by the water authorities. Therefore, it seems to me quite logical that if the Water Resources Board are being asked to consider what the requirements of water are, and to make recommendations as to how that water is to be obtained, it should also be part of their responsibility to ensure that none of that water is avoidably wasted.
There are a great many economies which can be made—I believe that is generally common ground among all those who are concerned with the use of water. It was in the first place a previous Minister of Housing and Local Government who told me that he thought the greatest wastage of water in this country was by leaks from the mains belonging to the statutory water undertakers; and he told me that there was a great difference between the efficiency of some water undertakers and others in that particular matter. Recently electrical inventions have enabled a water authority to detect when there is a leak, and, therefore, there is really no reason why the less efficient water undertakers should not be brought up to the standard of efficiency of the best.
There are many cases where industries consuming vast quantities of water can cleanse that water and use it a second and a third time. There was a case of that kind in my own erstwhile constituency. There was a firm of food packers which required a tremendous amount of water, and the local authority found that it would not be possible for them to continue to meet the increasing demands of this expanding concern with all the water for which they were asking, and they indicated that they would have to make a substantial charge for that water. It probably would have required the construction of a new reservoir. As a result of that, the firm got down to the problem and found it was possible to purify the water and to continue to use it time and again in their industrial processes. That was to the advantage not only of the local authority, who avoided great capital expenditure, but also of the firm itself.
Then, there are many possible economies, with some of which I concerned myself when I was at the Ministry of Works. The Building Research Station has established that there is no need for tanks of more than 2 gallons for water closets. Yet you find in a great many parts of the country that they are still installing closets with a far greater capacity than that. Similarly in the case of office buildings, there is not the slightest need for urinals to continue to flush all through the night when the buildings are not in use. Matters of this kind involve the saving of 50 per cent. of the water consumed at the present time, and it means the saving of thousands of gallons of water. It is found that there is an immense economy in the use of sprinkler taps, instead of having washing bowls, where people first clean them and then use them for washing their hands, and then, if they are considerate to the next person, use further water to wash them out. I give these examples to indicate what an immense scope there is for economy in the use of water.
I feel absolutely sure your Lordships will agree that it we are going to pass legislation of this kind (and we are all in favour of the principle of it) which is going to result in an immense increase in the amount of water available for the people of this country, for our industries and for our agriculture, that water should not be unnecessarily wasted. It is not only a matter of the saving of money, although I am not ashamed of that. When we consider the large areas of beautiful country which have been submerged under reservoirs, surely we are entitled to say that if that is going to be done in the case of further valleys we must be sure that the water is needed.
Here is this central authority which is given these wide powers of advice. We have heard from the Government spokesmen what importance they attach to the advice that it gives. It is the intention that there shall be a national policy. If there is a national policy for the conservation of water, that should surely include the conservation of water by the avoidance of waste. I believe it to be entirely consistent with all that has been said by the Government about the Water Resources Board that it should be given this additional responsibility. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 40, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Molson.)
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: In rising to support my noble friend, may I first of all apologise to the Minister if I leave before he has completed his reply. There are one or two small points I should like to make in support of my noble friend, for instance with regard to such places as buildings on farms on an estate. May I say as regards my own house that I should not like to say that it is not a sinner in this respect, nor, for that matter, are other cottages and farms on the estate. There is, however, one point to which I am sure my noble friend will give consideration, together with his agricultural noble friends, and that is the question of water on farms. If there could be some way of controlling what might amount to quite a bit of waste on farms (I may be quite a sinner myself; I say that straight away) it would be very helpful. I realise that there may be a great deal of difficulty on this point, but perhaps he would like to discuss it with his noble friends.
LORD ILFORD: I shall detain your Lordships only for a few moments, because my noble friend has already stated the case for this Amendment in such cogent terms that little requires to be added to them. I should like to say that I do not think the Minister will have much difficulty in ensuring that the statutory water undertakers make use of the methods of water conservation, the detection of leaks in their mains, and so forth, of which my noble friend spoke.
Wastage by industry is a rather different proposition, and I think my noble friend was quite right in saying that there is, not unnaturally, a tendency in industry not to adopt means which are available for reconditioning—if I may use that expression—the water that they have used, and using it a second time, a third time, or even a fourth lime. It may be that the noble Earl is going to say that the Water Resources Board does not require these powers, and that the powers he has are already sufficient to ensure that due measures of economy are observed. But that may well be so in the case of the statutory undertakers.
I am rather doubtful whether the Board have adequate powers to go to an industrial consumer and recommend
626
that he adopt these methods of water conservation of which my noble friend spoke. It is for that reason that I hope the noble Earl will be able to say that this proposed Amendment would be a useful addition to the powers of the Water Resources Board, and would enable them to do something Which it is at least doubtful Whether they can do under the powers at present comprised in the Bill.
EARL JELLICOE: Since my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire has mentioned that he will have to leave, perhaps I could deal straight away with the minor point which he made in the course of his remarks regarding the possible waste of water on farms. My noble friend Lord St. Oswald has told me that he will gladly undertake to look into that point forthwith.
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: Thank you very much.
EARL JELLICOE: The acceptance of this Amendment would mean; that the Board would be required—and I dwell on the word "required"—to advise my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government on measures for ensuring economy in the use of water. As Clause 12 makes clear, the main purpose of the Water Resources Board—and I think we have bad a certain amount of discussion on that particular purpose already this evening—will be to plain from the national point of view the development of the country's water resources. I would straight away grant that that means, of course, planning conservation.
I would also straight away accept the view that economy is an important side of the conservation coin. Economy in the use of water might well have the effect of deferring the need, for example, for further extensive works of water conservation—works which can sometimes, as my noble friend Lord Molson said, do much to mar attractive countryside, although sometimes they do not. Economy could, therefore, be an important facet in the proper husbandry of the nation's water resources, and that, of course, is what we all want. It is quite clear that we shall need to find and to bring, into supply much more extensive supplies of water in the coming decades than we have now, and it is

627
quite clear that it is therefore only sensible to plan to use as economically as possible the resources we have at present, and the resources which we shall bring into supply. All that I grant straight away.
At the same time, I suggest it is wise to recognise that if one is going to proffer expert and worthwhile advice on measures for ensuring economy—and that is what the Amendment does; it is the responsibility for advising the Minister which my noble friend would lay on the Water Resources Board—the persons advising must be really experienced, not only in all aspects of water conservation but in its use for all purposes by water supply undertakings, by agriculture, and last, but not least, by industry. The technical problems involved in the industrial use of water are, as my noble friend Lord Ilford said, many and varied. My real point about expertise in this field is this. My short experience here has been to convince me that one cannot do a great deal effectively about economy in the use of water unless one is in very close and continuous touch with consumers. For example, if one is going to be able effectively to persuade an industrialist to economise on water, one needs to know a great deal about the processes for which he uses water. I think that was a difficulty which the Proudman Committee themselves, in considering this matter, came up against.
As I see it, and as we envisage them at present, neither the members nor the staff of the Board are likely to be in close and continuous touch with the main consumers. That is not to deny the importance of ensuring a proper economy in the use of water. There is undoubtedly a fruitful field for exploration here, and I remember what the noble Lord, Lord Fleck, said on this matter during our Second Reading debate, apart from what noble Lords have now said in Committee.
But, in addition to industry, statutory water undertakings and agriculturists will be very much concerned here; and, on the whole, in the Government's view this is more a matter to be pursued by my right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government itself rather than have this statutory responsibility specifically laid on the Board. I would suggest that on the whole the Ministry are best placed on
628
advising and dealing with this matter of economy, because they are, in fact, in direct touch with the undertakers, and it is through action by the undertakers industrialists industrialists that effective economy is most likely to be achieved.
All that said, I would again grant that it would be wrong for the Board to divorce itself from the question of economy, which is obviously linked with conservation. When they are dealing with conservation matters which have an economy aspect I have no doubt that they will present their views both to river authorities and to the Minister. Moreover, I think it very probable that when the Board are set up they may well feel—I personally hope they will feel—that more research needs to be undertaken in this field and that they will help to Spark that research. Again, I would remind noble Lords that under Clause 12 (2), my right honourable friend has power—which I am sure he will use—to refer other matters, apart from conservation, to the Board for advice; and I think there need be no fear at all in minds of noble Lords that the provisions of this Bill are generous enough in that respect to embrace economy.
Those are the general considerations which lead me to have doubts whether we should be right to accept this Amendment, although I hope that in what I have said the movers may find I have gone at least some way to meet their very proper concern about this matter. Frankly, for those reasons—because I doubt whether the Board are really equipped, whether they will stand close enough in to the actual consumers, and whether they are really in a position to take the place which the Ministry have in this matter—I am on the whole inclined to doubt whether this would be a duty which we should specifically lay upon the Board as the noble Lord is suggesting.
LORD MOLSON: The reply of my noble friend has been so sympathetic and he has so fully accepted my general lines of argument that I feel it is strange he cannot go a little further and undertake to incorporate something dealing with this matter in the Bill. He wholly accepts the importance of economy and he agrees that it is part of conservation, and that is the responsibility of the Water Resources Board. He also has

629
no doubt that the Minister, on suitable occasions, will seek the advice of the Water Resources Board upon the subject. Yet he holds back from accepting my Amendment, and he did not even offer to consider putting down something in a different form for the Report Stage of this Bill. I think it is extremely important to incorporate in the terms of this Bill the importance of effecting adequate economies in the use of water.
I wholly accept what my noble friend has said, that, as regards small matters of economy by the domestic consumer, and so on, they would not be a suitable matter for the Water Resources Board; but would it not be appropriate for them to observe, say, that the consumption of water per head in the North of England is much greater or much less than it is in the South of England—that it is very much greater in one area than it is in another—and insist on inquiries as to why there is this great discrepancy? Of course, there may be some extremely good reason why; and there may be other reasons; but, surely, when we are having a national water policy there should be a responsibility imposed upon the Water Resources Board to make sure that what they are planning as the future development of the resources of the country shall not be less than is required if all reasonable economies are incorporated.
Following this just one stage further, I should like to invite my noble friend's attention to subsection (4) of this clause, which shows that it is contemplated that this Board shall have a staff. It is not for these people to give advice upon matters of detail about sprinkler taps and so on; that is not what I had in mind, although I gave that as one of the examples among thousands. We agree that economies should be effected. But it said that
"… the Board may, and shall if so required by any Minister, carry out such research, make such enquiries and submit such reports as the Board may consider necessary … or as the Minister in question may require; and for the purposes of their functions … give directions requiring any river authority to furnish the Board with such information relating to water resources in the area of the river authority as may be specified in the directions."
It seems to me that it is clear from the Bill that they are intended to deal with
630
broad matters of strategy over the country as a whole; that they are given specific powers to call upon the river authorities to make the investigations and give the information they call for. I feel that what my noble friend has said about the view of the Government does not justify the rejection without any further thought of the Amendment that I have moved. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to consider the matter again before the Report stage. If not, I shall be disposed to put down an Amendment of some kind in order to raise this matter again; and I think that in the speech that he has made this afternoon I shall find some extremely persuasive arguments to put before your Lordships.
EARL JELLICOE: My noble friend has rather frightened me by his last words. I listened attentively to what he said in moving his Amendment and also in elaborating it in his supplementary. I do not think it would be in the spirit of our discussion which we have had so far on this Bill in Committee if I were to appear unduly rigid but I do not think that I can advise your Lordships to accept the paragraph as it stands. There are difficulties, but I will not trouble your Lordships with the technical, or possible technical, difficulties; but if it is the general feeling of the Committee—and I sense that it may be—that we should accept the principle of my noble friend's Amendment—which is, as I understand it, that the Board should be expressly required or asked to advise on economy—I do not think that I should wish to dissuade the Committee. Even then, however, I should not like to be committed to the wording of the noble Lord's Amendment as it stands. In all the circumstances, and in the light of what he has said, I should like to avail myself of the opportunity which he has given me of thinking this matter over again between now and the Report stage, with a view possibly to putting down an Amendment myself.
LORD MOLSON: I am most grateful to my noble friend, and in view of the assurance he has given I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL JELLICOE: I think it is time for our supper; and in view of that I beg to move that the Committee adjourns until 8.30.
Moved, That the Committee do now adjourn.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended at half past seven o'clock until half past eight o'clock.]
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved to add to subsection (3):
("( ) to advise the Minister and river authorities on the measures to be taken on gathering ground to permit the greatest measure of access by the public consistent with the prevention of pollution of the water".
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 37. We are fortunate that in 1948 the Central Advisory Water Committee set up a gathering grounds sub-committee to go into the whole question of how far it was necessary in the interests of public health to avoid farming and human access to the gathering. grounds. In paragraph 11 of their Report they say:
"Many undertakers have in the past fifty years spent large sums in the acquisition of extensive tracts of gathering ground. Some have attempted not merely to control, but entirely to prevent, public access and agriculture on their moorlands."
They go on, in paragraph 43, to say what are the really effective defences in order to ensure that the water that that comes to the towns, for drinking, among other purposes, should be adequately pure.
There are four methods of purification: first, to eliminate potential sources of pollution of raw water; secondly, long storage; thirdly, filtration, and fourthly, chlorination. The three illnesses which are waterborne and against which it is necessary for them to take precautions are described in paragraph 16 and thereafter. They discuss these matters and how far it is necessary to have these four defences, and they say that it would not be satisfactory to have only one. But then, in paragraph 35, they say:
"It is a commonplace of history and of natural history that over-developed defences might stifle the life they are designed to protect; and it would not be in the national interest if, dissatisfied with effective practical security against typhoid the water industry were to pursue theoretical perfection in this
632
one field of public health, at the cost of seriously limiting facilities for healthy exercise and the reproduction of wholesome food."
Then, after considering the whole matter and hearing evidence from a great many local authorities and doctors, they arrive, in paragraph 51, at their conclusions—this is an authoritative Sub-Committee, and I think that the Government accept their general conclusions:
"The principle which we suggest should be followed in the control of gathering grounds is that the water entering the reservoir should be kept free from gross pollution, that the reservoir itself, and in some cases feeder streams, should be so protected as to prevent any fresh sources of pollution entering it directly, and that between the reservoir and the consumer there should be efficient filtration and sterilisation."
That is their conclusion.
Then they refer to well-known, large and important water authorities which have followed that line and where it has been found satisfactory:
"The adequacy of these lines of defence is, we consider, sufficiently demonstrated by the experience of the Bristol Water Company, the Corby Water Company, Leicester Corporation and many medium sized users of lowland impounded water who not only provide a pure and wholesome supply in fact, but are reasonably satisfied with the conditions under which they do it and are confident of their ability to maintain their good record without undue anxiety."
There are other famous local authorities which follow the same line—Sheffield, for example. Their representatives gave evidence before the Committee on the special point, and they said:
"Whatever pollution may enter the reservoirs due to the presence on the gathering grounds of small parties of pedestrians is not regarded as serious in view of

(a) the normal purifying effect of storage in large reservoirs,

(b) the filtration by slow sand or pressure filters;

(c) sterilisation,

which all Sheffield water receives. Such pollution is infinitesimal compared with the pollution that many undertakings drawing supplies from large rivers have to face."
Bristol takes the same line:
"Access to gathering grounds under proper control of such matters as rest centres, fire precautions, etc., should not be discouraged."
That is in contrast with what was then the view of Manchester, when their Water Engineer said:
"For various reasons a limited degree of access must be tolerated, but the risk of

633
pollution becomes progressively less the more we approach the ideal of total exclusion."
Having reviewed the whole matter in Appendix II, this Committee proceed to set out the existing practice of water undertakers, and anyone who looks at it will see that it varies from complete freedom of access to total prohibition. In their final summary, after giving their considered findings upon the matter, the Committee say:
"Subject to the foregoing recommendations—
and I need not weary your Lordships with what they are: they are perfectly clearly set out—
there is no reason to exclude the public from gathering grounds as such."
The policy of this Bill is to ensure that we have a national water policy. We know that there is going to be a greatly increased demand for water. We know that, as a result of that, it will be necessary for greatly increased areas to be acquired for this purpose. What my Amendment seeks to do is to ensure that the Water Resources Board considers and gives advice as to what should be done, in order to allow the maximum of public access to these gathering grounds, while ensuring reasonable purity of the water.
It is quite anomalous that all these years after this authoritative Committee has taken expert advice upon the subject, there should still be a wide disparity between the policies followed by different water authorities. If it is the intention to have a national water policy, if Parliament is going to set up a Water Resources Board, it should surely be one of the responsibilities of that Board to ensure that the maximum amount of access is allowed to these great gathering grounds, consistent with the maintenance of purity of water. There is no justification any longer for certain authorities to have old-fashioned obscurantist ideas as to what should be done. There are thoroughly reputable local water undertakings which are allowing access by the public, subject to reasonable restrictions, and surely we ought to make certain that that practice shall be extended over the whole country. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 3, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Molson.)
8.42 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: The arguments put forward by my noble friend are so cogent and so overwhelming that it behoves me to say very little here. But, first of all, I would say that, on second thoughts, I rather wish we had left out the last portion of our Amendment, from the word "consistent" to "water" at the end, because I think it perhaps puts an undue emphasis on this idea that access pollutes water. My noble friend has emphasised that this is going to be a growing question, and I think we should take every opportunity of re-emphasising that because we are legislating now for generations ahead, and within the next century I have little doubt that large parts of the heavy rainfall areas of this country will be catchment areas for water for the big cities.
The Bill provides a certain amount of safeguards for what are called amenities. There are two sorts of amenities. There is the amenity of the beautiful scenery, which can be admired from the road and so on, and there is the further amenity of the actual access to the ground itself. Of these, I place much more emphasis on the access. The water authorities will be able to make by-laws, under Clause 72, to deny in a varying degree the access of the public to these areas. I understand that all by-laws of this nature are subject to the approval of the Minister, but perhaps my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill will confirm that. At any rate, it takes a strong Minister to turn down by-laws put up to him ostensibly on the ground of maintaining the purity of the water. As my noble friend has emphasised, it is very much the case that there are two schools of thought in this matter, and any Minister who is not a strong Minister will always play for safety and tend to accept the safest possible interpretation of pollution. I may remind the Committee that water, even if polluted, speedily becomes unpolluted. You have only to take the course of the River Ganges, alternating as it does between burning ghauts, bathing ghauts and drinking water to realise that. A few miles of passage over the gravels is alleged to make the water perfectly pure in spite of the bodies, and so on, that have been in it.

635
If there were some way by which one could ensure that the by-laws were made by Parliament rather than by local authorities, one would feel that the general public would have better protection, because in my humble opinion—I may be wrong here—local authorities tend to be much more abitrary than the Minister. The Minister always has Parliament on his tail, whereas local authorities have not quite the same pressure of public opinion upon them. I hope that my noble friend in charge of the Bill will be able to reassure us on this matter, because it is one which I believe is going to be extremely important for our children and our grandchildren.
LORD AIREDALE: In this connection, I wonder whether the Minister will bear in mind that most harmless, clean and most pleasant of amenities, the sailing of dinghies on reservoirs and lakes.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: I wonder whether I may point out to the Minister—I do not quite know if it comes within this category, but it seems to—that nowhere have the words "wholesome water" been defined. It has been left to any medical officer of a local authority to say whether or not he thinks it is wholesome water. Having regard to the future, I think we had better have that defined. Secondly, it has not been laid down that there should be a ratio of effluent to dry-weather flow. When our rivers get very low, we want to safeguard the position; to know that there is an official definition of the ratio of effluent to dry-weather flow.
Thirdly, may I point out, on this question of health, that in Australian rivers, for instance, the amount of sodium chloride is never allowed to exceed a thousand parts per million, and generally the view is that it should not exceed five hundred parts per million. Here is a fact which I quote from the Report of the Water Research Association and which I think we ought to register some time during this debate: that human consumption of water adds directly to the chloride content. The average sewage effluent contains about eighty parts per million more chloride than the water consumed to produce it—and, furthermore, conventional cleaning does not
636
remove it. Therefore, on the lower stretches of a river you may have several eighty parts per million added together until, at the end of the river, there is too great a number of parts per million of chloride. I am very sorry to introduce this matter now, and I do not even know whether it arises at this point.
EARL JELLICOE: My noble friend has touched on a subject which is rather close to my own heart. I personally have long felt that as a result of, possibly, unscientific and rather Victorian inhibitions, or possibly through a failure on the part of water undertakers in the past to provide proper purification facilities—and that failure may have been very understandable, for these are expensive facilities—or for one reason or another, we have not been making proper use of what is a tremendous potential amenity advantage to this country: that is, the whole system of reservoirs which exists in this country. I know very well that in certain cases very good use is made of reservoirs for recreational purposes. For instance, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, will possibly be aware of a big new reservoir north of Northampton which provides one of the best sailing clubs for the whole of the Midlands. That is the type of amenity of which advantage can be taken, given proper purification and proper precautions on these reservoirs. We should seek to use this potential recreational facility to the best advantage for everybody concerned, and this is an objective I certainly share with my noble friend.
I would agree that we do not in all cases at the moment take full advantage of the potential of these reservoirs, and that in certain cases, for one reason or another, there may be unnecessary restriction on access for not only the gathering ground but also the reservoirs themselves. But having said that, I hope the noble Lord will agree with me that here I am not apart from him in objective. What I am not quite certain is whether I can go along with his specific requirement of the responsibilities which he wishes to place on the Water Resources Board. May I explain why? I arm sure that most noble Lords will recognise that it is primarily the statutory water undertakers who are in the first instance affected here. I would

637
have thought that they were really much more concerned, or likely to be more concerned, than the river authorities. For example, the river authorities are more likely to be developers of regulating reservoirs used not for direct supply to the consumer but for discharging water to rivers for abstraction and treatment lower down in the course.
Accordingly, I would suggest that the interest of river authorities in preventing the pollution of water in the reservoir, and therefore restricting public access, is not nearly so acute as that of the water undertakings. I would suggest that this associated question of restricting access to gathering grounds is not therefore likely to be a major matter of direct concern for the river authorities or for the Water Resources Board. I would have thought the Board will be concerned more with the contribution that particular reservoirs can make to its overall schemes of conservation than to this important but subsidiary matter of public access. That is one reason why I am doubtful whether the particular method suggested by my noble friend of making progress in this matter—and I agree progress should be made—is the right one.
Another reason, I think, is that my right honourable friend already has at hand an instrument for making progress here which is eminently suitable for that purpose—namely, the Minister's Central Advisory Water Committee. I would have thought that in its terms of reference, in its past work, its record and, indeed, in its constitution, as it were, the Central Advisory Water Committee is eminently suitable for the task of advising the Minister in this matter.
As my noble friend said, the Committee did, in fact, produce in 1948 the Report from which he quoted on access to gathering grounds. Since then, there have been, I think, notable advances in the scientific treatment of water. The National Parks have been established and I know the importance to the Peak National Park, with which my noble friend is intimately connected, which the freeing of access to the Longdendale reservoir is going to mean. An increasingly large number of our citizens are finding their recreation in the more mountainous areas of our country, which by their nature are the places where
638
reservoirs are sited or are likely to be sited.
May I also inform your Lordships that work is already in hand to review the technical aspects of this particular problem? Moreover, my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has it in mind to discuss with the Central Advisory Water Committee, at a meeting which he hopes to fix early in the New Year, the desirability of a further investigation of this matter. My noble friend will recall that the Central Advisory Water Committee last looked at it in a thorough way in 1948, and my right honourable friend is now considering whether it would not be desirable to ask them to have a further look at it.
In those circumstances, I would suggest that there is already a forum in which advice can be gathered and then given to my right honourable friend, that this is a tried and useful forum and that the Board would probably be the least appropriate forum. However, if at any time the position should change, there is absolutely no reason why, using the mechanism of Clause 12(2) of the Bill, the Minister should not decide to lay this additional responsibility upon the Water Resources Board. But since the Central Advisory Water Committee is just as likely in the near future to be again seized of this matter, I suggest that this moment would not be the time to lay (this additional responsibility upon the Water Resources Board.
LORD MOLSON: I am impressed by my noble friend's arguments, the more so because he began by saying that he is entirely sympathetic to the objective I have in mind. I recognise that under subsection (2) the Minister can ask for the advice of the Water Resources Board on this or on any other matter. At the same time, I am bound to say that when this authoritative Committee, sometimes called the Heneage Committee, because Colonel Heneage was Chairman of it, had made these very definite recommendations, after bearing the scientific evidence on the matter, it is quite extraordinary that six years later, when the Pennine Way was being organised, the Manchester Corporation, which has always been one of the most obscurantist of water authorities, should

639
have sought to oppose the Pennine Way simply on the ground of pollution. When the official witness turned up and opposed it in the terms that he did, it was obvious that there are water authorities who are so completely obsessed with old Victorian notions of pollution, which have been shown scientifically to have no relation at all to actual medical dangers, that I feel something more ought to be done.
I do not feel disposed to press this matter any further, in view of the sympathetic reply that the Minister has given. I am glad to know that his right honourable friend has this matter in mind, and I should not wish to press unduly that this particular line of approach should be adopted at the present moment. I confess that I should like to see this incorporated in the Bill, but in view of the fact that under this clause it is possible for the Minister at any time to ask for advice from the Water Resources Board upon the subject, and that he is quite obviously extremely interested in the matter, I accept the explanation given by my noble friend and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
EARL JELLICOE: Before my noble friend withdraws the Amendment—and it is a bad quid pro quo for his kindness in this respect—I should like to put a slight gloss on what he said about the attitude of the Manchester Corporation in this matter. It is not for me to fight Manchester's battles, but I feel that the facts at present are quite important here, as I am sure my noble friend will recognise, because they show that times change. I understand that Manchester Corporation are now taking steps which will mean that access will be freed to the gathering grounds which feed into Longdendale Reservoir system, and that will, I think, free access to something like one-third of the whole area of the Peak National Park. Secondly, as my noble friend may not be aware, but it is a fact, they are also contemplating steps to free access to Thirlmere in the Lake District. So there is an improvement in this respect.
LORD MOLSON: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to say this. I am grateful to my noble friend for mentioning that. The last thing I wish is to be unappreciative of what is being done, and
640
I was really relying upon all that has happened in the past in the case of the Manchester Corporation. It all tends to show that there is hope that we may have a national policy in this matter which will be in line with modern scientific thought.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD CONESFORD: I wish to raise one matter which I believe to be of considerable importance and which has not yet been mentioned in these debates. I am sure that all members of the Committee are aware of the scientific progress that is being made in the recovery of fresh water from the sea. This is a most important matter. I had occasion to discover how important it was ten months ago when I had the honour and delight of being associated with my friend the late Lord Birkett in opposition to the Manchester Bill dealing with Ullswater. In my speech on that occasion, in winding up on behalf of those who supported Lord Birkett's Motion, I pointed out for how short a time Manchester would obtain relief even if they got everything for which they were then seeking. I quoted a spokesman of the Manchester water undertaking, who said that within a few years they would have to deal with this problem by taking water from the sea. I think it is a matter of general knowledge among those who study these matters that within a comparatively short period it may become of vital importance to make progress in this sphere. In the long run that is certain, and I think in the not very long run.
What I would say about that on this Bill is this, and here I think I may have the support of noble Lords in all sections of the Committee. The Minister and the Water Resources Board certainly ought to be thinking of this problem. They certainly ought to be devoting themselves to making progress in this sphere. Let me explain briefly to the Minister why I fear that this clause as it stands will not impose the duty required. The Minister may well agree with what I desire end he may say: "Of course we desire that the Minister under this Bill, and this Board, should think of this problem. But why do you suppose that they will not do it under the

641
Bill as now drawn?" Let me tell him the grounds of my fear. If he will turn to Clause 117 (1), and to a passage which he will find on page 98 of the Bill, he will find these words:
"'Water resources has the meaning assigned to it by section 2 of this Act."
That sends us back to Clause 2 of this Bill. Now Clause 2 quite clearly does not include sea water, because it says
"in this act 'water resources' … means water for the time being contained in any source of supply in that area …"
and then the vital words are these:
"… that is to say—(a) so much of any inland water … and (b) any underground strata in that area."
But it does not appear to include sea water. Therefore, my noble friend will see that not only is there no express mention of sea water in the clause we are considering, but implied mention also appears to be negatived by the fact that the expression "water resources" does not include the sea.
Let me go on to say—because I am, I suppose, a rather cautious lawyer—that it might be conceivably argued that you would be "augmenting" water resources, as defined, if you obtained fresh water from the sea. All I can say, without guessing the legal advice that may be given by skilled Parliamentary draftsmen, is that I believe the Committee will generally agree with me that we should put the matter beyond all doubt by making the matter clear in express terms in this clause. I must now confess that my criticism, probably does not apply only to this clause. It probably will also require a consequential Amendment to Clause 1 of the Bill where the Minister's functions are dealt with.
I only gave my noble friend, who has shown such exemplary mastery of this Bill at all stages, notice of my point quite a short time ago. It would be quite unfair to ask for a detailed answer at this moment. What I do hope from him is that he should say that it certainly is the desire of the Minister that both he and the Water Resources Board should be under a duty to study this problem and to experiment, and should undertake that at a later stage of the Bill, if he is so advised, as I am confident that he will be, that the words in the Bill at present do not secure that object, he will introduce the necessary Amendments.
9.10 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: I recognise the importance of this subject, which, of course, my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye dealt with at some not inappropriate length during our Second Reading debate, and I am also most grateful to my noble friend Lord Conesford that he found time over a half bottle of claret a few moments ago to give me a little warning of his intention. I think he has given me just enough warning, but I am not certain, because I think the clause as it stands does give the Minister the necessary powers.
My noble friend took us on a slight point-to-point—or should I say"clauseto-clause"—through the Bill just now, and I am afraid I must repeat the dose. We start with the clause with which we are dealing, Clause 12 (3) (a), where it is laid down that the duty of the Water Resources Board shall be
"to consider in what way action needs to be taken for the purposes of conserving, redistributing or otherwise augmenting water resources, either in England and Wales generally or in relation to any particular river authority area,".
I would agree with my noble friend that that in itself is not sufficient, but I am not relying on that for although I am not a lawyer I am going to be suitably cautious. I would then go to Clause 2 (1) on page 2, where my noble friend will find that water resources include inland waters and also water in underground strata. From there I suggest we jump to Clause 117 (1) on page 96, two pages before my noble friend's page, where he will find that inland water includes tidal waters within a given river authority area. So, as I am advised—and I will make no bones that I have sought advice on this—the Water Resources Board can recommend action to de-salinise water, whether in tidal waters or from saline bore holes.
Jumping back to Clause 12 (4), we find that the research power which is incorporated in that clause is in connection with any matters referred to in Clause 12 (3), and, I gather, also extends to this matter of de-salinisation. I think, therefore, that technically the Bill does provide what my noble friend is quite rightly after. In any event, I can assure him that my right honourable friend will certainly expect the Water Resources Board to keep abreast of the latest techniques

643
in this vastly important matter of desalination—and I have no doubt at all that it is going to be an increasingly important matter. How much experimental or research work it does itself will, I think, depend on how this particular subject is handled and parcelled out between the various national research organisations by the co-ordinating hand of the existing Inter-Departmental Committee on Hydrological Research. I think that in general the Water Resources Board's umbrella will extend over this matter of salt water, but I should not like to rely upon rather a snap answer to my noble friend on this; I should like to have a chance tomorrow of looking in more detail at what he has said.
LORD CONESFORD: I am most grateful to my noble friend. If that is his idea of a snap answer on a legal point, I tremble to think what a lawyer he would have made if he had devoted his mind to that subject.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Constitution of Water Resources Board
13.—(1) The members of the Water Resources Board, of whom there shall be not more than seven, shall be appointed by the Minister, and he shall appoint one of them to be chairman and one to be deputy chairman.
9.15 p.m.
LORD CAWLEY LORD CAWLEY moved to leave out subsection (1) and insert
"(1) The Water Resources Board shall consist of not less than seven members, of whom two shall be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and of whom the remainder shall be appointed by the Minister who shall appoint one of the members of the Board to be Chairman and one to be Deputy Chairman."
The noble Lord said: The more I look at this Amendment the less likely I think it is to be accepted. Nevertheless, I will move it to test Her Majesty's Government's attitude towards some representation of agriculture on the Water Resources Board. At the present moment the Water Resources Board is made up of water engineers. The obtaining of water is, of course, extremely tied up with agriculture. The Water Resources Board is entrusted with the task of finding water, and it
644
could easily advise, in an extreme case; "The way to get water is to put a dam across the entrance of this extremely rich fertile valley; then, of course, you get your water". In my submission, if there were some representation of agriculture that sort of mistake would not be perpetrated. I fear that these technical men may easily lose sight of the tremendous damage they might do to agricultural interests. I assume that their advice would be overruled at a later date, but would it not be much better to have some form of check on the Water Resources Board so that it would not indulge in a large quantity of useless research? I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 19, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Cawley.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: There is nothing much that I can say to give greater encouragement to my noble friend than he feels at the moment. Noble Lords have already discussed the powers and composition of the Water Resources Board. The present proposal, as he has said, is that two members of the Board should be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture. Had Amendment No. 33 been pressed to a Division and won, my reply would have had to be rather more cautious, because of course the whole situation would have been changed. Amendment No. 33 would have interposed the Water Resources Board between the river authorities and the Minister of Agriculture in questions affecting land drainage and fisheries. As it is, questions affecting land drainage and fisheries can be, and will be, referred by the river authorities to my right honourable friend, just as they always have been by the river boards.
Moreover, as the debate has already shown, the members of the Board will require to be specially chosen, having regard to the skills and expertise required; and undoubtedly, and quite unprejudiced by anything I have said, there should be represented on the Board someone able to consider matters affecting agriculture and fisheries. But we must remember that the Water Resources Board is a body reporting to, and advising, the Minister of

645
Housing, and it is reasonable, therefore, that the members should be appointed by him.
I think it would be wrong to go further than this because if two members were appointed presumably to reflect the interests of farming, land drainage or fisheries it would be only reasonable to make appointments to reflect other interests affected by the work of river authorities. There would be such pressure from all kinds of interests that the Water Resources Board would become far too large, or we think it would be far too large, for the efficient conduct of business. On this point the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, as a former member of the Proudman Sub-Committee, said during the debate on Second Reading [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 244 (No. 12), col. 1066] that this small number, that is to say, seven,
"would, I believe, make for administrative efficiency, and that must be all important … I know that there have been ideas that the Water Resources Board should be more representative, but I would say that the river authorities themselves are fully representative."
I hope that noble Lords will agree that it would be detrimental to throw the membership of the Board open to bids from particular interests.
On the particular point of my noble friend fearing as to what might be done through an action or a decision of the Water Resources Board, I would remind him that of course it would have to be done with the agreement of the river authority, and on the river authority all interests are in fact represented.
LORD CAWLEY: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. I now see what the position is and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.22 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved, in subsection (1), after "seven" to insert" to be drawn from both England and Wales". The noble Lord said: Here I return to a point that I have made previously, and particularly on Second Reading—namely, that it would be much more satisfactory to Wales if the words that I propose were included in the Bill, and that Wales should not have to rely on a ministerial assurance. In his speech on Second Reading the noble Earl said
646
that, "The rain in Spain may fall mainly on the plain", but that in Britain it tends to fall upon the Celtic fringe. His memory of My Fair Lady and his meteorological observations I would say are exact—they do, in fact, meet the point precisely. I would also think that it is true that his experience of life, and clearly his obviously close knowledge of musical comedy, has shown him that the best way to get what you want is to woo, and not to push on ahead. He must surely have perceived this and will think that there is something in it.
I do not think that those who live in the Welsh part of the Celtic fringe and have read in the White Paper that the Welsh Advisory Water Committee is in jeopardy, will feel that they are being wooed in respect of the water that falls upon them. I think that some amends could be made by the inclusion of my words in the Bill. There is nothing new in recognising Wales in Acts of Parliament. We have recently passed a Transport Act which made special provision for a Welsh Committee though I forget the name of it for the moment. We have also made provision for a Minister of State for Welsh Affairs in this House. Indeed, he was sitting here a short time ago, and I rather hoped he would remain, so that I might call him in aid on this matter and that he might give me active support.
I do not want to labour this point too much; I talked about it at some little length on Second Reading. But I would most strongly advise the Minister to accept these simple words, and to please a fairly large section of Welsh opinion in this important matter of getting the right atmosphere to ensure that the water that does fall there may be made available for the people of what might be starving England in relation to water. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 20, after ("seven") insert ("to he drawn from both England and Wales").(Lord Champion.)
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I sincerely hope that the Government will not accept this Amendment, for the very reasons the Government put forward for the rejection of the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Grenfell, No. 18. It would be unfair to restrict the choice. A Minister has to find the best people,

647
and sometimes the best people come from Scotland—even to govern the affairs of England and Wales. Therefore I sincerely hope no such restriction will be put on the Minister. Perhaps we may well see a Scotsman giving a contribution to this subject, as Scotland has to so many other subjects South of the Border.
EARL JELLICOE: I find myself rather exposed, as it were, between these two Celtic fires, but I am afraid that I must assure my noble friend that I am not unsympathetic to the purpose behind Lord Champion's Amendment. I do not think he really needs the support of my noble friend Lord Brecon, though I am sure it would have been added had the sought it. It is, indeed, highly important, in view of the importance of Wales, of Welsh water, and indeed of Welsh susceptibilities, that Wales should not only have a say but be seen to have a say on this Board. That was why, on Second Reading, in response to the point made by the noble Lord, I said, as he mentioned, that I could assure him I had no doubt that at least one member would be a Welshman.
I must confess, however, that I am not at all happy about the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment as at present drafted. His intention, presumably, is that at least one member of the Board should be drawn from Wales. But what does "drawn from Wales" mean? Does it imply that at least one member must be resident in Wales, which was I think the point to which my noble friend was alluding; or that there must be at least one Welshman on the Board? Or would a member be "drawn from Wales" if he were to be a Welshman not at the time of his appointment resident in Wales? Greatly daring, could I ask the noble Lord where Monmouth comes in?
LORD CHAMPION: Do not ask me that. I would not answer it.
EARL JELLICOE: I can further assure the noble Lord that it is the Government's intention to include a Welshman among the members of the board. As I have said, I also assured the noble Lord on Second Reading that this was the case, and I am glad to be able to do so again. Ideally, it would be highly desirable that that person not only should be knowledgeable in one of the special
648
forms of expertise which we think should find its place among the limited number of members of the board, but should also have a full knowledge of the special water problems of Wales, which we recognise. Whether or not such a member would be found within the Principality itself remains to be seen, and I think it would be unfortunate if the Bill were to debar the appointment of an otherwise eminently suitable Welshman merely because of his temporary or unfortunate residence elsewhere.
I would therefore ask the noble Lord if he could see his way to withdraw his Amendment. In so doing, I can assure him that we agree with him on the substance of this point, and that all I am doubtful about is the wording he has proposed. I suggest to him that he might consider withdrawing his Amendment, on the understanding that we will see whether we can produce a suitable and watertight Amendment to cover this point, and the difficulties which I have mentioned, when we come back to this clause on Report stage.
LORD CHAMPION: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for that reply: he holds out a wonderful promise to me. He rather twitted me, if I may use that word. upon the drafting of my Amendment; be said that he did not know what it meant. Perhaps I ought to remind him that I took those words directly out of the White Paper for which he must have been partly responsible. But I will not continue in this vein as the hour is late. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.31 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN LORD LINDGREN moved, after subsection (1), to insert:
"( ) Two or more of the members of the Board shall be persons having had experience of, and shown capacity in, or otherwise having special knowledge of, matters relating to public water supply."
The noble Lord said: This, too, is an Amendment in regard to the seven wise men whose appointment is provided for in Clause 13. Though it provides for the appointment of these people to the Water Resources Board, at least so far as I can see there is nothing in the clause to indicate what would qualify a member for the Board. The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that at least two out of the seven

649
shall have experience and specialised knowledge in matters relating to public water supply.
The Water Resources Board will be concerned—and this was emphasised by the defeat of a previous Amendment this afternoon—with the new functions of the river authorities. It will therefore be concerned, as we have already stated, with the planning of the water resources of the country. The new Board will therefore be concerned with the provision of public water supplies as a major part of its work, and it would therefore appear to be only correct that there should at least be persons on it who have specialised knowledge in regard to it. This Amendment suggests in a modest way that two of those members: should be so qualified. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 22, at end insert the said subsection.— (Lord Lindgren.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I hope the noble Earl, when he comes to reply, will treat this Amendment with sympathy. He may recall that in the famous debate on the White Paper in May, my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, who unfortunately has now had to leave the Committee, went into some detail about suggestions as to how the Water Resources Board should be composed. If I may remind your Lordships very briefly of what was said at that time, the noble Lord suggested [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 240, col. 1104], that we should probably require
"a scientist with hydrological experience".
That was one person. The next person he suggested was
"someone with experience of large-scale industrial operation".
He thought another person should have
"practical experience of the problems of the supply and distribution of water".
Then there should be
"an agriculturist … and a member with outside—that is extra-Departmental—financial experience".
I think that when the noble Earl came to reply to that debate in May, he was not unsympathetic to the careful thought that had been given at that time to the sort of constitution this Board should have. I wonder whether it would be too much to ask that the noble Earl, in
650
applying his mind to and replying to this Amendment, which has been very tersely and clearly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, should perhaps give us a little indication of how he feels in this matter. I think that at this stage of our discussions we should rather like to know what he has in mind for the expertise that should be represented on this Water Resources Board. I think it would help us if he could do that now, perhaps, in reply to this Amendment.
EARL JELLICOE: May I at once respond to my noble friend's invitation to give the Committee some idea of how our present thinking runs on the constitution of the Water Resources Board, and how the membership of seven members should be split up? He referred to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve during our debate on the White Paper. During that debate, as my noble friend said, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve outlined the six forms of expertise (I think there were six) which he felt should be represented and should find their part on the Water Resources Board.
I think the simplest thing for me to say is that on this point we agree with my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve. We feel that the forms of expertise which he mentioned are precisely those which should find their place within the Water Resources Board; and they include, as my noble friend has mentioned, an intimate knowledge in matters of water supply, industry and questions of finance. I can assure him that we recognise, as obviously we must, that an intimate knowledge of the water supply industry and water supply undertakings must be one of the forms of expertise which should find their place within the Water Resources Board. As I think I mentioned myself in replying to the debate on Second Reading, it was not perhaps entirely coincidental that, while my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve suggested that there should be six special forms of expertise, we have provided for a Water Resources Board of seven members. What we have in mind is six special forms and a Chairman.
Now may I turn to the precise Amendment which the noble Lord has moved? As I see it, if an Amendment of this kind were to be accepted we should be faced

651
immediately with similar demands from all the other interests who would inevitably press us that they should similarly be represented on the Board. In that case, I do not see how we could logically avoid providing similar representation on the Water Resources Board for, say, the agricultural interest, the fisheries interest, the industrial interest and so on. I should have thought that that would undermine our concept of what sort of Board this should be, and the way it should be constituted; because immediately, if one were to do that (and I think this would follow almost as night follows day) the Board would become an entirely representative Board.
Now this idea of a representative Water Resources Board runs quite contrary to our conception of it. As I have indicated, we have very close sympathy with the ideas which my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve produced before us during our debate in May, but, basically, it is our hope and our intention to create a Board which should be fully capable of taking the decisions required in planning and overseeing the execution of a really national water conservation policy. I think that that means that there really cannot be any question of "dishing out" the seats on the Board among the interests concerned. If we were to do so, I think it would be calculated to lead to a Board which would, in fact, do little more than dispute about the treatment of those particular interests.
Moreover, it seems improbable that the affected interests could be embraced within the compass of a Board not exceeding seven members. If the water undertakers have two, then I can see the way to eight or ten almost immediately. The Government attach really prime importance to this idea of a small and expert Water Resources Board, and I, for one, would be most unwilling to see us depart from that principle. It is central not only to our concept but also to the concept of the Proudman Committee, as I read the Proudman Committee Report. What we want is a small, strong and effective Board. Above all, we wish to avoid what I might call a council of delegates. I am sure that if we accept this Amendment we are starting down a slope which would lead inevitably to a weak Board.
652
And since I, for one, wish to avoid that, I cannot advise your Lordships to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, although I fully recognise—and if I do not the Government do—the great importance this Board will have for the statutory water undertakers. I recognise, as the Government do, that the statutory water undertakers have a crucial position, because they have a statutory obligation to supply water to the domestic consumers. Perhaps I can assure the noble Lord Who moved the Amendment so clearly if I repeat to him what my noble friend Lord Hastings said during the first Committee day [OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 378, Thursday, December 6]:
"We are thinking about this question of the statutory obligation. It is our aim to help and we shall think about it."
Those words were not lightly used. We are thinking how we can introduce into the Bill some way of setting out the special position in which the statutory water undertakers find themselves. But, that said, I cannot advise the Committee to accept this Amendment.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Before the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, speaks, may I say one word? In reading out the quotation from Hansard—and this is simply for the Record—of Lord Sinclair of Cleeve's speech, I started in the wrong column, so that if noble Lords read it they will see that I have mentioned only five expertises. The first one which I left out—and it is almost the most important—is that of a civil engineer with experience of constructional work. I though that, for the Record, I should put that right. I would add that I am wholly satisfied by the arguments Which the noble Earl has deployed, and I am interested to note that one of the reasons he gives for rejecting this Amendment is that he does not want to weaken the Water Resources Board. That is very important, and I am most impressed by that argument.
LORD LINDGREN: May I assure the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, from this side of the House that we are 100 per cent. with him that this Board should not became a representative Board. We agree that it would then cease to be the effective instrument for planning that we hope it will be. In view of his assurance that the general principle as outlined by Lord Sinclair of Cleeve

653
will be generally accepted by the Government, I most willingly withdraw the Amendment.
LORD JELLICOE: Before the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment may I say that I apologise if I was misusing his argument. I took him to mean that he did in a certain way desire the Board to be representative, but I understand that is not the case.
LORD LINDGREN: It was a question of knowledge and experience; not representation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"( ) One member of the Board shall be appointed by the Minister after consulting the National Parks Commission".
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, had a long-standing engagement and was unable to remain here to move this Amendment, which I beg to move on his behalf. My noble friend the Minister of State has said several times this afternoon how much concerned the Government are to ensure that amenity interests should be taken fully into consideration. We recognise that already a large part of the most beautiful parts of our country is used as gathering grounds and we all realise that, as a result of the passing of this Bill, the area used for that purpose is going to be greatly increased.
It is common ground amongst us all that it should be possible for great areas of wild and rugged beauty to be preserved by doing so, but this requires care and attention. We have been assured that the Government will try to make certain that developments take place in this way. The National Parks Commission are not only responsible for the National Parks but, under the Act of 1949, they are given a general advisory sphere in regard to access to the countryside and the general preservation of beauty. Surely it would be appropriate that on this Water Resources Board, which is intended to co-ordinate the general policy in all parts of the country, there should be a representative of the National Parks Commission. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 22, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Molson.)
EARL JELLICOE: The Amendment does not in terms require a separate amenity member of the Board, but I think that in practice it is likely that the Minister would find it necessary to appoint such a person as an addition to those having the skills and background more directly connected with the work of the Board which we have touched on in the previous Amendment. I have found myself saying more than once this afternoon to noble Lords that, whilst I had sympathy with the purpose behind their Amendments, I did not feel able to recommend your Lordships to accept them, and I am afraid that this is very much the position in which I find myself with regard to my noble friend's Amendment.
May I tell your Lordships why I am not particularly enamoured of it? My first reason is one which will be familiar to your Lordships. We want a really effective Board, and in our view this means a small and compact group. If we accept the noble Lord's argument that a seat on the Board should be reserved for this type of person, we are again starting down the road that will lead to a larger Board; and, to some extent, the acceptance of this Amendment would weaken the argument against what I have termed a representative Board.
Another reason for avoiding undue rigidity is that when we get a chairman of the Board he may well have his own ideas of other members. I would assume that, one way or another, they would not be far away from those of my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, but we want to have some freedom to go along with his advice. I would also say that to accept this Amendment would be a departure from our established practice. I do not say that this is an absolutely clinching reason for not accepting the Amendment, but I think it is worth recalling that there is no statutory obligation to consult the National Parks Commission or to appoint an amenity member in the case of any of the Boards which manage the nationalised industries. This applies, too, for example, to the Central Electricity Generating Board, the British Waterways Board and, I understand, the other boards to be established under the Transport Act, 1962.

655
Admittedly, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, pointed out on Second Reading, that distinguished architect and planner Sir William Holford serves on the Central Electricity Generating Board—although I should mention that the noble Lord was wrong in saying that amenity representation on that Board was a statutory requirement; as I understand it, it is not. But, in any event, the Central Electricity Generating Board is a fully executive body and it is constantly building power stations, nuclear and otherwise. The Water Resources Board, on the other hand, will not normally be building reservoirs, although it will be doing it in the case, which I hope will be rare, of a default by a river authority. So I do not think the skill of an architect is relevant to its work as it is obviously relevant to the work of the Central Electricity Generating Board.
I should not be arguing against this Amendment if I felt the amenity defences in the Bill were weak. I have tried to show on previous Amendments touching, on amenity that I did not think this was the case. But having said that, I would be the first to recognise that the activities of the Board will have considerable significance for amenity, because it will be responsible for planning the major strategy of the development of our water resources and sooner or later this is bound to mean new works in areas of high landscape value.
I should like to come back to the argument I used before. Surely the best safeguard for amenity is to ensure that those appointed by Parliament to be the custodians of amenity, the National Parks Commission and the local planning authorities (and I recognise that the National Parks Commission's writ runs further than the National Parks themselves) are told about water projects at the formative stage. If this is done, they can influence schemes right from the start. So far as the Water Resources Board is concerned, effective consultation with the National Parks Commission at a sufficiently early stage is really essentially what is needed, and this can be secured as the Bill stands at present by a direction of the Minister to the Board under Clause 95 (3). In view of those considerations, some general and some particular, I do not think I can advise noble Lords to accept
656
this Amendment, and I trust that my noble friend, who has had some success with Amendments this evening, will not press it.
LORD MOLSON: I am most grateful to my noble friend for his sympathetic reply. I recognise that he and the Government for whom he speaks fully appreciate the importance and the merit of considerations that we have put forward. As regards this Amendment, I have been deputising for the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and no doubt he will read what the noble Earl has said and will consider whether he will want to take the matter any further on the Report stage. So far as I am concerned, I am grateful to my noble friend for having repeated what he said on the earlier Amendment, and I feel it may well be that if we withdraw these various Amendments we have moved, on the assurances given by the Government, we shall find that we obtain something much more valuable than that which we have lost. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Periodical surveys]:
LORD GRENFELL LORD GRENFELL moved, in subsection (1) (b), after "demand" to insert:
"during a period of not less than twenty years from the date of the estimate".
The noble Lord said: Clause 14 (1) reads:
"It shall be the duty of each river authority, as soon as practicable after the second appointed day …
(b) to prepare an estimate of the future demand …"
and so on. I put down this Amendment because I felt that the word "future" is so uncertain in its length that a demand for 20 years would make certain that river authorities could look at least that distance ahead. It is possible that the period of 20 years may be arguable, but I feel sure that the river authorities should have some guiding light to work on in their proceedings. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 36, after ("demand") insert ("during a period of not less than twenty years from the date of the estimate")—(Lord Grenfell.)
LORD CAWLEY: I rise to support this Amendment. It appears to be much better to have a finite period than an infinite period. We want to get some knowledge of the overall demand for water. It would be disastrous if one authority interpreted the future as five years, another as fifteen years, and a third as 20 years. We should get an overall estimate of the water.
LORD HASTINGS: I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Grenfell has had to wait to such a late hour in order to move this Amendment. I am particularly sorry because I am afraid that I have to ask the Committee to reject it. I am even more sorry because the reason for doing so is that we do not believe that it would improve the Bill; indeed, it might in some respects prove a handicap. I will give the reason why. The river authority is under a duty to prepare an estimate of the future demand for the supply of water from the resources of the area. The Minister, the Water Resources Board, and the river authorities themselves, will want to look as far forward as they can in estimating demand and formulating proposals to meet it.
Now I come to the point made by my noble friend Lord Cawley, that it would be disastrous if the time factor were different in respect of different river authorities. In fact that is not so, because what is possible in respect of forward estimating will vary from one river authority to another. To put a minimum requirement of 20 years could be unrealistic in some areas, and would bring no improvement in the quality of estimates made. What I mean by the "quality of estimates" is that it is no use doing guesswork; and in some areas it will not be easy to estimate forward for as much as 20 years, whereas there could be a high degree of certainty in estimating, say for ten years or even fifteen years. In other areas, however, it may be possible to estimate not only for 20 years but even further ahead; and it would be unfortunate to foster any impression that 20 years is a period of special significance, or that in all cases it is always enough. With that explanation, I hope that my noble friends behind me will realise that there is no special value in this period of 20 years, and that the absence of any particular time factor put into the Bill
658
does not mean that the estimates for a period sufficiently far ahead will not be made. As I say, it will vary from area to area and the Water Resources Board will, in fact, be able to gain a very good idea of the national resources overall for a sufficiently long period ahead.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I am not quite happy with the Minister's reply. The Bill, as drafted, says
"to prepare an estimate of the future demand".
If you turn over the page, subsection (2) says that those estimates shall be reviewed at intervals of not more than seven years. It seems to me very vague that the noble Lord should just say "future demand". The noble Lord used the words "no use for guesswork". Equally, vagueness is no good. Suppose a particular authority interpreted "the future" as being five years ahead, it would then be completely meaningless to say at the end of seven years that it would have to be reviewed, because, in fact, it would automatically be reviewed at the end of the period which they considered "the future". Therefore, I think that between now and the Report stage the Government might consider whether they should tidy up the Bill in another place in order to get some sort of rule as to the broad time on which estimates should be made—certainly not less than seven years if, in turn, they make it compulsory that there should be a review every seven years. I trust I make the point; and if my noble friend withdraws the Amendment, perhaps between now and Report that particular drafting question could be settled.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: May I please say just a word? If your Lordships read the literature of past Committees you will see they point out that when the dry years of 1933, 1958 and 1959 came, certain public authorities, because they had no justification for using their ratepayers' money in loans beyond a certain point, had run too fine altogether and found themselves, and therefore their water users, in a tight place. That situation really ought to be altered. It ought to be made possible for the public authorities not to deserve that rebuke which was given from the centre as to their attitude in not looking sufficiently far ahead for their water users'

659
comfort. It is really absolutely necessary to have at least a seven-year period put into the Bill, and for this reason. The Proudman Committee did not dare go beyond 1965, and we are almost there now. The Welsh Water Committee used the year 1990, which sounds rather distant. But, on the basis of growing demand for water and increasing use of everything else because of increasing prosperity, they found that a 2·3 per cent. annual increase for the first years was the tale; and the Welsh Advisory Water Committee also, anticipating even greater prosperity, found that up to 1960 the annual increase would be 2·4 per cent. Therefore, I feel that we must ask the Government kindly to put in a seven-year period as being the very least that we can look forward to in making arrangements.
LORD HASTINGS: I fully appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and supported by the noble Earl, Lord Albemarle. Of course the fact that there are to be reviews every seven years is in itself, I think, an assurance that estimates ahead must be for at least that period or still further ahead. But of course I am perfectly willing to consider this point of detail, which is a drafting point, between now and Report stage, and see whether we can put in something to improve it in that respect. At the same time I do not think that noble Lords need worry that there is any danger of underestimating the time factor. Of course, the whole purpose of the Bill is to ensure that public authorities will not run short of water in the future, and the conservation part of the Bill is designed specially for that purpose, for the Water Resources Board to supervise the whole operation. I do not think there is any danger of these fears being realised in the case of any single river authority, but I will look at that drafting point and see whether there is something we can put in: to satisfy noble Lords.
LORD GRENFELL: I am most grateful to my noble friends who have supported me in this Amendment and also to my noble friend the Minister who has agreed to look at it again from the drafting point of view, and with that I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Information obtained in pursuance of hydrometric schemes]:
10.3 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: This is a drafting Amendment only. The intention is that this information should be freely available to the internal drainage boards, which have a responsibility distinct from the river board now and the river authority to come in respect of their own internal drainage district. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 23, after ("and") insert ("internal").—(Lord Hastings.)
On question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Gauges and records kept by other persons]:
10.9 p.m.
LORD CAWLEY LORD CAWLEY moved, in subsection (1), after "instal" to insert: "otherwise than for a temporary purpose". The noble Lord said: This Amendment is to prevent this clause from becoming a polluters' charter. I am instructed that it is frequently necessary for pollution measurement to put up a temporary gauge. The gauge takes two or three days to set up, readings are taken, and it can be removed within a week. If this clause becomes law as it stands, this type of gauge will be covered, and before such a gauge can be set up three months' notice must be given to the river authority. During that period polluters can pollute and the person who is attempting to prevent them and to get evidence against them cannot get his evidence. There is another good reason for this. These temporary gauges put up for about a week are often used to discover whether effluent may safely be put into a river. They are put up and then removed. I think it would be putting an undue burden on somebody who wanted to discover that fact to have to give three months' notice before he could set up a gauge. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 31, after ("instal") insert ("otherwise than for a temporary purpose"). —(Lord Cawley.)
LORD HASTINGS: This Amendment would exempt from the provisions of subsection (1) any person proposing to install gauges for a temporary purpose. The Amendment gives rise to the question what is a temporary purpose, and even though the requirements of subsection (1) would not apply, subsection (2) would still entitle the river authority to inspect any records kept by the person exempted from the requirements of subsection (1). I am not quite clear even now what is the precise purpose behind my noble friend's Amendment. He described the Bill as it is as a polluters' charter. I was unable to follow his reasoning in that respect, but I will go on to say that I thought perhaps he had in mind gauges used by fishermen to assess the depth or flow of a river. It has been suggested by the Ministry of Agriculture that the clause should not apply to ordinary fishermen's gauges, and consideration is being given to this.
Therefore, I will invite the noble Lord to withdraw this Amendment on the understanding that we will consider the possibility of excluding fishermen's gauges and any other gauges to be installed for not more than 28 days (he was talking in terms of only three or four days in a week) from the provisions of the whole clause. Subsection (2) as wall as subsection (1) will be considered between now and the Report stage. I am sorry that I have not followed the noble Lord's argument on polluters, but we are ready to insert an Amendment that will exempt fishermen's and certain temporary gauges from the operation of the clause.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: May I just make it clear whether "temporary gauges" means those gauges which are erected for the purpose of checking pollution or dilution of effluent? They are erected at short notice and a reading is taken and the possibility of action for pollution passes by—it is lost. The noble Lord speaks of three months, and of fishermen's gauges and certain others. I hope that he will take into consideration the arguments which my friend and I have put forward.
LORD HASTINGS: I do understand the purpose of it. I am afraid that I must have been slow before. I understand now, and I am sure those will be taken into consideration.
LORD CAWLEY: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, and I gladly withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CAWLEY LORD CAWLEY moved, in subsection (1) (b), after "months" to insert: "or such less period as the river authority may allow". The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross having been called away, I am moving this Amendment on his behalf. Again I am instructed that there are certain simple gauges which take the form of posts with rings round them and that sort of thing. My noble friend considers that possibly three months is too long a notice to be given, and that the river authorities should be allowed to reduce that period in respect of these simple gauges. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 35 after ("months") insert the said words.—(Lord Cawley.)
LORD HASTINGS: The purpose of this subsection as at present drafted is to enable the river authority to obtain benefit from, and to avoid duplication of, measuring work being done by others. The intention behind the Amendment is to allow a person giving notice to start work before the three months' period has expired, if the river authorities are agreeable. This is reasonable enough. As amended, however, paragraph (a) of the subsection would make rather difficult reading, and therefore I suggest that the noble Lord may like to withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that a suitable Government Amendment will be introduced at a later stage of this Bill.
LORD CAWLEY: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, and again I am glad to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Minimum acceptable flows]:
10.15 p.m.
LORD DE RAMSEY LORD DE RAMSEY moved in subsection (2), to leave out "Minister" and insert "Ministers". The noble Lord said: If the Committee will agree, in

663
moving the Amendment to Clause 19 I will include those consequential Amendments standing in my name to Clauses 20, 21 and 22 and to Schedule 6.
EARL JELLICOE: Might I ask the noble Lord how many that would be?
LORD DE RAMSEY: There are thirteen Amendments. If that is the Committee's pleasure, I will explain the effect of this first Amendment, which is to make the Minister of Agriculture a joint authority with the Minister of Housing and Local Government in confirming schemes submitted by river authorities to fix minimum flows. There is an inevitable conflict of interest in fixing these minimum flows between, on the one hand, the water extractors, including agriculture, and fisheries, pollution and land drainage interests, on the other. It is obvious why fisheries and pollution interests are vitally concerned, though the land drainage interests are not quite so obvious. It might be supposed that, provided that the water is got rid of, the land drainage interests would not mind where it went, so long as, as G. K. Chesterton said, it did not get into the wine. The reason is that the river outfalls, upon which the whole drainage system depends, must be kept properly covered.
It seems to me that, once it is granted that the minimum flows are a vital land drainage and fisheries matter—and that cannot be denied—then it follows that the Minister of Agriculture should have a say in fixing it. It might be argued that since land drainage and fisheries are represented in the new authorities, it is not necessary that there should be any further protection. I cannot agree. The new authorities will be smaller than the old ones, and therefore the land drainage and fishery representatives will be fewer. In some cases in the more industrial areas there may be very few indeed. I am not complaining of this. I accept the compromise as to the numbers the Government have put forward, but I think that my acceptance of this compromise entitles me to argue that the diminished representation of land drainage and fisheries entails a logical consequence: protection by the Minister for which I am now asking.
It may be pointed out to me that invariably Government Departments consult each other. I am sure that is so,
664
but on this point I must say, without hesitation, that those interested in land drainage and fisheries would not feel that a mere assurance as to consultation would be sufficient. Indeed, I do not know how the Minister of Agriculture is properly to continue his statutory responsibilities for land drainage and fisheries if one of the most vital aspects is handed over to another Minister. It is true that this might give rise to similar claims in other instances, and that if they were all acceded to it would add to the burden of administration. But surely each case must be considered on its merits.
The Minister has to approve of every draft statement on minimum flows, and I am certain that in the early life of these new authorities he will have to deal with a number of appeals. The land drainage and fishery interests will have to adjust themselves and appreciate that it is not necessary to object on principle to every extraction authorised and every minimum flow fixed. In any case, some of their objections will have to be turned down. I should have thought that the Minister of Housing and Local Government would be glad to share the odium, with the Minister to whom those interests look for support. I believe, therefore, that not only is it right to substitute "Ministers" for "Minister", but that it will make for smoother working in practice. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 44, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Ministers").—(Lord De Ramsey.)
EARL JELLICOE: I must apologise to the noble Lord for interrupting him when he started to move his Amendment, but I was anxious to know how many Amendments we were covering in our discussions this evening. I must confess that I was a little disappointed to learn that there were only thirteen. I thought that there might possibly be 32, and I had been in hopes that we might bag the lot in one fell swoop. That, of course, has removed to some extent the temptation I might otherwise have been under, to accept the whole lot lock, stock and barrel.
As I understand this first Amendment, its purpose is to associate the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with the Minister of Housing and Local Government for all purposes where the

665
Bill imposes on my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government any functions relating to statements of minimum acceptable flows. The noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, of whose knowledge in these matters we are all aware, argued that the determination of minimum acceptable flows was a matter of vital concern to land drainage, and that as these are functions with which the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is concerned, the Minister should be associated in determining matters of that kind. I grant that land drainage and fisheries are both considerations which need to be taken into account here, but I think that the thirteen Amendments, which the noble Lord has tabled, overlook two facts at least. First, subsection (5) of Clause 19 expressly requires river authorities to have regard to the needs of land drainage and fisheries. Secondly, the immediately preceding subsection, subsection (4), provides for prior consultation between the river authority itself, the major land drainage authority in the area, and the internal drainage boards; and, of course, the river authority will also be the fishery authority for that area.
The noble Lord said he felt that in certain areas, especially the more urban or industrial areas, drainage interests would not be adequately represented, or at any rate not represented very numerously, on river authorities. But as I see it, it is simply inconceivable that the river authority would not pay due regard to the requirements of two of their own functions—and highly important functions. It might also be argued (I do not think the noble Lord did argue it) that since my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has statutory responsibilities for public water supply he may tend to favour the abstracting and the prevention of pollution interests at the expense of the land drainage and agricultural interests. But I would remind noble Lords, that the Minister of Housing and Local Government is also answerable to Parliament for all legislation dealing with river pollution, the series of Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts.
Moreover, questions of prescribed flow are already determined by the Minister alt present, and the considerations to
666
which he must have regard, which are set out in Section 26, subsection (5), of the Act of 1945, are very similar to those in Clause 19 (5); and I do not think that anybody has suggested that in discharging his present powers the Minister has disregarded all other interests but those of the statutory water undertakers. In effect, I would suggest that the Minister of Housing and Local Government is already exercising, off his own bat, functions identical in character to those imposed upon him by Clause 19.
I do not wish to lean too heavily on the argument that in the best of all possible Governments there is bound to be first-rate consultation between Ministries, but I would assure the noble Lord that, whatever we decide on this series of Amendments, if we decide to leave the clause unamended there is bound to be full and effective inter-Departmental consultation on the statements of minimum acceptable flows, as of course there is at the present time on orders under Section 26 of the Water Act, 1945. All extraction Orders are directed to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, but they consult always and automatically with the Ministry of Agriculture on these Orders —that is accepted as absolutely axiomatic—as they would on all matters of principle affecting Clause 19 statements.
Moreover, I see one considerable disadvantage with at least twenty or so of the Amendments, and that is that they seem to be quite burdensome, because many of them—for example, a great many of those in Schedule 6—deal with matters which seem to me essentially not of principle but of procedure. I should be sorry to think of the time the objector would waste in having to direct his objections to both Ministers if we adopted the noble Lord's recommendations for all the procedural matters covered in Schedule 6. I would suggest that, in that respect at least, the requirement which would be laid on objectors would be extremely burdensome, unnecessary and antediluvian. In all the circumstances, while I do not wish to be dogmatic on this point, I feel that there are considerations which may lead the Committee to feel that the clause is best left unamended.
10.29 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I presume that it is for the convenience of

667
the Committee that in considering Lord De Ramsey's Amendment No. 46 we should also consider, because it is virtually to the same effect, Amendment No. 47, which belongs to the noble Lords, Lord Jessel and Lord Amherst of Hackney, for it may well be that, while rejecting the series of Amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, the Government will feel much more willing shortly to accept Amendment No. 47.
The Minister based his argument very largely on the fact that under subsection (5) of Clause 19 the river authorities have need to safeguard the agricultural, drainage and fishery interests. It is not the definition of what the river boards are required to do so much as the certainty of implementation that we are concerned with. The noble Lord touched upon the misgivings that many of us have that certain river boards will, in their constitution, be swamped by their industrial and urban interests, and therefore, if that be the case, their interpretation of powers under subsection (5) will, in fact, be very different from the interpretation of that of another river board where the balance between agriculture, fisheries and urban and industrial interests is much more evenly arrived at. As the amount of water left in the rivers, especially in times of drought, is vital to agriculture and to fisheries, it seems that there is a very solid case that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should be linked in consultation with the Minister of Housing and Local Government in order to ensure that the interests of what is still the greatest single industry in the country should be adequately safeguarded. It seems to me the Government could lose nothing by considering sympathetically Amendment No. 47, and in such sympathetic consideration they would be going a very long way to reassure agriculture and fishery interests who have these misgivings.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: As we are apparently now discussing the two Amendments together, may I say a word on Amendment No. 47? I had not intended to move it till later because it covers a much narrower point than the Amendment under consideration. Amendment 47 applies only when there is a dispute between the Water Resources Board and a river authority.
668
I feel there is a very strong case that when the case is referred for decision to the Minister, he should not decide until he has consulted the Minister of Agriculture.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I think the minimum acceptable flow is obviously one of the most important features of the Bill, and this Amendment put down to Clause 19 recognises that. The reflection of that importance is appearing in the various contributions which are being made and the various Amendments set down to it. I think misgivings are felt in more than one quarter that, in view of the composition of the river authorities, composed no doubt in some cases mainly by representatives of county councils, there may be a bias against industry and in favour of the farming industry. Certainly misgivings exist that there will be overweight on one side. I think an indication that the variety of possibly conflicting interests may have to be reconciled is given in subsection (4) of this clause, under which the river authority have to consult with various other interests; and we have not only the fishing and land drainage considerations, important as they may be, but maybe, in some cases, vital interests of factories or power stations, or navigational interests.
In all these cases, the interests of two or more of these may be conflicting, and it is not clear from the Bill how such conflicts are going to be resolved, certainly not by every interest being represented on the river authority. So I would say that to give any other Ministry an equal say with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in these matters is opening the door to a great deal of dissatisfaction. After all, why not have the Ministry of Fuel and Power, where the interests of electricity generating stations come in, or the Ministry of Transport, where there are navigational interests? I think the noble Earl made his case and I hope that neither this Amendment nor the subsequent one will be passed.
LORD DE RAMSEY: Perhaps I should say that the Minister of Transport is brought in and joined with the Minister in certain circumstances. Naturally, I am disappointed that the noble Earl has not

669
looked more favourably on this Amendment, but at this late hour I will certainly not repeat any of the arguments. I felt it was a strong case and there appeared to be some support in the Committee, though I must admit that I was not quite sure which Amendment was receiving support. In the circumstances, I should wish to reserve my position at Report stage, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.40 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: We have discussed the main point of this Amendment, but I should like to make one other remark. I feel that on this particular Amendment the case has been made out by the Minister himself, who has said several times that consultation between the two Departments was axiomatic. Where there is a dispute between the Board and a river authority, and as the Minister of Agriculture is responsible for many of the functions of the river authority, this is one of the cases where consultation certainly ought to take place, and I feel that it should be in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 44, after ("may") insert ("after consultation with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food").—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
EARL JELLICOE: It is late and this is not altogether an easy subject in which we are involved. I had some sympathy with what the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, said in that respect, although not necessarily accepting his particular arguments. I think there may be a balance of interests affected here, and perhaps it might be a mistake if we rushed a decision on this point at this late hour. I would suggest that if my noble friend would consent to withdraw his Amendment now—and really my proposition covers the 32 Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey—I will look again at this whole problem. Perhaps we can discuss it further and more thoroughly later on the Committee stage on a suitable Amendment, or on the Report stage. I suggest that we should not embark on a long discussion this evening.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DE RAMSEY: The next Amendment was one of the consequential Amendments, and I will not now move it.
EARL JELLICOE: We have had quite a bite at the Bill today and I should like to thank noble Lords very much for the spirit in which they have attacked it. In the circumstances, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

  AIR MAIL TO TIBET
  AIR MAIL TO TIBET
  PARKING METERS AND TRAFFIC WARDENS
  PARKING METERS AND TRAFFIC WARDENS