Sitting of 2 April 1963

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Leicester Power Station
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what progress has been made in respect of the proposals for mitigating the nuisance caused by emissions from the Leicester Power Station.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): As the load on the station is reduced in the warmer weather improvements will be made to the existing precipitators in the course of maintenance and overhaul. Major proposals for increasing the capacity of the precipitators are still being worked out with the contractors.
    Sir B. Janner: Is the Minister aware that I am getting constant complaints about the filthy conditions suffered by houses in my area and adjoining areas as a result of this shocking fall-out of grit? Is he relying on warmer weather coming to us? Why cannot he do something about it during the cold weather?
    Mr. Corfield: I do not think the hon. Member expects me to do anything about that. I can assure him that the district alkali inspector is in close touch with the management and local authority in
    212
    this case. Substantial improvements are planned for the coming spring and summer and preliminary work has been already started upon them. He must appreciate that this is an old power station and this apparatus has to be tailor-made to power stations. That takes a long time.
    Sir B. Janner: In view of the very unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise this matter as soon as possible on the Adjournment.

    Monico Site
    Mr. Compton Carrasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when a decision will be reached on the development of the Monico site.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): No fresh application for planning permission for the development of the Monico site has yet been made. Any such application will be for the London County Council's consideration as local planning authority in the first instance. I cannot therefore say when a decision will be reached.

    Planning Applications (Publicity)
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is satisfied that Article 7 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order, 1959, lists all the necessary classes of development for prior advertisement; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Corfield: I think so. Moreover, quite apart from the statutory requirements, local planning authorities have been asked in Circular 21 of 1961 to review their arrangements for publicity for planning applications.
    Mr. Farr: Is my hon. Friend aware that as Article 7 now stands it is quite possible for a local planning authority to authorise the erection of premises for heavy industry in a housing estate, adjacent to private houses, without the owners of those houses being aware that such an application is being considered? Surely that is not right?
    Mr. Corfield: I do not think this is a matter for Article 7. As my hon. Friend is aware, where the development

    213
    is in conformity with the development plan publicity is already given and, where it is not, there is a procedure whereby if amenity is affected the matter is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

    Sulphur Dioxide Fumes
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what steps he is taking through the Alkali Inspectorate to prevent the emission of sulphur dioxide fumes.
    Mr. Corfield: In works registered under the Alkali Act in England and Wales the main problem is that of sulphur dioxide from major fuel combustion processes, for example at power stations. No practicable means of preventing sulphur dioxide emissions in such cases has yet been discovered. The Alkali Inspectorate's objective is therefore to secure the use of chimneys high enough to disperse the waste gases. This ensures that when the diluted emission reaches ground level the concentrations of sulphur oxides are below the threshold likely to cause harm.
    Mr. Allaun: As no way of preventing these emissions has yet been discovered, will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary take note of the recent statement by Dr. Lessing, a father figure in these matters, that more money should be spent on research into sulphur dioxide emissions? Could not the Government spend a few thousand pounds on that?
    Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend has had discussions with the gentleman whom the hon. Member has mentioned. I assure the hon. Member that the D.S.I.R. is currently experimenting in these matters and at the moment have a new dry process, but my information is that there is no sign of a breakthrough yet.
    Dr. Stross: Has the hon. Gentleman noted that different heavy oils used for these purposes have different percentages of sulphur content and that the content in oil from the Middle East is particularly high? Would he consider whether some method of extracting a portion of the sulphur and putting a limit on the content in these oils could be achieved by regulations?
    Mr. Corfield: I understand that the supply of low sulphur oil is simply not adequate for the firing of all the oil-fired power stations, but this is a matter which has been considered and is being considered.

    Gypsies
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will make a statement on the problem of gypsies and other travellers in England and Wales resulting from the national survey; and what is being done to deal with this situation.
    Mr. Corfield: Since the surveys were made discussions have taken place with the county councils chiefly concerned and further progress has been made in deciding how many sites are needed and where they should be. My right hon. Friend and I hope to see several more sites available by next winter.
    Mr. Dodds: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that reply. While it can be accepted that some counties will be dragging their feet, will he say what his right hon. Friend is doing to see that counties that are dragging their feet are being forced to live up to their responsibilities?
    Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman knows, I think, that we have no powers of enforcement, but I can assure him I am keeping a very close check on all the authorities concerned and, in the case of a very few laggards, I am doing my best to persuade them.
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, in view of the unsatisfactory situation for gypsies and other travellers within the boundaries of the Romsey and Stockbridge Rural District Council, what information he has received from the council regarding their proposals for dealing with this problem, in which many children are involved.
    Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend has received no information from the rural district council on this matter. I understand, however, that Hampshire County Council intends to establish hutted camps for gypsies and other travellers, and that it already has a site in mind for one of

    215
    these camps, which will take people from the Romsey and Stockbridge rural district.
    Mr. Dodds: I thank the Hampshire County Council for what it is seeking to do, but is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that a prominentlocal Conservative, who has spent over £500 trying to defend the interests of these people, says that they are being treated worse than animals? Does not he think it shocking that in Christian and democratic Britain the local rural district council can treat people as it has been doing for a long while? Would he not think that if we lived up to what we claim we should be in a much better position to criticise South Africa and other countries for the way in which they treat their outcasts?
    Mr. Corfield: As I have told the hon. Gentleman, I have had no information from the rural district council concerned, but I have been impressed with the particularly humane way in which the county council is intending to deal with this problem.

    Public Lavatories (Turnstiles)
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
    Dame IRENE WARD: To ask the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, whether all local authorities have now removed turnstiles to lavatory accommodation; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Castle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask what procedural redress is open to hon. Members like myself who tabled a Question almost identical with Question No. 11 on the Order Paper? I tabled my Question for 19th March. I withdrew it at the written request of the Parliamentary Secretary and on his written undertaking that he would inform me when he was ready to make a statement of Government policy so that I could table my Question again. Instead of honouring this pledge, he inspired the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) to table Question No. 11.
    Mr. Speaker: Would it suit the hon. Lady to seek guidance after Question Time so that we do not occupy the time now? I do not think that there is any hardship in that treatment.
    Mrs. Castle: Mr. Speaker, I wish that you give me the opportunity of explaining the matter, after Questions if you prefer it.
    Mr. Speaker: Certainly. We have the interests of other hon. Members to consider at the moment. I do not think that the hon. Lady suffers from not raising it now, compared with later.

    Water Charges (Report)
    Mr. Oramasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he accepts the recommendations of the Sub-Committee on Water Charges set up by the Central Advisory Water Committee; and whether legislation will be introduced in the present Session of Parliament to deal with these matters.
    Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend is considering these recommendations and will make a statement in due course, but there is no prospect of legislation this session.
    Mr. Oram: Since the report called attention to many anomalies, particularly in regard to commercial property, such as where shops are combined with flats, can the Minister hold out no hope of fairly immediate steps being taken to remove at least the worst injustices?
    Mr. Corfield: The difficulty here is that the report must be considered as a whole because some of the recommendations overlap. As soon as that has happened and my right hon. Friend has made a statement, a large part of the recommendations will no doubt be able to be put into effect by administrative action and need not wait for legislation. Legislation will be required in some cases.

    Rates
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether, in the light of statistical details now available, he still recommends local authorities, in accordance with his circular of 3rd December last, to proceed on the assumption that the general level of values in the new valuation lists will be maintained, despite the appeals that may be lodged against the new assessments.
    Sir K. Joseph: The advice in the circular was:
    "The possibility that new assessments will be challenged and reduced cannot be ignored in estimating the rate product for the purpose of making the rate. But the Minister would recommend local authorities to proceed on the assumption that the general level of values in the new lists will be maintained."
    That would still be my advice.
    Mr. Lipton: Does that answer reveal that this appeal procedure is going to be a solemn farce to millions of ratepapers who are thinking of appealing against their assessments? Why pretend that this appeal procedure is going to be of any value at all, if it is already known beforehand that it will not serve any useful purpose at all to the ratepayers?
    Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is permanently mischievous in his use of Question Time to mislead the public outside through the newspapers. In this case there is absolutely no reason to think that the appeal procedure will not, as always, be an effective safeguard for the citizen.
    Sir G. Nabarro: In order to prevent any inconsistency—
    Hon. Members: "Too long."
    Sir G. Nabarro: In order to prevent any inconsistency, will my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] Perhaps my right hon. Friend will come a little nearer to me, then perhaps he will be able to hear. In order to prevent any inconsistency and so that no one shall be prejudiced by any appeals against valuation—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We will pass to the next Question.
    Mr. Lipton: On a point of order. In view of the completely unsatisfactory answer that I have just received, may I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment?
    Mr. Speaker: That being the third time that notice has been given in the wrong form this afternoon, may I ask the House respectfully to adhere to the traditional formula?
    Sir Richard Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will give details of the Committee set up to consider the impact of
    218
    rates on different sections of the community; when he will ask it to report; and in what way help could be given in cases where the impact of new rates is likely to cause distress.
    Sir K. Joseph: I recognise the urgency of the matter; but I cannot at present add anything to the reply which I gave my hon. Friend last Thursday.
    Sir Richard Pilkington: While appreciating the Minister's courtesy in seeing a deputation and the fact that he has set up this Committee, does he agree that there are two problems; firstly, the long-term policy for rates as a whole and, secondly, some help for those who are in immediate distress because of this revaluation?
    Sir K. Joseph: I think that we must first—and this affects both parts of my hon. Friends supplementary question—establish the facts, and that is what this Committee will do as urgently as possible.
    Mr. G. Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at the Committee's terms of reference? Is he not aware that it is quite impossible for real help to be given to ratepayers unless he looks at the question of shifting a great deal of the burden now placed upon them?
    Sir K. Joseph: The terms of reference have not yet been settled. They are being discussed now with the local authority associations.
    Sir Richard Glyn: Will my right hon. Friend consider, when the facts have been found, using his powers set out in paragraph 15 of the White Paper "Revaluation for Rates"—Cmnd. 1663 last year—to assist areas which are especially hard hit?
    Sir K. Joseph: I really cannot give my hon. Friend much encouragement. No case has come to the Government's notice of a shift of the burden, due to revaluation alone, that has come up anything near to the level where action was envisaged by the Government when they brought forward their White Paper.
    Mr. D. Smith: Would my right hon. Friend agree that revaluation has worked out much as was expected and that, overall, this rating problem is a long-term one and not merely one of revaluation? In view of that—and I welcome the setting

    219
    up of this Committee—will my right hon. Friend consider extending this to cover the whole aspect of the rating problem in regard to the long-term consequences?
    Sir K. Joseph: If I wanted, as it were, to escape by setting up a committee to study all sorts of things which the Government already know about, I would do that. It seems to me that the Government know the trend of expenditure and that, therefore, what we need to know before formulating our future rating policy is the impact of rates as they are after revaluation on the individual ratepayer. That is why we are limiting this inquiry to that purpose.
    Mr. M. Stewart: While it is true that the amount paid in rates has not gone up, as a result of revaluation alone, by 30 per cent. or so in a whole area, is it not true that it has done so for a good many individuals in a great many areas? Is it not particularly that problem at which the Minister must look?
    Sir K. Joseph: It is quite true that by putting all the rate valuations back on to a common and consistent basis—namely, current market values—the distortions that have crept in over the years, when different groups of ratepayers had different valuations and different amounts of derating, are getting ironed out. That is why I have set up this inquiry.

    Economies
    Dr. Bennettasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is satisfied with the response of the local authorities to the advice he gave them on the need for economy in framing their estimates for next year; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir K. Joseph: It will be some time before a close estimate can be made of the increase in total rate call but such information as I have indicates that for local authorities as a whole the increase is not out of scale with the increases of recent years.
    Dr. Bennett: Has my right hon. Friend observed that Fareham Urban District Council has raised its rate by something like 5s. 3d. over and above the previous years on similar scales? Although much of this may be attributed by the council
    220
    to the extra £100,000 claimed by the county, this demand is falling on a population almost entirely composed of pensioners and people on fixed incomes. Does not my right hon. Friend think, in view of the simmering revolt that is now already becoming apparent, some urgent action is needed by way of intervention to protect these people, such as either a measure of derating or some action by way of rate deficiency grant? [HON. MEMBERS "Too long."] My question was very short in view of the importance of the matter.
    Sir K. Joseph: The effect of rates on the householder depends on a combination of a rising rate call and revaluation. It is to judge what that impact is and to see whether anything needs to be done in the future that the Government have set up the Committee of Inquiry which will be beginning its action urgently.
    Mr. MacColl: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, will the inquiry also go into the general incidence of rates and the possibility of shifting the burden of rates from the original payer to other people?
    Sir K. Joseph: The inquiry is only entitled to look at facts. It will be for the Government to judge whether any action is necessary.
    Dr. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend's action imply that there is a chance of relief for these over-hard-pressed people should the findings of the inquiry establish that?
    Sir K. Joseph: There can be no chance whatsoever of any result occurring this year, without any prejudice to what might happen in the future.

    County Districts (Rates)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that the progressive removal from counties of large centres of urban population, with their high rateable value and economic services, is causing increasing hardship to country ratepayers; and if he will therefore refuse county borough status to towns which fall short of an average county in population.
    Sir K. Joseph: Under the Local Government Act, 1958, I must consider any proposals for creating new county boroughs on their merits. Population is only one of a number of the considerations to be taken into account. But I can assure my hon. friend that I would not accept such a proposal without first satisfying myself as to the possible consequences to the county.
    Mr. Digby: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the inordinate rate burden now imposed on county districts where in some cases even elementary public services do not yet exist? How are they to be provided? What solution has he for the difficulties?
    Sir K. Joseph: These are the areas that in most cases receive rate deficiency grant to help them, but I can repeat that no county borough will be created without the Government satisfying themselves of the effect on the county concerned.

    Industrial Rerating, Newcastle
    Mr. Montgomeryasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how much money will accrue to the Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Council by the rerating of industry.
    Sir K. Joseph: I estimate that industry in the city will pay about £199,000 more in rates in 1963–64 than they would have done had there been no revaluation or rerating and about £380,000 more than if the revaluation had been carried out but derating retained.

    Smokeless Zones
    Mr. Websterasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs which local authorities have been advised to refrain from prosecutions for the breach of smokeless zone regulations because of the unavailability of supplies of smokeless fuels; and which local authorities have applied for the suspension of smoke control orders for this reason.
    Mr. Corfield: A few local authorities have been so advised in response to informal telephone inquiries, but the details have not been recorded. My right hon. Friend has made suspension orders on the application of Dartford Borough Council
    222
    and Northfleet Urban District Council. No other application is before him.
    Mr. Webster: Is it not regrettable that a highly commendable scheme is falling into disrepute because of these actions? Would it not be better if no further smokeless zones were created until adequate supplies proved to be available throughout the country?
    Mr. Corfield: I do not think that we would wish to insure to the extent of underwriting the risks of a winter such as we have recently had. However, I think my hon. Friend will agree that smokeless zone regulations, like everything else, must be administrated with common sense; and I am satisfied that local authorities are doing so.

    Boating and Swimming (Accidents)
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware that during the last 10 years 11,600 people in this country have been drowned; and if he will take steps to give publicity to the dangers of boating and swimming by inexperienced persons in the sea and in rivers.
    Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend is aware of the figures. Publicity on this subject is best undertaken by organisations such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, and we welcome its national water safety campaign.
    Mr. Wainwright: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that insufficient is being done? Does he know that one-third of the figures represent young people, boys and girls? Will not he have further consultations with the National Water Safety Campaign Committee and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents to ensure that more publicity—more than is being done now—is given to prevent the loss of life?
    Mr. Corfield: The local authorities concerned with beaches and rivers are very conscious of their responsibilities and are doing what they can, but we will certainly bear in mind the hon. Member's suggestion and consult with the people he has mentioned.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that insufficient is

    223
    being done? Lives are being lost. Surely the Government should take over some of the responsibility and help local authorities and other organisations to reduce the number of lives lost through drowning?

  HOUSING

    Pre-1919 Houses (Mortgages)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he has now been able to conclude arrangements for assistance to be granted to those buying pre-1919 houses through building societies.
    Sir K. Joseph: I hope to make a statement on housing next month, and I would ask my hon. Friend to wait until then for an answer.
    Mr. Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend pay special attention to this question, which is important to a growing number of people?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes. Sir.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman say in what form he will make the statement? Will he make a statement, or shall we find a Question put down by one of his hon. Friends for a Written Answer?

    Improvements (Hot Water Supply)
    Mr. Loughlinasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will seek powers to enable him to put into full effect point 4 of the 12 Point Standard referred to in his Circular, 29/62.
    Mr. Corfield: Adequate powers already exist to enable an owner to obtain grant for putting in a hot water supply in his house for the first time. Grant is not, however, available towards the cost of replacement.
    Mr. Loughlin: While I appreciate the difficulties that the Minister experiences in these cases, would he not agree, as he has indicated to me by correspondence, that there is a deficiency there? Would he be prepared to look at this matter
    224
    with a view to ensuring that the stated target of the Government is achieved?
    Mr. Corfield: Yes, Sir. The difficulty is that under the standard grants the provisions do not allow for an apportionment where there is a supply of water for one of the points. Under the discretionary grants there is provision for apportionment. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we intend to put right the defect in the standard grants as soon as the opportunity arises.

    Room Heights
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will now take steps to ensure that the minimum height of the rooms of all local authority houses of the future shall not be less than eight feet.
    Mr. Corfield: No, Sir.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that this a rather disappointing reply? Is he not aware that the Government of which he is a member has promised to increase the standard of living to twice what it is today? If that is so, why is it that the Government are building houses to last sixty years and reducing the standards of building, and will he tell the House how many houses are being built with rooms 7ft. 6 ins. high and how many of these he intends to build in the future?
    Mr. Corfield: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not expect me to have the figures to hand? I can assure him that the difference between 7 ft. 6 ins. and 8ft. for a ceiling of a house does not represent a lowering of the standard of living. This is the standard that is adopted throughout the greater part of southern England. There are good reasons why this should be adopted as the standard, and particularly good reason why we should go for standardisation in the North.
    Mr. Wainwright: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    Whitchurch Airport
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what was

    225
    the nature of his reply to the letter of 13th March from Councillor J. O'Neil, of Bristol, with reference to his request for a stay of completion on the sale of 102 acres at Whitchurch Airport by the Bristol City Council which are required for the building of houses by the council; and, in view of the fact that this is the only large plot of land remaining for this purpose, and of the strong opposition within the council to the sale, if he will withhold permission for the development of this land until further information is available.
    Sir K. Joseph: Councillor O'Neil was told that I cannot correspond with councillors on matters which have been the subject of a decision by the council as a whole. The council do not need my authority to dispose of this land and it is their responsibility to ensure that they have enough land for their housing programme.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that when the question of selling these 102 acres came before the Committee it was carried by one vote? Notice was given to rescind that immediately. It then came before the council of 104 members and it was carried by five votes and notice to rescind was given then. Is the Minister aware that quite shortly Labour will have a majority in the council of Bristol and that in this case the selling of this land is to prevent the Labour Party doing what they think is the right thing? They are selling it now to speculators who will charge extortionate ground rents which the people of Bristol will have to pay Cannot the Minister do something about it?
    Sir K. Joseph: Be all that as it may, the decision is still up to the council.

    Rent Rebate Schemes
    Mr. M. Stewartasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will introduce legislation to enable local authorities to amend or abolish rent rebate schemes, if this is the wish of their citizens, without risk surcharge on councillors.
    Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. The risk of surcharge does not arise from abolition of the scheme as such but from reducing
    226
    the rents of council tenants, at the expense of the ratepayers, without financial justification.
    Mr. Stewart: Does the Minister agree that the question whether there is financial justification or not is an arguable question, one of opinion, and that it is riot really suitable for investigation by the district auditor or the courts? What is in issue is the fair distribution of the cost of housing between council tenants and the whole body of citizens. Ought we not to create a situation in which the whole body of citizens can declare what they think is right and their view of the matter be put into effect?
    Sir K. Joseph: Let us be clear about this. The Housing Act, 1957, requires local authorities to review their rents from time to time and make such changes, either of rents generally or of particular rents and rebates, if any, as circumstances may require. The courts have construed that obligation as a duty on authorities to hold the balance between ratepayers and council tenants. A surcharge might therefore be made if a council so amended its scheme that rents, apparently well within the means of tenants—in that they had been paying them for some time without difficulty—were reduced and a consequent deficit in the housing account had to be made up from the rates. It might then be the duty of the district auditor to make a surcharge, from which there would be the normal means of appeal.
    Mr. Stewart: The Minister says, "rents apparently well within the means of tenants". Apparently to whom? If a rent rebate scheme with certain scales of rents for tenants has been in force and is very heatedly discussed at a municipal election and a group of councillors are returned to power mainly because the citizens as a whole want those rents reduced, ought not the Minister then to have the power to reduce them and not be prevented from so doing against the wish of the citizens who have elected it by the action—
    Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, has a Private Member no protection against the inordinate loquacity of the Labour Front Bench?
    Mr. Stewart: Further to that point of order.
    Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it was a point of order. What happens is that everybody knows that it is a good thing to have short supplementary questions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Everybody knows that any effort to shorten them on an inquiry of that kind usually takes up still more time.
    Sir K. Joseph: The fact is that a Statute does sometimes lay on authorities, as in this case, a duty to carry out action in a way that has to be judged by an outside person, in this case the district auditor.

    Local Authority Loans
    Mr. M. Stewartasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister of Welsh Affiairs whether he will obtain information from local authorities as to the extent to which they use their powers to grant loans to persons wishing to buy their own homes; and what steps he will take to encourage them to make full use of these powers.
    Sir K. Joseph: Most local authorities make use of these powers and figures of the total amounts lent are published quarterly in the Housing Return.
    Mr. Stewart—
    Sir G. NabarroOh, dear.
    Mr. Stewart: Is there any way in which hon. Members asking questions can be protected from the bombasts of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro)?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is addressing me. I have nothing to add to what I said just now.
    Mr. Stewart: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister satisfied that full use is being made of these powers and would he consider urging local authorities to make fuller use of them?
    Sir K. Joseph: Twelve hundred out of 1,500 local authorities are using these powers, or did last year, lending a total sum of £84 million. While there may be some who could do more, I think that in general most local authorities are using these powers.

    Amenities and Improvements
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware that 30·5 per cent. of London dwellings have no bath, and 36·6 per cent. have no hot-water tap; and what action he is taking, within the limits of his responsibility, to remedy this state of affairs.
    Sir K. Joseph: The figures quoted by the hon. Member relate not to dwellings but to households, 22·8 per cent. of which consist of single persons. Nevertheless, I recognise that a serious problem remains to be solved. In part this will be achieved by the measures for new housing outlined in the recent White Paper on London. As regards existing housing, I have been urging local authorities to step up the rate of improvement by intensive publicity and initiating schemes of area improvement. In addition, I am considering what further steps might be taken to get more improvements carried out with the aid of grant.
    Mr. Lipton: Does not this horrible state of affairs show up in all its grimness the failure of Tory housing policies since 1951? Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that in the short time left to him as Minister of Housing and Local Government he is going to effect any real improvement in this shocking state of affairs?
    Sir K. Joseph: Improvement is going on the whole time, and since 1951 the shortage of accommodation for Londoners has been slashed by the Tory Government and greatly improved conditions for Londoners are available today, though we have a great deal further to go.

    Greater London
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what is his estimate of the number of essential workers with low incomes in the Greater London area who need council house accommodation to solve their housing problem; and what is the total number of council houses which have been built in the London area to meet this need.
    Sir K. Joseph: I am unable to make any such estimate. But, in the recent

    229
    White Paper, I estimated that about half a million new dwellings will be needed for Greater London—for all purposes—over the next ten years. The proposed survey of existing housing will provide further information about how housing needs in London are being met. There are at present about 520,000 council houses in Greater London.
    Mrs. Butler: If the Minister does not know how many workers have to live in London in order to keep its services and machinery going, is it not completely unfair and misleading to suggest that they can find accommodation in even a greatly increased stock of council houses? How can the right hon. Gentleman know this if he does not have the figures?
    Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Lady fails to realise that rent-paying capacity is rising the whole while so that, therefore, the choice is open to more and more people. Secondly, the number of people who have to work in London will be and is being constantly altered both by economic factors and Government policy. Thus it would be possible to make only vague estimates of need. We know there is a real need and we are trying to go on filling it.
    Mrs. Butler: But, with respect, we do not know the difference between the workers who have to be here and those who can be moved out? That is the whole point.
    Sir K. Joseph: We know that the workers who must be here want better housing; and that is why we are getting on with the job.

    Development Areas (Railway Closures)
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many towns from which branch lines are to be withdrawn under the railway reorganisation scheme have been considered by his Department as sites for new or expanded towns to take overspill and industry from congested conurbations.
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not think it would be profitable to attempt to relate to the present proposals the very large number of towns which have been considered
    230
    in this way. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport said in his statement to the House on 27th March, however, the Government will, in considering the proposals, pay special regard to the long-term requirements of particular areas, including those arising from planned movements of population and industry.
    Mrs. Butler: Since many of the towns on the list are eminently suitable for expansion, which would lead to a need and demand for rail, goods and passenger services, can the right hon. Gentleman say what continuing consultation there is between the various Departments on this question?
    Sir K. Joseph: As the hon. Lady knows, my Department is preparing regional surveys on which the regional plans will be based. As a result of that, I am able to consult with my right hon. Friend about the implications for any towns involved in ample time before decisions are made.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Balance of Payments
    Mr. Jayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent he estimates the United Kingdom balance of payments is likely to improve in the next two years as a result of the breakdown of the Brussels negotiations.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): I have no reason to think that our balance of payments would have deteriorated in the next two years if the Brussels negotiations had been successful. It follows that I do not look for an improvement as a result of the breakdown.
    Mr. Jay: As the National Institute estimated a prospective improvement of between £70 million and £100 million a year, why cannot the Treasury make at least a similar estimate? Is this not the sort of thing the public is entitled to know?
    Mr. Barber: Of course, we make our own estimates. I can only tell the right hon. Gentleman that the best estimate we can make is that we did not look for an improvement as a result of the breakdown, bearing in mind that his Question

    231
    referred specifically—for reasons I can well understand—to the next two years.

    Rates (Dorset)
    Sir Richard Glynasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contribution in lieu of rates was made last year to Dorset County Council on behalf of the installations and premises occupied by the Royal Navy, the Army, the Royal Air Force and of other Crown property; and to what extent this contribution will be increased to keep in step with the revaluation.
    Mr. Barber: Approximately £215,000. The properties in question will be revalued in 1963–64, and contributions for that year will be paid on the new values.
    Sir Richard Glyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that practically the whole of the industry in Dorset is concentrated on Crown lands, such as Winfrith Heath, and that through the lack of private enterprise industry the rate burden has increased in Dorset county more than in any other administrative county on the mainland? For example, in the Wimborne and Cranbourne area, the increase has been as high as 56 per cent. Can my hon. Friend say whether in future Crown lands will bear their fair share of the county rate expenditure?
    Mr. Barber: Yes. Crown lands will bear their share, and I recognise the importance of this matter to those people who live in Dorset. But, as I say, the revaluation has not yet taken place, but although it will take place in the next financial year contributions for that year will be paid on the new values.
    Mr. McInnes: Can the hon. Gentleman indicate what legislation he proposes to introduce to ensure that Crown lands do bear their fair proportion?
    Mr. Barber: I do not think that any legislation is necessary. I know of no case in which it has been seriously suggested that Crown lands do not bear their proper proportion of rates.

    Income Tax (Personal Allowances)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost, in the case of people over 65 years of age, of extending the Income
    232
    Tax personal allowances for single people from £140 to £250, and for married people from £240 to £400.
    Mr. Barber: The cost would be of the order of £60 million.
    Mr. Digby: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency, and elsewhere, there are a number of people living on very limited pensions and private savings who are very hard hit? Will he bear their case especially in mind?
    Mr. Barber: Obviously, I cannot anticipate the Budget, but, even at this late hour, I shall take note of what my hon. Friend says.

    Retail Stocks (Tax Reductions)
    Mr. Oramasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent proposals have been made to him for compensating retailers for losses incurred on stocks held by them when Purchase Tax reductions are made; and what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. Barber: The only specific proposal has been that the tax difference should be credited on deliveries in a period of one month up to the date of the reduction. Proposals on these lines were fully considered, and rejected, by the Hutton Committee in 1953. The answer to the second part of the Question is None, Sir.
    Mr. Oram: Is it not quite unjust that retailers should continue to suffer losses in the way outlined in the Question? Is it not possible at least to have a limited scheme applicable to durable consumer goods, which can easily be traced through their serial numbers?
    Mr. Barber: I do not think so. This is a very difficult problem, and when I was Economic Secretary I looked into it myself. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the Hutton Committee, which considered it some years ago, was an independent committee and tried to find some way of solving the difficulty, but failed to do so.
    Sir G. Nicholson: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a real problem, which hits people such as small chemists in villages quite hard? It seems most unjust that a very small village shopkeeper should lose, say, a couple of hundred £s because of administrative difficulties.
    Mr. Barber: I recognise the hardship that is caused when Purchase Tax is reduced. On the other hand, I should point out to my hon. Friend that, as I understand it, the pharmacists' proposal was specifically considered by the Hutton Committee—which turned it down and advised against its adoption.

    Leeds City Waterworks
    Sir M. Stoddart-Scottasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the consultations he has had following the presentations made to him by the hon. Member for Ripon on the fact that the 1963 valuation of the Leeds City Waterworks undertaking in the Wharfedale Rural District Council area is lower than the 1956 valuation in the parishes of Askwith, Blubberhouses, Fewston, Lindley, Newall, Timble Great and Weston.
    Mr. Barber: As a result of the discussion which I had with my hon. Friend, I am making further inquiries. They are not yet complete. When they are, I will write to my hon. Friend.

    Travelling Expenses
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what special circumstances the cost of travelling to and from a place of employment is allowed tax relief.
    Mr. Barber: In general, no tax relief is due for the cost of travelling to and from work. But there are special provisions in Section 159, Income Tax Act, 1952, under which a deduction of up to £10 a year can be claimed by an employee who incurs additional travelling expenses because his place of work or residence changed through circumstances connected with the war of 1939–45.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is the Financial Secretary aware that millions of productive workers—those who produce the country's wealth—cannot claim a penny towards their travelling expenses between their homes and their places of employment? Is it not about time that this House respected those millions of people who are, in the main, helping to keep us in our jobs and paying us?
    234
    Is it not time that we gave them the right to claim expenses?
    Mr. Barber: I well remember debating this very matter at some length during the course of last year's Finance Bill, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me, 24 hours before the Budget, to debate it again now.

    Nationalised Industries (Accountability)
    Mr. A. Robertsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to provide more accountability to the House of Commons by the nationalised industries.
    Mr. Barber: No, Sir. The Government are satisfied that present arrangements provide sufficient accountability.
    Mr. Roberts: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the nationalised industries, particularly the railways, have squandered thousands of pounds on capital ventures that have later been abandoned? Will he have investigations made into the preparation of railway sidings near Leeds, costing thousands of pounds, only for the scheme to be abandoned?
    Mr. Barber: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport would be only too pleased to consider the criticism that the hon. Gentleman has made.
    Mr. Roberts: Is the Financial Secretary aware that I cannot put the Question to the Minister of Transport?
    Mr. Barber: But the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he is able to write to my right hon. Friend who, I am sure, would be happy to look into the matter.

    Inflation
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that the Index of Retail Prices rose by 2½ per cent. in 1962 against 4½ per cent., 2½ per cent. and nil in the three preceding years, to what extent it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to accept some degree of inflation as inevitable; what new steps are to be taken to control it; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Barber: I would ask my hon. Friend to await my right hon. Friend's Budget statement tomorrow.
    Sir C. Osborne: Is there any real hope—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that the real savings of the most responsible section of our people will be safeguarded against further inflation?
    Mr. Barber: The Question on the Order Paper raises major issues of economic and financial policy. My hon. Friend is a patient and understanding man and will hardly expect me to satisfy his request for a statement at this time.

    Radio and Television Valves (Tax)
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sum of money is derived from the Purchase Tax on replacement valves for radio sets and television sets, respectively.
    Mr. Barber: Replacement valves supplied free under guarantee are not chargeable with Purchase Tax. The revenue from other replacement valves is currently about £1½ million a year, but I regret that it is not possible to divide this figure between radio and television sets.
    Mr. Goodhew: Can my hon. Friend tell me why spare parts for these forms of equipment should be charged Purchase Tax when, for instance, sparking plugs and spare parts for cars are not so charged?
    Mr. Barber: If my hon. Friend will put down a specific Question on that point, or will write to me, I will do my best to answer him.

    National Incomes Commission (University Teachers)
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Secretary to the Treasury what are the reasons for the delay in submitting the salary proposals for university teachers to the National Incomes Commission; when the submission is to be made; and what are the terms of reference.
    Mr. Barber: The terms of reference for the review of remuneration of academic staff in universities and colleges of advanced technology were sent to the National Incomes Commission on
    236
    29th March and are published in full in today's issue of the London Gazette.
    Mrs. White: Will the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that this reference, which, one might say, was made in the nick of time, will not result in any further delay in the implementation of the recommendations and that, for instance, they will not be held up to await the Report of the Robbins Committee? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the universities have already had a raw deal from Her Majesty's Government and that they are extremely anxious that there should be no further delay?
    Mr. Barber: I cannot accept all that the hon. Lady says, but I realise, and the National Incomes Commission fully realises, the importance of completing the review with as much speed as is compatible with doing it thoroughly.

    COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Prime Minister if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the committees of inquiry into social and economic matters including pay, appointed during the five years since 1958, naming in each case the chairman of each commission or committee, the length of time it took to report, the total number of members and the number of Members of Parliament.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Yes, Sir.
    Sir B. Janner: Is the Prime Minister aware that a very considerable length of time elapses from the setting up of these commissions and their coming to decisions, and the time when the Government accept or refuse to accept those decisions? Will he say what he proposes to do about the jury system, which is accepted to be an anomaly? What does he propose to do between the time when the commission sits and when it comes to its findings in some way to remedy the situation that prevails?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will study the Answer, which is very long, and then put any particular questions on it to me in due course.
    Following is the information:

    Appointed

    Subject

    Chairman

    Total number of Members

    Members of Parliament

    Time to report (in months)

    Royal Commisions

    Jan.

    1960

    Police

    Sir Henry Willink

    15

    2

    17

    March

    1961

    Press (1961–62)

    Lord Shawcross

    7

    None

    18

    Committees of Inquiry

    Jan.

    1958

    Tenancy of Shops (Scotland)

    Mr. Ian H. Shearer, Q.C.

    5

    None

    5

    Feb.

    1958

    Funds in Court

    The Hon. Mr. Justice Pearson, C.B.E.

    11

    None

    15

    March

    1958

    Superannuation of University teachers

    Sir Edward Hale, K.B.E., C.B.

    12

    None

    21

    March

    1958

    Co-operation between Electricity and Gas Boards

    Sir Cecil Weir, K.C.M.G., K.B.E., M.C., D.L.

    9

    None

    12

    May

    195S

    Composition of Milk

    Mr. J. W. Cook (now Sir James Cook)

    15

    None

    26

    May

    1958

    Examination of steam boilers in industry

    Sir George Honeyman, C.B.E., Q.C, J.P.

    5

    None

    24

    June

    1958

    Drug Addiction

    Sir Russell Brain, Bt.

    8

    None

    30

    June

    1953

    Business of the Criminal Courts

    The Hon. Mr. Justice Streatfeild, M.C.

    9

    None

    30

    June

    1958

    Grants to Students

    Sir Colin Anderson

    16

    None

    24

    July

    1958

    Matrimonial Proceedings in Magistrates' Courts

    The Hon. Mr. Justice Davies

    11

    2

    5

    July

    1958

    Medical Staffing Structure in the Hospital Service

    Professor Sir Robert Platt, Bt.

    11

    None

    30

    Sept.

    1958

    Human Artificial Insemination

    The Earl of Feversham, D.S.O.

    9

    None

    22

    Nov.

    1958

    Youth Service in England and Wales

    The Countess of Albemarle, D.B.E.

    13

    2

    12

    April

    1959

    Solid smokeless fuels

    Mr. N. M. Peech

    4

    None

    12

    April

    1959

    Coal Derivatives

    Mr. A. H. Wilson, F.R.S.

    8

    None

    16

    May

    1959

    Sheep Recording and Progeny Testing

    Mr. Ivor R. Morris, J.P.

    14

    None

    21

    May

    1959

    Probation Service

    Sir Ronald Morison, Q.C.

    14

    None

    31 (36 mths. supplementary report on approved hostel system)

    June

    1959

    Experimental importation of Charollaiscattle

    The Lord Terrington, K.B.E.

    4

    None

    13

    July

    1959

    Consumer Protection

    Mr. J. T. Molony, Q.C.

    12

    None

    33

    July

    1959

    Operation of the Truck Acts 1831 to 1940

    Mr. David Karmel, Q.C.

    9

    None

    20

    July

    1959

    Control of Public Expenditure

    Lord Plowden, K.C.B., K.B.E.

    4

    None

    21

    Aug.

    1959

    Scottish Licensing Law

    The Rt. Hon. Lord Guest, Q.C.

    12

    None

    16 (1st report.) Not yet reported finally.

    Sept.

    1959

    Replacement of the "Queen" liners

    The Rt. Hon. Viscount Chandos, D.S.O., M.C.

    3

    None

    8

    Sept.

    1959

    Rural Bus Services

    Professor D. T. Jack, C.B.E., J.P.

    12

    None

    18

    Nov.

    1959

    Milk Distributors' Margins

    Sir Guy Thorold, K.C.M.G.

    6

    None

    24

    Nov.

    1959

    Levy on Betting on Horse Races

    Sir Leslie Peppiatt, M.C.

    7

    None

    5

    Appointed

    Subject

    Chairman

    Total number of Members

    Members of Parliament

    Time to report (in months)

    Committees of Inquiry—continued

    Jan.

    1960

    Issue of sub pænas to secure attendance of witnesses and the production of documents before disciplinary tribunals

    The Rt. Hon. Viscount Simonds

    3

    None

    4

    Jan.

    1960

    Oriental, African, Slavonic and East European Studies

    Sir William Hayter, K.C.M.G.

    5

    None

    16

    Jan.

    1960

    Company Law

    The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Jenkins

    14

    None

    29

    Feb.

    1960

    Need for further research into the effects of toxic sprays in agriculture

    Professor H. G. Sanders

    10

    None

    20

    July

    1960

    Magistrates' Courts in London

    His Honour Judge Aarvold, O.B.E., T.D.

    7

    None

    16

    July

    1960

    Future of Sound and Television Broadcasting

    Sir Harry Pilkington

    11

    None

    21

    July

    1960

    Policy and arrangements for dealing with Fowl Pest

    Professor Sir Arnold Plant

    7

    2

    18

    Oct.

    1960

    Legal Education for Students from Africa

    The Rt. Hon. Lord Denning

    21

    None

    3

    Oct.

    1960

    Difficulties in the Port of London concerning Ocean Shipowners' Tally Clerks

    Mr. H. Lloyd-Williams, C.B.E., D.S.O., M.C.

    3

    None

    1

    Oct.

    1960

    Sugar Confectionery and Food Preserving Wages Council (Great Britain)

    Sir George Honeyman, C.B.E., Q.C., J.P.

    7

    None

    9

    Jan.

    1961

    Limitation of Actions in cases of Personal Injury

    The Hon. Mr. Justice Davies

    11

    None

    19

    Feb.

    1961

    Higher Education

    The Lord Robbins, C.B.

    12

    None

    Not yet reported

    March

    1961

    Scottish Electricity

    Mr. Colin Mackenzie, C.M.G.

    7

    None

    18

    March

    1961

    Docks and harbours of Great Britain

    Viscount Rochdale, O.B.E., T.D.

    5

    None

    16

    April

    1961

    Selection and training of supervisors

    Mr. D. C. Barnes (Undersecretary Ministry of Labour)

    16

    None

    12

    April

    1961

    Shipping Services to Northern Ireland

    Mr. D. V. House

    3

    None

    18

    May

    1961

    Law relating to Children and Young Persons (including that relating to Juvenile Courts in Scotland)

    The Hon. Lord Kilbrandon

    13

    None

    Not yet reported

    June

    1961

    Grouping of London post-graduate institutes and hospitals and their joint use of facilities

    Sir George White Pickering

    6

    None

    15

    July

    1961

    Sunday Observance Law

    The Lord Crathorne

    8

    4

    Not yet reported

    Oct.

    1961

    Transport needs in the next twenty years

    Sir Robert Hall, K.C.M.G., C.B.

    12

    None

    16

    Nov.

    1961

    Award and withdrawal of teachers' certificates in Scotland

    The Rt. Hon. Lord Wheatley

    22

    None

    Not yet reported

    Dec.

    1961

    Baking Wages Council (Scotland)

    Professor H. S. Kirkaldy, C.B.E.

    7

    None

    12

    Appointed

    Subject

    Chairman

    Total number of Members

    Members of Parliament

    Time to report (in months)

    Committees of Inquiry—continued

    Dec.

    1961

    Traffic signs on roads other than motorways

    Sir Walter Worboys

    12

    None

    Not yet reported

    Dec.

    1961

    ways Decimal Currency

    The Earl of Halsbury

    6

    None

    Not yet reported

    March

    1962

    The administrative and clerical staffing arrangements of the hospital service

    Sir Stephen Lycett Green, Bt. J.P.

    7

    None

    Not yet reported

    March

    1962

    Scottish Salmon and trout fisheries

    Lord Hunter

    7

    None

    Not yet reported

    April

    1962

    Marketing and Distribution of Fatstock and carcase meat

    Sir Reginald Verdon-Smith

    7

    None

    Not yet reported

    Oct.

    1962

    To study contractual methods in the building and the civil engineering industries

    Sir Harold Banwell

    12

    None

    Not yet reported

    Oct.

    1962

    Recruitment for the Veterinary Profession

    The Duke of Northumberland, K.G.

    7

    None

    Not yet reported

    Nov.

    1962

    Demand for Agricultural Graduates

    Mr. C. I. C. Bosanquet

    9

    None

    Not yet reported

  DISARMAMENT (GENEVA CONFERENCE)
  Mr. P. Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister, in view of the undertaking he gave in February, 1962 that he would accept personal responsibility for directing the part to be played by Her Majesty's delegate in the Eighteen Nations Disarmament Committee, what instructions he has given concerning the time to be devoted in the Committee to the discussion of procedure, a test ban, collateral measures, and a treaty for general and complete disarmament, respectively; and what proportion of the debates over the last year has been given to each of these subjects.
  The Prime Minister: I have complete confidence in my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs to decide the amount of time the British delegate spends on each of the subjects mentioned. The time actually devoted by the Committee to these subjects is of course the responsibility of all the nations represented at the Conference. It is not possible to give an answer to the second part of the Question because many meetings, and, indeed, individual speeches, cover more than one subject. But the single subject to which most attention has been given is a Test Ban Treaty.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Does the Prime Minister think that we might make better progress on a test ban if we gave more attention to general disarmament rather than allowing the Russians to think that we are ready for the arms race to go on for a generation, as the right hon. Gentleman implied after he came back from Nassau?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The Committee arranges its own business, but I think that if we could only make progress on this and reach an agreement on it, it would be a tremendously big help towards further movement.

  NUCLEAR TESTS
  Mr. Dribergasked the Prime Minister what reply he has received from the President of the United States of America to his request that, before any further high-altitude tests take place, there should be consultation with Sir Bernard Lovell and other British scientists; on what dates these communications passed between him and the President; and on what date he first became satisfied that Sir Bernard Lovell's forecast had been proved correct.
  The Prime Minister: I undertook on 21st March to consider the proposal

  243
  put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) and I have now done so.
  We have for several months had under examination the question of the adverse effects on scientific research of experiments in space. We should soon be in a position to decide on the precise scope and terms of a communication to be made to the appropriate American authorities. In the meantime, I have drawn their attention to my hon. Friend's proposal.
  As regards the last part of the Question, I think that Sir Bernard Lovell was more concerned to emphasise the range of possibilities and the large element of uncertainty involved than to make specific forecasts. It became evident within a few days of the explosion on 9th July that the enhancement of radiation at high level was, in fact, greater than had been predicted.
  Mr. Driberg: Did not the Prime Minister give a rather more definite undertaking than he has indicated today? Did he not say, "Yes, I think I can give that undertaking"? Does what he said today mean that, on reflection, he decided not to communicate specifically, and has he had a reply to any such communication?
  The Prime Minister: There was a general communication to the American authorities, but we have really gone rather better than the undertaking. We have asked a number of distinguished scientists to study together and, I hope, soon to make their report. As soon as that report is ready we shall be able, not just to call attention to the problem, but to give a very detailed and highly-skilled report on this whole matter.
  Mr. Lee: According to the statement made by the Minister of Aviation last Friday, the Government are contemplating going into the space satellite business. That being so, is it not important that we should get from the Americans the undertaking for which my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) has asked? Otherwise, all our work will be vitiated.
  The Prime Minister: I do not know what the scientific effect is until we have had the report, nor do I anticipate that there is any question of any fresh nuclear test explosion in high altitudes. We must
  244
  also remember that the American Government are spending enormous sums of money upon their own satellite development and therefore, I would imagine, would wish to safeguard its value.
  Mr. M. Foot: If it is true, as the Prime Minister has apparently just said, that it was discovered within a few days of these tests that their results were much graver than the Prime Minister himself had indicated to the House before they took place, does he not think that it would have been better had he told the House that he had been misinformed on the matter, instead of waiting for several months until Questions appeared on the Order Paper about it?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir; because the Americans immediately announced this and altered the next test accordingly.

  SUMMIT CONFERENCE
  Mr. A Hendersonasked the Prime Minister to what extent diplomatic discussions are now taking place with a view to arranging a summit conference between President Kennedy, Mr. Krushchev and himself.
  The Prime Minister: Any diplomatic discussions of this kind would be confidential.
  Mr. Henderson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether any consideration is being given to the establishment of direct communications between the three heads of Government, whether by tele-tape or radio-telephone, to enable discussions to take place on such problems as the deadlock on the number of on-site inspections?
  The Prime Minister: The actual method of discussion is one question. The important thing is whether discussions should or should not be arranged.
  Sir C. Osborne: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it would not be in the interest of the West itself to try to meet Mr. Khrushchev, since it would be a terrible tragedy for the world if he were to be replaced by a new Stalinist in Russia? Since Mr. Khrushchev has risked so much to try and get peace and co-operation with the West, should we not do all we can to meet him?
  The Prime Minister: We are indeed hoping that we shall be able to get agreement, arid I am in close contact with the President on the best method of proceeding.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: In the course of writing to Mr. Khrushchev last year, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would be ready to go to Geneva at any moment if there were a deadlock. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that there is a deadlock now?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The proceedings have been very long, but there has been some movement. The next question is whether we can get some further movement.

  LORD PRIVY SEAL (STATEMENTS)
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Prime Minister if the public statements made by the Lord Privy Seal concerning the resumption of negotiations for Great Britain's entry into the Common Market during an authorised interview published by the French newspaper,Le Monde,on 28th March represent the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister whether the public statements of the Lord Privy Seal, made during an authorised interview published by the French newspaper,Le Monde,on 28th March to the effect that discussions with the Six about Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community should continue, represent the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Prime Minister if the public statements made during an authorised interview by the Lord Privy Seal published in the French newspaper,Le Monde,on 28th March on the British Government's attitude towards the European Economic Community represent the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister: The report in Le Monde was a summary of an interview given to the publication Opera Mundi in which my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal said that there should be constant consultation between Britain and the Community. That is the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Swingler: Has not the Prime Minister read the latter part of the remarks by the Lord Privy Seal? Did not the Lord Privy Seal imply in answer to questions as published in The Times on 28th March, that it was still the Government's intention to get the Rome Treaty ratified by this Parliament before the next General Election and that one of the reasons for doing so was to try to commit the Labour Party before it came to power?
  The Prime Minister: I have the text of the French interview. If it is of any value I will circulate it.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Even if the Lord Privy Seal still believes in winning the European stakes by flogging a dead horse, may ask whether the Prime Minister will give an assurance that the Government will not attempt in their last few months of office any renewal in any form of negotiations for entry into the Common Market?
  The Prime Minister: The formal state is this—the chairman of the Brussels negotiations said on 29th January that he was forced to record the fact with great regret that a number of States of the Community were prevented from continuing the negotiations.
  Mr. Harold Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that whatever opinions some British people may have had about entry into the Common Market we now deprecate the fact that, despite the action of the French and others, the British Government, according to the Opera Mundi report, are still attempting to enter the Common Market before the General Election? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the British public will have a chance at the General Election of deciding this matter first and foremost?
  The Prime Minister: What my right hon. Friend said was that we were keeping in close touch with them, and this is necessary for many purposes, including, for instance, the next Kennedy Round.
  Mr. Driberg: Did the Prime Minister say just now, or did we mishear him, "if the remarks of the Lord Privy Seal are of any value"? Is not that a rather ominous remark?
  The Prime Minister: I said, "if they were of any value" in relation to the Question. That is what I meant. I have read this report as closely as I can but I cannot find this point. I will look at the report again. It is very long.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (LOCATION)
  Mr. Gourlayasked the Prime Minister when he received a letter from Kirkcaldy Town Council, asking Her Majesty's Government to consider the town as the locus for any Government Departments which might be transferred; what was the nature of his reply; and if he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister: I replied on 22nd March, the day I received it, to the Town Clerk's letter and noted the request that Kirkcaldy should be favourably considered as a location for Government work. All the headquarters work of Government Departments located in London is at present being reviewed by Sir Gilbert Flemming who has been asked to advise the Government what work could be moved elsewhere.
  Mr. Gourlay: Is the Prime Minister aware that of the 750,000 new jobs created since 1951 more than half have been in the London area? In view of this, will he not seriously consider transferring the Stationery Office to Scotland and particularly to Kirkcaldy?
  The Prime Minister: It was on this very question, for two reasons, first, to obviate the great overcrowding of office space in London and, secondly, with the object of giving employment outside, that we have had a further inquiry made. So far, 25,000 headquatrers staff in the Civil Service, that is to say, about 20 per cent. of the whole, work outside London. What Sir Gilbert Flemming is looking into for me is whether we can add to that number.

  MINISTRY FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
  Mr. A. Lewisasked the Prime Minister whether, in the interests of economy and better administration, he will amalgamate the Foreign Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office and the
  248
  Colonial Office, and establish in their stead a Ministry for External Affairs.
  The Prime Minister: I do not think the organisation of these three Departments with their wide range of functions can effectively be considered until I have received the report of the Plowden Committee on our representational services overseas.
  Mr. Lewis: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear this in mind for the future if and when he comes to reorganise the various State Departments, because there could be much saving in administrative costs?
  The Prime Minister: What the Plowden Committee is reviewing is the structure and organisation of our overseas representational services both in Commonwealth and foreign countries. Then there is the separate question of whether there should be an amalgamation of the two Departments, the Colonial Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office. This is somewhat different since they are not altogether representational because the Colonial Office has an administrative function. As I have explained to the House, by combining the posts of Colonial Secretary and Commonwealth Relations Secretary into a single Minister we have made a considerable advance in the co-ordination of that work.
  Sir G. Nicholson: While recognising the many advantages which might accrue from a free exchange between the Commonwealth service and the Colonial service, and while appreciating the partial amalgamation already of the Commonwealth Office and the Colonial Office, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he does not recognise that to deal with members of the Colonies or of the Commonwealth countries through a service which deals exclusively with foreign countries would cause heart-burning and do a geart deal of harm?
  The Prime Minister: There are two quite separate questions. The question of certain functions of representation applies to the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Foreign Office. The other question of administrative functions applies to the Colonial Office, and this is where the difficulty is now.
  Mr. Fletcher: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to receive the Report of the Plowden Committee?
  The Prime Minister: I am not quite certain, but I hope within a few months.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) wanted to raise a point of order. I am obliged to her for deferring the matter so that we do not spoil our improving average of Questions.
Mrs. Castle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I wish to seek your guidance on what redress is open to me on having been prevented from tabling a Question to the Minister of Housing and Local Government today. Last month, I tabled a Question almost identical in terms to Question No. 11 on the Order Paper today. I tabled it on 19th March, but I received a written request from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government that I should withdraw my Question on the understanding that—I now quote from his letter to me—
"I would let you know as soon as I was ready so that you could put down the Question again."
I was waiting for the Minister's intimation that he was ready to make a statement, and I could, accordingly, table a Question, when I discovered, late last right, that the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) had been asked by the Minister to table a Question instead.
As you are aware, Sir, the hon. Lady is not sufficiently interested in her own Question to be present here today, or, at any rate, another behind-the-scenes arrangement has been made that she should not be here so that she would receive a Written Answer and I could not ask even a supplementary question.
I have here the correspondence with the Parliamentary Secretary giving me a written undertaking as a result of which I did not put down a Question to him, as I otherwise should have done, because I trusted his honour in this matter.
In view of the growing habit of Ministers to indulge in this form of
250
trickery, I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, what protection you are able and willing to give to back benchers, equally if they are hon. Members of the Opposition as if they are hon. Members of the Government side, in order to see that they have their full rights?
Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Lady says does not raise any point falling within my control. Her quarrel is really with the Minister. I would not presume to advise her about the Parliamentary but none the less wounding things that she could do. She must obtain suitable advice elsewhere.
Mr. C. Pannell: Further to that point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It was not a point of order, because it did not raise one. I shall hear the hon. Gentleman if he has another point.
Mr. C. Pannell: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I can understand your Ruling, Sir, that, as between a back bencher—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order".] I am raising a point of order. I can understand your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, as between a back bencher or any Member of the House and a Minister, but do you appreciate that this has gone further? This sort of thing has already encroached upon your prerogative. Last year, we had exactly the same debate and we had exactly the same device when the Report of your Advisory Committee on Accommodation was issued. That was by-passed on that occasion by the Minister giving a "stooge" Answer to the Chairman of the Committee. So this really does affect you here, Sir, as well as others.
Mr. Speaker: No point of any sort or kind about that debate now arises. In so far as Ministers do things that they ought not to do with regard to answering Questions, or are alleged to do things that they ought not to do, no matter for the Chair is raised. I should not be discharging my duty if I allowed myself to be involved in it.
Mr. F. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Was it in order for the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) to accuse the Minister of trickery?
Mr. Speaker: It was inherent in her rgument. That is why I did not stop her.
Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall not transgress the rules of the House. AH I want to ask is whether there would be an opportunity for me to make a reply to the hon. Lady? I think that she is really very "steamed up" about nothing.
Mr. Speaker: Certainly not on a point of order addressed to me.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN
Brian Kevin O'Malley, esquire, for Rotherham.
Neil McBride, esquire, for Swansea, East.

PUBLIC LAVATORIES (TURNSTILES)
Bill to make it the duty of local authorities to abolish turnstiles in public lavatories and sanitary conveniences, presented by Mrs. Patricia McLaughlin; supported by Dame Irene Ward and Mrs. Evelyn Emmet; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 89.]
PUBLIC LAVATORIES (ABOLITION OF TURNSTILES)
Bill to prohibit the restriction by any local authority of access to a public lavatory or sanitary convenience by means of a turnstile; and to provide for the removal of such turnstiles, presented by Mrs. Barbara Castle; supported by Mrs. Braddock, Mr. Fenner Brockway, Mrs. Joyce Butler, Mr. John Cronin, Dr. J. Dickson Mabon, Dr. Barnett Stross, and Mr. Ernest Thornton; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 26th April, and to be printed. [Bill 90.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment proposed, [1st April], on Consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal):—
  Which Amendment was: In page 61, line 42, at the end, insert:
  (3) In its application to Greater London, section 31 of the National Health Service Act 1946 (which provides for Executive Councils for General Medical and Dental Services and Supplementary Ophthalmic Services) shall have effect as if for any reference No the local health authority area there were substituted a reference to one of the areas provided for in the Schedule (Areas, etc. of Executive Councils for General Medical and Dental Services, Pharmaceutical Services and Supplementary Ophthalmic Services).—[Mr. Pavitt.]
  Question again proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.
  3.41 p.m.
  Mr. G. W. ReynoldsI had just started to speak when our proceedings finished last night. I had just said that I thought that the House was entitled to more information on the ideas that the Minister had in mind and then sat down to allow the Minister to make an interruption, whereupon he launched a terrific attack on me saying, among other things:
  "The hon. Gentleman cannot say that".
  and that he could have spelt the matter out in greater detail. I can only say that I did say it, and I will say it again: the House is entitled to more information about the Government's attitude on the creation of health executive committees in the Greater London area.
  We are dealing with legislation which, we have been told on many occasions, has been preceded by a Royal Commission's Report, by inquiries which have gone on for many years and by the decisions of the Government taken as a result of the Royal Commission's Report. We have had the Second Reading and the Committee stage of the Bill and we have now arrived at the day on which we shall be asked to give it a Third Reading. Yet

  253
  the Government still have no policy which they can announce to the House about what they intend to do and the machinery which they intend to set up to keep health executive committees in being in the Greater London area.
  This is not good enough. After all the thought which is supposed to have been put into the Bill and into the details of it, one would have thought that, when we reached this important matter, which is not included in any way in the Bill and which will govern the pattern of health executive committees for 8½ million people, the House was entitled to have from the Minister of Health some indication of the sort of pattern which he proposes.
  So far, all that the Minister has told us is that he has power under Section 31 of the National Health Service Act, 1946, and under Clause 81 of the Bill and that at the appropriate time will consult the professional and other interests concerned and will decide what has to be done. Enough time has gone by to have enabled the Minister to consult many of the interests concerned and to tell us before we give the Bill a Third Reading what these provisions are likely to be.
  I am sorry that the right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) is not present, because last night she made a number of assertions about exactly what the Bill would provide and the present set-up of executive committees. I had the temerity to interrupt her on one or two occasions, and she said that she had been Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health for six years and had dealt with this matter and knew what she was talking about. We are aware that she was at the Ministry for six years, which is quite a long time, but she made three statements which I must correct in case hon. Members are under the impression that they were a correct exposition of the situation.
  The right hon. Lady said that there were 25 members and an independent chairman of each health executive committee. There was an independent chairman for the first three years of the Act's operation, hut the First Schedule of the National Health Service Act, 1949, amended that. It cut out the independent chairman and made it possible, after the
  254
  appointment of the 25 members, for the executive to decide who would be chairman. The right hon. Lady was referring to the Act as it was before it was amended in 1946. I want to get that point straight.
  I interrupted the right hon. lady when she spoke about the Minister having power under Section 31 of the 1946 Act to secure the amalgamation of certain local health authority areas. She said that there are only l37 executive councils and that, therefore, there was not one for every county borough and county council. I agree with that. That is obviously a matter of arithmetic. I said that the mergers which had taken place, such as that between Canterbury and Kent and Carlisle with its surrounding area, had been done by agreement. The right hon. Lady said that she thought that I was wrong.
  I have checked on this and find that page 193 of the Ministry of Health's Report for the year ended 31st March, 1948, says, with regard to executive councils:
  "There is one for each county and county borough in England and Wales except that in eight cases, with local agreement, orders were made by the Minister combining two areas under single executive councils."
  I must, therefore, also get that point straight. This is done by local agreement, and it was the right hon. Lady who was wrong in her assertion and not I in the intervention that I made.
  The right hon. Lady also said that there was no question of the functions of executive committees being broken up or fragmented into 33 areas under the Bill. I cannot accept that, because Section 31 (1) of the National Health Service Act, 1946, makes it perfectly clear that
  "There shall be constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Fifth Schedule to this Act for the area of every local health authority, a council, to he called the Executive Council …"
  We are creating 33 local health authorities, and I think that the assertion which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) and other of my hon. Friends made that, unless there is further legislation or an order by the Minister, there would have to be under the provisions of the Bill 33 executive councils in the London area. Someone must take action—either this House

  255
  by legislation or the Minister by order—or there will be 33 executive councils. I wish to make that clear before dealing with the general position.
  I do not think that anyone wants 33 executive councils in the Greater London area. I think that we want more assurance from the Minister before we leave the Amendment as to exactly the type of thing which he has in mind. It is not sufficient for him simply to say, "I intend to consult all the interests and I have all the powers that I want under Section 31 of the National Health Service Act and Clause 81 of the Bill to deal with this problem".
  We on this side, at any rate, want a definite assurance that there will not be more local health executive councils in the Greater London area than there are at present. There are the present county councils and county boroughs and we want an assurance that there will not be mare executive councils by the time that the Minister has finished, and that he will not create more authorities but that there is the likelihood that the number will be reduced rather than increased.
  I also ask that when these authorities are set up each of the 33 local health committees will be given a place on them. The position at the moment is that normally there will be one executive council for each local health authority and eight members of that authority will serve on the executive council. We should have an undertaking from the Minister that all 13 of the local health authorities in the present L.C.C. area will have at least one representative on the executive council. He has power under Section 31 of the National Health Service Act, 1946 to ensure this. He has power to amend the normal number. This would presumably give an executive council of 34 or 35 members instead of the normal 25.
  If we create new health authorities, we must ensure that, if the Minister uses Section 31 for purposes which were never dreamt of when it was dealt with in this House in 1946, all local health authorities will have a representative on the executive council when set up.
  We have been told that these new London boroughs are, in effect, county
  256
  boroughs. But a whole number of things are being done to denigrate their status and to make them more akin to metropolitan boroughs than to county boroughs. If they are to be regarded in as many respects as possible as county boroughs, there must be provision for them to have at least one representative on the executive council covering their area. The Minister has power to ensure that under Section 31 of the 1946 Act and Clause 81 of the Bill.
  There are 13 local health authorities in London. If the Minister retains the Middlesex executive covering the existing area, there are nine authorities there, including Twickenham, which is astride the river. There would have to be more members on same of these authorities than is normally the case over the country as a whole. We must have an undertaking that these health authorities will all have at least one member on the executive council covering their area.
  The Minister also said that he would have consultations—and he is bound under Section 31 of the 1946 Act to consult the existing health executive councils in an area before making an order changing the pattern of the area. Presumably, he will also be able to consult the existing local health authorities—the county councils and the borough councils—within the area. As soon as the Bill is passed, however, there will exist throughout the area joint statutory committees of the boroughs that will form the new local health authorities.
  If the Minister is to consult the executive councils already in existence—which, as the Bill stands, are doomed to extinction in 1965 unless he does something about it—as the Bill sets up statutory committees to make preparations for the introduction of the new health authorities, he should, when he has got a little way with the preparation of the scheme, at least give those statutory committees the right to comment on the draft scheme which he is preparing for the area.
  I am a little unhappy about the amount of consultations for which some of those statutory committees might have to be called in, because they do not necessarily represent the type of council that eventually may be elected to cover their area. Nevertheless, they are the only instrument to hand which has any connection with the new local health

  257
  authorities which are being set up. Therefore, those statutory joint committees have a right to consultation, as well as the existing executive councils and the professional bodies involved.
  Therefore, I must insist upon rather stronger assurances than we have had so far from the Minister. In asking for those assurances, the Minister will, no doubt, consider that I am in good company, because when Section 31 of the National Health Service Act, 1946, was debated in Standing Committee, Mr. Willink, who was leading for hon. Members opposite, said of the Clause.
  "This is something of a blank cheque for which the Minister is asking with regard to what is carefully laid down …" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 14th June, 1946; c. 1572.]
  He said that it gave the Minister power to set up new bodies more or less without consultation. According to hon. Members opposite, it was a blank cheque that was asked for in Clause 31 of the 1946 Bill.
  In view of what was said on that occasion, I do not feel that we can give the Minister power to fill in that blank cheque when this Bill is passed unless before we part with the Amendment he gives the House an idea of the figures that he will write in. I hope, therefore, that the Minister can give us some or all of the assurances for which I have asked.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernard Braine): The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) must not take it amiss that I responded so hotly last night to his opening remarks. He said that it was asking too much to rely upon the common sense of myself and my right hon. Friend and of my colleagues on this Bench in this matter, which meant that he was not taking seriously a firm assurance that I had given to the House. I would be less than human if I had not reacted to that. I have a high regard for the hon. Member, but I ask him to heed the advice that Norfolk gave to Buckingham, in Shakespeare's Henry VIII:
  "Heal not a furnace for your foe so hot That it do singe yourself",
  otherwise the hon. Member might encounter the fate of Buckingham.
  258
  I am, of course, anxious to remove any doubts and uncertainties on this important matter. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), and, indeed, the hon. Member for Islington, North, are quite right in their assumption that if the Bill were passed and no order were made by my right hon. Friend in regard to the executive council pattern in the Greater London area, then, as from the appointed day when the new boroughs come into existence, there would be an executive council in the area of each of them; that is to say, 32 in all.
  It must, however, be within the recollection of the House that I was careful to say that, in general, it would be desirable to avoid having more executive councils in the Greater London area than is administratively necessary. I went on to give a firm undertaking that no decision would be taken by my right hon. Friend in regard to the future pattern without the formulation of provisional arrangements, their discussion and consultation upon them with all the interests concerned, by which I meant the professions, the Executive Councils Association, the local authority associations and any other bodies that would have an interest.
  My right hon. Friend has already seen representatives of the British Medical Association, including some distinguished doctors in the London area. There have been discussions at official level with other interested bodies and further discussions will take place. As I said last night, my right hon. Friend will not come to a final decision until he has had the opportunity of consulting the joint committees of the existing local authorities in Greater London, for which provision is made in Clause 83. This will enable him to get the view which is likely to be held by the new local health authorities as from the appointed day. It would, however, be quite wrong, as, I am sure, the House appreciates, for my right hon. Friend to commit himself, or for the House or for local authorities to do so, by inserting a provision in the Bill before the local authorities have had opportunities of expressing their views.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North is quite right in saying that local health

  259
  authorities, like the Minister and the professions, appoint members to the executive councils. Therefore, they have a direct interest in the matter. The answer to the hon. Member's question about representation is that whatever the new pattern proves to be, we would expect all the local health authorities to be represented on the executive councils. When the consultations have taken place, my right hon. Friend will not delay making an order so as to remove any uncertainty as to the future.
  Having said that, I do not think that the House would expect me to say in advance precisely what pattern of executive council administration will be laid down, because, to give one elementary reason, to do so would be to make nonsense of the consultations yet to take place. As I explained last night, however, my right hon. Friend does not need additional powers to enable him to do what hon. Members opposite have asked or something approximating to it. He has the power to amalgamate local health authority areas for the purpose of setting up an executive council under either Clause 81 of the Bill or Section 31 of the National Health Service Act, 1946, and he intends to use this power.
  My right hon. Friend is well aware of the arguments advanced in the debate last night and of the views expressed by hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Willesden, West, and he has had the benefit already of the view of medical men in London. The House can, therefore, be assured that we shall make our arrangements as speedily as possible in the light of what is best for the administration of the general medical, dental, ophthalmic and pharmaceutical services in the Greater London area and, above all, in the light of what is best for the patient.
  I hope that, in these circumstances, the hon. Member for Willesden, West will not press his Amendment.
  Mr. Laurence Pavitt: In welcoming the comments of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, and although I am glad to know that the Minister intends to use that power, as was obvious to us during the debate on the Amendment last night, I seek still further assurance. I should like the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to bear in mind a number of the points which have been raised during the
  260
  debate. I welcome his assurance that a decision by his right hon. Friend will not be long delayed, but it would be of great help to the House to have an idea of the possible time lag.
  I realise that I could not pin down the hon. Gentleman to a precise date by which he hopes that his right hon. Friend will make up his mind—obviously, that depends upon the time that it takes to consult the various people whom he has mentioned. On the other hand, negotiations can drag on for a long time. It would be helpful if the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us that, the process already having been started, we might expect a conclusion before the House rises before the Summer Recess. This would give time for everyone to consider it. Whilst not wishing to pin the hon. Gentleman down to saying that this will occur in three months, for instance, it would be helpful if he could tell us that this was roughly the period he had in mind.
  4.0 p.m.
  I am very satisfied that he obviously does not intend to create more executive councils and local medical committees than is absolutely necessary. Two major executive councils are involved in the reconstruction and their areas have not been altered or changed by other provisions in the Bill. These are the Executive Councils of the County of London and of Middlesex. Alterations are being made to Essex, Kent, Surrey and county boroughs, so, obviously, I cannot expect the hon. Gentleman to give assurances about them. Nevertheless, it would be helpful if he could indicate, without committing himself specifically, that in principle he feels it desirable that the London Executive Council and the Middlesex Executive Council should not be greatly changed—provided, of course, that the representations he receives are not so forceful that he feels it necessary to change his view. I am not seeking an absolute undertaking, but am only trying to probe the hon. Gentleman's mind.
  Also, it would be helpful, in making up my mind whether or not to press this Amendment, if he could state the approximate number that he has in mind for the Greater London area. I believe that it is better that it should be six or eight or nine rather than a greater number like 15 or 16. Again, I do not want to pin him

  261
  down to exactitude, because obviously, if he is to have consultations, he cannot go into them with his mind already made up. But in considering the wide range of services these bodies will have to provide, particularly for the family, it would be helpful if we knew the Minister's principles for the future. If the House would permit him, I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could reply to these points.
  Mr. Braine: Perhaps I may have the permission of the House to reply, Mr. Speaker.
  First, it is in the interests of the National Health Service and of the arrangements in London to get the future pattern settled as soon as possible. Of course, I give an assurance that my right hon. Friend will, as soon as his consultations are completed—and we shall press on with them—lay his order. I hope that that will meet the requirement the hon. Gentleman is pressing.
  In view of what I said a little earlier about the pattern of executive council administration in London, I do not think that I can go any further. Clearly, what will determine the issue is what is best administratively for the Greater London area, and it may well be that a pattern not very dissimilar from that which obtains now will be the answer.
  But I do feel that I ought not to commit my right hon. Friend to any precise pattern in advance of discussions which, after all, will not take place in a vacuum, but with the people who are concerned now with the provision of these services in the Greater London area. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will very much bear in mind all the arguments put forward in the debate. I do not think that there is anything further that I can add. My right hon. Friend is fully conscious of the importance of resolving this matter as early as possible and in the best interests of the National Health Service.
  Mr. Pavitt: In the light of the very firm assurance that the Minister will take action along the lines indicated, and with some confidence that when be discusses this with the people concerned he will reach a favourable 'conclusion, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL

    Clause 50.—(EXPLOSIVES AND PETROLEUM SPIRIT.)
    Mrs. Freda Corbet: I beg to move, in page 67, to leave out line 21.
    Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if we discussed, at the same time, the following five Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and other hon. Members.
    Mrs. Corbet: That would be comvenient, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the Government are likely to accept the Amendment and therefore, to economise on time, I do not want to repeat the arguments which I put forward at an earlier stage of our proceedings. I hope to have leave of the House to say something further after the Joint Under-Secretary of State has spoken.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse): The hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) has argued her case with her customary lucidity and with even more than her customary persuasiveness. I have good news and a pleasant surprise for her. We are prepared in principle, to accept the intention of the Amendment. There are arguments both ways, but there is no decisive consideration on balance. But as this is a highly technical function which affects only a small number of people, I think that there is something to be said for its being dealt with by a specialised department in a larger authority.
    I hope that the hon. Lady will not regard this as a precedent for any future responses to Amendments. I want to qualify what I have said by saying that we cannot accept the Amendment literally. It will need a certain amount of redrafting. If she examines the Clause closely, she will see that one of the results of the Amendment would be to leave line 34 floating in the air, attached to nothing whatever. There will, therefore, have to be a certain amount of redrafting, but this will be taken care of in another place.
    Mrs. Corbet: In view of the assurance that the hon. Gentleman has given, I willingly beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 51.—(AMENDMENTS TO SHOPS ACT 1950.)
    Mrs. Corbet: I beg to move, in page 67, line 35, at beginning, to insert:

    (1) The Greater London Council shall be the local authority for Greater London for the purposes of the Young Persons (Employment) Act 1938 and the Shops Act 1950.

    (2) In accordance with the foregoing sub-section—

    (a) for section 6 (1) (a) of the Young Persons (Employment) Act 1938 there shall be substituted:—

    "(a) as respects Greater London, the Greater London Council;

    (b) in Section 73 (1) of the Shops Act 1950, for the words 'as respects the City of London, the common council' there shall be substituted 'as respects Greater London the Greater London Council'".

    I believe that I am right, Mr. Speaker, in saying that it would be convenient to take the following five Amendments to Clause 51 and a further Amendment, in the names of some my hon. Friends, to the Seventeenth Schedule:
    In page 67, line 38, leave out from first "and" to the "in line 39.
    In line 40, leave out from first "the" to "and" in line 41, and insert "Greater London Council".
    In line 42, after "to" insert:
    "the common council of the City of London and".
    In line 43, leave out "that borough council" and insert "the Greater London Council".
    In page 68, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
    (2) Section 18 of the London County Council (General Powers) Act 1958 (which amends section 72 (2) of the Shops Act 1950) shall extend and apply to Greater London, and accordingly, in the said section 18—

    (a) references to "the county" and "the Council" shall be construed as references to Greater London and the Greater London Council respectively;

    (b) in the definition of a "place of public entertainment" in subsection (5) for the words "the Disorderly Houses Act 1751" there shall be substituted the words "section 52 and the Twelfth Schedule of the London Government Act 1962";

    (c) in the definition of a "sanitary authority" in subsection (5), for the words "a sanitary authority for the purposes of the Act of 1936 other than the common council "there shall be substituted the words" the Council of a London borough within the meaning of the London Government Act 1962 or the common council of the City of London, as the case may be".

    264
    (3) Subsection (4) of section 18 of the London County Council (General Powers) Act 1958 shall cease to have effect.
    In Schedule 17, page 218, line 12, after "18" insert "(3)".
    Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Lady. I trust that this serves the convenience of the House.
    Mrs. Corbet: The Joint Under-Secretary of State has warned me not to take his last gracious act as a precedent and I am, of course, aware that the principle of this Amendment, which deals with the work of administering the Shops Act, is not acceptable to the Government. The arguments have been very carefully set out and supplied to the Government, and I do not think that at this stage I could be persuasive enough to get them to change their minds.
    Again, this is a question of specialist staff. I think that the Government would do well to have another look at this matter and to discuss it once more with those people who know about what is at issue. Only a limited number of staff will be employed for this work over the whole area. At present, there are 12 inspectors for the L.C.C. area. Under the new arrangements, presumably each new borough will appoint an inspector.
    A local inspector quickly becomes known to the people, and apart from that there will be boundary troubles, for there are different interpretations, standards and closing days as between one district and another. Trouble can be caused on the boundaries. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman were to look at this again he would come to the conclusion that he should repeat in this case the wise decision that he took on my last Amendment.
    Mr. Woodhouse: I say unhesitatingly that I see the force of the arguments of the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet). This is another case in which one has to take a decision on balance with no completely decisive consideration one way or the other. I remind the hon. Lady that the Royal Commission considered these points in relation to the Shops Act. In paragraph 880 of its Report it concluded that responsibility for the Shops Act should be vested in the London

    265
    boroughs. It argued that the London boroughs, even as it proposed to define them, would be big enough to eliminate in general the problem of varying shop hours in the centre of London and other problems which the hon. Lady referred to. The London boroughs will be still bigger under the Bill than as envisaged by the Royal Commission.
    The Commission also pointed out that in those boroughs of Greater London which were outside the administrative County of London these powers were exercised not by county councils, but by borough and urban district councils, and that even in London many of the functions had been delegated by the L.C.C. to the metropolitan borough councils.
    It is also worth pointing out that for reasons of convenience the Shops Act would be best administered in conjunction with legislation affecting weights and measures and food and drugs, although it is true that there is an Opposition Amendment relating to weights and measures. Both these types of administration were intended by the Royal Commission to be the responsibility of the London boroughs, and in this connection the Bill sets out to give effect to the Royal Commission's recommendations which we believe, on balance, to be the right solution.
    Amendment negatived.

    Clause 53.—(LICENSING OF TRACKS FOR BETTING.)
    Mr. Woodhouse: I beg to move, in page 69, line 40, to leave out "the said subsection (2)" and to insert:
    "subsection (2) of this section".
    This and the following Amendment are consequential upon Government Amendments made in Committee and take account of the passing of the Betting, Gaming, and Lotteries Act, 1963.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 70, line 2, leave out "the said subsection (2)" and insert:
    "subsection (2) of this section".—[Mr. Woodhouse.]

    Clause 54.—(FOOD, DRUGS, MARKETS AND ANIMALS.)
    4.15 p.m.
    Mrs. Corbet: I beg to move, in page 71, line 11, at end, to insert:
    "and the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925".
    Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be convenient with this to discuss the Amendments in page 71, line 12, to leave out from beginning to "shall" in line 13 and to insert "the Greater London Council".
    In page 71, leave out line 14 and insert "Greater London".
    In line 15, to leave out paragraph (b).
    In page 188, line 45, at the end to insert:
    The Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925

    1. In Section 5 (1), in the definition of "local authority", for the words "As respects the City of London, the common council" there shall be substituted the words "As respects Greater London, the Greater London Council."

    In line 47, to leave out sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), and to insert:

    (a) in paragraph (a) (ii) for the word "metropolitan" there shall be substituted the word "London"

    (b) after paragraph (b) there shall be added—

    "(c) as respects Greater London, the Greater London Council."

    (c) the proviso shall cease to have effect.

    Mrs. Corbet: Again, I will not detain the House. This does not follow the same kind of rule which has been explained to us about the desirability of borough councils administering certain sets of Acts. Here we have a very specialised job for which the London County Council employs only two full-time inspectors, both of whom are men with farming experience. It is clear that if this work were to be divided among 12 boroughs, there would be only two-twelfths, or one-sixth, of an inspector for each borough, which is impossible. It is also impossible to get people with the proper experience to do the work part time. I put forward the Amendment in the hope that the Government will give further consideration to this matter.
    Mr. Woodhouse: The effect of this and the related Amendments would be to make the Greater London Council the local authority for the administration of

    267
    the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, and the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act, 1925. The present authorities for these Acts are the counties, the City of London, which also acts for the County of London in relation to orders relating to imported animals, and the county boroughs, and the boroughs in the case of the Diseases of Animals Act only.
    It was decided to give responsibility for the Diseases of Animals Act to the London boroughs so that the detailed day-to-day work should fall on them and not on the Greater London Council. As the boroughs and county boroughs have successfully carried out this work in the past, we felt that it would be unreasonable to transfer it to the Greater London Council.
    Moreover, there is the special case of the City of London which has a special responsibility for dealing with imported animals in the L.C.C. area. Again, it seemed reasonable that this should continue and be extended to the Greater London area.
    Mr. R. J. Mellish: Does that mean that all the 12 London boroughs will have to have inspectors, one each?
    Mr. Woodhouse: No, Sir. I do not think that it need mean that. The function could be shared in such a way that one inspector could look after the interests of neighbouring boroughs on an agency basis.
    Mr. Mellish: There are only two inspectors now for the whole of London. What are we messing about with?
    Mr. Woodhouse: These are two Acts which are conveniently administered together and in the one case there is a rather larger number of staff than in the other. The local authorities have a specialised staff for the Diseases of Animals Act and although the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act requires less work and fewer specialised qualifications, the qualifications for the two are basically similar and it seems convenient that the two functions should be looked after by the same authority in each case. The number of staff involved is unlikely to be affected by the form in which the Clause is drafted, as the same work will need to be done and will need the same manpower to do it.
    268
    I hope that the House will leave the Clause at is stands.
    Mr. Michael Stewart: Can the Under-Secretary say what advice he has received on this matter? I should have thought that it was a matter in which the R.S.P.C.A. would have been interested. It usually keeps a fairly keen eye on any legislation affecting the welfare of animals. Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he has received representations from the R.S.P.C.A., or any other body or society which makes a special study of the needs of animals, and whether expert opinion is satisfied that the job will continue to be done properly when this change of administration is made?
    Mr. Woodhouse: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I took over responsibility for this stage of the Bill at rather short notice. I could not give him a categorical answer without notice, but I assure him on two things: first, that in my time at the Home Office I have never known any subject connected with animals in which the R.S.P.C.A. has not shown a close interest and made representations where it judged necessary, and, secondly, that I feel sure that the task will continue to be competently performed.
    Mr. Mellish: There is not a great political point in this, but I ask the Minister to look at it again. I know something of the problem of transferring animals from one place to another, and of dealing with diseases like anthrax. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has veterinary surgeons on its staff, and local medical officers of health also have some powers of inspection, but at the end of the day we come down to the London County Council where there are two full-time people employed, whose work is invaluable.
    I hope that we shall not be left with the system whereby all local boroughs feel that they must be as important as their next-door neighbours and have some staff, some of whom will not be doing anything at all. It is all very well to provide on paper for joint sharing arrangements, and so on, but achieving them is another matter. I think that the Greater London Council should do this job. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reserve his rights to see whether, after

    269
    further discussions with the R.S.P.C.A, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the whole matter can be reconsidered in another place.
    Mr. Woodhouse: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. As the House has shown a special interest in this matter, and as it concerns the welfare of animals, about which it would be ludicrous to take a stand on purely political divisions, I undertake that the matter shall be looked at again, though I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not expect me—
    Mr. Mellish: I am not concerned with performing animals, but with the diseases of animals.
    Mr. Woodhouse: I have the hon. Gentleman's point, and I repeat the undertaking that I have given, though he will understand that I am not undertaking to make any change in the Bill without further consideration.
    Mrs. Corbet: I hope that there will be a thorough discussion with the councils' officers and those of the City of London who are also, I believe, concerned with these matters.
    Mr. Woodhouse: I will convey the hon. Lady's point to all the interests concerned.
    Amendment negatived.

    Clause 58.—(PARKS AND OPEN SPACES.)
    Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I beg to move, in page 73, line 24, to leave out "Greater London as a whole" and to insert:
    "an area larger than the London borough or boroughs in which any such further park or open space is or is proposed to be, wholly 02 partly situated".
    I am glad that the House has a brief opportunity to consider this proposition, because, unfortunately, owing to the Guillotine procedure in Committee, we were denied the chance of doing so.
    I think that it is common ground among all Members that the parks of London, both the Royal Parks and those which have been maintained by the London County Council, constitute one of the greatest glories of the capital. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the Greater London Council has the opportunity, first, in appropriate cases, of maintaining the expert staff who have
    270
    been responsible for a large variety of parks of all kinds, and, secondly, to undertake work on open spaces and gardens which might be beyond the ability of any individual borough or even group of boroughs.
    The Amendment, which has been carefully drawn, would give the Council that opportunity, provided, of course, that it made out a reasonable case to the Minister for so doing. Clause 58 as drafted provides that the Greater London Council, if it so wishes, can retain those open spaces and parks which it convinces the Minister it would be desirable for it to have. But under the same Clause it appears that the Council, in general, would not have the power to provide new parks and open spaces unless it could be shown that the new space or park was for the benefit of the whole of London.
    The difficulty with which we are faced—and it is one in which we have found ourselves in respect of many Clauses—is to know how the Minister will interpret this passage. In the district which I used to represent on the London County Council, Peckham, the London County Council is slowly creating a large park with the unattractive name of the North Camberwell open space. Nevertheless, it is a delightful concept to create a park in an area which is so deficient in open spaces. Old, shabby buildings are being cleared and the total scheme will cover about 135 acres.
    It will be for the benefit of the inhabitants not only of Camberwell, but of Bermondsey and Southwark, and even to those living to the South, but I do not think that anyone could say that it will benefit other parts of the new greater London. For instance, it would be extremely difficult to say that it was being built for the benefit of people in Horn-church. Consequently, it would be easy for the Minister to decide in this case that even this great space was not for the benefit of the inhabitants of London as a whole, and would not in future allow the Greater London Council to embark on an enterprise of this kind.
    The Amendment means that the Minister would still have to give his permission before the Greater London Council could undertake to provide a garden or open space. It would not mean that the Council could barge in anywhere and create a park, but in many instances,

    271
    because the project is on such a scale, it may be desirable that the central body should undertake the work.
    There are several supporting reasons why this Amendment is desirable. There will obviously be cases where a new development is required, but which a particular borough feels would impose too heavy a financial burden on its resources and, therefore, would not embark on it, particularly if the siting of the new open space meant that the benefits would he enjoyed by people in neighbouring boroughs. A large part of the park may be on the edge of one borough, but most of the users of it may come from somewhere else.
    This problem does not arise with London parks now, because a common service is provided for all Me inhabitants of the county, but it arises when functions are split up in the way proposed in the Bill. A borough may have to think twice—indeed, it will be its duty to do so—about whether it can spend money when the benefits may be only partially for its own ratepayers, and the problem becomes acute when more than one borough is involved.
    I suppose that we shall get the Parliamentary Secretary's oft-repeated formula, "Well, they can make ad hoc arrangements", but anyone with any experience of this knows that it is not easy to solve the problem. It requires good will on the part of all parties, and considerable effort and time by all concerned. It would be simpler to give the Greater London Council power to do this if, after consultation with the boroughs, it makes out a case to the Minister. This is still a limited power. The Minister will have the last word, and I hope, therefore, that the force of this proposition, and the cautious way in which it has been put forward, will commend itself to the hon. Gentleman.
    There is another point to consider. If one is considering a new project like the Camberwell one, the area at present is covered with old, shoddy, houses which are gradually being removed. This is an expensive project. It is much easier if the cost of this expensive development is shared by all the ratepayers of the areas which benefit, rather than being concentrated upon the ratepayers of one borough. As far as I know, even with
    272
    all the Ministerial regulations and the ingenious dovetailing of the various parts of the Bill, it is not possible to propose a financial scheme of that kind which would spread the cost.
    4.30 p.m.
    It seems desirable that the skilled team which now exists in the L.C.C. should not be completely broken up. It has been responsible for a great variety of landscaping, and in this work it is necessary to have some absolutely top experts. Even the new large boroughs are unlikely to be carrying out work of the skill or variety which is now done by the Parks Department of the London County Council. If this provision were inserted the skilled specialist staff which has created such a remarkable variety of parks in London would not be broken up. Landscaping gardeners of the quality required are not easily come by, and it is obvious that there would not be work for them in any one London borough. Consequently, if the Greater London Council does not at the moment possess the power which would be provided by the Amendment it seems clear that some of these individuals will have to go elsewhere.
    For all those reasons I hope that the Minister will agree that I have made out a case. I lay particular stress on the last point that I made. We must remember the variety of landscaping achievements of the Parks Department. A little park in Stepney is being created out of an old bombed warehouse. In this case, all the soil has had to be brought to the site because the work of extracting the concrete, rubble and bricks would have been a massive task. With that we can compare the larger enterprise, such as Ken Wood, in the north, where not only gardens have been created, but provision has been made for concert performances, and where the music is heard by an audience on the other side of an attractive lake setting. Then there are the great parks in the south of London, such as Battersea Park and Greenwich Park, which are considerable achievements of landscaping.
    Anything which can be done to ensure that the staffs that have created these parks continue to have opportunities of carrying out similar work, which is beyond the financial or practical ability of any one borough, will be well worth

    273
    while. There will always be the safeguard that any new proposal of the Greater London Council will have to he sanctioned by the Minister. The Government have nothing to lose by accepting the Amendment, and the inhabitants of London have a great deal to gain.
    Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I am not sure whether the hon: Member is aware of my interest in common land. I should like to know whether the words "open space" are intended to refer only to parks. I have great sympathy with the hon. Member's intention, and I can see the point of the Amendment, but I should like to know whether it is intended to embrace common lands which are already covered by other Acts of Parliament.
    Mr. Skeffington: Answering "off the cuff," I would imagine that if an open space is already covered by an Act of Parliament it would not be affected by the Amendment. It is certainly not my intention that it should be. I used the term "open space" because some of this kind of development is technically not necessarily park development. But there is nothing in the Amendment which desires to interfere in any way with any open space that is already being administered under an Act of Parliament.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I start by reminding the hon. Member that the North Camberwell open space—a somewhat unattractive and uninspiring name for a rather inspiring project—is a byproduct of comprehensive redevelopment, which, as I understand, will be covered by subsection (1, b) of the Clause. There is no doubt that the Bill as it stands enables this type of park to be created and retained by the Greater London Council. In the central area it is difficult to see how any substantial new open space or parkland could be provided by any means other than a fairly substantial redevelopment.
    As the hon. Member suspected, I must remind him that in other cases there are various means of co-operation between boroughs both in respect of management, and, if necessary, acquisition. Nevertheless, he has made a good case, particularly by the example he gave of a borough—perhaps a poor
    274
    borough—which has an open space entirely within its area, and without committing myself I undertake to look at the point again, on behalf of the Government and I shall read his speech with interest. In those circumstances, perhaps he will feel able to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment—although I am not making any promise.
    Mr. Skeffington: I am grateful for what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. I was not clear that the point about comprehensive redevelopment was covered, but I am glad to hear that it is. On the general point, I can imagine cases in some populous boroughs in Middlesex, and in such places as West Ham and East Ham, where there may be a case for this type of development which is not specifically attached to comprehensive redevelopment.
    In view of the hon. Member's undertaking, I have much pleasure in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 81.—(SUPPLEMENTARY AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISION.)
    Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move, in page 90, tine 17, to leave out Clause 81.
    This is the first time in the history of the Bill that we have actually got ahead of the Guillotine. That is a good thing, because there is still much important business to do, and the 20 minutes that we now have in hand will be extremely useful a little later.
    The effect of the Amendment would be to remove Clause 81 from the Bill, but the prospect of actually doing that is one from which the boldest heart might quail. Indeed, our position with regard to the Clause is typical of the blackmail that has been exercised on the Opposition throughout the proceedings on the Bill. This Clause is in many respects a quite deplorable one, but if we were to remove it several things would happen. Nearly all the safeguards concerning the position of the employees of existing local authorities would fall to the ground, because much of the Minister's power to do anything to help them would be exercised under orders under this Clause.
    Earlier, we were discussing the future of the executive councils under the National Health Service. We missed the

    275
    presence of the right hon. Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) when we were discussing this matter. If she had been here a little while ago she would have heard the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health explaining that, as we had supposed, if we do not either alter the Bill, or make an order of some kind, the result will be that we will have as many executive councils as there are local health authorities under the Bill.
    One of the ways of dealing with that situation is by orders made under Clause 81, and as time goes on we shall find that there is an enormous amount to be done by the Minister under the provisions in this Clause. If the Clause did not exist, very great hardship and inconvenience might be imposed on all kinds of people. That is why we feel that we must keep the Clause in the Bill. But I say that it is a deplorable Clause in many ways for these reasons.
    Let us notice, first, the scope of things about which the Minister can make orders. It is not merely the Minister. It is
    "The Minister or any appropriate Minister …"
    At least five Ministries have been represented during the Committee stage proceedings, and periodically during this debate Ministry representatives have flitted to and from the Government Front Bench. I do not think even that exhausts the number of Ministers who might be appropriate under the terms of this Bill. Any of them
    "may at any time, whether before or after 1st April, 1965, … make such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provision as may appear to him … to be necessary or proper for the general or any particular purposes of this Act …".
    So far, that does not sound unusual. But in subsection (1, b) it goes on that the Minister may make such transitional or supplementary provision as may
    "be necessary or proper in consequence of such of the provisions of any other Act passed in the same session as this Act as apply to Greater London …".
    That means that not only can we make what one would normally regard as supplementary provisions, but if, as a consequence of the passing of the Bill, or any other Measure this Session affecting Greater London, it appears necessary
    276
    to any one of half-a-dozen Ministers to do anything, he can, by order, do it.
    This is an encouragement to bad drafting of Bills. If, because of this Bill or any Measure passed this Session affecting Greater London, questions are raised about what will happen following the passing of the legislation, it may be open to Ministers to say, "We can wait and see what happens, and we can tighten it up by order made under Section 81 of the London Government Act". That is an extraordinarily wide power. We find that the orders so made are all subject to the negative Resolution procedure in the House, which means, in effect, that at most we can debate any one of them for only an hour and a half.
    4.45 p.m.
    It is difficult to believe that this is a satisfactory arrangement. From time to time I read articles in the Press—sometimes they are written by hon. Members and sometimes by learned academics—about the danger of the Executive becoming too powerful and the importance of the House creating a large number of new committees in order to watch the Executives.
    I am always a little suspicious of such proposals, because I can never be sure whether the people who write the articles will serve on the committees, were they established. I am surprised to find that some people who express concern about the growing power of the Executive, compared with that of this House, have not noticed the extraordinary powers given to the Executive in this Clause.
    During the proceedings in the Standing Committee we suggested that this Clause ought to be amended so as to make the orders subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure. The House will know the importance of that. It means that a Minister can never "sneak" through with his order. At the very least, a Minister must stand at the Dispatch Box at the appropriate time and go through the motions of moving a Motion. Under the negative Resolution procedure the initiative lies entirely with any possible critic of an order.
    I suppose that it could be said—I think it was said, in answer to our suggestions during the Committee stage—that the range of orders will be so great that to make them all subject to the affirmative

    277
    Resolution procedure would impose an intolerable burden on Ministers and, more important, on the time of the House. We did, therefore, raise the question whether some discrimination could be drawn between orders of such importance that they ought to be subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure and orders that we could permit to go through under the negative Resolution procedure. We received one of the cautiously worded undertakings which have littered the pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT of our debates, that the Government would consider this matter. I looked whether there was any Amendment put down to Clause 81 to that effect. I do not find one. I thought it right, therefore, to move an Amendment to delete this Clause from the Bill so as to give the Government an opportunity to tell hon. Members what study they have made of the kind of orders which it will be necessary to make under the provisions in the Bill, and whether it will be possible to classify them into minor orders for which the negative Resolution procedure is appropriate and major orders for which it would be proper to amend the Bill so as to provide for the affirmative Resolution procedure to be used. It may be that Government consideration of the matter is not complete. They may be going to tell us that more will be heard of this in another place. But I hope that we shall get something a bit better than the Clause as it stands.
    Although, as I said at the outset, we cannot help accepting this Clause, we do not like it as it is. We hope that the Government will say that they have found a way to reduce the quite inordinate powers given to Ministers and to provide greater scope for hon. Members to watch the operation of the provisions of the Bill.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has said that hon. Members opposite accept this Clause as an inevitable part of the Bill, but he criticised its range and scope. Indeed this, or some such Clause, is an inescapable part of any local government reorganisation. That is why much the same sort of arrangement was made in what was, as it were, the "master Act "—the Local Government Act, 1958.
    278
    Under that Act the procedure was set in motion for reviewing the local government of the whole of England and Wales. Out of that procedure, and after a series of consultations, emerged a series of democratic protections and recommendations from the Government to this House. Wherever such recommendations would involve a major change in the status of a local authority that change would have to be embodied in an order subject to affirmative Resolution. May I add that in the Local Government Act, 1958, it was recognised that as local government reorganisation proceeded there was bound to be an immense number of consequential implications which could be covered only by order. The words of which the hon. Gentleman complained—
    "consequential, transitional or supplementary"
    are taken verbatim from the 1958 Act.
    If the hon. Gentleman goes on to say that the 1958 Act provided that certain major changes of local authorities status were to come before the House not by the negative procedure which would govern orders made under the provisions of Clause 81 of this Bill, but by the affirmative procedure, I must remind him that whereas any change that emerged by reason of the 1958 Act were not even known at the time, changes in the structure of local government associated with this Bill are embodied in the Bill and have been subject not just to the affirmative procedure, but to the whole of the normal procedure of the House. That is the basis on which these consequential orders are subject to the negative procedure. They are important, although many of them will be consequential upon the major decisions which have been embodied in the Bill about the changes in status of local authorities in Greater London.
    The hon. Member asked in Committee that the Government should consider whether the orders could be divided so that those which might be considered the most important would be subject to the affirmative procedure. I have, of course, studied the undertaking with which I followed that request. I have looked at the whole question again since that study, but, reluctantly, I must tell the House the reason for there being no Government Amendment on this matter. It is because

    279
    it is not possible to define in any amenable way the class of orders so particularly important as to justify taking up the time of this House.
    I think that the hon. Member will recognise from his previous speeches that orders may cover a small number of people and yet be very important to each of them, or a large number of people and not be of great significance to any of them. I shall look at the suggestions put forward by the hon. Member, but I do not think the proposal practicable to cover all the likely cases which might emerge and to ensure that we have made a valid distinction between something which is so major that it should come under the affirmative Resolution procedure and the rest.
    Having made all those cautionary remarks, I finish by reminding the House that the Government have undertaken—as is normal in these cases—that there will be the fullest consultation by them with the employing authorities, the future and existing ones, and the staff organisations before any of these orders are made. That is normal procedure, and it will be carried out in this case. I must reluctantly say to the hon. Member that I can offer him no comfort, at least on my own behalf. As he said, the orders will be so numerous and involve so much detail to make sure that we are protecting all the interests concerned—as we are bound to do to the best of our ability—that it is not possible to make the distinction he has in mind. I recognise that the hon. Member will not be pleased with that answer, but that is the logic I must employ.
    Mr. M. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. I am not pleased or happy about this, but of course, without endangering the livelihood of a large number of people, we cannot take the Clause out of the Bill. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 82.—(TRANSFER AND COMPENSATION OF OFFICERS.)
    Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, in page 92, line 36, at the beginning, to insert:
    "carrying out the functions conferred on them by this section, and of".
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): With this Amend-
    280
    ment there can be debated the following Amendment, in line 40, after "Minister", insert:
    "or any local authority (including any existing local authority) or any body representative of staff employed by any such local authority".
    which will be called for a Division if required, and the Amendments in line 44, after "and" insert:
    "if so requested by the Commission shall give directions".
    In line 48, at end insert:
    "and any direction given by the Minister under this subsection may be made a rule of the High Court on the application of the commission".
    In line 48, at end insert:

    (5) (a) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of the last foregoing subsection, the staff commission referred to in that subsection may give directions to the Greater London Council or a London borough council requiring them to submit to the commission and to such bodies representative of staff employed by local authorities as the commission may specify, at such date before 1st October 1964 as the commission may specify, such details as may be prescribed in the directions of their proposed establishments of staff, together with a statement as to the places, situations or employments which they propose should be filled by persons to be transferred from existing local authorities in Greater London or should be made open to holders of any place, situation or employment in Greater London, or generally;

    (b) any person affected by the provisions of any details or statement submitted under the foregoing paragraph, or any body representative of persons who are so affected, may appeal to the commission against any such provisions within twenty-one days from the date of such submission, and the Minister shall make regulations governing the manner in which such appeal shall be made and the procedure on such an appeal;

    (c) within two months after the receipt of any details and statement submitted as aforesaid, the commission shall notify the Minister and the submitting authority of any objections which the commission may have to such details and statement and of any recommendations they may wish to propose to remedy the matter;

    (d) except with the approval of the Minister or the commission, the Greater London Council or a London borough council shall not advertise for, or appoint, any person as a member of their staff until two months after their submission to the commission of the details and statement referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection;

    (e) any scheme in respect of the transfer of staff prepared by a joint committee of existing authorities appointed under section 80 of this Act may, if submitted to the staff commission and to such bodies representative of staff employed by local authorities as the commission may specify, before 1st October 1964,

    281
    be accept xl by the commission as a discharge in whole or in part of any obligation of the Greater London Council or a London borough council to submit the details and statement referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection;

    (f) in carrying out their functions under this section, the commission and the Minister shall use their best endeavours to ensure that the Greater London Council and any London borough council, in making appointments to specific places, situations or employments, shall, so far as possible, fill such places, situations or employments from among persons who are holders of places, situations or employments which are affected by any provision of, or of any instrument made under, this Act.

    Mr. Skeffington: This is another case where, because of the guillotine procedure upstairs, we did not have a chance of discussing the character and status of the staff commission. This obviously is a matter of the very greatest consequence to the many thousands of people who will be involved in transfer from one authority to another. I am glad, even at almost the twelfth hour, to have some opportunity of hearing the Government's views on what kind of staff commission they want and whether or not they are prepared to accept some of the suggestions in the long Amendment which is the last in the list of those which are being discussed with the Amendment I am moving.
    The Bill now provides that the Minister must establish a staff commission the functions of which are to be consultative and advisory and which in any case are entirely dependent upon reference to it by the Minister. The staff commission cannot take the initiative. I understand that reference must be made by the Minister, although of course he can, I suppose, make a reference in such broad terms, if he feels inclined to do so, as may cover all the major problems of staff.
    The commission's advice when given to the Minister can be made binding on the authorities by the Minister. A great many of those involved, and the staff associations, are glad that the staff commission is now to be mandatory. They say that it should come into existence as soon as possible after the Bill becomes law so that it may be able to influence the action of the proposed joint committees of existing local authorities which will be established under the plan and so that it shall be able to advise, help and indeed influence the councils concerned. ft is desired that it should be
    282
    able to discharge these functions as soon as may be practicable once the legal authority setting up the new authorities has been sanctioned.
    If we look at the concept of a commission, we see that, to be an effective safeguard for the staff, some greater reference to its functions and duties should be more specifically defined in the Bill. Therefore, we have put down the last in this list of Amendments with specific heads, all of which seem very important if the commission, to put it crudely, is to have any "teeth". Otherwise it may be an advisory body of little significance, not trusted by the staff and not able to give very effective advice to the Minister or to have appropriate status in discussing problems of the staff with the new authorities.
    The matters which we suggest should be specifically included in the Bill to give the commission the weight which we think ought to be attached to it in the interests of those who have given their lives to local government are included in the Amendment which is the last of those in the list we are considering. I hope that their purpose will be obvious from the wording. The first main concern is that the new authorities should, by 1st October, 1964—which gives them a few months' grace after coming into being by election—submit to the staff commission their proposed establishments together with a statement of what posts will be filled by staff to be transferred from existing authorities to the G.L.C., what posts should be filled by competition among existing staff and, thirdly, what category of staff will be recruited by advertisement.
    This is a great pre-occupation among existing staffs. It seems that clarification at the earliest possible date should be given in a broad way to the staff commission. It is not suggested, of course, that any scheme under the proposed Amendment would be considered absolutely final in detail. That would be quite impossible, because many of the new functions, particularly of the London boroughs, have yet to be assessed in their effect on the locality, but it should be possible to give a broad indication to members of each of the categories which would greatly help to clarify the future position of the staff. Incidentally, it would help the other

    283
    authorities, as well as the individual authority, to see the kind of complement of staff needed for the work.
    The next major proposal we suggest is that, within a specified time, which will have to be worked out at a later stage after the information I have been suggesting has been given to the commission, the commission should be able to make its comments and objections to the proposed establishment. The purpose of this requirement is very obvious. It would enable a Ministerial direction to be given under the Clause, and individuals concerned would then have the opportunity to appeal. It is very important that staff or groups of staff who feel that new arrangements will be unjust to them should have the right, once they know what the position is, to appeal. If there is no such provision as we suggest in the Amendment, the procedure will be very much more ad hoc. I have no doubt that the Minister can make various regulations, and give directions, but one feels that a procedure of this kind, which would be clear and specific, is very much in the interests of the staff, and I know that this is the kind of procedure which they would like.
    5.0 p.m.
    The third major proposition is in connection with the staff and advertisements. The suggestion which we have put into the Amendment is that no new authority should advertise in appointing staff until it had put to the commission its establishment and statement under the third proposition that I have outlined. It should not be able to advertise without the approval of the staff commission and the Minister. This is to ensure that every effort will be made to employ existing staff before new staff is brought in from outside the area. I feel that this is the least concession that the House and the Government ought to be willing to make to the staff who are being disturbed. Many of them fear that without this proposal they may be thrown on the tender mercy of compensation only for either loss of office or an office which is not as remunerative as the one which they now enjoy.
    I mentioned the other day in this connection that I noticed that the architect to one of the few boroughs that
    284
    will remain in the future as now—Harrow—was appointed from outside the area. No doubt there will have to be some appointments of this character, but we want to ensure that everything is done first, before advertising, to employ the staff within the area. It seems to me that procedure of this kind is of great significance to them, and I hope that it will be considered worthy of statutory inclusion in the Bill.
    The last major proposal is that the tentative scheme for the transfer of staff to the new authorities prepared by the joint committee of the existing authorities shall be capable of submission to the staff commission for approval in anticipation of the set-up of the new authorities. This seems to be very important in order that one can clear away the cases of people who are not fitted into the scheme and where such proposal could be referred to the staff commission. All this means very considerable work for the staff commission, but the staff commission is an extremely important body. It is charged with looking after the interests of the staff and the best use of them in the very complicated new set-up, and therefore I do not suppose that we need feel too cautious about asking it to do this work, because this is what the staff commission will have to undertake in one way or another if it does the duty. All that we are suggesting is that the kind of work which it no doubt will be doing will be specifically defined in the Bill so that there can be no doubt that every one of the cases that have been mentioned is adequately considered.
    The series of Amendments taken together would give a guarantee that existing staffs would be used in the new authorities wherever possible, and used, of course, as we have tried to suggest earlier, in posts of comparable responsibility and remuneration.
    One weakness that I can see in the Amendment—perhaps it is unwise to refer to it, but we want to get practical alternative suggestions from the Government—is that the detailed proposals that we have incorporated might have some effect upon the timetable of the Government changes in setting up the new structure. I do not think that this is an insuperable objection, given good will, and the kind of consultation between the Government and

    285
    the staff commission and staff which I should have thought inevitable if the staff commission is to work at all.
    If there is any way that the Government can suggest in which these objectives can be achieved, naturally in the interests of the staff one would be only too ready to examine them instead of these Amendments. The advice that I have had from all the staff associations—I do not think that there is any dispute by any of them on this point—is that the commission, as the Government have proposed it, is without adequate powers, possibly without adequate status, and the staffs collectively would like powers given to the staff commission which are more specific than those included in the Bill. There is, of course, a great number of staff involved. I am glad that we have time to discuss this matter, and I hope that the Government will feel that if they cannot accept the Amendment they should seek some other way in another place to see that the commission gets the kind of power which we think that it ought to have.
    Mr. John Barter: I welcome the opportunity of discussing the extremely important position touching on the functioning of the staff commission. It would be no exaggeration to say that the staffs, particularly of the county councils affected, attach a great deal of significance to the functioning, the methods of functioning, and the opportunities provided to them in approaches to the staff commission when it is finally established.
    Three principle criteria could be said to apply. First, the rapid appointment, notification and announcement of the setting up of the staff commission; secondly, that when it operates it should be seen to be operating in a completely fair way; and, thirdly, that its operation should be seen to be effective. With regard to the rapidity of appointment, I think that my right hon. Friend was hopeful at one stage of making an announcement, perhaps in advance of the conclusion of the proceedings on this Bill, to enable the staff commission to proceed, perhaps unofficially, in advance of the final acceptance of the Bill.
    With regard to fairness, the Bill as at present drafted provides only for references to the staff commission from the Minister. I think that there are severe
    286
    limitations if this is the only course to be adopted. My impression of this would be that no member of the staff who considers himself or his group of colleagues aggrieved by any situation should feel necessarily precluded from an approach to the Commission by his staff association or organisation. That is the purpose of the Amendment that I had hoped to move and that is now being discussed. The requirement of the staff commission in its operation should be, first of all, fairness to enable everyone to feel that his case could be properly considered by it, whether or not referred to it by the Minister, and, above all, that it should be seen that the staff commission is effective in its operation.
    I hope that my right hon. Friend will have something to say on this score, be-case, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) has already stated, there are a great many members of the staffs, particularly of the county authorities, although this is by no means limited to them, who look with some degree of fear to the agreements being embarked upon at the present time by the unofficial joint committees with regard to the future structure of the staffs in the districts, to the exclusion of their own personal interests.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: All hon. Members have been very worried about the staff position. It is important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Barter) said, that there should be direct communication between staff and the staff commission when it is set up, and I hope that it will be set up very soon. This is an essential point. Subject to what my right hon. Friend says, I do not see that there could possibly be any objection to that machinery. It strikes me that there could be many cases in which members of the staff wished to air their grievances, which might or might not be reasonable; but it would be the job of the staff commission to decide that. If members of the staff felt that they had direct access, it would to some extent relieve their worries.
    Further, it is very important that the staff commission must have adequate authority. It must have the power to give settlements and make awards which it considers right. I hope that not only will it be set up very promptly but that it will have sufficient powers and will

    287
    also have machinery so that direct aproaches can be made. My right hon. Friend may say that direct approach goes against the normal machinery of negotiation. I submit that this is a very special case on the break-up of a big authority, and that special complications arise.
    Sir K. Joseph: I am confused on one point here. Has my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Barter) moved the second and third of his three Amendments, namely, those in lines 44 and 48?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Perhaps I can help the Minister. The only Amendment which has been moved at present is the Amendment in page 92, line 36, in the name of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington). It is possible to discuss with this Amendment, as we have discussed, the Amendments in lines 40, 44 and 48 in the name of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Barter) and the Amendment in line 48, also in the name of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. I have said that I propose, after a decision has been reached on the Amendment in line 36, if it is required to put the Amendment in line 40 for a Division but without further discussion.
    Sir K. Joseph: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
    This is, indeed, a most important subject, and I am glad that we have a little time to debate it. At the moment, the Government propose that the staff commission should be composed of three persons who will be part-time, paid, and served by a full-time staff seconded to them mostly from local government. There is an obligation on the Government to set up the staff commission within a month of the passage of the Bill into law, but there is every hope that in fact the commission will be set up informally well before then. I hope to be able to make an announcement about names soon—that is, within a matter of weeks rather than months. Then it will be necessary for the Government to consult the local authorities, the staff associations and the proposed members of the commission, to work out terms of reference.
    The staff commission will be, as far as I am aware, the first of its kind. It will
    288
    be a very important body. Its job will not finish in 1965. It will go on for some time afterwards. We cannot tell now how long. It is important that we should not shackle it by writing too many limitations into the Bill at this stage. That is why, despite all the things I shall say, which I hope will be encouraging, I shall ask at the end that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) should withdraw his Amendment. I have to satisfy him that that is the right course.
    The staff commission, as we see it, will mostly work by persuasion. That is, we expect that it will, after study and consultation, lay down general principles to which the existing and the future local authorities will work. Behind that persuasion there lies the power of the Minister to give directions to local authorities if the Minister, after representations by the staff commission, judges it to be necessary.
    5.15 p.m.
    The staff commission will keep off subjects which are normally negotiated between staff associations and local government. It will leave pay and conditions of service to the normal negotiating machinery. Subject to these limitations, I believe that the staff commission, as at present proposed, will satisfy the criterion mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North—that is, that it will be rapidly set up, that it will be fair and be seen to be fair in the performance of its duties, and that it will be effective in the protection it gives to staff.
    We would expect it, among other things, to take positive steps to ensure that posts are filled as far as possible from local government employees now working in Greater London. We would expect it to ensure that senior positions in the new boroughs, especially in connection with services transferred from the counties, should be filled only from short lists which the commission will approve, short lists which would include people now employed by the county councils. We would expect is to be directly accessible to representations from the local authorities and from the staff associations. We would expect it to take into careful account all representations which are made to it, but I would hesitate very long before writing into the Bill a requirement that it should be obliged to receive,

    289
    and therefore to answer, any and every representation which might be made to it, even from local authorities.
    After all, there are some 90 existing local authorities in the Greater London area and, while we would expect the staff commission to be accessible, we would also expect the Minister to act as a filter so as to see that the commission certainly replied to any representations from local authority associations or staff associations; and indeed we would expect there to be no need to require it to do so, because it would naturally do so; but, were it necessary, the Minister would be prepared to use his power to direct the staff commission that it should answer any particular type of representation which might be seen to be necessary.
    However, to write into the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North would have us do by one of his Amendments, an obligation upon the staff commission to receive representations from any local authority or anybody connected with staff and therefore, if it is to be of any value, to reply to them, would be going too far.
    In the same way, I fear that I cannot advise my hon. Friend to press the Amendment in tine 44, which would give the commission the power to operate the Minister as a trigger, as it were, to set off a direction. That would make the Minister the mere agent of the staff commission. We must leave the initiative the other way—that is, that the Minister shall have the power to make a direction either to the staff commission or to any local authority or group of local authorities if it seems proper to the Minister on the recommendation of the staff commission that he should do so.
    I noted that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington also laid some stress upon the right of appeal to the staff commission by those who might feel aggrieved. This is an important subject and I would expect to discuss this with the staff commission and to ask it to consider the mechanism which it would like to operate. I should not like to write into the Bill any particular provision at this stage before the staff commission is in action.
    I hope that I have said enough to reassure the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington that this is a serious
    290
    and determined project to protect the staff. I hope that I have convinced him that at this stage—before the staff commission has been nominated or has entered into informal life and, therefore, before it could have had discussions with the local authority and staff associations—it would be wrong to start putting into the Bill details of how it should function. I hope I have said enough to convince him that it will be set up rapidly in its informal shape, and that we are determined that it shall be shown to be operating fairly. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will withdraw the Amendment and that so, also, will my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North.
    Mr. Barter: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to give an assurance about another point which might be considered by the staff commission? He said that certain officers employed in the services being transferred from the counties to the new London boroughs will be considered by the commission. Can he assure tit, that the commission will consider the position of those county officers at present in the service of the counties—clerks, and so on—and that they will be considered in a similar way?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes. I would expect the commission carefully to consider the position of the people to whom my hon. Friend has referred for some sort of similar treatment, though I should not like to go further before the commission has been established.
    Mr. Skeffington: The Minister said that he expects that the commission would receive representations from the staff and local authorities. But suppose it does not. Is there any power, other than the Minister's direction—which is a clumsy and heavy-handed method—to ensure that this will happen?
    Sir K. Joseph: This is the sort of issue that will have to be discussed with the staff associations when the staff commission enters upon its informal life, so as to influence the terms of reference which the commission will discuss with me. As a second line of protection, I should expect the staff associations to be able easily to make representations to the Minister to use his informal or formal influence on the commission. I think that there is no fear here, and I

    291
    undertake to see to it that the commission, in its informal manifestation, will discuss this point with the staff and local authority associations.
    Mr. M. Stewart: We have been slowly at work on this part of the Bill trying to make the staff commission a more effective body. In Committee Amendments from all quarters succeeded in making the existence of the commission a certainty instead of only a possibility. That was a considerable advance, but the fact that it needed to be made such left us a little disquieted about the Government's whole attitude.
    I have a feeling that the Government think that this business of making arrangements with the staff will be much easier than it actually will be. That was shown because, in the first instance, they did not make it mandatory on the Minister to appoint the commission. Although that error has been rectified, the commission is still left with what I would describe as inadequate powers. It is in this connection that the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), in line 48, at the end to insert a new subsection (5), would be particularly helpful.
    Paragraph (a) of that Amendment in effect gives the commission power to get from local authorities certain information which it will need if it is to do its work properly. I cannot find anything in the Clause as it stands giving the commission power to get that information. The Minister can direct local authorities about implementing any advice given by the commission and can direct them to pay the expenses of the commission, but the quality of the advice the commission may give may depend, in the first place, on all the information being available to it. It is not clear in the Clause as it stands whether the commission has any power to require information or if it is just that the Minister has power to direct local authorities to give it.
    If the Minister has such power it would be a rather clumsy way of doing it. It would be much more simple to give the commission power to require information from a local authority. It may be said that local authorities will not be unreasonable. Nevertheless, a local autho-
    292
    rity might feel that it was being asked by the commission for a great deal of information, the supplying of which would impose much labour on the authority. Such an authority might consider such a request for information as being unreasonable. That is a matter on which differences of opinion might arise.
    We have often heard Ministers, when replying to Questions in the House, say, "To answer the Question would involve an unnecessary amount of time and effort." Ministers must be in that position, I suppose, and no one can compel a Minister to give any kind of answer. I would have thought, however, that the staff commission should be a sufficiently strong and authoritative body to say, "There is certain information we require in order to do our work properly. With great respect to the local authority, we—the members of the commission—and not the local authority, must be the judges of what information we require".
    The commission has not got that power under the Bill as it stands. I appreciate that its members might be able to go to the Minister and say, "We cannot get this information, will you please direct the local authority to give it", but even if that were done it would be a clumsy way around it.
    Sir K. Joseph: Perhaps I might save the time of the House by saying that I do not think that the hon. Member need labour that point because I shall have no objection to offering to consider, at a later stage, whether power to obtain information should be written into the Bill. I am anxious not to shackle the operations of the staff commission. I do not want to go further but, having given that assurance, I hope that the hon. Member will drop that part of his argument and turn to his next subject.
    Mr. Stewart: I, too, realise the right hon. Gentleman's need for progress, but this is a late stage of the Bill for him to be giving undertakings.
    Sir K. Joseph: If the hon. Member intends to be ungracious about this sort of thing I would remind him that the Government gave an undertaking to set up the staff commission when the Bill is passed into law. It was only because hon. Members opposite wanted it made mandatory that, to save time, we did that. It was always intended that it should be set up. The hon. Member must know

    293
    that at this stage the Government must listen to all the arguments adduced and occasionally change things. I think that the hon. Member is being rather ungracious.
    Mr. Stewart: I am sorry if I gave the impression of being ungracious. It is possible that the Minister—perhaps not unnaturally after what we have been through—is getting rather cross. I feel like that myself sometimes. I certainly did not mean to be ungracious. It is true that the Government gave an undertaking to appoint the staff commission. None the less, the Committee insisted on writing "shall" instead of "may" into the Bill.
    It was not only the suspicions of my hon. Friends, but those of hon. Members opposite, which led to that being done. The Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman accepted at that stage came from one of his hon. Friends. Thus it was hon. Gentlemen opposite who preferred the Government's undertakings to be in black and white rather than merely as their unsupported word. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman is saying that he is giving an undertaking. He has given an undertaking to look at this matter and to see whether it is possible, sensible and the rest of it to put this into the Bill. Nevertheless, I am within my rights in pointing out that this is a very late stage of the Bill at which to be giving undertakings.
    A lot of undertakings have already been given. The Government are anxious, for obvious reasons, to get the Bill through in a given time. The Minister may give each one of those undertakings; but what will happen when he gets back to his office and totals up the undertakings he has given and considers the sheer amount of time that will be needed to fulfil them?
    5.30 p.m.
    To rub in why I think this matter important, I want to draw the attention of the House to an analogy. When we appoint a Select Committee for any important purpose, the Motion nearly always includes the words that the Committee should have power
    "… to send for persons, papers and records …"
    We consider that if a Select Committee is to do its work, it must have the power to require information. That is why I
    294
    do not think that the Minister is quite up to the point when he says that he does not want to shackle the operation of the commission. This paragraph does not say that the commission has to do anything. It gives it power and it gives it scope, because the greater power one has to get information the more likely one is to be able to do the work freely. One is less shackled, not more.
    Paragraph (b) depends on (a)—its purpose is merely to make (a) tolerable in its working—and the same applies to (c). But let the Minister now look at paragraph (d). I should have thought that this was an entirely reasonable provision. It does not shackle the commission's working at all. It might be said, perhaps, to shackle the local authorities but, after all, the whole point of this part of the Bill is that they shall be subject to certain conditions. The proposition is the quite reasonable one that local authorities shall not fill jobs from outside to the possible prejudice of people who are to be transferred from other authorities in the Greater London Area.
    My hon. Friend, in his Amendment, quite properly makes an exception. He would allow local authorities to advertise with the approval of the Minister. One could well imagine circumstances—they would be rather exceptional circumstances, but they might well arise—in which one of the authorities might say, "It really is necessary for our work that we advertise this post. We cannot rely on its being adequately filled by the transfer of an employee from an existing authority." If the authority could make that case, the Minister could say, "Well, go ahead and advertise," but it is quite reasonable to say to the local authority, "You cannot do that unless it is a sufficiently special case for you to be able to persuade the Minister to give his approval." I therefore cannot think that there is anything unreasonable in (d).
    Nor do I think that paragraph (e) in any way shackles the operation of the staff commission. Indeed, its whole nature is, as it were, to short circuit formalities, so that if one of the joint committees of existing authorities to be appointed under what will be Section 80 of the Act brings to birth a great scheme affecting the future of staff it

    295
    can, if the scheme fulfils certain conditions, show it to the staff commission and so satisfy the commission that it has done its duty in the matter. Nobody could possibly say—if we want the commission to do any work at all—that there is anything objectionable in this. As I say, it short-circuits formalities.
    If I criticised anything at all in paragraph (f) it would be the phrase:
    "… shall use their best endeavours to ensure that the Greater London Council and any London Borough Council … shall, so far as possible, fill such places …"
    with people who are already holders of places. I am a little tempted to suggest to my hon. Friend that when he came to the final paragraph he was, perhaps, a little infected by the over-anxious drafting that the Minister always employs. Nevertheless, I cannot feel that it would do anyone any harm. It could not shackle anyone. It would merely remind those concerned that this is one of the things
    that, within reason and possibility, they should make every effort to do.
    The Minister went quite a way—I will be very gracious now—to agree with me over (a) which, I think, really carries (b) and (c) with it. Personally, I would not mind so much if (b) and (c) were out as long as (a) was in, but there are some, I think, who would like (b) and (c) in. Paragraph (d) is reasonable, and (e) might reduce formalities and so save time. Paragraph (f) is a strongly-worded pious hope that would be useful for creating the right atmosphere in which the commission could do its work. To what, in the whole of my hon. Friend's Amendment, can the Minister object? We really should ask him at this stage to accept it as part of the Bill.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 247.

    Division No. 90.]

    AYES

    [5.37 p.m.

    Ainsley, William

    Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

    Ledger, Ron

    Albu, Austen

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Forman, J. C.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Awbery, Stan (Bristol Central)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Bacon, Miss Allce

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Lipton, Marcus

    Barnett, Guy

    Ginsburg, David

    Loughlin, Charles

    Beaney, Alan

    Gourlay, Harry

    Lubbock, Eric

    Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Benson, Sir George

    Grey, Charles

    McBride, N.

    Blackburn, F.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    McCann, John

    Blyton, William

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    MacColl, James

    Boardman, H.

    Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

    McInnes, James

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

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Bowles, Frank

    Gunter, Ray

    Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

    Boyden, James

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    McLeavy, Frank

    Bradley, Tom

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Harper, Joseph

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Brockway, Fenner A.

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

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

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Manuel, Archie

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)

    Mapp, Charles

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Marsh, Richard

    Callaghan, James

    Hilton, A. V.

    Mason, Roy

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Holman, Percy

    Mellish, R. J.

    Chapman, Donald

    Hooson, H. E.

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Cliffe, Michael

    Houghton, Douglas

    Millan, Bruce

    Collick, Percy

    Howell, Charles A. (Perry Bar)

    Mitchtson, G. R.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Monslow, Walter

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Hoy, James H.

    Moody, A. S.

    Crosland, Anthony

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Morris, John

    Dalyell, Tam

    Moyle, Arthur

    Darling, George

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Mulley, Frederick

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Neal, Harold

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Oram, A. E.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Deer, George

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Owen, Will

    Delargy, Hugh

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Padley, W. E,

    Dempsey, James

    Jeger, George

    Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Dodds, Norman

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Driberg, Tom

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Peart, Frederick

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Pentland, Norman

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    Keller, Richard

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Finch, Harold

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Fitch, Alan

    King, Dr. Horace

    Probert, Arthur

    Fletcher, Eric

    Lawson, George

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Rhodes, H.

    Steele, Thomas

    Warbey, William

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Watkins, Tudor

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Stonehouse, John

    Weitzman, David

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Stones, William

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. pancras, N.)

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

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

    Whitlock, William

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

    Swain, Thomas

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Ross, William

    Swingler, Stephen

    Willey, Frederick

    Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

    Symonds, J. B.

    Williams, Lt. (Abertillery)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Taverne, D.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Short, Edward

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

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

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermilne)

    Woof, Robert

    Small, William

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

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Snow, Julian

    Thornton, Ernest

    Zilliacus, K.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Timmons, John

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Tomney, Frank

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Dr. Broughton and Mr. Redhead.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Duncan, Sir James

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Allason, James

    Elliott, R. W.(N'castle-upon-Tyne, N.)

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Emery, Peter

    Kimball, Marcus

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Kirk, Peter

    Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

    Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Kitson, Timothy

    Balniel, Lord

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Farr, John

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Barter, John

    Fell, Anthony

    Litley, F. J, P.

    Batsford, Brian

    Finlay, Graeme

    Lindsay, Sir Martin

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Forrest, George

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Freeth, Denzil

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Bidgood, John C.

    Gammans, Lady

    Mac Arthur, Ian

    Bitten, John

    George, Sir John (Pollok)

    McLaren, Martin

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Gibson-Watt, David

    McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

    Bingham, R. M.

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

    Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Goodhew, Victor

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Bossom, Hon. Clive

    Gower, Raymond

    Macpherson, Rt. Hn. Niall (Dumfries)

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Maginnis, John E.

    Box, Donald

    Green, Alan

    Marshall, Douglas

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Mawby, Ray

    Braine, Bernard

    Gurden, Harold

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Brewis, John

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

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

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Mills, Stratton

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Bryan, Paul

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Bullard, Denys

    Hastings, Stephen

    Neave, Airey

    Burden, F. A.

    Hay, John

    Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Llonel

    Nugsent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Oakshot, Sir Hendrie

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Hendry, Forbes

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

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

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Chataway, Christopher

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

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Hobson, Sir John

    Partridge, E.

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Cole, Norman

    Holland, Philip

    Peel, John

    Cooke, Robert

    Hollingworth, John

    Percival, Ian

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Hopkins, Alan

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Cordle, John

    Hornby, R. P.

    Pitman, Sir James

    Corfield, F. V.

    Hornaby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

    Pott, Percivall

    Costain, A. P.

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Coulson, Michael

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Critchley, Julian

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Cunningham, Knox

    Irvine, Bryan Godman (Rye)

    Ramsden, James

    Curran, Charles

    James, David

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Dance, James

    Jennings, J. C.

    Rees, Hugh

    Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Renton, Rt. Hon. David

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

    Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)

    298

    299

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell

    Roots, William

    Tapseil, Peter

    Walker, Peter

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

    Wall, Patrick

    Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

    Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss side)

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

    Temple, John M.

    Webster, David

    Seymour, Leslie

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Sharpies, Richard

    Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Shaw, M.

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Shepherd, William

    Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Sheet, T. H. H.

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

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

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Wise, A. R.

    Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Turner, Colin

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Speir, Rupert

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Woollam, John

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Worsley, Marcus

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES;

    Stodart, J. A.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Mr. Michael Hamilton and

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Mr Pym.

    Clause 86. —(INTERPRETATION.)
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 97, line 8, to leave out from the first "land" to the first "or" in line 9 and to insert:
    "includes land covered by water and any interest".
    This is a drafting Amendment to amend an Amendment accepted in Committee, where the word "land" was inserted, but is not used in the Bill. The word "easement" is not required because the words "any interest" cover it.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 89. —(REPEALS AND SAVINGS.)
    Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, in page 98, line 22, at end, to insert:
    (2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 37 or 40 of this Act or the repeal of any enactment specified in the said Schedule 17, but without prejudice to the provisions of sections 81 and 84 of this Act, no such repeal as aforesaid shall affect the operation of—

    (a) the provisions of any local Act which are deemed to be, or have effect as if, incorporated in, or are read or construed as one with, the enactment so repealed; or

    (b) the enactment so repealed so far as it has effect for the purposes of any such local Act provisions as aforesaid or so far as it is applied for the purposes of, or deemed to be incorporated in, any local Act.

    This is another important point which, unfortunately, we did not have time to discuss in Standing Committee. It deals with another constitutional conundrum of which we have had no indication of any solution and which, although minor compared with some of the matters which we have discussed this afternoon, is, nevertheless, of quite considerable importance,
    300
    particularly where individual rights under bye-laws may be concerned.
    The House will be aware that the Bill effects a large number of extensive repeals. For example, a good deal of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936 has gone, although, having shown the Government the absurdity of repealing the whole of it, we were successful in getting some Sections put back. But if we look at the repeal of certain Sections of that Act it will be found that it makes nugatory very important provisions in the London County Council (General Powers) Acts, and other local enactments.
    Last year we passed the 1962 General Powers Act. Section 23 (3) of that Act refers to certain essential provisions in connection with the prevention of flooding of basements. Words in that subsection say that
    "This part of this Act shall be construed as one with the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, and that Act shall have effect as if this section and the two next following sections were contained in Part II thereof."
    That part of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, has now been repealed so that the powers which existed and which were desired under the 1962 Act have no effect whatsoever.
    This is the only occasion, I think—and I qualify this because it is easy to be wrong—where the Minister cannot cure the omission, defect or forgetfulness of the administration by Ministerial order, because if the local Act and the ancillary provisions on which that administration depends have been repealed then clearly no order can have any effect whatsoever. The only way in which one could bring back these powers would be to bring in fresh legislation.

    301
    I wonder whether the Government have addressed their mind to this kind of case. I have given just one example, but there must be many others. One could spend all one's time in research on this Bill, but, unfortunately, Members of Parliament have other things to do. The example I have given is a good one; some of the powers which we gave to the London County Council last year just cannot be used because the relevant Sections of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, are repealed.
    The Amendment, with the usual wisdom and caution of the Opposition, is merely a holding Amendment. It seeks to hold the position in relation to local Acts until such time as the Minister can make any necessary amending order, as he has power to do under Clause 81 of the Bill. In view of the fact that we are once again coming to the rescue of the Government in the constitutional chaos which they have created, I hope that the Minister will say at once that he accepts the Amendment.
    Sir K. Joseph: I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment at once, but I recognise that there is, possibly, some substance in what the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) has said. I should like to consider the point he has made, take legal advice, and do anything which is shown to be necessary later. We do not want the repeal of the 1936 Act to carry with it all sorts of other repeals without making sure of what we are doing.
    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has done, and I hope that, with the promise I have given, he will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. Skeffington: I should have been happier in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment if the Minister had said that there was almost certainly some substance in the point I made rather than that there was possibly some substance in it. I think that he was a little ungenerous to the research which has been done. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Schedule 1.—(THE LONDON BOROUGHS.)
  Sir Hugh Linstead: I beg to move, in page 100, to leave out lines 31 to 38 and to insert:
  302

  9

  The Metropolitan Borough of Lambeth and the Metropolitan Borough of Battersea.

  4

  10

  The Metropolitan Borough of Wandsworth.

  4

  This Amendment duplicates an Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) and I moved in Committee and which my right hon. Friend the Minister was good enough to say represented a point of view which he would take further time to consider, in consultation with the borough councils concerned. We have repeated the Amendment today because, so far as we have been able to ascertain, that consultation has not led to any positive conclusion. We feel that the proposal in it merits reconsideration by the House and, I hope, by my right hon. Friend.
  We have to look at the relevant entry in the Schedule to realise how drastic is the surgery proposed under the Bill as it now stands. The new London Borough No. 9 and the new London Borough No. 10 are to be composed of Lambeth and Battersea to each of which one half of the Borough of Wandsworth is to be added. The Borough of Wandsworth is the largest of the London boroughs and a vital, living organism in every way suited to be one of the new London boroughs, yet it is fated, under the Schedule as it now stands, to disappear. It is, I believe, the only one of the existing metropolitan boroughs which is to lose its identity.
  I speak not only as a representative of part of the Borough of Wandsworth, but as someone who lives in the borough and has a great affection and admiration for it. I am speaking on behalf of a community which, I am sure, will deeply regret any decision that it must disappear as a community.
  The proposal affecting Wandsworth is unlike any of the other proposals in Schedule 1. Under the rest of the Schedule, boroughs are amalgamated, and they will still retain their identity. Hackney will still be Hackney, Shoreditch will still be Shoreditch and Stoke Newington will still be Stoke Newington, although they are amalgamated into a new London borough. The great Borough of Wandsworth, on the other hand, is to cease to have its identity. For this reason, I feel extremely deeply about this proposed surgery which I regard as not necessary.

  303
  After we had had our discussion in Committee of the whole House, my right hon. Friend was good enough to write a letter on 14th February to each of the three borough councils concerned, Wandsworth, Battersea and Lambeth, and his letter included this passage:
  "The possibility which the Minister wishes to explore is whether, while leaving the neighbouring groups unchanged, there is any way of creating two new London boroughs, one based substantially on the amalgamation of Battersea with Lambeth and the other based substantially on the metropolitan borough of Wandsworth, which would both be satisfactory administrative areas."
  He then said:
  "The Minister assumes that the three councils will wish to discuss this matter between themselves. It is his intention to invite representatives of the three authorities to meet him art the Ministry in time to allow him to report to Parliament during the next stage of the consideration of the Bill."
  I have to record with regret that, so far as I am aware, that invitation from the Minister was not considered from the point of view which the Minister put to the borough councils. I understand that the borough councils did not get together to discover whether there was a method by which Battersea could be amalgamated partly with Lambeth and partly with Wandsworth, as he requested. Nor was there any discussion with the Ministry in response to his invitation to see whether this could be done.
  I recognise that my right hon. Friend is put in a very difficult position here because he has the three local authorities to take into consideration. Instead of responding to his invitation, those local authorities have said that, on the whole, they prefer the solution in the Bill. But they have not responded to his invitation to try to find another solution.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: Will the hon. Gentleman make clear whether the Wandsworth Borough Council supports the proposal that he is now putting?
  Sir H. Linstead: I was just coming to the position of the Wandsworth Borough Council.
  The Wandsworth Borough Council, after receiving my right hon. Friend's invitation—I think that this is the point the right hon. Gentleman wants to make—said that it preferred the provision in the Bill. But that same council,
  304
  which is Labour-controlled, received a report on 2nd October in which it recorded its opinion in this way:
  "The Council decided to make clear to the Minister in the strongest possible terms that the Council as now constituted was opposed to the intended reorganisation"—
  that was the reorganisation of London, I am sure—
  "and to any proposal to alter the present boundaries of the Borough, and considered that the present area of the Borough of Wandsworth was an efficient unit of local government and capable of exercising any other function or service for which it might be made responsible in the future".
  6.0 p.m.
  I do not wish to take up time unnecessarily, because I am most anxious to hear what my right hon. Friend has to say, but I must add that there is establishing itself in the Borough of Wandsworth very strong local opinion supporting the view expressed by the Socialist borough council in October and opposing the view expressed by the Socialist borough council in February and March. [HON. MEMBERS: "What was the view of the Conservative Party?"] The view of the previous Conservative council coincided with the view of the Socialist borough council in October. It was that the Borough of Wandsworth was perfectly capable of functioning as a local government unit under the new scheme.
  The fact that local opinion is building up is indicated by the response which there has been to a petition being circulated in the borough. Those organising the petition have had only a fortnight in which to get signatures, but already there are over 10,000 signatures, and they are snowballing very substantially.
  Mr. Jay: Would the bon. Gentleman agree that those signatures are against the Bill as a whole and are not in favour of the proposal which he is now putting forward?
  Sir H. Linstead: These are signatures to a request that the Borough of Wandsworth should be allowed to remain a London borough, and they are directed to no other end.
  Mr. Mellish: We also presented a petition to which there were even more signatures, but the Minister took no notice

  305
  of it. Why should he take any notice of the petition to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred?
  Sir H. Linstead: For the very substantial reason which I have already indicated, namely, that this is a local government unit which is being bisected and which will disappear, whereas the other case concerned amalgamation and the community will remain as a community. That is the distinction. However, I must not be drawn into strong advocacy.
  I draw my right hon. Friend's attention, first, to the fact that the borough council has expressed divided views. Secondly, I draw his attention to the fact that extremely strong local opinion is developing and ask him to give time to allow that opinion still further to develop. The three councils concerned have not yet done what he requested them to try to do. In those circumstances, I ask him to extend his patience a little further—that is a virtue which certainly he has exercised so far—and to see whether, through his own good offices, he can find a way by which these three councils can consider the question which he put to them in the hope that it is still possible to do what was originally hoped, namely, to retain the greater part of Wandsworth as a viable, local government unit.
  It is with that hope that I propose the Amendment, which is not to be voted on. Its purpose is to obtain a statement from my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Marcus Lipton: I must, to some extent, commend the efforts made by the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead), supported by the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn), to save the Borough of Wandsworth—not the Wandsworth Borough Council—from the proposals embodied in the Bill. Although the Minister of Housing and Local Government, earlier today, spoke rather harshly of me, may I say that I think that if he stands fast on the proposals in the Bill he will be doing the right thing.
  The only effective way in which we can measure local opinion on any subject is through the local authority, the local borough council. It is no use arguing that the Wandsworth Borough Council does not represent the people of Wandsworth. It is even less use arguing that the Lambeth Borough Council, of which my constituency forms part, and the Battersea
  306
  Borough Council do not represent the views of the local population. What guide can the Minister and the Government possibly follow other than to accept as the democratic expression of local opinion the views of the locally and quite recently elected borough councils in those three cases?
  Mr. Frederic Harris: If the hon. Gentleman continues with that argument, Croydon would have been left out of the Bill from the start. Croydon has been completely against its inclusion in the Greater London area.
  Mr. Lipton: The L.C.C. has been against it. If the hon. Gentleman wants to carry the argument to its logical conclusion, the Bill must be scrapped completely. We must not be so selective in our approach. It is a case of all or nothing. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to agree on that, I am at one with him. If he wishes to vote against the Bill on Third Reading, I will certainly not prevent him from doing so.
  Mr. F. Harris: May I encourage the hon. Gentleman by saying that I shall be voting against the Bill?
  Mr. Lipton: I hope that the hon. Member's very good example will be followed by many other hon. Members opposite, because otherwise we shall be bogged down for a long time in trying to give effect to this wretched Bill.
  We should not forget that there are two Members other than the hon. Members for Putney and Clapham who, in a Parliamentary fashion, represent the Borough of Wandsworth, and they occupy a very important position in the Government. I hope that they, too, have been persuaded by the arguments of the hon. Members for Putney and Clapham into voting against the Third Reading of the Bill simply because the Borough of Wandsworth to which they attach great importance, will be carved up.
  The hon. Member for Putney referred to a circular letter which the Minister, quite rightly, in accordance with the pledge which he gave, said he would submit to the three local authorities concerned. This was in response to the request of the hon. Members for Putney and Clapham. He carried out his

  307
  pledge. He wrote a very reasonable letter to the three councils concerned. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Putney did not quote all of it. May I therefore quote one sentence of it. It outlines various possibilities which the Minister wished to explore and then says:
  "If such an alternative grouping appeared feasible, the Minister would wish to have the views of the three Councils as to the relative merits of this alternative and the grouping provided for in the Bill".
  It was simply because the alternative grouping did not appear feasible to any of the three councils concerned that they decided to reject the very courteous invitation extended to them by the Minister, and they informed him accordingly.
  It is not fair to say that the Minister's letter, in endeavouring to carry out the pledge which he gave to the hon. Members for Putney and Clapham, was not fully and carefully considered by all three councils to which it was addressed. The fact that they decided not to accept the invitation to meet the Minister does not mean that the letter was not very carefully considered by them.
  I have with me a report of the General Purposes Committee of the Lambeth Borough Council which deals at length with the letter which had been received from the Minister of Housing and Local Government following the discussion in Committee on the proposed London Boroughs Nos. 9 and 10. After a fair and full summary of the letter, the conclusion that was arrived at by the Lambeth Borough Council—as well as, apparently, by the other two local authorities concerned in the matter—was as follows, as approved by the council meeting held on 13th March:
  "That, having regard to the redistribution pattern proposed by Her Majesty's Government for the metropolitan boroughs, the Lambeth Council rejects as suite inconsistent with those proposals the suggestion that all possible steps should be taken to avoid dividing the Borough of Wandsworth. It further rejects the proposal that the Borough of Battersea or any part thereof be amalgamated with Lambeth.
  Having thus stated its view, the Lambeth Council is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by either conferring with the Wandsworth Council or the Battersea Council or by meeting the Minister. If, however, such a meeting is nevertheless convened
  308
  by the Minister, the Lambeth Council would wish to be represented thereat so that its opposition to any such proposal can then be reaffirmed."
  In those circumstances, knowing the Minister to be what he is, I do not see how he could possibly surrender to the plaintive cries of his two hon. Friends. I hope that in the light of the views expressed by these three important local authorities in the metropolitan area, he will announce firmly and decisively, and not hold out any more carrots to his hon. Friends, that the Amendment cannot possibly be considered or accepted.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: I shall not enter into the merits of breaking up the London County Council, but will deal shortly and specifically with the proposals which are now before us, so that my right hon. Friend the Minister has time to reply. In Committee of the whole House, my hon. Friends and I deployed our case and all the relevant facts were considered. We advanced the views of the local bodies, including voluntary organisations, Rotary, the ratepayers and the chambers of commerce.
  As a result, my right hon. Friend kindly undertook to reconsider the matter on the understanding and principally on the ground that a local authority which had existed for many years should not be broken up if there were alternative solutions. That is the premise on which we start this discussion.
  The object of our exercise in Committee was that we had an authority which was functioning efficiently and which we saw no reason for breaking up. I know what is in the mind of the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), who would say the same for the London County Council, but I shall confine my remarks to the Amendment. The substance of what was said in Committee was that there could be a possibility of other borough groupings which could achieve a solution which would not necessitate the breaking up of this local authority.
  That was how we left the matter in Committee, when my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) and I had time to deploy our case. As a result of that, my right hon. Friend the Minister wrote to the three councils concerned and asked them to reconsider the matter in the light of what he had said

  309
  and, as the hon. Member for Brixton has said, in the light of the terms of the letter which he sent to all three authorities.
  6.15 p.m.
  It is a question whether the three borough councils have responded to that inquiry in a way which the Minister considers complete and fit, or whether they have failed to regard the terms of his letter to them. It is true that these matters were considered in all three councils, but what is much more important is whether those considerations took into account what the Minister invited the councils to consider.
  In my view, the considerations which my right hon. Friend asked them to consider were not taken into consideration. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is true; I have read the report. All three borough councils did, in fact, respond. They did not offer to send a deputation to the Minister. The hon. Member for Brixton has read to us the Lambeth decision. None of the boroughs, however, got together in an effort to find a solution. Each borough rejected any suggestion of a compromise solution. In my view, they did not do what my right hon. Friend the Minister invited them to do.
  The result is that my right hon. Friend has one of two alternatives. Either he has to say that the councils have not adhered to the terms of reference which he gave them and he should ask them once again to abide by those terms of reference, or he can decide what he considers to be the right course. This is entirely a matter for my right hon. Friend to decide, and I hope that he will decide one way or the other today.
  It is true that we have had the views of the three borough councils concerned, but there is a mounting body of opinion in the borough, among the ratepayers and those who dwell there, which is opposed to the idea of splitting up Wandsworth. As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney has said, a petition is in course of preparation. It is not for me to judge what will be the response to it. All I can say is that it bears the signatures of 10,000 people. Hon. Members might reasonably say that that is a small proportion of the entire electorate of the Borough of Wandsworth, and that is true, but—I am not organising the petition; I have had nothing to do with it—the petitioners have had only a short time in
  310
  which to acquire signatures. All hon. Members know that the organising of a petition of this magnitude requires a great deal of work and effort. To the best of my knowledge, however, 10,000 signatures have already been obtained within a very short time.
  Mr. Lipton: Is the petition supported by all four hon. Members who represent the four Parliamentary constituencies which are included within the Borough of Wandsworth?
  Dr. Glyn: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member long enough to know that, since two of my colleagues are members of the Government, it would be quite improper for me to give their views to the House. All I can say is that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney and I are at one on this matter, but I am not in a position to speak for hon. Friends who are members of the Government.
  I hope that I have given my right hon. Friend sufficient time to come to a decision on this matter, which is of considerable importance to the future government of London. I hope that the Borough of Wandsworth will remain substantially the same, not only as a model for the future but in itself as a borough of the right size.
  Mr. Jay: I intervene only to say that the view of the Battersea Borough Council, supported by all parties, is emphatically the same as that of Lambeth Borough Council—that this proposal is quite unacceptable and impractical.
  Mr. E. Partridge: It is right that I should speak again on this matter as I have spoken before. I have not changed my views. I am sorry that my hon. Friends the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) and the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) should have come here today with this story. According to them we are to discuss the better government of London, we are to see sacrifices by many interests throughout the area, but Wandworth is to be allowed simply to say, "Get on with your local government. We have nothing to contribute, so leave us alone."
  This is an attitude which I find difficult to understand. I go further and say that this is not the view of the citizens of Wandsworth as I know them. It may be the view of 10,000 of them, but it is not the view of many more of them.

  311
  The people of Wandsworth require good local government. That is what we are seaching for. I ask my right hon. Friends not to take any notice of these blandishments. The people most concerned have been getting together over the last weeks making such arrangements as will be necessary for the new districts. They have gone far in their consultations and plans.
  If this seems to be a word of criticism of my right hon. Friend, I am sorry, for I do not mean it to be. But as a result of what he said when we were in Committee on the Floor of the House, there has been a good deal of confusion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] There has been a good deal of disappointment at the position that has obtained as a result. Let us get rid of this uncertainty now. Let us have a new Borough No. 10, composed of Battersea and part of Wandsworth, which will make a good workable borough. Let the other plan for Lambeth and part of Wandsworth also come into operation as a good, viable borough.
  I believe that these two units can work. What will not work is merely a combination of Battersea and Lambeth, which are as far apart proportionately as my two hands. They are only joined by a small neck a quarter of a mile long. I say to my right hon. Friend, "Let us finish with it. Let us do what the Government knew was right in the first instance and what we know is right now."
  Mr. F. Harris: My hon. Friend's attitude is, "Down with Purley, down with Croydon, down with Wandsworth. Up with the Minister."
  Mr. Partridge: That is not my view, but if my right hon. Friend wants my support he can have it now and always.
  Sir K. Joseph: The duty of the Government to advise the House when there is conflict between merits is invidious, particularly when, on one side or another, public opinion is more or less solidly ranged. I do not know to what extent it is solidly ranged in Wandsworth, but the position there is very different from the position in Epsom and Ewell and Coulsdon and Purley.
  In those places, the public opinion of the local inhabitants, as expressed
  312
  through their Members of Parliament, came up against a major obstacle—the fact that the Government were determined to legislate in this way for the continuous town of Greater London. Against the facts represented by that obligation, public opinion had to be given second place in those cases.
  But in the case of Wandsworth, without doing damage to the principles of the Bill, it is true that, in relation to the neighbouring boroughs of Battersea and Lambeth, it is possible, within the aggregate, to construct two London boroughs in more than one way. The Bill chooses the way which bisects Wandsworth, and that was the way recommended by the Town Clerk, on the merits.
  The Government did not accept the recommendations of the three Town Clerks simply and solely because they were recommendations objectively arrived at. Had any recommendation been obviously repugnant to common sense, we would obviously not have accepted it. But I say to my hon. Friends the Members for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) and Putney (Sir H. Linstead) that the Government believe that the recommendations of the town clerks in general are right and that in the particular case of the division of Wandsworth, which they so much regret, the recommendation was also right.
  There are arguments on the merits into which there is no time to go in detail, but, broadly, they are that the principle that the communications leading out of the centre of London—which are the communications most used because of the travel to and from work—make it more sensible in the case of the Wandsworth-Battersea-Lambeth group to divide the boroughs on a radial basis.
  Of course, I am not saying that there are not some good and in some cases less good lateral communications between the boroughs to the east and Wandsworth. I have taken great care to consider the routes—both roads and underground—and to have these factors analysed. I do not think that my hon. Friends will disagree, however, that the radial communications predominate. These are very important for the viability of the boroughs as living communities.
  I went previously into the reasons why this was so. On the other hand, my hon. Friends are right in saying that

  313
  it is the main principle of the Government that wherever possible existing local authorities shall not be bisected. Here we have a conflict. On the one hand, we have the desire to preserve an existing local authority which, ironically, is very close in size to the proposed size of the new boroughs. On the other hand, we have the probability—I would say the almost certain advantage—that if we create the new boroughs in the way suggested they will be more workable than any solution which would tie Battersea with Lambeth while preserving Wandsworth.
  Nevertheless, the Government are not willing to bisect a borough without looking as carefully as possible at the alternatives. On the other hand, it would be very wrong—and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge) was absolutely right in this—to delay the inevitable work that has to be done longer than is absolutely necessary.
  As the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) said, I have had answers from the three boroughs to whom I wrote in compliance with my previous undertaking. The answers are courteous and I am sure that if I discuss the problem with them I shall have their serious consideration. What I propose to do, therefore, is to set a time limit to the consideration the Government are giving to this problem. I have made it plain that on the merits I think that the Bill is right. On the other hand, there is the very strong desire of the Government not to bisect existing local authorities within the Greater London area if it is possible to avoid doing so.
  I propose, therefore, as soon as possible—at any rate, not later than a few days after the end of the Easter Recess—to invite the local authorities concerned to meet me for a discussion, after which the Government will make their final decision. I hope that my hon. Friends will accept that a conclusion must be reached before long and that they will also accept my view, which is the Government's view of the merits. In these circumstances, I hope that they will be willing to withdraw the Amendment.
  Sir H. Linstead: In view of the helpful attitude my right hon. Friend is still
  314
  adopting, in difficult circumstances for him, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Schedule 2.—(CONSTITUTION AND GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF GREATER LONDON COUNCIL.)
  Amendment made: In page 109, line 39, after "be", insert:
  "at the same or any subsequent meeting of the".—[Mr. Corfield.]
  6.30 p.m.
  Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 109, line 44, to leave out "a treasurer and a surveyor" and to insert "and a treasurer".
  This seems to be a very small and simple Amendment. In effect, it leaves out "a surveyor" from the number of chief officers to be appointed by the Greater London Council. In fact, it is an epoch-making Amendment and I shall explain to the House why the Government have put it forward.
  The Greater London Council will be one of the major local authorities in the world, if not the major authority, and it is scarcely consistent with the status of such an authority for the Government to write into the Bill the chief officers which it will choose to appoint. At the moment, the chief officers to be appointed by the Council arising from the Bill are a clerk, a treasurer, a surveyor, a director of traffic, and a number of other officers to be appointed because of other legislation—a chief education officer, a chief fire officer, and, I think, one other.
  Some of these chief officers must be appointed because of other legislation and long tradition and because of functions imposed upon such officers by Parliament. For instance, it would not be practicable not to include the obligation on the Council to appoint a clerk and a treasurer. If the obligation were not in the Bill, I am perfectly certain that the Council would appoint a clerk and a treasurer. Nevertheless, there are statutory obligations which compel us to include such references in the Bill. But I am sure that the right thing for us to do wherever possible is to leave the Council, when it has weighed up the functions which Parliament will have laid upon it, to decide how it proposes to discharge those functions and, during that decision, to decide what chief officers it will need.

  315
  We have to recognise the slightly melancholy fact, melancholy because it somewhat reflects on human judgment, that if a chief officer is nominated in a Bill he is sometimes apt to be regarded as a more important chief officer than a chief officer who is appointed by an authority on its own initiative. I cannot defend that or even maintain that it is a general prejudice, but I am told that it is a likely tendency that a chief officer who is appointed because of a statutory obligation is regarded as more important and, what is more serious, as having, therefore, more important functions than the chief officer appointed on the initiative of the authority concerned.
  Desiring to leave the Greater London Council as unfettered as possible in its decisions about its chief officers, the Government are reviewing the present requirements in the Bill. The Amendment goes only a certain way. It omits "a surveyor" and leaves, of the normal statutory officers, only the clerk and the treasurer. Perhaps I might be allowed to draw conclusions from what I have said so far in reference to another subject which comes within the ambit of the Amendment; for I am here removing a precedent which has been quoted against the Government when some hon. Members and many people outside the House have urged the Government to require the Greater London Council to appoint another series of chief officers as well.
  I am referring to the very strong feeling in the architects' profession that there should be a chief architect and a chief planner as chief officers of the Council or, as some feel, a senior chief officer embodying the obligations of both the chief architect and the chief planner. I wish to state categorically that I expect that the Council will fill the posts of architect and planner, or, if it chooses, to appoint as an architect-planner a chief officer of the most senior status. I would be amazed, astounded and appalled if it did not do so, but I do not think that it is necessary for Parliament to impose such an obvious duty. It is repugnant to the dignity and status of the Council and to the whole concept of those responsibilities which we are giving to the Council as major powers and functions embodied in the Bill.
  So long as the Government impose an obligation to appoint a surveyor, for
  316
  instance, we are being inconsistent if we then refuse to force the Council to appoint a chief architect and chief planner, or chief architect-planner. It is as the first fruit of further consideration of this whole subject that the Government are putting forward the Amendment, and I hope that the House will understand that that is the purpose.
  In case there is any misunderstanding, I should also say that the Government intend no possible disrespect to the engineering profession or to engineers who fill the rôle of chief surveyor to great authorities such as the G.L.C. will be. It is not because of the importance of the function that we are including or excluding nomination of chief officers in the Bill. What we are doing is trying to leave the Council as free as possible so far as is consistent with the Government's other major purposes.
  I hope that the House will not misunderstand the Amendment. It is the fruit of the first reconsideration of a subject which has been pressed upon us partly in Committee and particularly from the profession outside, and I hope that the House will find it acceptable.
  Mr. Charles Curran: Will my right hon. Friend say a word about how the salaries of these functionaries are to be fixed?
  Sir K. Joseph: Anyone reading rapidly through the Bill would think that a chief officer was a chief officer and received the salary of a chief officer and that all chief officers were the same. However, there are grades of chief officer and salary scales are negotiated between the associations and local authority associations or authorities concerned.
  It is no indication as to the status and power of an officer that he is appointed a chief officer, because, in relation to other chief officers, he might be lower paid, although still having chief officer status. Therefore, the salary must depend on the particular chief officer and upon the negotiated scales.
  Mr. Charles Doughty: Why are we knocking out "a surveyor"? The people my right hon. Friend has mentioned—clerk, treasurer, and surveyor—are not single individuals employed by the Greater London Council, but are the heads of their departments.

  317
  The treasurer has his treasury staff below him, and the clerk of the council will also have a considerable staff. The same comment applies to the surveyor, because the surveyor to the Greater London Council will be a most important person. He will be responsible for the enforcement of the London Building Acts and other important matters with which a person in this vital job has to deal.
  Are we to have a department without a head? Is it to be all tail? if the person is to exist as head of the department, why not put him in the Bill? I do not understand this idea that because somebody is mentioned in the Bill he automatically has a higher social and financial status than somebody who is not mentioned in the Bill but who is appointed all the same. It just does not make sense.
  Paragraph 12 says that the Council is to appoint from among fit persons a clerk, a treasurer, and a surveyor. Why not say that they must be qualified persons? That is something we all understand. This phrase "fit person" is amost unknown to Acts of Parliament. Is he to be medically fit, or is he to be somebody who, without qualifications, has done the job before? If the clerk, or the treasurer, or the surveyor, is a person who has the necessary qualifications for the job, the interests of the Greater London Council will be protected. I raise these points for the purpose of elucidation and clarification, and I should like to have them explained before we finally pass this Amendment.
  Sir K. Joseph: The whole basis of the Bill is to impose functions, duties, and powers on local authorities, including the Greater London Council, and to leave them free to a large extent to work out their own methods of handling them. Consequently, they will decide on their own chief officers and their own grouping of departments, and that is why my hon. and learned Friend does not find the word "departments" mentioned in this part of the Bill.
  I take the point made by my hon. and learned Friend about "fit persons". I am advised that this is the traditional phrase which is used when these posts are discussed in statutes, and it normally leads to the conclusion that the person to be appointed shall be a qualified prac-
  318
  titioner of the particular skill. While this may be easy in an engineering job, it is not always so easy in a planning job where men, and presumably women, also, of many skills are found in all ranks of the planning profession. When it comes to an architect, it is unimaginable that a chief architect could be a fit person unless he was a qualified professional architect.
  Mr. Tom Driberg: Surely those four words are unnecessary? The Council would not appoint from among unfit persons.
  Sir K. Joseph: That may well be so, but I suggest to the House that it is wise to follow the accepted wording. That is what it means, and I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The following Amendment stood upon the Notice Paper in the name of Sir Hugh Linstead:
  In page 110, line 1, leave out subparagraph (2) and insert:
  (2) As from 1st April 1965 and until such time as other terms and conditions of service are settled by agreement or award through the appropriate negotiating machinery and come into force, the terms and conditions of service applicable immediately before 1st April 1965 to persons transferred between local authorities shall continue to apply to such parsons, or terms and conditions not less favourable.
  Mr. Speaker: Sir Hugh Linstead.
  Sir H. Linstead Sir H. Linstead rose—
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: On a point of order. I respectfully submit that the wording of the Amendment puts it out of order, for two reasons. First, the Amendment as it stands is meaningless. The final phrase of the Amendment refers to
  "terms and conditions of service applicable immediately before 1st April 1965 to persons transferred between local authorities shall continue to apply to such persons"—
  that is all right so far, but it continues—
  "or terms and conditions not less favourable."
  There is no verb attached to those terms and conditions which are not less favourable, unless it be supposed that the verb in question is that contained in the preceding phrase "continue to apply".
  6.45 p.m.
  If the terms and conditions are not less favourable, they must be more favourable than those which obtained previously, and

  319
  therefore they cannot continue to apply because they are new terms and represent a change on the situation which obtained before 1st April, 1965. Therefore, if one supposes that the verb "continue to apply" is the one associated with the phrase
  "terms and conditions which are not less favourable",
  then the Amendment as it stands is meaningless; but perhaps this is not the most important point.
  I submit that the reference to local authorities in the final phrase would put the Amendment out of order in any case, because Clause 2 (3) says:
  "The provisions of Schedule 2 to this Act shall have effect with respect to the constitution and general functions of the Greater London Council",
  and if we look at the heading of Schedule 2 we see that it is concerned with the
  "Constitution and General Functions of Greater London Council".
  The phrase "local authorities" indicates that persons transferred from any council, no matter where it was in the United Kingdom, would be covered by the provisions of this Clause. Even if the words "local authorities" were qualified by the addition of the words, "in and around the Greater London Area", the Amendment would still be out of order, because the Schedule and the reference to it in Clause 2 (3) is confined to the Greater London Council. If one looks through Schedule 2 one finds continued references to the Council, and none to the boroughs which will be formed under the Bill. I therefore respectfully submit that the Amendment is out of order.
  Mr. M. Stewart: Further to that point of order. There are two other considerations which bear on this point. The paragraph of the Schedule in which it is proposed to insert these words is headed:
  "Officers and records, etc., of the Council",
  and the whole Schedule refers to Greater London and to Greater London alone. It seems doubtful, therefore, whether anything contained in this Schedule could in any way affect the position of somebody who was not, and never became, an officer or employee of the Greater London Council.
  The Amendment refers to persons transferred between local authorities, and is worded in such a way as to suggest that this Schedule would cover somebody
  320
  transferred from, say, the London County Council to the Harrow Borough Council. The point we ask you to consider is whether the conditions of such a transfer could be governed by a Schedule which relates to the Greater London Council when the kind of person I have been describing is not, and never becomes, an officer or employee of the Greater London Council?
  Secondly, the Amendment contains the phrase:
  "terms and conditions of service".
  There has been some doubt in the House about whether that phrase includes pay. I respectfully submit that if it is held to include pay the Amendment would not be in order on Report, and should have been moved on Recommittal of the Bill, as I was advised when I tried to move a similar Amendment. If we are told that terms and conditions do not include pay, and if that is your Ruling, that will be helpful to the House, as we should then know what we are discussing, because one of the points at issue is what benefits, if any, this Amendment confers. It is, therefore, important to know whether it includes pay. My submission is that if it does not the Amendment would not be in order at this stage.
  Mr. John Harvey: I have conveyed to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) my own concern as to the points that have been raised. If the objections which have been levelled against the Amendment are justified, and it is out of order, I would point out that no such objections appear to attach to the Amendment in page 110, line 2, leave out from "are" to end of line 3 and insert:
  "settled by agreement or award"
  in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Sir K. Thompson) and myself, which is coupled with the Amendment that we are now discussing.
  Sir H. Linstead: Three points have been raised. The first seems to be purely a point of interpretation, and not one that goes to the question of the Amendment being in order or out of order, namely, whether the phrase
  "terms and conditions of service"
  includes salaries. That seems to be a matter which can be discussed, and possibly interpreted by the courts, but it

  321
  cannot be a matter that goes to the question whether or not the Amendment is in order.
  Mr. M. Stewart: If it were held or believed that that phrase included salary, since the Amendment would be imposing a charge on rates and therefore, indirectly, on national funds, it would not be in order on Report. The question is relevant.
  Sir H. Linstead: In the light of the discussion that we had yesterday, my understanding is that the phrase
  "terms and conditions of service"
  does not include salary, but that is neither here nor there in relation to the question whether the Amendment is in order. That is a matter of interpretation.
  The second point relates to the words
  "parsons transferred between local authorities"
  It may be a clumsy phrase, but it is not a meaningless one, because three can be transferred to the service of the Greater London Council officers who have previously served in the Kent, Surrey or Middlesex County Councils. All those are compendiously described in the Amendment as persons transferred between local authorities. I do not say that it is the most apt phrase, but that is the group of people that is to be understood as being covered by the phrase.
  Mr. David Weitzman: Why should it not refer to a person transferred from Birmingham to Sheffield?
  Sir H. Linstead: It cannot be that, for the reason referred to by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), namely, that the title of the Schedule, which determines the contents, is:
  "Constitution and general functions of Greater London Council."
  What I am referring to is the group of officers who may be transferred from any one local authority into the service of the Greater London Council.
  The third point relates to the phrase
  "or terms and conditions not less favourable"
  continuing to apply. I at once admit the grammatical point raised by the hon. Member for Orpington, but the intention is quite clear, and I submit that it should
  322
  not invalidate a discussion of the Amendment.
  Mr. Richard Marsh: Since the Amendment involves a point of considerable importance, which is not merely concerned with the salaries to be paid to the staff—and it is inconceivable that in a change-over of this type a "no detriment" clause would not be included, either between local authorities or at some place within the Bill—and also since this part of the Bill raises in the minds of many people a great deal of doubt about the method of negotiating salaries for staffs within the Greater London Council, I submit that it would be very unfortunate if we were not allowed to discuss it, and were thus prevented from airing our views on this part of the Bill. Most of the arguments so far put forward relate to interpretation. I respectfully ask you to rule that the Amendment is in order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) put his finger on the point when he stated that the term
  "persons transferred between local authorities"
  is not a meaningless phrase. Clearly it is not; it can be interpreted in many ways. But one interpretation can surely be that it would cover a person moving from the Greater London Council to a local authority within London. If it is open to that interpretation it is entirely inconsistent with the rest of the Schedule, Which is directly concerned with the Greater London Council. I therefore support the submission of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) that the Amendment is out of order.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: As has already been said, this point affects many people. Even if it is not grammatically correct, would it not be in order for the House to discuss the Amendment?
  Mr. Speaker: The Amendment is either in order or out of order; the number of persons affected by it makes no difference On the other hand, I would not wish to be a censor of grammar. Supposing that the words
  "persons transferred between local authorities"
  are capable, on one view, of bearing the meaning which the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) attaches to them

  323
  I am not, on the presence of those words, prepared to rule the Amendment out of order. What would be quite fatal would be the knowledge that the phrase "terms and conditions" included pay—but the hon. Member declares that it does not. Without much more consideration of the matter I am not prepared to rule upon the legal implications.
  Sir K. Joseph: Perhaps I may be able to help you in this respect, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman will do so I shall be obliged.
  Sir K. Joseph: I am in some difficulty here, because I hoped that we could discuss the Amendment. As the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) has pointed out, there are many doubts and uncertainties about this part of the Bill, and I had hope to clear them up. But since you put the matter as you did when finishing your remarks, I am forced to say that the legal advice that I have been given—although this is a matter entirely for you, Mr. Speaker—is that the words "terms and conditions", if not otherwise limited, include pay. Yesterday we were discussing different phrases, but, as I am advised, this phrase includes pay. I intervened only because, having been given that advice, I thought it would be wrong not to give you that opinion.
  Sir K. Thompson: In that case, Mr. Speaker, may I draw you attention to the wording that was accepted in Committee, on which a discussion was allowed—
  Mr. Speaker: I am in no way concerned with what was accepted or not accepted in Committee. I have to deal with the matter myself. In the circumstances, I must accept what the Minister tells me, that on the advice available to him the words "terms and conditions" include pay, and I declare, as a consequence that the Amendment, as it stands, must be out of order.
  On the other hand, I have been made aware of the fact that other hon. Members are very interested in the topic, and that the House shows signs of wishing to discuss it. In the circumstances I wonder whether the hon. Member for Putney would be prepared to move, by way of a manuscript Amendment, to leave out sub-paragraph (2). If he were to do that
  324
  I would be prepared to accept it in order to enable a discussion to take place.
  Sir H. Linstead: If the House will allow me a moment in order to reduce what you have said to writing, Mr. Speaker, I shall be grateful for the opportunity to do so.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Driberg: Would you permit the Minister, Mr. Speaker, to advise the House what would be the effect of this manuscript Amendment on the Bill, were it accepted?
  Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentle. man could do that in due course when we reach that point in the discussion. The Amendment may be accepted, or it may not. I do not know.
  Sir H. Linstead: I beg to move, in page 110, line 1, to leave out subparagraph (2).
  I am moving what I believe to be the least controversial part of my original Amendment, and I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the help which has made it possible for me to do so.
  I am seeking, with some temerity, to correct what I think we must all recognise was a mistake which was made during the Committee stage discussions. It was a mistake made because of the desire of the majority of the Committee to give assurances to those who might be affected in their employment—by the upheaval caused by this Bill—that their terms and conditions of service—however interpreted —would not be affected, at any rate short-term. In a desire to do that, against the advice of my right hon. Friend and by a majority, the Committee inserted the subparagraph (2) which I am now suggesting to the House should be looked at again.
  The reasons I think that the subparagraph must come out are, essentially, four. First, I submit that it is in the wrong place in the Bill. This part of the Second Schedule deals with a very limited group of officers of the council: whereas the sub-paragraph which was put in during the Committee stage proceedings deals with all the officers serving under the London County Council, all its servants. The sub-paragraph does not properly belong in the part of the Schedule referring only to chief officers.
  Secondly, I think that we would all agree that it is not sufficient to say, as

  325
  the sub-paragraph says, that the terms and conditions of service should remain until others are
  "agreed by the Council and representatives of the persons employed by the Council …"
  It should not only be agreement, it should also be arbitration and award, and we make no provision for arbitration in the wording which was inserted during the Committee stage.
  There is also a reference in line 7 to the London County Council, and the effect of putting in that reference is that employees of the Greater London Council transferred to its service from Middlesex and Kent and Surrey County Councils will immediately go on to the London County Council scales. They will remain on those scales only until new scales and conditions of service, and so on, are negotiated by new agreements for arbitration, which will mean, for a period of months or possibly a year or two years, that there will be not only the confusion of recalculating the whole of their salaries, but all sorts of nice questions involving which course is of the greater benefit to them—to stop as they were or to come under the London County Council scales.
  There will be the other problem, that a number of those transferred from Kent, Surrey or Middlesex in this way will thereby get increased salaries, those salaries being justified in the case of the London County Council because they include an element which we may, roughly, call the "London weight". We shall award that by these words—
  Mr. G. A. Pargiter: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware the London weight applies to the whole of the metropolitan area and not only to the London County Council?
  Sir H. Linstead: Yes. But I have little doubt that there will be some officers who will be taken over from Kent and Surrey, if not from Middlesex, who, at the moment, are paid on a lower scale of salary because they are living in the country. If we leave in the words, they will benefit by the bonus, the higher salaries, paid by the London County Council. If that happens, we shall have further demands from those people living in the central area for a recognition of the higher cost of living in central London
  326
  compared with the periphery, which will be extremely difficult to resist.
  Fourthly, and possibly the item in the sub-paragraph which creates the most difficulty, there is the fact that it is to apply to all persons serving under the London County Council. That is not only those persons for whom salaries and conditions of service are negotiated through the London County Council Staff Association. It is to apply also to those whose salaries are negotiated by national agreement, and the case of the teachers is the most obvious example. Therefore, we shall have the probable confusion that if the wording stays as it is—
  Mr. Pargiter: The teachers will not be transferred to the Greater London Council, but to the education authority.
  Sir H. Linstead: That is a very nice point. I think that it could be argued that teachers will be transferred to the Greater London Council, although, in fact, they will serve as servants of the education authority of the Greater London Council; because it says that these people are to retain their existing service until new conditions
  "agreed by the Council and representatives of persons employed by the Council"
  come into force.
  This, therefore, is giving authority to the local authority associations, particularly to the London County Council association, to negotiate all the new terms and conditions of service for all the transferred officers. I think this a sufficient group of reasons for indicating why during the Committee stage discussions we were unwise to insert this subparagraph (2) in its present form.
  I still feel that there is a sense of uncertainty and doubt in the minds of these transferred 'officers. It may be that the new words which we put into Clause 82 yesterday will go some way to meet those doubts and that uncertainty. If so, we need do no more than take out this sub-paragraph. But if those who speak for the staff can indicate to us that there is still this feeling of doubt and uncertainty, we should be wise to ask the Government to put in some words, perhaps less controversial than the ones which I propose, to take the place of the words we should be taking out. But it is clear to me that it would be wise to

  327
  take out sub-paragraph (2) in its present form.
  Mr. M. Stewart: I should like to take up immediately the point made by the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) about teachers, because I think that it illustrates very well what is in issue. The sub-paragraph now in the Bill, which he proposes to delete, would have the following effect in regard to teachers. If we assume that they are legally regarded as being in the service of the Greater London Council—if they are not, of course, his reference is out of place, but making that assumption—the position will be that from April, 1965 until such other terms may be agreed the conditions of service, grading, salaries, wages, emoluments, and so on, which were applicable to teachers serving under London County Council should be applicable to teachters serving under the Greater London Council.
  What would be wrong with that? The conditions and all the rest applicable to teachers serving under London County Council are those reached through the Burnham agreement. That is what the sub-paragraph would mean in a case like that. It is entirely proper that we should provide that that should continue until Burnham, or some other properly constituted machinery, reaches some other agreement on salary.
  Sir H. Linstead: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the other point which I think is the real basis of the trouble? They remain until other terms are agreed by representatives of people employed by the Council. That, I think, does not necessarily refer to Burnham at all, but refers to some other organisation which would then have to be brought into the picture to negotiate the salaries for the teachers of the Greater London Council.
  Mr. Stewart: No. Because no other organisation could be regarded as representative of the teachers than the organisation of the Burnham Committee. The phrase is quite plain:
  "representatives of persons employed by the Council".
  No one could say that the L.C.C. Staff Association represents the teachers. I do not suppose that a teacher belongs to it. Why should they? That phrase could not apply to them.
  328
  Similarly, take the case of a fireman employed by London County Council. The terms applying to persons now serving under the L.C.C. are terms which are reached as part of a national agreement. That would continue to apply until a fresh agreement was reached. The great majority of persons employed by L.C.C. are not members of that rather unusual body, the L.C.C. Staff Association. The great majority of L.C.C. employees belong to unions and professional organisations of all kinds and have the ordinary national negotiating machinery. The "terms and conditions" and the rest applicable to persons serving under the L.C.C. means in relation to all those people the terms and the rest settled through national negotiating machinery.
  Mr. Lubbock: I think that the difference between the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) could be simply resolved. It is possible that the hon. Member for Putney is looking at the word "by" as if it were "between", as if it were a matter agreed between the persons employed and the council. It is quite obvious that where agreements are reached on a national basis they must be agreed by the representatives of the employers and the employees.
  Mr. Stewart: Certainly, I should have thought that when local authority representatives meet on the Burnham Committee one could say that the matter was agreed by all the parties on that panel. The same applies to the great majority of L.C.C. employees. All that the sub-paragraph says is that if before 1st April, 1965, the G.L.C.—which will have been elected a year before and might have made progress in negotiations—has not agreed something else, it should start off its employees with the terms and conditions which now prevail under the L.C.C. Notice that the phrase, "prevail under the L.C.C." means in the case of the great majority of L.C.C. employees terms nationally agreed, applicable not only in London but elsewhere.
  In the case of certain occupations there may be a London weighting, but that will be a geographical term possibly with different meanings in different agreements

  329
  and they will all be parts of national agreements. There is a metropolitan weighting in the teachers' agreement, but I believe the exact area is not coterminous with either the L.C.C. or the G.L.C. area. We need not bring that into the argument.
  When we say, "terms now applying to the L.C.C.," for most people that is not showing, as it were, any special deference to L.C.C. terms, because the great majority of L.C.C. employers have terms nationally negotiated and settled. There is, however, one special category, popularly known as "A.P.T.", the administrative, professional and technical employees of the L.C.C. who, I think, constitute about one-fifth of the total L.C.C. employees. The important point about them is that they have very different methods of grading. The salary structure and career arrangements are different in the London County Council employment of those people from what it is anywhere else.
  7.15 p.m.
  There was a good reason for that. I argued this in Committee, and it certainly commanded the assent of the majority of the Committee, including hon. Members on both sides. What is to happen to most of these people when they pass into the employment of the Greater London Council? The Minister may correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that I am far wrong in saying that of these administrative, professional and technical people whom we are speaking about four-fifths of those now in the employment of the L.C.C. will pass into the service of the Greater London Council.
  In addition, the Greater London Council will employ a comparatively small number, perhaps a few hundred, of people of this kind from the County of Middlesex and very few, if any, from the other counties. Overwhelmingly, the actual body of people in this group whom the G.L.C. will employ will be former L.C.C. employees.
  It is surely not unreasonable to say that, at least to start with, the grading for those people should be that with which they are familiar. That is all that is required here. It may be argued that there are some L.C.C. employees who will not be taken into the service of the G.L.C. but will go to the boroughs.
  330
  There they will meet a strange grading, a grading unfamiliar to them. In the borough to which they go the great majority of employees similar to them will be used to the other system of grading. Such a man coming from the L.C.C. and finding himself in a small minority in a new borough could not reasonably ask that the whole grading and salary structure of the new borough should be altered to that with which he is familiar. It must be accepted that those who go in those circumstances must be integrated into the borough grading.
  It is fair, however, to say that those who stay in the one authority where ex-L.C.C. employees are in the great majority should have the grading with which they are familiar. That seems to me now, as it seemed in Committee, a perfectly reasonable proposition. It is possible that this Amendment might never need to come into force if before April, 1965, agreement is reached between the G.L.C. and its employees. It is a purely precautionary Amendment.
  Now that we have had the discussion and the points of order I should have thought the case for not striking this sub-paragraph out of the Bill is overwhelming. It is quite clear that if we strike it out now every safeguard for these employees will be removed and we have no idea what may be put in its place. It safeguards, among other things, the pay of the employee. The Amendment which the hon. Member for Putney hoped to move either would not safeguard their pay or, if it did so, would be out of order. There is no escape from that dilemma.
  If we were to vote for the present Amendment, which is simply to strike out the sub-paragraph, we should be taking away from the persons employed by the L.C.C., particularly the administrative, professional and technical grades, a guarantee about their pay and many other important matters which is now firmly in the Bill and we should be invited to take it out and put nothing in its place. I submit, to the House that that is not good enough.
  The only other point that arises is the question of the negotiating machinery. As the Bill stands, it speaks of
  "… agreed by the Council and representatives of persons employed …"

  331
  The one point where, I think, the hon. Gentleman had something was: what about the possibility of agreement not being reached and an award having to be made? I am advised, if someone speaking from this Box may be allowed to use that phrase, that the terms now in the Bill would be interpreted to mean something settled by an award. If that advice is wrong, then the only Amendment necessary, I think, would be to make no other alteration than to insert the words "or settled by award" after the word "Council", at the end of line 3. I think that the hon. Gentleman's Amendment proposes to do a little more than that. He is proposing to take out some words and that, I think, is not quite so satisfactory. I do not think that there would be any objection to what I propose.
  It is quite clear that the Bill does not dictate who is to do the negotiating. There is to be the Council on one side, which, obviously, must be there, and representatives of the Council on the other. One of the first jobs of the G.L.C. would be to satisfy itself who could properly speak to it as representatives of the employees. For some, there would be one association, and for some, another.
  The terms used in the Amendment which was out of order were "the appropriate negotiating machinery." I am not quite sure what the court would make of that, but I would have thought that it substantially comes down to the same thing—persons whom the employees themselves accredit and trust as their representatives and whom the employer is prepared to accept as such. That is exactly what the words now in the Bill mean. I say this to allay anxiety in some quarters. I do not think that this in any way prejudges who the parties to the negotiations, or the unions or associations concerned should be. That is something which, if we can possibly avoid it, we ought not to settle in an Act of Parliament. It ought to be agreed between the employers and the employed and that, I believe, in practice would be done and, under the Bill as it now stands, could be done.
  I cannot feel, therefore, that there is any case for taking out this sub-paragraph. The hon. Member suggested that there might be an officer, say, from Kent, in these grades, who would be especially
  332
  affected and that because of the L.C.C. terms of employment he might get a higher salary than before. That seems to me to be possible. I cannot regard it as all that regrettable. There would be very few of them. The alternative is to say that the great majority of the L.C.C. staff shall be left without any certain guarantee of what their position will be.
  I think that that covers all the points that the hon. Member made. I do not think that he has made out a convincing case for removing this Amendment which the Committee decided to put in.
  Mr. J. Harvey: If there were in fact the need for a sub-paragraph such as sub-paragraph (2) which we are now discussing, I would tend to share the doubt of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) whether the sub-paragraph is at the moment in the right place. Leaving this aside altogether, it is felt, so I understand, by a good many people that the sub-paragraph carried in Committee against the advice of my right hon. Friend contains a number of subsidiary defects and two major ones.
  The two major ones have already been touched on. They are that there is no provision as to the determination of the interim arrangements which the sub-paragraph suggests and also that there is no written-in provision for arbitration in the event of failure on both sides to agree. It has been represented to me by the National Association of Local Government Officers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and I feel it right that it should be represented to this House—I take it that it is not the view of hon. Members opposite that this is a body whose views do not deserve consideration—
  Mr. Marsh: Would the hon. Member agree that the views expressed by the National Association of Local Government Officers happen to be those shared by every other staff side association on the National Joint Industrial Council, plus all the employers' sides?
  Mr. Harvey: I find the hon. Gentleman's intervention helpful.
  Mr. Reynolds: Does the hon. Member think that this Chamber is the place in which disputes between legitimate trade unions and who should represent whom should be argued?
  Mr. Harvey: I do not think that this Chamber should be used for an argument

  333
  of that sort, but if it is possible that we might be writing into the Bill words that might make it more difficult rather than less difficult to resolve problems in future, I think that the House should be aware of what it is doing. It is on that point that I propose to speak.
  There is considerable concern, so I understand, on both sides of the National Joint Council for administrative, professional, technical and clerical staffs of local authority associations that the implication of this sub-paragraph is that separate Whitley machinery would require to be established for employees of the Greater London Council. The sub-paragraph would appear to prevent the Greater London Council from participating in the existing national negotiating machinery, even if it wished to do so. That is the point that I am anxious, and I believe that a good many hon. Members probably on both sides of the House will be anxious, to try to avoid if it is at all possible.
  The Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Sir K. Thompson) and myself was taken, as far as its wording goes, from the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act, 1959. I gather that, although my own Amendment is coupled for practical purposes with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, it is on his Amendment that the House would be asked to divide if there is a Division. Therefore, I share the concern of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) at the complete deletion from the Bill of any sort of reference to the type of thing which he and I and all hon. Members are anxious to safeguard. I should like to refer to some of the things that were said in Standing Committee on 21st March. The hon. Member for Fulham said quite fairly at the outset of his comments
  "… it might be objected that this is an Amendment which is drafted too narrowly with the views of L.C.C. staff in mind. Certainly it might be objected that this is an Amendment which would limit the powers of the local authority and its employees to negotiate terms of settlement between each other in the ordinary way."
  7.30 p.m.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to make this claim:
  "The existing staff"—
  that is, the existing staff of the L.C.C.—
  334
  "has grading arrangements quite different from those of other local authorities. We are now making a change in local government which will transfer by far the bulk of that staff into the service of a new authority. In the light of that, it is not at all unreasonable that one should ask that the special features now prevailing for L.C.C. staff should, at least to begin with, prevail in the Greater London Council."
  The hon. Gentleman went on to deal with his own second objection by saying this:
  "The second objection which might be raised is that the Amendment overrides the power and duty of a local authority and its employees to negotiate with each other terms and conditions of service. I emphasise that there is nothing in the Amendment that takes away from the local authority or from its staff that right and duty to have proper negotiating arrangements of their own, because the Amendment indicates that the special arrangements which it proposes are only to be until such time as other terms and conditions of service are agreed between the Council and representatives."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F. 21st March, 1963; c. 1006–8.]
  The worry which I gather many people have is that, if the thing is begun in this way, it will be very difficult to change its course subsequently. I emphasise again the point I have already made, that although the hon. Member for Fulham said in Committee that the arrangements would continue only
  "until such time as other terms and conditions of service are agreed"
  he did not make any provision for the length of time concerned, nor for the possibility that there would be no agreement.
  Even though one can sympathise with much of what the hon. Member for Fulham said and was trying to do in pressing the Committee to accept his Amendment at that stage, it is not the best possible way in which to deal with the matter. I want briefly to refer also to what my right hon. Friend said on that same day. He said this:
  "I can only say that we must preserve the freedom of the staff associations and the authorities to negotiate …".
  Does any hon. Gentleman dissent from that view? My right hon. Friend said this later:
  "… there is to be a joint committee to act as a 'shadow' Greater London Council. That will mean that the 'shadow' Greater London committee will begin to consider this very important matter in the very early future, so that when the G.L.C. is elected it will have a basis on which, in its early days, it can open

  335
  negotiations with staff associations, clear doubts an and settle the principles and practice in the whole subject."
  Towards the end of his comments, my right hon. Friend again emphasised in his remarks:
  "… I really must ask the Committee, in the interests of the negotiating freedom of local authorities, not to accept the Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 21st March, 1963; c. 1011–2.]
  I realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Barter) subsequently questioned the Minister as to whether anything that the shadow committee might suggest would be binding on the Greater London Council. The timetable in Committee did not make it possible for my right hon. Friend to give an answer on that point. I hope that he can give some sort of answer today, because it would be helpful to the House at this stage to know a little more about precisely what he has in mind. There is no doubt that many people are concerned about the present arrangements within the L.C.C. I am informed that there is close liaison between the London County Council and the employers' side of the National Joint Council and that the London County Council now applies to its staffs without any negotiation with those staffs—this is important—any general salary awards negotiated through the National Joint Council. I understand that the former negotiating machinery which existed between the L.C.C. and its staffs was discontinued by the County Council and that there now operates an Interim Panel which discusses matters of salaries and conditions of service but not questions of general salary awards.
  All these matters are of concern to a number of those people who have not hitherto been employees of the L.C.C. but who will become employees of the Greater London Council. I feel that it is of the utmost importance that we in this House should ensure that the greatest possible negotiating freedom is written into the Bill when it leaves us. I agree that, if sub-paragraph (2) is lost altogether, a vacuum will be created and the end position may be worse than the first. If it is the fact that it is on this complete deletion that we shall have to divide, if Division there is, and not on my Amendment, which I feel might have resolved the difficulty much
  336
  more simply, we shall at least have to ask from my right hon. Friend the clearest possible undertaking as to the sort of provision he will be prepared to see written into the Bill at some subsequent stage.
  That is all I want to say, except to stress again that it is solely a concern for the freedom of negotiation that has motivated me and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton in tabling our Amendment.
  Sir K. Joseph: I think that the House has acquitted itself nobly at a time of improvisation like this, and I must heed the very good advice from both sides to tread very warily when we are dealing with these issues of staff pay and staff negotiations. It is not for Parliament to enter into the scales or conditions of pay, nor the negotiating machinery, nor the choice of negotiating machinery. It is for the Minister speaking from this Box to make clear to the House, so far as he can, the implications of what it is proposed to do. That is what I am limiting myself to now.
  There is quite a big issue of principle here. As we all know—my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey) has just underlined it—the L.C.C. Staff Association is not part of the national local government negotiating machinery. It is not for me or for the Government to make any other point than that. That is a fact. The established national negotiating machinery serves a very considerable purpose in giving the assurance to recruits to local government service that they can make a career and transfer from one place to another and still find conditions looked after that make a career practicable.
  The sub-paragraph in the Schedule which was inserted in Committee against the advice of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary contains two implications which I think we should have clearly in front of us before we make a decision on the Amendment. The first implication is that the pay and conditions of the L.C.C. staff are appropriate for the G.L.C. when it takes over that staff, until new conditions are negotiated. That assumption is regardless of what the outcome of the negotiations may be. The second implication is that the negotiations to establish the new structure of pay and

  337
  conditions between the G.L.C. and its staff shall not apparently be by way of the national negotiating machinery.
  Mr. M. Stewart: How does the Minister get that second implication into the Bill?
  Mr. Mellish: That it by-passes the national machinery?
  Sir K. Joseph: I do not say that it does. I say apparently. It may possibly be said from the words
  "until such time as other terms and conditions of service under the Council are agreed by the Council and representatives of persons employed by the Council …"
  The Amendment in line 2, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Waltham-stow, East has just spoken, would clear that point. I am arguing that this is an implication from the sub-paragraph.
  Mr. Reynolds: The Minister is reading an implication into this. He is interpreting it carefully, but one must consider what is done by every local authority. We have national negotiating machinery which works out scales. Representatives of local firms from all over the country take part in those discussions, but no local authority would pass on a penny in increased salary awards without first passing a resolution agreeing to accept the award. As the right hon. Gentleman can see, whether this is done through the national negotiating machinery or separately by councils, each authority must pass a resolution agreeing to the award in the end. For this reason I cannot see how the Minister can arrive at his conclusion.
  Sir K. Joseph: I agree that it is not a cut and dried interpretation, but the strongest representations have been made to me, outside the House, by those concerned. They have a perfect right to make their views known and to say that that is an interpretation which could be put on it and which, therefore, would prejudice the free choice of the G.L.C. and the staff in how they go about negotiating pay and conditions.
  Moreover, I must point out that, while paragraph (2) of Schedule 2 was drafted with an eye to the interests of the L.C.C. staff transferring to the Greater London Council, it could result in a number of difficulties and anomalies for other staff. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) has given instances of some of these and while I do not propose
  338
  to repeat them, or to add some of my own, I do not believe that any of the anomalies and difficulties he mentioned are insuperable.
  I am sure that when the time comes for negotiations to take place between the G.L.C. and the staff—by whatever machinery; and it is for them to decide—such difficulties and anomalies will be ironed out. However, it must be pointed out that while the paragraph was aimed at protecting one set of employees, it may have implications and side effects on others.
  Mr. Lubbock Mr. Lubbock rose—
  Sir K. Joseph: I must proceed. I do not wish to delay the House.
  Mr. Lubbock: I merely want to know, further to what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying, just who will be adversely affected?
  Sir K. Joseph: It could affect the service of London adversely. If a member of Middlesex County Council's staff is offered the choice between transferring to the G.L.C. with pay and conditions inherited from the L.C.C. as compared with transferring to a London borough, which may have a different structure for pay and conditions, this choice may influence the person's decision and that, of course, may be to the damage of London as a whole.
  I now come to the positive side. If the Amendment as drafted were accepted, and paragraph (2) were deleted, we must ask ourselves what the protective and other safeguards for the staff would be. We would be back to an Amendment which the House passed into the Bill yesterday; that is, in Clause 82, page 92, line 13, at the end to insert:
  (2A) The provision required by subsection (1) or (2) of this section shall include provision to secure that any person who on 1st April 1965 is transferred under this Act from the employment of one authority to that of another shall hold office by the same tenure and on the same conditions as immediately before that date and, while he is engaged in similar duties to those in which he was engaged immediately before that date, shall receive not less salary or remuneration than that to which he was entitled immediately before that date.
  I would like hon. Members to note the contents of that Amendment. It states that where any person is transferred under the Act from one authority to another he would hold office by the same tenure, and, as hon. Members can

  339
  see, on the same conditions as immediately before that date.
  So, in the example I gave, the member of the Middlesex County Council staff would carry his own conditions and tenure with him to whichever other employment he went
  "… while he is engaged in similar duties … and … immediately before that date, shall receive not less salary or remuneration …"
  Let us summarise the position. Under the Bill as it stands, if the Amendment is carried, there is complete protection for employees transferring and they can carry with them all their conditions except that of salary; and they only carry their salary when they move to equivalent jobs.
  The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) said that there would be a relatively small number of people who would not be transferred to their same jobs. After our discussion yesterday I undertook—it was a movement from my original position—to consider whether there might be a case for extending the "no detriment concession" for a limited period to those who do not transfer to an equivalent post. That is the position in which we would leave the Bill if we accepted the Amendment.
  The protection under the Amendment we passed yesterday for the salaries of people transferring to equivalent posts would exist and there would he, for the remainder, who might suffer some detriment, an undertaking that the Government would consider a guarantee for a limited period regarding their salaries. Even if the undertaking were not fulfilled for those who moved to non-equivalent posts, there would be the compensation provisions of which a new edition is about to come out.
  7.45 p.m.
  I repeat the undertaking to look at the salaries of those transferred to nonequivalent posts. Subject to that, I hope that the House will agree that the sensible thing to do is to clear up any doubt about the negotiating position and to accept the Amendment which, by a combination of circumstances, is before us to delete this sub-paragraph. This would be for the general benefit of all concerned and, once again, I repeat my undertaking to look at the narrow salary point which was raised yesterday.
  Mr. Mellish: If the Minister really felt as he says he feels about this, he should have tabled an Amendment to delete the whole of the paragraph. Let us get this straight. This argument has really only just arisen because we have had this emergency manuscript Amendment. Despite that, the Minister's speech made it sound as though he had thought about it all the time.
  Is he not aware that he was defeated in Committee by a large majority because this is the way we consider this matter should be handled? We did not put down the Amendment with the intention of giving preference to the staff association. Had we had that in mind we would have tabled an Amendment and strongly supported it. We saw the whole matter as representing protection for those employed by the L.C.C. It would have safeguarded the terms and conditions of those employees and of those going into the Greater London Council.
  If the paragraph is read as we want it read, it becomes clear that there would be no hindrance to free negotiation between the other associations. We wish only to improve the position and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said, this is a holding operation for the time when the G.L.C. comes into being. Leaving aside what the G.L.C. will do and with whom it will negotiate, are we expected to rely on what the right hon. Gentleman says? We do not believe that that is a satisfactory way of going about this.
  I freely admit that the original Amendment we put down was promoted by the staff association. I admit that. It seemed that N.A.L.G.O. was not awfully concerned about it; although it is interesting to see, at the end of the day, that it has asked an hon. Member opposite to put the point of view of its members.
  Sir H. Linstead: I was not asked by N.A.L.G.O. to put that point of view.
  Mr. Mellish: I was referring not to that hon. Member but to one of his hon. Friends. N.A.L.G.O. can ask anyone to put its point of view, and I can honestly say that I have not had any communication from N.A.L.G.O. When we are approached—quite rightly and properly—by a legitimate staff association which is concerned with this matter, there is every reason for us to want to help it, and that

  341
  is exactly what we are doing. We saw nothing wrong in the position of trying to ensure free negotiations for those employed by the G.L.C.
  Mr. Harvey: In fairness to N.A.L.G.O., it is important to make the point that that body did not want a situation in which one has the vacuum that now arises, but did want a loosening up of what it regarded as overtight phraseology.
  Mr. Mellish: If that is the way N.A.L.G.O. feels we had better leave the paragraph in because, as we see it, and we have taken the best advice we can, there can be no interference with the normal and legitimate negotiations of any one body in the national machinery. All we ask for is a holding operation to safeguard salaries, terms and conditions, and we think that is an honourable objective for all hon. Members. That is why certain Conservative Members voted with us as they did.
  Mr. Marsh: We are now faced with a choice of virtually no protection on salary at all except the point of comparable grades. They would lose the protection of existing salaries, because a person has held a position for several years—
  Sir K. Joseph: Just to get it right—subject to compensation, and to the undertaking I have given.
  Mr. Marsh: If one is left with that choice of a vacuum or the Bill, I support the Bill as amended. What worries me—and if there is ever the opportunity we might discuss it at another time—is that this is a new situation. Those in this one small group of one local authority's employees are the only people in the country who are outside the machinery that is acceptable to employers and employees, and no one wants to interfere with something that has been acceptable to both sides of an industry for years.
  There is one way in which some of us feel that a problem might arise. At the moment, acceptance of conditions of service and rates of pay by an employing authority are not just a matter of agreement between that authority and its employees. At the moment, any employee aggrieved by a local authority not covered by national or local machinery can refer the dispute to the Industrial Court, where he can argue that those were the rates of pay and the conditions of service generally extant in that particular industry.
  342
  There seems a likelihood that new employees coming into the Greater London authority will find themselves for a period subject to the conditions they had before, but then, unless agreement can be reached between the staff side organisations and the employing authority, they will have no alternative but to move into the present situation in the London County Council, which is an ad hoc arrangement—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends must clear this up. They are talking of about 12,000 employees out of about 85,000 employed by the L.C.C., and provided those employees have a "no-detriment" clause they could not be worse off. But we are now left with a choice of nothing at all or this Amendment, so I feel that the House has no alternative but to support the Bill as amended, regretting that we are faced with a situation in which we have to discuss this important matter within a time limit of three or four minutes
  Mr. Reynolds: It is perfectly clear what has happened. The Committee spent a lot of time in coming to a decision, with about five hon. Members opposite abstaining and about three voting with us in Opposition. We then have two Amendments on the Notice Paper tabled by hon. Members opposite, and the Minister presumably came here prepared to accept them, or one of them, or to ask the House to reject them. I believe that he intended to accept one of them.
  Sir K. Joseph Sir K. Joseph indicated assent.
  Mr. Reynolds: But the Amendment that he had intended to accept has been ruled out of order, and so cannot be discussed. The Minister has previously spent about a fortnight considering his attitude—from the time when the Committee dealt with the matter until now—and after mature consideration, and after the Amendments have been on the Notice Paper for several days, he comes to the conclusion that we should accept an Amendment that has now been ruled out of order. So, in a debate of 25 or 45 minutes, he reverses all his consideration of the last fortnight and his decision to accept the Amendment—
  Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member is perfectly within his rights to draw this conclusion, because I nodded when he

  343
  spoke about my accepting the Amendment. My intention had been to accept the Amendment in page 110, line 1, but I had intended to say that it would have to be altered later because it is in the wrong place in the Schedule, dealing only with the Greater London Council, and goes further than the Government think proper at this stage about the "no-detriment" provision for salaries on the non-equivalent basis. Subject to those two points, I had intended to advise the House to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Reynolds: That makes the position worse. The Minister intended to advise acceptance of the Amendment but to alter it at some later date. At any rate, he had intended to say, "I will put something in the Bill, somewhere, which will cover some of the points contained in what the Committee decided and what the Amendment lays down." He has now decided, in 45 minutes of debate, to wipe the whole lot from the Bill—to wipe out what the Committee put in, and to take no notice of the Amendment—
  Sir K. Joseph: No, because had the "no-detriment-to-salary" implication of the Amendment as it stands been taken out it would, in my view, have done no more than repeat, without any implication about freezing the negotating posi-
  tion, what was in the Amendment that was carried yesterday.
  Mr. Reynolds: In that case, I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman should accept it, and why he did not come to the conclusion from the beginning that he would advise undoing the work of the Committee. The more the Minister says about this the more confused I get, and the more amazed members of the London County Council staff will be at the way in which matters concerning their future are decided in a 35-minute debate in this House, with the Minister finishing up with a completely different point of view from when he started, and advising the House to take a different line of action from that which he intended to advise at the beginning of the debate.
  It is a fantastic situation. As with many other parts of this Measure, we have not been able to give proper consideration to this matter. At no stage has Schedule 4 been given any consideration, and those outside who are affected by the decisions taken here should have regard to the way in which this is being done.
  Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—
  The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 231.

  Division No. 91.]

  AYES

  [7.58 p.m.

  Alnsley, William

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Albu, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Deer, George

  Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Awbery, Stan (Bristol Central)

  Dempsey, Jamee

  Hoy, James H.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Dodds, Norman

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Baird, John

  Driberg, Tom

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Barnett, Guy

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Beaney, Alan

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Hunter, A. E.

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Benson, Sir George

  Fitch, Alan

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Blackburn, F.

  Fletcher, Eric

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Blyton, William

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Boardman, H.

  Forman, J. C.

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

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

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Boyden, James

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Bradley, Tom

  Ginsburg, David

  Jones, Elwyn (west Ham, s.)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Gourlay, Harry

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Kelley, Richard

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  King, Dr. Horace

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Lawson, George

  Callaghan, James

  Gunter, Ray

  Ledger, Ron

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Chapman, Donald

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Cliffe, Michael

  Hannan, William

  Lipton, Marcus

  Collick, Percy

  Harper, Joseph

  Loughlin, Charles

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Lubbock, Eric

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hayman, F, H.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Cronin, John

  Henderson, Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)

  McBride, N.

  Crosland, Anthony

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  McCann, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hilton, A. V.

  MacColl, James

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Holman, Percy

  Mcinnes, James

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hooson, H. E.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  McLeavy, Frank

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Swain, Thomas

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Peart, Frederick

  Swingler, Stephen

  Mahon, Simon

  Pentland, Norman

  Symonds, J. B.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Taverne, D.

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

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Manuel, Archie

  Probert, Arthur

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Mapp, Charles

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Marsh, Richard

  Rankin, John

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Mason, Roy

  Redhead, E. C.

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

  Mellish, R. J.

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Thornton, Ernest

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Rhodes, H.

  Timmons, John

  Millan, Bruce

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Tomney, Frank

  Milne, Edward

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Warbey, William

  Monslow, Walter

  Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

  Watkins, Tudor

  Moody, A. S.

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

  Weitzman, David

  Morris, John

  Ross, William

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Moyle, Arthur

  Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

  Whitlock, Wiliam

  Mulley, Frederick

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Wigg, George

  Neal, Harold

  Short, Edward

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Willey, Frederick

  Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  O'Mally, B. K.

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Oram, A. E.

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Small, William

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

  Owen, Wi

  Sorenson, R. W.

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Padley, W. E.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Paget, R. T.

  Steele, Thomas

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Ziltiacus, K.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Storehouse, John

  Parker, John

  Stones, William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Ifor Davies and Mr. Grey.

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  du Cann, Edward

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Allason, James

  Duncan, Sir James

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Atkins, Humphrey

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

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

  Emery, Peter

  James, David

  Balniel, Lord

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Jennings, J. C.

  Batsford, Brian

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Farr, John

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Bidgood, John C.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Biffen, John

  Forrest, George

  Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

  Biggs-Davison, John

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

  Kerans, Cdr. J. s.

  Bingham, R. M.

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Freeth, Denzil

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Bishop, F. p.

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Gardner, Edward

  Kirk, Peter

  Bossom, Hon. Clive

  George, Sir John (Pollok)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Box, Donald

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk Central)

  Leavey, J. A.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Brewis, John

  Gower, Raymond

  Lindsay, Sir Martin

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Green, Alan

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Bullard, Denys

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Burden, F. A.

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Gurden, Harold

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  MacArthur, Ian

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricla

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

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

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Chataway, Christopher

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hay, John

  Macpherson,Rt. Hn.Niall(Dumfries)

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Maitland, Sir John

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Marshall, Douglas

  Cole, Norman

  Hendry, Forbes

  Marten, Nell

  Cooke, Robert

  Hiley, Joseph

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

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

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Corfield, F, V.

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Mawby, Ray

  Costain, A. P.

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

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Coulson, Michael

  Hirst, Geoffrey

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

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Mills, Stratton

  Craddock, Sir Beresford(Spelthorne)

  Holland, Philip

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Critchley, Julian

  Hopkins, Alan

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Cunningham, Knox

  Hornby, R. P.

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Curran, Charles

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Morgan, William

  Dance, James

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Donaldson, Cmdr, c. E. M.

  Hughes Hallett, vice-Admiral John

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Doughty, Charles

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Neave, Airey

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

  Roots, William

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Turner, Colin

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

  Sharples, Richard

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Shaw, M.

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Shepherd, William

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

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

  Walder, David

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

  Walker, Peter

  Partridge, E.

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Wall, Patrick

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Speir, Rupert

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Peel, John

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Webster, David

  Percival, Ian

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Whitelaw, William

  Pitman, Sir James

  Stodart, J. A.

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Pott, Percivall

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcoim

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Price, David (Eastleîgh)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Wise, A. R.

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

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

  Woodhouse, c. M.

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Temple, John M.

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Woollam, John

  Ramsden, James

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Mr. McLaren and Mr. Pym.

  Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir B. (B'pool,S.)

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  It being after Eight o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to the remaining part of the Bill.
  Amendment made: In page 110, line 16, leave out "treasurer and surveyor" and insert "and the treasurer".—[Mr. Corfield.]

  Schedule 4.—(MODIFICATIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1933.)
  Amendment made: In page 128, line 24, at end insert:
  40A. In paragraph 3 (1) of Part V of Schedule 3, for the words "committee as the case may be" there shall be substituted the words "as the case may be, at the same or any subsequent meeting of the committee".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

  Schedule 6.—(AMENDMENTS AS FROM 1ST APRIL 1965 IN HIGHWAYS ACT 1959.)
  Amendment made: In page 145, line 1, leave out paragraph 69.—[Mr. Hay.]

  Schedule 7.—(METROPOLITAN ROADS.)
  Amendments made: In page 149, line 36, column 2, leave out "St. Helier" and insert "Morden".
  In line 36, column 3, leave out "Carshalton" and insert "St. Helier".—[Mr. Hay.]

  Schedule 9.—(MODIFICATION AND RE ENACTMENT AS FROM 1ST APRIL 1965 OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE.)
  Amendments made: In page 157, line 10, after "Act", insert:
  348
  "and accordingly shall be a sewerage authority within the definition of that term in section 90 of the Public Health Act 1936".
  In line 19, after "works", insert:
  "primarily serving the sewerage area of the Greater London Council".
  In line 20, leave out "the Greater London" and insert "that".
  In line 21, after "sewer", insert "primarily serving that area".
  In line 22, after "drainage", insert "in that area".
  In line 26, at end insert "primarily serving that area".
  In page 164, line 2, leave out "twenty-eight days" and insert "six weeks".
  In line 11, leave out "twenty-eight days" and insert "six weeks".
  In page 165, line 20, leave out "departed from in any respect" and insert "substantially departed from".
  In line 22, leave out "twelve months" and insert "two years".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

  Schedule 12.—(LICENSING OF PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENTS IN GREATER LONDON ON AND AFTER 1ST APRIL 1965.)
  Amendments made: In page 183, line 25, leave out from "for" to "on" in line 27 and insert:
  "an entertainment which in the opinion of the Council is of an educational or other like character or is given for a charitable or other like purpose".
  In page 187, line 21, at end insert:
  Provisional grant of licences
  15A.—(1) Where application is made to the Council for the grant of a licence under the Theatres Act 1843, the Cinematograph Act

  349
  1909 or paragraph 1 or 4 of this Schedule in respect of premises which are to be, or are in the course of being, constructed, extended or altered and the Council are satisfied that the premises would, if completed in accordance with plans deposited in accordance with the requirements of the Council, be such that the Council would grant the licence, the Council may grant the licence subject to a condition that it shall be of no effect until confirmed by the Council.
  (2) The Council shall confirm any licence granted by virtue of the foregoing sub-paragraph if and when they are satisfied that the premises have been completed in accordance with the plans aforesaid, or in accordance with those plans as modified with the approval of the Council, and that the licence is held by a fit and proper person.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

  Schedule 16.—(MISCELLANEOUS MODIFI CATIONS OF ENACTMENTS AS FROM 1ST APRIL, 1965.)
  Amendments made: In page 198, line 17, at end insert:
  18.—(1) In the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960—

  (a) Part I shall extend to the whole of Greater London;

  (b) in section 29 (1), in the definition of "local authority", after the word "district" there shall be inserted the words "the Common Council of the City of London".

  (2) Subject to sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) of this paragraph, where in the case of any land in the area of the existing county of London a licence granted with or without conditions under section 22 of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1959, was in force in relation to that land immediately before 1st April, 1965, then—

  (a) until the expiration of the period of two months beginning with the date when that licence would have expired if this Act had not been passed, and

  (b) if by the expiration of that period the occupier of that land has duly made an application for a site licence in respect of that land under the said Part I, but that site licence has not yet been issued, until the date when such a site licence is first issued in respect of that land,

  the licence under the said section 22 shall be deemed to be a site licence under the said Part I granted for an unlimited period, but subject to the same conditions (if any) as the licence under the said section 22, by the council of the London borough in which that land is situated.
  (3) Where in the case of any such land as aforesaid no occupier thereof at any time since the grant of the licence under the said section 22 has been entitled to the benefit of a permission for the use of the land as a caravan site granted under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 or of 1962 otherwise than by a development
  350
  order, paragraph (b) of the last foregoing subparagraph shall not apply to that land but—

  (a) if before the expiration of the period referred to in paragraph (a) of that subparagraph the occupier of the land duly makes an application for a site licence in respect of that land under the said Part I, then, so long as the conditions, if any, attached to the licence under the said section 22 are complied with, no offence shall be committed under section 1 of the said Act of 1960 in respect of the land at any time after the expiration of that period and before such a licence is first issued in respect of the land; and

  (b) section 17 of the said Act of 1960 shall apply to that land as if the land were an existing site within the meaning of that Act and as if any reference in that section to the commencement of that Act were a reference to the date referred to in the said paragraph (a).

  (4) Where in the case of any such land as aforesaid such permission as aforesaid for the use of that land as a caravan site has been granted in terms such that it will expire at the end of a specified period, nothing in subparagraph (2) of this paragraph shall cause any licence in respect of that land under the said section 22 to continue in force after the end of that period.
  (5) In this paragraph, the expressions "caravan site" and "occupier" have the meanings respectively assigned by section 1 of the said Act of 1960.—[Sir K. Joseph.]
  In page 198, line 39, after "1962", insert:

  (a) in section 46 (8) (a), for the words "London County Council, the council of any metropolitan borough," there shall be substituted the words "Greater London Council, the council of any London borough";

  (b).

  In page 199, leave out lines 18 and 19 and insert:

  (b) in the Metropolitan Streets Act 1867, sections 10 to 16 and 18;—[Mr. Hay.]

  Schedule 17.—(REPEALS.)
  Amendments made: In page 201, line 46, at end insert: "section 33 (3)".— [Sir K. Joseph.]
  In page 202, line 45, column 3, leave out "6" and insert "10 to 16".
  In page 202, leave out lines 47 to 49.
  In page 204, line 53, at end insert:

  9 Edw. 7. c.lxvii

  The City of London (Street Traffic) Act 1909.

  Section 2 (2).

  [Mr.Hay.]
  In page 209, line 56, at end insert:

  2 & 3 Geo. 6 c. c.

  The London County Council (General Powers) Act 1939.

  Section 76.

  In page 213, line 56, at end insert:
  "In section 74 (1), in the definition of 'Public Health Acts', the words from 'or' onwards".—[Sir K. Joseph.]
  In page 214, line 10, column 3, leave out "5" and insert:
  "4, paragraph 5 (a) from 'or' onwards".—[Mr. Hay.]
  In page 219, line 3, column 3, after "sections", insert: "22, 23".
  In page 219, line 54, at end insert:

  8 & 9 Eliz. 2. c. 62.

  The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.

  Sections 24 (9) and 31.

  —[Sir K. Joseph.]
  In page 222, line 29, at end insert:

  10 & 11 Eliz. 2. c. 46.

  The Transport Act 1962.

  In section 46 (8), the words "outside the county of London but".

  —[Mr. Hay.]
  Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]
  8.12 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The Bill we have been considering today, as a result of the very large number of Amendments moved in Committee and on Report, differs in a number of important details from the Bill which we considered in December on Second Reading. I make no apology for the large number of Amendments. I emphatically repudiate the suggestion attributed to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) in the Press that this implies ill-preparation of the Bill.
  What the large number of Amendments does reflect is the reality and usefulness of the Committee stage, which spread over four extended days on the Floor of the House and 21 sittings in Standing Committee, giving a total time equivalent to 33 sittings of a normal Standing Committee. It is true to say that, despite the timetable, all the important aspects have, at least, been discussed, even if we have not been able to agree upon them.
  Mr. Driberg: This evening, for instance?
  Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman refers to this evening. Those matters certainly were discussed in Standing Committee.
  Many of the Amendments, of course, were moved by the Government, but many of them were moved in response to representations and suggestions from bodies or individuals greatly experienced in local government, and London Government in particular. I have no doubt that hon. Members on both sides who moved the large number of Amendments which came not from the Government themselves will be the first to recognise that many of their Amendments, too, apart from reflecting their own individual views, also reflected the views of important bodies such as the Association of Municipal Corporations, the London County Council, the County Councils Association and several professional bodies the members of which are intimately connected with this matter. It would have been a criticism of the Government if we had not been prepared to listen to the views, and learn, from the experience, of bodies and individuals of this kind.
  Even if it can be said that a great many more Amendments have been made than is usual, it is as well to remember that it was not until the Bill was published and had been accorded a Second Reading in the House that many of the bodies which would otherwise have been consulted previously, and which we were anxious to consult, made themselves available for consultations.
  Despite the Amendments in detail, the structure of the Bill and the main divisions of function remain basically unchanged. The Bill remains based on the broad recommendations of the Royal Commission, except in the two important departures relating to the size of the boroughs, on the one hand, and the arrangements for education in the central area, on the other. Within this pattern there are two particular matters which are, I think, still the subject of some misunderstanding, and it is on these that I shall say a few words now.
  The first relates to the allocation of planning functions between the Greater London Council and the London boroughs. With regard to what may be called the positive functions of planning, the broad principle remains that the

  353
  Greater London Council will be responsible for the overall plan, and the London boroughs for so to speak, filling in the details, but in doing so they must, of course, conform to the overall Greater London plan.
  To suggest, as hon. Members opposite have consistently suggested, that this is to undermine the advantages of the cohesion to be obtained from the overall planning power of the Greater London Council by introducing, as they put it, 32 separate plans, is to display a complete misunderstanding of what is involved in preparing a development plan and the objectives in doing so.
  In a vast urban area such as Greater London, obviously, the first step must be to provide the broad skeleton of the plan, a skeleton composed on the one hand, of the pattern of communications, the location of industry and of other forms of employment, and, on the other, a balance of land use dictated by the trends in the population not merely as to its absolute increase in numbers but also in the changes of habits and patterns which that population is likely to develop in the second half of the twentieth century. But when this has been done, the detailed planning on the ground—the allocation of the specific areas for housing, shops, and other uses—has, in any case, to be done by different teams of planners operating simultaneously in different areas.
  If there is to be such a sub-division, it is logical to adopt for the purpose the areas of the London boroughs. If there is to be no such sub-division, we shall simply fail to learn from the difficulties of the past and take so long to produce our plans that they will be out of date before they are published, certainly long before they have been submitted to the scrutiny of public inquiry and have been finally approved by the Minister.
  It seems to me that part of the problem is to produce a degree of flexibility, and in this the method we propose will help us. If, as hon. Members opposite suggest, we do not adopt this principle, we shall in effect be refusing to make use of staffs particularly qualified because of their familiarity, in their day-to-day planning control functions, with the topography and needs of their areas—people who are in constant touch with the local
  354
  planning problems and adding to their knowledge day by day.
  The second matter on which I want to say a few words is the size of the London boroughs. To me, some of the most revealing passages in the Royal Commission's Report are those which examine the services one by one and show how they have devolved on existing local authorities with little regard to the relationship of the size and strength of those authorities to the nature of the functions. The conclusion seems to me to be quite irrefutable, that, if one were to take them service by service, one must inevitably come to an ideal unit of local administration which would probably be different for each of the services.
  I firmly believe that the corollary of a genuine belief in local government is a degree of compromise and that time will very rapidly show that the compromise of a broad framework of large and strong London boroughs comparable to some of the largest units in the provinces will produce a framework and pattern for the future of which we can be proud.
  The third and rather less important matter on which I wish to touch is this. I remind hon. Members of the criticisms which were made earlier of the reserve powers of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. I think that those criticisms are well summarised in a comment contained in a report of the L.C.C. Roads Committee to its full Council in January this year. It stated:
  "We think that it would not be wholly unreasonable for the Minister to have reserve powers, but that, notwithstanding the Government's expressed intention that they are only for use in the last resort, they should be clearly defined in the Bill as default powers exercisable only when the Minister is of the opinion, after consultation, that the G.L.C. have not taken the appropriate action".
  I think that the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) put that point in similar terms in Committee. I therefore remind the House that the Government's Amendments to Clauses 9, 10, 11 and 13 have been made to meet that criticism.
  Looking back over the Committee stage of the Bill, we have had a great deal of discussion, despite what the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) has said, on the safeguards for the staff. We have had our differences of opinion, but I emphasise again the Government's

  355
  anxiety to give the utmost assurances to local government staff, without prejudicing those matters which should be settled by the new authorities or which are traditionally the function of the normal negotiating machinery.
  I remind the House that four important changes have been made to improve the safeguards and provisions for local government employees. First, there is the statutory requirement on my right hon. Friend to ensure that all employees of existing authorities will be transferred to one or other of their successors. Secondly, there is a statutory provision on the lines of the Local Government Act, 1929, guaranteeing the present terms and conditions of service to transferred staff and safeguards to salary while employed on comparable duties. Thirdly, there is an obligation on my right hon. Friend to establish the Staff Commission within one month of the passing of the Bill. Fourthly, there are provisions as to joint committees of existing authorities so that county council representatives will be included and the needs and interests of county council employees can therefore be considered.
  I remind the House again that there have also been important modifications made in matters which were the subject of criticism with regard to planning control. The Bill now provides that my right hon. Friend may prescribe classes of applications which shall be referred to the Greater London Council for comment and direction as well as prescribe by regulations particular classes of planning applications to be referred to the Greater London Council for decision.
  We have had a number of Amendments on finance, in particular, Amendments to preserve for the Greater London Council the Money Bill procedure of the London County Council. The provisions for the initial expenses of the new authorities have been written into the Bill instead of being provided by order. There have been further Amendments to ease the burden of the truncated counties. I know that those Amendments do not entirely satisfy some of my hon. Friends and the people from those counties, but they certainly alleviate the position and are a con-
  356
  siderable advance on what was originally in the Bill.
  I realise that there are a number of other undertakings given by the Government which it has not yet been possible to fulfil. They cover such matters as land in the green belt, liabilities under the Town Development Act, land drainage and flood prevention, compensation for employees injured during the course of duty, and superannuation funds. The only reason why they have not yet been fulfilled is that we are still seeking the best means of fufilling them, and I can assure the House that, although the list may be long, we have not overlooked them, and provision will be made in another place.
  I conclude by saying that the Government believe that the basic pattern for the future government of London which the Bill provides is sound. We are confident that it will attract men and women of the right calibre and in the right quantity, both as officers and as elected representatives, able to work in the full knowledge that they have a framework through which they can most efficiently serve, even better than in the past, the needs of Londoners of the future. The broad framework remains, but in detail the Bill has been improved, and I commend it to the House.
  8.27 p.m.
  Mr. Mellish: The House will readily understand that we oppose the Third Reading of the Bill. We shall be consistent to the bitter end. We objected to the Bill when it was first presented and had its First Reading. We opposed it on Second Reading. In fact, we have opposed it at every possible stage.
  In Committee, we put down about 1,000 Amendments. I am not sure whether that was an all-time record, but there were 1,000 Amendments which had to be considered—or, at least, the Minister of Housing and Local Government had to be briefed on most of them. I hope that the Minister, when he winds up the debate, will agree that our Amendments were designed to improve the Bill and were not wrecking Amendments.
  Sir K. Joseph Sir K. Joseph indicated assent.
  Mr. Mellish: We worked under a Guillotine, which was a great hardship to the Committee. We on this side found it extremely difficult to ensure that matters were adequately debated.

  357
  It is wrong of the Parliamentary Secretary to say that we discussed all the important details of the Bill. We certainly did not. If he looks back, he will find that many important parts of the Bill had to go by the board because of the Guillotine. This procedure has now been established. The Tory Government have put this principle forward and we on this side should not ignore it when we become the Government.
  When, as the next Labour Government, we present a Bill which obviously will be contentious, the thing to do is to introduce a Guillotine with it. I do not know how many hon. Members opposite will be in the next Parliament—I doubt whether there will be more than a few of them as things stand—but I hope these words will be recalled—that that would be the right policy for the Labour Government if we follow the logic of what the Tory Government have done. Almost from the word "Go", they decided upon the Guillotine. It is true that they gave us two free sessions when they tried us out, so they said, to see how well we behaved ourselves. Eventually, however, having made up their minds in the first place, they brought in a Guillotine.
  The Bill has not been changed in any principle. It has been changed in some detail but not in any great consequence for us. Unless the Minister gives way to some of his Conservative friends in Putney, Part I of the Bill, which we bitterly opposed, will result in the same shotgun weddings as were first envisaged. There has been no alteration in that respect.
  The upset and alarm which has been caused in the constituencies has to be understood to be believed. There has been great disturbance amongst local authorities which have been settled for many years. The irony of the situation was that those of us who argued about the traditions of some of the smaller local authorities, as I tried to argue about my own, were brushed aside and told that traditions were of no importance. The only tradition that mattered in the Bill was the City of London. To judge from the Minister's statement, that was the only justification why the City should he retained. As for everybody else, however, traditions were ignored.
  358
  Part II of the Bill deals with traffic and roads. Despite what the Minister says about Amendments, we still do not believe that the powers of the Minister of Transport have been curbed and that he will be left with default powers only. In simple terms, as the Bill has come through Committee and leaves this House, it adds up to the fact that for the whole of the Greater London area, 60 per cent. of Class I roads will be transferred to the Greater London Council and 40 per cent. to the London boroughs. The 60 per cent. will be called Metropolitan roads. All trunk roads remain with the Minister of Transport. All other roads—Classes II, III and IV—will go to the London boroughs.
  Is it really to be believed that we can get genuine planning and co-ordination with all these various people involved in trying to deal with the road situation? This is anarchy. That is why there has been misunderstanding by some of our friends outside, who afterwards criticise us for trying to give more power to the Greater London Council. Once Part I of the Bill had gone through and the G.L.C. had been established, our task was to give it real power. We wanted the Greater London Council to have the sort of authority which many of us on this side have dreamed of, particularly in regard to roads, traffic and planning. At the end of the day, the Minister has the power. He has power concerning finance. He can always say "No" by refusing to advance money. He always has default power to step in and amend any plans which are not in the interest of the nation.
  A body of the size of the Greater London Council should have been given genuine powers, no matter what political party may run it. A great chance has been missed in the Bill and we have left behind a shambles which is divided amongst 32 Greater London boroughs, all of which will have their arguments. With responsibility for Class I roads being split up in this way and the Minister of Transport coming in with trunk roads, how can we expect genuine co-ordination? There is bound to be delay and a great deal of consultation, argument, rowing and the sort of thing of which the Minister has often spoken when saying that he has been unable

  359
  ever to get agreement with local authorities. We have missed a great chance with the Bill.
  In spite of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said about planning, we believe that this is a function which should have been mainly that of the Greater London Council, together with its road and traffic powers, so that this body could do a first-class job. Instead, the powers are being divided. No matter what the Minister says about the future, more time will be spent in consultation than in real planning. The Minister has said that there will have to be different teams of planners. I can see how many teams we will have, all of them with different ideas, dashing about the area.
  I turn now to education. In Committee, I spoke of the position of voluntary schools, which are worried that they will have to consult more than 20 of the outer authorities, including the Inner London Education Authority. They are alarmed and worried. This is no party political argument. We asked for assurances from the Minister and thought that he might have done something on Report, but he has made no attempt to do it. Most of us regard the replies that we were given in Committee as most unsatisfactory. I warn the Minister that this is not the last that his Department has heard of that one. We are coming back to it; if not in another place then he will hear about it in many other ways. We have been told that the demonstrations by parents and teachers against the Bill were somehow politically inspired. I beg hon. Members opposite to believe that that is not true.
  There is genuine fear that the great education service built up by the L.C.C. will be destroyed in 1970. We have had all sorts of assurances from the Government. But I say again that the provision making it mandatory to have a review of the education service in 1970 can be interpreted only as showing that the original intention of the Government to hand education over to the boroughs still stands. Despite their assurances, we do not trust the Government on this issue. The only satisfaction we have is that we think that their days in office are numbered and that therefore it does not matter what they say now. Let us hope that in 1970 they will not be around.
  360
  The present situation fully justifies the anxieties of parents and teachers. I have been in this House for 17 years and I have never before seen such voluntary demonstrations as we witnessed while this Bill was in progress. What is democracy about if those who are vitally concerned are brushed aside? We had a demonstration by 4,000 teachers and parents on the night before we discussed this issue in Committee upstairs. They have no banners. No police were knocked around. There was no political inspiration. People came from my constituency whom I have never seen before.
  The demonstration was genuine. Hon. Members opposite knew that it was genuine but nevertheless they brushed it aside. The Minister was pleased when some of his hon. Friends claimed that the protest was inspired by Left-wing organisations. I point out to them that those remarks have got back to the parents and teachers concerned and have caused a number of them who were no political friends of ours to think very seriously indeed about this. They came to this House convinced that they would be listened to by hon. Members opposite. That did not happen and they will remember.
  We have never said that many of the present services provided by the counties should not be transferred to the boroughs. The Labour Party has for years said that there was need for some sort of reform of London government. Since 1953 we have been urging that some of the services now performed by the county councils should be given to the boroughs. But the extent to which they are now to be transferred, and the maner in which it is to be done, Ls asking for very serious trouble.
  The one test we have sought to use in considering the transference of services and their fragmentation, is whether they will be at least as well run as they are at the moment—not necessarily better run but at least as well run. We have never been given such assurances and some of us are very alarmed that some services might be hurt.
  If services of this kind are transferred to various authorities in an area, then we are bound to get unevenness. Some boroughs will do their job better than others. That is not overstating the case. But it will be tragedy for people in one

  361
  borough where a service is not as good as it is in a neighbouring borough.
  We have agreed that on Third Reading all our speeches will be short. In order to prove that the critical approach to this has been non-political from this side of the House, I will explain how I am affected as a Member of this House by these mergers and shotgun weddings. The boundaries will have to be redrawn in order to cover the appropriate electorates. I will come out of that with one of the biggest Labour majorities in the country. But I do not want it like this.
  It would have paid me to have sat back on this Bill and watched the machine going through on the ground that I was all right individually. But I am too proud of London to have done so. Nevertheless, I point out to Members opposite that politically I will be better off. Thus, if I had approached this matter purely in my political interest I should have been supporting the Bill. The harm which has been done to the services far outweighs any personal advantages which I may gain.
  I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). He led us magnificently in Committee. His own personal performance brought him great credit and certainly brought my party credit. His homework was quite extraordinary and those of us who worked alongside him can only feel proud of what he did.
  The Government have no mandate for the Bill. I believe—and I can say this with authority as chairman of the London Labour Party, which is a political organisation—that when the next General Election comes—and I pray it comes soon—we shall make this the number one issue in London. The hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway) can take it from me that he will have to defend what he said in Committee, but this time in public. I can guarantee if I know the people of London—and I think that I know them pretty well—that I have no doubt as to the verdict which they will bring. Many of the so-called Londoners who supported the Bill will not be here after the next General Election.
  8.41 p.m.
  Sir Lionel Heald: During the passage of the Bill through the House attention, naturally, has been concentrated on those areas and those people who are
  362
  directly affected by the Bill, and at first sight it may be wondered why someone representing Chertsey should take part in the debate. It is right to say that throughout the Bill Ministers have frankly recognised that those counties which are to lose their metropolitan fringes are entitled to consideration and have arguments which should be taken into account.
  Notably on Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Minister referred especially to Clause 66, as it then was, which provided for compensation in respect of the additional financial burden which would fall on the excluded areas. My right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) has asked me to say that he very much regrets that he cannot be here this evening. He has taken a great part in the consideration of this matter and I have to act as a substitute for him, however inadequately.
  On Second Reading, he made it clear—he was the champion of the Surrey position throughout—that the adequacy of Clause 66 would have to be considered very carefully. Clause 66 emerged from Committee unamended. We cannot discuss or even know what took place in Committee, but it will probably not be any revelation of a secret to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate did his best to ensure that the Clause would be amended, but the only change as it appeared yesterday was that its number had been changed to 68.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister clearly appreciated that that aspect of the matter required further consideration, because Clause 68 was one of the Clauses included in the Recommittal stage. Having been returned from that further consideration, the Clause now differs from the original in two respects. First, it extends the length of the tapering period from five to eight years and, secondly, it reduces what my right hon. Friend called the threshold from 6d. to 5d., that is to say, it is necessary to show a deficiency of only 5d. rather than 6d. in order to qualify.
  That amounts to very little because that is a difference of a penny and during the tapering period there is a continuous reduction of a fraction of that penny until we get down to one-eighth of a penny in the last period. My right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate described that

  363
  threshold provision as a bar, but it is certainly not an appropriate word for us because we get no refreshment from it.
  The first that was known of the Government's proposal for ameliorating the position was when the Motion for Recommittal of the Bill was tabled. There was not time to get sufficient information from the council with regard to the matter, but I am now advised on what I believe to be very reliable authority that the reduction from 6d. to 5d. of this threshold will be nugatory from Surrey's point of view.
  We have to remember that on revaluation the 5d. becomes 1s. 3d. and that, therefore, before Surrey can obtain any relief it would have to suffer a deficiency of 1s. 3d. in the £, which, on the new rateable value, is a substantial sum. Indeed, I am told that the position in Surrey is that on the Government's proposals as they stood before yesterday's Amendment we would not have qualified for any compensation because under the new assessment the 6d. is equal to nearly 1s. 6d., and even with the additional 1d. the sum involved would be very small indeed. In effect, there would be no compensation at all.
  It is inappropriate to discuss the details of that matter on this occasion, but I find it difficult to believe that that is what my right hon. Friend the Minister really intended or would wish to see. During the Second Reading debate he said that he would consider this matter, and there is no doubt that he clearly intended by this Amendment which has now been introduced to ensure that some compensation was obtainable, but in fact it appears that the figures do not justify it.
  We recognise—certainly I do—that my right hon. Friend and his predecessor have throughout been understanding and sympathetic to the points of view of the fringe areas.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: He has never been here.
  Sir L. Heald: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that these matters can only be dealt with by those who are present in the Committee, and I was not a member of the Committee. When the hon. Gentleman says that I was not here, I think that he is wrong
  364
  about that. He was talking about the Committee, and we are not in Committee now.
  Mr. Lewis: The right hon. and learned Gentleman misunderstood my point. He referred to the Minister and his predecessor, who, he said, had been kind and helpful. I said that the Minister's predecessor had never put his nose inside the Chamber during the whole of the passage of the Bill.
  Sir L. Heald: The hon. Gentleman did not quite appreciate what I meant. I thought that he was inaccurate, but never mind that; it may be something that it is not possible to avoid. I was referring to the preparation of the Bill, to the discussions that took place, and to the representations that were made by my constituents and other people which my right hon. Friend and his predecessor considered very carefully.
  Mr. Lewis: Since the Minister's predecessor left office he has never put his nose in the place while the Bill has been discussed. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shut up."] I will not shut up. I want to get this on the record.
  Sir L. Heald: That is not true. We in Chertsey have not forgotten the breadth of approach which resulted in the exclusion from the scheme of our neighbours in Walton, Weybridge, Esher, Sunbury, and Staines, and which provided—[Laughter.] The hon. Member may be amused, but I think that he may learn something if he listens to what I say.
  Mr. Mellish: I do not want to be too serious about this, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be saying that he is delighted with the Bill because he and his Friends are not in it.
  Sir L. Heald: That is a very easy thing to say. I am sure that he likes a nice easy ball to hit, because he has had a lot of difficulties over the Bill. I was saying that we appreciate that this difficult problem of the fringe areas has in most respects been considered with sympathy and understanding.
  Two points of importance were concerned here. The first was that our own divisional education area in Surrey would have been seriously affected if these adjoining areas—and the boundary between constituencies is simply a line on a map—had been put into Greater

  365
  London. That point was dealt with for us. In addition, we had the problem of the Green Belt, which we were most anxious to retain in Surrey and which was in fact retained in that area. That was a very important matter.
  Mr. Doughty: My right hon. and learned Friend may be speaking for Chertsey, but he is not speaking for Coulsdon and Purley, or Epsom. The things that he has said are grossly inaccurate.
  Sir L. Heald: I never try to speak for any constituency except my own, but I am prepared to speak for that, and with great respect to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty), I am entitled to do so.
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend intended that the concession that he introduced by the Amendment yesterday should be of benefit to Surrey. In fact, as I have said, I am advised on what I believe to be excellent authority that in the form in which it was produced the Amendment does not have any financially beneficial effect.
  In those circumstances, before my right hon. Friend asks us to give the Bill a Third Reading, I hope that he will assure us that he will consider the figures and details, which are not available to me this evening, but which do exist, and that he will allow the Surrey County Council to put them before him. Secondly, if the figures disclose the state of affairs that I have suggested, I hope that he will agree to give serious consideration to the matter either in another pace or before the Bill goes there. By doing so he will be able to feel that he is doing what he intended to do, namely, provide substantial compensation and, secondly, he will certainly make it less difficult for a number of hon. Members representing Surrey constituencies to support the Bill's Third Reading.
  8.54 p.m.
  Mr. Pavitt: I know that the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) will forgive me if I do not follow him too, far, first into the heart of Surrey and, secondly, into the intricacies of the financial arrangements therefor during the transitional period. Having heard his contribution to the
  366
  Third Reading debate, I hope that if he does not obtain the assurance that he wants from the Minister he will join us in voting against the Bill.
  I have never been so pleased to reach the end of a Bill as I have been to reach the end of this one. It was a thoroughly bad Bill to start with, and our proceedings in Committee have been a tiring and tedious exercise, twice a week and all day long on Tuesdays, in an endeavour to try to do something to provide the maximum amount of benefit for local government in the London area. When the Government introduced the Bill they had two conscious intentions. First, they took the view that it was time for a reform of local government in the London area, and they were prepared to tackle the problem. I take no exception to that. Hon. Members on this side of the House have accepted that the form of London government will not remain static for all time. The intention was good. But what has emerged in the final form of the Bill has been entirely bad.
  The second conscious intention of the Government in introducing this Bill was to make local government a reality and bring it closer to the people. The more we study the separate sections of the Bill the more it becomes obvious that here, too, the Government have failed. But in their dark subconscious lurked the real intention that provided the driving force. They wanted to get rid of the London County Council and in that they have succeeded. One of the most fantastic features of the debates which led to the present geographical boundaries of the new boroughs was that among all the speeches from both sides of the House only one hon. Member, so far as I recollect, indicated any kind of acceptance of the proposals of the Government. That was the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper). Whenever there were discussions which affected their areas hon. Members who knew their own localities raised objections.
  The discussions were not without their blessings and I shall treasure for a long time one of the gems of our debates—if I may so put it without being fulsome—contributed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) who made a passionate and sincere plea for his own area. That was a contribution

  367
  which the House thoroughly enjoyed. I congratulate the Minister on rising to the same standard on that occasion as was exhibited by the Opposition Front Bench. He dealt with the matter at the same high level of debate. Apart from one or two odd moments such as that, we found that we were going miserably into a shotgun marriage between areas which we felt were often incompatible.
  Alliances were made across the Chamber and they were not on party lines. I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) is in the Chamber, because at one time there existed a "troika" consisting of the two Conservative Members of Parliament who represent Wembley and the hon. Member on this side of the House who represents Willesden, West, because of the thoroughly bad arrangement of that part of the Bill affecting those two places.
  It was with concern that we came to discuss the representation on the Greater London Council which now emerges in this final edition of the Bill. When examining in detail the broad overall provisions, one naturally refers to them in terms of one's own locality. The 175,000 people in Willesden are to have two representatives on the Greater London Council. Apart from any idea of their being able to give good service as local authority representatives, this means that the idea of the Government about bringing the Greater London Council closer to the people has not materialised in my constituency. How can two representatives keep in contact with great measures of planning in an over-built area such as that which I represent? Planning will be the responsibility of the Greater London Council and the development of new communities will affect Willesden people for the next generation or two. Yet we are to have this inadequate representation.
  One of the hopes which emerges from the mass of misery which the Bill brings in its train is the possibility of joint action between boroughs to repair some of the damage caused by fragmentation. I do not desire to discuss parts of the Bill other than those which have been, throughout its passage my particular interest, namely, those dealing with health
  368
  and welfare and child care. Now that the Bill is in this form, I hope that full advantage will be taken of the co-ordination and co-operation between a number of new boroughs in order that the services, as they are at present constituted, shall not suffer. I am concerned particularly with mental health. It is true that in the day-to-day application we need close personal contact in the domiciliary care for people suffering from mental disorders of any kind. But the only way in which that care can be sustained is by having adequate specialist advice and services at the top and provision for training, and institutional and other forms of residential care covering a wide variety of forms to back up the domiciliary service. In planning, policy and scale of provision this will mean that the 32 boroughs must find some groupings by which they can get together if the service is not to suffer.
  In welfare we have precisely the same problem. I concentrate on only one part of that, the welfare of the blind. As I said in Committee, unless the Minister is able to persuade the local boroughs to get together, provision for blind people cannot go on on the same standard as now. In the whole of nine boroughs there are only two people qualified to deal with the blind deaf. How are we to share them? In the next five years how can we provide the trained experts necessary to give an adequate service? The only way in which I can see the standards of provisions we have under the present dispensation being maintained is by achieving a much greater degree of co-ordination and centralised direction of services in a cooperative form which can be used by the local boroughs concerned through mutual agreement.
  Provision and use of accommodation are talked of in blanket terms of welfare and health, yet in each specialty there is a wide variety. In residential accommodation for welfare there may be one specialty with as many as 10 different variations in 10 different boroughs. There is need for agreement, for example, over the education of the sub-normal, in another case in treatment of the mentally disordered and in another the geriatric cases which have slight mental instability. We have to make provision for each of these. There cannot be provision for all of them in each borough. The only way

  369
  to meet the problem is to have some agreement whereby one borough will cater for a particulary specialty in return for another borough catering for another specialty.
  When we talk about local government we mean the mass of the residents in an area. The provisions of local government for health and welfare are made for those with special needs and not for the normal members of the community. That is one of the reasons for having a local authority which can provide services which individuals cannot provide for themselves. In child care we shall have absolute chaos unless there can be agreement between local authorities to operate a service with similar policies. If we have a widely different set of standards in one area from that of another next door, in the system of migration which goes on between borough and borough in the London area we can have the appalling situation whereby a family of four children are all treated on different scales of charges and in different ways of rehabilitation. Then we have more difficulty in what after all is one of the basic matters of child care, the reuniting of the family under care under the same roof as normal members of the community.
  We have hammered away at all these things in Committee to get some conformity in the services, but I am afraid that we have failed. Responsibility for the sick, the needy, the mentally distressed or mentally disordered, the blind and the deaf—with all these categories we shall be making a gamble by this Bill as to whether or not they have the same standards of treatment. We are not gambling among ourselves but with people whom we have no right to put in jeopardy.
  We reach the Third Reading of this Bill, which will now go on its way. I have faith in the Londoners that they will make the best of a bad job. I have faith that we shall get the best possible out of the new boroughs and the best possible services they can provide. I have faith that people will still come forward, in spite of the difficulties which the Minister has tied round our necks, and will try to solve these problems to the best of their ability. It would have been a far better thing if we had nor to face the hazards which the Minister has placed in our way.
  370
  This Bill will be a problem for all those concerned with local government in the decade ahead. My only hope is that perhaps this tired Government will find it expedient to quit and that we may have a General Election before April, 1964. If we do my pressure will be for a small Bill to put this position back again until such time as we can reorganise London government in a way worthy of London's traditions.
  9.6 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Russell: The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), who is one of my political next-door neighbours, referred to the cooperation that existed between us on one particular stage of the Bill. It was not my intention to refer to that tonight. I have not changed my views on the merger, but if the Bill becomes law, I shall do my best, as I am sure he will do, to try to make it work. It is our duty to do that.
  I want to refer to something quite different. It is something that is in the Bill, which, with all due deference to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, has not been discussed, so far as I know, either in Committee or on the Floor of the House. That is the method of election under the Fourth Schedule, paragraph 8, page 124, which, in rather complicated matters of legislation by reference, lays down that in the whole of the area the 32 new boroughs will have triennial elections. That means a complete change of system for the 20 new boroughs which are at present outside the L.C.C. area, and the same system for those that are in the L.C.C. area.
  I have had experience of working in the L.C.C. area in Southwark before the last war, in Norwood, where I was L.C.C. member for Lambeth during the first six years after the last war, and in Wembley, during the last fourteen years. I cannot help feeling, although I am open to argument on this, that the system now used in outside areas is better than the triennial one. I think that it is better for the reason that triennial elections usually result in a lower percentage poll, partly because people do not get used to voting regularly at the same time every year as they do in annual elections.
  In the metropolitan borough council elections of 1959, the average poll of the

  371
  28 metropolitan boroughs was 30·4 per cent. I have calculated that—my arithmetic is not always very good—from figures given in the Registrar General's Statistical Review of England and Wales, 1961. The corresponding figures for 1962 were just a shade higher, 30·6 per cent. On the other hand, in the Middlesex boroughs and urban districts, not in those same two years, but in 1961 and 1962, the corresponding figures were 38·5 and 439 per cent.
  Mrs. Corbet: Does the hon. Gentleman think it fair to give figures like those when there are such discrepancies in the London area itself, as, for instance, between Wandsworth and Hampstead and Bethnal Green?
  Mr. Russell: I am coming to that and I shall quote one or two disparities. In the Borough of Stepney, for instance, in 1962, the average poll was 18 per cent. I once stood in an L.C.C. election in Southwark before the war. My Conservative colleague was the present Lord Jessel. We were opposing the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) and Lord Silkin. We made such an impact on the electorate that 79 per cent. of them stayed at home on polling day. The figure for Stepney is even worse; 18 per cent, voted in the election in 1962 as compared, as the hon. Lady said, with 42·1 per cent, in Wandsworth and 41 per cent, in Fulham.
  Mrs. Corbet: Does not the hon. Gentleman draw a moral from that? Can he not think of another reason than the one he is giving? I can.
  Mr. Russell: There may be many reasons. There are equal disparities in the Middlesex boroughs. In 1962, Edmonton had a 75 per cent, poll and Tottenham, which, I think, is next door to it, had a 26 per cent. poll. That is a big disparity. I could quote more figures, but I do not want to weary the House.
  I think that the system of elections may have something to do with the reduction in the percentage. It is a question which my right hon. Friend should examine. In none of the other boroughs and county boroughs in England and Wales, nor in most of the urban districts, nor, as far as I can make out, in the Scottish burghs do they have triennial elections as we are proposing for the whole of the London
  372
  area. I wonder why. I wonder whether it is my right hon. Friend's intention to change the system throughout the country.
  I do not think that the system should be changed without an investigation being made and some reason being given. I know that my right hon. Friend has not yet had an opportunity of doing so. I wonder whether, in his winding-up speech, he could say what consideration he has given to this and what his views are. If there are any doubts about it, I hope that he will consider it again and, if necessary, amend the Bill in another place.
  Another argument against this system is that it makes for a lack of continuity. I think that I mentioned this point in another speech on the Bill. For example, in Stoke Newington, when the council came to an end at the end of the war, there was a swing over from a Conservative majority the exact nature of which I do not know in 1945, but I think that it was a 100 per cent, majority when the council was elected in 1938. At any rate, it swung over from a very large Conservative majority to a 100 per cent. Labour majority. In 1949, it swung back again to 23 Conservatives out of 30 and seven Socialists. Four years later it swung back the other way to six Conservatives and 24 Socialists. These are the figures which have been given to me. If the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) would care to correct them I should be only too happy.
  Mr. Weitzman: I have not got the figures with me, but I am sure that the horn. Gentleman must be wrong when he speaks of a swing over to a Conservative majority. I do not think that we have had a swing over to a Conservative majority since we saw the light in 1938.
  Mr. Russell: These figures have been given to me as correct. This is another objection to the triennial system. It sometimes gives acute swings like that which may make it difficult for the new party returned to power to make chairmen of committees.
  Mr. Mellish: I think that the hon. Gentleman must be speaking for himself. I understand that the political parties would favour triennial and not annual elections.
  Mr. Russell: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion, but one or two of my right hon. and hon. Friends would certainly like the matter to be examined. They are not at all happy about a system of triennial election.
  My point is that this is a big change in the method of election for boroughs outside the L.C.C. area, particularly remembering that the system employed by the vast majority of boroughs and county boroughs in England and Wales is the same as that outside the L.C.C. area. I do not think that this system should be adopted without some reasons being given for the change, some reasons which will convince me that the system is better.
  If my right hon. Friend is not so convinced, I hope that he will not hesitate to make an Amendment to the Bill in another place.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Driberg: On the relatively few occasions on which I have been able to intervene in these debates, I have always been treated by the Minister with perfect courtesy. He has occasionally been a bit quick on the draw—a little touchy even—but always courteous. It is some consolation to the condemned man when the hangman has nice manners. I thank the Minister for that, at any rate.
  He has been noticeably more tender, in his substantial handling of Amendments, to some of his hon. Friends than he has to my hon. Friends and myself. In saying that, I must judge by the case which is, naturally, most interesting to me, that of my own constituency of Barking. It has been treated in the most brutally and inequitably harsh way in this Bill: it is being merged with Dagenham. Dagenham people are of sterling character, but we in Barking were anxious, as the Minister knows and as we could well have done, to continue on our own.
  Barking has traditions and a history at least as ancient and honourable as those of the City of London, which the Minister has been so anxious in the Bill to safeguard. Naturally, the moguls of the City are his friends also; and I speak in a party political sense. Since the primary object of the Bill is the murder of the London County Council, with its built-in Labour
  374
  majority, it is not surprising that this has been the Government's attitude during these debates. It is, perhaps, their determination to preserve the City of London as it is, with all its obsolete, archaic, illogical flummery, that illustrates most clearly the difference between the real purposes and the pretended purposes of the Bill. Of course, the City of London should be merged with Stepney—although that might be rather an insult to Stepney. Throgmorton Street is a far more disgusting street than Cable Street.
  Despite all this, I want to mention one or two points of detail which are in the Bill. I feel sure that the Minister, who, as I have said—and I meant it genuinely—is always so courteous, will not follow the example of the Parliamentary Secretary in chiding those of us who were not called to serve on the Standing Committee for daring to raise in the House matters which are perfectly in order but which may have been more or—probably, I suppose—less exhaustively dealt with upstairs.
  I propose, therefore, to raise several specific points of detail on which I would like some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. Clause 44, which deals with cemeteries and crematoria, contains this paragraph:
  Provided that nothing in any such Order shall prevent the interment of the body of any person in the cathedral church of St. Paul's, London, or in the collegiate church of St. Peter's, Westminster, if Her Majesty signifies Her pleasure that the body be so interred.
  Incidentally, there are, of course, in line 27 two otiose apostrophe s's which should not be there; another slip of drafting, I suppose.
  As we know, Mr. Speaker, Her Majesty is a constitutional monarch who acts in all public matters on the advice of her Ministers. I take it, therefore, that in this respect, too, she will be acting on the advice of her Ministers? She does, after all, so act in ecclesiastical matters, such as the appointment of bishops, as well as in secular matters.
  If that be so, I cannot quite understand how the position and the rights of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster are safeguarded. It is, admittedly, a Royal peculiar, but it is still a peculiar, and I think that the Dean and Chapter have complete power in the Abbey

  375
  Church. Similar, if not identical, considerations apply to St. Paul's Cathedral. I wonder whether the Minister can let me know—if he can obtain the information within the next hour or two—what exactly the phrase
  "… if Her Majesty signifies Her pleasure …"
  means in this context; and, possibly, whether he may feel disposed in another place to add a few appropriate references to the Deans and Chapters?
  On the next page, page 61—still on the subject of cemeteries and crematoria—the last few lines of subsection (5) read:
  "… the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not affect the right of the incumbent of any ecclesiastical parish in the City to perform funeral services in respect of his own parishioners."
  Those words seems to ignore the existence of the relatively new but highly imaginative experiment known as the Guild Churches. The Minister will be aware—because I know that he has a genuine love of Wren architecture, the fine old buildings generally—of this experiment, by which it has proved possible to preserve a number of these notable churches; but, though they are, of course, still used for services during the week, they are not parish churches. Do the words in this subsection mean that Guild Church vicars are not allowed to hold funeral services for members of their congregations? I should be grateful for a clarification of these words.
  Turning to page 72, I come to a point which I am sure the Minister will have no difficulty in answering. Indeed, if he does not feel disposed, or has not time, to answer it, I shall not press him unduly. In Clause 57 there is a list of the various properties—such as Kenwood, the Royal Festival Hall, the Geffrye Museum, and other institutions connected with the arts—which the Greater London Council will be taking over from the L.C.C. The L.C.C. has built up over the years a tremendous tradition of enlightened patronage of the arts. I need only mention, apart from the buildings listed here, the exhibitions of sculpture in Battersea Park and elsewhere. I hope very much that the Minister can tell us that the Greater London Council will perpetuate that tradition. It would make a real gap in the cultural life of London if that were lost with the L.C.C.
  376
  My final point arises on page 183 of the Bill. I was interested to see the mention in Clause 57 of the Royal Festival Hall, which is such a great asset to London, because it is not mentioned in the top six lines of page 183—Schedule 12—where we find listed various "Royal" places of entertainment, such as the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, the Royal Covent Garden Opera House, and so on. A very serious omission, which I hope the Minister may feel disposed to correct in another place, is the omission of the most vital and important Theatre Royal in London—I mean, of course, the Theatre Royal, Stratford, E.15. Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with that point when he replies?
  9.25 p.m.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Unlike the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) and other hon. Members who have spoken from the other side of the House, I have supported the Bill and I hope to vote for its Third Reading. The Tory Party, a reforming party, has undertaken a courageous and overdue reform. I would give it to the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) that my support has been more willingly given for the exclusion from the Greater London Area of the Chigwell urban district, the exclusion made by my right hon. Friend's predecessor on the undisputed facts of what is very much a green belt district.
  The County of Essex, however, is deeply disturbed about a matter which was raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), namely that of transitional assistance. I do not wish to go into this matter deeply myself. My name has appeared above certain Amendments on the Order Paper which have not been called, and it may be that others of my hon. Friends will be seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to raise this matter about which the County of Essex, even worse treated than the other truncated counties, feels very strongly.
  I wish to refer to another matter which was not raised on Second Reading and was perhaps more appropriate to the Committee stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) tried to move an Amendment in Standing Committee on 19th March but was unsuccessful. It is the

  377
  matter of the relationship between the new Greater London Area and the Metropolitan Police District. The view which I want to put forward is the view of both the Essex County Council and the Chigwell Urban District Council and of many of my constituents.
  They wish Chigwell urban district to be excluded from the Metropolitan Police District, and not included as provided in Clause 73. The County Council has had correspondence with the Home Office, and in this correspondence it has had no satisfactory or recent reply. The Chigwell Urban District Council resolved by a substantial majority on 19th December last to inform the Home Secretary that
  "Having regard to action proposed in respect of Hornchurch and Romford, as Chigwell Urban District Council is to be excluded from the Greater London Area, the Council feels that it would be logical to adjust the boundaries of the Metropolitan Police District in the area covered by the Essex county police."
  The Council went on to ask for the necessary steps to be taken.
  I have asked a number of Parliamentary Questions and have been referred in reply to an undertaking given by the Home Secretary to the Chigwell Urban District Council that its representations would be borne in mind in the course of further consideration of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department gave a like undertaking in a letter to me on 21st January. He told me that his right hon. Friend
  "reached the conclusion that, while it would be necessary to bring Romford and Horn-church into the Metropolitan Police District "—
  That is a change—
  "no further change should be made."
  How was that conclusion reached and why is no further change to be entertained?
  My hon. Friend in his letter went on to tell me that
  "The Home Secretary's view was that the boundary which has remained substantially unchanged for over a century best meets the operational requirements of the police."
  He adds that
  "there are special problems involved in policing the Metropolis."
  We have not been informed what are these operational requirements and what are the special problems.
  378
  I pay a tribute to the Metropolitan Police and to the Essex Constabulary. The Metropolitan Police operating in the Chigwell urban district have difficult problems, some difficult people and difficult localities. But I ask whether the views of, for example, the Chief Constable of Essex and the Standing Joint Committee have been considered. It is surely a matter of public order that there should be close contact between the police force and many county services. The highway, ambulance and fire services spring to mind.
  The Bill, as it stands, leaves Chigwell and Waltham Holy Cross as the only county districts outside the Essex police area. It is only fair to say that there is, I believe, a different view held in Waltham Holy Cross, which is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Finlay). However, I consider that my local council and the local people should have been taken more into the Government's confidence. There should have been consultation.
  I am not necessarily opposing the retention of Chigwell within the Metropolitan Police District because it is anomalous. Some anomalies can be defended. I am willing to be persuaded, if it be possible, that public order will be better served by leaving matters as they are. The councillors of Chigwell are reasonable and sensible people, and so are the county councillors. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether the change we desire can be made in another place. At least, if the Government are adamant about it, let them talk to the councillors concerned. Let them take us into their confidence. I feel that the Government owe this to my constituents and they owe it also to their standing with the public of Chigwell and Essex.
  Captain Walter Elliot: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the situation in districts in Surrey, including Banstead, which I represent, which are now outside the Greater London Area but are still within the Metropolitan Police District? We have exactly the same problem. The reason I have been given locally for why these areas have been included in the Metropolitan Police District is that there are big racecourses there. 1 do not know whether that applies to Chigwell. It applies to Esher, I think, and. of course, to Epsom; but it does not

  379
  apply to Banstead, where we have no racecourse.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Alas, we have no racecourse. But I am most grateful for my hon. and gallant Friend's support.
  9.34 p.m.
  Mr. Weitzman: As one who served on the Committee and took some part in its deliberations, I feel very sad and bitter tonight that we have now reached the Third Reading of the Bill, and I can only express the hope that, even at this late hour, the House will see fit to reject it on Third Reading.
  This is an unwanted Bill. It certainly was not wanted by any Member on this side of the House. It was not wanted, I venture to suggest, by many hon. Members opposite. Hon. Members opposite whose constituencies are directly affected by the Bill were, I submit, against it. They may have agreed with certain parts of it, but they were certainly against the carving up contemplated under the Bill. Why were Members representing interests affected by the Bill against it? The Minister must know the answer. They were against the Bill because the people in their areas did not want it.
  I have said that I am very sorry about the stage that we have reached tonight, because the Bill involves the disappearance of the boroughs which I have the honour to represent, Stoke Newington and Hackney. They will be joined with another borough and will lose their individuality as boroughs. Boroughs which have worked happily and well in the past are now to be joined with others. What is the reason for this? The answer is, to allow the Government to carry out an experiment.
  I have said that many hon. Members opposite representing areas affected and Members on this side of this House are against the Bill. If the Bill rested with Members representing areas affected by it, it would not, in my judgment, have the remotest chance of being passed. It is being pushed through by the Government only because they have the support of Members who have nothing to do with the areas affected by it. Members directly interested in the Bill have made their contributions on Second Reading, and we have discussed the Bill in Committee and on Report. The
  380
  Minister has put forward his desires in the form of Amendments, and so on, and hon. Members with not the faintest idea of what the Bill is about, and not affected by it, have supported the Government. Because of the opposition to the Bill, the Government have sought, by means of the Guillotine, to rush it through with unseemly haste.
  I wish particularly to deal with something that the Parliamentary Secretary said on moving the Third Reading. He had the audacity to say—I use the word advisedly—that there was ample time in which to discuss the Bill's provisions. That is simply not true, and it is most important that the electorate should know how untrue it is.
  The Second Reading took place on 10th and 11th December. The Christmas Recess intervened between the Second Reading and the next stage. Clause 1 was taken on the Floor of the House and we then had 21 sittings in Committee. Sometimes, morning and afternoon, two days of the week were devoted to the Committee stage. We have had 21 sittings in Committee which were rushed through in that unseemly fashion. The Report stage has also been rushed through and we are now on Second Reading—[Laughter.] I mean Third Reading. This may be a matter of amusement for some hon. Members opposite. I think that it is absolutely scandalous. The electorate should know the stupid, silly and ignorant way in which these things are done. When we remember what the Bill does, and what it contains, it is disgraceful to contemplate the mode of its passage.
  This is a Bill of major importance. It has 90 Clauses and 17 Schedules, many of them long and complex. It deals with the future of millions of people. One has only to look at the Bill to see the sort of things that it deals with. I put it in detail because it is so important to recognise the position. Road traffic, highways, motor vehicles, housing, town and country planning, education and youth services, application of the Public Health Acts, health and welfare centres and rating and valuation—all of these affect the lives of millions of people. Each of these matters would be enough to be contained in a Bill on its own. If hon. Members opposite think for a moment, they will recognise the truth of this.

  381
  Think of the detail. I take as an example one of the matters that we have discussed for only a short time—the subject of education. Have we had any real time to discuss the tremendous change which is made in education, the creation of the Inner London Education Authority and the transfer of education administration to the outer London boroughs? We have concentrated, so to speak, on discussion mainly of only one item—whether there should be a review before 1970.
  Think of the many other problems concerning education. When did we have the opportunity to discuss them? Is it right or fair that a Bill of this kind, making such enormous changes, should not be discussed in detail in the House? As other hon. Members have said, there have been tremendous protests by parents and teachers. No notice has been taken of them and the iniquitous provision concerning the review still remains in the Bill.
  Another point which has aroused a certain amount of discussion is the changes affecting the staff. If ever there was a disgraceful action by the Minister—I say this directly to him—it is in regard to the course of conduct he has adopted about safeguarding the interests of the staff. In Committee, a Clause was inserted in the Bill with the support of hon. Members on both sides. On Report, the Clause has been deleted with nothing in its place to safeguard the interests of the staff. It is true that we have an assurance from the Minister and he can refer to certain Schedules, but the Clause has gone and to a considerable extent we have to rely upon the assurances given by the Minister. I have no doubt that he means to carry them out. He is a man of honour and, no doubt, will do it. but if by any tragic fate another Tory Government were to be returned—which I do not consider likely or at all possible—how do we know that an assurance of that kind would be carried out?
  Criticism has been made concerning public health, housing and the many problems to be dealt with in various other spheres. When have we had time to discuss these matters in any detail? What has happened is that at the end of a certain period, we have been left with a considerable number of Amendments which could not possibly be discussed with the result that they went by the
  382
  board. This important Measure has been dealt with in that way.
  Mr. A. E. Cooper: In the days before the Guillotine was put on the Bill, very nearly five hours was lost by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) calling Divisions on all sorts of Amendments. This was time which could have been used for debating various items. Yesterday, another l¼ hours was lost through Divisions being called, plus a 25-minute speech by the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). So, if the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) is criticising the lack of time for discussion, it is not to this side that he should look but to his own side.
  Mr. Weitzman: The hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Michael Cliffe: May I ask a question? [HON. MEMBERS: No.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have intervention upon intervention. The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has the Floor.
  Mr. Weitzman: The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) was not on the Standing Committee. I was present when the Guillotine Motion was discussed. The time referred to by the hon. Gentleman was well spent in opposing the disgraceful proposals by the Government, but that is no excuse for the Government's action in preventing proper discussion of this Measure. It is disgraceful and I hope that the electorate will know about this and the way in which the Bill has been pushed through.
  It is quite obvious that the Parliamentary draftsmen had a gigantic task because they were asked to include words affecting other Bills and to deal with many complex and detailed matters. It is not surprising that many of the Clauses are badly drafted. That has been obvious from the number of drafting Amendments.
  This Bill deals in detail with many diverse and complex matters. It is badly drafted. It is unwanted by those whose interests are directly affected. It has been denied discussion in detail and has been

  383
  rushed through with unseemly haste. That summarises the history of the Bill far more aptly than the Joint Parliamentary Secretary did when he moved the Third Reading.
  Why has this been done? Much has been said about the Government's opposition to the L.C.C. and their desire to destroy it. I have said before, and I repeat, that the reason behind this Bill is political. I believe that the Government recognised the writing on the wall. They knew their time was coming to an end and desperately tried to push this stupid, ill-considered and ill-advised Measure through in an endeavour to improve their political lot. But it will not do, and I urge those Members opposite who are, in their hearts, dead against the Bill to join us in defeating this Measure. I know that many of them feel that way and that the Bill could be defeated if they were true to what they really believe in.
  I express the further hope that, if the Bill does receive its Third Reading, before there is any chance of it to become effective a Labour Government will be returned who will see that the troubles and difficulties created by it are removed.
  9.50 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Gardner: I rise to speak on this Third Reading not because my constituency is directly associated with London, but because it is directly affected by the Bill. The Bill directly affects many home counties, particularly Essex. Because of Clause 68, the Bill will inflict upon the ratepayers of the new County of Essex an additional rate burden of more than £1 million a year.
  The reason for this unhappy situation is that the Bill cuts the present County of Essex into two parts. One part, the metropolitan part, is to be, and is now, the richest and most densely populated part of the present county. The second part will be the new County of Essex in which the cost of county services, including education, is more than £4 million a year greater than the cost which is now being borne by the metropolitan part of the county.
  Essex has the remarkable achievement of having built more schools than any other local authority since the war.
  384
  Three hundred of those schools are spread over the county. When the county is severed, 200 of them will be in the new county. In addition, the new county is taking about 20,000 people a year from the Metropolis, a figure which has been maintained since the war. It is an extraordinary intake and the people are going mainly to that part of Essex which will be the new county.
  The Royal Commission accepted the principle that counties like Essex, severed by the Bill, would need financial aid, and Clause 68 as now amended—and for this small mercy I, for one, am grateful on behalf of the ratepayers of Essex—is supposed to cushion any sudden increase in the rates. But before any aid is given to the ratepayers of the new county, the additional rate in 1965 and 1966 must exceed 5d., and the first 5d. will not attract any aid. The ratepayers of the new county will therefore have to pay an additional burden of about £1,250,000, or nearly all of the additional burden which will result from the severance of the county, before they receive any relief, and that relief is limited by Clause 68 to only eight years. After that there will be no special relief.
  The only direct effect of the Bill upon Essex is the imposition of this quite intolerable new rate burden and it is not surprising—and I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to note this—that the ratepayers of Essex are pretty hopping mad about the failure of the Government to give them what they consider to be proper protection. They describe it as wrong, unjust, and wholly unacceptable, and so do I, and I ask my right hon. Friend to give the House an assurance tonight that at some later stage, possibly in another place, an Amendment will be introduced to give proper protection to the ratepayers of Essex instead of imposing on them what I submit is an unjust burden. Unless I get that assurance, I shall not be able to support the Government tonight.
  9.55 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Cliffe: We are reaching the end of our consideration of the Bill, and I have no doubt that the Government will get it through the House. I cannot imagine that some of the critics on the other side will be bold enough to join us in the Division Lobby against the Government.

  385
  The Bill is likely to have an effect on thousands of officers and officials connected with local authorities and county council authorities, and the speed with which it has been pushed through the House has done a great disservice to democracy. Objections to the Bill were raised by professional organisations and associations, and by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Despite all these objections, the Government decided to go through with it, and this is a dangerous practice.
  Nobody, with the possible exception of a few senior civil servants in Whitehall and the Ministers responsible for seeing the Bill through the House, knows precisely what is the best thing to do for this review area. The Government will get the Bill and a good deal of work will be transferred from the London County Council to the local authorities and the county councils concerned, but this will not be the end of the problem; it will be only the beginning.
  Thousands of people connected with local government have spent many years studying for and passing various examinations to enter the service, believing that it provided a worth-while career in which they would have complete security. The Bill will completely upset their calculations. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) worked diligently and conscientiously to ensure that these local government employees were catered for during the transitional period. Compensation of itself is not sufficient reward for what they will lose. It will be no reward for those who have spent perhaps thirty years of their lives working up to the position which they now hold. Status is important to people. Local government services are no different from any others in this respect.
  I do not want to do anything more than repeat what has been said over and over again by my hon. Friends about the London County Council. I have never been more convinced about anything in my life than I am that the Bill has been introduced because successive Tory Governments have been determined to see that the L.C.C. comes to an end, despite all the work that it has done. The services carried out by the Council have been the envy
  386
  of many people from other parts of the world.
  I have heard hon. Members opposite boasting of those services. Yet, when the Bill was introduced, the Government argued that the London County Council was a remote body, and that nobody knew anything about it. They said that at L.C.C. elections only a small percentage of the electorate voted, because people did not know of the Council's existence. The truth is that its existence can be seen in every metropolitan borough, in the services which operate from County Hall. Those services operate even outside London—especially for the mentally handicapped.
  I am not saying that what the London County Council does could not be achieved by local authorities, but we suggest that no political significance ought to be attached to anything we attempt to do in this respect which would in any way act to the detriment of services such as those for the mentally handicapped, and rehabilitation services of one kind and another which have been carefully worked out as a result of experience gained over many years. We take the view that the transitional period should extend to three, four or even five years, to enable the services to be properly transferred. Yet all the stages of the Bill have been hurried through with indecent haste, since last December.
  I venture to express the view that we are not likely to prove more successful in what we are attempting to do in the review areas than we have been in respect of almost every other major policy decision of the Government during the past eighteen months. The Government have lost their way. They are now on their way out. In those circumstances, it is a great tragedy that they should have introduced a Bill such as this, from the point of view of those who will be seriously affected. I can only repeat what my hon. Friends have said. I hope that the General Election will come in time to ensure that the worst provisions of the Bill will not be carried out. Whenever the election comes, I know that my party will be returned as the Government, but the earlier we have the election the fewer tragedies will be caused by the Bill, especially in the review areas.
  10.5 p.m.
  Lady Gammans: Now that we have reached the Third Reading of the Bill I wish to say again, speaking for myself and for the Borough of Hornsey, that we welcome the Measure as a whole. We consider that the reform of London Government was long overdue, but I think that the Minister is aware that the majority of the Hornsey Borough Council, and many residents in Hornsey, were very disappointed with the proposal of the town clerks regarding the grouping of Borough 31 and 32. We considered that these proposals were contrary to the terms of reference laid down for the town clerks and approved by the Minister. We think that it was a mistaken decision to join Hornsey to Tottenham and Wood Green and not to Southgate and Wood Green. This view is shared by Tottenham.
  Now that the decision for this grouping is final, and we have lost the fight we put up for our own proposals, I wish to assure my right hon. Friend that we in Hornsey propose to make every effort to ensure that the new borough will function efficiently, although we still maintain that the necessary ingredients, as it were, to make a workable borough are not present. I said during the Second Reading debate that the three main ingredients necessary for a workable borough are good communications, right density and community of interest. In the present grouping they are all lacking, in our view. However, in spite of this drawback we intend to do our best to make the borough work efficiently.
  With this exception, which admittedly is a considerable exception, we welcome the other provisions in the Bill. There is little serious disagreement about the rest of this Measure from the point of view of Hornsey. We have always had a good reputation for education and we have been noted for the high standard of the schools in Hornsey. We think that the provisions in the Bill will enable us to do even better in the future regarding education than we have done in the past. In spite of the difficulties and problems, which will be many, we regard the task ahead as presenting a challenge. Believing as they do that the reform of London Government was long overdue, the people of Hornsey intend to do their best to play a fitting part in the London of the future.
  10.10 p.m.
  Mr. R. W. Sorensen: I shall try to emulate so far as I can the exemplary brevity of the hon. Lady the Member for Hornsey (Lady Gammans), I am glad of the opportunity to intervene for a short time because, although I have not intervened before in discussions on this Bill, nor even had the privilege of serving on the Committee, nevertheless I represent an outer London area affected by the provisions and proposals of the Bill.
  I was quite moved when the hon. and learned Member of Billericay (Mr. Gardner) referred to the trials and tribulations of Essex County Council and the fears that the financial provisions of the Bill are quite inadequate to meet the needs of the truncated county council of the future. I was moved because I served on that body for 21 years. I am sorry to know that it is in such difficulties and that henceforth it will not have the same dignity as the vast administrative county body had in previous years. I share with the hon. and learned Member appreciation of the great work, particularly in education, which that county council has rendered in bygone days. I hope that, even though with greater limitations, the new body will have the same spirit of service as the various councillors, aldermen and chairmen of the past county council had in their day.
  Naturally I deplore, with other hon. Members on this side of the House—and I believe a few at least of the hon. Members opposite—the disappearance of London County Council. Anyone looking at the matter impartially and objectively would agree that it is no exaggeration to describe it as a world-famous municipal body. It is true that any of us who has been to other parts of the world has been impressed by the high regard in which the L.C.C. is held in very distant parts. In many fields it has set an example of splendid, dedicated and efficient service which will never be forgotten.
  Now the L.C.C. is to disappear and we all should deeply regret this. That is not to say that there was not some need and scope for a measure of reorganisation. At the same time, however, there were many alternatives which

  389
  needed and demanded far greater consideration than that which has been given to them. I wondered at one time why it was not possible to leave the L.C.C. and its area as it is and take the rest of the outer London areas and divide them roughly into four parts if it was found desirable to have greater authorities administering larger areas. In any case that is now irrelevant. For good or ill the old L.C.C. will pass away and this new vaster body will take its place. I cannot understand those who, quite rightly, constantly deplore increased centralisation yet are themselves party to the establishment of a very large centralised administrative body like the future Greater London Council.
  What applies in that respect applies also to my borough of Leyton. Leyton has been a borough for only comparatively few years, since about 1926, but as a township it is mentioned in Domesday Book. Together with its twin, Waltham-stow, it has a long and interesting history. It grew from very small beginnings until the two areas have merged and vied with each other in as splendid a service to the community as did the L.C.C. to its area.
  I deplore the passing of Leyton Borough Council, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead), who represents me in Parliament, equally deplores the passing of the Walthamstow borough, part of which he has had the privilege and honour to represent. One of the perhaps rather odd points of regret that I feel is that in the contemplated merger of three boroughs, Leyton, Walthamstow and Chingford, there will have to be only one mayor instead of, as now, three chief citizens of their respective districts. I regret this very much because of the reduced opportunity for ordinary citizens to become chief citizens, to wear the panoply of office for a whole area and have vested in them the significance of representing a large and important community, which is a very great honour that we should try to spread as much as possible.
  The Bill will mean that in the merger of Leyton, Walthamstow and Chingford in future there will be one mayor and correspondingly less chance for ordinary citizens to be invested with this high office. I do not understand fully why
  390
  there should be this merger. I can understand certain arguments on the ground of technical efficiency, but against that there is surely the very serious loss of diminishing even still further the human contact between citizens on the one hand and their local authority on the other.
  I would utter this warning. If this is but the prelude to further pressure towards centralisation, the country will be the loser. I register that small point because I feel that this is not a trivial matter. Many of my acquaintances and friends in the Boroughs of Leyton and of Walthamstow, some of them from very humble beginnings, have become chief citizens for a year. It is deplorable that the chance of that now has grown less.
  I hope most earnestly that the Minister will give further consideration to the possibility of serious financial losses accruing from the Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament. Reference has been made to Clause 68. I have read the debates that have taken place on Clause 66 and I know that there are genuine fears in many quarters that the proposals therein will operate adversely regarding the ratepayers of the new boroughs. My own town clerk has written to me on more than one occasion and I am sure that the four Members of Parliament for the area of the new borough to be merged have had communications from their present local authorities warning them of the possible financial dangers. I hope most earnestly, therefore, that the Minister will look at this very seriously again.
  I hope on the other hand that if, against all our regrets, in the course of time there comes into existence this new merged body of Leyton and the other amalgamated bodies elsewhere it will lead to a stimulation of civic interest. If only the indignation that has been so sincerely evidenced tonight can be converted into greater stimulus of civic interest we shall have some gain to offset the loss.
  It is quite true that the percentage of those who vote in municipal elections is lamentably low compared with other parts of the world in countries such as India which I had the privilege of visiting a short time ago. There is no reason why there should not be a much greater percentage of citizens voting if only they would take to themselves a real sense of civic responsibility.

  391
  Years ago where I was born in the city of Islington, which makes me all the more interested in the passing of the L.C.C., in my boyhood days I remember my father standing as a "Progressive" candidate. Nostalgically I confess that in those days there seemed to be more election excitement than there is now. But a mere superficial effervescence in electioneering is no real measure of the value of the services rendered, and although electioneering may be quieter today I am convinced that the quietness does not denote any real lack of dedicated service or civic concern.
  I end as I began by uttering this word of praise for the L.C.C. for its great services to London and indeed to the country and the world. I hope earnestly that whatever the result of our debate tonight and the Division afterwards, those of us who have to accept this regretted necessity will ensure that we do all that we can to make the new institutions as noble as those that may now pass away.
  10.19 p.m.
  Captain John Litchfield:Although the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) is not now in the Chamber, I must correct one thing that he said. He said that hon. Members on this side whose constituencies were affected by the Bill might be in favour of some points in it, but were against it as a whole. That is entirely contrary to the facts.
  The facts are that many of us whose constituencies may be adversely affected by the Bill have reservations and criticisms to make an certain points, but are for the Bill as a whole. That certainly goes for me. The Bill has been for experts on local government, and those of us who were not authorities on local government before we started to debate the Bill have certainly learned a lot since it began its passage through the House.
  The Bill has a limited interest to hon. Members outside the London area, but I think that it is not a bad thing that the House has been called on to make this very considerable effort for the improvement of local government in our capital, especially in view of the effort which we are frequently called upon to
  392
  make for regional interests of possibly less importance.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his hon. Friends who assisted him, in Committee particularly, on their achievements in handling such a complex Bill successfully through all its stages. If I may be allowed to do so, I should also like to pay tribute to right hon. and hon. Members opposite for their constructive and to me very responsible attitude towards what must to them be a detestable piece of legislation. There has been no disposition to obstruct in any of the proceedings which I have attended. Nor has there been any undue obtrusion of parish pump politics. I hope that if I now immediately descend rather near the parish pump myself I shall not be accused of that. May I assure the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) that I have my eye very closely on the clock, in his interests.
  There are three points in which my constituency is disappointed. In my estimation, they offend against one of the basic principles of the Bill, which is the maximum possible delegation of authority to local authorities. I will not do more than summarise the three points, because they have already been exhaustively argued either on the Floor of the House or in Standing Committee. I am disappointed that my right hon. Friend was not more forthcoming on the question of the maximum number of councillors in the new combined boroughs. I say that for the record. I am also extremely disappointed in the decision giving the Minister of Transport power to impose parking meters upon local authorities which do not wish to have them. That is a retrograde step. I object to it now, and I give notice that I shall object to it far more strongly if it ever happens in Chelsea.
  I am a little disappointed that the appointment of borough architects has been made imperative in the Bill. I will not develop this point any further.
  The final point, which I have left until last, in case I am ruled out of order, is that I express regret at the manner in which the inquiry into the areas of the London boroughs in the First Schedule was conducted before my right hon. Friend entered into his previous office. I do not necessarily disagree with anything in the Schedule, but the plain fact

  393
  is that when imposing these agreements upon unwilling authorities it is most important that the people who are being imposed upon rightly or wrongly should fee! that they have had a fair hearing, that the issue has not been decided before they have been heard, and that it has not merely been a summary act. I will say no more about that. My right hon. Friend knows what I mean.
  The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) made a great deal of play, as indeed many other hon. Members have, on the question of shotgun marriages. The expression "a shotgun marriage" might be suitable for a marriage between his constituency and mine, but it certainly is not appropriate to describe a marriage between Kensington and Chelsea, which perhaps might more aptly be described as a marriage of convenience between a beautiful young lady of artistic accomplishments and ancient lineage and a wealthy, large and very respectable—I will not say "dull"—gentleman in Kensington.
  I think that all Members would agree that the Bill has had a fair fight, both upstairs and on the Floor of the House, and has emerged strengthened and improved as a result of the criticisms of some of the best-informed authorities on local government in the world. It now remains—assuming that the Bill becomes an Act—for the local authorities to implement it with the same sense of responsibility, whether or not they like it, as has been shown by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. M. Stewart: I am glad that the hon. Member for Chelsea (Captain Litchfield) managed to make his short speech, because it was the most enthusiastic praise for the Bill we have had from the benches opposite during the whole of the Third Reading debate. Only about two-thirds of his speech was hostile to the Bill.
  In general, this debate has followed the pattern of earlier debates from the point of view of hon. Members opposite. Their speeches have contained a hurried sentence at the beginning—like a mumbled grace before meat—saying that they approve of the Bill as a whole, after which they have embarked on their dislikes of certain parts of it. The right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey
  394
  (Sir L. Heald) was delighted with the Bill now that Chertsey is out of it. The hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) was strongly in favour of it now that Chigwell is out of it. It did not emerge from their speeches just what were their other reasons for supporting the Bill.
  As for the hon. and learned Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner), have the Minister and the Chief Whip no heart when they think of the hon. Members who know that the Bill is wrong for their constituencies, but who are being forced to vote for it tonight? The Minister has not had a word of encouragement from his back benches. It was the same on Second Reading and in the debate on the White Paper.
  We must note, too, that this Third Reading debate comes after very inadequate discussion of the Bill in Committee and on Report. That inadequacy is not due to any wasting of time, unless one takes the curious view of the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) that it is all right to discuss things in the House provided one is not embarking on wasting time by voting at the end of the discussion. Unless one adopts that view—a view more appropriate to the Supreme Soviet than to the United Kingdom Parliament—no one can say that time has been wasted in our discussion of the Bill.
  Under the Guillotine we have worked diligently to make the best use of the time available to us. Even so, in Committee the important subjects of housing and planning could not be adequately discussed because of the time element and the Committee was left uncertain as to the division of powers between the Greater London Council and the boroughs. The Committee had to be content with assurances that at some later date ministerial orders and pronouncements would sort out that obscure question.
  We had no time to adequately discuss the care of the blind. We had some discussion of the treatment of the mentally afflicted, but that, also, was not adequately discussed. We have been left, as the result of further discussion today, with the claims of the staff still unsatisfied and with their anxieties still unallayed. There are topics of considerable importance on which we simply have not been able to spend a minute. On the important question of what are to be the auditing

  395
  arrangements for the new boroughs, a subject in which many hon. Members are interested, not a moment was available for us to discuss that.
  The hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell), one of the Government's most titular supporters, raised the subject of having annual rather than triennial elections; but there has been no opportunity to have a word about that, although there were Amendments down to that effect. We are bound to say, therefore, that the Bill has been inadequately discussed and that that is the fault of no one but those who voted to put the Guillotine on the Measure.
  None the less, even in that inadequate discussion we have been able to make some improvements. It would be churlish to deny that some part of the credit for those improvements lies with the Minister, to whose diligence and zeal in wrongdoing all of us on this side of the House will be willing to pay tribute.
  But the right hon. Gentleman must also admit that a great many of such improvements were made on very important points which, in a properly drafted Bill, would have been taken into account at the start. There was a remarkable number of things of which the Opposition had to remind the Government. We were told over and over again that it was an intrinsic part of the whole theory of the Bill, when we talked of the breakdown of certain important services to the boroughs, that that would be all right because there would be a lot of co-operation between the boroughs. It was the Opposition who had to provide in the Bill for arrangements for joint ownership of property and for joint employment of staff. The co-operation envisaged by the Government was only between two boroughs. The right hon. Gentleman will find it was an Opposition Amendment which extended it from two to two or more boroughs. Then there was the cutting down of the still overgrown powers of direction of the Minister of Transport, which the Parliamentary Secretary, in opening this debate, implicitly admitted were too large when the Bill appeared in its first draft.
  Then there were a few trifles which the Government did not think of putting in the Bill at all until the Opposition Amendments appeared on the Notice
  396
  Paper. There was some provision for the new borough councils in their first year, 1964–65, to have some money. The Bill provided that they would have to spend money. It was the Opposition who had to think up whence they were to get it, and the Government had to model their Amendment on the Opposition's to that effect.
  Then there was the question of permanent finance of the Greater London Council. It was the Opposition who had to remind the Government that the L.C.C. has always had an annual money Bill, and that frankly, if we create a metropolitan authority of this size, we have still got to have such a device if its permanent finance is to be put on a proper footing. The Government were supposed to have devoted much attention to education. It was the Opposition who had to remind them that unless we put something in their Bill there would be no agreed syllabuses for religious instruction in any of the schools by the time they passed the Bill.
  And as for the civic rights of teachers and other employees in the Inner London Education Authority, the Government showed—and this was a sign of grace, I think—a naïve delight and pleasure when we pointed out to them, first that they had forgotten those rights in the original drafting of the Bill, and, secondly, when we provided them with a suggestion as to how this defect could be remedied.
  This is a really remarkable story of neglect and bad drafting by the Government. So, to that extent, we have made improvements, but the Government must understand that the fact that, in Committee, we were prepared to try to help make the Bill not a recipe for chaos does not commit us at all to the general principles, to which we are still wholly opposed, of the Government's policy. However, these improvements have been made. Now, can we say that the result is a good Bill? Can we say of this Bill what one of George Ill's chamberlains said of a lady of the Court, "She has reached an age where the first bloom of her ugliness is begining to wear off"? I am afraid not. We cannot say so.
  If we look not at the particular details of the Bill, but at the essential nature of

  397
  it, we see, first, that is an enormous lost opportunity in the field of town and country and regional planning. I have made that point over and over again. If we want to solve the planning, housing and traffic problems of the Metropolis we have got to think not merely of the built up conurbation in the middle but of the south-eastern region, and we have got to support local government reform by other measures of policy in which the Government show no sign of being interested.
  The comment is well made in The Guardian today. That newspaper was originally rather favourably inclined towards the Bill; but today, in the light of the recent findings of the Standing Conference on London Regional Planning, the Guardian, after surveying the gradual choking of the Metropolis, comments:
  "… as the standing conference points out, there are no purely local solutions. National policies on land profiteering, capital investment, location of jobs, transport, and building controls arc all relevant But it seems nobody's job in the Government to look at the problem as a whole. Nor will the reform of London's local government solve the dilemma. The Greater London Council will have responsibilities for 8 million people. But the standing conference is worried about an area where 13 million people live and work."
  That, I think, summarises very well the real nature of the defect of the Bill and why I call it a lost opportunity.
  It is a lost opportunity of planning in another respect, a respect often argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington). He was rebuked at one stage by the Government for having pointed out that when the Government started their reform there were nine planning authorities in Greater London and now, in the interests of simplicity, streamlining and overall strategic planning, there are 33.
  The Government claim that that is not so. But let them look at the Bill. The Greater London Council is to prepare a development plan. Then each borough, and the Common Council of the City of London—which occurs as a refrain in almost each Clause of the Bill—is to prepare a plan of its own and to make in the Greater London Council's plan such modifications as it thinks necessary and proper provided that they are not inconsistent with the Greater London plan. But who is the judge of whether they
  398
  are inconsistent or not?—in the first instance the borough itself and in the case of final dispute the Minister. This is exactly what the Royal Commission complained of. It said, "Here are independent planning authorities, and they are always asking the Minister to resolve their conflicts." That is what we have here—planning authorities armed with sufficient power to be able to stand up one against another with the Minister as final arbiter, and 33 of them instead of nine. A lost opportunity!
  Secondly, great damage is done to the social services. I do not believe that anybody who knows education is really satisfied with the set-up. We all know that the Inner London Education Authority is an extremely untidy creation. Yet if we try to reconcile the Government's original ideas in the Bill with the preservation of anything tolerable for the education of children in London, one can only do it, or even appear to do it, by this makeshift creation of the I.L.E.A. On nearly every one of the social services the verdict of those with expert knowledge is solidly against the Government. I do not believe that there is a single body of expert opinion that the Government have been able to mobilise on their side, though they have been able to placate to some extent the architects by a special Amendment mentioning them in certain Clauses, which resulted immediately in demands from the Institute of Housing Managers that they should be mentioned in the Bill as well.
  Then there is the resentment of the truncated counties, so eloquently voiced by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey, the right hon. Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) and the hon. and learned Member for Billericay, and there is the very unhappy and uncertain position of the staff.
  Altogether, then, the Bill has been slovenly in its drafting, inadequately considered and harshly inconsiderate to the many people whose lives it affects. Finally, the Bill is the creature of a Government who not only have no mandate for it but have lost the confidence of the country in every field of policy.
  I am glad to see in the House tonight my hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy), Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) Swansea, West (Mr. McBride) and Dorset, South (Mr. Barnett). Their

  399
  presence here, and the circumstances in which they arrived are sufficient evidence of what I have just been saying.
  Since, then, a change of Government is imminent, I should plainly say that we on this side of the House do not accept the pattern imposed on London by the Bill. A new Government will have the right to provide London with a sounder and wiser plan. Therefore, if the change of Government occurs this year, we shall repeal the Bill. If the change of Government occurs after the new borough councils are elected, we shall halt the transfer of functions and the break-up of the social services which the Bill seeks to effect. One or the other of those steps, according to time, will be neceessary, and will be taken so as to reserve to a new Government the right and the power to recast the government of London in a manner truly in accord with the needs of the time.
  10.41 p.m.
  Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has had all the glory of building a new London with words, without having had any of the problems, the difficulties and the odium of tackling the real job which this Government have tried to do. But, having said that, I add that I know that all hon. Members who were on the Committee would wish me to start my speech by paying a tribute to the same hon. Member for the conscientious, clear way in which he has fought this Bill at every stage. He has played a most responsible part. As I shall criticise much that he has done, it is only fair that I should say that.
  The Committee has been a most useful though time-consuming one, and it is true that a number of worth while Amendments have been made. 1 think that in a number of cases functions and powers that were to have been arranged by order have, by Amendments, often from hon. Members opposite, been put into the Bill. This is not a major achievement—it may have appeased hon. Members opposite, and the Government were anxious to save time, but it is quite wrong to pretend otherwise. In fact, the credit for the Amendments that were made fell just as much with my hon. Friends as with hon. Members opposite. Finally, on Amendments, I should add
  400
  that had the London County Council come to life earlier, a lot of the clarification that would have emerged from the normal consuliation that occurs with Bills of this sort would have been able to have been put in the original drafting of the Bill.
  Before passing from reference to the Committee stage, I would pay a tribute to the services of hon. Members on both sides of that Committee who did so much homework and who were so patient and, in most cases, so constructive. I would add a special word of thanks to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for his diligent and steady work, and for the services of my hon. Friends the other Parliamentary Secretaries concerned.
  I have been asked a number of questions, and I want to deal with as many of them as possible, but I hope that the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) will allow me to answer one of his four questions now, and to write to him later about the other three. There is absolutely no reason why the Greater London Council, which will have the powers, should not be just as enlightened a patron of the arts as the London County Council has been.
  Mr. Driberg: That was the easiest one to answer.
  Sit K. Joseph: Perhaps I may put it the other way: that the hon. Member enjoyed himself in asking absolutely difficult questions on the more obscure parts of the Bill. I have the answers here, but I do not think that the House would thank me for giving them now.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) raised a subject of triennial or annual elections, and there is here a question to consider. I doubt whether he is quite right in his analysis of the cause of low polls. The Royal Commission in analysing London low polls thought that in the Metropolitan borough councils they were due both to the complexity of local government in London and to the narrow powers of the Metropolitan borough councils.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), backed up vigorously by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), urged more transitional assistance to truncated counties. This is a

  401
  grievance that I well understand and which I am quite willing to consider if new figures can be brought to me. That assurance I can give, but I think I ought to make it plain that in the view of the Government there is bound, in the shifting of populations and as the result of local government reform, to be some change in the rate burden, sometimes up and sometimes down, which does not fall upon the Government or the ratepayers from the areas immediately concerned completely to iron out.
  There is need for transitional assistance and I very gladly undertake to look at any figures presented to me. I cannot give such a firm assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell, wearing the hat of his other grievance about the Metropolitan Police District, but there is, perhaps, some more information which may help him to understand the Government's reason and my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will be writing to him in full.
  I have only time to deal with a number of individual items this evening before I come to recapitulate the main advantages that the Government see in this Measure. Perhaps I should pick mainly, with the limited time at my disposal, on the planning functions which are particularly dear to my heart because I think that on the quality of the planning so much of the future for Londoners depends.
  The hon. Member for Fulham has given a caricature of the position. We have to distinguish clearly between the development plan functions of local authorities and the development control factions. So far as the development plan is concerned, the powers are firmly in the hands of the Greater London Council to make a Great London development plan and to see to it that the local development plans evolved by the individual London boroughs conform with the Metropolitan development plan. So much for the development plan.
  Now I come to development control, where the Bill equally firmly puts the power on the boroughs though giving to the Greater London Council the right to receive and possibly change those planning applications which would have a wider than local impact or which may
  402
  be thought to depart from the Greater London plan. The very idea which seems implicit in the hon. Gentleman's criticism that development control over an area with a population of 8½ million could be centralised in the Greater London Council shocks me and I am surprised that he could imagine such a thing. It would absolutely drown the Greater London Council which is meant to reserve its efforts for the strategic functions of London as a whole.
  When it comes to quality, we quite realise that it is not for planners to have such terms that they can ride over an area of 8½ million people in the matter of beautiful architecture as well as handling all the other necessary matters in their charge. If we are to get technically modern architecture we need to create centres of enthusiasm, quality and skill in the boroughs working within a Great London development plan and referring where proper, of course, to the Greater London authority.
  This is why I make no apology whatever for trying to create in Greater London boroughs which will have control over their local development within the Metropolitan planning area.
  If I may try and dig beneath the many different issues which have divided the Committee and the House during our discussions to a deeper level still, what we have been really discussing in principle is how best to equip local government to tackle the complex and inter-related problems of today and tomorrow on behalf of a population, with rising standards, of 8½ million. This is not an ignoble task to set ourselves and it is right that there might be differences of opinion. The Government believe that the London borough, a local authority of a major size, with population of a quarter of a million standard, will be able to afford first-class staff and good resources and therefore will be able to attract men and women with ideals and competence the better able to improve the life of the people than the present system of smaller units with limited powers under powerful but remote counties. That was the opinion of the Royal Commission. That is the Government's opinion, and I believe that it is also the opinion of a large number of people all over London who would never dream of voting other than Socialist.

  403
  I believe that there are many people in Socialist boroughs and on Socialist councils who believe strongly that their councils, merged perhaps with others, should have wider powers because they see how much needs to be done for their citizens which they can get on with given the proper powers within a proper framework. It is an uphill struggle to achieve local government reorganisation. On that I am sure there will be no disagreement. I am not for a moment claiming that there is any virtue in unpopularity, but there are some objectives so worth while that they are worth struggling and fighting for. In the Government's view this is one of them.
  Any effective reorganisation must involve some breaking of treasured attachments. I realise the strength of the views of hon. Members. In particular, since I am grateful for their support in many cases despite their views on narrow parts of the Bill, I appreciate the general support of my hon. Friends who have criticised the Bill in detail. They are those who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Lady Gammans), object to it strongly where it affects their local position. [Laughter.] I see nothing to laugh at. They are hon. Members who believe something to be so good in general that they subordinate local objections in the light of the general interest. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Captain Litchfield) said, in a vigorous and very salty and excellent speech just now, in nearly every case my hon. Friends approved the Bill despite what are quite proper objections in principle and in detail which many of them made in Committee.
  The Bill is based on the conviction that local government for Londoners needs new powers and a new structure and that, given those, men and women of good will will be brought back to local government from all the other outlets which their enthusiasm may find today. The Bill provides the new powers, creating for the first time a Metropolitan authority, armed with effective planning, transport and redevelopment powers and with the duty to provide housing outside London for those who cannot be housed decently within. The Bill provides a new structure, re-forming 90 or more local autho-
  404
  rities of a widely differing size into 32 broadly similar London boroughs with sufficient resources and population to be able to undertake the whole range of normal local authority and personal services.
  Mr. George Brown: What about the City of London?
  Sir K. Joseph: The City of London, as the right hon. Gentleman should know, is not a borough.
  Mr. Brown: What will it be under the Bill?
  Sir K. Joseph: For the first time, the problem of London will be able to be settled and dealt with as a whole so that regional planning in the South-East may have at its call an administration, as far as regional factors are concerned, for the whole of the 8½ million population of Greater London. Armed with these new powers, and organised in this new structure, local government, we are convinced, will do better for Londoners than the present system.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House have pleaded, in the interests of special cases, in health, welfare or the children's services, that a longer transition period is needed, or that county control, despite the mammoth organisation which would be involved, is preferable to embarking upon the difficulties of reorganisation. I believe, and the Government are convinced, that the objective of putting into the hands of strong and relatively local London boroughs all the personal services is a worth-while one and will achieve for the citizen better services even than now. This will not be because officers and members are not now struggling valiantly and effectively to provide the best possible services but because much of their effort has to go into making a very large organisation work.
  Secondly, we believe that, while the vast bulk of the case loads will fall squarely within the London boroughs' capacity to provide decent services, the smaller number of relatively rare cases which can be served only over a catchment area larger than a London borough will, by various means and by various services, be as well looked after as they are now.
  Mr. G. Brown: A noble claim.
  Sir K. Joseph: The right hon. Gentleman continues to interrupt from a sitting position. He says "A noble claim". Indeed, I am claiming that, for the broad mass of the case load, the services to Londoners will be better, and for the others the services will be at least as good.
  Against all this, the Opposition have been perverse, parochial and static. They have been perverse because they have met this constructive and courageous project of the Government by allegations that our motives are unworthy, although they themselves agree that London government needs reform. They have been parochial because, time after time, their arguments have been addressed only to the London County Council area, as if they had forgotten
  that, time and again during the past decades, the urges of Ilford, Ealing and other boroughs to achieve county borough status have had to be refused pending the comprehensive review that the Government have now undertaken. They have been static not because they have wrecked but because they have fought a defensive action without an ounce of positive dynamic in it.
  It is because we have had the resolution to do what needs to be done for the good of Londoners that I ask the House to give the Bill massive support on Third Reading tonight.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 226.

  Division No. 92.]

  AYES

  [10.58 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Couison, Michael

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Hendry, Forbes

  Allason, James

  Craddock, Sir Beresford(Spelthorne)

  Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

  Crawley, Aidan

  Hiley, Joseph

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Critchley, Julian

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

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

  Cunningham, Knox

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

  Balniel, Lord

  Curran, Charles

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Barber, Anthony

  Dance, James

  Hobson, Sir John

  Barlow, Sir John

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Barter, John

  Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

  Holland, Philip

  Batsford, Brian

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Hollingworth, John

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos & Fhm)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

  Berkeley, Humphry

  du Cann, Edward

  Hopkins, Alan

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Duncan, Sir James

  Hornby, R. P.

  Bidgood, John C.

  Elliot, Capt Walter (Carshalton)

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Bitten, John

  Elllott.R.W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne.N.)

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

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Emery, Peter

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Bingham, R. M.

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Bishop, F. P.

  Erroll, Rt, Hon. F. J.

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Bossom, Hon. Clive

  Farr, John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Box, Donald

  Forrest, George

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Foster, John

  Jackson, John

  Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

  James, David

  Braine, Bernard

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Jennings, J. C.

  Brewis, John

  Freeth, Denzil

  Johnson, Or. Donald (Carlisle)

  Bromley-Davenport.Lt.-Col.SlrWaltei

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gammans. Lady

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Bryan, Paul

  Cilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Bullard, Denys

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

  Burden, F. A.

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Kerby, Cant. Henry

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

  Goodhart, Philip

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Campbell, Cordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Kirk, Peter

  Carr, Robert (Barons Court)

  Gower, Raymond

  Kitson, Timothy

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Grant.Ferris, R.

  Lancaster, col. C. G.

  Gary, Sir Robert

  Green, Alan

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Leather, Sir Edwin

  Chataway, Christopher

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Leavey, J. A.

  Ctark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Gurden, Harold

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth,W.)

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Hare, Rt. Hon. John

  Lindsay, Sir Martin

  Cole, Norman

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Cooke, Robert

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Cooper, A. E.

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

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

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Seiwrn (Wirral)

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Longden, Gilbert

  Corfield, F. V.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Costain, A. P.

  Hay, John

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  MacArthur, Ian

  Plckthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Tapsell, Peter

  McLaren, Martin

  Pitman, Sir James

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Pott, Percivall

  Taylor, Frank (M'ch'at'r, Moss Side)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Temple, John M.

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

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  MacLeod, John (Ross A Cromarty)

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

  Thomas, sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)

  Macpherson,Ht.Hn.Niall(Dumfries)

  Pym, Francis

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

  Maddan, Martin

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Maginnis, John E.

  Ramsden, James

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Maitland, Sir John

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Rees, Hugh

  Turner, Colin

  Marten, Neil

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Mawby, Ray

  Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool,S.)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Vickers, Miss Joan

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

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Mills, Stratum

  Roots, William

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  W alder, David

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  walker, Peter

  Morgan, William

  St. Clair, M.

  Wall, Patrick

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Neave, Airey

  Sharpies, Richard

  Webster, David

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Shaw, M.

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

  Shepherd, William

  Whitelaw, William

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

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

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

  Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Wise, A. R.

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Spelr, Rupert

  Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Woollam, John

  Partridge, E.

  Stodart, J. A.

  Worsley, Marcus

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Peel, John

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Percival, Ian

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Mr. Chichester-Clarl e and

  Peyton, John

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Mr. Finlay.

  NOES

  Ainsley, William

  Darling, George

  Hayman, F. H.

  Albu, Austen

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford E.)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Awbery, Stan (Bristol Central)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hilton, A. V.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Deer, George

  Holman, Percy

  Baird, John

  Delargy, Hugh

  Hooson, H. E.

  Barnett, Cuy

  Dempsey, James

  Houghton, Douglas

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire W.)

  Diamond, John

  Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

  Beaney, Alan

  Dodds, Norman

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Hoy, James H.

  Bence, Cyril

  Doughty, Charles

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Driberg, Tom

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Benson, Sir George

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hunter, A. E.

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Edelman, Maurice

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Blackburn, F.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Blyton, William

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Boardman, H,

  Edwards, Walter (stepney)

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

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

  Finch, Harold

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Bowles, Frank

  Fitch, Alan

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Boyden, James

  Fletcher, Eric

  Jeger, George

  Bradley, Tom

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, s.)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Forman, J. c.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Ginsburg, David

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Gourlay, Harry

  Kelley, Richard

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  King, Dr. Horace

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Grey, Charles

  Lawson, George

  Callaghan, James

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Ledger, Ron

  Carmichael, Nell

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Chapman, Donald

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Cliffe, Michael

  Gunter, Ray

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Collick, Percy

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hannan, William

  Loughlin, Charles

  Cronin, John

  Harper, Joseph

  Lubbock, Erie

  Crosland, Anthony

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  McBrlde, N.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  McCann, John

  408

  409

  MacColl, James

  Pavitt, Laurence

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

  MacDermot, Niall

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

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

  McInnes, James

  Peart, Frederick

  Swain, Thomas

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Pentland, Norman

  Swingler, Stephen

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Symonds, J. B.

  McLeavy, Frank

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Taverne, D.

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Probert, Arthur

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Mahon, Simon

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Rankin, John

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

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

  Redhead, E, C.

  Thomson, CM. (Dundee, E.)

  Manuel, Archie

  Reid, William

  Thornton, Ernest

  Mapp, Charles

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Timmons, John

  Marsh, Richard

  Rhodes, H.

  Tomney, Frank

  Mason, Roy

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Warbey, William

  Mellish, R. J.

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Watkins, Tudor

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Weitzman, David

  Millan, Bruce

  Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Milne, Edward

  Ross, William

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Mitchison, C. R,

  Russell, Ronald

  Whitlock, William

  Monslow, Walter

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Wigg, George

  Moody, A. S.

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Morris, John

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Willey, Frederick

  Mulley, Frederick

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Neal, Harold

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Williams, L.l. (Abertillery)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Small, William

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Phillp(Derby,S.)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  O'Mally, B K.

  Oram, Julian

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

  Oram, A. E.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Oswald, Thomas

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Owen, Will

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Woof, Robert

  Padley, w. E.

  Steele, Thomas

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Paget, R. T.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Stonehouse, John

  Parker, John

  Stones, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Parkin, B. T,

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Mr. Shore and Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.

  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  ROADS (M.5 MOTORWAY)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Rees.]
  11.10 p.m.
  Mr. Denis Howell: I seek to raise with the Ministry of Transport the question of the M.5 motorway and certain matters of principle which seems to me to arise from it. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister is not here, because I wanted to say one or two things to him. Although I am delighted to see the Parliamentary Secretary here, he will understand that I am casting no personal reflections on him when I say that I would rather the Minister himself answered the debate.
  The Minister recently held a Press conference in Birmingham on the subject of the new link motorway which goes through the very congested towns of Old-bury, Smethwick and West Bromwich. It is intended that nine miles of motorway should go through this extremely congested area. In view of the tremendous amount of time that it has taken to get anywhere near building this nine miles of motorway, the House ought to be given an explanation of the delay, and an assurance that delays of this sort will not occur in the building of future motorways.
  I suspect that the Minister held his Press conference in order to convince the electorate and the public generally that the Government were aware of the need for motorways, and were getting on with the job. But when we examine the circumstances connected with this small stretch of nine miles the pathetic story that is uncovered seems to be symptomatic of all that is wrong in the planning of our motorways.
  The Parliamentary Secretary will be aware that the proposal to build an M.5 motorway from the South-West to Birmingham has existed for many years. There has also been a proposal to build an M.6 motorway from Lancashire to Birmingham, and the nine-mile stretch to which I am referring is the further stretch of the M.5 which is intended to join up with the M.6. Great difficulties are involved in the planning of
  412
  motorways going through open country, but as soon as a motorway hits a congested area those difficulties are magnified tenfold. That is why the House and the Government ought to be thinking again, and thinking ahead.
  In his speech in Birmingham, the Minister went back to 1957, when, he said, consultants were appointed to investigate a new route. My first point is that, whether by accident or design I do not know—I am not making any charges, although I am sure that the Minister was aware of the fact—the Minister ignored a cardinal matter of importance, namely, the fact that the first line of motorway through this congested area was projected as long ago as 1949. Suggestions were made to the Old-bury Council in January of that year in respect of the first line of route for this nine miles of motorway. This line was abandoned in 1951, and nothing happened for six years—or, if anything did happen, we have no knowledge of it. Since this is one of the most congested parts of England—this Black Country area we know so well—it would be interesting to know what the Ministry was doing for those six years between 1951 and 1957.
  As I say, consultants were appointed in 1957. They produced a new line in 1960. That line was, roughly speaking, to build four-and-a-half miles—or half of the nine-mile strip—above the existing railway. It was to be done by a sort of two-tier system; on the bottom tier traffic would proceed northwards and along the top tier traffic would proceed in the opposite direction. It was, in some ways, an attractive proposition, but it was discovered after considerable objections from the local authorities concerned— and I must say, in fairness to the Ministry, that it would have been a rather expensive motorway to construct—that the plan could not proceed. Although the question of expense did not appear to be the reason for it being rejected, at the end of the day the Minister of Transport turned the idea down.
  It was turned down, it appears, mainly on the ground that it would have been detrimental to the interests of the neighbourhood at large and I agree that it was right for the local objections to have been taken into account. So we come

  413
  forward to 19th November, when the Minister came to Birmingham, with a great flurry of trumpets, and announced that a new line had been proposed. This, therefore, is the third line of motorway for these nine miles.
  We are now in the position of having a third line which has not yet been agreed and which must be subjected to all the objections of the people who, by law, can raise them. For fourteen years, beginning at the time of a Labour Government and going through two Conservative Governments, we have waited, and still we have nothing definite. All this has happened over nine miles of motorway through the industrial heart of the Midlands. It is rather a scandal, even judging by the lethargic speed at which we expect action from the Government.
  The timing of this debate—which is purely fortuitous—is made more important by the Beeching proposals announced last week. I will not discuss that matter, or I would be out of order, except to point out that the corollary to the Beeching scheme must mean that there must be a reorganisation of our roadway system. We must have new motorways much faster than we have been getting them hitherto. Indeed, to do the Minister credit, he said more or less this when speaking in the House the other day.
  I am entitled to ask, therefore, whether the Government really mean what they say about getting on with the corollary to the Beeching proposals and getting their motorway programme moving with greater momentum. Can we have an assurance that this delay of fourteen years for a nine-mile stretch of motorway will not be repeated when roads are planned for other major industrial centres, especially in the Midlands?
  It has been suggested to me that people might object to what I intend to propose, namely, that the whole of the Government's planning system for roadways needs a revolutionary approach, certainly a new look. If we do not have a completely new look now, this Government or the next, or even the one following that, will not tackle the motorway problem with the urgency which the increasing number of vehicles demands.
  When it was announced in the Press in the Midlands that I had secured this Adjournment debate arising out of this
  414
  tremendous delay on the M.5—and when it was known that I intended to raise one or two matters of principle—I received a letter from a Mrs. Dorothy Reed, who is personally concerned with this piece of motorway. I will quote part of her letter, because it provides an excellent example of the way in which people are personally affected by tremendous delays in planning a line of road. This lady, who comes from Quinton, Birmingham, says she was delighted to read that I was to raise this matter and goes on:
  "It is now over three years since we were first informed that our house would need to be demolished to make way for the M.S. My husband, who is a schoolmaster retires in July, and instead of being able to plan ahead for our retirement we have to wait and wonder day in and day out knowing full well we cannot do anything about it. Nobody, of course, would buy our house knowing it has to come down, and until we get the money for this one we cannot think of buying another elsewhere. To the Ministry of Transport five, ten or even twenty years means nothing, but to people near retirement age even one, two or three years mean a great deal."
  I think that that letter illustrates very aptly and better than I can the effect which these long-winded procedures and delays have upon the day-to-day lives of the people.
  My suggestion to the Minister and the House is that we ought to have a new system entirely similar to that which exists in many Continental countries, whereby, when the engineers and surveyors and planners have determined what they think should be the line of route for a motorway, the objections to it ought only to be on those very same grounds of broad matters of principle, broad matters of strategy. When that has been determined, the question whether, for instance, for the sake of argument, the road is to take the high or the low route, as arose in one case with which we are familiar, then is the time for reasonable, logical objections. The present method of objection is protracted, extending over many months, and anybody, a part of whose back garden only is affected, can object.
  This seems to me to be wrong, and the main principle of objection ought to be on matters of public importance and public strategy, the same grounds on which the line of the road is determined. Then there should be a sort of subsidiary stage at which people can

  415
  very properly argue at their leisure the questions of compensation, and without affecting the work and the Ministry getting on with its business. Their right to do so ought to be made very clear to them. Everybody in any way affected should be entitled to market value, and, furthermore, if anyone's land is affected the Ministry ought to acquire all the property, even if only part of it is affected.
  I want to give the Parliamentary Secretary adequate time to reply, so I have not time to give him all the figures from various countries in Europe, and also Canada, but from these it is quite clear that our record is pathetic, and it is likely to remain pathetic unless we do something dramatic to streamline the procedures. From a small, limited survey I have been able to make of what happens in Belgium, Holland, Italy, Western Germany and Canada I can say that every one of these countries has for acquiring land and determining the line of motorways procedures far speedier than any so far conceived in this country.
  One last word on the lamentable delays over the M.5 and in seeking an assurance that they will not be repeated elsewhere. I am getting rather tired of seeing the Minister of Transport belly-aching on television, and hearing him on the radio, about how he cannot go quicker than Parliament allows him and than his powers allow him. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that "belly-aching" is not on your list of proscribed words and that I may use it. It is a good Army expression which exactly expresses what I mean.
  When, on my last holiday in North Wales, the weather was atrocious, and I had to listen to the radio or watch television, I heard the Minister say this on three occasions in four days. Of course, the Minister has to carry out the wishes of Parliament, but the purpose of Ministers is to lead. If the Minister has not adequate powers, he ought to stop bemoaning the fact in public and come here and propose far more effective powers if he feels that he needs them. We are getting rather tired of his constant explanations why the delays occurred and why nothing has happened.
  416
  I hope that as a result of my raising the matter tonight we can have a reappraisal of the planning and execution of motorways as required by the needs of the moment and as highlighted in the immediate post-Beeching era.
  11.26 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) has laid about him with a will. I do not object at all to his drawing attention to the fact that we have taken some time over this section of motorway. Before I come to the explanation which he seeks, perhaps he will allow me just to say a little about some of the things that he has said.
  First, when he speaks of comparisons with other countries over the building of motorways and talks of our pathetic record, I think he forgets that those other countries are not faced with the same problem as we are. We have a very small country from the point of view of area, we have a very large population, and most of our country is built up.
  It follows if one is trying to build a brand new road—and the motorways are very consuming of space-—one can hardly move a yard in this country without affecting somebody. Therefore, the whole of our procedure has been based upon the necessity of ensuring that individuals have the right to have their case heard, have their objections judged on their merits, and, in short, have their interests protected. I should like to say a little, first, about how that works.
  Before I do so, perhaps I might just say, on the point of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport saying, as he has done from time to time, that he can proceed only at the speed at which Parliament allows him, that we have not had any demand from the Opposition until tonight that this process should be changed. I would beg the hon. Member and the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), whom I am very glad to see here at this late hour—he leads for the Opposition on transport matters—to ponder a little on the consequences that might result if that policy were adopted by their party.

  417
  I can imagine little that would make them more highly unpopular than to say that a Government Department could proceed as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, along the lines of producing a scheme on the best engineering line, getting it adopted in principle, clearing away all the objections, not worrying for a moment about anybody, and then, having said "That is the line. That is our diktat. That is what we are going to do ", subsequently arguing about questions of compensation.
  The hon. Gentleman just does not know what he is talking about if I may say so. I have had three and a half years of this, and I know perfectly well that there are dozens and dozens of perfectly legitimate objections that people have to a motorway line being drawn affecting their property directly or indirectly. Where we can we try to meet those objections. We have altered the law in a number of respects to provide for better compensation.
  We have, where necessary, altered the line to try to avoid affecting people. Where necessary, we try to meet them by means of accommodation works; by putting the road either in cutting or, perhaps, on an embankment to try to minimise the effect on amenities. I have had a case before me today where my right hon. Friend is asked to decide on a particularly difficult stretch of motorway, not in the Birmingham area but elsewhere, where we have had to have a lengthy public inquiry. The problem is whether or not, even at this late stage, we should not draw a further line to avoid creating a lot of hardship and inconvenience to many people.
  If it were possible to move more quickly we would, of course, like to do it, but the plain truth is that in a country like ours, which is based on the democratic system, we just cannot go ahead blindfolded, as it were, and with out paying attention to the rights of the individual. If that is what hon. Members opposite believe in, I hope that they will say so more plainly than in an Adjourn ment debate at this hour—
  Mr. Denis Howell: Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore stop complaining about this system if it is one that he accepts, and will he tell us whether, in those circumstances, he intends to supple-
  418
  ment the policy in the Beeching Report and get on more quickly with the roads?
  Mr. Hay: I do not remember my right hon. Friend complaining. He has drawn the attention of the public to the facts of life, as I am trying to do with the hon. Gentleman now. The hon. Gentleman used the somewhat inelegant phrase that my right hon Friend bellyached, and I will treat that expression as it should be treated, bearing in mind the source from which it comes.
  Perhaps I had now better take up the route of the M.5. The fact is that the establishment of this particular route for these few miles of motorway across the Black Country, which, I admit, has taken a long time, is not indicative of progress on motorways generally. Nothing could be further from the truth than to say that it is. These few miles are, in fact, the only connecting link of the national motorways system that remains to be fixed, and even though the section of the line to which the hon. Gentleman refers is such an unrepresentative part of the route, I must ask the House to bear with me while I try to explain briefly what happened here.
  This route lies across the close urban development of Smethwick, Oldbury and West Bromwich. Opposition to a motorway in this area has been so strong that for many years it was not thought worth while, until we had very much larger funds at our disposal, to expend the great effort of time and money required on examining in detail the possibilities of a route. It was not until 1957, the date the hon. Gentleman mentioned, that it became possible to visualise the construction of this road, and at that time the order was given to develop that possibility. It was in 1962 that a route was published which we thought at that time would be acceptable.
  The paramount consideration in the planning of this road was the avoidance of the demolition of property, and the avoidance, as far as possible, of disturbances to the communities through which it must pass. It was for this reason that the first proposal we examined in detail was one that involved carrying the road on a viaduct over a railway. It was one that appeared to offer the only satisfactory route which avoided severance, kept down property demolition and offered a line in the general direction which the

  419
  motorway must take. This proposal gave rise to a great weight of objection, and as design work proceeded and it became clear that the viaduct would overshadow property on both sides of the railway more than we had at first thought, it was decided that the possibility of an alternative must be considered if the interests of the local communities were to be preserved.
  There were two possible alternatives. One was to build the road over the railway in the two tiers to which the hon. Gentleman has referred—one carriageway above the other. As that would reduce the width, we hoped that it might reduce the damage to the amenities of surrounding properties. The other was to seek a longer and more devious route running on an entirely different alignment much closer to the town centre of Oldbury itself. Both these alternatives obviously presented great problems, and required a close and detailed assessment of their engineering practicability and the impact they would have on the district.
  That took a great deal of time and effort, I may say, on the part of those who serve my right hon. Friend. But as soon as we were ready we took steps to consult the local authorities most closely concerned. Then there followed a period when the merits of the two schemes were examined and in the end we reached agreement on the line away from the railway and nearer to the centre of Oldbury.
  In close collaboration with the local interests concerned we have now achieved a line which makes the maximum use of land which does not affect property or industry, for example, areas occupied by industrial tips, the line of canals, and so on. The alternative of a two-tier road over an already high railway embankment would have had considerable effects on the amenities of the area and would, incidentally, have required quite a lot of demolition because of the long slip roads connecting the surrounding area to the motorway itself for local traffic.
  I hope that it will be clear from what I have said that the reason why this particularly difficult but, as it happens, quite short length of motorway has taken a long time to prepare is that a very
  420
  great deal of study has had to be made of several possibilities. The reason why this study has been made and the reason why several possibilities have had to be considered is that we think it vitally important to meet the needs and wishes of the communities in the areas through which our motorways pass.
  If ever there was a case which justified the existence of these "statutory processes", about which complaint is sometimes made, and to which my right hon. Friend and myself have on occasion had to refer, then this is that case. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's constituents concerned directly with it would altogether have approved the suggestion which he made, that we should have blinded ahead with this thing without worrying about their amenities and property.
  The objection period which followed the publication of the route agreed with the local authorities expired only in February and we are now engaged in the process of trying to meet or resolve the objections which we have received to this new line. I hope that it will be possible for my right hon. Friend to confirm this line fairly soon and thus establish the last link in the main motorway system of the country. It remains our intention to build this road as part of, and at the same time as, the rest of the Midland link motorways on which work will begin later this year.
  One more thing before the time at my disposal expires. The hon. Gentleman quoted a letter from a constituent, a lady I think it was. The complaint in that letter, as I understood it, was that the lady and her husband had for a long time had their property sterilised and un-saleable because of our inability to make up our minds. The hon. Gentleman does not know, perhaps, that legislation already exists which enables property blighted in this way to be acquired in advance of our actual requirements.
  I would suggest to him, therefore, that if he would be kind enough to let me have the letter from the lady I will ask my advisers to look into the matter at once to see whether there is anything we can do to set her mind at rest, or, if the property is blighted, to see whether the statutory procedure relating to the purchase of blighted property can be brought into effect earlier.

  421
  I hope that with this assurance and with the explanation that this is a difficult job, the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied in having raised the matter tonight.
  Mr. Denis Howell: The hon. Gentleman has told us a great deal for which we are grateful, but what happened between the first proposal in 1951 and the second in 1957—what about the six lost years?
  Mr. Hay: The hon. Gentleman talks about the six lost years, ignoring altogether the period of the Labour Government, which were also lost years. We
  422
  had to have a firm economic basis to start the programme going. When it got under way we began to move, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the process is going on very fast now. We shall have motorways throughout the country on a scale which will meet not only the original plan made by the Labour Government, and which they never carried out, but which will be beyond anything that (he people of this country expect.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Twelve o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  P.A.Y.E. (Collection Cost)
  P.A.Y.E. (Collection Cost)
  Cheques (Stamp Duty)
  Cheques (Stamp Duty)
  Income Tax Assessment (Husbands and Wives)
  Income Tax Assessment (Husbands and Wives)
  Bank Rate and Public Works Loan Board (Rates of interest)
  Bank Rate and Public Works Loan Board (Rates of interest)
  Income Tax (Personal Allowance)
  Income Tax (Personal Allowance)
  Local Authority Borrowing (Review)
  Local Authority Borrowing (Review)
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Income Tax (Age Relief)
  Income Tax (Age Relief)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Public Conveniences (Turnstiles)
  Public Conveniences (Turnstiles)
  Factory, Kingswinford (Complaint)
  Factory, Kingswinford (Complaint)
  Rates
  Rates
  General Grant
  General Grant
  Peterlee Corporation
  Peterlee Corporation
HOUSING
  Council Houses (Size and Floor Space)
  Council Houses (Size and Floor Space)
  Slum Clearance
  Slum Clearance
  Three-Bedroom Council Houses
  Three-Bedroom Council Houses
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  East-West Trade
  East-West Trade
  Consumer Council (Resale Price Maintenance)
  Consumer Council (Resale Price Maintenance)
  Women's Nylon Stockings
  Women's Nylon Stockings
SWAZILAND
  Constitution
  Constitution
POST OFFICE
  Telegrams, Rural Areas (Delivery)
  Telegrams, Rural Areas (Delivery)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Wycombe, Oxford and Reading
  Wycombe, Oxford and Reading
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Penybont, Radnorshire (Flooding)
  Penybont, Radnorshire (Flooding)
  White Fish Authority Offices, London
  White Fish Authority Offices, London
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prisoners (Letters to Members)
  Prisoners (Letters to Members)
  SCOTTISH TRADES UNION CONGRESS (LETTER)
  SCOTTISH TRADES UNION CONGRESS (LETTER)
  SESSIONAL ORDERS (ACCESS TO MEMBERS)
  SESSIONAL ORDERS (ACCESS TO MEMBERS)
EDUCATION
  Kingston-upon-Hull
  Kingston-upon-Hull
EMPLOYMENT
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  National Union of Bank Employees (Inquiry)
  National Union of Bank Employees (Inquiry)
SCIENCE
  Depleted Uranium
  Depleted Uranium
SCOTLAND
  Local Employment Act, 1960 (Section 5)
  Local Employment Act, 1960 (Section 5)
ROADS
  Expenditure
  Expenditure

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

POLICE DISCRETION ON PROSECUTION
2.35 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: 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 the Chief Constable of Southend has recently stated that, even if he has clear evidence of the offence, he will not in future prosecute in certain cases of larceny; whether such an announcement and decision are not contrary to public policy; and what action they are taking.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I understand that the Chief Constable of Southend said that it was not incumbent upon the police to prosecute in all cases of larceny brought to their attention. The police have a discretion to decide whether to prosecute in any particular case, and this discretion is exercised in the light of the circumstances. Her Majesty's Government have no authority to intervene.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I should have no quarrel with his Answer if he had given an adequate summary of what the Chief Constable said? Does my noble friend agree that, while the police have some discretion about prosecuting, they must exercise that discretion in a quasi-judicial way? Can he say whether there is any precedent for a Chief Constable stating in advance that he will not prosecute in an important class of felonies? Did his statement not amount to this, that, just as every dog can have one bite, every thief in Southend can, so far as the police are concerned, commit one felony in a shop?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am not absolutely certain that I have retained all those supplementary questions firmly in my mind. I do not think that the Chief Constable's statement to the Press need be read as my noble friend has interpreted it. But I must insist that it is entirely a matter for the police to decide whether to prosecute in any particular case, and that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has no responsibility in this matter whatsoever.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, while I agree that the police have an obligation to decide in any particular case, may I ask whether the noble Earl does not think That it is incumbent on somebody in the Government or in authority somewhere to take exception to such a statement, which is certainly open to misunderstanding? Many people had understood it in the sense that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, had. And I should think it is quite likely that the shoplifters of Southend will also be under this impression.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to make it quite clear that my right honourable friend certainly does not regard shoplifting as a trivial matter. We realise that it is a growing practice, and with the increase in self-service stores it is a matter which naturally causes concern. But I would remind the noble Lord that if the police decide not to prosecute in a case of this sort, then it is of course open to the stores themselves to initiate a prosecution, if they so desire.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, should not the Government show a little more sympathy and understanding with the statement of the Chief Constable of Southend, having regard to the fact that shopping has changed because self-service stores have been established, and all the goods are displayed in the most attractive manner to women who often are hard up. Therefore, surely the onus must lie upon the owner of the shop to protect his goods, and he should not expect the courts to act as a deterrent, paid for by the public.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I thought I was trying to steer a rather

443
narrow, but difficult, course between the Scylla of self-service and the Charybdis of Southend in this matter.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, without prejudice one way or the other to the point raised by my noble friend Lady Summerskill, may I put this point to the Minister? As I understood the Question from the noble Lord opposite, the gravamen of his complaint was that the Chief Constable declared that in a certain class of offence, or petty larceny, he would not prosecute. That is a rather serious decision and statement to make because it invites trouble within the class of potential thieves concerned. The Minister of State says that the Government cannot do anything about it, that it is the business of the Chief Constable of Southend. But may I ask him whether the Home Office do not have inspectors of constabulary who can give advice? Is he aware that any chief constable will take a great deal of advice from the Home Office, which is the last place that any of them wants to offend, and that in the last resort he could say something about the grant to the local police fund? Therefore, is it not doubtful doctrine for the noble Earl to say that this is a discrimination about a particular case, about which I agree the Chief Constable has discretion? But was it not the case that the gravamen of the noble Lord's question was that this was not a particular case, but a class of cases?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think that before being drawn too far, possibly on to constitutional rocks, I should like to consider carefully what the noble Lord has just said and, if necessary, reply to a further Question on this point.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, surely the point of this is that it is not the Chief Constable's decision not always to prosecute that is in question. What is in question is the wisdom of publicly announcing that decision, which may lead people to suppose that they can "get away with it" whenever their offence is sufficiently trivial.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it is precisely that second matter for which Her Majesty's Government and my right honourable friend are not responsible.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, would not the noble Earl say
444
that his object was to warn the shopkeepers; not to do as the noble Lord suggested here? Was that not the object?
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, is quite right in thinking that the serious point is that the Chief Constable has restricted his ability, in particular cases, of exercising in future his quasi-judicial function? Is my noble friend aware, or is the Home Secretary aware—and if either of them is not aware, will he perhaps consult my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor?—that the decision of the House of Lords in the recent case of Sykes v. Director of Public Prosecutions makes it clear that, if a person knows that a felony has been committed and does not disclose his knowledge to the authorities, he may himself be prosecuted for the offence of misprision of felony? Can it be right that the police on being informed should do nothing whatever, on the grounds indicated by this Chief Constable?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I will take my noble friend's advice and consult my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack about this particular case and its implications, about which I must confess I am somewhat imperfectly informed; but I should not like to leave the impression in your Lordships' minds that in Southend shoplifting can be carried on with impunity. Perhaps my noble friend would permit me to give him some information on this point. It is my understanding that since February, 1962, when this practice, to which my honourable friend objects, was introduced, 197 persons have been reported by store managements in Southend. Of these, 101 were prosecuted by the police; 52 were cautioned by the police; in 3 cases no further action was taken; and in 41 cases store managements were told that the police were taking no action and it was open to them to prosecute. It might be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, to learn that in none of these cases did the store management prosecute.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, since the noble Earl has raised this particular aspect of action by a store

445
manager, may I ask whether he has considered that if the store prosecutes it has to proceed by summons; if the police come into it the proceedings are conducted by charge and immediate action is taken. Proceeding by summons is long, expensive and extremely hard on the person to be summoned, so that it is not surprising that stores refrain from doing what they had apparently been prevented by the police from achieving.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think we are getting rather far from the original Question.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should like to put one question to my noble friend. Is it not a fact that in most cities the chief constable comes under the sole authority of the watch committee, and in this case are the Watch Committee satisfied with the remarks of the Chief Constable, in which case the Government would have no say in the matter at all?
EARL JELLICOE: It is my understanding that my noble friend has stated the constitutional position correctly.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, could my noble friend say, if it is to be the policy of chief constables to announce they are not going to prosecute in certain cases, whether it is possible to have a list of the cases and the types of offences concerned, and would that document be laid in the Printed Paper Office?
LORD CONESFORD: May I ask my noble friend whether he can throw any light on the nature of the caution given by the police at Southend? Do they say, "Stop stealing" or just, "Don't be caught"? May I also ask my noble friend whether he will, after consulting his colleagues, make a further statement on this matter? And may I ask him whether he is aware that, if he does nut do so, since the enforcement of the criminal law is one of the main functions of Government, I propose by putting a Motion on the Order Paper to bring the matter to debate?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, my noble friend can put a matter on the Order Paper to debate anything he likes, but I think we have got as far with the Chief Constable of Southend as we are likely to get this afternoon.

BRADFORD CORPORATION (CONDITIONING HOUSE) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
SHELL CHEMICALS DISTRIBUTING COMPANY OF EGYPT BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

STOCK TRANSFER BILL [H.L.]
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Then, Standing Order 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of March 27), Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

OFFICES, SHOPS AND RAILWAY PREMISES BILL
2.50 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Premises to which this Act applies
1.—(1) The premises to which this Act applies are office premises, shop premises and railway premises, being (in each case) premises in the case of which persons are employed to work therein.
(3) In this Act—
(a) "shop premises" means—

(i) a shop;

(ii) a building or part of a building, being a building or part which is not a shop but of which the sole or principal use is the carrying on there of retail trade or business;

(v) any premises (in this Act referred to as "fuel storage premises") occupied for the purpose of a trade or business which consists of or includes the sale of solid fuel, being premises used for the storage of such fuel intended to be sold in the course of that trade or business, but not including premises which constitute, or are comprised in, premises to which certain provisions of the Factories Act, 1961 apply by virtue of section 125 (1) (docks, etc.) of that Act; and
LORD LINDGREN LORD LINDGREN moved, in subsection (1), after the first "are" to insert "subject to the next following section". The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friends who have their names to Amendment No. 1, I beg to move the Amendment, and, with your Lordships' permission, I will take with it Amendment No. 13. We have a long list of Amendments and therefore I propose to be very brief so far as moving this Amendment is concerned, because its purpose is obvious. The Bill as a Bill is valuable for those who are affected by its provisions, but I think we should always remember that there are well over 5 million workers outside the protection of the Bill. The purpose of these two Amendments is to to give the opportunity to the Minister to bring sections of those 5 million within the scope of the Bill.
I would suggest to your Lordships, too, that many of the workers included within those 5 million are in far greater need of protection than some of those who are included within the Bill. They are largely workers in small groups, often scattered, and often without the protection of a trade union. Therefore we submit that they ought to be brought within the scope of the Bill, and that the Minister should be given power to decide, as we give him by Amendment No. 13, which groups he shall bring within it, in the light of experience of the operation of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister may chide us that in subsection (2) of Amendment No. 13 we are asking for an Affirmative Resolution. We always like Affirmative Resolutions. But if the Minister is prepared to make a bargain and to concede the Amendments, then I am quite prepared to agree that it could be done by the Negative Resolution procedure if he would prefer that.
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, after ("are") insert ("subject to the next following section").—(Lord Lindgren.)
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): I
think it would probably be true to say that the Amendment which has just been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, and the next one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Latham, go to the root of what I might call, not the objection of the
448
Opposition to the Bill—I think that is too strong a word—but to the disappointment of the Opposition. They feel—and I think this has been expressed in what the noble Lord opposite has just said—that the Bill should have covered a wider field, and that the Government, in a sense, have not quite lived up to the recommendations made by the Gowers Committee; although, as I reminded your Lordships on the Second Reading of this Bill, recommendations of the Gowers Committee have already been carried out in other legislation already passed by Parliament.
If I understand him aright, the noble Lord feels that this Bill is too narrow in its concept, but, as I explained on the Second Reading, this was decided upon deliberately. It may be thought that the Bill should cover a great deal more, but what it covers is enormous and affects the working conditions and life of a very large part of our working population. It is going to be a formidable task both to administer it and to regulate it. Having said that, I do not think that the noble Lord will be greatly surprised when he hears that I very much regret that I cannot accept his Amendment and the new clause which is consequential upon it. We have expressly limited the Bill to safeguard workers in offices, shops and railway premises, for the reasons that I have given.
The noble Lord suggests that it might be possible at a future date to introduce different categories to benefit from the provisions of the Bill. No doubt in the future, when the initial spate of work arising from the provisions of the Bill has subsided, it may be possible to widen the categories of those who benefit, but I do not believe that the right way to do it would be by Affirmative Resolution as is suggested; and I think, as a matter of fact, that the Negative Resolution procedure would be even worse. An Affirmative Resolution, though a very handy procedure which is often used by Governments and often criticised by Oppositions, has one very significant drawback, as noble Lords opposite know—it cannot be amended. There is no possibility whatever of any amendment. To make major extensions in the scope of protective legislation of this kind by Affirmative Resolution would not, I believe, commend itself to Parliament.

449
I am sure that the right way to do what the noble Lord opposite wants to do, would be to introduce fresh legislation adapted to the circumstances of each case, since any extension of the Bill would, I think, naturally need a great deal of detailed examination and discussion. It seems to me proper that that examination should be carried out in Parliament, rather than for a Minister to extend the Bill by Order. I perfectly understand what the noble Lord opposite is trying to do, and I share with him the hope that if this Bill is found to be satisfactory, as I am sire it will be, and its provisions are generally acceptable, other classes and categories will in the future be brought in. I hope in the meantime, however, for the reasons that I have given. that he will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am quite sure that, while we on this side of the House recognise the tone of the noble Lord's speech, his remarks will be received with considerable disappointment. Mr. Maudling, on whom many of us will be directing our thoughts this week, when speaking of the Conservative Party's objectives, said that the Conservative Party should direct its attention to eradicating what he called "pools of squalor". This Bill makes some attempt to remove the squalor in some of our offices and shops in this country. But, as my noble friend has said, we are conscious that there are 5 million persons who are excluded from any form of protection. We chided the Government in the Second Reading debate for the twelve years' wait between the Gowers Report and the introduction of this Bill. I would remind the Committee that protective legislation started 161 years ago, but we still make it possible for 5 million people to work without any form of protective legislation. I do not think we can have any real satisfaction if we pass this Bill, still leaving 20 per cent. unprotected.
The noble Lord said that the amount of work involved in this Bill alone will be formidable; and that we fully recognise. But it is a Bill which is flexible. Many of its provisions could well cover many of the occupations which are at present unprotected. I think of the miners. To-day we expect and insist
450
that the miner should be able to have a bath after his day's work. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to consider one type of person who provides an essential service for our wellbeing—the refuse and garbage collectors. I cannot imagine a more distasteful occupation—dirty, certainly. They are men who go out in all types of weather.
There are two clauses in this Bill which could deal with two of the problems that I have mentioned. There is the point that, when a man returns from his duties but before he goes home, his employer, whether he be a local authority or otherwise, should provide facilities for him to be able to wash and change into his normal clothing. He may have been working in rain, and his clothes may be wet. To-day, he has to take those clothes home to dry them. This Bill provides that in the case of an office worker or a shop worker the employer must provide not only facilities for him to wash but also facilities for getting his clothes dry. We want that; but why should we say to the office worker and the shop worker, "You can have it" and yet deny to others these facilities which could well be given without any major legislation?
There are certain clauses of this Bill which could be made to provide some of the basic requirements of the workers whom we should like to see included. As my noble friend has said, it would be open to the Minister, by regulation, to say that a certain category of workers should enjoy the protection of the provisions of certain clauses of the Bill. I recognise that there are some that would not be applicable to certain occupations, but some of these clauses could make a major difference to the standards of the workers. It would not involve, as the noble Lord would lead the Committee to believe, major legislation: it could well be a matter of a few words, saying that certain clauses of the Bill shall apply.
I do not wish to weary the Committee, but let us take the case of the driver of a coal lorry. We have now within this Bill provisions with regard to washing facilities and the like within the coal depot, but it may be that, under the Bill, it will not he necessary to provide adequate facilities for the men who deliver

451
coal. By regulation the Minister could say that these men should have the same facilities as those who operate in a coal depôt. Therefore, I cannot accept the view of the Minister that this Amendment, which is important, is so substantial that it would raise Parliamentary difficulties and precedents. I do not believe it. We should not have put it down if that were the case. We believe that this Bill has its flexibility; that the Minister has his powers of exemption right through the Bill. If, by accepting this Amendment, the Minister could, by regulation, bring in certain categories of workers which he felt should have some form of protection, some legislation to improve their lot in life, then I think this Committee should insist upon it.
LORD CARRINGTON: If the Committee will forgive me, may I say that if I could accept this Amendment, its being the first Amendment, it would, of course, give me great pleasure, because it would put noble Lords opposite in a splendid mood for the rest of this Bill, which would be very agreeable to me and to my noble friends sitting with me. But unfortunately I do not think that this
is possible. This Bill is expressly designed to cater for those who work in offices, shops and railway premises. I was trying, while the noble Lord opposite was making his very persuasive speech, to remember the opening words of the hymn, a line of which is,
"… one step enough for me".
I am sure the first two lines are as apt as the words,
"… one step enough for me ",
and I should very much have liked to quote it; but alas! I cannot remember them. However, I feel that in the case of this Bill one step is enough. Let us see how we get on with this very large Bill before we put any more into it. I should very much like to help the noble Lord in this case, but I do not think we ought to.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: May I remind the noble Lord that the opening words of the hymn are,
"Lead, kindly light …";
Does that not encourage him?
On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 49.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Kenswood, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Latham, L.

Silkin, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Lawson, L.

Stonham, L.

Champion, L.

Lindgren, L.

Summerskill, B.

Crook, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Taylor, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Uvedale of North End, L.

Greenhill, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Williams, L.

Henderson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Milverton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Fortescue, E.

Monson, L.

Atholl, D.

Freyberg, L.

Newall, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Newton, L.

Carrington, L.

Grenfell, L.

Ogmore, L.

Cawley, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Rea, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hawke, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Horsbrugh, B.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Conesford, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Jessel, L.

Somers, L.

Courtown, E.

Lothian, M.

Spens, L.

Cowley, E.

Lyle of Westbourne, L.

Strang, L.

Denham, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Swaythling, L.

Devonshire, D.

Margesson, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Merrivale, L.

Twining, L.

Dudley, L.

Mills, V.

Wolverton, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

3.10 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (1), after "shop premises" to insert:
"road vehicle depôts, dental mechanics' workrooms, theatres, hospital premises"
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 2. It seeks to bring within the scope of the Bill some of the 5 million non-industrial workers who are left without any protection whatsoever. I was struck by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, defended his opposition to the previous Amendment, with his hymnal quotation, on the ground that we should take one step at a time. What a withering self-condemnation that is! One step at a time, when 5 million workers will be left without any protection whatsoever as regards conditions in which they are employed! It is just over 50 years ago since a few clerks paraded in procession from the Temple Station to Hyde Park, demanding that offices should be brought within the terms and conditions of the Factory Act. And now, after 50 years, we are told to take one step at a time! Twelve years after the Gowers Committee recommendations were published we are told that one step at a time is enough.
The noble Lord seemed to rest his opposition to this provision upon the magnitude of the task which in any case will face those who have to administer this Bill, when it becomes an Act, as regards the 8 million additional persons brought within the scope of protective inspection and control. But the Gowers Committee, of course, had that in mind. They took evidence, and they were satisfied that, save in regard to theatrical premises, on which they made one or two reservations, these premises could and ought to be brought within the scope of legislation; and the Government in 1952 and 1955 took the same view. In 1952, when discussions took place with representative organisations, they were on the footing that these premises would be brought in. That was the case also in 1955 and, as I understand, in 1961. Why has this task suddenly become so formidable? Why has it suddenly become a task which ought not to be tackled, 50 years after the problem became one of public agitation? We take the view that, desirable as a number of the provisions of this Bill may be, it is condemned as being completely inadequate and insufficient by the fact that 5 trillion non-industrial
454
workers will still be without any protective provisions and without any protection as to the conditions of their employment. In these circumstances we invite the Committee to bring within the provisions of the Bill the premises cited in my Amendment. They will then be doing no more than the Gowers Committee recommended, and the Government intended to do in 1952, 1955 and, as I understand it, in 1961. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, after the second ("premises") insert ("road vehicle depots, dental mechanics'
workrooms, theatres, hospital premises ").—(Lord Latham.)
LORD HAWKE: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him a question? I understand he seeks to bring 5 million more people within the scope of this Bill. Can he say how they are split up among the road vehicle depots, dental mechanics' workrooms, theatres and hospital premises?
LORD LATHAM: I have no information as to how they are split up, and I doubt whether anyone else has.
3.20 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: Here again we come to the fundamental objection or disappointment in the Bill, to which I referred in my previous answer. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, is seeking to widen the scope of the Bill by introducing a number of other categories of premises to which the provisions of the Bill would apply. For much the same reasons as I gave in my answer to the noble Lord who moved the previous Amendment, I feel that this would be a mistake. The coverage of this Bill is already enormous.
The noble Lord, Lord Latham, took me to task for quoting the words "one step enough for me". This is a very large step. If you take two very large steps at once, you sometimes fall flat on your face; and that is not entirely a good thing to do in matters of legislation of this kind.
LORD LATHAM: Are we to understand that the noble Lord is afraid that the Government may fall on its face?
LORD CARRINGTON: I am frightened that this legislation will fall on its face; and I think that, in spite of his rather ungracious speech, is the last

455
thing which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, would want. He is all in favour of this Bill. What he wants is that more classes of people should be introduced to benefit from its provisions.
LORD LATHAM: I am in favour of an adequate Bill.
LORD CARRINGTON: But not against the provisions of this Bill. All the noble Lord wants is that more people should be included in it. I am explaining to him why, on the whole, I believe that this would be a mistake. One reason is that it is estimated that about four times as many premises as there are factories under the Factories Act will come under the provisions of this Bill. It is plain that the additions of the kind suggested by the noble Lord would greatly add not only to the complexity of the Bill but also to its administration; and it would distract the various enforcing authorities from concentrating their resources on the people which the Bill is designed to cover. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Latham, would welcome that. Nor do I believe—nor, I hope, will your Lordships—that that would be a desirable outcome.
I am quite sure that it will be necessary to put in a great deal of hard work to ensure that the provisions of this Bill are put into effect properly. Those of us who have read the Bill realise that it is far from straightforward and that there are many regulations to be made under the various clauses which will further add to the time which it will take to put it into effect. We are anxious to see that this Bill not only becomes law but becomes operative as soon as possible and that is the general reason why my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour feels that it would be undesirable to extend the scope of the Bill further. But, in addition to this, in regard to the particular classes of premises to which the Amendment refers, there are special considerations which to a greater or lesser extent make their inclusion inadvisable.
First, the Amendment seeks to cover road vehicle dôpots. This point has been very carefully examined in the Ministry of Labour and the definition raises a considerable difficulty. There are, I believe, well over one million workers engaged for at least part of their time in some kind of road transport. It would
456
be extremely difficult to establish which of them were employed for a fair proportion of their time in road vehicle depôts, and this is particularly so because of the number of small businesses concerned. A good many are likely to be family businesses, and they are excluded by definition. But, even so, some kind of initial inspection would still be necessary. Another difficulty would be that of deciding upon suitable standards. Lorry drivers, for example, must in the nature of things be constantly employed in different places, and I would not think it reasonable to require the provision of facilities on a very lavish scale at places where workers are unlikely to spend much of their time. It would be right, I think, to point out that a large number of workers in garages and large road vehicle depôts—for example, those engaged on major repairs—are already covered by the Factories Act. The Government have decided, therefore, taking these considerations into account, that the balance of argument is against extending the scope of this Bill to road vehicle depôts.
With regard to dental mechanics' workrooms, those which would satisfy the definition of factories under the Factories Act are naturally already covered by the legislation, and so it is unnecessary for us to consider them in this Bill. I believe that the remainder would be very small premises, with only a few, perhaps one or two, employees next to a dentist's surgery. A dentist is normally self-employed and so not covered by the Bill, and I believe that there would be serious difficulties in practice in bringing inspectors into these premises. However, I must say this to be absolutely fair: I think that the T.U.C. are in favour of including these workmen in the Bill, although the British Dental Association have expressed strong objection. In our consultations with the Ministry of Health they have told us that a special code of provisions would be necessary to put any legislation into effect. On the whole, and for the reasons given in the first part of my answer, I think these premises are better left out.
Thirdly, the Amendment suggests the inclusion of theatres. I quite agree that the conditions in a number of theatres are not what they should be, and there are certainly problems for the backstage staff; but I wonder whether your Lordships should not be rather careful

457
before these premises are brought within the Bill. They seem to me to deserve special consideration, and the Gowers Committee accepted this. It might well be that legislation of the kind which is proposed in this Bill would put out of business quite a number of existing theatres, particularly those old buildings where the facilities are admittedly inadequate. But it is impossible to find new theatres in the way that new offices can be found, and I believe that the effect might be that these old theatres would have to close down altogether. I do not believe that this would be in the interests of the acting profession; nor do I think it would be in the interests of the public. It has been suggested that the old theatres could be dealt with under the exemption powers in Clause 46, which deal with difficult individual cases. But the exemptions in this clause are meant only to provide a temporary period of grace during which the occupier looks for more suitable premises, and in the case of these theatres, obviously, it would be difficult to find alternative premises. And, further, if exemptions were freely given the standards of accommodation would not be improved just exactly in those places where the need for improvement is greatest.
There is an additional difficulty about theatres. The numbers employed fluctuate very considerably over comparatively short periods. The casts of plays, for example, vary from one or two to perhaps 30 or 40, or even more; and I should imagine that in the pantomime season the crush is greatest, so that the provision of washing facilities and so on, which is adequate for most of the year, may at certain times of the year be quite inadequate. Indeed, I do not quite know why the noble Lord has drawn the line at theatres. I do not understand why we should stop there. If we are going to have theatres, why not concert halls and cinemas and other forms of entertainment? I would have thought, on the whole, that the best way of dealing with this problem—and I admit that there is a problem—is by voluntary negotiations between the representatives of the parties concerned, the theatre managements and the acting profession. Agreement here can be much more flexible and can take account of special circumstances and special cases.
458
Finally, the noble Lord wanted the Bill to apply to hospitals. All of us would agree that conditions in hospitals are of the highest importance; but I do not think that this is a subject to be covered in this Bill. Incidentally, offices in hospitals are covered because we are trying to deal comprehensively with all offices, but we should distort the Bill and its main purpose if other parts of hospitals were added to it. The Bill was not designed with these premises in mind, and I am convinced that it would be impracticable to apply it to them. I realise full well that I have not given the noble Lord, Lord Latham, much satisfaction, but I think that he will appreciate that most of the suggestions he has made have already been given careful consideration in another place, where they were first made, and I can assure him that very careful thought has been given since then to the proposals he has made in his Amendment and also to the whole problem of extending the scope of this Bill. But the Government are still of the opinion that it would be unwise to extend the scope of the Bill, and in the particular cases which the noble Lord suggested it would be either impracticable or particularly difficult. I hope, therefore, that he will accept what I have said and be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
3.31 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: It is difficult to know what to do to please the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who is in charge of the Bill. We gave him an opportunity on a previous Amendment for the Minister himself to select the groups of workers considered necessary to be brought within the framework of the Bill by regulation. That was rejected out of hand; it was too wide in scope for the Government to accept. Here, under this Amendment, we have selected specific groups of workers to be added to come under the Bill, and again, because they are specified, the Minister objects.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that the administrative task facing local authorities when this Bill has to be operated will be tremendous; but they can cope with it. I said on Second Reading, and it is worth repeating, that, in so far as the vast majority of good employers are concerned, the conditions under which their workpeople work are far and away ahead of the provisions in

459
this Bill. Therefore, in their administration of the Bill local authorities will not have to worry about those who are ahead of legislation, the best employers. But the great value of including a group of people such as is suggested in the Amendment is that, although it is going to take a long time for local authorities to get through the whole range of premises within the ambit of their authority, at any place where conditions are unusually bad, their inclusion within the Bill will enable a group of workers to call the attention of the local authority to their specific case.
One of the problems that local authorities will have when this Bill starts to operate is that, rather than having a routine section of inspections coming area by area or group by group, for a considerable period a number of inspectors will have to take inspections out of turn, out of area, because of requests from groups of workers because their conditions are particularly bad. It would have been valuable to include within the Bill these groups of workers to enable them to have that added power of calling upon the local authority, and the local authority's inspector, for the inspection and the remedying of their complaints.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, called attention to what, after all, amounts to silliness coming from the Bill. He quite rightly mentioned that where there is a road haulage contractor who has a workshop maintaining his vehicles, that workshop comes within the scope of the Factories Act; but the yard in which the lorry drivers operate does not. These lorry drivers may be dealing with dirty materials; or a fellow may have been on the road for six or eight hours handling goods while loading and unloading, and when he comes back to the depôt he is not in the brightest of spirits and is certainly not in the cleanest of conditions. While the worker in the workshop, the other side of the fence, within the precincts of the factory, is covered with regard to washing facilities, the man who has to drive the lorry that has been repaired by the fellow in the workshop cannot have a wash before he goes home or before taking the vehicle out after it has been loaded.
I agree that, so far as the vast majority of the large road haulage contractors are concerned, the facilities for
460
their drivers are as adequate as those for employees in the workshop. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, again called attention to the necessity for including these. As a result of the 1953 Act brought in by the predecessors of the present Government, we have a large number of small operators with ten, eight or five lorries; and it is the small operator, not the large operator, that we are concerned about. It is not the best of dentists we are worried about; but some of those working a bit near the bone—perhaps they do not work near the bone.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: A bit near the teeth.
LORD LINDGREN: My cockney language gets me into trouble in your Lordships' House, and my phrases are not always of the best. But perhaps those working on a shoestring is a better way of putting it—not pulling the teeth out, of course. Where a small operator is working, say, in a room with his dental mechanics there should be an opportunity for the workpeople to call the attention of the local authority to the conditions. I regret that, after having rejected one Amendment which gives the Minister the power, the noble Lord still objects to specifying groups of workers as enumerated in the Amendment.
LORD AUCKLAND: Having heard my noble friend's last speech, I am much happier than I was before; but I must confess that I am a little worried that theatres are to be completely outside the scope of the Bill. Many young people work in theatres, and having been backstage in a good many theatres I have seen some of the conditions particularly applicable to Clause 9 of the Bill. I feel that the Government should give further consideration to bringing them within the ambit of the clause dealing with sanitation and washing conditions, and especially the provision of hot water, which in many cases, particularly in the pantomime season, is very difficult to obtain. I realise that this is a comprehensive Bill, and, as such, I support it; but there is substance for bringing theatres, and especially the newer theatres, within the ambit of the Bill. It is quite obvious that some of the older theatres would be put out of business, but certainly future theatres, and some of the new ones, could, as I see it,

461
quite easily adapt themselves to comply with some of the more important provisions of the Bill, and particularly those in Clause 9.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he would comment on another aspect of this matter. Does he not think there is some disadvantage in legislation that deals differently with two competing parts of the same industry? Certain obligations are here being put on to the railways which will cost them a good deal of money; yet the same obligations are not being put on road transport. The reasons for this may be very good, and I do not want to argue against them. But if the Government feel that there are such good reasons, is it not right that they should know that it is in fact tipping the balance a little in favour of one part of the industry as against the other?
3.40 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: The Minister to-day reminds me of a cartoon that appeared in one of the evening papers the other day which portrayed the Government in the guise of "Steptoe and Son". It is quite obvious that the Minister has now coined the motto for the image, "step by step". We shall not make a great deal of progress at that pace. The Minister objected to our first Amendment because of its width. I recognise that there is a wide scope being brought into the Bill. But here we are dealing with four limited sections of employees. The Minister has said that if we were to accept this new group it would aggravate the task of implementing the provisions of this Bill for offices and shops.
Let us take the case of a hospital. By this legislation you are to provide proper provisions for the clerical administrative staff. You are going to exclude from it the men who drive the ambulances, the men who carry or push the stretcher from the entrance to the ward, and the boiler caretaker. I cannot see that it would create any added task if the local authority had to enforce these extra provisions. The inspector has to go to the hospital from time to time to see that the administrative people are being properly cared for. It would not be much to expect that he should also see that the other categories were being provided for. I would echo the words of Lord
462
Robertson of Oakridge: it is significant that the Government have been prepared to bring railway premises into this Bill. It will mean a heavy charge on the railway authorities. We recognise that, but we wish to see it done because we believe that the workers should have the proper provisions. But here is a case where the duty is placed on one section of transport workers and where, because the others are road workers, they are to be excluded.
The noble Lord made the case that an extra 1 million men would be involved. I do not think that is the figure. I think it is a good deal less, but I will not argue the point on that. It is a fact—and the Minister has himself admitted—that road transport garages are covered by the Factories Act. I cannot see why those depôts into which these vehicles go should not provide suitable facilities for their transport drivers. The bus driver is an instance. The noble Lord said: "That would mean another inspector to do it". I do not believe that that is so. The factory inspector has to visit the workshops and the depôt, in order to inspect the facilities for the mechanics and the men working in the depôt. It would be relatively easy to say that the inspector should be given the duty of looking into the provisions for the transport driver. I believe that the Government have decided that this is as far as they are prepared to step to-day. I do not believe that any amount of persuasion this afternoon will persuade them otherwise. I hope that my noble friend will put the responsibility clearly upon the Government that it is they who reject any form of justice to these people, and that while some of their colleagues in the same business have protection they have not. I hope that my noble friend will press this Amendment.
LORD CARRINGTON: The noble Lord opposite ended his remarks by saying that he felt the Government had come to the conclusion that this was as far as they are prepared to go. That is exactly what, politely and in delicate language, I was trying to tell him earlier. That is exactly the position. I think the Government feel that the scope of this Bill is wide enough already. I have a certain sympathy with Lord Robertson of Oakridge in what he said about railway premises being made subject to this Bill and not all the road premises. The reason is that it is much easier to do so

463
with railway premises. You have one employer and people working much more closely together, but it is much more difficult with road premises. This is precisely one of the reasons why we do not want to extend the Bill further, because the more workers you deal with, the more anomalies you get.
This is a Bill which covers a vast number of people in offices, shops and railway premises. It is an enormous step forward in our social legislation. To listen to noble Lords opposite, one might almost imagine that one was doing somebody out of something, rather than introducing a new piece of social legislation of a radical character. The Government have very carefully weighed up in their minds how far they ought to go in this Bill; and I think I ought to warn your Lordships that, with all the expert advice we have at our command, we believe that this Bill is about as wide in scope as it is possible to administer in one go. If we attempt anything very much wider, then we shall delay the legislation, and it will not be nearly so effective as it would be if the Bill were left with the scope which it has at the present time. For those reasons, I hope that noble Lords opposite will realise the Government have a good case, and that they will not press their Amendment.
LORD LATHAM: Without appearing ungracious, I must say that I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, advanced any single convincing argument in favour of the Government's opposition to this Amendment. It was a list and a parade of alleged difficulties which would have to be faced if the scope of the Bill were extended in the terms of the Amendment. That is the old argument which has always been the argument against reform: that it was impossible; that it was difficult; and that it was too wide—every negative disqualification that the language provided prayed in aid in opposition to reforms, and especially reforms concerning factories and premises of employment. The noble Lord and his colleagues in the Government are clearly afraid of the size of this problem. Why should they be afraid unless they are on their face, as suggested in the earlier Amendment?
Then the noble Lord said that one would think that somebody was being done out of something. Well, 5 million
464
people will be done out of something: they will be done out of the protective provisions of this Bill, and that, surely, is an important consideration. The noble Lord referred in detail to the various premises. It is the case, of course, that the Gowers Committee recommended that dental workshops should be brought within the coverage of legislation, and one would have thought there was no answer to that. The only class of workroom used by dentists not covered either by the Factories Act or the Bill are dental workshops attached to premises of dental surgeons and ancillary to their business. One would have thought that, from the point of view of health, the provisions of this Bill should apply to technicians' workrooms, and especially, I am informed, they should be applied to workshops where prosthetic appliances are made and where satisfactory conditions of cleanliness should be imperative.
The noble Lord also mentioned, rather cursorily I thought, the question of theatres, and dismissed that question from his mind rather cavalierly. The Gowers Committee did not, I quite admit, suggest or recommend that the provisions of legislation otherwise recommended should be applied to old theatres without reservation. They did suggest, however, that there were a number of specific restrictions, devices and means which could be applied even to old theatres. As regards the proposal that the application of protective provisions of this kind to theatres should be the subject of negotiation, Equity, of course, pointed out that the situation is such that the problem cannot be solved by negotiation of a voluntary character. It can be solved only by the inclusion of protective provisions in legislation.
With regard to welfare workers and hospitals, surely it is a Gilbertian situation that persons who themselves are concerned with maintaining and improving the health of one or other section of the community should be denied the protection which will provide and maintain them in good health and good conditions. In those circumstances, I think the Government must accept the responsibility for having gone back on their word and on their intention in 1952, 1956 and, as I understand it, in 1961 Therefore, I feel bound to press the Amendment standing in my name.
On Question, whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.0 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (3, a) to add to sub-paragraph (ii):
"(including mail order business)".
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to ascertain from the Government whether mail order houses come within the compass of the Bill. I should explain to those who may not be acquainted with the mechanism of mail order houses that they are organisations which purchase goods in bulk and sell them through salesmen, or through housewives themselves, by catalogue, to persons in their homes, or they may sell this merchandise by advertisements appearing in magazines or newspapers. Therefore I submit that a mail order house is not a wholesale business, even though Lord Carrington's Amendment widens the description and compass of a wholesaler.
I submit that in normal trading terminology a mail order house would not be regarded as a retail shop. An assurance was given in the other place that mail order houses came within the definition of "retail trade or business", but it was
Their Lordships divided: Contents 27; Not-Contents, 51.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Latham, L.

Shackleton, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lawson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Lindgren, L.

Silkin, L.

Champion, L.

Listowel, E.

Stonham, L.

Crook, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Summerskill, B

Douglas of Barloch, L.

McNair, L.

Taylor, L.

Greenhill, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L

Williams, L.

Henderson, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Williamson, L.

Kenswood, L.

Peddie, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Effingham, E.

Margesson, V.

Atholl, D.

Ferrers, E.

Merrivale, L.

Brocket, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mills, V.

Carrington, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Cawley, L.

Grenfell, L.

Monck, V.

Clitheroe, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Newall, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hawke, L.

Newton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hereford, V.

Rathcaven, L.

Conesford, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Courtown, E.

Iddesleigh, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Cowley, E.

Inchcape, E.

Somers, L.

Crathorne, L.

Jessel, L.

Soulbury, V.

Denham, L.

Lambert, V.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Devonshire, D.

Lansdowne, M.

Swaythling, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Long, V.

Twining, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Lothian, M.

Willingdon, M.

Eccles, L.

Mancroft, L.

Wolverton, L.

not made clear that they came within the use of the word "business". As I read the Bill, "retail trade or business" appear to go together. In the next paragraph the words "wholesale dealer or merchant" are used. Therefore it would appear to me the words "retail" and "wholesale" are the guiding words. A mail order house does not come within the normal terminology of "retail", and it is clearly not in the wholesale side of business, since the merchandise is distributed in small quantities. Therefore they are outside the description of "wholesale". I think the Government intend that mail order houses should be within the compass of the Bill, and I should like the Minister to tell the Committee what words cover this description of a mail order house. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 12, after ("business") insert "(including mail order business)".—(Lord Shepherd.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LORD NEWTON): I hope I can give the noble Lord the assurance he asks for. We are, after all, dealing

467
primarily with a drafting matter now; there is no difference between us as to the desirability of making certain that mail order houses are covered by the Bill. We have examined this point very carefully, and I can give the firm assurance that the wording of subsection (3) (a) (ii) does include mail order businesses. Perhaps I may say a word about some of the doubts that have arisen about this matter. The first is this: does the fact that the retail trade or business is carried on through the post in any way alter its character, so that it is no longer retail trade or business? The answer is, No, it does not. The public may buy goods retail either by collecting them personally or by sending an order and remittance through the post or by using the telephone; but whatever method of communication they may use with the place supplying the goods, the business there carried on is that of retail trade or business.
Again, does the fact that these mail order businesses make use of local agents to collect customers who may then communicate with them directly or through the agent in any way alter the nature of the business? Again the answer is, No. The retail trade or business does not alter its character merely because agents are used to further the business. Then, is there any doubt that the whole of the business would be covered by the definition which refers to a building or part of a building? The noble Lord did not raise this point, but it has been raised. Is it possible that the packing department, which in this kind of trade is a very large part of the business, might be regarded as a part of the building not covered? We have looked at this possibility. I am assured that the whole of the activities constitute the retail trade or business, and they certainly include packing and despatch of the goods.
The noble Lord opposite may ask whether I object—and in fact I do object—to adding the words which he wants to add. I object for these reasons. It would not be possible to use the words the noble Lord wants, because although on the face of it they are perfectly easily understood, I am advised they do not have the precise meaning which would be necessary in a Statute. Conceivably one could add to the Bill
468
some words to the effect that retail trade or business does not cease to be such because it is carried on by agents or makes use of the postal service. It would be unnecessary to do that, and on the very well-known principle that you do not want to have unnecessary words in a Bill, especially if there is a possibility that they may throw doubt on the same words in other Statutes, which would be the result in this case, I suggest it would be better to leave this subsection as it is.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. I think he goes a good deal further than the explanation given in another place. As he will appreciate, there were considerable doubts everywhere as to the interpretation. We now have the Minister's assurance. Would he consider between now and the next stage whether the position might not be made a little clearer if we could insert after the word "or" the word "similar"; in other words, cover a pure shop selling merchandise over the counter "or similar business"? This might then embrace the type of mail order business to which I have been referring. If the noble Lord would consider that, I shall be willing to withdraw this Amendment.
LORD LATHAM: As I understand it, the question of the interpretation of the words will fall to be done by a magistrates' court, and the language ought to be as explicit and clear as possible, because the magistrates' court is composed, for the most part, of lay persons.
LORD NEWTON: I hesitate to make a pronouncement on a legal question like that, but I should have thought that on a question of law, on a question of interpretation of the Statute, there is certainly some form of appeal to a higher court.
LORD LATHAM: There would be a right of appeal to quarter sessions.
LORD NEWTON: I do not want to go any further than this. Any Statute is interpreted by the courts; we all know that. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked me to consider another slight Amendment. I will certainly do that, but I should not like to commit myself, again for this reason: that I shall have to inquire whether or not even the addition he now proposes might throw

469
doubt on the same words in another Statute.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved, in subsection (3)(a)(iii), to leave out "to persons resorting thereto". The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4 on the Marshalled List. It might be convenient to the Committee if I discussed at the same time the related Amendments Nos. 5 and 94. My right honourable friend has decided that the definition of "wholesale shop premises" in Clause 1 (3)(a)(iii) needs to be widened in order to include wholesale premises which do business with customers who do not resort to them. The present definition in the Bill corresponds closely to the relevant section of the Shops Act. It would exclude wholesale premises to which customers do not resort. For example, as the Bill stands at the moment this would include the wholesale counterpart of a mail order business. However, the welfare provisions in Section 38 of the Shops Act apply, among other premises, to any warehouse occupied for the purpose of his trade by any wholesale dealer or merchant. This is obviously a wider definition, and since the Bill is designed to repeal Section 38 of the Shops Act when the Bill comes into force, my right honourable friend has concluded that the Amendment I am moving is necessary to avoid a situation in which the benefits of protective legislation are removed from some classes of workers.
The other two Amendments, Nos. 5 and 94, are necessary because the Factories Act already applies to certain classes of warehouses. These are warehouses in factories, warehouses belonging to the owners, trustees or conservators of a dock, wharf or quay, and any other warehouse in or for the purpose of which mechanical power is used. Nothing further needs to be done in the Bill about warehouses in factories, because they are removed from its scope by Clause 83. The object of Amendment No. 5 is to leave warehouses belonging to the owners, et cetera, of docks, wharves or quays within the Factories Act since that Act deals generally with safety, health and welfare in docks. On the other hand, Amendment No. 94 transfers to this Bill any wholesale warehouses which use mechanical power, so that all wholesale warehouses, other than those in
470
factories or belonging to owners of docks, may be dealt with under the Bill. In other words, in a rather complicated way we are trying to make sure that all warehouses are included somewhere. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 15, leave out ("to persons resorting thereto").—(Lord Newton.)
LORD SHEPHERD: We on this side obviously welcome anything done by the Government to extend and widen the provisions of this Bill, and to bring more workers within its scope. The noble Lord used the word "warehouse." I am quite sure that he will be aware that there are some warehouses which do not come within the orbit of "wholesale". I am thinking in particular now of the forwarding and packing agencies, those firms which have fairly large warehouses wherein is received merchandise from a manufacturer for packing and onward transmission, it may be to retailers in this country, but in many cases for the export trade. May I ask the Minister whether that type of warehouse will be within the compass of this Bill? It is a warehouse which is not strictly wholesale, but which receives merchandise from a supplier on the instructions of the seller or the buyer, for packing and onward freighting to its eventual destination.
LORD NEWTON: I am not quite clear what the noble Lord means about being a warehouse which is not wholly wholesale. If it really is wholesale then it will be covered by the Bill or by the Factories Act. I will, however, look into the position. If there is a rather peculiar type of warehouse which is somehow defined differently and may not be covered, certainly I will look into it.
LORD LATHAM: Surely my noble friend refers to buildings which are used for goods in transit from one place to another?
LORD SHEPHERD: But not on the railway or in docks.
LORD NEWTON: Again, I do not want to be too categorical about this, but I would have thought that they would be dealt with under the definition of a "wholesaler".
LORD SHEPHERD: No, because a wholesaler is a part of a selling operation. These are warehouses in the servicing trade—quite different from the selling operation. They are part of the service. I would hope that the Minister will see that this type of warehouse is included in the Bill.
LORD NEWTON: I will certainly look into this point between now and the next stage of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 16, at end insert ("but not including a warehouse belonging to the owners, trustees or conservators of a dock, wharf or quay").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (3) (a) (v), after "solid" to insert "or liquid". The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. The Committee will see that at line 26, the Government have, with our full support, brought coal depots within the provisions of the Bill, and words have been used to include the sale of solid fuel. The purpose of my Amendment is to bring within the compass of the Bill those organisations or premises which deal with liquid fuels. The only difference in power these days is whether the fuel is solid or liquid, and I hope the Government will see that both these commodities are treated alike. The Minister may say that petrol or diesel oil sold from a pump to the owner of a motorcar or a lorry constitutes a retail trade. I think he probably is within the definition. So far as liquid fuel is concerned one can well say that the installations where oil is refined into petrol or paraffin is a source of supply—it is the manufacturer.
I come now, therefore, to the question whether those installations which store that liquid fuel and from which the retailer is supplied can be brought within the description of a wholesale dealer. The point again is the one that I was trying to make to the noble Lord, Lord Newton: that a wholesale business is not a service, it is a selling operation. It may be argued that an oil dump from which the retailer obtains his supply, while it is in
472
the middle part of the trade, the channel of trade, does not constitute a "wholesaler" because the fuel is sold by some other organisation, and therefore this installation is merely part of a service within the fuel industry. I hope that the Government will take the view that if coal is being treated as a normal commodity, and that the coal depôt is wholesale or retail, as of course it is according to how the depôt operates, then liquid fuels shall be treated accordingly: in other words, that we shall treat all fuels, and the distribution of the same, in a like manner.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that, as I understand the position, the installations that carry out the refining are all covered by the Factories Act? Therefore we are not really widening the scope of the Bill, as was his objection earlier this afternoon, but we are making it clear—as I think is the Government's intention; I hope it is—that liquid fuels at the petrol pump shall be regarded as retail trade and therefore within the compass of the Bill. I hope that this part of the distribution of liquid fuels, comprising storage and places from which vehicles collect in order to deliver to the retailer, will be classed as "wholesale" and will be brought in after the words "solid fuel". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 26, after ("solid") insert ("or liquid").—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD CARRINGTON: I think I shall be able to satisfy the noble Lord on this matter. Perhaps I can go a little more deeply into it, because his Amendment would include things other than wholesale depôts. Garages, for instance, would comprise the greatest number of such premises with liquid fuel. The vast majority of garages have offices and shops which sell spares and accessories on the premises, so they are clearly within the scope of the Bill. So, too, are the showrooms or buildings where cars are garaged, washed or greased. They come under Clause 1 (3) (a) (ii). If there is a workshop in a garage, that is covered by the Factories Act.
That leaves for consideration the forecourt where petrol pumps are to be found. Many of these forecourts are now covered by "structures". Clause 88 (1) of the Bill provides that, except on railways,

473
"building" includes structure, so that those forecourts, too, would be within the scope of the Bill. Whether the forecourt is within the scope or not does not, however, make any practical difference in regard to pump attendants, because some part of the garage will be within the scope of this Bill or possibly that of the Factories Act, and facilities will have to be provided for the staff. The Petroleum (Consolidation) Act, 1928, provides for the safe storage generally of fuel in garages. Storage facilities for the sale of paraffin and similar fuels which form part of, or are attached to, retail shops are clearly for the purpose of the trade or business of the shop, and I do not think there is any doubt that they are within the scope of the Bill.
That leaves what the noble Lord opposite is worried about: the wholesale storage depôts. It will, of course, depend on the form which those depôts take, but if they are a building or a structure they will fit the definition in Clause 1 (3) (a) (iii) which we have just amended; that is to say, a building, or part of a building, occupied by a wholesale dealer or merchant where goods are kept for sale wholesale. I hope that I have said enough to show the noble Lord that most premises engaged in the distribution of liquid fuel will be covered by the Bill. That is certainly the intention, and I hone he will be satisfied with that assurance.
LORD SHEPHERD: I thank the noble Lord for his reply which seems to me extremely satisfactory. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON moved, in subsection (3) (a) (v), to leave out all words after "including" and to insert instead: "dock storage premises or colliery storage premises". The noble Lord said: I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 together. Further study of the phrase "fuel storage premises" in Clause 1 has shown that it would bring within its scope places which the Bill was not intended to cover. This arises out of the fact that the National Coal Board and other owners of coal mines or opencast quarries are engaged in the sale of solid fuel, and some parts of the area immediately adjacent to the pithead or
474
quarry are used "for the storage of such fuel intended to be sold". The definition as it stands would therefore apply the Bill to most, if not all, the places where colliery surface workers work.
Apart from coal depôts on the railways and any other places away from mines and quarries, the intention behind the Bill was to include "land-sale" depôts in mining areas. Those are depôts in which coal merchants' employees or employees of outside contractors are regularly engaged. The Amendment therefore excludes fuel storage premises at mines or quarries other than those places where outside persons are regularly employed to work. I would emphasise that this Amendment does not mean that the employees of the National Coal Board or the mine or quarry owners will not enjoy the benefits conferred by the Bill. As your Lordships know, the welfare amenities for colliery workers are now of a very high standard, and these workers have, in addition, the protection of the Mines & Quarries Act, 1954. So this Amendment, in effect, avoids an unnecessary duplication. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 28, leave out from ("including") to end of line 32 and insert the said new words—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CARRINGTON: I beg to move Amendment No. 8.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 37, leave out ("and").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CARRINGTON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 40, at end insert—
("(d) 'dock storage premises' means fuel storage premises which constitute or are comprised in premises to which certain provisions of the Factories Act 1961 apply by Virtue of section 125(1) (docks, etc.) of that Act; and
(e) 'colliery storage premises' means fuel storage premises which form part of premises which, for the purposes of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, form part of a mine or quarry, other than premises where persons are regularly employed to work by a person other than the owner (as defined by that Act) of the mine or quarry.").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DENHAM: Before speaking to Amendment No. 10, I should like to declare a personal interest in the subject of this Bill generally. I own a small business which consists of a small workshop, and two retail shops in the picture-framing trade. I think it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if we took the next three Amendments, Nos. 10, 11 and 12 together. Their purpose is to exclude from the definition of "railway premises" under the Bill railway electrical supply stations to which Section 123 of the Factories Act applies. Office premises in these electrical stations will, however, still come under the Bill by virtue of Clause 72(1). The Amendments are necessary because Clause 83(1), which excludes factory premises, does not extend to the electrical stations to which Section 125 of the Factories Act applies.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 13, after ("include") insert ("(a)").—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DENHAM: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 13, after first ("premises") insert ("(b)").—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DENHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 15, at end insert ("or
(c) premises wherein are carried on such processes or operations as are mentioned in section 123 (1) (electrical stations) of the Factories Act 1961 and for such supply as is therein mentioned ").—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I have one small point to raise on this clause. I must apologise for not having given prior notice of it, but I have only just noticed it. It concerns subsection (3) which deals with the definition of "shop premises". The point to which I would draw my noble friend's attention is that "shop premises" is defined as meaning first "a shop", and secondly a building used principally or solely for the carrying on of a retail trade or business; and thereafter there are some other extensions of the word "shop".
476
Later on "retail trade or business" is also defined as including certain occupations which may be carried on. Other definitions of the word "shop" and "retail trade or business" appear in the Shops Act, 1950, in Section 74. There is always a certain amount of dispute, when it comes to individual premises, whether or not they are "a shop" within the meaning of this or that Act.
The definition of "retail trade or business" in the Shops Act, which is used as part of the definition of a shop itself, includes the business of a barber or a hairdresser. The definition of "retail trade or business" in this Bill does not. I am quite certain that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to include barbers and hairdressers within the scope of this Bill. But I wonder whether, because almost exactly the same words are used in the definition in the Shops Act of "retail trade or business", except for the fact that it also includes a barber and hairdresser, there may be some difficulty in knowing whether in this Bill this particular trade is comprehended within the term "shop". I wonder whether, before the next stage of the Bill, one of my noble friends will be so good as to see whether there in anything in this point, because I am sure that it would be a good thing to clear up any doubts if they arise.
LORD CARRINGTON: My noble kinsman is quite right. It certainly is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that barbers' shops should be included in this Bill. I am advised that the expression "a shop" in Clause 1 (3) (a) (i) includes a barber's shop. But since doubt has been expressed about it, I think I had better look at it again. I am very grateful to my noble friend for raising the matter, and I will see that it is all right before the next stage.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Exception for premises in which only employer's relatives or outworkers work
2.—(1) This Act shall not apply to any premises to which it would, apart from this subsection, apply, if none of the persons employed to work in the premises is other than the husband, wife, parent, grandparent. son, daughter, grandchild, brother or sister of the person by whom they are so employed.
4.32 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved, in subsection (1), after "Act" to insert "except section 17 thereof,". The noble Lord said: It falls to my lot to move Amendments Nos. 14 to 20—seven Amendments in all—but I do not propose to give them all equal weight, neither, I think, would the Committee nor the Government. For that reason I do not feel that I can discuss them all together—I hope that does not disappoint the noble Lords opposite too much—but I think I can, at the outset of what seems to me to be something of a marathon task, speak of the general considerations that are applicable to all these Amendments. I hope by doing that I shall avoid what the Committee might feel would be tedious repetition if I made the same points on each and every one of them.
The general considerations which are applicable to all are these. The first is that many of the premises to be covered by the Bill are those of very small businesses, small shops in competition one with one another. To exclude one from what may seem to many small businessmen as the very onerous provisions of this Bill, on the ground that only the family is employed in it, and to force others to carry out the provisions of this Bill, would clearly give to the family business a competitive advantage, an unfair advantage. I can understand the Government's wish to protect the small man, but in protecting one small man by this clause you would, in fact, be injuring another small man. You would be placing one in a very advantageous position. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, speaking just now on another Amendment, pointed to the fact that something we were doing would appear to place the railway in a disadvantageous position vis-á-vis road transport. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, recognised that this competitive principle had some validity. I hope he will feel that it also has validity in relation to the people that we are discussing, who will be affected by this clause.
The second consideration I would mention is the fact that family exemptions from the provisions of Acts of this sort clearly represent an entirely new departure from our health, safety and welfare legislation. No such exemptions appear in
478
any of the Factories Acts; they do not appear in the Shops Act, nor certainly in the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act, 1956. In the case of the latter measure, if ever there is an industry in which there are small family concerns, surely agriculture is an outstanding example. There is no family exemption from the provisions of that Act of 1956. I rather think that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, may have been in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when that Act went through and will have some recollection of this fact, even if he has not looked it up subsequently.
The third consideration I would mention, is that the family employee in most cases lacks the protection of the trade union, because it is not the type of employment which clearly leads to membership of a trade union. I understand that this clause would in no way debar one member of the family from exercising his or her right to bring a civil action, in case of personal injuries received arising out of his or her work. But in most cases such a man would not have behind him the wealth and the experience of a great trade union, which I know is immensely important to the employee vis-à-vis his employer.
The fourth consideration I would mention, is that the excellent Gowers Committee certainly made no recommendation upon this matter—at least, if they did I have not been able to find it—of the exclusion of the family business; for, I should think, the very obvious reason that we ought not to brush aside essential safeguards just because it is a small concern, nor because those employed in it are related one to the other.
To that I would add that, even if this Bill becomes an Act, some 5 million people will be excluded from the type of protection that it envisages, as we have heard several times this afternoon. These 5 million are very much too many, and we ought not to add to that by the exclusion of the people set out in this clause. If the conditions which this Bill seeks to remove are bad, they should be removed from all establishments regardless of family considerations. In so many cases one member of the family will stand, in relation to the head of the business, as an ordinary wage or salary earner, and he ought to be as much safeguarded

479
by the provisions of this Bill as any other employee working in a similar establishment.
Having got my general considerations off my chest, I come down now to the particular. But I hope that the noble Lords who will reply to my Amendments as I come to them will remember these general considerations, because I do not propose to repeat them. Amendment No. 14 is the first Amendment standing in my name. Clause 17 deals admirably with the fencing of exposed parts of machinery. This part of the Bill arises out of a vast experience of accidents caused by inadequately fenced machinery. With a little homework one could expatiate at some length on the background to this clause, and the reasons for its inclusion here. It follows a long experience of trade unions and others of the operation of the Factories Acts, but I will spare the Committee detail on that. I shall not go into that aspect at any great length. But it is an important matter and the trade unions have a vast experience of this, as have the factories inspectors and others. I would add that there can be no justification whatsoever for exempting the family employee from the wise protection, the good protection, of this safety provision. I would appeal to noble Lords to read Clause 17 before deciding that this Amendment would press too hard on the family concern. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 26, after ("Act") insert ("except section 17 thereof,")—(Lord Champion.)
LORD MCNAIR: I beg to support this Amendment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Champion, I am disturbed by the thought of the exclusion of these small family concerns. There are various safety provisions contained in the Bill, most of which are referred to in the seven Amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Champion. I can well understand the desire to economise the time of the inspectorate by rendering it unnecessary for them to visit these small concerns, but I must remind the Committee of the sanctions for the enforcement of a Bill of this type and the remedies for a breach of the provisions of a Bill of this type. Towards the end of the Bill we find several clauses dealing with
480
offences. But there is another very important sanction which attaches to a Bill of this character, and notably to legislation concerning the Factories Acts—and this Bill is first cousin to the Factories Acts. That is a civil action for damages brought for a breach of statutory responsibility.
The effect of Clause 2 as it stands at present is this. Suppose that I have a job in a shop owned and managed by my uncle, and that all the other employees are within the various degrees of affinity and consanguinity described in this clause; and let us suppose that I am injured as a result of the fact that exposed machinery has not been properly fenced in accordance with the general requirements of this Bill. In that event, my position is that I have no civil remedy for damages against the owner, against my employer. It is true that I get my very inferior compensation for an industrial injury, but I am deprived of my right to bring an action for damages; and anyone who is familiar with the Factories Acts knows that the existence of that civil remedy for damages arising from a breach of its provisions is one of the most powerful sanctions for the enforcement of that legislation.
Nobody, of course, wishes to encourage unnecessary litigation within a family, and one does not like the idea of people suing their fathers or uncles just because their fathers or uncles have failed to comply with the Act. But from the point of view of the community it seems to me quite wrong that, just because a person happens to be related within these degrees to his employer, he should be deprived of this remedy. If I am working in the shop of an uncle and sustain an injury, although I may get my compensation for industrial injury I have no action. If I cross the street and take a job with a stranger and he is guilty of a breach of the provisions of this Act, not only do I get compensation for my industrial injury but I get something very much more: I have an action for damages because of a breach of a statutory duty. Therefore, I venture to hope that the noble Lord in charge of this Bill will very carefully consider whether, in the interests of the economy of the time of the inspectorate or for some other reason, it is safe and right to deprive these young relatives of the employer in the shop of this remedy;

481
and, much more important, as a matter of public policy, whether it is right to remove this very powerful sanction of an action for damages for a breach of the provisions of an Act of this kind.
4.47 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: I should like to say a few words in support of the Amendment so admirably moved by my noble friend Lord Champion. The first point I would make, is that the Association of Public Health Inspectors, whose members will have the responsibility of carrying out the provisions of this Bill when it becomes an Act, are firmly of the opinion, as can be plainly seen by the number of Amendments which have been put down on the Marshalled List, that the exemptions from various responsibilities are far too wide and will destroy the value of the Act in a most substantial way. Quite seriously, I should like to ask the Minister to consider withdrawing this clause entirely from the Bill, because not only are there the wide exceptions which the clause provides—unfairly, as I think my noble friend Lord Champion has clearly demonstrated—but there is the difficulty with which the inspectors, acting under the provisions of this legislation, will be confronted when carrying out their duties.
Obviously, this clause will apply, in the main, to very small shops: it must do, in the nature of things. Will the Minister tell me, or tell those who will be responsible, how an inspector, when he calls at a shop, will be able to identify or know who are the relatives of the employer? If the employer produces a lady and says, "This is my wife", or if he says, "This is my son", or, "This is my daughter", will the inspector have to ask for the marriage certificate or the birth certificates of the children? And even if they are produced, what conclusive evidence is there that those certificates apply to those persons? The clause is a most unsatisfactory one. No other clause in the Bill has so many Amendments put down to it; demonstrably it is a clause to which there are far-reaching objections. Quite apart from this Amendment and the other Amendments that will be proposed, I think this clause—as I am sure will be demonstrated beyond peradventure at the end of the considerations of these
482
Amendments—ought not to stand in the final shape of the Bill.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: This clause would appear to be designed for the laudable purpose of helping the small shopkeeper; therefore I do not intend to try to counter the arguments that have been put up by noble Lords opposite. I wish merely to suggest that if it is to be retained it will be as well that it should be extended a little further by including nephews, nieces and possibly grand-nieces and grandnephews, because all of us who are familiar with small businesses know that very often the main help of the shopkeeper is a nephew or a niece rather than a direct descendant. Furthermore, even if that is not fully acceptable, I wish to draw attention to the rather ridiculous position which will arise where it would be legal to employ one's son or daughter but not the wife or husband of such son or daughter. Very often a person employs his son-in-law or daughter-in-law, and if this principle is to be maintained—and I think it is a good thing that it should be—this small extension will help further.
LORD NEWTON: It is perfectly true that under the Bill as it stands family businesses are excluded from its scope altogether. This has been a deliberate decision on the part of the Government, reached after very careful thought. What these Amendments do is to bring family businesses within its scope in regard to the provisions relating to safety and fire. The noble Lord, Lord Burden, evidently thinks the Amendment does not go far enough, and he said the whole of Clause 2 should be omitted; in other words, that these small family businesses should be covered by the Bill in its entirety.
LORD BURDEN: That really is the point of most of the Amendments.
LORD NEWTON: With great respect, I think it is not. The purpose of the Amendments is to bring these family businesses within the scope of the Bill in respect of provisions relating to safety and fire. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for discussing all these Amendments together.
LORD CHAMPION: What I said was that there are certain general considerations which would apply to them all. I

483
set out the general considerations; but I hope to return to a discussion of each Amendment as I come to it, because clearly there are some points which ought to be put on each of the Amendments.
LORD NEWTON: I meant to say that I am grateful to the noble Lord for covering them altogether in so far as general considerations apply, as I want to explain to your Lordships now. I think everybody appreciates that in the premises we are discussing employers' children employed in the business may, or could, suffer accidents from dangerous machinery or from fire. But it seems to me that the really essential point behind Clause 2 is whether a business in which only close relatives are employed should be subjected to the whole of the administrative business of registration and inspection in order to enforce this group of provisions, or any provisions. As I explained to your Lordships in the Second Reading debate, the Government believe we should be interfering unreasonably in the running of small family businesses if this were so. The Government believe the close family relationship is the best safeguard in these matters, and, consequently, Clause 2 is in the Bill.
LORD SHEPHERD: Can the noble Lord say whether that attitude applies to the Factories Act? There are no exclusions in the Factories Act for family businesses.
LORD NEWTON: No, it does not apply. We are not discussing the Factories Act. Conditions in the factories, as we know, are in many ways very different from conditions in small family businesses, which will mostly be small shops. The Government believe that the parents' wish to protect their children—and surely this is the wish of most parents—is as likely to be an effective safeguard as the occasional visit of an inspector; and I should have thought in most cases it would be a much more effective safeguard. My noble friend Lord Mansfield drew attention to the fact that the definition of "family" for the purpose of Clause 2 is limited; and it is. For instance, if an uncle or aunt, niece, nephew or cousin or any of the in-laws is employed, then the Bill will apply to the business. My noble friend thought the scope of the clause ought to be
484
widened a little to include relatives less close. That is the opposite point of view; I think you can make out a case for it in the same way that you can make a good case on general grounds, as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has, for his Amendment.
But what it really comes down to is that this is a question of principle on which we have to make up our minds. Obviously, on a question of principle opinions can differ. One of the things the Government had in mind is that it is doubtful whether it would be wise in a Statute of this kind to make it possible for one member of a family to inform against another very close member. I should have thought that there were enough forces in the world to-day making for the disruption of family life without our going out of our way to add one more to them. At any rate, that is the general philosophy we had in mind in putting Clause 2 in the Bill.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair, said that, as a result of Clause 2, the employee of a small family business would not have adequate civil remedy against his employer. I understand that members of a family business, which will be excluded by this clause, would not be debarred from exercising their right to bring civil actions in respect of personal injuries arising out of their work. They would have to prove negligence upon the part of their employer, who would be a close relative. They would not be able to bring action on a breach of statutory duty, which I think was the point the noble Lord had in mind. I would ask noble Lords to remember that in this clause we are concerned with very small businesses. They could not be anything else, because they employ only members of a family. I should have thought that it follows from that that in almost every case, if there were serious injury, the money would not be there to provide compensation to a member of the family on a very large scale.
The noble Lord, Lord Burden, asked me how, when an inspector went into a shop, he was to know whether the employees were closely related. I am speaking without careful thought, but I think the answer to the noble Lord is in Clause 49, which requires employers to give notice in writing if they are covered

485
by this Bill and owners of small family businesses, who are not covered, are not required to register.
LORD BURDEN: With due respect, that does not answer my point at all. How could the inspector identify any persons said to be relatives?
LORD NEWTON: I think that if the noble Lord considers what I have said, and is good enough to read Clause 49, he will find that the onus is on everyone covered by this Bill to register himself as being covered. It follows from that that the inspector need not bother himself about any business legally entitled not to register. These are the reasons why Clause 2 is in the Bill and why I am not in a position to accept the Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has in mind. I do not suppose that I will have convinced all noble Lords that I am right, but, as I say, this is a matter of opinion on a question of principle, and I ask your Lordships to recognise that the Government believe as strongly that they are right, as I have no doubt some noble Lords feel that they are wrong.
LORD SHEPHERD: That was a most unsatisfactory reply. Perhaps it was a slip of the tongue when the noble Lord said that he cannot accept the Amendments of my noble friend before they have been moved. If that is what he said, it seems to me extraordinary. I do not go so far as to say that the noble Lord has treated the Committee with contempt.
LORD NEWTON: I do not think that is fair criticism. After all, the noble Lord, Lord Champion, as he said in his speech, was concerned with general principles, and so was I. I should have thought that I gave a pretty clear indication, when referring to this part of the Bill on Second Reading, that the Government were not prepared to compromise on the contents of Clause 2. What I was doing this afternoon was to say, in rather greater detail and at greater length, what I said on Second Reading.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord dealt with the general principles and then referred specifically to the matter under Amendment No. 14. Is it not a fact that, under the Factories Act, there is no exclusion of family businesses from the provisions for dangerous machinery? Section 17 of the Factories Act deals,
486
for instance, with the exposed parts of machinery. This is not a matter of broad principle. The Government may be right in saying that family businesses could be excluded from the necessity of having proper sanitary arrangements or washing facilities for the family, but there is no justification whatever to exclude certain provisions for the protection of sons and daughters working in the family business.
May I ask the noble Lord to turn to page 13? Clause 20 (3) (c) says that regulations may provide for
"prohibiting the sale or letting on hire for use in premises in Great Britain to which this Act applies … of any machinery, plant, equipment or appliance which does not comply with requirements of the regulations".
Later on, it makes it an offence to sell or hire machinery and equipment which does not comply with the safety regulations. By the refusal of the Government to accept Amendment No. 14, and the inference that they will refuse to accept the others, a manufacturer or hirer can sell or hire dangerous machinery to a family business and nothing can be done about it in law. That is what the Minister is saying. Dangerous machinery cannot be sold or hired to an ordinary business with employees, but it would be perfectly legitimate to sell the same equipment to a family business. I cannot believe that that is what the Government have in mind. If that is the Government's attitude, although we shall not hold up the Committee on this Amendment, we shall have to consider what we are going to do about the clause when it is put to the Committee.
LORD CHAMPION: With my noble friend Lord Shepherd, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, made a very weak case in support of the Government's attitude on this Amendment. I have a tremendous respect for the noble Lord, but it seemed to me that he was less sure of himself than usual. I rather felt that his conscience was pricking him about what he was telling us about the rejection of Amendment No. 14. I do not think that he dealt adequately with the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair, who has had great experience of this sort of thing, about the effect that the exclusion of certain types of machinery will have on the right of members of a family to bring a civil action against their employer, who may be a relative; and so

487
many of these relatives do stand vis-à-vis the head of the family so that they might be precisely in the position of a wage or salary earner.
I disagree profoundly with the suggestion that the close relationship of the people engaged will be the best safeguard: I think that is quite nonsense. Indeed, the Government have already recognised that it is nonsense by the Inclusion of the small family farm under the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act, 1956. There were many of those sections which bore rather hardly on the small family business, but in 1956 the Government, quite rightly, did not consider this aspect and made no provision whatever for excluding them from the somewhat onerous provisions of that Act.
The other point with which the noble Lord made some play was that we are considering here small businesses. I agree. But these small businesses are in competition, too, with other small businesses. The other small businesses in which relatives are not employed will have the whole weight of this Bill directed against them. Why do it in the case of one, where a few relatives are employed, and not in the other cases, where perhaps a smaller number of non-relatives are employed? I think that the Government have made out an extremely weak case on this Amendment, and I hope they will have a stronger case on some of the later ones, if they are going to reject them. I must say that I did not like the words of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, in virtually rejecting the rest of the Amendments, and I believe them to be of such an important nature that I propose to move most of them.
LORD McNAIR: May I clear up one small point? The noble Lord, Lord Newton, was absolutely right when he said that the action based on negligence would exist even if this clause remained in the Bill. The reason why I laid so much stress on the action for damages for breach of statutory duty is that it is a much more powerful and simpler action than an action for negligence, which is notoriously difficult to prove. If the noble Lord would consult his legal advisers, I think they would tell him that the experience under the Factories
488
Acts is that an action based upon a breach of statutory duty is much more likely to succeed than one based on negligence. I should like to make one further comment. I said that one does not like the idea of encouraging members of the family to litigate among themselves, but it must be remembered that in the vast majority of cases the injured relative is not suing dear father or dear uncle, but the insurance company, a step behind.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.15 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved in subsection (1) after "Act" to insert "except sections 18 and 19 thereof". The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with Clauses 18 and 19 of the Bill. Here we are dealing with young persons under 18 years of age. Clause 18 deals with the avoidance of exposure of young persons to danger in cleaning material. It was included in the Bill as the result of powerful representations made in another place by some of my honourable friends who happen to have exceptional knowledge of this type of difficulty and danger. During the passage of the Bill there, a case was cited which illustrates the dangers to employees and people working even in shops. My honourable friend in the other place was quoting, and I will quote the same words. He said:
"'After having cleaned an electrically powered bacon-slicing machine, a girl 20 years old was replacing the guard when this slipped. She endeavoured to prevent it falling. She inadvertently brought her left hand on to the blade of the machine. There was some evidence that at that time the machine was set in motion by brushing against the knee-level starter switch. As a consequence, she suffered the amputation of the whole of her left hand'".
The honourable Member to whom I refer is known to me as the head of a great trade union with vast experience in this field. He told the Committee in another place that half the cases of this sort which are brought to the notice of the union involve persons under the age of 18.
It seems to me that there is not the slightest justification for the exclusion of a grandson, a son or a brother from the protection of Clause 18, any more than there would have been for the exclusion of similar relatives under Section 7 of the Agriculture (Safety, Health

489
and Welfare Provisions) Act, 1956. That section (I am sure many noble Lords will know something about this, because they have agricultural interests) gave the Minister, by regulation, power to prohibit children from driving vehicles, machinery or implements used in agriculture, and prohibited them from riding on them in certain cases. I remember that when that Act was going through another place cases were cited of children being killed or maimed through falling off the coupling between the tractor and trailer, and the tragedy of so many of those cases was that the tractor was often being driven by the father or a brother. It is right that cases of that sort should be dealt with under legislation, and Parliament so decided.
In all these matters (and this applies to what we are talking about now, youngsters under 17) familiarity does breed contempt, so far as the use of many of these things is concerned, and from this relatives are no more exempt than any other employees. Much the same consideration applies to Clause 19. If it is necessary for non-relatives to train in the use of dangerous machines, then it is equally necessary that relatives should be so trained. I am not going to speak for any length of time on this Amendment, but I feel that there is a case for further consideration by the Government of these points dealing with young people under the age of 18. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 26, after ("Act") insert ("except sections 18 and 19 thereof,").—(Lord Champion.)
LORD NEWTON: I do not think either the noble Lord, Lord Champion, or your Lordships, will be surprised when I say that I am not able to accept this Amendment, either. As I explained when replying to the noble Lord earlier, the Government deliberately decided that, in their judgment, it was right to exclude family businesses from all the provisions of the Bill. Obviously, it is possible to make out a persuasive case in favour of this exception or that, as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has done, but the position is that we think it is right, for the reasons I gave, that these businesses should be completely excluded. We have stood on that in another place, and I am standing on it in your Lordships'
490
House to-day. I would remind your Lordships again that the Government were very forthcoming and, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, magnanimous in another place in accepting Amendments from the Opposition which were designed to widen the scope of the Bill. I am sorry, but the Government are not prepared willingly to widen the scope of the Bill further, either to accept detailed Amendments to make exceptions to the provisions of Clause 2, or to agree to the deletion of Clause 2 altogether.
LORD LINDGREN: The noble Lord, Lord Newton, referred to my phrasing on Second Reading, and I do not withdraw it at all. I think the Government were generous and magnanimous in accepting Amendments, and it came to us a much better Bill. But that does not in any way alter the arguments in regard to this series of Amendments. Here we have a family business in which the father is employing, as an employee, a son or daughter aged 17 or 18. The Government do not exclude the employer from the requirements of an employer under the National Insurance Act. As an employer, he still has to purchase and stamp the card of a son or a daughter as an employee. Why? Because that son or daughter has to be protected for industrial injuries, for sickness benefit, and for unemployment if there is a dispute with the father and the son becomes unemployed. Equally, the building up of insurance contributions counts in the final pension which the son or daughter will receive on retirement.
This is the point I wish to make. Under the National Insurance Act the Government require a family business to insure members of the family for their protection, and yet the Government are excluding such individuals from the provisions of protection under this Bill, particularly with regard to machinery. My noble friend Lord Champion referred to the case of an unfortunate girl who dropped the guard on a bacon machine. That is a very good example, because it is one of the most dangerous machines within the whole of the provision trade—indeed, I would say within the general retail trade. Many large firms—I will not mention names, because it would be unfair—engaged in the provision trade prohibit employees even on the bacon

491
counter from cleaning the bacon machine. These firms detail one employee to clean the whole of the machines within the shop. If it is necessary to protect the employees within a large-scale undertaking, it is equally necessary to require that the person within the small business shall be protected as well. In this Bill there is no protection whatever for a young boy of 14 or 15 (working, perhaps, out of school hours as an errand boy, within the provisions of the Factories Act) from cleaning the bacon machine, or being told to do so by his father.
If there is a severe accident it is a heavy responsibility on the father, but it is also a heavy responsibility on this House, because we have a duty to protect the individual against even his own parents. We protect him against an employer, but we will not protect him against his father if his father happens to be the owner of the shop, except if the son is employed in the business and the father takes on another assistant. As soon as another assistant comes in the shop, then the protection is placed on the son. Is it not just fantastic that on Saturday night, when the shop closes, the son is excluded from the Act, but on Monday morning, when they start another assistant, the son is included in the Act?
LORD NEWTON: I should have thought that the noble Lord would be pleased about that, from his point of view, and not complaining.
LORD LINDGREN: I am pleased that he is included on Monday morning when there is another assistant, but it is fantastic that he should not be included when he is the only assistant. After all, the Government are concerned with protecting the small man and encouraging the small business. Does the noble Lord not want the small business to grow? If the small business, which at first could afford only to carry the son or daughter as the employee, grows and employs other employees, why the distinction, one from the other? I think this is very wrong of the Government. It is wrong that persons should be left unprotected, and I see no difference whatever between requiring the father to pay industrial injuries insurance in his National Health Insurance contribution, and requiring him to protect the
492
Son from moving machinery and from cleaning dangerous machinery.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.28 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved in subsection (1), after "Act" to insert, "except section 20 thereof,". The noble Lord said: I must continue my weary progress along this line of trying to ensure some safeguard for people in family employment. I believe that this House has a definite responsibility in these matters, and if anything happens in these family businesses which might have been prevented had we secured these Amendments, some little conscience-stirring must take place among those who have rejected them.
I would ask the Committee to look at this lengthy clause which deals with regulations for securing the health and safety of workers in these premises we have been discussing. Subsection (1) of Clause 20 says:
"The Minister may, as respects premises to which this Act applies or any class of such premises, make special regulations for protecting persons working in such premises or, as the case may be, in such premises of that class against risks of bodily injury or injury to health arising out of the use of any machinery, plant, equipment, appliance or substance, the carrying on of any operation or the use of any process."
That is a very wide subsection. Subsection (3) sets out the regulations which may be made, and they have very great breadth. They are essential regulations, otherwise the Government would never have included them in this Bill, and are intended to safeguard human beings. Every Committee that has ever considered this matter has agreed that these regulations and these safeguards are necessary. The Government regard them as essential, or the Minister of Labour would never have included them in this Clause 20. What I say about this is, that if they are aimed at Bill Jones, who employs a few workers, then, equally, they should be aimed at John Smith who employs a few relatives, and John Smith should run the same risk of being guilty of an offence as Bill Jones if he contravenes the regulations. My noble friend Lord Shepherd also dealt with the same aspect of this Clause 20 when we were considering my first Amendment, No. 14, and he pointed to the fact that there seemed to be not

493
the slightest justification for excluding the family business from the provisions of this very lengthy Clause 20. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 26, after ("Act") insert ("except section 20 thereof,")—(Lord Champion.)
LORD NEWTON: For the reasons which I have now given twice I must recommend to your Lordships that you reject this Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: Might I ask the Minister whether it is therefore going to be lawful to sell dangerous equipment to a family business—equipment that does not comply with the regulations that will be necessary—before that dangerous machinery is sold to other types of shops and employers?
LORD HAWKE: Could my noble friend tell me what number of accidents have occurred in family businesses through dangerous machinery, and so on?
LORD NEWTON: I have no information about that immediately to hand, but I should have thought a very small number indeed. I cannot give the noble Lord an answer now, but I will find out for him.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved, in subsection (1), after "Act" to insert, "except sections 28, 30, 31 and 32 thereof,". The noble Lord said: I am definitely moving this Amendment, which deals with the clauses which are to affect fire precautions. In this connection I am bound to ask what sort of logic is it which says in subsection (1) of Clause 28:
"All premises to which this Act applies shall be provided with such means of escape in case of fire for the persons employed to work therein as may reasonably be required in the circumstances of the case."
Why should the family business be excluded from reasonable fire precautions? It would seem to me that by the exclusion of the premises visualised in Clause 2, what we are, in effect, saying to-day is that one is justified in burning a few relatives but not a few employees. I believe that the maintenance of the means of escape in the on:, case is equally as important as in the other.
The Minister in another place quite rightly rejected an Amendment which would have excepted from these pro-
494
visions premises in which not more than five people are habitually employed at a time. His rejection, I thought, made it quite clear that an establishment employing as few as five or less number of non-relatives must provide reasonable means of escape in case of fire, but an establishment employing very many more than five, provided they are relatives, need not provide reasonable means of escape. One of the general considerations that I made before moving my Amendment No. 14 has, I think, great force here. One small man would have to spend perhaps a considerable amount on structural alterations to comply with the fire precautions to this Bill, while another small man employing relatives would be free to spend his capital on equipment which would improve his competitive efficiency. I and my noble friends give great weight to this Amendment, and we most strongly urge the Government to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 26, after ("Act") insert ("except sections 28, 30, 31 and 32 thereof,")—(Lord Champion.)
LORD HAWKE: I wonder whether my noble friend, when he comes to reply to this, will give the figures of casualties in the particular premises to which this Clause applies. I confess that, though I have tried to obtain them, I have not managed to do so; but I can tell your Lordships that the figures of fire deaths in this country are normally divided into those occurring at work and those occurring at home. "At work", of course, includes factories and all sorts of premises, and we know that every now and then there has been a severe fire in a factory which has caused a number of deaths. The average of those killed per annum at work has been 47 males and 6 females, whereas in the home the number has been 192 males and 383 females. I have not been able, I am afraid, to discover which of those deaths at work occurred in businesses where only the family were employed, but I should be rather inclined to guess nil. Therefore, the noble Lords opposite are proposing to set up a large inspectorate to inspect nothing.
LORD SHEPHERD: No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Newton, is relieved that the pressure has been lifted from him by

495
the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. I would suggest to him that 47 deaths is something serious.
LORD HAWKE: I am afraid the noble Lord has misunderstood my figures. I said 47 deaths in all forms at work, the vast majority of which obviously occurred in factories.
LORD SHEPHERD: I fully appreciate that; but 47 deaths are 47 deaths.
We are moving from those Amendments which deal merely with the position of the family in business, and this Amendment is the first dealing with those aspects of a family business which cannot be considered in isolation. As I understand it, a fire prevention officer or a fire inspector cannot now enter a shop unless there are one or more families living above the premises; in other words, these inspectors are prohibited from entering any shop if there is an office above it. Therefore, there could be a building in which there is a shop owned and controlled by a family, on the first floor of which there is an office employing ten people. As I understand it, because of Clause 2 of this Bill (which exempts completely from all the provisions of inspection) a situation could arise in which a shop, perhaps with inflammable materials, was not subject to any form of inspection or control, while above it were persons employed in office administration.
I fully accept that in Clause 53 the inspector has power to enter any premises, but it would appear to me, unless the noble Lord can give me an assurance to the contrary, that this refers merely to premises dealt with in the Bill; I do not believe that it refers to premises outside the Bill. If that is the case—and the noble Lord, Lord Newton, shakes his head—we have a situation in which we could have a building in which there are two or three premises, because it is quite clear within the Bill that a building could contain two or three premises, and downstairs there could be a private family business with their premises full of dangerous materials, not subject, as it is to-day, to any form of inspection or control, while upstairs there were office workers. But if this shop with the dangerous material had outside employees it would be subject to
496
control, and obviously there would then be greater safety for the workers upstairs.
It would seem to me, if what I have said is correct, that certainly this Amendment should be accepted, not on the basis that it gives special protection to the family which the Government appear to have rejected, but because at least it gives the necessary protection to those who will be working upstairs in the example I have given; in other words, it will give the same protection as though all the people employed in this building were employees within the scope of the Bill. It would seem to me completely farcical that you should put employees upstairs in jeopardy merely because you wish to have a family business downstairs completely excluded from the control.
LORD AMPTHILL: I was going to take up the point which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has put. I am rather concerned about this danger of fire. In the neighbourhood in London in which I live there are three different shopping areas (we call them villages) and in each one is a shop selling general household goods, among them paraffin and turpentine and so forth, which is stored in premises in the backyard or in the back of the shop. If the shop catches fire the people can run out into the street. But above these shops are dwellings and offices. In at least one of these three shops that I know of the husband and wife run it and presumably own it. In the other the man who owns it employs staff. Presumably his place would be inspected, whereas the one where the husband and wife run it and have the most dangerous stock, paraffin and turpentine, cleaning materials, and such like, is not inspected at all.
I should like the noble Lord when he comes to reply to give an assurance that under other legislation—I am very ignorant about local by-laws and other legislation—there is something which protects not only the shopkeeper and his staff from fire but, even more important, also the people above. I foresee a possible danger when the shop closes at seven o'clock at night. Supposing somebody has left a cigarette burning. The whole thing might explode. There is no means of escape for the people in the dwellings above.
LORD NEWTON: Of course, in general, one object of Clause 2, as I explained to your Lordships, is to prevent inspectors from constantly going into these premises which are used by small family businesses. That is one of the main objects of the exercise. I would invite the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and my noble friend's attention to Clause 53, which says, inter alia:
"… an inspector … shall, for the purpose of the execution of this Act, have power to do all or any of the following, things, namely—

(a) at any reasonable time to enter any such premises as the following, and to inspect the whole or any part thereof and anything therein, that is to say:—

(i) any premises to which this Act applies".

And, further down:
"(vi) any premises with respect to which"—
that means any premises, and not just any premises to which this Act applies, which is covered in (a)(i)—
"he has reasonable cause to believe that materials of a kind prescribed by virtue of Section 29 (1) (c) of this Act are therein used or are therein stored … being premises situate underneath premises to which this Act applies".
The whole object of that provision is to enable the inspector to form an opinion as to whether or not there are adequate methods of escape from premises above, which I think covers the point made by the noble Lord and by my noble friend.
I am much obliged to my noble friend Lord Hawke for the information he gave your Lordships, which I did not have. It encourages me to go on to say what I am about to say now. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Champion, meant to imply it, but at one point in his speech it seemed to me that he was suggesting to your Lordships that people are not concerned to see that their close relatives are not burned. I cannot believe that the noble Lord, Lord, Champion, would wish to suggest that. It is obviously a ridiculous proposition. Among other reasons, it is precisely because the Government believe that people are, on the whole, more concerned about the safety and welfare and happiness of their close relatives than about other people that Clause 2 is in this Bill. Once again I must advise your Lordships to reject the Amendment.
LORD LINDGREN: I referred on the previous Amendment to the National Insurance Act. There are many self-employed men who are prosecuted for failing to maintain their own insurance contributions. By failing to maintain them they are endangering a pension for their widows should they be so unfortunate as to die. To say that persons are tender towards their own relatives where money is involved is carrying it a bit too far.
LORD SHACKLETON: Perhaps I may ask the Minister this. He said that one of the purposes of this clause was in fact to stop inspectors from going into these small family businesses. Is he saying that in fact shops inspectors do not visit? The noble Lord admits that shops inspectors go in. I appreciate we are on the fire section now. Which inspectors is he wanting to stop from visiting shops?
LORD NEWTON: The object is to try to see that inspectors do not have to go into these premises more than is necessary. But, under Clause 2, these premises which we are discussing would be subjected to the whole procedure of registration and inspection; in other words, they would be subjected to an entirely new scheme of control. As I say, the Government think it would be wrong to subject these premises in which only close members of the family work to that control.
LORD SHEPHERD: In view of the assurance the Minister has given, would he consider making more specific the words "any premises" in Clause 53 (1) (a) (vi)?—because to many of us it looks as though the premises referred to there, in spite of the fact that the words appear also earlier in the clause, are only those within the scope of the Bill. If the Minister is right, will he please consider words to indicate clearly that all premises, both in and outside this Bill, can in fact be inspected?
May I ask the Minister this question? If an inspector should enter those premises and find that things are not as they should be, does this Bill mean that those people may be then subject to a fine of £20? I do not see how they can be subject to such a fine, because, in fact, they are exempted from the Bill. If the inspector finds that the conditions in the shop are such as to be a danger to the persons above, apart from being a danger

499
to the family in the business, what course of action can he or the local authority take? If the Minister cannot reply now, perhaps he will consider this and let me know. It is no good having an inspection unless the inspector can enforce his decision.
There is one other point that I would make in this matter. It would seem to me to be extremely hard for the persons on the other floors or in the other part of the building to have to carry out the conditions of this Bill, particularly in the case of fire escapes. If there is dangerous material in the shop, obviously the building has to be given fire escape appliances—it may be an iron staircase and the like. If this is because the shop has these dangerous materials it would seem hard that the entire cost of the fire appliances and fire escapes should fall upon the occupants upstairs. If all of the occupiers—that is, the occupiers of the shop and of the offices upstairs—were within the scope of this Bill, the matter could be taken before the court and the court could divide the cost equitably between those concerned. If, however, the offices above the shop have to provide the fire appliances and escapes because a small business is exempted from the provisions of the Bill, the entire cost then falls upon the office occupiers, or whoever may be upstairs. That seems to me to be extremely hard. I wonder whether the noble Lord will consider that point between now and the next stage. However, I am quite sure that what he has said on this particular Amendment does not satisfy my noble friends on this side, and no doubt we shall take the same course as we have done on previous Amendments.
LORD NEWTON: Of course I will consider what the noble Lord has just said, but I should explain again that the purpose of Clause 53 (1) (a) (vi) is to enable the inspector to enter any premises. I am quite certain that "any premises" means "any premises", and no words added would make it any clearer. That is the object of this subsection: to enable the inspector to carry out his duty of deciding whether or not the provisions made for the premises above, being premises subject to the Act, are adequate. That is the object of the
500
exercise. But the family business premises, whether they have flammable materials or explosives stored in them or not, are not covered by the Bill. Before the noble Lord gets too excited about that, he must realise that if these flammable materials are stored or are looked after in such a way as to make it likely that the people on the floor above are endangered, it would surely be inevitable that the people below in the premises concerned are equally liable to be burned; and again, we come back to what I was saying earlier: that surely people are concerned to see that their close relatives are not endangered by fire.
LORD AIREDALE: That really is not a valid point. If the people in the shop downstairs are liable to be burned, the answer is that they can walk out. The people upstairs cannot walk out. That is the distinction.
LORD NEWTON: That is precisely why the Bill contains Clause 53, and particularly subsection (1) (a) (vi), which is what I was talking about.
LORD SHEPHERD: Without the inspector being able to enforce it, as it now appears.
LORD CHAMPION: I think enough has been said on this matter of fire precautions to justify the Ministers in having a look at this subject again between now and the Report stage, and I sincerely hope that they will, despite the fact that they have been adamant about Clause 2 up to now. I must say that I did not think that Lord Hawke's point was a valid one in this connection. He asked how many small premises in which relatives are employed have suffered casualties; and then said, or rather suggested, that the number must be very small indeed. Frankly, I do not think it matters whether the number is small or large. What I think matters is that we should do everything to protect people who are engaged in the type of businesses which will be included under this Bill when it becomes an Act.
We are told that the Government carefully considered this Bill before they presented it to Parliament. They had plenty of time in which to do it, from 1951 onwards. But, having given this most careful consideration, they then thought it right to include these fire

501
provisions to cover small businesses, tiny shops, as well as larger office premises, so I do not think there is much in this point about size and the fact that not many have been burnt up to now. I think a sufficient case has been made out by those who have spoken against the Government on this Amendment to justify their having a further look at it between now and the Report stage.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.58 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD had given notice of his intention to move to add to subsection (1):
"provided that the number in such premises does not exceed five."
The noble Lord said: I had intended to move this Amendment, but in view of the unsatisfactory replies in regard to this clause that we have had from the Government this afternoon, I feel there is little point in moving it. I shall recommend my noble friends later to take appropriate action on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill. I do not move this Amendment.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SHACKLETON: Before we leave this clause I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Newton, what now happens to those provisions of the Shops Act, 1950 which are repealed by this particular measure. The noble Lord will be aware (this is so far as my information goes; perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong) that there are a large number of provisions under the Shops Act, and that shops inspectors visit premises of the kind in regard to which he now wants to refuse an inspector the opportunity of a visit. Certain of these provisions will go on, and the shops inspectors will have to differentiate between those premises in regard to which they have wider powers and those in regard to which their powers are less.
There are certain provisions in the Shops Act which, so far as I can see—and I should like an assurance on this—apply to these premises. There are certain legal definitions which also apply. When one looks at the Schedule to this Bill (and I hope the noble Lord will interrupt me if I am on a point which has no validity) one sees that a number of the provisions in the Shops Act, 1950,
502
will now disappear, in particular Sections 37 to 39. Section 37 relates to the question of seats for female shopworkers. I suppose the noble Lord will tell us that anybody will always provide a seat for a member of his family. Then there are provisions relating to sanitation and other arrangements. I do not know whether this is relevant, but what is more important is that there are certain legal aspects, including the definition of an occupier of a shop.
In the Bill under discussion there is an important section which establishes questions of liability. There is a definition of "owner". The definition of "owner" in the present Bill is no doubt satisfactory, but the definition of "owner" in the Shops Act, 1950, is now to be repealed. This question of ownership will none the less apply to small shops. I should be very surprised if the Government have not thought it out, but, having heard so much of the debate this afternoon, I have become rather suspicious whether they have considered the implications of what they are doing in excluding family businesses.
The only other point I should like to make is that these family businesses will still be subject to the law in a number of important respects of a kind which might even be thought to be onerous. Anybody who is familiar with the Shops Act, the Wages Councils orders, and so on—and some of your Lordships will have the job of administering them—will know that they still apply and will still be subject to control and enforcement. Therefore, it is a pretty weak argument put forward by the Government, that they are exempting these particular premises from onerous proceedings. The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, gave numerous examples of where the law is still active. The law is still active in particular aspects of the family business and of the shop, and I hope we shall be given an explanation of what now is going to happen, particularly in regard to the legal definitions of "ownership".
LORD CARRINGTON: Since I understand it is the intention of the noble Lords opposite to divide on the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill, I think I ought to say a word about the debate which has just taken place. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, who has most persuasively moved the

503
Amendments in his name, has suggested that some of the arguments he has adduced this afternoon are so strong that the Government ought once again to look at them and to have second thoughts. Of course, anything that comes from the Benches opposite, from the noble Lord himself, will be looked at again, and I undertake to do that; but I do not want to mislead the House this evening by suggesting that there is any great likelihood of the Government's changing their mind.
My noble friend Lord Newton has had the unenviable task of saying the same thing over and over again; and he has said it, if I may say so, very clearly and very well. I realise, as no doubt does everybody in your Lordships' Committee, that there is considerable feeling on the Benches opposite, and I think on the Liberal Benches as well, that family businesses should not be excluded from the provisions of the Bill. Under this Bill they would be excluded from the provisions of the Shops Act about which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked me. It seems to me that this is a problem on which we have a fundamental disagreement of principle between the two sides of the House. We on this side hold what I hope noble Lords opposite will believe to be quite sincere views on this subject, though they are utterly opposed to those held by noble Lords on the other side.
Noble Lords opposite feel strongly that there should be no exceptions to the safeguards for workpeople coming under the provisions of this Bill merely on account of family ties. Lord Lindgren cited examples of cases which bear out his arguments. We on this side of the House (I think I speak for my noble friends behind me) feel that we ought to be very careful in bringing forward legislation, even legislation which is of a beneficial kind, as this Bill is, before we interfere too much in the affairs of the family. We believe that the family is the basis of our national life, and we do not want that family to be subject too much to the intrusion of inspectors, regulations and the like.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I interrupt the noble Lord in a very eloquent passage? May I ask why previous Governments have seen fit to apply cer-
504
tain of these measures to family businesses? He realises that this is a step backward now.
LORD CARRINGTON: The other Acts from which the family businesses are not excluded are, of course, of quite a different character—
LORD SHACKLETON: They are not.
LORD CARRINGTON: Perhaps the noble Lord would allow me to finish what I was saying. I believe that the other Acts are of quite a different character from the Bill we are discussing this afternoon. We believe that in the vast majority of cases the best safeguard for the welfare of the family is the family tie and affection which will prevent any exploitation, and we do not feel that paternalism—no doubt an admirable sentiment, and very much in evidence from noble Lords opposite—should go too far in interfering in what we believe to be stronger associations.
I notice that in Committee in another place there was, as there has been in this House, a complete divergence of view between the two sides, and the members of the Labour Party made speeches of similar character to those made by the Opposition this afternoon. I recognise, as indeed does the Minister of Labour, that this is a matter of balance—and a very delicate balance—between how far the State has the right, or should be allowed, to interfere in family affairs. We believe that a father or a mother naturally—and noble Lords seem to find this odd—wishes to see that his or her children are looked after, and we believe that that is probably a better safeguard than having an inspector to do it for them.
LORD SHACKLETON: Before we leave this point, would the noble Lord answer some of my questions? In particular, would he tell me what definition of "ownership" will apply in future? This is an important matter. At the end of this Bill there is a definition of "owner" and the previous definition of "owner" in the Shops Act is cancelled. In a small business what definition is going to apply? Presumably neither this one nor the one in the Shops Act. It may be the one in the Public Health Act—I do not know; I do not think the Government have thought this one out. There are a number of provisions which in the

505
past have applied to these small shops. These are now going to be cancelled, and some of them have legal significance. We are not just discussing a question of extending something new; it is a question of removing certain provisions that have existed in the past. I do not think we can leave this without an explanation from the Government.
LORD CARRINGTON: I know that the Government have thought this out, but I must confess to your Lordships that I do not know the answer to the question about owners, which the noble Lord has asked me. This is a very intricate and difficult point, and I will make it my business to find out and let the noble Lord know.
LORD LINDGREN: I am sorry to delay the Committee, but the noble Lord reminds me of a case which came before me sitting as a magistrate. He refers to the affection of parents. There is an Act of Parliament, the Education Act, which requires a parent to send a child to school. It is not every parent who does so. If he does not, he is liable to be prosecuted. About six months ago, in the court in
Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 2 agreed to accordingly.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Cleanliness]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
which I sit, a parent was prosecuted for not sending a daughter to school. The reason given was that the parents owned a shop; the father worked at a firm in the locality, while the mother looked after the shop during the day-time. But because the mother was ill the child was kept away from school to attend to the shop. This is just the fantastic position we are getting into in this Bill. That father was prosecuted and fined for not sending his child to school. Yet under this Bill he is not required to protect that child against moving machinery, or against any other of the hazards which we have referred to in this Amendment. That is just an example which occurred to me, arising from the noble Lord's last statement, which shows the fantastic position into which the Government have now got in relation to this family business. I suppose that it arises because of the family relationships within the Government itself.
On Question Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 25.

CONTENTS

Bethell, L.

Grenfell, L.

Margesson, V

Carrington, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President)

Mills, V.

Chesham, L.

Hawke, L.

Milverton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hereford, V.

Molson, L.

Conesford, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Courtown, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Newall, L.

Denham, L.

Lambert, V.

Newton, L.

Devonshire, D.

Lansdowne, M.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller]

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Long, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Ferrers, E

Lothian, M.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Fortescue, E.

Luke, L.

Waleran, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Mansfield, E.

Wolverton, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller]

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Lindgren, L.

Silkin, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Listowel, E.

Stonham, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Lucan, E. [Teller]

Strabolgi, L.

Champion, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Taylor, L.

Henderson, L.

Peddie, L.

Terrington, L.

Hughes, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Walston, L.

Kenswood, L.

Shackleton, L.

Williams, L.

Latham, L.

Shepherd, L.

Williamson, L.

Lawson, L.

6.21 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I should like to draw attention in Clause 4 to what I think is a small, unfortunate metaphor. In subsection (2) of the clause there is a reference to "steps" which I think are, in this case, literal steps or

507
stairs; whereas in subsection (3) there are two references to "steps" which are, I think, metaphorical steps in that they are measures or methods. I am perfectly certain that in subsection (3) it is not supposed that the Minister is to make regulations to take away the literal steps referred to in subsection (2); and that the steps in subsection (3) are not going to be cleaned, as are the steps in subsection (2). I therefore suggest, if I might, a redrafting. I am sorry if it becomes very banal when you do so, but perhaps it would be better that subsection (3) should read as follows:
"The Minister may by regulations made as respects premises to which this Act applies, or any class of such premises, lay down, in addition to requirements necessary to secure compliance with the last foregoing subsection, such requirements necessary for the purpose of securing the cleanliness of premises to which the regulations apply and of the furniture, furnishings and fittings therein as may be prescribed by the regulations."
I commend that wording to my noble friend.
LORD CARRINGTON: I rather doubt whether those who read the Act or have to administer it will have quite the same sense of humour as my noble kinsman. Nevertheless, I will most certainly have a look at this subsection to see whether or not it needs redraftng. On the face of it, I must say that I should have thought it was fairly clear.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Overcrowding
(2) The number of persons habitually employed at a time to work in such a room as aforesaid shall not be such that the quotient derived by dividing by that number the number which expresses in square feet the area of the surface of the floor of the room is less than forty or the quotient derived by dividing by the first-mentioned number the number which expresses in cubic capacity of the room is less than four hundred.
(3) Subsection (2) of this section—

(b) shall not apply to a room to which members of the public are invited to resort; and

LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "forty" and insert "forty-seven". The noble Lord said:
508
I rise to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Shepherd. The Amendment seeks to increase the area from 40 to 47 square feet. It is, in fact, an invitation to go back to the recommendation of the Gowers Committee, because in the Cowers Report it was recommended that the standard applicable to factories, under the Factories Act, of 47 square feet should be adopted as regards offices, shops and other premises. Why the Government have departed from that recommendation it is difficult to discern. It might be argued, of course, that there has not been sufficient time for those shops and offices and premises which will come under the provisions of the Bill when it becomes an Act to prepare, but they have had something like twelve years, and now they will have a further period of between three and four years in which to prepare their premises for proper compliance with the terms of the Act.
We all know, of course, that whatever minimum area is prescribed in the Act will not be the area which will be available for the persons who are working in the premises or in the rooms or offices. That matter is dealt with in the next Amendment, set down by my noble friend Lord Shackleton, so I will say nothing about that aspect of the matter, except that, with the development of mechanical accounting—computers, calculators, comptometers and machines of all sorts, kinds and descriptions—offices are in danger of becoming machine shops; and that circumstance, of course, indicates the importance of the Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Shackleton. I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 2, leave out ("forty") and insert ("forty-seven").—(Lord Latham.)
LORD CARRINGTON: I think that, unlike the previous Amendments we have discussed, I can satisfy the noble Lord on this point. The Gowers Committee said that they thought the standard set by the Factories Act was a reasonable one, and they recommended that the standard of space set by that Act should be applied to all offices, subject only to a period of grace. They said that this standard would mean, in a modern office building, a space

509
of about 47 square feet for each employee. This, I think, is where the trouble comes in.
The standard in the Factories Act requires a minimum of 400 cubic feet for each person, discounting space more than 14 feet above the floor. The 47 square feet mentioned by the Cowers Committee for office accommodation was the result of applying the 400 cubic feet standard to a modern office room 8½ feet high. In such a room the Bill as at present drafted also requires 47 square feet, and if the ceiling is lower than 8½ feet it would require an even greater area. But for rooms with ceilings higher than 10 feet, the standard of 40 square feet in the Bill is in fact an improvement on the Gowers recommendation. The wording of the Bill is, I must confess to the noble Lord, rather obscure, and I had to read it several times, but I think that if he will look at the second line on page 5 of the Bill, at Clause 5, he will, on reading the two lines, see that what he seeks to do has in fact been done under the Bill.
LORD LATHAM: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for that explanation, and, if I may say so, for the slight indication of hope which accompanied it. In the circumstances indicated, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that I shall look further into the matter and confirm it. I do not doubt that, so far as the noble Lord is concerned, what he has said is correct, but I should like to confirm it, especially when one is dealing with questions.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: May I add that, in the Cowers Report, the summary of recommendations does not mention 47 square feet? It says:
"A minimum of 400 cubic feet per person to be provided in every room in which employees are required to work."
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Earl is not being quite fair. They had earlier interpreted that, and obviously that recommendation was made in the light of their own estimate that it would provide 47 square feet.
LORD CARRINGTON: In any event, I think it is all right, because we accept 47 square feet in certain circumstances, as they suggested.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.29 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved to add to subsection (2):
"Provided that where the aforesaid area is reduced by the presence of any machinery, fixtures, furniture or fittings of a class or classes not exempted from the operation of this subsection by regulations made by the Minister, then that area as so reduced shall be taken to be the area of the surface of the floor for the purposes of this subsection."
The noble Lord said: The Amendment which I now seek to move takes us into what is admittedly rather a difficult field. I am aware that the Cowers Report did not deal specifically with the problem of overcrowding except rather more specifically, more directly, in the terms of health, ventilation, and the fact that too many people should not be pressed up against one another. They did not discuss or go fully into this problem of offices which have become so filled up with furniture, fittings, fixtures and machinery that they become unsatisfactory places in which to work.
I should be quite prepared to accept the 40 square feet minimum in any large office. In this I am fortified by the advice I have had in the past from people like the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, and others who have worked in the office field. Certainly in large offices 40 square feet is at the moment a reasonable figure and should provide space also for a desk, telephone and chair. I am talking about large offices. Small offices of 40 square feet, one-person offices, would not be very satisfactory, but I doubt that there will be many of these. The moment one starts putting more equipment into the office, however, the situation changes, and most good office employers take this into account. They realise that to have people working in too overcrowded conditions, in this particular sense of the word is unsatisfactory and bad for efficiency. But I would submit that it is more than bad for efficiency: it is bad for the happiness and for the health of the workers concerned.
There will be certain offices, even large offices, where there is a great deal of storage, filing cabinets, et cetera, and where 50 square feet or even 60 square feet is the figure to be applied. I happen to be concerned in this field, and in certain groups of offices in my firm we work to 60 square feet as a standard

511
because we know, first of all, that a lot of records are going to be there and also there will be a certain amount of visiting, because they are personnel offices. One of the effects of the advance of office technology—and of this Bill—is that more and more is going to have to be got into space which may conceivably be adequate at the moment. The office owner will be obliged perhaps to provide rather better conditions for the storage of coats and clothing. More machinery will be coming into offices—and I am not thinking just in terms of computers, which will need their own set-up and which will be delicately nurtured and looked after. It is just that there will be more equipment coming in.
A great deal of convenience and comfort can be brought to office workers by providing them with modern office furniture. There is, unfortunately, any amount of old and unsuitable office furniture around, and often it is possible to reorganise an office and make it satisfactory merely by throwing out the old furniture and putting in modern furniture which does not take up too much room. The same would apply to filing equipment. I do not wish to go into controversial questions—the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, I am sure has studied rack filing versus filing cabinets—but new devices will be evolved to provide extra space. The fact remains, however, that unless we put some provision of the kind I am seeking to move into the Bill, the particular requirements about 40 square feet will be nullified. It is not easy to solve this problem, but I believe it can be done.
Broadly, I have said that 40 square feet in a large office is enough for a single office worker with a desk and a chair. There may even be room for a filing cabinet, and approximately 15 to 20 square feet can therefore be taken up in this way. I have had measurements made, and I reckon the figure is around 15 square feet. It seems simple for the Government to have power to make regulations that the 40 square feet rule should apply to clear floor space except for certain specified exceptions in relation to the kind of furniture and equipment and the amount of floor space it takes up.
I realise that in the debates in another place, and upstairs, in discussions, people have said you cannot have inspectors
512
crawling around the floor. Things do not work like that. Most people who, as business men or as employers, are concerned with administering Acts of Parliament, are not seeking to break the law. Providing they are reasonably aware of what the provisions of the law are, they will try to carry them out; and a visit from an inspector who says: "Look, you are a bit in trouble in this way" usually means that it is put right sooner or later. Sometimes it may take a little while.
If my particular Amendment is not satisfactory as it stands, I think the intentions are clear enough and I believe most noble Lords and, I should hope, the Government would agree that the purpose behind it is a sound one. If the point is not satisfactorily defined in this particular Amendment, I shall be quite willing not to press it, providing one can be certain that the Government will look at it and will try to provide a form of words that will make quite clear what is clear, I think, to the ordinary layman. This is an important matter and one which concerns those of us who have been interested in this particular field for a long while. It is a matter which sensible employers have no difficulty in applying. They are not concerned with the precise legal provisions. They work to the simple rule—40 square feet—and if they have put in too much office furniture, then they will provide some more room. If we are not to defeat the purposes of this particular clause, some Amendment of this kind is necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 4, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Shackleton.)
6.38 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: I appreciate the intention of this Amendment, which is designed to ensure that the minimum space of 40 square feet should not be reduced by fixtures or machinery. The 40 square feet area in the Bill does, of course, pre-suppose a certain amount of furniture. I think the noble Lord has already accepted that.
LORD SHACKLETON: So does the Amendment.
LORD DENHAM: I should like first to draw the noble Lord's attention to the corresponding provision in the Factories

513
Act. Section 2 of that Act does not provide for the deduction of space occupied by machinery or fixtures from the standard allowed for each employee; and, in general, there are even more bulky machinery and fittings in factories than there would be in shops and offices. I do not believe that it would be a practical proposition to provide for it under this Bill.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I interrupt? The noble Lord realises that the spacing of machinery in factories is a totally different thing and operates under quite different arrangements, suggestions and pressures. The two are not comparable.
LORD DENHAM: That may be, but they are comparable in that the Factories Act has a similar clause allowing 400 cubic feet per employee. We feel that it would be unreasonable to ask inspectors to spend hours on tasks which would take up time altogether disproportionate to all benefit. We go so far as to say that the imposition on inspectors of this task of measuring furniture would hinder effective administration. Furthermore, it has not been found necessary in factories, where there is so much more machinery.
In addition, this Amendment would place on the Minister the virtually impossible task of specifying which kinds of furniture should be taken into consideration and which should not. The noble Lord said that most businessmen comply with the law when they know what the law is. To take what I am sure would be an isolated instance, if an employer put furniture and machinery in a workroom to an unreasonable extent, the inspector would draw his attention to the provisions of subsection (1), which requires that no room shall be overcrowded so as to cause risk of injury to the persons working in it. For these reasons, I am afraid that I must ask the Committee to resist this Amendment.
LORD SHACKLETON: I must confess that I had the reply I expected. I do not think that the Government and the noble Lord really know what inspectors do. This is a wholly imaginary view, that they would have to spend hours measuring and crawling around. I have dealt with inspectors, and they
514
operate on a much more sensible and rational basis. They are sensible and reasonable men, and I see not the slightest difficulty in imposing this requirement, though I admit that the actual wording may not be satisfactory. The noble Lord said that we were imposing too hard a responsibility on the Government to define kinds of furniture. I am doing nothing of the sort. This Amendment is worded in broad terms, using the word "classes", which could be defined as office furniture or machinery up to an area of so much. It may be that this is the weak part of the Amendment, but I do not think that it is enough to fall back on the first subsection of the clause. It is much harder to establish the risk of injury to health. That is a more subtle danger than that with which we are seeking to deal.
I think that the Government might try, between now and Report stage, to face up to this problem to see what can be done. Perhaps the inspectors could be asked whether they think this would be possible. I am certain that it would be possible, and this is one field where I think I speak with some direct knowledge. The spacing of machinery in a factory is a subject by itself, and there are all sorts of different factors operating. It is a subject of negotiation with the trade unions, and of study by production people; but, excluding firms like I.C.I., there is not the same sort of study on the production side of office work. That is why some of these measures are necessary and I urge the Government to give some assurance that they will consider the possibility of finding a suitable Amendment before Report stage, if they do not like this one.
LORD CARRINGTON: I have a good deal of sympathy with the noble Lord's Amendment, but, in spite of what he has said, I do not think that it will do. He is asking the Minister to exempt "machinery, fixtures, furniture or fittings of a class or classes" and I think that this would be an enormous task to put on any Minister. Equally, these exemptions having been made, it would be necessary for somebody to inspect these premises. Surely that would take a little time. After all, that is what inspectors are for—to inspect.
LORD SHACKLETON: I do not think that the noble Lord knows what an

515
inspector is for in the administration of a measure of this sort. Having arrived at a satisfactory definition of what is permissible, inspectors continue their ordinary activities. If an inspector finds that somebody is seriously infringing the provisions (I do not mean individual exemptions for every office, but the broad exemptions within which the Bill will be administered) that is a technical problem. These inspectors are dealing with these matters continously, and they have arrived at satisfactory working rules. Sometimes the ruling is unsatisfactory or obscure, and if an inspector is asked he usually says that he is not quite sure what it means. But this is done in a sensible way.
LORD CARRINGTON: None the less, I should think that, if we make exemptions of the kind the noble Lord has in mind, the inspectors will have to keep their eyes open to see whether these exemptions are allowed or not. The amount of work which the noble Lord is asking the Minister to do is really excessive for what will be gained from it. We have already looked at this point. As I said when I started, I think that the noble Lord has a point in cases where a large block of furniture obviously cuts down the space in a room and the health of the people working there would perhaps be affected. It would be possible for the inspector to give advice about this sort of thing, and if people did not take the advice it would be necessary for him to see whether the regulations were being carried out. I will look again to see if there is a form of words that we could use, but I should not like the noble Lord to have too high hopes on the matter. We have looked at it a great many times.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: It seems to me that the main difficulty lies in the possibility that office furniture, filing cabinets and racks may, in effect, bring in the walls of a room and make the room smaller. The Amendment as put down is clearly not satisfactory, because it is not the floor area covered, but the furniture, that matters. One can find many conference rooms and boardrooms which, under this Amendment, would be against the law, because when people are sitting round the table this would remove the area of the table from the space of
516
the room. I believe that this type of circumstance will rarely arise; and, as the noble Lord said, I should have thought that this could be dealt with under the general statement at the beginning of the Bill. I believe that it would be extremely difficult to draft any regulations which would enable one to govern the extent to which one could reduce the 40 square feet. I think that it is accepted that all reasonable firms and decent employers will make such allowances as they believe are necessary. But how it would be possible to translate this into regulations, I find it difficult to understand.
LORD AMPTHILL: I have been laying out factories and offices for something like 25 years, and the first thing I would stress is that laying out an office is an absolutely different process from laying out a factory. There is no comparison between the two. In many cases, filing cabinets and the like turn a very nice office into a horrible one. I do not think that the noble Lord's proposed Amendment would solve the difficulty, though I agree with practically everything he said. If a bad employer fills up an office with filing cabinets and all sorts of furniture, so that it will hinder work, when an inspector goes in, he will say to the employer that the office does not conform to the Act. The employer will say, "Yes, it does", and the inspector will say, "Prove it". The inspector will not call round with a tape-measure.
LORD SILKIN: I feel that the noble Lord appreciates that there is justification for this Amendment, and he has promised to look into it. If he would only delete the final caution and say that he will look into the matter on its merits, I think that would satisfy my noble friends. Of course, we understand that by promising to look into it he is not giving an undertaking that he will accept this Amendment or a similar one. But if he would only say that he will look into it on its merits—that he thinks there may be something in it, and, while it may be difficult to draft, he will do his best to find some suitable wording—then I think we should be satisfied.
LORD SHEPHERD: There is one point, before the noble Lord replies, which I think is important. There has been considerable development in the

517
type of equipment being brought into offices—various types of computers, Telex machines, and the like—and, therefore, we should have in mind not just that the provisions of the Bill should be sufficient for to-day. This Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be in force for a number of years, and during that period I can well see the continual growth of machinery and equipment to perform certain functions. Therefore, I would ask the Government to have in mind, not just the position to-day, but what it may be in ten years' time. If they do that, it may well be that they will decide that what is sufficient to-day may not be sufficient in five or ten years' time. I would ask them to give that assurance to my noble friend Lord Shackleton on this matter.
LORD CARRINGTON: I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. Of course, I will give the assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. All I was seeking to do in qualifying the assurance was to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that this matter has been gone into a good many times, and that the Parliamentary draftsmen and those officials in the Ministry of Labour who have looked into it think it is a difficult problem to devise a form of words which would be suitable. But of course I will look at it on its merits and see whether we can find words to satisfy the Opposition.
LORD SILKIN: I hope the noble Lord will not mind my saying this. Over and over again, on Bills which have passed through the other place, Amendments have been put down on the same lines as those which have been discussed in the other place, and quite frequently we have had this sort of statement, that it has been fully considered and nothing can be done; but under pressure there has been an assurance that it would be looked at again, and in the end we have found that there is a way of getting over the difficulty. That is what this House is for. If the other place had said the last word, there would be no point in coming here and arguing it all again. I hope the noble Lord and his colleagues will not be obsessed by the difficulties, but will really try to find a solution to something for which they
518
themselves recognise a solution ought to be found.
LORD CARRINGTON: Let us hope that this will be one of those happy occasions such as the noble Lord has recollected.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am grateful for the assurance, and I do not read into it any more than the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, means. Equally, I appreciate that he will look into this question. There are, of course, other ways in which this could be done, possibly by a strengthening of subsection (1) of the clause, laying a duty on inspectors to have general regard to certain considerations. I fully appreciate the difficulties. I am grateful for the consideration that has been given to the Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.55 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN LORD LINDGREN moved, in subsection (3), to leave out paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to take Amendment No. 74 with Amendment No. 25, because this is really a paving Amendment for No. 74. As will be seen by reference to the Bill, Clause 5 (3) (b) states that the general provisions shall not apply to a room to which members of the public are invited to resort. If, in fact, the employers require the public to attend within a given space in which employees are employed, that ought to be taken into account, and the room ought to be sufficiently large to put the staff at no great discomfort because of the access of the public to the room. I agree that much depends on the frequency with which the public come into the room, and the length of time they tend to stay, and, equally, on the numbers that at any given time might be in the room. But I do not think the fact that the public are invited, or that it is the purpose of the business that the public should come in, ought in any way to exempt the employers from the provisions.
I can think of two examples. First of all, there is the betting shop. Clients of a betting shop come in and those behind the counter are still required to carry on their work in one way or another. The general arrangements for that ought to comply with the size of

519
the room allowed, and there should be no exclusions. To take a totally different case where the public come in, I would refer to the business of a travel agency. In a travel agency the visitors are perhaps not as frequent as the agency would like, but in the summer months, or in the early spring months when they are getting ready for the summer trade, the attendance in the counter office is much greater than in the winter months. There, again, much depends upon the type of travel agency as to when its peak periods are. But if you have a travel agency, and counter clerks are required to be the other side of the counter informing the public of the wares of the travel agency, answering queries, giving information, making bookings and all the rest, that staff ought not to be forced to work in discomfort due to the heat of the room through the number of persons in it, or to the fact they cannot move around the room. Therefore, we suggest that the withdrawal of this paragraph, together with the acceptance of Amendment No. 74, would be a big improvement for that type of office, ranging, as I have said, from a betting shop to a travel agency. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 8, leave out the said paragraph. —(Lord Lindgren.)
LORD CARRINGTON: Before the Bill was presented to Parliament, the Government did consider carefully whether the space formula in subsection (2) of Clause 5 should be applied to rooms to which members of the public have access; that is to say, in effect, shops. That was discussed, too, in another place, and an Amendment much the same as that moved by the noble Lord was moved there; and although I am sure it was not moved so persuasively or succinctly, I do not think it would be true to say that the noble Lord has produced any new arguments this evening to justify the Amendment.
I think there is a difficulty in this, although I appreciate what the noble Lord is trying to do. I think the difficulty is in defining "working space" for the enormous variety of shops which we are dealing with. For example, in a good many shops the assistant does not always stand behind the counter, but walks about on the outside, so to speak, so that she or he might help the customer in the
520
central area. If one applied to shops the ordinary space formula which we have in the Bill as it stands, one would have to pay regard to the whole room which comprises the shop and not simply the area behind the counters if there are any. I will deal with the presence of members of the public in a moment. Taking employees only and the whole room, I should have thought that, generally speaking, the ratio of space to employees in rooms which are frequented by the public is usually far in excess of the minimum standards in subsection (2).
LORD SHEPHERD: Is the noble Lord speaking of shops?
LORD CARRINGTON: Yes. One has to bear in mind that the chief purpose of this clause is to assist in the maintenance of a healthy atmosphere. In many shops, and particularly at certain times of the day or year, customers greatly outnumber the employees—for example, the January sales in the London shops. It will be, I think, unrealistic to apply a formula to employees alone, and obviously utterly impossible to place any limitation on the entry of the public, because that is what shops are for—for people to come in and buy. For all these reasons, we do not believe that it is possible to apply the formula under this Bill to the sort of premises which the noble Lord has in mind. In point of fact, we should be asking inspectors to spend a good deal of time to what might be of very little purpose.
The second Amendment No. 74, about which the noble Lord has also spoken, depends on the acceptance of this one, as he has said. Although I was not entirely sure, I thought from some of his remarks, or, at any rate, when I first read the Amendment, that he was envisaging that the Minister would exercise his powers of exemption in relation to individual rooms or shops. The provision in the Bill is to exempt classes of shops from this kind of thing. I am inclined to think it would be difficult to do what the noble Lord suggests in relation to classes, because they vary so much. But, if I might, I should like to have a look at what he said about classes of shops, although I do not think it is possible to relate the first Amendment to it.
LORD SHEPHERD: In our Amendment No. 74 I thought we con-

521
ceded the point of the difficulty in relation to retail shops, although the Gowers Committee were fairly strong in recommending that the minimum space for the staff should apply not only to offices but also to shops. We on this side, when we considered this matter, appreciated the problem which arose in dealing with shops. Therefore, when we put down these two Amendments, what we wanted to do (and I am sure this was the intention of my noble friend) was to say that, while we agree that shops should be excluded from the Bill, it would be quite wrong to exempt all types of offices from the provisions of the Bill merely because the public come into the building or room. I do not know whether the noble Lord goes to a travel agency—it is very useful sometimes. Travel agencies always like to put on a nice display; it must be attractive and modern. I would suggest to the noble Lord that he might go behind the partition, where he will see utter congestion. What we desire is that employers shall not congest into a room a large number of staff merely because the fact that the public have access to it gives them a loophole to break the provisions. As I see it, that is the case, and if the Minister would look at this matter once again I am sure that we should be quite willing to withdraw the Amendment at this stage.
LORD CARRINGTON: I am not at all sure that the point the noble Lord has made is not already covered in the Bill. I do not think the Amendment, as it stands, will do, because Amendment No. 74 says, "the Minister may exempt any room". I think it would have to be, "any class of room", or something of that kind. There may be a difficulty of definition about this. I am not a lawyer, but I will certainly have a look at it.
LORD LINDGREN: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the consideration given, and in view of the statement I ask leave for the Amendment to withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.6 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (3) (c), to leave out "three" and insert "two". The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord
522
Latham, I beg to move this Amendment. The Bill in its original state in another place provided for five years before the coming into force of this minimum quotient in regard to overcrowding. The Government than undertook—and they have now brought it forward in this Bill—that it should be three years instead of five. As the Minister said in another place on, I think, the Report stage, the Bill will not come into force for a year after its passing. In other words, we are giving a period of four years for offices to come to the required minimum standard.
When the Gowers Committee sat and reported in March, 1959, conditions in our offices were very severe. There were extreme difficulties because of the shortage of raw materials and the like, and of labour in particular, to carry out any major improvement in office standards. It was not so many months ago that the Government said that because conditions had altered a Bill of this nature was not necessary. However, they have changed their minds. It is true that in some areas there may be building strain, but in others, particularly those where there is high unemployment, there are labour forces available and certainly materials which could be diverted and devoted fairly quickly to the improvement of office and shop conditions. If they are given a period of three years' grace, I can well believe employers may say, "I have three or four years"—because of the year in which the Bill is coming into force— "to deal with the matter". It means that whilst they could improve their conditions, they may make use of the period of grace.
I believe that this period of grace should be reduced to two years, which would mean that from the time of the passing of the Bill there would be a period of three years' grace. This would shorten the time which employers would have to bring their premises into proper condition for the benefit of their workers. If, because in local areas there is a grave shortage of building workers or materials, employers, even with sincere efforts, are unable to improve their conditions, obviously the Minister would have the power to grant an exemption for a limited period in which the employer could bring forward his property. When we are dealing with this vast problem—and the

523
noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has continually stressed that it is a formidable problem—the sooner we start, the better.
I believe that if employers are given what is in fact four years in which to carry this forward, many of them will leave it and leave it, and in four years' time you will face the necessity of granting exemptions because so many people have left it so late and the resources then available are not sufficient to tackle the task. I ask the Government to consider the point of making the period of grace shorter. If there are genuine reasons why conditions cannot be improved—because it is beyond the ability of the employer—then let the Minister use those powers of exemption, but only in the cases where the employer has obviously shown that, though it was his wish to improve the conditions, he was unable, because of local circumstances to do so. I hope that the Government will see that this is a matter which should receive as prompt attention as possible. It is a formidable task, and the sooner the Government start on the way the better. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 14, leave out ("three") and insert ("two").—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD NEWTON: The noble Lord in his Amendment wants to reduce the period of grace from three years to two years, which, as he says, will probably mean a reduction from four to three because it is likely that this Clause will not come into operation until a year after the Royal Assent to the Act. The noble Lord mentioned that in another place, after very careful consideration by my right honourable friend of what was argued by the noble Lord's honourable friends, the period of grace was reduced from five years to three years. I ought to point out again here that five, in practice, would have meant six, so that when the Government originally wrote five years into the Bill—bearing in mind, of course, as the noble Lord does, that the Gowers Committee always envisaged that there would be a period of grace—the Government did acknowledge that in practice the period of grace would be six years and not five. So we have gone quite a long way already to meet the views of those people who argue that the original period of grace was too long. I
524
think that noble Lords know that it may well in some cases, take time to make extensions or alterations to existing premises, but I do not think any noble Lord, or, indeed, anybody, would seriously suggest that to-day the building industry is under-loaded.
LORD SHEPHERD: In some areas it is the case.
LORD NEWTON: I am afraid that I cannot accept that. I do not believe that the building industry is under-loaded. That is one reason why I do not think that a further reduction of the period of grace would he reasonable.
The noble Lord mentioned the existence of the exemption powers which are written into the Bill and suggested that they should be used. I would suggest to him that if the period of grace is reduced to two years that might cause considerable uncertainty among occupiers as to whether, if at the end of that period they have not been able to find the new premises necessary, they would or would not be granted an exemption. Realising this beforehand, it seems to me that the realisation might be reflected in their labour requirements and, apart from anything else, might cause unprofitable administrative work in reviewing and issuing exemption orders and certificates. Those seem to be the difficulties about going further.
I would also remind the Committee that the space standard written into the Bill will apply immediately the Bill is brought into force in respect of premises occupied after the passing of the Bill. They will apply immediately to new premises. Another point, which I feel is quite an important one, is that subsection (1) of Clause 5 will also be made effective as soon as the Bill comes into force, so that gross overcrowding, leading to a risk of injury to health, will be an offence without any delay at all. That is quite a good safeguard. For these reasons I invite your Lordships to agree with me that we have not done too badly in going as far as we have gone already, and that it would be right not to go any further.
LORD SHACKLETON: Does the noble Lord really think that seventeen years from the time the recommendations were made is a reasonable period of grace?
LORD NEWTON: That is not the point. The period of grace is from the moment when occupiers realise that action is going to be obligatory upon them. I have too much respect for the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, to think that he would take any other view.
LORD LATHAM: There must be no "Great Expectations".
LORD SHEPHERD: I can well understand why the noble Lord, Lord Newton, always looks a happy man. He is easily satisfied. We are not very happy with the statement that has just been made by the Minister. We honestly do feel that, as in many cases when one writes in what should be the minimum, in fact it becomes the maximum. I cannot but feel that this period of three years' grace will be used to delay all forms of improvement, and at the end of the period of grace the Minister will be faced with the necessity of giving exemptions. Of course, he is not going to close down an office or a shop because they have not improved the conditions during the period of grace. I do not believe it: he will have no option but to allow a further period of grace, and then there will be a great rush to make use of the facilities which are available.
I honestly believe that the Government are making a serious error in not trying to bring forward the time in which these offices must be brought up to the conditions which the Government desire. So I will look again at this matter and consult further with my colleagues. I do not propose to weary your Lordships with another walk through the Division Lobby at this stage of the evening, but we may well have to do so at a later stage. However, we shall have a discussion on it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.18 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN LORD LINDGREN moved to add to the clause:
"( ) Notwithstanding anything in the preceding subsection, subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall apply from their commencement to any premises used for the first time as offices or shops after the passing of this Act."
The noble Lord said: I desire to move Amendment No. 27. Without in any way prejudicing the veiled threat of my noble friend Lord Shepherd in regard to what
526
might happen at a later stage relating to the period of grace, may I say that some case can be made out by the Government there for a period of grace? After all, this is a very heavy requirement which is being placed upon a large group of people, who in fact have been hoping against hope for years, because they have never provided it when they ought to have done, that they would never have to provide it. That can be said, and there can be this case made for a period of grace for existing premises, existing employers, under existing conditions, but the same thing cannot be said for an organisation setting up a new office after the passing of the Bill.
There has been enough discussion over the past three or four years with, if I might use a phrase, the Dick Marsh Bill, the subsequent Committee stage, the statements of Ministers, the discussion of this Bill in another place, and discussions in this House. There is every indication to those who are going to undertake new shops or office premises that they should comply with the conditions set out in this Bill. The purpose of this Amendment is that where, in fact, new organisations are setting up, whether it is in new premises or in special buildings—in which case, generally speaking, the by-laws of the local authority would, I am pretty certain, cover the requirements of the Bill; more often than not old buildings are converted to offices, some old shops are converted, and the rest—after the passing of this Bill I think they ought to comply with its conditions so that the period of grace should not in any way be attached to premises when it ought to be attached to the user; and if it is a new user, then the new conditions should apply. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 16, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lindgren.)
LORD DENHAM: I hope that I can convince the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government have already made provision for this in the Bill. When subsection (2) is brought into force it will apply immediately to rooms in premises which are occupied for the first time as offices, shops or railway premises. An exception to this rule is made by subsection (3) (c) in the case of premises used already as offices, shops or railway premises at the passing of

527
the Act: occupiers of these premises will be given a period of delay of three years from the coming into operation of subsection (1) before they have to comply with subsection (2). In view of this explanation, which I hope the noble Lord understands, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SHACKLETON: Would the noble Lord read more slowly?
LORD DENHAM: Perhaps I could put it quite simply by saying that the noble Lord is seeking to do in reverse what Her Majesty's Government have already done. In subsection (3) (c) Her Majesty's Government exempt existing shops from subsection (2) for a period of three years: they do not exempt new shops. The noble Lord is trying to slop the exemption of new shops, whereas new shops are not, in fact, exempted.
LORD LINDGREN: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation, and if what he says is correct it means that subsection (2) covers new premises. I will be quite honest; as I read subsection (3) (c), if a building was already being used as a shop and office, or as an office, and the organisation using it changed, if it became vacant and was re-let, the period of three years would apply. If that is not so, and if all new users are covered by subsection (2), I shall be happy to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: Before my noble friend withdraws the Amendment, may I say that though he has a good deal more Parliamentary experience than I have, I have spent a lot of time looking at this clause, in view of the remarks made to me on Second Reading, because I was making this very point. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said that it is already provided. I have consulted a number of people who have been practised in reading Parliamentary language, and I said to them, "This is what I have been told. Is it there?". They said, "I do not think so; I do not see where it is". If some of my Parliamentary friends do not understand it, I wonder whether the local authority is going to understand it, I here is nothing between us in principle. May I ask the noble Lord whether he will consider, between now and the next
528
stage, going to his Parliamentary draftsman, through his Minister, to see whether we might have a clause which is clearly understood, even by a layman—because it is laymen who will have to carry out the provisions of this Bill. I do not believe that any noble Lord, reading the clause, would come to the conclusion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Denham. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to consider whether the clause be redrafted so that laymen can understand it.
LORD CARRINGTON: I should like very much to fall in with the noble Lord's suggestion, but I do not think I can. I think the Parliamentary draftsman has come to the conclusion this is the right way to draft this particular clause. What he has done is to make subsection (2) apply to all new premises and to exempt in subsection (3) (c) premises already existing. I must be honest; it took me a little time to understand it. But I am sure that this is fairly clear; and if it has not been clear before, surely the debate we are having at the present time will make it clear to everybody.
LORD SHEPHERD: I would ask the noble Lord to consider this matter again. He says he did not understand it, but that he now understands it. But he has had the benefit of a whole host of civil servants who have done nothing but read and understand this Bill. The average layman who has to understand the Bill will not have those facilities. I feel the noble Lord should try to make this clause more easily understood by the general public.
LORD SHACKLETON: I should like to tell the noble Lord that I think I do understand it.
LORD LINDGREN: With that happy combination of the noble Lord and my noble friend, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
House resumed.

FACTORY LANE, WARRINGTON (LEVEL CROSSING) BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past seven o'clock.