Sitting of 13 February 1963

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGE FROM THE COUNSELLORS OF STATE

  CYPRUS (GIFT OF BOOKCASE AND GAVEL)
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported the Answer of the Counsellors of State to the Address, as follows:
  We Counsellors of State, to whom have been delegated certain Royal Functions as specified in Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated January the 22nd, 1963, have received your Address to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will give directions for the presentation on behalf of your House of a bookcase containing parliamentary and constitutional reference books, together with a gavel, to the House of Representatives of Cyprus, and assuring Her Majesty that you will make good the expenses attending the same.
  It gives us the greatest pleasure to learn that your House desires to make such a presentation and on Her Majesty's behalf we will gladly give directions for carrying your proposal into effect.
  Elizabeth R.
  Margaret.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CLYDE NAVIGATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
PETITION

  London Government Bill
  Mr. M. Stewart: I beg leave to present to this honourable House the humble Petition of citizens living and working in the County of London and in the surrounding counties, and I understand that in so doing I may make a short statement indicating the number of signatures, the parties from whom the Petition comes, the material allegations in the Petition and the remedy for which Prayer is made.
  There are over 172,000 signatures, which is the largest number of any London Petition presented to this House for very many years. The first sheet which I hold in my hand, and the other sheets which have been laid before the Table, were formally presented to me this morning by mayors of boroughs and chairmen of urban district councils and other persons notable in the public life of Greater London, ranging from as near at hand as Lambeth to as far afield as Barnet on the edge of the area with which the Petition is concerned.
  I draw attention to the fact that this first sheet bears the signature of Sir William Holford, recently President of the Royal Institute of British Architects. Among other signatories are to be found the names of the Noble Lords the Earl of Longford and Lord Nathan, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), Sir John Wenham of Surrey County Council, Dame Edith Evans, Sir Michael Redgrave, Dame Peggy Ashcroft, Mr. Frank Cousins, Sir William Carron, Mr. John Betjeman, Mr. Charles Forte, Sir John Summerson, Mrs. Mary Stocks and many other persons of all political opinions or none and eminent in many different walks of public life.
  I need not detain the House with the material allegations as, in accordance with custom, I shall request the Clerk to read the text of the Petition. I merely mention that it describes the proposals which Her Majesty's Government have laid before this House concerning local government in Greater London as unwelcome to the people in London and as calculated to inflict great injury on education, housing, town planning, architecture, health services, the care of children, the aged and the handicapped, and on culture, recreation and sport, and as liable to impose an increased rate burden on the populace.

  1277
  Wherefore the Petitioners pray that this honourable House will reject the proposal, and the Petition concludes, as is proper, with the words:
  "And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray."
  In view of the importance of the subject matter and the large number of petitioners, I beg you, Mr. Speaker, to instruct the Clerk of the House to read the Petition to the House.
  The CLERK (Sir BARNETT COCKS) read the Petition to the House as follows:
  The Humble Petition of citizens living and working in the County of London and the surrounding counties showeth:
  That Her Majesty's Government have put forward proposals for the re-organisation of London Local Government which involve the abolition of the County Councils of London and Middlesex, the severance of the Counties of Essex, Kent and Surrey and the elimination of all the present authorities in Greater London except the City of London and the Borough of Harrow.
  That these proposals would break up many services now humanely and efficiently administered by County Councils, in particular the services for health, for the welfare of the old and handicapped and for the care of children.
  That these proposals would delay the building of homes and impair the management of housing estates; are inimical to good architecture and town planning and would gravely restrict the provision now made for culture, entertainment and sport.
  That the education service for children, young students and adults in the County of London would be severed from other county services and subjected to greater uncertainty as to its future; that outside the County of London the county service for education will be destroyed; and that this proposal is strongly opposed by parents and teachers.
  That teams of experienced workers, now serving the County Councils, will be broken up; and that great uncertainty and anxiety are caused to employees of all local authorities affected by these proposals.
  That for these reasons the proposals are unwelcome to the people of London and adjoining areas, and that the weight of eminent and expert opinion among architects, doctors, magistrates, teachers, social workers and others, is opposed to these proposals.
  That it has not been demonstrated that the proposals of Her Majesty's Government offer any positive advantages to compensate for these defects; and that other proposals, free from these defects, have been advanced and not yet adequately considered.
  1278
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that Your Honourable House will …
  Reject the proposals for the re-organisation of local government in. London and the surrounding areas as planned by Her Majesty's Government which would
  —Inflict permanent injury upon essential public services, notably education; housing; personal and public health services; town planning and architecture; the youth services; the care of children, the aged and the handicapped;
  —Impose an increased rate burden on the people in the area; and,
  —Adversely affect cultural activities, recreation and sport.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray."
  Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. Would it not be reasonable for the House to be given credit for the time which has been taken in presenting this Petition, however noble the Petition may be?
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. and learned Gentleman has any proposal for the reform of our procedure, it will have to be dealt with at some other time.
  Mr. Mellish: On a point of order. I want to be clear about the procedure for dealing with this Petition. This Petition, signed by more than 170,000 people, concerns a certain Bill. Is it not right and proper that the Minister of Housing and Local Government, against whom they are petitioning, should be present?
  Mr. Speaker: On no conceivable ground could that be a point of order for me.
  Mr. Gower: On a point of order.
  Mr. Speaker: Is this a different point of order?
  Mr. Gower: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If an hon. Member submits a Petition of this kind, is it not necessary for us to have some idea whether each signatory has a correct knowledge of the contents of it?
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member looks at the Standing Order he will find out what the requirements are.
  Petition to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  BRITISH ARMY

    Aden (Married Quarters)
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for War how many Service men are still waiting for houses in Aden; what is the longest waiting period a Service man has had; and when he expects to meet the housing demand in full.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo): One hundred and seventy officers and 645 other ranks of the Army are living with their families in official accommodation in Aden. Thirty officers and 104 other ranks have their families with them in private accommodation. Sixteen officers and 152 other ranks who are entitled to official married accommodation are separated from their families and are waiting for quarters. Some soldiers with limited service or who are only recently married may be unaccompanied by their families throughout their tour of two years. We expect to meet the present requirement for married quarters by the beginning of 1965.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is not this an unsatisfactory state of affairs? Does not the Minister realise that an Airdrie woman was denied major hospital treatment in Aden simply because her soldier husband did not have a home for the small family? Does not the Minister think it would be realistic if, in a situation of this nature, he sent married soldiers home until such time as the Army can accommodate their families in Aden?
    Mr. Profiting: I do not think that this situation is as unsatisfactory as the hon. Gentleman makes out. We are building as fast as we can. The fact is that 93 per cent. of entitled officers and 75 per cent. of entitled other ranks have their families with them in Aden. I do not think that this is a bad effort when one remembers that the entitlement to married quarters is greater than ever before.
    Mr. Dugdale: Is it not correct that Servicemen in the Air Force are very much better treated and have very much bettor conditions than Army Service men?
    Mr. Profumo: I do not think that that would be the case in Aden at any rate, because the R.A.F. look after our people and are building for themselves as well as for us.

    B.A.O.R. (Missiles)
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for War whether there are any agreements with the United States of America restricting the use of Honest John and Corporal missiles in use with the British Army of the Rhine.
    Mr. Profumo: The use of all tactical nuclear missiles in Europe, including those held by the British Army of the Rhine, is governed by arrangements with the United States concerning the custody of the warheads.
    Mr. Wall: Would my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential to provide the British Army with wholly British-controlled tactical nuclear weapons? What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to proceed either with Blue Water or some similar weapon which is wholly British made and under British control?
    Mr. Profumo: I cannot entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The use of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe can be ordered only by SACEUR and only he can authorise the release of warheads, in the same way that American fire units do not receive warheads until SACEUR gives the order. As regards the second part of my hon. Friend's question, that goes wider than the Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Does not SACEUR exercise control in his capacity as an American commander and not as SACEUR, and is it not, therefore, true that this weapon cannot be fired without American consent?
    Mr. Profumo: The right hon. Gentleman knows that no tactical nuclear weapon in Europe can be fired without the consent of the Supreme Allied Commander under much wider arrangements.
    Mr. B. Harrison: In view of the fact that we have no tactical nuclear weapons under our control, will my right hon. Friend make arrangements for some adequate conventional artillery to be available to our Forces there?
    Mr. Profumo: I am looking into this as a matter of very considerable urgency.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer my first question? Would he agree that SACEUR does not give the order except as an American officer?
    Mr. Profnmo: SACEUR happens to be an American officer, but he gives the order as Supreme Allied Commander in charge of all the troops.
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for War what types of surface-to-air missiles are in use or planned to be used by the British Army of the Rhine.
    Mr. Profumo: Thunderbird 1 is in service with the British Army of the Rhine. It will be succeeded in a few years' time by Thunderbird 2. Surface-to-air missiles may also replace the present 40 mm. guns and fire control equipment.
    Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the American Army has no fewer than 7 surface-to-air missiles to protect it? Will my right hon. Friend take steps to provide weapons to protect the British Army from low-flying nuclear supersonic attack such as that which can be delivered by the Blackburn Buccaneer?
    Mr. Profumo: As my hon. Friend knows, we have 40 mm. guns and we plan to replace these with surface-to-air missiles.
    Mr. Wigg: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many of the L70s, that is, the 40 mm. Ack-Ack gun, have Yellow Fever?
    Mr. Profumo: It would not be in the public interest to give this figure, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are pressing ahead with this and it would be wrong to represent that this particular form of air defence is not adequate at the moment.

    Juveniles (Day Release Classes)
    Mr. Boydenasked the Secretary of State for War how many juveniles in his Department, aged 16 to 18 years, employed in industrial grades but not apprenticed, are released for day classes; and what percentage this forms of this category of employee.
    The Under-Secretary of State and Financial Secretary for War (Mr. James Ramsden): 194 and 24 per cent. respectively.
    Mr. Boyden: In view of the fact that in most Departments the percentage of juveniles on day release is well over 80 per cent.—in some cases it is 100 per cent.—why is the figure so low in the War Department?
    Mr. Ramsden: I have made inquiries about conditions outside the Department. My information does not correspond with that given by the hon. Member, on the basis that apprentices are excluded as are those under the age of 16.
    Mr. Boyden: But this percentage is lower than the national average.
    Mr. Boydenasked the Secretary of State for War what steps his Department takes to encourage juveniles, aged 16 to 18 years, employed in industrial grades but not apprenticed to attend day release classes.
    Mr. Ramsden: It is the duty of all who are responsible for new juvenile entrants to ensure that they receive the pamphlet explaining the scheme for day release training, and to give them every encouragement to take advantage of these facilities.
    Mr. Boyden: The hon. Member knows that under the Estacode regulations it may be made a condition of service that juveniles attend day-release classes. Why does his Department not make it a condition of service that day release is compulsory?
    Mr. Ramsden: We did not think it was realistic to make it compulsory. Some of these people may work in places where these courses are not available, or they themselves may not have strong inclinations to attend these courses. We take seriously the business of encouraging them to avail themselves of these courses, where appropriate.
    Mr. Boyden: What confidence can this House have in the encouraging powers of the hon. Member in dealing with generals and business contractors if he cannot encourage juveniles to attend classes in greater proportion than one in four?
    Mr. Morris: Will the War Department lay down similar regulations to those of other Departments, like the Home Office and the Prison Commission, in this respect?
    Mr. Ramsden: I believe that we are in line with the Service Departments. My information is that in comparison with the situation outside we do rather better. In outside industry, including apprentices, the proportion is between 25 per cent. and 33 per cent. Our figures exclude apprentices, so we do not do too badly.

    Kota Belud (Facilities)
    Mr. B. Harrisonasked the Secretary of State for War what recreational and educational facilities are available to United Kingdom troops at Kota Belud.
    Mr. Profumo: Instruction is given in the Army Certificates of Educatior to meet individual needs. The soldiers there can also make use of the Forces Correspondence Course Scheme. There is a library, and periodicals and come newspapers from the United Kingdom are provided free. The main recreational facilities consist of a Minibus, a river boat, a sailing dinghy, a unit cinema and a unit canteen. A concert party was due to visit the camp last week.
    Mr. Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend see that the educational facilities are adequate? There might be some skeleton organisation there, but will he investigate the position and ensure that this gets down to the maintenance and construction troops on the spot?
    Mr. Profumo: I have already attempted to satisfy myself to this extent: I have been to Kota Belud and I have also asked an officer who has recently returned from there. I believe that all is well and that facilities are as nearly adequate as they can be made

    Troops, North Borneo
    Mr. B. Harrisonasked the Secretary of State for War how many United Kingdom troops are expected to train in British North Borneo at any one time.
    Mr. Profumo: Training would normally be at battalion group level, that is
    1284
    to say, a battalion with its appropriate supporting arms.
    Mr. Harrison: Can my right hon. Friend deny that there was an agreement that not more than 500 combat troops will occupy that training area at any one time, or that there should be a ceiling on the number of those troops?
    Mr. Profumo: I do not know of any agreement of that sort. I shall have to look into the position, if the my hon. Friend will allow me to do so, before I can make a categoric statement, but I am convinced that we can not only carry out adequate battalion training here but also, if necessary, have a brigade exercise.

    Personal Case
    Mr. F. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for War what were the misunderstandings between the unit concerned and Rodney Bell which caused thirteen months to elapse before he was informed that it was necessary for him to attend a Territorial Officers Selection Board; when did they arise; who discovered them, and when; and what steps were taken by the unit to remove the misunderstandings before Rodney Bell withdrew his application.
    Mr. Profumo: I have written very fully to the hon. Gentleman about this case, and I hope I have given him the information he wants.

    Meritorious Service Medal
    Commander Purseyasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the amount of the present annuity and the annual allocation of money for the Meritorious Service Medal; if he will give the number of holders of this Medal; and what allocation would be required to pay the annuity to all holders of the Medal when pensioned.
    Mr. Ramsden: Ten pounds, £7,500, 5,700 and £110,000.
    Commander Pursey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that when Queen Victoria instituted this Medal in 1845 the annuity was £20? Why is meritorious service today valued at only half what it was in the Crimean War? With the depreciation in the currency, should not the annuity have been trebled? Why, when we have estimates of hundreds

    1285
    of millions of pounds for other things, cannot all these old sweats be paid the petty sum of six pennies a day with their pension in the same way as holders of the Distinguished Conduct Medal are paid? Let us have no more nonsense about it.
    Mr. Ramsden: My information is that the amount has always been the same, namely, £10. I must tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this amount has attracted the appropriate pensions increases which have been a feature of ensuing years. In 1950 the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Government made the last change in this matter when they considered it very carefully and decided to maintain the same system in relation to the monetary award but to bring forward the giving of the actual Medal to more people.
    Commander Purseyasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the average age, for the year 1962, of holders of the Meritorious Service Medal who were awarded the annuity; in which year the last Boer War service annuity was awarded; in which years World War and World War II lists are likely to be completed; and when the last of the present holders of the Medal is likely to receive his annuity.
    Mr. Ramsden: The average age was 77. I estimate that the last of the present holders of the Medal would receive the annuity in up to thirty years' time. I regret that the records do not readily show in what year holders of the Medal who served in particular wars have received or are likely to receive the annuity.
    Commander Pursey: Is it not the position that of these old sweats who hold the Meritorious Service Medal, more die before receiving the annuity than afterwards? What is the object of an annuity for a Meritorious Service Medal if the majority of those who win it will never receive the annuity? Why, after twenty-two years' service, or more, should an old sweat have to wait for another forty years and be rising 80 years of age before dead men's boots bring him an annuity which he won while serving in the Army? Now laugh that one off, and try to introduce some common sense in relation to the award of this annuity,
    1286
    the reconsideration of which is long overdue in the Tory affluent society.
    Mr. Ramsden: It is quite possible to make a joke of it, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I take it very seriously. When this was instituted over 100 years ago, the monetary award was obviously of much more significance than it would be in present-day conditions. We have other and more modem ways of awarding pensions and showing recognition for service. The decoration itself is now really of more importance than the award. My predecessor in the Labour Government recognised this fact when he changed the system of the award and the decoration.

    Pensions
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for War how much pension an Army captain's widow received in December, 1952; and what is the value of that pension in real terms today, including all increases and assuming that she is 60 years of age.
    Mr. Ramsden: One hundred and ten pounds and £107, respectively.
    Mr. Johnson: Do not those figures show that these widows have been very badly treated, in that the increases given have been nothing like enough for them? Even if, as my hon. Friend said last week, he is unable to rewrite history, will he invoke the aid of the Treasury in this very laudable object? I am sure that he himself has every sympathy for the ex-Service men, of whatever rank, and their widows?
    Mr. Ramsden: I appreciate the way in which the hon. Member puts the matter in the second half of his supplementary question, but I do not think that we ought to hide behind the Treasury over this. We must uphold the principle that my right hon. Friend and I have tried to explain in reply to Questions in the last few weeks. The figures show that within the basis upon which these pensions were awarded we have, within a very few pounds, succeeded in preserving their original value.
    Mr. Johnson: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he is really upholding the principle that a pension given ten years ago for widows whose husbands

    1287
    deserved well of the country should be worth less today? Surely that is a most astonishing principle to uphold.
    Mr. Ramsden: According to the timing of the pension increase there might be some variation one way or another, but the figures I have given show that we have about hit the mark.
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for War how much Service pension would be received by the widow, who is between 40 and 60 years of age, of a private soldier discharged after 22 years' service before 1st September, 1950, between 1st September, 1950, and 4th November, 1958, assuming in this case that widowhood occurred before 4th November, 1958, and at the present time, respectively.
    Mr. Ramsden: None, none and one-third of their husband's pension or 16s. 10d. a week whichever is the greater.
    Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that I welcome the great improvement shown in the position as a result of action by the present Government? But do not the first two figures tell a story of the most shameful neglect by successive Governments of the widows of men to whom the country owes a great deal? Is not it possible to see whether anything can be done to help them?
    Mr. Ramsden: I think that the House would wish to have this matter in perspective and realise that, except in the case of Service officers, occupational schemes for widows' pensions over the whole national field are comparatively recent in origin. Before 1949 the widows of civil servants had no pensions at all. I do not see where we could draw the line if we started to make some widows eligible for pensions retrospectively.

    Land and Leased Property
    Miss Vickersasked the Secretary of State for War (1) how many farms, houses and cottages are owned by his Department and leased to people other than military personnel; and what is the total income from, and expenditure on, these properties;
    (2) how many acres of land in Great Britain owned by his Department are used exclusively for military purposes.
    Mr. Ramsden: 162,000 acres of land owned by the War Department in this country are used exclusively for military purposes. 249 farms and 2,838 houses and cottages on land owned by the Department in this country are leased to people other than military personnel and certain civilian staff. In 1961–62 the total income from these lettings was £260,000, and the total expenditure £295,000.
    Miss Vickers: In view of the vast expenditure on these cottages, would not it be more economic for the War Department to sell them to the individuals who are now living in them or to other people? Is my hon. Friend aware that this seems to me not a very advantageous arrangement in view of the vast staff which the Land Department of the War Office has to maintain?
    Mr. Ramsden: I can assure my hon. Friend that we do not retain any more land or buildings on land than is necessary for the proper purposes of the Department. We do not keep land or buildings for the sake of having them. The discrepancy between the rent we receive and the expenditure is partly explained by the fact that because a lot of the land is used for training it does not command the same rent as comparable agricultural land would. There is also a backlog in the repairs programme, although I hope this position will soon be a good deal better.

    Married Soldiers
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War in view of his decision on the recruiting of married men for the Army, to what extent he proposes to release from the forces married men who are unable to get satisfactory married quarters.
    Mr. Profumo: The grounds for compassionate discharge have long been based on an individual's domestic difficulties. As I explained in the debate on the Army Reserve Act, I can see no reason for treating married men differently from single soldiers in this matter.
    Mr. Hughes: Is not this very unfair to the married men in the British Army of the Rhine, for example, many of whom are living in bad, overcrowded

    1289
    and disgusting conditions? Is the Minister aware that many of them are becoming Communist, and will he discharge them?
    Mr. Profumo: I am certainly not aware that these men are becoming Communist. I do not believe that there is any foundation in what the hon. Gentleman says. If he has any foundation for what he is saying I think that he had better produce the facts for me. I am aware of the difficulties regarding married quarters abroad at a time when more soldiers than ever before are entitled to them. But we are making considerable progress and today conditions for married soldiers are infinitely better than ever before.

    B.A.O.R. (Communications)
    Mr. Wiggasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the extent to which the communications system of the British Army of the Rhine is dependent upon the German Post Office and whether he is satisfied with its efficiency.
    Mr. Profumo: In accordance with our normal practice at home and abroad, civilian telephone and telegraph circuits are used for peace-time administration in the British Army of the Rhine. The system is generally satisfactory.
    Mr. Wigg: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen reports which are current in the United States that the signals system of the British Army of the Rhine is so bad as to make our forces there a laughing stock? If the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that these rumours and statements are not true, will he use his authority to deny them?
    Mr. Speaker: As the Minister is not responsible for the rumours and statements, it cannot be in order to ask him questions about them.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Is not there a considerable difference between relying on Post Office facilities at home, which are under the control of our Government, and relying on such facilities in another country where they are not?
    Mr. Profumo: We do not do this only in Germany, but elsewhere. But in any emergency we have an alternative system which would ensure the continued efficiency of our military com-
    1290
    munications. I think that that answers to some extent what the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) alleged was being suggested. The United States Army also relies on these land lines in peace-time.
    Mr. Wigg: Although the United States Army relies on German facilities as well, is not it a fact that the United States Army has alternative methods of communication and is not dependent exclusively on German facilities, whereas our communications have been so run down, or are so out of date, that we do rely on them?
    Mr. Profumo: That is a very much wider question than the Question on the Order Paper which I have answered. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make accusations about the signals system in Germany, perhaps he would put down a Question. I am not trying to evade answering anything. But I think it is wrong that this sort of thing should be overdone. As the hon. Gentleman and I hope the House will know, although we have been in difficulties (regarding signals communications we are rapidly reaching a stage which will be very satisfactory indeed; and nothing at the present moment impairs the efficiency of the British Army of the Rhine to carry out its duties.
    Mr. Morris: The right hon. Gentleman says that there will be an improvement. When will B.A.O.R. actually receive new signals equipment?
    Mr. Profumo: When the hon. Gentleman says, "When will B.A.O.R. receive new signals equipment", I do not know to what signals equipment he refers. Signals equipment is coming forward constantly, that is, conventional signals equipment. In about eighteen months the whole of B.A.O.R. should have up-to-date signals equipment.

  SCOTLAND

    Law of Intestacy
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the situation under which women in Scotland are suffering owing to the present law of intestacy there, and of the widespread demand in Scotland for an amendment of that law on the lines of the recommendations of the Mackintosh Committee,

    1291
    which was appointed by the Government of the day; and if he will introduce legislation to reform the law on this matter in the next session of Parliament.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Noble): I am aware that many people in Scotland would like to see legislation to amend the law of intestacy. I cannot, of course, anticipate the Government's legislation programme.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the Secretary of State realise that the claim for this legislation has been going on from year to year? Will he name the dead hand of prejudice which prevents this requirement from being implemented? Does he realise that it is damaging to the professional women of Scotland and contrasts vividly the rights of English women as distinct from Scottish women?
    Mr. Noble: I realise both points which the hon. and learned Gentleman made.
    Miss Herbison: Surely the Secretary of State must be well aware of the feelings of all women in Scotland, and not only professional women, regarding the very grave injustice under which they are suffering? Will the right hon. Gentleman be honest with the House and tell us that it is the big landed interests which have prevented this Government from honouring the statement made in the Queen's Speech over two years ago?
    Mr. Noble: I accept the statement of the hon. Lady about the feelings of many women in Scotland on this matter and I am grateful for her offer to co-operate which she made the last time we discussed this at Question Time. But I cannot agree with her reason why it is so.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: Is not the answer to this Question that people should make wills?

    Road Bridge, Erskine
    Mr. J. Robertsonasked the Secre-of State for Scotland at what date it is proposed to begin work on the construction of a road bridge at Erskine.
    Mr. Noble: I understand that Dunbarton and Renfrew County Councils are about to form a Joint Committee to undertake preliminary investigations into this proposal. This will clearly take some time and I cannot forecast when a decision
    1292
    about the construction of the bridge will be possible.
    Mr. Robertson: Will the right hon. Gentleman gives the House an assurance that this project has the blessing of the Gentleman give the House an assurance Office and that the Joint Committee will be assisted to carry it out?
    Mr. Noble: This is certainly one of the many schemes which, if it proves to be roughly the right price and available at the right time, the Scottish Office would be delighted to agree.
    Mr. Hoy: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the right time would be in view of the figure of unemployment for Scotland?
    Mr. Noble: There are problems about the siting of the bridge and about its design, and we shall have to bring an Order to the House if both are right. That is what I intended to mean when I referred to the right time.
    Mr. Steele: Are we to understand that the decision to go ahead with the Tay Road Bridge has priority over the bridge at Erskine, or may we say that both these projects will be taken on their merits?
    Mr. Noble: The decision to go ahead with the Tay Road Bridge was taken in principle some years ago and has been announced to start in the immediate future. I cannot guarantee, however hard we work, that it will be possible to start the Erskine Bridge at the same time.

    Maternity Beds, Paisley
    Mr. J. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to deal with the shortage of beds in maternity hospitals in the Paisley district.
    Mr. Noble: The Western Regional Hospital Board intends to incorporate provision for additional maternity beds in the new general hospital for Paisley and district which is provided for in the Hospital Plan.
    Mr. Robertson: Does the Secretary of State realise that this is an urgent and an immediate problem? Does he appreciate that it will be ten or twelve years before the new general hospital at Paisley is completed if approval is given

    1293
    to start it now? What will be done during the next ten years to solve this very urgent problem?
    Mr. Noble: The question of the starting date for this, within the Hospital Plan, is one for the regional hospital board. The House should be aware that already about 70 per cent. of the births in Renfrewshire are taking place in hospitals or nursing homes. Any additional suggestion for speeding up beds in maternity homes should come from the regional hospital board.

    Industrial Counties (Derelict Sites)
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the continued existence of large areas of derelict sites in the industrial counties; and what immediate steps he intends to take to encourage local authorities to take remedial action.
    Mr. Noble: Most of the local authorities principally affected by this problem are in touch with my Department about possible clearance schemes. On the question of grant for this work, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Hamilton: When do the right hon. Gentleman and his Government propose to inject a sense of urgency into this problem? Is he aware that the unemployment situation in Scotland, and indeed in England, is rapidly deteriorating month by month? What on earth stops the Government from making a decision now about increasing the grant available to local authorities so that we can clear these horrifying examples of private enterprise?
    Mr. Noble: The question of the speed of increasing the grant is one for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it was to him that my hon. Friend made his request.
    Mr. Hamilton: What representations has the right hon. Gentleman made, as the spokesman for Scotland, to the Treasury urging a rapid decision on this matter?
    Mr. Noble: I do not think that it is normal for one member of the Cabinet to give to the House the recommendations
    1294
    which he has made to another member of the Cabinet.
    Mr. Ross: Surely as Secretary of State the right hon. Gentleman has direct responsibility for the very look of Scotland and that this is something which he could usefully do on behalf of Scotland and to help with the problem facing us at the moment?
    Mr. Noble: I have not said that I have not done it.

    Hospital Accommodation, Fife
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the shortage of hospital beds for the mentally handicapped in Fife, and of the unemployment problem there, he will sanction the immediate provision of additional accommodation.
    Mr. Noble: The planning of the proposed new mental deficiency hospital near Dunfermline is proceeding without delay, but it will not be possible to make an early start with the building.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, however desirable this provision is, it will not be effective for many years and meanwhile there is great hardship among these people because the capital investment programme over the last few years has been totally inadequate? Is he aware that the nigger in the woodpile is the Treasury? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman root him out?
    Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman is quite clear that there is some method by which the Scottish Office can overrule the Treasury. All I can assure him is that the planning of this hospital is going ahead as fast as I can keep it going.

    Watt Memorial College, Greenock
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has caused the delay in approving the extension to the Watt Memorial College, Greenock.
    Mr. Noble: Proposals for the accommodation to be provided were approved on 15th March, 1962, but plans and estimated costs have not yet been submitted by the education authority. I understand that after some initial difficulty the

    1295
    vacation of the site has now been arranged and that it is hoped to submit plans and costs at an early date so that the annexe may be ready for the start of next session.

    North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are now being taken to expand hydro-electricity capacity in the area of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board.
    Mr. Noble: Since the publication of the Mackenzie Report the Board has been reviewing its future programme and discussions with the Board have been taking place.
    Mr. Thomson: Is not the delay disgraceful? Is the Minister aware that it is more than two-and-a-half years since the Glen Nevis scheme ran into opposition from various vested interests? Is it not time that a decision was announced on the Glen Nevis scheme and other schemes? Has he taken note of the excellent answers which he gave me yesterday saying that the Hydro-Electric Board had provided £181 million of social and economic benefits? In view of the quite ludicrous figure, by comparison, of £300,000 accepted by the Mackenzie Committee, will he not let the Board get ahead in helping the Highlands to provide the electricity needed by the Lowlands?
    Mr. Noble: I agree about the many great advantages which the Board has provided in the north of Scotland in the past. There are, however, fairly complicated calculations in the Mackenzie Report. These are being considered. The schemes to which the hon. Member referred are being considered by the Hydro-Electric Board as well as others.
    Mr. John Macleod: How long does the Secretary of State propose that these discussions should go on? This is seriously affecting the Highland economy. Is he aware that the average of 5,000 people employed in these schemes is today down below 2,000? It is ridiculous to delay these schemes any longer.
    Mr. Noble: The process of bringing a scheme before the House, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, involves considerable discussion even inside the Hydro-Electric Board. The Board is not yet ready to produce these schemes.
    Mr. Grimond: Is it not time that we cut through all this red tape? Is not the Secretary of State aware that electricity is needed in the Highlands? Everybody else has realised it for years and years. Discussions have gone on ad infinitum. As we have extremely high unemployment in the Highlands, cannot the Minister get on with it and give us some electricity?
    Mr. Noble: The problem of giving the right hon. Gentleman some electricity lies not with me but with the Hydro-Electric Board and its schemes.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Is not the Secretary of State aware that the Island scheme proposals for hydro-electric schemes in North Uist and the Island of Barra were laid before the Electricity Commissioners in 1947 and that tenders were going out in 1954 and 1955, but that not a thing has happened in the years since then? Have they not had time to get on with these proposals?
    Mr. Noble: I have no doubt that plenty of schemes have been brewing since 1947, but the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board has not yet produced its schemes to me for approval.
    Mr. Ross: It is all very well for the Secretary of State to say that he is not responsible for the provision of electricity but he had the responsibility for stopping the schemes. Is it not a ludicrous position when we set up a special Committee to consider these things, and, after it has made its recommendations, set up another Committee to go into them?
    Mr. Noble: The report of the Mackenzie Committee was pretty complicated. It involved a great number of technical problems which are being considered by the Hydro-Electric Board and others.
    Mr. Thomson: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Land Settlement Crofts
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the Government-owned land settlement crofts No. 3, Braal, Halkirk, and No. 6 West Markle, Thurso, were not advertised to let; and why their assignation to men of means who paid for the assignations was approved without competition.
    Mr. Noble: In neither of these two cases was the croft vacant or about to become vacant for any statutory or other reason. What was involved was a proposal by the occupants to transfer their tenancies, and, the crofts not becoming vacant in these circumstances, the question of their being advertised to let could not arise. As to the latter part of the Question, I must emphasise that where the crofter wishes to transfer his croft to another occupant, he has a statutory right to choose his own assignee, subject only to the consent of the Crofters' Commission.
    Sir D. Robertson: Why does the other occupant have to be a man of means and not a farm worker, for whom all crofts and land holdings in the Highlands of Scotland were designed? Why did he as Secretary of State approve of the principle of the highest bidder, a man who paid £8,000 for one of these crofts, of which £2,500 was for the assignation? He bought himself into a croft in perpetuity, as long as his family lasts. This is something which must be dealt with by the House.
    Mr. Noble: My hon. Friend is mistaken in one respect, namely, when he says that I approve of the assignation. I have no such power. I agree with him that there may be a problem here in which perhaps it would be wise for me to consult the Commission to see whether it is more widespread than in this one area, and I will do that.
    Mr. Hoy: It is true that the right hon. Gentleman does not have the right of approval, but he has the right of objection, which is equally important. As the Crofters' Commission in its last two Reports expressed considerable concern at the unduly high sums of money which are changing hands in the course of these assignation transactions, will he not cause
    1298
    some inquiry to be made? If he has not got the power, will he tell us what power he requires to deal with this problem?
    Mr. Noble: I have said that I will inquire from the Commission whether this is a widespread matter, not one confined to this area. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that, when dealing with a question of tenancy, if one takes away the right of a tenant to assign his croft to somebody else at the best price he can get he suffers some damage, and that it is a question of balance between the ingoing and the outgoing tenant.
    Sir D. Robertson: In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory answer which has been given, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

    South of Scotland Electricity Board
    Mr. J. Hillasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his discussions with the South of Scotland Electricity Board following the report of their consultants on the need for a new coal-fired electricity generating station.
    Mr. Noble: I am informed that the consultants' report has not yet been received, but that it is expected next month.
    Mr. Hill: Is the Secretary of State aware that in answer to a Question in November last year one of his Parliamentary Secretaries informed me that the Electricity Board would be making a statement in January? All shades of opinion in Scotland are in favour of this coal-fired electricity generating station, including the Merchants' Association, which says in a document circulated to all hon. Members that a speeedy decision is necessary and would be a shot in the arm for the Scottish economy. In view of all these circumstances, will the Secretary of State try to impress on the Prime Minister that this is a chance for him to fulfil part of his promise to Scotland that it would not be forgotten when jobs were being handed out? This scheme would involve 10,000 miners, which means approximately 60.000 people in Scotland. We need a speedy decision. Could not he do something to get such a decision now?
    Mr. Noble: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the S.T.U.C. made this point to the Prime Minister, who promised to consider it. The time scale of this is that the output from the station will be required in 1969–70. I am doing my very best to consider this problem, but I cannot do it with any reasonable sense until the consultants' report is available.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Is not the Secretary of State yet aware, after all that has been said on this subject, that the whole case for this station is not to supply the needs of Scotland after Cockenzie but to use Scottish coal and employ Scottish miners to generate electricity which might be exported to the South, where it is very badly needed? Is he not in touch with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Power to see whether this can be done, or is Scotland having to pay a very heavy price for the separation which took place by the 1954 Act?
    Mr. Noble: I do not think that there is any difference between myself and my right hon. Friend on this problem. It is a question of getting the consultants' report as quickly as we can and making a decision as quickly as we can. Both these things I wish to do.
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: I think we must get on.

    Shipbuilding
    Mr. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for placing further orders for shipbuilding.
    Mr. Noble: I have no immediate plans for placing further orders.
    Mr. Manuel: Is the Secretary of State aware of the heavy and long-continued unemployment in the shipbuilding industry of Scotland? Is he aware of the dire plight of some of our smaller shipyards? Could he not now bring forward a programme of the future needs contained in the Highlands and Islands Shipping Act, which gives him power to build or charter ships, and do something to help to alleviate the very depressing situation now being suffered by thousands of shipbuilding workers and their families?
    Mr. Noble: I have just placed an order for three new ships for MacBrayne's.
    1300
    Until we see how these operate it would he a mistake to try to order some more.
    Mr. Manuel: They will operate all right.
    Mr. Noble: I hope the hon. Gentleman is right. I would not have placed the order if I disagreed with him.
    Mr. Grimond: Would not this be a most appropriate moment to place the order for the second ship due for the Orkney Island service?
    Mr. Noble: The problem is that the company concerned wants to experiment with a hydrofoil ship and it is going to do so this summer. I think we should wait to see how that experiment goes.
    Mr. Rankin: In addition to the things the right hon. Gentleman is doing, will he give us an assurance that in order to help general shipbuilding in Scotland he will give full support to the proposal that we should accept part-payment in oil from Russia in response to shipbuilding orders, to be placed on the Clyde if successful?
    Mr. Noble: That is an entirely different question.

    Local Authorities (Capital Projects)
    Mr. Hillasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why his invitation to local authorities in Scotland to embark on certain additional capital projects was limited to local authorities in the counties of Ayr, Bute, Dunbarton, Fife, Lanark and Renfrew, and to the cities of Glasgow and Dundee.
    Mrs. Cullenasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications he has received for borrowing consent; and what is the aggregate of the sums involved in respect of works to be undertaken under Circular 33/1962.
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what degree of unemployment comes within the term, relatively high unemployment, used in his Circular No. 33/1962 recently sent by the Scottish Development Department to certain local authorities, joint boards and committees and harbour authorities in Scotland; and how many and which of those bodies have applied for capital investment, in respect

    1301
    of what projects within the meaning of that Circular; and with what results in each case.
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the county of Wigtown and the burgh of Stranraer have been omitted from the invitation contained in his Circular 33/1962 to embark on additional capital projects.
    Mr. Noble: The object of the circular is to make use of temporary spare capacity in the building and construction industries by undertaking works that can be started before the end of March and completed within six months. This is essentially a short-term measure to help the areas with the highest unemployment among skilled craftsmen in these industries. The areas chosen fall within this category.
    As I informed the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) on 6th February, it is too early to say how much work local authorities will undertake in response to the circular. I will ask them for a progress report at the end of March.
    Mr. Hill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Calders area of Midlothian we have more unemployment today than we had before the B.M.C. came to Bathgate? Is there any reason why Midlothian County could not have had the same opportunities as the other counties to share in this work? This situation exists despite all the plans about which the Government have told us. Last year the Board of Trade said that there were 6,000 to 8,000 jobs in the pipeline. None of those jobs materialised. We want the jobs now. We need jobs in Scotland. The B.M.C. has not provided them.
    Mr. Noble: The point I made in my Answer was that when this list was decided the areas were picked for the number of skilled craftsmen in the building and contracting industries.
    Mrs. Cullen: Does not the Secretary of State think that he would have had a speedier and better response if he had offered loans at reduced rates for capital works?
    Mr. Noble: In some cases there are loans available and in others there are not. It is difficult to say whether we would have got a greater demand, be-
    1302
    cause we do not yet know the full scale of the demand which we have got. I will make a progress report in March.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Does not the Secretary of State realise that it is thoroughly wrong, unscientific and impractical to apply the doctrine of relativity to measure human happiness? Will he make a comprehensive statement on what he means by "relatively high unemployment"?
    Mr. Noble: The figures for the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency, or rather for Aberdeen, at the time when these figures were considered were 51 skilled building and construction craftsmen out of work with 42 unfilled vacancies.
    Mr. Ross: Surely the Secretary of State realises in relation to the building trades that the figures at present are far worse than that? It is time now to widen the scope of this. Why does he not send out another circular to local authorities, to which he would get a far better response, saying that he will use his power to make grants under Section 7 of the Local Employment Act?
    Mr. Noble: This may be possible in the future, but I cannot forecast that.

    Scottish Economy
    Mr. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further steps he proposes to take to achieve an expanded public works programme in Scotland.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland in view of his responsibilities for dealing with Scottish unemployment, what specific steps he is taking to check the outflow of Scottish workers from Scotland due to lack of jobs.
    Mr. Noble: The steps which the Government have taken and are taking were referred to in the Answer which the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) yesterday.
    Mr. Ross: But surely the Secretary of State appreciates that that was most unsatisfactory because of its vagueness and because it related to what was already being done? Surely there is no part of this country other than Scotland more

    1303
    in need of public works—housing, roads, bridges, hospitals, and so on—so why does the Secretary of State not produce a programme which will be adequate to our needs, especially in view of the present unemployment problem?
    Mr. Noble: Because I think that the hon. Member knows that the statement to which he referred stated that further measures would be announced as soon as they were ready. I cannot anticipate these.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a week ago, in reply to a Question asked by me, the Prime Minister conferred on him wide responsibilities for unemployment in Scotland? Can the Secretary of State now say in exact terms just what those responsibilities comprehend? Do they take into consideration the tremendous unemployment problem current in Glasgow among school leavers? Has the right hon. Gentleman any responsibilities there and what does he propose to do about that problem?
    Mr. Noble: As the hon. Member knows, the situation, which has changed in Scotland, is that an inter-Departmental group has been set up under the general oversight of the Secretary of State. My duties in these things are co-ordination and, perhaps, occasionally to act as a stimulus, but I am not departmentally responsible.
    Mr. Manuel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the circular which he sent to local authorities in connection with public works being undertaken is gravely misleading? Local authorities which have submitted projects have been told that their projects were new and that the circular referred only to projects which would have been accepted anyway under normal circumstances. The circular means that projects are only brought forward in the programme. Is he aware that this was not what local authorities understood to be the position or what the Press conveyed it to be, and that there is grave disappointment because new works will not accrue from the terms of the circular?
    Mr. Noble: If the hon. Member will write to me about any particular project he has in mind I will certainly look into it.
    Mr. Bence: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Department in Edinburgh has already rejected an application by Clydebank County Council for a grant under Section 4 of the Local Employment Act in respect of a piece of local public capital development?
    Mr. Noble: I do not think that the scheme as set out ever anticipated that everything which a local authority might ask for would automatically be granted. But, as I have said to his hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), if he has a point which worries him I hope that he will write to me about it.
    Mr. Ross: Is it the intention of the Secretary of State to make a statement related specifically to public works in the near future?
    Mr. Noble: It is not my intention now, but it might well happen.
    Sir T. Moore: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we in Scotland—[HON. MEMBERS: "We?"]—completely believe in his determined efforts and in what the Government are doing to produce more employment and a better situation generally for the people of Scotland?
    Mr. Rankin: The hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) did not mean "we" but "he".

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
  Horticultural Industry
  Mr. J. Wells: I beg to give notice that on Friday 1st March, I shall call attention to the horticultural industry, and move a Resolution.
  Civil Defence
  Mr. van Straubenzee: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 1st March, I shall call attention to the work of those engaged in Civil Defence, and move a Resolution.
  Rating Problems
  Mr. Hocking: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 1st March, I shall call attention to rating problems, and move a Resolution.
LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL (CLAUSE 1 AND SCHEDULE 1)

  (BUSINESS COMMITTEE)
  Report [31st January] of the Business Committee to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]
  Considered accordingly.

  That the allotted days which under the Order [29th January] are given to the remaining Proceedings in Committee of the whole House on Clause 1 and Schedule 1 of the London Government Bill shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below and, subject to the provisions of that Order, each part of the Proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

  TABLE

  Allotted day

  Proceedings

  Time for conclusion of Proceedings

  First day

  …

  Consideration of Amendments to Schedule 1 so far as not already disposed of—

  p.m.

  up to "4" in line 13 on page 88

  4.45

  up to beginning of line 14 on page 88

  6.15

  up to beginning of line 23 on page 88

  7.15

  up to beginning of line 29 on page 88

  8.15

  up to beginning of line 31 on page 88

  8.45

  up to beginning of line 41 on page 88

  10.45

  up to beginning of line 10 on page 89

  11.0

  Second day

  …

  Consideration of Amendments to Schedule 1 so far as not already disposed of—

  up to beginning of line 32 on page 89

  4.45

  up to beginning of line 42 on page 89

  6.0

  up to beginning of line 8 on page 90

  7.15

  up to beginning of line 27 on page 90

  8.30

  up to beginning of line 29 on page 90

  9.0

  up to end of Part II of Schedule 1

  10.15

  Schedule 1 so far as not already disposed of

  11.0

  Question, That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the said Report, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 41 (Business Committee), and agreed to.
  The following is the Report of the Business Committee:

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL (CLAUSE 1 AND SCHEDULE 1)
  [FIRST ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 24th January].
  [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

  Schedule 1.—(THE LONDON BOROUGHS.)
  Amendment proposed: In page 88, line 6, to leave out column 3.
  Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out, to "4" in line 13, stand part of the Schedule.
  3.34 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: May I begin by reminding the Committee of the purpose of the Amendment? It is to create a large central borough which would be capable of discharging the important and formidable problems concerned with planning and transport in the central area of the Metropolis as a whole. The remainder of the Amendment is in consequence of that because it requires that the next circle of boroughs outwards from the middle should be rearranged accordingly.
  It was fortunate that we came to the end of our discussion where we did, nearly three weeks ago, without reaching any conclusion about the Amendment, because we can now bring fresh minds to bear on it and I hope that the Minister will show a more constructive attitude to it than he did on that occasion. I have no doubt that he felt tired, having listened to the debate for two days; he certainly showed it.
  The arguments he used against the Amendment were faulty and conflicting and were not worthy of the Committee's serious attention, as I intend to show. I would like, first, to take him up on his implied suggestion that we should not discuss the City under the Amendment, particularly since it is covered by a later Amendment on the Notice Paper. The Minister said on that occasion that he would not like to deprive the Committee of a great deal of honest enjoyment. Perhaps I should tell him that some hon.
  1308
  Members take the Bill as a serious matter and are not trying to derive enjoyment from it.
  It seems essential to me that we should decide, as a matter of principle, at this stage whether or not we wish the City to remain as a separate local authority. If the Committee is against perpetuating the status quo it now has before it the choice of two alternatives. We can either create a central borough as proposed in the Amendment—of which the City itself forms a part—or we can tack it on to one of the other boroughs, which is proposed by the Government in the Bill. If our discussion on this question is deferred until a later Amendment we will have only one alternative to choose; a makeshift one which could only be second best to that contained in the Amendment.
  Hon. Members on this side have said that we are discussing a political Bill which is designed to secure advantages for the party opposite. I will not say whether or not that is a correct judgment, but the Minister's attitude towards the Amendment will enable us to judge the accuracy or otherwise of that suggestion. Both during the Second Reading debate and on the last occasion in Committee the Minister ignored the arguments adduced on the subject of the City, but if he is now prepared to admit that it is an anomaly which, in the end, will find no place in the Bill, that will help to dispel the suspicions that have been aroused on this side.
  In his brief speech on the last occasion, the Minister talked, first, of carving out a central area and savaging a large number of boroughs and borough groups in the process. Those are emotive words, and no substitute for rational argument. I would call them politicians' phrases. In any case, they are meaningless, because how can one savage something that does not exist at the moment? If the right hon. Gentleman meant that the boundary proposed for the central area by the Amendment does not follow the boundaries of the metropolitan boroughs, he is absolutely right. I notice, however, that he has not been nearly so squeamish about the existing local authority boundaries further out, where he has drawn a great many new boundaries—some, I have no doubt, with perfectly reasonable motives, but others with no apparent justification at all.

  1309
  I must say that if the Minister's concern for the boundaries is genuine, it gives me greater hope for the fate of a later Amendment I have on the Notice Paper, except that, so far, whenever anyone has suggested that he does not like a boundary the Minister has always disclaimed responsibility, and has put the blame on the four town clerks.
  If it is correct in principle to delineate a central area to fulfil these important functions of planning and the oversight of traffic problems, in practice it is quite impossible to do so without cutting across existing local authority boundaries, but I do not see why one should not do that. The metropolitan boroughs were first set up 64 years ago, and I should like to know whether the Minister seriously pretends that they made ideal units for all time, and that the boundaries then delineated should be preserved until the Resurrection. If he holds that bizarre opinion, he certainly did not give his reasons on the last occasion.
  The only argument that the right hon. Gentleman then used against my proposal was what he called the formidable effect it would have on rateable values. That is utter nonsense, because the total rateable value of the Greater London area as a whole is not in any way affected by the method of drawing the internal boundaries. I admit that there will be large differences in the rateable values of different boroughs, but those already exist under the Government's proposals, and I should like to give the Committee one or two figures.
  The highest is Borough No. 1, with a rateable value of £95 million, which is four times the rateable value of the next highest—Chelsea and Kensington, with a rateable value of £24·7 million. The lowest is Borough No. 21, with a rateable value of £9 million. The Committee will observe that there is a factor of more than ten to one difference between the highest and the lowest. I have estimated the rateable value of the new borough proposed in the Amendment at £145 million, and the Minister is welcome to see my calculations if he likes. I have also estimated the rateable value of the next circle of boroughs delineated by the Amendment as varying between £11 million—which is the
  1310
  same as that for Deptford and Lewisham—and £34 million.
  3.45 p.m.
  Having worked all that out, I still say that the differences are quite irrelevant to the question whether or not the Amendment should be accepted, because Clause 64 gives the Minister power to make schemes to reduce disparities in the rates levied, by means of contributions from one local authority to another, either directly or through the Greater London Council. I therefore believe that any differences in rateable values that exist between one borough and another should not be allowed to influence our thinking. If the Minister has in mind the traditional associations of people in an area with their own boroughs, that is an argument against the Schedule as a whole, and not against the Amendment, because under the Bill not one local authority in the entire Greater London area remains intact as a separate entity.
  I now prefer to the right hon. Gentlemen's point about the responsibilities of the central borough—although it is hardly worth wasting time on it. Quite naturally, I did not talk about whether this borough would be capable of shouldering the functions of housing health, child care, and so on. It is obvious that a borough with such immense resources as come from a rateable value of £145 million would be far more capable of carrying out those functions than would any of the smaller boroughs.
  The Minister said that we were talking about an area in which 270,000 people live and into which 1¼ million people travel daily to work. He added that this created complex inter-relationships, but then claimed that it was better to have nine separate authorities to deal with those complex inter-relationships than to have one, as the Amendment proposes. I must refute the idea that the more complex an administrative problem becomes the more fingers there should be in the pie. Why are we setting up the Greater London Council at all? I thought that it was because we should recognise that there are certain local government functions that can only be carried out properly by one body that has powers that extend right to the fringe of the built-up area.

  1311
  Similarly, I believe that these vital problems of planning, traffic engineering and transport must be concentrated in the hands of one authority covering Central London, where we have the very heart of the Metropolis, beating with its diurnal rhythm. It is nonsense to say that we can achieve the same ends by giving the Greater London Council strong powers to ensure that sensible interlocking plans are made by the boroughs in the central areas. Under the Bill, the Greater London Council has no powers over the boroughs in the central area that it does not possess over those boroughs that are further out. In any case, if, as I believe, it is absolutely necessary to secure such co-ordination, we should shape the administrative units accordingly.
  The Minister further said that the central unit was artificial. My first remark is that it was agreed by his own predecessor with the Registrar-General, the L.C.C. and other outside bodies of experts. Secondly, we cannot claim that this is an artificial unit merely because its boundaries do not follow those of the metropolitan boroughs—they, too, are artificial.
  In a sense, it can be said that any local government boundary is artificial because it is created by Parliament, but, if we are sensible, we should try to draw the local authority boundaries in such a way that good local government is facilitated. That is the ostensible purpose of the whole Bill and, in a nutshell, that is the purpose of this Amendment. I very much hope that the Minister has thought again since our last discussion, and will accept a modest dose of the reform on which he pretends to be so keen.
  Sir Cyril Black: I should like to speak further to the Amendment in Schedule I, page 89, line 47—to leave out "2" and to insert "3"—on which a number of interventions were made in our last discussion by my hon. Friends the Members for Merton and Morden (Mr. Atkins) and Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr). I represent the third of the three districts that would be affected by the Amendment—London Borough No. 22.
  I found the Minister's comments on this matter singularly unconvincing. He based the whole of his case upon the application of a mathematical formula. This seems to me to be making mathe-
  1312
  matics the master rather than the servant and to arrive at a result, if the formula be applied as the Minister suggested, which does very much less than justice to the areas concerned.
  The area which we are dealing with, Greater London Borough No. 22, contains two complete parliamentary divisions and approximately two-thirds of a third Parliamentary division. Therefore, this area is represented in the. House at the moment by two Members and by about two-thirds of a third Member, if I may so describe it, because my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham represents the Borough of Mitcham, which, I think, is about two-thirds of his constituency, and also the Borough of Beddington and Wallington, which is approximately one-third.
  What is suggested under the Bill is that an area which is considered only to be adequately represented in the House by two and two-thirds Members of Parliament would, nevertheless, be adequately represented on the Greater London Council by two members. In other words, the members on tie Greater London Council would represent larger constituencies than are represented by Members of Parliament. If that be local government and local representation, then the words mean something entirely different from the meaning which I have always attributed to them in the past. It is undeniable that no two representatives on the Greater London Council can represent this area adequately.
  I want to make only one point in this connection, to make clear how absurd is this proposal. It is not unreasonable to suppose that for town planning, which becomes one of the most important functions of the Greater London Council, the committee of that council which would deal with that matter would probably contain about one-third of the whole membership of the Greater London Council. Bearing in mind the amount of detailed work involved in town planning over this vast area, it must be clear that the town planning committee would have delegated powers in the great majority of the matters that came before it. Therefore, in that town planning committee decisions would be taken which would vitally affect the whole of the future of town planning in the large area of Greater London Borough No. 22.

  1313
  The position on the figures I have given is that the whole area has two-thirds of a chance of having one member on that town planning committee. It is quite possible that the whole area would be left with no one at all on the committee. Therefore, on all the town planning matters mast affecting it, this vitally important area on the south-west side of London might well find itself without a single voice when all these decisions are taken.
  The situation at the moment is that this area is represented by 12 councillors and two aldermen on the present Surrey County Council. Each councillor represents about 15,000 electors. In the great majority of cases the county councillor lives in the area which he represents. He knows all the details of the area and he is accessible to his constituents, and the area is represented on all the committees of Surrey County Council, in some cases by two or even three members.
  It is suggested in the Bill that on the town planning committee of the Greater London Council, perhaps the most important committee that will be set up by that council, this area is to have only two-thirds of a chance of having one representative. This is an absolute distortion of local government. There is no element of local government in it at all. I suggest that it is completely undemocratic to limit the representation of an area of this size to two members only. Our plea that representation be increased from two to three members is supported not only by the three Members for the Parliamentary division, but by Surrey County Council, the two borough councils, and Merton and Morden Urban District Council.
  I beg the Minister to give further thought to this matter and to ensure that this important area is more adequately represented.
  Mr. C. W. Key: I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the Amendment on the Notice Paper in my name and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Fu/ham (Mr. M. Stewart) which is designed to increase the number of representatives on the Greater London Council for Poplar, Stepney and Bethnal Green from two to three. It will be remembered that on Second Reading the Minister said that
  1314
  the number of members would be determined by dividing the number of electors in each borough by the Parliamentary allocation or quota and using the nearest full number. The aim was that when the Parliamentary boundaries had been reviewed, each borough would be divided by the Home Secretary into Greater London Council electoral divisions corresponding normally to Parliamentary constituencies, but until that happened the borough would be a single electoral area as a whole for the number of seats specified.
  The electorate referred to by the Minister was the local government electorate divided by the Parliamentary average. It is a strange business to mix the two up in that way. In Part I of Schedule I the initial number of councillors to be elected on the Greater London Council in relation to the proposed London Borough No. 5, which comprises the existing Boroughs of Bethnal Green, Poplar and Stepney, is two, and it is submitted that it would be fair and equitable in all the circumstances to increase this allocation to three.
  I have had worked out the allocations of all the boroughs and the number of representatives they get in proportion to the populations of the areas concerned. There are four boroughs which are to have one representative in each case for every 65,000 to 70.000 inhabitants. There are five boroughs with 70,000 to 75,000 inhabitants, five other boroughs with 75,000 to 80,000 inhabitants, eight boroughs with 80,000 to 85,000, six boroughs with 85,000 to 90,000 and three boroughs with just over 90,000. This makes a total of 31 boroughs, leaving out one place only, and that place is Poplar, Stepney and Bethnal Green. The average population in these cases is 102,687 for each member of the Greater London Council. That I claim to be a great injustice to Poplar, Stepney and Bethnal Green and it is a state of affairs which ought to be put right.
  4.0 p.m.
  We should remember that when these allocations are made, the Ministry will use the allocations in all probability for the purpose of deciding the Parliamentary divisions, and so on. This will mean not only that Poplar, Stepney and Bethnal

  1315
  Green will have only two members instead of three on the Greater London Council, but that they will have only two Parliamentary seats. This area suffered a great deal during the war. I know that the population decreased, but I would emphasise that it is now increasing and will continue to do so as development takes place. A great amount of building has been done by the London County Council. If we accept this allocation of two seats on the G.L.C. without protest, we shall find that we shall have only two Members of Parliament instead of the larger number that we should have.
  If we analyse the situation we find there are great difficulties in deciding who is right and who is wrong. To illustrate the unfairness which arises from a strict application of the quota system, let me refer to two places, Nos. 5 and 25. In the case of No. 5, with a local government electorate of 139,000, the exact number of Greater London Council members according to the quota is 2·41, and the initial number of Greater London councillors in the Bill is 2. In the case of No. 25, with a local government electorate of 147,000, the figures are 2·54 and 3 respectively.
  Further to illustrate the disparity in the case of London borough No. 5, by dividing the actual electorate of each London borough by the number of Greater London Council members initially allocated, No. 5 has a local government electorate per member of 69,000 with two members; but No. 25, with a local government electorate of 49,000, has three members, and No. 29 has a local government electorate of 49,000 with three members. That seems to me to be an unfair distribution if the population is used as a guide.
  In relation to the average population per member of the Greater London Council overall, we find that Borough No. 5 is entitled to an allocation of 2·563 members on the Greater London Council and has been allotted 2. No. 1 area plus the City of London would be eligible for only 3·42 members—the nearest whole number being 3—but it is to be given 4; whereas in the case of Poplar, because its figure is a litle lower, it is given 2 instead of 3. It is important that we should get this number increased.
  Mr. John Parker: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Key) and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black). The whole question of the allocation of seats ought to be reviewed.
  The Minister, when he replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) at the end of our last debate on the Bill, said:
  "The idea behind the representation is that ultimately each councillor on the Greater London Council will wherever possible represent an area corresponding to a Parliamentary constituency. That means that in defining the numbers on the Greater London Council we have had to pay regard to the sort of average number of constituents, electors, who would be in a Parliamentary constituency area. For that we are bound to look at what is called the electoral quota, which in this case comes out of the figure for England of 57,905. We are then bound to take the number of electors in the borough group concerned, divide it by the magic number of 57,905, and take the nearest whole number."
  When pressed about marginal cases and asked not to be rigid, he said:
  "At the risk of being called rigid, I must point out that we have to work to the nearest whole number. We cannot have fractions of councillors."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1963; Vol. 670, c. 435.]
  The interesting point is that in answer to a Question that I put down on 22nd January asking what were the numbers of Parliamentary electors inside the Greater London area, the figure given was 5,578,351. In other words, if one proposes to have 100 councillors in the Greater London area, the quota for each of those 100 should be 55,783 and not the Parliamentary quota of 57,905.
  We ought to know from the Minister whether, following the creation of the Greater London Council, when we next have a Parliamentary review, it is proposed to ask the Boundary Commissioners to give Greater London 4 Members of Parliament more than it is entitled to by the Parliamentary quota, for that is what the Minister's figures would appear to mean. Either there should be 96 Members of Parliament for this area and 96 members on the Greater London Council if the London constituencies are to coincide with the Parliamentary seats, or we should get away from the idea of making the Greater London constituencies and the Parliamentary constituencies coincide.
  I think that it is unreasonable to ask the Boundary Commissioners to give

  1317
  Greater London 4 extra members, but if the Commissioners, when they draw up their new boundaries, cut down the number of seats in London by 4, does that mean that after the Greater London Council is set up the numbers will be cut to 96? If so, it would be reasonable to start off with 96, rather than start with 100 and then cut down the number to 96 when the redistribution takes place. We ought to have an answer on that point.
  I can see no case for giving Greater London 4 extra members compared with the rest of England, but if we are going to do that, there ought to be a definite decision taken by Parliament. On the other hand, if we apply the quota of 55,783, which will be the correct quota on the basis of the Parliamentary electorate in Greater London, on the assumption that we have 100 members, then obviously, a case will have to be made out on that basis in any area.
  I should have thought that it was right and proper, in creating a body like the Greater London Council, that each part of the area should be fairly represented. Take the whole of the Essex area, for example. That is to be given only 14 members on the Greater London Council. But on the basis of the London quota, it will be entitled to 15 members. I propose to say a little more on that point in connection with another Amendment.
  I should have thought that, whatever kind of formula one applies, one should try to apply it in such a way that each area of London is fairly represented in comparison with any other area, and that one should not deal arbitrarily so that certain areas would be overrepresented and others under-represented. If there is to be overrepresentation by 4 members in the Greater London area, we ought to be told which are the areas to be overrepresented, and why. There is room here for a good deal of gerrymandering, for some areas which may have certain political allegiances will be overrepresented while others will be underrepresented. This is very unwise and unfair, and it is no way to begin setting up such a body as this with that kind of suspicion about it. To sum up, I want to know whether, and, if so, why, the Greater London area is to be given four extra Members of Parliament than the Parliamentary electorate justifies. On
  1318
  what principles are these four Members to be distributed? On the other hand, if we are to have 100 members on the Greater London Council, why cannot we adopt the quota for the Greater London area rather than the parliamentary quota?
  Mr. Walter Edwards: I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) has said about the need for the Minister to consider these figures again, and I support what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Key) and by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black).
  The hon. Member for Wimbledon put his case very well, but the Minister will be interested to know that in Poplar, Stepney and Bethnal Green we have an even better case. According to figures which I have, the population in the hon. Gentleman's area is 188,000 and it is to have two members on the Greater London Council. Stepney, Poplar and Bethnal Green have a population of 205,000. On the basis of the local government electorate, there will be one member on the Council for every 58,943 electors in the hon. Gentleman's area, whereas in Stepney. Poplar and Bethnal Green there will be one elected member for the gigantic number of 69,500.
  I can go on making these comparisons. Let us remember that this is a new Measure. It is to last for a long time and these figures will remain in force for a long time. Borough No. 29 has one elected representative on the Greater London Council on the basis of 49,000 local government electors, 20,000 less than the figure in Stepney, Poplar and Bethnal Green. Borough No. 25 has one member for just over 49,000. Borough No. 18 has one member for 49,000. Borough No. 11 has one member for 48,714. In the combined Boroughs of Kensington and Chelsea, there is one member for 51,461.
  There should be a better way of settling the representation than is provided under the Bill as it stands. It is grossly unfair that the Borough of Stepney, Poplar and Bethnal Green should be saddled with such small representation. With a population only 12,000 less than that in Kensington and Chelsea, lit is to have one member less on the Greater London Council.

  1319
  The Minister cannot allow the Bill to go through like this. With all this unequal representation, will he still stick to his figure of 100? I do not complain about the new inner London boroughs having their representation, but there are some outside boroughs which have one councillor for 49,000 electors, whereas the East End of London, Stepney, Poplar and Bethnal Green, is to have only one representative for 69,000. All hon. Members will agree, I am sure, that it is grossly unfair. It should not be accepted by the Minister or countenanced by the House. If ever there was a case to cause the Minister to change his mind, this is it.
  Does the Minister have to stick to his figure of 100? Why not give way to the hon. Member for Wimbledon in the case which he makes? Why not give way in the case which I am making for the new borough which is the most unrepresented of all the 32 new boroughs? Is the figure of 100 councillors sacrosanct? Why should it be? I believe—and I think that a large number of Conservatives in London believe—that the 100 is much too small a figure for the Council to be able to perform its enormous functions once the Bill goes on the Statute Book.
  4.15 p.m.
  I know that the Minister is a busy man, but, if he will find time to consider these cases again he will, I am sure, decide, on the basis of the figures, that there is a case here for representation fairer than the Schedule at present provides. He will be a much happier man if he comes to that conclusion, because he will know that, once the Bill is passed, all the new authorities will have better representation and it will be possible for the Greater London Council to begin without this bias in representation in various parts of the Greater London area.
  I come now to the matter of parliamentary represention which was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Poplar. As far as we have heard from the Government, Parliamentary constituencies will depend upon the number of members elected from the various new London boroughs to the Greater London Council. In Poplar, Stepney and Bethnal Green, when the war ended, there were seven Members of Parliament, and we needed seven Members of Parliament in order to give proper service to the people living in the area. Under the Bill,
  1320
  if it is accepted as it now stands and the number of Members of Parliament coincides with the number of councillors elected to the Greater London Council, our Parliamentary representation will be reduced to two.
  Why should there be this drastic reduction in Parliamentary representation? We all look forward to living in a true democracy where people can go to their representatives and explain to them their views and problems. If the Schedule is not amended, the Bill will put the electorate as far as possible away from those who represent them. I know that we cannot go back to the seven, but at least we could go to three. We are justified in having three Members of Parliament in that area just as we are justified in having three members on the Greater London Council.
  I beg the Minister to take note of these appeals, because they are conscientiously made on behalf of the people who live in the areas and of the people who represent those living there.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: I support the Amendment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Key) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) have made a very strong case for it. The Minister has previously tried to argue this matter on the basis of a formula of dividing by, I think, 57,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) cast very considerable doubt on the validity of the whole of his argument, and the Minister should consider it again.
  I wish briefly to draw attention to another important measuring rod, population. If the Greater London Council has 100 members, on average each will represent about 80,000 people. On that basis, one might, not unreasonably, take the population of a borough, divide it by 80,000 and see what is the nearest whole number. If that is done with the boroughs, one gets a very interesting result. We find that that formula is correctly followed with respect to all the boroughs except two. One of the exceptions is the borough of my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney, namely, Stepney, Popular and Bethnal Green, which gets less than it should under the formula because 80,000 divided into 205,000 gives a figure of just over 2½, but it is to have 2 representatives instead of 3.

  1321
  The other exception is our dear old friend Westminster, Paddington and St. Marylebone, with the City of London in it, which gets one more representative than it should under the formula. Even if we add the population of the City of London to the 269,000 population of Westminster, Paddington and St. Marylebone, one does not arrive at the figure of 280,000 which is needed to get a figure of 3½ when 280,000 is divided by 80,000. Under the formula of population, that area is entitled to only 3 councillors, but, in fact, it is to have 4. As I have said, the borough of my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney is entitled to 3 members on the formula of population, but is to have only 2.
  It is remarkable that the two exceptions concern a borough which everyone knows will be Tory, which is to have one more councillor than it should on the formula, and a borough which everyone knows will be Labour, which is to get one less than it should. If the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has any further doubts about the purpose of introducing the Bill, this should resolve them for him.
  Let me take the boroughs in order of population. We begin with the less populous boroughs with 166,000. The population then increases by quite small measures—166,000, 169,000, and so on—until we reach a group of five boroughs the most populous of which has a population of 189,000. In that group, the five least populous ranging from 166,000 to 189,000, the biggest gap between any two is 10,000. But after the 189,000 there is a gap of 16,000 before we come to Stepney, Poplar and Bethnal Green, which has a population of 205,000. There is a sort of natural break in the population series at that point. After that, the figures run at very close intervals—205,000, 209,000, 210,000 and 218,000. We do not find a gap of as much as 16,000 between one borough and another until we get to a borough with a population of 274,000. The following one has a population of 290,000.
  Therefore, basically, by population, boroughs fall into three groups: boroughs with populations of 290,000 and above, boroughs with populations of from 205,000 to 290,000, and the five smallest ones with populations ranging from 166,000 to 189,000. The remark-
  1322
  able thing again is that the allocation of seats follows that pattern very closely, but not exactly. Those with a population of 290,000 and above are to have four seats, and the five smallest are to have two seats, which the Minister could, on population, defend, although he should pay attention to what the hon. Member for Wimbledon said.
  One would expect the middle group, separated from the other two by margins of 16,000 population on either side, to have three seats each, and that is the case, but again with two exceptions: the Borough of Stepney, Poplar and Bethnal Green, which is to have two, and Westminster, Paddington, St. Marylebone and the City of London which is promoted to the group of boroughs which is to have four. This cannot be defended. It is idle for the Minister to pretend that this is a non-partisan Bill designed to bring about better government.
  The Minister should listen to the pleas that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and by my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney. I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Holman) will shortly catch your eye, Sir William, so that he may add his support to their pleas. This is a very serious matter. The Minister should not be content with the Schedule of numbers as it stands.
  Mr. Percy Holman: I protest against the Schedule on the ground of principle. It is based on local government electorates. It is technically a local government Bill, but behind it is the Parliamentary readjustment for the Greater London area which is to be based on the number of members for each of the new boroughs. To base the Parliamentary representation of this country on local government registers is going back to the past.
  When I was a young man, m the first election in which I took part, the chairman of my Liberal Association had 35 Parliamentary votes and 35 local government votes. Under those conditions, there might be some justification for basing the Parliamentary representation on the electorate. But that has been swept away, and nominally, I believe, with the consent of the party opposite. That gentleman, if he were alive today, would have one Parliamentary vote.

  1323
  The Parliamentary representation should be based either on the parliamentary electorate or on population, but under no circumstances should it be based on the local government electorate. In the Temples there are only about 3,000 Parliamentary electors, but over 16,000 local government electors. On that basis alone, No. 1 authority is getting 4 Members of Parliament instead of 3. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) indicated, No. 1 authority would have a reprsentation of 3·3 per cent. on the population basis, or 3·42 per cent, on the Parliamentary basis, but 3·7 per cent. on the local government register basis.
  Is this Government so reactionary that they will try to force the Parliamentary registers in future to be based on the local government electorate in order to ensure that areas in which there are large offices with numerous directors getting their own vote as local government electors shall determine the way in which Parliamentary seats are allocated? If so, let the Minister admit it, or let him say that the parliamentary registers in future should be based either on population or on the Parliamentary vote.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): Perhaps I should remind the Committee, first, that arguments based on differing degrees of representative capacity—that is, arguments that this councillor will represent 10,000 more people than that councillor —must surely take account of the fact that that is true of ourselves as we sit here today.
  4.30 p.m.
  I have opened The Times "Guide to the House of Commons", produced after the 1959 election, at a chance page. It happens to be the page with part of my constituency recorded upon it. I notice that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Worsley) represents an electorate of just under 48,000, whereas the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) represents an electorate of 72,500. It is because constituencies, with their numbers of electorate, are constantly shifting, with population movements and by other natural causes, that the Boundary Com-
  1324
  missioners do their regular work. All that this part of the Bill seeks to do is to make transitional arrangements. I will explain why.
  The Government had to decide on what basis the Greater London Council should be elected. We had the advice of the Royal Commission that the Greater London councillors should represent an electoral area corresponding with a Parliamentary constituency. There was a good deal of criticism of that recommendation and the Government decided to follow it mainly, but not wholly.
  The difference in the Government's proposals, contained in the Bill, is that the electoral area for the Greater London Council will correspond in average size with the Parliamentary constituency area, and each one will be contained within a London borough except where a Parliamentary constituency straddles two or more London boroughs. In the latter case, it will be for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to make warding orders which will group wards within the London borough on each side of the straddling boundary to make up a Greater London constituency.
  We cannot, however, know what the Boundary Commissioners will do when they next consider Parliamentary constituency boundaries. Hon. Members opposite have spoken as if we have some sort of mandate. We cannot send any message to the Boundary Commissioners. It would he a sad day if we could. We shall have to wait to see what they, in their wisdom, decide. Broadly, the Government are saying that whatever is decided, a Greater London electoral area should correspond with the Parliamentary constituency as it is decided.
  That still leaves us with the obligation to make transitional arrangements until we know what the Boundary Commissioners do with the constituency boundaries. That is why, in the Bill, we have had to work on what, I agree, are arbitrary mathematical figures. It is not that we are being arbitrary and selecting a figure out of the hat. It is because we want to bring it about that the Greater London Councillor will broadly represent what is at the moment a Parliamentary constituency.
  That is of advantage to both sides of the House of Commons. Normally, it

  1325
  makes sense that the party organisations should work for each constituency, be it Greater London or Parliamentary within the same borough boundary, although that cannot always be secured. That is why we are working on the electoral quota for England of 57,905. We apply that figure to the current electorate. Here we have a choice. We can apply the figure either to the Parliamentary electorate in each borough group or to the local government electorate. In all cases except one, the answer of the sum is the same. Whether the quotient of 57,905 is divided into the local government electorate or into the Parliamentary electorate the answer comes the same, except in the case of—I leave the Committee to guess—
  Mr. W. Edwards: Borough No. 1.
  Sir K. Joseph: —Borough No. 1.
  Here, we face a dilemma, because the local government electorate is larger than the Parliamentary electorate and we had to decide whether to apply the quota to the Parliamentary electorate or to the local government electorate. Since we are seeking the number of councillors on what is a local government body, we decided to take the local government electorate. That is why, in that one case, by choosing the local government electorate we arrive at an answer which just topples over the 3·5 and, therefore, qualifies for the nearest whole number, which in that case is higher.
  Mr. Key: The Minister's calculations bear out what he says with regard to the people in borough No. 1. They also bear out my calculation with regard to the number of people in borough No. 5. The numbers given by the Minister were higher than the number. In my case, they were below the number.
  Mr. Parker: In the answer which I quoted earlier, the Minister said that the number of local government electors in Greater London was 5,596,133, the only difference from the parliamentary electorate being 17,782 for the whole of the Greater London area. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Holman) has pointed out, practically all of that is in the City and the Temple area. Therefore, it becomes important only in one constituency. It
  1326
  is unfortunate that that area should be the one which is over-represented.
  Sir K. Joseph: In answer to the right hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Key), I do not know where the difference between us is. The right hon. Gentleman himself did the sum that I have set out and, working on the electorate divided by the Parliamentary quota, it came to the answer of 2·4. Applying our rule of working to the nearest whole number, that gives the number of councillors of 2.
  Let me, however, meet a whole number of other points which have been made. The relationship between population and electorate varies from area to area. This is something that, possibly, the Boundary Commissioners will take into account. The Commissioners have their own remit. They are enjoined to follow local authority boundaries where possible and, therefore, no doubt, they will take into account what we are doing by the Bill.
  We cannot, however, say what the constituencies resulting from the Boundary Commissioners' recommendations will be. Therefore, the Greater London Council has at present 100 councillors, because there are 100 Members of Parliament representing the Greater Lon don area. After the Boundary Commissioners have done their work, however, there may well be more or less Members of Parliament representing the Greater London area and, therefore, more or less Greater London council lors. Indeed, if some Parliamentary constituencies straddle more than one London borough, there will to that extent be more Greater London councillors than there will be Members of Parliament covering the same area.
  There is one point at which, if the committee so desires, a change can he made. At present, we are working on the electorate figures for each area provided by the Registrar-General. The Registrar-General will be publishing revised census figures in the middle of this year. If the Committee so wishes, and if there is time before the Bill becomes law—this depends not upon me, but upon how soon the Registrar-General's sums are completed—I could undertake to take away the whole of the column and work out all the sums again on the electorate figures resulting from the latest census. That would simply

  1327
  bring the transitional arrangements more up to date. It does not, cannot and will not represent the final shape of the Greater London Council, which will emerge only when the Boundary Commissioners have done their job. That I will gladly undertake to consider, if the Committee so wishes, and only, of course, if the raw material comes forward before this Bill reaches the Stature Book.
  I would like to take up the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) made, that where a particular area has two or three councillors it may not get one of its councillors on to any particular committee. That is, I fear, a chance of local government, for councillors cannot be on every committee. That is not possible, and we must remember that in setting up the Greater London Council we are setting up a body which is required to take, really, a new view of local government by concentrating on the strategic functions. It is to be served, we hope, by new organs, for providing intelligence and research, and I do not see that my hon. Friend need be worried by the fear that inevitably councillors for any particular area may not cover whole range of the committees of the Council.
  I hope that I have reconciled the Committee to the inevitably transitional nature of these provisions and have shown that, if we are to follow what I believe is generally agreed to be the right method—that of identifying the number of Greater London councillors with the number of Members of Parliament sitting for the Greater London area.
  This is the only way to handle it. I hope that in the light of this explanation the Amendment seeking to change the number of Greater London councillors will not be pressed and will, indeed, be withdrawn.
  Mr. W. Edwards: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee, apart from the vague undertaking which
  he has given about figures to be supplied by the Registrar-General and to be inserted in this Schedule, whether there is the slightest possibility of the number of councillors in each of these new boroughs being altered within the next twenty or twenty-five years?
  Sir K. Joseph: Oh, yes. As from time to time the Boundary Commissioners make their recommendations, and possibly alter constituencies, this may well happen, but till the Commissioners have taken account of the boundaries we are making by the Bill we cannot be sure how the different wardings will lead to Greater London Council electoral areas, and that is why, for the first election, the Greater London councillors are being elected not on a constituency basis, but a borough basis.
  Mr. Lubbock: I must confess that I am absolutely amazed that the Minister has spoken for a quarter of an hour without referring to any of the points that I made in my speech just now.
  Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman accused me of giving only a brief reply to his speech late the other night and I looked it up and I found that while his speech covered five columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT I answered in a speech which covered four and a half columns. I felt that I answered every point he made then and I hope that he will not think it discourteous that I did not go over the same ground again.
  Mr. Lubbock: If we are to have equal numbers of columns I suggest that I have now caught up with the Minister and that he might add a few more. I think that I demolished the arguments he used the other night, particularly the spurious one about rateable values. I hoped that he would give some response to the points I made this afternoon.
  Question put, That the words proposed to be left out, to "4" in line 13, stand part of the Schedule:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 257, Noes 4.

  Division No. 50.]

  AYES

  [4.44 p.m.

  Agnew, sir Peter

  Batsford, Brian

  Bidgood, John C.

  Alan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Biffen, John

  Allason, James

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Blggs-Davison, John

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Bell, Ronald

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Balniel, Lord

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Barber, Anthony

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Barlow, Sir John

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Bossom, Hon. Clive

  Bourne-Alton, A.

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

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Box, Donald

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Peel, John

  Brewis, John

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

  Percival, Ian

  Bromley-Davenport.Lt.-Col.SlrWalter

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Plckthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Pilklngton, Sir Richard

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Holland, Philip

  Pitman, Sir James

  Bryan, Paul

  Hollingworth, John

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Buck, Antony

  Hopkins, Alan

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Bulfard, Denys

  Hornby, R. P.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Burden, F. A.

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. SirD.(Belfast,S.)

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Ramsden, James

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rees, Hugh

  Chataway, Christopher

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Ronton, Rt. Hon. David

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  James, David

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

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

  Clarke, Brig.Terence(Portsmth, W.)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

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

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Cole, Norman

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

  Russell, Ronald

  Corfield, F. V.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  St. Clair, M.

  Costaln, A, P.

  Kerans, Gdr. J. S,

  Sharpies, Richard

  Coulson, Michael

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Shaw, M.

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (spelthorne)

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Crawley, Aldan

  Kershaw, Anthony

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

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Kimball, Marcus

  Smithers, Peter

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kirk, Peter

  Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

  Cunningham, Knox

  Lambton, Viscount

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Curran, Charles

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Speir, Rupert

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Leavey, J. A.

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmld, Sir Henry

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Stodart, J. A.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Lindsay, Sir Martin

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E, M.

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Drayson, G. B.

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  du Cann, Edward

  Longbottom, Charles

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Duncan, Sir James

  Longden, Gilbert

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

  Eden, John

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Teeling, Sir William

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

  MacArthur, Ian

  Temple, John M.

  Emery, Peter

  McLaren, Martin

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  Erroll, Rt. Hon. F, J.

  Maclean,SirFltzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs.)

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

  Farr, John

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

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Fell, Anthony

  Macpherson,Rt.Hn.Niall(Dumfries)

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Maddan, Martin

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Fisher, Nigel

  Maginnie, John E.

  Turner, Colin

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Maltland, Sir John

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Freeth, Denzil

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Tweedsmulr, Lady

  Gammans, Lady

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Gardner, Edward

  Marshall, Douglas

  Vane, W. M. F.

  George, Sir John (Pollok)

  Mathew, Robert (Honltor)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk Central)

  Mawby, Ray

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

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

  Walder, David

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Mills, Stratton

  Walker, Peter

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Goodhew, Victor

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Wall, Patrick

  Gower, Raymond

  Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)

  Webster, David

  Green, Alan

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Morgan, William

  Whitelaw, William

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. ft. G.

  Morrison, John

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Harris, Reader (Helton)

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Wise, A. R.

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Orr-Ewing, c. Ian

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  WoollHam, John

  Hastings, Stephen

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Hay, John

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Heaid, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Partridge, E.

  Mr. Michael Hamilton and

  Mr. Ian Fraser

  NOES

  Bowen, Roderlc (Cardigan)

  Grlmond, Rt. Hon. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Dodds, Norman

  Hooson, H. E.

  Mr. Wade and Mr. Lubbock.

  Mr. James MacColl: I beg to move, in page 88, line 13, column 3, to leave out "4" and to insert "3".
  The Chairman: I propose that together with this Amendment we should discuss the following Amendments: In page 88, line 14, column 2, leave out "Paddington and".
  In line 14, column 2, at end insert:
  "and so much of the metropolitan borough of Paddington as lies south of the boundary referred to in paragraph 1 of Part II of this Schedule".
  In page 90, leave out line 24.
  In line 24, column 2, leave out "boroughs of Wembley and" and insert "borough of".
  In line 24, column 2, at end insert:
  "and so much of the metropolitan borough of Paddington as lies north of the boundary referred to in paragraph I of Part II of this Schedule".
  In line 24, column 3, leave out "4" and insert "2".
  In line 24, column 3, leave out "4" and insert "5".
  In line 25, column 2, leave out "borough of Harrow" and insert:
  "boroughs of Harrow and Wembley". In line 25, column 3, leave out and insert "5".
  In line 32, at end insert:
  The areas unallocated, that is to say the boroughs of Wembley and Willesden, by order of the Minister followingacomprehensive enquiry.
  In line 34, at end insert:
  1. The boundary between the London boroughs numbered 1 and 28 respectively in the said Part I in the existing metropolitan borough of Paddington shall be such as the Minister may by order determine on or near the general line beginning at the junction of Harrow Road and Edgware Road and running westwards along Harrow Road to Bishop's Bridge thence along the railway to the point where it crosses the boundary with the existing metropolitan borough of Kensington, thence north-westwards along that boundary to the point where it meets the existing county boundary in Harrow Road.
  In line 20, column 2, leave out
  "the urban district of Ruislip-Northwood".
  In line 25, column 2, after "Harrow", insert:
  "and the urban district of Ruislip-Northwood".
  Mr. Key: On a point of order. Are we not to be allowed, Sir William, to
  1332
  vote upon the Amendment standing in my name, in page 88, line 21, column 3, to leave out "2" and to insert "3"?
  The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is correct in believing that there should be the opportunity of a Division on his Amendment, if that is possible, but that will only come in due course, at 7.15 p.m. or thereabouts. I would say to the Committee that there is this slight difficulty, that if, in fact, the previous Amendments take up the time to 7.15 p.m. then the Committee has no option but to go on to the following Amendments. It would then not be possible to vote on the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. However, provided that the Committee does not take up all the time on the previous Amendments, it will be possible to vote on the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, as was originally intended.
  Mr. MacColl: I understand that a number of other Amendments are being taken with the Amendment which I have moved, but the only ones with which I personally am concerned are the following: In page 88, line 14, column 2, leave out "Paddington and".
  In page 88, line 14, column 2, at end insert:
  "and so much of the metropolitan borough of Paddington as lies south of the boundary referred to in paragraph 1 of Part II of this Schedule.".
  In page 90, line 24, column 2, at end insert:
  "and so much of the metropolitan borough of Paddington as lies north of the boundary referred to in paragraph 1 of Part II of this Schedule".
  In line 24, column 3, leave out "4" and insert "5".
  In line 34, at end insert:
  1. The boundary between the London boroughs numbered 1 and 28 respectively in the said Part I in the existing metropolitan borough of Paddington shall be such as the Minister may by order determine on or near the general line beginning at the junction of Harrow Road and Edgware Road and running westwards along Harrow Road to Bishop's Bridge thence along the railway to the point where it crosses the boundary with the existing metropolitan borough of Kensington, thence north-westwards along that boundary to the point where it meets the existing county boundary in Harrow Road.
  This group of Amendments deals with an interesting but fairly simple operation which is to remove from Borough No. 1

  1333
  what one might call North Paddington and place it in Borough No. 28, which, at the moment, is Wembley and Willesden. I shall not be concerned in the fate of Borough No. 28 by the time we have finished in Committee. Whether it is divided in two or remains one does not really affect my argument except that my argument is strengthened somewhat if Wembley and Willesden are split because, obviously, the case for increasing the size of Willesden is greater if it is stripped from Wembley than if it is combined with it. But the argument is not fundamental in this Committee.
  When a discussion was going on about these proposals, Willesden made alternative suggestions to the four Town Clerks who were going round looking at the boundaries. One was that a part of Paddington should be joined with Willesden and, if that could not be done, that the whole of Paddington should be joined with Willesden. As I understand, it preferred that the borough should be split. I think that that was a prudent view to take.
  5.0 p.m.
  I did not absolutely agree with the original Willesden proposals because I thought that they chose the wrong boundary. That would be rectified by one of my Amendments. But I was attracted by them. I have long thought that, generally, this was the solution to the problem in that part of the area and I welcome the fact that Willesden took the initiative in suggesting it. I think that it was rather nice of Willesden, because I recognise that there are jucier plums going in local government than this particular section of the Borough of Paddington, because, although the more populous part, it is the poorer of the two in terms of rateable value. I think that the boundary I suggest is the sensible one to have.
  There are two fundamental objections to this proposal. One is that it means taking an area out of the old administrative county and putting it into the old County of Middlesex—in other words, into an area outside the proposed education area. But in the Bill there is already a precedent for it in the proposal to take an area out of the old administrative county and put it in Essex. Therefore, the objection is not insuperable. It may create difficulties of adjustment, but I do not
  1334
  think that we should run away from them.
  If we are to reorganise the local government boundaries in this very ruthless way, then we should do it properly. The present proposals, although they have certain advantages of peace and quiet and administrative ease of transition, run away from a very grave objection to the present split between London and Middlesex. It is foolish to go to all this bother to reorganise and still run away from that important question.
  The other grave objection is that this proposal would take into a comparatively poor area—if I may so speak of Willesden—an area which is also comparatively poor. North Paddington would turn its back on the lights and glitter of Piccadilly. For Willesden to take over an area with a population of about 73,500 and a rateable value per head of about £12, is not all that attractive. But these financial arguments are limited, because, with adjustments and rate deficiency grants, to keep an area because it is an easy one from the point of view of getting more money is not necessarily the wisest thing to do. I suggest that the wisest thing would be to recognise that there is much more to be said for the boundary I propose than there is for what is suggested at the moment.
  The Willesden proposal was to take the boundary along the canal. I believe that the right boundary is the main-line railway. A railway boundary is in almost every way a better one than a road or a canal, because it is one thing which absorbs no local services. A road, however wide it may be, has to be lighted, cleaned and crossed, all of which involve a certain amount of local government awareness of the existence of the other side of the boundary. With a main line railway there is no such meeting of interests.
  My proposal is that we should start at the Edgware Road, touch the Great Western main line and go along it as far as we can until eventually we hit the county boundary. It may be asked why we could not include some of Kensington. But I want to avoid fighting two battles at once. At the moment, I am interested in fighting the battle to get North Paddington in Willesden and am not worried about Kensington. I

  1335
  do not know whether there is a plausible case for Kensington, but I do know Paddington's case.
  The argument for my proposals is that they involve a recognition of the extreme complexity of the present boundary. Nobody looking at them rationally would consider that the boundary between Paddington and Willesden and that between London and Middlesex are sensible. In the first place, there is a great drop into the heart of Paddington, the Carlton Ward, which is a sort of peninsula which sticks out from Willesden and which has to be crossed to get from one part of Paddington to another. Certainly, there is a very mixed boundary of streets separating the two areas at present.
  I do not know whether the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) ever occupied himself on a soap box at The Chippenham. I did as a youth and I never knew whether I was addressing the electors of East Willesden or of Paddington. Perhaps it was a matter of which way the wind was blowing. The whole thing is inextricably confused. For instance, the recreation ground is one of the few nice amenities in that part of the world. After one has finished running round the track, one may face Paddington and Willesden in several directions. There are statutory provisions allowing the citizens of Willesden certain local rights over the recreation ground because it is on the boundary, which is very confused.
  The kind of social problems that exist are more common to Willesden and North Paddington than to North Paddington and Westminster. The densely populated areas of the Harrow Road Ward are similar to those which are to be found in Willesden. The similar problems of densely occupied houses require the skilled experience of public health inspectors who know such problems. That kind of service can be much better handled between Willesden and North Paddington than by an area which has its mind fixed on Piccadilly Circus.
  A rather pleasanter aspect is that Willesden is a borough which goes in a good deal for municipal entertainments, for civic activities. This is the kind of thing from which an area like North Paddington is cut off to a great extent because of its position right on the far
  1336
  northern edge of Borough No. 1, as it is to be called—the new Westminster Borough. I would much rather be a citizen of Willesden than a citizen of Westminster. I would feel happier that the people of Willesden were the kind who talked my language, had the same kind of interests and operated on the level of a comparatively humble rateable value. I do not believe in selling my birthright for a mess of potage just for the sake of being able to say that I am part of the rich boroughs of Marylebone and Westminster, and therefore have to go into a borough which is not socially viable.
  There is no doubt that being on the wrong side of the railway tracks is one of the biggest social blemishes, and North Paddington is on the wrong side of the railway track in this new borough, whereas looking towards Willesden one is on the right side of the railway track because one is looking into an old-established, vigorous, and active borough which has the same kind of population and the same kind of problems as the northern part of the borough. I think, therefore, that this would be a very satisfactory way of doing it.
  I do not want to spend long developing this argument, because I know that we are running against time, but all through its history there has been a subtle distinction between Paddington North and Paddington South. It goes back to 1900 when the Queen's Park Ward part of Chelsea was embedded into the old Paddington vestry. They disliked having them. They felt that it would be a difficult social area to have, and that suspicion and jealousy between the old Chelsea part of the borough and the rest of the borough still exists.
  Immediately the new borough was formed these tensions between the two sides of the railway track became acute. South Paddington vestrymen wanted to put in as mayor an old vestry hack who had been serving for many years. North Paddington knew that they could not resist this powerful vested interest, and that as they were the poorer area they would get the rough end of the stick. However, they found an ingenious solution. They went to the Conservative Member of Parliament, who lived on the right side of the railway track but who had electoral responsibilities for North Padding-ton, and invited him to be the first mayor.

  1337
  They caught the vestrymen on the hop. They dared not tell Sir John Aird that he was socially inferior and not fit for the job. 'The people had him where they wanted him because he was dependent on their votes, and so they managed to get in as mayor somebody who would look after their interests.
  Although some of these differences have been healed, that kind of tension is a real social problem, and now it will be made worse by the fact that we are to have this long continuous area south of the railway tracks going right down to Westminster. We do not want a little hinterland of poorer people attached as a sort of colony. We ought to recognise the geographical facts of the situation. North of Westbourne Park Road there is a continuing area including North Paddington and Willesden which Willesden has recognised by making this generous, and I think handsome, approach to North Paddington, and I hope very much that it will be accepted.
  The only other matter is to mention the Amendment, which is to alter the allocation of the membership on the Greater London Council. Clearly if North Paddington goes into Wembley the least dowry it can take is one more seat on the Greater London Council, as there are 73,000 people being transferred from one area to another.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: There seems to be some degree of reciprocity between the councillors of Paddington and Willesden. The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) is a councillor of Paddington, and what he is seeking to do is to hand over a piece of the territory of that area to Willesden. He has indicated several salient points. He is handing over a poor area which will add to the burdens of Willesden. That must be understood. He is crossing a county boundary, and he has mentioned several other difficulties, but he says that this is an area which shares something of the same social problems.
  It is important to realise that the plan which the hon. Gentleman has formulated is not the same as that of the Willesden Borough Council. He indicated that the council put the boundaries in the wrong position. There is plenty of room for error, but perhaps
  1338
  we might for a moment consider this on a community basis.
  The Willesden Borough Council's plan was something like that put forward by the hon. Member for Widnes. It purported to cover three areas, West Kilburn, Westbourne Green and Maida Vale. The interesting thing about this is that these three community areas are outside Willesden, if a line is drawn through Carlton Vale, and therefore I do not think that even on the ground of community boundaries would it be sufficient to consider this as appropriate for inclusion.
  There is another way of looking at it, whether one is going to allow the depredations by or in Willesden into or from other areas, when one is faced with agreed positions all round. Hampstead has agreed with its accommodation and, generally speaking, Paddington, Hammersmith and Acton have also agreed. The Willesden Borough Council agreed to go in with Paddington, and perhaps I might quote the Council's statement which says:
  "If notwithstanding the recommendations in this statement and by other local authorities, the Government insist on reform by amalgamation, rather than by boundary revision, it is submitted that the most intelligent amalgamation for Willesden—as this statement's contents indicate—would be to join with Paddington…"
  I think that if the Willesden Council is prepared to consider it on this basis, we might expand it further and consider whether it would be appropriate to go in with Wembley.
  Another important factor is public opinion. Fairly recently I observed in the London Press that it was the intention of Wembley to raise 100,000 signatures, but that this was frustrated by the weather and other factors, and in the end only 3,000 signatures were obtained.
  Mr. Ronald Russell: Five thousand.
  Mr. Skeet: I accept that correction. But if only 5,000 signatures were collected, it shows that there is either inertia of public opinion, or, possibly, that public opinion is not against the Government's proposition to join the two boroughs. I can give Wembley this solace with regard to things in Willesden. If they want to consider canvassing the views of the local people, I can tell them

  1339
  that many of them are not concerned about this, and that most of the opposition can be traced to the political leaders on the Council in Willesden who are against it and have put forward a case which I think they sincerely believe, but which I consider to be wrong in the circumstances.
  I think that one should pay great attention to what concerns the man in the street, and I think that what he is concerned about is formulating a policy with these two boroughs involving looking well ahead, and I am glad to have heard this afternoon from the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) that what we are looking to is not 1963, but probably 1970 or 1980 because there is unlikely to be another major Bill of this kind before the House by then.
  There is also the question whether Wembley should be added to Harrow. This is rather new. The report of the Town Clerk of Oxford states, on page 40:
  "They would not favour being joined to Harrow as the resulting borough would…be too large."
  The argument at this stage was that Wembley wanted to secure various sections of neighbouring boroughs—part of Harrow, or part of Harrow and Ealing, or, alternatively, part of Harrow, Ealing and Hendon. Now we find an Amendment, which we shall come to later on, providing that Wembley shall join not with Willesden but with the whole of Harrow
  The Temporary Chairman (Sir Harry Legge-Bourke): To which Amendment is the hon. Member referring?
  Mr. Skeet: There are two, Sir Harry —both in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) in page 90, line 25, I understand that they will be considered together.
  There seems to have been a certain change of ground here. Formerly Wembley was not prepared to agree to the merging of the two boroughs, because it thought that it was right to do as Willesden Borough Council suggested, namely, to level out the boundaries with its neighbours, and also—as the hon. Member for Widnes suggests—that Paddington should creep across into Willesden. Apparently this line has
  1340
  now been rejected. Overtures are now being made to Harrow, to join up with it in its entirety. I hope that one of the Members who sit for Harrow constituencies will have an opportunity of telling us whether Harrow would be in favour of such a proposition.
  This is the general set-up at the moment: if Willesden is united with Wembley, the combined population will be about 296,000. If, on the other hand, we have a unification of Wembley and Harrow, the population will be about 334,000. All round the periphery of this area we have agreed combinations. I submit that if my right hon. Friend is not prepared to accept my suggestion this matter ought to be considered a little more carefully. I pray in aid something else that the town clerk said, namely: that it might conceivably be permissible for Willesden to remain alone. That possibility should be examined more thoroughly. If I were asked to give my view at this stage, without further analysis, I would support my right hon. Friend and vote accordingly.
  Time and time again the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) has indicated that Willesden has lamentable housing conditions. I agree, but I should have thought that the hon. Member would be doing a great service to his borough if he looked in the direction of Wembley for some relief. Willesden is short of land, whereas Wembley has a lot of it. I cannot do better than refer to a letter which appeared in the local newspaper, apparently written by a citizen of Harlesden. He said:
  "I have good reason to be interested in the proposed merger of Willesden and Wembley. My family is in desperate need of rehousing. I am in a flat of three rooms, and under the council's points scheme I have 17½ points in the 4-bedroom group. I have been told, by the housing manager of Willesden, that it is unlikely I shall be considered in the foreseeable future. I am like a man drowning, grasping at the hope of an amalgamation with a borough, whose population figures per acre are 20, as against Willesden's 37. It would seem to me that this is a heaven-sent opportunity for our Labour councillors to get back into grace…and throw aside party affiliations and considerations."
  That seems to indicate what should be done.
  I want to carry the matter a little further. In Willesden the density is 37·7 per acre, and in Wembley it is 19·9. From

  1341
  the educational point of view, Wembley has vacant spaces and parks. There are only 242 acres of open space in Willesden, whereas there are 750 acres in Wembley. In parentheses, I would point out the very important fact that Willesden's schools do not have the necessary playing field accommodation. If Willesden were united with Wembley additional playing space would be provided just over the border.
  It is also worth considering that if the boroughs were to remain as recommended by the Report of the Royal Commission at their former sizes, neither borough would be an education authority, but if they were merged and had a population of over 200,000 they would become a full education authority vested with the necessary functions. That should be remembered when we consider whether we ought to combine or not.
  Another significant factor is the question whether Willesden has the necessary resources for the plans that lie ahead. A penny rate in Willesden will raise £13,000. A penny rate in Wembley will raise £12,700—although Willesden's population is 171,000 and Wembley's is only 125,000. It is quite clear where the resources lie. At present they lie north of the border.
  Secondly, there is the question of liability. The loan debt is £52 per head in Willesden, and £37 in Wembley. It therefore appears that what Willesden is short of—namely, land and financial resources—are available in Wembley—
  Wing Commander Eric Bullus: What authority has my hon. Friend for saying that land is available for building in Wembley? It is already built-up for housing purposes, and has several thousand names on its waiting list.
  Mr. Skeet: My hon. Friend will no doubt bear in mind that Wembley's housing list is not as extensive as that of Willesden. He will also remember that these two areas vary vastly in density.
  Wing Commander Bonus: That does not make land available.
  Mr. Skeet: The density in Wembley is 19·9 and in Willesden it is 37·7 per acre. That indicates that Willesden should go north and not south into Paddington, where the density is about 86·2 per acre.
  1342
  These matters should be kept closely to the fore. I should have thought that it ought to be the aim of the Willesden Borough Council to secure a decent future for its citizens, and that the people of Wembley should look at the whole situation from a humane angle. I am sure that if those two authorities got together they could come to a satisfactory arrangement.
  There has been considerable argument about the building of a new town hall and office block, involving the expenditure of between £750,000 and £1 million Wembley has an extremely good town hall block, which can be reached from Willesden by tube train. If the merger came about it would be unnecessary to build a corresponding installation in Willesden. Those are all factors which make it desirable that, with the present knowledge before us, these two boroughs should be united.
  From a reading of the local newspapers it would appear that the borough council does not regard the difficulties involved in the transitional arrangements as being insurmountable. It is true that the two boroughs have differed politically for the last 26 years. One is Socialist-controlled and the other Conservative-controlled, and they act and think differently. But the important point is that most of the people in Willesden do not know of this proposed merger, and many are not concerned. They are prepared to leave it to the Government to conduct the process through to what they consider to be the necessary conclusion.
  5.30 p.m.
  I know that these two boroughs have been radically estranged for a long period. This is not simply a case of Pyramus and Thisby carrying on a conversation through a chink in the wall. I regret that there has not been more collaboration between the two. I suggest that it would be a good thing if these two boroughs got together and found some common ground for discussion. They share the fact that their Parliamentary representatives, the hon. Members who represent the Willesden constituencies and the Wembley constituencies, are trying to formulate a plan for the good of all their constituents in future years and not just simply in 1963.
  I can speak only for myself. I am not concerned about the political implications

  1343
  of this arrangement. I am prepared to decide this matter on other grounds. Is it good for Willesden? To that question I would answer, "Yes". Is it good for Wembley? In answer to that I say that the matter should be regarded from the point of view of humanity, and I am sure that the hon. Members who represent Wembley would say precisely the same. Arguments have been advanced about transportation. There are two tube train lines which run through these two boroughs. There may be a scarcity of bus routes, but this is a matter which could be rearranged in co-operation with the London Transport Executive.
  I maintain that "splendid isolation" is no more good for Willesden than for Britain. Some of the arguments which have been advanced on sociological grounds must be faced. But, if there is the will to do so, we could work together. Willesden would have to its credit the availability of more land for building and for the housing of people who have been on the housing list for many years and for whom there is no opportunity to acquire housing accommodation in Willesden. The compounded boroughs would have greater resources, which so far they have not possessed, to carry out projected plans.
  If we consider the proposition made by the hon. Member for Widnes we realise that it would result in adding liabilities to a borough already heavily burdened because of its low rateable value. The hon. Gentleman would like to have joined similar property, but I should like to see mixed rateable values in the borough which would provide a better basis for future development.
  Here we have a proposition advanced by the Government and endorsed by the Town Clerk of Oxford. If the Minister will not accede to my request to look at this again and obtain more information and if he proposes to decide the matter today I am prepared to support him because the proposition is in my opinion in the interests of the two boroughs.
  Mr. M. Stewart: On a point of order Sir Harry. I think that the Committee would be grateful if you would give hon. Members some guidance about the Amendments which we are discussing
  1344
  with the Amendment which has been moved. I believe that we are discussing Amendment No. 9 to Schedule 1. Could you remind us which are the Amendments we are discussing with it and on which of them a vote may be called and if it were called—say on Amendment No. 38—when the vote would take place?
  The Temporary Chairman: We are discussing Amendment No. 9 and with it Amendments Nos. 10, 12, 37 to 43 inclusive, 46, 48, 71 and 72. The hon. Gentleman has asked me about Amendment No. 38. If a Division is desired on that Amendment, it would take place when we have dealt with the preceding Amendments. Then of course, under the timetable, hon. Members would have to decide whether they wished to divide on the Amendment.
  Mr. Stewart: I am obliged.
  Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I wish to refer to Amendment No. 38, which is in my name, in Schedule 1, page 90, line 24, column 2, to leave out "boroughs of Wembley and" and to insert "borough of"; and also to the consequential Amendment which is No. 40 on the Notice Paper, in column 3 in the same page and line to leave out "4" and to insert "2".
  I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) who seems to be the odd man out in our discussion on this series of Amendments. He is not, as it were "Mr. Facing Two Ways", he is "Mr. Facing Three Ways". The hon. Gentleman started by saying that he wanted an inquiry because he is not certain that everything is all right. He then quoted from the report of the town clerks and said that he thought that Willesden might be a viable area by itself. Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman said that he will support the Government in marrying Willesden to Wembley.
  Mr. Skeet: I said that if the matter were to be decided now and the Amendment which I have tabled not accepted, I should support the Government.
  Mr. Pavitt: I am still not very satisfied. I listened with care to what the hon. Member for Willesden, East had to say. I am afraid that the operation of the guillotine will prevent me from having

  1345
  sufficient time to discuss this matter fully, but I should like to put a question to the Minister regarding an inquiry. Were an inquiry held, in view of our previous discussions, would it be the responsibility of the Willesden ratepayers to meet the cost? If an inquiry were held in order to ascertain where the boundaries should be put, I understand that it could be conducted by the Home Office. If so, would the charges involved be the responsibility of the Home Office or of the Borough of Willesden? I should like to know whether the hon. Member for Willesden, East is prepared to incur a liability for the Willesden ratepayers without obtaining their express permission so to do. It seems that for three years the hon. Gentleman has been at odds with the Borough of Willesden and has been fighting a private vendetta.
  Mr. Skeet: I resent that statement. I have had no private vendetta against the borough council at all. My sole idea is to improve the lot of the individual citizens in Willesden. That has been my sole purpose.
  Mr. Pavitt: I must apologise if I have offended the hon. Gentleman about the private vendetta which, I contend, goes on. But he has confessed that he has not been paying attention to what is happening in the locality. He has been listening vaguely to the voice of the man-in-the-street. He has not been worrying about the views of the local associations and the borough council and it seems that he has followed his own individual line. Not only has he not worried about the views of the local organisations which I listed in a previous debate, but he has not worried about what his hon. Friends who represent Wembley think about the matter.
  I should like to thank the hon. Members who represent Wembley for their support of my Amendment, and also the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Lin-stead), and I wish to express my appreciation of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). Practically every argument advanced by the hon. Member for Widnes in favour of the amalgamation of Willesden with parts of Paddington could be reversed and used as an argument against amalgamation with Wembley. Regarding the differences about the boundary line between his proposals and those of
  1346
  Willesden Borough Council, either line would correspond closely to Sir Patrick Abercrombie's view in his County of London Plan which shows this as a viable community.
  We oppose amalgamation with Wembley on geographical grounds. As was demonstrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes, to the south there is a most unnatural boundary in the Greater London area. But in the north there is the most natural boundary between Wembley and Willesden. There is the North Circular Road, the River Brent and the Welsh Harp. In fact, there are no means of communication between the two boroughs except two arteries. It is a body politic without any veins. Two roads run across the boroughs and two railways. But the railways commute to the City of London, and on the Metropolitan Line from Wembley Park to Baker Street the trains do not even stop at any stations in Willesden. We have this absurd situation of two boroughs being married together with only two means of communication between them by road. Over the years we have developed two different communities. Possibly one could cross by bridges, but inevitably the communications have been funnelled through only two places. The land in between is used for sewerage works, workshops and factories. Nobody lives on the boundaries. There are no roads on the boundary except this arterial road, the North Circular.
  In this desire to remain separate there is nothing but mutual respect between the two boroughs. We have friendly relations, but I must point out that we are as different as chalk and cheese. The Minister is trying to marry two incompatibles. It is clear from the whole of our social structure that we are two boroughs. We could live happily as neighbours, but if we are put under one roof it will be extremely difficult.
  We also have our traditions. In the Domesday Book it is recorded that in the hamlet of Willesden there were 25 villans and five bordarii, with wood for 500 pigs, and, in all, the profits of Willesden were worth £6 6s. 6d. I do not think that we have many villans there today. The only villans about —without being rude to the Minister—

  1347
  seem to be those on the benches opposite when we are discussing such a Bill as this. If we were mercenary we could point out that we have grown from £6 6s. 6d.; on the new rateable value we are worth £9,512,000. The figure for Wembley is £9,931,000, so that financially there would be something in it for us. The local rate element for Willesden is 9s. 6·2d. and for Wembley 5s. Id. If we were mercenary and thinking in terms of what we should get out of the merger, possibly we should be agreeable to this marriage in the hope that Wembley would contribute to us.
  The hon. Member for Willesden, East raised a point about our town hall, which we built in 1891. It was not until 1894 that we were made an urban district, from the old vestry. Because we were so poor and had other priorities we have been waiting for 70 years before building a new town hall, but we have pride in the new project. But according to the Government's proposal, we are to have an entirely separate town hall—admittedly, a comfortable town hall built by Wembley but one which is not our own and which is only accessible via the two arteries. We want our own town hall, where we can reach it, at the focal point of Willesden Green.
  There are also industrial differences. In my areas we have Guinness, A.E.I., and Smith Accessories. We make Route-master buses and the Royal Household's Rolls Royces. We have a whole industrial complex, whereas in Wembley there is mainly a dormitory town. They have a measure of industry, but the difference is as chalk is to cheese. As a result, we have problems which Wembley does not have. Does Wembley want to take over our immigrants' problem? We have appointed a committee consisting of immigrants and Willesden people to handle this problem. The Willesden International Friendship Committee has done a remarkable job—possibly the most remarkable in the country. We employ a welfare officer engaged full-time in this work, a Jamaican by birth. This problem does not arise in Wembley. Do the Wembley ratepayers want to take it over? I suggest that they would find it a load which they do not want to bear.
  1348
  My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes has pointed out that in Willesden we have consciously sought to build up a community tradition in spite of the fact that we are so close to London. We have the Willesden Show every year, which attracts some 50,000 people. We have an annual carnival and regatta. All kinds of entertainments are taking place, and this has led to a full-time entertainment officer—and Wembley have made it clear that they have no desire to take these services over, nor to participate in them. Would the ratepayers of Wembley wish to pay for these services?
  In a previous debate I read a list of organisations which opposed the merger, including the Willesden and District Chrysanthemum and Dahlia Society. The Minister may have wondered why I emphasised this body, but we have this annual Willesden Show in an industrial area, which brings in many people who are interested in hobbies and in gardening. These people, many of whom have allotments, are keen that this kind of community activity should continue. We shall not see it continuing with the arrangements which the Minister has suggested.
  5.45 p.m.
  Our health and welfare problems are different. We have 40 blind workers in sheltered workshops, whereas Wembley has only two. In the whole of Middlesex they have 100, 40 per cent. of them in Willesden; indeed, the number which we have is the highest in the whole of the Greater London area. Naturally, we want to be able to pay special attention to this problem. Will Wembley?
  The number of children dealt with following eviction under the Rent Act totals 78 in Willesden, which is the highest in Middlesex. In Wembley there are four. Willesden has 372 children in care and Wembley has 69. Those figures are at 30th September, 1962.
  The hon. Member for Willesden, East raised the question of housing without checking his facts; he looked forward to the paradise of the rolling fields of Wembley which would provide land on which we could build houses. I ask him to look again and to check his facts before he makes such a nonsensical statement to the House. We have a heavy housing problem, and the housing charge

  1349
  is nearly £500,000—in fact, the housing costs will be about £443,000 next year. We should be very grateful if the ratepayers of Wembley were prepared to pay half of this cost, but we consider that it is a much wider problem—indeed the Government are not without responsibility —and we cannot see why Wembley should be saddled with it.
  Wing Commander Bullus: Is the hon. Member aware that Wembley's municipal housing pays for itself? We are not in debt. It breaks even. As the hon. Member has said, Willesden carries a very heavy debt.
  Mr. Pavitt: There are many differences. If the Guillotine were not on I could go into the point a good deal more, because we run a totally different system. The council house tenants in Wembley do not have the decorations done by the council, whereas in Willesden they do. Many detailed points will have to be hammered out should this shotgun marriage be consummated. We have 700 slums which are being pulled down and 400 prefabricated houses which must be taken down, too. We have a complete redevelopment plan over the next 20 years including the South Kilburn, Stonebridge, Church End and Kensal Green schemes—comprehensive rebuilding. We shall remodel Willesden.
  The people who live on the other side of the River Brent know nothing about these problems or these schemes which will make Willesden the city of which we shall be proud. Can they be expected to share in them? The Minister knows these problems only too well because they have discussed them with him, and he knows that they are important matters to us. We are not against the reorganisation of London Government, and we are not against marriage as an institution, but we are telling the Minister that this is not a desirable marriage and would not work. He is not marrying like with like.
  The case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes was unassailable. We have a viable community and all the traditions—all the like married with like which could possibly take place, except for altering a border here and there are in his Amendments. That was the kind of thing which the Royal Commission advised. I beg the Minister
  1350
  to think again about this, because if he insists on his proposal as it stands, he will give us 20 years of friction and not a happy married life. I ask the Minister to reconsider what he is doing and to consider the consequences of his very ill-judged act.
  Mr. Russell: I support the two Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) in page 90, line 24, column 2, to leave out "boroughs of Wembley and" and to insert "borough of", and in page 90, line 24, column 3, to leave out "4" and to insert "2".
  I want also to address my remarks to the Amendments in page 90, line 25, column 2, to leave out "borough of Harrow" and to insert:
  "boroughs of Harrow and Wembley",
  and in page 90, line 25, column 3. to leave out "3" and to insert "5", standing in the name of my hon. Friends and myself.
  The hon. Member for Willesden, West said much of what I could have said as to why Willesden should not be merged with Wembley. I want to make one or two other points and pass on to some reasons why Wembley, if it must be merged with any borough, should be merged with Harrow. I want to answer one point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) which was not answered by the hon. Member for Willesden, West, concerning the petition which was organised in Wembley. I know that it was not as large as we had hoped, but that was not because of the lack of desire to sign it. It was because of the shortage of time. We set no target, certainly not 100,000. The weather was anything but propitious.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East said that the man in the street does not mind. I do not think that he has any right to say that any more than I have any right to say that the man in the street objects to the merger. One just does not know what the man in the street thinks about it. Different men in the street will say different things.
  Officially, Wembley Borough Council unanimously opposed the merger—the Labour Party and the Liberal Party, as well as the Conservative Party—and the Conservative and Liberal Parties on

  1351
  Wembley Borough Council are in favour of a merger with Harrow, though the Labour Party is not. It is true that, originally, Wembley wanted to be alone. In order to try to make itself large enough for that purpose, it put to the Town Clerk of Oxford a scheme for bringing in sections of surrounding boroughs. As that scheme did not go through, if it has to be merged with any borough, it would, without any disrespect to Willesden, prefer to be merged with Harrow. I know that Harrow Borough Council has so far rejected one application, but that does not prevent me from putting this one forward. I think that the matter has been considered only by Harrow Council and not answered by other sections of Harrow.
  Mr. F. P. Bishop: I intervene to make it clear that the Harrow Borough Council is not in favour of this scheme and has so decided, not that we do not recognise what it means to be wooed in this way by our neighbours. We make the reply that Lord Balfour gave when he was asked why he did not marry a certain lady, that he rather thought of having a career of his own. That is Harrow's view.
  Mr. Russell: I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop) and I do not blame him or Harrow for taking that attitude, because Harrow has a population of 209,000. It is just over the minimum laid down as a guide by the Government. I cannot blame Harrow for wanting to remain alone. Nevertheless, we wish to persist with our plea for a marriage.
  We prefer Harrow to Willesden, not only for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Willesden, West but because, historically, Wembley was part of Harrow for many years. Going back to 1850 when health boards were instituted, the Harrow Board included Wembley. The same thing happened when school boards were instituted in 1870. The political ties between Wembley and Harrow are far greater than they have ever been between Wembley and Willesden. In fact, up to 1945 the whole of Wembley was included in the Harrow Parliamentary Division and Harrow's Member of Parliament represented Wembley as well as Harrow. Wembley has never been represented by
  1352
  any Member for Willesden, although Willesden was in the Harrow Division at one time. The same thing goes for the representatives on the Middlesex County Council.
  From the point of view of churches, most of what is at present Wembley used to be in part of the Parish of Harrow. In other religious donominations besides the Church of England, the parent churches for churches in Wembley were in Harrow. There are many other associations of that kind in different walks of life that show that Wembley and Harrow are much more akin to one another than Wembley and Willesden.
  I support everything said by the hon. Member for Willesden, West about communications. There are only two railways and two roads. It would be difficult to find in any part of the London area two boroughs where the communications are worse than they are between Wembley and Willesden. The traffic queues that pile up during the rush hour on each side of the North Circular Road at Neasden Lane in one place and Harrow Road in the other have to be seen to be believed. There is one other possible way of getting from Willesden into Wembley, that is by road, which necessitates going through Ealing. The same applies to the two railways. When I went into the question of communications, I could not help thinking of the parallel situation in Central Europe, in the Alps, where there are about three railways and three roads connecting France and Switzerland with Italy. It is about as easy to cross the Alps that way as it is to get from Wembley to Willesden in the rush hour.
  On the other hand, there are five railway services and about forty roads and streets linking Wembley and Harrow. The two boroughs are not separated as Willesden and Wembley are by an arterial road but are connected as if they were parts of the same borough. For instance, as to railways there are the Stanmore Line on the Bakerloo route and the L.M.S. line to Watford. There is the Metropolitan line which does not stop at Willesden but connects Wembley and Harrow. The Eastern Region line goes out of St. Marylebone Station to High Wycombe with stations in Wembley and Harrow. Then there is the Piccadilly line which goes to Acton, Wembley and Harrow without touching Willesden. The roads are too numerous to detail.

  1353
  I know that if these two boroughs combined it would make a population of 334,000. This sounds rather large, but it is just smaller than the new plan for the combination of Wandsworth and Battersea, which is 335,000, or the new Borough of Lambeth with the other part of Wandsworth, which is estimated at 341,000, or of Wandsworth alone if it is left as it is, which is 347,000. On the other hand, Willesden standing alone, even if the suggestion put forward by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) is not carried, would still make 171,000, which is bigger than some groupings in South London.
  These are the main reasons why I ask my right hon. Friend to consider this proposal. I add to those reasons the one given by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus) in the debate last February. I ask my right hon. Friend to look into this again. I emphasise, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East, that there is no earthly chance of Wembley being able to help with Willesden's housing problem. We have had one of our own for ages. It may not be quite as severe as Willesden's but it is severe. There is movement between Wembley and Willesden, in each direction I imagine, but certain of this movement takes place as vacancies occur in existing houses. However, the open land is scheduled for open space and we have no more land to build on to absolutely nothing like the extent that my hon. Friend imagines. Nor will we expect anything from Harrow in this direction. We just have to try to solve the housing problem as best we can.
  These are the reasons why I hope my right hon. Friend will look into the matter again. There is much support officially in both boroughs—Wembley and Willesden—for not merging us with Willesden, although I know there is not the same support yet in Harrow.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. B. T. Parkin: I have seldom in the House of Commons heard such a sharp contrast between two speeches. There was, on the one hand, the speech of my hon. Friend who for convenience in the House of Commons I must refer to as the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), who is, in fact, the most senior alderman, councillor and resident
  1354
  of Paddington. His speech had a wide, thoughtful, sociological approach, with detailed documentation and understanding. On the other hand, there was the sharp decline into the trivialities of the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet), who has confused subsequent speakers with the grotesqueries of his proposals.
  One does not solve a housing problem merely by hounding to other boroughs people who cannot be housed in their own boroughs. Are the residents of Wembley to offer a shack at the bottom of the garden to the surplus residents of Willesden? If that is not the solution, are whole areas of Wembley to be completely destroyed and replanned? I suppose that I should not waste valuable time dealing with these matters and I certainly hope that the Minister will not spend too much time dealing with them.
  I hope, rather, that the Minister will reply to the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes and realise that the Government themselves should have thought about this whole matter in terms of communities. Had the Minister been in his office long enough, had he seen this coming, had he made a sociological survey and had at his disposal a team of sociologists—experts in community living—he would now be considering the real proposition facing us; how does one create communities with natural groupings, amenities and types of dwellings for the sort of people who we desire to have living near the centre of London?
  Mr. Skeet: Has the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) seen the groupings in this case?
  Mr. Parkin: The Minister could not have found a better area in which to make such a survey than the one we have been discussing, with all its problems, because this is not a parochial problem. It is a sociological problem, the first of many which this country will have to face in the years to come. We have not yet learned how to live in big cities and it is likely that the conclusions of such an unbiased group—if they had never seen London before—would be along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes.

  1355
  The Minister should have considered many questions, including what sort of schemes one is to have to enable sufficient people of middle and lower income groups to live near the centre of London to prevent the communications system from being choked every night and morning. One must consider how these people are to live full and complete lives and rear their children. We cannot continue, generation after generation, with the thought that one can get expendable immigrants to do the ordinary service work of the cities. This must be looked at in the much wider context of the problem, in terms of family life and rearing children.
  I realise that time is short and that the Parliamentary Secretary is anxious to speak. Before resuming my seat I should like to relate an anecdote about what community life means in these areas. After having conducted a party of secondary modern schoolchildren around the House of Commons on one occasion, their teacher asked them to write "thank you" letters. One of those letters read something like this: "I am very grateful for the opportunity, etc., etc. I have never been in that part of London before and as I am leaving school next week I shall never have another opportunity of being there." The writer of that letter lives virtually within walking distance of the House, on the other side of the park.
  I urge the Minister to let the sociologists think this out. We cannot solve these problems on the basis of tidy administration, slide rules and the lumping of a couple of boroughs together. I hope that the Minister will think in these terms—particularly in the terms of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes—and have second thoughts on these groupings.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I would like to begin by expressing my regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus) has not been able to express his views in this discussion. However, I have read the vehement speech he made on Second Reading and I appreciate how strongly he feels on the subject.
  1356
  We have before us a large collection of Amendments and time is somewhat short. The first group of Amendments, in the name of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), is designed, as he said, to take a substantial part of the present Borough of Paddington out of Group 1 with a view to its joining Group 28. I think that the hon. Member said that he was not primarily concerned with the future of Group 28, but with making the boundaries of Group I along the lines indicated in his Amendment. Although the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) was somewhat scathing—unnecessarily so, I thought—about the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet), I am of the opinion that the latter speech made a strong case against the former.
  I would remind the Committee that one of our basic principles in trying to work out this complex problem of a sensible pattern of boroughs has been, as far as possible, to adhere to the existing boundaries. The hon. Member for Widnes referred to the transitional arrangements and admitted that they would be along the lines of that principle. But he rather underestimated the disadvantages of altering existing local authority boundaries, except, of course, where there are other considerations which override the advantages of sticking to the existing boundaries and amalgamating on the basis of complete existing units.
  I think that everyone considered that that represents a better method of overcoming quickly the inevitable transitional difficulties which will arise with any major reorganisation of London. I think that everyone has said that we should have such a major reorganisation, even those who dislike the Bill.
  The other objection to which he drew attention was that this alone of all the boundary changes suggested—with the exception of the change at North Woolwich, dictated by the Thames—would cut across the present L.C.C. area, and cut out a very populated area which would make the work of education, and so on, more difficult. Despite his eloquent support of his Amendment, and his great experience of local government in this area, he did not allege at any time that this boundary as it had affected Paddington in the past had seriously affected the administrative efficiency of the borough or its ability to

  1357
  provide the services which it must provide. This must be an important consideration; the effect on the provision of services and the efficiency of administration.
  Mr. MacColl: We are not considering the question of Paddington as it exists, running such services, but whether the new No, 1 borough will be able to run the services north of the railway line. That is quite a different question.
  Mr. Corfield: I had no intention of putting words into the hon. Member's mouth. I was drawing attention to the fact that he had not made the point—for good reasons, I have no doubt—that this would be a handicap to good administration. If that is not the case now and was not in the past I do not see any reason why it should be in the future. It is true that his proposal involves much bigger areas than we normally contemplate arising under Clause 6. Nevertheless, it does not follow that a decision today—and I hope that the Committee will adopt the Government's view that this should be rejected—will mean that this boundary exists for all time. There is still the Clause 6 procedure and it is still possible for this to be considered at an inquiry.
  I can assure the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) that the remarks I made at an earlier stage of the Bill also apply to the cost of inquiries in this case; namely, that inquiries falling under my right hon. Friend are not normally charged, as we have the inspectors and the machinery to carry them out. Thus, I do not think that the hon. Member for Willesden, East can be accused of wishing to increase the rate burden.
  Looking at this area, I am sure that the important thing is to find a pattern that is right for the whole area. All the argument that we have had has shown how difficult it is to make an alteration here that will not have repercussions over a very wide area. For instance, the suggestion that Wembley should marry Harrow would mean that we would have a large borough, Harrow, with almost twice the population of Willesden which, on that showing, would be left by itself.
  Then there was the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder), that that urban district should also join Harrow.
  1358
  Looked at in isolation, it does not seem to matter very much whether that urban district goes to Harrow or to borough No. 26, but when one sees the ramifications, and realises the weakening effect that merger would have on the Uxbridge group, one then has to look at Southall, and then at Ealing, Acton, and so on.
  The Government do not pretend that the views of the four Town Clerks are in any way sacrosanct, but I think that the Committee will agree that in a matter of such complexity it was wise to get the independent view of people with knowledge and experience of local government. Those people went into this matter very thoroughly and found, in all cases, that the suggestions in the various Amendments were not sufficiently advantageous to outweigh the disadvantages. That is the conclusion to which the Government have come, and the Government remain convinced that it is the right conclusion, even after listening to this debate.
  I believe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East said, that these various areas, despite their disparities can and will work together. The question of community is, of course, important, but there are great diversities in existing Metropolitan boroughs, let alone in the new groupings. There are diversities in the hon. Member's own constituency. There are great diversities between North Kensington and South Kensington, in Camberwell, and in practically every industrial borough in the county.
  Those are the things that, in the long run, add up to the whole community and the whole life to which the hon. Member referred. Surely, we do not want to base our local government boundaries on the idea of people keeping to areas of a particular type, or with people of a certain type, as if they could be put in watertight compartments. The drawing of the boundary will not affect that community of spirit to which the hon. Member referred—
  Mr. F. P. Crowder: I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend at this stage, but there was a strong element in my constituency that originally wanted to merge Ruislip-Northwood with Harrow. In view of what has been said, I would now seek not to press the Amendment that sought

  1359
  that merger, because I would not want in any way to interfere with the delicate negotiations taking place with West Drayton, Uxbridge, and so forth.
  Mr. Corfield: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In any case, I was about to end my remarks, as I thought it kinder to allow more time to the hon. Member for Widnes than to make a long speech myself.
  Of course we appreciate local feeling, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) has to bear in mind that, despite the weather, if there is really tremendous feeling people will come out to sign petitions. I know that the people in the village in which I live, which the hon. Member knows very well, came out in scores when there was danger of the local public house being closed, with the result that there was about a 98 per cent. signing of the petition.
  On the great question of local government I cannot believe that a petition—weather or no weather—signed by 5,000 ratepayers really shows an agonising fear of the result of this marriage. On behalf of the Government, I must advise the Committee to oppose all these Amendments.
  Mr. MacColl: I do not think that the Guillotine has yet fallen, Sir Harry. As we are operating under the Guillotine, I do not want to waste time by having unnecessary Divisions. I know what will be their result, and it seems a pity to waste time—
  The Temporary Chairman (Sir Harry Legge-Bourke): The clock has struck, and I must put the Question.
  It being a quarter past Six o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Pavitt: May I now move, Sir Harry, the Amendment in page 90, line 24, column 2, to leave out "boroughs of Wembley and" and to insert "borough of"?
  The Temporary Chairman: No. That cannot come up until later.
  Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move, in page 88, line 14, column 2, at the end to insert:
  "and the City of London"
  We have now come to a unique Amendment. It is not concerned with a particular district, or with boundary disputes, but with a question of general principle; that is to say, the Government's whole attitude, in this supposed reform of London government, to the City of London.
  Although this Amendment is important I shall try to move it briefly, because I believe it to be the wish of both sides of the Committee that we should conclude our discussion of it by seven o'clock so as to have an opportunity to vote on the Amendment in page 88, line 21, col. 3, to leave out "2" and to insert "3", as well as on this Amendment. I may say, Sir Harry, that I speak in accordance with the advice given us by the Chair a little earlier.
  We are here dealing with the general issue of how the City of London shall be treated. In the Bill, which is supposed to be a great modernising reform, we have a peculiar favouritism shown to that part of metropolitan government that is most antiquated and most out of date. If anyone had really wanted to wield a new broom in the Metropolis, we think that the City of London would have been the first place where it would have been wielded. The fact that it has not been wielded there at all calls into question the whole good faith of the Government's claim to seek to modernise local government in Greater London.
  The Bill as it now stands, gives to the City of London, with its antiquated and undemocratic government, greater influence than ever before, not only in its own affairs but over those of other parts of London. The City's undemocratic form of government is to be preserved.
  My hon. Friends and I thought it right to protest against this undemocratic manoeuvre and considered what would be the most appropriate way to do so. A number of suggestions were made. One might, for instance, put the City of London in with Stepney, Poplar and Bethnal Green, to which, historically, it more naturally belongs. One might even put

  1361
  it with Shoreditch, Stoke Newington and Hackney, or with Islington and Finsbury.
  Instead of selecting any of those boroughs, however, we propose to put it in with the Westminster group. That is where it is grouped for parliamentary purposes, and if it had to be grouped with any other body we thought that that grouping would probably give least offence to the City fathers, as we were anxious to show that our Amendment was not drafted to do them malicious damage for the sake of doing it, but to raise the whole question of whether, under the Bill, the City of London ought to be an independent unit of local government at all.
  To weigh up the pros and cons of that question, let us look at how the City is governed today and how it will continue to be governed under the Bill. The prime instrument of government in the City of London is the body known as the Court of Common Council, frequently referred to in the Bill, and usually in terms that equate it with the council of one of the new London boroughs. The Bill repeatedly provides that certain things can be done and certain powers exercised either by a borough council or by the Common Council of the City of London.
  What is this body and how is it elected? It used to consist of 206 members, but by a change made a few years ago it now consists of about 160 members. Therefore, it offends first of all against the principle emphatically declared by the Minister that it was undesirable that these councils should be anything like as large as that, because he saw them as policy-making bodies. He was very reluctant to allow a borough council to have more than 60 members, but this body is to go cheerfully on with 160 or so common councillors.
  How are they elected? The electorate in the City of London consists partly of businessmen, most of them well-off, some of them wealthy, and some of them very wealthy indeed. But, in addition, there are a certain number of quite poorly paid working-class electors in the City. When there is an electorate like that, one would have thought that the normal arrangement would be for a vote by ballot where a man can cast his vote secretly without fear of being intimidated or
  1362
  thrown out of his job or in any way damaged by people more wealthy and more powerful than himself. One would have thought a secret ballot to be more important in the City of London than anywhere else, in order to protect the interests of working-class people who form the minority against an essentially wealthy group who form the rest of the electorate.
  Yet when there are elections for the Court of Common Council it is done at first at a wardmote where it is done by show of hands. My wife and I used to live in the City of London and there was once a contested election for the Court of Common Council, a most unusual occurrence. The 14 persons who were already councillors for the ward sent out election addresses which said, in effect, that they had been councillors for some time and that was a good reason why they should go on being councillors. But one who was not among the 14 old councillors, a tiresome person, also stood, thereby making an election necessary. He said in his address that he used to be a member before the war and he thought that a good reason why he should be a member again. My wife and I could not feel very much swayed by these arguments, but as a matter of principle we decided to vote for the odd man out.
  I was unable to go to the wardmote, but my wife was able to do so. She arrived to find the proceedings had already begun and she was advised by a magnificently dressed beadle by the door, "They are voting for Mr. So-and-So. Hold up your hand". She refrained from doing so and in due course voted for the person for whom we had decided to vote. He was defeated at the wardmote whereupon supporters demanded a poll. The gentleman in charge looked blank and said, "I did not think that you were going to do that", but the candidate, the obstinate fellow, having persisted, there was a vote with ballot papers. We voted for him. He did not get in and for all I know the old 14 are still there. That is the method of electing a Court of Common Council which is being continued under the Bill.
  Who can stand as a candidate? The answer is that one has to be a Freeman of the City of London. How does one become a Freeman? One can become a

  1363
  Freeman by inheritance. One can also become a Freeman by purchase. It costs three guineas, but people do not count that. What are three guineas in the City of London? To tell people that they have to pay three guineas in order to exercise their ordinary rights is regarded as an amiable foible. But to be a Freeman, even by paying three guineas, a person has to have the consent of those who are already councillors. Is there anywhere else where, to become a candidate for an election, one has to have the permission of people on the council? As far as I know, this is a practice which prevails only on the other side of the Iron Curtain.
  To be a candidate, therefore, for the Court of Common Council in the City of London one must either be so by inheritance, or by favour of the ruling clique. It is as if the rules had been drawn up by a joint committee of which the Prime Minister and Mr. Khrushchev were the co-chairmen. It might be said that this does not matter and that the councillors attend only to City affairs. They do not. One of the things which the councillors will be doing will be arranging for the rehousing of quite a poor group among the electors, and there is the question of the sort of temporary accommodation in which they will be put while new accommodation is built. Tenants and the Court of Common Council do not see quite eye to eye on that matter, but it is over matters like that, vitally affecting the lives of working people, that this body has power.
  The Court of Common Council, however, does not have all the power. There is also a Court of Aldermen. It is a sort of two-chamber government for certain purposes. The Court of Aldermen —like another place—sits separately from the Court of Common Council. There are, including the Lord Mayor, 26 aldermen, and there are 26 wards in the City of London.
  Simple souls like you and me, Sir Harry, will conclude that there is one alderman for each ward. Not a bit of it. Cripplegate Within and Cripplegate Without have one between them, but to make up the 26 there is one alderman who sits for the ward of Bridge Without. It is so much without that it is not in the City of London at all. It is, in fact, in
  1364
  the metropolitan Borough of Southwark. A special procedure has to be devised to decide which alderman represents this notional ward which is not in the City at all. I should have mentioned that, once elected an alderman, one is all right, because the election of aldermen is for life, and this is to be continued in this modernising Bill.
  I mentioned that the Lord Mayor is one of the aldermen. There again, simple souls might suppose that the Lord Mayor would be chosen by his fellow-aldermen or, perhaps more democratically, by the Court of Common Council, but oh, no. We find that the government of London is not two-chamber after all, but three-chamber. The Lord Mayor is chosen from among the aldermen by a body called the Court of Common Hall, which is not elected. It consists of liverymen of the City companies. They choose the Lord Mayor. This is how we get the government of the City of London.
  We shall be told that this is a great world-wide institution. When there are charitable appeals for objects, sometimes all over the world, it is the Lord Mayor who opens the fund and, says the Royal Commission, with the usual nonsense, foreigners would not be so impressed if the fund were headed by the chairman of the Greater London Council. Is it absolutely essential, in order to stir charitable hearts, that this fantastically undemocratic procedure should continue? Would it not be possible to regard the office of Lord Mayor of London with the same respect even if it were democratically chosen?
  It might be said that this is only a comfortable charade, that only a few people are involved, anyway, and that they should get on with it. What does it matter? But if that is the line that is to be followed, why is the government of the City of London to be given powers equal to those of a metropolitan borough with 200,000 to 300,000 inhabitants? It is said that the power of the Greater London Council is to be limited by the fact that in some respects it must have the consent of the boroughs which can act as a brake on the council. But the City of London is to have all the braking power of a London borough with a population of 200,000.
  Sir K. Joseph: Has the hon. Member an example of where the City might be a brake on the Greater London Council?
  Mr. Stewart: I am sorry, I cannot quote one offhand, but I bet the right hon. Gentleman anything that if there were time I could produce one without difficulty.
  In any case, the most important matter of the lot, and the right hon. Gentleman will certainly not question this, is that the Inner London Education Authority, which is to be responsible for education in an area occupied by 3½ million people, is to be composed of a certain number of members of the Greater London Council, with one member from each London borough and one from the City of London. Its 4,000 population and its undemocratic structure are to have as much weight as a democratically controlled electorate of 200,000 or 300,000 people. It cannot be defended. If something is not done about this in the Bill, the last rag of pretence that this is a reforming democratic Measure, to bring local government up to date, is torn from the Government.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. John Harvey: The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and other hon. Members opposite, when it suits them, accuse the Government of ignoring the recommendations of the Royal Commission. They cannot, therefore, complain if I now quote the Report at them in substantiation of what the Government have done.
  It is all very well for the hon. Member for Fulham to suggest that the Government have been retrograde and reactionary in this respect, but I think it is relevant that we should for a moment look precisely at what the Royal Commission said, and I make no apology for quoting from the Report. It says:
  "It will be seen that we propose that the City of London should remain as a separate entity within its present limits. This is an anomaly, but we recommend that this anomaly should continue, and we make this recommendation as a definite, not a provisional, recommendation.
  If we were to be strictly logical we should recommend the amalgamation of the City and Westminster. But logic has its limits and the position of the City lies outside them.
  The City is, in some respects, a modern local authority with the powers of a metropolitan borough. It has also powers, ancient and modern, of its own; it has large funds available to it from the City's Cash apart from its rate revenue; and it has certain functions which it finances outside the rates.
  1366
  The City is in other respects unlike any other municipality. Its wealth, its antiquity, the enormous part it has played in the history of the nation, its dignity, its traditions and its historical ceremonial make the City of London an institution of national importance.
  Guildhall is a building of national fame and the events that take place there are often national events. The Lord Mayor's Banquet is a traditional occasion for speeches of world importance. The presentation of the freedom of the City is one of the highest compliments England can show to distinguished visitors. Heads of States and Heads of Governments are proud to be entertained in Guildhall.
  All these activities, with many others, and the intangible advantages that go with them, are of great national value and do not cost the taxpayer or the ratepayer a penny piece."
  There are a few more paragraphs in the same vein, followed by this one:
  "We conclude that it is in the national interest that the position of the City should remain unchanged save to the extent that it receives the additional functions proposed for a Greater London borough."
  This Committee should take note of what the Royal Commission, after very careful thought and deliberation, had to say on this subject. I feel that Parliament, with the sense of history that it normally shows, might well reflect that some of the ancient ties between the Commons and the City of London are not altogether irrelevant to the days in which we live. The House might sometimes usefully reflect that tradition still plays an immensely valuable part in the life of the nation and I think that what the Royal Commission in its wisdom had to say should commend itself to the wisdom of this House.
  The hon. Member for Fulham sought in other ways to suggest that the Corporation of the City of London was a rather ramshackle, inefficient affair. I think it is well, therefore, that I should make one or two points, quite apart from the question of tradition and questions of pomp and circumstance, that may have escaped the attention of the Committee.
  First, in terms of road improvements, few local authorities can claim a more impressive record than that of the City of London. London Wall has been described as the most imaginative project in urban street designing since the war, and it is proceeding apace. The £3¼ million Blackfriars underpass improvement is a scheme that will be of immense value to the movement of traffic through the City. Those of us who drive home that way late every night must be aware of the fact that the street lighting in the

  1367
  City is among the very best and most modern in London, designed by the City engineer.
  The bridge works, especially in connection with Cannon Street Station, are going on today and will make a great deal of difference. The 76 ft. wide new bridge to carry Cannon Street Station over Upper Thames Street will extend the already completed section of the southern through-route which is adjacent to it.
  In terms of off-street parking, there are few, if any, local authorities that can vie with what the City has done and is doing. Twelve sites near the perimeter of the City have been acquired to provide 6,500 public car spaces One big new car-stacking arrangement to accommodate 250 cars was opened in July, 1958, and a six-storey car park for 600 cars was completed in October last year.
  Experiments in pedestrian segregation are now in hand. Is there any borough in London that can claim to be making such progress? In the City already two pedestrian bridges across Wood Street, on first-floor level, have been completed, and I believe I am right in saying that in terms of pedestrian segregation this is more than has been done in any borough of London.
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the City has paid for all this?
  Mr. Harvey: Certainly, out of rates, and out of the general grant, too; but also, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a great deal of what the City does is paid for out of its own funds, including all the entertaining that it does in the national interest, which costs the taxpayer and the ratepayer not a penny piece.
  The new public cleansing depôt is in course of completion. It will serve not only the City but two other metropolitan boroughs, Holborn and Finsbury, and it is causing such great interest that visitors from all over the world, including the Federal Minister of Public Utilities in the Soviet Union, have come to see its opening in London.
  On the subject of clean air, in case the hon. Gentleman is interested, the City introduced its own scheme two years in advance of general legislation. I could go on, but I do not propose to do so. We could talk about the
  1368
  Barbican scheme, which is one of the most impressive housing development schemes in London.
  This authority is in every sense an up-to-date and go-ahead progressive authority, in terms of famous schools, including the Guildhall School of Music, and in terms of Epping Forest and the maintenance of that forest for the people of London, for the people in constituencies such as mine and those served by many hon. Members on both sides of the House. It maintains vast and wonderful amenities for the benefit of London, at no cost whatsoever to the ratepayers of the City but out of its own funds. So one can go on enumerating, one after another, the ways in which the Corporation of the City of London has shown itself to be among the leading forward-thinking authorities, quite apart from the very special position it occupies at the heart of the nation.
  To anyone with a sense of history, to anyone with a sense of tradition, to anyone who believes that some of the things from the past are worth maintaining in the present and for the future, the case is clear. I commend to the House once again the fact that the Royal Commission itself thought that the case had been made, and had been well made.
  Mr. Albert Evans: The hon. Member for Waltham-stow, East (Mr. J. Harvey) reminded us of the place of the City of London in our history and national life, which, I imagine, no one in the Chamber would deny, but he failed completely to deal with the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), who asked why the Corporation of the City of London should be regarded as an authentic unit of local government. We are not now discussing the historical events which occurred in the City; we are not now discussing the place of the City, its financial institutions and so forth, in our national life. The Committee is now considering the place of the City of London in London local government. The hon. Member for Walthamstow, East, who read out his prepared brief so forcefully, failed to deal with the argument from this side of the Committee which was directed to the issue now before us.
  We all know what the Royal Commission said; it is all there in the Report.

  1369
  What is clear is that, before the Royal Commission ever reported, the Government had determined that no change should be made in the privileges and anomalous position held by the City in our local government life. The Minister assigned to four town clerks the task of examining the question of the division of the Greater London area into boroughs. They did their work, but their terms of reference, as regards the City of London, were quite clear. They were told that they should not deal with the place of the City of London. The Government were determined from the beginning, as they are now, that the City should remain in its privileged position.
  My hon. Friend dealt at length with the details of the way in which local government operates in the City. His account was very entertaining, but I, for my part, feel that the present position is really an outrage upon the sense of good conduct of the citizens of the capital City. A small group of men, plutocrats, buy their way to their positions in the City. If the Minister has any interest to declare in this matter, perhaps he will declare it in due course. Every one of these men, the Lord Mayor, the aldermen and even the councillors, has to write out his cheque before his name begins to be entertained for position or title in the so-called local government of the City of London. The whole edifice of so-called local government in the City is based upon cash. It is a vulgar business; it is sickening to read about it. It is well known in the City that a man has to be worth £40,000 before he can put his nose into local government.
  Mr. J. Harvey: No.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Evans: The phrase is bandied about the City, and I am sure that there is some truth in it. The Minister knows very well that no man, unless he is a man of exceptional wealth, can dream of becoming an alderman of the City of London, let alone Lord Mayor. He must be a man wealthy above his fellows before he can attain that position. The whole thing is based upon vulgar wealth and has no place in our democratic local government. It is an insult to the ordinary common people of our great City that these few plutocrats
  1370
  should be given the same local government powers as the councillors and aldermen democratically elected in the other boroughs.
  I know that time is short. I should like to say quite a lot more about this outrageous anomaly in London's local government life. I have made my pro test. It will fall on unheeding ears because all hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite depend for their power and position in the political life of the nation, as do the Lord Mayor and aldermen of the City, upon cash. I am always thankful that I have not attained any position in politics because I had a bank balance.
  Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) kept his argument on a strictly impersonal basis, courteously refraining from probing into my own antecedents. In answer to the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans), I think I should say at once that I am one of the villains he was describing. My father was Lord Mayor. I was common councillor for the ward in which nearly all the wage earners, to whom the hon. Member for Fulham referred, lived, and, after a short time as councillor, I was elected their alderman. I resigned after two years on grounds, then, for ill-health. This is my qualification for saying that the hon. Member for Fulham sketched without too much inaccuracy, and with considerable gusto, the procedure of the City's elections.
  Mr. Herbert Butler: How much was inaccurate?
  Sir K. Joseph: Before I answer the Amendment, I make one point on which, I believe, the whole House will agree. There were occasions during the last century when, had the City been more outward-looking and more venturesome, the whole history of the local government of the Metropolis might have been very different. Last century, Government after Government begged the City to take responsibility for the growing mass of the Metropolis, but, time after time, the City turned its back on what would have been a very heavy duty and very heavy responsibility but which might have solved a lot of our problems today.
  What is under debate now is whether the City should survive as an independent local authority. As my hon. Friend the

  1371
  Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey) said, the House is generally very much alive to the appeal of history.
  I summarise my argument thus. Here is a living piece of history with much benefit flawing from it, as I shall seek to show, fulfilling its limited duties as well as other authorities do, doing harm to no one, bringing benefit to many, whose virtues cannot be transferred and whose extinction, therefore, would do no one a jot of good.
  Let me try to sustain those points. At the head of the City, the Corporation, is the Lord Mayor. I am now referring, of course, to the office of Lord Mayor and not to the incumbent. The office of Lord Mayor is of legendary renown. It is a name of magic. This is not because of the particular virtues of any particular holder of the office but because it reaches back over 1,000 years, because time after time the Lord Mayor has been at the centre of great historic events, because time after time the Lord Mayor, with the citizens of London, has played a vigorous part in the growth of democracy in this country and because Lord Mayors of the City have featured vigorously in many episodes of our history.
  The office of Lord Mayor is a magic name, but, of course, the glamour of the office is no argument for its survival if survival does harm to anyone. That I readily admit. The hon. Member for Fulham acknowledged that I should be right to claim that the Lord Mayor can evoke and canalise great national sympathy and charity. We all remember the Lord Mayor's Air Raid Distress Fund which raised £5 million. In two flood crises, in 1947 and 1953, the Lord Mayor's appeal raised £8 million. His appeal in 1956 raised £2½million for Hungarians. I do not assert that the money could not necessarily have been obtained in some other way. There was the success of World Refugee Year.
  I know that people other than the Lord Mayor can appeal successfully, but what I claim is that it is not proven that the advantages of glamour, magic, renown and magnetism of the office and the history which lies behind it, when used for a national purpose, can be transferred to any other body.
  Mr. H. Butler: Why not?
  Sir K. Joseph: They cannot. No one in this House could assert that some other person created by Statute could inherit automatically, reliably and ineluctably the magnetism, history and renown of the office of Lord Mayor.
  Critics say, "All this may be so and perhaps there is no harm in this, but let us look at the record of the City as a local authority". I have no evidence that it is anything but normally public-spirited and active. When I was there I found it only too ready to agree to the sort of initiative that I should have thought local authorities should adopt. I claim that the Barbican is an example of a pioneering spirit which may do much good to this country on the town planning side.
  But I must meet another criticism. It is said that perhaps the City has a clean bill on public service and local service, but what if all its pageantry and ceremonial costs the ratepayer a great deal of money? Let me say categorically that it does not. The City has inherited endowments from the remote past. There is nothing sinister about them.
  Mr. A. Evans Mr. A. Evans rose—
  Sir K. Joseph: I am sorry; I have not time. I shall meet all the arguments.
  The City has inherited gifts from the remote past, some of them reaching back to the twelfth century. There is money called "City's Cash" and there are the assets of the Bridge House Estates. From these assets and from their accumulated income have been built by the City, and not at public cost, Tower Bridge, London Bridge, Southwark Bridge and Blackfriars Bridge at a total initial cost of over £3 million. The entire maintenance, upkeep, lighting and management of these bridges is paid for out of the City's Bridge House Estates' income, and funds are put aside for widening and improvements. These four important and greatly used bridges have been provided and are maintained entirely without cost to the taxpayer and ratepayer.
  Long before this became the usual habit of local authorities, City's Cash and Bridge House Estates bought open spaces, such as Epping Forest and Burnham Beeches, and kept them open to this day for public use.

  1373
  I am not claiming that the City's practice on the electoral front is exactly the sort of thing which the United Nations would recommend to a new democracy. I am saying that this does no harm to anyone and that the advantages of the City as a whole on the civic side could not be transferred to any other authority.
  Out of the assets to which I have referred the City also maintains its historic buildings and provides for entertainment, ceremonial and pageantry to which the Lord Mayor and the sheriffs contribute personally out of their own funds, and supports, to the tune of about £140,000 this year out of those funds, the City of London School, the City of London School for Girls, the Freemen's School and the Guildhall School of Music and Drama. The cost of all these things, therefore—parks, bridges, schools, ceremonial, pageantry and entertainment —do not fall on the ratepayer or taxpayer.
  I have not time to deal with the Port of London Health Authority or with the Central Criminal Court. Out of its own City's Cash and rates the City pays for its own local government services and a precept to the London County Council much larger than the cost to the L.C.C. of providing its services for the City's citizens; and it also makes a contribution to the Rate Equalisation Scheme.
  Here is a local authority which is unique. It has qualities which benefit the nation and the citizens of the nation. It pays for its own ceremonial, pageantry and hospitality out of private not public funds and its history reaches back to the Middle Ages. Here is a local authority providing, without any expense to the taxpayer or ratepayer, bridges, parks and schools. Here is a local authority paying its own way and, in addition, out of its rates, contributing to London as well.
  What is the point of destroying this local authority? Hon. Members can rightly point to the discrepancies between some of its practices and those of a modern democracy, but what is the point of transferring them? The hon. Member for Islington, South-West, whose sincerity I entirely respect, spoke as though there would be some tangible advantage to the citizens by so doing.
  1374
  I assure him that I see no advantage. I see only damage. The advantages inherent in the City cannot be transferred.
  Mr. A. Evans: Nothing that I said could be taken as indicating that I wished the City to be destroyed or done away with. That is not the argument. The argument is that the City is not a fit and proper body in these democratic days to be a local authority on the same basis as a metropolitan borough council.
  Mr. H. Butler: Answer that one.
  Sir K. Joseph: We are discussing the independent survival of the City as a local authority. We cannot preserve the Lord Mayor, or rather the office of the Lord Mayor, unless we have the sub-structure of which he is the head. We cannot preserve the advantages of the office of Lord Mayor, the renown all over the world, the magic and the evocative magnetism of the title and destroy the independence of the local authority of which he is the civic head.
  I must point out that I do not believe that the City, under the Bill, has any power to block, as the hon. Member for Fulham said, the wishes of the Greater London Council. The hon. Member was good enough to give me an example concerning town planning. When he studies the Government's Amendments, I think he will see that no London borough will retain the power to thwart the wishes of the Greater London Council on town planning except with the support of the Minister.
  Mr. M. Stewart: Will the Minister look at Clause 21 (4, b) concerning restrictions on housing?
  Sir K. Joseph: Yes, but Amendments have been put down on the town planning side, with which he was concerned.
  I hope that, on consideration, the Committee will see that there would be no benefit to the citizen in transferring these powers or by extinguishing the City as an independent local authority. I hope that as a result of the debate which has taken place hon. Members will recognise that the City contributes, out of its ancient funds as well as from the status of its chief officer, to the benefit of the nation. I hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn, or that if it is pressed it will be resisted.
  Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 186, Noes 236.

  Division No. 51.]

  AYES

  [7.1 p.m.

  Alnaley, William

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Pavltt, Laurence

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Hannan, William

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Harper, Joseph

  Peart, Frederick

  Awbery, Stan (Bristol Central)

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Pentland, Norman

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Hayman, F. H.

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Barnett, Guy

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Beaney, Alan

  Herblson, Miss Margaret

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Bence, Cyril

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Probert, Arthur

  Benson, Sir George

  Hilton, A. V.

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Blackburn, F.

  Holman, Percy

  Rankin, John

  Blyton, William

  Hooson, H. E.

  Redhead, E. C.

  Boardman, H.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Hoy, James H.

  Rhodes, H.

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

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Bowen, Roderlc (Cardigan)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Boyden, James

  Hunter, A. E.

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Bradley, Tom

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Ross, William

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Jeger, George

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Jones. Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefieid)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Caltaghan, James

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Small, William

  Carmlchael, Neil

  Kelley, Richard

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Chapman, Donald

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Snow, Julian

  cilffe, Michael

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Collick, Percy

  King, Dr. Horace

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Steele, Thomas

  Crosland, Anthony

  Lubbock, Eric

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Stones, William

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  McCann, John

  Swain, Thomas

  Davies, G. Elted (Rhondda, E.)

  MacColl, James

  Swingler, Stephen

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Mclnnes, James

  Taverne, D.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Deer, George

  McLeavy, Frank

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

  Deiargy, Hugh

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Thornton, Ernest

  Dempsey, James

  Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Tomney, Frank

  Diamond, John

  Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Wade, Donald

  Dodds, Norman

  Manuel, Archie

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Mapp, Charles

  Warbey, William

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  Mason, Roy

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Whitlock, William

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Melliah, R. J.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Millan, Bruce

  Willey, Frederick

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Milne, Edward

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Evans, Albert

  Monslow, Walter

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Fitch, Alan

  Moody, A. S.

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Fletcher, Eric

  Morris, John

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Moyle, Arthur

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

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Neal, Harold

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Forman, J. C.

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

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

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Oliver, G. H.

  Woof, Robert

  Ginsburg, David

  Oram, A. E.

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Oswald, Thomas

  Zilliacus, K.

  Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)

  Padley, W. E.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James(Llanelly)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AVES:

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Parker, John

  Mr. Irving and Mr. Grey.

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Parkin, B. T.

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Bromley-Davenport. Lt. -Col. Sir Walter

  Aitken, W. T.

  Bldgood, John C.

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Allason, James

  Biffen, John

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Bryan, Paul

  Barlow, Sir John

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Buck, Antony

  Batsford, Brian

  Bishop, F. P.

  Billiard, Denys

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Bossom, Hon. Clive

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Burden, F. A.

  Bell, Ronald

  Box, Donald

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Carr, Robert (Mltcham)

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Brewis, John

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

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

  Chichester-Clark, R,

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Cole, Norman

  James, David

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Cooke, Robert

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Ramsden, James

  Cooper, A. E.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col J, K.

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Corfield, F, V.

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Costain, A, P.

  Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Coulson, Michael

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

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

  Kerhy, Capt. Henry

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. fir Oliver

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Cunningham, Knox

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Russell, Ronald

  Curran, Charles

  Kimball, Marcus

  St. Clair, M.

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Kirk, Peter

  Shaw, M.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Leavey, J. A.

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  d'Avlgdor-Goldsmld, Sir Henry

  Leburn, Gilmour

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

  Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Smithers, Peter

  Digby, Simon Wingfleld

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Smyth Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Lindsay, Sir Martin

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Drayson, G. B.

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Speir, Rupert

  du Cann, Edward

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Eden, John

  Longbottom, Charles

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

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

  Lucas Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Stodart, J. A.

  Emery, Peter

  MacArthur, Ian

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Erroll, Rt. Hon. F, J.

  McLean, Nell (Inverness)

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Farey-Jonee, F. W.

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

  Tapsell, Peter

  Farr, John

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Fell, Anthony

  Macpherson, Rt. Hn. Niall (Dumfries)

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

  Finlay, Graeme

  Maddan, Martin

  Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)

  Fietcher-Cooke, Charles

  Maitland, Sir John

  Teeling, Sir William

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Temple, John M.

  Freeth, Denzll

  Marshall, Douglas

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Gammans, Lady

  Marten, Neil

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  George, Sir John (Polfok)

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Mawby, Ray

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

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

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Mills, Stratton

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Goodhew, Victor

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Turner, Colin

  Gower, Raymond

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Green, Alan

  Morgan, William

  van Straubenzee, w. R.

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Morrison, John

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Crosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Neave, Airey

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Harris, Header (Heston)

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

  Walder, David

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Walker, Peter

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Hastings, Stephen

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Wall, Patrick

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Webster, David

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Hendry, Forbes

  Partridge, E.

  Whitelaw, William

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

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Peel, John

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

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

  Percival, Ian

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Peyton, John

  Wise, A. R,

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Holland, Philip

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Hopkins, Alan

  Pitman, Sir James

  Woollam, John

  Hornby, R. P.

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Worsley, Marcus

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Pott, Percivall

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. McLaren and Mr. Rees.

  Amendment proposed: In page 88, line 21, column 3, leave out "2" and insert "3".—[Mr. Mellish.]
  Question put, That "2" stand part of the Schedule:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 237, Noes 177.

  Division No. 52.]

  AYES

  17.11 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Aitken, W. T.

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Bevina, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Barlow, Sir John

  Bell, Ronald

  Bldgood, John C.

  Bateford, Brian

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Biffen, John

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Hendry, Forbes

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Bishop, F. P.

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

  Pitman, Sir James

  Bossom, Hon. Clive

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Bourne-Arton, A.

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

  Pott, Percivall

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Box, Donald

  Hocking, Philip N.

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

  Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Holland, Philip

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Brewis, John

  Hooson, H. E.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter

  Hopkins, Alan

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hornby, R. P.

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Bryan, Paul

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Ramsden, James

  Buck, Antony

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Bullard, Denya

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rees-Davies, W, R.

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Carr, Robert (Mitchant)

  James, David

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

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

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Chataway, Christopher

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Russell, Ronald

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  St. Clair, M.

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

  Shaw, M.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

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

  Cole, Norman

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Smithers, Peter

  Cooke, Robert

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

  Cooper, A. E.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Cordeaux, Lt. -Col, J. K.

  Kirk, Peter

  Spelr, Rupert

  Corfield, F. V.

  Leavey, J. A.

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Costain, A. P.

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Coulson, Michael

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Stodart, J. A.

  Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Lindsay, Sir Martin

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Cunningham, Knox

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Curran, Charles

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Currie, G, B. H.

  Longbottom, Charles

  Tapsell, Peter

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Longden, Gilbert

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Lubbock, Eric

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

  Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  MacArthur, Ian

  Teeling, Sir William

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  McLaren, Martin

  Temple, John M.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  du Cann, Edward

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  Eden, John

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

  Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshaiton)

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Thomeycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

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

  Macpherson, Rt. Hn. Niall(Dumfries)

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Emery, Peter

  Maddan, Martin

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Maitland, Sir John

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Turner, Colin

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Marshall, Douglas

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Farr, John

  Marten, Neil

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Fell, Anthony

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  van Straubenzee, w. R.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Vane, W. M. F,

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Mawby, Ray

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Freeth, Denzil

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

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Gammans, Lady

  Mills, Stratton

  Wade, Donald

  George, Sir John (Pollok)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Walder, David

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  walker, Peter

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Morgan, William

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Morrison, John

  Wall, Patrick

  Goodhew, Victor

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Webster, David

  Cough, Frederick

  Neave, Airey

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Gower, Raymond

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Whitelaw, William

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Green, Alan

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Gresham Cooke. R.

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Wise, A. R.

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Partridge, E.

  Woollam, John

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Peel, John

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Percival, Ian

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hastings, Stephen

  Peyton, John

  Mr. Finlay and Mr. Rees.

  NOES

  Alnsley, William

  Barnett, Guy

  Blyton, William

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Beaney, Alan

  Boardman, H.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Bence, Cyril

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Awbery, Stan (Bristol Central)

  Benson, Sir George

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

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Blackburn, F,

  Boyden, James

  1380

  1381

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Holman, Percy

  Pentland, Norman

  Bradley, Tom

  Houghton, Douglas

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Hoy, James H.

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Probert, Arthur

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Helper)

  Hunter, A. E.

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Rankin, John

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Redhead, E. C.

  Callaghan, James

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jeger, George

  Rhodes, H.

  Chapman, Donald

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Cilffe, Michael

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

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Collick, Percy

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Rodgers, w. T. (Stockton)

  Crosland, Anthony

  Jones, T. W. (Merloneth)

  Ross, William

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Kelley, Richard

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Davies, G. Eifed (Rhondda, E.)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. -

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  King, Dr. Horace

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Davies, Ifor (Cower)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Daviee, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Small, William

  Deer, George

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Deiargy, Hugh

  McCann, John

  Snow, Julian

  Dempsey, James

  MacColl, James

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Diamond, John

  Mclnnes, James

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Dodds, Norman

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Steele, Thomas

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Stones, William

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Swain, Thomas

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Manuel, Archie

  Swingler, Stephen

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Mapp, Charles

  Taverne, D.

  Evans, Albert

  Mason, Roy

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Fitch, Alan

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Fletcher, Eric

  Mellish, R. J.

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

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Millan, Bruce

  Tomney, Frank

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Milne, Edward

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Forman, J. C.

  Monslow, Walter

  Warbey, William

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Moody, A. S.

  Whitlock, William

  Catpern, Sir Myer

  Morris, John

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Gineburg, David

  Moyle, Arthur

  Willey, Frederick

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Neat, Harold

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

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

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, w.)

  Oliver, G. H,

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Oram, A. E.

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

  Hannan, William

  Oswald, Thomas

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Harper, Joseph

  Padley, W. E.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Woof, Robert

  Hayman, F. H.

  Parker, John

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

  Parkin, B, T.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hilton, A. V.

  Peart, Frederick

  Mr. Irving and Mr. Grey.

  Mr. H. A. Price: I beg to move, in page 88, line 23, column 2, to leave out "borough of Greenwich" and to insert
  "boroughs of Greenwich and Deptford".
  The Deputy-Chairman: I think it would be convenient to discuss at the same time the three following Amendments in the name of the hon. Member. In page 88, line 23, column 3, leave out "3" and insert "4".
  In line 27, leave out "boroughs of Deptford and" and insert "borough of".
  In line 27, column 3, leave out "4" and insert "3".
  Mr. H. A. Price: That would be the sensible course, Sir Robert. I hope that
  1382
  it is clear that the third of these four Amendments is the really important one, the first, second and fourth being merely consequential.
  There is an old French proverb which says that if it is not necessary to change it is necessary not to change. I submit that it is not necessary to change the existing Borough of Lewisham by adding Deptford, or in any other way, since it already complies both as to power and to size with the standards which the Minister has himself laid down. In fact, I think that the Minister would be willing to concede this point, since, in his original suggestion to the Town Clerks' Committee he himself left the Borough of Lewisham standing by itself.

  1383
  This is referred to in the Town Clerks' Report, paragraph 61 of which begins:
  "It was proposed in Map A that Lewisham should remain as it is and taken by itself this proposal would be satisfactory."
  I hope, therefore, that we can proceed on the assumption that that point is accepted.
  It is logical to assume that, since the town clerks' recommendation runs counter to my right hon. Friend's own suggestion, and makes a change which it is admitted is not necessary, it must be justified by very powerful arguments. But, as I propose to show, this is not the case.
  I take as my starting point the four considerations which the town clerks were required to bear in mind and which were set out by the Government in their terms of reference. The first of these four considerations was
  "…the present and past associations of existing local government areas…".
  There are, in fact, no existing worthwhile connections between the Boroughs of Deptford and Lewisham. Nor have I, despite the most diligent research, been able to trace any except by going back to 1548. I doubt whether even the Minister would expect the town clerks to go back quite that far to support his argument. But there is a powerful and definite connection between the Boroughs of Deptford and Greenwich and Woolwich.
  Mr. Christopher Mayhew indicated dissent.
  Mr. Price: Is the hon. Member supporting me?
  Mr. Mayhew: Speaking as the Member for Woolwich, East and not as a representative of the Opposition, may I ask the hon. Member what connection there is between Deptford and Woolwich?
  Mr. Price: If there is one, the hon. Gentleman is in a better position to know it than I am. It is already proposed to unite Greenwich and Woolwich, so I do not need to support that—only the argument that Deptford should be added to both. To do that I am about to establish that there is a much more powerful connection between Deptford and Greenwich than exists between Deptford and Lewisham.
  The connection to which I refer is the fact that in 1901 what was then the dock-
  1384
  yard in Deptford and what was then the parish church of Deptford—St. Nicholas —were absorbed into Greenwich, where they remain. Going back further still, it is a fact that the area now known as Deptford was once known as West Greenwich while the area known as Greenwich was then known as East Greenwich. What is more, under the Reform Act, 1832, Deptford and Greenwich were united to return two Members to the House of Commons.
  It is obvious, therefore, that there are strong connections between Deptford and Greenwich and virtually none between Deptford and Lewisham. What is more, the town clerks themselves in paragraph 64, refer to the 1901 absorption into Greenwich of the Deptford dockyard and parish church.
  The town clerks admit that this presents a problem and recommend that the dockyard and the church should now be taken back into Deptford. I think that it would be far more sensible to avoid the problem altogether by allying Deptford with Greenwich, which, as I propose in my Amendment, would mean with Greenwich and Woolwich.
  It seems strange that in carrying out an exercise in which they were supposed to have regard to past and present associations, the town clerks propose to destroy the existing association between the dockyard and the old parish church and the borough which they are now in —Greenwich. Surely, therefore, on the consideration of past and present connections, the arguments of the town clerks are misplaced.
  The next point may come under the same heading or under another heading, but I do not suppose it matters very much where I put it. The Minister will ignore it anyway. Nevertheless, I propose to submit it because it is a powerful argument—perhaps the most powerful. It is that Deptford, Greenwich and Woolwich are all very much alike in character in that they have a substantial industrial element, whereas Lewisham is primarily a dormitory borough. Also, Deptford, Greenwich and Woolwich are all riverside boroughs—I think that the correct term is "riparian authorities"—whereas, Lewisham is not and never has been.
  Lewisham has no experience and no knowledge of riverside problems. Yet

  1385
  the proposal is not to combine one riparian authority with two others but to take one of the three and combine it with Lewisham. Lewisham is not, never has been and has no wish to be a riparian authority. On this argument, too, it is obvious that Deptford should be combined with Greenwich and Woolwich and not with Lewisham.
  The next consideration to which the town clerks were required to have regard was lines of communications. Their report seems to ignore those considerations altogether, which is a pity. It so happens that, at the moment, main lines of communication from London do run to Lewisham via Deptford, but it is equally true that other main lines of communication run through Deptford to Greenwich and Woolwich. But that is only the present position. In the not very far distant future, that position will be changed radically by the new South Circular Road, which will run through Camberwell, Lewisham and on to West Woolwich without even touching Deptford. Thus, on the second of the four considerations the town clerks' recommendation falls down.
  7.30 p.m.
  The third consideration is the pattern of development. In the information which I have received there seems to be a certain confusion as to precisely what is meant by the "pattern of development". To play safe, I shall use both the arguments, both of which are valid, even if one is not exactly relevant.
  Consider the word "pattern" literally. A glance at the map will show that to unite Deptford with Lewisham is geographically an absurdity. It will be like putting Cleopatra's Needle on top of one of the pyramids, whereas to unite Deptford with Greenwich and Woolwich would at least have the advantage that the new borough would have one long and continuous boundary, that of the river itself.
  If the phrase pattern of development applies, as I think it does, to social and industrial development, then the point is covered by what I have said, that Deptford is a riverside industrial borough, and its future pattern of development will assuredly be very much closer to that of Greenwich and Woolwich than it could possibly be to Lewisham which is mainly dormitory, and definitely not riverside.
  1386
  The fourth consideration was that of the service centre. Under this heading the town clerks' report uses two arguments, both fallacious. The first argument is that there is in Lewisham a service centre just as convenient to many parts of Deptford. Note the phrase "many parts of Deptford". This is true, but it would be equally true to say that the service centre in Lewisham is just as inconvenient to many parts of Deptford. It is convenient to some parts of it but not to others. There is thus no force in that argument. Another glance at the map will show my hon. Friend what I mean. People living at the top of the Cleopatra's Needle would find it very inconvenient indeed.
  The second argument which the town clerks use, and which. I claim is fallacious, is that
  "The only other practical grouping would he with Greenwich and Woolwich but as the administrative centre would most likely be Woolwich, this arrangement would hardly be convenient to the residents of Deptford."
  What is the town clerks' justification for saying that the administrative centre would most likely be Woolwich? It is only an assumption, and I suggest that when we are dealing with a proposal which affects the future of such a large number of people, arguments of this kind, if based on assumption, ought at any rate to be very carefully investigated before they are used.
  What is the basis for the assumption that the service centre would be Woolwich? It so happens that it could just as well be at Greenwich; in fact, even better, since, as I am sure the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) knows, Greenwich has a much more modern and up-to-date town hall than Woolwich, and that might be just as convenient to the new borough which I am suggesting, a combination of Deptford, Woolwich, and Greenwich.
  It seems, therefore, that not only is it not necessary to change Lewisham, and not only do the arguments fail to justify such a change but that they all point in the opposite direction. There is no justification for adding Deptford to Lewisham, but there are many powerful arguments for adding Deptford to Greenwich and Woolwich.
  But I cannot leave the matter there. There is at least one other point to which

  1387
  I must refer. I refer to paragraph 61 of the report again. One of the arguments used in support of the town clerks' proposal is that:
  "The boundary between the two boroughs"—
  that is Deptford and Lewisham—
  "passes through a densely built-up area and it is in the parts of Lewisham adjoining this boundary that the largest part of the Borough's population is to be found."
  When I first read that I was so astounded that I had to read it several times to make sure that I had not misunderstood it. That is simply not true. I have no wish to be discourteous to the report, but that is obvious and unmitigated nonsense.
  One has only to look at the map to see that of the boundary of Lewisham only about 10 per cent. is co-terminous with the boundary of Deptford, and it must be nonsense, on the face of it, to argue that the largest part of the borough's population is to be found on only 10 per cent. of its boundary. The truth of the matter is that there are many other areas of Lewisham which are as well populated, places such as Sydenham, Catford, Down-ham and others in Lewisham North. The population of Lewisham is distributed fairly evenly over the borough, and I submit that a case which needs to be supported by an argument so monstrous as that must be suspect, quite apart from the arguments which I have adduced.
  My last point is that Lewisham had no knowledge whatever of this proposal until it was published.
  Sir L. Plummer: Nor did Deptford.
  Mr. Price: That reinforces my argument. So far as I have been able to discover there had been no discussions, and no negotiations whatever. It was a proposal which was suddenly and without warning thrust on both authorities, and I am sure that had this proposal been discussed first, and had the arguments for and against it been assessed, it would never have been made, and I ask my hon. Friend to set it aside. If my hon. Friend cannot accept the Amendments which I have tabled, I ask him to put forward some of his own which will be supported by the four considerations to which he has asked the town clerks to have regard.
  Mr. Mellish: I happen to know both Deptford and Lewisham extremely well.
  1388
  Will the hon. Gentleman deal with this point? Shopping habits of people are very important, and to the best of my knowledge a considerable number of people from Deptford shop in Lewisham, while hardly anyone from Deptford shops in Greenwich.
  Mr. Price: The reply to that is contained in paragraph 61, line 4, of this report to which I have referred so often, where it says:
  "…indeed Lewisham is a major centre of the south-east of this area and one of the most accessible."
  The hon. Gentleman's argument applies to practically every borough surrounding Lewisham to the same extent as it does to Deptford, no more and no less.
  Sir Leslie Plummer: I do not want to take issue with the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. H. A. Price) on his attack on the town clerks, because I agree with almost everything he said about the lack of logic shown by them in their general approach to the problem. This is one of the difficulties which arises when provincials are brought in to deal with a great city like London. It is beyond their capacity.
  I quarrel with the hon. Gentleman over his reluctance to accept Deptford into the bosom of Lewisham. He has treated Deptford today rather as an upstage and prim middle-aged woman would treat an attractive young cocotte who entered her house. This is a bit much.
  When Deptford was a civilised borough and community, the people of Lewisham were practically running, around in woad. Deptford has a tradition. A quarter of an hour ago we were discussing the traditions of the City of London. There are also the traditions of Deptford. The Victualling Yard in Deptford was founded and managed, and probably robbed, by Pepys. Grin-ling Gibbons—one of the greatest craftsmen that this nation has ever known—worked there. A Russian Czar—Peter the Great—came to Deptford to learn shipbuilding. He worshipped in the church that still stands. There is a street called Czar Street. That was at a time when nobody had ever heard of Lewisham. Today, the only thing that Lewisham is famous for is its clock tower.
  Mr. Carol Johnson: I remind my hon. Friend that it was in Lewisham that Alfred burned the cakes.
  Sir L. Plummer: That seems to be a comment upon the culinary efficiency of his borough. We did not burn cakes in Deptford: we launched ships, and brought an empire to Elizabeth I. We were not common scullions and cooks; we were navigators, who girdled the globe and brought riches and treasure to this country.
  And now the hon. Member for Lewisham, West says that he does not want to have anything to do with us. His speech was a justification for leaving Deptford alone—and that is all that we ask for. We say that ours is a well-managed borough, ably conducting its affairs in the interest of its citizens. Please, we asked, let us alone to go on doing our job as efficiently as we have been doing it up to now. But no! the Government refuse our request. First, they suggested that Deptford should be amalgamated with Southwark and, I believe, Camberwell. Then came the suggestion that we should amalgamate with Greenwich. Now it is proposed that we should join with Lewisham. We do not want to go to Lewisham. We want to stay where we are.
  Nevertheless, I have a certain ambivalent attitude in this matter. Greenwich has a certain natural affinity with Deptford. Like Deptford, it has a history. It has a history of the Navy —and Nell Gwyn and Charles II. At least it has something to be proud of, and I can see an argument for Deptford's having associations with Greenwich. But not with Woolwich. Deptford people never go to Woolwich. They have never heard of it. When the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Turner) was speaking in his constituency the other day, he said that he was late getting there because he had to stay behind here, for if he had not Deptford might have been tacked on to Woolwich. I can tell him that there was dismay in Deptford at the prospect that we should have anything to do with so far-flung and foreign a borough as Woolwich. The prospect of going in with Lewisham is bad enough, but to be associated with Woolwich, with which we have no natural affinity—except
  1390
  pride in our association with my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew)—is unthinkable.
  I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Lewisham, West does not want us. I can understand why we do not want him, but I cannot understand why he does not want to take a borough like Deptford into his purview.
  Mr. H. A. Price: I can explain that very simply. It is not that we object to Deptford, or its people. We are very fond of them. It is simply that we do not want to go in with anybody. Like Deptford, we want to be left alone.
  Sir L. Plummer: There was a patronising note about the hon. Member's remark. I suggest that the best thing that he can do is to withdraw the Amendment and vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. I suggest that he says, "We will have nothing to do with this. We reject it root and branch. It is an insult to the patriotism of our citizens, and a gross interference with the efficiency of our borough. We will have nothing to do with it." He does not improve this wretched gerrymandering Bill simply by moving this kind of Amendment.
  Although I know that we shall be voted down at the end of the day, and that the insularity of Deptford, which has been so important, will be destroyed, on the whole the people whom I represent will gravitate more normally—although reluctantly—towards Lewisham than they would traverse the wastes of Greenwich in order to go to Woolwich Town Hall. In those circumstances, I hope that the Commitee will reject the Amendment.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Colin Turner: I shall be brief. As the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) said, I recently stated that I felt that the people of Woolwich did not want to be saddled with Deptford, in addition to Greenwich. Having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. H. A. Price), I have come to the reluctant conclusion that he has a strong case for the association of the Boroughs of Greenwich and Woolwich.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Deptford that his borough and mine have in common only the tortuous roads which connect them. I have had no support whatsoever from my constituents for an

  1391
  amalgamation with Deptford. Everybody who has discussed the matter with me is horrified at the prospect of having a connection with that borough. Except for transport there is no connection between them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West has a strong case, on the grounds he put forward. Nevertheless, I would very much regret having Deptford tacked on to us.
  Mr. C. Johnson: Many of my hon. Friends would have been much more impressed by the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. H. A. Price) if his criticism of this pernicious Bill had been manifested at an earlier stage. But apparently he felt no difficulty about voting for its Second Reading, last December —from which we can only deduce that he is quite indifferent to the effects of the Bill upon London government as a whole, and upon many areas about which as much could be said as he has said on behalf of Lewisham.
  It was a little ironic that the hon. Member should have criticised the proposal on the ground of logic, because the one thing that can be said about the whole of this Measure is that there is no logic in it. The French proverb with which the hon. Member began his speech would apply just as well to the Bill as a whole. If he thinks that he has any claim to speak on behalf of the people of Lewisham, let me remind him that the Lewisham Borough Council—the most representative body in the area, and the one directly affected by the Bill—has, from the start, lost no opportunity of expressing its clear opposition, root and branch, to the whole Measure. It may be that certain factors of a political operation have weighed upon the hon. Member. He did not refer to them, but I shall say something about them shortly.
  There is a strong case for leaving Lewisham as it is. As the hon. Member said, in considering the criteria to be applied in defining the new London boroughs, and assessing such factors as resources, size and population, the Royal Commission might have had Lewisham in mind as a prototype. Indeed, its recommendation was that Lewisham, with its population of 221,000, should be left alone.
  1392
  Moreover, when the Government considered the Report they came to the same conclusion. In the circular of December, 1961, issued to local authorities in the London area, it was stated that the Government tests were those to which the hon. Member referred. Again, the Borough of Lewisham complied with all these tests and emerged as a model of what a new London borough should be, should one come into existence at all. On this particular aspect of reform, however, the combined wisdom of the Royal Commission and the Ministry was, apparently, not sufficient and so it was decided to bring in "four wise men" from the provinces —the Town Clerks of Cheltenham, Oxford, Plymouth and South Shields. They were brought in for what I can only describe as a "carve up".
  Without argument and without rhyme or reason—and I challenge the Minister to find anything in their report which is a substantial argument—they created what they called Borough No. 7 by linking Deptford, with its population of 68,267, with Lewisham, where, by then, the population had grown to 221,590. This gave a total population of 289,857, which is a great deal larger than the figure of 200,000 of population which the Minister had hitherto had in mind as the sort of figure for a new London borough. No doubt it is now too late to turn back the clock, at any rate as far as this Minister and Government are concerned. But they will not be holding the clock key by the time the provisions in the Bill come into operation.
  I would remind the hon. Member for Lewisham, West, if he feels so deeply about this specific proposal, that had he and his colleagues been sufficiently courageous at an earlier stage we should not now be faced with this problem. The Lewisham Borough Council and the people of Lewisham have always been opposed to losing their individuality, their unity and their existence as an entity. Resolutions have been passed about it. There has been organised opposition and they have done everything possible to indicate their fundamental objection to this Measure. It is the Government that the hon. Member supports who are forcing a marriage of convenience upon Lewisham, as upon so many other boroughs.

  1393
  I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) that we do not regard Deptford as an upstage and middle-aged woman. If we are to be mated, Deptford seems to us as fair, congenial and attractive as any alternative bride might be.
  I ask myself why the hon. Member for Lewisham. West was so passionate in his opposition to Deptford being linked with Lewisham. I suggest the reason is he has been hoist with his party's own petard. The Bill reeks of political opportunism and was designed to undermine the power of the Labour Party in the London area. I believe that this will be proved to be a miscalculation regarding London as a whole. There is no doubt at all that when Lewisham and Deptford are joined under the provisions in the Bill it will strengthen and enhance the Labour cause.
  It seems to me that the tears which the hon. Member is shedding are crocodile tears. I and many others in Lewisham cannot weep with him, Let him weep alone.
  Mr. Mayhew: I was very surprised to hear the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Turner) declare that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. H. A. Price) has made out a strong case in support of his Amendment. I doubt whether in all my Parliamentary experience I have ever heard such a calm and reasonable style of speaking applied to such a hare-brained scheme as the hon. Member has put forward.
  The hon. Member began by explaining to us that Lewisham had no connection whatever with Deptford. He did so in tremendous detail. But when I asked him to explain what the connection was between Deptford and Woolwich he could say nothing whatever. We in Woolwich, as I explained during the Second Reading debate, consider that the Borough of Woolwich is a natural unit of local government in itself. It is right in size, in shape, in balance and in respect of communications. It has its own tradition and history. There is no case whatever for the merging of Woolwich with Greenwich. It is just a pure doctrinaire approach by the Government which forces us into a merger with Greenwich.
  The hon. Member for Lewisham, West has clearly made no study of the problem of Woolwich. Obviously, he has not
  1394
  visited the town hall—which he insulted —which happens to be one of the finest town halls in south London. Having made no study of my constituency, he calmly proposes that not only should Greenwich be added to Woolwich but Deptford as well. And he is described by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West as having made out a strong case.
  Mr. Turner: I merely suggested that I thought that my hon. Friend had made out a strong case for leaving Lewisham alone, not for joining Deptford with Woolwich.
  Mr. Mayhew: I see. In that case, the hon. Member has some of my forgiveness.
  But when he went on to say, as I noticed, that he found no support from his constituents in Woolwich for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West—
  Mr. Turner: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but that is not exactly what I said. I said that I found no support for having Deptford joined on to Woolwich and Greenwich.
  Mr. Mayhew: I am sorry. In effect, that is what I intended to say.
  I wish to ask the hon. Member whether he has found any support in Woolwich for merging Woolwich with Greenwich. If so, his experience is quite different from mine. Has he heard of any support for the London Government Bill?
  Mr. Turner: Certainly, but I have had little support for joining Woolwich and Greenwich.
  Mr. Mayhew: My point is that not one letter, speech or sentence has been addressed to me in favour of the London Government Bill by Woolwich people. I am afraid that when the General Election comes the hon. Member will pay a heavy price for this Bill. I am surprised that he has not been a little more forthcoming in his criticism of the Amendment.
  What are some of the arguments used by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West? He said that it would be quite easy for the Deptford people to be joined to Woolwich and Greenwich because, of course, the administrative centre would be Greenwich. The Greenwich Town Hall would be the centre of the new

  1395
  borough. Has the hon. Gentleman estimated the distance which constituents of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West would have to walk to get to Greenwich Town Hall? He has not studied our problems at all. He wishes to get rid of Deptford, but he might look where he is putting it before he gets rid of it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) made a speech full of warm and well-deserved praise for the Borough of Deptford. When he criticised Woolwich, by implication, I thought that he was a little unjust, but I feel, with him, that we should all get together on this matter. One thing which the hon. Members for Lewisham, West, Woolwich, West, Deptford and Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson) have in common is that we do not wish to amalgamate with anybody.
  8.0 p.m.
  Everything which we have said is, by implication, a strong criticism of the principles of the Bill. If hon. Members opposite mean what they say and if they had the courage of their convictions they would not confine themselves to a small Amendment in a small Committee. They would have opposed the Bill on Second Reading, and would have voted against it on Second Reading, in order to reflect the true opinion of their constituents.
  Mr. H. A. Price: There is nothing illogical in supporting the whole Bill in principle and yet objecting to some of the details. I am very fond of steak and kidney pudding, but I enjoy it more without the kidney.
  Mr. Mayhew: It is very easy to support the principle of the Bill and then, when it comes to the rub, to oppose its implementation. Surely it is better to make one's position absolutely clear on the principle and not to hope to shuffle out of it when the hard work of deciding on the practical measure has to be done.
  Nobody wishes to amalgamate with anybody. The simple solution is to reject the Amendment. I have not left the Minister much time in which to wind up the debate, but it seems to me that it does not need a great deal of time for him to ask us to reject the Amendment. I hope that he will not toy with
  1396
  this hare-brained scheme. I am sure that I am speaking for my constituents when I say that Woolwich is altogether reluctant to be forced into this amalgamation with Greenwich and that a merger with Deptford, as well, would be a harebrained idea.
  Mr. Corfield: Despite the scathing remarks of the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) about provincials, I answer the debate with no sense of inferiority at all. It is an old country saying—and like all country sayings it is true—that the difference between a townsman and a countryman is that the townsman thinks he knows that he is right and the countryman knows that he is right.
  I do not know whether that applies as between provincials and Londoners, but I make no apology on behalf of the Government for enlisting the support of distinguished provincials in this matter. I can assure hon. Members from London that we do not still run around in woad in Gloucestershire, or in Wales, and that we have some very advanced forms of local government in Cheltenham, Oxford and elsewhere. I cannot think of a more sensible course than to bring in this wealth of experience to help to sort out the problems of London.
  Nobody loves the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. H. A. Price). Everybody, with true conservatism, would prefer to be left alone—and I do not think that the Committee will be unduly disappointed if I say that it is not the Government's intention to accept that as a general principle. My hon. Friend wished to amalgamate Deptford with Greenwich and Woolwich, and hon. Members for Woolwich have dealt with that proposed amalgamation in terms as strong as did my hon. Friend.
  I do not want to repeat what I said earlier in reply to other Amendments about Wembley, Willesden and Harrow, but I emphasise that we must look at the problem of finding a satisfactory pattern not in relation to Lewisham alone or in relation to Deptford alone, but in relation to the whole area and the ramifications which the changes would have in other groups. We must be sure that any alteration accepted will be an improvement not merely in the

  1397
  short term but, even more important, in the long term.
  We are dealing with one of the most densely built-up areas of Greater London and, despite the historical reminiscences of hon. Members, I think it will be generally agreed that there are no clearly defined boundaries in this area. If we look at the matter in isolation it can be said that Lewisham would stand on iris own, as was the original suggestion to which my hon. Friend referred, but, as he will recollect, the town clerks decided that the most satisfactory grouping to the north and east would be Camberwell, Southwark and Bermondsey, and we are left with the problem of the best group into which to put Deptford. I believe that I have the support of hon. Members for Woolwich that Woolwich and Greenwich is not the best group.
  Mr. Mellish: The hon. Member did not know what to do with it.
  Mr. Corfield: I should hate anybody in Deptford to think that it is the lost child of south-east London. The problem is to find a group which will settle down into a sound London borough without affecting the neighbouring London boroughs adversely. Had we left Deptford in the group with Camberwell, Bermondsey and Southwark, we should have had by far the largest London borough in the whole of the Greater London area—380,000 people.
  Sir L. Plummer: Before the Minister goes on any further with his speech, may I make it clear that it seems to me that he is referring to Deptford as though it were an infectious disease. It is a borough of very worthy citizens, governed by people who are doing a very good job. We ought not to be treated as lepers or pariahs or as infected people but as people who want to manage our own lives.
  Mr. Corfield: I thought that I made it clear that I was anxious that nobody should regard Deptford, as I put it, as the lost child. I think that my meaning was exactly the same as that of the hon. Member for Deptford. When the town clerks looked at the problem, having made the earlier decision, they decided—and I do not think that my hon. Friend has said anything to undermine the rightness of their conclusions—that although
  1398
  all these boroughs seemed to be confirmed bachelors or spinsters, the right marriage, if a marriage were to be forced, was the marriage with Lewisham.
  My hon. Friend quoted at some length from 'paragraph 61 of their report, but with due respect to him, I think that he has given a slightly twisted impression of that paragraph by reading it in small bits. If he will read it right through, I think he will find an almost overwhelming case. Although he has picked holes in little bits of it, he has not produced an argument that the general conclusion to in remarks is wrong. And that is the Government's view.
  He made certain specific points about the industrial character of neighbouring boroughs, the riparian character of neighbouring boroughs, if that is the right word, and the pattern of development. But I do not believe that it would be a sound basis for local government to go round trying to group all the industrial areas together and all the residential areas together, or even all the riverside areas together.
  Mr. H. A. Price: Is my hon. Friend refuting my argument about that part of paragraph 61 which claimed that the largest part of the Borough of Lewisham is to be found in the boundary adjoining Deptford?
  Mr. Corfield: From looking at the map I have no doubt that that is an inaccuracy. Equally, I have no doubt that this is a very densely populated part of London. My hon. Friend is suggesting that the mere fact that the town clerks produced a different answer from the tentative proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend's predecessors means that that answer should be regarded with extra suspicion. But if we accept that, we undermine the whole object of this very sensible exercise of bringing in these distinguished provincials, if I may use the word again, to advise on this pattern. Surely, having done that, we must accept that the onus is the other way and that we must have good reasons before we depart from their recommendations, especially when, if my hon. Friend's ideas were followed, we should have considerable repercussions on the neighbouring boroughs and on the overall pattern of boroughs set up in this part of London. Therefore, I must press the Government's

  1399
  view that this is an Amendment which should not be accepted, and I at least have the comfort that I have some support in that from hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. C. Johnson: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to explain this to the Committee? The Royal Commission studied the matter very carefully indeed. The Ministry had the widest possible information, experience and knowledge of these London areas. So far as one can judge from paragraph 61 of the town clerks' report, the only factor which dominated their final conclusion was the reference to a service centre and they ignored every one of the other considerations to which the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. H. A. Price) referred as being relevant to decide this matter. Why should that one factor set out in paragraph 61 override all the careful consideration which presumably
  the Minister himself had given previously to these matters?
  Mr. Corfield: This other information was available to the town clerks and their report is only meant to be a summary of their conclusions. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman underlined this question of the service centre, because this emphasises the fact that the Town Clerks took into account questions of the community areas, to which the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) referred earlier. This is an important aspect, but it is clear from the form of the report that it has never aimed at setting out all the information which was put before the town clerks, either by councils or by my Ministry, but is a summary of the conclusions reached.
  Question put, That the words "borough of Greenwich" stand part of the Schedule:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 244, Noes 24.

  Division No. 53.]

  AYES

  [8.12 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Cunningham, Knox

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

  Aitken, W. T.

  Curran, Charles

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Allason, James

  Currle, G. B. H.

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

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Balniol, Lord

  Davies,G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Barber, Anthony

  Deedes, Rt. Hon. w. F.

  Holland, Philip

  Barlow, Sir John

  Delargy, Hugh

  Rooson, H. E.

  Barter, John

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hopkins, Alan

  Batsford, Brian

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Hornby, R. P.

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  du Cann, Edward

  Hoy, James H.

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Benson, Sir George

  Duncan, Sir James

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Eden, John

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Bidgood, John C.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Biffen, John

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

  James, David

  Bigga-Davison, John

  Emery, Peter

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Bourne-Arton, A,

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Farr, John

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Box, Donald

  Finlay, Graeme

  Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

  Brewis, John

  Fletcher, Eric

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Bryan, Paul

  Freeth, Denzil

  Kimball, Marcus

  Buck, Antony

  Gammans, Lady

  Kirk, Peter

  Bullard, Denys

  George, Sir John (Pollok)

  Leavey, J. A.

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Letaurn, Gilmour

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Chapman, Donald

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Chataway, Christopher

  Goodhew, Victor

  Lindsay, Sir Martin

  Chichester-Clark, R,

  Gough, Frederick

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Gower, Raymond

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W,)

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Longbottom, Charles

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Green, Alan

  Longden, Gilbert

  Cole, Norman

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Lubbock, Eric

  Cooke, Robert

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Cooper, A. E.

  Crosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Mclnnes, James

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  McLaren, Martin

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Corfield, F. V.

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

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

  Costain, A, P.

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Coulson, Michael

  Harvie, Anderson, Miss

  Macpherson,Rt.Hn.Niall(Dumfries>

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne

  Hastings, Stephen

  Maddan, Martin

  Crawley, Aldan

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Maitland, Sir John

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hendry, Forbes

  Markham, Major Sir Prank

  Marshall, Douglas

  Pott, Percivall

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

  Marten, Nell

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Prior, J, M. L.

  Teeling, Sir William

  Matthews, Cordon (Meriden)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Temple, John M.

  Mawby, Ray

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

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

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Thornton- Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Mellish, R. J.

  Ramsden, James

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Mills, Stratton

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Turner, Colin

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Morgan, William

  Roberta, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Morrison, John

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

  Vane, w. M. F.

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Vaugtian Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Neave, Alrey

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  St. Clair, M.

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

  Shaw, M.

  Wade, Donald

  Nugent, Rt, Hon. Sir Richard

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Walder, David

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

  Small, William

  Walker, Peter

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

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

  Wall, Patrick

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Smithers, Peter

  Weitzman, David

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

  Weils, John (Maidstone)

  Partridge, E.

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Speir, Rupert

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Peel, John

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Wise, A. R.

  Percival, Ian

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Peyton, John

  Stodart, J. A.

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Woollam, John

  Pitman, Sir James

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Worsley, Marcus

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Swain, Thomas

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Rees and Mr. MacArthur.

  NOES

  Bence, Cyril

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Benson, Sir George

  Henderson, Rt. H n. Arthur(RwlyRegis)

  Swain, Thomas

  Blyton, William

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Board man, H.

  Manuel, Archie

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Bradley, Tom

  Moody, A. S.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Bulius, Wing Commander Eric

  Padley, W. E.

  Woof, Robert

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Parker, John

  Dugdate, Rt. Hon. John

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Mr. H. A. Price and Mr. Russell.

  Mr. M. Stewart: On a point of order. A number of my hon. Friends, under a misapprehension about the way in which the Question was being put—and, perhaps, due to an instinctive reluctance to vote in the same Lobby as the Government—voted in the "No" Lobby, not realising that in order to carry out their intentions correctly they should have voted in the "Aye" Lobby. When they consulted me on this matter I advised them, I hope correctly, that to neutralise their votes they would have to vote in the other Lobby as well. I hope that I have not committed any impropriety. I understand that the effect of all this is to cause their votes not to be recorded on either side.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. G. Thomas): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) for the advice he has tendered, which saves me giving any Ruling on the question.
  Mr. Ellis Smith Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, south) rose—
  The Temporary Chairman: Might I remind the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) that the Guillotine falls on the next. Amendment in half an hour?
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Before considering the Guillotine, Mr. Thomas, might I raise a point of order? I should like to know the position regarding the last vote.
  The Temporary Chairman: If, as I understand it, some hon. Members voted in both Lobbies, their names will be recorded in both. Any further difficulties that arise should be raised when the OFFICIAL REPORT is issued.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Further to that point of order—
  The Temporary Chairman: If I might interrupt the hon. Member, I have refreshed my memory and I can now say

  1403
  that any hon. Member who wishes to raise the question of the way his vote was cast should, I am advised, do so tomorrow.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I merely wanted to thank you, Mr. Thomas, for the clear way in which you have dealt with this matter.
  Mr. Mellish: I beg to move, in page 88, line 29, column 2, to leave out "Bermondsey".
  The Temporary Chairman: I think that it would be convenient to the Committee to discuss, at the same time, the other Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Bermondsey, (Mr. Mellish), in line 42, at end insert:
  The metropolitan borough of Bermondsey.
  Mr. Mellish: That would be convenient. For the first time in many years I found myself in the winning Lobby when we voted on the previous Amendment. I think that it was the first time in twelve years that I have actually been on the winning side. The Committee will understand why. I hope that on the next occasion we enter the Lobby, when the Amendment I am moving is put to the vote, my hon. Friends and I will gain support from some hon. Members opposite so that I may have the pleasure of being on the winning side once again. I doubt it, but one never knows one's luck and perhaps if I can adduce a good enough argument some hon. Members opposite will support me.
  The effect of the Amendment would mean that my constituency would stand on its own, separate and apart from the other two with which it is proposed to be merged; that is, the Metropolitan Boroughs of Camberwell and Southwark. I wish it to be on the record that anything I say should not be taken as being critical of either of those two boroughs.
  It would be a poor hon. Member indeed who did not say some nice things about his own constituency. I am in the fortunate position in Bermondsey of having an overwhelming Labour majority and even if the proposed amalgamation took place I would probably end up with a bigger majority. I have been in the fortunate position all along of not having to pander to groups or cliques, either outside or inside the House of Commons, and it is important that an hon. Member should have this freedom. I always feel sorry
  1404
  for hon. Members with marginal seats who must constantly be looking over their shoulders. In Bermondsey I have never had to do that, so when I speak about Bermondsey it is because I feel deeply about the subject, although I appreciate that one does not want to make too emotional a speech.
  Whatever the Minister may say about any other London borough, he cannot deny that in Bermondsey there is deep distress over these proposals. Some hon. Members have already talked about the history of their constituencies, but when one thinks of Bermondsey one knows that its history is something that really matters. Bermondsey is, in a way, separate and apart from the rest of London and for those who live there it is a matter of pride to be able to say. "I come from Bermondsey" It is certainly the sort of borough in which one must live and work to understand it.
  Bermondsey suffered as much as, if not more than, any other borough in the industrial revolution at the turn of the century. It has a wonderful history going back hundreds of years. It was at one time a place second to Westminster in that there existed the Abbey of Bermondsey. But its real history has developed in this century, for it saw the tremendous advances made by many social welfare workers, including Dr. Scott-Lidgett, the Methodist and Socialist alike, the great Dr. Alfred Salter, Mrs. Lowe and others whose mark in the borough has remained. For the first time, as a result of the activities of these people, trees were planted amongst the grime and filth and the record of its council can be described as superb. Its efforts evoked interest and praise from the previous Minister of Housing, now the Home Secretary. He knows the borough well. He came on an official visit and was amazed to find what had been done by an authority of that size.
  Our only fault and crime seems to lie in our size. It seems that we have a temerity because we are a borough with a population of 52,000. Does our history not matter a damn? Whether we like it or not, are we to be merged with two other great London Boroughs, whereby our whole personality and approach will, to some extent, be destroyed?

  1405
  I will give the Committee one or two simple figures. We have 52 councillors, which means that each one represents 1,000 people. Some may laugh at that, but I would tell them quite sincerely that no borough council in London gives its people better service than we do. That can be done with the sort of councillors that we have, and with that sort of representation. Our total number of councillors and aldermen will be reduced if we go into Camberwell, which is much larger. In Camberwell, there will be 60 councillors to represent a population of 310,000, and Bermondsey will be represented by only 10—out of 60. It is all very well for anyone to say, "Bermondsey will still be there," but we shall have turned the clock back.
  8.30 p.m.
  I cannot over-emphasise the bitterness felt in Bermondsey over this proposal. Housing has been our biggest problem, and the Minister will know better than anyone else, because his Departmental advisers will have told him, that our housing record is unsurpassed anywhere in London. At the present time, we actually own over one-third of our own borough and, as a result, have solved many of our social problems. My council has been doing enormously well. It has brought to life the sort of Socialism I understand and respect, which means the removal of poverty, and giving people decent housing. It has done so in a way that has twice invited the attention of Conservative Ministers.
  It is all very well for the Minister to say, "Oh, that will be all right—the same thing can go on when you merge," but Camberwell has its own vast problems, and so has Southwark. If this merger comes about, we know that many of the problems we shall face in the future will not be Bermondsey problems as such—there will have to be priorities, and Bermondsey will not be in the priority list.
  Bermondsey has a great history. Dickens, Kingsley, Swift, Pepys and Evelyn have all been in Bermondsey and have written about it, some with pathos and some more pleasantly. Bermondsey has always attracted what I call the best of Londoners. I am a Londoner born and bred, and I speak as a man to whom Bermondsey means so much. I am not speaking here of the political side. Votes
  1406
  do not come into this argument. If we are merged, I will get so much more support in Camberwell that I predict that I shall have such a majority as will make the Conservatives and Liberals lose their deposits. Perhaps I should welcome that, but I do not want it that way. Among all the people of Bermondsey there is a united desire to continue as they are and, as their representative, I have to ask the Minister, "Please, if it is possible, don't do this. Please leave Bermondsey alone."
  It will probably be said, "But this will alter the pattern—it cannot possibly be done. How can you ask? A borough of 52,000 population, one of the smallest in all London, would destroy the whole concept." The answer is that, because of our slum clearance work, we have reached our lowest ebb of population. The Registrar-General's next figures will show that for the first time in years Bermondsey's population has increased, and it will continue to do so. In 1939 we had a population of 129,000. We never want to get back to that figure but, as chairman of the local hospital committee, I sought figures in another matter, and found that the Registrar-General's Department predicts that in the seventies Bermondsey's population will be between 75,000 and 85,000.
  Bermondsey has had a great past, and I am proud to talk of it, but I do not believe that under this Bill it has a future. The right hon. Gentleman must understand that in this borough, as in many other London boroughs, he has aroused every possible parochial feeling, and his only justification is that Bermondsey has committed the crime of being too small. If that is its only crime, I beg the Minister to think again.
  Wing Commander Bullus: I have no particular interest to declare in Bermondsey and I hope that the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) will not think I am presumptuous in putting my feet in his constituency. I am encouraged by the fact that the hon. Member often feels inclined to transfer to Northern Ireland and take interest in that part of the world. Therefore, there seems to be some excuse for my interfering here. I am supporting the hon. Member chiefly on principle. In spite of the unkind things he said about the Tories, they have principles. I have tried to prove that.

  1407
  I understand it when the hon. Member says that his constituents are distressed at this proposal. We experience the same distress in Wembley which is an excellent borough, very like Bermondsey, where the councillors are honoured people who work hard. They are very distressed, and I can well understand that the same applies, in Bermondsey. I support the Amendment because I have always said, as I said on Second Reading, that I do not think that size alone should be the criterion of whether a borough should be thought fit to survive.
  I can take hon. Members to my borough of Wembley, which is admirably run, where municipal housing pays and where there are resources, if it so desired, to run the education services. I can take hon. Members also to boroughs of 200,000 population which are unfit to manage their own affairs. It must he proved to the smaller boroughs why their status should be taken away from them when they are fully efficient. On that principle I shall support the Amendment.
  Mr. M. Stewart: I do not want to take much time away from the Minister, though I do not suppose that it will take him very long to say what he has to say. A few minutes ago we had the case of the City of London argued on the ground of great tradition. There are two traditions in the history of this country and no man understands England who does not understand the part which both have played.
  There is the tradition, dating from the Norman Conquest, of courts, royal institutions, courts of justice, royal charters, wealthy merchants and great landowners. The City of London is the heir to that tradition. There is also the tradition of those who, over the centuries, were shut out from the circle of power and who gradually, at first blindly, ignorantly and desperately, learned with growing skill the mystery of democratic techniques and forced their way into the circle of power. That tradition goes back to the Peasants' Revolt, to Jack Cade's rising and to the Industrial Revolution. Bermondsey is the symbol of the inheritance of that tradition.
  If the City of London has applied the great wealth it has amassed to certain useful purposes, the citizens of Bermond-
  1408
  sey have learned how to drag themselves up by their own bootstraps and from their own limited resources to create local government. On the coat of arms of the City is the dagger that stabbed Wat Tyler but it was out of South-East London and Kent that came Tyler, John Ball, and Jack Cade, the spokesmen of the people of England at a time when democratic processes were not open to them. And to see a borough today capable of using democratic processes in a way that enables people to do things for themselves instead of waiting for the gentry to do them for them is something worth preserving in democratic local government.
  Sir K. Joseph: I have great respect for the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and wish to meet him on his own level of argument. He speaks of the two traditions in the history of the country and there is much truth in what he says. But let the hon. Member not give the impression that the history of the City which he traces from the Norman Conquest, and which, he says, was ceremonial and courtly has no blood in it. Tower Hill played a large part in the history of London, and merchants of old from whom aldermen and mayors were elected paid with their heads for their part in building the democracy of which the people of Bermondsey are the inheritors. The hon. Member mentioned famous characters, some notorious in our history, but the City of London, under its Lord Mayors, poured out its blood on the side of democracy at Lewes and Bosworth and on many other famous fields. There is credit in both of the strands of history which the hon. Member traces.
  The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) was generous in his praise of his local authority. If his local authority were able to speak here, it would be generous in praise of him. He is one of the most persuasive and, indeed, endearing speakers on any cause in the House and one pays great attention to what he says. As he and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus) know, the changes brought about in the Bill are not reflections on the competence and devotion to duty of the local authorities concerned.
  The hon. Member for Bermondsey—and I mean to pay him a compliment—is a romantic conservative. He wants to

  1409
  keep things as they are, without recognising that much benefit can come from changing them. The difference between this Amendment and the Schedule is that by abolishing the City no benefit is done to anyone, whereas by amalgamating the boroughs, of which Bermondsey is one, in a group, some benefit will accrue to the citizens.
  Mr. Mellish: I am always willing to concede the argument that if something is good it ought to be kept.
  Sir K. Joseph: Let the hon. Member consider this. He has praised his local councillors, no doubt with justice. Does he not think that those local councillors would like more powers? Does he think that they have enough powers now? Does he not think there is some virtue in redistributing powers so that the local people, of whom his constituents are some, will be able to carry out the welfare and the health functions, the local town planning and the housing functions which are part of the proper equipment of any local authority?
  The hon. Gentleman refers—and I agree with him—to the intractable problems imposed by housing and the environmental inheritance in his part of London. They are difficult and intractable problems. Does not the hon. Member see some merit in the creation and redistribution of new powers brought about by the Bill? Let the hon. Member believe that we think there is some virtue in these powers, and the citizens of Bermondsey will benefit from their use.
  During discussion of this Schedule we shall consider how large a part public opinion plays in these matters, but I believe that it is true in Bermondsey, as it is in Wembley, North, that some citizens react to the changes in the Bill by fear that they will be hurt. Many councillors do not want changes because they will lose the honourable part that they have been playing decisively in their own environments. But I do not think that the citizens as a whole take great notice of these proposed new borough groupings. I do not believe that what we are doing now is deep down in their consciousness.
  I would remind the hon. Member that all is not loss in this change in Bermondsey's position. The local councillors in the new borough groupings will possess many more powers for the benefit of their citizens and they should, within the context of the Greater London Council's plans, be able more quickly to change this inherited environment with which I know the hon. Member is not satisfied.
  Finally, I must make the small, technical point that if the Amendment is passed Bermondsey will not splendidly continue its own form of local government. As a local government unit it will cease to exist. Let the hon. Member reflect before he desires to be in the winning Lobby, if this Amendment is pressed. Bermondsey, as a local authority, will cease to exist if the Amendment is passed. I know that that is not his purpose, but that is what it will achieve if it is pressed and passed.
  Mr. Mellish: There is a consequential Amendment.
  Sir K. Joseph: There is a consequential Amendment later, is there? If that is the case, the hon. Member has taken a point which I have not.
  I know the hon. Member will not give up his admiration for the local councillors, which he has so eloquently expressed. I hope that he will think that they can worthily dispose of their powers and, as part of a larger group, be able to do more for their neighbourhood because of the Bill than they have been able to do up to now, despite their efforts. I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed, but if it is I hope that the Committee will reject it.
  Mr. Mellish: There is a consequential Amendment which nullifies the point which the Minister has made, and still leaves Bermondsey, as it has been in the past, one of the greatest boroughs in London.
  Question put, That "Bermondsey" stand part of the Schedule:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 214, Noes 162.

  Division No. 54.]

  AYES

  [8.45 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Barlow, Sir John

  Aitkin, W. T.

  Balniel, Lord

  Barter, John

  Allason, James

  Barber, Anthony

  Batstord, Brian

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Plikington, Sir Richard

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Hendry, Forbes

  Pitman, Sir James

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

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

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Pott, Percival)

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Biffen, John

  Hirst, Geoffrey

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

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Holland, Philip

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Hooson, H. E.

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Hopkins, Alan

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Box, Donald

  Hornby, R. P.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Bryan, Paul

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Ramsden, James

  Buck, Antony

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Rees, Hugh

  Bullard, Denys

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Mairn)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Renton, fit. Hon. David

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

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

  Chataway, Christopher

  James, David

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  St. Clair, M.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Shaw, M.

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Shepherd, William

  Cole, Norman

  Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Cooke, Robert

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

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

  Cooper, A. E.

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Smithers, Peter

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

  Corfield, F. V.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Costain, A. P.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Speir, Rupert

  Coulson, Michael

  Kirk, Peter

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Craddock. Sir Beresford Spelthorns)

  Leavey, J. A.

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Crawley, Aidan

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Crawder, F. P.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Stodart, J. A.

  Cunningham, Knox

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Curran, Charles

  Lindsay, Sir Martin

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Longbottom, Charles

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Longden, Gilbert

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lubbock, Eric

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

  Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Teeling, Sir William

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  McLaren, Martin

  Temple, John M.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  Drayson, G. B.

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

  Duncan, Sir James

  Maddan, Martin

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Eden, John

  Maitland, Sir John

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

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

  Marshall, Douglas

  Turner, Colin

  Emery, Peter

  Marten, Neil

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Errington, Sir Erie

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Farr, John

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Finlay, Graeme

  Mawby, Ray

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

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

  Vaugnan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Freeth, Denzil

  Mills, Stratton

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Gammans, Lady

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  George, Sir John (Pollok)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Wade, Donald

  Gibson-Watt, David

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Walder, David

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Morgan, William

  Walker, Peter

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Morrison, John

  Wall, Patrick

  Goodhew, Victor

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Gough, Frederick

  Neave, Airey

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Cower, Raymond

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Green, Alan

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Wise, A. R.

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Groevenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Partridge, E.

  Woollant, John

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macciesf'd)

  Peel, John

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Percival, Ian

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Peyton, John

  Mr. Ian Fraser and

  Hastings, Stephen

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Mr. MacArthur.

  NOES

  Ainsley, William

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Allaurt, Frank (Salford, E.)

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

  Chapman, Donald

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Boyden, James

  Clifte, Michael

  Awbery, Stan (Bristol Central)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Collick, Percy

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Bradley, Tom

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Barnett, Guy

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Beaney, Alan

  Brocfcway, A. Fenner

  Crosland, Anthony

  Bence, Cyril

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Blackburn, F.

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Dalyell, Tam

  Blyton, William

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Boardman, H.

  Callaghan, James

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  1412

  1413

  Davles, Ifor (Gower)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Kelley, Richard

  Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

  Dempsey, lames

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Ross, William

  Diamond, John

  King, Dr. Horace

  Russell, Ronald

  Dodds, Norman

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Dugdale, Bt. Hon. John

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, M.)

  Small, William

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Mclnnes, James

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Fitch, Alan

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Steele, Thomas

  Fletcher, Erie

  Manuel, Archie

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Mapp, Charles

  Stones, William

  Forman, J. C.

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Swain, Thomas

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Swingler, Stephen

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Millan, Bruce

  Taverne, D.

  Ginsburg, David

  Milne, Edward

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Grey, Charles

  Monslow, Walter

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Moody, A. S.

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

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Morris, John

  Thornton, Ernest

  Hannan, William

  Neal, Harold

  Tomney, Frank

  Harper, Joseph

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

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

  Warbey, William

  Hayman, F. H.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Weitzman, David

  Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(Rwly Regis)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Whitlock, William

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Padley, W. E.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Hilton, A. V.

  Parker, John

  Willey, Frederick

  Houghton, Douglas

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Hoy, James H.

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Peart, Frederick

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Pentland, Norman

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

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

  Hunter, A. E.

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Probert, Arthur

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Rankin, John

  Woof, Robert

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Redhead, E. C.

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Jeger, George

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Rhodes, H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Mr. Charles A. Howell and

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Mr. McCann.

  Dr. Alan Glyn: I beg to move, in page 88, to leave out lines 31 to 38 and to insert:

  9

  The metropolitan boroughs of Battersea and Lambeth.

  4

  10

  The metropolitan borough of Wandsworth.

  4

  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas): With this Amendment we will consider also the Amendment in page 90, line 40, to leave out paragraph 2.
  Dr. Glyn: The Committee may well be aware that there are four Members of Parliament for Wandsworth, two of them are in Her Majesty's Government and the other two are represented by myself and by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. H. Linstead). I am grateful that the Amendment should have been selected, because it has substance and merits not only consideration but, I hope, acceptance. I shall be brief in my remarks, because the weight of the argilment is not measured by its length. I understand also that another Amendment comes within the same Guillotine period.
  1414
  I shall deal, first, with the background, then the Bill, the effect of the Amendment, the reasons for it and why, if it were accepted, it would improve the Bill. There are three adjoining boroughs, Wandsworth with a population of 347,000, Battersea, with a population of 105,000 and Lambeth with a population of 223,000. Under the proposals in the Bill, Wandsworth's size would become 335,000 and the enlarged Lambeth 340,000. The suggestion of my hon. Friends and myself in the Amendment would leave Wandsworth with a population of 347,000 and Lambeth and Battersea with 328,000, or a difference of only 2 per cent. The net result would be that Wandsworth would be rather larger, whereas Lambeth—
  The Temporary Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I ought to let him know that no other Amendment will be called during this Guillotine period.
  Dr. Glyn: I am grateful for that observation, Mr. Thomas.

  1415
  I was describing the size of three adjoining boroughs. Wandsworth is in the middle, Lambeth is to the east and Battersea lies to the north. The suggestions advanced in our Amendment would leave boroughs of almost precisely the size which the Government wish to achieve and they would be almost identical with those proposed by the Town Clerks., although the groupings would be different.
  The Bill applies drastic surgery and divides the existing Borough of Wandsworth, which has a third of a million people. It gives part of Lambeth and, in exchange, takes Battersea in compensation. I can only understand this as an attempt by division to rule. There would be no point in dividing a borough, unless it were essential to do so, provided that the borough is of the correct size that the Government wish to achieve under the new regrouping. That is exactly the position at the moment. Wandsworth would be of the size suggested by the Government.
  9.0 p.m.
  With the Amendment, the Bill would leave Wandsworth alone and would seek to achieve two things. It amalgamates two adjacent boroughs. That is to say, it amalgamates Lambeth with Battersea and thus avoids partition of the one really large borough which exists, Wandsworth. It achieves the same numerical effect, but prevents Wandsworth from being partitioned, and, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said earlier on, it does not in any way—and I wish to make this perfectly clear to the Committee, that if this Amendment were to be accepted by the Committee it would not in any way—affect another borough in south London or indeed another borough in the regroupings which the Government wish to achieve. It affects only these three boroughs, that is to say, Wandsworth, Lambeth and Battersea.
  The recommendations which the Government wish to achieve were based on the report of the town clerks. In the case of Wandsworth recommendations were made by the Town Clerk of South Shields. I do not wish to cast any aspersions on individuals, but I should like to make comments on the statements which he made in the evaluation of the
  1416
  position, and in particular I should like to make reference to one statement which he made, that
  "most people"—
  he was talking about the people living in certain parts of Wandsworth—
  "are more familiar with Brixton because they either pass through on their way to London or go there for shopping"
  According to the survey I have made that is not correct. It may have been correct ten years ago, but it is certainly not correct today.
  I refer, first, to the question of transport. People "pass through on their way to London", says the Report. Some people may well do that, but what the town clerk did not observe was that, in fact, most of the people of that particular area use another route, which is over Chelsea Bridge, or they use the Underground, which does not pass through Brixton at all. I do not know where he got his information from.
  He said also that the people on that side of the borough look more towards Brixton. What he forgot to notice was that there is a rates office—an extremely important thing, a subdivision of the rating offices—in that end of Wands-worth, where the people of Clapham and the adjoining areas can pay their rates, rather than go to Wandsworth, and it is closer to them than the offices in Brixton. I do not know how much time he spent in the division, but I will come to this point later.
  I do not believe, either, that he really gave any serious thought—and I have read his report with extreme care—ito the important effect of the uniting of the boroughs rather than dividing them. This was one of the recommendations upon which he should have worked and which was laid down by the Ministry, and not only by the Ministry, for it was clearly defined in the terms of reference which were given to the town clerks. In my submission, those terms of reference on this point were not in any way referred to whatsoever.
  Now as regards the time which was spent and the method of evaluation of the situation. To my knowledge, there was one day's conference, and at that time the Town Clerk of Wandsworth and his officers offered every possible assistance to the Town Clerk of South Shields, knowing he could not be

  1417
  familiar with the area, and they were prepared to give him any evidence which he desired and which was available to them. I have checked up with the Town Clerk of Wandsworth and I have discovered that on no occasion was any question asked of the borough council by the Town Clerk of South Shields or representations made to the council. I would have thought that, as he was coming fresh to the area, one of his main sources of information to which he would have turned would have been the town clerk. In fact, he made no effort to seek his opinion or advice in the matter. I cannot speak for the other boroughs, for I do not know what contact he made with them. I understand —though I cannot substantiate this—that he gave as much thought to their borough councils as he did to Wandsworth Borough Council.
  Nor were any references made by him to any local organisations. Again, one would have thought that in a survey of this type it would be natural to look towards the opinions, not so much perhaps of the political organisations but of the other non-political organisations in Wandsworth and the other two boroughs. But to my knowledge—and I have made inquiries—no reference was made to any of these organisations. They were not consulted by this town clerk.
  I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that united views have been expressed by the majority party and the minority party of Wandsworth Borough Council. The council has changed political complexion meantime, but what is so surprising is that the views of both parties are exactly the same.
  At the council meeting of 2nd October, 1962, the council decided to make it clear to the Minister, in the strongest possible terms, that it was opposed to any intended reorganisation and any proposal to alter the present boundaries of the borough, and considered that the present area of the borough was an efficient unit of local government capable of exercising any other functions or services for which it might be responsible in the future.
  In the previous February of 1962, the Conservative council had produced a statement on this matter, saying that it
  "… opposes the suggested partition of the present Borough of Wandsworth."
  1418
  Nothing could be clearer than that statement. What happened when the Council changed political complexion later in the year? Its resolution of the 2nd October said:
  "We consider that there is no justification for severing one-third of the borough for an addition to the neighbouring local authority and for amalgamating the remainder with Battersea to create a new borough of almost similar size to the original."
  That made the council's views clear. The resolution went on:
  "The Borough provides an efficient unit of local government capable of exercising any other functions and services which may be given to the boroughs."
  That was a categorical rejection of this proposal, and it is still rejected by the Council.
  I have also sought the opinions of the local Chamber of Commerce and the local ratepayers. In my submission, there was nobody in favour of this but the Town Clerk of South Shields. He based himself, I believe, on preconceived ideas and paid insufficient attention to the important aspect of preserving a borough of a size which was compatible with the Government's proposals. Secondly, the views of the local people were not considered, nor were local affiliations. Yet local affiliations were clearly laid down in the terms of reference and should have been given full consideration. In my submission in his report they were not given reasonable, or in fact, any, consideration whatsoever.
  I turn now to the advantages of the Amendment. The strongest argument is that we are attempting to amalgamate two complete boroughs, a process which would be very much easier for the boroughs. They could amalgamate their housing schemes, their schemes for house loans and their services, and I think that the task before them would be far simpler than if they were divided.
  It is ironical that the only borough in London of the right size should be the borough which is singled out for partition. This borough has some of the finest services. I suppose that every Member of Parliament thinks that his borough is better than everybody else's, but I submit that Wandsworth, over its sixty years, has developed certain services in an extraordinarily efficient way—women's voluntary services, the Red Cross and, in particular, the old people's welfare service. A great deal has been done, and great leadership has been given by

  1419
  Wandsworth, and perhaps it would not be out of place to say that one of the reasons why it has been able to do it is that being a large borough it has been able to cater for almost every type of old people's welfare, including luncheon clubs and many other facilities which no other lborough has been able to run on such a large scale.
  What we are attempting to do is to keep the Wandsworth Borough Council because it is the best and most advantageous way of regrouping the boroughs. We have here a borough of the right size, and one upon which others could be modelled. There has never been any criticism of its efficiency, and it would serve the other boroughs as a model for the new London Government proposals.
  Irrespective of whether one accepts these proposals, it would still be of value to have one borough which is already set up, which has all the necessary facilities and services, and which could give advice to other boroughs which were in not quite the same position, which were much smaller and which had to expand, and I am sure that these smaller boroughs would be interested to see how this larger one was working. This proposal does not affect any other boroughs, and there are no good reasons for rejecting the scheme.
  I am not going into the views of the other two borough councils. I understand that although they met at a late date, they made representations, but I do not know of any council resolutions of an equivalent force and magnitude to that of the Wandsworth Borough Council stating that they did not wish to participate in the scheme which involved the amalgamation of Battersea and Lambeth.
  There may well be certain minor adjustments which would have to be made, such as in road boundaries, but I do not think.that that would be necessary anyway, and I do not think that that in itself is an obstacle. I base my argument on the value of having this borough; on the fact that it is not necessary to split it up and fragment it when another solution would work perfectly well and efficiently.
  9.15 p.m.
  Finally, I ask my right hon. Friend to think of the advantages of the
  1420
  Amendment and to look very carefully at the evidence upon which the recommendations were made. I suggest that the evidence was not sufficiently examined, nor were the terms of reference adhered to. I do not believe that the recommendations are the result of a clear judgment, or that they provide a reason for the partition of Wandsworth. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend and the Committee to accept the Amendment. By doing so we shall be doing a great deal of good for Wandsworth and for the future of London government, without in any way creating a disadvantage. In any case, if it is claimed that there are some small disadvantages, they are completely outweighed by the very real advantage of preserving this borough and using it as an excellent model for the future of London government.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: The speech of the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) has effectively demonstrated that this is a ridiculous Bill. Nevertheless I cannot agree that the Amendment would render it any better. Indeed, it would make it much worse. The Amendment seeks to amalgamate Battersea and Lambeth. The hon. Member advanced no good reason for it, and I cannot see what good reasons exist. We do not have to consult the Town Clerk of South Shields to see what a foolish proposal it is to amalgamate these two boroughs. We merely have to look at the map.
  Rather slyly, the hon. Member said that the three boroughs of Lambeth, Wandsworth and Battersea adjoin each other. It is true that Lambeth adjoins Wandsworth, and that Wandsworth adjoins Battersea, but it is not true that Battersea adjoins Wandsworth in any but a very curious sense. At one end of my constituency, in the Nine Elms area, the boundaries touch, but they touch in an area where no population remains. It has been entirely cleared for use for industrial purposes. Lambeth adjoins Battersea only in the sense that James's Park adjoins the Green Park. If we adopted this suggestion the new borough of Lambeth and Battersea would have rather the same relationship to Wandsworth as a nutcracker has to a nut. I agree that Wandsworth would be a fairly large nut, but it would leave at either

  1421
  end an area of the most ridiculous and unmanageable shape.
  As far as I know, nobody in Battersea desires this. The Battersea Borough Council is wholly opposed to the idea. It represents all schools of thought, but I believe that it is unanimous on this point. I have no information that leads me to believe that Lambeth is in favour of the proposal. It appears that only Wandsworth favours it. This seems to be the sort of marriage in which neither party which is to marry favours the idea, and in which the marriage is proposed solely by a third party, match-making from outside. This is not likely to lead to a very happy arrangement.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: Has the Battersea Borough Council ever passed a resolution on the lines that the right hon. Gentleman has suggested—of not wishing to amalgamate with Wandsworth? Has it passed any resolution, except to say that it wishes to remain alone, and does not like the London Government plan?
  Mr. Jay: The Battersea Borough Council has publicly expressed its opposition to this proposal and the town clerk has formally invited me to inform this Committee that that is the view of his council.
  Sir Hugh Linstead: After the impressive speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) there is not much that remains to be said by way of a general statement of the case. But there are a number of details which it might be useful to fill in. I wish first, and in no cynical way at all, to thank my right hon. Friend for having indicated all through the preliminary discussions on this difficult problem that he is approaching the matter of the grouping of the boroughs with —I will use the expression because he has used it himself—an open mind.
  This is one of the problems where I think that the objective approach of someone outside is justified. As the Committee has been told by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), the Battersea Borough Council is opposed to the solution advanced by my hon. Friend and myself. I understand that the Lambeth Borough Council desires to be left alone because it considers that Lambeth is capable of acting as a Lon-
  1422
  don borough. The Wandsworth Borough Council favours our proposals. Against that sort of background I consider it entirely appropriate that my right hon. Friend should try to find the most workmanlike solution to a problem about which three borough councils cannot agree—all the more so since the three councils are Socialist-controlled and therefore of the same political persuasion, so that there is no question of dealing with the situation from a party political point of view.
  The right hon. Member for Battersea, North referred to the nutcracker and the nut. My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham indicated that there was need for adjustment of the north-east boundary of Wandsworth even if the boroughs remain as they are today. There is a salient of Wandsworth which stretches into Battersea and a salient of Battersea which goes into Wandsworth. In that situation the only pattern which would make sense would be an exchange of those two salients and the removal of the nut from the nutcracker referred to by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North.
  Mr. Jay: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the map of Lambeth he will find that a minor operation of that kind would not alter the essential shape of the arrangement he proposes.
  Sir H. Linstead: Obviously the right hon. Gentleman and I cannot compare maps across the floor of the Committee, but if he will look at the coloured map which has been circulated he will see that at the Balham Railway Station the railway line curves for the boundary in a way which could be quite viable.
  I want to put this general proposition to my right hon. Friend: when we are bisecting an efficient, living borough of 347,000 inhabitants and giving one half to one borough and the other half to another borough, thereby destroying the identity of Wandsworth, the onus of proving that the destruction of the borough is the only workable solution is extremely heavy. I do not think that the reasons advanced by the Town Clerk of South Shields can in any way justify the destruction of a great local authority.
  The terms of reference of the four town clerks said that they would have regard to five different considerations.

  1423
  The first consideration was population, and there is no disagreement that the population of Wandsworth as it is today —347,000—is an entirely acceptable population. The second consideration to which they would have regard was present and past associations. The Borough of Wandsworth was created in 1900 and has therefore had 62 or 63 years of quite distinguished history. The settlement of Wandsworth goes back to Saxon times, and it takes its name from the River Wandle. What is contemplated here is the destruction of something which, at any rate in name, goes back many hundreds of years. The town clerks were asked, as I have said, to deal with present and past associations, and it is clear that there is no present or past association between Wandsworth and either Battersea or Lambeth.
  They were asked to have regard to lines of communication. It is interesting that east and west through the Borough of Wandsworth there are twelve bus routes. There is the South Circular Road, which will be one of the great trunk roads of London, which passes through the whole length of the borough and, incidentally, passes by the town hall and acts as the feeder for traffic to and from the town hall. The town hall itself is on five A roads, on a north-and-south line of the Southern Railway and on two other bus routes, apart from those running on the main roads.
  The town clerks were asked to deal with patterns of development, and I think that the right hon. Member for Battersea, North will agree with me that the opportunities for development within the area of Wandsworth and Battersea have practically been exhausted, except in so far as they are represented by slum clearance, and that there is no problem of facilitating the development of undeveloped land.
  Finally, they were asked to consider the question of service centres. It is clear that within the whole Borough of Wandsworth the service centres are localised and are likely always to remain localised, whatever divisions there may be in the borough. Streatham, Tooting, Clapham, Putney and Southfields all represent natural shopping centres, whether in Battersea or in Wandsworth. The whole of the shopping of the area
  1424
  is in any case influenced by ease of access to the West End.
  If one looks at the five considerations which the town clerks were asked to take into account and applies them to this great existing borough, nothing emerges which demands that the borough shall be bisected. If we look at the reasons given by the Town Clerk of South Shields, we find that, first of all, he says that Wandsworth is folded round three sides of Battersea. This was a point made by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North, and it is certainly the case. However, that adjustment, which is long overdue, of the two salients provides the only logical answer at present, and certainly the only right answer if the Amendment were to be carried, to that criticism. It must be done.
  9.30 p.m.
  The town clerk gives as the second reason that there were seven miles of east-west distance parallel to the Thames along the borough and that communications were not good east-west. That is a criticism for which there is absolutely no validity. I have a list here of twelve bus routes running east and west, and the whole of that argument is destroyed in any case because the Town Clerk of South Shields is proposing that Wandsworth, plus Battersea, shall be seven and a half miles long with precisely the same east-west communications as he has said are inadequate.
  The town clerk then says that it is not easy to reach Wandsworth Town Hall from Clapham or Streatham. He overlooks the fact that there are direct bus services from both those areas to the town hall and that, if the proposal they made and which is adopted in the Bill is carried out, Tooting suffers from the repercussion that it cannot reach Lambeth Town Hall, although it has a direct communication at present with Wandsworth Town Hall, except by two changes of bus. Therefore, on the communications argument it seems to me that the town clerk's reasoning falls almost completely.
  I emphasise that access to the town hall in any case is far less important than access to service points used by the local authority for its services, such as rate offices, clinics, engineering depots, and so on. In the case of Wandsworth—and, I have no doubt, in the case of

  1425
  Battersea and Lambeth—these are effectively and usefully scattered round the borough.
  I speak as someone who has represented a part of Wandsworth for twenty-one years and who live in it. I emphasise and underline to the Committee that what is proposed here is the destruction of a borough—not by amalgamation, as happens in some other cases that we are considering, but by a deliberate bisection and disappearance of the whole borough. This is a unique case in the Schedule.
  Sir K. Joseph: I am puzzled by my hon. Friend's reference to Tooting, which seems to me, both as the boroughs are organised in the Schedule and in the Amendment, to be in Wandsworth.
  Sir H. LinsteadYes My right hon. Friend is perfectly right and I am wrong. His interruption has given me the opportunity of considering this, and I grant him that point straight away. It was Streatham Vale at the bottom left-hand corner of the new Borough of Lambeth to which I was directing my attention and not Tooting. I apologise to the Committee for making that error.
  Mr. Jay: Since the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) seems concerned about access to town halls, can he suggest where the town hall would be for the amalgamated Borough of Battersea and Lambeth?
  Sir H. Linstead: That would obviously be a matter for decision by the councils concerned, just as the same question will have to be decided if the boroughs of half of Wandsworth and Battersea, with two town halls, are amalgamated under the Bill. That will have to be sorted out by one council or the other.
  The destruction of a living and historic borough such as this, with 347,000 inhabitants, merely for the purpose of making a new amalgamation with two boroughs —which, in my submission, can competently and viably be joined together themselves—seems a piece of destruction which none of the logical arguments advanced by the town clerk can justify.
  I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend has been applying his mind completely objectively to this matter and that, if he has decided that the Bill must stay in its present form, he will at least do us
  1426
  the courtesy of producing the answers to the arguments we have put forward, arguments which seem to be completely conclusive, for leaving this great borough to carry on its work substantially as it is now, subject to the boundary adjustments I have mentioned.
  Mr. E. Partridge: I thought that we were going to receive some more advocacy of the Amendment. I was waiting to see how the arguments would develop because, from what I have heard, I was in doubt as to what we were really discussing; whether it was the self-glorification of the Borough of Wandsworth or whether we were discussing the London Government Bill and trying to improve local government in London.
  Nevertheless, the case seemed to rest on an attack on the Town Clerk of South Shields for coming to a conclusion contrary to what some hon. Members and a number of residents of Wandsworth would desire. One must remember, however, that this is really the third attempt at finding a proper solution to the boundary problems affecting the Boroughs of Battersea and Wandsworth. The Herbert Commission put forward a tentative suggestion on this matter. It did not say that it would necessarily be the answer but it represented its views of what the conception might be. In due time the White Paper was produced, and that represented the second circumstance.
  Neither of those commended themselves to some of the more vocal people in Wandsworth and they attempted to find a plan that would suit themselves without any regard to their neighbours. "Battersea can go some place, but we do not care where it goes", was what was said in effect. I think that my right hon. Friend and his predecessors have fully discharged the obligations placed on them because when the objections to the original proposals came up it was said, "We will have an impartial umpire, an arbitrator."
  The arbitrator was appointed. I do not think that anyone would say that he was a great friend of Battersea or a great enemy of Wandsworth, but within the terms of his reference, and having regard to the underlying purpose of his appointment—to find a boundary within which good local government would be accomplished—he reached his findings. The Government accept those findings, but

  1427
  those who appealed against the original decision now say, "We do not think it right, because he did not find in our favour."
  I find that rather unpleasant. I understand that in law if one has a bad case it is usual to abuse opposing counsel. In this case, apparently, one abuses the arbitrator, and says that he had no right to come to those conclusions—
  Sir H. Linstead: I am sure that nothing that my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Glyn) or I have said could be described as abusing the arbitrator. We are perfectly satisfied that the Town Clerk of South Shields did a good town planning job. We are criticising the reasons that he himself advanced for his conclusions, which is entirely different from criticising the man himself.
  Mr. Partridge: I do not think that lawyers abuse each other personally, but they do so in the legal sense, which is what I think my hon. Friends have done. They have said over and over again, "How on earth he could have come to that conclusion we do not know, because all the evidence was against him." I do net know what that is but abusing him—but there it is. My hon. Friends object to the conclusions he reached, to the deductions he drew and to his final findings on how local government could best be administered for the communities with which he was dealing.
  I ask hon. Members to look at the map and to see what is involved here. The boroughs of Wandsworth and Battersea are roughly bounded on the north side by the river, but Battersea is almost completely surrounded by the Borough of Wandsworth. We have Putney on the river on one side, sweeping through central Wandsworth, then Clapham, just touching Tooting, and returning. When we get less than half a mile from the river, the boundary between that borough and Lambeth run together, but between Battersea and Lambeth there is interposed Clapham and Tooting—a great big wedge between the two.
  I do not know what my hon. Friends think, but I thought that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) and I were good
  1428
  friends and I do not think that we need my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) to be interposed between us in case we should quarrel. There are two and a half miles between the southern extremity of Battersea and the southern extremity of the Borough of Lambeth, and the only common ground is less than half a mile running through the industrial part of Nine Elms. I cannot see that this would be a proper and reasonable unit of administration.
  It is not reasonable to criticise the Battersea Borough Council merely because it has not passed a resolution. It has done everything else but pass a resolution. It has throughout objected to this Amendment and to all the other Amendments put forward by Wandsworth.
  9.45 p.m.
  It is only fair to say that the council, which is Labour-controlled, is against the London Government Bill, but, nevertheless, it recognises that the will of Parliament will prevail. If it should come about that the Bill is enacted the council says quite definitely:
  "The Council have previously expressed themselves as being opposed to an amalgamation of Battersea and Lambeth, which would result in two odd-shaped new boroughs, and the Council feel that there is such a complete absence of identity of interest between Battersea and Lambeth as to make an amalgamation of these boroughs entirely opportunist and artificial."
  There is profound truth in that, because somehow it is thought that a borough can be administered when it has two distinct parts separated by two and a half miles with only one common boundary between them of less than a half-mile on the extreme north of the two boroughs. I cannot see that that is a viable borough.
  One comes back to the conclusion, therefore, and I am sorry that I have to entertain this view, that my hon. Friends have not worried about good local government. All they have worried about is that Wandsworth, of which they are justly proud, should not be touched in any way, should not be mutilated, should not be divided at the behest of the Government, and should not be divided on the judgment of a town clerk.
  I heard one of my hon. Friends say that he was not above mutilating both boroughs and slicing a little off here and there. This is only a question of degree, and what is mutilation in one case is

  1429
  mere adjustment in another. When we come to the more detailed points, I would remind my great friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, that the South Circular Road does not stop in the borough of Wandsworth: it also goes right through the Borough of Battersea, and therefore the communications are quite right and proper under the new dispensation.
  It is not that the Borough of Wandsworth stands alone and has always stood alone in all its social services and so on. As is well known to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, I have the honour of being the chairman of the Battersea and Putney group of hospitals. My wife has the honour of being chairman, I think, of Battersea and Putney Family Welfare Association. These two boroughs have marched together in so many ways before that I see no reason why they should not work properly with a division of part of Wandsworth which is so closely aligned and marches with Battersea throughout almost the whole of its perimeter.
  The Borough of Wandsworth, with the exception of less than a half-mile to which I have already referred, is contiguous with the Borough of Battersea throughout its length. I should have thought that in the interest of good government there should be a compact unit in which all the services can be administered in such a manner that no one part is miles away from the centre. To have a borough where to get from one part of it to another one has to go through two miles of another borough does not strike me as being conducive to good government. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take an objective view of this matter, as he does of other questions put before him. If he does, I hope he will find that, on balance, the advantages of the Government's proposals are such that the boundaries should be retained as they appear in the Bill.
  My right hon. Friend has referred on another occasion to the views of local institutions. I recognise the strong feelings of the local institutions, the local councils and so forth, but they constitute only one of the factors which should be taken into consideration. There are other factors, and the most important of them all is, in the long run, what is best for the great Metropolis and its government? I believe that if that question is considered
  1430
  fairly and objectively, my right hon. Friend will advise the Committee to reject the Amendment and to keep the boundaries as they are in the Bill.
  Sir K. Joseph: We are dealing with a particularly difficult part of London. In fact, I think it is the most difficult area in south London with which we have to deal in sorting out this borough grouping. We must remember, in facing this problem, that we are not legislating for just the immediate future. We are trying to establish a pattern of areas which will stand the test of whatever it may be—perhaps half a century—before there is another comprehensive review of local government in the Metropolis.
  With this in mind, the Government invited four town clerks to advise them, and asked them to bear particularly in mind the factors that are familiar to the Committee—present and past associations, lines of communication, the pattern of development and the location and potential of service centres. But these are not the only factors to be taken into account, and sometimes even when they are taken into account they do not give clear guidance. In fact, the town clerks specifically said that they had had some difficulty in analysing the various factors in this particular group of boroughs. But I know that hon. Members will not deny that these are factors that must he borne in mind when coming to a decision.
  It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) said, that this group of boroughs, Battersea, Lambeth and Wandsworth, can be looked at in isolation, but I think that the whole Committee will agree that, granted the minimum size of London boroughs which the Government have adopted—something of the order of 200,000—Battersea would be too small if left on its own. I know I do not carry the other side of the Committee with me in this, but that is the basis on which the Government are working.
  I must fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge), who has just made such a vigorous speech, that one look at the map shows that it is not really "on" to deal with the present size of Battersea by marrying it as it is with Lambeth. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) rightly described the

  1431
  geographical result of such a marriage as encompassing the eastern end of Wandsworth as in a nutcracker. But it is also true that to marry Battersea with Wandsworth would produce a London borough of a size totally out of context in the sense of other London boroughs. The resulting London borough, if Battersea and Wandsworth were married, would be, I think, sixth in the size of local authority populations in the country, coming just after Sheffield, or something like that. That would be very big, and too big for the Government to recommend the Commitee to consider.
  I must tell my hon. Friends that, so far as their Amendment proposes the merger of Battersea and Lambeth, and since that would produce a geographical abortion, it cannot, as it stands, receive the support of the Government; but, since my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) suggested that those who have proposed the Amendment are not wedded to the particular boundaries involved in it, I regard myself as free to continue examining the proposal on the footing that the Amendment does not represent the last word of those who have put it down.
  My hon. Friends have criticised the findings of the town clerk. I must come to the defence of the Town Clerk of South Shields. He had his difficulties. The conference was not quite as helpful as it might have been; to put it no higher, the Boroughs of Lambeth and Battersea were not exactly co-operative. Therefore, he was unable to ask the questions at the conference which he might have wished to ask had there been a genuine search for the best solution within the context of what the Government were trying to do.
  Having said that, I go on to claim that the town clerk was right in stressing that the radial communications from the centre of London are far stronger, when passing through this area, than the lateral communications. I do not for a moment deny that there are east-west communications. However, I am lucky enough to have a geographic section at the Ministry, and I have had prepared diagrams portraying the volume of traffic moving radially and that moving east and west. There can be no shadow of doubt that the
  1432
  main traffic routes emerge from the centre of London in three streams, the first passing through Battersea, through Clapham Junction and Wandsworth to Putney; the second through Clapham, Balham and Tooting; the third through Brixton and Streatham.
  These are not the only routes, of course. There are plenty of ways of getting east to west, but, in fact, most people seem to travel, as far as I can gather, on the radial lines.
  Sir H. Linstead: I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree that, unless the numbers of people passing through the area, that is, coming into London and going out for their daily work, are separated from the local traffic, any argument based upon considerations of that kind loses a great deal of its validity.
  Sir K. Joseph: I am not at all sure that it does. I will explain why I think that the town clerks were quite right to emphasise the importance of the location of the town hall. In the proposed grouping under the Bill, the two boroughs proposed—the south-west of Wandsworth coupled with Battersea, on the one hand; Lambeth coupled with the eastern wards of Wandsworth, on the other—each has a town hall lying on a main radial route and in or near a major shopping centre.
  I realise very well that many people do not visit their town hall in their lives. On the other hand, the town hall is the administrative centre of the community. Members of the public and officials, national, local and voluntary, tend to go to and from it. Also, we must remember that we are, over the years, trying to create in London something comparable in quality with what we have naturally in smaller cities. In a small city, there is a series of concentric rings around the historical centre. Generally, the town hall is in the centre, and round about it there is the natural, accumulated growth of rings of development. People tend to flow naturally into the centre for their entertainment, shopping and services which can be supping only on the basis of as large population.
  10.0 p.m.
  In London, with the continuous built-up mass of development, that is not practicable at the moment, but over the

  1433
  years may it not be that, if we choose our town halls and borough groupings correctly as redeveloping occurs, a London will emerge in which there is a series of towns each grouped around the town hall, and around the town hall a local centre of culture and education, perhaps, by then, with it own university, and entertainment and first-class shopping facilities. Round that may be grouped the residential, commercial and industrial areas, with the whole mass supporting that highest and most material achievement of mankind, a really sophisticated metropolitan hub.
  This is what we hope our successors will be able to build if we ourselves construct the borough groupings in the right way. That is why I do not make any apology for laying emphasis on town halls as important features in trying to identify the right borough groupings. I must maintain that the town clerks' solution makes good sense to me from the local government point of view, but I agree with my hon. Friends that it is a very serious thing to break up an existing borough, and the Government must be absolutely sure that they weigh the relevant factors correctly in coming to a balanced decision.
  There may be cases in which an existing borough has to be broken up or the main principles of the Bill—and I am glad that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is not here—might be compromised. But I cannot claim that the break-up of the Borough of Wandsworth is essential to the main principles of the Bill. It is possible to claim that it is justified on grounds of good local government and the creation of coherent and effective areas based on the lines of communication and the town halls, but I would not go much further than that. There is a strong balance of argument which we, as a Committee, have to weigh.
  I think that my hon. Friends should pay some heed to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South, who made some very effective points. But it is an invidious job to advise the Committee to go through with a division of a local authority area which is not essential to the Bill. On the other hand, I must try to arrive at a
  1434
  decision which reconciles the legitimate attitudes of Battersea and Lambeth with the need to make geographic and administrative sense of the result.
  With all the arguments in mind, particularly those set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney in a paper which he was good enough to send me, and which rehearsed much of the damage which could be done by breaking up a local authority area, I wonder whether, without giving a firm undertaking as to the result, the Committee would agree that I should go back to the councils of these three local authorities and, as a matter of some urgency, discuss with them the possibility of a compromise which would be based on an attempt to keep Wandsworth substantially as it is while linking Battersea and Lambeth.
  I cannot give my hon. Friends an assurance that I shall be successful. There are very serious arguments on both sides, and one must pay great attention to public opinion and to the importance of keeping local government areas as they are. On the other hand, one must balance our undoubted duties with the administrative possibilities and potentials of the future.
  If my hon. Friends would be satisfied with that assurance—that I will try to find a solution which reconciles the legitimate attitudes of all three boroughs—I will certainly undertake to make that inquiry urgently. I hope, however, that my hon. Friends in turn will recognise that I cannot give them a guarantee of the result. I hope, therefore, that they will see fit to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. Jay: If the Minister is doing as he suggests, will he take note that Battersea Council is wholly opposed to any form of amalgamation between Battersea and Lambeth and, further, that if the Battersea Council had any reason to suppose that the Minister would contemplate this proposal seriously it would certainly have made much more full and emphatic representations to him against it?
  Sir K. Joseph: I hope that I have made it plain that I am not ignoring the attitude of both Battersea and Lambeth and that I am rejecting out of hand the amalgamation of Battersea and Lambeth

  1435
  simply like that, without any adjustment of boundary. I have told my hon. Friends that that is out of the question.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: My right hon. Friend has been more than fair in looking into the matter and promising to go into, as he put it, the very difficult situation which has arisen. He has been very fair in balancing the factors. On the understanding that he will look at the matter again, and consult the three principal parties in an endeavour to get an agreement which is satisfactory to everybody, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Chairman: In calling the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), I should say that in selecting the next Amendment, it had been intended, as was stated on the provisional list, to call the Amendment in page 88, line 40, column 2, at end insert:
  "and so much of the metropolitan borough of Chelsea as lies within the boundaries referred to in paragraph 8 of Part II of this Schedule"
  and to discuss with it the Amendments in page 88, line 42, column 2, at end insert:
  "except so much of the metropolitan borough of Chelsea as lies within the boundaries referred to in paragraph 8 of Part II of this Schedule"
  and in page 91, line 45, at end insert:
  "8. The boundary between the London boroughs numbered 11 and 12 in the said Part I shall be such as to include in the borough numbered 11 so much of the existing metropolitan borough of Chelsea as is bounded by Stamford Bridge, Wandon Road, Stanley Bridge and the line of railway known as the West London Extension".
  I think, however, that it would be Hound more convenient were I to call the Amendment in page 88, line 42 and for the other two Amendments to be discussed with it. With the concurrence of the Committee, that is the course I propose.
  Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move, in page 88, line 42, column 2, at the end, to insert:
  "except so much of the metropolitan borough of Chelsea as lies within the boundaries referred to in paragraph 8 of Part II of this Schedule".
  We start on this little Amendment rather earlier than we had expected. The Business Committee, with zeal to be fair,
  1436
  had allowed a lot of time for what, we hoped, would be a really spirited wrangle among hon. Members opposite. We cannot help feeling that they have to some extent let us down. I am sure that the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge), who has walked out in disgust, must also feel badly let down after coming to the support of a Minister who resolutely refuses to be supported.
  This modest little Amendment concerns, literally, half a street. One of the things that the Minister might say about it is that there is no need to make the Amendment because there is provision in the Bill for alterations to be made subsequently. It seems to me that except in the case of disputes between his hon. Friends, the Minister's technique for turning down Amendments will be as follows. If they are large Amendments, he will say that they cannot be accepted because they disturb the general pattern. If they are small Amendments, he will say that they are not necessary because they can be dealt with under the alterations Clause.
  In case that is what the Minister says about my modest little Amendment, I draw his attention to two things. First, as is well known, the boroughs are already engaged on the process of considering what they will be like under the new setup and are arranging themselves into wards. It is desirable, therefore, if there are to be alterations, that they should be known as soon as possible. If the half street with which the Amendment is concerned is to be put into Fulham, it would be for everybody's convenience for it to be known now that that would be done. The Boroughs of Chelsea and Fulham could then proceed to the job of dividing themselves into wards in that knowledge, instead of dividing into wards on the basis of the boundaries now laid down in the Bill and perhaps an alteration being made laid later. If, therefore, there is a case for alteration on the merits, there is a case for its being made now, in the Bill. I will come to the merits in a moment.
  The other reason why I think it right to raise now even so small an Amendment as this is as follows. The Borough of Fulham is very keen on this matter and has written to me at length about it, and I am myself greatly in sympathy with it. Suppose nothing were said about it now, but then, after the Bill is passed,

  1437
  almost immediately after the Bill is law, Fulham were to come forward with proposals for an alteration. It might then be told, "Really, this is tiresome of you, to start asking for alterations the moment the Bill has been passed. Why could you not have raised the matter when the Bill was still on? The alteration could have been made then".
  At the very least, therefore, by raising this matter now I am saving Fulham from having that reproach hurled at it in the future, and if the Minister does refuse the Amendment on the ground that this matter can be dealt with under the alterations procedure after the Bill is passed, I hope that it will be clearly understood that Fulham, being keen on this matter from the start, did not lose any opportunity of putting the case for it forward.
  After those preliminaries I want to state what the case in fact is. If one looks at a map of the Borough of Fulham, a map of the sort of size of the maps Members of Parliament usually have of their constituencies, one sees that the boundary between Chelsea and Fulham proceeds for some considerable distance in a fairly straight line. It follows, as a matter of fact, the line of an old creek which subsequently became a canal; but then at one point there is a curious kink which comes down in a little rectangle, which Chelsea thrusts westwards into Fulham. The effect of it is to cause one half of a street, the eastern side of a street called Wandon Road, to be in the Borough of Chelsea and not in the Borough of Fulham.
  That is the situation now. That is the situation which this Bill perpetuates, whereas what we in Fulham think is that this opportunity should be taken in this Bill to straighten out the kink to make the boundary line where be believe it historically and originally ran.
  Let me say just a word about the history of it, though I do not base the case wholly or even mainly on that. I believe that the history of the matter is as follows. Before the districts of Fulham and Chelsea were metropolitan boroughs, well back in the last century, when they were vestries, or were known for some purposes as districts, the boundary was the old creek which subsequently, I think
  1438
  in the year 1827, was widened into a canal.
  If one refers, for example, to a book called "Fulham, Old and New" by Feret, who, presumably, was a Frenchman—if that does not prejudice my case in the eyes of the Government, to quote a French source at this juncture—one finds that Feret, describing Fulham, refers to a street known as Bull Lane, which, he said, later on became Harriet Street; and finally, in 1888, its name was changed to Wandon Road. He refers to it in terms which imply that he clearly regarded it as part of Fulham rather than Chelsea. A map in the third volume of his book, a map dated 1892, appears to show—it is not a very clear map—the boundary line in a manner which clearly puts Wandon Road in Fulham. I think it is established then that historically the boundary was where one would naturally expect it to have been—following the creek and the canal and putting the whole of Wandon Road, in Fulham.
  10.15 p.m.
  Why did the change come about? It was, I think, because in 1845 a railway was built and subsequently a station. Not unnaturally, the station was called Chelsea Station. At some date subsequent to that it appeared convenient to somebody or other to ensure that Chelsea Station should be in the district or vestry of Chelsea. Somewhere towards the end of the nineteenth century, this little piece came to be regarded as part of Chelsea rather than Fulham. Consequently, when the metropolitan boroughs were created, the boundary was drawn so as to give us this curious kink, putting the east side of Wandon Road into the Metropolitan Borough of Chelsea.
  The interesting thing about it is that it appears to have been a railway and a railway station which caused this shift into Chelsea. But the station has for long been disused—so long that we cannot even blame the present Government for it. It cannot be regarded now as having any influence on the boundaries.
  Now I turn from history to the present-day practical reasons for my proposal. The result of this development is that we have the western side of Wandon Road quite clearly in the Borough of Fulham and similar in character to a number of medium-sized parallel streets. No one would question that the western

  1439
  side should be in Fulham. The eastern side is now occupied by blocks of flats which administratively are in the Borough of Chelsea, but in practice they are really separated from the rest of Chelsea, the only links being two narrow roads on bridges crossing the railway.
  The railway which was the original justification for putting this little piece into Chelsea is now a very solid argument for putting it back into Fulham, for the eastern side of Wandon Road is separated from the rest of Chelsea by it. Over that railway are only two narrow roads on bridges which form bottlenecks.
  It is clear, therefore, that if we think in terms of a natural boundary or of administrative convenience it will be sense to put the whole of Wandon Road into the Borough of Fulham. I believe I am right in saying that the Metropolitan Borough of Chelsea has no objection to this proposal. I cannot say that I have received any positive assurance from it that it approves the proposal, but the Amendment has been down for some time and I know the Town Clerk of Chelsea has been aware of it. No representations have reached me or, as far as I know, anyone else, raising any objection to the transfer.
  Here, therefore, is an entirely reasonable case. I feel that in the new concessionary mood into which the Minister seems at last to have been got he should round off the day by agreeing to accept this modest but useful Amendment.
  Mr. Corfield: The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said with great accuracy that the Amendment was modest and useful. He has the disarming habit of forecasting with complete accuracy what I am going to say. I would, before I let the bombshell drop, refer the hon. Gentleman to Clause 6, which I know he is expecting. I am sure he will appreciate that this is a very small Amendment. I assure him that I studied this on the map. Indeed, there was some delay in getting one of sufficient scale to identify it. I would not deny the merits of the case as the hon. Gentleman has put them. Nevertheless we have, throughout this approach to creating this pattern of boroughs, tried to stick to the original boundaries where that is possible, with this special procedure of Clause 6 following closely the
  1440
  Local Government Act procedures which were not applicable to London for these minor adjustments later on.
  I think it is right that we should stick to that arrangement rather than start a precedent of making small adjustments which, although I accept the merits of the case here, will mean that there will be many similar adjustments which will be called for where the issue is not so plain. In any case, we have pledged ourselves to the Clause 6 procedure with its inquiry, where that is necessary, and I think that it would be right to stick to it.
  With regard to the purely administrative arguments which the hon. Gentleman put forward, having looked at the map, I cannot believe that this is really going to affect the warding to any substantial extent. The hon. Gentleman has said that he is anxious that it should be clear that Fulham has been keen on this from the start. He has made that clear, and it is on the record. He has said that he has no knowledge of opposition from Chelsea, and I should not have thought that with the representation in terms of numbers of electors that we are likely to get, this street, judging from the map, will make any real difference to the warding that will be proposed. The hon. Gentleman mentioned flats. If they are tall flats—and the map does not show that—they could have a larger population than one might have thought, but I seriously believe that this is the right approach, to leave it under Clause 6, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that. As I say, we certainly do not think it unreasonable. As the hon. Gentleman says, the railway was the original cause, and is now no longer a valid one, but I cannot, on behalf of the Government, accept the Amendment.
  Mr. M. Stewart: I received the answer I expected, but I notice that the procedure under Clause 6 will subsequently be open to us, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move,
  That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  We have got through Amendments today ahead of programme. The next group to come before the Committee is complicated, and, naturally, important.

  1441
  They are to be moved by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and time is allowed by the Business Committee for the Amendments to be covered.
  In the light of these arrangements, hon. Gentlemen opposite have asked me to
  1442
  move this Motion, and in view of the progress that we have made I ask leave to do so.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

COTTON TEXTILE INDUSTRY
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill.]
10.24 p.m.
Mr. Charles Mapp: I am asking the House to turn from an important discussion of a particular street in a particular London borough to a wider issue dealing with a large region of our country. I want to remind the House that a cold war surrounds the cotton textile industry in the North-West, following the import blizzard which, for the last two or three years, has broken the confidence and undermined the strength of that industry.
The Government hold the economic reins, and the cruel sacrifice of this old and well-established industry has been continued to enable the more sophisticated part of our industrial structure to take roots in the export markets, but backed all the time by a powerful tariff shield over the home market—central heating, as it were, for the expanding industries, but exposure for those born during the Industrial Revolution. Let it be said at once that Lancashire has expressed its willingness to bear a fair share of the development of backward countries, but to accept the recent import torrents has been suicidal for the industry.
My purpose in raising the matter is not so much to complain of the blizzard—Lancashire has already expressed itself on that issue—but to face the present bitter spell of Government cynicism, to assess the present position frankly, and point to the very doubtful premise of the Government that re-equipment will of itself bring about the improvements required. It is my contention that re-equipment will not give to the industry as a whole the ultimate efficiency that is necessary, though here and there the more efficient units will gain. It is, therefore, for the President of the Board of Trade to recognise the facts and take effective steps to head the industry from economic and organisational weakness and transform it into one that will be modern in outlook, in structure, in technique, and in marketing, and fully able to compete with fair-wage countries.
1444
The industry has made an overwhelming case about excessive imports over recent years. They are still running at nearly 40 per cent. of home production, although the U.S.A. considers that 6½ per cent. is adequate for their economy. But at least even at 40 per cent. we have quotas and ceilings, based roughly on 1961, that should hold until 1965. Those ceilings are far too high, but at last a tourniquet has been applied, and the real issue is whether re-equipment and internal initiative will revitalise the industry and represent some return for the subsidy and, more important, whether it will be a viable and healthy element, in future, in our industrial structure.
The most charitable interpretation of the statements of Ministers would be one of "hope", but the industry's leaders are very doubtful, the financial backers are seeking diversification, other consumer industries are very pleased that they have not been so far chosen for similar treatment, and, not least, the workpeople have reached the end of the road. There is heavy unemployment and unrecorded under-employment, as well as part-time working, in many parts of the county. In some areas where diversification has been taking place, cotton vacancies are difficult to fill; young people are turning away and older people are looking for escape routes. But diversification is not a justification for letting an industry of this character perish. The Government have a very bad record with the industry. Their 1959 Cotton Act was "panic stations" purely for political reasons—the Government acted like a dishonest broker when, in fact, trade reorganisation should have been the price of subsidy. Reform and assistance should have gone hand in hand.
There are some hard facts to record. Comparing 1959 with 1962, in cotton textile employment there has been a decrease of 21 per cent.; 44,000 jobs have gone. In cloth production the decrease has been 33 per cent., while in cloth imports there has been an increase of 4 per cent. In cloth exports there has been a decrease of 38 per cent. In piece goods exports, 1959 with 1961, there is a decrease of 17 per cent. In made-up goods imports there is an increase of 97 per cent.
When I look at the world production of cotton, not man-made fibres, I find that of the 33 major countries with textile

1445
industries, for 1959–61, 26 record increases in production. We, of course, are among the five with decreases, and the worst of the five at that. Regarding world exports, of the 30 major countries there are 21 with increases. But we are in the lower half, the "Fourth Division". We are in the last two in the 17 per cent. figure. We cannot be proud of these figures.
During the last two or three years, £11·8 million have been given to the industry for closure and scrapping. But I notice that the Board of Trade has been unable to prevent the opportunist from getting back after having been compensated. Claims for re-equipment have reached £29 million and £4 million have been paid so far in grants for re-equipment. The total projected re-equipment is estimated at £116 million, with a deadline in July next. In other words, in seven months the industry has had £29 million. There remains but five months for the other £87 million to be proved worth while.
Can the Board of Trade now confidently predict that the rate of investment over the next five months will be four or five times the rate to reach the anticipations and hopes of July last? Board rooms are in very grave doubt about the future. Even the few efficient units have been unable to stand against the political blizzard which has been directed against the industry.
Let me call in aid opinions from various sources to confirm that confidence is very low, and that something more basic must be done. In the debate last June, the Minister said:
"What we need today is a new strategy for the industry which will enable it, because of a reformed structure, either to discover what the consumer wants and then set about engineering its production in the most efficient way possible or to make the goods it can make most efficiently and then set about promoting their sale to the public. Those two methods are largely impossible for a horizontally organised industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1962; Vol. 661, c. 1481.]
On 3rd February the Observer, which is not Lancashire-based, stated in a financial article:
"This underlines the case the critics always make against the industry. Because it is organised on a 'horizontal' basis, i.e., spinning, doubling, weaving, finishing"
and so on—
"instead of vertically."
1446
In a few words addressed to the investor the Observer says:
"…investors can afford to sit on their shares and wait a bit. But these are definitely not for widows and orphans."
But there are widows and orphans in Lancashire. There are men and women, wives and families.
I come now to the Guardian. On 31st July, it stated:
"The industry as a whole will only be able to take the fullest advantage of its opportunities if there is a much closer co-operation between engaged concerns in different processes, either through permanent financial mergers on vertical lines or through looser and perhaps temporary asociations for particular purposes of limited scope. Not only machinery and deployment of workers in the mills but also the organisation and control of production and marketing needs continual appraisal and overhauling."
On 12th February, the Guardian, after the Common Market fiasco, repeated the remarks of the President of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce that
"reorganisation was needed, and Mr. Gell suggested that many firms were deterred from merging by the inadequacy of their marketing arrangements and the magnitude of the re-equipment costs which they would have to meet if they decided to go ahead."
Last, but not least, may I quote the Parliamentary Secretary himself? In November, in a Question, I pleaded not for some drastic, backward-looking legislation but that we should have a working party and that the Cotton Board should have a reappraisal of the future. His Answer was:
"No. The basic facts are known and the necessary decisions must be taken by individual firms in the industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November, 1962; Vol. 666, c. 43.]
It is this last policy statement which I challenge. It means that the Government wash their hands completely of the industry, that it is expendable and that possibly £30 million was a good price to pay for political expediency in 1959. The silly season is about to break out again, and the Government will be looking round for political gimmicks. But Lancashire folk have had enough of political gimmicks. They are hard-headed. They know that a large measure of reorganisation is necessary. They know that the industry, for many reasons, is unable to prescribe its own surgical treatment. It is for the Government to act.
The Chancellor, speaking in Oldham quite recently—how significant of coming

1447
events and what a wasted journey—analysed some of the problems fairly well, but failed to offer any solution, though he, of all people, knows what is wanted. I am not over-concerned about his friends in financial circles in the textile world who seem to have done fairly well in their distress. Last year they averaged 15 per cent. as dividends and the year before it was 18 per cent. Credit balances last year were £9½ million and the year before £7½ million.
What I am concerned about is the people in the industry. They are being exposed to insecurity and unemployment. It is the Government's duty to inject life into an industry which for the time being is meeting adverse weather not of its own making. Re-equipment is a shot in the arm but a shot in the arm only for those few efficient units in the industry who will use it to the maximum advantage in productivity. The industry requires a discipline which it is unable to evoke. It has lost all influence, apparently, with the Government.
Finally, it seems to me that the Government's attitude is that if the industry cannot catch the rope of re-equipment it will sink. Of course, there is a sinking feeling with the Government which I can well understand, but Lancashire does not propose to sink in that sense. What is wanted is a balanced reappraisal from the industry. The Cotton Board should be asked, and the Government should demand, a projection of the industry's efforts during the next five years. It would be a grim story, but the facts and obvious remedies would stand out. The structure must move quickly towards verticalisation, modern marketing methods, more orderly flow of materials and product and a dynamic sales policy. The present marketing methods are sheer chaos.
In the debate on Monday we reviewed the end of Britain's efforts to join the Common Market. Lancashire might have had something fortuitously to gain from the Common Market. This has been lost. May I quote from the Prime Minister who, on Monday, admitted the sacrifices of the textile industry? He said:
"In the case of those manufactured goods which are of special importance to India, Pakistan and Hong Kong, we had hoped, by the negotiation of comprehensive trade
1448
agreements, to inaugurate in Europe as a whole a move towards those advantages which we in Britain have given to these Commonwealth countries, often at very great sacrifice to ourselves."
He meant not "to ourselves" but "to Lancashire and the people who live there". The Prime Minister concluded by saying this:
"Finally"—
this is a hopeful word, the kind of thing that the Board of Trade can put into practice—
"we will accept and encourage changes in the technique and structure of industry while paying particular attention to areas of temporary unemployment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1963; Vol. 671, c. 944 and 953.]
There has been ample notice of this temporary phase. It is a cold war phase in Lancashire. The Government will be knocking at political doors until this problem is faced. It is for the Government to face the long-term problem. If they rely on re-equipment, they will rely on hope. That is no yardstick for either a businessman or a Government who mean anything at all.
10.40 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): I am sure that the House will be most grateful to the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) for having raised this important subject of the reorganisation of the cotton textile industry and for his vigorous, if at times somewhat political and partisan approach.
The House has on a number of occasions discussed the problems posed for the industry by the import of cotton goods from low-cost countries. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has taken a number of measures to bring a greater measure of stability into the import position than has hitherto been the case. Now it is right that we should follow the hon. Member in looking at the future of the industry, with the equally important problem of the industry's competitive strength, especially in comparison with countries whose standards of living are comparable to our own and which, therefore, should have no cost advantage over our own industry.
As the House will know, the reorganisation schemes for the spinning, doubling and weaving sections of the industry have been completed. The schemes for the

1449
finishing sections came into force a year later, but claims for compensation will probably have been settled within the next financial year 1963–64. The total cost to the Treasury of the Government's share of the compensation payments, which the House will recall is two-thirds of the total compensation payable, will be about £11·8 million when all the schemes have been completed. So far, £10·8 million have been paid out.
In the spinning, doubling and weaving sections, about half the spindles and two-fifths of the looms have been scrapped, and about one-quarter of the capacity in the finishing sections. This elimination of excess capacity was of considerable value to the industry in itself. In addition. it has laid the basis for the second stage of the Government's assistance to the industry, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, namely, the payment of grant for the encouragement of re-equipment and modernisation. The Government's contribution is one-quarter of eligible expenditure incurred by firms in purchasing and installing new equipment or in modernising their existing machinery.
To ensure that re-equipment was carried out without too much delay, the 1959 Act laid down that applications for approval in principle of the proposed schemes must have been submitted to the Cotton Board, which acts as the Board of Trade's agent on this part of the Act, by 8th July, 1962, and that all the work must have been completed by 8th July 1964. A further requirement has been added that orders for new machinery must have been placed by 8th July, 1963.
In response to what was emphasised in the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I wish to make it quite clear to the industry that no hope can be held out that these time limits can be extended. Therefore, it is in everyone's interest to get on with the jab of re-equipping as quickly as possible.
As the hon. Gentleman will know from my right hon. Friend's reply to him on 5th February, the Government have so far paid over £4 million in re-equipment grants. He will also know that, since claims for payment are not made until the expenditure has actually been incurred, the final total commitment cannot be known until after 8th July next year. It is impossible to assess how far the industry will proceed with
1450
the large volume of re-equipment schemes shown in the provisional applications submitted by 8th July last and involving total expenditure of £116 million by the industry and the Government together. Applicants are under no obligation to put their schemes into effect, but I should like to take this opportunity to urge all those in the industry still considering whether to reequip themselves that they have now little time left, if their expenditure is to qualify for grant. The decision is essentially one for the individual firms to take for themselves.
It would be unfair not to recognise that the industry's confidence, and thus its willingness to re-equip, has been impaired by the substantial volume of imports, especially from under-developed countries, which Britain has been absorbing in recent years. However, in 1962 imports both of cloth and yarn, were well below the 1961 figure. Moreover, steps have now been taken by the Government to introduce a far greater measure of stability into the import situation than has previously been available. Imports from virtually all low-cost sources of cotton textiles are now subject to some form of limitation or restraint.
Imports from China and the Iron Curtain countries of Europe are subject to quota restrictions at minimal levels, and the same applies to Formosa. Under the recently concluded Commercial Treaty, the Japanese Government recognised that there could be little scope for expanding their sales of cotton textiles to Britain. Imports from Spain are limited by agreement with the Cotton Board, and negotiations are now proceeding with other important suppliers at the governmental level.
As regards the Commonwealth, India and Hong Kong have undertaken to maintain the existing ceilings on their exports of cotton cloth and made-up goods to Britain until the end of 1965, and they have introduced a new restriction on cotton yarn over the same period at the 1961 rate. Pakistan has not been able to accept these limitations on a voluntary basis, but the Government have made it clear that they will take necessary action to ensure that exports to Britain do not exceed what in her case would be the corresponding levels. These levels are, admittedly, higher than

1451
Lancashire would like, but the Government cannot overlook their obligations to the under-developed members of the Commonwealth and their special responsibility for the Colony of Hong Kong. This is why it has not been possible to take action that would involve cutting back the previous level of trade or previous agreements.
The Government have made it clear that they will take necessary action under the Geneva Cotton Textile Arrangement to deal with any new threats of disruption that may develop, and countries with no traditional trade in cotton textiles have been warned that they must not count on being able to build up a new market in Britain. At the same time, it would be unwise for the Lancashire industry to ignore that fact that over recent years substantial imports have come, in spite of tariff protection, from the countries of Western Europe and North America, whose standards of living are comparable with our own. We are importing far more cotton textiles from these countries than we are exporting to them, and this is an urgent problem which the industry must tackle by strengthening its competitive efficiency, modernising its structure and above all, by improving its marketing—
Mr. Mapp Mr. Mapp rose—
Mr. Price: I am sorry, but I have little time at my disposal, and I want to deal with as many aspects of the problem as I can.
Turning to the wider question of the industry's structure, to which the hon. Member devoted the later part of his speech, the shortcomings of its essentially horizontal structure, with the various production processes—spinning, doubling, weaving and finishing—separate from each other and, what is perhaps more important, separate also from the distribution and marketing channels—have been under discussion for a long time. There now appears to be an increasing consensus of informed views that, whatever the advantages of this system in the past, it is no longer suited to modern trading conditions, and major structural changes must take place.
The case for a more vertical structure, in which production is planned as a fully integrated operation with the end product
1452
in mind, is being increasingly and plausibly advanced. It is also argued that such a development would reduce the severe fluctuations which the industry suffers in the stock and ordering cycle—far greater than any changes in final demand from the consumer—as well as reducing the stimulus to imports which the existing arrangements are said to provide. It is difficult to disagree with this view.
This takes one on to the crucial question of how these structural changes can be effected. It is easy enough for the academic economist to say that we need greater verticalisation, but the practical problems of effecting these theoretically desirable mergers are rather more complex and rather more human. Even if the Government had powers to bring about mergers, how could we decide who to merge with whom? Many technical, financial, commercial and human factors come into account which it would be neither right nor efficient for the Government to assess. Like the hon. Member. I recognise the need for industrial marriages in the cotton industry, but they should not be "shotgun" marriages, with the Government's finger on the trigger. Furthermore, I have reason to suppose that with the coming of spring, proposals are in the air in Lancashire.
I recognise that there may be a need for a "marriage broker", and the hon, Member has suggested that this rôle should fall to the Cotton Board. The Cotton Board, at its regular conferences and by other means, is stimulating the industry to think along these lines. A particularly successful instance was the study conference that it arranged at Oxford last year on the industry's structural problems and ways of tackling them. More recently —and I hope that this will please the hon. Member—it has gone one stage further by letting it be known that it would be prepared to compile a register of firms indicating their interest in vertical mergers.
The aim is to put suitable firms in touch with one another, if both parties consent. This would, of course, facilitate initial approaches, but beyond that, the detailed implications can only be pursued directly by the parties concerned, if they consider that it is in their interests to do so. I personally hope that firms will make use of these facilities.

1453
In fairness, it must be recognised that some people in the industry will not accept the view that verticalisation is the answer to its problems. Certainly, there are no ready-made solutions. But I would join the hon. Member in asking the industry to consider most earnestly how far its structure is appropriate to modern conditions, however great a contribution it may have made to past glories. There is perhaps less need now for the industry to dwell on its import
1454
problems, but there is every need for it to address itself to the improvement of its competitive strength by measures which lie within its own control.
I am reminded of a notice which I once saw in an American factory, "Hats off to the past. Coats off to the future."
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.

BRITISH ARMY
  Pensions (Widows)
  Pensions (Widows)
  B.A.O.R. (Signals Equipment)
  B.A.O.R. (Signals Equipment)
SCOTLAND
  Borstal Institution, "Noranside"
  Borstal Institution, "Noranside"
  Trawler Owners (Consultations)
  Trawler Owners (Consultations)
  Derelict Sites (Clearance)
  Derelict Sites (Clearance)
  Hill Cow Subsidy
  Hill Cow Subsidy
  Industrial Expansion, North-East
  Industrial Expansion, North-East
  Local Authority Houses (Subsidies)
  Local Authority Houses (Subsidies)
  Technical Colleges
  Technical Colleges
  Rates
  Rates
  Central Redevelopment Schemes
  Central Redevelopment Schemes
  Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889
  Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889
  Unfit Houses
  Unfit Houses
  SELECT COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE (NOTICES OF MOTIONS)
  SELECT COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE (NOTICES OF MOTIONS)
SHIPBUILDING
  Prototype Nuclear Ship
  Prototype Nuclear Ship
  Government Orders
  Government Orders
RAILWAYS
  Electrified Railway System, Tyneside
  Electrified Railway System, Tyneside
ROADS
  Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Roads (Frost Damage)
  Roads (Frost Damage)
  Humber Bridge
  Humber Bridge
  Thorne By-Pass
  Thorne By-Pass
  Severn Bridge (Ancillary Wire Ropes)
  Severn Bridge (Ancillary Wire Ropes)
  Great West Road (Crossing)
  Great West Road (Crossing)
  Roads, Wales and Monmouthshire (Snow Clearance and Gritting)
  Roads, Wales and Monmouthshire (Snow Clearance and Gritting)
  South-East Lancashire and North-East Cheshire Conurbation Committee
  South-East Lancashire and North-East Cheshire Conurbation Committee
  Hull
  Hull
SHIPPING
  Rochdale Report
  Rochdale Report
TRANSPORT
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
  Paid Appointments
  Paid Appointments
EMPLOYMENT
  Sheerness
  Sheerness
  South Yorkshire
  South Yorkshire
  Productive Work
  Productive Work
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Paid Appointments
  Paid Appointments
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
  Gateshead
  Gateshead
  CONGO
  CONGO
  HERTFORD HOSPITAL, PARIS
  HERTFORD HOSPITAL, PARIS
  ALGERIAN REFUGEES (RELIEF)
  ALGERIAN REFUGEES (RELIEF)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Sandhills, Saltfleet
  Sandhills, Saltfleet
  Fowl Pest, Kent
  Fowl Pest, Kent
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  V-Bomber Force
  V-Bomber Force
ROYAL NAVY
  Naval Mission, Libya
  Naval Mission, Libya
  Messrs. Bailey (Malta) Limited
  Messrs. Bailey (Malta) Limited
  Polaris Submarines (Depot Ship)
  Polaris Submarines (Depot Ship)
  Married Quarters (Steward Mason)
  Married Quarters (Steward Mason)
  Departmental Employees (Day Release Classes)
  Departmental Employees (Day Release Classes)
MALTA
  Messrs. Bailey (Malta) Limited
  Messrs. Bailey (Malta) Limited
  Dockyards (Employees)
  Dockyards (Employees)
SWAZILAND
  Constitutional Conference
  Constitutional Conference
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  Paid Appointments
  Paid Appointments
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Paid Appointments
  Paid Appointments
NYASALAND
  Intimidation (Prosecutions)
  Intimidation (Prosecutions)
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  Paid Appointments
  Paid Appointments
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Paid Appointments
  Paid Appointments
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Paid Appointments
  Paid Appointments
  Civil Defence (Training Grounds)
  Civil Defence (Training Grounds)
HOUSING
  Improvement Grants, Gateshead
  Improvement Grants, Gateshead
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Paid Appointments
  Paid Appointments
POST OFFICE
  Paid Appointments
  Paid Appointments
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Paid Appointments
  Paid Appointments
TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION
  Paid Appointments
  Paid Appointments
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Paid Appointments
  Paid Appointments

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

LORD CHELMER
Sir Eric Cyril Boyd Edwards, Knight, M.C., T.D., Honorary Lieutenant-Colonel in the Army, having been created Baron Chelmer, of Margaretting in the County of Essex, for life—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

PREVENTIVE DETENTION
2.45 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: 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, pending their consideration of the recommendation by the Home Office Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders that preventive detention should be abolished, they will take such steps as are open to them to ensure that convicted persons are dealt with in ways other than by sentences of preventive detention.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have not yet reached a decision on the recommendation of the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders that preventive detention should be abolished. Legislation would, in any event, be required to implement both this recommendation and the Council's accompanying recommendation that the powers of the courts to deal with persistent offenders by long sentences of ordinary imprisonment should be strengthened. In the meantime, my right honourable friend has no authority to restrict the powers of the courts under Section 21 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, to impose sentences of preventive detention, and it would not be proper for him to seek to intervene
980
in the exercise of their discretion in this matter.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, while acknowledging the difficulty referred to by the noble Earl in the last part of his Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that, despite the practical direction issued by the Lord Chief Justice a year ago that too much use is being made of the power to impose preventive detention and that it should be given only as a last resort, nevertheless there has been little diminution in such sentences, and that they recently included one where a man was given eight years' imprisonment for the theft of an empty sack worth 2s.? Would he not agree, therefore, that it is highly desirable that the most speedy action and decision should be taken in this matter in order that the very reasonable recommendations of the Council should be implemented?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, first of all I should like to remind the noble Lord that the Government have already decided to give effect to the most important of the Council's interim recommendations—namely, that in future all preventive detainees shall, subject to good conduct, be eligible for release after serving two-thirds of their sentence That has already been decided. But I think that so far as the main recommendations of the Council are concerned, my right honourable friend will inevitably and rightly wish to give them the full and careful consideration which they require, and will also wish to take into account the views on them which may be expressed inside or outside Parliament. Having said that, I would grant that this is not a matter on which a decision should be delayed unduly.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I gratefully acknowledge the interim decision of the Government, and that decision is acknowledged more than gratefully by the men principally concerned. But will the noble Earl bear in mind that only 5 out of 215 men sentenced to preventive detention in 1961 had committed crimes against the person, that for all other crimes, as the Lord Chief Justice points out, there exist suitable ordinary terms of imprisonment, and that the reconviction rate in P.D. is no greater than that for ordinary sentences? These considerations, I should have thought,

981
must bear weight in ensuring that we do not uselessly fill our prisons with men who have committed only minor crimes.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think my right honourable friend will wish to bear those considerations in mind in the general context of the study which he is giving to this matter, but there are, of course, a number of other considerations that are fully covered in the Council's Report which he will also wish to bear in mind.

TALL BUILDINGS IN LONDON
2.49 p.m.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order
Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would consider setting up an authoritative committee of informed but unofficial people to look at London and suggest where no buildings beyond a certain height should be erected, and also to suggest areas where buildings of unlimited height could be constructed.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Jellicoe informed the noble Lord, in reply to a similar Question on April 3, 1962, my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government does not think that the establishment of a committee of this nature would serve a useful purpose. Expert advice is already available from the Royal Fine Art Commission. But the ultimate responsibility for decisions on planning applications must remain a matter for the local planning authority or, in the last resort, the Minister.
As has also been stated in the past, my right honourable friend considers that applications relating to high buildings must be considered on their individual merits, and that it is not practicable either to define areas where height limitations should be imposed, or where buildings of unlimited height could be constructed. As the London County Council have now adopted revised criteria in considering
982
applications for planning permission for high buildings, my right honourable friend considers it reasonable to allow experience to be gained in the working of the new standards.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that this principle which is enunciated in my Question has been adopted with great success in many towns in America and in a great many capitals here in Europe? Are we beyond the position of taking advice from people who have suffered already and who have gained by what they have done?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, we are not beyond taking advice, and we are certainly in touch with developments on the Continent and in the United States of America.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, could the noble Lord say, in answer to this Question, how he decided who were meant by "informed but unofficial people", and will he make it quite clear that there is no suggestion that official people are uninformed?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his last remark and I thoroughly endorse that. I understand Lord Bossom's Question to mean people who are not connected directly with Government.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while recognising that official people have, as a rule, very definite ideas before they sit on such a committee, the gentlemen I should like him to consider are, for example, one man from the Royal Academy of Arts, one man from the Royal Institute of British Architects, one from the Royal Society of Arts—a group like that, with no affiliation and with open minds. I believe I am right in saying that all the items, about which the noble Lord spoke just now are individual buildings and not areas, which is what I am dealing with in this Question.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I think the noble Lord's point really refers to a wider Question put by him two or three weeks ago. It is not confined only to high buildings, and the question of appointing an unofficial committee. It is very difficult to answer that point briefly, in question and answer, and it

983
might even be suitable if the noble Lord wished to put it down as an Unstarred Question. I feel that I could produce some quite weighty arguments as to why such a committee would lead to solutions even less satisfactory to the noble Lord than the present system.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while again thanking my noble friend for that invitation, of which I will certainly take advantage, is he aware that the Royal Fine Art Commission have been overruled? Although they have criticised other decisions in the past, they have been overruled by other authorities.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I am aware of that, but I am not sure that my noble friend is aware of the number of occasions when my right honourable friend has reached decisions on appeal which are completely satisfactory to the noble Lord.

THE COMMON MARKET NEGOTIATIONS
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: 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 when they intend to publish in a White Paper details of the agreements reached at Brussels before the breakdown of the negotiations with the European Economic Community.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, if the noble Earl is interested in publication of the provisional agreements entered into in Brussels, their substance has already been made public in Parliamentary statements and in White Papers which are available to Parliament. I shall be happy to let the noble Earl have a full set of the published statements and White Papers dealing with these matters on which provisional agreement was reached. If he wishes a history, as is customary after negotiations of this nature, I can tell him that preparations are being made for such a work, but I cannot yet name a date by which such a work could be published.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I expect the noble Earl will understand that we know all about the odd statements made from time to time and about the short White Paper which was published, but they do not contain what I ask for in my Question—that is, details of the provisional agreements—so that we may deduce from them their actual effect upon the different Departments which deal with the subjects that were under discussion. I refer to British agriculture and the actual details concerning a variety of countries in the Commonwealth, and the like. The details are not in the papers published. We ought to have them.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, of course I want to help the noble Earl and the House to have such information as I can collect and the fullest information possible, but obviously such a document as he indicates is very complicated. I hope it will not be very long delayed and will be available to facilitate any discussions the noble Earl might wish. I cannot yet name a date on which we can do it, but I will keep in touch with the noble Earl.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is of the opinion we now have in these various statements the same full information which, according to The Times on Monday, has been circulated by the Belgian Government to the Belgian Parliament?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think the Belgian Government made their own assessment as to the point which the negotiations reached before there was a breakdown in Brussels. This again is something that we want to do, but we want to make certain that when a document is published it is entirely accurate and contains all the information which Parliament could wish. That will take, I am afraid, a little time. I should like to consult with my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal again to see how soon we may get such a document out. I cannot now promise a date.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I must say that as I go about I find great dissatisfaction in the country because people are so little

985
informed as to the full details of agreements arrived at or what led the Government to issue a statement that they were so near success all round, without any confirmation of that whatsoever in the publications which have been made. We must have the details, and the details which have yet to be assessed. If the Belgian Government can so quickly assess from their point of view all that has been done, why not this Government?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, as I go about the country, as I do like the noble Earl, I would say the country was fed up with post-mortems and wanted to get on with the next stage. Nevertheless, I am with him in wanting to produce the information. All I want to do is to produce all the information accurately and give it to him in a form Parliament would like.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, if the Government really mean by that last answer that they regard the whole negotiation as dead—I am not asking for a post-mortem at the moment; I am asking for information—and any further publication is a post-mortem, I will accept it.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, when the promised statement arrives, will it contain also those items on which there was no provisional or any kind of agreement.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, what we are aiming to produce is a history, a full story of the negotiations. Nothing that is relevant to the negotiations will be omitted. How far we shall go into what might have taken place if certain circumstances had been different, I cannot say, but I want to produce for noble Lords opposite and for the House a full story of the negotiations.
LORD REA: My Lords, will the Foreign Secretary say whether that means consulting other countries concerned in these negotiations, or will it be a factual statement of the British point of view?
THE EARL OF HOME: It will be a factual statement, and I hope we shall check with other countries that the statements it contains are accurate, if that is necessary.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords may I ask the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary whether this would be practicable and feasible, with a view to Members of Parliament obtaining the widest possible picture of this problem? Should certain bodies in France, for instance, the Centre Francais d'Informations Civiques and others, succeed in obtaining from the French Government the same thing—that is, a White Paper giving the French point of view—would it be possible to have it available in this country, and would it be possible to obtain copies of the Report requested by the European Parliament which the Hallstein Commission were to produce?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think it would be quite a new practice in Parliament if we were to produce White Papers giving the point of view of Foreign Governments.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I shall ask my noble friends to consider the detailed answers. I am obliged to the Foreign Secretary, but we shall return to it.

GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AND HAVEN BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
PORT OF LONDON BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911, and read 1a.
CLYDE NAVIGATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

NATO AND EUROPEAN UNITY
3.1 p.m.
LORD CRATHORNE LORD CRATHORNE rose to call attention to the necessity for European unity and the development of the Atlantic Partnership with particular reference to the Eighth Annual NATO Parliamentarians' Conference 1962; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper with special reference to the Eighth NATO Parliamentarians' Conference, I am conscious of being at a certain disadvantage this afternoon, because in these days events move with such bewildering speed. In November last, when we held our Conference in Paris, the whole gist of the conversations and anxiety was on the question of Cuba and those few breathtaking days in October when we were all thinking about the Caribbean, which dominated our thoughts and feelings at that time. Indeed, that crisis at that time was so quickly upon us that we hardly had time to digest it and get it in focus. Yet to-day, in the second week in February, as we have our debate here, already these events seem to have dropped astern in the wake of history. Now new problems arise and are in our minds. To mention just two, since we held our Conference in November, there has been the breakdown of the Brussels negotiations, and the Nassau Agreement which took place between our Government and President Kennedy. All this makes any reference to our NATO Parliamentarians' Conference, already three months old, seem rather irrelevant.
So my first task to-day is, I think, to place this Motion in the perspective of to-day's events. So far as reference to NATO is concerned, this will not be difficult. There can, I think, be few Members of your Lordships' House who do not feel, with me, that a critical moment has arrived in the life of the Atlantic Alliance. There have been, it is true, many political crises and developments in the Western world since the North Atlantic Treaty was signed in 1949. To quote just two, the failure of the European Defence Community proposals was a crisis; and the successful establishment of the other European Communities ranks as a development. I give those as
988
two examples. But these events, and others like them, had this fundamental point in common: they took NATO for granted, and it was part of the unquestioned order of things. NATO provided the human fabric for the basic framework of steel upon which all other building activities in the West took place. When fire or tempest swept through the superstructure, this great framework of the Alliance always seemed to emerge fundamentally unscathed; and it has been, since the days when it started, the permanent standing basis of Western collaboration and reconstruction.
Now, for the first time since its foundation, there are indications in some quarters that this basic structure of Western defence is itself being subjected to critical reappraisal, and in particular the fundamental concept underlying all our thinking about the Western defence, which is that the Atlantic Ocean is an asset and not a liability. The Atlantic provides the essential depth of security for our perilous strip of freedom in Western Europe, and not its boundary. This, for the first time since the beginning of the Alliance, it seems to me, is being thrown open to question. A new and alternative reading of history, and indeed of geography, is being suggested—namely, that the North Atlantic represents 3,000 miles of water separating two essentially different segments in the Western world, each of which must work out its separate salvation.
It is upon this fundamental question of our lives that probably this debate will turn during the course of this afternoon, and I should like before I sit down to make further comments on this fundamental question. Before doing so, however, I should like to stress the relative rôle that the NATO Parliamentarians' Conference plays in this drama of events. Many of my colleagues, both from our own country and from the other NATO countries, who have been members of the NATO Parliamentarians' Conference would, I think, agree with me when I say that of the various Parliamentary assemblies which we serve in Europe the NATO Parliamentarians' Conference is uniquely alive and vital. May I analyse this for one moment? I think it is partly due in fact, I would say mainly due—to the presence

989
of North American Parliamentarians: Parliamentarians from both Houses in the United States, the Senate and Congress, and Parliamentarians from both Houses of the Canadian Parliament. They travel over thousands of miles of ocean and continent to take part in our debates. This makes it different from other bodies of Parliamentarians in Europe. But I think it does more than that. It does much, incidentally, to help us think of the Atlantic as a bridge and not as a canyon, because we become more and more together as a body considering the main problem.
But to go on from there—here I am talking, in a way, from the NATO Parliamentarians' point of view, and thus am on difficult ground—I think I am right in saying that up to the present time a great value of the Conference has been its unofficial character. I stress "up to the present time" because I shall say a little more about this in a moment. Because it is unofficial it enables us, the Conference, to invite and receive unofficial visits from officers both of the NATO Secretariat and also from the Supreme Allied Command, who can address the Conference in terms which, being unofficial and off the record, do not have to be approved by the fifteen member Governments represented on the NATO Council.
To give just one example of how this has helped, they can always come and give up-to-date information about events as they are at the time we have our debates and deliberations; whereas if they had been attending as officials and had had to obtain the approval of the fifteen NATO Governments before speaking to the Conference probably everything would be out of date. The outcome of this relationship is that our Conference provides the setting and atmosphere conducive to representatives speaking objectively as dedicated members of NATO, rather than as spokesmen of the constituent countries. If need hardly stress the importance of this in the political evolution of the Alliance, especially at the present time.
My Lords, I think it is true to say that our Conference goes from strength to strength, but it has some internal problems of its own. The chief of these, in spite of the arguments I have been presenting to your Lordships this afternoon,
990
is whether or not the time has now come for members to request their fifteen NATO Governments to make them an official assembly, or whether they should remain, as at present, an unofficial body supported by the Governments of the NATO countries. If we went into the details and arguments for and against this we should be here a very long time, perhaps throughout the night. But to clear their minds of the problems involved, the Eighth Conference (that is, the one held in November), on the initiative of its political Committee, which in its turn had given careful study to the Declaration of Paris, adopted by the Atlantic Convention of NATO nations in January last year, decided in plenary session to set up a Committee consisting of one member from each NATO country to study this whole problem. It is hoped that this Committee will hold its first meeting during the month of March.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who I hope will take part in our debate later this afternoon, is Chairman of the Political Committee, and he may develop this particular point where I leave off. As during this year I have the honour to be President of the Conference, I do not wish to express a personal view of this aspect on our affairs, but I am completely satisfied that a detailed consideration of the problem can do nothing but good. In this way people in all countries will be able to appreciate the problem and then form reasoned views, which can be debated in the Parliaments of the various countries.
Having said that about our Conference, I should now like to revert to the theme upon which I touched earlier: the question of how, in present circumstances, we Europeans should evaluate the North Atlantic in terms of our defence. We know full well that to-day throughout the NATO countries and in their Parliaments there is being debated the problem which has arisen from the disturbing statement made by President de Gaulle at his Press Conference on January 14. My Lords, in my view he made one really fundamental point of substance which, because of its implications for the Atlantic Alliance, deserves the serious attention of us all. He suggested, in effect, that post-war history can be broken down into two quite separate Parts—the dividing line, in his view, being the development and acquisition

991
by the Soviet Union of long-range intercontinental nuclear missiles.
The argument runs that, before these were acquired, the front line of the United States' own national defence was located firmly in Europe; and that the security which we enjoyed in Europe at that time was, in effect, merely a byproduct of the Americans' own vital strategic interests. Since the Russians acquired these long-range missiles, the fact that they could strike over and above the Continent of Europe and the Atlantic Ocean directly at America itself had pushed back the American front line of defence to their own Continent. Psychologically the Americans are supposed to have retreated (so the argument runs) across the Atlantic, and therefore it would appear only a matter of time before they can be expected to do so physically. In other words, Europe was to be thought of as of secondary importance to the United States and we in Europe had become a mere appendix to their main strategic dispositions. So that Europe, it is argued, had better look to its own defences. In support of this thesis, President de Gaulle cited events in Cuba, where, he said, not only was it evident that the United States deployed massive military forces which were in no way earmarked for European defence, and upon which Europe could lay no claim; but, at the same time, our destiny in Europe was tied to events in the Caribbean over which we had no control.
My Lords, frankly speaking, as President of the NATO Parliamentarians' Conference, I cannot accept this interpretation of events. I do not believe that the stationing of huge United States forces in Europe during the last fourteen years has been occasioned solely by the usefulness of our Continent as an extension in depth of the defence of North America. We are, surely, more than just a bridgehead which has been turned by the development of longer-range weapons. On the contrary, I am convinced that the freedom and integrity of Western Europe stands as a major vital interest to the United States as an end in itself. Their own national survival is directly related to the survival of Western Europe in freedom; and I believe that to be as much the case to-day as it has ever been in the past.
On the other side of the picture, we must not lose sight of the prize which would fall to the Communists if control over the whole of Western Europe became theirs. They would have won more than a great concentration of modern industry and skilled manpower. They would, in my view, have occupied the kernel of the neutral and uncommitted world as well. For to-day, in 1963, Western Europe, I believe, outstrips even the United States as the focal point of a world system of trade and exchange, embodying commercial, technical, financial and educational matters, which in itself winds its arteries round every quarter of the globe.
The economies of Western Europe—and, indeed, of many countries in Africa, India, Asia and South America—are even now in certain respects interdependent. Thus, control over the narrower perimeter of Western Europe would at the same time afford the Communists rapid control over the whole Europe-Asian land mass. United States interests in every part of the globe, especially in the Pacific and South-East Asia, would be threatened as never before, and the world balance of power would be tilted crushingly against them. The truth of this argument is, I am convinced, that the freedom of Europe and that of North America stand or fall together.
In support of the view that I am putting forward, I am glad to say that there is no evidence of a contemplated withdrawal by the United States from Europe. Indeed, all the evidence up to now is to the contrary. It was only a few weeks ago that the United States Government strongly underlined and confirmed their commitment to the defence of Europe in the terms of the Nassau Agreement concluded with the Government of the United Kingdom. I do not propose to-day (because I should not be competent to do so; and because my opinion on this matter would be quite worthless to your Lordships' House) to go into the details of the Nassau Agreement, but only into the main conception behind it.
Under this Agreement, the Americans have openly undertaken to assist in the development of a multilateral—that is to say, a multi-national—nuclear deterrent force for Europe. It would seem that in this force American and European units and personnel will be woven together to form part of the general fabric of the

993
Western deterrent, a force which was described by my noble friend the Foreign Secretary in the debate in the House last week as, "the mixed manned force". I hope that he may perhaps be able to say more about this particular project in our debate to-day. But I would say this: that in principle—though here again there may be very many different varieties of view on the details—this Agreement can be interpreted only as another step by which the United States have shown their willingness to involve their own national destiny and survival directly with that of the Continent of Europe.
If I am right in these arguments, it is difficult to understand why the French Government refused to participate in the Nassau arrangements, and one can but hope that they have not spoken their last word on this subject. After all, the North Atlantic Alliance is a partnership of free nations, and it is not—certainly not as yet—a Community. In reference to the Agreement which has been made, the Foreign Secretary last week said—and I should like to quote just two sentences [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 246 (No. 35), col. 612]:
"The Nassau Agreement demonstrated, I think, the sincere purpose of Britain and the United States towards Europe, and in these matters we see eye to eye. Our purpose was to start in the Alliance a process of thought and action which will result in the European members having greater confidence in it."
He then went on in further detail, but that is the fundamental concept of what took place at Nassau.
Again referring to the line taken by the French Government, I would say to your Lordships that we must all earnestly hope that the line taken by the French Government, coming, as it did, simultaneously with an insistence on suspending the Brussels negotiations for British accession to the Common Market, does not represent something more fundamental. President de Gaulle has already expressed his conviction about the diminishing returns from the United States military investment in Europe. It would be disastrous, in my view, if he were now planning to take steps to encourage the Americans to strike their tents and go home. For, what would be the effect on defence of bulldozing the great Atlantic buttress from Europe? It would leave Europe tottering on its own feet—and I use the word "tottering" deliberately; for with Britain excluded for political
994
reasons from the inner core of the Continent, it would be a Europe divided: divided politically, economically and militarily.
Some, no doubt, would try to persuade us that an absentee America would still inhibit the Soviet Union from seeking to expand on the European Continent in such a situation. But I find it hard to share this view. We should remember the lesson of Cuba. If the masters of the Kremlin were prepared to run that risk on the very threshold of the American fortress, how much more would they do so on their own perimeter, in a Europe from which the United States had been persuaded to depart? For, my Lords, we should recall that, while the deterrent no doubt stopped the war over Cuba, it did not prevent the United States from asserting their considerable local military superiority, so radically altering the whole situation there. The same could occur in Europe if once the Soviet Union were left as the dominant military Power on the Continent. President de Gaulle, in this context, drew attention to the effect of the massive Cuban armada, uncommitted to the defence of Europe, which the United States deployed in the Caribbean, thereby thwarting Mr. Khrushchev's plans. But, my Lords, we should surely do well to remember at the same time the shield of their massive forces in Europe—nearly half a million United States Servicemen, quite apart from their ancillary support which President Kennedy deploys on the Continent of Europe to-day.
My Lords, it seems to me that the choice before Europe at this period of time is simply this: whether to pursue, under the protection of the Atlantic Alliance, the steady path of Continental reconciliation and partnership which an enlarged Community would offer; or, on the other hand, to shake free of American protection and pursue the old pre-war path of rival European blocs. To conclude I would say this: that it is not for us to turn our eyes backwards—that will lead our steps blindly over the precipice into the nuclear abyss—but to look forward to a community of nations and the interdependence of men in the defence of their freedom. My Lords, towards this realisation the NATO Parliamentarians' Conference dedicates its labours. I beg to move for Papers.
3.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, it would be difficult indeed to find a forum anywhere in the world which could discuss the affairs of the NATO Alliance with more authority than your Lordships' House. The noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition was one of the founders of the NATO Alliance. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has presided, of course, as Prime Minister, over the Defence Committee, and many of us in your Lordships' House, during our conduct of Government, have got the closest acquaintance with all the workings of the Alliance. My noble friend Lord Crathorne and others have kept the links between the national Parliaments close and strong, and to-day he has given us an account, which the whole House has found acceptable and encouraging, of the Eighth Conference of the Parliamentarians. I would add only this: that the whole House is in particular debt to Lord Crathorne himself for the time he gives to the affairs of the Alliance and the wisdom with which he guides the discussions of the Parliamentarians.
To-day the noble Lord has given us an account of some of the ideas which the latest Conference had in mind and some of the resolutions they have passed; and all that he has told us adds up to an increasing interest and enthusiasm by the Parliamentarians of all the member countries which I am sure is very welcome to your Lordships' House. Of course a large part of the discussions among the Parliamentarians is concerned as to whether or not some new institutions should be set up and, if so, what exactly they should embrace. If, for instance, there were to be an Atlantic Assembly, should it include both NATO and O.E.C.D. affairs? Should it, as the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, said, retain its unofficial character or assume some new official status? The Conference has, I think, very wisely, set up a sub-committee of itself together with members of the Atlantic Institute to study these matters, and I shall myself be most interested to hear of their findings.
There are, of course, difficulties which that Committee and all of us will have to face. There are many institutions in Europe already, and if there is duplication there will also be frustration.
996
O.E.C.D. includes neutrals and NATO, of course, does not. NATO is a military alliance, dealing with subjects of which only the fringe can be explored or exposed to the public eye. And there is always, too, the difficulty which the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, himself has faced: the decision has to be made as to whether, if the Parliamentarians' meetings remain unofficial, they should have more freedom to express and advocate their views than if they were an official body tied to the views of Governments and bound up, therefore, to some extent, in coils of red tape. I have distinct views on this matter. I am anti-red tape. I assure my noble friend I have an open—not an empty—mind on these matters and I shall look forward to hearing the results of the Committee's reviews.
On one aspect of the matter I am fairly clear. There has been a proposal that we might have what is called a High Ministerial Council of NATO. I do not, myself, believe this is necessary. As noble Lords know, the Council can meet at any level which it decides. It can meet at the level of Prime Ministers or Foreign Ministers or at the level of the permanent officials; and the formulation of NATO policy is so closely knitted with the formulation of the foreign policies of the different member countries that I think the right way is for Foreign Ministers to meet in the NATO Council whenever necessary. When they cannot collect together they can instruct their permanent representatives on what policy they should advocate in the Council. That is the practical way in which to run the Alliance.
There has been a new proposal that there should be a Youth Council in the NATO Alliance which would stimulate the interest of the younger generation, who I am afraid will still have to be protected by an alliance of this kind, in the affairs of NATO. That may be a good idea. All these matters are very proper matters for discussion and decision; but I am happy to say and to agree with my noble friend that there is no dispute at all, I believe, among the Parties in this House or in another place as to the basic support there is for the conception of the Alliance. It is evident from the evidence that we have in Eastern Europe that Europe would have been in great

997
danger of being overwhelmed if we had remained single and apart. One by one the countries would have been open to subversion, threatened with occupation. If that has not been so it is because we came together in this voluntary act of collective security.
And a reminder comes from Eastern Europe still that the rest of Europe is not immune from the expansion of the Communist Powers—from Berlin every now and again in recurrent crises, and from the propaganda which the noble Lords must realise is directed to-day from the Communist side of the Curtain against the peripheral members of the Alliance, namely, Greece and Turkey. Therefore although there may be differences of opinion on the strategy or tactics of the NATO Alliance, I think there is none as to the aims. If I may borrow the words of my noble friend, NATO has come to be regarded by this country as part of the unquestioned scheme of things.
There is another broad aspect of the NATO Alliance in which I think there is no difference of opinion in our country, and that is its composition. I believe that everybody feels that the NATO Alliance should continue, as it has done from the start, to include the United States and Canada as equal partners with the European members, completely integrated in the Alliance with the activities of the European members, for all the purposes of the Alliance. Perfectly legitimate matters for discussion are how the balance of contribution between the United States and the members of Europe should be made. We can discuss quite legitimately the structure of command and the nature of the political control. Adjustments of that kind can easily be made between the European members and the United States. But the United States' presence in Europe is the best insurance against aggression which Europe has; and, if I may again quote my noble friend, the Atlantic is an asset and not a liability. Those, I think, are the words he used. I do not think there should be any doubt in any quarter that this is the British view.
Of course the Americans have a self-interest in their presence in Europe, and that is quite right. The noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, was quite right in saying that if Europe were overrun by the Communists there would be an immense swing
998
in the balance of power to the detriment of the United States; but he is also right in saying that the United States, in their presence in Europe and their determination to help the NATO Alliance, have a motive far higher and wider than the pure self-interest of the United States. It is in the minds of the Americans—and I am certain that this is true of all parts of the Free World—in many ways the inspiration of free men which must be defended at all costs.
I know that there are some people who feel that the Americans would like to arrogate to themselves all nuclear power. I have heard that said very often, and I have no doubt that in some ways that would be a convenient thing. But I am quite sure also that the Americans are keenly aware of the terrible responsibility that lies upon them in being the sole repository of nuclear power and responsible themselves for the defence of free men everywhere and for guaranteeing their freedom. I must say that I think that this was apparent to me in the Nassau meeting. I think that when the Americans come to their partners in the NATO Alliance they will be quite glad, indeed very glad, if they are able to work out with us a system for the control of nuclear capacity in NATO, to have Europeans to some extent sharing the terrible responsibility which is to-day carried alone by the President of the United States.
There is another aspect of NATO which I think is worth recalling in the context of the NATO Alliance. It is that NATO is an alliance of sovereign States and no member country of NATO is asked to surrender its right to defend its own interests outside the Alliance, should it feel necessary to do so. Therefore, there is no conflict within the Alliance between patriotism and interdependence. The fact that within the NATO Alliance the sovereignty of each partner over its own forces is unquestioned enables us to assign our nuclear bomber force now, and at a future date our polaris submarines, for all purposes of planning and for all purposes (I apologise to my noble friend Lord Conesford) of targeting to the NATO Alliance and SACEUR, while we retain the right to use these weapons independently should Governments decide that it was in the national interest to

999
do so. I hope that the House will feel that the decision of the United Kingdom and the United States taken at Nassau, to place nuclear forces at the disposal of the NATO Alliance—whatever we may say later about a mixed manned force—for all planning purposes, will add significantly to the strength of the Alliance.
As the House knows, the NATO Council is already engaged on a review of strategy. Of course, that is necessary from time to time, as my noble friend Lord Crathorne has said—for one thing, because of the developments on the other side of the Iron Curtain in Europe. The process and perhaps its difficulties are, of course, familiar to the House. SACEUR makes the plan. Then there comes the question of balancing the best efforts which Governments can make to meet the plan against the targeting of manpower and weapons which the military experts estimate. There is nothing strange or peculiar in the NATO Alliance about that, about the measuring of capacity against the targets required by the military, and I have no doubt that it is an exercise in which our potential opponents are also perpetually engaged. In this matter of settling the future strategy of the Alliance, the arguments between the perfectionists and the theorists, I guess, will go on for many a day.
Ought NATO to have a strategic nuclear arm of its own at all, under separate command and separate control from the United States strategic arm? For the future, what should be the balance in the forward strategy between the conventional arms and the nuclear? I think that we must remember that this is a field in which no one so far has any experience at all, a field in which we profoundly hope no one ever will. So we can really be guided only by certain commonsense considerations, when we are thinking in terms of a possible nuclear arm for NATO. When thinking in terms of military and tactical targets and strategic targets, it is necessary to recognise this: in these days they are so inseparable, and if NATO is to have a nuclear arm at all, then it is simply impossible to avoid overlapping from one into the other. Unless people are prepared to face that, NATO could not defend Europe at all.
1000
Then again, if no one wishes to see the proliferation of nuclear weapons—and no one has any intention, I should like to stress, of handing over independent control of nuclear weapons to any country which has not already got them—the best way of proceeding is surely this, which was really the decision at Nassau: first, to try to create a multilateral force. That means that any country which has a national contribution to make should be able to do so, and that all the members of NATO should be able to take part in the planning, managing, developing and targeting of that force. In other words, we may set up some kind of trusteeship committee within the Alliance to do this. And the second part of the exercise would be to examine (because this has never really been looked at) the practicability of a mixed manned force, which, if it were practical, would be the second stage. I feel sure that the Council, because there is within the Council immense good will and a sense of responsibility, will be able to work out a practical plan and will not be defeated by the problems of command and of political control which are presented to them.
When we are thinking in terms of political control of the deterrent, of course there is one question which—let us face it—does present a difficulty; that is, keeping the NATO deterrent credible, because credibility is absolutely the essence of the matter when we are thinking in terms of the nuclear deterrent. Nevertheless, there are certain factors operating here which I think make this problem less difficult than it seems at first sight. NATO is a defensive Alliance. It has no plans for aggression. Therefore, when we are thinking, as we do all the time, in terms of a response to attack, then I think that the question of control and how we could operate the response in face of an attack by the enemy becomes that much simpler, though, of course, it still has its difficulties.
In the last two years the United Kingdom Government have taken a series of initiatives within the NATO Council, of which I think my noble friend would approve. We thought that the Alliance was suffering because there was too little political consultation, because the different members of the Alliance were too little aware of problems which face the member countries, often problems actually

1001
outside the area of NATO operations but nevertheless problems in which it is very important that one member should understand the motives for the actions of another. So we proposed in the NATO Council two years ago that political discussion should be more frequent and much less restricted. That is what has happened. I can myself bear witness to the fact that this has been extremely valuable. I do not want to say that when America was faced by Russia with the problems of Cuba the unanimity of the Alliance was due to this fresh political discussion over the last two years, but I think it made quite a contribution to the understanding of the Alliance as a whole as to what one individual member was faced with at that time.
One year ago we went further and proposed to the NATO Council that there should be set up a Nuclear Committee. It was one of the facts of life of the Alliance that only two members owned nuclear strength and power, and yet the rest were vitally interested in what might happen if there were a nuclear war, because all those countries might well have been the target of aggression. Therefore, we felt that they should be brought right into the picture and able to give their advice to the higher command. Well, the NATO Nuclear Committee has begun to operate over the last year, and I think it has made a great difference to the outlook of the members of the Alliance who do not themselves possess nuclear weapons.
The way we looked at it was this. The Nassau Agreement was an extension of these steps and these initiatives which we had already taken in the Council. So I very much hope that the House will approve the general principle of what we were able to do and the initiative that was taken at Nassau, because I think it has the assent of the rest of the members of the Council, and I think it may have a very helpful effect on Germany, who will feel—because there is always this problem of the proliferation of nuclear weapons—that she can take a full part in every aspect of the Alliance without herself ever wanting to construct these nuclear weapons in her own country.
There is so much activity in the Alliance, both on the political side, which has been dealt with by my noble friend, and on the military side, on which I
1002
have touched; and certainly the Alliance is very much alive. I have tried to touch on some of the wider problems. But more of the military side of this can most appropriately be discussed when we come to the Defence debate, and, therefore, I have deliberately not gone into a great deal of detail. I would only, therefore, in responding to my noble friend's speech say this. NATO is the framework within which the defence of Europe must be organised—on that we are quite clear. Britain will play as full a part as we possibly can in assisting both the conventional and the nuclear armament of NATO and the extent of our commitments will be limited by only two things—namely, our ability to pay the costs and our military tasks elsewhere in the world. I was glad that my noble friend emphasised that point.
I think that our partners in NATO recognise that the United Kingdom are asked to carry out a rôle in the field of world security, and not only on the Continent of Europe. I do not want in any circumstances to have to abandon the influence that we can wield in other parts of the world. Therefore, I think it follows directly, both from the speech of my noble friend and, I hope, from what I have said, that in the minds of Her Majesty's Government the NATO Alliance is indispensable for the defence of Western Europe and the Western Alliance as a whole; and so long as any proposals in the political field, with which my noble friend dealt, are a real addition to the strength of NATO, they will be given the closest and most sympathetic attention by Her Majesty's Government.
Unluckily, if the House will forgive me I have to go to one of those meetings which I think the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, particularly will understand are inevitable in the business of Government. I hope to be back as soon as I possibly can, but, in the meantime, I can only say that I am most grateful for the speech of my noble friend.
3.55 p.m.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, I am sure the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, for raising this matter and for the very thoughtful speech which he made, as indeed we are all indebted to him for his activity in the NATO Alliance. I was looking back, and it is curious

1003
to-day to think that most people accept the existence of NATO just as they accept the existence of an organised police force. They would not contemplate the world without an alliance of this kind. But one remembers the circumstances when NATO arose. I recall immediately after the war writing to President Truman on the question of the control of atomic weapons and suggesting that a great effort should be made to get rid of national control of these weapons and that they should all be entrusted to UNO. At that time the outlook was more hopeful. Then there arose the threat of aggression from the Iron Curtain countries, and we had to respond. NATO was essentially a response to a threat; it was essentially taking up a duty, which we hoped would be performed throughout the world by UNO but which UNO had not the strength to do. Therefore, we set up the security organisation in Western Europe and this Atlantic Alliance. From that day to this the peace of the world has very largely depended on NATO.
It is really quite unthinkable that we should really try to sever the people of the Atlantic Alliance by suggesting that the Atlantic is a severing thing. It is not. Especially to this country, it has always been our highway. It is a great link between the two great branches of the Western world. The suggestion that America should walk out of the Alliance is really quite absurd, because one has to realise the truth of what M. Litvinov said before the war: that peace is indivisible; security is indivisible. There is no use looking to the limits of a continent to-day, much less a single country; you have to look at the world situation. We are all greatly indebted to those who, like the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, promote thinking on this subject and international intercourse among Parliamentarians, because one does want a lot of thinking on this. It is so easy, particularly for the older ones, like myself, to look back on a past that has gone forever, a past of British navalism, and not to realise the new conditions under which we are working to-day. I suggest that we still have some way to go in working out NATO, and I do not believe we should endeavour to extend NATO beyond the purposes for which it was set up.
That purpose is essentially one of keeping the peace, of defence. I believe
1004
that our hopes for the world rest on the extension of the idea of a defence organisation. In due course I hope to see that idea being taken up by the United Nations, and also the idea of a world police force. At the present moment peace is undoubtedly held by the fact that there is this balance of nuclear power between East and West. The time will come, I believe, when we shall all realise the folly of even imagining a nuclear war. But that will not mean that you can just revert to what happened before there were nuclear arms. We have to go further than that; we have to abolish warfare altogether. I believe that the balance between East and West may help us towards that solution.
I am quite sure that a NATO Alliance is a powerful check on the uprising again of old rivalries. Take, for instance, the old rivalry of France and Germany. There are signs that that is going now; that it is something in the past, just as remote as the old rivalry in warfare, which I can remember people said was a natural rivalry, of France and England. All those have gone, and we have to-day the fact of the United States, whose importance derives not merely from the possession of nuclear power, nor from great wealth, but from the fact that in many ways America is an extension of Europe. I am quite sure that America feels that, too. After all, many of her citizens derive from Europe, and they would no more think of cutting off entirely from the family than any of us would from our families and friends. The more we have a unity of purpose between the two great branches of Western democracy, the better.
I am particularly encouraged by the growth of an interchange between Parliamentarians, because our Parliamentary systems differ on either side of the Atlantic, at least so far as the United States is concerned. The important thing is that we should understand each other; and that holds for the Continent, too. In all these plans one gets one is always brought to the fact of the different way we look at things. One noticed that in all the discussions on the Common Market. There was the fact that our Parliamentary systems were different. You may have the same ideas but they do not bring you together if your way of looking at things is quite different,

1005
although you both hold the same general principle of democracy.
To-day NATO is one of the great supports of the United Nations. We want an extension of that. I look at NATO as something permanent and not something set up just to deal with a Russian menace. Even if that menace were removed, NATO would still be needed. Maybe NATO would be extended, but it would still be needed, because the fact is that we have got away entirely from the old conception of national defence. We are all believers in collective security now. I can remember when collective security was dismissed as midsummer madness. Now I think of the midsummer or March madness of anybody who is opposed to collective security. Therefore I think people merely do mischief to talk as if America's presence on the Continent of Europe were some plot by the Americans in order to control Europe. It is a necessity from their point of view, and from our point of view.
I welcome the discussions that are going on in NATO. I hope that we shall be rather wary of setting up too much machinery. There is a great deal to be said for doing things in not too rigid a manner when it comes to this kind of work. As the Foreign Secretary said, you may get tied up in too much red tape. It is the spirit that matters in this, much more than getting a whole lot of elaborate rules. I welcome very much the work that is being done in seeing just how far or how near we can get to working together. We should beware of thinking that we can work out a kind of full-fledged Parliamentary system for NATO. I do not think you can do that, any more than I think at the present time you could do it with the British Commonwealth. It is something which has to grow gradually, and the main thing is these contacts. I should like to repeat what I said when I started, of how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, for all the work he has done, and for bringing this matter before your Lordships' House.
4.8 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, at the beginning of his speech the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, said that he was somewhat at a disadvantage in moving his Motion to-day, because of the rapid movement of world political events in recent months.
1006
I believe, rather, that that is what has made the Motion so singularly opportune. After, or in the midst of, the disappointment of recent political events, it is refreshing to renew our sense of that great reality, the Atlantic Community.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, reminded us that we have come to take that for granted. So, indeed, we do, thanks to the creative work of the noble Earl and others. He urged us not to be too highfalutin in our claims for NATO. He reminded us that NATO has the distinct and limited rôle of being a defence Alliance. But I am sure he would agree that a defence Alliance cannot be just that alone, without the commanding of a great volume of common understanding among the peoples who are defending, and also a common realisation of that which they are called upon to defend. Let me here quote some powerful but very true words of the Paris Declaration of the NATO Parliamentarians' Conference. It describes the Atlantic Community thus:
"It is a powerful, moral and cultural community in which are concentrated the classical beauty of Greece, the judicial sagacity of Rome, the spirit of our religious traditions, and the scientific achievements of modern times."
This is a reality that goes far deeper than contemporary politics and to-day's debate recalls us to it.
My Lords, we ought not to let political disappointments of this or any moment cause us to forget how very strong already are the ties between our European countries. Take France and ourselves. I have opportunities of seeing something of the relation between the French and ourselves in a way which is small, yet, I think, very significant. Throughout the year, except in the coldest weather, thousands of French people come to our shores for a day's outing to Dover and Canterbury, spending some hours in Canterbury and returning home in the evening across the Channel. Indeed, I suppose that many more French people visit Kent in the course of the year than perhaps visit the rest of the United Kingdom in all. It is impossible to talk to our French visitors, as I often seize the opportunity of doing, without realising that they know our two peoples to be fast friends, and they come to our old City of Canterbury because they know that it is a symbol of a unity which has its roots far back in history,

1007
and they realise that there is a real bond between our modern city and many cities and towns through France. I mention this trivial bit of experience as it is a small and genuine sign of that unity of culture and history which just goes on. It is not so much a matter of putting it in the perspective of current politics, but rather of our seeing current politics and understanding them in the light of these continuing realities that will not easily be destroyed.
My Lords, we must go on helping our countries within the Atlantic Community to know one another as well as possible—and this is no platitude. The Report of the last NATO Parliamentarians' Conference mentioned universities, and this is a realm in which there is a great opportunity. The exchanges between students and teachers in our countries achieve much, and we want more and more of these exchanges. For instance, why should not each of our own universities adopt some foreign university and become allied to it? This is already happening to some extent, and it needs to happen more. It does not depend upon any political decisions, yet its effect upon the new generation, and therefore upon that background from which the political decisions of the future are going to spring, may be considerable.
Let me add, my Lords, just one word about the rôle of the Christian Churches in all this. If our country had gone into the Common Market it is certain that the Churches would have found new opportunities in the fostering of unity between our countries and communities. Yet, Common Market or no Common Market, the Churches go on with the great role of fostering the many cultural and spiritual links between countries and communities, and I am quite certain that the recent ups-and-downs of politics, to-day's debate and the activities of the NATO Parliamentarians' Conference will be to us a great stimulus to go on doing all we can with our own contribution from the Churches to this task.
I would join with other noble Lords in paying tribute to the NATO Parliamentarians' activities and to the leadership within it which the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, has been giving. It was my privilege, as I think he will remember, to take a very small part in the Atlantic
1008
Parliamentarians' Conference in London in 1959; and the Paris Parliamentarians' Conference mentions innumerable matters, some of which, without being political and while seeming to be trivial, add up to what could be a great activity in bringing our peoples to greater knowledge of one another in depth. I welcome this Motion wholeheartedly and feel sure that good will come of our considering these matters in the total context in which they need to be seen.
4.15 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, my noble friends on these Benches and I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, for putting down this Motion, and I personally would thank him also for his fine leadership of the British delegation to the NATO Parliamentarians' Conference. I am grateful, too, to the Foreign Secretary for his interesting speech, and for the firm assurance he gave at the end as to the support Her Majesty's Government will continue to give to NATO. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne on his Presidency of the Conference. This is, I believe, the first time that a fellow countryman of ours has had the honour of being President. It is an indication of the esteem in which he is held by his fellow parliamentarians from the fifteen NATO countries. The term "President", I may explain, is used in the Continental sense, not in the British sense, so that Lord Crathorne is, in fact, both what we would call the President and Chairman of the Conference. I feel that only Britain could produce a man who is at one and the same time President of such an important international body, Senior Steward of the Jockey Club and Chairman of the Committee on Sunday Observance.
My Lords, the debate to-day will, I am sure, be read with the utmost interest by delegates from all the NATO Parliaments, to whom reports undoubtedly will be sent by our efficient executive secretary, Mr. Labberton. We are here to-day because of NATO. We owe our existence, so far as terrestrial or matters of this world are concerned, to our support and membership of NATO. The organisation has been dealt a severe but not, in my opinion, fatal blow by President de Gaulle. At all costs we must sustain the Alliance, in spite of France. French

1009
people are so cultured and so cultivated, yet they seem to have no inherent genius, either for politics or for plumbing. Up to now, as the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne has said, the NATO Parliamentarians' Conference has been an unofficial body—one of those elastic descriptions which mean so much or so little; as much or as little, in fact, as the various NATO Governments desire to give to it.
When I first attended the Conference in 1957, as a delegate from the British Parliament, its functions were felt to be an opportunity for parliamentarians to get to know one another, and to hear two or three speeches from the civil and military officials connected with the organisation. Gradually, through the years, it has changed. It is now coming to regard itself, and to be regarded, as an international consultative assembly; and it is beginning to expect to be treated as such by all. The debates have changed greatly: they are more precise. The speeches are far shorter, I am glad to say; they are more practical and more realistic. There is more debate, and the opportunities for asking questions are eagerly seized upon.
In the earlier stages of the organisation's existence it was concerned mainly with military matters, under Article I of the Treaty. In fact, in 1957 I was, in a half-hearted sort of way, called to order for mentioning and drawing attention to the needs of the under-developed countries. Nowadays, of course, we spend a great deal of time at the Conference on the problems of those same countries. Gradually the balance righted itself, and now much study is being brought to matters under Article II of the Treaty; that is to say, the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions and by promoting conditions of stability and wellbeing, the sort of aspirations of which the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, has so feelingly spoken this afternoon.
At the 1962 Conference last November, interesting reports were made, and important resolutions were passed by the various Committees; and of those we shall no doubt be hearing an account this afternoon by some of your Lordships who were members of them. But in the few remarks that I intend to make I wish to confine myself mainly to the work of
1010
the Political Committee, of which I am Chairman. The Political Committee has as its Deputy-Chairman Mr. Nils Langhelle, a well-known and distinguished European statesman who is Stortingspresident, or Speaker, of the Norwegian Parliament, and leader of the Norwegian delegation. The Rapporteur is Representative John V. Lindsay, a member of the House of Representatives from New York and a very able parliamentarian, full of enthusiasm for the ideal of the Atlantic Community and willing to put in a great deal of hard work to achieve this end.
The Committee's Report, as the most reverend Primate indicated, dealt mainly with the recommendations of the NATO Citizens' Convention which met in Paris in January, 1962, and was responsible for "The Declaration of Paris". This Declaration Senator Fulbright, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the United States Senate. has recently described as a significant document, and he has written that its ideas are part of the bright vista that lies ahead. As the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, and I, with the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald (I think they are the only ones in your Lordships' House at the moment), were signatories to the Declaration of Paris, I think we can feel proud that two such very eminent figures as the most reverend Primate and Senator Fulbright, one from each side of the Atlantic, should have expressed themselves in this way on our work in Paris in January, 1962.
If we examine the reports and recommendations of the Political Committee in the light of recent events, we see how important they are. The first event, of course, was the historic speech by the President of the United States—a speech which for some reason received far too little notice in this country—on the steps of the Hall (I think it is Independence Hall) at Philadelphia on the 4th July last. He made that speech at that place to an assembly of Governors of the States of the United States because it was in his mind an important speech. In that speech he called for European Union and Atlantic Partnership. Just imagine! If in 1914 or 1939 the then President of the United States had made a speech like that, there would have been no First War and no Second War. And I think we should attach full importance

1011
to this declaration. The President meant every word of what he said. We must give full weight to it.
The second important recent development is the Conference in December last in the Bahamas between the President of the United States and our Prime Minister. To-day the Foreign Secretary recalled and supported the agreement in the Bahamas between the two leaders that the purpose of their Governments with respect to the Polaris missiles must be the development of a multilateral nuclear force in the closest consultation with other NATO Allies. They also agreed on the importance of increasing the effectiveness of their conventional forces on a world-wide basis. I should like to say, here and now, that my noble friends on these Benches and myself are not opposed to the NATO multilateral deterrent, if it is thought necessary by those who have the full information, provided that a realistic system of political control can be worked out. And it was most heartening to hear the Foreign Secretary to-day on this question. Usually, this question of political control is rather laughed at, but I thought that the Foreign Secretary to-day gave particularly strong arguments showing the practicability of it; and certainly we in the Political Committee will give much thought, as we are already giving much thought, to the credibility of the deterrent, which is so important, but also, at the same time, to the extension of political control of it.
So far as Britain's retention of the independent nuclear deterrent is concerned, we on these Benches are against it. We do not feel that it is independent, and in our opinion it is not deterrent. It also has the unfortunate characteristic that it is highly expensive. We now contemplate, in fact, with horror, a situation in which China, India, Egypt, Israel, Cuba and other countries—by no means all of whom necessarily have the same sort of sense of responsibility that the United States and Russia have—might also obtain these terrible weapons. In these circumstances we feel that it is the wrong sort of lead to give to the world. We feel that it is better to confine the nuclear deterrent to the two giants, to build up our conventional forces for NATO, and to press on with the general disarmament proposals. Your Lordships will
1012
recall that the Foreign Secretary himself to-day referred with distaste to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and we feel that if Britain gives up its own so-called nuclear independent deterrent it will give a lead in the direction which the Foreign Secretary himself has submitted to your Lordships to-day as desirable.
For these reasons, we welcome the assignment of the V-bomber force to NATO, and we think that the United States will be quite prepared—as indeed President Kennedy indicated in 1961—to make available to NATO from the United States resources such deterrents as are necessary, thus taking away from us the strain of the nuclear part of the weapons of the NATO Alliance and enabling us to devote our resources to increasing the conventional forces. We urge the building up by this country of comprehensive forces, and particularly of fast airborne mobile troops, both for our NATO commitments and for our other commitments overseas; and we believe that the weapons and supplies should be stockpiled abroad, as recommended by General Norstad, the late Supreme Commander, Europe. Perhaps this would be more suitable to a Defence debate, but I may add, in parenthesis, that we look with some concern at the proposed reduction in the Gurkha forces. We believe it is quite wrong at this time to do away with these magnificent troops, who are also, happily, of course, one of the main exports of their country. We believe that we should retain them as they are part of the conventional forces of this country.
The Report of the Parliamentarians' Conference set out the thinking of the Political Committee, and subsequently the Conference, on the future development of the Alliance, with particular reference to the international Parliamentary institutions required, and endorsed a number of important recommendations of the Declaration of Paris. This situation, which was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, and also referred to by the Foreign Secretary, is, I believe, or should be, of immense interest to your Lordships, because there is at the present moment a multitude of separate international institutions in the Atlantic Community. There are the

1013
Council of Europe, the European Parliament, W.E.U., O.E.C.D. and NATO. Each of them is controlled by a separate body, if controlled at all. There are no formal means of co-ordination and no common Parliamentary institution. The Report held that two international Parliamentary bodies, and two only, are needed in the Atlantic partnership—namely, a European Parliament and an Atlantic Assembly—and both of these should develop out of existing institutions. So, if I may refer to one question raised by the Foreign Secretary, it is not intended by us to create any new institutions. One of the objects of our proposal is to reduce the existing proliferation to two.
The recommendations pursued these matters in more detail and urged member Governments to take action upon them. As the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, said, the Conference accepted the Political Committee's recommendation that he should set up a special sub-committee of the Conference to submit recommendations for a Consultative Atlantic Assembly to evolve from the NATO Parliamentarians' Conference. The Committee was also required to consult and report upon the creation of a permanent High Council at ministerial level, an Atlantic High Court of Justice and an Atlantic Council for youth education and culture, so far as these suggested bodies might affect the constitution and functions of a Consultative Atlantic Assembly. There is, I may say, quite a body of opinion in the Community and in the Organisation which supports the view of the Foreign Secretary with reference to the permanent High Council. But all these matters will be considered by the sub-committee, and in due course no doubt they will report upon them.
The object of the recommendations, in short, is to substitute democratic for bureaucratic control; to take the initial steps in the Atlantic Community which your Lordships' forbears took over 500 years ago in this country so far as England is concerned: that is to say, we want to know what is happening, what is demanded of us in the shape of funds, how they are spent, what policies are proposed, and how they are carried out. The arguments are met by those who oppose the development of an
1014
Atlantic institution of this nature, by counter-arguments which would put to shame leading officials or advisers of a Plantagenet king. Indeed the Tudors, however much they might feel attracted by them privately, would have loudly repudiated them if presented by one of their secretaries. Indeed, he might have regarded himself as lucky to get away with his ears intact or his nostrils in one piece, had he made such arguments in public to Henry VIII or Elizabeth I.
Nevertheless, in spite of these reactionary objections, progress has been made. This year the Conference was addressed by the Foreign Minister of France, the Acting Secretary-General of NATO, the President of the European Economic Commission, Professor Hallstein, the Supreme Commander, Europe, the Deputy Supreme Commander, Atlantic, and the United States Under Secretary of State, the Hon. George W. Ball, who flew the Atlantic especially for the purpose at President Kennedy's request. All of them except one answered questions.
Our application for membership of the European Economic Community has been refused, or at any rate it has not been accepted. Nevertheless, Britain must strive for the political unity of Europe. We must remember that we are still in the Atlantic partnership, and thus an Atlantic Consultative Assembly is more essential than ever. It is vital to clothe with flesh and blood the conception of Atlantic partnership as called for by President Kennedy, the Prime Minister and others, but which as yet exists only as an ideal. In conclusion, I urge Her Majesty's Government to consider carefully the recommendations of the Conference which were made last November, and in due course to consider the recommendations and the highly important developments that we have been discussing, and in particular the evolution of an Atlantic Consultative Assembly from the present NATO Parliamentarians' Conference.
4.36 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, we are all most grateful to my noble friend Lord Crathorne for raising this vitally important question this afternoon. As he rightly said, we have to debate it in the light of the startling events that have taken place during the last three months

1015
—in fact, since he had his NATO Conference of Parliamentarians. But, as the most reverend Primate said, this may well be an advantage. Events do move quickly in the world to-day and we must learn to keep up with them. In fact, we are all rather in the position of the Red Queen in Alice Through the Looking Glass—we have to run jolly fast in order to remain where we are, in view of the pace of events to-day.
The sombre background to the European situation remains. I have reminded your Lordships of it often enough. There was the fatal refusal to join the Coal and Steel Community; the equally fatal refusal to join the E.D.C.; the implacable hostility of the Foreign Office under the late Mr. Ernest Bevin and the noble Earl, Lord Avon, to the Council of Europe and everything it stood for; the rejection of the Strasbourg Plan; and finally the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to take part in the negotiations which resulted in the Treaty of Rome, or to take the Common Market seriously until it had become a reality—and a most prosperous reality at that. By the time de Gaulle came to power we had missed the boat. And for my part I shall never cease to believe that our deliberate rejection, for a decade after the war, of the leadership of a united Europe, which we could have played a decisive part in shaping, was one of the great mistakes in our history. Indeed the historians of the future may well compare it with the policies which lost us the American colonies in the reign of George III, and, with them, the chance of an Atlantic union which might well have prevented both the First and the Second World Wars; with the policies that lost us Ireland in the reign of Queen Victoria, and those which lost us India between the wars. But it is no good going back over all that. They are great landmarks in our history, and tragic mistakes from which we shall not recover quickly.
To-day, we face an entirely new situation, brought about by one man—and we all know who that one man is. Judging from the speech we have just listened to from my noble friend Lord Ogmore, one would not have thought that President de Gaulle existed. One would have thought that everything was gay and
1016
happy in the European parlour, that in NATO everything was going swimmingly; whereas in fact, as the Foreign Secretary himself had admitted, NATO is at the moment in the greatest possible danger.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, with great respect, that is the very point I made. I cannot remember the exact words, but I said something to the effect that we had suffered a shattering blow though not a fatal one.
LORD BOOTHBY: I would agree with the noble Lord about that. In fact he has taken the words of my peroration out of my mouth. I think we must consider President de Gaulle for a moment in the light of this situation. In order to take any kind of objective view, we have to remember that there is also a background to his hostility towards what he calls the Anglo-Saxons, which the present Prime Minister saw at first-hand and of which I caught only glimpses. My Lords, he is a proud, difficult and great man. And he was not very well handled during the last war, either by the President of the United States or by the Prime Minister of this country. We inflicted upon him first Admiral Darlan, then General Giraud. The Prime Minister was much more patient than the President, who referred to General de Gaulle as "our mutual headache".
My Lords, I vividly remember, after the invasion of Europe, obtaining the permission of the Speaker in another place to move the Adjournment of the House on "a definite matter of urgent public importance"—namely, the refusal of the Allied High Command, of His Majesty's Government (as it then was), and of the United States Government to allow General de Gaulle to land on the shores of France. I remember the Prime Minister coming down and saying that it would not be in the national interest to hold a public debate on this subject at that time, and that he would have it only in secret session. I therefore withdrew by Motion; and, in fact, General de Gaulle was permitted a few days later to land in France. But I should like to point out to your Lordships that he has forgotten none of this, and nor should we. There is a background of real grievance in President de Gaulle's mind.

1017
I think I must make some reference, because it has done us so much harm, to the invincible reluctance of British politicians to read books—particularly books by foreigners. This is really the root cause of many of our troubles. If any politician in this country had taken the trouble to read Mein Kampf we should all have known precisely what Hitler intended to do, and subsequently did, nearly twenty years before he did it. And if we had read de Gaulle's Memoirs—it is not difficult reading; he is one of the best prose writers in French living to-day—we should have known two years ago that he would not have us in the Common Market on terms acceptable to us, and it might have made a considerable difference. However, perhaps it is too much to expect politicians, and certainly Ministers, to read books in large quantities, particularly those in foreign languages. We have to make the best of it, but it would have been helpful on those two occasions.
That being said, I think we should take issue with President de Gaulle on the basic issues which he has now raised, in the certain conviction that his conception of the modern world is out of date and wrong, whereas ours, by comparison, is up-to-date and right. The Carolingian empire which he envisages is not for us, and never will be. I would say, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that he does want the Americans out of Europe. He said in Paris only a few days ago that he had been saying this for ten years. So that, apart from not reading, we do not even listen very often to what these foreigners say—which is again, I think, a pity. But he does want them out of Europe; and this would, in effect, involve the break-up of NATO as we now know it. We do not want either of these two things, and I think we should make it perfectly clear we are at great odds with the French Government on these matters.
In August, 1949, I remarked to the Council of Europe that insistence on absolute State sovereignty was one of the principal causes of the evils of our modern world, and that the only solution of this problem lay in some merging or pooling of national sovereignty. This, I venture to suggest, is what the whole argument is really about. The argument should, in my submission, be sustained
1018
at a high level. Above all, we should avoid falling below the level of events by making ourselves look silly. And, my Lords, at this time I think I must say that I share the view of practically the entire British Press that the decision of the Government to prevent Princess Margaret's visit to Paris was below the level of events. The excuse given was so flimsy that everybody saw through it at once, and it was then admitted that it was not valid. It presupposed that all the Counsellors of State would simultaneously have influenza six weeks hence, and nobody could believe that. I think it gave the impression abroad that we were being a bit petty, a bit peevish, and certainly not living up to what the Foreign Secretary told us we ought to do, which is not in any circumstances to turn our back on Europe.
De Gaulle is now asserting that a segment of Western Europe can attain full sovereignty, under the leadership of an intensely nationalistic France, through the possession of nuclear weapons. I do not believe that is true; and I think it is extremely important that this country should put forward the antithesis, which is, quite simply, that you cannot conduct 18th century diplomacy with nuclear weapons, and that we still have to come to terms with life as it is in this second half of the 20th century. It has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and with absolute truth, that nuclear power is indivisible—indeed, defence in the modern world is indivisible. The leadership and ultimate responsibility of the United States must be accepted because the United States have, in fact, the monopoly of nuclear power in the West. De Gaulle fears the absorption of the European community in "a colossal Atlantic Community under American dependence and direction", to quote his own words. My Lords, that is exactly what I personally want and, I venture to suggest, what we should all want. For us there is no alternative to the Atlantic Community, in political, military or economic terms. An independent British nuclear deterrent is really no more credible than a French one, and does not in fact exist because the tactical tie-up between our Bomber Command and the American Strategic Air Force is so close that separate action on the part of either is neither credible nor possible. I believe that it would add

1019
nothing to our security, and little to our influence in council.
Our aim should therefore be the total integration of our own deterrent into a multilateral nuclear force—in other words, a NATO force—under the ultimate direction of the United States, but with a shared responsibility for planning the policies and strategies which will govern the use of that force, and which we do not at present possess. I was extremely interested to hear the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs say this afternoon that the impression he got at the Nassau Conference was that the President himself would be glad to have somebody to share this awful responsibility with him. So it really remains to work out the methods by which this can be done. I think that it will take time. We do not have it yet, but I think that one of the most important things on the political agenda of this country, and of the Western Alliance, at the present time is to see how we can devise machinery which will give us a share in planning the policies and strategies which will govern the use of the multilateral NATO nuclear force, accepting at the same time that the ultimate responsibility and control must devolve upon the United States.
That really was the real meaning of the Nassau Agreements; and it need not involve any great proliferation of international organisations, which, I entirely agree with both the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and the Foreign Secretary, should be avoided. I think it was Mr. Herbert Luthy who wrote a very good book on the state of France about ten years ago. Having come down to have a look at Strasbourg, he said that the Foreign Ministers of Europe appeared like actors on a revolving stage which had got out of control: every day they appeared against a different backcloth, playing a first act which never came to an end. That, my Lords, was the impression which at one time Strasbourg gave, with all its endless Councils of 15, 7, 5, 6, Central Unions, Western Unions, and all the rest of it; and we want, at all costs, to avoid that. I think that in the kind of—shall I say?—reorganisation of NATO that most of us would like to see, and have in mind, we none of us want to see a whole fresh set of councils and committees set up. If anything, we want to reduce them, and to make those
1020
which do remain more influential and more powerful.
My Lords, in the long run de Gaulle will be beaten by events, because the concept of a European Community no longer makes sense except in the context of a wider Atlantic Union, and it is for this that I think we now have to strive. Here, I utterly agree with my noble friend Lord Crathorne; and it is interesting to reflect that Herr Strauss, the so-called very nationalistic German Minister of Defence, said before he resigned that he thought the time for a European balance of power had gone for ever, and that he saw the future in terms of a Germany which was a component part of Atlantic policy. So, my Lords, it is. I have often remarked to my German friends—and I am glad to say I have many—that every time they have turned East, every time they have indulged in the Drang nach östen, which did not start with Hitler, they have ended in disaster; and every time they have turned West, to the seas and the oceans and trade, through, for example, the Hanseatic League, they have ended up with prosperity and success. That is where I believe the great majority of the German people are looking today. I do not say that Adenauer, who seems to have been hypnotised by the power of President de Gaulle, is altogether looking there, but I think the Germans really are looking at the seas and the oceans, as we should be doing, and as the Netherlands and the Belgians most certainly do.
My Lords, we may have lost an Empire, but we ourselves remain the pivot of an oceanic complex in terms of both politics and trade. To join a Third Force Gaullist Europe would cut us off from all this, and would be suicidal for this country; because our past greatness was built up on world trade, without which we should in truth become no more than an "off-shore island". If President de Gaulle now wishes to retain in his own hands the power to burn several million people to death, that is his affair. He will never use it, because if he did his beloved France would be incinerated within twenty minutes. If he seeks to add a German nuclear force to that of France, under German control, he will not succeed for one simple reason: the Russians will not permit it—and they have the power to prevent it—and in my opinion the Russians would be right.

1021
In conclusion, just a word (and it will be only one word; but it does arise in this context) about East-West trade. I have spent a large part of my time during the last eighteen months on the other side of the Iron Curtain, from where, in fact, l have just returned; and I am convinced that there are great possibilities for an expansion of East-West trade, and great opportunities if we care to take them. I think the Board of Trade—and I should be grateful if the First Lord in his reply would say that he will ask the President of the Board of Trade about this—should push very hard for it, and be quite firm with the United States about oil and strategic lists which may have had validity some years ago but which are now completely obsolete.
Some months ago I was taken to see an extremely up-to-date factory in Roumania which manufactured ball bearings—one of the best, so the experts said, in the world. It was only after I had seen it that I was told that ball bearings were upon the strategic list, and that therefore we were prohibited from exporting them, although they made just as good and rather better ball bearings than we did. I think that this nonsense had better now come to an end. I firmly believe that the greatest hope of relaxation of tension in the immediate future between the NATO and the Warsaw Powers lies in an expansion of trade. Russian oil will come into this country through one source or another in any event, because there are many companies, some foreign, which will see that it comes in, although we may not know a great deal about it. We might as well do it at the official level, and use it as a bargaining factor, as an example, for Russian purchases of our ships.
In any case, a considerable national effort in order to do all this is called for on our part. Whatever figures you take—economic growth, productivity or exports—our record in recent years has been rather pitiable, by comparison with that of the Common Market countries. We enjoy much goodwill in countries on the other side of the Iron Curtain. Why is it that the West Germans have by far the greater part—about 70 per cent.—of the trade? We have the goodwill, as I said when I got back last year. They have the trade partly, of course,
1022
because of the extreme German efficiency—and to that we can only take off our hats and try to emulate it; they are extremely efficient. But there is also a wisecrack on the other side of the Iron Curtain that the British give seven years for delivery and seven months' credit, as against the Germans' seven years' credit and seven months' delivery; and there is a sharp difference between the two. Of course, that is a gross exaggeration, a ridiculous exaggeration; but there is just that element of truth in it which makes one uneasy.
I saw something of the shipbuilders in Moscow, because the Russians are wanting to build a lot of ships at the present time. I saw them from Germany, I saw them from Denmark, but I did not see many from this country. I think we ought to be there: we ought to be sticking around. That is the only way we can get trade in the end—by always being present, always asking, always suggesting, always negotiating. In that way you get it. This is undoubtedly what the West Germans are past masters at.
Before I sit down, I just want to say that I do not see any reason for undue discouragement, still less for despair. The stars in their courses point to greater European and Atlantic unity as the essential prelude to the kind of world order that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, wants so much to see and has done so much to promote; and not even de Gaulle can fight the stars. He can fight almost everybody else, but not the stars. My Lords, our future remains in our own hands, but, as The Times rightly remarked in a recent leader, that future will not be decided by the kind of bombs we have, but by the kind of people we are.
4.58 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I offer my personal congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, not only for his speech this afternoon but on his appointment as President of the NATO Parliamentarians' Conference; and also to my noble friend Lord Ogmore on his chairmanship of the Political Committee? This is indeed a powerful position in which Members of this House have found themselves in this Conference.
I should like first of all to be rather domestic. The question has been posed whether this Conference should be raised in status; whether it should be made

1023
an official body like some of the other assemblies in Europe. I can speak with some experience of this Conference. I have done my stint; I am no longer a Member, and I can therefore look back with some disinterest. My own feeling is that it would be wrong to give it any official standing. But that does not mean that the Conference could remain as it now is.
I think the strength of this Conference is not in its plenary sessions where we have, in the main, fixed debates with members reading their speeches; the real strength lies in the committees. These committees are free of this fixed direction of point. They approach a resolution in a most objective manner. But, unfortunately, these committees meet on an average once, or at the most twice, a year. And I am afraid, from my experience, that there has never been sufficient preparation for them; nor do I believe there is sufficient contact with the officials of the organisation to give advice or information that could guide the discussions of these committees. I should like to see closer connection between the Conference and its committees with the officials of the Conference.
I think something further needs to be done, and this can be done by Her Majesty's Government. As I have said, I am now disinterested and I am well aware of the financial burden some members have when they attend these Conferences. But the burden falls very much on members like the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, or even the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, or the rapporteurs who are in the other place. This burden calls for a fair number of visits to Paris and it becomes especially heavy. I would hope the Government would consider some way in which they could relieve this burden on the members. I wonder whether when the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, was preparing his speech he really contemplated the shattering events that took place during January. We know of the effects of the failure of the Common Market, but we have also seen the resignation of the Canadian Government on matters of NATO policy, and one is sorry to hear of bitter feeling between the North American Governments in this matter. Germany is still very far short of meeting her mili-
1024
tary commitments; France militarily, at very best, pays lip service; we ourselves (and the Government know the attitude on this side of the House) would like to see greater effort to give military support to NATO. NATO is a military command, and if we look at the resolutions of the Military Committee we see that their main one is that NATO should adopt what is called a "forward strategy", that in the event of hostilities or an attack by the Soviet we should deny to the Soviet any land or area of the Free World.
I wonder whether NATO is deployed in such a way that it can adopt this forward strategy. We are far short of the total divisions required in Europe by the Supreme Allied Commander. We have, in fact, 22 divisions, most of which are to-day undermanned. The American divisions in the south are the best equipped and up to strength, but those divisions are, in fact, behind the best natural barriers to attack; they are least vulnerable. It is in the north, the best tank country, where there could be rapid movement by Soviet forces, that NATO weakness lies. We talk of forward strategy, yet we are barrack room deployed. Our forces in the north are, in the main, deployed on the availability of barracks. The main German contingent are at present to the south of the British Forces and, if they were to adopt this forward strategy to meet attack it would mean they would have to pass through our own lines of communication to the north. I do not think that that is possible. I do not think the Supreme Allied Commander believes it possible.
We must face the fact that for many years to come we shall need a NATO military force in Europe, and I think we should be well advised if we tried to redeploy these national forces as soon as possible. Obviously this could not be a complete changeover; the dislocation would be far too great. But I think we should endeavour over the next two or three years to bring our forces more into line so that, if we are to move forward to the frontiers, we can move forward on a broad basis without having to cross our own lines of communication.
The Report also rightly deals with the question of the mobile reserve. This was felt to be necessary by the Supreme Allied Commander in order to give

1025
strength to the flanks, the weakest part of NATO—namely, Norway and particularly Greece and Turkey. But this mobile force is at present very weak. It consists in the main of seven battalions, and those battalions are now taken from our main national contributions. I would hope that it would be possible for the NATO countries certainly to double that mobile reserve in the next twelve months, and that it would be a force trained permanently for that type of operation. I would hope that the Government would consider whether one of the brigades which we have in this country as part of our central reserve and which is committed to NATO, could be trained specifically for that task. I think it would be very good not only from the NATO point of view but perhaps in meeting our own problems in the Far East.
Our military forces need a lot of attention. In the air, what we now have is rapidly becoming obsolescent, and by that I do not mean that the aircraft themselves are necessarily becoming old and out-dated but the runways are so vulnerable. And I think (and I express my own opinion here) that there is a considerable case for bringing Polaris submarines into NATO, so long as those submarines are for tactical purposes, to replace aircraft that are now becoming obsolete.
What has always bedevilled the discussions in NATO, certainly during the last year or so, has been the question of nuclear control. The President of the United States and the Prime Minister have made the suggestion of a multinational force, which is worthy of consideration. I cannot myself believe that it is possible to have a crew of many nations in a Polaris submarine, but it would be possible to create a squadron of Polaris submarines to which countries would contribute complete crews, which would be integrated firmly into a NATO Polaris force. These crews would operate in the same way as the aircrews the Americans have produced at Supreme Air Command, and with them we could build up a responsible élite force. It may be possible to have crews in which the commander is from a different country from that of the crew, but I cannot believe that it is possible to have a crew from different nations operating a ship of such complexity as a Polaris submarine.
1026
But even if we obtain this multinational force, do we really meet the fundamental nervousness of Europe about nuclear weapons? The Europeans are fearful that the Americans, who now control, may escalate too quickly. But if NATO has a force, we shall not avoid that position. I think that the only benefit of this type of force is that it could be used if the United States failed to escalate. As the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon, I frankly do not believe that the United States would fail to meet their obligations to Europe, but if it would make Europe happier, and able to get proper political control, then I should not be against bringing a Polaris fleet into NATO. But a good deal will have to be done in regard to political control.
Obviously, the theme of this debate is Atlantic unity. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the preamble of the resolutions of the Political Committee, which speaks of Atlantic unity and not only European unity; of world peace and not only European peace. These resolutions were accepted unanimously by all the parliamentarians in the Conference. We now have what would appear to be a very serious threat to NATO—not just the collapse of the Common Market talks, because the unity of Europe is not based on that alone, but the French attitude to NATO. There are rumblings in Paris, suggestions that France not only wishes the Americans out, but also wishes to see the end of NATO. I believe that we must react with all the strength we have to these suggestions. We must not permit the French to obtain the initiative. That does not mean that we should criticise and attack the French on every occasion, but we should certainly see that our friends in the Alliance, particularly the countries in the Common Market, fully understand and appreciate that it is essential that NATO continues, as it is to-day, an Atlantic Alliance.
The failure of the Common Market talks has been a great blow, but, as has been said in your Lordships' House and in the House of Commons, it is not the end. European unity is still possible if the countries of Europe are prepared to develop their trade not on any narrow front. We can play a big part in this,

1027
and I hope that we shall do so. What really concerns me is this talk about a third force. It has been said in your Lordships' House that a third force—that is, France, and maybe other countries who may wish to join her—is not practicable. It has been said that it is a dream. I think that we should be very foolish if we took that attitude. General de Gaulle may have made mistakes; but he is a General, and he plans. He has shown in the past that, while he has made his mistakes, he still moves forward and has achieved many of his objectives. His objective is clear, and it is possible that he will have already made his dispositions towards it.
I am particularly concerned about rumours I have heard from Europe about the Franco-German Treaty. This is a Treaty of friendship and this is something that we all welcome, because when France and Germany are friendly that reduces at least one possibility of a future European war. But there has been some suggestion that there is a special codicil to this Treaty, in which France and Germany have agreed to co-operate in the development of a nuclear weapon. If this is the case, while I would not say that Germany has broken her Treaty, I would ask the Government whether it would be possible for Germany to assist in producing vehicles for carrying warheads without breaking her Treaty. They could do so as the agent of France. If these rumours are going about, adding to all the other rumours that are causing serious disquiet, among not only ordinary people but the Government, and if there is no truth in them, then I hope that the French and German Governments will come out very firmly and say that there is no such agreement. If they did so, they would set a great many fears at rest.
My last point is in relation to Resolution No. 6 of the Economic Committee. One of the great difficulties in the future will be how countries like the United States or this country will be able to maintain their military contributions to Europe. We spend £70 million a year in foreign exchange on maintaining our present forces. In the long term, this will increase. This is a burden that we find very difficult to bear, and I hope that the countries of NATO will be able
1028
to find some way of alleviating the heavy burden placed on the United States and on this country. Resolution No. 6 of the Parliamentary Conference is to that effect. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, whether he has any information as to the arms purchases made by the German Government during 1962. If my memory serves me correctly, they undertook to buy £50 million to £60 million worth of weapons in this country to assist us in our foreign exchange. My last information was that orders for only a marginal sum had been placed.
I think that NATO would be well advised to set up a banking account into which NATO countries should on an annual basis contribute their currency to an amount to cover the foreign exchange costs of the countries who may be involved in it, and from that sum a NATO purchasing committee should be able to place contracts in the countries concerned where there is money available to help meet the costs. At the present moment, this method of trying to persuade one country to buy your artillery or your aircraft in order to meet your costs only raises frustration and difficulty, and it will continue. It is no good. Certainly it will not help a policy which I think NATO must adopt as soon as possible, and that is a greater standardisation of weapons. If NATO is to buy weapons merely to cover some country's foreign exchange, it is difficult to see that the right weapon is bought or that it is bought in sufficient quantities.
As to the future of NATO, so far as this country is concerned, there is the short-term aim; that is, to work with our NATO Allies to show to them that we are loyal. Perhaps the best way we can do that is to bring our own contribution up to strength as quickly as possible, to show to our NATO colleagues that we will stand by NATO through thick and thin. But in the long term, as the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said, what really will count is our own economic strength to withstand the strains of this heavy military commitment. If we do not do that, but fall behind, then our contribution to NATO will be bound to suffer; and if we do not stand by NATO militarily, particularly at this time, then NATO will be in a dangerous position. NATO has

1029
maintained the peace in Europe, and I am sure will continue to do so, but only so long as there is confidence in the partners of the Alliance to stand together and to be truthful to each other.
5.26 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDONALD: My Lords, I wish to speak for a short time this afternoon in support of the Motion by my noble friend Lord Crathorne, which, as many of your Lordships have already said, has arrived at a most opportune time. My noble friend and subsequent speakers have covered the political recommendations of the NATO Parliamentarians' Conference in November last year, but a great deal has happened since then between ourselves and France, and concerning France's relationship with the United States. NATO and the military machine of SHAPE have been the bulwark of the West since 1947, and the present dissension between ourselves and France, and also between Europe and the United States, over our wishing to join the Common Market (a dissension which we hope is temporary) must not be allowed to weak en the NATO Alliance. In fact, as other noble Lords have said, we must now press for extra harmony. And from the practical point of view, it is good to notice how the joint work is proceeding between the aircraft industry in this country and Sud Aviation concerning the development of the supersonic air liner.
In January of last year, at the Atlantic Convention of NATO nations held in Paris, it was recommended that
"The NATO Parliamentarians' Conference be developed into a Consultative Assembly".
This idea has gone forward, and your Lordships have heard about it this afternoon. It is moving along; but, in my opinion, too slowly. Events in Europe have been moving so fast that I think we should now ask Her Majesty's Government to invite the other NATO countries to agree to speed up the proposed subcommittee work with the idea of developing this consultative assembly at the earliest opportunity. I feel that, in order to get this, we should for the moment omit the neutrals and confine it to the NATO countries. Further, your Lordships will have noticed that the Dutch were reported in the Sunday Telegraph of February 3 as suggesting, after the breakdown of the talks in Brussels,
1030
that NATO headquarters should be moved to London or to one of the other of the capitals of the Common Market countries. Why should not the NATO Consultative Assembly at some later date, when it is set up, be in London?
Before moving on to another matter, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the remarks made by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe concerning the submarine threat, as reported to the Military Committee at the meeting in November. I mention this because I consider the subject important in relation to a matter I am going to mention at the end of my speech. He said:
"There are about 150 long and medium range submarines operational in the Northern Fleet. Some are nuclear-powered and some are armed with ballistic missiles, others with cruise-type missiles. All these vessels have free access to the high seas and, except for the ballistic missile boats, which, it is believed, would initially be deployed against North America (the Soviets as of now having insufficient ICBMs) all threaten Allied Command Europe.
"The threat is of two types. First, that posed against the Strike Fleet in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. This is serious and immediate, as it may effect the execution of that part of the nuclear strike plan which depends upon carrier-borne aircraft for delivery.
"Second, the threat against shipping: apart from certain special targets, such as East-hound laden tankers, the sinking of which may have an immediate effect, attacks on shipping could seriously reduce SACEUR'S long-term capability to wage war.
"SHAPE believes, therefore, that submarine deployment against Allied carrier forces in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean will have priority. The enemy's numerical capability, however, is such that he could deploy a proportion of his submarines against shipping at the outset, probably against important specific targets. After the nuclear exchange, or if the carriers are sunk, an intensive anti-shipping campaign can be expected."
In Recommendation IV of the Military Committee, recommendations were made to deal with that. I have mentioned SACEUR's remarks in relation to the submarine threat in connection with the point I now wish to make concerning the independent nuclear deterrent, about which we have had various of your Lordships' views this afternoon.
I listened very carefully to the speech of the Minister of Defence in another place on January 31, to my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

1031
in the debate in your Lordships' House on February 6, and also to my noble friend to-day. There is one question which, to my mind, has not been answered; and that is, why Her Majesty's Government have agreed to equip us with Polaris submarines in place of other weapons which are now in use and which can be further developed, and also why these weapons may be chosen for the "mixed-manned" fleet proposed for NATO. I think that most of your Lordships are agreed that Britain needs her own independent nuclear deterrent. We are all aware that Skybolt did not work properly, and that Polaris does, and exists—although I understand that the models being discussed for NATO are still on the drawing board.
My Lords, what is wrong with our existing V-bomber force equipped with Blue Steel, both of which, I am firmly advised, can be considerably improved? Why are we about to embark upon a decision in favour of these expensive under-water monsters, of which we shall have only about five under our control? I understand that they must be detectable and, this being so, they must be appallingly vulnerable. We have our independent nuclear deterrent which we are prepared to make available to NATO. This is a most important British contribution, and should prove to the Alliance that we are prepared to be good Europeans. When, and if, our Polaris submarines are built, it would surely not be difficult for their movements to be detected, particularly in relation to the remarks SACEUR has made, which I have quoted, about the Russian submarine fleet. Is this not a "Maginot line" thinking, of building a fortress with a super-gun, and imagining it to be completely indestructible? With our bomber force equipped with the right weapons, and the development of our bomber force, and with ground-to-air, air-to-air or air-to-ground weapons, we are maintaining two proven essential military principles—namely, those of mobility and flexibility. Our bombers can be operated at short notice from bases throughout the world, and could provide the concentration of effort necessary from widely separated bases.
One further matter to which I would refer before I conclude, is an article which appeared in the Sunday Telegraph of last
1032
Sunday, under the heading "New Look at Polaris" concerning studies now going on relevant to the NATO mixed-manned Polaris fleet. It stated that the Americans have still not made up their minds whether they favour surface vessels or submarines—the surface vessels being cheaper and quicker to make. It was further stated that, however manned, and whether surface or below, these vessels would each have an American marine detachment on board holding the key to the firing mechanism. I trust that Her Majesty's Government will be able to give us a clear statement on why the Polaris submarine is about to be accepted as our independent deterrent against all corners. If Her Majesty's Government cannot make that statement to-day, perhaps they could make it in the Defence debate which we shall be having shortly.
5.36 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, my chief reason for saying a few words in this important debate is that, as some of your Lordships may perhaps be aware, I am a Governor and a member of the Policy Committee of the Atlantic Institute in Paris—as we all know, the brain child of Lord Crathorne's NATO Parliamentarians. This body is now beginning to find its feet and is embarking on a series of long-term studies, many of which should be of real value to the Governments concerned, and perhaps even to the NATO Parliamentarians. But it is a fact—and here I am revealing no secret, I think—that the chief study which is now proceeding, that is to say, a study of the long-term organisation of what is vaguely called our Atlantic world (a study incidentally now presided over by Lord Franks who has just become a Governor of the Institute), is based on the assumption that the United Kingdom would fairly shortly become part and parcel of the European Economic Community.
The idea of a partnership between the United States (in association, of course, with Canada) has up to now, as we all know, been the general vision of the future as seen from the Institute's headquarters on the Seine. Much thought has been given to the possibility of working out this partnership in concrete terms through such existing instruments as the O.E.C.D. in Paris or otherwise. Now, as it seems to me, all this will have to be changed, and if the objective of increasing unity in our

1033
Western world is to be achieved it will clearly, for the time being at any rate, have to be achieved by some other method. Lord Franks, therefore, so he tells me, is now trying to produce other solutions based on the assumption that, even if the United Kingdom cannot for some years actually join Europe, the French Government will nevertheless not oppose, or may even facilitate, the conception of some machine for producing the maximum of economic co-operation between the industrial complexes on both sides of the Atlantic in the interests of the free world as a whole. I can only say that I hope he is not being too optimistic.
But General de Gaulle has himself put it on record—and I think this is what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, pointed out—that he is opposed to any Atlantic community which would embrace France and, so far as he can help it, all the countries of the Six. He says he is against it. So there is a danger, to say the least, that he favours a tightly-organised European Economic Community, "inward looking" as the saying goes, the whole constituting a sort of Greater France, temporarily, at any rate, within the military alliance known as NATO, but apparently looking towards the day when American and British troops will be withdrawn, the French nuclear deterrent built up, and Greater France thus capable of undertaking its own defence on the basis of a completely independent foreign policy.
That this is the idea can hardly, I think, be denied. If it were not so, then the President would hardly have incurred the odium of actually vetoing our entry into the E.E.C., desired as it was by all the other members of the Six. But if it is persisted in, still more if it is passively accepted by the European Economic Community as a whole, then it clearly makes nonsense of any Atlantic planning whatsoever. Nor is it in any way consistent with the maintenance of the whole Western Alliance. It is true that the French President apparently contemplates, so he says, our ultimate association with, or perhaps our incorporation in, this "Greater France", but that moment will come, it seems, only when the Americans have totally withdrawn from Europe, when we have severed all special political connections with them. ceased to be "outward-looking" and ceased, I suppose, to be
1034
the principal partner in the Commonwealth, the dissolution of which, for all practical purposes, would no doubt be a tacit condition of our entry.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would forgive me? We could perhaps replace Algeria.
LORD GLADWYN: That is a thought, certainly. All this may seem fantastic to your Lordships and no doubt it is fantastic to a considerable extent. In particular, I do not think we shall ever be put in the extremity in which it is apparently thought that we shall be put one day. But the possibility, to say nothing more, of an "inward-looking" European Economic Community of the Six only, from which the Americans may one day withdraw, is not fantasy—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd: we must look out. It is a horrid possibility, and I do not know why people here generally are not more frightened of it than they appear to be. One thing leads to another and if the reluctant Five have to accept a French veto for our exclusion, I think they may perhaps, after a little while, have to follow French leadership in other directions as well.
What can we do to prevent this sort of development? Of course, we must do everything we can to strengthen NATO, and nothing that I am going to say means that I do not agree with what has been said by the Foreign Secretary and other noble Lords on this particular point. But I feel—this is only a suggestion, but there may be something in it—that we should be well advised to take some political initiative in order to make it clear that the sort of Europe which we should like to join is not only a simple Customs Union but a living community of a new type suited above all to the needs of the twentieth century.
Towering figure though he is, General de Gaulle, as it seems to me, has not really come to grips with our modern age. His vision of a Greater France has no doubt great historical parallels, and if we came in I suppose he might suspect that we were following in the footsteps of Henry IV or even aiming to restore the Angevin Empire. But what we want to think about is not

1035
the past but the future, and more particularly to encourage our many friends on the Continent who were so helpful to us during the Brussels negotiations. We want to encourage them to believe that the majority of this nation really want in these days of the hydrogen bomb to form a solid Western Alliance comprising on the one hand America and Canada and on the other hand a genuinely united Western Europe, which is an entirely possible thing.
I think that the recent admirable speech of the Foreign Secretary in Brussels was a great help in this direction, and what I suggest, very tentatively, is something more in this direction of encouraging the Five. Could we not, in other words, give evidence that what we are thinking about is in terms of some European Council of Ministers that could, subject, of course, to the overriding needs of the Alliance, take real decisions, even in the field of foreign affairs and defence? I do not say that in these fields, at any rate for a long time to come, there should be any question of overriding the larger members of a new European Political Community. But suppose we suggested a small and workable Council, say of four permanent members and two non-permanent members, which took decisions again, shall we say, by a majority of five, including the votes of the permanent members; that, I think, would be a very considerable step forward, and I do not think it is anti-democratic or a solution which would be designed to suppress the interests of the smaller Powers. Not at all.
There is even good reason why, if we did that, the nuclear deterrents, such as they are, of the United Kingdom and France should be put at the disposal of such a body as I have described, while also having a rôle to play in the NATO Alliance, under which they would, of course, come in the event of a general war breaking out. I believe that this might be a more practical way of strengthening the Alliance than the so-called multi-national and multilateral force, which I suggest may come up against very real practical difficulties. I know, of course, that all this will be discussed in the debate on Defence and this is not the time to develop this theme.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord just one point? Is this council he is considering a council within NATO, in which the United States would be a member, or is it a council merely for European countries with the United States excluded?
LORD GLADWYN: The essential thought is that if we want a community which is also a political community, and the Government have, in fact, said the political community is what they want, then that political community must be something: it cannot be nothing. If it is something, then it must have some political direction. This idea would be the way of getting political direction of such a community in a concrete form, and of taking decisions within the framework of the Alliance. We should all, of course, be members of the NATO Council, too.
LORD SHEPHERD: Of the Atlantic Alliance.
LORD GLADWYN: Yes, of course. Another suggestion which I should like to put forward for consideration is a plan for a political commission to assist the Council, consisting of independent experts both in foreign affairs and in defence, who would advise the Council of Ministers and look at things from a European as opposed to a purely national angle. I cannot myself see why this would not be something designed to further European unity and in no way a danger. There would be no suggestion of the Commission's taking decisions at this stage. It might take the form of a secretariat with a Chairman or President sitting in with the Ministers. He would be, if you like, a European conscience on the assumption that we had formed anything of the kind.
Finally, I think we ought to say that we are in favour of extending the powers of the present nominated European Parliament, which might even one day be directly elected. A number of proposals were put up to this end by the United Kingdom Council of the European Movement in Munich last summer. These are well worth studying, and if the Government could say they were in favour of the method proposed it might encourage our friends on the Continent of Europe. I think the production of some such scheme would encourage our

1037
friends and prevent them from falling willingly into the Greater France scheme, which, if achieved, would undoubtedly result in a collapse of the entire Western Alliance. Perhaps there might be discussion of such ideas in the Western European Union. Of course, I do not ask the Government to say to-day whether they think these ideas are good or bad, but only to say that they will take them into consideration.
Some people, not your Lordships, sometimes ask, "What is the point of a Western Alliance nowadays? Is not NATO perhaps rather out of date? Why should Mr. Khrushchev think of invading Western Europe, even if the American troops are withdrawn and no more reliance can be placed for the defence of Western Europe on the American nuclear umbrella?" Mr. Khrushchev may indeed have his difficulties with the Chinese, but it must be remembered that both he and Mao Tse-tung agree on one thing, at any rate, which is that the capitalist or free enterprise system should be buried as soon as possible and that all means are legitimate for that purpose. The only dispute between them is that, whereas Mr. Khrushchev says nothing should be done to undermine free societies which would be likely to result in nuclear war, Mao Tse-tung maintains that if necessary even this risk should be taken. But to think that if American troops were withdrawn Western Europe could successfully depend for its ultimate protection on a few French Mirage aeroplanes, which would be destroyed in the twinkling of an eye before they left the ground, is, to say the least, to harbour an illusion. What would be more likely to happen in practice if American troops were withdrawn would be that in some way neutralist and pro-Communist Governments would gradually take over the seats of power in Western Europe one by one.
What I would maintain, therefore, is that we should never cease to say that in our view the only political set-up by which the West can continue to be defended is the creation of some workable European association, of which we should be a part and which would be firmly embodied in the Western Alliance; to make it clear that, in our view, such an entity would not be an old-fashioned Empire of any kind but a modern democratic and up-to-date community; and
1038
not, out of pique or panic, to take any measures which would frustrate the achievement of this great end. I have an odd feeling that we may be getting down to the construction of such a community a good deal sooner than we think.
5.53 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, begins
"To call attention to the necessity for European unity …".
It is upon this part of the Motion that I wish particularly to speak. I do not expect a reply from the Minister speaking later this afternoon for Her Majesty's Government to the suggestions that I shall make, but I do ask that they should be given careful consideration before the meeting next week of the EFTA Council at Geneva. But before I come to these suggestions perhaps I may say a few words on some of the implications which seem to me to arise on the other part of the Motion.
As the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, as well as my noble friend Lord Ogmore, hold important and influential offices in the Council of NATO Parliamentarians, may I, with great respect, ask them to use their influence with their unofficial American colleagues to make haste slowly in trying to use the NATO Treaty—I will not say to impose upon Europe, but to over-persuade Europe to accept an American conceived and directed plan for its future, political as well as defensive. There may have been special urgency which justified or excused the pressure which was exerted by the American Administration in the early days of the NATO Treaty, but the pressure for their pattern then alienated the Swedes and left serious misgivings in the other Scandinavian countries. Recently the apparent lack of American interest in countries which could not conform to the American pattern for defence, such as Switzerland and Austria, has adversely influenced the discussions for wider European unity.
In my view, there are a number of lessons which any American Administration has to learn before it can be of assistance to the Europe of to-day, which is bubbling with ideas about its own future. The first is that Europe is deeply concerned about its organisation for development in what most Europeans believe

1039
will be a time of peace in Europe, provided that the problems centred round Germany are not mishandled. Although Europe has to live with its Cubas, we do not share the same atmosphere of overhanging doom, of which one cannot fail to be conscious in the United States as one reads the notices there displayed: "When you hear a steady blast of three to five minutes, leave your room, lock the door and follow the instructions of your wardens" and so on.
Most Europeans do not wish the pattern set for defence to override or hamper their freedom for political experiment. The hope was that while the United States was co-operating in the economic field, through O.E.E.C. (now O.E.C.D.), Europe would be left free to try to find its way back politically to life. Pressure of any kind has always stirred the very individualistic Europeans to resistance, and some of the means which are talked about to encourage acceptance of the American plan for Europe are felt by many Europeans to be undesirable because they could have disturbing effects, and possibly prejudice and endanger the settlement of the most difficult and dangerous of European problems—namely, those which centre on Germany.
The second lesson which I think the Administration in America must learn, if European reaction is not to prejudice future co-operation, is the meaning of "partnership", of which they talk rather freely. I wonder whether Americans should not ask themselves if they are prepared or, indeed, ready for such a step. The third lesson is that Europe (and by Europe I mean a majority of individual citizens in Europe) do not feel, whatever Americans think they ought to feel, such a sense of gratitude or obligation to them as Americans in general consider they deserve. Most Europeans, as the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne said, believe that American concern for Europe has been inspired primarily by the fact that they have since the war regarded their own first line of defence as being in Europe. This is shown to be true in European eyes by American lack of interest in any country or any movement which does not fall into the pattern of this conception.
Further, most thoughtful Europeans on the Continent, up against the cruel facts of the division of Europe, the partition
1040
of Europe, look back upon a series of American political decisions since the end of the 1914–18 war from which they feel Europe is suffering. That of recent years much American advice, even if considered clumsy by Europeans, has been prompted by good intentions is accepted in this country, but the judgment of Continental Europe is much more realistic, more caustic and more severe. Until we have achieved greater unity in Europe, I feel that we are likely to confuse this first fundamental necessity (both to Europe and it appears to be also to the United States) if we indulge in too much vague discussion of Atlantic Union, if this means extending it beyond common defence into the general field of politics. With great respect, in this matter I agree entirely with what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said. With these few words of caution, may I now turn to the first part of the Motion?
Frankly, I am amazed by much that has been said and written in this country since the break-up in Brussels. Take, for instance, the statement from a letter to which prominence was given recently in the Financial Times. This letter said this:
"The united Europe policy for which we have been fighting has the backing of hundreds of millions of people on the Continent, who see in it the great hope of ensuring the preservation of peace and democratic freedom in Europe."
If true, this would be plain and simple enough to fit in with the American plan, including political union. The truth is, of course, that there are in Europe a number of groups with different ideas on European unity, some of which would welcome our co-operation and some of which are strongly opposed to our entering into any Community, because they think we would not accept the principles or the rules upon which they wish to build it. President de Gaulle a few months ago dropped his particular Treaty of Political Union, which required unanimous decisions, because of opposition, much of it from those who did not think this treaty went far enough in the direction of European union.
I am sorry for the check at Brussels, but I believe that the shock may turn out to have been quite salutary, provided we refrain from embittering future relations between this country and any member of the European Economic Community. We

1041
must not mistake the personal sympathy expressed by many on the Continent over the abruptness of the break-up for a conviction that we should be easy partners to live with in a European Community. If I may be forgiven for interposing a personal note, I should like here to pay tribute to the great kindness shown to me when I was taken to hospital in Strasbourg during the recent Assembly meeting. May I take this opportunity of thanking all those there who went out of their way to show their personal interest and sympathy, including the Prefect and Strasbourg's distinguished Mayor, as well as the hospital authorities. I do not forget the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, who led the British delegation and who was also extremely kind.
My Lords, the analysis which I have tried to make of the situation as I see it, was necessary as the background for the suggestion I now wish to press with all the energy I can muster. It is that Her Majesty's Government should immediately propose to our EFTA partners an extension of the EFTA Treaty, to provide a common "European" citizenship and the immediate setting up of an Assembly parallel with the European Parliament of the Economic Community. Personally, I should prefer this to meet in Geneva, but I see no reason why the existing European civil servants established in Strasbourg and Paris should not also serve this Assembly. It should report to the Council of Europe, as does the European Parliament. The Council of Europe would continue to search for a basis of wider unity in Europe, and I am sure would, in time, succeed in bringing about a merger of this EFTA Assembly with the European Parliament. Naturally, I should like the noble Lord who is to speak later for Her Majesty's Government to be able to say that this suggestion will not only be carefully considered, but will be placed on the agenda for next week's EFTA Council meeting in Geneva. I have reason to believe it would receive support from at least some of our partners in that organisation.
We need now, I think, to give a great deal more thought to the fundamental issues, political as well as economic, involved in the emerging Europe. If I may say so without causing offence, I should like to compliment the Lord Privy Seal not only on the part he played in the negotiations in Brussels, but because
1042
he seems to me to have got through to the core—that is, to the "institutional conception", of the Treaty of Rome. He even projected the institutional pattern on to the political screen rather more clearly than the authors of the Treaty of Rome dared to do before the idea had been tried out on the economic level. This, in my view, is immensely important for the future, particularly if Her Majesty's Government consciously made a decision to commit themselves to an institutional structure upon which to build the political unity of Europe. I should much like to know whether Her Majesty's Government were keeping up with the Lord Privy Seal, He was certainly going beyond what the present French Government are willing to do, in spite of its protestations of faith in the Treaty of Rome.
It seems to me that what was implied during the discussions in Brussels by the Lord Privy Seal opens the way for the setting up of institutional machinery as a structural basis for politically unified decisions, at least in EFTA. If we succeed in getting results there, we shall then have shown the way, by our example, to greater political unity in Europe. No doubt for good reasons, while we were negotiating with the Community we felt that we should hold our hands in EFTA. I think it was right to negotiate with the Community, as the Treaty of Rome declared itself to be an open Treaty; but there was always the danger that the quite different national agricultural interests of France and Germany, as compared with our own, would prove too explosive for an agreement in present circumstances. We should not lose sight of the fact that, whereas in Britain only 4 per cent. of the labour force is engaged in agriculture, in France it is no less than 20 per cent., a fact which must influence any French Government.
I am glad that Her Majesty's Government are already giving thought to the agricultural problem that faces us in this country. The answer to the particular riddle of European agriculture as a whole probably lies in a longish transitional period on both sides of the Channel prior to the achievement of a common policy. But for the moment the question of negotiations with the Economic Community is shelved and our hands are free. I believe that we should now make something really alive with our EFTA

1043
partners as a base, individualist, European, moving about freely among each other, without passports, without customs, without restrictions between ourselves, exploring the world, giving out ideas and picking up ideas everywhere. Now we must create and build; and if we do it well we shall, by keeping the door always open, attract support from all who desire wider unity in Europe, although for the moment some may seem a little unsure of the path.
6.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, as one who attended the last meeting of NATO Parliamentarians in Paris, I should like to follow other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, for his admirable leadership of the Parliamentary team which went out from this Parliament, and also in congratulating him on his election as President of the Conference of NATO Parliamentarians. I think it is an honour to this country that the Parliamentarians of fifteen NATO countries decided to elect an Englishman; I think it is also an honour to this House that the Englishman they chose happens to be one of our colleagues.
My Lords, I agree with the most reverend Primate that this Motion is peculiarly opportune and well-timed, even though the circumstances may not have been foreseen at the time it was put down on the Paper, because it follows so soon after the French veto at Brussels against our entry into the European Economic Community. For it is now clear, as many noble Lords have reiterated, that the motive of French policy is to create a Europe in which neither Britain nor America plays any very important part. This attitude of France is, I believe, the most serious threat to NATO since its inception in 1949. The noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, emphasised this when he said that it challenged the very conception of NATO as an alliance spanning the Atlantic between North America and Western Europe. This basic thought was also expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby.
French policy not only weakens the military strength of NATO by depriving it of French support for the NATO forces in Europe and for a future multi-national or multilateral nuclear deterrent. Far
1044
more serious is that it discloses the determination of France to break up the Alliance by excluding the American forces and their bases from the Continent. The General is pursuing a will-o'-the-wisp third force in Europe, as was pointed out by the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary in our last Foreign Affairs debate, to hold the balance between Russia and the United States.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, painted a grim and realistic picture of what the General's Europe would be like, but, of course, this is a personal policy. I am quite certain that it is not supported by a very large number of eminent Frenchmen, and, as was well said in a Sunday newspaper, it could be successful only if the General became both omnipotent and immortal. If this policy is bound to fail, as I am sure it will in the long run, in the meantime it could do a lot of damage to the Alliance. Our European partners have certainly shown no sign of wishing to exchange President Kennedy for President de Gaulle. The real danger (I do not think this point has been made before in the debate, so whether it is right or wrong it makes it possible for me to introduce something new) to the unity of the Alliance is not that France will divide us from Europe or the Six from the rest of Europe, but will divide Europe from the United States.
It is in regard to the impact on opinion in the United States where the point of danger arises. There is already an influential group of senators in Washington who have suggested that American policy should be altered if Western Europe moves in a Gaullist direction. They would like the Administration to consider the desirability of withdrawing American forces from Europe. In support of this view they point out—with unquestionable accuracy, I think—that most of the European countries are failing to contribute their quota to NATO, while the United States is imperilling its balance of payments by keeping its agreed quota of 400,000 men on the Continent of Europe. The American forces alone have a standard of equipment and training that fits them for immediate combat, and this is being paid for by the American taxpayers. To these considerations—and this is a further consideration which has not been mentioned

1045
by the senators, but which must be in the minds of many Americans—should be added the fact that the time can now be foreseen when I.C.B.M's and Polaris missiles will make European bases unnecessary for the strategic requirements of the United States.
However, my Lords, in spite of these isolationist pressures which are already beginning to appear, there is no sign at all of isolationism in the policy of the United States Government. Indeed, the agreement at Nassau for the assignment of three Polaris submarines to NATO, which I believe will be operational very shortly, shows that the Administration is involving itself to an even greater degree in the defence of Western Europe. The pressures to which I have alluded are bound to increase unless we play our full part in the Alliance. The defection of France has made it more important than ever before that this country should not go on d ragging its feet about the British contribution to NATO. The best answer to this incipient American isolationism is to show America that we have the strength and the determination to carry out all our military obligations in Europe. And the best answer to Gaullism is to show our European partners that we are worth more to them as an ally than France. In military terms I believe that this means two things. First, the strengthening of the conventional forces we have assigned to Supreme Allied Command in Europe; and, secondly, active participation and cooperation in the preparatory steps now being taken for the formation of a NATO nuclear deterrent, national and multinational.
To start with the second proposition first, personally I welcome the Government's decision to assign our V-bomber force to NATO, and to do the same thing with our Polaris submarines when we get them. So long as we have a national nuclear deterrent (and this is not the occasion to enter into the merits of the case, which no doubt will be discussed during our forthcoming Defence debate) it should certainly be available for the strategic purposes of the Alliance. I believe that it is the Government's intention—indeed the Foreign Secretary has said so—to integrate our national deterrent with this multi-national nuclear force when NATO comes into the possession of it. I was going to ask
1046
the Government some questions about this, but most of them have been answered by the Foreign Secretary and I have no doubt that the noble Lord who winds up will have more to say on this subject. So perhaps I may be allowed to curtail my remarks by leaving this matter to the noble Lord who follows me.
I do not think anyone imagines that this addition to NATO'S nuclear armoury will free NATO from dependence on the enormous capacity of the United States, and it would be a great mistake to over-estimate its military value. In fact, I have heard many people say that its main value will be psychological and political rather than military, although that clearly is a matter of debate. But, in any event, this nuclear deterrent will give to NATO countries that cannot afford the luxury of a private deterrent (that is, the great majority of them) a sense of sharing in the nuclear power of the West. It may even prevent some countries, such as West Germany and, possibly, at a later date, Italy, from trying to acquire their own nuclear weapons. Everybody wants to stop the spread of these weapons, and the fewer the number of countries which have them the better chance there should be of an agreement to limit these weapons to their present possessors.
But there are two dangers, it seems to me, that must be avoided if the NATO deterrent is to be worth having at all. The first is cost. If the cost to European countries is so great that it means a large addition to their defence budgets—and I wonder very much which of them will be able to increase their defence budgets—and if the cost is so considerable that it results in a further cutting down of their already inadequate contribution to NATO'S conventional forces, then I think the value of the deterrent is very questionable indeed. The other consideration is this. If NATO has a deterrent, as the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary pointed out, it must be credible. It will not be credible to anyone if there are fifteen fingers on the trigger. Whether or not the word of command will continue to rest, as it does at the present time, with the President of the United States, there must be agreement about a system of unified control. In other words, control cannot

1047
be left to a committee, not even if it is a committee of Prime Ministers. There must be one man to give the order to fire.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl for a moment? He would make a distinction, I take it, between control and policy?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Certainly. I make that distinction between control and policy; and, as I see it, the great advantage of the proposed multi-national deterrent is that it will give the European partners in NATO a much greater say in policy. But I think that these two factors of cost and control have to be very carefully thought out and very clearly thought about by both us and our Allies if we are to be quite certain that the advantages of the multi national nuclear deterrent to NATO are going to be greater than its disadvantages.
I cannot help regretting myself that all this publicity and talk about increasing the nuclear strength of NATO has been diverting attention from what is in fact its Achilles heel—the weakness of its conventional forces; and I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Shepherd (I think he was the first speaker in the debate to do so) laid his finger on that exceedingly important point. The military weakness of NATO is not lack of nuclear power, because the United States has plenty of that; it is lack of equipment and trained men for the land, sea and air forces in Europe on which we are relying to prevent a nuclear war from breaking out. We should, I am sure, be giving a higher priority to fortifying their strength and efficiency than to organising a nuclear deterrent. The risk of a nuclear war in Europe cannot be lessened so long as we can continue to depend, as we do now, on the use of tactical nuclear weapons, with inevitable escalation. We shall be obliged to use nuclear explosives until our conventional forces are strong enough to hold a conventional attacking force—and that is not the position at the moment. My Lords, the only country whose divisions in Europe are fully manned and equipped for limited warfare is the United States. The rest of us are lagging far behind, and the total ground forces under SACEUR, as my noble friend Lord
1048
Shepherd pointed out, are nowhere near the safety minimum of 30 divisions. I believe the target is 36 divisions by the end of the current year.
I think we are suffering a little—it struck me during the debate—from the fault of national complacency about what we are doing in NATO. National complacency, like self-complacency, is very difficult to recognise by those persons who have it, and it seems to me that we in this country are much to blame for not setting a better example to our European partners, in our failure to bring B.A.O.R. up to the American standard of efficiency. B.A.O.R. is short of almost everything—personnel, artillery, transport and communications. To take the shortage of personnel, I cannot imagine why the Government suppose you can make a brigade ready for battle by flying out men from the strategic reserve in this country after fighting has begun somewhere in Eastern Europe. By the time these men have flown out, by the time they have joined their units, and by the time they are trained in their new units, the Russians will be on the Rhine. It will be much more expensive to keep more men and more supplies in Germany, and this will add a heavy drain on our balance of payments; but without them the British Army of the Rhine cannot be effective.
I know that the Government are in a dilemma, although it is a dilemma of their own making. The decision to buy Polaris will add enormously to defence expenditure over the next ten years, and this additional expenditure will, of course, be in a hard currency. To find the extra money, they will have to increase taxation or to spend more on defence at the expense of the social services, or to reduce their defence expenditure overseas—and here is the risk—including a cut in our forces in Western Europe. That would be one way of doing it, and there is a risk it might be done in that way. But if the Government were to choose the latter alternative, I should say now that we should regard it as a betrayal of the Alliance, and would resist it to the utmost of our ability.
No doubt we could make savings—and that is always what the Government look to first; it is the easiest way of doing these things—in our current defence expenditure overseas. One of the best

1049
ways of doing this would be to get the NATO countries to standardise the equipment of their armed forces (and I am glad my noble friend Lord Shepherd made this point, too), because not only would it be a saving to us but it would greatly increase the efficiency of the NATO forces. But no amount of economising, of cutting clown necessary expenditure, will cover the extra cost of having both a private Polaris and a streamlined combat-ready British Army in Western Europe, and what I am afraid of is that the financial commitments of the Government will make it more and more difficult for us to pay our way in the Alliance.
Now we all agree—and this agreement is shared by all Parties and, I think, by all noble Lords present this afternoon—that NATO is the most important of our Alliances. The security of our own island is inseparable from the security of Western Europe, and Western Europe depends, whatever the General may say, on the support of the United States. What we are asking the Government to do is to show by their deeds, and not just by their words, with which we are in full agreement, that they are prepared to pay the price required for us in this country to carry our fair share of the NATO military burden.
6.29 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I should like to join the chorus of thanks to my noble friend Lord Crathorne for giving us the opportunity once again of having our annual debate on NATO. It is always an occasion which produces thoughtful and constructive speeches, and this occasion has been no exception. I may say that I myself found the speeches very enjoyable, which is an agreeable thing for somebody who has to listen to all of them and to wind up at the end.
I sometimes think that in this country we fall into two opposing attitudes about NATO. Some, people are very much inclined to take NATO for granted, and assume that without any effort or thought on our part the Organisation will run smoothly and perform its proper function. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, drew attention to that aspect of it in his speech earlier on this evening. Or else—and I am glad to say that this has not been the theme of any of the
1050
speeches in the House this afternoon—others bemoan the disarray into which the Western Alliance has fallen. I think it is true to say that a very large proportion of those taking part in this debate have, at one time or another, been NATO Parliamentarians, and they certainly do not fall into either of those two categories. They are greatly to be thanked for the hard work which they have put into NATO, without reward and at much personal inconvenience.
My Lords, I noted what my noble friend Lord Crathorne, and also the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and others, said about the NATO Parliamentarians' Conference. I would agree with them about its value in stimulating discussion and in the interchange of ideas. I agree, too, with what the most reverend Primate said in his speech: that there must be increased understanding generally among NATO countries as well as understanding about defence. We must also look to that, and I will certainly bring to the attention of the right quarters the suggestion he made about using university places to promote better understanding. I hope, however, he will forgive me if in my speech I stick largely to matters of defence.
My Lords, looking back over the past thirteen years, the achievements of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation have been quite outstanding. It is a very ordinary thing for Alliances in time of war to be successful; there is then both a definite and a limited objective to be gained, and the spur to co-operation is the prospect of defeat if the Alliance fails. But there are very few examples of continuing and successful military Alliances in peace time. Your Lordships will remember that NATO was born in that peculiar twilight era when the war was over but a new and perhaps even more formidable threat to our way of life had emerged. Yet it was a threat and not an actuality; there was no active war to cement the fifteen nations together. One can discern, looking back over these years, how at times, and particularly when the cold war had melted a little, differences of opinion developed within the Alliance. Yet, my Lords, the astonishing thing is that over this long period of time the Alliance has not only held together but has greatly strengthened in military power and deterrent potential. And, of course, it

1051
has been successful in its main object of preventing the domination of Europe by the Communists and deterring war.
When NATO is taken for granted, or there is despondency about the disunity in the Alliance, we must remember that it takes an act of will and a sense of mission and purpose to hold fifteen different and diverse countries together. I think that all fifteen of us have been outstandingly successful in doing so. A very important witness who can confirm what I have said is General Norstad, who drew a very vivid picture of the transformation that NATO had brought about in the international scene in the time he had been there. I think what he said is worth quoting:
"I came upon the NATO scene in Europe not long ago—twelve years in fact—at the time when it seemed that fear was breeding apathy and inertia.
The question in 1951 was not whether war would come, but when. What month of that year would the Red Army move? Problems continue to loom large and sometimes ominously on our horizon but one thing is certainly clear; behind the shield which our strength and our determination have proved, men have shaken off their burden of fear. Our force, looked at in the political and military context of to-day is a significant one; it is a force to be reckoned with on the land, on the sea, and in the air."
My Lords, I think I might say here that the success of NATO has been due in no small measure to the succession of Supreme Commanders of the Alliance, and I pay my tribute to General Norstad and his predecessors; and I am sure it will prove to be true of General Lemnitzer. Nevertheless, there are, of course, as the Foreign Secretary and others have mentioned in their speeches, great issues which remain to be decided and to be threshed out: nuclear weapons and their control; and, not least, perhaps, the problem of France, which the noble Lords, Lord Boothby and Lord Gladwyn, have drawn to the attention of your Lordships. But the situation which faces NATO today is quite different from that of 1949. In those days, as General Norstad said, the greatest threat to Europe lay in the Red Army, not supported at that time by any nuclear capability. Rockets were then in their infancy. The medium-range ballistic missiles—let alone the inter-continental ballistic missiles—were years in the future. The American
1052
monopoly of the atomic bomb was the decisive factor in preventing world war. All that has changed. Both the Americans and the Russians have the nuclear capability of inflicting crippling damage upon each other. Nuclear weapons have evolved from the large, cumbersome, free-falling atomic bomb to tactical nuclear artillery, short-range rockets, nuclear depth charges, rockets with a range of 8,000 miles. And your Lordships will remember Mr. Khrushchev's speech in East Berlin the other day when he spoke of the development of a nuclear device too powerful to use in Europe.
So, my Lords, it follows that NATO, as a living institution for the defence of the West, has to adapt itself both to Russian capabilities and to Russian intentions. It has to change its techniques on defence and its weapon development. It is on the ability to adapt itself in a changing environment that the future of the Alliance depends. I would venture to suggest that it is debates of this kind, full of ideas, constructive ideas, and constructive criticism that give the organisation its spur to keep up to date.
But, as has been mentioned by several speakers this afternoon, there has been one very significant advance in NATO thinking in the last two or three months. Hitherto, the military plan for the defence of Europe by the forces of NATO has been complemented by the independent nuclear power of the United States and Great Britain. There has been some consultation about targeting with SACEUR, but the other NATO countries have had no say in the use or otherwise of long-range nuclear forces. The Agreement at Nassau sets out to change this. It sets out for the first time to give NATO a strategic, nuclear force of its own; and when this has been organised, countries on the mainland of Europe will share as owners in a nuclear force and will have a say in its use. I am sure that this is absolutely right, although there are of course difficulties about political control, and there are difficulties about the next stage and about multi-national manning. These things have to be settled in NATO itself. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, when he says that this problem is soluble and must be solved.
I believe that the decision of Her Majesty's Government to assign to NATO

1053
the V-bomber force, and subsequently our Polaris submarines, is a great step forward in the evolution of NATO and a most imaginative gesture. As your Lordships know, it is a decision which has been very widely welcomed throughout the whole of the Organisation, although I have seen some criticism in this country. For example, there was recently in the Press an article speculating on why we were assigning the V-bombers to NATO and commenting on the increased cost of this. The reason—and it is a perfectly straightforward one—for assigning the whole of the V-bomber force to NATO is simply that if you are going to go to war, or make plans to deter war, you do so with all the forces at your disposal. We wish to increase the strength of the Alliance as much as possible in the face of the Russian threat, but without prejudicing in any way our own national interests. Because Her Majesty's Government have the absolute right to retain these bombers for our own use, and we have the ability and the intention so to do.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask whether, until the V-bombers are brought into NATO, integrated with Strategic Air Command and so targeted, it is anticipated that they will be retargeted, or will they remain much as they are at present, but under NATO command?
LORD CARRINGTON: Of course, my Lords, this is a matter for discussion. As the noble Lord will appreciate, this is in the very early stages. But certainly SACEUR will have to be consulted about the targeting for V-bombers, and not only "SAC", as it used to be in the days before they were assigned to NATO. We shall also remain able to deploy V-bombers in support of our obligations and commitments outside Europe. There is no question whatever of relinquishing our independent right to use our deterrent. There will be no increase whatever in cost, because the bombers will remain stationed in the United Kingdom on our existing airfields, under British command and using British logistic support.
I must say I find the criticism of the decision which has been voiced in some quarters in this country rather surprising, since the more usual complaint is that we are not contributing enough.
This brings me to the question of the British Army of the Rhine, which was raised by the noble Earl. Lord Listowel.
1054
As your Lordships know, we are, under the Brussels Treaty, expected to maintain B.A.O.R. at a strength of 55,000 men. As I have previously explained to the House on a number of occasions, during the turnover from National Service to all-Regular forces, we are for a period unable to meet this commitment in full, although there are at the moment some 53,000 men in Germany. The recruiting figures during the past year or so have greatly improved—much to the surprise, I think, of a number of your Lordships who, a year or two ago, were in the habit of making rather gloomy speeches about the number of men it would be possible to attract into the Regular Army. This improved recruiting will enable us to bring B.A.O.R. up to its Treaty strength much sooner than we had thought possible, and it is our intention to work up to the figure of 55,000 men by about the middle of next year. In an emergency we can bring B.A.O.R. up to war strength in a matter of a few days.
There has also been some criticism of the equipment of B.A.O.R., and the noble Earl himself voiced some criticism. I should like to emphasise, although I do not want to go into this in great detail because I think it more suitable for another occasion, that there is a substantial re-equipment programme in being. This includes a new tank, Army personnel carrier, high mobility carrier and the surface-to-air guided weapon Thunderbird II. I can assure your Lordships that as a result of this programme, B A.O.R. will be a very well-equipped force, by any standards. I think it right, too, to say, as did the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that the obligation to keep 55,000 men in the Army on the Continent of Europe as well as a substantial Air Force, places a very onerous burden upon this country, a burden which we have loyally borne over these last years. Not only is it a completely new departure for this country to keep in being these Continental forces, but it has cost us over the foreign exchanges £70 million a year at a time when our economic position has been difficult and our obligations round the rest of the world have not greatly diminished.
For the Americans and ourselves are the only members of the Alliance with defence commitments which are worldwide. We alone are members of the

1055
three large regional pacts—NATO, CENTO and SEATO.
We have as an imperial inheritance the vital bases at Singapore and Aden. We have a particular responsibility for the maintenance of peace in the Persian Gulf and in Arabia. We have defence commitments in Malaya, and defence arrangements with Australia and New Zealand. As trade grows between Europe and the rest of the world, so does the importance of our sea communications grow, and the Royal Navy, together with our Allies, maintains a large maritime presence, ensuring that peace and the rule of law at sea are preserved. To do this we keep a substantial presence around the world, and I believe that the NATO countries are coming more and more to realise that this presence contributes in a vital way to the containment of Communism.
The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said, if not in these words then by implication, that it is not possible nowadays to isolate the world in watertight compartments. Instant communications, supersonic aircraft, nuclear weapons—all these have made the world too small a place for parochialism, in defence and foreign affairs, as well as in other matters. The containment of Communism is the business of the Western Alliance as a whole. A Communist victory, a Communist step forward in the Far East, is as much a danger to the NATO countries as it is to those closer geographically. In containing Communism round the world, we have played our full part. Since the Second World War British forces have been involved in over 40 operations, ranging from small skirmishes to major operations such as the Korean War or the long-drawn-out security operation in Malaya. No one can say with certainty where the next area of trouble will be. The only certainty is that it will be somewhere: and in the Government's view the world-wide role is just as essential a part of our NATO strategy as the forces we contribute to the Organisation itself; and certainly just as essential a part of the defence of the Free World against the Communist threat. We have therefore to balance our contributions to NATO and our world-wide commitments in deciding the allocation of our Forces.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked me about the amount of money spent
1056
so far by the Federal German Republic under the agreements whereby they undertook to spend some 600 million Deutschmarks a year for two years in this country. I am afraid that I cannot give him the exact figure; but, of course, we are in constant touch with the German authorities on this matter, and I have no reason whatever to suppose there is any likelihood that they will fall down on their obligations.
My noble friend Lord Dundonald expressed some doubts about the choice of Polaris as our independent deterrent. Perhaps it would be more suitable if we went into that question in detail in the Defence debate: but may I just say this now? Submarines have a life of about 20 years. If our first Polaris submarine comes into service in 1968, that submarine will still be in service in 1988, far longer than any V-bomber with a Blue Steel could be expected to be credible. As for vulnerability, I should be the last to say that a break-through in the detection of submarines will not become possible some day, but certainly not now; and there is no doubt that at this moment the Polaris submarine is the most invulnerable second-strike weapon we could possibly possess.
I will most certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade to what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said about East-West trade. I do not think that he will expect me to comment on this at the moment, except perhaps to say this: that we have to take into account NATO and COCOM in all these matters, in which the United States play a very large part.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for one moment, he does, I am sure, realise that as a result of the breakdown of the Brussels negotiations it is very necessary for us to discover new markets.
LORD CARRINGTON: Indeed I do, my Lords. I am merely pointing out that there were other considerations as well. But I will certainly pass on what my noble friend has said. I, too, agree with what my noble friend Lord Gladwyn said about the valuable work of the Atlantic Institute. The relationships of the Atlantic countries are changing to-day with very great speed, and these changes raise enormous political and economic

1057
problems that will have to be watched. Governments, as the noble Lord knows, are perhaps too often occupied with day-to-day questions to think very far ahead. I think that an independent body like the Institute, which has official support, can look much more freely into the future and suggest more imaginative answers to long-term problems than any other sort of body. It was for this reason that the Government welcomed the founding of the Institute and have given it support over the last two years. We await with interest to hear the results of its initial researches.
I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, would expect me to comment in detail on his proposals, but I will see that they are studied carefully and that he receives an answer in due course.
So, my Lords, let me end as I began. I am not surprised or dismayed by the criticisms that are voiced from time to time about NATO, or its strategy or its equipment. I believe it is necessary that we should discuss these things openly and without reserve. A debate of this kind is recognition that the Alliance is vital to our safety, and the Supreme Allied Commanders in Europe and in the Atlantic should note that this debate is an indication of the interest and importance which we in this country attach to NATO. I repeat, as has so often been said before, that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government in the future, as in the past, wholeheartedly to support the Alliance and to make our fair and proper contribution towards it.
6.51 p.m.
LORD CRATHORNE: My Lords, I do not feel at this stage that there is anything I can add to our debate other than to say that I think it has been an extremely good debate and to thank noble Lords in every part of the House for their contributions to our deliberations. I should especially like to thank the most reverend Primate for joining in the debate, and, on behalf of the NATO Parliamentarians' Conference, to tell him that, although our discussion to-day was bound to centre around the wide aspects of defence, there is a cultural committee in the Conference, which is very relevant to the exact points he raised. I think this debate has been unique in that everybody who has made a contribution has a special background of experience, which was so beneficial to our consideration of this important subject. Finally, I would say how grateful we are both to the Foreign Secretary and to the First Lord of the Admiralty for finding time to take part in the debate. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

PURCHASE TAX BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, without amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at seven minutes before seven o'clock.