COUNTY COUNCILS AND PRIVATE LEGISLATION

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT)

My Lords, this is not a Party political matter at all and it is, of course, one for your Lordships to decide; but I thought it might be of convenience to your Lordships if I were to intervene at this stage very briefly to indicate what the Government's view is upon the idea which has been put forward by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. I think we ought to be grateful to my noble friend, Lord Merthyr, for bringing this important matter before us. It has been simmering for a long while, but I believe this is the first time it has been brought before Parliament for some years. It is therefore right that he should have done so. It was clearly his duty to do it. I think it is a good thing that the essential principle he has enunciated should be restated, namely, that Private Bills should relate to local needs. That seems to be a principle which has occasionally been lost sight of.

Equally I think that since the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman of Committees, made his speech to us on May 13, it has become apparent to those of us who have looked into the matter that it is a good deal more complex than some of us originally thought. It has equally become clear, to me at any rate, that it is not a matter into which we should be rushed or in which we should be right to take a snap decision. The Government certainly agree that county councils ought not to promote Bills conferring on their district councils a host of powers for which there is no particular local need. One cannot help but be reminded of the apocryphal Local Bill promoted by a borough whose town clerk's marriage was upon the rocks, which included in Clause 171 the provision that "the town clerk's marriage is hereby dissolved." The clause escaped your Lordships' notice and the marriage was thereby dissolved.

On the other hand it may be perfectly proper for county councils to seek certain powers on behalf of their district councils when those powers are justified by local 481 need. Your Lordships may remember the Kent Water Act in which my noble friend, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, whom I see in his place, was particularly active at the time. The Kent Water Act, 1955, by which the county council reorganised the water administration of their county although they had no water supply functions themselves, is a good example of the point I am making. I am told that county councils certainly have power to promote such Bills, unless, of course, a rule is adopted to prevent it. I think, therefore, that there is strong reason for asking for more time for consideration of this new rule, or this re-enforcement of an old rule, which the Lord Chairman of Committees proposes.

The rule (I make no criticism of this fact) has been brought to public attention at rather short notice, and it refers to the practice of many years' standing. It is a course hallowed by many years of practice. This is surely another and more compelling reason for us to ask the Lord Chairman for more time. In the last three days I have received a large number of letters from local authorities, pointing out the difficulties which might arise if this rule were adopted without further consideration. I have not had time to examine these letters, but I know from conversations with your Lordships that you, too, have received similar letters from your local authorities. I feel we cannot disregard those letters without examining them carefully. I feel that out of mere courtesy to the local authority associations and the other bodies concerned there should be time for more consultation before a rule which so vitally affects them and might have far-reaching consequences is rather precipitately adopted.

I should like to suggest that the Amendment which the Lord Chairman of Committees was good enough to put forward verbally is right and proper and one we ought to welcome. This is a matter for the House, of course, and not for the Government, but I am sure that the setting up of a Joint Select Committee, or whatever may be the appropriate and convenient form of consultation, is the right way out of our difficulty. We have a real difficulty. Equally, we have got to tackle it, and I am certain that the Lord Chairman's proposal, as amended, is the right way.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, last week made his statement, my first reaction—I had no idea he was going to make that statement—was that he was very controversial. I have had no reason to change my views since then. I make no complaint about the fact that he made that statement and that he has brought this matter to the notice of the House. I think this is one of the most important questions that we have had to consider for a long time. It goes to the root of our democratic system of local government, and we have to consider ab initio what are the relationships between local government and national government, what is the position of the county councils vis-à-vis the district councils, and so on.

The noble Lord in putting down this Motion is seeking to make a complete change from what has been the practice for a great many years—to he exact, for the last thirty-seven years. I want to comment first of all on the procedure. At the latest possible stage the noble Lord has informed us that he is proposing an Amendment to what is on the paper. He now recognises the need for an inquiry. But, my Lords, is it the normal thing to state your policy, to act on it, to strike out clauses—large numbers of clauses—from Bills on the assumption that your policy is in operation, and then say, "We do not really ask you to adopt this policy pending further inquiry"? It is a procedure which seems to me most extraordinary. It the noble Lord wants an inquiry on this matter, by all means he is entitled to have it; but he is not entitled to put before the House and ask the House to accept a principle and then have an inquiry on it. Still less is he entitled to act on that principle pending the result of the inquiry.

Last week when we had this question under consideration I was under the impression that the noble Lord was not going to strike out any clauses at all pending these further discussions, and that, in fact, any clause about which he had doubts on the basis of the principle he was laying down would be deferred. I now gather that a considerable number of clauses have already been struck out of the Kent Bill, even before the House has had an opportunity of expressing its views. I must say that this is a topsy-turvy procedure and 483 makes the whole of our consideration of this matter a farce. If the noble Lord is going to be in a position to decide first and then ask the opinion of the House, what is the good of getting the opinion at all?

LORD MERTHYR

My Lords, may I interrupt? I apologise to the noble Lord for interrupting, but it might be helpful if I said this. When I said that a certain number of clauses would be disallowed if this Motion was passed, it was subject to the real position, which is this: the Committee stage of all these three Bills is not yet concluded, and the technical constitutional position is that no Amendments are made to the Bills until the conclusion of the Committee stage. Therefore, although it is true that a great deal of consideration has been given to the Bills, clause by clause, technically it is also true that no clauses have yet been irrevocably expunged from the Bills. I ought perhaps to add that the Committee stages of all three Bills have been adjourned until to-morrow morning—that is, of course, purposely until after the debate this afternoon.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

Does that mean that the clauses in the Kent County Council Bill that were struck out the day before yesterday will, in certain circumstances, be reinstated; and, if so, on whose initiative?

LORD MERTHYR

My Lords, technically speaking, they have not yet been struck out; but even if they had been—if the noble Viscount would like to phrase it that way—they can be reinstated to-morrow morning, and on my initiative.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I do not think that I have anything to withdraw. These clauses have been struck out, in pursuance of a principle which the House has not yet accepted, and which we are only now being asked to accept, pending further inquiry. So that it would have been much more proper, had the noble Lord so desired, to defer consideration of these debatable clauses until there had been a decision on the matter. However, the position has been somewhat changed by the suggestion that we might have an inquiry.

I want to say a few words, as the noble Lord has done, about the position of 484 local authorities in relation to Parliament and their private legislation. I should like to advance the principle that unless there is good public reason why clauses in a Private Bill should be disallowed, they should be allowed. After all, county councils render a great service to the community by putting forward ideas which can be tried out in their own locality and which, if found to be successful, can be applied to other parts of the country. I think we owe a great deal to the county councils for giving us the opportunity of trying out these things. It would be rash in the extreme if we jumped into legislation applicable to the whole country before we knew whether or not particular powers were desirable or practicable. A great mass of the law relating to local authorities has been built up as a result of the experiments carried out by individual local authorities, by their being allowed to put clauses in their own Bills which, when they have been tried out, have been found successful and generally extended. I think it is a great pity that we do not have legislation periodically, say every ten years, incorporating all the clauses in local authority Bills which have been found to work. But that is not the fault of the county councils.

When the noble Lord complains of lack of uniformity as between one council and another, he is perfectly right, but that is no argument against a particular local authority getting the powers that it wants and trying them out. My own approach would be that the onus of refusing powers to a county council should be on the Government, on Parliament, and not the reverse. Unless it can be shown that the powers that the county council is seeking are injurious or undesirable, they ought to be granted. The noble Lord referred to every district council in Kent having power to provide a golf course. I see no particular harm in that. Why should they not have such powers? It does not compel them to provide a golf course; it merely enables them to do so should they so desire. Why does the noble Lord think it wrong that such powers should be conferred? Why does he want to stop them? I just do not understand. Would he rather that every district council in Kent, or anywhere else, that wants a golf course should promote separate legislation in order to get it? Surely it is a most 485 convenient way of providing powers for district councils.

This is not the first time that this matter has been considered. It has been considered on a number of previous occasions, the last one as recently as towards the end of 1955 by a Joint Committee of both Houses. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, will remember that, because he was a member of that Committee, and he will remember all the discussions that took place. He will remember that the recommendations were unanimous, and therefore he was a party to them. I want just to remind him of one or two of the recommendations in that Report. May I remind him of paragraph 72, which I will read, as it is fairly short. A practice has grown up in recent years by which county councils promote Private Bills containing adoptive clauses or parts making powers available generally to district councils in their areas. And that, of course, is exactly what the Kent County Council Bill is proposing to do. The practice has definite advantages"— this is what the noble Lord himself said at the end of 1955— although it seems likely that if certain powers are desirable in some counties they might well be made available to district councils over the whole country. The London County Council has a somewhat similar, though wider, power to promote, in effect, clauses on behalf of the Metropolitan Borough Councils. The Committee approve the adoptive method of private legislation as tending to reduce costs and simplify procedure. Why has the noble Lord changed his mind? Is it because of the Kent County Council Bill? There is nothing in his Motion about the Kent County Council Bill; it is quite general. Would he have objected to the Surrey County Council Bill or the Essex County Council Bill which are before him, on the same grounds? Why has he changed his mind? What pressure has been put upon him? Perhaps we can be informed.

LORD MERTHYR

If I may interrupt the noble Lord again on that point. I would point out that the clauses on these Bills are not adoptive clauses—at least, generally speaking—and paragraph 72, which I anticipated the noble Lord would comment on, dealt with adoptive clauses. There is there, in my submission, a great difference.

LORD SILKIN

Frankly, I fail to understand the distinction. The general 486 principle of the noble Lord's Motion is that county councils all over the country, not only the Kent County Council, should not include in Private Bills which they promote powers applicable to district councils, if the county council has no interest in those powers. Paragraph 72 is definitely against that principle. Paragraph 72 regards it as a good idea that a county council should be able to promote legislation. I really do not understand the significance of the noble Lord's intervention. That being the case, we are in fact discussing the Kent Council Bill. If it were not for the Kent Council Bill it may be that this Motion would not be before the House at all.

The Kent County Council, wisely or unwisely—and I do not argue the merits of the Bill itself—have gone to an enormous amount of trouble to work out the powers they want. They have never before had a Private Bill. They have taken many years to work out the powers they want and have at last incorporated them in one Bill. That may be convenient or inconvenient, and I confess that I have considerable sympathy with what the noble Lord has said about the length of the Bill and about the difficulty of scrutinising a Bill of that length as it should be scrutinised when one has so many other Bills to go through. It is probable that the Kent County Council were ill-advised to promote a Bill of this magnitude, although the noble Lord himself, when he spoke last week, said that he made no point of its length. I was rather surprised that he should say that, for I believe that there is a point to be made about the undue length of the Bill and the difficulty of Parliament properly fulfilling its functions in scrutinising a Bill of that size. Be that as it may, we are not in this Motion judging the Kent County Council Bill; the noble Lord is seeking to lay down a principle which would apply to all county councils throughout the country, whether their Bill is long or short. It is to that principle that I strongly object—or, at least, I object until there has been a proper inquiry, if an inquiry is considered necessary.

There is one other matter to which I want to refer—town meetings. The Joint Committee to which I have referred were not very enthusiastic, as the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, will remember, about town meetings; in fact they recommended that 487 legislation should be introduced to abolish town meetings and polls. We all know that these town meetings have become somewhat farcical. One gets possibly 5 per cent. of the townspeople voting; and even then there is a strong suggestion that they are people with a special interest in the matter or who have been the subject of considerable pressure, and that town meetings are in no sense representative of the views of the town or borough as a whole. I am sure that that is the experience of everyone who has experience of holding a town meeting. Nevertheless, that is the law; and the recommendation of the Joint Committee, which the noble Lord accepted, was that this requirement should be abolished. But is there any reason why, if the noble Lord and his Committee are in any doubt as to whether particular powers in a county council Bill are required or wanted by the electorate, they should not insert in the Bill a provision that there should be a poll, if it is demanded, say, by a certain number of people? The noble Lord was good enough to say that he was not accusing the Kent County Council of seeking to circumvent the provisions requiring a town meeting. That being the case, there is no question here of bad faith. Could there not be a provision introduced, as has been suggested by the County Councils Association, in which, in particular cases, the views of the townspeople should be taken on particular provisions? That would meet the case.

I want to suggest, in conclusion, that this Motion is ill-timed and somewhat arbitrary. After all, the County Councils of Kent, Essex and Surrey, in introducing their Bills and going to the enormous expense involved, have acted in good faith and on the basis of a practice which has now been established without question for thirty-seven years and which has been reaffirmed by Parliament on a number of occasions—the last being as recently as the end of 1955. They have acted in good faith in the belief that what they were doing was justifiable and had the approval of Parliament. Is it not somewhat arbitrary, therefore, suddenly to come down on them and say: "We are going to strike out 184 clauses from your Bill on which you have taken so much trouble, every one of which has a precedent"—because the noble Lord has admitted that that is so. Is it not somewhat arbitrary to say to Surrey: "We 488 are going to strike out 52 of your clauses"? I would submit to your Lordships: is not the right course not to make a decision?

The noble Lord unwittingly misinterpreted me when he thought that I had asked that the House should come to a decision. I thought that this matter ought to be ventilated and that everyone who was interested in the subject should have the right to express a view; and that then possibly the right thing would be to have the matter inquired into by a Joint Committee, such as has been suggested, without a decision of this House at all. I hope that the noble Earl the Leader of the House will advise the House that it would be undesirable to have a vote on this matter and then to have an inquiry, but that, the matter having been ventilated, it should be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses; and that in the meantime the clauses that offend against the principle should not be struck out but should be merely suspended.

It may well be that such a course would mean delaying the Kent County Council Bill and others. I would suggest that the Kent County Council would rather have the Bill delayed than have 184 clauses struck out of it; and the same applies to Surrey. As I understand it, a Private Bill can be extended from one Session to another; and, that being the case, at least they ought to have the option. But it seems to me to be acting rather harshly if these clauses are struck out without any warning of any kind to the county council. I would appeal to the noble Earl the Leader of the House to advise that this matter should not be forced to a decision to-day; that, having had this discussion, we should make no decision, but that, if necessary, a Committee should be set up to look into the whole question.

LORD MESTON

My Lords, may I ask this question: if the Kent County Council Bill is in a sense sub judice, is it in order for us to discuss the details of that Bill? I want to do so myself but I do not want to "put my foot in it".

THE EARL OF SWINTON

My Lords, I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the issue which is raised today both in the Motion of the Lord 489 Chairman and in the Kent County Council Bill is one of the greatest importance; but the issue which is before the House, I respectfully submit, is not whether the provisions which have been inserted in the Kent County Council Bill, and by which it is proposed to confer a number of powers on some 240 or 250 parish councils in Kent, are good or bad provisions; but whether it is right to include those provisions in a Kent County Council Private Bill.

The noble Lord said that this question went to the heart of local government and local government legislation. I entirely agree; but equally it goes to the heart of national government and national public legislation. I should have thought that this was a proposition which everybody in this House would accept: that there is a wide field which is the function of Public Acts of Parliament, and there is a much narrower field which falls properly within the scope of Private Bills; and that narrower field relates broadly to local needs which are promoted by the promoter. Of course, there will be borderline cases where the local and the general impinge upon one another. I think it was Robert Louis Stevenson who said that it might be difficult to define precisely where day merged into night, but the ordinary man had not much difficulty in distinguishing day from night. That, broadly, I think, is the common-sense principle which we ought to apply and have, indeed, I believe, always hitherto applied in judging what is the proper scope of general public legislation and what is the scope of private legislation.

Broadly speaking, the conferring of general powers on local authorities is, I would submit without any doubt, the proper function of a Public Act of Parliament. That, surely, has been the practice ever since county councils and all other organs of local government were instituted. A Public Act of Parliament set up county councils. As to this particular instance—the proposal to confer very wide general powers on all the parish councils in a county—we had the principle actually decided, or the principle carried into effect, only a year ago in a Public Act of Parliament. I think it was last year that Parliament passed the Parish Councils Act. That was a General Act of Parliament conferring a number of powers on parish councils.

490 Incidentally, I understand (I shall be corrected if I am wrong) that that Public Act of Parliament conferred seven new powers on parish councils in England and Wales, whereas the Kent County Council Bill proposes to confer no fewer than sixteen new powers on all the 240 parish councils in Kent. I am not going to say whether those are good powers or bad powers; I do not know. I am not concerned with that, nor, I suggest, should the House concern itself with that problem, even if it were accepted that all those powers are perfectly good powers and it is a good thing for parish councils to have them. In that case I say that those powers should be conferred upon parish councils by a Public General Act of Parliament, and they should be conferred upon all the parish councils in the country.

The noble Lord has said that we could find a precedent for almost everything, perhaps for everything, that is in the Kent County Council Bill or in any of these Bills. I think that that is common ground. The Lord Chairman of Committees has frankly stated to the House that you can find a precedent no doubt where a power has been given, in one or two instances; but not for this universal usurpation of the function of public legislation. Of course, it is true that Private Bills vary the general law in particular cases. But surely, as I think has already been said in this debate, the established practice has been that the general law should be varied by private legislation only in the case where there is proof of local need; and that, I take it, is the intention of the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman of Committees: to safeguard that practice by inserting the words "in general" in the Motion which is before us.

I would go a little further and say that if the Motion is adopted (I will come in a moment to whether we should adopt it or the proposal of the noble Lord that all these Bills should stand over), and if that principle, which I submit is a principle which Parliament has hitherto accepted, is endorsed, then I would hope that it would be quite liberally construed. However, it has not even been argued to-day that there has been any proof of local need in support of the general powers which are sought in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said he could give the precedents. I am sure that he 491 could, but I would venture to guess—I do not pretend, naturally, to have gone into them all—that in every case a local need for the conferment of the powers by private legislation had really been established; and, indeed, the examples which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has cited really do not support his very broad thesis but rather support the contention that they are exceptions which prove the rule.

Surely this enormous extension giving these sixteen new powers to all the parish councils in Kent, which I say more properly belongs to general legislation, is not just a difference in degree, but it is a difference so enormous that it clearly becomes a difference in kind. My Lords, if these clauses were allowed to go through, we in Parliament should be creating a precedent to which, as far as I can see, no limit could be set. Any county council could propose an amendment of the general law which the majority on the county council for the time being thought would be agreeable in their county. Indeed, as the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman of Committees, has said, they could even vary the criminal law from county to county. That, really, is a very strange proposition. Lord Silkin said that it is rather a good idea to have these experiments made: that it should be tried out. But where are you going to stop over the whole field of general legislation? There is a great dispute about whether there should be a death penalty. Is the noble Lord going to say that it is practical, if it works, to have it in the County Palatine and not in another county?

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I do not want to follow that example; but, after all, it is for Parliament in the last resort to decide whether it is desirable to confer those powers on local authorities.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

My Lords, I am delighted to hear the noble Lord say that. That really presents me with the whole of the case. If it were intended that fresh powers should be given, whether to county councils or to parish councils, they ought to be given all round, and they ought to be, as they have always been in the past, the subject of general legislation.

EARL ATTLEE

My Lords, the noble Earl has referred to the law varying from district to district. I understand the law 492 about the opening of public houses varies from district to district.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

The law about what?

EARL ATTLEE

The law about drinking after certain hours varies. Is that very shocking?

THE EARL OF SWINTON

My Lords, I am not greatly shocked by it, although I have no doubt that the noble Earl has often found it inconvenient. The noble Earl must really get his history right. Parliament, by a general Act and not by a local Act—

EARL ATTLEE

My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl on that, but the point is not whether the law was laid down by Parliament or anyone else. The noble Earl is shocked that there should be a variation in this country between localities.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

My Lords, the noble Earl must not try to get away with that; it is beneath both his intelligence and his dignity. Of course, Parliament can legislate about anything, but the whole question here is between legislation by Public Act or Private Act of Parliament. The noble Earl said that Parliament in its wisdom gave local option or the right to vary the hours of drinking. The localities decide. But it was a Public Act of Parliament which conferred on the individual local authorities the right to regulate the hours of drinking. The noble Earl is enormously strengthening the case of the Lord Chairman.

If we do not stand by the principle that general powers should be conferred by General Acts of Parliament, what we are really doing is giving local option by Private Bill to contract out of the general law. if that were done, I submit that the county councils would be assuming powers of the national Parliament, and I think that Parliament should be very chary of allowing such a trespass upon its own land. I do not know where it is to stop. I am entirely in favour of an inquiry. I gather that what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was proposing was that there should be a Joint Select Committee of both Houses to inquire into the matter. Well, that may be a very useful and convenient way of doing it. I think that probably the whole House would accept it. But what is to 493 happen in the meantime? Obviously, if these Bills are to go through, a decision must be taken; and if they are to go through I submit that we ought unquestionably to support the Lord Chairman and say that these clauses cannot be allowed and ought to be struck out.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

No, no.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

That is my view. The noble Lord is entitled to his view but he will not persuade me just by shouting at me. I remember once a friend of mine borrowing a book of sermons from a clergyman, who said that he might find them useful when doing his duty. In the margin he found the letters "A.W.S." over and over again. He could not understand them and so he asked his friend what the letters meant. His friend answered, "Oh, that means, 'Argument weak—shout!'" I think that the argument is strongly in favour of the Lord Chairman.

If it is preferred to pass these Bills with or without these clauses, I would support the Lord Chairman in deciding to strike them out. But if the county councils prefer to have the Bills suspended—which I should have thought might be very inconvenient to them, because I understand that they contain many good local provisions which the county councils would like to have, and it would be much better if they had the benefit of the two Bills, which now become Unopposed Bills—I would support the inquiry. The Joint Select Committee should sit, and if they should make some recommendation which Parliament adopted, then it would be possible, if it varied with the Lord Chairman's proposition, for the Kent County Council or any other council to bring forward the Bill amended in conformity with what the Committee had recommended and the House decided. But I should be happy to leave it to the county councils to decide whether to have their Bills without what I may call, without offence, the peccant clauses in them, or to have the whole Bills left over.

I have only one other thing to say, which I mentioned on the last occasion. It is unfortunate that this important question should come up in this way towards the closing stage of a Private Bill. I am not blaming anybody for it; I think it is the fault of the system. As I said last time, the convenient way to 494 deal with these matters of principle and any matters of wide importance on Private Bills is for them to come before the House on Second Reading and to be discussed then. Your Lordships can then either, in an extreme case, throw out the Bill, which you are very unlikely to do, or do what we often and properly do—that is, give a direction to the Committee that it shall not pass certain clauses or that it should pay particular attention to them and make a report. I think that we should have been in a better position if this debate had taken place on Second Reading.

And if we have not the machinery by which that can be managed, ought we not to have it? We have the machinery for Special Orders of a special Committee who report to the House from time to time on Orders which require affirmation by the House, and draw our attention to anything which they think may be ultra vires or ought to receive the general consideration of the House, I should have thought that some special Select Committee could, with the assistance of Counsel to the Lord Chairman, have before them Private Bills, and then we should know whether there are any points of importance of this kind. But if we have to take a decision to-day on what is to happen to these Bills and they cannot be left over, for the reasons I have given I will most strongly support the Lord Chairman.

LORD REA

My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, when he said that he hoped that this debate would not become a Party matter. It does not seem to me to be a Party controversy and I am sorry to see that it tends to be leaning in that direction. This is really nothing new. This state of affairs has existed for a long time, but the matter is surrounded by difficulty and by localised potential hardship in respect of the one specific Bill which, more or less fortuitously, has brought to a head a matter of general principle, no merely in regard to Kent or Northumberland or Cornwall, but in regard to the delegation of legislative authority in general.

Delegation is essential in this modern world, but surely there is always a risk in the delegation of future or anticipated legislation, in the same sense, though in 495 the opposite direction, as there is danger in retrospective legislation, which we all deplore. As I see it, the position is that in the past the promoters of Private Bills have, without any impropriety, taken advantage of the opportunity to anticipate the requirement of certain powers by obtaining those powers in advance, in case they should be needed in the future. They have sometimes even sought for third parties powers which they themselves had no intention of exercising. And, by the grace of Parliament, through Select or other Committees (which exercise the delegated authority of Parliament), such powers have frequently been granted, as the noble Lord the Lord Chairman has told us.

The Kent County Council Bill outrages no precedent; it merely magnifies the licence, if I may so call it, which has been given in the past; and it seeks to invest itself with an authority in regard to future possibilities to such an extent that I think some of us feel that it is arrogating to itself powers which properly should lie only with Parliament. In these circumstances, the House is indebted to the Lord Chairman for placing before it so clearly and so objectively the situation as it actually is: a situation without any impropriety, but one which obviously calls for a decision upon whether small and perfectly justifiable indulgences in the past are to be regarded as precedents for almost unlimited extensions in the same field in the future.

This is a matter of personal opinion; and, for my part, I feel it would be improper for the smaller local authorities and for the people who compose them to be given powers (which they do not at present even seek) to expend the money of the ratepayers without any further reference to those who have to find the money; and that covers the matter of the golf courses in Kent. I maintain that there should always be as close a connection as possible, both in time and in context, between the cause for expenditure and the actual expenditure of the ratepayers' money, so that those who pay the piper should at least recognise the tune. For those reasons, I am inclined to support the Motion, particularly as amended by the Lord Chairman, and I hope that some inquiry such as he suggests may be put into being.

EARL ATTLEE

My Lords, I hope that the Lord Chairman will not press this Motion, which arises out of a special Bill, the Kent County Council Bill. I do not know whether these provisions are wise or not, but on this Bill the noble Lord is formulating a general principle which goes very far. I suggest, first of all, that it is running counter to practice over a considerable number of years; and secondly, that we ought to consider what would be the effect of agreeing to this Motion. I think one effect would be to put a heavy burden on the ratepayers. One of the burdens on the ratepayers is the promotion of Private Bills. Many people think that promoting a Private Bill is far too expensive. It is generally in the hands of a small group of people, a small group of barristers and a small group of expert witnesses, and they all charge a great deal of money. It is a most expensive thing for a small authority to come to Parliament for powers. On the other hand, county councils do come for powers, and it is a simple thing—we do it in London—for a small local authority to ask a county council to put into an omnibus Bill some provisions which they want, which saves all the trouble and expense of preparing a separate Bill. It does not involve the town clerk going away, or the chairman of the urban district having a few days in London, and the calling in of all kinds of expert witnesses. I think the adoption of this Motion would put thousands of pounds on to the rates and into the pockets of people who, frankly, I think do not deserve it. That is the first point.

The second point is this. I am rather shocked at the centralising views of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and the noble Lord who leads the Liberal Party in this House. I believe that we do not want so much centralisation in this country. I do not want every county to look exactly alike. The idea—and I have heard it ventilated in another place—is that we must not give special powers unless they can be made universal—I should not say "universal"; I do not approve of the word. I do not think this country is a universe; and, with respect to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, I do not think Yorkshire is a universe. Let me say unless they are made general. I think we want to live with plenty of diversity in different counties; and that is the object of Private Bill legislation.

497 It may be that the Kent County Council have gone too far, but I want to see county councils not narrowly restricted and thinking only of the exact thing for the county council. I believe in our counties and in the individuality of our counties; and I think that the counties should take an interest in the other local authorities and help them whenever possible. Therefore, if a county council, having taken a general opinion, think it will be a good thing for their amenities to have more cricket grounds—let us say they want more cricket grounds in Yorkshire to compete with Surrey, for instance—they should be able to take power for the smaller authorities to build cricket grounds and have that included in a Bill. The noble Lord suggested that there was a great difference whether these powers were to be mandatory or adoptive. But this Motion sweeps oat everything. There is no reason why a special provision should not be put in if it is considered necessary to protect the right to hold a poll; but it is an advantage that county councils should think broadly and should be helpful to other local authorities.

This Motion forbids a county council from including in its Bill special provisions for special parts of its district. I have heard the noble Lord refer to the democratic principle of the poll. My experience of these popular polls is that they are almost always occasions for vested interests to defeat something which is for the general use. My experience was in the borough of Stepney, before the First World War. In those days we had a vacant market outside Aldgate blocking the traffic. An overwhelmingly Conservative borough council proceeded to promote a Bill to get rid of the market. But there happened to be certain public-houses there who thrived on the custom of the people in the market, and they decided to oppose the Bill. They rallied al, the public-houses in the neighbourhood; they went around and took care of the polls, and the proposal was overwhelmingly defeated on a very small poll. We had to have a whole world war before we could get rid of that block. That is an example of how polls and plebiscites generally work. Another example occurred with Napoleon III in France. I am against plebiscites, but if provision is to be made for them in a Bill, there is no reason why, on the ground that there 498 must in certain circumstances be a plebiscite, we should reject the general principle, which I believe is a thoroughly sound one: that we should cut down as far as possible the resort to Private Bills by small authorities who cannot afford them, and that such authorities should be able to join with the county council.

Whatever be the merits of this particular Bill, I suggest that this Motion as it stands, even with the Amendment, is far too sweeping. I think you should inquire first and act afterwards. Further, I think it would be advisable to have a full discussion with the local authority organisations, and perhaps with the other place, before we pass such sweeping legislation.

LORD MESTON

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, for having moved this Motion. I think he has done good work, and he has made the position quite clear. I hope that he will stand to his guns, notwithstanding the considerable opposition from the Front Bench of the official Opposition. Allow me to tell your Lordships that on that Front Bench six out of nine are members of the legal profession; and, as your Lordships know, lawyers should always be regarded with the greatest suspicion. As your Lordships have heard, the process by which power is conferred by one authority to another can be traced back to the Bill promoted in 1921 by the Middlesex County Council. In addition to the Kent County Council Bill, I understand that Surrey and Essex County Councils are also promoting Bills on a smaller scale in the present Session.

The Kent County Council Bill must be almost a record in size. It consists of nearly 300 pages, more than 440 clauses and six Schedules. The contents of the Bill cover a wide range. They include compulsory purchase powers, protection of highways, auctions, restrictions on house-boats, boxing and wrestling licences, drains, nuisance from pigeons, hop-pickers, weighing machines, commemorative plaques, robes of office, collection and delivery of washing and prizes for garden and allotment competitions. I should like personally to add one to that, and say that it might confer powers on the district councils to choose beauty queens.

499 There are, however, certain powers in the Bill which may be regarded as too extensive. I use the word "may" advisedly, as clearly one should not be allowed to express any opinion on a matter which is being dealt with at the moment. About half the clauses confer powers on other authorities exclusively. The necessity to hold town meetings to obtain powers would be escaped by thirty-eight district councils. There is no local need by all authorities for all the powers given in the Bill. In my submission, local need should not be proved by one party on behalf of another. I may say that sixteen new powers are conferred by the Bill on the parish councils of Kent. Examples of the new powers are the planting of trees and the provision of life-saving appliances.

In conclusion, may I be permitted, with due deference, to refer to two observations that have been made this afternoon by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee? He said that town polls encourage vested interests to come forward and carry the day. That is an argument as old as the hills. The short answer is, let the non-vested interests come forward and defeat the vested interests. They have a perfect right to do so. Another point raised by the noble Earl was the difference in the closing hours of licensed premises in one district as compared with another. I am glad that we have that elasticity in our legislation. I live on the borders of Berkshire and Buckinghamshire. When I am thrown out of the licensed premises at night in Berkshire, all I have to do is to go to Buckinghamshire and carry on until the early hours of the morning when I am put to bed. Therefore, I hope that this elasticity, of which the noble Earl thinks so little, will always continue in our legislation. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, every success in the matter which he has so bravely raised.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Silkin said in his impressive speech, the issue dealt with in this Motion is a fundamental one, dealing with the rights and powers of local government. I think this it not an occasion for mincing words. In my own view, this Motion is a grave and serious attack upon local government, and I think that view is shared by the associations representative of local government in this 500 country. With all respect, I cannot feel that the matter has been technically handled in the best and most tidy way. Last week local government was suddenly faced with a cavalier announcement, made in the middle of a Parliamentary Session, in the middle of the passage of the Kent Bill, and with the knowledge that two other Bills of a like character—namely, one promoted by Essex and the other by Surrey—were pending. I understand that no notice at all was given to the Kent County Council of the intention to make this statement, although one county council apparently, curiously enough, had some knowledge of it in advance of the statement made by the Lord Chairman of Committees.

I feel personally that the Kent County Council have a real grievance at the somewhat, shall I say, uncivil way in which they have been treated. The announcement or, shall I say, the pronunciamiento of the Lord Chairman on the 13th May, and joined in by the Chairman of Ways and Means, was to the effect that they had the intention of taking away from county councils powers which they had enjoyed for thirty-seven years, and powers which there is no evidence to show have been abused. They have been used with proper moderation in the pursuit and exercise of the progressive development and expansion of good government in the counties of this country.

It seems to me that this kind of treatment is hardly commendable. After all, local authorities are not infant bodies. County councils have been in operation since 1889, and they ought not to be treated, even by Parliament, in an attitude and climate, as it were, of grace and favour. They are adult bodies. They are responsible for carrying on the bulk of the administration of this country. Without local authorities, society as we know it, with its economic and social aspects, could not function. Moreover, let this be said: that the local authorities did a magnificent job of work during the war, and have done a splendid job of work in the resettlement of affairs since the war. I suggest that no more unpropitious time could have been chosen to consider this matter or to take this intended step.

All those interested in local government have for many years been increasingly concerned as to the functioning of local goverment: as to the distribution of its 501 functions, as to its areas, and as to its finance. The proper tendency has been gradually and reasonably to transfer to local authorities, especially relatively small local authorities, additional powers and responsibilities which it was hoped—and, indeed, there is some evidence that the hope may be in part in course of realisation—would attract good citizens of good will who desire to serve their respective districts, citizens of all Parties and of none. Those who have any experience of local government know that finding people to man local government is becoming an increasingly difficult task, and the way to overcome it, I will not say in whole, but certainly in part, is to increase the powers and responsibilities of the various local government units. So I cannot think that there would he any more unhappy occasion or time to introduce proposals which will in effect substantially diminish the powers of local government.

The local authorities were surprised and they are very anxious. The County Councils' Association, the Urban District Councils' Association the Rural District Councils' Association—all of them are very much concerned at the proposal set forth in the Motion we are considering, and they are all strongly and resolutely opposed to it. It is a peremptory declaration, without any discussion whatsoever with the important local government associations—just a statement that it was intended to impose a curtailment, an important curtailment, of the powers of local government, at a time when, as I have said, a Bill was in the process of consideration. I think that Kent has a very legitimate grievance, especially when one remembers that this Bill was introduced and deposited as far back as December last.

The Lord Chairman, in his statement to your Lordships' House on May 13, used the words "extent and scale of the Kent Bill"; but they were known soon after the deposit of the Bill in December. If it was intended to take a step of this kind, if there were in fact real grounds for taking a step of this kind, surely the proper thing to do was to raise the matter then and not wait until the middle of May. Instead, things were allowed to go forward and very substantial expense to be incurred, expense of money and of manpower; and then, suddenly, there bursts on a startled 502 local government world this quite unexpected declaration of an intention to take away powers they have possessed for the last thirty-seven years. The Kent Bill was promoted at the definite request of the urban and rural district councils and also of the parish councils. There was an express request to the county council to promote this Bill intending to give the powers comprised within it, and the Bill has been drafted, I understand, with the assistance of a committee of eight clerks of local authorities. If that, my Lords, is not an indication of need and desire to have these powers, I should like to know what would be so regarded.

I will now come to the Lord Chairman's statement of May 13 last, and I quote the OFFICIAL REPORT (Vol. 209), at col. 236. The Lord Chairman said: Finally, it is said, among other things, by the Promoters, that the good government of the county is the concern of the County Council. One can understand that sentiment, but I can find nothing in the Local Government Acts to support it. There is nothing which shows that in 1888, when the county councils were formed, it was the intention of Parliament to make that the function of the county councils. My Lords, I regard that as a most extraordinary statement—that the county councils should not be concerned with the good government of their counties. It seems to me to be a most obscurantist view of local government. May I ask the Lord Chairman who are the latter-day schoolmen who have been imbuing him with this idea of a rigid and frigid county government in this country? The noble Lord the Lord Chairman said that it was the Minister of Housing and Local Government who raised this question in a Report submitted in connection with the Kent Bill.

This means, of course, that very largely the policy adumbrated in this Motion is Government policy, which really raises another important issue, as to what is the attitude of mind of the Government towards local government. Are we to regard all the protestations which have been made during the passage of the Local Government Bill through another place, those express statements of interest in the development of local government, really as of naught? And are we to understand at the same time that the Government are proposing to take away from local government this power which, 503 as I have said, they have enjoyed and properly exercised for the last thirty-seven years?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I want to ask the noble Lord only this, as I am going to say a word or two later. I do not quite understand what he means when he says that the Government are taking away powers by this Bill. Is that his view?

LORD LATHAM

No, what I said was this. As I understand it, this question had been brought to the notice of the Lord Chairman as a result of a report (which is customary) by the Minister of Housing and Local Government on the provisions of the Kent Bill; and, flowing from that, the Lord Chairman looked into the question of the exercise of powers of this order and character by county councils and came forward with a statement on May 13 that he, with the support and concurrence of the Chairman of Ways and Means, proposed to make a new rule.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

But the noble Lord is not saying that the Lord Chairman is acting under the direction of the Government?

LORD LATHAM

I did not say that he was acting under the direction of the Government.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Did the noble Lord mean that?

LORD LATHAM

I meant this. In those circumstances it is fair, I submit, to say that this Motion does reflect the Government's view as to the exercise of powers by local authorities; and, if that be the case, it raises some very fundamental issues.

I want to ask the Lord Chairman of Committees whether county councils are to be prevented, as would he the case under this Motion, from getting powers for the good government of their counties because there is no specific reference in the Local Government Act, 1888? Do we, my Lords, stand still at 1888? Do we disregard the tremendous changes which have taken place in this country since 1888, all of which affect the administration, functions and powers of local government? Are county councils in future to have to say to their districts, "We can do nothing to get you powers, 504 however desirable and necessary, because there is nothing in the Act of 1888"?

LORD MANCROFT

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but since he is bringing the Government into this matter I must ask him to bear in mind, if he would be so good, the point of view I put forward. I said that in the Government's opinion it was perfectly proper for county councils to seek certain powers on behalf of their district councils if those powers were justified by local need. I am sure the noble Lord is not going to quarrel with that.

LORD LATHAM

No, except that I have some reservation as to who is going to determine what is local need. That is the very essence of the thing. The other words are of no significance at all. I submit, from what has been said by the Lord Chairman, that one is entitled to infer that this Motion reflects Government policy. The Lord Chairman went on to say, at Col. 236: So I suggest that, however attractive that view may be in theory, it is not really the national policy that county councils should undertake this work and become, in effect, miniature Parliaments. If I may say so, with every respect, that is really easy nonsense. The practice that has been followed since 1921 has not in any way usurped the functions of Parliament; it has not in any way derogated from the rights and powers of Parliament. The real position is that either the county council promotes a Bill, and is used as the vehicle for getting or seeking powers, or, in default of the county council having powers so to do, the individual local authorities within the county, do the same. It is only, as it were, a question of the channel of communication. Parliament exercises its full rights; the Bills must go before the appropriate Committees; they must be examined and they must pass through both Houses. There is no change whatsoever, except that in the one case, if it is done collectively, an immense amount of costs in money and manpower is saved; Parliamentary time is saved, and congestion from a flood of Private Bills is avoided.

Now I come to the Motion itself. I confess that, notwithstanding the explanation given by the Lord Chairman, I cannot see how local authorities themselves can interpret what is meant by the 505 words "in general". Do they mean as regards authorities? Do they apply only as regards powers? Or do the words "in general" apply to both powers and authorities? I gather that those words were introduced to deal with borderline cases. But how can local authorities intending to promote legislation determine whether they are a borderline case—whether they should include or exclude certain proposals in regard to the Bill which they intend to deposit? If those words remain as a part of the rule to be applied, it seems to me that local authorities are entitled to have the words "in general" defined in regard to their application. That might lead to a promulgation of rules, which perhaps would not be the wisest way of dealing with a matter of this kind.

Similarly, I find some difficulty about the difference between the statement made by the Lord Chairman, and the statement made in writing under Standing Order 85 of another place by the Chairman of Ways and Means. In his statement the Chairman of Ways and Means says this: The Lord Chairman and I have therefore reached the conclusion that the promoters of Private Bills should revert to the old practice whereby a petitioner may petition Parliament only"— and these are the important words— on his own behalf. Accordingly, with my full support, the Lord Chairman has to-day ruled that in future: 'A County Council Bill should not confer on local authorities or any other authority or person functions in which the County Council has no interest'. I do not know whether it is intended, in the interpretation of that rule, to apply the words "only on his own behalf". If so, then in many cases, even though the county council may have an interest, they cannot promote a Bill on behalf of an urban district council within the county because it must be promoted by the authority on its own behalf. That seems to me to support what I am bound to say appears to be a much too hurried and hasty consideration of the consequences of this proposal. It means that the Kent County Council could not promote a Bill to give certain highway powers to a subsidiary unit, but the subsidiary unit must do it itself, because then it must be acting on its own behalf. I should like some clarification of that point. It 506 seems to me that in some respects haste has displaced serious thought in arriving at this decision.

Then in his statement the Lord Chairman said, as my noble friend, Lord Silkin, indicated, that nothing was without precedent. He said—and I quote from Column 235 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of May 13: First of all, I confess at once that there is nothing in this Bill which is not precedented. I cannot point, I own, to a single clause in this Bill which has never been in a Bill before. That is confirmed by the Minister in his report. He says, in paragraph 2: From this point of view the Bill does not differ in principle from measures promoted during the last few years by other county councils—Gloucestershire in 1956, for instance, Monmouthshire in the same year, Cheshire in 1953 and Nottinghamshire in 1951. I should like to say here, en passant, that the very passage of those Bills made those counties in many respects different from other counties, which is of course the case through the whole pattern of local government in this country. The report goes on to say, in paragraph 6: Precedents can be quoted for nearly all the clauses in the Bill … Then the Lord Chairman went on, in his remarks, to talk about "an extent" and "a scale". I do not know whether the extent and/or the scale, or the extent and the scale, refer to authorities or to powers, or to both. There would seem to be, in his statement and that of the Chairman of Ways and Means, matters of interpretation that one might find most confusing.

As my noble friend Lord Silkin has said, this is the first general powers Bill promoted by Kent and represents the accumulation of needs and requirements of that county. But is it so unusual, even in regard to size or powers, compared with what has been granted to other counties? For instance, in Middlesex, where there are only twenty-six municipal units—eighteen boroughs and eight urban district councils—the Council promoted and got an Act which, even after it had been, as it were, "pruned", had 482 sections.

LORD MERTHYR

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord to ask: was that not a Consolidation Act?

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, so far as I know it was not a Consolidation Act, but I would not say definitely that it was not. Then in 1956 Middlesex promoted another general powers Act with 101 sections. So there we have 583 sections as compared with the 400-odd of the Kent Bill, now to be reduced to 358. In those two Acts 233 powers were granted, 187 direct to district councils and forty-six as joint powers, to be exercised by both the county council and the county districts.

Then in 1933 Essex had an Act with 211 sections, and in 1952 another with 239 sections, conferring, as I am informed, 239 powers on county district councils. In judging these comparisons one must bear in mind the local government organisation of the county and the differing developments and otherwise in the counties. I therefore submit that there is nothing exceptional in the size of the Kent Bill or in the number of powers that it seeks to confer upon its local units. I should here like to emphasise one point: even supposing that the case was made for a cutting down of the powers to be given to local authorities, the Motion is not designed to cut them down: it is intended to cut them out, except where an interest can be shown; and even then that power will be qualified by the words used by the Chairman of Ways and Means, that the promoter must promote "only on his own behalf".

My noble friend referred to the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure which reported in 1955. The Lord Chairman was a member of that Committee, as I was. The Committee took evidence from the then Lord Chairman of Committees, the late Lord Drogheda. I have checked and, so far as I can see, neither in his written evidence nor in the evidence which he gave orally to the Committee did he raise any questions about this procedure. We also had the benefit of the evidence of Sir Charles MacAndrew, the present Chairman of Ways and Means. So far as I can see, there was in his written statement no criticism of this procedure, nor any suggestion that it was becoming so large as to become dangerous. There was nothing at all, other than a very oblique reference to the matter, in the evidence which he tendered orally when he came before the Committee.

508 The Lord Chairman has said that the question of the size of these Bills and the number of powers conferred was raised by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Representatives of that Minister appeared before the Select Commitee on Private Bill Procedure. Though I cannot say that I have been able fully and exhaustively to examine all that was said in the evidence tendered by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, I believe I am correct in saying that there were no serious representations by that Minister or Ministry to the Committee against the continuance of this procedure—and this was after the Middlesex Act, which, as I have said, contained more than 400 sections.

LORD MERTHYR

My Lords, that was a Consolidation Act.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, I must accept what the Lord Chairman says. Nevertheless, whether it was a Consolidation Act or not, I am advised that it provided for the grant to county districts of 233 powers—powers which are, of course, merely enabling powers; they are not compulsory. It seems to me therefore a little difficult to understand why, for no apparent reason, the situation regarding this matter, which was satisfactory, or at any rate did not attract criticism or blame in 1955, should suddenly become, in the early months of 1958, a menace and a danger. I cannot really understand how that can be the case. What mischief has recently been disclosed? What dangers have recently emerged which have led the Minister, the Lord Chairman and the Chairman of Ways and Means to be so concerned that they must contemplate taking this power away from the local authorities?

My own view is that this Motion, if carried—which I sincerely hope will not be the case—would, in effect, put a premium on inertia in local government and would penalise the active, forward-looking authorities who want to break new ground. And in the field of local government it has always been the pioneer authorities who first sought, and with difficulty gained, new powers, to be followed by others, until the situation was such that, in the past, at all events, the Government of the day took the view that these powers, which became so widely distributed among the various 509 local government units, ought to be given to all local government units and a Public General Bill introduced for that purpose. Unhappily, of course, we have not had such a Bill, apart from the Parish Councils Act, since the war; and the expectations of getting one are not, even now, I understand, too rosy. Immediately one local authority got powers which other local authorities did not have, there arose the situation that one county was different from another. And that is the case. I believe that there are twenty-six counties which have had general powers, of a varying order and extent, granted to them. The twenty-six county councils concerned may well differ in quite material degrees and elements from the other county councils which have not the general powers. Like my noble friend Lord Attlee, I see no disadvantage in having this variation of pattern. Certainly there is a great advantage in heaving pioneer local authorities blaze the trail, by experience and otherwise, for the benefit of local government generally.

Then the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman of Committees, referred to town meetings. Town meetings are an expensive and stupid farce, as everyone knows. Let me be perfectly frank—and I am speaking from experience: they are usually used, or the technique is used, by a small number of people who are not interested as citizens, and not interested as ratepayers, but are interested for their own personal considerations. Usually with quite adequate resources at their disposal, they whip up a few people to attend a town meeting, and then very often for those quite discreditable reasons, they defeat the good local government of the particular corporation or urban district council or whatever the authority may be.

The Committee of 1955 reported that town meetings and polls should be abolished. They were not new in expressing that view. The Royal Commission on Local Government appointed in 1923 did the same; and they were supported by the Local Government and Public Health Consolidation Committee, presided over by Lord Chelmsford, in 1932. Every independent inquiry into the utility and efficacy and, if I might say so, the decency of these town polls or town meetings has come down on the side of abolition. In connection with the Kent Bill it is fair to Kent to say that 510 arrangements have been made, in Clause 179 of the Bill, by which there will be provision for a town poll under approved conditions.

LORD MERTHYR

On one Part of the Bill only.

LORD LATHAM

On one Part of the Bill. That just shows that the local authorities are co-operative: they wish to assist and are not obstructive. And the County Councils Association, I well recall, recommended to the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure that there should be worked out, so long as the town meeting requirement remained the law, a reasonable basis of ascertaining whether, in fact, it was necessary and appropriate to hold a town meeting. I think it was to be on the basis of a request by one hundred ratepayers.

I would point out that the Committee's recommendation for the abolition of town meetings and polls was unanimous. The Lord Chairman of Committees was a member of the Committee, and I noticed that he displayed some interest in this question, for I find that on page 53 of the Report the Lord Chairman of Committees said this: Might I ask Sir Charles"— that was Sir Charles MacAndrew— if he has any opinion as to whether any safeguards would be lost if the town meeting were abolished? Then Lord Belstead interposed with the question: And the poll retained. Lord Merthyr then said: And the poll retained, or if they were both abolished? And here is the answer of Sir Charles: I really have no views on it. It is just a question as to whether it is worth the expense. I think the meeting is very impracticable. I do not know how they scrutinise the attenders, and if people are keen on one thing they can bring in bus-loads of people from somewhere else who have no qualifications. I do not think you can possibly check the attenders anyhow, and there would not be a hall big enough to hold them, anyway, I think, if you had the lot. When we are dealing with this important matter of local government rights, need we be concerned with the continuance of or the compliance with this farce of holding town meetings?

We come to the question of whether the arrangement envisaged in the Motion should become operative before the 511 inquiry. I suggest that it would be mighty unfair to Kent, to Essex and to Surrey to visit this truncation of powers on them, having regard to the situation. It seems to me that if there is to be an inquiry, as my noble friend Lord Silkin said, any action changing the present practice, which is supported by thirty-seven years of experience, ought to be deferred until the Committee, or whatever body it is, has reported; and, in any case, if that be not so, that the new procedure and the new practice should not apply until the next Session of Parliament at the earliest. I should like to conclude by saying this. The Lord Chairman of Committees, in his statement on May 13, made some reference to the Private Bill promoted to deal with the use, I think, of a churchyard. I honestly feel, as one who has spent a pretty active life in local government, that if this Motion is carried, and these powers are taken away from local government, the Lord Chairman of Committees will have been one of the assistants in providing a large graveyard for an imaginative, developing and expanding local government.

LORD MERTHYR

My Lords, I did not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but may I ask him one question? He suggested that I was wrong in saying that in the Local Government Act of 1888 there was nothing which conveyed a power or a duty on to a county council to take a general interest in the good government of the county. If I was wrong will he quote the section of the Act concerned?

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Lord understood it in that way. I do not think that generally there is any declaration of intention in an Act of Parliament. What I said was that because there was no reference in that Act or in any other to the desirability of good government, that is no reason why we should not take steps to secure good government.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, it is not my intention to take up the time of your Lordships for more than a few minutes, for I know that we have other matters to discuss, and, of course, the ground has been fully covered already by the noble Lord, Lord Latham. I intervene only to try to 512 bring the House back to what I understand, rightly or wrongly; to be the realities of the position. As I listened to the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Attlee, and even more to the noble Lord, Lord Latham, I could not help feeling that the noble Lords opposite are making a mountain out of a molehill. I would agree entirely with them as regards the issues in question, which are very great and wide, but not with regard to the wording of the Motion of the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees.

After all that has been said—and I have listened to every word of it—I cannot see that there is anything very wrong with the Lord Chairman's Motion. I have heard what the opponents of the Motion have to say. There is the extremist view, which I take to be that given by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, in the speech that he has just delivered to your Lordships. The impression he made on me and I am sure on others in the House, though I know he would disagree, was that he thought it deplorable that Parliament should interfere at all in local administration.

LORD LATHAM

No, no, my Lords; I did not maintain that proposition.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

That is the impression that the noble Lord made on me and, I believe, on other noble Lords: that local government should be autocratic and autonomous. I felt that we were getting back to the days of the Heptarchy when I listened to him. Then there were the moderates, the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Attlee. Their main complaint, as I understood it, was that the Lord Chairman's principle, which is enunciated in the Motion, raised something entirely new. I do not agree at all. With the best will in the world, I cannot see that the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman, has sought to introduce any new principle. What, after all, has been the guiding principle in this country for many years? It has been, so far as I know, that Private Bills should not confer upon local authorities functions beyond what has been approved by Parliament. That is the broad principle which I imagine to be absolutely necessary if we are to ensure a balance of responsibility between national government and local government. It is absolutely essential that that principle should be maintained.

EARL ATTLEE

My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess this question? Surely there are instances to the contrary—for instance, the Birmingham Bank, which was introduced by Mr. Neville Chamberlain. No other local authority has such a bank. Such Bills have been passed to meet exceptional cases.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

If the noble Earl would only wait until I have finished my argument, he would find the position as I see it made clear, and not so illogical as he thinks. I thought that this was universally accepted and I am astonished to find it questioned in any part of the House. I should have thought it to be absolutely necessary to have some broad general principle of this kind to maintain throughout the country the broad general uniformity of administration which is so greatly required in a modern and highly integrated State. It is true—and here I come to the point which the noble Earl quite naturally mentioned—that, as so often happens in this country, and I think wisely, a broad general principle of that kind is interpreted extremely liberally, and I think properly so. There has always been in Parliament a great readiness to make relaxations of principle, modifications of principle, to take account of special local considerations, and I would entirely agree that that is the really sensible thing.

EARL ATTLEE

My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess a question on that point? Surely the object of Private Bill legislation is to make exceptions from the general rule—exactly contrary to the position he is taking.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The noble Earl must allow me to finish my argument. I listened to his argument: I did not agree with it, but I listened to it. There have to be very special exceptions to justify it and those exceptions have to be caused by very special conditions in the localities concerned. The reason for the present difficulties that have arisen in this case is that these relaxations which have been asked for by the Kent County Council are so extensive as almost to drive a cart and horses through the general principle. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, himself admitted that he thought that very likely they had gone too far. That is the difficulty. We can work an elastic system like this with a certain amount of concession to meet local con- 514 siderations if it is not carried too far, but if it is carried too far, then we get a situation of this kind.

The object of the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman, who is faced with the very difficult situation that if the matter were allowed to go by default it would alter the whole basis of government in this country, is to reaffirm the general principle which has hitherto obtained. I recognise that the noble Lords opposite sincerely feel what they argue, but I cannot see any intention on the part of the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman, to go beyond that and impart a rigidity into the interpretation of the principle which it has never had before. I should have thought that that, which has already been mentioned by other speakers, was made clear by the words "in general" which were deliberately put into the Motion by the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman, to safeguard that point. When a man says to me, and I am sure to any other noble Lord, that a law should be applied "in general," I take him to mean that there should be exceptions, otherwise he does not use these words; he merely says that the law should be applied.

LORD LATHAM

Who decides, an