As amended ( in the Standing Committee) , further considered.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS IN WALES

Amendment proposed [ This day]: No. 183, in page 214, line 22, column 2, leave out 'Carmarthenshire and Pembroke' and insert 'and Carmarthenshire'.—[ Mr. Nicholas Edwards.]

Question again proposed.

11.5 a.m.

11.15 a.m.

To be frank, I was rather worried when the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) rose to speak, because I felt that, as in the latter part of the speech the hon. Member for Pembroke, he tended to associated what I regard as a very good case with some rather peculiar arguments, and, looking at the expression on the faces of some of my hon. Friends, I thought that he would soon be losing votes rather than gaining them for his cause. So I was particularly worried when the hon. Member for Barry rose to speak. However, I am glad that he took only three or four minutes and finished without upsetting the case too much.

The hon. Member for Pembroke referred to the question of language. I understand the feeling of genuine concern, basically, of people in south Pembrokeshire on the question of language. In the counties of Carmarthenshire and Cardiganshire, 70 or 80 per cent, of the people speak Welsh, and I can understand that there may well be some fear among the people of south Pembrokeshire on this score; but to present the argument, as the hon. Member for Pembroke did, that we in either Carmarthenshire or Cardiganshire would go out of our way to undermine the position of English-speaking people—as though we ever do in our two counties in relation to the English-speaking communities within our own boundaries—is to stretch the argument a bit far.

The hon. Gentleman made much of the fears of officials. I can tell him that there are officials of Carmarthenshire County Council who are not able to speak Welsh, and we do not in any way undermine their position or make life intolerable for them. Their contribution is immense. I felt that the hon. Gentleman should not have used that argument.

11.30 a.m.

11.45 a.m.

My hon. Friend said that there should be exceptions. Of course occasionally there must be exceptions. An exception has been made in the case of Powys. But if one looks at the geographical nature of Powys and the sparsity of population, clearly there was no other alternative, and everyone accepts that that is truly in the nature of a real exception. Another exception was made in the case of Gwynedd, but that is not such a big exception. The population of Gwynedd, which is very sparse in certain parts, will be just under 230,000.

I turn now to the point made by my hon. Friend about the Welsh language, and I make no complaint about what he said. It is clear to anyone who has been interested in local government reorganisation that there is uneasiness, especially among teachers in the south of Pembrokeshire, that the present educational administration in the county will be disturbed if it is united with Cardiganshire and Carmarthenshire. Non-Welsh-speaking teachers are worried about the effect that any new policy might have on their career prospects.

When I addressed the Welsh Joint Education Committee in July of last year I put forward my view that an education authority's bilingual policy should be in keeping with the linguistic characteristics of its area. I recognised that this would lead to variations up and down the country but I said that there should be a discernible and reasonably structured pattern which could command and merit the support of the public generally. Parents should be free to choose whether their children should learn Welsh in school, and the education authority's policy be acceptable to both teachers and parents alike.

At present the policy adopted for the north of Pembrokeshire, where more Welsh is spoken in the community, differs from that in the rest of the county. In the north, Welsh is taught in all primary schools to pupils from the age of seven and in the first two years in the secondary schools. In the south, less Welsh is taught. The people in the Anglicised area of the south have long been accustomed to living in close union with the more Welsh inhabitants in Pembrokeshire, and I see no reason why there should not be the same harmony in the larger area of Dyfed.

If I might again refer to the teachers, I can see no basis for the fears that prospects and promotion opportunities for non-Welsh-speaking teaching staff will not be maintained. I agree with the hon. Member for Carmarthen about that. I find it inconceivable that a linguistically mixed authority such as the Dyfed County Council will be would insist on all its teachers being Welsh-speaking.

As for the size of Dyfed, it will be smaller than the existing counties of Devon and the West Riding. In fact, the existing County of Devon is about 13 per cent. larger than Dyfed will be. Dyfed will be smaller than several of the proposed new counties in England. The existing counties of West Wales, as in the remainder of Great Britain, were delineated in the days when a good horse was the quickest method of transport. The size of Dyfed is certainly not too large in terms of the late twentieth century. It is 40 miles, for instance, from Fishguard to Carmarthen—it cannot be assumed that Carmarthen will be the new centre of county administration—but in terms of local government 40 miles is not a great distance. In the county to which we shall be referring, Glamorgan, people travel more than 40 miles to the county centre. It is over 40 miles from Gower to Cardiff.

Morgan) and Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones) put forward cogent arguments for their constituencies—and I do not in any way wish to get involved in a dispute with them—but in doing so, they probably killed Pembrokeshire's case, because they gave my right hon. and learned Friend a decisive argument, in his eyes—that of the destruction of Dyfed. I do not accept that that is inevitable, because that which would have remained would have been the equivalent of Gwynedd in size, rateable value and population.

My right hon. and learned Friend hung his case upon that argument, and he picked out three others—the special character of Pembrokeshire, language and distance. My right hon. and learned Friend maintained that I rested my case on the uniqueness of Pembrokeshire. Never once in my speech did I refer to that.

My right hon. and learned Friend rightly said, as I did, that there were other counties as large, but of course in York in the West Riding there is a great city at the hub of a communications system. The system is different in Devon, which has an historic unity which we do not have. The question of area becomes decisive only when there are other factors as well, and my right hon. and learned Friend did not refer to the one decisive factor; namely, the lack of community of interest. I find it astonishing that my right hon. and learned Friend could have replied to the debate without reference to that crucial issue which was advanced not only by myself but by others.

For that reason, if for no other, I feel fully justified in pressing the Amendment

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 44, Noes 74.

Question accordingly negatived.

East Glamorgan

The county boroughs of Cardiff and Merthyr Tydfil.

In the administrative county of Glamorgan—

the boroughs of Barry, Cowbridge and Rhondda;

the urban districts of Aberdare, Bridgend, Caerphilly, Gelligaer, Maesteg, Mountain Ash, Ogmore and Garw, Penarth, Pontypridd and Porthcawl;

the rural districts of Cardiff, Cowbridge, Llantrisant and Llantwit Fardre and Penybont;

In the rural district of Neath, the parish of Rhigos.

In the administrative county of Monmouthshire—

the urban districts of Bedwas and Machen and Rhymney;

in the urban district of Bedwellty the Aberbargoed, Cwmsyfieg, New Tredegar and Phllipstown wards.

No. 188, in page 215, leave out lines 3 to 27.

No. 194, in page 215, line 30, leave out from 'Brecon' to end of line 32.

No. 195, in page 215, leave out lines 33 to 45.

No. 199, in page 217, line 42, at end insert:

East Glamorgan

EG.1

The county borough of Cardiff.

In the administrative county of Glamorgan: —

In the rural district of Cardiff, the parishes of Lisvane, Llanedeyrn, Radyr, St. Fagans and Tongwynlais.

In the administrative county of Monmouthshire, in the rural district of Magor and St. Mellons, the parish of St. Mellons.

EG.2

In the administrative county of Glamorgan: —

the boroughs of Barry and Cowbridge;

the urban district of Penarth;

the rural districts of Cardiff except the parts to be comprised in districts EG.1, EG.7 and EG.8;

the rural district of Cowbridge except the parts to be comprised in district EG.8.

EG.3

In the administrative county of Glamorgan: —

the urban districts of Bridgend, Maesteg, Ogmore and Garw and Porthcawl;

the rural district of Penybont.

EG.4

In the administrative county of Glamorgan, the borough of Rhondda.

EG.5 In the administrative county of Glamorgan: —

the urban districts of Aberdare and Mountain Ash;

in the rural district of Neath, the parish of Rhigos.

In the administrative county of Brecon, in the rural district of Vaynor and Penderyn, the parish of Penderyn.

EG.6 The county borough of Merthyr Tydfil.

In the administrative county of Glamorgan, in the urban district of Gelligaer, the Bedlinog ward.

In the administrative county of Brecon, in the rural district of Vaynor and Penderyn, the parish of Vaynor.

EG.7 In the administrative county of Glamorgan: —

the urban district of Caerphilly except the Taff's Well ward;

the urban district of Gelligaer except the Bedlinog ward;

in the rural district of Cardiff, the parishes of Llanfedw, Rhydygwern, Rudry and Van.

In the administrative county of Monmouthshire: —

the urban districts of Bedwas and Machen and Rhymney;

in the urban district of Bedwellty, the Aberbargoed, Cwmsyfiog, New Tredegar and Phillipstown wards.

EG.8 In the administrative county of Glamorgan: —

the urban district of Pontypridd; the rural district of Llantrisant and Llantwit Fardre;

in the urban district of Caerphilly, the Taff's Well ward;

in the rural district of Cardiff, the parishes of Llanilterne and Pentyrch;

in the rural district of Cowbridge, the parishes of Llanharan, Llanharry, Llanilid and Peterton-super-Montem.

No. 200, in page 217, line 49, leave out 'and SG.1'.

No. 202, in page 219, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 28 on page 220.

No. 211, in page 211, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 25.

12.15 p.m.

The Secretary of State has no right merely to advance the old arguments which he advanced earlier because we are asking him to revert to his original proposals. It was he who made the massive case for two and not three. It was he who said that to create three authorities would mean that one of them would be economically weak and dependent upon rate support grant. One of the major ideas of the reform of local government is that local government shall be strong and independent and that the chairman of an authority will not have constantly to run to the Secretary of State cap in hand for permission to undertake various projects because he has to get the finance from the Government. The Secretary of State knows that the Glamorgan proposal will play havoc above all with the old industrial areas which are already scarred—the mining and steel areas of Merthyr, Aberdare, Rhondda and Pontypridd, for example.

I do not want to draw attention to my age, but I remind the House that I grew up in the depression in a poor community where we could not afford to look after our old people and where social services were far below those of Bournemouth and places like that. It was that experience which gave me my burning sense of injustice against the society in which we lived. It made me determined to fight, as much as God would allow, for a better and more just society. The Secretary of State is creating an instrument of Government which will restore the old injustices, which will mean that mid-Glamorgan will be completely dependent, with its£25 per head rateable value, which is less than half the rateable value of Pembroke; yet the Secretary of State is not prepared to let Pembroke stand on its own two feet. Mid-Glamorgan is being sacrificed to the political ambitions of the junta of the Tory Party in Cardiff.

The proposals which we advanced in our White Paper were based at least on a local government commission. Our proposals for Glamorgan and Monmouthshire, controversial as they proved to be, were based upon the Redcliffe-Maud principles of reform which the Minister for Local Government and Development has so faithfully accepted, The Secretary of State's proposals for South Glamorgan and Mid-Glamorgan are not based on a Royal Commission or on a local government boundary commission. They are based upon secret rotten discussions at Tory headquarters. It is the Secretary of State's own decision, not that of an independent body. There has been no voice of a Royal Commission and no local government boundary commission. The Secretary of State, in concert with the hon. Member for Cardiff, North, who I understand acted in liaison, knows that I knew in the previous July that the Secretary of State had agreed with Cardiff's proposals secretly. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that we were both at a function at which a former Lord Mayor of the city let whisper to me, "Peter's giving way. He is giving in to Cardiff."

I am revealing the whole dirty manœuvre as to what happened. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North has played what to the Tory Party in Cardiff is an honourable part but what to my mind is the very reverse.

12.30 p.m.

The Secretary of State told us that he could not fail to be impressed. He has repeated in correspondence in recent months that he had to act on oral and written representations. The last time we had a chance to talk to the Secretary of State on this matter he said that over 40 local authorities in Wales supported him. He knows that 37 of those local authorities have now denied that they supported the divisions of Glamorgan into three and have stated that the campaign which they supported was for Cardiff to be made a capital city.

Both the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I made it clear beyond a pre-adventure that the capital status of Cardiff was never in question. [ Interruption.] It is no good noises coming from the Minister of State on this question. He had better keep quiet; my next engagement, if I have a little luck, will be in Hereford.

12.45 p.m.

I opposed the view of the Secretary of State at the time. I had every hope that he would see reason, and in the event I was proved right. It was a decision which, with sincerity, I urged upon him from the outset. As the right hon. Member said, there has been a change in the municipal government in the City of Cardiff. I do not question his figures. His party was returned in overwhelming numbers at the last election just as they were returned at the previous election. But not even the most ardent supporter of the view "two, not three", that Glamorgan should be divided according to the original East-West proposal, would say that this was a burning issue at the municipal elections in Cardiff last May or previously before the decision was made.

In Cardiff we did averagely well. We did not do any worse than the national swing, and, therefore, the issue was not an important factor. Some people might say we could not have done worse, and that may be the case, but it is unfair to say at this stage that because the municipal elections went the right hon. Gentleman's way for all sorts of reasons, of which he would be a great proponent, that the voters were in favour of his proposals for local government reform.

1.15 p.m.

1.30 p.m.

It is only right and proper that it should be made perfectly clear in this House that not only have most of the local authorities in Wales been shocked by the treatment of Glamorgan. The opposition has been overwhelming, as we have heard already.

Let me emphasise that anyone who attempts to brush aside the opposition as mere emotion will be displaying a complete ignorance of the facts of the situation. In paragraph 42 of the 1962 Report of the Local Government Commission Lord Brooke is quoted as saying when he was Minister of Local Government,

"No fanatical reform but thorough overhaul is what we want…".

I submit that what we have in Glamorgan is fanatical reform with a vengeance.

We on this side of the House are united in our support for these Amendments and in our opposition to the creation of a South Glamorgan authority based almost entirely on Cardiff, leaving another authority, Mid-Glamorgan, to be basically a valley authority. Whatever may be the arguments to the contrary, that is the fact of the matter.

In my view this proposal is a denial of the very basic principle of reform which is supposed to be the creation of a balance between town and country in which the town—in this case the city—should not be allowed to dominate the rest. Yet the facts are that here we have the new South Glamorgan county dominated by the City of Cardiff representing over 80 per cent. of the population. In plain language the Government are creating a new unitary authority and are merely extending the boundaries of the City of Cardiff. This will not be a two-tier system by any stretch of the imagination. The city will have 57 seats in the new set up and the other smaller areas to be swallowed up will have only 21 seats between them.

The separation of the South Glamorgan county from Mid-Glamorgan is a proposal which also cuts off the valley communities from the resources of the coastal belt. It is tantamount to saying that Cardiff is the capital of Wales so long as it has no obligation to these inland communities. In these Amendments, therefore, we are fighting for the very existence of the valleys, and it is our privilege today not to turn our backs on them since they have suffered enough already and had their share of the desecrations of industry and economic conditions.

There is another cardinal principle which is being violated. All the White Papers have emphasised the need to provide local authorities with adequate resources. The major principle of local government reform which has been stressed all along is the creation of viable units. But we have the startling comparison of the new South Glamorgan county, with a population of 393,000 and a rateable value of £46 per head of the population and the new Mid-Glamorgan with a rateable value of only £25 per head of the population of 533,000.

In this regard, I draw attention to the Government's own opposition to the very proposal now embodied in the Bill as it was expressed clearly in the Consultative Document. It had been my intention to read paragraph 43 of that document. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) has done so already. Incidentally, I am very glad that my hon. Friend was well enough and made such an effort, despite his illness, to be here today to speak for his constituents.

The question that arises, therefore, is what made the Secretary of State change his mind. We deserve to be told. We have our own ideas of course.

I want to stress that the opposition to these proposals comes from a very large body of people who in my view are the best judges. They are people of great experience in local government. The opposition to South Glamorgan cuts right across party lines. Leaders of the Conservative Party in this area have spoken out clearly against the proposals.

I shall name one or two. Among those who lobbied hon. Members recently was a Conservative county councillor, Mrs. Winn Jones. She told me that she had been horrified that the views of only one authority, Cardiff, had been taken into account. A few months ago, Mr. John Cory, the Conservative Chairman of Cardiff Rural District Council, accompanied a number of us on a deputation to the Prime Minister led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West.

It is also noteworthy that opposition to the Government's proposals for Glamorgan has come from a wide cross-section of people and local government organisations including the County Councils Association, the Urban District Councils Association, the Rural District Councils Association and the Glamorgan Association of Parish Councils. Between them these organisations have a wealth of experience in local government and their views should be respected.

This great good will towards the county of Glamorgan is based on the fact that for many years it has had a remarkable and outstanding record of support for all-Wales activities. Millions of pounds have been spent by Glamorgan to sustain many organisations which enrich the life of Wales, and they are organisations not only confined to Glamorgan. Among them are the University of Wales, the Welsh National Opera Company, the Welsh Agricultural College Coleg Harlech, the Welsh Books Council and especially Glamorgan's services for young people. I refer especially to the Glamorgan Youth Orchestra and its remarkable musical achievements. I speak with firsthand knowledge about it since my own children belong to it. Glamorgan has used its wealth and its authority, but it has used them for the benefit of the whole of Wales.

I acknowledge that recent White Papers have expressed differences and doubts about how to deal with Glamorgan. In view of them, I commend to the House the words in paragraph 10 of the Redcliffe-Maud Report:

"Wherever the case for change is in doubt, the common interests, the traditions and the loyalties inherent in the present pattern, and the strength of existing services as going concerns, should be respected."

I hope that the Secretary of State will attempt to answer that.

Here, then, is a county which deserves better treatment from the Government. One way in which the Government can repair the damage that they have done Glamorgan is to accept the Amendments.

1.45 p.m.

It may be tedious for the Secretary of State to be reminded, but I feel that the House and Wales must yet again hear from the figures how the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be denying the strength and wealth to overcome the social problems of the valley communities of mid-Glamorgan.

The population in each of the divided parts of our great county is as follows: West Glamorgan, in which most of my constituency will lie, 370,810; mid-Glamorgan, where the remainder of my constituents will live, 533,310; and South Glamorgan, 392,830.

The rateable value per head of population in the respective counties, already rehearsed in the debate, is West Glamorgan £45·75, mid-Glamorgan £25·49, South Glamorgan £46·55. In other words, the county area with all or at least most of the problems will have the least in financial resources to overcome them.

My constituency, instead of having, as we now have in the rural district area, a uniform pattern of services administered by either the same district council or the same county council, will have two district councils and two county councils. Most of my constituents will live in the more wealthy West Glamorgan and have their services provided by that authority, while the remainder will have to live their lives in the much poorer Mid-Glamorgan.

Both the Secretary of State and the Minister of State know my views, which I have expressed to them very strongly, on the position of the parish of Rhigos. It is my belief that by persisting with their proposals to have a county of South Glamorgan they will make it more difficult for the Boundary Commission to resolve a problem that has existed in Rhigos and Hirwaun for countless years.

That South Glamorgan is an artificial creation which does not stand up to examination and is nothing more than a "political deal" is borne out in the consideration given to the Bill by the County Councils Association. In its memorandum the Association accepts the broad pattern of areas proposed in the Bill, with one important exception—the proposed new county of South Glamorgan. The Association states that it is opposed in principle to any new county consisting of only two districts, particularly where one of the districts—Cardiff—would have 80 per cent. of the population of that county; that is, four times that of the other district. Such a proposal is inconsistent with the generally agreed principles of merging town and country in a reasonable balance and constituting counties over wide areas which are being applied by the Government in the rest of England and Wales.

I am a native of the town of Barry, which will comprise part of the second district of the proposed South Glamorgan. I am proud of that fact. I understand only too well the feelings of those in Barry who have always been fearful of "Big Brother" Cardiff dominating the smaller Barry. I grew up in this atmosphere, but I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that those fears are today the same as they were in my younger days.

During my younger days I worked in Cardiff. I know it well and I have boasted in many places of its fine set of civic and other buildings. It is a fine capital city, and Wales is proud of it. The Secretary of State is no longer responsible for the political and electoral fortunes of his party and I urge him, indeed, I beg him, not to allow the name of the capital city to become besmirched by party political intrigues. I urge him to allow Cardiff to take on an even greater rôle. Let her give back to the valleys which created her wealth that which they need to rehabilitate themselves by joining them, as Swansea does in the West, instead of isolating herself from them.

The Lord Bishop has shown wisdom and understanding of the need for a restoration of the relationship between the City of Cardiff and the eastern valleys of Glamorgan. Is it too much to ask that the Secretary of State shows that he can match the wisdom and understanding of his fellow North Walian by conceding the case for two, not three, in Glamorgan?

2.0 p.m.

That is the voice of the experts. I will refer only briefly to Hirwaun because it has been mentioned already. I will quote what Alderman Lord Heycock said in the South Wales Echo on 10th November, 1971. I agree straight away that Alderman Lord Heycock is a Labour councillor and an alderman of the Glamorgan County Council, and as such has a vested interest. However, we all have a vested interest in any case. He was reported as saying:

"Never in our wildest dreams did we think the Secretary of State for Wales would concede to political pressure and allow Glamorgan to be split in three.

It was 'sheer hypocrisy' for the Secretary of State to say he would receive representations on the proposal and at the same time that it would be a matter only Parliament could decide."

In the South Wales Echo on 10th November, 1971, a Conservative county councillor, a very eminent lady, Mrs. Win Jones said that she had been horrified that only the views of one authority—Cardiff—had been taken into consideration by the Minister. She said:

"I felt this last set of proposals was not honest. For the first time I was ashamed of something my own political party had proposed.

We suffer no illusions"

—this is very important—

"as to what our future will be."

She added that she promised the full support of the Cardiff Rural Council for Glamorgan's opposition to the plans.

I shall not weary the House, but I have one more quotation which I address particularly to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North because of the shirt-sighted policy which he has pushed on the Secretary of State and which will in the short term be to the detriment of Cardiff. The editorial of the Western Mail of November said:

"The creation of a small County dominated by Cardiff is surely likely to promote isolationism rather than the wide outlook demanded of…"

Cardiff itself.

"The lack of overall logic and fairness in the new proposals would greatly harm the valley areas and—in at least one important respect—Cardiff itself."

I have said enough to express my opposition to the proposals which the Government are putting forward for Glamorgan. I now come on to the same wicket as the Secretary of State. I am sure that he will be pleased to hear somebody supporting him on at least one matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath has referred to the proposals in the Schedule to include in Hirwaun certain parts of the Neath area and certain parts of the Breconshire area. Anyone with a knowledge of local government—I know I have the support of my right hon. Friends and the Secretary of State—will know that the classic case for the tidying up and reform of local government is Hirwaun. The Government have placed in Mid-Glamorgan, says Aberdare UDC,

(i) part of the village of Hirwaun is at present within the administrative County of Brecon, the Vaynor and Penderyn Rural District, and the Parish of Perderyn and also such further part of the said parish as would take in the village of Penderyn itself; and

(ii) that part of the village of Hirwaun which, although at present within the administrative County of Glamorgan, lies within the Neath Rural District and the Parish of Rhigos, and also such further part of the said Parish as would take in the village of Rhigos and the land upon which the Hirwaun trading estate lies."

The present position is that the village of Hirwaun has a population of approximately 4,000, and it is administered by the Breconshire County Council, the Vaynor and Penderyn Rural District Council, the Penderyn Parish Council, the Glamorgan County Council, the Aberdare Urban District Council, the Neath Rural District Council and the Rhigos Parish Council. Seven local authorities are administering a small township with a population of 4,000. I agree with the proposals that the Secretary of State is putting forward and I will state the reasons why in case he changes his mind.

2.15 p.m.

The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) suggested that the poorer the authority was, the more Government grants we should have and the better we should like it. That is absolute nonsense. If that were so, we should all welcome having the lowest rateable value and we should all sit back and expect a benevolent Government to pour in the money to make amends.

We have had this about turn from the Consultative Document to the realities of the Bill. We have become accustomed to about turns from the present Government. But this particular about turn on local government reform in Wales will inhibit both South Glamorgan and Mid-Glamorgan from efficiently exercising their local government functions and, in the long term, it will injure not only Mid-Glamorgan but those who reside in South Glamorgan as well.

This is not specifically a boundary issue. It is fundamentally an issue and disagreement as to functions. If we set up Mid-Glamorgan and South Glamorgan as the Bill proposes, we shall be setting up two local authorities which are incapable of efficently planning their transport and carrying out their town and country planning activities.

I am no expert on town and country planning. In this matter one tends to take advice from technical experts. I put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the view expressed by the South Wales branch of the Town Planning Institute, which has some 200 members in South Wales who work for local authorities, in civil service departments and in consultative firms there. These are the planning experts, as it were. They decided that they would oppose the division of East Glamorgan into two. They said that this was

"a complete betrayal of the aims of local government reorganisation."

I should have thought that a Secretary of State for Wales who is concerned with efficient local government services for East Glamorgan would be well advised to take account of the views of experts.

A great deal has been said on the question of resources. I spoke of this in Committee. The bone of our contention is that if one divides Glamorgan into three, one inevitably creates the one authority, Mid Glamorgan, which is, in the words of the Consultative document

"comparatively weak in rateable resources."

But this is exactly what the Government are doing. After the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert), that South Glamorgan would have a rateable value per head of population of some £46, and that West Glamorgan's rateable value would be £45 and Mid Glamorgan's £25, can anyone honestly claim that it is local government reform, using the criteria laid down by the Secretary of State in the Consultative Document, to create that vast difference in rateable value per head of population? Almost every other new county throughout the United Kingdom

has had an addition to its rateable value, but for Mid Glamorgan it is even worse than it was previously.

The lack of resources has long been regarded as a weakness of existing local governments. Succesive Governments, the White Papers of the Labour Government in the 1967 and 1970 and the present Government in the 1971 Consultative Document, have constantly referred to the lack of resources as weakening effective and efficient local government services. The evidence is there for all to see. As one Government has succeeded another, they have emphasised that when reforming local government one has to deal with the problem of lack of adequate resources.

Resources are now not so important as they were when the consultative document was printed. This is another about turn. In Committee the Minister of State said, in effect, that Government grants can be relied upon. Is it satisfactory to create a county council of Mid Glamorgan knowing that it will have to become increasingly dependent on such grants? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman state categorically that a Conservative Government will never change the financing of local government and that the rate resources grant will continue for ever?

Further, the evidence from existing local authorities and from councillors and officials with years of experience is that over-reliance on Government grants saps initiative. The Local Government Commission for Wales stated:

"It has been represented to us that, because of the operation of the rate deficiency grant systems, no authority now suffers any practical disadvantages because of a penny product per head which is less than the average. We are by no means satisfied that this is in fact the case."

The Royal Commission then stated that undue dependence on Government grants has the effect of sapping initiative and stated that, if such dependence could be removed, it would be no unhealthy thing. Paragraph 16 of the Green Paper on this subject speaks of the ever-widening gap between local government expenditure and revenue and suggests ways of closing the grap, stating:

"to shift some of the burdens from local government to central government…runs contrary to the Government's objective."

That being so, how can we reasonably tell the people of Mid Glamorgan that they can rely on the rate resources grant to keep them going and enable them to carry out the necessary services?

Lack of resources in Mid Glamorgan is the most worrying feature of all for those of us who live there. We do not need parliamentary Questions or masses of statistics to enable us to know that the Mid Glamorgan area, which we represent and in which so many of us live, has the greatest social problems. It has four times the number of slums that the South Glamorgan area has, eight times the acreage of derelict land, four times the number of primary schools more than 50 years old, and 27 times the number of secondary schools over 50 years old.

If we had had the opportunity to question the Secretary of State in Committee, we might have made no progress. The Minister of State, Welsh Office put up a pathetic defence of the Government's proposals in Committee, but I do not blame the Minister of State for that. He could not make a defence of the Government's case, because there is no case to defend. The two arguments, if such they can be called, were that there were no links between Cardiff and the Valleys. I do not suggest that Cardiff and the Valleys are bosom friends and that we visit each other every Sunday for tea. If there are no links between Cardiff and the Valleys, that must be true of Porthcawl and the Valleys.

However, there are links between Cardiff and the Valleys. Many people travel to Cardiff from the Valleys every day to work. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West was Secretary of State, an analysis was made by the Welsh Office which indicated that a large number of people travelled daily from the Valleys to work in Cardiff and a large number travelled to Cardiff to shop. There is a great deal of entertainment in Cardiff which attracts people from the Valleys. The only source of live entertainment for the people of the Valleys is in Cardiff.

All the road and rail communications link the Valleys with Cardiff. It is easier for me to travel from Tonypandy to Cardiff than it is for me to travel from Tonypandy to Ebbw Vale although the latter journey is shorter.

The other argument advanced by the Minister of State was that Merthyr, Cardiff City and Glamorgan did not support the Consultative Document. Did anybody in his sense believe that they would? Could it be believed that Merthyr would voluntarily relinquish its county borough status and accept whatever plans the Secretary of State produced if they threatened Merthyr's county borough status? Was it likely that Cardiff would accept the proposals in the Consultative Document when it regarded them as a threat to its capital status? Could Glamorgan County Council be expected to rush in and welcome the published plan? It was reasonable to say that those councils had the right to express their criticisms of the Consultative Document. It is not fair to use their criticisms of the Consultative Document as an acceptance of anything in the Bill. Merthyr had its own solution. Glamorgan preferred to retain its identity. Neither of them wanted the South Glamorgan and Mid Glamorgan divisions as proposed in the Bill.

However, we are talking of Cardiff City, not of the whole composition of the Cardiff authority; we are talking only of those parts which had conservative members at that time. Fortunately, there are fewer of them today than there were then.

The very pertinent question has been asked as to who wants to divide Glamorgan into three—not the people of Glamorgan, not the Glamorgan County Council, not any one of the political parties represented on the county council, not the vast majority of the councils in Mid and South Glamorgan, not the Members of Parliament who represent in the main the express wishes and views of the people of Glamorgan.

Until the Secretary of State can explain adequately why he changed his preference for the proposal in the Consultative Document, all the accusations made against the Tory Party in the City Hall in Cardiff will resound throughout Wales. We know that the Cardiff Tories want it and I suspect that the only others who do are the public relations firm who have been organising the campaign to keep Cardiff as a real city. But I say to those who ran the campaign in Cardiff that the only people who have damaged the city and its capital status are the Cardiff Tories. They have been demonstrating that the city is surrounded by a sea of local government hostility and they have blighted their chances of leading Wales on any issue.

The Government proposals have created one misshapen, poverty-striken illogical county in Mid Glamorgan and one haven of selfish urban power in South Glamorgan. By his retrograde step and his shock conversion away from the principles he enunciated in the Consultative Document the Secretary of State has not only buried his own principles but has buried the chances of effective local government reorganisation in East Glamorgan.

2.30 p.m.

2.45 p.m.

The second reason advanced against the Amendment is that Merthyr has expressed its opposition. But it has not got what it wanted. Why is Cardiff being given what it wanted, whereas Merthyr has been denied it? There is a political connotation here. It is a desire to keep a Tory presence in South Wales. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North urges one positive advantage in the creation of the South Glamorgan authority. He has urged it today as he urged it in Committee. It is that with a sea-based authority we would achieve a greater concern for those areas. In particular he has instanced the steelworks. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) will forgive my mentioning this argument of the steelworks in this connection. If the hon. Gentleman seeks to suggest that the steelworks is the sole concern of the Cardiff authority he is making a very big mistake. We know that the future of the steel works lies not in the hands of Cardiff Corporation or of any other local authority but in the hands of the British Steel Corporation.

There exists at Llanharry an iron ore mine which is dependent solely on the continuance of the East Moors works. If the East Moors works were to close, 300 men in my constituency would be thrown out of work. If we had a total East Glamorgan authority, does the hon. Gentleman say that it would want caprisiously to close the East Moors works or that it would not be as zealous in its interest? It is because there is interdependence in this connection that there would be concern, a link and a genuine control over what happened in the whole of the county.

3.0 p.m.

We make the specific accusation that this is a politicaly motivated move. During the passage of the Bill at no stage have we heard a single concrete answer to that accusation. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not yield, I hope that my right hon. Friend's forecast will be fulfilled, and that when a Labour Administration returns to power we shall make sure that justice is accorded to Glamorgan.

3.15 p.m.

The proposed counties of South, West and mid-Glamorgan will have populations much larger than the desirable minimum of 250,000. The figures were given by the hon. Member for Gower. West Glamorgan will have a population of 372,000, South Glamorgan 390,000 and mid-Glamorgan 531,000. With the exception of Gwent, each authority is larger than any other proposed county authority in Wales. These three new counties in Glamorgan will have populations amply large enough to enable them to carry out their functions economically and effectively.

Hon. Members have referred to paragraph 43 of the consultative document. It was suggested that the argument in favour of two counties in Glamorgan and against three was put so clearly by me in that document that—I will not use the harsh language which has been used in the debate—dark forces were at work to get me to change my mind. I assure the House that this is absolute nonsense. The essence of a consultative document is that one is prepared to change the proposals in it if they are shown to be seriously objectionable. What was the point of issuing a consultative document if everything was cut and dried in February, 1971?

3.30 p.m.

a Royal Commission, but based on the Secretary of State's own political judgment, will leave a dishonourable record that will follow him as slime follows when dirty work is under way. [ Interruption.] If the Minister of State wants more, I am willing to give it to him.

The Minister of State likes to believe, when he stands at the Dispatch Box and does not answer any of our questions, that as long as he has the votes he is all right. He is dealing with the Welsh people now. We are dealing with two Members from English constituencies who are embarked on a disgusting and dishonest carve-up of local government in Wales in favour of a political rump in the Conservative group in Cardiff which has been disowned even by the people of Cardiff. I hope that the House will vote against them.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 42, Noes 74.

Question accordingly negatived.

3.45 p.m.

Amendment negatived.

It being Four o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.