Schedule 1. — (the London Boroughs.)

Part of Orders of the Day — London Government Bill – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 20 February 1963.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Frederick Corfield Mr Frederick Corfield , Gloucestershire South 12:00, 20 February 1963

I can assure the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) right from the start that there is no question that we are merely doing our sums in regard to this arrangement. There is no question of worrying whether we have 318,000 in this borough, No. 30, or 290,000, and I am sure he realises that as well as anybody.

The whole crux of the inclusion of Barnet is whether or not the built-up area there is part of the continuous built-up area of Greater London. Of course, by and large, the greater part—virtually all —of the green belt will be outside the boundary, but there are bound to be areas such as this where there are wedges of green belt which come in between tongues of built-up area but where the district as a whole is a continuous part of Greater London.

I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman will look at the map—the map I have here was printed in 1958, so one can assume that if anything has changed it has probably changed in the direction of more building rather than less—he will see that it cannot be denied that the built-up area of the main part of Barnet, part of which is shown as Chipping Barnet and part as Barnet Vale, adjoins the built-up area of East Barnet and Friern Barnet stretching right away into Finchley and the rest of Greater London.

It is of some consequence, I think, that the Barnet Council itself has recognised the continuity of its area with East Barnet. Indeed its original plan was that it and the neighbouring area of East Barnet should remain included in Hertfordshire. Yet the East Barnet Council has never suggested that its area is not part of the continuous built-up area or that it should be excluded. So there is this clear admission of a continuous built-up link between these two areas one of which is quite clear as to its position within the built-up area. Taking the southern part of the built-up area somewhat to the east of the village of Totteridge, it is quite clear that the built-up area there is continuous with the northern part of the Borough of Finchley. This is the reason why it has been included, and I submit to the hon. Gentleman that it is the only logical thing to do.

Of course, we appreciate the ancient ties with Hertfordshire, the educational achievements of the county and the facilities that the people of Barnet enjoy. But I am assured that the preponderance of Hertfordshire children who attend the South Herts. College of Further Education do so only because of the fact that Barnet is itself in Hertfordshire, and that once we make this change the greater numbers of the students will, in fact, come from the built-up area which will come into Greater London.

The hon. Gentleman made a point of the fact that so many of the people leaving school leave London during their working day to work in the towns of Hertfordshire. That may well be, and, no doubt, travelling is much more pleasant in that direction than in the other, but we are basing this system of the built-up area on where people live. Nobody has yet suggested we should exclude the outer green belt towns, the commuter towns, because people go to work in London. I suggest that this is not one of the hon. Gentleman's better arguments. Nor, indeed, do I think that the argument that there is something more sacrosanct about the Hertfordshire boundary than about any other boundary holds very much water, and the argument over Potters Bar falls into exactly the same category. There again, if one looks at the map, there is a clear break in the continuous built-up area. What matters is where the character of the town starts, and l do not think that it can be denied