Kent (Local Government)

– in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 6 December 1972.

Alert me about debates like this

3.10 a.m.

Photo of Mr Roger White Mr Roger White , Gravesend

I am glad to have the opportunity to initiate this debate, albeit at this late hour, and I am both grateful and pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development in his place on the Front Bench. He has already earned for himself a considerable reputation in the local government world.

I wish to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the English Non-Metropolitan Districts (Definition) Order 1972, which has been laid before the House and is to receive its approval before 31st December, 1972. I shall refer in particular to page 24, part 22, concerning districts 2 and 3. This order follows Report No. 1 of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, presented to the House by the Secretary of State in November.

My constituency includes the present urban district of Northfleet, the borough of Gravesend and the Strood rural district, and it is the effect upon the latter which has caused me to raise the subject of the Boundary Commission's proposals.

In addition to the enormous post which I have received from the rural district council, from the parish councils and from hundreds of individuals, I have received protests from other local authorities placed in a position similar to that of my own. One of the most common criticisms concerns the method adopted by the Government in presenting important changes without an opportunity for the House to debate the findings of the Boundary Commission's Report No. 1, especially in view of the great weight of public opinion involved in these matters.

We saw a precedent established recently following the Roskill Report. That report was debated both here and in the other place, and the outcome of those debates, with the support of public opinion, was that the Government were persuaded to depart from the recommendation of Cublington as the site for the third London airport and to decide on Maplin. It was said then, and has been said since, that that was a victory for public opinion and its expression here in Parliament.

The proposals made by Strood Rural District Council were of such a nature that Kent County Council went on record as saying that it recognised that the district council had a strong case, backed by public opinion. A local meeting was therefore convened in Rochester on 5th September, under the chairmanship of Sir Edmund Compton. By all accounts, it appeared that Strood Rural District Council had submitted an extremely able and strong case, and many people thought that the local meeting could only confirm the views already expressed by public opinion. The shock waves which have resulted from the Boundary Commission's Report, therefore, have been manifest in my postbag, in deputations and in protests in the local Press and over the local radio.

The chairman of the Strood Rural District Council, on behalf of that authority, sent to the Secretary of State a resolution dated 28th November 1972, in these terms: We, being the Chairman and elected Members of the Strood Rural District Council, strongly urge the Secretary of State for the Environment closely to re-examine all the evidence submitted by this Authority to the Boundary Commission before placing before Parliament a Statutory Instrument giving effect to the Boundary Commission's proposals to establish Non-Metropolitan District Councils, particularly with regard to Kent Districts Nos. 2 and 3.The District Council is firmly of opinion that a re-examination of the evidence will establish the fact that the proposals to unite Strood urban area of Rocheser with the whole of the Strood rural district fully accords with the Government's White Paper, particularly paragraph 33 thereof, and the Guide Lines issued by the Department of the Environment to the Boundary Commission, and is accepted by 16 Parish Councils and Gravesend Borough Council and Northfleet Urban District Council.Further, the District Council wishes the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that apart from the fact that the Proposals meet the criteria of the White Paper and the Guide Lines, the Commission took due note of public opinion which forcibly endorsed the District Council's representations. Also in this connection the District Council wishes to draw attention to the fact that when the draft proposals of the Boundary Commission were submitted the Kent County Council stated that, whilst they did not consider the District Council's proposals to be any better than the Draft Proposals, they acknowledged the fact that the District Council had an extremely strong case supported by public opinion. Therefore, in view of the foregoing and the wish of the Government to establish viable local government units easily recognisable and understood by the electorate at large, and the fact that the district council's proposals fully accord with the Government's wishes, the Secretary of State should re-examine the evidence as requested before presenting the findings to Parliament. That is signed by the chairman of that council. The rural district council claimed that these proposals might meet the criteria of the White Paper and the guidelines confirmed by the many publications on the subject of local government reform prior to and after the draft proposals were made.

I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the White Paper, Command 4584, published in February, 1971. Paragraph 8, on page 6, says that A vigorous local democracy means that authorities must be given real functions—with powers of decision and the ability to take action without being subjected to excessive regulation by central government through financial or other controls. The final sentence contained in that paragraph is important. It states: And, above all else a genuine local democracy implies that decisions should be taken—and should be seen to be taken—as locally as possible. On page 10 of the same Command Paper, the last sentence of paragraph 33, relating to areas outside the metropolitan counties, states: The Government are anxious, in this structure, to ensure that the special interests of rural areas are not overshadowed. In Circular 58/71 dated 22nd July 1971, the annex very clearly indicates, in paragraphs 2 and 3, the population, the county patterns of districts, and the identity of towns. Paragraph 2 says: Except in sparsely populated areas the aim should be to define districts with current populationally generally within the range of about 75,000/100,000. These figures are in no sense absolute limits: some districts will be larger or smaller, according to local circumstances; but regard should be had to the desirability of producing in each county a pattern of districts which are broadly comparable in population and conducive to effective and convenient local government throughout the county as a whole. Paragraph 3 reads: The identity of large town should be maintained. The whole designated area of a new town or the whole of an area defined for town development should ordinarily fall within one new district. On the last page of this circular, regarding consultations, paragraph 8 states that The Commission should consider suggestions and proposals put to them by local authorities and other persons and bodies for the pattern of districts in each county, and should then make draft proposals. These should be published as a basis for the fullest practicable consultation with the existing authorities and so that, when formulating their final recommendations, the Commission can also have regard to any further representations to and representations from members of the public. The Strood Rural District Council proposals, following the criteria set out and the guidelines, suggested three district councils. These differ from those set out in the draft proposals but they represent, in the submission of the rural district council, a sensible and balanced scheme for the rural area in the county of Kent. They have set out three new district councils.

The first would be the Gravesend Metropolitan Borough and Northfleet urban district, with a total population of 80,723.

The second proposal, opposed by the Strood Rural District Council, was that Strood should comprise Strood Rural District Council, Rochester Metropolitan Borough and that part of Strood lying to the west of the River Medway, with a total population of 71,447.

The third district council would have been that of the Rochester Metropolitan Borough, lying to the east of the River Medway, and Chatham Metropolitan Borough, with a population of 82,957.

The population of the first and last areas would be completely within the norm of the guidelines. Certainly the second one, involving Strood rural district with the urban area of Strood, would be very close to the norm. This pattern of local authorities would allow for expansion by further development for a considerable number of years without the populations becoming too large. The reason for this is that the area of the Medway is included in the strategy for the South East as a district in which moderate development should take place, but already in the area considerable development is being permitted in the rural part, certainly along the Medway and that part of the Thames near the Isle of Grain. Development is also taking place in the Walderslade area of Chatham.

The new district council envisaged by the rural district council would create a pattern of community life and ensure the effective operation of local government services because administrative centres in all three areas could be conveniently situated and easily accessible to the populations of the districts.

This alternative is completely in accord with the wishes of the local inhabitants of the Strood rural area and the Strood urban area of Rochester. At the moment there is considerable confusion among people in the locality as to the boundaries of the Strood urban area of Rochester, and the rural council. The three new districts would create a proper balance of interest, in accordance with Government policy.

There would also be a reasonable distribution of rateable value, although it is realised that a new Strood rural district council would have a greater rateable value, but this would be offset by the new industry brought in and the fact that a larger area would have to be administered, involving many larger villages, where facilities for leisure, and so on, would be sought.

Area No. 1, consisting of Gravesend Metropolitan Area and Northfleet Urban District Council, would realise a rateable value of £44 per head. The new Strood rural district area, with Strood urban, would realise £55 per head, and that of Rochester and Chatham metropolitan boroughs would realise £42. I realise that there is a discrepancy of about £13 between the area suggested by Strood rural and that of the new area for Rochester and Chatham, but there is to be GLC overspill in that area of between 1,200 and 1,500. The existing offices, at Frindsbury Hill, of the rural district council accommodate all departments involved in local government and are within easy reach of the council's works depot, and there are plenty of facilities that can be expanded in the event of a larger area being created.

Apart from these proposals, the rural district council conducted a referendum and its findings were published in June of this year. Sixty per cent. of the local electorate responded to a postal ballot—a remarkable poll, especially in local government. Of those who voted, 97 per cent. were in favour of the Strood Rural Council proposals. Furthermore, a Gallup Poll conducted in Strood urban area showed strong support for a link with the Strood rural hinterland. These two tests are commendable and far reaching.

The local inquiry was held at Rochester on 5th September, and its observations and findings are to be found on pages 147–150 of the Boundary Commission No. 1 Report. To say that that report is resented by Strood Rural District Council is a polite understatement. In the first place, no mention is made of the referendum or the Gallup Poll, other than an almost passing reference on page 147 to a local campaign organised by Strood Rural District Council in opposition to the proposed splitting. No mention is made of the strong representations by the 16 parish councils.

Particular offence is taken to paragraph 21: They also noted a report by the Commissioners who visited the area that the part of Rochester MB west of the River Medway appeared to have none of the characteristics of a separate town. I have no idea where the commissioners went when they visited that part of Strood urban, but they could not have seen the fine modern shopping centre, comprising large supermarkets, such as Fine Fare, Co-op, Tesco, two large department stores, a modern Woolworth's and Barclays, National Westminster, Lloyds, Midland and Trustee Savings Banks. In addition, there are a large post office, hardware stores, chemists, garages, fruit and vegetable shops, newsagents, bakers, jewellers, wine merchants, television rental, estate agents, butchers, radio and television, restaurants, hair- dressers, fish shops and many other types of shops and stores. Strood has its own railway station, car parks and public houses.

Again in paragraph 21 there is reference to the fact that no evidence was adduced to refute the point made by the county council about the administrative, planning and economic needs of the area. It has been suggested that the planning witness for the county who followed the case presented by Strood Rural Council was using evidence based upon information gained in 1968, whereas, in the Gallup Poll conducted in 1972, respondents were asked about the use of local facilities. Again, local people made their feelings clear about their own rural area. The poll said that—local countryside and public libraries emerged as the two amenities most used, and local shopping patterns were established for household goods and larger commodities. More than seven out of 10 households do their household shopping in Strood, and fewer than one in 10 go to Rochester.

This inquiry has caused an enormous amount of resentment, which can be summed up in some ways by the Luddesdown Parish Council, which wrote to my right hon. Friend on 25th November. In that letter the council said: The Council and residents of this parish are appalled by the decision of the Boundary Commission as published in Circular 116/72 of November 21 (a copy of which was not supplied to the council), since it recommends precisely the grouping (five rural parishes including Luddesdown with Gravesend and Northfleet and the remainder of the Strood Rural District with Rochester and Chatham) that was unanimously rejected by local authorities at the local inquiry held at Rochester by Sir Edmund Compton.At that meeting he specifically asked: 'Can I take it that no one favours this proposal?' And no one did. Gravesend and Northfleet had already gone on public record as saying that they did not want the five rural parishes. The five parishes, by council and public meeting resolution and referendum, had made their own rejection of this proposal so overwhelmingly clear that it seemed unanswerable. Among other things, it would have produced in the new authority a majority of urban to rural population of more than five to one—the highest in Kent. In addition, Frindsbury Extra Parish Council, High Halstow Parish Council, in its letter of 29th November, Cobham Parish Council, in its letter of 25th November, and Meopham Parish Council, in a letter that I received at the House this evening, indicate the strong resentment of these parish councils towards the Boundary Commission proposals. Meopham says: This Meopham Parish Council deplores the proposal made by the Local Government Boundary Commission, whereby the Strood Rural District is to be carved up and the Parish of Meopham annexed to Gravesend. This proposal has been made in the face of and completely at variance with the wishes of the majority of Meopham Parishioners. I have had many letters from constituents, but this quotation from one sums up the average person's feelings on the subject: The injustice of the Commission's decision is a complete and utter travesty of democratic principle as the voice of the people appears to have been disregarded … That is really the crux of the argument. The Government set out, again and again, through circulars and White Papers, the need for local opinion to be taken into account. I do not think that any other local authority has taken more trouble than has Strood Rural District Council to inquire about the feelings of the people in its district. There is therefore a feeling of bewilderment among people who live in an expanding and prosperous area, both along the Thames and the Medway, where there are great opportunities for further expansion.

Already a second new power station has been started on the Isle of Grain, and we await the outcome of a public inquiry about another refinery at Cliffe. Yet another inquiry concerns the rural and parish councils' feelings for the environment in the case of a proposal to expand an existing cement works.

In addition, we have in the area agriculture and horticulture, and six railway stations through which large numbers of residents commute daily to London.

These people wish to have their views heard and understood. I have been told that democracy must be seen to work. I therefore call upon my right hon. Friend to advise withdrawal of districts 2 and 3, as proposed, for a further review. In doing so they will earn not only gratitude but respect from these people.

3.32 a.m.

Photo of Mr Graham Page Mr Graham Page , Crosby

I do not complain about my hon. Friend's ingenuity, initiative, and—I suppose I should say—agility in jumping the gun, in that in a few days' time the House will debate the order to which he has referred, and the report of the Local Government Boundary Commission, Number 1, to which he has also referred. That report was laid before Parliament on 21st November, and the Secretary of State laid the draft order to give effect to the recommendations of the commission on 22nd November.

This order will soon be debated in both houses. From the fact that the order seeking to carry out the recommendations in full was laid on the day following that on which the report was published, it will be obvious that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has accepted absolutely the commission's recommendations. I am sure that anyone who reads them will be convinced that they are sound as a whole, and that it would be folly to try to do again the work which the high-powered, independent commission has spent the last year or so doing, and doing so thoroughly and well.

Going back over that year, the appointment of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England as a body designate was announced to this House on 25th November 1971, shortly after the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill, and it was charged with three tasks—to consider the proposals made by local authorities and others for a new pattern of districts in the English non-metropolitan councils; to prepare and publish draft proposals for such districts as a basis for consultation, and to recommend a pattern of districts to the Secretary of State in the light of all the representations in response to the draft proposals.

All this was to be done in the light of the general objective of the Government's proposals for reform of local government and in accordance with guidelines issued by my right hon. Friend, who was then Secretary of State for the Environment.

Moveover, it had to be done within a time scale consonant with the progress of the Local Government Bill, so that the final report could be submitted to the Secretary of State as soon as possible after Royal Assent had been given to the Bill.

Sir Edmund Compton was appointed chairman of the commission, and he was assisted by six commissioners, all eminent in their own field. The commission got down to its task with great energy and published its draft proposals as long ago as 26th April this year. It was greatly helped in that task by the existing local authorities, which had responded enthusiastically to the invitation given in July, 1971, to start the whole process by making their own recommendations to the commission. The commission gave full consideration not only to those recommendations but also to the reactions of local authorities to its draft proposals.

The commission then made a substantial number of changes in the draft proposals, and finally submitted its report to my right hon. and learned Friend on 2nd November. The report is a monument to the diligence and attention to detail of the commission, as well as to its balanced approach. The commission has well earned the thanks, the praise and the congratulations of everyone concerned with local government reform.

Representations from nearly all local authorities and from about 2,500 other bodies or individuals were received by the commission before it prepared its draft proposals. It says in its report that those representations were of great assistance. Later in its report it says that it received over 28,000 written representations in response to the draft proposals, counting petitions as single representations, although it records that it took due note of the size of each petition.

It tells us, further, that some 73 per cent. of local authorities raised no objection to the draft proposals. It is clear, therefore, that local wishes were well in its mind.

After considering the response to the draft proposals, it made recommendations for the new districts. It was an astonishing achievement that by this method it formed 953 existing local authorities into 296 new districts. Only about half a dozen complaints of substance have come to me since the final report was published and laid before Parliament.

I said just now that between the draft and the final proposals the commission made substantial alterations. There were substantial modifications to 43 of the districts.

These facts show that the commission is not only a responsible body but a responsive and flexible one. Its flexibility and responsiveness to public opinion were in no way impaired by the guidelines laid down for it by the Secretary of State, but the report has some relevant comment on those guidelines. It makes the point that it was given them without any indication of priority, and that therefore it did not infer any particular order in which it should treat them. It preferred, rather, to strike a balance between them. However, there is no doubt that it found the guidelines basic to its work—the population parameters, the regard to local wishes, the pattern of community life, the effective operation of local government services, and the regard for the Government's objectives for reform.

The commission discovered that these guidelines did not necessarily conflict but, rather, were complementary. The commission had to put its own interpretation on these guidelines. For example—and this is relevant to the case that my hon. Friend has put before the House today—paying regard to local wishes meant to the commission not only those expressed in one locality, but those expressed in neighbouring localities and in the authority within which a district authority might be comprised—that is to say, the wishes of the county as well as of the existing local county districts.

A further indication of the commission's sensitivity to the importance of the issues involved, both locally and nationally, is given by its local consultations. My hon. Friend mentioned how the matter had worked out in the case of districts Nos. 2 and 3 in Kent—those districts with which he is particularly concerned. The commission conducted 16 meetings with representatives of local authorities in the areas where it required evidence. Local Members of Parliament were invited to attend these meetings and the Press was present at all of them.

Hon. Members for areas where meetings were held will know that these meetings received extensive coverage in the local Press and that the commission gave as full an opportunity as possible to the authorities to express their views and put their case, and I am sure that Strood rural district put its case very fully before the commission at the meeting that was arranged and held at Rochester on 5th September 1972.

In fact, in regard to these meetings the Local Government Chronicle, a very informed and alert watchdog for the interests of local government, said: Considerable stress was laid on probing questions … and on discussion and comment through the chair in an effort to clarify the evidence and establish the facts", Later, the article said: The authorities appeared to be well content with the opportunity given to them. … Those quotations relate specifically to the meeting at which Strood was under consideration—that is, the meeting on 5th September 1972. The meeting had come about, as my hon. Friend said, because of the authorities, particularly the county council, saying that they thought that Strood had put forward a case which deserved argument and inquiry, but it turned out at the meeting itself that Kent County Council spoke in support not of Strood Rural District Council's case but of the commission's draft proposals.

The meeting was charged, as it were, by the commission to consider three alternatives for the several districts—Gravesend, Northfleet, Strood, Chatham and Rochester—and these, as appears from the report, were all fully discussed. The particular points which my hon. Friend raised are covered in the report. My hon. Friend said that at one stage Kent County Council had supported Strood rural district in wanting a separate district, but there appears in the report this statement concerning the meeting held in September 1972: Kent County Council spoke in support of the draft proposals. They suggested that as the strategic planning authority they would not wish to abandon the Green Belt between the Thames-side and Medway towns but that the long-term planning needs of the area would best be served by the creation of Draft New Districts 2 and 3. The report goes on: No evidence was adduced to refute the points made by the County Council about the planning, administrative and economic needs of the area. The commission's decision on Kent districts and the process by which it reached that decision accord with the high standards of investigation and analysis which the commission has set itself all through these inquiries.

The report records that Kent County Council originally proposed the division of the county into either 13 or 14 districts. At the outset the commission opted for the proposal containing the greater number of districts as the basis for its consideration. The report records that this pattern had a wide measure of support amongst most of the local authorities concerned. The draft proposals published by the commission, based on that 14-district plan—with a slight alteration where it was felt that existing districts would be split unnecessarily—received a considerable amount of support. The response to the draft proposals revealed quite firm and nearly unanimous expressions of local opinion in favour of the two changes, both of which divided local authorities. In the Dartford rural district and the Thanet area—two districts near to that with which my hon. Friend is concerned—representations were made to the commission and substantial alterations were made. The commission did not shut its ears to those representations.

In other areas representations were made contrary to the draft proposals. The commission could not support those representations, and upheld the draft proposals. In the areas of districts 2 and 3, which contain Chatham, Gravesend, Rochester, Northfleet rural district and Strood rural district, the commission was faced with the large, well-mounted campaign of Strood rural district to persuade it to recommend three districts rather than two. Strood Rural District Council was the moving force in pressing for a separate district for Strood, but that district could be formed only by taking that part of Rochester that is known as Strood lying west of the River Medway. Without that part of Rochester the figures would have been insufficient to give a viable district.

The views of the other authorities concerned were widely at variance, and the commission decided that this issue should be thrashed out at the local meeting that I have mentioned. It convened that local meeting, with the results that I have tried to describe from its report. The report records both the differences revealed at the meeting and the fact that no one present denied that people living in the area of Strood rural district used either Gravesend—if they lived to the west of the area—or Chatham and Rochester—if they lived to the east of the area—for services generally.

The report also records the unopposed evidence given by the county council about administrative and planning advantages of the district pattern proposed by the commission. Finally, it records that the commissioners who conducted the meeting went and looked for themselves at the area of Rochester west of the River Medway to see whether the points made at the meeting were valid.

My hon. Friend criticised the statement in the report on this visit, but I call his attention to the fact that the report does not say that the commissioners said that there was no town there. What the report of the commissioners who visited the area says is that they noted that the part of Rochester west of the River Medway appeared to have none of the characteristics of a separate town. I read from that that they concluded that this part of Rochester called Strood was part of the city of Rochester and really did not have the characteristics of a separate town.

Photo of Mr Roger White Mr Roger White , Gravesend

That part of Rochester known as Strood is on the other side of a river, and separated from Rochester by that river, so it is a separate town.

Photo of Mr Graham Page Mr Graham Page , Crosby

It is recorded in the report that the city of Rochester had argued that the city had extended by natural growth to the west of the River Medway since mediaeval times and that the urban area known as Strood had been part of the borough for many years before the formation of Strood rural district. Strood rural district can make its claim to be a separate district only by taking that part of the city which is recorded as having been a part of Rochester since mediaeval times.

In my view, the procedure adopted by the commission combined a full opportunity for local opinion to be stated with a full probing of public opinion and all the relevant objective considerations. As a result, the commission concluded that in this case its draft proposals for the area should stand.

I have gone into this matter in some detail tonight because of the points put forward by my hon. Friend. The appointment of a commission of this sort to go into the matter in such detail over a period of a year—a commission which took representations from all local authorities concerned, produced draft proposals, then held a local inquiry at which everyone could put their case, and then produced a final report—seems a far better way of discussing and deciding this matter than trying to go over it again in this House.

I should have thought it quite right for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, having appointed this commission to do the job, to say that we should accept what it recommends—not because the commission is dictating but because it has held inquiries and heard the local voice. The commission's procedure in this case is an example of the way in which it responded flexibly to the situations with which it had to cope. It looked at all situations in a sensible light, within the guidelines given to it, balanced all those considerations, and produced solutions commanding a wide measure of support.

Kent provides us with an excellent example of the full range of the commission's general approach, and I am sure that the House would be unwise to seek to extract any one item from its comprehensive recommendations to the Secretary of State.