HC Deb 25 July 1963 vol 681 cc1829-39

Lords Amendment: In page 28, line 13, leave out "subsection (7)" and insert "subsections (7) and (10A)".

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This is a paving Amendment for the Amendment introducing a new Clause 10A.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 28, line 26, at end insert: and different days may be appointed under this subsection for different purposes or for different areas".

Mr. Corfield

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Amendment follows an undertaking which I gave during the Committee proceedings when we were discussing an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) which was designed to insert a date for the termination of the transitional period, while the Opposition were pressing for an extension of the powers. This Amendment will enable the exercise of some powers by the Greater London Council to be terminated before others.

The second part of the Amendment is on the same lines, and allows a differentiation in the areas.

Mr. Reynolds

The Amendment is quite plain. But perhaps the Minister will give us a little more information about what he has in mind. This covers the whole range of services of the London County Council in the housing sphere. Does he think that he would not need some powers, for example, to lend money, for very long, but he might need general housing powers, provisional housing estates or slum clearance powers for longer?

The Clause covers all the powers which the L.C.C. possesses and enables the G.L.C. to carry on operating them for a time. We tried to extend the use of those powers to other parts of the Greater London area and also to enable the Greater London Council to keep them for all time. But we understood that there would be a time when the G.L.C. would be divested of them. Now the Minister asks us to accept the divesting of the powers one at a time.

I see difficulties and I think that there should be a little more explanation of why the Minister wants this power. Has he any idea which powers he is likely to get rid of first and why does he want power to do so area by area?

Mr. Corfield

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the housing powers comprise those under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, the Housing Act, 1957, except Part II, the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1958, the House Purchase and Housing Act, 1959, and the Housing Act, 1961. Some of the powers overlap and some could well be dispensed with before others. One has to look at these together with the areas, particularly with regard to some of the housing powers. There are areas where it is obviously foreseeable that slum clearance will be completed long before other areas, unfortunate as that may be. I think that it is sensible that these powers should exist so that once jobs of this sort are completed the final transfer can be made.

Dr. Alan Glyn (Clapham)

Does the Minister mean that if a borough wants to take over one particular function in relation to housing at an earlier date my right hon. Friend can allow it to do so on a date mutually agreed?

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 3, after first "and" insert: without prejudice to subsection (10A) of this section".

Mr. Corfield

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This is a similar Amendment to a previous Amendment, namely, a paving Amendment to the new Clause 10A.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 10, leave out from "submitted" to "but" in line 13 and insert: before 1st April 1965 under the Housing Repairs and Rents Act 1954 or section 2 of the Housing Act 1957 by any existing council to whom section 3(1)(b) of this Act applies or jointly by the London county council and a metropolitan borough council".

Mr. Corfield

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Amendment fills a gap in the Bill as originally drafted. The House will recall that the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954, and Section 2 of the Housing Act, 1957, require housing authorities to submit their proposals for clearing unfit houses to the Minister for approval. Clause 21(8) as it stands requires the London boroughs, made up of the metropolitan boroughs, to have regard to the proposals submitted to those authorities, jointly with the L.C.C., to the Minister, but left the outer London boroughs with no such obligation.

This obligation is now laid on them by the Amendment, so that there is uniform treatment throughout.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 25, at end insert: (10A) The Greater London Council and any of the following other councils, that is to say, the Common Council and any borough or urban or rural district council whose area lies outside but adjacent to or in the vicinity of Greater London, may enter into agreements for the provision by the Greater London Council of houses outside the London boroughs to meet the special needs of that other council, or for the provision by that other council of houses within their area to meet the needs of the Greater London Council, and for the payment in either case of such contributions as may be agreed by the council needing the houses to the council providing them.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Corfield

beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Amendment accepts the substance of an Opposition Amendment moved in another place, or, at any rate, a large part of it. The main difference between this Amendment and the Opposition Amendment is a matter of presentation and drafting rather than of substance. Paragraph 10 of the Opposition Amendment would have substituted the Greater London Council for the L.C.C. in Section 185 of the Housing Act, 1957. This Section enables the L.C.C. or any other council, including the City of London, which is the local authority of the area adjacent to or in the vicinity of, the County of London to enter into agreements for the provision by the L.C.C. of houses outside the county to meet the special needs of the other council or of houses within this area to meet the needs of the L.C.C.

For the purpose of this Section, the City of London is outside the County of London and the City and County can make agreement with each other for the provision of houses. The Greater London Council will be the authority for the purpose of town development under this Act and will have power to make agreement on town developments which are almost certain to be beyond the green belt. Building by authorities in the green belt for the benefit of the Greater London Council will be acceptable only in certain conditions, but the L.C.C. has found it useful to make arrangements of this sort for authorities outside its areas, as, for example, Staines. It will make negotiations easier for the Greater London Council to have this power, and the Amendment is designed for that purpose.

Mr. Reynolds

This adds slightly to the powers under the Town Development Act, but would it not have been possible for the Greater London Council to use the Town Development Act for this type of development in adjacent district councils? The phrase rural district council whose area lies outside but adjacent to…Greater London is perfectly clear, but the phrase "or in the vicinity of" does not seem clear. This is used in defining which of the councils may or may not be able to enter into agreement with the other councils mentioned.

The phrase, "in the vicinity of" might mean any local authority within 10 or 15 miles of the Greater London boundary or anything within four or five miles of the Greater London authority and it seems exceedingly vague.

The Amendment gives a similar power to the Common Council of the City of London, and I understand that the powers given would enable the Greater London Council to enter into agreements of this kind for building just outside its area either by itself or on behalf of other authorities, or by other authorities on its behalf, and would also enable the Common Council of the City to do so. But that power would not extend to the 32 Greater London boroughs.

I believe that there was no such power for the 32 Greater London boroughs in the Bill as it left the House to build outside the Greater London area, and I cannot see why it should be necessary for that power to be given to the Common Council of the City of London with a relatively small population. Do we have to give a power of this kind to the smallest of the authorities inside the Greater London area, while we do not give it to the larger authorities which might be able to make greater use of it? In my own view, out-county building should be done by the Greater London Council itself and not by the boroughs, but I cannot see why the power should be given only to the Common Council.

Dr. Alan Glyn

Can my hon. Friend say in what sort of areas this would operate, and the sort of distances from London he envisages being included in the Amendment?

Mr. Corfield

The purpose of the Amendment is simply to retain existing arrangements by which ordinary housing Act functions can be carried out. However, I do not think that I can improve on the expression "in the vicinity of". This is not a town development type of housing operation for which further provision is made later. It follows an undertaking which I gave in Committee to the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler). This enables existing arrangements to be carried on in the environs of London, and it is not a departure from what happens at the moment.

I will communicate with the hon. Member if I am wrong, but I think that this only enables the Common Council of the City of London to make arrangements with the Greater London Council, as it did with the L.C.C., when it is unable to find land within its own boundaries and wishes to have a housing estate outside its own area.

Mr. Reynolds

By leave of the House. That is not the answer to my main question. I believe that a power is being given to the Common Council of the City of London which will not be available to the other 32 Greater London boroughs, and I cannot see why the City Corporation and not the others should be given this power. If the City is short of land for the comparatively small population for which it has to provide houses, how much more short is my own Borough of Islington, which has to provide accommodation for the 16,000 people on its housing list? I do not want any of the Greater London boroughs to have this out-county building power, because I believe that it should be concentrated in the hands of the large authority, but why should it be given to the city and apparently not to the Greater London councils?

Mr. Corfield

By leave of the House. I am afraid that I cannot add to the explanation that this continues the status quo with the substitution of the G.L.C. for the L.C.C. I do not know what the historical origin is, but it was thought that it was right in an Amendment of this sort to preserve the position. If I am wrong, I will certainly write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington)

I do not want to prolong the discussion, but the phrase "in the vicinity" ought to be qualified, because it does not mean anything as the Amendment now stands. Why should it not be deleted if it does not mean anything? The Greater London Council may combine with any council outside its area to do these things, but it is obvious that it would not wish to combine with a rural district council in Caithness and Sutherland. However, according to the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation, it is not necessary to place any particular restriction upon the use of these powers. It would be useful if we could get some further clarification.

Mr. M. Stewart

Can the Parliamentary Secretary say what parallels there are for the use of the words "in the vicinity of" in other Statutes? Presumably, there must be some view of what words like this mean. The Parliamentary Secretary's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds), that this power is being included because it continues the status quo, is very odd in this connection. If the Government are to use that argument, they might as well take the Bill away.

Mr. Marcus Lipton (Brixton)

I am profoundly dissatisfied with the Parliamentary Secretary's rather half-hearted attempt to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds). It seems that the Common Council of the City of London is to be given privileges which no other authority inside the Greater London area is to have. That strikes me as a most peculiar state of affairs, because any one who knows the geography of the Greater London area will know that the Common Council area is the smallest although not the poorest, local government area within the large conurbation. I cannot see why the City of London, whose housing needs are inevitably smaller than those of other London boroughs surrounding it, should be provided with these special powers over and above those given to other local authorities in the area.

The Clause would read much more easily if the words but adjacent to or in the vicinity of were omitted. As the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) pointed out, the Greater London Council will not enter into complicated arrangements with some local authority in the north of Scotland. It would be to the advantage of all the authorities which might be concerned and we might avoid arguments and misunderstandings if these words were omitted. They seem to be unnecessary.

Having given the Parliamentary Secretary sufficient time to collect his thoughts on the subject—perhaps the Minister himself will come to the rescue of his colleague—I hope that the situation can now be clarified. I believe that the necessary technical advice has now been received and that it will enable the Minister to deal more dearly with our questions.

Sir K. Joseph

To refer to something so unparliamentary as a cup of tea, I have returned refreshed to the fray. The procedure is that the Minister keeps himself closely in touch with Amendments of substance as the Bill goes through another place, but this Amendment was introduced to meet an Opposition point and its effect is so relatively trivial that I cannot give examples of what it might achieve. The point was made in another place that the preservation of this existing power, a power limited to the L.C.C. and the City of London, would be a good thing. The Government saw no harm in preserving a power which the Opposition requested, and they therefore agreed to it. This is purely a survival of an existing power which can do no harm and which might conceivably do good. It is far from any overspill powers. I cannot give any more information about what the G.L.C. might do with it when it has it. The words "in the vicinity" come from the 1957 Act, which was a consolidation Act, and are therefore precedented.

Mr. Pavitt

On a point of order. I wonder whether something could be done about the sunlight from the other side of the House, because there are spots in front of my eyes when I look at hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray)

There will be no difficulty about meeting the hon. Member's request.

Mrs. Joyce Butler (Wood Green)

If I understood the Minister rightly, this is merely a carry-over of the present position with the L.C.C. into the new set-up. However, the boroughs on the outskirts of the London area, those in Middlesex, and so on, will also be involved, and it seems very wrong that boroughs like mine, when they are reconstituted to form the new Greater London boroughs, should not know the effect on them of this provision. The Minister does not seem to know what the effect will be and they will not know and I am not clear about how this power will work out.

Mr. Reynolds

I think that my hon. Friend would be right to say that the Middlesex boroughs possessed this power, as did the L.C.C. and the Common Council, but that there is no ground for continuing it for them.

Mrs. Butler

We must be absolutely clear about how this will work out in the boroughs. This is a change as far as we are concerned and we want to know how it will affect them.

Mr. Weitzman

I am very concerned about the Minister's answer. It is absurd for him to say that he does not know what the words "in the vicinity of" mean. It is all very well to refer to another Statute, but we have to look at the words in the Bill. Is Brighton included in the vicinity of the Greater London area? Litigation is founded upon words used in a Statute. The words are there to be argued and I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to leave an untidy expression of this kind in the Bill. I hope that he will clear up the mystery and put in something much more definite.

Mr. John Harvey (Walthamstow, East)

Is not the point of this much more simple than it seems? The hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) suggested that some sort of special privileges were being given to the City Corporation, but as I read the provision that is not so. The Clause would appear to enable the Greater London Council to make arrangements with areas which could accept an inflow of residents, and erect houses, and so on, for the benefit of the other boroughs which will comprise the Greater London area. It would seem that the City, as well as areas outside Greater London, will be in a position to receive such people and build houses. That would appear to be the object of the Clause.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Lipton

Is the hon. Member suggesting that the object of the Clause is to enable the Common Council of the City of London to add to its existing population and thereby come to the rescue of other local authorities in the provision of housing accommodation, and so on?

Sir K. Joseph

The presence of the Common Council here results from the fact that it was retained because we were particularly asked to continue this discretion, which was in Section 185 of the 1957 Act. That was put to us in another place. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey) is correct. This power will enable the G.L.C. to enter into a bargain with an authority just outside London. The phrase …but adjacent to or in the vicinity of… refers to authorities close to the London boundary, if not actually on it. This takes account of the G.L.C. using some of the land in an area belonging to another authority and where, in partial or whole repayment, provides some housing for the needs of that authority, subject to such time arrangements as may be made.

I cannot reveal the exact effect of this. It is not part of our major strategic activities in this direction. It is a continuation of a power to the G.L.C. This is a small technical power compared with the great strategic powers which are the basis of the Bill.

Mr. Weitzman

Will the Minister not deal more particularly with the expression …but adjacent to or in the vicinity of"… because it is not enough for him merely to say, "There it is and I cannot say any more about it"?

Mr. Lubbock

Could we not clear this point up in respect of the words …but adjacent' to or in the vicinity of"… once and for all by replacing them with words like, "adjacent to an authority which is adjacent to" and in that way the authorities concerned would be limited to those which are contiguous with the boundary of Greater London or those in the next ring outwards from that point?

Mr. Lipton

Has the right hon. Gentleman not realised the possibility of the G.L.C. having to ask for a compulsory purchase order in respect of land in the vicinity of the Greater London area? There may be some complicated and difficult legal arguments surrounding the present wording, particularly if it is contested that the compulsory purchase order concerns land which, it is argued, is not in the vicinity of Greater London. The present words may be good for the legal profession, but for no one else.

Sir K. Joseph

The phrase …in the vicinity of"… was in the 1936 and the 1957 Acts and is precedented in that way. I do not think that the alternative suggested by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) would make the position any clearer. An authority must be actually touching or continguous to the Greater London boundary or close to it and I hope that the House will now agree to part with the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]