HC Deb 20 January 1964 vol 687 cc839-45

Again considered in Committee.

Mr. Bence

We are asked to increase the aggregate amount of the advances made to the Commission. The Commission does not apply to Scotland. In the past, the advances made to the Commission have been subject to a limitof £5 million. In the Money Resolution there is no limit to what may be paid out of the Consolidated Fund to the Commission. If it is a total of £550 million, might we not by the Resolution be giving the Minister power to authorise the Commission to acquire the properties of existing new towns, to the detriment of money passing to devlopment corporations for the more rapid expansion of their work?

Under the previous Acts, the Commission was advanced £4 million. This was extended to £5 million. That was the Commission's limit. It could not acquire the property of any development corporation in excess of that amount. The Resolution places no limit on the amount the Commission can take out of the£550 million.

According to my reading of the Money Resolution, there would be nothing to prevent the Minister advancing £550 million to the Commission to enable it to acquire all the existing properties of new town corporations, or all the property it could to that value. This is a somewhat exaggerated view, but it serves as an illustration. The Money Resolution sets no limit to either the money that might flow to the Commission or to development corporations within the limit of £550 million.

This has serious implications for Scotland. The Commission does not apply to Scotland. It applies only to England and Wales. There will be considerable resentment in Scotland if the idea gets abroad that we could be short of money in Scotland to carry out new work more rapidly in such places as Cumbernauld because the Commission, operating in England and Wales, was getting an extra slice of the £550 million to enable it to acquire properties now held by new town development corporations.

I hope that my interpretation of the Money Resolution is incorrect, but I fear that it is correct. I believe that it is my duty as a Scottish Member to ensure that the Scots, who pay as much taxation as anybody else, get a fair share of any money going from the Exchequer. Five hundred and fifty million pounds is a lot of money. We think that Scotland does not get a fair share of many of the grants of money we make for various purposes.

Mr. Archie Manuel (Central Ayrshire)

Surely my hon. Friend has no doubts about this? The final paragraph of the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum says this: The Bill removes the separate limits mentioned in the provisions referred to above and provides that advances to meet the capital expenditure of the Commission for the New Towns as well as the development corporations shall be subject to a new limit of £550 million.

Mr. Bence

That is what I have been saying. The phrasing of the Resolution is such that this £550 million is not comprised of a limit of £5 million for the Commission and the larger sum for the new towns. That is wiped out. The £550 million can be divisible in any ratio as between the amount that will go to the Commission and the sum for the new town corporations. If this is so I think that my hon. Friends should be prepared to vote against the Resolution.

If my interpretation is correct, the whole thing is far too slick because it will not mean £550 million going for new town development. Part of it will go on that while a part will go for the acquisition by one authority from another of property which is already in existence. In other words, it will mean the transfer of property from the corporations to the Commission.

I raise this matter because we may face a bill to use money from the Consolidated Fund partly to finance new town development and partly to finance the transfer of that which has already been developed—and transferring it from the new town corporations to the Commission. I want this point to be answered. I hope that I am wrong. However, if I am right, then the people of Scotland are being cheated. If we are being fleeced we will fight tenaciously. I have given my interpretation of the Resolution and I hope that the Minister will explain what guarantee there is that large sums of this money cannot be used by the Commission to acquire existing property and how we in Scotland can be assured that adequate finance will be available for the expansion and creation of new towns.

Mr. Martin Maddan (Hitchin)

I am slightly worried about the Money Resolution. I usually find that these Resolutions are drawn in such narrow terms that I am precluded from doing in Committee what I want to do. On this occasion I have two simple questions for my hon. Friend.

First, will the passing of this Resolution preclude the reduction of the £550 million? Will it be in order for me to table an Amendment to that effect, and, secondly, will it be in order for us to discuss the purposes for which the money should be spent? In particular, will it be in order to discuss the reasons for suggesting any particular reduction?

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

I will try to answer the questions put to me during the rather ingenious interpretation placed on the Money Resolution my the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence). I must point out to the hon. Member that the Commission can take over property only by an Order under the 1959 Act, and that no money passes at all. Thus, there is no question of any transfer of property from the development corporations in any way affecting the limit of £550 million or the existing limit of £400 million.

The relationship between the Commission and the corporations in the context of the Resolution is that under the 1959 Act it was provided that the Commission should be limited to a £5 million advance. This would be alterable by future Acts, in the same way as the major sum for the corporations, for development of their own—thatis, new developments started—after the Commission had taken over by Order and not by purchase. Any other requirements it had for money to complete developments started by a corporation from whom it took over would constitute an advance which they could claim against the major sum to a total of what was £400 million and will now be £550 million.

Therefore, the only difference is that, instead of having two sums, with the £5 million being increased to £10 million, and £545 million as the limit of the development of the new town corporation, we have one lump sum, and the Minister and the Secretary of State will merely give authorisation for the money to be issued, as it is required, to the corporation or the Commission on a first-come-first-served basis. Once the money is exhausted, it will be necessary to ask Parliament for more, but there is no question of allocating it rigidly between new town development and old development, which was the only distinction relevant to the former sums of £5 million.

I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan) that the decision whether or not something is in order must be for the Chair to decide. I do not wish in any way to appear to be trespassing on the authority of the Chair, but, subject to that, it seems to me quite clear that a limit in the Money Resolution cannot possibly prevent hon. Members from discussing a lower sum. It follows from that that they must be able to discuss the reasons for wanting a lower sum within the terms of the Resolution. Nor can I see anything in the Resolution that prevents discussion of the purpose of the expenditure. Whether one can go very wide within the ordinary terms of order is purely a matter for the Chair.

Mrs. Judith Hart (Lanark)

The Parliamentary Secretary made it quite clear that there would be no distinction between the money for the Commission and for the corporations. If I am right in my interpretation of what he has said, that means that it has a bearing on much of the substance of the debate on the Bill itself, in that if a development corporation decides that a new town has reached its limit and should be handed over to the Commission, and if, a little later, the Minister decides, for reasons of economy and of inadequacies of planning, that it would be a good idea further to expand the size of a new town, the Commission could now obtain the finance for carrying out further development without having to ask Parliament for more money—the money would be available from the amount voted in the Money Resolution.

This raises very serious doubts in my mind. It seems that we are here not precluding further expansions of exist-ink new towns that we may wish to preclude.

Mr. Corfield

It is not the corporation that decides to hand over to the Commission; it is the Minister who decides that the development is substantially completed. That means that there will be very little scope for further development, because once the town is handed over to the Commission the designation ceases to have effect. In other words, there is no further ability to acquire any land that has not already been acquired within the designation area. The Commission, therefore, cannot start building an empire, because it does not have the designation area in which to build it.

All that the Commission can do is to continue to build to meet the natural increase within the original area acquired by the corporation and transferred by Order under the 1959 Act. That being so, there is no question of the Commission being able to start development on a large scale, because that would require designation which, I believe, automatically requires the appointment of another corporation.

There are no provisions in the Act enabling the Minister to designate land for acquisition by a Commission, which has no powers of compulsory acquisition.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.