CONSULTATIONS WITH A VIEW TO TRANSFER SCHEMES (Hansard, 16 June 1976)

§ Mr. John Silkin
I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 6, leave out from 'him' to end of line 7 and insert: ', with each other and with the council of any other district within which any part of the area of the new town or any dwellings of the new town or any associated property is or are situated, with a view to a transfer scheme being made in respect of the new town by the new town corporation and the council to whom the directions are given.'

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)
With this amendment we may take Government Amendments Nos. 6 and 7.

§ Mr. Silkin
The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) will recall that in Committee he asked about the effect that a transfer scheme might have on an adjoining district that might be affected by the scheme and that I promised to consider whether we could include in the Bill a provision to implement 616 the purpose of his amendment but which at the same time avoided giving the adjoining district a power of veto. In Committee, I gave a clear indication of the difficulties that might arise.
I considered ways in which we could meet the hon. Gentleman on this matter without frustrating the object of the Bill and preventing the implementation of the principle of good estate management to which the parties and the Secretary of State are required to have regard by Clause 3(2).
There seem to be three different sorts of minor district council that we are discussing. The first is the council within whose area there are situated dwellings of a new town or other land that might be included in the transfer of properties or in the management arrangements under the scheme. I am thinking of a place like Crawley, where the bulk of the dwellings are within the area of the Crawley District Council, with a few in Horsham and a few in Mid-Sussex.
The second is the council of a district within whose area part of a new town is situated but which is not to be a party to the transfer scheme. At the time of the consultations this district may or may 617 not contain dwellings or land likely to be included in the transfer scheme. A good example of this is Redditch. I am fortunate to have on the Opposition Front Bench the hon. Member who represents that town. In Redditch we have a case in which the adjoining district council area of Stratford-on-Avon has a small area of land within the designated area of the new town, and that is land which might or might not provide new town dwellings in the future.
The third case is that of the Central Lancashire New Town, where there is a plurality of district councils—three in fact—where adjoining councils have land in the designated area.
These are three areas that I had to consider very carefully. I had to consider the distinction I was going to make between the three cases. The hon. Member for Northampton, South, for a change, made a strong case on this, and I am giving him his way on all three occasions. These amendments make this good.

§ Mr. Michael Morris
Suffice to say that the right hon. Gentleman has responded to minority interests, and the minority is extremely grateful. This means that the Bill has been improved. We are most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I also welcome Amendment No. 6 because it helps second and third generation towns.

§ Mr. Guy Barnett
I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 18, leave out: 'it appears to the Secretary of State' and insert: 'the Secretary of State has, after consulting the new town corporation for the town concerned, formed the opinion'. This amendment concerns the third of the three circumstances specified in Clause 2(2) in which the Secretary of State is enabled to issue directions to new town corporations and district councils to enter into consultations with a view to making a transfer scheme. As hon. Members who served on the Committee will recall, Clause 2(2)(c) is designed to cover exceptional cases of transfer earlier than 15 years after the first designation of the town.
618 During the Committee the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) moved an amendment to make Clause 2(2)(c) dependent on the agreed view of the Secretary of State and the new town corporation that the development of the new town had been substantially completed or that the carrying out of a transfer scheme would not be detrimental to the laying out or completion of the town. However, when my hon. Friend explained that this would effectively have given the new town corporation a veto over whether consultations might take place at all, the hon. Member withdrew his amendment.
Nevertheless, we have given some further thought to the process by which the Secretary of State would formulate a view as to whether the development of a new town had been substantially completed, or whether the carrying out of a transfer scheme would be detrimental to the laying out or completion of the development of the town.
There is little doubt that the Secretary of State would, in practice, wish to consult the new town corporation in order to assist him in coming to a view on these matters, although this does not mean, of course, that his view will necessarily coincide with the corporation's and be accepted absolutely. Nevertheless we think it is desirable that there should be some indication in the statute that this procedure will be carried out. The present amendment accordingly incorporates a provision for the Secretary of State to consult the relevant new town corporation before coming to any conclusion on whether one of the two conditions set out in Clause 2(2)(c) is fulfilled, and whether, accordingly, it is appropriate to issue directions under subsection (1) of the clause for the corporation and district council to enter into consultation on the making of a transfer scheme. I hope that the House will welcome this small but useful amplification of the terms of Clause 2(2)(c).

§ Mr. Michael Morris
I welcome the amendment. I think there is actually more substance to it than the Under-Secretary suggests. The evidence is becoming increasingly strong that in new towns younger than 15 years there may be a number of instances where for one reason or another it has not been provided that a transfer should take place. 619 Therefore, while there is always the necessity of an exception, it will not be an exceptional exception. That is rare. There is an increased desire on the part of district councils and, indeed, of development corporations themselves, particularly where development is split into a number of phases which might be quite separate, to undertake a transfer before the 15-year date. Therefore, this amendment will facilitate that situation.
Added to that, it is more realistic to say what would have happened in any case. We should put in legal terms what we think should happen in actual fact, rather than leave it vague. Therefore, I welcome the amendment.