COUNTY COUNCILS TO BE INFORMED OF PROPOSED TRANSFER SCHEMES (Hansard, 16 June 1976)

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) will recall that during our Committee discussions he asked us to consider amending the Bill to ensure that county councils' views are sought during the preparation of transfer schemes. I think he accepted that the amendment that he put down in Committee, with the objective of doing this, gave greater power to the county councils than was justified. At any rate, he withdrew his amendment on my assurance that we would consider whether we could write into the Bill a guarantee of consultation for the county councils.
The proposed new clause does this. I think that all hon. Members who served on the Committee will agree that at that time we had a very useful discussion on the involvement of the county councils. They are not directly involved in the transfer of housing, but could have an interest in some of the housing-related assets—for example, local meeting halls, which may be the subject of joint use 572 schemes to which a county council has contributed financially, or open spaces in which the new town corporation may have accorded the county council, as local education authority, user rights for schools. We therefore think it right to provide for the parties to the scheme to consult the county councils and give them an opportunity to comment on it.
I hope that the House will welcome the new clause, and I commend it to the House.

§ Mr. Michael Morris (Northampton, South)
We must heartily welcome the clause. It is, very much as the Under-Secretary has said, a direct response to an Opposition initiative and fulfils an undertaking that the Under-Secretary gave to the Committee.
As the Under-Secretary said, there are two aspects involved. First, I think that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber believe that the counties had a right to be consulted. Secondly, we felt at the time that we should air the thought that counties should have the right to initiate a scheme. After listening to the Government in debate, we withdrew the suggestion about giving a right to initiate a discussion. It is a marginal decision, but on balance we accept it.
I should like to make one or two observations on the clause and ask the Minister one or two short questions of a specific nature. I am sure it is right, from the counties' point of view, to give them the status of a new clause. They are a major tier of local government and deserve quite specifically to be given individual consideration.
Politicians from both sides of the House and, indeed, from all over the country, have for some years paid lip-service to consultation. In some places it works extremely well, but there are areas of local government in which it does not work; in fact, it would be putting none too fine a point on it to say that it is still disastrous. I believe it is correct that we in the House should spell out in no uncertain terms that there is a statutory right of consultation. I hope that this precedent will be followed in any future Bills dealing with this sort of area.
The importance of consultation is such that it is not just a matter of saying that 573 it should happen and that people should be "in the know". It is imperative, because of the implications to the counties. The Minister has just mentioned the implications in regard to shared meeting halls, and the like. There are, however, a number of quasi-housing functions in which the counties are involved, and therefore it is directly relevant.
First, in this connection, there is the existing confused situation concerning the homeless. In the counties there is considerable overlap and variation between the social services departments and the district housing authorities. In some cases the counties are almost 100 per cent. responsible. In certain other areas the districts are now 100 per cent. responsible.
We have all seen the unhappy circumstances of the case that was highlighted in Sussex. This suggests that there is still considerable room for county council involvement in the problem of homeless families.
Then there is the question of the handicapped. Mr. Deputy Speaker has rightly chosen not to debate new Clause 4, as it falls outside the province of the Bill, but the handicapped are involved in the housing aspect.
Next, there is the need for the counties to provide a safeguard, or, as it were, a watchdog for industry in relation to key workers. There is the question of closely watching the future nomination rights. This is dealt with in the Bill. In regard to the process of the structure plan and its relationship with the economic planning councils, we are very much concerned with the interests of industry, and it is right that they should be involved.
Then there is the point that the Minister has made several times in this Chamber about the role of the new towns in taking on their responsibilities for the socially disadvantaged and the old. I have made it clear that I have had problems about his request for them to take over the socially disadvantaged, because, on the whole, the facilities in new towns are not as good as those in the inner urban areas and, therefore, the services given are not up to standard.
574 5.0 p.m.
In the case of the old, there is a specific housing rôle. It is the situation, thankfully, that some older people are now moving out. It is also the situation that, on a transfer, a county may have inadequate resources for housing the old and that if a transfer scheme is being made, representations may be made to the development corporation to build in some extra provision for old people prior to transfer or immediately afterwards. This is a growing problem, which will have to be looked at carefully.
Also on the quasi-housing function, there is the problem of different housing policies between different district councils, and their harmonisation. It is far better that the Minister should know that there is harmony at local level before he has to decide.
The counties are not strictly excluded from the housing function. As the Minister said in Committee, however, they are involved with roads, the provision of education and infrastructure, and I cannot let this opportunity go without making my perennial plea to the Minister that the rate support grant should anticipate population increases to help in education.
I want briefly to touch on two other aspects. The first is the planning process. At the moment, we have a mixed planning process, in the sense that the county is responsible for the strategic structure plan, which is fundamental to the development of the county and, therefore, has a real rôle in this area. I think that, over a period, we shall see the economic planning councils becoming much more involved in their relationship with the counties and then through to the districts. The point at which their activities begin to impinge fundamentally is in the new towns, because that is where new industry is coming in and where the planning councils' views have to be built in in relation to transfer schemes.
Then there are the financial implications. We spent a little time on them just now, but we shall have to look at them in greater detail when we reach Clause 9. That will be the appropriate time for that. They suggest that the counties, because of the heavy financial burden, should have a say.
575 I have spent a little time welcoming the clause and re-emphasising the reasons why we think that the counties should be involved. I am conscious that, in Committee, a number of Government supporters had reservations. One of them has a long history of valuable service to local government, and he probably reflects part of the historical antipathy between county and town. I think that we all hope that that antipathy is disappearing and that the two can work together in harmony.
I should like to ask the Minister one or two specific questions by way of clarification. In the clause, we see the word "land". I should like to know the significance of that word. Is it thought that "land" covers all housing plus the under-developed land associated with a transfer of housing? I raise this because, in my experience, there are situations in the inner urban areas where housing is provided on top of commercial or industrial premises—more often, commercial premises—which in the case of a new town would continue to be held by the new towns commission. I do not know of specific examples in the new towns, and certainly there are none in Northampton, but in theory there could be a situation in which housing was transferred but the freehold of the land or the ownership of the land remained with the new towns commission, simply because the basic ground-level facility was a commercial one.
Will the hon. Gentleman say a word about how he sees the procedures of consultation working? It seems to me that there are two ways of going about it. First, presumably the Minister will send out his directions, the transfer scheme will be produced, it will go to the county in a final form, the county will be asked to make its comments, and the whole lot will come to the Minister in that form. The second possibility is that there will be a joint working party or possibly a draft report prepared by the relevant district and new town corporation, they will meet the county or counties concerned, and a composite report will be sent to the Minister for him to view. It will help to have some idea how he sees this working in practice.
Let me say once again how much we welcome the Government's response to 576 this initiative. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer the two basic questions that I have put to In any event, we believe that the clause is a significance addition to the Bill.

§ Mr. W. Benyon (Buckingham)
I did not have the advantage of serving on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, but I extend a warm welcome to this clause. I know that it will be welcomed by the Association of County Councils, not least by my own county council in Buckinghamshire.
I have the advantage of sharing with my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) the same county council, and we both know the very close association that has grown up in planning matters, in this case, during the course of the construction of the new city. It would be tactless of me to mention the precedent of the land acquisition and management schemes existing in another piece of legislation recently passed through this House, but it illustrates the great difficulty that arises when there is the potential of dual responsibility. The fact that at least the relevant county council will be consulted when a transfer takes place, so that it may comment on the planning aspects, will be extremely beneficial.
For that reason, I welcome the clause and congratulate the Government on introducing it.

§ Mr. Guy Barnett
I am glad that the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) is pleased with the clause. In his welcome he spoke of the feeling that he had that we ought to have statutory consultation wherever we thought there was a case for it. I emphasise that, since it was because we saw ways in which county councils would be actively concerned in transfers and, therefore, would have interests which needed to be discussed that we decided to accept the arguments advanced in Committee and to introduce the clause.
However, when I hear the hon. Member for Northampton, South and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) urging the need for consultation, I am conscious that it is rather like teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, because one of the important contributions made by my right hon. and hon. Friends has 577 been the increase that they have brought about in the amount of consultation between my Department and local authorities and between the two tiers of local authorities. I am sure that we all agree with this. That is why we are so concerned to see the clause added to the Bill.
I am afraid that I cannot give the assurance that in every piece of future legislation that we bring forward consultation will be a feature, which seems to be rather what the Opposition want, I think that we would want, without giving any assurance at all, to see consultation take place where it was clearly likely that the interests of the other parties would be involved. I was glad that the hon. Member for Northampton, South raised the question of key workers and the relationship between that issue and the needs of industry in the drawing up of the structure plan.
He asked me whether the word "land" in the new clause included housing. The answer is "Yes". He also asked how I saw it happening. I honestly do not know, but I hope that, now that this is a statutory requirement, whatever happens, any sensibly drawn-up transfer scheme will involve consultation all the way along with the county council to keep it informed of the way in which things are developing. Once a draft scheme has been drawn up between the new town corporation and the local authority I hope that it will be submitted to the county council for it to make any observations, and that the scheme can be altered or adapted in any way thought necessary to accommodate any points that the council might raise. Now that a statutory requirement is being proposed as part of the Bill, and is welcomed by the Opposition, I am sure that the requirement will be fulfilled in a number of ways.