HC Deb 16 June 1976 vol 913 cc641-54

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Hal Miller

I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 14, line 5, leave out 'eleven' and insert 'nine'.

The horse has been over this course before—I do not know whether it is a Trojan horse. We are concerned about the number of development boards and the quality of representation on them. In the Chilean navy, as the size of the fleet decreased the number of admirals increased. Here, we are transferring the assets of development corporations to local authorities and at the same time providing for an increase in the number of members on the boards of corporations.

In Committee the Minister said that it would be helpful to associate local councils affected by the proposals more closely with the work of the boards, and that an increase in the number of members on the board was a suitable means of ensuring co-operation. In making that suggestion he was running counter to the recommendations of the chairmen of the new town corporations, who discussed this matter, among others, in the report that they submitted to the Minister on the consultation document of February 1975. They said that co-operation would not necessarily be improved, let alone assured, by the appointment to the boards of local authority representatives. They insisted that what was necessary was breadth of experience.

Representations have been made to hon. Members who represent new towns about the need for industrial interests to be represented on the boards. I have written to the Minister suggesting that appointments from both sides of industry might be made to the boards, and I hope that he will consider that suggestion.

We have heard no convincing reason why it is thought necessary to increase the number of board members. What will be the function of the development corporations once the housing assets have been transferred? The corporations expect to have a strictly limited life. I hope that the increase in the number of board members is not designed merely to give the corporations a temporary reassurance that their life will be prolonged. Will the Minister tell us what he considers the life expectancy of the new towns to be after this major surgery, and why increased membership is necessary for the reduced function of the board?

Mr. Eric Moonman (Basildon)

The answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) is that we are trying to get an adequate balance on the boards of new towns. There is no conflict here. To say that there should be a breadth of experience on the board of a new town corporation is not incompatible with a good representation from local authorities. I am not surprised that the chairmen of the new town corporations are happy with the present position. We are trying to get a balance. New towns are still a substantial business. I do not believe that a small board is necessarily adequate to deal with the wide range of problems that may arise and the consultations that may be necessary.

My own new town of Basildon, at 31st March 1975, had a net capital advance of over £100 million. I could give similar examples from other new towns which confirm the enormous financial burden under which they operate. If the Minister feels that it is appropriate to have that increase in the composition of the board his case is made out, because of the scale of the new towns and the enormous operation and development that they are expected to perform. If the Opposition are determined to have industrial representation as well as the co-operation of local authorities, the number cannot be less than that which the Minister suggests.

The issue is not about the precise number. I would have thought that the Opposition would learn not to base their case on figures. The figure of 11 gives us the opportunity to include all the interests on the board. I cannot understand the difficulty, because we are surely hoping to have the balance that we all want.

Mr. Guy Barnett

We have moved a little way since the Committee, because at that time an amendment was moved by an Opposition hon. Member to delete the whole of the clause. The Opposition simply want to reduce the number from 11 to 9. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) used a curious argument about the Chilean navy and how the number of admirals increased as the navy decreased. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) said, new towns are big business and there is an argument in some cases for having larger new town corporations. The limit of seven ordinary members was set by the 1946 New Towns Act. At that time Aycliffe, which was designated in 1947, had an original target of 15,000 population, Bracknell of 25,000, Corby of 40,000, and Stevenage of 60,000. Today Aycliffe has a target population of 45,000, Bracknell of 60,000, Corby of 80,000 and Stevenage of over 100,000. The analogy of the Chilean navy will not hold water, any more, probably, than the Chilean navy does.

The provision is permissive and it is not intended suddenly to increase the size of the corporations to 11 in every case. One argument which weighed with us in considering the size of the board was that advanced for the situation which exists in, for example, the Central Lancashire New Town, which involves three district councils and the Lancashire County Council. To achieve a realistic representation of people from district councils one must raise the permissive limit. In view of the transfer, this is an appropriate moment to introduce that provision. Whatever the Opposition say, there is an argument for having representatives of district councils to facilitate the transfer.

Mr. Raison

I appreciate the need to allow local authorities to be represented. The Minister has quoted the case of the Central Lancashire New Town. It is reasonable to argue that there should be two extra places, which is what our amendment seeks to achieve, but there is no need for four. Normally one can have county and district representation within the existing size of membership. To accommodate all three districts, only two extra places are needed. In what situation will there be a need for four extra places?

Mr. Barnett

I am glad to have an explanation for the number the Opposition chose. The answer in the case the hon. Gentleman mentioned is that we would want in that situation to achieve a party balance in the representation, and the hon. Gentleman would probably agree. It might not be possible to do that except by increasing the size. It is also suggested that it might be useful to have representatives from industry, the trade unions or a number of other spheres which might be useful to a new town corporation.

All that we are asking for is a certain degree of flexibility. The clause does not propose a massive increase in the size of every corporation, but simply gives the Secretary of State a flexibility that he has not had.

Mr. Hal Miller

The Minister tempts me when he talks of realistic representation. The position of my own development corporation board is far from realistic, as a result of the flush of political appointments which the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend hastened to make on assuming office. But I was not trying to add unnecessarily to the extent of those patronage appointments.

The Minister tempted me a great deal further when he spoke of the need to bring relevant experience on to the boards. Some of the appointees we have seen have zero idea of how to deal with the big business commitments to which the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) referred.

Mr. John Silkin

The Opposition did it, too.

Mr. Miller

We can swop punches if the right hon. Gentleman wants to. I have been in correspondence with him on the subject of my hoard. I am not necessarily saying that local councillors should be appointed. Their appointment does not necessarily add to the strength which is needed to deal with the large sums involved.

The point I was making was that the assets were being reduced by the transfer of the housing assets. I had hoped that the Minister would deal with my specific point about how long it was envisaged the corporation would last after the transfer of those assets. But perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not in a position to say, and I do not wish to detain the House.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

There are some Bills which are inevitably, whether one likes it or not, milestones in social and legislative history. This Bill, which I am delighted to say has not taken very long in legislative time to reach its Third Reading, is one of those milestones.

The Bill fulfils a promise made in the Second Reading debate on the original Bill, in 1946, when the future of new towns was suggested at a time when very few people thought they had a future. To talk then of a time when they would have large populations and be district councils of today's size and power seemed visionary. But to say that the time would come when their assets would go from development corporations to those local authorities was more than visionary; it was regarded as mildly insane. But it was right.

What we are celebrating today is the growing up not only of the new town movement but of the new towns themselves—the adulthood of most of the first- generation new towns and the promise that the rather tough, strong teenagers of the second and third generation will in turn reach their maturity.

What lies behind this process is the faith of us all in local democratic control. It has its ups and downs, but it is still the oldest democratic institution in our country—older even than the Palace of Westminster.

One of the more striking factors about the way in which this Bill has proceeded has been the amount of constructive criticism that has been advanced. Of course we have had our party banter, but constructive criticism has been a great feature of our discussions. I accept that the Bill is in better shape than when it began its Second Reading only a few weeks ago. That it has been improved and made a better Bill is very much due to the strong part played in our proceedings by my hon. Friends and by Opposition Members. It has been a Bill in which the Government have not had to tell their own supporters to be quiet; on the contrary, everybody concerned has been constructive, and it has been a useful and interesting process.

In sending the Bill to another place, we can look forward to some newer refinements which perhaps we, in our wisdom, may have omitted to take into account. We have also the slightly frightening knowledge that some new town chairmen are members of another place and may have strong views about what is to happen.

I particularly have in mind the provisions relating to staff where it is possible that the advice that is emerging from the Staff Advisory Committee might suggest that amendments could usefully be considered in another place.

In the light of views expressed by members of a small group of officials from local authorities, new towns, and my Department, who have been examining methods of determining the payments calling to be made under Clause 8(2), we are examining the drafting of the clause. The Government recognise that the Bill has led to many questions relating to the future of new towns. I intend to stimulate debate on the scope for the use of a new town type of machinery for securing development objectives where this would not be inconsistent with the powers and responsibilities of local authorities.

I notice that in this respect the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) is not very far away from my own views on this matter. There is also a need to decide on the long-term arrangements for the management of the industrial and commercial assets that have been created, and are being created by the new town development corporations.

I wish to emphasise that we see a significant rôle for the Commission for the New Towns in the management of those assets, although the commission will not, perhaps, be exactly the same as that which existed in the past. It will not have a housing function in future except in the exercise of tenancy nomination rights for a limited period of time. But as further development corporations are wound up, we envisage that the assets will be managed in the national interest by the commission. It will indeed be a new-style commission.

Although most of the first-generation towns were in the South-East, others have been established in the West Midlands, the North-West and the North-East. Therefore, we must look at the organisation of the overall task and at the constitution of the commission, bearing in mind the regional location of the assets that it will manage. Associated with this will be an examination of that management rôle, perhaps in the context of the gradual transfer of the freehold reversionary interest in new town assets, to the local authority in which those assets are situated.

The House will recall that I mentioned this on Second Reading and drew attention to the possibilities put forward in the consultation document, "New Towns in England and Wales", which we published at the end of 1974. In that document we discussed the principle of the sharing of the benefits of public investment in the new town programme. The basic philosophy that we set out then remains the same today—that these benefits should be shared between the local community, the public in general, through the Exchequer, and the ongoing new town programme as a whole.

At the same time, we must recognise that there will have to be a programme of winding-up of development corpora tions once their housing has been transferred and any residual house building programme by the corporations comes to an end. But we are talking of 29 towns over a period of many years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be sitting in the position he now occupies, as a good, healthy 150-year-old, when the programme comes to an end.

Properly integrated policies, designed to maximise the benefits from public investment in our new towns, to secure an orderly transition from a new town to a normal town, and to ensure that the problems that will arise for those employed in new towns are handled sensibly and sensitively, will take time to develop and establish. I look forward to further legislation in due course, for there is still a great deal to be done.

As I said on Second Reading, the present Bill represents a return to one of the great principles of the 1946 Act. It was always intended that the houses provided by development corporations should be transferred to local authorities in the areas in which the houses were. In that spirit, I commend the Bill to the House.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Raison

I first thank the Minister for his kind words. I think it is true to say that the Committee was a constructive one, and I am delighted to know that the Minister feels that we have between us managed to improve the Bill.

I have always made it clear that we accept the principle of the Bill. We do so because, like the Minister, we believe in local democracy. Indeed, it is a rather nice thought when we know that he is talking not about handing over houses from new town development corporations to post-1974 district councils but about handing them over to the Witenagemot, to judge by what he said when he talked of the inequity of local government in this country. At least local authorities did not increase their numbers in the way in which the Minister proposes to increase the number of corporations.

We have argued about the sale of houses in new towns. As it is the convention—sometimes honoured as much in the breach as in the observance—that one does not talk of sins of omission but only of sins of commission, I will not re-open that particular controversy at this stage. I hope that the transfer will go ahead as planned, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that it represents an important step in the light of the new town movement.

I believe that the main problems will probably prove to be financial. We have had quite a bit of discussion about these at odd moments, even on the Money Resolution this afternoon. We have to make sure that both parties get a fair deal out of this.

The stress has naturally been on getting a fair deal for the district councils which will inherit these houses. I say this because, quite properly, the local authorities concerned have been fairly strongly represented in the Committee. But we also have to get a fair deal for the taxpayer. Public money from the Exchequer has financed the new towns, and, therefore, it is right to say quite firmly that they, too, have an interest. We as taxpayers also have an interest, and it is the duty of the Secretary of State under the Bill to uphold it.

We have, as the Minister implied, to watch the Bill fairly carefully after it has become an Act, because the passage of it will not necessarily be easy in all respects. We shall certainly keep a beady eye on it, though not an obstructive eye.

The Minister was right to say that the progress of the new towns is developing, that things are changing and that we are in a different situation. At the moment, we are coming to the end of the period when we thought in terms of launching new towns. I have the feeling that the Minister may not live to see Silkingrad built, much as he might like to. The change in the demographic projections plus the belief that resources should now be directed to other hard-pressed areas lead people to argue that further new towns are not to be contemplated for some time to come. These are important considerations which we have to bear in mind, and there is a developing argument.

But we accept the principle of the Bill, though we have argued about specific points and there was one matter on which the two sides of the House had a sharp divergence of opinion. But I hope that the Bill achieves its objectives.

I conclude my remarks by thanking my hon. Friends who have been so helpful to me and who made such an important contribution to our proceedings in Committee, and I reiterate the essential point in the Minister's Third Reading speech.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Newens

I express the sense of satisfaction which many of the people with whom I have had the privilege to work, especially in the Labour movement, will feel at the completion of this Bill's passage through the House. It is a measure which gives legislative form to a number of objectives which such people have had in view ever since new towns were conceived; namely, the democratic control of housing and associated assets. I can remember attending many meetings and being involved in many campaigns and in the preparation of many documents dealing with these matters.

The establishment of the New Towns Commission and the purpose marked out for it by the Conservative Government of the late 1950s represented a departure from the original objectives, and this Bill restores the position envisaged by my right hon. Friend's father when he introduced the New Towns Bill in 1946.

The transfer of new town housing assets to local authorities represents a very considerable challenge to those authorities, but I have faith that, by and large, they will rise to it. I believe that it is right that housing assets should be democratically controlled. But the fact that the Bill has now completed its passage through this House and, we hope, will eventually go on the statute book will not relieve many of us of the necessity to press very hard for local authorities to carry out what we believe to be the real purpose behind this measure.

As my right hon. Friend said, the people concerned with the new towns movement have also been concerned with the problem of industrial and commercial assets. I happen to believe that these, too, should be democratically controlled. I hope to see a Bill on this matter in due course, and my right hon. Friend will be aware of the strength of conviction on this matter which exists in the quarters to which I have referred. We hope that in due course he will turn his mind to seeing how, in the form which he now envisages, he can provide for the democratic control of those assets as well as the housing assets.

That is for the future, however. The Bill will be regarded as an important measure. Most certainly it will be by my constituents in Harlow and by people in other new towns. It provides the basis for a smooth and sensible transfer of the assets with which we have been concerned and from which considerable advantages will flow.

I think that in future a great many people will recognise the tremendous achievement of the development corporations and the new town staffs, and it would be quite wrong if I failed to take advantage of this opportunity to place on the record my own appreciation, and that of many people of all political parties, of the tremendous dedication these people have shown.

We have now arrived at the stage where we must move on to a different state of affairs, and the Bill provides for that. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his drive in getting this measure brought forward. I take great pleasure in welcoming the Bill.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Moonman

I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) in welcoming the Third Reading. In a sense it has required a considerable amount of patience from many of us in the Labour movement. We have heard much about this Bill's pedigree, but it has travelled a long road and there have been considerable disappointments over the course of Labour Party conferences and special delegatory meetings. To that extent some of us feel that this is not merely a Third Reading, but almost a domestic affair. In saying that, I do not mean to be critical of the Opposition, but I think it is domestic because of the way in which new towns were enshrined in our thinking and strategy of extending and refurbishing the old communities of this country, while cultivating new areas at the same time.

This has been a considerable development, but if it were only that it would be a pity. I am proud of the fact that the Labour party pioneered new towns, but on the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Expenditure there was no disagreement between hon. Members on both sides on the question of new towns. This is not only a reflection of the good sense of both sides; it shows, perhaps, that the new towns have come of age. We shall reach a point at which we shall stop talking about new towns.

The other thing that I would suggest is perhaps a matter of graduation. We have talked about the importance of development corporation boards on more than one occasion. I support the idea of increasing the size of development corporation boards, not because I want to create a bulkier structure, which would cost more money, but because one of the most unfortunate problems of the past few years is that there has been no clarity of communication between the policy makers of the development corporations and the community. I am not sure that by increasing the size of the board we shall improve communication immediately, but I have faith that those who serve on the board, if they are truly representative of the various sides of industry and of political parties, will be able to improve communication. I believe that that will happen because of the penetration of those people who will report back.

It is not enough to have an agency doing an important job in the development of new towns. We have to recognise the terriffic communication that emerges in an area in which there is suddenly not a local authority or a local councillor with whom one can deal and ask for advice and instruction—in which decisions are being made, instead, by an agency. This is a very difficult concept. I hope that throughout the continuing existence of new towns we shall see an improvement of communication.

It has been said on more than one occasion that it is not only big business that is involved in new towns, but large numbers of people. We are talking about nearly 2.5 million people. The fact that the House is not completely full tonight is no reflection on new towns, or any indication of a lack of interest in them; it is simply a result of the extraordinary things that we do through the course of the night.

The new towns will have to be taken much more seriously by the two major parties, if only for the reason that they are about an integrated housing, transport and employment policy, and that is sufficient reason for no longer treating them as cranks or something of a hybrid nature, to be left only to Members of Parliament with new town constituencies. We must ensure that the Government are aware that this issue crosses party lines and involves integrated policy making.

Critical problems will still remain in spite of the Bill. They will require close care and attention. New towns, more than any other form of development, are involved in keeping pace, for example, with the social services. A population moves into a new town and perhaps finds jobs there, but it is the gaps that exist in the social services, because of the enormous numbers of people involved, that create the problem. These people suddenly move from a city with formal traditional social services into a new environment. The same is true of education and cultural activities.

I have said enough to indicate the sort of problems encountered in the new towns—problems that are basically about keeping pace with the people. Because we do not keep pace we have problems, alarms and anxieties, and that is one of the things that we must continue to look at, whatever we do and whatever the Act of Parliament. We must watch closely the way in which job opportunities are provided. It would be distressing to many of us who care so much about the new towns if they became merely commuting areas sending workers back into the city centres.

The figures that I have seen suggest that the numbers of people in the inner ring of London new towns who return to London to work is far too high. That means that somehow, at some point, we have failed. That is not what new towns are about. There will always be a number of people from new towns who commute to the city centres, but I am talking about the situation in which far too high a proportion of people who live in new towns do not work there. There are distressing signs that the numbers of people who commute back into the cities are building up.

Mr. Hal Miller

In my new town there is cross-commuting, and that is the pattern that we expect to develop. We do not want a new town to be a goldfish bowl that is entirely self-contained. Surely new towns must be linked with the rest of society?

Mr. Moonman

This is basically a question of balance. It is serious if 55 per cent. of the people in the inner ring of new towns are getting their jobs outside those towns. Of course, these people must not live in a goldfish bowl. Naturally, the second generation will get secretarial jobs in London because young girls want better opportunities and the so-called excitement of getting away from the new towns. But there has to be a balance.

In talking about new towns we have a terrific responsibility. The Bill is an important step. I must say that many of my hon. Friends and I respect enormously the work that has been done by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Planning and Local Government. This is not an instance of a Minister getting through a Bill because it happens to be related to something that the party may or may not have promised, or something that may or may not have appeared in a Labour Party statement. My right hon. Friend has a personal interest, and he has shown a real determination to ensure that we achieved the balanced community for which many of us have fought. This is a remarkable occasion, and one worthy of the Labour movement.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.