§ Mr. NewensOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point of order refers to the Stevenage Development Authority Bill. I hope to introduce that Bill tomorrow. The Secretary of State for the Environment replied to a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) on the 12 December. He said:
the Stevenage Bill is in conflict with Government policy and we shall oppose it on the Floor of the House."—[Official Report, 12 December 1979; Vol. 975, c.]He explained that the Government's policy was to widen ownership and that that policy was at variance with that of 1180 transferring assets to a local authority, as envisaged by the Bill.The policy was initiated when the Secretary of State met chairmen of development corporations and the New Town Commission on 16 July 1979. He called for the sale of £100 million worth of new town assets. He said that there would be a moratorium on new town development while that was being carried out. Subsequently that policy was put into effect by a number of corporations.
The Minister was not challenged at the time, but it now appears—this is the crucial point—that the Minister had no legal powers to require development corporations or the commission to make the sales, and the development corporations and the commission had no legal powers to make them.
It would appear that the issue is determined by section 18(1) of the New Towns Act 1965, where it is stated that a new town may dispose of any land acquired by it as it considers expedient for securing the development of the new town. The key words in that clause are:
for securing the development of the new town".In the view of legal authorities consulted in Stevenage and of a prospective buyer of new towns assets, the Minister was acting ultra vires in requiring the sales. Development corporations were similarly acting ultra vires in proceeding with them.Stevenage Development Corporation—
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. We cannot have the speech that the hon. Gentleman should properly be making tomorrow night at 7 o'clock.
§ Mr. NewensI am coming to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which is important and should be raised before tomorrow evening.
Stevenage Development Corporation today issued a statement in whiah it affirms that there is dubiety as to its legal powers to sell properties solely for investment purposes and as to the Secretary of State's powers to require it to do so, and that it is accordingly taking no further action during the last three months of its life to sell any properties except for purposes clearly connected with the development 1181 of the town as specified in section 18 of the New Towns Act 1965.
The crux of my point of order is this: how can the Government oppose the Stevenage Development Authority Bill. It has already been stated by the Secretary of State—
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. With the greatest good will to the hon. Gentleman, this is not a point of order. It is a matter that should rightly be taken up when the Bill is debated tomorrow during opposed private business. I have no advance knowledge of what the Government will say tomorrow in opposing or supporting the Bill.
§ Mr. NewensI am not anticipating what the Government will say tomorrow. I am quoting what they have said.
Can the Government take action on such a matter when it appears that they have no legal powers to act?
It appears that the only authority to which the assets referred to in my Bill can be disposed of is that development authority. The Bill is introduced in response to the Government's policy. Is it, therefore, in order for us to proceed? Will the Government make a statement?
Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman kindly told me that he wished to raise the matter, but I was not aware that it would be at such length. It is not a matter for the Chair. It is a Private Bill that has been opposed. Because of that I have named it for debate tomorrow evening, and that is why it is being debated.
The hon. Gentleman may be wholly right in his point, but he should raise the issue tomorrow. It is not for me to say what the Government's reactions will be.
§ Mr. RadiceOn a related point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State for the Environment to require a new town, such as Washington new town, in my constituency, to sell off assets without the backing of legislation passed by this House?
Mr. Deputy SpeakerThat is a matter of law and not of order. It is not something on which I can rule.
§ Mr. Eldon GriffithsOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have two 1182 precise points on which I wish to ask your guidance.
In pressing his point of order the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) said that the Opposition had sought to put down a private notice question, which had not been possible because the Chair had not accepted it. Is it not convention that the Chair is not placed in the invidious position of being publicly exposed as having refused a private notice question for reasons that all hon. Members will understand? The right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the procedures of this House surpasses my own, and perhaps he will acknowledge that he was quite wrong to place the Chair in that position? That is my first point of order.
§ Mr. GriffithsIt may be more convenient, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Without reverting to the matter disposed of, may I ask this in protection of the House? The EEC document that we have been discussing is printed by the EEC and brought into the House no doubt through the good offices of the Treasury. Is it therefore possible for you, Sir, or Mr. Speaker, to establish precisely when it arrived in this House, how it was to have been made available and why we have not had a chance until today to look at it?
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOn the hon. Gentleman's second point of order, I shall cause inquiries to be made.
§ Mr. FootFurther to the first point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise if anything that I said caused embarrassment to the Chair. However, it seemed to me that you were dealing admirably with every topic. I do not, therefore, believe that I caused embarrassment. I was merely emphasising that there had been various opportunities for a statement. I do not believe that that is in the same category as referring to a private notice question for other purposes.
Archbishops or no archbishops, this House of Commons goes on, and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have helped us to continue very well today.
Mr, Deputy SpeakerI thank the right hon. Gentleman for the spirit of his 1183 remarks. I fully understand. It was a heated moment, and I forgive him for mentioning the private notice question.