Lords Sitting of 20 November 1957

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers

  THE FOREST OF DEAN
  2.35 p.m.
  VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government how soon the Report of the Committee on the future administration of the Forest of Dean and the regulation of commoners' rights therein, set up over two years ago, will be issued.]
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the draft of the Committee's Report is in an advanced stage, but completion, I regret, has been held up mainly by the absence of a member of the Committee who has been injured in a motor accident. I fear that this means that it is unlikely that the Report will now be submitted to the Forestry Commission before the spring.
  VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, while expressing sincere sympathy with the sufferer from this accident, I want to ask the Government, as a personal favour, as I am the senior verderer of the Forest of Dean, whether they will do all in their power to accelerate the issue of this Report so that it may be published and legislation founded upon it introduced during my lifetime. As a matter of fact, the discussion upon this Report has taken considerably longer than was anticipated. The Committee was set up over two years ago. The accident to which the noble Lord has referred occurred over two months ago, and my neighbours are getting very impatient about the non-issue of the Report. I make this special appeal because I have been senior verderer of the Forest of Dean for over half a century and I am now ninety years of age.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, we are fully aware of the urgency of this problem; the noble Viscount has stressed it
  402
  before and I think it is fully understood. It is a most unfortunate thing that the member who sustained this accident, Mr. W. H. Guillebaud, the late Deputy Director-General of the Forestry Commission, had been preparing the section on afforestation and his assistance in completing the Report is vital. I can only say that if anybody else were asked to take over his work at the present stage it would probably create a greater delay than will occur by waiting for Mr. Guillebaud to complete his section himself. I can only hope, assuming the worst and that the delay goes on for a long time (which I am quite sure it will not) that, none the less, legislation will be introduced during the lifetime of the noble Viscount.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I hope that the expedition which is asked for by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, will be achieved. I should like to see something done to see that his wishes are observed. I should like to say—and I rise mainly for this purpose—how glad we are to congratulate the noble Viscount on the great birthday he attained in the Recess. Those of us who have already communicated our congratulations on his birthday to him privately would like to see public reference made to it in this House.
  VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for what he has so kindly said.

  GRASSLAND UTILISATION
  VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government the names and qualifications for their task of the Grassland Utilisation Committee; how often they propose to meet; whether they will make periodical reports on the results of their investigations; and whether the latter will include evidence submitted by experts from different parts of the world on the production and management of herbage plants who attended the recent International Grassland Congress in New Zealand.]
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am glad to give the information asked for by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. As the list of members and their qualifications is rather long to give orally, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The list comprises, in addition to the Chairman, who has a long and distinguished experience in administration in widely different fields, two Professors of Agriculture, one of whom attended the International Grassland Congress held in New Zealand, a Reader in Agricultural Economics, four farmers of considerable experience, two persons with outstanding knowledge of the fertiliser and feedingstuffs industries, and a Chartered Accountant of long experience which includes administration of subsidies during the war.
  The Committee have so far held two meetings and made two visits, and expect to meet twice a month and perhaps more frequently in the closing stages of the work. In addition, the Committee have planned to pay a number of visits to farms and agricultural institutions of special interest within their field in various parts of the country. It is understood that they do not expect to make periodical reports on the results of their investigations; and that they hope to submit a complete Report in the summer or autumn of 1958. The Committee has made a public appeal for evidence from organisations and individuals with special knowledge of grassland and allied matters. The appeal is meeting with a good response.
  Following is the list of members referred to:

  GRASSLAND UTILISATION COMMITTEE
  LIST OF MEMBERS
  Chairman: Sir Sydney Caine. K.C.M.G. Director of the London School of Economics and Political Science. He has served as Third Secretary in the Treasury and as Deputy Under Secretary of State in the Colonial Office and was formerly Vice-Chancellor of the University of Malaya. From 1949 to 1951 he headed the United Kingdom Treasury and Supply Delegation in Washington.
  The following are the members of the Committee:
  Professor D. S. Hendrie, B.Sc., N.D.A., N.D.D., is Principal of West of Scotland Agricultural College and Professor of Agriculture at Glasgow University, He was
  404
  formerly Agricultural Adviser to H.M. High Commissioner in New Zealand from 1949 to 1954, where he acquainted himself very fully with the New Zealand techniques of grassland and livestock husbandry.
  Professor H. I. Moore, M.Sc., Ph.D., N.D.A., is Principal of Seale-Hayne Agricultural College, and is himself a grassland expert and attended the International Grassland Congress held in New Zealand.
  W. J. Thomas, Esq., M.Sc., is Reader in Agricultural Economics at Manchester University and Provincial Agricultural Economist for the North West of England.
  H. U. Cunningham, Esq., C.B.E., N.C., worked in the Fertiliser Directorate during the war and was until recently Managing Director and Chairman of Scottish Agricultural Industries: his knowledge of fertiliser questions will be invaluable to the Committee.
  H. R. Humphries, Esq., C.B.E., was formerly a Director of British Oil and Cake Mills Ltd., and of Animal Feedingstuffs at the Ministry of Food from 1943 to 1953; his experience in these two capacities bears directly on the work of the Committee.
  J. R. Muirie, Esq., B.A., C.A., is a Chartered Accountant and partner in the firm of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. and as Assistant Financial Secretary to the Ministry of Food during the war had special experience of the administration of subsidies.
  The Committee includes a practical farmer from each country in the United Kingdom with special reference to meat, milk and seeds.
  A. G. Algeo, Esq., C.B.E.. J.P.Past President of the Ulster Farmers' Union and has a unique knowledge of farming conditions in Ulster.
  J. R. Barron, Esq., who is a prominent grass, arable and dairy farmer in Brechin, Angus, and is well known as a pioneer in grassland management.
  R. Chapman, Esq., who farms in Monmouthshire, and has a dairy herd of pedigree Guernseys.
  J. Rowsell, Esq., who farms in Hampshire and has particular knowledge of herbage seeds.
  LORD FORBES: My Lords, will the noble Lord state if the Grassland Utilisation Committee will be encouraged to report their recommendations for the economic development of hill grazing, in view of the fact that in the past hill grazings have cost up to £80 an acre to develop and this has been entirely uneconomic?
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, as I understand the matter, the Committee will be encouraged to produce their views on grassland utilisation in all its aspects.

  ANTI-SUBMARINE CRAFT CONSTRUCTION
  2.44 p.m.
  THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government—

  (1) whether it is a fact, as stated in the Press on 11th November, that seven frigates of the new construction programme are being cancelled;

  (2) whether the conversion of forty-five destroyers of the late war into anti-submarine vessels has been suspended with only thirty-two completed.]

  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl that there is no reduction in the frigate construction programme mentioned in my Explanatory Statement earlier this year. The reference which the noble and gallant Earl makes to the conversion of Second World War destroyers to antisubmarine vessels relates, I think, to a decision taken some three years ago. In 1954 the conversion programme was fixed at thirty-three vessels and these have now been completed.
  THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, whilst thanking the noble Earl for his Answer to my Question, I would ask a supplementary question—namely, whether these programmes are to be reconsidered in view of the expression of opinion by Admiral Wright and his British advisers (an Air Marshal and an Admiral) that we are hopelessly deficient in our anti-submarine craft and must have a great deal more. And in considering this matter, would Her Majesty's Government bear in mind the cost in merchant ships and merchant seamen which must eventuate if we do not have sufficient craft, particularly in the early days of a war? These ships will come flooding back to the country from all over the ocean, not in convoy and quite unorganised. I would ask, too, whether in giving this matter their consideration they would remember that it is during the next two years that we want conventional weapons. What they have got in the
  406
  starry-eyed future does not matter now; those vessels are not ready. We are told that they are coming off the drawing board nicely. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will bear in mind that it is conventional weapons in the air and on the sea that will keep down the submarines in the early weeks of a war.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I think I can assure the noble Earl that what he has said is being borne carefully in mind. I hope that in this regard the noble Earl will remember particularly what the Prime Minister has recently said in regard to close association with the United States of America. In this matter we have to work closely with the United States Navy, and that is what we are doing now. I assure the noble Earl that at the present time we are not only working in close association with them but seeing that all that we are doing is in line with the requirements of the combined N.A.T.O. Forces.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am glad to know that we are going to work so closely with the United States. We did not do so during the Suez incident. I hope that that position is perhaps going to be put right. But people in all Parties, whatever they may say or do in regard to the particular issue of disarmament, are always concerned with this question. Would the noble Earl the First Lord tell us, first, the total number of frigates and especially converted destroyers that will be available when the programmes he refers to are completed? Secondly, will be say whether this number of antisubmarine ships is considered by the Admiralty to be adequate to meet the task into which at any time they may be projected?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Viscount has said. We are concerned with this problem. I think, however, that if the noble Viscount reflects on the autumn exercises—"Strike Back" and others which have taken place—he will appreciate that the association between the Royal Navy and the United States Navy, and indeed the other navies of N.A.T.O., is very close. I regret I cannot give him the complete picture of frigates available for these tasks; but, strictly speaking, the number of Royal Naval frigates is

  407
  irrelevant to this issue. What we want to look at is the total North Atlantic Treaty Organisation force available for the purpose. That, I think, is the figure which is material. All I can say is that the number of forces available is formidable. I do not for one moment want to say that the possible forces opposed to them are not also formidable, but I do not want the noble Viscount to think that the forces which we in the Western association can mobilise are totally insignificant to the task which opposes them. They are not. They have a big task, but I think they can meet what would be required.
  LORD WINSTER: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Earl's attention has been drawn to the recent statement by the Minister of Defence, that the most useful part for the Royal Navy to play in N.A.T.O. was to concentrate on antisubmarine operations? Is it not the fact that Admiral Sir John Eccles has said in public:
  "I cannot carry out my task without more forces. To enter a war with the forces I have would be running a very, very grave risk."?
  The American Admiral Jerauld Wright, speaking on the subject of co-operation between America and Britain in this respect, has endorsed what Admiral Sir John Eccles has said, to the effect that the combined forces are insignificant to the task of meeting the Russian submarine threat. What step is being taken to meet the situation when an Admiral is given a duty but is not given the tools with which to carry out the duty assigned to him?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am quite aware that the Minister of Defence has recently spoken on the importance of concentrating upon antisubmarine duties. I entirely agree with that concept, and I think the noble Lord himself agrees with it. It is of great importance. He has also referred to the remarks made by the Supreme Commander, Atlantic, in regard to the forces available. Of course we should like more forces; but the forces in the Western world, just as here, depend on the economic resources available. There is no question about that. The remarks the Supreme Commander, Atlantic, has made are, of course, being noted by all countries; it is not simply a matter for this
  408
  country. I should like to assure the noble Lord that we are fully aware of the significance of this point, but it is not simply for us to act; it is for all the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries to act.
  LORD TEYNHAM: Arising out of the reply of the noble Earl, may I ask whether he is aware that the shortage of anti-submarine vessels was confirmed by Admiral Wright at the recent Parliamentary N.A.T.O. Conference in Paris, of which I had the honour to be a member? And does the noble Earl not think we are running a great risk by decreasing our escort and anti-submarine forces?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I entirely agree that we are not living in a world which is devoid of risk at the present time. It is futile to think we can live in this world without a considerable measure of risk. What we must do is to measure what our economic strength can do against that risk. That is the problem the Government have to face, and we are facing it. I know quite well what Admiral Wright said at the N.A.T.O. Conference, and it is of great importance: the United States was glad to help other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in the development of modern techniques. That was a statement which we noted and it is of great importance.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords. I do not propose to ask another question, except this. We have asked for a day to be devoted by this House to discussion of the defence position, and this matter can be borne in mind then, if that debate is expedited to some extent. But the people whom I meet generally are concerned about the situation, the unsatisfactory recruiting position and the apparent lack of agreement in the Government itself as to what should be done to meet the position. I think it would be futile to continue asking questions now, but I should like to give notice that all these matters must be dealt with fairly early in debate if we are to be satisfied in the matter.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Viscount. A debate will provide a much more profitable way to discuss a subject of great complexity in every possible way,

  409
  and I have no doubt that through the usual channels what he has suggested can be arranged.

  AYRSHIRE COAL MINE EXPLOSION
  2.54 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, with permission I should like to ask a Question of which I have given private notice: I wish to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make on the explosion last night at Kames Colliery, Muirkirk, Ayrshire.
  THE MINISTER OF POWER (LORD MILLS): My Lords, your Lordships will have learned of the tragic explosion which took place last night at Karnes Colliery, Muirkirk. Ayrshire, in which, I regret to say, seventeen men lost their lives and others were injured. There were some 200 men working in the pit at the time. Her Majesty The Queen has expressed her deep concern at this accident and has graciously sent a message of sympathy to the bereaved and to those injured. I am sure your Lordships will wish to join with me and my colleagues in expressing deepest sympathy with the families of those who lost their lives, and with those who were injured. Her Majesty's inspectors of mines are investigating the circumstances of the explosion, and I have directed the chief inspector to hold a public inquiry.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are very much obliged for the statement made by the Minister on this sad and tragic occurrence. We should, I am sure, in all parts of the House, like fully to be associated with the expression of sympathy which is being sent to the bereaved relatives. In the last few years I think we have from time to time sat back a little and congratulated ourselves on the fact that explosions of this kind were not quite so frequent as they used to be, and we welcome any improvements there are. I do not know whether the Minister yet has any idea of the cause of the explosion, but no doubt when he receives the report of the inquiry he will see his way to let your Lordships' House have a summary of it, even if it is not possible to publish the report in detail.
  LORD MILLS: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for associating himself and all of us with the expression of sympathy. The noble Viscount will appreciate that it is too early yet for me to say anything about the cause of the accident, but I shall see that your Lordships' House is acquainted with the facts about it at the earliest possible opportunity.

  DEVELOPMENT OF NEW TOWNS
  2.57 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN rose to call attention to the reports for the period ended 31st March, 1957, of the development corporations under the New Towns Act, 1946; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, before beginning my speech on the Motion I should like to express my sympathy, and, I am sure, that of my noble friends and the whole House, in regard to the bad accident that has occurred to the son of the Lord President of the Council. We sympathise with him in the distressing circumstances and hope that the boy will recover speedily.
  The New Towns Act, which we are to discuss this afternoon, was passed in 1946. Within two years twelve new towns were established in England and Wales, and two in Scotland. I propose this afternoon to deal with the twelve new towns in England and Wales. It will be as much as I can tackle, without undertaking to deal with those in Scotland as well. I think it will be useful to begin by stating the progress that we have made up to now in connection with the twelve new towns. Some 60,000 houses have been built by the development corporations; a further 5,000 have been built for sale by private enterprise, and there are 15,000 houses still in course of construction. In addition, large numbers of industrial, public and private buildings, shops, schools and all the rest of it, have been built.
  The total expenditure to date, approved by the Treasury, is of the order of £225 million. This vast enterprise has been carried out almost in secret. It may be an indication of the success of what has taken place, but there has been little discussion about the new towns, either in

  411
  this House or in another place. Indeed, on only one occasion since the legislation was passed has there been any debate in this House on the new towns, and that was in June, 1953, four and a half years ago. Therefore, I feel that no apology to this House is needed for raising this matter for discussion this afternoon.
  When last we raised the matter we were virtually at the beginning of the new towns. It is true that the towns had been in existence for several years, but an enormous amount of development work had to take place before even a single building could be seen on the ground. There had to be designation of sites; plans had to be prepared for the development, which had to be approved after a public inquiry. The new towns had to build up administrative organisation; they had to acquire the necessary land, to provide services, such as roads, water and sewerage, to enter into contracts for building and to negotiate with industry for the erection of factories. All that took a large amount of time, as can be readily understood, and anyone who has had any experience of large-scale development will appreciate that it is bound to take a number of years before any building is actually seen. That was very much the position when we last discussed the matter in 1953.
  Moreover, "teething" troubles had to be overcome. At that time relations between the new residents and the old were not so cordial as they are to-day, and there were many other factors which impeded the progress of the towns. Today, it is possible to study the reports for the year ended March 31, 1957, to measure up the progress that has taken place since we last discussed the subject, to see how far we have gone towards bringing the plans to fruition, to discuss what are the difficulties with which the development corporations have been faced and to see what is to be the future of the new towns. The present population of the new towns is estimated at about 250,000. The ultimate population is to be of the order of 600,000. But, of course, we expect to make far more rapid progress in the future, now that the initial problems have been overcome, than we have done in the past. And we have every reason to anticipate that the new towns will be virtually completed
  412
  within the period originally contemplated, which was about fifteen years from the time they were started.
  I wish now, quite briefly, to run through what have been the successes of the new towns, and to point out where, in my opinion, they have not reached the high expectations which we had for them in the beginning. First, I believe that, generally speaking, they have achieved the main purpose for which they are intended; that is, to get people to go out and live in them, to work in them, to enjoy their leisure in them and to become citizens of them—citizens of towns of which they can feel proud. A limited number of the people who have moved to the new towns still go back to work in the towns in which they originally lived. One expected that; but the number of such people is very small, relatively speaking. By and large, I think the project has succeeded from that angle. We all wondered (and this was to a certain extent an act of faith) whether we could induce industries to go to the new towns from those towns which we wanted to disperse, particularly London. We wondered whether industries situated in London could be induced to move out to the new towns such as Crawley, Harlow, Stevenage, and so on, and whether people could be induced to leave London to work in the mew factories. I think we can say to-day that we have been almost completely successful in that direction, and that some of the new towns already have more industry than they can properly deal with, having regard to their maximum planned population.
  On that aspect, I would make just two reservations. One is that one of the new towns, Peterlee, in the County of Durham, is desperately short of light industry for the employment of its women and those who are not capable of taking part in the main industry of Peterlee, which is mining. Peterlee was initiated in order to provide good homes for the mining population of the villages around the pits in Durham; and it is doing so. But there is a need of a certain amount of light industry to employ the female population, and I think the Board of Trade have been a little difficult with regard to that matter. Peterlee is in a development area, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will be able to give me an assurance that that matter

  413
  will be taken up with the Board of Trade to ensure that a sufficiency of light industry is permitted.
  The other reservation I would make is that there is still a need in most of the new towns for employment for clerical workers. Not enough offices have been built, and not enough people have come forward requiring offices in these new towns. There are quite a number of large insurance offices, and, of course, there are public buildings—post offices, banks, and so on. But I think the Government could do more by setting an example and dispersing some of their own London offices into the new towns. I do not suggest for a moment that the Government have done nothing, but I think they could do much more in order to secure this balance of population.
  The design and quality of the new towns has been outstandingly good and attractive. One aspect with which I am particularly pleased is that as one goes round the new towns each of them seems to have an individuality and a personality of its own. For instance, when you visit Crawley (I am glad to note that the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester is here; he knows Crawley well) you could never imagine that you were in Stevenage, if you knew both of those places, or Harlow, or any other of the new towns. Each one of them has a distinctive personality. The development corporations have been very much alive to the need to avoid monotony of design. It is exceedingly difficult to avoid monotony when you are building large numbers of two-storey dwellings of a particular type, and in this connection the development of the towns by means of neighbourhoods has certainly helped.
  Some of the neighbourhoods have their own shopping centres, and there is a main shopping centre to serve all the neighbourhoods. The separation of the neighbourhoods by means of green belts and the employment of numbers of private architects to design different dwellings have helped to avoid monotony of design. On the whole, I think that in this respect the development corporations have been reasonably successful. They have also broken up the long lines of two-storey houses by putting up a number of high dwellings—for which they have been criticised at times—and by mixing public buildings
  414
  and some of the residential developments. The shopping centres are most attractive and imaginative. Most of them are quite different from anything which we have elsewhere to-day: they are not merely shopping centres but civic centres as well. There are pedestrian ways which make for safe shopping, and these centres are certainly convenient. They have adequate car parking facilities. In fact, many of these new town shopping centres have proved to be so attractive that they are drawing large numbers of people from the surrounding neighbourhoods. So anyone who went, say, to Harlow or Crawley or Stevenage on a Saturday morning now would find these places absolutely packed out with shoppers not only from the new town itself but also from a large catchment area surrounding.
  In addition, to avoid the monotony and to help create a balanced community, most new towns—indeed, I think all of them—have encouraged private enterprise to come along and build houses for sale. I believe that that is a good thing, and on the whole it has been immensely successful. I have seen some of these private enterprise houses, and whilst I hold no brief for private enterprise I am bound to say that they are a joy to look at, and I think that most of your Lordships would be quite pleased to live in them. I have in mind one house that I saw. I will not mention names or places, because I am not here to advertise it, but it is a really lovely house, with adequate grounds and its own garage. It has four bedrooms and two reception rooms, two bedrooms and a bathroom on the ground floor, and two bedrooms and another bathroom on the first floor, with all its own necessary equipment—washing machine, refrigerator, radio: all ready to walk into. And the price is £3,500, which in these days is reasonably cheap. These houses are selling readily, and they are attracting the type of person for whom, obviously, the development corporation are not able to cater; and so they get the benefit of a balanced development.
  Furthermore, the corporations themselves are building a varied type of house to suit the needs of different types of workers. Schools and public buildings are being erected, and the local authorities are endeavouring to keep pace with

  415
  the development of the towns, although I regret to say that, on the whole, they are somewhat behind. They are just about keeping pace with the development that has taken place, but they are very conscious of the needs of the new towns and are doing their best. The relationship with the old inhabitants is now good and represents a great improvement on what it was at the beginning, when the newcomers were somewhat resented by the old inhabitants. To-day they are working together in a good community spirit, and in virtually all the new towns there is a feeling of community among the population. All sorts of organisations are growing up—social, religious, even political. For instance, in one of the new towns which I should like to mention—Harlow—they have a theatre guild which looks after twelve repertory companies within the new town itself. That is a tremendous achievement, to have built up twelve repertory companies within one new town which to-day has a population just over 40,000. I do not propose this afternoon to say anything at all about finance. I understand that a Bill is coming forward to provide additional finance for new towns, and I would suggest that that might be an occasion on which we might have a discussion on the general finances of the new towns.
  I have indicated my view of the excellent progress the new towns are making, but there are a number of deficiencies that I should like to mention. I have referred to the community spirit, and to the fact that there is a large number of organisations in every one of the new towns for the purpose of people getting together. There is, however, a lamentable shortage of facilities for meeting, a shortage of club 'buildings and meeting places, a shortage of cinemas; and in some of the larger new towns there is even a need for hotels. The reason why there are not these facilities is that money is not being provided for them. I would suggest to the Government that, having regard to the very fine job that is being made of the new towns, it seems a pity to spoil the ship for the small amount of money that would be needed to enable these community buildings to be erected.
  I do not believe—I never have believed—in providing these buildings in anticipation of requirements. I think that there
  416
  must be an established need for them. I believe also that people should be encouraged to help themselves so far as possible. But I can assure your Lordships that the time has come when there is a real need for these facilities, and that in their absence both the new towns and the spirit of the new towns will suffer. I want to make an urgent plea to the Government to make it possible for the various sections of the community to meet in reasonable comfort. I think that this would generally improve the spirit of the new towns.
  This is especially so in the case of young people. There is an enormous proportion of young people in the new towns. In one town to which my attention was drawn, 34 per cent. of the population is under the age of fourteen. That is a very high proportion. In the town I am thinking of, it means that there are something like 13,000 to 14,000 people under the age of fourteen, and we have to provide reasonable facilities for them. There is a shortage of playing fields and swimming facilities. There are no swimming baths in any of the new towns. Those who want to encourage young people to swim have to take them, sometimes long distances, to the nearest old town, where they can share the facilities with the existing inhabitants. Here, again, it is only a question of money. I regard playing fields and swimming facilities as essential if we are to build up proper communities and give young people something to do in their spare time, rather than the reverse.
  Again, the health facilities are lagging behind the times. There is an urgent need for hospitals and clinics, which are not quite keeping pace. There is another surprising need—that is, the demand for garages, which has been much underestimated. It was thought that in a typical town, like Stevenage, garage requirements would be something like 20 to 25 per cent. of the number of houses. Within three years of the commencement of the town the demand was 35 per cent. and more, and to-day I would imagine that one house in two requires a garage. That is an interesting sidelight on the prosperity of the new towns and of the fact that people who formerly spent a large part of their wages in travelling to and from work and paying for their lunches are able to go home and save the fare money.
  Furthermore, all the new towns have suffered from the effect of high interest rates in the last few years, with a consequent increase in rents and the slowing down of development. There has been a slowing down of development in the year 1956–57, and I am afraid the increased interest rates that are prevalent to-day will mean a still further decrease in building operations. That would be a disaster, because, as your Lordships will appreciate, the administrative costs of the new towns are going on all the time, and the sooner the new estates can be developed and completed the more economical it will be. This is certainly not the time, when the new towns are geared to a high output and development, for them to be compelled to slow down. But, having said that, I think that many of the difficulties and shortcomings are temporary and almost inevitable in any large-scale development scheme; and while I think it is the business of the Government to see what they can do to improve matters, particularly from the point of view of improving the community spirit and atmosphere, nevertheless I feel that we ought not to be impatient at these deficiencies but should have a sense of proportion about them.
  I have referred to the fact that it looks as if the original time-table of about fifteen years for the completion of the new towns will be fulfilled. That means that in three or four years' time, unless there is a considerable hold-up in development, the first of the new towns will have been substantially completed. The question arises: what is to happen then? The New Towns Act contemplated that when the new towns had been substantially completed, assets and liabilities, after an account had been taken, should be transferred to the relevant local authorities for them to manage as part of their local government functions. It is evident that with new towns which have populations of the size for which a number of them are planned, up to 80,000 in all, it will be convenient for them to be administered by one local authority. Two of the new towns have already had separate local government administrations set up: that is to say, both Crawley and Harlow have in the last y ear or so become urban districts, and I had the privilege and pleasure a few weeks ago of presenting each of them with their new coat of arms.
  I should like to say a word or two about the quality of the local government that I saw in each of these new towns. The local bodies consist of young people, keen, highly intelligent, well-informed and full of enthusiasm for their new town. Nearly all of them had come from the less desirable parts of greater London, and this is their first experience of public work. I saw there a sense of responsibility and understanding that surprised even me. I believe that not the least of the services which the new towns idea has rendered to the country as a whole is that it has brought numbers of people into the sphere of public work—not merely local government, but all the work in connection with the running of community organisations. I have spoken to many people, and I understand that hardly any of them have ever done anything of the kind before; and it is remarkable, to see the way they have taken to it. My remarks apply equally to members of both political Parties; I am not drawing any distinction between one Party and another. Indeed, when one talks to them one does not know to which Party they belong—that is, of course, until they get on to politics. I myself should feel complete confidence in entrusting the management of the new towns to these enthusiastic councillors, advised by their equally keen and competent officers; and they have attracted some very fine officers.
  During the passage of the Bill through another place and this House, both Parties exercised the strongest possible pressure to secure that eventually, and as soon as possible, the management of the new towns would be transferred to local authorities. There was no suggestion then by any Member of this House or of the other place that any alternative was worth considering. For instance, Mr. W. S. Morrison (he is now Mr. Speaker, but I hope I may quote him) actually moved an Amendment in another place to make it quite clear and definite that when the purposes for which a development corporation was established had been substantially achieved the corporation should be wound up and the town transferred to ordinary local government control. There was no vote on the Amendment, because I was in a position to accept it, in spirit. Mr. Morrison was supported in speech by Mr. Boyd-Carpenter, Mr. Reid (now Lord Reid),

  419
  Mr. Molson, Minister of Works, and many others. In this House, when the Bill came along, on the Second Reading the noble Earl, Lord Munster, who was then speaking for the Opposition said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 142, col. 335]:
  "…it seems to me that it is highly desirable that these development corporations should be wound up at the earliest possible moment and that the new town should be taken in hand by a proper, democratically elected body…"
  That is definite enough. In the same debate the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, spoke in similar terms and described the taking over of the whole enterprise from the corporation by the local authorities as "excellent."
  In spite of these features, on July 29 last, in a debate on local government, quite out of the blue, the Minister of Health announced his intention of transferring the assets and liabilities of the new towns, when they are completed, to a non-elected new corporation, which will then administer them, presumably, on behalf of the Government. I am bound to say that I am at a complete loss to understand this volte face. I am informed on good authority that there had been no prior consultation with the local authorities. I believe that the Minister had some informal talks with the chairmen of the development corporations, but the local authorities concerned were taken completely by surprise. Whatever their political complexion may be, they are unanimously against the handing over of the new town to a new corporation.
  I do not know whether the noble Lord who is to reply is in a position to discuss this matter. I imagine that it will come up at some time in this House. I do not think that even the present Minister of Housing and Local Government is in a position to make decisions of this kind without proper consultations. But I should like to know if the noble Lord can say whether the Government have lost confidence in local authorities, or have they been taken by surprise by the political complexion of some of the new local authorities that have been established? Admittedly, they are predominantly Labour; but is that really surprising, and is there any reason why noble Lords should be shocked at the thought? I have explained that in my view—and I am sure every noble Lord
  420
  who has met these councillors would take the same view—they are responsible and will become even more responsible with experience and with years. But they are responsible, and they know what they are doing. I should have the utmost confidence in handing over the new towns to them, especially as they have no complete control—they are still subject to Government supervision.
  I hope that the Minister of Housing and Local Government will have second thoughts about this matter, and that when the towns are substantially completed the control and management of them—as was strongly urged by noble Lords on the other side of the House and by their colleagues in another place—will be transferred to local authorities in the ordinary manner. I wish to say to them that if they take action which I should regard as wholly undemocratic, they must not be surprised if we seriously consider the question of reversing the position when the opportunity arises.
  I should like to conclude—I am afraid I have been all too long—by paying a tribute to those who have been responsible for the success of the new towns. In the first place, it has been the development corporations—the chairmen, vice-chairmen and the members. These people approached the task of building the new towns afresh, with no prior knowledge or understanding of large-scale development. But as time has gone on they have become more and more enthusiastic, and many of them are devoting the greater part of their time to this work, even though they are not required to give more than a certain amount of their time. They have done their jobs with great ability and enthusiasm, and we owe them a debt of gratitude. I should like to pay a tribute also to the officers. Many of them came to the new towns, as I know well, at a considerable sacrifice in remuneration and prospects. They knew that that was so. They nevertheless undertook the task because they believed they were doing a great social work. I think we owe them a deep debt of gratitude for undertaking the task in that spirit. Anyone who knows these officers will know what a fine body of people they are. We are exceedingly fortunate in this country in being able at all times, for an imaginative enterprise of this kind, to draw upon

  421
  a fine body of men and women who are prepared to devote their lives and make great sacrifices in their cause. I feel that so long as we can draw on such people the future of this country is assured. I beg to move for Papers.
  3.35 p.m.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, I think that the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for calling our attention to the new towns, and for giving us such a notable review of their progress during these last ten years. The noble Lord has a special authority in this matter because he was the Minister in charge of the Bill. He had a great deal to do with the formation of the development corporations, and I think we may truthfully say—for I know the interest he took with regard to Crawley—that on the choice of the members of the corporations the future of the new towns greatly turned. Therefore, the whole nation owes a considerable debt to the noble Lord for his care, imagination and resource at that time.
  The creation of these new towns is a feature of exceptional interest and importance in these post-war years. The noble Lord referred to the fact that I was connected with one new town, Crawley. I know the interest which he has taken continuously in Crawley, not ending with the day, last September, on which he presented the urban district council with its new coat of arms. should like to speak particularly of one new town, because speaking of one gives an illustration of happenings in the majority, if not all, of the new towns. I have followed the development of Crawley New Town from the setting up of the corporation in February, 1947, and I have been in continuous contact with the corporation and its officers. The creation of a new town is, as your Lordships will have gathered, a very big operation indeed. It is so many-sided. It has its engineering, housing, surveying, architectural, industrial and financial aspects, and many more; and not least its human aspects.
  As the noble Lord has given such marked praise to the chairmen and members of all the development corporations, I should like to add a footnote to his general phrase by expressing the wholehearted admiration which those in and near Crawley, and in Sussex, feel for the handling of this creative work by the
  422
  Crawley Development Corporation, and the fine leadership given by Sir Thomas Bennett, the chairman, and the other members. At the annual meetings Sir Thomas Bennett has a remarkable faculty for giving a most notable exposition of the progress of the year. All the men and women who have been, or are, members of the corporation are men and women of wider outlook and have an experience gained in other walks of life which they apply to the new towns. Like the noble Lord, I would also pay my tribute to the staff of the development corporation, to the energy and ability of the Chief Executive Officer, Colonel Turner, and to all the skilled technicians and other colleagues, who are engaged, as they well know and so greatly appreciate, in a piece of pioneering social work with a great creative side.
  The Crawley Development Corporation's Report looks back over the whole of the ten years, and there were questions which the Development Corporation had to face. First, as the noble Lord said, would the firms, and the workmen and women, leave London? Well, they have done so in great numbers. Secondly, would they want to go back to London, being unsettled? To that question there is a very good answer in the fact that, so far as the tenancies of the subsidised houses (and the vast majority are subsidised houses) are concerned, during this whole period of ten years the number of tenancies terminated by death, by movement by the firm, or by emigration, and from all other causes, represent only 8 per cent, of the total. On March 31, there were 7,516 subsidised houses, and 8 per cent. of that total is very small indeed. The third question was whether the men and women would stay in their jobs. Well, my Lords, the national average of men and women all over the country who change their jobs each year is 30 per cent. In Crawley, the actual average is 15 per cent.—one-half the national average. So it is clear that those who have come to live and work in Crawley like Crawley. The conditions they find far more satisfactory than they were in London, and they would not go back.
  What is the reason for this content. The noble Lord pointed out so many signs, reasons, for encouragement. There is the good planning, the master plan, the six—and soon to be nine—neighbourhoods, suitably sited, suitably planned.

  423
  There is the variety in the skilled industry available. There is the country and the gardens. But, side by side with the vision which created the new town and the efficiency of those who execute the plan, there is the humanity characteristic of nearly all those who are engaged in its operation. If I may put the sign of that humanity in a single phrase, I would say that Crawley New Town displays a fine spirit of co-operation on all sides. There were the "teething" troubles, to which the noble Lord has referred, at the beginning; but though there were, of course, and still are, some doubters among the old residents, they have nevertheless played a substantial part in this co-operation. "Here is a new town", say the inhabitants, new and old, of the new town—and the same is heard elsewhere—"and all of us are faced with the task of building a community out of a new population coming in at a steady rate of increase."
  Three county councils, East Sussex, West Sussex and Surrey, three rural district councils, and five parish councils were concerned in the plan. All of them are co-operating. Now, almost the main county council responsibility—in fact I think the whole of the county council responsibility—has been undertaken by the West Sussex County Council. The West Sussex County Council was faced with the responsibility for carrying a very considerable burden. It had to look after all the services, or most of the services, and markedly health, the library service and the education service. The Report points to the fact that a grand total of 7,170 school places have already been built and to the start of a large technical college. The Development Corporation says, with great force, that the West Sussex County Council has carried out its task magnificently. What is not the least satisfactory is that Crawley, which it was feared might be a liability to the county council is now proving an asset.
  I should like to speak especially of the co-operation of the Christian Churches in the building up of the new Crawley community. The Development Corporation, in its Report, has been kind enough to pay tribute to this co-operation. The inflow of population, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has indicated, is largely a young population. At the moment, to give an illustration, out of 42,000 inhabitants of Crawley 6,000 are children in
  424
  schools. I would note from the start and express my gratitude for the co-operation of the Development Corporation with the Churches and for their willingness to give sites to the Churches at one-quarter of the cost of their housing values. All through the country since the war there has been a system of joint planning of church sites in connection with new housing estates and new towns. In Crawley, this joint planning started with a deputation of the representatives of all the Churches, the Church of England, the Free Churches, and the Roman Catholic Church, waiting on the Development Corporation in an official way and discussing the problem of church sites with the Corporation. An agreement was reached with the Corporation, and as a result of the agreement with the Corporation and among the Churches themselves there has been from the start an excellent planning of church sites in the various neighbourhoods in complete harmony with everybody.
  The next instance of the co-operation was the joint approach by all the Churches—the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Free Churches—to the employers and to the operatives separately. We went first in November, 1952, to the Crawley and District Trades Council. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Southwark and I. together with representatives of the Free Churches, met six members of the Trades Council in Crawley Rectory and we said what was in our minds—namely, that in the building up of the community the Corporation, the local authorities, the employers, the operatives and the old residents were all concerned and must work together, and that the Churches wanted to help. Our offer of help was cordially received by the Crawley and District Trades Council. Six weeks later we went in a similar representative body to the Crawley Industrial Group, representing the firms under the chairmanship of Sir Thomas Bennett, and we told them how the Crawley New Town Churches' Joint Committee had drawn up an agreed programme of building requirements for religious and social work for the period from 1953 to 1958, together with an estimate of the money needed by each church from all sources.
  The firms' representatives were much impressed by what we said to them, and

  425
  the vice-chairman, a well-known industrialist in Crawley, opened their side, after we had made our speeches, by saying, "Well, I never knew before that the Church was interested in industry." I hope he knew better before the reception was finished! He certainly said that he would welcome—they all welcomed—the Churches' co-operation. These representatives, and the management committee, after further discussions, agreed to put before the whole group the appeal which we were making to them for help for our buildings for the social and religious assistance of the young people, the young wives and parents, and generally. And on July 16, 1953, the Crawley Industrial Group adopted the recommendations, which I think it may be of interest to your Lordships I should read—they are brief:
  "(1) The Management Committee of Crawley Industrial Group commends to all members the plan of the Churches' Joint Committee to co-operate in a united effort to meet the material and non-material needs of the people of the New Town and promises full moral support.
  "(2) In the matter of financial help, employers in general feel that covenants to pay fixed amounts over a period of years should not be expected. From time to time it may be possible to earmark a portion of normal welfare expenditure to be placed at the disposal of the Churches' Joint Committee for the New Town Building Fund."
  Contributions are being made by these firms, and are continuing. Not a great deal has come in at present, but the principle has been established and is most encouraging.
  In conclusion, my Lords, I should like to tell you what the churches have actually done in Crawley since the new town began. The work they have done and are doing comes from their own resources—from central funds and local funds—and, as your Lordships will understand, there is great strain on church resources for these enterprises. So far as the Church of England is concerned, much valuable help has been given by the Church Commissioners, and it is much appreciated. I would stress the fact that at the start of this epoch Crawley consisted of three small country parishes, with the average supply of population. But during this period, as a result of co-operation between the Church of England, the Free Churches and the Roman Catholics, the churches between them have built twelve new churches or church halls, including one ordinary hall—twelve church build-
  426
  ings of one kind or another. They have built, bought or rented twelve new parsonage houses, and they have added ten full-time clergy, of different denominations, and two full-time lay workers to the hitherto existing personnel. They have also built two aided church schools, one Church of England and one Roman Catholic; and the Roman Catholics, in addition, have bought and enlarged another aided church school That is not a bad record for the last seven years, I think, and all of it has been achieved in agreement between the various denominations.
  In addition, all the clergy and the ministers of the different denominations are doing excellent work in a most friendly and co-operative spirit, the one with the other. Further active work is going on in co-operation between the Church of England and the Free Churches on the Crawley Christian Council, specially directed to youth and old people and, most of all, to the development of religious instruction on the basis of the Education Act, 1944, in county schools. There are conspicuously good relations between the head teachers in all the schools and the churches—all are working together. My Lords, I have told this story, which I realise is an unusual story to tell in your Lordships' House, because I felt it to be important to do so and important to recognise that in the building of these new towns—for I am giving Crawley only as an illustration—the Churches are playing a full part and are giving to the new towns something specific which all communities need; and in Crawley they are giving it in full co-operation with one another—surely a good omen for the future.
  3.57 p.m.
  VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, like my right reverend friend the Lord Bishop of Chichester, I cannot claim to have a great knowledge of all new towns, but again like him, I have followed with the greatest interest the fortunes of the Crawley new town since its inception. I can only say, in agreement with what he has said, that if all the new towns are progressing in the same way as is Crawley, then the success of this great experiment is assured. i am sure that many thousands of people, employees and their employers, are working and living in conditions far more satisfactory than they used to do.

  427
  Like Lord Silkin, I wish that more offices could be placed in the new towns. I understand that the reasons they have not been are more biological than administrative. I understand that the offices have to be "manned" (if that is the correct expression) by large numbers of young ladies who, fortunately or not, are apt to get married; so the offices depend on having a large reservoir of young ladies from which to draw. Otherwise they would get into great difficulties. I am assured that that is the real reason why more offices have not been decentralised and brought into the new towns. Even on the financial side, on which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, expressly did not touch, it would certainly seem, from the figures given in these reports, that there is a reasonable prospect of striking a balance.
  As regards the interesting suggestion that the time is approaching when the assets of the new corporations should be transferred to the councils of the new towns, I feel that that is a matter which deserves a considerable amount of thought. I imagine that a great deal will turn on the terms to be laid down by the Minister. It seemed to me, in reading the Bill, that the Minister has very wide powers in this connection. I do not see why the councils of the new towns should be put in a sort of privileged position as against other boroughs regarding the repayment of loans, and so forth. Considering the gigantic scale on which these loans have been made the financial safeguards to the country will, I am sure, be a matter of considerable importance. I have been in local government all my life and I have great respect for those who take part in that service. But they are part-time administrators, subject to chances of election and so forth, and I cannot help wondering whether the representatives of a population for the most part considerably smaller than that of a county borough are entirely geared to administer capital assets of £25 million, £30 million or anything up to £50 million, particularly as so many of them, as tenants, will have a personal interest in many of the decisions to be taken. However, on that matter I am open to be convinced.
  Apart from these matters, there is one quite different question that I should like to raise. This is a very substantial report
  428
  —too substantial in some ways for popular consumption—but in a sense it is only half a report. The idea of building new towns was not translated into legislation simply because it was felt that it was a good thing to have new towns; new towns were started because it was thought that they provided the most scientific way of "decrowding" existing towns, and I personally agree that they are. That was the primary object of the new towns. I think that if any noble Lord reads the debates that took place, and reads the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in introducing the New Towns Bill in 1946, he will see that a considerable part of those speeches was devoted to the "decrowding" aspect. But we never seem to have been told anything about how far these new towns are succeeding in doing that.
  I am well aware of the difficulty of defining gat all exactly what contribution the new towns have made and are making towards "decrowding", particularly in London. I am also aware that I have on several previous occasions perhaps wearied your Lordships by expressing the fear that London, or at least the outer suburbs of London, are filling up faster than they are being "decrowded". I do not want to go into any detail of that matter to-day, except that I might quote two extracts from Report on Planning in the London Region, produced by the Town Planning Institute last year. The report states:
  "…the inner urban area and the middle suburbs lost 64,000 persons between 1951 and 1954, while in the same period the outer suburbs and the outer country area together gained 196,000 persons—that is, 132,000 more than could be assumed to have moved outwards from the centre. At most only about a quarter of this gain would be attributable to natural increase of the outer areas' original population (the excess of births over deaths) so that the remainder, averaging over 30,000 a year, is a measure of the extent to which the outer areas of the London Region are filling up either with people from the rest of the country or as a result of the excess of births over deaths in the inner areas."
  The committee say further that, in their estimation, about half that increase comes from inner London and half (say, 15,000 people) from quite different parts of the country.
  The report also states:
  "The Greater London Plan envisaged that the new towns would be completed within ten years of the end of the war, but present indications are that this may take at least

  429
  another seven years. In the meantime the new towns are in danger of becoming, not reception centres for overspill population, but rather simply additional communities in a growing London Region."
  I do not know whether the Government accept the conclusion of the Town Planning Institute. The document seems to me to be quite an important one, and I feel that the criticisms are serious and deserve some comment. We so often have animated debates on matters such as traffic congestion, high rents, or long waiting-lists for houses, which are really only the outward manifestation of a much more fundamental root cause.
  It would be inappropriate to go into detail on those matters to-day, but it might be appropriate for me to press my noble friend on the subject of green belts, particularly green belts around these new towns. This is a matter in which one Minister, Mr. Duncan Sandys, took a very strong line. He showed great energy in promoting this scheme, but I am not quite sure what are the views of the present Minister. I should have thought that to-day would be a very suitable time for pressing on with this green-belt policy. Apart from that quite substantial point (as I consider it to be), I think the new towns are a remarkable success, something which has not been paralleled anywhere else in the world; and I feel that the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, is justifiably entitled to feel a pride in the part he played in promoting them.
  4.8 p.m.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should to add a few words to what the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, has said in congratulating my noble friend Lord Silkin, who, after all, deserves more credit for the establishment of these new towns than anybody else. I am sure he would not claim the whole of the credit—in fact, modest as he is, he probably would not claim anything like the amount due to him—but without his energy, determination and enthusiastic acceptance of the Report put forward by the able body of people which investigated these proposals in the early days of the Labour Government, I am quite sure the Act would never have reached the Statute Book and this remarkable development of new towns would not have 'taken place. I feel that in years to come future generations of those who are growing up in the new towns will come to feel a debt of gratitude
  430
  for the great work which he did at the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and, indeed, to the Government which carried through the legislation.
  There are one or two points which I should like to raise. I do not want to repeat the detail given by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, in his argument, part of which was, I believe, away from the subject of the new towns. I was, however, in agreement with everything he said about green belts. Experience over the last few years shows that the Minister and the Ministry have been applying the regulations in the Act under which green belts are established with wisdom and a good deal of stringency, certainly in some parts of the country. The noble Viscount referred to the late Minister, who certainly took a great interest in these matters, and in some of the green-belt areas a sort of sporadic development has in fact been prevented.
  How wonderful is the imaginative appeal of these new towns to people who are really interested in the conditions in which their fellow citizens live, particularly those in which their fellow citizens, with whom they grew up in the years before and after the First World War, were then condemned to live! These new towns provide a wonderful opportunity for that good life at which people who were brought up in the older universities were taught they should aim and should strive for. This is a unique experiment, and it is extraordinarily heartening to hear from the right reverend Prelate of the wonderful progress which is being made at Crawley and some other new towns. One's mind goes back to the Grecian colonies established in Northern Africa and Sicily, and to the experiment of Edwin Gibbon Wakefield when new towns, of a very different kind, were planned and established in the Southern Island of New Zealand with considerable success. Those towns remain as permanent memorials in honour of that great statesman and organiser.
  Of course, the difficulties which have confronted the new town corporations have been of much more complex character. They have had to deal with the widely differing conditions of modern life, and to establish new towns in a tight, congested, old-fashioned country. This has meant that the projects have had to be worked out, often in very different

  431
  ways, from the word "Go". I think that the astonishingly good progress which has been made, some details of which have been given us by Lord Silkin, show how well the work has been done. I feel that the community should be grateful to those people, men and women, who have taken upon their shoulders a great burden by accepting positions, particularly the onerous positions of chairmen and deputy chairmen, in regard to these new towns. I do not think that the people of the country as a whole really understand how much we owe to their unremitting exertions over these last years.
  Lord Silkin has referred to "teething troubles", and his remarks have been echoed. At the moment, I believe, one could probably more accurately use the expression "growing pains". I think that the time of extreme infancy is over. There are, of course—and in some of the towns, perhaps, more than others—growing pains which are pretty painful; but they are, I am sure, the growing pains of a healthy and robust youth and not the sort of rheumatoid arthritis which has been inflicting much more painful sufferings on many of our old towns and under which they are clearly labouring with difficulty. And yet, in spite of this, we often hear mutterings, particularly from the Treasury on the grounds of expenditure. This leads us to wonder not whether this great experiment is going to come to an end—because clearly it will not—but whether it may be stunted in its development if an unthinking economy is allowed to interfere with what is being done.
  In particular, there has been a great deal of criticism of the capital expenditure involved in these new towns, and there have been proposals, particularly in recent months, for retreating from the new towns' projects back into the centres and developing more intensively upwards instead of spreading out into the country districts outside the great cities. For some reason or other that is supposed to be cheaper. I do not believe that it is actually cheaper in money, and, certainly, if one takes into account all the advantages which are obtained in the way of health and recreation, a more open life and so on, in the new towns, then, judging the expenditure on them in social terms, it is a great deal less—even if it
  432
  were more in actual pounds, shillings and pence.
  The matter has been gone into carefully by the Town and Country Planning Association, and I have here some elaborate analyses of the costs which I do not propose to inflict upon your Lordships. Quite apart from the advantages of the new life for the people and the social conditions, however, I think one ought to take into account the actual economic advantages which accrue. There are the savings in transport costs, the savings resulting from the abolition of congestion and of difficulties of parking and all sorts of things of that kind which have become more and more evident. Even within the last few months, there has been in central London what amounts almost to a "seizing up" of the traffic arteries as the result of the substantial numbers of new motor cars which have been put upon the roads. If we go in for further intensive building-up in central London, we have to remember that nowadays the individual who used to be called the working man, the artizan, is now in a position just as much as anybody else to own his own small motor car, and is in fact beginning to do so. Obviously, there is no garage accommodation. These cars are going to be kept on the roads, and they are, in fact, being garaged in the streets of the Metropolis. And so day by day we see congestion enormously increased.
  I am sure that, if anything, the analyses made by the Town and Country Planning Association err on the side of putting the advantages of the new towns' project too low in respect of dispersal into the new towns. Even taking into account such additional expenses as the extra grants needed for subsidies in respect of closing down factories, building the new schools and the new main roads that are required, the new open spaces, the new community buildings, and all the rest, we find that those added together come to little more than half as much as the capital costs required for the purposes of building these large blocks in central London, central Manchester, or any other of the great cities of this country.
  Without going into the figures, I think it is safe to say that for every 500 families dispersed out of 1,000 rehoused—that is, allowing for rehousing half inside the cities—the new towns show a capital saving of at least £850,000 or

  433
  £900,000, not counting the savings made in respect of city roads, transport facilities and car parks which I mentioned a few minutes ago. Half of this is saved actually by the Exchequer itself (which has to provide subsidies) and half is saved by the local authorities which are the export authorities, sending citizens out to the new towns or into the country areas. So even if one looks at the matter from the point of view of pounds, shillings and pence, and takes the narrowest view of all, one finds that there is a considerable economy. And if one takes into account the great social savings which my noble friend Lord Silkin has brought to our attention and which I should like to emphasise, is it not obvious that, rather than fall back in this enterprise, we ought to concentrate and accentuate our efforts?
  4.20 p.m.
  THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, may I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for his very kindly reference to the wretched accident which has befallen the son of my noble friend Lord Hailsham. My noble friend was in his place a moment ago and asked me to thank the noble Lord on his behalf and to say that although a fractured skull obviously must be a source of anxiety for some days to come, the news for the moment is reassuring. This, I am sure, we are all glad to hear.
  I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for bringing up this matter of the new towns—his own very particular matter. I was astonished to hear him say that it is no less than four and a half years since we last debated this subject. but I remember the occasion when he raised it because I had the honour then. as I have again to-day, of replying to him. I hope that it will not be four and a half years before he raises it again and I also hope that, for one reason or another, I shall again have the honour to reply to the noble Lord.
  Perhaps I may come straight away to the most important points made in the debate this afternoon—namely, the future of the new towns and our policy for them as a whole. It is true, as the noble Lord has said, that the present Government have had second thoughts about this matter. In fact, it has been announced that when the new towns are completed—
  434
  and the completion of one or two of them is within measurable distance—the Government will hand the ownership of them to a new Government agency. There is no need for us to discuss this matter in any great detail at the moment. Obviously, when the time comes it will call for legislation, and it will also call for detailed consultations. The Government have already stated that someone in the new agency, which I envisage as working something like the Crown Estates Commission, will be answerable to Parliament.
  This decision which the Government have taken has been vigorously attacked outside in the country, and moderately and quietly attacked in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. Let me sec if I can remove a few of the misunderstandings. The noble Lord referred to the Government's solution as "undemocratic". I understood him to mean that if people of the new towns are to control their own future, this will be possible only if the whole town and everything in it is owned by the people's elected representatives, and that the proposed Government policy would not make this possible. Let us, for a moment, look only at house ownership. The number of houses in local authority ownership in the country is still in the minority; and, so far as I know, very few factories, shops, offices and other kinds of property up and down the length of the country are in public ownership. In fact, public ownership is one thing and local government and administration is another. There has been some confusion in people's minds between the two.
  The Government's new policy will not deprive local authorities of any of their usual and proper powers. Ever since the new towns were established the local authorities on the spot have continued to levy the rates and to carry on all their usual functions, side by side with the development corporations. They will continue to carry them out side by side with the new agency. The people will continue to control their own affairs on all matters over which the inhabitants of other towns have the same sort of control. Her Majesty's Government feel, on reflection, that the original proposals put forward created some serious difficulties which were not perhaps foreseen eleven years ago. It must have been hard in 1946, even for the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to visualise exactly what a new

  435
  town of over 50,000 people would look like in 1957. Now, of course, we have a much better idea.
  Conjure up to yourselves, if you will, the picture of the whole of Maidstone or Rugby (these are towns of roughly the size we have in mind) owned and managed by the local council—all the modern factories, the whole of the central shopping area and almost all the houses. It is an unprecedented situation. I do not suppose that the local councils, to which the noble Lord rightly paid tribute, could not tackle this job; they would tackle it manfully if they had to do so, although they would have to seek office every three years, which, as my noble friend Lord Gage suggested, does not help the administration and control of a complicated set-up like this.
  There are two difficulties in particular which have impressed themselves on the Government. The first, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Gage, is the financial difficulty. These towns have been built at the taxpayers' expense on long-term loans. Surely we must see to it that, if possible the taxpayer gets a proper return on this investment. To hand the towns over to local authorities would, I think, make that extremely difficult. Your Lordships will remember that most of the new towns are not yet paying their way, although many people seem to think that they are. We all, of course, hope that they will in time, but I am distinctly doubtful whether they will be doing so when the time comes for the development corporations to hand over to someone else. Surely the Government must remain financially responsible for them, so long as they are in deficit. If, while they are still in deficit, they are handed over to the local authorities, clearly the taxpayer will suffer considerable loss.
  Then there is a psychological difficulty—a very real one. So long as the new towns are new, they are also different; and, as we know from experience, some of the differences have created prejudices against them. The Government are determined that when they are finished they shall become "ordinary" towns as soon as possible. One of the ways in which they are different is in the almost complete landlord monopoly which the development corporations now have. To
  436
  transfer that monopoly, hook, line and sinker, to the local authorities would simply perpetuate that difference. That is why the Government propose to give the new agency power to sell property—in order to bring into the towns that diversity of ownership which is normal in other towns. This, of course, will be a slow process, one which will take time, but diversity of ownership is the ultimate aim.
  When all is said and done, the right thing to do is what is best for the towns themselves. I can assure your Lordships that in the new towns there are misgivings about the idea that the local authorities should take over these valuable assets. Nobody minds local authorities, of whatever political complexion, exercising the proper functions of local authorities. The original proposal, however, went vastly further than that, and—I will be quite frank with your Lordships—some industrialists are genuinely anxious about that vast extension of the powers of local authorities. The solution that was agreed in 1946 may still seem good in the eyes of some people, but I feel that if by following it we deter fresh industry from coming into the new towns, or even drive established industry away, that would be disastrous. I am sure that, on reflection, your Lordships will find that the Government's change of policy is a wise one. But, as I say, we shall have plenty of time to discuss this matter in future.
  I now turn to another controversial problem which was raised in the debate this afternoon—namely, the question of high rents. I admit that the rents are high. But surely they are bound to be, because new towns have no pre-war houses over which part of the post-war costs can be spread. It was the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, himself who instructed the corporations to make their housing pay its own way, and all his successors have followed that line. Some people argue that it is the Government's high interest rates that are forcing up rents, and that therefore the right thing to do is to give the new towns a special interest rate. That proposal looks attractive at first, but think for a moment of what it amounts to The Government have to borrow at the market rate in order to lend to the new towns. If the Government were to borrow dear and lend cheap, that would impose a loss on the taxpayer.

  437
  In other words, it would be an extra subsidy, and of an amount which no one could work out.
  The same is true of all the other devices which have been suggested: they all amount, in the end, to a concealed subsidy. So we get back to the same question every time: does new town housing need larger subsidies? So far as I know, there is no evidence that these people are not prepared to pay the rents which the corporations charge, and so long as they are prepared to pay those rents there is not much of a case for asking the taxpayer to pay more than he is paying now. The Government are fully alive to the danger of scaring people away from the new towns by high rents. The Government and the corporations are watching the position carefully, but, so far as I can see, people are not being scared away now; in fact, the waiting lists are as long as ever.
  Several noble Lords, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred to the question of amenities. I know that there is a great deal of complaint about the lack of amenities in the new towns. It is the Englishman's privilege to grumble (if we come to discuss the Scottish Report, no doubt Scotsmen will join in) and I must say that I do not blame the people who live in the new towns for grumbling about this matter. I have been to several of these new towns, and this lack of amenities is one of the things that strikes one first. Most of the people who have gone to the new towns are used to the usual cheerful clutter of urban amenities in the big towns from which they came, and I can well understand that they are disappointed when they discover that so many things are not to be found in the new towns they have gone to. The Government are anxious to see that they get these amenities, but we must remember that we cannot do everything at once.
  Let me briefly explain the position at the moment. I turn first to shops. The central shopping centres have all been started, and some of them are well advanced. In several towns something like 100 central shops, including most of the multiple stores, are already open. On the matter of churches, these are coming along particularly well. I was glad to hear the tribute from the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Chichester,
  438
  about his own particular new town, Crawley, and I am happy to tell him that an equally satisfactory situation seems to prevail in many other of the new towns. All the development corporations have worked out friendly arrangements with the main denominations for allocating suitable sites for churches, and they are building new churches as fast as they can In the new towns in England and Wales alone we have completed thirty-nine new churches, and eight are now under construction. That, I think, is a creditable achievement.
  Cinemas, theatres, dance halls and similar special buildings are a different and difficult problem. Very few of them are yet to be seen. Some people have suggested that the development corporations should build and operate cinemas themselves. I do not think that would be practicable, because the corporations have not the experience. I think we must wait for the proper people to come along; but they will not come along until they can see a good prospect of success, and they will not see that until the towns are a reasonable size. As your Lordships know, the cinema industry is facing difficult times and cannot afford to take chances in building new cinemas. Nevertheless, the most advanced of the towns have reached a stage where I believe the cinema industry is becoming interested, and I do not think it will be long before we sec the first cinema started.
  On a different social scale, public-houses are keeping pace pretty well with the growth of the new towns, and I think the brewery companies are doing a very civilised job. Some of the new pubs in the new towns I regard as a model of what a public-house should look like. There is an outstanding example in one called "The Painted Lady" (that refers to the butterfly, not to the Wolfenden Report) at Harlow which one of the companies had designed for them by Mr. Frederick Gibberd, the chief architect planner for the new town. Another company is embarking on an original and generous new experiment at Hatfield: a public-house with a non-alcoholic community centre attached, principally for the children.
  Several of your Lordships have referred to the matter of hospitals. Hospitals, of course, are very expensive to build, and my right honourable friend

  439
  the Minister of Health has to think carefully about priorities. I do not doubt that the people who live in the new towns will find it hard to believe, but there are still many parts of the country which have poorer hospital facilities than they have. But three new towns, Harlow, Welwyn Garden City and Crawley, are high up on the priority list, and the Government are anxious to see new hospitals started in all three.
  Lastly, I come to the amenities provided by local authorities—such things as playing fields, swimming baths, community centres and public libraries. This is, unfortunately, one of the fields in which present circumstances force the Government to restrict the local authorities' activities. I am glad to say that the authorities in the new towns are keen to shoulder their responsibilities. We wish we could let them do more. We are authorising them to do as much as we think we can in present circumstances, and even now I think it is unfair to say that nothing has been done at all. All the new towns have a number of playing fields and community buildings of one kind or another, provided either by the corporation or by the local authority, and plans are in hand for the provision of several more.
  My Lords, that is the general position. Some of it is encouraging; the rest of it, I say frankly, is certainly not as good as we should like it to be. We have, however, concentrated, and I think rightly, on first things first: decent new homes and good jobs in modern factories for the parents, and good schools for the children. These are the things that matter, and I am sure they are the things which the people themselves value most, because, however much they may grumble, the vast majority of them stay in the towns. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred to Peterlee and to the need for industry there. This is well known to the Board of Trade, and they keep trying to get more industry. Unfortunately it does not seem a very attractive site.
  The noble Lord also referred to the dispersal of offices, as did my noble friend Lord Gage, who conjured up an attractive picture of what he called the "reservoir of young ladies"—a sort of idyllic bathing scene came to my mind, but that
  440
  is not what he meant. Unfortunately, most of the young ladies who may want to go and work in places like Harlow and Basildon have "Mums" who want them to live in Islington and Wands-worth. That is the trouble at the moment. However, we are trying to transfer office work to the new towns. We are transferring part of the meteorological office to Bracknell and some of the Stationery Office to Basildon. But it is not always easy to transfer parts of administrative departments.
  The noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Chorley, referred to the question of garages. I must admit that originally there was an underestimate of the need for garage accommodation in the new towns. The new plans make arrangements for garages on a more lavish scale, and we are trying to find room for more garages in the areas which have already been built up. My noble friend Lord Gage mentioned the subject of "de-crowding" (and that is a new word to me, too) in London. It is difficult to tell what the effect is. What I think we can honestly say is that but for the new towns there certainly would be much worse crowding than there is. My noble friend also referred to the green belts, as did the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. Here the initiative is with the local authorities. If the county councils want green belts round the towns it is up to them to submit proposals to the Minister for him to approve—as amendments, that is, to their official development plans—and I can assure noble Lords that many councils are preparing such proposals.
  Whatever our differences, we are all agreed on this: these new towns must succeed. I am sorry, in a way, that the country at large and, on this occasion, if I may say so with respect, your Lordships' House, do not take a little more interest in the new towns. The only time they really come into the headlines is when a roof is blown off or something else goes wrong. They are, however, something quite new in our social history. We have never attempted anything like them before, and I do not think any other country has attempted anything quite like them. But even if we take little interest in them in our own country, they are well known all over the world: there is a constant stream of visitors to them from all over the globe. The Dutch, for example, are thinking seriously about

  441
  building an "overspill" new town; and almost the first thing they did was to come and look at ours, and pick our brains.
  Even now these new towns have to be looked at with an imaginative eye. Many critics say that they are simply outsize horsing estates and "do not look like a town at all". They are quite large industrial towns and they were not meant to lock like our old familiar industrial towns—and thank heavens they do not! They were meant to look like towns which are a pleasure to live in. The focal point, the town centre, was noticeably absent when we debated this matter last about four and a half years ago. Obviously the lack of the town centre made the towns look odd, but there has been a great change in the last few years. In all of them the pattern can now be seen. Some people think they look monotonous, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said—naked, "like facts without eyebrows." That is obviously because the newness has no; yet worn off, and the trees and shrubs which have been planted have not matured. It only needs a visit to the older parts, like Welwyn Garden City, to visualise what the places will be like in a few years' time.
  There is much in the towns of which the planners can be proud—not only the variety of designs and lay-outs, but also some quite novel ideas, such as the Harlow Health Centres, generously provided by the Nuffield Foundation, and the central shopping centre at Stevenage, where vehicles are almost entirely excluded. But in the long run all these things exist for people. Whatever any of us may say, it is the people who live in the new towns who will make them either a success or a failure. As I have said, although the people may have their grumbles—and some are grumbles we can well 'understand and sympathise with—they do not leave. If 'the new towns really were dismal places to live in, I cannot think they would stay. Therefore, in thanking the noble Lord for initiating this debate, I feel he can be well satisfied that he has in the new towns something of which to be proud—and so have we.
  4.42 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I can certainly promise the noble Lord that if conditions remain as they are at the
  442
  moment, we shall not wait for another four and a half years before we discuss this matter again. Indeed, time presses, and it may be essential that there should be a discussion shortly as to what is to be the future of the new towns. I cannot pretend that the noble Lord's explanation of the change of face of the Government is at all satisfactory. He will not be surprised to hear that, but I imagine that we shall hear more about it if the Government intend to proceed with their new ideas. I have some doubts whether they will be well advised to do so, but if they do he can be quite sure that the proposals as they stand will be met with a most—I was going to say "violent," but I suppose we are not violent in this House: with the strongest possible opposition.
  I think the noble Lord got hold of the wrong end of the stick, as did the noble Viscount, about the "Mums" of Wandsworth. The trouble is not that the "Mums" of Wandsworth are unwilling to send their daughters to the new towns. The trouble is just the other way. At the moment there is not enough employment for clerical workers living in the new towns, with the result that the young men and women are forced to travel to London to get to work, thereby causing congestion. I am informed that the number of season ticket holders from places like Harlow and Crawley has substantially increased recently as the young people have grown up and have had to go out to work. It is a great pity that there is no office work available for them in the towns so that they are not compelled to travel to London, which is the very thing the new towns were designed to avoid. Therefore, I hope the Government will make further efforts to see to that.
  I never suggested that the Government had done nothing. It will be within the recollection of the House that I gave the Government all the credit that they deserved—which was not a lot—for such efforts as they had made. But I should like them to make still more efforts and ensure that this undesirable process of people leaving the new towns to go to work in London is stopped.
  The only other thing about which I wish to say one word is the community facilities. The Government have approved expenditure on these new towns to the

  443
  extent of, I think, about£260 million, or some such enormous sum. Yet they are spoiling the thing for the lack of a very small expenditure on community facilities. I do not know what it costs to build a swimming bath, or twelve swimming baths, but it is a very small figure relatively speaking. I do not know whether the noble Lord can tell me.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord the cost of the size of swimming bath he wants, but I do know, from experience, that swimming baths are one of the most expensive luxuries in which you can possibly indulge.
  LORD FARINGDON: They are surprisingly cheap.
  LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord and I have different standards. The last estimate I saw for a swimming bath was£250,000.
  LORD FARINGDON: A grammar school of which I have the honour to be a governor built itself a swimming bath out of its own subscriptions, raised over a surprisingly few number of years.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Covered or uncovered?
  LORD FARINGDON: Uncovered.
  LORD SILKIN: I do not think any of the new towns is demanding anything of the order of an expenditure of£250,000, or even one-tenth of that amount. I had in mind a modest expenditure of a few thousand pounds—certainly under five figures. That expenditure, in relation to what has been authorised for the new towns, is infinitesimal.
  It would make all the difference, too, if there were one or two halls in the new towns where people, and particularly young people, could meet. I recognise
  444
  that the churches have done great work, and I am sorry that by an oversight I did not mention it, as I intended. They have provided a number of meeting places, but we cannot expect the churches to do the whole of the work. There is an established need for them, and the Government ought to be more forthcoming in permitting expenditure on this necessary thing. It is "penny wise and pound foolish," because although I should not like to suggest for a moment that the result of not providing these things is to increase the number of young people who are subject to the control of the courts—I would not say there is a direct relationship—nevertheless, we all know (and let us be frank about it) that if you can provide young people with a decent way of spending their time they will not get into mischief. I could give many examples in my own village where, if only there were a place where young people could meet and spend their time in a decent way, there would not be half the trouble there is. I do appeal to the Government to be prepared to spend a little more money on communal facilities. I do not regard it as a luxury which can be deferred until such time as things are better. I regard it gas one of the things which are absolutely essential.
  Obviously, I am not speaking in any Party spirit, as I am sure noble Lords in all parts of the House would agree. Having said all this, I am very gratified with the reception which the new towns have received from all quarters. It is a great experiment. I believe that it has succeeded, and I believe that it will succeed even more when the Government see their way to deal with these relatively small matters which do not need great expenditure in order to put these new towns on their feet. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.