NEW TOWNS BILL

HL Deb 16 July 1959 vol 218 cc96-124

3.53 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Waldegrave.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Preliminary

1. As respects England and Wales, the provision made by section fifteen of the New Towns Act, 1946, for the dissolution of development corporations and the disposal of their undertakings shall not have effect, and instead their assets and liabilities shall be disposed of, and the corporations shall be dissolved, in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act.

LORD LATHAM moved to add to the clause: Provided that this section shall not have effect until the Minister by order after consultation with the council of the county and of any county district in which any new town is situated is satisfied that the purposes for which all the new towns in existence on the passing of the Act have been substantially achieved and until such order is made all Development Corporations shall continue to act as heretofore. The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lord Silkin. The purpose of the Amendment is to defer the handing over of these new towns to the intended Commission until all of them have reached the stage of having substantially achieved the purposes outlined in the Act of 1946. The Amendment, however, does adopt the proposal which is otherwise provided in Clause 6 (1) of the Bill, that there should be consultation with county councils and county district councils.

It may be convenient in this connection to ask the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill whether he can give any indication to your Lordships as to what will be the matters upon which consultation is intended with the council of the county or of any county district; what particular aspects of the activities of the new towns will be embraced in that consultation, whether the views of the county council or of the county district councils will be really taken into account, or whether it will just be a kind of notional and formal consultation. After all, the county council's activities, liabilities and responsibilities will be affected by the existence of the new town, and the county district in which the new town is located will be more keenly and more comprehensibly affected by the existence of the new town.

As I have said, the purpose of the Amendment is to defer handing over these new towns until they are all ready to be handed over. The procedure is that they shall be handed over one by one, piecemeal—a kind of shiftless procedure—under which one new town may be transferred to the Commission earlier than another. Moreover, in the course of the progress of time the purposes of the New Towns Act, 1946, as envisaged when the Act was passed will become much more enlarged, and we all hope that they will provide for wider amenities. It is suggested that it would be unfair upon those new towns which, because of their energy and because of circumstances associated with them, have achieved the purposes of the 1946 Act earlier than other new towns, that they should be transferred in advance. In our view, the structure and personnel of the Commission, the constitution of the Commission, might initially be quite appropriate, quite effective, quite suitable, for taking over say, one or two new towns, but not for taking over eight or nine or, indeed, the twelve which ultimately under this Bill will be taken over. Our view, therefore, is that if the Commission is to take over these new towns it should not be done piecemeal, one by one, as it were, but should wait until all the new towns have discharged the requirements which were set out in the Act of 1946. It is for that purpose that this Amendment has been put down. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 3, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Latham.)

LORD SILKIN

I have put my name down to this Amendment and also to the next Amendment which proposes to omit Clause 1 altogether. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss both Amendments together, because the view I take of it is that Clause 1 is wholly unnecessary. Indeed, I go further, and suggest that the whole Bill is unnecessary. I want to argue the latter point quite seriously. The Bill is intended to come into operation when the first of the new towns is substantially completed. That will be in possibly three years time—I think that in the course of the discussions in another place it was suggested that the first of the new towns might be substantially completed in three years time. In those circumstances, is it really necessary for a dying Parliament to put forward a controversial measure of this kind, which cannot possibly come into operation or be effective for three years? Would it not have been wiser and fairer if the whole thing could have been deferred until after the General Election, or until we had more nearly approached the time when the towns were being completed?

We are assuming for the purpose of this discussion—and the Minister in another place assumed—that it would be about three years. But I say that a town is not substantially completed, and the purpose for which it was built has not been substantially achieved, until it is really a living community, until all the services and the amenities that are essential in a town of the size of, say, Crawley or Harlow, with a population of 60,000 to 80,000, have been provided—in fact until it is an organism comparable with the older organisms, the older towns of the country. A town that I often compare these new towns with is Worcester. I would say that until these new towns have become really living communities, like a town of the character of Worcester, or Guildford, or a similar town, it cannot be said that the purpose of the Act has been substantially achieved. If I had had any responsibility in the matter, I doubt whether I should have come to the decision that even in three years' time, with the amenities of these new towns in their present condition, the purposes would have been substantially achieved.

At the present time, recognising that a good deal has been done and is being done by these communities themselves and by the development corporations—though nothing like as much as should be done—I would say that these new towns are largely in the condition of enormous housing estates, not even closely knit as a town. If you go to any of those towns you will find they have neighbourhood units separated by open space and very little amenity in each unit. It is not, of course, the fault of the new towns themselves; it is something that has got to evolve and develop as time goes on. We might have made a very great mistake in providing the amenities before we were satisfied what the needs of these towns were. But the fact remains that until these amenities have been provided—adequate meeting places for the population, halls, swimming baths and so on; the usual things that are required—one cannot really say that the purposes for which the new towns were created have been substantially achieved.

I do not want to argue this matter closely, but the noble Earl will know that these were not intended to be simply housing estates; they were intended to be live living places; to be an example to the whole world of how new communities could be got together and could live in a post-war world. So my contention is that it will still be a good many years before the new towns can be said to have been substantially completed. Therefore, what is the hurry to come to a decision to-day, under conditions which are somewhat harrassing?—because we are all under pressure to get through the business as quickly as possible. What is the hurry in coming to a decision to-day on this question? I know that the noble Earl has no authority to withdraw the Bill at this moment—if he did, I imagine that he would get into serious trouble. But if the Government were wise they would say, "Having introduced this Bill, and the public realising what is in our minds, let us now leave it", and then withdraw the Bill. If circumstances should necessitate a new approach they will be able to make it. If, in due course, they want to reintroduce this measure they can do so, but there is really no hurry. It would do equally well in two or three or four years' time.

Therefore, while supporting every word my noble friend Lord Latham has said in moving the first Amendment, on the assumption that the Government intend to proceed with this Bill, against my advice, I still think that the wiser course would be to delete Clause 1, which I recognise would, in effect, mean the withdrawal of the Bill entirely. At this stage, I support my noble friend, and I hope that my words will at least impress the noble Earl, if they do not impress Her Majesty's Government.

4.6 p.m.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE)

My Lords, I think I shall have to stick to the Amendment here. The noble Lord opposite has really made rather a Second Reading speech on this matter. The Amendment before us is a detailed one. Admittedly he said he wanted to range a little over the second Amendment too, which is to withdraw the whole clause; but we shall come to that in a moment. The Amendment before us here is a fairly simple one, I think, in essence, as it has been explained, although it was a little difficult to understand as one read it on the Order Paper. I was a little puzzled how the Minister is satisfied "by order," but perhaps I have got my grammar wrong, and it was slightly difficult to construct.

To come to this Amendment, the effect of it would be that all twelve of the present towns should move over at once, not one by one. I really cannot see the point of this. If you are going to say that none of these towns should be regarded as substantially completed until a large proportion of the children have grown up and married, and it has become more a town like Worcester, as the noble Lord said, and even if the Government considered it was right to shift their ground to that extent—we have said the town is substantially completed when the special powers of the corporation have substantially been achieved—I do not think we should adopt this course suggested in the proposed Amendment. For whatever view one takes of the right moment to wind up a development corporation, the fact remains that all the towns will reach that point at widely different times.

We believe—I think it is generally agreed—that Crawley is likely to get to this position about 1961, Basildon perhaps about 1965. If it is right that Crawley, although ready in 1961, should wait till 1965, then Basildon should wait till 1970. I cannot see why the Opposition want the town which finishes soonest to be held up until the last in the race. If it is right to establish a Commission at all, and this Amendment (we must stick to the Amendment before the House) does not dispute this, it is surely right to hand over each town to it at the moment when it is ripe for handing over, and not wait for the last one in the race.

I must remind your Lordships of the main disadvantage in keeping the corporations in being after they have substantially achieved their function, and that is that so long as the corporations are in being all the provisions of the 1946 Act designed for stage 1 remain in force. The development corporations have these compulsory purchase powers and exemption from planning control, and so on, which we mentioned on Second Reading. We do not think it is right that the corporations should keep those powers when their work is finally done; we think those powers should go by the board when they are no longer needed. If they remained, the new towns would still remain somewhat abnormal in some respects—much more abnormal than they need be. I must ask your Lordships to resist this Amendment, which I really do not think would improve the Bill at all.

LORD LATHAM

Are we to take it from the noble Earl's reply that the principal object of this proposal is to denude the development corporations of certain exceptional powers which they at present enjoy?

EARL WALDEGRAVE

NO. AS the noble Lord knows well, the object of this exercise is that at a certain stage, at the end of stage 1 of the development of the town, the corporation winds up; stage 2 starts, and the Commission takes over. The Commission's functions, duties and powers are laid down in this Bill and the corporation's powers then lapse.

LORD LATHAM

I want to be abundantly fair to the noble Earl. He said that one of the purposes was that the provisions of the 1946 Act, conferring certain powers upon the development corporations, ought to come to an end. Of course they will come to an end, even though the corporations remain in existence after the purposes for which those powers were given have been achieved. There will be no purpose in the corporation seeking to take advantage of the powers of acquisition of land if they do not need the land. It seems to me that that argument is a little exiguous in support of this most objectionable proposal. A further point I would make is that if the taking over of the new towns were deferred, as is suggested in the Amendment, it would at all events, as my noble friend Lord Silkin has indicated, give Parliament time to think again and maybe to go back to the original decision emphatically come to in 1946, that these new towns, if they are to be transferred, should be transferred and handed over to local authorities.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I must remind the noble Lord that there was no "if" about it in the 1946 Act. The towns were to be transferred when the development corporations' purposes were substantially achieved—they were to be transferred in a different direction. This Bill is simply bringing in a stage, and there never was any question that the development corporations should remain indefinitely.

LORD SILKIN

I did not suggest indefinitely; I suggested until the purposes had been substantially achieved. I went to some pains to describe what I meant. I did not think that they were being achieved merely by creating a series of housing estates, which is very largely what they are at the moment. I do not want to be unfair to the new towns, but they are little more than that. They are not living communities as a whole but a series of separate, neighbouring units not very closely knit together. My contention was that the towns were not substantially complete until they were completely living communities in the same way as—the noble Earl does not like Worcester; he could have Guildford or some other town. I thought that was a fair example to give.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I entirely appreciate what the noble Lord is saying, but we are not talking about the towns being substantially achieved; we are talking about the work of the development corporations being substantially achieved. When the work of the development corporation—that is to say, the laying out of the town and the building of it—is substantially achieved, then we say that we need a period of good estate management, which is to be taken up by the Commission. That is the point.

LORD SILKIN

I do not think that the noble Earl has quite appreciated the point, because even under this Bill the new Commission are going to be responsible, I hope—at least it is proposed to be so—for providing the amenities of the town. That is one of their jobs. Therefore, I think it was equally the job of the existing development corporations, and they have not achieved it yet. That is why I contend that the purposes for which the town was conceived will not have been completed or substantially achieved merely when the houses and the shops have been built; there is still a great deal to do before it becomes a real town. However, I do not want to pursue the point because I realise that the noble Earl is not in a position to accept this Amendment. I do not know whether my noble friend is going to press it. On the whole, I imagine not.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

4.15 p.m.

LORD SILKIN moved to leave out Clause 1. The noble Lord said: I have already outlined my case for leaving out Clause 1. The noble Earl rather set it aside and wanted to direct his attention only to the first Amendment, and he therefore did not really explain why it was essential that we should pass this measure here and now. Even on his own definition, the first of the new towns, Crawley, will not be substantially complete until 1961, and there is no secret about the fact that some time between now and the next few months there will be an Election. The period after the Election would have allowed ample time to enable a decision to be made as to the future of the new towns, even as to the future of Crawley. So that I cannot see why there is any urgency to pass this measure now, unless the Govern- ment think that they are going to "make hay while the sun shines". I recognise that leaving out Clause 1 would destroy the whole purpose of the Bill. That was my object in putting down this Amendment. I shall be glad if the noble Earl can explain what is the urgency for getting this Bill through at all this Session. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 1.—(Lord Silkin.)

EARL WALDEGRAVE

If I may apply my thoughts to the Amendment under discussion, I may say that I was in some doubt when I saw the Amendment whether it was a legalistic one or whether it was a wrecking Amendment, The noble Lord has said that it is a wrecking Amendment. Of course, it could have been taken in a legalistic manner, because the noble Lord could have said, "This clause does not add anything to or detract from the Bill. The Bill can go on without it. It is an explanatory, expository clause, but I think it is not one which makes the Bill intelligible to the lay reader". If that had been the argument, I should not have thought it would have been worth while taking it out at this stage of the Bill. The noble Lord has said why he has put the Amendment down. He realises that I shall have to ask your Lordships to resist it as a wrecking Amendment. Very well—we must resist it.

On Second Reading and in the long discussions that have taken place in another place the arguments were deployed as to why we think that this matter must now be dealt with in the life of this Parliament. The year 1961 is not all that far ahead, and it may well be that by 1961 at least one of the new towns will have reached that stage of development which even the noble Lord may agree is a fair example of the definition of "substantially achieved" in relation to the powers of the development corporation. One must not be driven into a corner and wait until the thing is upon you before you decide what to do. What has been growing up during the years in which we have seen the new towns growing and have been watching them develop, is the doubt in our minds, as I explained on Second Reading, whether, when a town is ripe (if that is the right phrase) for the next stage, that next stage should be municipalisation. And we have not made up our minds about ultimate municipalisation, as the noble Lord knows. What we have said is that we must have a middle stage, which is what this Bill is about, and that is why we could not have left the matter any longer in doubt or vague. We had to bring in this Bill to explain that a new town that would shortly be ripe under all the definitions of the 1946 Act would not be going straight to the stage envisaged in Section 15 of the 1946 Act: we wish there to be an intermediary stage. There is no more about it, and I must ask the Committee to resist this Amendment which would wreck the Bill.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Establishment and functions of Commission for the New Towns

2.—(1) There shall be a body corporate by the name of the Commission for the New Towns having perpetual succession, a common seal and power to hold land without licence in mortmain, and incorporated for the purpose of taking over, holding, managing and turning to account the property previously vested in the development corporation for a new town and transferred to the Commission by an order under this Act.

(2) It shall be the general duty of the Commission to maintain and enhance the value of the land held by them and the return obtained by them from it, but in discharging their functions in relation to any town the Commission shall have regard to the purpose for which the town was developed under the New Towns Act, 1946, and to the convenience and welfare of persons residing, working or carrying on business there.

(d) to dispose of any property for such purposes and in such manner as they think fit.

(7) Where it appears to the Minister, after consultation with the Treasury and with the Commission, that the Commission have a surplus whether on capital or on revenue account after making allowance by way of transfer to reserve or otherwise for their future requirements (including any contributions that may be required to be made in any of their towns under the last mentioned paragraph (b)), the Commission shall, if the Minister after such consultation as aforesaid so directs, pay to the Minister such sum not exceeding the amount of that surplus as may be specified in the direction: and any sum received by the Minister under this subsection shall be paid into the Exchequer.

4.21 p.m.

LORD SILKIN moved to add to subsection (1): The Minister shall when the purposes for which the new towns have been substantially achieved or seven years after the coming into operation of this Act whichever is the later direct that the Commission shall cease to act and thereupon the provisions of section fifteen of the New Towns Act, 1946, shall have effect.

The noble Lord said: "We have now agreed substantially that there is to be a Commission set up, though the details follow in later clauses. Over and over again in the course of the progress of this Bill, and as recently as two minutes ago, it has been stated that this is an intermediary stage. There are three stages in the progress of the new towns. Stage 1 will end when the Minister decides that the purposes have been substantially achieved; stage 2 is the stage laid down under this Bill, and there is to be a stage 3. That has been said over and over again. But there is not a word in this Bill about stage 3. Nobody reading this Bill would imagine that there is any further stage. It reads as if the end of the story is that all the new towns will in due course be administered by a Commission. There is nothing to indicate that at any time in the future there will be a reconsideration of the matter and a decision as to what is the best form of ultimate administration.

As I understand it, the Minister and the Government have not even ruled out the possibility that in a few years the local authorities may be the most desirable bodies to administer the new towns individually. At least, I do not take it that that has been entirely ruled out. But whether it has or not, if there is to be a third stage there ought to be some indication somewhere, in some part of the Bill, that that new stage will come about at some time in the future. The object of my Amendment is to provide that within a fixed period, seven years, after the coming into operation of this Act, or seven years after the new towns have been substantially achieved, whichever is the later—and I give the noble Earl the benefit of that: whichever is the later—at the end of that time, this fixed period of seven years, then the Commission shall cease to act and the provisions of Section 15 of the New Towns Act, 1946, shall have effect. In other words, the third stage, according to my Amendment, would be that the local authorities will at the end of that period be ripe and ready to undertake the task of administering the new towns.

I hope that the noble Earl will not reject the Amendment simply on the ground that he does not want to commit himself to handing the new towns over to the local authorities. If that were his only objection, I think I should be prepared to do a deal with him and leave open the question of the ultimate destination of the new towns. What I am concerned about—and this is the main purpose of my Amendment—is to ensure that there is a time limit for this second intermediate stage, and that when that is finished then there will be a third stage, which is certainly not the case under this Bill. I have put down what I think is the right course; what Parliament decided in 1946; what all sections of Parliament decided upon; what I was urged to do by noble Lords opposite here and by honourable Members opposite in another place—to ensure that when the objects of the new towns were substantially achieved they would go to the local authorities. I have put that in my Amendment. If the Government are not sure about it or have changed their minds, or if they are prepared to accept this time limit, or some time limit, for the duration of the Commission, I shall be perfectly prepared to put down an Amendment at a later stage leaving out the ultimate destination of the new towns. I make that offer: I do not know whether the noble Earl is in a position to accept it. Subject to that I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 10, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Silkin.)

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I have listened very carefully to what the noble Lord moving this Amendment has said, and to his friendly offer that he would like to make a deal with us here. I am afraid that I must disappoint him, because I do not think I can make any such deal; and I will try to explain why. It is not perhaps for the reasons which the noble Lord may think I am going to give. These are the reasons why I believe it to be quite unrealistic to bring in what the noble Lord wants: a time limit for the life of the whole Commission in this way. Quite apart from the fact (which we will leave aside because the noble Lord knows I cannot accept it) that this Amendment attempts to deal with the third stage—and the opposition has been made perfectly clear—we remain absolutely uncommitted as to what the third stage is to be when it comes.

LORD SILKIN

Or as to whether there is to be a third stage.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

No. It is a new point to me, but I am sure this Bill has been discussed in the Commons and in Committee, and a great deal around the country, and on this question of three stages the suggestion is almost inconceivable. The noble Lord says there is no indication as to how this Commission is to come to an end. But if there were any intention that the Commission should be perpetual, I should have thought there would be some indication that this was the ultimate end of the new towns. What we have said, both in another place and here, is that this is not to be the end but only the intermediate stage—the process of taking over, managing, good estate management and so on. On that basis I cannot accept the Amendment because it begs that question. It says that at the end of the period of seven years some specific thing shall be done, and my right honourable friend is not committing himself as to what specific thing shall be done when the time comes.

Surely this Amendment suffers from the same weakness as the previous Amendment suffered from; that we should have to go at the pace of the slowest; that we should have to deal with all the towns at once. The Amendment says: "…when the purposes for which the new towns have been substantially achieved…"

These new towns are very different and varied, and are in very different stages of development. If we have a town well advanced—Crawley, for instance—and other towns less far advanced, I am not at all sure that we want to wait—in fact I am pretty certain we do not want to wait: it is this point that we made before—and hold up the next stage for the advanced town until the most backward own comes along. I do think that this point should be borne in mind: that some of the last towns that will come in will probably be the least able to stand on their own feet financially. No one can predict how long this period will be, but the Government are certain that the limit set by the Amendment—that is, seven years, or the substantial achievement by the slowest runner in the race—will be much too short.

LORD SILKIN

I quite understand that the noble Earl is speaking on behalf of the Government and not on his own behalf, and that he is not in a position to accept this Amendment as it stands. Is he in a position to accept the principle of the Amendment? Would he be prepared to go back to his right honourable friends and see whether they would accept the idea of some termination of this second stage? That is the real purpose of this Amendment. The noble Earl may quarrel with the drafting, of course. Our drafting is always defective; and the noble Earl's drafting will be defective when he comes to put down Amendments. None of us is expert at that, and we can always make plain the defectiveness of the wording of an Amendment. Of course my Amendment is defective; I knew it was when I put it down: but the fact remains that we both know what is intended by this Amendment.

The intention is that there should be some time indicated. If seven years is too short, make it longer. If you do not know how long it is to be, then make some provision for the Minister to declare by order that the time has now come. But do not say in the discussions in this House that this is a second stage and that there is to be a third stage, yet not put a word in the Bill to indicate that. At present it is to be inferred from reading the Bill that there is no further stage and that these new towns are being handed over irrevocably to the Commission—subject, of course, to any further legislation that may come about in the future. If the noble Earl is prepared to go and put that point to his right honourable friend, I shall be happy to withdraw this Amendment and to have another talk about it at a later stage. I should not have thought, in view of the most positive statements that have been made both here, by the noble Earl, and in another place—namely, that this is only a second stage—there should be any difficulty at all in having words incor- porated in the Bill which would make that plain.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

My Lords, I am afraid I cannot at this stage go back to my right honourable friend and ask him to put in a definitive time limit——

LORD SILKIN

Not a definitive time limit.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

Well, a time limit. I cannot accept that at this stage. I would ask the noble Lord to be fair. I had not accused him of any rough or inaccurate drafting in his Amendment. I carefully had not done so. As a matter of fact, my legal people had told me that there were defects in this particular Amendment, but I have been careful not to mention them. I suppose the noble Lord may have been so conscious of them, and was so certain I was going to mention them, that 'he defended himself for putting them in; but I did not do so.

There is one other point. The noble Lord—I know he meant it kindly, but I cannot accept it—said, "Of course, the noble Earl is speaking for the Government, and the Government cannot accept this". He rather implied that I should have liked to have this myself. That is not so. I have studied this Bill with great care, and I believe that this must be right: that we have got to have this business of the Commission in the middle, and that we are right not to say what happens at the end of the life of the Commission.

LORD SILKIN

I do not want to press this point unduly, but is it not right to say something to the effect that there will be a further stage, even if you do not say that it will be in seven years time, and even if you leave the period indefinite and indeterminate? What is the good of the noble Earl saying to us, "This is only an intermediate stage," and not including a word about that in the Bill? That is the point. It may be that seven years is wrong. It may be that we ought not to commit ourselves as to what is to happen at the end of seven years. But that something should happen, and that at some time, which has been recognised, the Commission will come to an end and you will have to think again about the third stage, seems to me to follow axiomatically from what has been said by the noble Earl.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

My Lords, it is not actually in the Bill—I must admit that—but my right honourable friend has said it over and over again. He has even given his guess or estimate as to the possible life—"ten to twenty years" I think was the phrase used; and I used it again on Second Reading. All that, taken together, surely demonstrates beyond all shadow of doubt that there is no question of this being the final stage. I must ask your Lordships to resist this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

4.36 p.m.

LORD LATHAM moved to add to subsection (2) "and in particular to the provision of amenities for the town." The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 4. In any case, this Amendment cannot be characterised as being a wrecking Amendment. It deals with one of the elements which is of the essence of the success of these new towns—namely, the provision of adequate amenities, both social and recreational. The Amendment proposes to add to the words in Clause 2, subsection (2), the words which appear in the Marshalled List. It will be said, no doubt, by the noble Earl that in Clause 2 there is a reference to the provision of amenities; but the Commission are to provide such amenities only with the approval of the Minister and, in addition, with the concurrence of the Treasury.

During the Third Reading of the Bill in another place, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government used these words—and I am quoting from the OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, of December 1, 1958 [Vol. 596, column 851]: My right honourable friend and I realise that there is a feeling in some quarters that in the past the corporations have not done enough to provide those amenities, although what they have done ought not to be underestimated. I should have thought, having regard to the experience which the new town corporations have had, that that statement was an exaggerated one. For what has been the experience of the new towns? In many cases the corporations have been led to complain in report after report to the Minister of the inability to get the concurrence of the Minister and of the Treasury to the provision of amenities, and it can be said that the utility and the purpose of the new towns has been seriously impeded and impinged upon because of the inability in many cases of the new towns to obtain consent to expenditure on the provision of amenities. We have some apprehension that if the Commission is subject to the approval of the Minister in the first place, with the concurrence of the Treasury in the second, the experience of the Commission is not likely to be any more encouraging than has been the experience of the new town corporations.

In the Report on the new towns presented to the Minister for the year ended March 31, 1958, we find a catalogue of complaints about the need for the provision of more facilities for social and recreational amenities. When we read these reports, we are impressed by the fact that most of the amenities, especially the provision of community centres, playgrounds and facilities for recreational activities, have been provided by the much despised local authorities, to whom it is not thought wise to hand over these corporations.

If we turn, for instance, to page 158 of the last Report, we find this in regard to youth services in Crawley new town: During the year the corporation has agreed with the county council sites throughout the town for temporary and long-term development for youth service buildings and has built or leased to the council prefabricated buildings in Northquay and Langley Green for youth societies, in addition to building a centre at West Green. It goes on to say: The urban district council is responsible for 200 acres of playing fields, open spaces and parks and 36 acres of allotments, which have been either leased or sold to the corporation. Your Lordships will observe that it is the local authority which is providing the amenities which are so needed in most new towns.

If we turn to the report of the development corporation for Hemel Hempstead, we find this at page 280: The Government have announced that they intend to set up a central authority to take over the assets and liabilities of all development corporations when the task of building each new town is substantially completed. It would not be proper for the development corporation to express a view as to whether it considers this decision to be right or wrong, but whatever arrangements are made for the future management of the new town assets, the corporation most sincerely hopes that the responsible authority will be given adequate powers and resources to complete the town, particularly by the provision of those amenities which successive Governments have not so far allowed the corporation to build. That, it seems to me, is a pretty formidable indictment of the successive Governments referred to.

When we turn to Stevenage, one of the earliest of the new towns, we find this on page 263 of the report: The most serious threat to the wellbeing of the town at present lies in the comparative sparseness of its amenities. It is considered that the town centre must be made the focus of town life, and as it will be the hub of all transport routes it should equally be the centre for amusements and relaxation. Hence the corporation's desire to see an early start made on the building of the college of further education, the public library and the health centre, and its anxiety that such places of social intercourse and recreation as cinemas, dance halls, swimming pools, cafés, restaurants and public gardens should be provided. It goes on to say: It is essential to satisfy these needs not only from the social point of view but to stabilise and maintain property values in the town, and the relatively small expenditure required for providing many of the necessary amenities should therefore prove to be a good investment. The corporation hopes that whether facilities are provided by itself or by other public or private bodies, your Ministry will give the fullest possible support in solving this problem.

I suppose that when the Commission takes over, it will be left to the Commission to deal with that problem as a good landlord. Well, having regard to past experience, we are not encouraged to believe that the good landlordism will embrace the provisions of these essential amenities. In my submission, these amenities are the life blood of these new towns. We cannot remedy or lessen delinquency unless we provide competitive recreational and social facilities, and in practically all the new towns there is a disturbing—a very disturbing—lack of these facilities.

The policy of the Minister and of the Treasury has been one of cheese-paring, a miserly policy which has been enforced on the corporations in the past and has left them at the mercy of the local authorities, who themselves have been restricted in their capital expenditure because of Government policy. The purpose of this Amendment is to make it obligatory that proper concern is shown for the social and recreational amenities and that this is in the mind of the Commission when it takes over the new towns. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 17, after ("there") insert ("and in particular to the provision of amenities for the town.").—(Lord Latham.)

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I hope that I shall be able to make the noble Lord a little happier about this matter than he seems to be at present. I think that it is wrong to assume that the Commission is going to fail in its duties. I see no reason to suppose that. The noble Lord quoted from the report of the development corporations that it was hoped that the Commission would have adequate powers and resources to complete the amenities of a partially developed town, and he described that as "a formidable indictment". It is not a formidable indictment at all; it is a very proper hope; and I can assure the noble Lord that this Bill gives adequate power and resources to the Commission to complete amenities in the proper way. We have to remember that these amenities are largly properly supplied by the local authority. I think the noble Lord used the words "much-despised local authority". He put words into my mouth; I do not despise the local authorities at all. The development corporation puts in the sewers and builds the houses, and then the local authority comes into being. The local authority is probably the right entity to provide the amenities, such as playing fields and so on, and the Commission in this intermediate stage have the power and the financial resources to give the necessary assistance.

LORD LATHAM

Would the noble Earl explain why the local authorities should provide the amenities at their own expense if they are not capable of administering the new towns?

EARL WALDEGRAVE

Nobody has said that they are not capable of administering the new towns; that is an absolute travesty of what I said earlier and on Second Reading. What we have said, and I will repeat it, is that the Government do not think an experiment in wholesale municipalisation at a certain stage is wanted. We have said all along that the local authorities are by their very nature service providers, and that they had much better go on being service providers than property owners. That is the point I want to come to.

LORD LATHAM

It is an entirely different point of view from that taken up by the Government when in opposition in 1946.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I think the noble Lord must allow me to develop this point. The primary duty of this Commission is going to be to enhance and develop this property and complete the job in this intermediate stage. Amenities, of course, are important, but the maintenance of adequate employment and prospects for the people living in the town are more important. We must not get this amenity business out of proportion. The Commission will be allowed to spend reasonable sums for this purpose—and, incidentally, this will not depend on the revenue surplus of any one town. One of the great advantages of this centralised Commission is that the Commission will treat all the towns as a whole. The needs will decide how much the Commission will assist the local authority in providing amenities (and normally that will be the way it is done).

The noble Lord said that we had been niggardly in the past and things of this kind have had to be restricted. Of course they have. They have been restricted for the older towns like Worcester and Guildford, which were mentioned in the debate, just as they have been for new towns like Crawley and Basildon. There has been a credit squeeze and financial stringency. But these things are easing up now, and there is no reason to believe that when conditions are easier for one they will not be easier for the other. The Commission will assist and have powers and resources to do so. It is wrong to regard the Commission as primarily a sort of milch cow or universal fairy godmother merely to provide amenities; they have far more to do than that. This Amendment would distort the operations of the Commission from their primary duty, which is to maintain and enhance the property. The mere fact that this welfare is mentioned is plainly adequate to direct the Commission's attentions to amenity considerations. I must ask your Lordships to resist this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD SILKIN moved in subsection (4) after "(1)" to insert "and (2)". The noble Lord said: This Amendment, I should have thought, is merely a correction of an omission in the Bill as printed, because as it reads at the moment it says that the Commission shall have power, with a view to the better fulfilment of the purpose mentioned in subsection (1)… I cannot see any particular purpose in subsection (1) except to take over and manage the property. I should have thought that their main purpose was that mentioned in subsection (2). Would it not be correct to say with a view to the better fulfilment of the purposes mentioned in subsections (1) and (2) rather than to define their duties merely in relation to the holding of land and turning to account the property? What they have to do, among other things, is to promote or assist by any means, and in particular by making advances towards the cost of purchasing land…the setting up or extension of businesses in the town", including the adapting of buildings or works and so forth. That purpose is laid down more in subsection (2) than in subsection (1). To a large extent I think it is a drafting Amendment, but it seems to me that merely to define their functions in relation to what is mentioned in subsection (1) is narrow and restrictive and does not really achieve the purpose which it is intended to achieve in this clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 26, after ("(1)") insert ("and (2)").—(Lord Silkin.)

EARL WALDEGRAVE

This is a technical Amendment which I find a little difficult. I fully sympathise with the intention of the Amendment, so lucidly expressed by the noble Lord who has moved it. I think the best way I can describe it is by saying this: that subsection (1) is purpose, and subsection (2) is duty, and subsection (2) is ancillary to subsection (1); the greater includes the less. I believe that this Amendment is really quite unnecessary, and also, if I may say so, slightly un-grammatical. Clause 2 (4) supplements the implied powers of the Commission with certain expressed powers and indicates that they are to be used to promote the convenience and welfare of people living and working in the new towns and to further the purpose for which the Commission will be established as described in Clause 2 (1), which says: "holding, managing and turning to account…"

The Amendment seeks to add a reference to Clause 2 (2) which defines the Commission's duty. We are getting a little metaphysical here in defining differences between "purpose" and "duty", but I believe that to a large extent this Amendment is otiose. The only new consideration which it is possibly intended to add (although I am advised that it would not effect this, as drawn) is that the Commission may use their powers to further the purposes for which the new towns were originally established.

LORD SILKIN

More than that—to the convenience and welfare of persons residing, working or carrying on business. That is staled as a purpose; and yet in the clause that purpose seems to be deliberately excluded.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I am advised that it is not deliberately excluded, and that that runs the whole way through the purposes for which the new towns are created and were created. My advice is that it would be wrong to give this aspect of the Commission's functions more weight than the clause already gives it, for when the purposes for which the development corporations have been established have been substantially achieved, ex hypothesi there is little more that either the corporation or the Commission need do about it. Clause 2 (2) says only that the Commission shall "have regard" to these purpose. This was always intended to make only a marginal difference where the Commission have a choice of alternatives, shall we say, in one of the London new towns, of setting up a new business which comes from Bristol or from London. The nature and purpose of the London new town would, I think, give the marginal weight to the London business. Other things being equal, that business should be preferred, because the town was originally designed to draw industry out of London.

The Commission's powers under Clause 2 (4) are adequate to deal with this sort of situation, because they are linked to wider issues raised in Clause 2 (1), which itself embraces the narrower issues raised in Clause 2 (2). As the noble Lord said, this is a technical and drafting Amendment, but I must advise your Lordships that it would not improve the Bill and that it is unnecessary. I must ask your Lordships to resist it.

LORD SILKIN

It is almost a drafting, but not wholly a drafting Amendment. The inclusion of subsection (2) would widen the scope of the Bill. It was so intended, and I think it ought to be so. I suppose it is useless to ask the noble Earl to reconsider this matter. I do not propose to do so, and I must let the Amendment be negatived. But I deplore the spirit in which this has been conducted. I do not think that these Amendments are being properly considered at all. I think the noble Earl has been instructed to refuse everything, to make no concession whatever and to give no proper consideration to these Amendments. In those circumstances, it seems hardly worth while discussing them.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I really must object to that. If I have to advise your Lordships to reject an Amendment I think it is wholly unwarrantable that it should be suggested that I have not given it careful consideration, as I have carefully considered this Amendment.

LORD SILKIN

I am saying merely that I am perfectly convinced that in some cases we have made out a case which is worthy of further consideration. I have on at least two occasions asked the noble Earl whether he would go back to his "masters" and ask whether they would consider it. He is not even prepared to do so. I think that this is a case where one might quite properly have asked for further consideration on the point, and I should have been very happy to withdraw the Amendment on the basis that it would be considered. We think it would improve the Bill to include subsection (2) as one of the purposes. However, the noble Earl has had his instructions and I must accept it.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

5.5 p.m.

LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (4), to omit paragraph (d). The noble Lord said: I suppose it is not much good moving this Amendment either. The noble Earl has had instructions to reject it. But I will just state the purpose of it. I want to leave out as one of the purposes of the Commission: To dispose of any property for such purposes and in such manner as they think fit. There is no qualification in that at all. Is it really intended that they should be able to dispose of any property in the new town just as they think fit? I am not quite sure what "property" means. Does it mean landed property or chattels, or what does it mean? On the assumption that it means every kind of property, including land, it does not strike me even as being consistent, because subsection (5) provides that "The Commission shall not without the authority given generally or specially of the Minister—

1. (a) transfer the freehold in any land.…"

If they cannot do that without the consent of the Minister, then I do not see how they can dispose of any property for such purposes and in such manner as they think fit. I propose that those words should be entirely deleted, because they are giving the Commission far too wide powers without any control whatever; and it is not even clear what is intended by it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, leave out lines 43 and 44.—(Lord Silkin.)

EARL WALDEGRAVE

The removal of paragraph (d) would deprive the Commission of the power to sell freeholds. The intention behind the Amendment is unacceptable, because if the Commission are to do their job properly, the job of estate management, they must have, under proper safeguards, the power to dispose of land by way of freehold sale or long lease, either to industrialists or commercial interests who wish to build shops, cinemas or a dance hall, in accordance with their professional judgment. It is not sensible to give a Commission a professional job to do and at the same time place what are really political restrictions on the methods and policies they may adopt.

There are times when the sale of property is the best course—I think of religious organisations, charitable organisations, and so on. If we remove this power to dispose of any property in such manner as the Commission think fit we have removed all the powers of sale. Incidentally, of course, it would entirely preclude another Government, with other political views who came into power, from directing the Commission to sell the houses to the local authority. I am sorry to have to resist the noble Lord. He feels that I am under instructions in this, but I think this is a radical alteration, and I must resist it.

The noble Lord asked what "property" was. The assets will be transferred to the Commission from the development corporation. The Commission must have this right to dispose. I thought the noble Lord might have been going to deploy the argument that this gives power for them to be a disposal board, and to sell it all off overnight. I dealt with this point on Second Reading, and my right honourable friend in another place has said categorically—I will quote his words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 596 (No. 25), col. 850]: I am advised that it would be outside the scope of the Bill for any Minister to tell the Commission to sell its estate wholesale either to local authorities or to private interests. I am advised that that would require another Bill". I thought perhaps the noble Lord was moving the deletion of this paragraph because he feared the "disposals board" aspect, though I know he has not made that point. He has made the point, with which I cannot agree, that the Commission should not be allowed to sell anything at all. I think that in the ordinary run of good estate management they must, under proper restrictions, be allowed to sell whenever they think fit, under the direction of the Minister.

LORD SILKIN

I do not want to continue the argument, except that I certainly do not want it to be on record that I said what the noble Earl says I said. I did not say that they should not be allowed to dispose of anything at all. What I object to is that they should be allowed to dispose of "any property for such purposes and in such manner as they think fit" without any qualification whatever. I think that is too great a power to give any body of any kind, however eminent. It is all very well for the noble Earl to say that this is not a disposals board, but there is nothing in the Bill to prevent their disposing of the whole assets of a new town. If I am wrong about that, I hope the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will correct me. But that is my reading of it; that as these words stand, the Commission can dispose of anything they like. What the noble Earl says here, or what the Minister said in another place, has no validity as against the wording of the Bill itself. If the Commission can dispose of anything—and the noble Earl has argued that they ought to be allowed to do so in the interest of good management—these words certainly give them that right for any purpose that they may think fit.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

This is a somewhat legalistic argument. The noble Lord did say "without any provisos at all"—I think those were the words he used. But this is a subsection which begins: Subject to the provisions of this Act and to any direction given to them by the Minister, the Commission shall have power, with a view to the better fulfilment of the purpose mentioned in subsection (1)… and so on. This is not just an isolated clause, with no qualification before or after, saying that they can dispose of any property in such way as they think fit. I am advised, and my right honourable friend in another place is advised—and we must take it that he went carefully into it before he said it—that it would not be within his power to direct the Commission to act as a disposals board, and I must repeat that. That is the legal advice my right honourable friend has obtained on the construction of this clause.

LORD LATHAM

I do not wish to be in any way legalistic, but I would ask the noble Earl to explain why there is no requirement in this clause that the provision and disposal shall have the approval of the Minister and the concurrence of the Treasury, which is the case as regards amenities. I should like to draw a comparison—not a legalistic one—with the rights of local authorities. If a local authority buy land for a specific purpose, then under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act recently passed through your Lordships' House they have to get the specific consent of the Minister to dispose of that land if it is not wanted for the purpose for which it has been acquired. And yet this Commission, which is not an elected body, which is not responsible to the electorate or to the citizens or to the tenants of the new towns, can apparently, without let or hindrance, without any consultation, approval or concurrence of the Minister or of the Treasury, dispose of "any property"—which I take it means all property as well—"for such purposes and in such manner as they think fit." Loud have been the complaints, unjustified in my submission, of certain people against local authorities being able to buy land and then, later on, because they have changed their decision as regards its user, selling it. Here we have the Commission taking over land which has been bought for a specific purpose, namely, as a part of the new towns, and yet it is to have power to dispose of it without let or hindrance, without the approval or concurrence of anyone.

LORD DERWENT

My noble friend has convinced me that the wording with regard to the disposal of the property for such purposes is protected under this Bill and is not so wide as the noble. Lord, Lord Silkin, thinks. But I am somewhat unhappy about the words "in such manner as they think fit". I do not think I need go further than to say at the back of some of our minds is the story of Crichel Down. Perhaps "in such manner" might require further explanation from my noble friend.

5.14 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am very anxious that I should try to help with the matters that are troubling noble Lords opposite. I could not quite appreciate, although I listened as carefully as I could, what was troubling the noble Lord, Lord Latham. As I understood him, he seemed to fear that the power was an absolute power in the hands of the Commission. If he looks at the preceding words he will see that it is Subject to the provisions of this Act and to any direction given to them by the Minister… So there are two qualifications on the power: it is subject first to the provisions of this Act; and secondly, to any direction given by the Minister. On the first point, "Subject to the provisions of this Act", one has to look at subsection (1) of this clause and also at subsection (2), which says: It shall be the general duty of the Commission to maintain and enhance the value of the land held by them and the return obtained by them from it, but in discharging their functions in relation to any town the Commission shall have regard to the purpose for which the town was developed under the New Towns Act, 1946, and to the convenience and welfare of persons residing, working or carrying on business there. In a matter like this I do not think that one can limit the sanction entirely to the legal provisions. One has to take into account the political sanction on the administration of an Act; and of course an Act must be administered according to the intentions that are expressed in these clauses.

If the noble Lord would look at subsection (5) (this is the third point) he will see these words: The Commission shall not without the authority given generally or specially of the Minister—

1. (a) transfer the freehold in any land, or grant a lease of any land for a term of more than ninety-nine years, except in the case of a private dwelling and in pursuance of an agreement to make the transfer or grant to the person occupying or proposing to occupy it as his residence…"

So there is that qualification where the Minister's authority must be given. There is another point in answer to Lord Latham—and it is also relevant to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Derwent. Subsection (6) states: The Commission shall not have power to dispose by way of gift, mortgage or charge of any land or, except as provided by paragraph (b) of subsection (4)…of any other property; nor shall they have power to borrow money except by way of advance from the Minister under this Act. It seems to me that when one examines that provision, and the words" subject to the provisions of this Act", there is a considerable circumscribing of the power. Then one has the second part—subject to "any direction given them by the Minister". Of course, the Minister has to have regard to the general purpose of the Act in giving directions under subsection (3).

In regard to the other aspect of the point of my noble friend Lord Derwent, I would only say that "in such a manner" means that it is intended to give every discretion as to whether in proper cases disposal shall be by sale or by lease. I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will agree that the difficulty behind Crichel Down—which was the difficulty of land that had been compulsory acquired, or acquired by threat of compulsion and then not returned to a previous owner—is unlikely to arise, so far as I can see, in any of the new towns provisions under this Act or in any amendment of them. It is not a problem which is likely to arise, and the intention is not to have any secrecy. I hope that I have been of some help. I have just been reminded that the Royal Commission is at 5.30 and we ought to make preparation for meeting it, so that the Commons will receive our Message in good time.

LORD SILKIN

I should like to say a word in reply to this, but time does not permit just as the moment. A lot of what the noble and learned Viscount has said is worthy of careful consideration. I should like to ask at this stage whether we can have a separate Report stage of the Bill, because obviously no Amendments are going to be entertained—I can see that. If we could have a Report stage, one could read what has been said. I do not want to enlarge on it; I just put the question straight away because it will have an effect on the course that we take.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Could we consider that immediately? I should like to have a word with my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn about it before we agree to that course, but I could let the noble Lord know later in the day.

House adjourned during pleasure.

House resumed.