HL Deb 16 July 1959 vol 218 cc125-42

5.43 p.m.

House again in Committee.

LORD SILKIN

I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount had finished his remarks. My difficulty about the provision that I want to delete is that I recognise that the Bill contains the two safeguards—"Subject to the provisions of this Act", and, "with a view to the better fulfilment of the purpose mentioned in subsection (1)". Nevertheless, it gives the Commission an absolute power to dispose of any property for such purposes and in such manner as they think fit"; and unless there is a direction by the Minister, they have the sole decision as to whether they shall dispose of the property or not. When we come to the next provision, it is that they shall not dispose of freeholds or leaseholds except in a manner set out in subsection (5). The provision I want to delete contains no such restriction. There is nothing in the provision which requires the Minister to be consulted. They can dispose of property if they think it is right that they should do so. They are not obliged to consult the Minister, and the Minister could act only after the event. So I think that this power needs looking at again.

In my submission, it is not really necessary at all. They can carry out their duties without having this power: but if it is thought that they should have some power to dispose of property I think it should be much more circumscribed—either that they should have to obtain permission, or that it should be more closely limited. So I would suggest that this is a matter which ought to be looked at again and that we ought not to be in such a desperate hurry to get this Bill through as to reject anything in any proposal that may be put forward.

It may be that this Bill is so perfect that it is not in need of any amendment at all, and that nothing that anybody can suggest can improve it. How different from the Bill which is coming after it, where we have had hundreds of Amendments proposed by the Government, some of which we are going to consider even on the Third Reading! And how different from a previous measure which we have had before us, the Town and Country Planning Bill, where in the aggregate I think we had something like 400 Amendments. Is it not a remarkable thing that this Bill should go through without a single Amendment; that it comes to us absolutely word perfect, and that nobody can suggest any possible improvement to it? I hope, in spite of what I have said, that we shall have a Report stage and that we shall get a further statement as to whether or not it is desirable that this provision should be amended.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I am very conscious of the sincerity with which the noble Lord has spoken on this matter, and I am glad to be able to say that it will be possible to have a Report stage on this Bill. I understand that that can be fitted into Monday's business. That being the case, I shall be glad to consider again what has been said to-day, and to consult my right honourable friend.

LORD SILKIN

In view of the new atmosphere, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.58 p.m.

LORD SILKIN moved to add to subsection (4): And in particular when the Minister is satisfied that amenities for the town are lacking and are not being provided as set out in paragraph (c) of this subsection he shall give directions to the Commission to make such contributions to the cost of providing amenities for (he town as may be contained in the directions.

The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment to Clause 2. As the clause stands, the Commission are under an obligation to consider the question of amenities and, within their discretion, to make contributions towards the costs of providing them for the town. It is one of the things they must have in mind, subject to any direction given by the Minister. They will have the power to do this. But what I want to secure is that where the Minister thinks that the amenities are lacking and ought to be provided he will give directions to that effect. It makes the position mandatory rather than permissive. But, of course, it is only where the Minister is satisfied that the amenities are lacking and are not being provided as set out in paragraph (c). I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 44, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Silkin.)

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I believe that the noble Lord's Amendment is unnecessary. Clause 2 (3) of the Bill provides that the Commission must comply with any direction given by the Minister. The only fetter on the Minister's discretion in giving directions is that he must have regard to the general duty laid upon the Commission in Clause 2 (2) …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… Therefore it is possible for the Minister, in the exercise of his power under Clause 2 (3), to give such direction as the Amendment envisages, providing he has the agreement of the Treasury. But there is the assumption in the Amendment as it is drawn that the Commission will fail in this matter. If that is so, I doubt whether the Amendment really covers the point. It would not give the Minister power to direct the Commission to provide amenities. It would give power to the Commission to contribute to the amenities that are provided. The assumption is that somebody else will provide the amenities, and normally that will be the local authorities. A direction to the Commission to give financial help to some other body may not necessarily induce that body to do the work.

In seeking to give a mandatory direction here, we must take a wider view. In a period of acute financial stringency, with which any Government might be faced, when there were necessary reasons why public expenditure had to be curtailed, a mandatory direction of this sort would single out new towns as the only bodies to which the Minister had to give directions to provide certain amenities, which may be denied to anybody else. But this is only a secondary point. The main point is that in normal circumstances I am advised that the Bill as drafted does provide what the noble Lord wants and that this Amendment is really unnecessary.

LORD SILKIN

I do not accept that it would be unnecessary, because it would place a duty on the Minister, whereas in the Bill as it stands it is optional on his part to give a direction. But since there is to be a Report stage, I am very willing to consider what the noble Earl has said and not press this Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.53 p.m.

LORD SILKIN moved to add to subsection (7): and shall be used for improving the amenities of the new towns or for such other purposes for the benefit of the new towns as the Minister may determine. The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the question of what is to happen to any surpluses that may arise in connection with the finances of a new town. The Bill as it stands provides that any surplus shall be paid into the Exchequer; and if my reading of the Bill is correct, there the matter ends. There is no obligation on the part of the Exchequer to do anything with a surplus, except to use it for the purpose of general tax relief. This is a surplus after taking into account all charges—repayment of debt interest and so on; it is a true surplus which, in my submission, should go to the benefit of the new town itself.

I can certainly speak of the intention of the Government which introduced the 1946 Act. They did not regard the new towns as primarily a profit-making concern. They were not entering into the development business for the purpose of making a profit, although we always believed that eventually they would be profitable. The real question for consideration here is whether that surplus should go to the relief of the taxpayer or to the benefit of the new town. I should be perfectly prepared to have a discussion on what is the right course, but this clause seems to assume implicitly that the surplus will go to the benfit of the taxpayer, because once it is paid into the Exchequer there is no obligation on the Exchequer to account for the surplus.

The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that the surplus …shall be used for improving the amenities of the new towns or for such other purposes for the benefit of the new towns as the Minister may determine. It also provides that a surplus on one town is not necessarily to be devoted to the benefit of that particular town. I am accepting the principle of the Bill and asking that any surplus on one town should go to the town that most needs it. So far as I see it, the Bill as it stands is silent about this point. I hope that we may have some further elucidation. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 28, after ("Exchequer") insert ("and shall be used for improving the amenities of the new towns or for such other purposes for the benefit of the new towns as the Minister may determine.")—(Lord Silkin.)

EARL WALDEGRAVE

The point of the noble Lord's Amendment was discussed on Second Reading on a slightly wider front. The slightly narrower point on which the noble Lord puts forward his Amendment is whether a surplus should be earmarked for any one town or should be used for the benefit of all twelve of the new towns. I think that the points I made in reply to the debate on Second Reading must still weigh with your Lordships. It is not right to assume that the Government should be content with getting back the money expended, as if (to borrow a phrase which was used in the Second Reading debate) they were debenture holders, and that the local people—or now, under the Amendment, the wider group of the twelve towns—should have an equity interest and get the benefit of a surplus, if any. I do not think this can be accepted.

It is the money put up by the taxpayers of the whole country, and not just by the local people, that has produced the assets of the new towns, and it is the taxpayers as a whole who are entitled to the surpluses. The convenience and welfare of the local people will be a prime consideration of the Commission, and provision for the amenities that should be provided in the new town will be taken into account before a surplus is required to be paid over. That is the point that must be remembered. Clause 2 (7) of the Bill as originally drafted was amended in another place, and the words (including any contributions that may be required to be made in any of their towns under the last mentioned paragraph (b))". were put in to cover this point. It was considered that no surplus which was not a true surplus should be declared and sent off to the Treasury. That is really the case.

There is another point. If Clause 2 (7) has been properly complied with, after consultation between the Treasury and the Commission and so on, and it is agreed that there is a surplus within the terms as I have tried to define them, the Amendment means that the Commission can be told: "Now apply that surplus back again for the very things you say have already been completed." Ex hypothesi those reasons for spending the money are no longer there. I think the safeguard here is that the surplus will not be treated as a surplus and go to the Treasury until it is a real surplus.

LORD LATHAM

It seems to me that the noble Earl wishes to have it both ways. First of all, the Government are in the position of debenture holders, and they have a first charge for the service of the debt. Then if there is an equity, the Government claim also to have the equity. Even in these, shall I say, progressive financial days in the City that is a little unique. It seems to me that the noble Earl has not made any case whatever for the Government's insisting that the surplus, which is the equity surplus, should be paid over to the Exchequer. My own view is that he is a little optimistic if he assumes that all the reasonable and desirable objectives in connection with the town, including amenities, will have been achieved and, therefore, if there is a surplus, that there will be nothing upon which it can be properly spent. I think that is assuming that the Commission, with the consent of the Minister and the Treasury, are likely to be more generous in regard to the provision of amenities than will actually be the case.

If the new towns are not to have this surplus, ought not the local authorities to have some of it? They carry an enormous burden as the result of the establishment of these new towns, and it will take many years before the rateable return from the properties which are created pays for the cost of providing the services, especially on the very costly basis (quite properly) upon which education is being provided and will be provided in the future. It seems to me to be quite indefensible that the Government should claim first of all to be debenture holders, having a prior charge, and then, having had their interest and their principal paid, should claim to have the equity.

LORD GIFFORD

I must confess that at first sight I had some sympathy with this Amendment, but the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, having pointed out that contributions to amenities would be taken into account before any surplus was declared, I feel entirely satisfied.

LORD LATHAM

There is nothing in the Bill requiring the Minister to take into account anything before establishing a surplus.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I can add nothing further to what I have said. The principle involved here is that no Government can accept that a particular part of their revenue can for all time, and irretrievably, be earmarked for a particular purpose. That has been tried before, and it does not work, and we do not think it would be correct to do it here. As my noble friend Lord Gifford has said, the essential works will have been done. It is not right to say that there is no qualification for this. The whole of this Bill is laying down what the Commission have got to do, and it is only when there has been consultation between the Treasury and the Commission and when all the things mentioned in Clause 2 (7) have been carried out, that, as it were, a dividend is declared and the surplus is known. And I may say that there is not likely to be a general surplus for a long way ahead. A question was asked in the Second Reading debate about Harlow, which had a surplus on revenue account but which had a much bigger deficit on another account. One must take the picture as a whole. It would not be right for me to say that I will consider this point again, because it has been carefully considered already. I must ask your Lordships to resist this Amendment.

LORD SILKIN

The noble Earl is really misdirecting himself. He is assuming that this is a surplus which properly belongs to the Exchequer and that it would not be practicable or wise to earmark it for another purpose. But that is the whole difference between us. I say that it is not a surplus which properly belongs to the Exchequer. The only claim that the Exchequer has is for the return of its money and interest. The Exchequer is not a speculator; it has not embarked on this venture in order to make profits. If there is a surplus, that surplus really belongs to the community who are responsible for its creation. That is the issue. For the noble Lord to say that it belongs to the Exchequer, and therefore the Government should keep it, is really begging the question. I remain quite unconvinced and I may return to the attack on another occasion.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.

LORD SILKIN moved after Clause 4 to insert the following new clause:

Transfer of houses to district council

". The Minister shall when he is satisfied that the provision of new dwellings by the Commission in any town is substantially ended convey to the county district in which such new town is situated all the dwellings owned by the Commission in the new town and thereupon the Council of the county district shall be entitled to the rents and subsidies of such dwellings and shall be liable for the cost of their proper maintenance and for the outstanding debt in respect thereof to the Exchequer."

The noble Lord said: This new clause provides that when the Minister is satisfied that the provision of new dwellings in any town is substantially ended, then those new dwellings should be transferred to the administration of the local authority. One of the arguments put forward by the Government for not handing over the functions of the new town to the local authority is that many of these functions are not normally the functions of a local authority. There is a certain amount of superficial merit in that point, and it is quite an understandable one. However, the management of housing is purely a local authority function. Is there any reason why the housing part of the undertaking of the new town, once it is finished, should not be handed over to the local authority for them to manage? Are they not in a better position to manage their own housing in their own area than the Central Commission, sitting possibly hundreds of miles away? I should have thought that to transfer these houses to the local authority for their management when the housing functions have been completed was a common sense and fair thing to do. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 4, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Silkin.)

EARL WALDEGRAVE

This is a clause which again anticipates the third stage that we have been discussing and raises the whole point of whether we should legislate for what happens at the end of the life of the Commission. I have had to say many times that the Government are not prepared to do that at this moment. The clause would compel a Minister to hand over houses to the local authority. There is really a contradiction in terms here, because in fact, in all the towns, housing accounts form by far the greater proportion of the property, both financial and physical, of the development corporation's estate. If we move on logically, we are saying that at a certain stage the development corporation hands over its property to the development Commission for certain purposes to manage, enhance and so on, as we all know. If we divest the Commission of most of its property at that point, we are really contradicting ourselves in saying that we must hand over this property for the Commission to conserve. This clause, on a slightly narrower front, raises the general question about the ultimate ownership of the development corporation's assets. I do not want to go into that detail now.

There are only two other small points I would make on this Amendment as drafted, and that is that it would hand over these dwellings at one bite. I am told that the Labour Party has in fact suggested that they ought to be transferred in stages, and I do not know, therefore, how much noble Lords opposite want to use this handing over power at once when, according to the newspapers, it is not the policy of their Party to do that. Secondly, this clause would really be unprecedented if it were incorporated, because the local authority would be bound to take over what might be a burden, with no right in the matter at all—no statutory right to have any say in the matter, particularly on financial terms. They are to take over the houses and the outstanding debt at a time chosen by the Minister. I cannot believe that any Government would propose to Parliament a clause of this kind without at least giving the local authority the right, for instance, to go to arbitration or to go to Parliament regarding the financial terms. I think the clause is defective in detail, in failing to specify how the Minister is to convey the property of the Commission to the county district council. For those defects alone, I would say that it would not be proper for your Lordships to add this clause to the Bill.

LORD SILKIN

Obviously the noble Earl is not going to accept this clause, but, I submit, for entirely bad reasons. I do not want to take up a great deal of time, and I want to mention only one of the points the noble Earl made, which is that this would be done without consulting the local authorities. He will remember 1946, a long time ago, when the New Towns Bill was before this House, and the Government were then urged to transfer the assets of (he new towns to the local authorities without consultation at all—as they were in the Commons, as I well remember. This point was never taken then, and I do not think it a valid point now, because the local authorities have definitely expressed their desire to take over the assets in the new towns and, in particular, housing.

If the noble Earl is interested, I would tell him that this Amendment is inspired by the local authorities of the areas in which the new towns are situated, so he may ease his mind as to imposing this burden upon the particular local authorities. Nor did the 1946 Act give the local authorities any option as to the terms. It was all laid down to be agreed. However, I do not think the noble Earl has made a case for rejecting the clause, except on the wording of whether it should be done all at once or in stages. If that were the only difference between us, again I should be ready to "do a deal" with the noble Earl, but I imagine that that is not the real difference and is simply one stick with which to beat this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.

LORD BURDEN moved, after Clause 7 to insert the following new clause:

Transfer and compensation of officers

"—(1) Any order under section six of this Act may contain provisions as to the transfer to the Commission of existing officers affected by the order and shall contain provisions for the protection of the interests of any such existing officers.

(2) Every person who is or who but for any national service of his would be an existing officer and who suffers loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments which is attributable to the provisions of any such order as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section shall be entitled to have his case considered for the payment, of compensation by the Commission such compensation to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to the Local Government (Compensation) Regulations, 1948, and subject to the provisions of this section those regulations shall apply accordingly with any modifications which the Minister may by order consider it necessary or expedient to make for the purpose of the application of those regulations to compensation under this Act.

(3) For the purpose of this section and the the said regulations as applied hereby— existing officer" means an officer in the service of a development corporation on such date or dates as may be specified in an order relating to that development corporation; national service" means any such service in any of Her Majesty's forces or other employment (whether or not in the service of Her Majesty) as may be specified in an order under section six of this Act; and officer" includes the holder of any place situation or employment.

(4) (a) If after the passing of this Act regulations relating to compensation payable to officers and servants of local authorities come into operation the Minister may by order amend the provisions of this section by substituting such regulations for the Local Government (Compensation) Regulations, 1948, and by making such consequential amendments to this section as may be necessary.

(b) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. May I briefly recall the history of the new towns in so far as it has some bearing on the Amendment? In 1945, the Government appointed the Reith Committee and the terms of reference were: To consider the general questions of the establishment, development, organisation and administration that will arise in the promotion of new towns, in furtherance of a policy of planned decentralisation from congested areas; and in accordance therewith, to suggest guiding principles on which new towns should be developed as self-contained and balanced communities for work and living… Most of the Committee's recommendations were incorporated in the New Towns Act, 1946. For this we are indebted to the practical idealism of my noble friend Lord Silkin, who was then the Minister of Town and Country Planning.

It is, I believe, correct to say that initially twenty new towns were planned, capable of providing accommodation for one million persons, and these were to be followed by other new towns. My noble friend Lord Silkin said that the new towns were to produce a new type of citizen, healthy, self-respecting, dignified, with a sense of duty, culture and civic pride. Thirteen years ago, when the new towns were launched, the development corporations had to recruit the administrators, architects, engineers, surveyors, town planners, housing managers and other officers. The important point is that most of these officers were recruited from the local government service. Many of these officers were aware of the conditions prevailing in some of our industrial towns—the slums, the contrast between rich and poor, the lack of any communal life and the absence of any sense of neighbourliness. Therefore, with energy, skill and imagination they tackled their new and exciting tasks, and to-day as some of the new towns are reaching completion they are a joy to see. To those who work and live in them they are a source of pride and pleasure. But apparently no more new towns are to be built.

Writing to The Times a few weeks ago on another matter, the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, said: Actions by Governments are unpredictable and can be devastating in their effect". That comment is certainly true so far as the decision of the Government to build no more new towns is concerned. At the last conference of the National and Local Government Officers' Association, a trade union with over 250,000 members, the President, dealing with the question of the position of the staff now employed in the new towns said: It may be true, as the responsible Minister has said, that these men and women were given no guarantee either of permanent employment or of compensation, and that they have, therefore, no legal claim. But it is equally true that there was expectancy that if the first new towns were a success others would undoubtedly follow and there would be a lifetime's work for them. On that basis many of our colleagues abandoned safe jobs and a promising future. They have therefore the strongest moral claim for compensation. That we have pressed, and shall continue to press, with all our force. We regard the Minister's attitude, adopted on narrow legalistic grounds, as an example of petty meanness paralleled only by the veto of the Health Service's 3 per cent. increase, and one we must resist. Further frustration faces our colleagues from the recently announced intention of the Government to form a national Commission for new towns. In this connection, there is no clear or concise indication of the Government's intention with regard to staff for the commission or local agencies. In this restrained language the President expressed the discontent of conference, a discontent sharpened by a sense of injustice.

The Amendment standing in my name follows very closely the provision made for compensation, for example by Water Bills. The Minister of Housing and Local Government in another place said in April last year: In every local Act passed since 1950 which authorised extensions of local government areas, the provision as to compensation for existing officers made by the Act, where such provision was required, took the form of applying the Local Government (Compensation) Regulations, 1948, subject to specified modifications. Where local legislation dealing with the reorganisation of water services involves provision being made for the payment of compensation for loss of office, the appropriate precedent is Section 153 of the Kent Water Act, 1955. Frankly, it is difficult to understand why the staff of the new towns are refused the protection which is normally afforded where functions are transferred from one public authority to another public authority.

In another place the Minister argued that the staff of the new towns were losing their jobs because the work for which they were engaged will end, and therefore it was wrong in principle to provide compensation for anyone taken on for a limited period. That is a clear and precise statement. I submit that we are entitled to expect some consistency in this matter of compensation for loss of office. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill daring the Second Reading debate said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 217 (No. 96), col. 765]: The Commission fills the gap in an intermediate stage and the decision on the ultimate policy for final ownership is deferred. Clearly, therefore, at some stage or other it is contemplated that the work of the Commission will end, and therefore the work of the Commission is on a temporary basis. And yet, after all the declarations in another place in regard to temporary employment not ranking for compensation, subparagraph (8) of paragraph 1 of the First Schedule to this very Bill provides that the Minister will be enabled in respect of the members of the Commission engaged on a temporary basis to pay out of monies provided by Parliament such pensions, allowances or gratuities in respect of retirement or death as may be determined. I ask the Minister, why this discrimination? For the architects, planners and others who by their creative genius have built up these new towns there is no protection provided in the Bill and its provision is resisted at every stage. For those who will take over the properties on a temporary basis, simply as administrators, provision is inserted in the Bill, protection is inserted in the Bill, for compensation, gratuities and things of that kind.

Of course, I do not imply that they should not have that protection, I am suggesting only that what is good enough for fifteen members of the Commission is equally good enough for those men who have created the new towns. The trade union of the officers still considers that a compensation clause should be inserted in the Bill. It is not agreed that there will be a mere, small hard core of difficult cases. More than once during the passage of the Bill through another place reference was made by the Government spokesmen to the fact that little difficulty is envisaged in the case of rent and rate collectors, and so on. But the Association are particularly concerned with the technical staff, architects, surveyors, engineers, town planners and so on. I cannot see how all those people from the new towns can be assimilated into the work of the new Commission.

I welcome the observation of the Minister in another place on the Second Reading when he said that the new Commission, when recruiting its own staff, would not simply consider the first development corporation which may pass out of existence but would in effect afford equal opportunities to staffs of all the development corporations. Further, I hope that when the hard cases come to be considered a realistic view will be taken of the amount of compensation to be paid to the officers concerned. So far, nothing has been said about the amount or type of compensation which the Government might have in mind, but we hope that payments will be related in some way to the existing compensation code and will not take the form of terminable gratuities. The Minister's undertaking to refer particulars of the hard cases to the Whitley Council as soon as the managers of the new towns have made their report is also welcome. May I add that it is also hoped that in due course the Commission themselves will be represented on the Whitley Council, and—this is most important—that the Minister will use his good offices as a referee should the necessity arise.

Finally, I should be most grateful if the Minister would confirm that any arrangement for the payment of compensation, or whatever form the payment may take, entered into by a development corporation will be taken over by the Commission—in other words, not only will they take over the assets but that they will take over the liabilities. It is appreciated that when referring to this matter in Committee the Minister gave an undertaking that from the new towns, whether from the development corporation or from the Commission, help would be given if it were needed. It may well be that a particular development corporation, familiar with the skill and merits of a particular officer, would be inclined to be more generous in the matter of compensation than would the Commission. Thus I hope that the Commission will take over without any cavil, without any attempt to whittle down anything which the development corporations may have awarded. I am sorry at this late hour to have taken up so much of your Lordships' time, but this is regarded by the officers and by the trade union as a matter of vital importance to the staff concerned. Therefore, I hope that we shall receive some satisfactory assurances this afternoon from the Minister. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 7 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Burden.)

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I know how deeply and sincerely the noble Lord, Lord Burden, feels for the members of the National and Local Government Officers' Association, for whom, as he has told us, he has largely spoken today. I am glad to say that I hope to be able to reassure him on the two main points he made. The first point was that in paragraph (8) of the first Schedule there was provision, as he said, for compensation for the bosses but not, he felt. for the men. There is no discrimination here. There is no provision for compensation for either.

LORD BURDEN

If the noble Earl will excuse me, it is true that the word "compensation" is not used, but the word "allowances" and other terms are used. In view of the way in which the 1946 Act was construed, that the Minister could grant gratuities and so on—or that the development corporations of the new towns could do so—it is really of no value to say that that clause could not be construed to include compensation. I did not use the word "bosses"; I used the phrase "fifteen members of the committee."

EARL WALDEGRAVE

Pensions are protected for members of the Commission, and they are protected for the staff; there is no discrimination there.

LORD BURDEN

I am sorry, but the noble Earl has not yet got my point. Members of a new body are getting protection—I will put it that way, using a non-committal word. The men who have built up the new towns have nothing at all.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

With great respect, I do not think that the noble Lord must put it that way. I am afraid he must use the words in the Bill, and what we are suggesting is contained in | paragraph 1 (8) of the First Schedule, which deals with pensions, allowances or gratuities. That is the provision dealing with the pensions of members of the Commission. I am advised and assured that the pensions and similar rights of the members of the National and Local Government Officers' Association who will be working for the corporations are similarly protected.

LORD BURDEN

I know that.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

The other point made by the noble Lord was this: supposing the corporation do something, do the Commission take over the liability? The answer is that they do. Section 2 (2) of the 1946 Act says that every corporation shall have power…generally to do anything necessary or expedient for the purposes of the new town or for purposes incidentally thereto. I am entitled to say that this matter was discussed on the Recommittal stage in another place, and that is the statutory authority for hardship payments to their members by the development corporation. The Department advise that one of the things that will be construed as necessary and expedient is to treat the staff in a fair and proper manner; and therefore these obligations will be taken over by the Commission.

May I now turn to the Amendment? It is open to the fundamental objection expressed when this clause or similar clauses were tabled in another place: that it is inappropriate to forget that these corporations were, by their own definition, short-lived corporations. Noble Lords have been generous enough to remind your Lordships that my right honourable friend in another place has said that he will deal with the hard cases, if any, that arise. I am sure that the members of N.A.L.G.O. know well enough that promises given in terms as categorical as those which the Minister used in another place are promises that neither he nor any successor of his could possibly avoid honouring without great trouble.

But there is a real difference here about which the noble Lord must forgive me for reminding him—I am sure he has been reminded of it before—between the cessation of a development corporation and, for instance, the compulsory amalgamation of two local authorities. As to the compulsory amalgamation of such local authorities, no employee could have foreseen this statutory action, unexpected, of which the staff received no notice. But the people went into these development corporations with their eyes open. In this world one has to take risks. One becomes, perhaps, a Member of Parliament, or accepts a position in the Government. One does not know whether the electorate or one's noble leader requires one's services any further, or whether one will get back one's job. One has to take these risks.

May I put this further point: that this Amendment as drawn would not meet the point we are trying to get at, because it will be as the corporation begins to fulfil its tasks that the people will have to begin to look for other jobs. The Amendment is drawn only to include statutory compensation for these people at the moment the Commission take over. As for trying to provide (which I am sure would be wrong) for statutory compensation for all these people in these temporary corporations, if the Government were to give way on that they would have to do something very different from this Amendment to bring in the people who begin to go when they see the work coming to an end. I hope that the assurances which my right honourable friend the Minister has given (the words were quoted, and I will not quote them again); the fact that the pensions for both classes of people are covered, and also the fact that if the corporations incur an obligation it will be taken over by the Commission, will allay, at least in some measure, the anxieties of the noble Lord. I hope that he will not feel he must press this Amendment.

LORD BURDEN

Whilst not undervaluing but fully appreciating the value of the assurance given, quite frankly, and with the greatest respect, may I say that I do not consider that what has been said is an adequate reply to the case I have submitted. As I said, we value and welcome the assurance given in another place. But, really, one does not know the state of mind of people thirteen years ago. There was an impression—I have talked with these people—that this was a continuing process, and that—I will not say we should come to England's green and pleasant land again, but that some of our slums and terrible industrial cities would, in the days to come, disappear.

Be that as it may, I am sure the noble Earl will not think me discourteous when I tell him that this is a matter of principle so far as the men are concerned; and whilst I hope that I shall always be reasonable and accommodating in matters where vital principle is not involved, this is a matter which I could not withdraw without giving up what I regard and what is regarded as a vital principle. The Amendment must obviously be negatived, and then the responsibility is something which will have to be taken.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.

House resumed.