HL Deb 20 July 1959 vol 218 cc213-25

5.11 p.m.

Considered on Report (according to Order).

Clause 2:

Establishment and functions of Commission for the New Towns

(4) 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) of this section by the improvement of any of their towns, or to the convenience or 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.

LORD SILKIN

had given Notice of two Amendments, the first being, in sub-section (4), to omit paragraph (d). The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to couple the first Amendment on the Paper with the second one, as the two are related. On the Committee stage I moved an Amendment to delete these same lines, 43 and 44, which give the Commission the power to dispose of any property for such purposes and in such manner as they think fit. I thought those powers were far too wide to entrust to the Commission. It was pointed out that there were the preliminary words, Subject to the provisions of this Act and to any direction given to them by the Minister. But the. words, "Subject to the provisions of this Act" are really no great safeguard, because the provisions of the Act provide merely that the Commission are to do the best for the undertaking, and I do not imagine that any Com- mission is arbitrarily going to dispose of the property of the new towns just for the pleasure of doing so. I believe that they may dispose of the property possibly under the mistaken view that it is in the interests of the new towns. Nor do I think that the second safeguard, "Subject…to any direction given to them by the Minister", is really a safeguard, because it might well come after the event. The Commission may well dispose of a property of the new town before the Minister has given any direction or before he is even aware that they propose to do it.

Nevertheless, I felt that the points that were made by the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, should be met if possible, and I have transferred those words to the next subsection of the Bill, so that the Commission may dispose of any property, but cannot do so without the authority given generally or specially by the Minister. I should like to ask, in connection with this, what the Government mean by "property". Does that include landed property? If it does, then there is specific separate provision for landed property in subsection (5). Does it then mean chattels only? But "property" is a much wider term than "chattels of land". I wish that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor were here, and I think he would take the view that "property" does include landed property. So that, as the clause stands, the Commission may dispose of any property, real or personal, which is the legal term, "for such purposes and in such manner as they think fit". The next subsection goes on to say that in the case of landed property—but I am not clear about that; it seems to be quite separate—they can only do so with the authority, general or specific, of the Minister.

I think, in any case, that this is badly worded and arranged, even if it is to mean what I understand the noble Earl explained it is intended to mean. I still maintain that, for the reasons I have given, it is far too wide, and if it really is intended that the Minister should have control over the sale of property other than landed property, which is already dealt with in subsection (5), then it should come within subsection (5) and be treated in the same way as freeholds or leaseholds for a term of ninety years or more. It may be said that we ought to allow the Commission to dispose of surplus material that they do not want; assuming that they are carrying on building operations—which I gather they are not going to do—they might have building materials or something of the kind that they want to dispose of, and they ought to be allowed to do so. But I see no difficulty about their doing that under the terms of subsection (5), because the Minister can give either general or special directions. The terms of his general authority could quite cover that kind of sale of surplus material no longer required.

I object to a body which has not even been set up—and we do not know what its composition is to be—being given so free a hand to dispose of any property "for such purposes and in such manner as they think fit". Incidentally, the words "for such purposes…as they think fit" rather contradict the earlier words, "Subject to the provisions of this Act". I should have thought that those words would permit them to override the provisions of the Bill; but I am not sure about it. At any rate, this is a badly-worded provision, and I should be happier if it were left out altogether. However, out of deference to the case put up by the noble Earl on the Committee stage, I have brought the words back so that they will come under the terms of subsection (5), but I have left out the words, "as they think fit". Therefore they will be able to dispose of the property only in accordance with the provisions of the Act and with the authority given, general or special, by the Minister.

I believe that this is a reasonable Amendment. I hope the view will not be taken that if this Amendment is accepted it may jeopardise the Bill because of the coming Election and of the Prorogation of Parliament, and because we cannot leave any legislation over the Recess. If that is the view, then I think it is making a mockery of our proceedings here and we are all wasting our time and breath in moving Amendments with the object of improving the Bill. I am sure the noble Earl will not say that, and I hope he will not imply it. I beg to move.

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

5.20 p.m.

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

My Lords, when we discussed these matters with some care in Committee, when it was agreed that we should have a Report stage I gave an undertaking that I would consider these matters again with my right honourable friend. I should like to assure noble Lords opposite that that was not just a phrase. I have indeed consulted my right honourable friend in person, and we have discussed this matter fully. Secondly, I should like to make it perfectly clear that I am not going to ask your Lordships to resist these two Amendments (we will take them together) for the reasons for which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said I might—that is to say, that there was not time, and that if we upset this Bill it would not go back to another place before the end of the Session. I am going to ask your Lordships to resist these Amendments on the merits of the arguments I shall try to adduce.

I shall try to be as brief as I can, but I think we will discuss these two Amendments together because the noble Lord said that he had taken something out to put it in again later. I want to try to demonstrate how, in my view, that will not work. Any misgivings there are about paragraph (d) arise from the impression that this paragraph stands alone. I tried to say on Second Reading, and I say again, that this paragraph really does not stand alone, and I have little to add to what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said in the debate last week. The draftsman had two quite distinct things to describe: he had to describe the Commission's powers, and he had also to describe the restrictions that were to be placed on the exercise of those powers. Paragraph (d) relates only to the Commission's powers, and simply describes one of the Commission's powers—a power to dispose of property, and not only land.

The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asked about the word "property". By "property" we mean land, chattels, money and all forms of legal property, as I understand it, such as property in a lease or in a tenancy. The words, "in such manner as they think fit" are intended simply to indicate that the Commission have powers to dispose of property by a variety of means—sale of freeholds, grant of a long lease or periodic tenancies, or the sale of typewriters. These things have got to be done. The words simply indicate that the Commission are free to decide what form the disposal will take.

LORD SILKIN

And "for such purposes"?

EARL WALDEGRAVE

All within the purposes of subsection (1). In Committee, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor explained how the other provisions of the Bill restrict the Commission in their exercise of this power. Subsection (6) of this clause bars them absolutely from giving land or property away, except in so far as they are authorised to make cash contributions:. They must not give land or property away or mortgage it, but they must be allowed power to make contributions, because that is the power on which they are allowed to make contributions towards the welfare amenities that will be dealt with by the local authority, and which we all want them to do so much. Therefore, they are restricted under subsection (5), which makes it clear that the sale of land is restricted.

I come to the second point. Sub-section (5) is restrictive. It is the sub-section which says that they cannot dispose—going gack to (d)—of land without the Minister's consent except, be it noted, that the Commission can sell houses to their occupants. But in all other cases they have to come to the Minister before they sell land. Clause 2 (4) would not be complete unless paragraph (d) remained, because all the powers are listed there. If we take out this important power of disposing of property—that is to say, real property and chattels, as well as land which is restricted by subsection (5)—we should be short of powers.

If we are discussing the second Amendment at the same time—though naturally they will be moved separately—I should like to say this. It is quite clear that property in this sense does include chattels and cash, and—I am no lawyer—every form of property. The effect of this Bill, as it stands, is that the Commission have power to dispose of property other than land as they think fit, but they are precluded by sub-section (6) from giving it away except in so far as a cash contribution for amenities.

What is the effect of the Bill as it stands today? This Commission will be a responsible body and must have freedom to decide for itself how it will deal with these assets which, under the previous provisions of the Bill, it has to conserve, maintain and enhance. It your Lordships accepted this Amendment it would require the Minister to consent. That is all that subsection (5) is; it provides that you have to get the Minister's consent to a disposal. If you insert "to dispose of any other property of the Commission" at that point, you are saying that the Commission is fettered by having to go to the Minister even to sell a second-hand motor car or even, as the noble Lord said, some old bricks.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I hoped I had dealt with that point. The Minister can give general directions, and he can say in a general authority, "You may sell your second-hand motor cars for all time." I am not suggesting for a moment and, indeed, would not be so absurd as to suggest, that on each sale of a second-hand typewriter they ought to go to the Minister for an authority. The words are already there. The authority can be given generally or specially, and I am suggesting that in matters of this kind it can be a general authority.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

My Lords, I am advised that if you insert, "dispose of any other property of the Commission" at that place it would have the effect of meaning that you must have the Minister's consent to such sales. I do not think your Lordships would feel that that is desirable. I am not in the least making any kind of Party point here, as I am sure the noble Lord would agree. But I should like to point out, and to remind the noble Lord, that in his 1946 Act—Section 2 of the Act, as he will remember—there were provisions as to disposals. The only qualification of disposals came in, I think, Section 5 (1) in relation to land. There have never been qualifications for the disposal of those other things before. We think it right that it should be so, as it was in the 1946 Act.

I am sorry if I have not been able to convince noble Lords opposite, but I ask your Lordships to resist this Amendment on its merits—that it would not have the effect it is desired to have; that it would have a restrictive effect, and that it is quite unnecessary, because if lines 43 and 44 are taken into consideration, as the Lord Chancellor said last week, there is no question of a disposals board here and we are perfectly safe. I must ask your Lordships to resist this Amendment.

5.30 p.m.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend, Lord Silkin, and to assure your Lordships that we do not regard these Amendments as being meretricious or finicky. They really are of some considerable importance, since the Bill confers powers upon the Commission, of which, of course, no one has had any experience at the moment, and no one knows in detail what the constitution will be. The noble Earl said that paragraph (d) of subsection (4) of Clause 2 must not be taken as standing alone. That is precisely the basis of our submissions; it does not stand alone. It purports to give the Commission power "to dispose of any property for such purposes". What are "such purposes"? As I read the clause, the purposes are set out in paragraph (c), which states that they are: to promote or assist by any means, and in particular by making advances towards the cost of purchasing land, or of erecting, extending, improving or adapting buildings or works, the setting up or extension of businesses in the town;

All those are the purposes for which the Commission has, subject to subsection (5), almost unlimited power of disposing of the property of the Commission.

Subsection (5) does not prevent the Commission from disposing of land; it restricts such an operation only if a lease is for more than 99 years; and as regards private dwellings, which could, of course, comprehend 100, 200, 300 or 400 private houses, the Commission does not need to have the authority, whether general or special, of the Minister. The same is the case with other chattels. Therefore land can be disposed of. The transaction can have taken place without the Minister knowing anything about it unless the Minister had previously issued a direction. We suggest that powers of that kind ought not to be given to a Commission of this kind and that the Commission should need the authority of the Minister to dispose of the assets, as has been suggested by Lord Silkin.

My noble friend has dealt with the humorous suggestion that the Minister's authority would be needed for disposing of an individual second-hand car. The Minister, as my noble friend indicated, could issue a general direction, and attached to that direction could be a schedule which could be altered, extended or reduced as time and experience might show, in respect of the assets in regard to which the Commission had power without further leave, and that would leave the other important assets of the Commission disposable only with the authority, whether generally or specially, of the Minister. It is hoped that notwithstanding what the noble Earl has said, this Amendment will be accepted.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 50.

CONTENTS
Alexander of Hillsborough, V. Henderson, L. Shepherd, L. [Teller.]
Amwell, L. Latham, L. Silkin, L.
Chorley, L. Lucan, E. [Teller.] Stansgate, V.
Crook, L. Ogmore, L. Williams, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Aberdare, L. Bathurst, E. Cholmondeley, M.
Addington, L. Bessborough, E. Clitheroe, L.
Ailwyn, L. Birdwood, L. Conesford, L.
Auckland, L. Buckinghamshire, E. Crathorne, L.
Baden-Powell, L. Chesham, L. Digby, L.
Dundee, E. Harcourt, V. Robins, L.
Dynevor, L. Hawke, L. Russell of Liverpool, L.
Ebbisham, L. Home, E. St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller].
Ebury, L. Jellicoe, E. Saltoun, L.
Fortescue, E. Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.) Sinha, L.
Fraser of North Cape, L. Lansdowne, M. Soulbury, V.
Furness, V. Limerick, E. Strang, L.
Goschen, V. McCorquodale of Newton, L. Strathspey, L.
Gosford, E. Monk Bretton, L. Tweedsmuir, L.
Grantchester, L. Newall, L. Waldegrave, E.
Hailsham, V. (L. President) Onslow, E. [Teller.] Waleran, L.
Hampton, L. Reading, M.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, this Amendment goes with the previous Amendment. The first Amendment having been defeated on a vote, I imagine that this Amendment would suffer the same fate if it went to a Division. I do not propose to go through a Division. I shall move the Amendment and allow it to be negatived.

Amendment moved—

Page 3, line 11, at end insert— ("(c) dispose of any other property of the Commission.").—(Lord Silkin.)

On Question, Amendment negatived.

5.41 p.m.

LORD SILKIN moved to add to subsection (7) and shall be used for such purposes for the benefit of the new towns or the local authorities in whose area such new towns are situated as the Minister may determine".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this again is a matter upon which we had some discussion in Committee. I have drafted this Amendment in the light of one part of the criticism which the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, brought to bear against the drafting of my Amendment at that stage.

The issue here is this. If, or when, there is a surplus on the accounts of a new town, what should happen to that surplus? The surplus would arise after payment of all debt charges, interest and repayment of capital to the Exchequer. The Bill provides that such surpluses should go to the Exchequer, presumably in relief of taxation. By the Amendment that I moved in Committee I proposed that any surplus should go to the new town, but after consideration I realised that although in some cases a new town has an authority of its own, in other cases there is a local authority which is rather wider than the new town. Therefore, I now propose that the surplus should go to the new town or to the local authority in the area of any such new town, as the Minister may determine. It is left to his choice.

I do not wish to repeat all the arguments for the surplus going to the new towns, but I will summarise them. First, the new towns have been created at the expense of the areas concerned. Local authorities have often levied considerably higher rates than they otherwise would for the provision of services over a period of time, from which they have had no particular benefit. It seems right that those local authorities should be able to recoup themselves in respect of such excess rates when the new towns show a surplus. Secondly, the surplus will have been created by the efforts of the population as a whole, and therefore it is right that it should go to them.

Where the undertakings of any other local authority show a surplus, the profits from those undertakings do not go to the Exchequer. They go for the benefit of the town itself, even though the undertakings may have been provided out of money advanced by the Exchequer. I will take the example of Bournemouth, or of many other seaside towns which have undertakings run by the authority. They are often very profitable undertakings, and they have been provided out of loans granted by the Exchequer. It seems to me that the Exchequer would have equal justification for saying that it wanted the profits of, let us say, the swimming baths or little café-restaurants because it had advanced the money; that it was not satisfied with having its money back, and not satisfied with reasonable interest on the money. The Exchequer might equally say that it wanted any profits which were derived therefrom. This would be just as logical and reasonable as demanding the surplus from a new town The new town will have created the surplus, and in my view it is entitled to it.

I have no illusions about whether the Minister will accept the Amendment, because he stated quite definitely in Committee that the Minister of Housing and Local Government had taken a different view. Nevertheless, I think it right That the House should have an opportunity of expressing its view on the principle of the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 28, after ("Exchequer") insert the said words.—(Lord Silkin.)

5.50 p.m.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said, we deployed this point by argument on Second Reading and also in Committee, and this Amendment is very much in the same form as the Amendment that we had on Committee, except that it brings in the fact that the surplus could go not only to the new town or to the group of new towns, or to the whole twelve of the new towns, but could go to the local authority as well. But that still does not meet my basic difficulty, on the principle which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has again mentioned; that is, whether or not these new towns have a right—a sort of equity right—to any surpluses.

I think we must just go over this ground as briefly as possible again, because I believe that this Amendment and the thought that lies behind it are misconceived. We are talking about what happens in the Commission, not of the absolute right of towns like Bournemouth—we are talking about a Commission which has a comparatively short life: in any case of ten or twenty years, which was the period that my right honourable friend spoke of in another place. We are trying to decide what should happen to the surplus. The Commission is required to have regard to the convenience and welfare of the local people, and it has power to make contributions towards the cost incurred by local authorities for their amenities, and for welfare, water and sewerage. No surplus can be required to be paid over to the Exchequer until after provision has been made for these things. We really must not consider, therefore, that the Commission is likely to fail in its project—I think that is quite pessimistic and unjustified.

We do not regard these new towns as primarily profit-making concerns, but it is still necessary to have some provision to regulate the situation if a surplus should arise. I personally think that the whole of this argument is a little ephemeral, because I see no big surpluses being available in any very near future, if we take everything into account. There may be a surplus on one account, but on another account there may be a big deficit. I am bound to say that Section 15 of the 1946 Act, the Act which set up these new towns, provides that, on winding up, the surpluses should be paid over to the Exchequer or that any loss should be borne by the Exchequer. If that was right then, I think it is right now.

Should the local authority have some of the surplus because of the enormous burden (to use the noble Lord Latham's words in Committee) the local authority may have in these new town areas? It is because of the heavy burden that the local authority has while the new towns are in their infancy, and while all these amenity and welfare considerations have so much to be taken into consideration, that the Commission has power to contribute to the cost of the amenities. The fact that it contributes to them will use up that surplus, if there could conceivably be a surplus, if the Commission does its duty by the amenities. It has to be remembered that if the Commission has done its duty by its amenities, and has contributed towards them to a considerable extent, not only will there be no surplus, but there may be a highly increased rateable value, which of course, to put it mildly, the local authority will find convenient.

The Government concede that many amenities are still lacking at the present time, though much of the leeway may be caught up before even the Commission takes over and during the lifetime of the corporation in each new town. As I have mentioned, this Bill is legislating for ten or twenty years, and if the Commission really makes handsome profits—nobody can guess—one has to consider seriously what should be done with these profits at the end of that lifetime, when, by definition, the amenities should really have reached saturation point. It would be ridiculous to go on equipping the new towns with more amenities in that situation Perhaps the surplus is to be used as a sort of undisguised rent subsidy. What do the new towns want these hypothetical surpluses for? We have to consider what that would lead us to. I do not know whether the neighbouring villages in South Wales to Cwmbran, or the neighbouring villages in County Durham to Peterlee, would be particularly pleased. I do not know what they would have to say if there were this special spending of these hypothetical surpluses. They would probably say, "Let us all move to the new towns". I do not think that would be justice at all.

But I come back to my basic point, that no Chancellor of the Exchequer can properly earmark one section of his revenue for one particular point. I must restate that argument as the other argument was restated. It would not be right and it would not be done; indeed,