NEW TOWNS BILL

HL Deb 24 November 1966 vol 278 cc374-92

4.13 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET)

My Lords, this Bill is a great deal simpler and, I hope, less controversial than the last two Bills that I have had the pleasure of introducing in this House. Under the New Towns Act 1955, which was a consolidating measure, the limit of advances of capital from the Consolidated Fund was set out at £550 million. By the end of September of this year advances committed by the Ministers concerned totalled about £535 million, so there is not much left without Parliament's specific authority.

It has been the practice ever since the first New Towns Act 1946 to advance the total money available periodically, so that both Houses can have an opportunity to bring the Government of the day to account and to hear about the prospects and intentions for the future. The 1946 Act itself, it is interesting and, indeed, poignant to remember, provided for a limit of only £50 million. This was an adequate amount in the early days, but now even £550 million is inadequate. Our requirements now are greater because, among other things, of the rising birth rate, of the continuing very high rate of family formation, and all the other social factors of the last third of this century with which we are all so familiar. So the Government now ask for the tidy sum of £250 million. The present rate of commitment is about £60 million a year, and within three or four years we expect it to increase to £80 million a year or more. So with this increase the Government will no doubt be coming back to Parliament to raise the limit again in the next three or four years. That is all about Clause 1.

Clause 2 is designed to make the compensation provisions on compulsory purchase in extension areas of New Towns the same as they are in the original areas of New Towns. I will not go into too much detail about this now, because that we can do on Committee stage. The effect of this provision is to take out of compensation paid to landowners development value which has arisen from the initiation and participation of the Government in such a large project as a New Town. It is not designed to affect by a single penny the free market value of the land in question as that value would stand if there were no New Town. Putting it another way, public investment should not lead to the payment in compensation of any development value which it has itself created. A Conservative Government thought that this was true in 1959 when they passed the Town and Country Planning Act of that year, and again in 1961 when they re-enacted it in the Land Compensation Act. But because in those years they were not dealing with large extensions to New Towns, they applied the formula only to the original areas of New Towns. This clause simply carries over to new additions to New Towns the existing provisions which apply to the original areas of New Towns.

Now a word about the relationship between this clause and the proposed land levy. We must distinguish here between increases in the development value caused by the presence of a New Town extension, and increases in development value caused for any other reason. When this Bill and the Land Commission Bill are law, the owner of a site which is being taken for an addition to a New Town will receive full compensation for the existing use value of its site and for all development value not due to the New Town extension. He will pay levy on this development value. He will receive no compensation for development value due to the extension of the New Town, and therefore no levy can be charged in this respect. This may sound complicated, but I shall be willing to repeat it in greater detail at Committee stage if noble Lords desire; and I think noble Lords opposite will be hard put to it to find a more just arrangement.

Clause 3 is just a tidying-up clause. Under the original New Towns Act 1946, the Ministers had to submit the accounts of development corporations to the Comptroller and Auditor-General who, in turn, presented them to Parliament as an Appendix to the Minister's accounts of issues from the Consolidated Fund. But development corporations also included their accounts in their annual reports which were laid before Parliament by Ministers. Parliament thus saw the accounts twice, which, interesting though they are, was a waste of time and paper.

When one thinks of the procedure which has to be gone through in this day and age in the foundation of new towns and new cities it is instructive to compare it with what used to be the drill. The Emperor Constantine, when he decided to make the capital of his Empire at Byzantium, proceeded as follows—and I quote Gibbon: On foot, with a lance in his hand, the emperor himself led the solemn procession; and directed the line, which was traced as the boundary of the destined capital: till the growing circumference was observed with astonishment by the assistants, who, at length, ventured to observe, that he had already exceeded the most ample measure of a great city. 'I shall still advance', replied Constantine, till HI/C, the invisible guide who marches before me, thinks proper to stop.'

EARL, FERRERS

He must have been a Socialist.

LORD KENNET

It is a far cry from the authoritarian and God-guided founders of an earlier day to our own network of democratic procedure, and I can assure the House that if country landowners, especially, think that successive Ministers of Housing and Local Government are sometimes going far beyond the imaginable bounds of a new town under Divine guidance, this is not the case; they are taking into account the fruits of every hearing, the expressions of every interest, and the needs of every social class. Many times and in many countries, since Byzantium, the odd new town has been founded from scratch and designed as a whole, but I think the first coordinated movement towards a whole series of new towns in one country began (and this House may be proud of it) when Lord Reith was appointed the Chairman of a Committee to examine the possibility of doing precisely what we are now doing.

Following quickly upon the deliberations of that Committee the New Towns Act 1946 was passed, which set up the means of planning and building New Towns which we are still using to this day. How much of the history of this exercise is connected with your Lordships' House! I am thinking also of my noble friend Lord Silkin, whose intervention I look forward to hearing in a few moments.

What have we done with the £550 million of Government money provided by that Act and successive Acts? Private enterprise, too, of course has provided quite substantial funds. There are 15 first-generation New Towns: 11 are in England, 3 in Scotland and 1 in Wales. In those towns nearly half a million people live in 130,000 new houses; 750 new factories give jobs to 130,000 people; 284 new schools educate 145,000 children, and 2,500 new shops are in trade. These are impressive figures, but we are moving on. As well as those 15 towns there are now 7 second-generation towns, as they are called, the last of which, Irvine, in Scotland, has been designated this month. Good progress is being made with these and very soon they will require advances from the £250 million which Parliament is now being asked to approve. There are more to come. The Government have approved in principle six large projects, and behind them there are more under consideration or study.

The problem, simply stated, is to provide homes for 20 million more people and to replace all our present and our impending slums by the end of the century. But it is not just a case of setting up a production line: we have to plan for people to he in the right place, to have jobs and shops and schools and hospitals; to have recreation in pleasant and healthy surroundings and, above all, to be able to move freely and safely, without being slaughtered by other people's means of locomotion. Therefore it seemed right to a previous Government to embark upon what are generally termed "regional studies". Subsequent Labour Governments have gone much further and have developed it by setting up regional planning councils and boards. Largely from these studies and their consideration have come the six proposals to which I have referred.

The Government announced in February last year that they proposed to go ahead with four New Town projects following upon the South-East Study—a very large New Town (actually more of a new city) in North Buckinghamshire, and large expansions, using the New Towns Act, of the county boroughs of Ipswich and Northampton, and of the City of Peterborough. Each of these four is intended to take 70,000 people from London by 1981—a total of 280,000. There have also been planning studies in South Hampshire and in the Newbury-Swindon area. I am glad to say that in the latter case the Greater London Council, the Berkshire County Council and the Swindon Borough Council are now pursuing the possibility of further expanding Swindon under the Town Development Act. Only last week you will have read that there is to be a study of the possibility of greatly expanding Ashford to take population from London. We told the consultants to take into account the Anglo-French agreement on a Cross-Channel Tunnel.

Let us now look North-West. A report by consultants on the large expansion under the New Towns Act of the county borough of Warrington is being considered by the Government and the local authorities. And there is also the possibility of setting up a very large town indeed (possibly half a million people)—another new city—in the Leyland-Chorley area. In the West Midlands, the Government are considering, and local authorities are being consulted, whether the area of Wellington and Oaken gates, next to Dawley New Town, should be developed as a New Town. No decision on this has yet been taken. In all these New Towns we are anxious that the architecture and planning should be as good as possible. The development corporations normally set up their own chief architect-planners to advise them and to undertake many of their development schemes, and they have large offices. The work they do is magnificent and I think will continue to be so; but there is a need also to bring in private architects to add variety to design and to help speed the process. Uniformity, however good, may become boring.

There are in this country architects who are working on the frontiers of design and who are trying to see the house, the street, the quarter, the city in a new way, a way conditioned as much by what we can foretell about the future as by what we know about the past and the present. These men are not "safe", or at least they do not always look it, and for that reason they are not usually to be found at the heart of, New Town construction. I think they should be. I think New Town corporations should increasingly give sectors of their towns to outside architects. They should not take risks with public money, of course, but many of the architects I have spoken of would be no risk in the practical sense. They are just new, unfamiliar. Sometimes they have bad manners: no matter; if they build well, hire them.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, before the noble Lord continues I should like to ask whether he is referring to the architects who design the houses, because it is important to have a landscape architect in as well. When one sees a New Town which has been well laid out, like Crawley, it makes all the difference.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I am urging, through the medium of this House, that new architects should be brought in on all aspects—planning, landscaping and building. So we propose to invest the £250 million almost entirely in the 22 existing New Towns and the six major projects which I have mentioned: North Buckinghamshire, Ipswich, Northampton, Peterborough, Warrington and Layland-Chorley. But there is just a chance that other schemes will firm up in time to draw some of this money. This would, of course, be announced to Parliament in the normal way.

That is where the money is to be spent. The House may wish to know more about how it is to be spent, and the returns. About 80 per cent. of the expenditure on the New Towns has been on housing, and this does not, and should not, produce a significant return. Development corporations can therefore only look to their commercial and industrial development to provide a surplus. They are expected to behave as prudent developers and let their properties on ordinary commercial terms. To get a town off the ground and attract essential industrial and commercial development may sometimes require special terms, but, once it is established, a corporation is expected to get current market rents. The average return on completed industrial and commercial development is about 3 per cent. after allowing for interest and depreciation. In a few cases the return is as high as 6 per cent. net. In this field it is fair to claim that the taxpayer is getting value for his money.

The overall position is this. Taking all the English corporations and the Commission for the New Towns together, there was a net surplus on general revenue account of three-quarters of a million pounds in the year ended March 31, 1966, and a cumulative surplus at that date of £3 million. Against this, on sewerage and sewage disposal, which is not a profitable service, the net revenue deficit in the year ended March 31, 1966, was £400,000 and there was a cumulative deficit of £4 million. This gives a net overall cumulative revenue deficit of £1 million. This is a big improvement on the total deficit of nearly £5 million six years ago. When one considers the substantial expenditure on land acquisition, the preparation of plans, the building of roads and the provision of services before any remunerative development can be undertaken, it is not an unsatisfactory position. All but three of the first generation New Towns made a surplus in 1965–66, though some had not by then overtaken past deficiencies.

We cannot, of course, expect surpluses from second generation New Towns for some time to come. They must get into their stride, and they have very heavy initial costs (on plans, staff, essential services) when profit-raising investment has hardly begun. And the third generation towns have yet to start. But we must take into account not only the balance sheets (which I believe will, in time, be healthy enough) but the enormous social, planning and architectural success of our New Towns in Britain. I need not remind the House that these New Towns are world famous. They are, in fact, among the list of achievements for which this country is now best known beyond our shores.

So, on the report I have given of the past, and the prospectus I have presented for the future, I commend this New Towns Bill for your Lordships' approval. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2^a.—(Lord Kennet.)

4.30 p.m.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, I know we are all most grateful to the noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary for introducing this Bill and for giving us an opportunity of hearing of the progress being made by the New Towns. I remember that on the last occasion a similar Bill appeared, in February, 1964, the position was somewhat reversed, because I was standing at that Dispatch Box asking this House to give a Second Reading to a Bill which requested a mere £150 million, and this time the noble Lord is asking for £250 million. Both sums, however, were designed to last approximately three years.

It is now just about three months short of three years since that other occasion, and, as we have heard, there is only £15 million left in the kitty. Sometimes I wonder, in view of the fact that we are all agreed on the desirability of creating New Towns, and have no intention of stopping that progress, whether it is necessary to ask for the money for a period so short as three years. Of course it provides a special occasion on which we can discuss the progress of New Towns. At the same time, I do not suppose there is any thought in anybody's mind that a much larger sum would not be granted in due course, when and if asked for, for an even longer period. I remember that on that previous occasion the debate really revolved around the particular problem of the New Town of Steven age. This is no longer a controversial point, and I would say that the upshot of that previous debate was that all of us were satisfied, because I got my Bill, the New Towns got their money, and the unanimous opinion of this House meant that an increase of size to Steven age also was virtually granted by virtue of the fact that nothing more was heard about it. I think that is more or less the truth.

Now we see that the impetus of expenditure is increasing, and that is what we should expect. After all, originally we had only 15 New Towns; now there are 22. Expenditure has gone up from £60 million a year to £80 million a year, and next year it will be going up at a higher rate. There are a few comments that I should like to make about New Towns in general, and the first is about the size of these towns. We have heard of a new city to be created in North Buckinghamshire, and I believe it is the intention of the Government, if I have read aright what the Parliamentary Secretary said in another place, that New Towns in the future are very likely to be of a size of a quarter of a million, and even, in some cases, more. These are really cities, and not towns, in the ordinary sense of the word. It was originally thought that an ideal size for a New Town was from 50,000 to 70,000. That sort of size makes for a fairly rapid development and also a good community spirit which can be built up without very much difficulty or delay. Whether one will run into difficulties in that respect by trying to create vast new cities I do not know, but I think it is something that must be borne in mind.

This brings me also to make an inquiry about Government policy in regard to expanding towns, because now not only have we New Towns—and, of course, old towns that are developing under a town development scheme, which we are not discussing this afternoon—but we have towns designated for expansion under the New Towns Act; in other words, New Town corporations will be expanding existing towns, and there will be a difficult problem of co-operation and co-ordination between the expanding town new corporation and the existing town local authority.

One might perhaps ask the Government to say whether, on the whole, they favour the expansion of existing towns in the future rather than the creation of entirely new towns. It might be easier, where there are existing amenities, for example, to build a new town on the edge and bring it into the old town as one entity in the long run. The difficulties of coordination and co-operation obviously will be fairly considerable, but it may be that in the long run this would be found to be quicker and possibly less expensive form of development. I wonder whether the noble Lord has any views on that or whether his Government have any particular mind on this problem. It is, I think, of considerable interest.

That brings me to the very difficult subject of amenities in general which, very properly, held the main attention during the debate in another place. We know that New Town corporations are able to spend up to £4 per head of population on amenities, and the Parliamentary Secretary in another place said that the Government were considering extending that figure. I personally feel that they will find it necessary to allow the corporations to spend more than£4 per head. I wonder whether the corporations should not have an obligation to spend that money, instead of merely a discretionary permission to do so, because there have been difficulties in building up amenities in these New Towns; we all know that amenities have not appeared as quickly as the people have demanded them and as is desirable. This is something, I am sure, which must be watched in the future.

The Parliamentary Secretary in another place said that he hoped New Town corporations would not, in fact, do everything for the people in the way of amenities, and that the people would help themselves to a large extent. Of course this can be done in respect of community centres and the like, and that is to be encouraged. But there are certain essential amenities which clearly must be provided by either the New Town corporation or the local authority—things like bowling alleys, swimming pools, civic theatres and so on, not to mention the local authority schools. This is a very difficult problem, because it is the local authority which has to find the money for providing schools which are being built by the New Town corporation. Schools do not always appear with the rapidity they should, or in the numbers they should. These matters need a great deal of thought, and I hope the Government will give it to them.

LORD LINDGREN

My Lords, before the noble Lord finishes on that point, did I understand him to say that New Towns provide educational facilities in the new schools? Surely that is the responsibility of the local education authority, not the New Town development corporation.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, I think the noble Lord misunderstood me. What I said was that a local authority has the responsibility of providing schools in a town which a New Town corporation has built. From that stems a certain difficulty requiring thought and closer co-ordination than has been the case in the past. The noble Lord is quite right, of course. I am sorry if he did not understand me correctly.

The question of priorities in the building of New Towns is very important. I noticed (and I do not think it is out of order to quote what was said) that the Parliamentary Secretary said during the Second Reading debate in another place: It is the positive policy of the Government to exclude public authority housing from any restrictions. That policy will apply in the new towns, but as is the case with every local authority, individual schemes, such as town centre development and so on, will be looked at on their merits."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 734 (No. 84), col. 1644; 28/10/66.] It that means anything, it means that the houses and factories will go up with priority, but that the provision of amenities may be allowed to drag, on the grounds of financial stringency. That is all very well in existing towns, as they already have the amenities and it is only a question of renewing what they already have. But a New Town has nothing; and it seems to me we should restrict this sort of development at our peril as well as at great inconvenience to people living in the New Town. I believe that a New Town is an entity which must grow whole, from the ground up, with its amenities, not only its houses and factories. I hope that in the future the New Town corporations and local authorities concerned will be encouraged to go ahead with the provision of amenities and facilities at the same time as the houses and factories go up; otherwise I am afraid that we may not get a satisfactory development or a happy community.

Could the noble Lord say something about the prospect, which I understand is in view, of ensuring that a far higher proportion of unskilled workers will go into the New Towns than is the case at the moment. I believe there is a scheme in view that something like 60 or 70 per cent. of the total population of a New Town should consist of unskilled workers, and that they should go in in this proportion at a fairly early stage. I do not know whether that is going to make for an easy or natural development, and perhaps the noble Lord will say something about it. I believe that the ground for this change of emphasis is that these people are among those who are most in need of housing, in London in particular, but if skilled workers are leaving London to start up the factories in the New Towns, as is usually the case, one would imagine that the houses which they vacate will become available for those who are left behind in London. I do not quite see why there is emphasis on the urgency for this, although in the long run it is a situation which we may expect to develop.

Another point I would mention relates to the question of old people's homes. What proportion of old people's homes are being built in the last half a dozen or so New Towns which have been designated, and what will be the figure in the future? During the period when I was in the noble Lord's place, the local authorities in the country as a whole were building something like one-third of their houses for old people. I suspect that the proportion in New Towns is nothing like as high, and I should like to know what the figure is at the moment, and also what it is planned to be in the future. As the New Towns develop, they require elderly people as well, to make a thoroughly balanced and happy community.

That brings me to the point of owner-occupation. I was interested to read in the debate in another place that in the last two years the amount of owner-occupation in the New Towns has gone up from 11 to 28 per cent. That is very satisfactory. I should like to know, if possible (I am afraid I have not given notice of this question), whether that is being done as a result of any regulation or advice given by the Minister, or whether it has come about as a result of the initiative of the New Town corporations themselves. I was also very pleased to read that it is the intention that the extent of owner-occupation in the New Towns should rise as high as 50 per cent.

I will say a word about the industrialised system of building these towns. This matter, again caused a certain stir in another place. One member of the Party opposite criticised the industrial system of building, and though he was not exactly called to order, he was somewhat "sat upon" by the Parliamentary Secretary, who said this: There will be those who cry out that factory built houses will mar the beauty of towns which are meant to set examples to the rest of the country. I will not waste the time of the House exploding that myth. Industrialised building in its appearance and variety, if it is good, stands second to none."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 734 (No. 84), col. 1581; 28/10/66.] I think perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary was a little rash in describing this as a "myth". What really matters is his phrase "if it is good". But the fact is that not all industrialised building is good. I have been around sonic of these places, I pass by or through them occasionally, and I have noticed certain houses going up which, quite frankly, are not a credit to the manufacturer, or, to my mind, to the architect.

On the other hand, I admit that there are some fine examples of this type of building. The Parliamentary Secretary in the other place mentioned Peterlee, one of the lesser known New Towns (because perhaps it is rather far away from here), in the County of Durham. As I live in that part of the world, I know it well, and I agree with everything that has been said about Peterlee. But there are exceptions to the rule, and I do not want people to get into the frame of mind of believing that, because something is built by an industrialised system, it is necessarily the right thing or a good thing.

This rather accords with what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was saying about bringing in new blood to think about general design layout as a whole. I hope that the noble Lord's Ministry is able to check up on the various systems of industrial building. It is still in its early stages, and I have no doubt that it can produce fine New Towns; but we do not want to put up rather scrappy buildings which are not going to last long and which will very soon look quite horrible. It is worth adding the word of warning that one should not be too complacent about the situation. The House has been told about the increasingly satisfactory financial results which are accruing. I have no doubt that the situation will continue to produce a surplus in the future and that, in the long run, the public will get its money back, both in terms of social value and in economic terms.

I should like now to say a few words about the Commission for the New Towns. I understand from what was said in another place that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to abolish it in the fairly near future. I do not want to say much about that now, except to say that if legislation to that effect is envisaged, it will have to be examined very carefully. There are enormous assets to be considered, and we shall certainly have to watch very carefully how they are going to be disposed of.

On the question of the compensation set out in Clause 2 of the present Bill, I was very interested in what the noble Lord said and spelled out very clearly, because I was a little confused by what happened in another place. Here I would refer to the Parliamentary Secretary's words in another place where he said: Full account will, of course, still be taken of values attributable to the original new town because those values would have been established whether or not the area was extended."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 734 (No. 84), col. 1577; 28/10/66.] Again, in the Committee stage, he said: The percentage levy would, under the proposals of the Land Commission Bill, be payable on the element of development value which the owner realised. Since the owner would realise no development value from development or prospects of development in the extension area, no levy would be payable on it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 735 (No. 94), col. 1752; 11/11/66.1] I am not quite sure whether that accords exactly with what the noble Lord himself said. In the other place, it was given out that the compensation would be based on the amount of the market value. The market value, presumably, would be the existing use value plus the value that came from the existence of a new town nearby—the willing buyer and the willing seller.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, it may save time if I come in at this moment. I hope we shall keep most of these complications till the Committee stage, which is the appropriate time. But I think, as the noble Lord has just outlined it, this is a situation which would apply close to a New Town but not in a designated extension. I believe this is right.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, we may have to deal with that later. I thought that if we did it now we should not have to spend too much time on it in the Committee stage. The noble Lord himself said that compensation would be based on existing use value, plus the development value resulting from the new town which was there—not in the extension area but in the new town nearby—and there would be development value to pay on the fact that there was an increase in value coming from the existence of a new town.

There would not be development value from the fact that it was going to be designated an extension area, because there would not be an increase in the price for it. There would be some levy, I take it, on the sale of that land, not as a result of the designation of an extension area but as a result of there being development value pertaining to that land already. This is the sole difference, I think, which seems to have arisen between the two Parliamentary Secretaries. I do not know whether I have explained the point sufficiently, but if not perhaps we shall have it out at Committee stage.

Finally, there is the very difficult problem of the compensation for tenant farmers. I believe that the Government are looking into that, and I am sure that this House, which has so many Members interested in the countryside and in agriculture, would welcome a statement and an assurance that there is a possibility that the tenant farmers may receive much more adequate compensation than they do at the moment, which certainly on all accounts is inadequate. With those comments, which I hope have not been too long, although we only discuss this once every three years, I welcome the Bill and ask my noble friends to give it a Second Reading.

4.55 p.m.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

My Lords, before the noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary replies, I wonder whether I may ask him to elaborate some of the remarks which he made concerning the provision of roads in connection with these new towns. The noble Lord made some reference to the provision of roads, but roads are such a very important problem now in connection with all forms of transport and traffic, particularly in regard to conurbations and congregations of people, whosesoever they may be, to enable them to get from there to other parts of the country, that it is essential that we should know what provision the Government are proposing to make with regard to adequate road facilities leading into and out of and through these new towns. I would particularly ask the noble Lord whether it is proposed that there should be built into these new towns urban clearways, pedestrian precincts and the modern forms of development in traffic engineering and town planning.

4.56 p.m.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak to and answer one's predecessor but one in the same chair. It is a mingled pleasure and a source of alarm because, of course, one knows that he knows at least as much as, probably more than, one does oneself about the subject. I regret that my noble friend Lord Silkin has been called away. I am sorry to have missed his intervention on this Bill.

I should like to take up as many of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, as I can without further reference and consultation. First of all, there was the point about the populations of new towns and new cities. How big should they be? What is the Government's policy? As I outlined in my speech, we think they should probably be of all sizes; some small, some big. I would say this to those who are alarmed by the great size of the largest we propose. Within the next 33 years, within the next generation, we must house 20 million people more than there are now. Of course, they are not all going into new towns, or even into extensions of old towns, but a very large number of them must do. If we consider how many Londons, how many Birminghams, 20 million represents, and if we consider on the other side that a small town by definition takes up more space—it cuts down the amount of countryside more if we put all those people into towns of 50,000 or 70,000—we realise it would eat up far more countryside than if we put quite a large number of them into towns of 500,000. So our thinking, for the moment at any rate, is to go ahead with schemes of both sizes.

As regard co-operation between the corporation and the existing local authority, when we are dealing with a big town expansion of the Peterborough-Ipswich type, this is of course something which we keep a very close eye on. I think one has to admit—in fact, I know that my honourable friends in another place admitted it without mentioning names—that in one or two towns cooperation has been fairly bad. But this is not so with most of them. Most have been jolly good. The aspect which we want to examine most closely and improve most urgently is that the existing local authorities should not adopt a passive attitude to the powerful newcomer, but should tell it what they want and should make proposals to it, especially for the amenities. They should, if you like, take a lead about what amenities are going to be needed in the joint operation which is a big town expansion.

We are naturally also keeping a close eye on the £4 a head provision—whether it should be an obligation on anybody to spend a precise sum or a precise minimum on amenities. But for the moment, and provisionally, I would say that we are against imposing numerical obligations on new town set-ups, whether on the corporation or on the local authority, because we feel that they might hamper their initiatives in deciding together what it is they want to do in the special conditions of the new town. But, having said that, the Government agree fundamentally with the noble Lord that a new town has to grow "whole" from the beginning. I think everybody on all sides admits that the earliest new towns did not grow whole. The housing grew first and the amenities were left behind, and we got the famous "new town blues". But we think that the "new town blues" is a thing of the past, and we are not getting them in the later generations of new towns which are being made to grow more as a whole.

On the question of old people's homes, I would rather, if I may, give the noble Lord a precise answer after I have been able to obtain it. I would rather not give him a rough answer for the moment, because what is being done in this connection is continually changing. On the question of owner-occupation, there is little to add to what my honourable friend said about this in another place. He indicated the present situation, and stated the Government's overall intention about it. Once again, we want to avoid laying down the law about any proportion, but the general direction is as it was stated in the House of Commons.

On industrial building, I must, of course, agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, that the key words are "if it is good", and remind the House that the National Building Agency is charged with finding and listing the systems which, in its opinion, are good. I must also say that whether an I.B. estate is good depends not only on the stuff as it conies from the factory but also on how it is screwed together by the architect; and, of course, the qualification "if it is good" applies to a traditional building just as much. We are up against the familiar problem of æsthetic standards in all new building. The noble Lord and I, if we were left in charge of this, could raise them, I am sure we are confident, 100 per cent. within a week, but we should without doubt be shot by an angry populace if we attempted to do that. So all Governments have to tread a difficult path between compulsion, on the one hand, and ugliness, on the other.

On the question of the complications arising on compensation, I would say that this is a matter on which I am not convinced by the noble Lord's speech that there is a discrepancy between what was said in another place and my own formulation just now of this very complex matter. But before confronting the difficult task of providing a formulation which will be yet more simple and yet more unmistakable than any yet provided, I should like to have a chance to tackle the categories again in my own mind, and will undertake either to give it to the noble Lord personally, whenever he likes, or to give it to the full House—and perhaps this would be best—on Third Reading, or on Committee stage if there is an opportunity. It is not realy too complicated. I would say that the degree of complication is nothing like that which the House will be facing in the case of the Land Commission Bill itself.

Then the noble Lord raised the problem of roads. It does not arise under this Bill, and I could not give him specific answers to his factual questions except to say that all the New Towns' roads have throughout been designed according to the best available theories and criteria, including clearways and pedestrian-ways, and that the best available criteria are getting better year by year. The New Towns are following the best pattern one can get at this moment, just as the old ones did, and this, in itself, is better.

On Question, Bill read 2^a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.