HL Deb 18 February 1985 vol 460 cc391-413

2.54 p.m.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

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

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Change in functions of Commission]:

Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 2, line 9, at end insert— (" ( ) the need to achieve levels of population and employment for which the new town has been developed and which have been approved by the Secretary of State; and")

The noble Lord said: I very much hope that the Minister who is to reply will be able to help us to the extent that we shall not wish to press this matter to a Division. It is not exactly a probing amendment but an amendment seeking further confirmation of what we believe is the position. The Minister was quite helpful at Second Reading both in answering questions and in making his own speech.

It is right and proper that, before I proceed to speak to the amendment, I should remind the Committee precisely what it is we are about at this particular part of the Bill. For many years under Governments of all complexions the new towns movement in this country has been added to and has spread. At the moment we have new towns at various stages: some have been wound up, some have been given winding up dates and some are anxious to have the dates which have been mooted extended to other periods. At the same time, as overwhelmingly the activity in new towns is in the realm of the development corporations, for each new town we are faced with the main imperative of this Bill, which is to enhance the function of the Commission for the New Towns. In Clause 1 we are talking in terms of redefining the purposes for which the commission exists.

One of the anxieties not only of many new towns, which I believe is right, but of the people who are concerned with the management of the new towns is to feel that they will have the opportunity before winding up dates—and winding up dates are flexible—of achieving the maximum possible potential for which the new towns are capable of being developed. At the same time, there is also the other major factor that the Government have a policy of the sale of industrial and commercial assets—although other amendments which I shall deal with later cover the way in which that is taking place.

Amendment No. 1 refers to line 9 on page 2 and the matters that need to be considered when the commission carries out its function of disposing of properties. Under subsection (2) we are dealing with the considerations that the commission needs to have in mind. The first consideration is in subsection (2)(a), which states: the convenience and welfare of persons residing, working or carrying on business there, and". My amendment seeks to insert, as a further consideration: the need to achieve levels of population and employment for which the new town has been developed and which have been approved by the Secretary of State". I need to remind the Minister of what could be seen as conflicting views contained in the words used at Second Reading. The Minister said: The special involvement of the public sector through the ownership of land and buildings has been an important tool in promoting the growth of the new towns. But when that induced growth has been achieved and there is no need for further growth, the case for that special involvement ceases".—[Official Report, 28/1/85; col. 468.] There would be no dispute and this amendment would not be needed if that is where we rested; in other words, the general view would be that there is an important tool in promoting the growth of the new towns but when that induced growth has been achieved—that is, only when that induced growth has been achieved—there will be no need for further growth.

Later, in column 486 of Hansard, the Minister said: Development corporations are set up with a specific task—that of inducing growth. Where that task is complete, the development corporation is no longer needed". The premise is that only when the task is complete will the development corporation no longer be needed. There is no dispute about that. But also at column 485 (concerning Milton Keynes) and in column 469 (concerning Corby), the Minister indicated that corporations would be wound up before growth was complete and particularly where private enterprise and public sector involvement via the commission could finish off the growth.

3 p.m.

We are not arguing about the philosophy behind the Government's attitude to the new towns, but can the Minister assure not merely the Committee but the many individuals whose livelihood is affected that the development corporations will be allowed—I am not talking about enabled—to continue their work provided that they are working towards population and growth targets which the Minister and Parliament have agreed? We want to know whether we can take it that in general the winding-up of the remaining new towns will take place only when growth is substantially complete and that is accepted locally. I realise that the Minister and his advisers may take a different view from local people about whether the development is substantially complete, but I should certainly like an answer to that question.

At column 469 the Minister said: Where it is necessary for them to undertake development and promotion they will be able to do so … To sell industrial premises at a proper price will need the local economy to be in as good a condition as possible". Would it not be reasonable to accept the amendment so that there can be no dubiety about the fact that it is the Government's intention to allow new town development corporations to continue to do their work instead of passing it over to the commission?

This should not be a matter of great moment. The Minister can use a form of words. His record on intent and integrity is accepted and respected. I hope that he will understand the raison d'etre of the worries put to me by a number of people. There is a slight uncertainty, not because of the words that he used on the last occasion, but because very important matters are at stake. The various towns have different histories and need different treatment. The Government gave Corby special attention because of the enormity of the situation there, with the collapse of its economy which relied on the steel industry, and so on, and special steps were taken. I am not arguing for uniform treatment. But where a development corporation has within its grasp the ability to complete the programme which the Minister and Parliament have laid down, it should be allowed to do so before being wound up. I beg to move the amendment standing in my name.

The Earl of Avon

This amendment would add to the considerations to which the commission has to have regard—the need to achieve certain levels of population and employment. As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, opposite explained, the thought here is that the commission should actively promote its town rather than taking a purely passive approach. I hope to persuade the Committee that the amendment is not really necessary.

Under the Bill as it stands, the commission has to hold, manage and turn to account the property that it receives from development corporations until that property is sold. The commission also has to have due regard to the convenience and welfare of people living in, working in or carrying out businesses in the town, and must also maintain and enhance the value of land held and the return obtained from it. The commission also retains a power, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to develop land itself. It is not therefore limited just to whatever was passed to it when the development corporation was wound up.

These powers under the Bill give the commission all the remit that it needs to promote the town appropriately. As an example—and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, takes me to task slightly for using Corby—at Corby what it can achieve in terms of job creation has been proved, working in partnership with the local authority. The commission will likewise take a responsible approach to the problems of each of the towns that it is due to take over. That approach will not be a carbon copy of what has been done. Indeed, the noble Lord said there would be different approaches in different places. In the very different circumstances of the initial London ring of towns, for instance, the examples are there. Skelmersdale presents a different set of problems and opportunities from Crawley, and the commission acknowledges that. I can assure the Committee that the commission will not be taking a purely passive asset-realisation rôle.

Noble Lords will, I trust, be persuaded that the amendment is unnecessary. Incidentally, although of course I go along with the need for responsible promotion of the commission's towns, I have to part company with the detail of the amendment. The amendment talks of levels of population and employment for which the new town was developed and which have been approved by the Secretary of State. In fact, the official Opposition will be particularly aware that new town target populations were amended several times, most notably by a Labour Government in 1977. The then Secretary of State announced drastic reductions to the targets of the third generation towns, especially Central Lancashire New Town.

For this reason, when in 1981 my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment announced his own conclusions on the future of the third generation towns, he stressed that the population figures he was quoting should not be considered as targets. That was because the rate of population growth would depend primarily on the rate of demand for private house building and on the willingness of the private sector to invest. Much the same can be said about employment. Though the commission will wish to promote its towns, it must surely depend for job opportunities created on the decisions of the private sector.

I hope that I have demonstrated that the basic thought behind the amendment, that the commission should take a responsible role in promoting its towns, is one which I share but which is met perfectly adequately by the Bill as it now stands. The amendment would, I believe, add nothing, to the extent that it talks of target populations and employments. I believe that has been superseded by events. I trust that I have to a degree persuaded the noble Lord that his worries about the commission have been set aside, and I believe that later amendments will clarify some of the other points.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

The Minister has assured me as to the intent. I am bound to say that the further away the body is from the real action, the more worried I become about its ability to do the job. In my view, the local council in certain circumstances is better able to do the job than the development corporation; and the development corporation is certainly better able to do the job than the commission. That is simply because those concerned are nearer to the action. They live in the town. If they are councillors, they are elected by the local people. If they are members of the development corporation, they have their being in the area and move about in it.

The Minister will recall that I used the example of the Wrekin town council. Talking about wrecking councils, I do not doubt that the Minister could give me the names of one or two which are on his lips or those of his noble friends. But the Wrekin council drew my attention to a real problem. Once the commission for the new towns has responsibility, it will certainly not be able to devote as much attention to the new town (which is of course the new town of Telford) as did the development corporation. We know of the problems of the new town of Telford. It is made up of a lot of small and run down—almost industrially clapped out—places in that part of the country, brought together into the new town.

I raise the point because clearly it is a separate issue. I see that in this month's issue of the Local Government Chronicle, a great deal of the pages are devoted to the Wrekin Council. The headline is: "A lesson on how to devise a new corporate identity", and there are some interesting observations on what the Telford New Town Development Corporation is doing to carry out its work.

However, we are in the area where we have to trust that the Government have it right. That is quite uncertain. I certainly trust the Government as to their intentions, and those are that they want to make sure that what we are seeking in the amendment actually comes about without the necessity of having to write those words on to the face of the Bill. In the light of what the Minister has said, I shall accept his assurances that, whether or not the target populations are changed, there is the intention to maximise the benefit to the local people and to the taxpayer of using the resources which are there. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 2, line 12, at end insert— ("and (c) the agreement of the local authority in whose area the property or land is situated." ")

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 2 concerns the question of the considerations to be borne in mind but in a different way. We are talking in terms of the purpose for which the Commission for New Towns exists. The new subsections (1) says: The purposes for which the Commission exists are—

  1. (a) to take over and, with a view to its eventual disposal, to hold, manage and turn to account the property of development corporations transferred to the Commission under this Act, and
  2. (b) as soon as it considers it expedient to do so, to dispose of property so transferred and any other property held by it, due regard being had to the considerations"—
I repeat the word "considerations"— as specified in subsection (2) below". I want to seek to add to the considerations which are, first of all, the convenience and welfare of persons residing, working or carrying on business there", and secondly, until disposal, the maintenance and enhancement of the value of the land held and the return obtained from it. I then want to add, as a consideration: the agreement of the local authority in whose area the property or land is situated.

That is a simple point which I hope the Minister will accept. The council consisting of local people has been democratically elected, as opposed to the New Towns Commission which consists of placemen and women put there by the Secretary of State, and quite clearly with the powers in the Bill the council can be overridden by the Secretary of State if they do not do what he wants. I take the view that locally elected people have every right to be not just consulted but to be part of the decision-making process. If we put aside party politics, we are concerned with getting the best deal for the local people and, let me say, the best deal for the taxpayer. I do not put out of mind that one of the functions of this Bill is to satisfy the taxpayer that he is getting value for money in selling property at the right price at the right time.

We are talking in terms of disposing of commercial and industrial assets. I can recall that when this Bill was promoted, we said—and it continues to be said—that when new towns are given targets of the asset values that they must realise in a certain period, in effect it is a false market. If a new town is told that in the next year, or the next two years, the Exchequer expects that part of the asset value of the town shall be transformed from bricks and mortar, or factories, shops or offices, into cash which will come back to the Exchequer, then these matters do not remain secret. People who are interested in the market realise that the assets that have to be sold will very often be sold or could be sold at prices less than the market value.

3.15 p.m.

If the Minister tells us that that can never happen, that no asset will be sold at less than its market value, then we are in an interesting situation. That is because if no asset is to be sold until it commands its proper price—not its market price in a fair market: I am talking about a forced sale and a forced, false market which can be created—then the wind up of the new towns would take a very long time indeed. We know that the Government want the money. Besides having the imperative of getting out of the business of governing new towns, they want the money. The Treasury says to the DoE, "We want you to realise those assets". What we are saying is that the people who live in the new town and its area, and who are elected to the local authority which covers the new town, are every bit as entitled to be considered.

The Minister in other places has said that the consultation process will take place. This is all very well but what we are concerned about is not merely consultation: we are talking about something far more substantial than that. What we have here are the words of the Minister. The Minister for Housing in the committee in another place, (at col. 7 of the Official Report) said: The Bill lays on the Commission the duty to have regard to the welfare and convenience of those living, working and carrying on business in the towns where it has responsibilities. The basic step in carrying out that duty is to decide what will conduce to the welfare of those who live and work there. The views of their elected representatives should play a full part in that process of consultation.". In essence, what we want the Minister to tell us is what is wrong with writing on the face of the Bill that one of the considerations—it is only a consideration—that the Commission should take into account before proceeding to carry out its remit of disposing of the assets is that it should have the agreement of the local authority. There are other parts of the Bill which give the Secretary of State powers to override. But if the Minister is looking for sensible progress towards the completion of the new towns programme I hope that he will accept this amendment. It is reasonable, democratic, and in my view it would be helpful. I beg to move.

Lord Tordoff

I rise for two reasons. The first is to apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lady Stedman, who unfortunately cannot be here this Monday. The second reason is to mention that, due to some bureaucratic tangle, her request to have her name placed against a number of these amendments was lost in the system. That has been acknowledged by the system but I wanted the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, to know that he was not alone, as it were. However, he is capable of handling these matters more than adequately.

The amendment has the full support of these Benches. I believe that my noble friend Lady Stedman referred to the background (in col. 474 of Hansard) at Second Reading. As she then said, we have had considerable representations from councillors in Milton Keynes on this same subject.

It seems to me that whereas Liberals have been suspicious of placemen, of commissions and corporations of one sort or another, and want to see local authorities move into the hands of local authorities as soon as possible, the work that has been done by the commissions is acknowledged as having been extremely successful. It seems to me a great pity that the transfer cannot be made as smooth and as much based on consensus as it might be. The provision to get the agreement of the local authority is an important facet in making sure that the timing aspect is in the interests of all concerned, and not merely of the Exchequer and the Government. I am not suggesting for a minute that the Government are trying to push this along faster than they should. I am sure that that is not in the Minister's mind. But it is a useful safeguard to have brought into the action the local authority, which has knowledge of the area which perhaps the Secretary of State does not possess.

The Earl of Avon

I wonder whether the noble Lord will clarify one matter. Obviously, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, would like her name associated with Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Does she also want that in regard to Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6?

Lord Tordoff

In her absence I cannot be absolutely sure. I can perhaps feed this through the system at a later point. Certainly, the message was passed to the Public Bill Office. It is acknowledged there that, by some mischance, her name does not appear on the amendments. I do not think it matters frightfully whether her name goes on, but I wanted it to be known that we support the amendments.

The Earl of Avon

I am grateful to the noble Lord because, later I may not be quite so amicable as I was previously. I wanted to make sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, was included. I should like to deal with Amendment No. 2. Noble Lords have explained that the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the commission consults local authorities about how the commission will exercise its reponsibilities in their towns. An identical amendment was, I believe, considered in Committee in the other place, where it did not find favour. I understand the point that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, makes. I stress again that I do not honestly believe that there is any need for this amendment. I shall try to persuade the Committee of the reason.

The Bill ensures that the commission, in pursuing its function, has to have due regard to the convenience and welfare of persons residing, working or carrying on a business in each of the towns. Consulting the local authorities, who are the elected representatives of the people living in the towns, is an obvious element in discharging that responsibility. Indeed, the commission has already demonstrated its commitment to consultations where the joint industrial development committee has played an important part in attracting jobs to that town. There, again, I mention Corby.

The commission intends to establish local liaison committees in all the further towns where it will be taking over. Indeed, even though the commission has not yet assumed responsibility at Northampton, Redditch and Skelmersdale, committees have already been set up and have met. Northampton's committee met last Tuesday, 12th February, Redditch's met on 16th January, and Skelmersdale's, which met on 5th December, will be meeting again this coming Wednesday.

I have referred to the towns which the commission will be taking over. But the commission also works closely with the local authorities in the other towns where it has already taken over. We have no reason to believe that these existing arrangements are unsatisfactory or require any change in the statutory basis for the commission's work.

Ministers have repeatedly said that there will be no forced sales and no sales against best professional advice. The task of the commission to realise the assets will be, in part, to create a market in which this aim can be achieved. I must therefore recommend that your Lordships' Committee does not accept this amendment. I hope that I have persuaded the Committee that there is no need for it. Indeed, I would argue that it is wrong to try to tie down by statute the precise way the commission should discharge its statutory responsibility to have regard to the convenience and welfare of local people. The commission's approach will need to reflect the different situations in each of the towns. For example, the problems and needs of Crawley and Hemel Hempstead, the development corporations for which were wound up over 20 years ago, are very different from those of Corby and different again from those of the towns where wind up is shortly to take place, such as Northampton and Redditch and, looking a little further ahead, perhaps, central Lancashire.

I am not sure that the drafting of the amendment is all that it should be. It is not clear whether it deals just with consultations or whether, instead, it gives a power of veto. However, I do not rest my argument on the wording being wrong. The main point is that the amendment is not really necessary. I believe that it is inappropriate to meet all the circumstances. I hope that I have persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and that he will agree with me.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

There is a fundamental difference. I have been trying to argue that the status and stature of elected councillors and the democratically-elected council are worth more than being embraced by the words, the convenience and welfare of persons residing". The Minister did not say, though I am sure he would if I were to ask, of whom the local liaison committees will be comprised. No doubt they will very much reflect local organisations and so on. I am not concerned about that. Many of these councils will be Conservative and some will be Labour. I am not talking about the politics. As a former democratically elected local councillor, I am saying that the town council or the local authority should have a status. When the Minister says that there is no need for this to be written into the Bill, I maintain that there comes a time when we have to say not that we distrust Ministers, nor, above all, this Minister, but that all Governments and departments resist writing into a Bill more obligations on the department than are necessary. In this instance, however, I believe that it is right and proper that the amendment should be written into the Bill. I shall test the view of the Committee by pressing the matter to a vote.

3.26 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 82.

DIVISION NO. 1
CONTENTS
Amherst, E. Ennals, L.
Ardwick, L. Falkland, V.
Aylestone, L. Gaitskell, B.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Gallacher, L.
Beswick, L. Galpern, L.
Birk, B. Gladwyn, L.
Boston of Faversham, L. Gormley, L.
Brockway, L. Graham of Edmonton, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. Grimond, L.
Burton of Coventry, B. Hampton, L.
Caradon, L. Hanworth, V.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. Hunt, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Jenkins of Putney, L.
Collison, L. John-Mackie, L.
Cooper of Stockton Heath, L. Kilmarnock, L.
David, B. [Teller.] Leatherland, L.
Davies of Leek, L. Listowel, E.
Dean of Beswick, L. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Diamond, L. Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Lockwood, B.
Donnet of Balgay, L. McNair, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L. Maybray-King, L.
Mayhew, L. Soper, L.
Mishcon, L. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Monkswell, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Nicol, B. Strablogi, L.
Plant, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.] Tordoff, L.
Underhill, L.
Rathcreedan, L. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Ross of Marnock, L. Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
Seear, B.
Shepherd, L. Wootton of Abinger, B.
NOT-CONTENTS
Allerton, L. Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.
Alport, L.
Ampthill, L. Melville, V.
Avon, E. Merrivale, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Mersey, V.
Beloff, L. Milverton, L.
Belstead, L. Molson, L.
Boardman, L. Morris, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Orkney, E.
Broadbridge, L. Pender, L.
Bruce-Gardyne, L. Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Caithness, E.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Porritt, L.
Campbell of Croy, L. Quinton, L.
Clancarty, E. Radnor, E.
Coleraine, L. Rankeillour, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Rawlinson of Ewell, L.
Davidson, V. Rodney, L.
De Freyne, L. Romney, E.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Saltoun, Ly.
Denning, L. Sandford, L.
Dilhorne, V. Selkirk, E.
Drumalbyn, L. Sharples, B.
Dudley, B. Shaughnessy, L.
Dulverton, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Duncan-Sandys, L. Soames, L.
Effingham, E. Stamp, L.
Ellenborough, L. Strathspey, L.
Elton, L. Sudeley, L.
Faithfull, B. Swansea, L.
Gainford, L. Swinton, E. [Teller.]
Gardner of Parkes, B. Thorneycroft, L.
Glanusk, L. Todd, L.
Gridley, L. Trefgarne, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. Trumpington, B.
Vivian, L.
Hayter, L. Ward of Witley, V.
Henley, L. Westbury, L.
Home of the Hirsel, L. Whitelaw, V.
Hylton-Foster, B. Wynford, L.
Margadale, L. Young, B.
Marley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

3.34 p.m.

Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 3: Page 2, leave out lines 39 and 40.

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 3 in Clause 1 seeks to strike out lines 39 and 40, and I so move. This part of the Bill lays down what the commission shall not do, by virtue of Section 36, and it then proceeds to list a number of things it shall not do: except under the general or special authority of the Secretary of State". I am seeking to convince the Committee that we ought to delete the words: except under the general or special authority of the Secretary of State.". We are considering whether we are going to trust the commission to exercise many of its functions. We have already decided, by virtue of the Division we have just had, that we are not prepared to involve fully the local, democratically-elected council in the disposal process. In fact, we are not prepared to allow the commission to do what is laid down as an obligation without the agreement of the council. Having said that the commission shall not have the agreement of the local council we are now, in this part of Clause 1, saying that there is a range of things that the commission shall not do unless it has: the general or special authority of the Secretary of State". I know that the Minister is going to tell me that the words: except under the general or special authority of the Secretary of State", are in legislation from time immemorial. He will be able to quote recent legislation.

What I want to ask the Committee is this. Is it not time that we curbed some of the powers of the Secretary of State and relied upon the good sense, the business acumen and sagacity of the people who the Secretary of State has appointed? Every person who will be on the New Towns Commission will be appointed by the Secretary of State. I make no political point. I simply mean that when the Secretary of State is given advice and looks at the range of men and women who are competent to serve, he decides that those people have his confidence, for a number of reasons. Some of the reasons may be political, though generally they will not. He makes his decision because he believes that the people are well able to look after his interests on the commission.

Yet we have, in this part of the Bill, a number of things that the commission cannot do unless it has his approval. Let me look at some of them. One is: acquire land or any interest or rights in or over land". The commission shall not be able to do that: except under the general or special authority of the Secretary of State". It shall not be able to: dispose of any property by way of gift or for a consideration which is less than the best reasonably obtainable", that is: except under the general or special authority of the Secretary of State". On the last amendment and the earlier one we were arguing about the rigged or the forced market—hurried sales. Here we have apparently the get-out for a commission which sells at what is recognised as less than market value, provided it gets the approval of the Secretary of State.

I believe that in recent times the Secretary of State has taken on enormous powers in respect of Section 137. I notice that the Minister who is sitting next to the noble Earl, Lord Avon, smiles; I take it as a smile rather than a grimace, though it could be a grimace in the light of the extra work that is being provided. There are enormous powers, involving millions and millions of pounds, and there are limits to the number of hands, feet and brains that can work at these matters—at least, I believe there are limits—in the Department of the Environment as well as anywhere else.

The simple premise that I am asking the Minister to accept is this. Having made sure that the Secretary of State appoints people to the commission to look after his interests, ought we not to take away the veto that the Secretary of State holds as regards what the commission do? Ought we not to take away the ultimate responsibility? I can well imagine that the new towns commission could take the view that "big brother" or "big sister" will continue to look over their shoulders, and that they need to have final approval as regards a great many matters. I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

Taken literally, this amendment would remove the power of the Secretary of State to permit the Commission for the New Towns to do any of the things listed in Clause 1(3). This would mean that they could not acquire any new land, make any contributions to local authorities, make any loans, develop land or make any gifts of land. For that reason alone I would hesitate to recommend that your Lordships countenance this amendment. However, I do not want to rest merely on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Graham, has explained that his purpose is not in fact to block all such things, but rather to discuss how the Secretary of State should exercise his powers to agree such things and the extent to which Parliament should be involved in that. It may help the Committee if I run briefly through the provision as it stands in the Bill. I do not want to dwell too long on this because the whole question was discussed at some length in Committee in another place.

Ever since 1946, when the Government of the noble Lord's persuasion first brought in new towns legislation, successive Secretaries of State and Ministers have had powers to give directions about the discharge by new town corporations of their functions. Since 1959 that has included the commission as well as new town development corporations. So there is, in principle, nothing new here at all.

Paragraph (a) deals with the acquisition of land. Although this control is new so far as the commission is concerned, it simply parallels a similar existing control on the acquisition of land by development corporations. I am referring to the control under Section 10 of the 1981 Act. It seems to me to be highly sensible that both controls should be on the same footing.

Paragraph (b) deals with the contributions by the commission towards the cost of amenities, supplies and services. This is simply a restatement of an existing control over the commission. The only change is that we are removing the present requirement for the concurrence of the Treasury as well as the approval of the Secretary of State. I am sure that the Committee would be happy to agree that there is no need for the Treasury to be involved in such details.

Paragraph (e) relates to the control over gifts and over disposals at a consideration less than the best reasonably obtainable. In effect, this is an existing control. The Bill, however, replaces a rather complicated existing scheme with a straightforward one. I think the main point here, which was discussed at some length in another place, is that we have no intention of using this power to allow the commission to give away or sell at an undervalue land which should be sold on a commercial basis. I willingly repeat that undertaking. What we have in mind, as my right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction explained in the other place, is to have a power where there is a clear social case for doing so. He quoted the example of the forthcoming transfer of the Castle Eden Dene Nature Reserve at Peterlee to the Nature Conservancy Council and the longstanding practices whereby land needed by local authorities for their functions, or land needed by Churches for places of worship, are transferred to those bodies on special terms. Those are cases of a type where the Secretary of State should be able to give his consent, and the Bill provides for that. Nothing more nor less is needed.

3.45 p.m.

The noble Lord has also stressed the question of parliamentary involvement in the Secretary of State's decision. I do not believe that these are matters that need to be put before Parliament individually before my right honourable friend can make a decision. The Labour Government did not think that this was appropriate when they first set the new towns legislation framework back in 1946, and nor have any subsequent Government.

We have had an interesting debate on this subject. Lord Graham's amendment would prevent the commission doing certain things absolutely instead of, as the Bill suggests, allowing them to be done in circumstances to be agreed by responsible Ministers. I believe that our way forward is the right way forward, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, can be persuaded.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

Yes, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, can be persuaded—he is not persuaded, but he can be! The Minister has to satisfy me about the reconciliation of a matter which I just cannot, at present, accept. On the one hand, the Minister went out of his way just now to stress that no properties will be realised unless a proper price is obtained. Whether it is a reasonable price, the market price, or a satisfactory price, we are talking in terms of an asset which everyone agrees is worth, for example, £1 million. What the Minister is saying is that you cannot get rid of that asset for less than £1 million, or for much less than £1 million, without his approval.

On the other hand, we know that the Minister and his colleagues have remits from the Treasury, to produce monies. Let me give an illustration. The Treasury will from time to time say that in the year ahead the new towns will realise assets—for example, £100 million, £50 million or whatever it may be. In fact, the Minister has to answer this question now. Is it not a fact that there is laid upon the development corporations and the commission a target that they are urged (if they are not under a strict mandate) to achieve? I am referring to so many millions of pounds. For example, let us suppose that a development corporation is told that its share of the total is £20 million, and the Minister says that if it cannot get a fair price then it cannot sell anything because if it were to do so it would not be selling sensibly. Let us suppose that the new town development corporation says, "We cannot get £20 million for £20 million worth of assets. All we can get is £12 million because of the market, a lack of buyers and a lot of economic imperatives". Will they in fact be able to get only £12 million for £20 million worth of assets, or do they not sell (which would be the course that a prudent businessman would take) until the market is right? And in that case, how does the Minister reconcile that with the demands of the Treasury?

I recognise that these are matters upon which we need to be clear. The Bill is making progress. There will be insufficient opportunities after today to come back to the matter again. We need to have the situation on record a little more clearly than has been the case in the past. It is no good the Minister and his colleagues saying, as they have done, that they have no intention of selling the taxpayer or the ratepayer short, and that they are not going to force sales. I have contacts with individuals on development corporations who tell me that, whether one uses the term "pressure" or "intimidation", or even "demands", there is pressure to produce the sum of money which the Treasury want at the end of the period. I believe that the Minister may be in a position now to be helpful to the Committee, and certainly helpful to people outside. If he is in such a position, then certainly the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is still able and open to be persuaded.

The Earl of Avon

To answer the noble Lord, Lord Graham, the disposal targets of each new town are settled in the light of all factors listed by the noble Lord. The demands of the Treasury are settled in the light of what is possible. We discuss with the towns what is possible and the targets take account of that.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

I understand that, in the light of what is possible, targets are set. My question is this. In the light of the reality of the next 12 months when the targets can be achieved only by disposing of property at less than its market value, to what extent are the demands of the Treasury paramount over the local authority needing to sell its property at a lower amount? I can understand that due account is taken of unemployment, depression, and so on. The Minister must bear in mind that this process has been going on for three or four years. The first such New Towns Bill was introduced in 1980, so we have had three or four years of experience. I want the Minister to say what happens if there is likely to be a shortfall on realisation of the Treasury's target.

The Earl of Avon

I should like to give the noble Lord an undertaking on this matter, but in all honesty I cannot. However, on my reading of the matter, in this particular aspect the Treasury certainly comes second, if I may put it that way. There is no question that the new towns do not have their own particular ability to deal as they wish without having to look over their shoulders at the Treasury.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

That is heartening. The Minister has been as avid a reader of what happened in the other place as I have. He will recall the arguments about the creation of company towns. This is a situation where certain companies dominate in the acquisition of assets, and instead of a new town being owned by the taxpayer, certain institutions, particularly insurance institutions, invest in the town. A situation then arises in which, quite frankly, the only people who are able and willing to purchase are the existing large landowners. In those circumstances competition would be stifled. I look the Minister straight in the eye and accept what he says: that, without taking further advice, he would accept (as I would) that it would be in everyone's best interests to obtain proper value for an asset rather than that the Treasury should get what it wanted, whether it be £100 million or £200 million.

There will be an opportunity to return to this matter at another stage of the Bill, but I am satisfied that the Minister has done his best—that is, unless he wants to do even better? I see that he does not. Therefore, I shall let sleeping dogs lie and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 [Power to dissolve Commission]:

Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 4: Page 3, line 41, leave out ("or") and insert ("to").

The noble Lord said: I believe that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if at the same time I speak to Amendment No. 5.

Amendment No.5: Page 4, line 2, leave out from ("means") to end of line 3 and insert ("a democratically elected local authority." ").

Again, here we are talking about the rights of a democratically-elected authority, and this particularly applies to Amendment No. 5. At the top of page 4, subsection (7) says: In this paragraph 'accountable public authority' means any statutory corporation a majority of the members of which are appointed by a Minister of the Crown". In this subsection I contend that "accountable public authority" means a democratically-elected local authority. I confess that some of this ground gives rise to a division of opinion. I want the people who will be involved below the level of Secretary of State and of the Commission for the New Towns to be democratically-elected, whereas the Bill says that those people will not be democratically-elected—they are the "placed" men and women of the Secretary of State. There is a basic dichotomy here. It is spelt out in this clause: … any statutory corporation a majority of the members of which are appointed by a Minister of the Crown". In other words, it will be the Secretary of State versus the people. Of course, the Secretary of State is elected and the local council is democratically-elected. I want more of the action to be given to the democratically-elected local authority.

I believe that the Minister would be well advised to reflect on what I seek to do in these amendments. Bureaucratically, Bills can become Acts and various matters are proceeded with and then disappear, but we are trying to create a relationship between central Government and the local people which will not be sour. I can assure the Minister that these amendments have not been dreamed up merely to be awkward. They have been submitted by the associations of local councils who do not believe that they are being given a fair crack at the whip in helping to run their communities in the future. I very much hope that, besides trusting his Secretary of State, the Minister will also trust the people. That is what I ask him to do. I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

These two amendments were also put down and considered in the other place. The first would make any orders transferring the commission's residual property, obligations, and the like when the commission itself is to be wound up, subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. The second amendment, to which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, addressed most of his time, would mean that, instead of being able to transfer such residual property to accountable public authorities—that is, statutory corporations, the majority of whose members are appointed by Ministers—the property would have to go to local authorities.

I hope to persuade the Committee that these amendments are not really required. The Bill as it stands ensures that Parliament will be directly involved in the main order; that is, to bring about the winding-up of the Commission itself, and any order which writes off any outstanding National Loans Fund advances which are still the responsibility of the Commission at that time. Those are major decisions and it is quite right that Parliament should be fully involved through the affirmative resolution procedure.

However, what we are discussing here are the residual assets, and where they are to go is, I believe, quite a different matter. These are consequential matters only. In fact, we may well be able to wrap up all these matters in a single order. If so, Parliament will see it all in the one place. But consequential matters like residual assets are just the sort of thing where one might need to have a second bite at the cherry, if I can put it that way. If so, it seems quite unnecessary that Parliament be involved again in that degree of detail.

There have been suggestions that there will be something furtive in all this or that the Secretary of State will be able to pass these assets to public bodies under his control and then deny that he has any responsibility for them. I believe that all this is far too melodramatic. The residual assets and liabilities will need a home. When a commission itself is wound up—and an existing public body could well be the sensible place for some of them—I can also assure your Lordships that there will be prior discussions with those bodies before any such order is made. We are not trying to hide anything or burden anyone unfairly. Nor is it right to think that such bodies have no minds of their own. The Secretary of State may appoint a majority of their members but, as recent events elsewhere have demonstrated, that certainly does not, and indeed should not, prevent them from speaking their own minds.

4 p.m.

Perhaps I may turn to the second amendment. This would mean that instead of going to a public authority, the residual assets and perhaps liabilities would have to pass to a local authority. This amendment fails to take account of the fact that the assets which should pass to the local authorities—that is to say, the rented housing community-related assets—will already have done so. The assets that happen to remain at the very end could be a highly miscellaneous collection: the odd pocket of land, the odd easement, a maintenance obligation for a block of properties, or the like. It is highly unlikely that the local authorities would want to get involved at all in such things. They will already have received the assets they want in the way I have described. Again, I think that the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has developed do not really correspond to the reality of the situation. I therefore hope that if he presses this amendment, the Committee will not accept it.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

I do not intend to press this amendment to a Division. I am interested in the confidence of the Minister that he and his colleagues know what local authorities will, or will not, accept. I know that some community-related assets were looked upon as burdens by councils; there can be arguments there. But is the Minister in a position to tell us to what extent consultations on this point have taken place between the ministry and those who represent local authorities? That would be helpful.

The Earl of Avon

The point I was trying to make in my remarks was that the local authorities would have had the opportunity to take what they liked and do what they wished. What we are talking about now is the residual element which they have not wanted, and probably therefore do not want.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

If I have misunderstood the thrust of the clause, then I accept that that is what I have done. If the Minister is saying that what we are talking about is taking over assets which in effect are liabilities—in other words, if you are taking over assets that nobody wants—they, almost per se, are liabilities. Although you might get something, the cost and the consequence of looking after it outweigh the value of what you have got.

Is the Minister saying that in effect the local authority would have the opportunity, by one means or another, to make sure that it will have those assets which are part of the development corporation and the commission's remit, and which it wants because it sees that it needs them or can make the best use of them? If that is so, I am prepared to accept the assurances of the Minister and therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 [Grants to development corporations and Commission]:

[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]

On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Graham of Edmonton

It is the irritating habit of the Government to wrap up more than one big issue in a single Bill. This is a new towns Bill. We understand the raison d'être for the Urban Development Corporation as opposed to the New Towns Corporation; nevertheless the Government must be aware of the enormous problems which many people have seen so far as the Urban Development Corporations are concerned. Before we allow Clause 6 to pass we have to examine the way the Government have gone about handling the situation.

There are two Urban Development Corporations—for Merseyside and the London Docklands. It is remarkable the extent to which the Government have stumbled along with the LDDC, aggravating more and more people and more and more organisations as time goes by. The Minister will have been made aware of the intensity of feeling against the operations of the LDDC, even by reading the proceedings on this Bill in another place. Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Ian Mikardo, Mr. Peter Shore, Mr. Nigel Spearing, and on other occasions Mr. Guy Barnett, all Members of Parliament representing the riparian interests which are affected by the LDDC, not only in January, during the final stages of the Bill, but also on many other occasions drew the attention of the House to the undemocratic nature of the LDDC.

The Minister can argue—and there is an argument—as to whether, in the light of the history of the 1970s, it was right for the Government in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 to decide that enough was enough; that what was at stake in London dockland was literally the creation of a new town. It was a new town in a place where there was much to do. It was not a green field site; there was a lot of dereliction and they said that what was required is what we now have. It is a body which is not democratically elected, not locally responsible, as opposed to what had been sought by the authorities throughout the 1970s in trying to create a democratic framework which would allow the development to take place.

I am not competent to argue whether the previous London docklands forum and the committee would have done any better or any worse a job. We know that in Clause 6 when it comes to a question of public monies, while it might not be a case of the sky being the limit, there is little limit to the amount of monies which the Government are prepared to make available to the LDDC to carry on its work. We have the opportunity of looking at some of the aspects of the situation which has emerged.

One of the great problems experienced by people in that part of London is in obtaining better housing. I saw in his place a little while ago my noble friend Lord Underhill. He and I, together with other noble Lords, visited the areas in connection with the GLC, not for the purposes of this Bill. We found daunting the prospects of providing better housing for the people who already live in the dockland area. We saw the Ferrier Estate, with 178 large developments—not tower blocks—with 16,000 people living on one estate. The properties were certainly in need of great attention.

One of the arguments of the Government is that a purpose of the LDDC is to provide opportunities for council tenants to move into homes of their own, at prices they can afford. A person who lives on the 17th floor of a tower block in Greenwich is, first of all, not likely to find a buyer for his property. If he cannot sell it, he is not likely to be able to buy property right in Docklands.

The Sunday Times of 10th February, under a headline "The return of dock green", reported on a visit to the London Docklands to find out about the housing situation. There is a variety of experiences. There is, for instance, the case of Flat 2C in one block. The flat has a 36ft. long hall, fitted cloakroom, living room, kitchen, shower room, three bedrooms, one with an en suite bathroom, and parking space: price, £157,500—well within the bracket of a council tenant living on the 17th floor of the Ferrier Estate! The cheapest flat in the block, with only 1,325 square feet, is £85,000. We can also look at other properties, which are cheaper: £35,000 for one-bedroomed flats, £37,945 for two-bedroomed flats. The article says that these are typical of the prices asked in Docklands; and that commentators say there is a rapid improvement in amenities.

The point I want to make to the Minister is that the reality is that the LDDC exists. It is not challenged from that point of view. It has a job to do, but it also has a job to provide opportunities for the investor or the entrepreneur or the person who sees that there are opportunities to be taken, if not for quick killings certainly for profitable investments in a range of ideas. I want the Minister to tell the Committee what he and his Ministers are doing, in collaboration with the LDDC, to try to improve the atmosphere among existing councils and voluntary organisations.

I know that the Minister will tell us that they have tried and that they have sought to involve local people in a great many of these matters. I want the Minister to tell us whether he appreciates the enormous job that needs to be done not merely to create decent housing—that of itself is an asset—and cheaper housing, which would be a bonus, but to create a community spirit. Can the Minister tell the Committee more about the body called Inter-Action? Inter-Action is a body which the Government and the LDDC have created, promoted and supported to do a great deal of work among voluntary organisations. I have here a letter from the Newham Voluntary Agencies Council dated 10th January. It says a great deal, but I should like the Minister to deal with the following two points:

  1. "(i) The LDDC had not carried out any serious study of whether there were any Newham body or bodies that could provide the services or projects the Corporation was prepared to let Interaction undertake.
  2. (ii) Few, if any, of Interaction's main projects were readily at either officer's fingertips. Persistent questioning from Harold Wild on what was so special about Interaction's potential contribution failed to bring any clear response".
Without boring the Committee, the Minister is well aware that the Government attach great importance to what Inter-Action can do.

I have here a copy of a parliamentary Answer which was given to Mr. Nigel Spearing when he asked the Secretary of State what sums had been paid by the LDDC to the body known as Inter-Action. Sir George Young said: Inter-Action was appointed by the London Docklands Development Corporation on 1 August 1984 for £10,000 per month short-term consultancy agreement to provide advice on community matters. The Department is currently considering an application from the corporation to provide Inter-Action with £1.024 million over a three-year period to cover the transfer of its base to the royal docks and establishment there of training, job creation and recreation programmes for local people and a general consultancy role on community issues."—(Official Report, Commons, 4/2/1985; col. 426.] Of course, if the Government persist in foisting on to a local community, Docklands as a whole, their ideas of how such a community should go about creating the infrastructure, the housing and the factories, etc.—which they did by foisting the urban development corporation concept in the first place, undemocratically elected—and if, also, at a later stage, when it comes to creating a framework for voluntary organisations, it appears (I readily confess that I am not wholly knowledgeable about this) that the views of local people are being ignored yet again, the Minister must understand that this attitude will perpetuate earlier mistakes. The LDDC has an enormous responsibility. One of its responsibilities, besides producing a record of achievement which I acknowledge and which undoubtedly must bring great satisfaction to the Minister and to many others, is to try to work with local people.

I believe that this debate on Clause 6 stand part has not only provided me with the opportunity to say what I have said but also provides the Minister with the opportunity to be frank with the Committee and to give some assurance to many thousands of people who have approached me through their representatives —Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Ian Mikardo, Mr. Peter Shore, Mr. Nigel Spearing and Mr. Guy Barnet—and expressed their dissatisfaction. Thousands of local people believe that they are not being as fully consulted, informed and brought along as local activists—not political activists—as they believe they are entitled to be.

4.15 p.m.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

I should like briefly to follow some of the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, particularly in relation to what he said about improving the atmosphere in the area mentioned. I am sorry I have not given the noble Earl the Minister notice about this matter.

My question is whether Clause 6, particularly the amendment in relation to Section 58A(2) of the New Towns Act 1981—I am sorry to make this technical in arriving at my point—will provide facilities in relation to the cultural side of activities in areas such as London Docklands. Subsection (2)(d) says that any other facilities similar to those specified in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) above will become eligible for a grant. I am concerned, not merely with the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has emphasised, as to how people are being squeezed out of such areas as London Docklands because of the cost of accommodation becoming increasingly expensive, but with whether the Minister can say, either now or later, that the amendment in Clause 6 will cover general facilities, particularly in relation to art galleries and other cultural aspects, in the area.

The Earl of Avon

I am surprised at the amount of doubt on this clause that the two noble Lords have expressed—the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, at considerably more length than the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran—as I had thought that the provision was wanted and was what everybody needed.

This clause gives the Secretary of State new power to make grants towards essential but non-remunerative capital expenditure. New town development corporations have had to borrow to finance all the capital expenditure which they have needed to develop their towns. They have therefore had to borrow not only for expenditure which should produce a financial return but also for expenditure which does not. Corporations have also capitalised their revenue deficits and borrowed to cover them.

I should like to say a few words about how we intend to use the new power. It is not open-ended. We have thought it right to spell out fairly precisely the purposes for which the resources can be used. The largest item will be main roads. Good communications are a vital element in the development of the new towns but they produce no direct financial return to the development corporation and it is right, we believe, that such costs should be met by grant.

The next category is open spaces and landscaping, another vital element in creating an attractive environment in which people can live, work and play. Again, it produces no direct return and should be met by grant.

Finally, there are the amenities such as meeting halls and assembly rooms—very necessary for a balanced community. Grants will be available not only where the corporation spends the money itself but also where it makes a capital contribution towards such provision. This will enable development corporations to assist local authorities where a joint scheme is more sensible than going it alone. But it does not indicate any change in our policy as to what the development corporation should provide. As my honourable friend said at Second Reading, we expect local authorities to play a proper part in providing the facilities needed for a new town just as much as elsewhere.

If the Bill is approved, the total is likely to run at some £39 million a year. Individual schemes will be approved by the department under arrangements which we will agree with the corporations concerned. We shall steer a sensible course between the two extremes of allowing too little and too much. We intend to strike the right balance to allow corporations to finish the task of developing their towns on a sound financial basis.

The noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked about the UDCs. These were created because the local authorities in these areas were not achieving the results which were needed to regenerate them. This is not the place in which to go into the question of why that is so, but in 1980–81 Parliament agreed that a new initiative was needed. The Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 provided the framework. The orders in relation to the London Dockyard Development Corporation and the Merseyside Development Corporation, approved by this House, set the machinery in motion.

Noble Lords spoke of the problems facing tenants who wanted to buy. The experience of new towns has shown that to produce a balanced community, all levels of society need to live in an area. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, particularly mentioned Inter-Action. There have been some recent meetings between the LDDC, the London Borough of Newham and the Newham Voluntary Agencies Council. I gather that the result of these is that Newham are to write to the corporation setting out their views for consideration by the corporation's executive board when the project application is discussed. If the project is approved, LDDC intend to seek the views of the Newham Voluntary Agencies Council on each scheme that Inter-Action put forward as part of their consultancy. I believe that the LDDC is a most exciting project and I am quite happy to rest on whatever the results will be.

The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, asked me about the particular facilities for culture. I think that in my reply I covered that subject quite well. I believe that this clause is a good clause and I am very surprised that it should be in any way questioned.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

I believe that I indicated that I rose to speak on clause stand part as an opportunity to look at dockland issues in general. In case I did not make it clear, the thrust of the clause is wholly acceptable so far as I am concerned personally and, I would say, acceptable also to those behind me. The Minister was very fair and, I think, proper in outlining to the Committee the reasons why this clause will be helpful, not just to the docklands but also to other new towns. The distress that I feel is that there is an opportunity, as I believe the Minister will recall and the Official Report will reveal. This is not the time to query whether there should be a Docklands Development Corporation or not. It is a fact of life. What we and the people who have this responsibility are about is making it work to the best advantage of the people who live in docklands.

I have looked at the record of achievement and I am bound to say that, both in annual reports and in other ways, there is an impressive record of achievement so far, though queries have been raised by a number of bodies as to whether the number of jobs that have been created are actually new jobs or real jobs.

I have already touched upon the need to satisfy the community that it is going to get adequate coverage in the voluntary sector. The housing sector, frankly, is a real mess. I start from the needs of the local people. If, in fact, a local authority had developed the land, the Minister could rest assured that the people who would have been occupying the houses that were built on the land would have been, in the main, local people occupying houses built by the local authority, and quite clearly, with so many high-rise developments, there were certainly going to be low-rise developments too.

I mentioned the cost of housing, or the prices that are being asked. The noble Earl will be well aware, having read the reports in another place, that in Southwark and in Tower Hamlets, in Greenwich and in Stepney, Members of Parliament were able to bring to the attention of the House properties that cost £250,000 and £300,000 because of their particular situation. When we are talking in terms of housing, we certainly would not be envisaging prices of that kind. Clearly, they would be asking such prices only if people, in the main, were willing to pay them. I am concerned not so much about the people who have the money to pay for a property which is worth a quarter of a million pounds, as about the people who appear by the general policies of the Government to be forced to recognise that, if they are living on the seventeenth floor of a tower block in Greenwich or anywhere else, that is where they are likely to stay for a very long time. The LDDC in my view—and, it may well be, Merseyside as well—is not able to do very much about this. However well it is doing in other ways, I am worried about the people who have got a real burden to bear, but I am satisfied that the Minister has confidence that, with the consultations that are to take place, it is possible for a better atmosphere to be created. I very much hope so. That is all I have to say before the clause is agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; report received.