My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

; My Lords, British Airways announced some three weeks ago that they will cease their coach service between Heathrow and the Victoria Terminal on 14th November. However, I am pleased to say that London Transport will commence two new coach services linking London with Heathrow Airport, one of which will run from Victiora, and these will start from 15th November, the day after the British Airways service is to cease. The new London Transport Victoria to Heathrow service will run from Grosvenor Gardens, adjacent to Victoria railway station, and should therefore be more convenient for those passengers making onward travel arrangements by public transport.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am delighted that at last some progress is being made to rectify the seven-year rundown of the bus service, ever since this House voted in December 1973 to retain the services at the West London Air Terminal? Is he also aware, to be fair, that I appreciate the way in which British Airways have kept me informed of this through the Summer Recess? Finally, in connection with what he said today, may I ask him three brief points? Will the stopping places where passengers are picked up have adequate shelter accommodation for passengers and their luggage, in view of the British climate? Secondly, will help be available to put the luggage on to the buses? Thirdly, what publicity do London Transport envisage so that the public may be aware of the service offered?

My Lords, I think the happy outcome to this matter—and I hope the noble Baroness agrees that that is what it is—is in no small measure due to the pressure which the noble Baroness has maintained from at least as far back as 1973, which date she mentioned On the three points which she raised, there will indeed be shelter constructed in Grosvenor Gardens for these services; and I understand that the necessary publicity, or some publicity, will be put in hand.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, as one who has been interested in this question for some time, at what intervals these buses will be leaving?

My Lords, I understand that the frequency of this service will be the same as the frequency of the British Airways service which it replaces.

My Lords, perhaps I may point out to my noble friend that he did not answer one of the noble Baroness's supplementary questions, about whether there would be help with luggage. Also, I should like to know whether he can possibly use his influence to have advertisements put in the Tube to Heathrow advertising the fact that an alternative bus route is available.

My Lords, I will convey to London Transport the noble Baroness's view about advertisements in the Heathrow underground. As for the point about baggage which she raised, the question of crewing the services is a matter for London Transport, to which I suggest my noble friend refers her question.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that, of course, we have another Question down for Thursday, when he might be able to amplify these points? Is he also aware that I am pursuing London Transport? Finally, with reference to the point made by Lady Trumpington, it would be nice to see not only "Fly the Tube" on the advertisements, but "Why not use the bus?"

My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, a new chairman was recently appointed to London Transport, who is, I fancy, very much aware of these points.

My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether these buses are one-man buses, or whether there will be somebody to help with the luggage?

My Lords, as I said earlier to my noble friend Lady Trumpington, the crewing of these buses is a matter for London Transport, to which I suggest my noble friend refers her question.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what time the first bus will start in the morning? Is the noble Lord aware that the first Tube does not allow passengers to get the early planes?

My Lords, I do not have the times in front of me, but I understand that the times of the first and last buses, like the frequency of the service, will be the same as for the British Airways service which this service replaces.

My Lords, may I, as at one time a perpetual traveller, express my warmest thanks and those of other people to the noble Baroness, and also to the Government for finally acceding to what she has been urging for so long?

My Lords, so far as luggage is concerned, is there any reason why the Tube trains should not include a luggage van?

My Lords, I understand that some of the coaches on the Tube service are specially constructed so as to accept luggage, but if I am wrong on that point perhaps I might write to the noble Lord.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, relations with Chile were restored to ambassadorial level earlier this year. On 22nd July my noble friend the Foreign Secretray informed your Lordships that the embargo imposed by the last Government on defence sales to Chile would be lifted. This remains the position.

My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that on July 18, four days before the armaments sales were resumed, a British citizen, Miss Wilson, was released from prison in Chile by the British diplomatic officers there? Can he tell the House whether the British diplomatic mission in Chile has been able to discover whether she or anyone else within their purview has been the subject of torture; and if the answer is, Yes, how does he equate that with the statement of his noble friend Lord Strathcona on 10th March of this year in this House (col. 54):

"We would not export arms to a country which is guilty of torture?"

My Lords, the case to which the noble Lord refers was drawn to our attention slightly later than the noble Lord indicates. The decision on the arms embargo was taken and announced before the allegations of torture came to our attention. But, in any event, a single case such as that to which the noble Lord has referred is not necessarily one that would alter our policies in this matter.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the person concerned, Miss Wilson—or friends acting on her behalf—lodged an affidavit with our embassy in Santiago on July 22nd stating that she had been tortured and that, to put it at its lowest, announcement of the restoration of arms sales to Chile was a matter of singularly unfortunate timing? Is the noble Lord aware that Miss Wilson is not the only person to have been tortured recently by the Chilean regime? In particular, her fiancé, Mr. José Benado, whose relatives live in the United Kingdom and who have asked the Foreign Office to intervene on his behalf, was viciously tortured at the same time as Miss Wilson. Would the noble Lord say how many cases of torture are required to be drawn to the attention of the Government before they will reconsider the question of arms sales to that country?

My Lords, it is true that the human rights situation in Chile is less satisfactory by far than we would wish. On the other hand, it is the case that there has been an improvement in the situation there since 1974 when the embargo was imposed. We have to judge our decisions and reach our conclusions on these matters in the light of all the considerations, including British interests.

My Lords, this really has not answered the Question. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has pointed out there have been many substantiated cases of torture in Chile. It is not simply the question of Miss Wilson. The noble Lord will recall that of Dr. Cassidy some years ago. There have been many other cases established by reputable international authorities that torture is practised in Chile. When he says that the British Government have to take all sorts of things into consideration, how does he equate that with the plain statement of fact made by his noble friend that I read previously and will repeat?

"We would not export arms to a country which is guilty of torture…".

It does not say how much torture; it says "of torture". How does he equate the two statements?

My Lords, I feel sure that if my noble friend had been speaking at greater length he would have qualified some of the things that he said—which is a general quotation which the noble Lord has taken quite out of context. The fact remains that we have to judge our actions in these matters according to British interests and according to all the circumstances prevailing.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there are many countries in the world where, to use his phrase, "the human rights situation is less satisfactory that we would wish"; and that some of us feel that this continual singling out of this particular country, whereas the others are never mentioned, is an example of double standards which some of us find very hard to defend?

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The fact is that the situation in Chile, although, as I have said, unsatisfactory, is indeed not worse than in many other countries with which we have dealings. All our European partners traded with Chile, including arms trading with Chile, during the time that we enforced the embargo.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we on this side attack torture wherever it happens—wherever in the world? Is he further aware it is not a matter of our simply singling out Chile? Is he aware that Cardinal Hume has made a special appeal to the Government, in view of his evidence from Chile that torture is growing and that the security police have been given new draconian powers; and that he appealed to the Government not to sell arms and not to resume trade?

My Lords, I have no doubt that if the Cardinal had looked elsewhere he would have found unfortunate evidence of human rights breaches and, perhaps, torture in other countries as well. As for the supply of arms to Chile, although the overall embargo has been lifted, all arms sales to Chile remain subject to strict licensing procedures.

My Lords, the noble Lord ventured to suggest that my noble friend had quoted the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, out of context. I do not think that that was a right suggestion to make. The observation of the noble Lord was:

"My Lords, I have already said that the way in which a potential client government conduct their affairs is one of the issues that we take into account. We would not export arms to a country which is guilty of torture".—[Official Report, 10/3/80; col. 540.]

Does not the raising of the level of diplomatic representation in Chile amount to a vote of confidence in a régime inflicting torture?

No, my Lords it amounts to no such thing. The purpose of diplomatic representation, particularly as far as Chile is concerned, and, indeed, in all countries where the human rights question may be questionable is, among other things, to give us a better line of communication to that government and to make our views known on their policies.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, in a subsequent debate on the Government's policy on arms sales generally, retracted the unequivocal statement that we would not sell arms to a country guilty of torture when he corrected himself to say that the Government would not sell arms to these régimes which are guilty of torture that could be used against the civilian population—however that may be defined? Is the noble Lord aware that it is impossible to make any such clear distinction and that if we are to stand up and be counted in matters of human rights we ought not to sell arms, not only to countries like Chile but also to Argentina and Ethiopia and any country found guilty of atrocities against its own populations?

My Lords, that is rather wide of the original Question. So far as Chile is concerned, we would not license an arms sale where those arms were clearly intended for repressive purposes.

My Lords, we have given this matter—which is important—a pretty good run. If it is for the convenience of your Lordships, perhaps we ought to pass on; but I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has been trying to speak on two or three occasions. May I suggest that he asks his question and that we then move on?

That is very kind of the noble Earl. My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, made this statement in answer to a Question that I put to the House? If he will look at the Official Report, he will find that the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, made no qualification whatsoever in his statement that we would not supply arms to countries guilty of torture.

My Lords, as I said earlier, if my noble friend had been speaking at greater length, I am sure he would have done so.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, The Government regret that the review conference was unable to reach consensus on a final document. But the discussions revealed broad agreement in many important areas and underlined the commitment of the parties to the cause of non-proliferation.

My Lords, would the Minister agree that the result was profoundly disappointing? Did it not arise from the fact that in the original non-proliferation treaty there was a clause stating that the nuclear powers would pursue efforts to secure nuclear disarmament? Have they not instead increased immensely the number of the nuclear arms and increased the power of their destruction a thousand times?

My Lords, I would not agree that the results of the review conference are profoundly disappointing; but I would accept that they were slightly disappointing. None the less, the treaty remains intact. There was no question of withdrawal by any of the 115 parties and five signatories to the treaty, so I think that all is not gloom. However, with regard to the other point made by the noble Lord, it is true that the general efforts at disarmament have not proceeded as fast as we all would have wished. I do not think that even the most starry-eyed signatories to the nonproliferation treaty would have expected us to enter into disarmament agreements which were one-sided or underminded our defence posture.

My Lords, no one is suggesting that. Is not the case that the Soviet Union has repeatedly made proposals for the dismantlement of all nuclear weapons? It is judged to be insincere. If it is thought to be insincere, cannot it be tested by negotiations on their proposals?

My Lords, one of the main difficulties regarding our negotiations with the Soviet Union on this matter is verification. We need to be sure that any measures agreed between the parties at Geneva or elsewhere can be properly verified. So far that is not the case.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the development of new and successful products is crucial to the future prosperity of British industry. Her Majesty's Government are anxious to encourage this process, particularly in high technology areas such as computing. In appropriate cases, financial assistance may be available under various schemes which are administered by the Department of Industry.

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for that helpful reply. It only remains for me to speak to him outside the Chamber. I will give him particulars about the firm I have in mind which I do not think would be appropriate at the present time.

My Lords, will the noble Lord reassure the House that any firm which receives assistance from the Government will not be badgered by political organisations for contributions to party funds, as has happened in the case of firms in the North-East which have been badgered for funds on behalf of the Conservative Party? Will the Government use their good offices to try to prevent this?

My Lords, I would not agree with the first part of the noble Lord's question. The establishment of manufacturing facilities for computers in a special development area would be eligible for regional development grants. In addition, regional selective assistance under Section 7 of the Industry Act could be available throughout the assisted areas. The Government find that computers are a vital industry at this moment and are only too interested to get this product moving. At the moment we do not have all the information underlying the noble Viscount's Question.

My Lords, will the noble Lord try to make quite sure that the names of firms receiving assistance are kept strictly secret so that political parties do not abuse their position?

My Lords, it is up to the Government to encourage and not discourage. Therefore if any company comes forward with an idea or a new product, it is for the Department of Industry to help in all ways that they can.

My Lords, may I put a question which I hope will be helpful to the noble Viscount? If a company which receives a grant of money from the taxpayers also makes a contribution to Conservative Party funds, may we take it that that is purely a coincidence?

My Lords, I thought I was talking about an inquiry about a computer, not party political broadcasts.

My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships' to know that dinner will once again be available this evening. It is expected that the Committee stage of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour.

My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill, may I remind the House that its rapid and non-contentious progress through the House was made memorable by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, who, quoting from Robert Burns, said at col. 1712 of Hansard for 7th August:

"Amid the mighty fuss just let me mention,

The rights of women merit some attention".

I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.

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

My Lords, I feel that the time has come when the whole House must ask the noble Lord the Chief Whip some questions about the further conduct of this Bill. I do not want to delay the Committee. In spite of sitting during the night until nearly three o'clock this morning we still have a very long way to go. We have about 169 amendments before us and many debates on whether clauses shall stand part of the Bill. We really must ask the Government how they propose to deal with this.

As everybody knows, we on this side of the House violently disagree with a great many parts of this Bill, and our misgivings have been shared in all parts of the House. We have never obstructed it in any improper way, and we do not propose to do so now. Nevertheless, the discussions which all the usual channels have together about business arrangements, which normally take place in the background and in private, I feel now have to be carried out in public. The House is not being allowed by the Government to discharge its proper functions of revision. We are supposed to, and always do, revise Bills with infinite care on all sides of the House. But with this Bill we are being asked to rush helter-skelter through most important questions which affect local democracy.

As the Bill has proceeded it has grown. It is about six Bills in one, and the longer we debate it the larger it gets. I should like to give the House just one example. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, tabled eight amendments after the first Marshalled List was published. Only yesterday he tabled two extremely difficult, technical amendments. How is the House to be able to consider and debate the Bill as we should?

Because the Bill has grown as we have gone on with it and because the Government have had to give us an extra day on Committee, necessarily the Report stage will grow. We shall need at least three, if not four, days on Report and we shall further need longer time than has been assumed on Third Reading. How the Government expect to do all this with the printing difficulties of which we are all aware, I simply cannot imagine. Does the noble Lord think we are going to debate the Third Reading without a printed Bill before us and with no manuscript amendments allowed?

I feel very sad to speak in this way to the Government, but I must tell the House quite honestly and openly that we first warned Her Majesty's Government at the beginning of the Session that their programme was impossible. We repeated it in July before we rose, and we said that their plans for the overspill could not be done, however constructive the discussion was. I must again tell the House that we on our side warned the Government again last week that we could not see how these Bills could be completed and debated properly and constructively.

I am very sorry to raise these questions in this manner. Normally we do it all amicably and each side tries to help the other, although of course our duty is to oppose what we think is wrong. But I think the whole House requires a clear answer from the noble Lord as to how he proposes to carry through the increasing length of this Bill.

My Lords, I fully understand the desire of the noble Baroness to raise these very real difficulties in this way on the Floor of the House and I am grateful to her for the clear and moderate way in which she has made her point, and indeed I am grateful to her for having given me notice that she intended to do so.

I do of course appreciate that the Committee of the Whole House on the Local Government Bill was asked to sit until a very late hour last night. Indeed, I cannot deny that the Government are asking this House to consider a long and complicated Bill within a tight timetable. I acknowledge this here and now, and would not for one moment accuse noble Lords opposite of deliberately delaying the Bill. I must say, however, that, in view of the progress that we did in the end manage to achieve yesterday, the Government will be hoping that the Committee Stage can be completed today. I hope that noble Lords will do all that they reasonably can to ensure that this is the case because I really believe that it would be in the interests of the House as a whole. We will keep a careful watch on progress this afternoon and I can assure your Lordships that I will make a further statement today, perhaps at the dinner adjournment.

I have, of course, taken careful note of what the noble Baroness said about the remaining stages of this Bill. I can say now that we will do all we possibly can to ensure that the House is given an opportunity for proper consideration on Report. So far as the noble Baroness's general remarks on this legislative programme are concerned, I do not wish to follow her at this stage on a post-mortem into what might have been, but of course I regret the pressure under which the House has been working. We have before us, however, legislation to which the Government attach the very greatest importance, and I am sure the House will recognise the need to get this programme through.

My Lords, I welcome the fact that the noble Lord will consider during the day the progress that is made on the Committee stage and that he will let us know how far he thinks we shall get tonight. I must repeat again: 169 amendments and debates on Clauses Stand Part. I think he will be a genius if he gets this through without driving us all mad!

My Lords, I think that Chief Whips have to be mad to start with, though possibly not geniuses!

moved Amendment No. 227:

Page 193, line 14, leave out paragraph 9.

I am happy to be speaking to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, again, just 12 hours and 32 minutes since we were last talking to each other. First, may I talk about the Green Belt and then come more generally on to this amendment. There are two forms of land under the Green Belt: first, the land designated as such in the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938; and, secondly, land in the context of Green Belt land which is designated as such. There are two different pieces, but Schedule 20 will have virtually no effect on either in the context of Green Belt land. Land in this category is of two kinds and the relevant development or structure plans apply to them. A departure from the plans would require advertisement and reference to the Secretary of State for consideration, before it could be called in. We have already made it known that we should want the strongest possible restraint on development in such areas.

If I may now come on to the more general aspect of this schedule and, in particular, of this amendment, it is probably desirable to look at the genesis of the provisions in Schedule 20. In February 1979, the local authorities published a document entitled Review of Central Government Controls over Local Authorities. This review identified a number of decisions which were capable of being taken locally, and concluded that the need to obtain the Secretary of State's consent represented a wasteful and expensive duplication of effort.

The Secretary of State accepted this argument and published in the White Paper entitled Central Government Controls over Local Authorities, a list of central Government controls that he proposed to relax. In general, the response to the White Paper was favourable and the bulk of the proposed relaxations were incorporated into this Bill, including those which are contained in Schedule 20, and particularly the one which is the subject of this amendment. The vast majority of these relaxations have already been approved in another place and by your Lordships. In pursuing this amendment, the noble Lord would appear to be saying that while he is prepared to entrust a whole range of new and important decisions to local authorities, he is not prepared to delegate decisions affecting the appropriation of open space.

It is intended to introduce, by way of a Government amendment at Report stage, a new provision requiring authorities to publish their proposals and to consider objectives. So the key issue here seems to be whether or not local authorities can be relied upon, first, to consider any objections which result from the publication of proposals to appropriate open space to another purpose; and, secondly, to reach a decision on whether or not to proceed with their proposals.

In taking a decision, they will be only too aware that they may have to justify it to the ratepayers or to the local electorate. If we cannot entrust to local authorities decisions about local open space, we bring into question the desirability of entrusting a whole host of other decisions to them. The Government believe that the locally elected body is the best place to decide whether or not a particular piece of open space is essential to the locality, and whether exchanged land is necessary if the existing open space is to be used for other purposes.

At the end of the day, the responsibility of the locally elected body is to reconcile whatever conflicts have emerged. If the authority decide that it is desirable to provide replacement open space, these new provisions will not prevent them from doing so. I realise that I have spoken rather more on the general subject than on the Green Belt, but I hope that my original remarks about the Green Belt will satisfy the noble Lord and that accordingly he will be able to withdraw his amendment.

I am very grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply and for the reassurances which he has given, particularly the one concerning the amendment which he says the Government propose to table at Report stage, obliging local authorities to publish any proposals for the diversion of open space to other use and to consider the objections which ratepayers or other interested parties may lodge to those proposals. It would be only wise for us to examine what the Government have in mind, and to see whether the rights of the objectors are deemed to be satisfactory by the Green Belt Council and the other interests concerned. So until we can do that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 228:

Page 95, line 11, leave out ("as may appear to the Secretary of State to be expedient") and insert ("as may best promote the policies adopted in the relevant structure plan of the county planning authority").

If I may correct the noble Lord, it was this morning, not yesterday, when we talked about the structure plan. The only way the Secretary of State could give any meaningful effect to this amendment would be by way of imposing a condition on any sale limiting future development of the land to that which may best promote the policies adopted in the relevant structure plan. It is difficult to see how this could produce any worthwhile effect. Since development outside the policies of the structure plan is unlikely to be permitted there would seem little point in suggesting that disposals should be subject to conditions requiring development to be within these policies. Moreover, the amendment only has the impact of an exhortation, as the section itself allows for a wholly permissive disposal arrangement which the amendment does not seek to alter.

It is difficult to recommend the amendment. Irrespective of conditions attached to a disposal, the land could not subsequently be used or developed, except by an approved departure, otherwise than in conformity with the structure and local plan. The type of restrictive condition proposed is therefore likely to have little or no practical effect in achieving the objective of the amendment.

Your Lordships will know that a structure plan is a general statement of planning and environmental policies; it is not site specific, as we said earlier today, and in any particular transaction any conditions aimed solely at promoting structure plan policies would be exposed to doubt and challenge. It has to be recognised that a land transaction is a contract between two parties. If conditions imposed were in terms wholly directed to the amendment's objective, some purchasers could be put off. In undertaking development, private enterprise often gives effect to the policies adopted in any relevant structure plan, but this is only one of the considerations a prospective purchaser will have in mind.

I think I ought to make it clear that were this amendment to be adopted it would not prevent the Secretary of State from ignoring its effect, since the clause provides for a wholly permissive disposal arrangement which the amendment does not seek to alter. I should like to suggest, under this charming word "expedient", that this clause is advantageous, suitable, politic and perhaps even just. On those terms, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

I believe that the intention behind the amendment has a certain merit. As my noble friend Lord Avon said in his answer in response to the amendment, it may even be just. This is the key. I believe that the use of the word "expedient" is not capable of legal test and might cause considerable problems in the future. I bitterly regret that my noble friend Lord Renton is not here to be of help to me on the point. However, I draw great comfort from the fact that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is sitting on the Front Bench. If he could give to the Committee the benefit of his wisdom on this particular point, I for one would be most grateful.

Perhaps on another occasion.

Although I appreciate the statement made by the noble Lord the Minister, I am still not satisfied. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. However, this may be justification for the discussion which we could not carry through last night, because of the lateness of the hour, on the value of positive planning in the Community Land Act.

moved Amendment No. 229:

Page 97, line 19, at end insert ("and shall satisfy himself that such payment does not undermine the programme of planned development of the town and is consistent with the principles of sound financial management of its assets".)

I have the greatest pleasure in supporting the contention of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and I thank her for her excellent speech. I support this amendment very strongly, because exactly what it says and indicates may happen, is happening. What is now being required of new town corporations and the Commission for New Towns means that their programme of planned development is being undermined and the principles of sound financial management hitherto followed scrupulously by these bodies can no longer be adhered to. I must give a little history of this matter, and I would make it clear to your Lordships that I myself was an actor on the stage through discussions that took place and a meeting with the Minister as the chairman of Stevenage New Town. I have been right through it. I am no longer connected because Stevenage was wound up last month, having finished. We had no grumble at being wound up. We had got to a stage where it was wise and proper that we should be wound up, and the town is now resting in the kind hands of the Commission for New Towns.

But I have been through this story, and to me it is a very distressing story. It starts in July of last year—1979—when the Secretary of State called all the new town chairmen and the general managers to come to a meeting in the DOE, with no indication whatsoever as to what we were being called for or what we were to talk about. When we got there we were issued with what I and my fellow chairmen will describe as a diktat demanding the realisation of assets to produce £100 million by the following March—nine months ahead. I know that the Secretary of State contends, and has contended when he has been challenged on this, as he has in another place, that he asked corporations to undertake what he required of them. It did not come over as a request, by any manner of means at all—by tone of voice, by words, by anything; it just came over as an order. I might add—I hate to do so, but I must—that it was accompanied by what I call a rather mean and nasty piece of blackmail, in that the new towns collectively—because we worked collectively—were told that until we gave an undertaking that we would raise for the Minister the £100 million which at that stage he demanded of us there would be a moratorium on the letting of all contracts.

I quote the little paragraph from the letter sent to new town corporations on 17th July 1979. The writer was an official. It says:

"I should explain that the moratorium on the letting of new contracts includes those for which corporations would normally have the authority to accept under delegated powers …"

—that is, without the DOE knowing anything about it. So there was a complete and utter stopper on any further progress being made in the new towns until the Minister had the guarantee that we would do our utmost to produce this money. Such a thing was not called for. There was no discussion with the Minister. Having made his diktat, he left us. There was no discussion. There was no consultation whatsoever with new towns. This was the Government's order, and there it was. When he got his undertaking, which was given as rapidly as possible, of course the moratorium was lifted. But to have put it on was really so unnecessary and to me such an unmannerly way to act towards the new town corporations.

There is another point. The Secretary of State must surely have been advised by his advisers—I cannot think it was otherwise, knowing the civil servants as I have done over many years—that what he was asking corporations to do was of doubtful legality; and certainly in the case of two corporations it turned out to be entirely illegal. Although my corporation did not like it, we were doing our best as fast as we could to satisfy the requirements of the Secretary of State. We were disposing of a very important section of our town centre, actually to the GLC pension fund and the pension fund solicitor, or the agent acting for him, said, "We are unable to proceed because this is illegal". It is really most distressing that a Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment could really behave so. But there it was. Those of your Lordships who have had the Notes on Clauses will see that they make it quite clear that the legislation is needed to legalise the demands of the Secretary of State, so that now he is on strong ground.

I was horrified to read in those Notes on Clauses the following—I am quoting from the document:

"Subsection 1 provides the Secretary of State with a power to direct a development corporation or the Commission of the new towns to pay him on a specified date a sum specified in the direction".

Now, the important part is the comment that follows:

"Comment. The Secretary of State does not at present have adequate powers to compel corporations or the Commission to make him payment".

With regard to the word "compel" I put it to the Committee that the new town corporations and the commission have always been loyal servants of the nation, no matter what the complexion of the Government. They have done whatever was required of them, as they should as an agent of the Government—because that is what they are. For anybody to be able to write such words, indicating that it is thought that they have to be compelled to behave properly, I find most distasteful and really most distressing.

The £100 million was not raised by last March and that was not because anybody was wanting not to co-operate, but for the simple reason that there was not time. We had to appoint agents to deal with the matter, we had to instruct agents, they had to meet the corporations. We met as rapidly as we could and dealt with matters as rapidly as we could, but they had to make detailed surveys of the properties that were to be marketed; we had to advertise the sales once the disposals had been selected and then all the negotiations had to go on, on what were really large property deals—and they are not dealt with in five minutes. In my view, it was absolute nonsense to expect that the sales could be completed within the nine months from that diktat.

The balance of the £100 million was not raised because there was not time and this year the Secretary of State has demanded that this year's demand, which is over £200 million, shall now be added to the original £100 million that was not raised. This all has to be raised by next March and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said, that means flooding too much property on to a market at one time when buyers know full well the pressure that there is on corporations to sell. Of course it depresses prices at a time when the market is sluggish anyway, as unfortunately we all know it is. It also means that, in order to sell, properties have to be marketed now that would realise much higher prices in a year or two, for instance after there had been new rent reviews. I have been advised by all the valuers that such is undoubtedly the case. It means selling properties which are still "green"—not ready for marketing—and which really should not be considered for sale at all. But the money has to be raised. The new town corporations are the agents of the Government so the money has to be raised whether or not it is wise to sell.

Again, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said, the object of this exercise is really to raise money for the PSBR, then, after that, for the redemption of debt on the new towns and then, thirdly, for the continuation of the new town development. That again is made absolutely clear in the Notes on Clauses, where it says in Note (v):

"The sum so received will be paid into the Exchequer and shall be capable of being used for general purposes unconnected with the new towns as well as for the repayment of new town debts on past loans from the national loans fund and for the financing of the continued new town development".

I would remind the Committee that the original demand was made very soon after the Government had redeemed their election pledge to reduce income tax. To raise money to help to fund that electoral exercise the dissipation of one of the nation's profitable ventures was demanded, for the new towns have reached a stage of very good profitability and the taxpayer's money and the private investor's money, which have already been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, will, over the years, show a very handsome return indeed.

I make no bones about saying that the corporations would not really have wished to have sold at all, but they have been required—and they were required by the last Government—to roll over their assets in order to continue development. This they have done but, if the Government go on demanding the wholesale realisation of assets because of the present economic need, then, as the noble Baroness Lady Stedman suggested, it should be done in a properly considered and phased programme—not all rushed out and sold off cheaply at one moment. Surely it would not be unreasonable to say that the continuation and completion of this very imaginative project, of the new towns which has received worldwide acclaim—I do not know how many thousands of foreign visitors we have coming to see these towns every year—should be a first charge on the sums that are raised.

It might also be expected that, in doing this exercise, if the Government find it vitally necessary to carry out these sales in order to raise money, then as much as possible should be saved for the nation. Surely the clear way to do that, looking to the future, would be to sell leasehold and not freehold. But that does not appear in this Bill. If your Lordships read it, you might almost think that you would have to go on bended knees to get the Secretary of State to let you sell for more than 99 years. But the Instruction dated 31st July 1980, Guidance on the Terms of Disposal, reads:

"Ministers wish to see disposals take place on a basis which, as far as possible, frees development corporations from all further involvement in the property and which does not involve any form of retention of a share in the equity".

It then continues:

"Disposals should therefore be on a freehold basis".

Private enterprise is to be given the complete bonanza. This of course is Tory Party policy. I would hope that it is not only those sitting on this side of the Committee who feel it is not a wise policy in all instances.

A further point is that the towns (and I think that this was not appreciated in another place when this matter was discussed in Committee) are not being allowed to sell in order to meet their own urgent needs. To give one instance, the new town of Stevenage has an all-pedestrian centre which depends on plentiful and adequate car parking. Another car park is urgently needed. Short spur roads are also needed, to open up two further sites for industrial development where a lot of those little units are planned—which everyone in this House is saying are so urgently needed by the nation, and which could be let as soon as they are built. If neither the car parking nor the money for these little pieces of roadwork are allowed we may not sell to develop the town but only to get the Minister his over £300 million.

I would ask my noble friend the Minister to accept the amendment. As I understand it, it seems to be reasonably sound and fair. There are many cases where the question has been raised whether it is right that the Secretary of State should have so much power. I believe that we must be careful that too much overriding power is not given to the Secretary of State. It could be dangerous, for whoever the Secretary of State is and of whatever party.

I hope to hear some information from Scotland. I do not see political Ministers on the Front Bench but I do see the Lord Advocate, who has been doing a sterling job on this Bill. I do not know why. Could he explain how this will work in Scotland? That the Secretary of State may direct a corporation to pay him on the date specified such sum as is so specified, is a clause that should not be passed. It is not specified in the Bill. It is a sum to be thought up by the Secretary of State. In this case, we are not talking about the Secretary of State for the Environment, but the Secretary of State for Scotland. I know the Secretary of State for Scotland very well. He is my local MP. I have never voted for him, but that is beside the point. I am perfectly sure, however, that neither he nor the Scottish Office thought this up. This bears the hallmark of a political dictator.

The story that has been told by the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, is appalling: that the Secretary of State proceeded to tell the new towns, and by implication so did the Secretary of State for Scotland, that they were to take £100 million from them when they had no power to do so. Even before they have the power, because we have not yet passed the Bill, they will take another £200 million and, because they had not the power to get it last year and it was impractical anyway, they will add that on. This is a retrospective exercise of dictatorial, illegal powers. I do not know whether the Committee is prepared to accept it, but I certainly cannot see any body concerned about the constitution and the powers of Ministers allowing them to get away with this.

I should like to ask some specific questions about Scotland. We have five new towns. They are nowhere near the commission stage. They have been doing a first-class job in providing new houses, new factories, all the facilities which go with that in respect of health services and so on. They are a credit to the people who thought out the idea of trying to deal with what we have inherited from the first Industrial Revolution, by getting people out of Glasgow and out of areas which were beyond improvement, to give them a new chance. They have prospered. They have built up assets. Now the Secretary of State is telling them: "You are going to sell these; you are going to sell them by the time I tell you, and you are going to provide me with a sum of money." In fact he can change his mind about that £300 million and make it £400 million. There is no power to stop him. This is a forced sale. There is not a businessman sitting on the other side of the Committee who would say that this is good business. It has to be done by a certain time.

I do not know the position of the new towns in England. Some of them are in the South. But think of the position of new towns in Cumbernauld, in Irvine—one of the black spots in Ayrshire at the present time. When one appreciates exactly how little in the way of new investment from private industry is coming in, if they are to sell at this time it is bargains galore, and they will not have the chance to retrieve the situation when times are different. This is deplorable. I am surprised that a man such as the Lord Advocate should come into politics, in a sort of non-political field such as the law of Scotland, and lend himself to this.

I want to know exactly how much is demanded of each of the Scottish new towns. I also want to know the dates in respect of which they have to pay for it. When I was Secretary of State there was no Conservative who would let me get off with hits, and I will not readily allow the Secretary of State for Scotland to get off with this raiding of the new towns—for that is what it is. It is more than that. It is not just money that is involved; one has to think of what happens to the new town itself. What is new town property and what is national property then becomes something very different. It is not just a question of saving some money or reducing the borrowing power that the Treasury has to face up to. The nature of the new towns is being changed, for the worst possible reason. I hope that the Lord Advocate will defend this situation as far as Scotland is concerned, let me know what are the specific sums that they have to pay and the dates, and what consultations there have been with the new towns.

This is one of the worst pieces of piracy that we have had. We are seeing here one of the ugliest features of monetarism. There is no doubt about it. The purpose of this amendment is to try to rescue something of the new towns, of which Britain was proud. I remember that when we first started them, in some of the blacker areas, people from all over the world came to see British new towns.

As I said last night, we have tried, on both sides of the Committee, to have a constructive debate. We have tried to calm down on the party political side of it but, in the name of the Lord and for heaven's sake, will noble Lords opposite and those on this side of the Committee try to realise what will happen! Take a new town like Cymbran in South Wales, where contiguous areas will face the ugliness of massive unemployment and the sordid business of apathy through unemployment. Some areas that are bright are going to be left open to the "cowboys", the investors and anybody who can make a grab. As my noble friend said, it will be bargains galore in all these towns.

This applies wherever you look at the policy. Take the taking over of the Post Office. What happens. The Government looks for the profitable bit of it and says, "Let us take that and give it to private enterprise." But they would not deliver letters to farms in my division of Leek when I was Member there, or the part of Wales where I was born up in the mountains. On the old tuppenny letter you lost on delivering to a farm but you gained on delivering in the next street. What have they done. They have taken the famous slogan, socialise the losses and privatise the profits of national and other types of enterprise. Wherever anything shows a little profit they say, "This is typical example of initiative." I remember reading as a young man Cecil's book on The Philosophy of Toryism and it praised itself on the Christian spirit behind Tory-ism. It was the case of the old Tory Party. Many of the reforms in this country came from Christian Conservatives in the history of this country. Suddenly what is happening. We are forgetting some of the purposes of building fellowship and building up elegant and decent surroundings for the humble people, the peasants and the others. Today what do we see? The new town managers and others are being treated as though they were hoodlums. They are told the Secretary of State will take powers; if they fail to comply with a direction the Secretary of State may recover the sum required as if it were a simple contract. In other words, he puts them up in the police court, metaphorically speaking. They are treated as though they are petty diddlers. The Secretary of State does not at present have adequate powers to compel cooperation and he is looking for powers to compel, not for powers to appease, not to join and make a constructive effort out of the new towns, but powers to compel.

I regret that this comes forward in this form. Once again it proves we are overworked; we are rushing a Bill that should be in six various Bills—not just one. We are not taking time to study it in depth; we are not taking the time to think, and we are denigrating the position of this noble House in the process of legislation so far as the country is concerned. If ever this House justified its abolition it is by the kind of piracy that is suggested in some of these Bills that are now whipping through the House at three or four o'clock in the morning when elderly Members of the House are overworked. This is not a party political issue; it is more or less a philosophical one about where this nation is going. I sincerely hope that some noble Lords opposite will go into the Lobby against this Bill.

I have listened with horror to the story my noble friend Lady Denington has told us. It gives a meaning that some of us had not fully realised to these clauses of the Bill. There is one aspect which has not been touched on which I would like to mention. I presume that in due course we shall be able to know who are the purchasers of this land that the new towns are going to be obliged to sell, as a piece of bad business often at a wrong time, because the episode in our history this reminds me of most is the dissolution of the monasteries, for which an ideological reason was put up, but the driving force behind it was greedy and ambitious people who wanted to get their hands on the property. Of course it is known that the foundations of some of the great families in this country today were laid at that time of looting. It will be very interesting to know if some of this land passes ultimately into the hands of people who have quite a long tradition of active interest in the fortunes of the Conservative Party.

Indeed, where did this idea originally come from? My noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock said he saw a politician's hand in this; I think a businessman's hand as well. Somebody at some stage in the inner councils of the Conservative Party said, "Here is a something where we can really make a killing", and thanks to the speech of my noble friend Lady Denington we now know about it. I hope we shall all hold the Government to giving the fullest possible publicity to how this works out with the new towns, what they have to sell and to whom they sell it.

I know very little about new towns. I had the impression that the Government put up the money for them. I must say that what we have heard so far is very disquieting, and I hope that the Minister will give us something of the background. As your Lordships know, I am an economist, and one of the first lessons you learn when you get on to the subject of taxation is that one of the canons of taxation is certainty, that everybody should know what they have to pay. On the face of it this looks as if the Secretary of State could just make up his mind what he is going to levy. I see that in subsection (6) some of it can be treated as repayment, but I take it that since the Minister has to get these powers now the new towns are something more than just a creature of his from whom he can recover anything he likes. That is all I want to say, I do think it is an unusual sort of thing to find in a Bill, and I hope that the Minister is going to tell us a little more about it.

At 1.15 this morning the Committee was asked to debate, before a very much diminished and somewhat fatigued Committee, powers that the Secretary of State was taking to himself in order that he could direct local authorities and public bodies to sell property they owned without the Secretary of State being subjected to any appeal procedure, and with the right to do so limited by very vague words that are in the Bill. My noble friends and I, with our Liberal colleagues who joined us, refused to debate at Committee stage such important provisions and such important powers as were being accorded to the Secretary of State, and we made a protest about the mismanagement of this Bill which led to such vital clauses and such vital powers being debated before a much attenuated Committee. It adds no dignity to this House for our business to be so arranged, and apart from adding no dignity it takes away from us the powers which at present we are supposed to exercise and which many people in many places are attacking. It does no good to the continuance of this House and its prestige for matters to be dealt with in this way. Some of us who are attached to the traditions of this House do not welcome such examples which are being given to opponents of this House.

Having said this, I direct myself now to the issue that is before us in regard to this amendment. My noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock dealt with political issues, and did so with his usual ability to direct himself to a point most incisively.

I want to deal, if I may, and if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will allow me to, with the legal issues involved in this clause. I have yet to find in my memory—and I do not know whether the Lord Advocate can give me an example—a provision in a Bill which, in regard to a public body directed by Act of Parliament to carry out certain statutory duties, gives to a Minister of State the unlimited right to demand of it a certain sum of money, unspecified, and without prejudice at all to the question whether or not the statutory powers of that body can still be carried out if the demand is in fact satisfied. I know of no example and I ask the noble and learned Lord this—and it is a simple matter: Can he please guide the Committee by giving it a precedent? I know of none.

To quote what the Committee may feel is a ridiculous parallel, I happen to be a member of the National Theatre Board. The board was set up to deal with certain statutory duties. I am a member of the South Bank Theatre Board. It, similarly, was set up to perform certain statutory duties. What a mockery it would be if somebody, be he the Minister for the Arts or whoever it is, were given the power to direct us to pay a certain sum of money, unlimited, unqualified, to him on a certain day, and the ability to sue us as a statutory body on the basis that we were liable in debt to the Minister, to the Government. Who are the people who are supposed to be running the new town corporations? Are they people who are being paid huge sums of money in order that they may have a directorship of a new town, or are they people like my noble friend Lady Denington, who has devoted years of her life to public service, with great distinction, in carrying out what is a very vital national task in regard to the new towns?

So I ask the noble Lord the Lord Advocate whether he can do three things. First, can he give us a precedent? Secondly, in regard to the advice that he would give to client, would he ever advise any client to submit to an unlimited demand when that client is trying to carry out a duty imposed by somebody, without any qualification? Thirdly—a simple question, and then I shall sit down—would he advise any reputable businessman to sit upon a board of a new town corporation when somebody outside his control can demand of his corporation an unspecified, unqualified, unlimited amount, with the result that if a new town corporation could not pay it the Secretary of State could make it insolvent, get a judgment against it as a simple contract debt, or any debt, and put it into liquidation, so that for the very first time the person carrying out that public duty would be a director of an insolvent concern?

This issue would be laughable if it were not tragic, and this is where this House stands at this moment. I am not, as I said, going to argue any question of politics at all. I am talking as a humble lawyer, and I hope I have talked common sense. If this House does not pass this amendment, at least limiting the powers of the Secretary of State in regard to what he can do, this House is carrying out no reforming, revising duty whatsoever. It is merely gathering Division fodder from wherever the people may be in the House in order to put over what is an outrageous clause in this Bill.

In rising to speak to this amendment, may I first of all acknowledge the expertise of the two noble Baronesses who first spoke. The noble Baroness Lady Stedman, of course, has long years of experience on the Peterborough New Town Corporation, and may I say how warmly we welcome the fact that the noble Baroness Lady Denington spoke with such obvious knowledge and feeling of her very long experience on the Stevenage New Town Corporation. It is one of the great justifications in your Lordships' House that those who address us on particular subjects speak from profound knowledge, and I think it is a particular privilege to listen to speeches which have been delivered with such conviction.

I must address myself first of all to the terms of the amendment, and then I will attempt to answer as many of the points as I possibly can. The purpose of Clause 114 will be well known. It is to give the Secretary of State power to raise money from the new town corporations and from the commission for the new towns. This is a vital contribution towards our policies of reducing the public sector borrowing requirement and reducing public sector land holdings, and in her opening remarks the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, rightly identified the purpose.

The amendment would undermine the whole purpose of Clause 114 and involve a return to the restrictions on disposals found in the New Towns Act 1965, which requires that disposals should be expedient—and there is that word again—for securing the development of the new town or for connected purposes. We certainly do not envisage that the disposals programme will undermine the programmes of planned development of the towns or be inconsistent with the principles of sound financial management, but it is for the individual development corporations to plan their disposals with this in mind, and it would be neither feasible nor desirable for the Secretary of State to interfere in the individual decisions of the development corporations. Such involvement by the Secretary of State would be contrary to the intentions of Clause 114 and I therefore call upon the noble Baronesses to withdraw their amendment.

I feel, from the very considerable depth of feeling expressed, that your Lordships would like me to answer as many as I can of the points made, and of course I must do my best. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, opened her remarks by suggesting that these clauses—and these are very important clauses in the Bill—were a direct attack on new towns. I can assure the noble Baroness that this is not the case. It is the view which she and her noble colleagues have taken of this matter. I think it is perhaps a matter of presentation and experience, especially in the case of the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, of what has taken place.

I think where we have common ground with the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, is over the roll-over principle, which she accepts entirely, and so told the Committee. She said that her objection was that the power was given to the Secretary of State. I would point out that in Clause 114 this is a permissive power. It does not say that the Secretary of State will exercise it, it says "may exercise" it; and I think it is clear that he is going to exercise it. He will probably do so both in England and in Scotland—and of course the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, mentioned Cwmbran in Wales.

I should like to refer to what the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, said in regard to the Secretary of State's request for £100 million in disposals. I think that the Secretary of State explained that it was necessary to reduce the net call on the Exchequer by some £100 million. My understanding is that he offered the new towns two choices: either to raise this finance by sales or to stop the new towns investment programme in order to save an equivalent sum. To suggest, as the noble Baroness suggested, that that is blackmail is one interpretation of the matter. Nevertheless, that was the global position in which the Government found themselves when taking office in May last year. Such was the need to examine and carry out urgent variations in the financial management that this series of discussions took place as early as the noble Baroness described, in July 1979.

I turn to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, who asked about how the Bill would work in Scotland. The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to consult the new town development corporations before specifying the amounts to be raised. The noble Lord referred to some very important developments in Scotland of which we can all be extremely proud. I think that he referred to Cumbernauld; East Kilbride, which is now the sixth biggest town in Scotland; Irvine; and Livingston; but I do not think that he mentioned Glenrothes. He asked how much was wanted of each of the new towns; the dates concerned and what consultation will take place. Obviously, the local circumstances of each new town are highly important in this context. The Committee will have noticed that the size of the programme of £330 million has been related to the English new towns. The Scottish new towns have their disposals programme for rollover and reinvestment of assets, but that is on nothing like the scale of the disposal and reinvestment in England and that is precisely because of the local circumstances to which the noble Lord referred.

The noble Lord, with his experience as Secretary of State for Scotland, will know that it is very difficult for me to expand further at short notice on the questions he asked in regard to dates. But, I shall attempt to discover the information and I hope to write to him in due course.

I hope that the noble Lord will be able to do so before the Report stage.

I have every intention of doing it at the earliest possible moment.

The practice, which is being followed so frequently, of Ministers promising to write to an individual member is highly unsatisfactory because it means that nobody else has any knowledge of the contents.

I recognise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and, of course, he is perfectly right. But there is a remedy which would be open to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and that is to put down either a Starred Question or a Question for Written Answer. I do not know whether either those courses of action recommend themselves; they probably do not in view of the timescale involved. Nevertheless, it is extremely difficult to meet the point of detail and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, would not wish me to make an ill-considered reply without the full information for which he has asked.

I turn to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham. I must say that I found that his speech contained a very unworthy charge. However, I should point out that most of the major sales so far contemplated are to pension funds and insurance companies—in other words, to organisations as regards which small savers band together to invest their savings in the best possible way. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord. He also asked the Government what they have to sell. I do not think I can answer that in any very precise form and certainly not at present.

I turn to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. He evidently assumed that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate was to reply. I fear that I am a pale shadow compared with my noble and learned friend, and I regret to say that I cannot satisfy the noble Lord on any of the three questions which he asked, though I do not think that he expected me to do so, because they were rhetorical questions.

I am sure that the noble Minister will be good enough to give way in view of the somewhat summary fashion in which he used his own discretion in defining my questions, calling them rhetorical. They were not rhetorical: they were questions that I specifically asked in my humble judgment for the guidance of the Committee. I shall repeat them. My first question was as follows: is there any precedent that the Minister can give the Committee of a Minister or Secretary of State being able, through an Act of Parliament, to demand any sum he wanted, unqualified and unlimited, from a body set up to do a statutory duty? That is not a rhetorical question—I do not know the answer. I believe that it is without precedent, but the noble Lord can correct me.

As regards the second question which I asked—I asked it of a fellow lawyer, if I may say so with deference, but I am perfectly sure that the Minister can be briefed in regard to his reply—it was not a rhetorical question. Indeed, I shall try to make the last two questions into one question. Could the Minister possibly advise any responsible businessman to become a member of a new towns corporation knowing that his liability, when sitting there, was to answer a demand, unlimited and unqualified, which might be addressed to the new towns corporation through the unfettered power of a Minister, and theoretically at least, put himself in the position of being a member of a board of an insolvent company?

I think that I can, to some extent, satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on his first question. I can quote two precedents. One is in the New Towns Act itself. If the noble Lord will examine it, he will find it under Section 4(2), which gives power for the Secretary of State to give directions,

"for restricting the exercise by them of any of their powers under this Act".

Again I ask the Minister to give way because this matter is so vital. If I am straining the patience of the Committee I know that I shall receive an indication and I shall sit down. But I hope that the Committee will think that I am trying to do my duty as a member of this House. The first example by way of precedent given to me comes from a brief—and I do not wish to be offensive to anybody—which, if it were given to me in a professional capacity, I would have to return because it does not deal with the case that I am supposed to be arguing. Talking about restricting powers in the New Towns Act has nothing to do with the unlimited power of a Minister to demand an unlimited, unspecified and unqualified sum from a new towns corporation, a statutory body. It is to that matter that I asked him to direct his mind, and, if he requires further time in which to be briefed on it, I shall understand. I say this with all respect, but knowing that he had to argue this clause, I should have thought that it would have been a matter on which he could have satisfied himself beforehand.

In this particular case I think that the noble Lord has dealt with his point in extenso, to which I do not object. In fact, I think that the opportunity given on this amendment is certainly one which is of his own choosing. I have a second precedent, but I do not think that I shall quote it now.

Why not?

Nevertheless, I shall certainly take up the noble Lord's invitation because he offered me the alternative of the opportunity to consider, and that I shall do.

Before the Minister finally sits down on this matter, he has now undertaken to see whether he can find an answer to the questions which were addressed to him by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. But in a little while, as I understand it, this Committee will be asked to vote on this amendment. It cannot be left like that. The noble Lord has asked certain questions to which a factual answer can be given. No answer has been given, and I understand that in a few minutes' time we shall be invited to go into the Lobbies without any satisfactory answers—or, indeed, any answer at all—having been given to these vital questions. I suggest to the Committee that that is a wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs.

Perhaps I may detain the Committee for one further moment just to clear up two points that were raised by the noble Lord arising out of some remarks that I made. For the information of the Committee, I should like the Committee to understand that there were no discussions with individual corporations. When we were faced with this diktat and a strict timetable to be observed, we saw at once that we had to act as we had always acted, as a group—all the new towns and the commission together—to look at our assets right across the board.

After the commission, which holds four towns, my corporation set out to raise—and would have raised if we had had the time—more than any other town, because we were the first new town and therefore our assets were mature. We had also kept the whole value for the public purse rather than frittered it away, as I would regard it. So we elected a committee and all the new towns sat together to look at all the assets, and then did the best they could right across the board to satisfy the demand of the Secretary of State.

The noble Lord said that we were offered two choices—to raise the money by sales or to stop our progress, to stop any action, and to raise an equivalent amount of money by not building anything or doing anything; in other words, simply to cease to exist. That could not be considered for a moment. A lunatic would not have put forward such a suggestion. The new towns have gone to infinite lengths to build up the confidence in them of investors and industrialists everywhere. One cannot get confidence suddenly by turning round when someone is in the middle of negotiations and saying, "Sorry chum, it's all off". That is just not on and the whole Committee must know it. Therefore, it was an absolutely crazy thing to do, a misunderstanding. A man who understood what the new towns were doing and what they were about could not have put it forward, and so it never started.

I think that I must reply to noble Lords. Perhaps I may attempt to answer the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, because she speaks with such knowledge and such passion on this subject. I could remind her that Stevenage Corporation was one of the very first new towns set up immediately after the Second World War. Of course, it was founded upon initial loans of Government money, of taxpayers' money. I think that the noble Baroness will also recognise that in terms of economic circumstances we are in a vastly different situation today. Values have changed and the circumstances of doing so have changed very considerably. It is because Stevenage Corporation was raised upon public money that there is, of course, a question of public accountability, and I am sure that the noble Baroness would be the first to recognise that point. I should like to stress to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that I have given answers which I consider to be satisfactory answers.

No!

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has not been satisfied at this stage. But we believe that the policy that the Government are pursuing in regard to new towns is most emphatically demanded by the circumstances in which we live.

I think that that is one of the most unsatisfactory answers with which we have ever been presented. The noble Lord says that this is not an attack on new towns. You could have fooled me, because it goes right to the heart of the new town philosophy. He says that the powers of the Secretary of State are permissive and that he is not saying that he will take them. But the Secretary of State has already tried to take them illegally, and there is no guarantee that he will not go on trying to take them and putting this tremendous burden on the new towns.

The noble Lord says that it is a question of presentation. I do not think that even the best public relations officer in the world could dress this up to mean other

moved Amendment No. 230:

Page 97, line 20, leave out subsection (3).

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 231:

May I ask the Minister whether, in the interval in voting, he has received replies for my noble friend Lord Mishcon? Has he been briefed and is he now in a position to give satisfactory replies?

I can only tell the noble Baroness that I have not so been briefed and that I hope to receive the information at a later stage. I do not think I can add to that for the time being.

In that case, I must advise my noble friends to vote against the clause standing part of the Bill.

had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 232:

Page 98, line 15, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(5A)").

moved Amendment No. 233:

Page 98, line 18, after first ("the") insert ("prior").

In moving this amendment the noble Baroness, Lady David, spoke to Amendments Nos. 233, 234, 235 and 236, and I hope that the Committee will agree that I should follow her in that manner. I can see no point in this amendment, for the reason that if, as the provision states, a corporation cannot dispose of a freehold or long leasehold without my right honourable friend's consent, it is surely implicit that the consent must be given before the disposal is made. I imagine that my right honourable friend would not be best pleased should his consent be sought to a fait accompli!

The noble Baroness referred to her own opinion that it was most unwise to dispose of freeholds, but she may be aware that I referred to Section 18(1) of the New Towns Act 1965—a piece of legislation for which her Party was responsible—which gives power to dispose, but only—and I quote:

"for securing the development of the new town in accordance with proposals approved by the Minister … or for purposes connected with the development of the new town".

It is that restrictive power which is secured by Section 18(1).

In regard to Amendment No. 234, we cannot recommend that this amendment should be accepted. The provision affected by this amendment is a useful means whereby the Secretary of State can choose whether to grant a general consent to freehold or long leasehold disposals within certain categories of case, or to grant special consent to each individual disposal application. As part of our attempts to reduce the level of public ownership, we are anxious that corporations should dispose of freeholds whenever possible. This will also enable corporations to be wound up more easily at the appropriate time, since sale of the freehold will relieve them of responsibility for the asset.

To insist on a separate consent in every case would merely produce a proliferation of bureaucracy. The provision in question is so framed as to be consistent with the equivalent provision relating to consent to disposals by the Commission for the New Towns and by development corporations, the latter provision being amended accordingly by Schedule 22 to the Bill. I believe that this amendment is wholly unsatisfactory.

I pass now to Amendment No. 235. I cannot see that this amendment makes any material difference to the provision. If the noble Baroness is concerned to make absolutely sure that no freeholds will be disposed of without the Secretary of State's consent, I can assure her that the subsection as drafted provides for that quite adequately. I therefore call upon the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment, too.

With regard to Amendment No. 236, I cannot see that this amendment makes any material difference to the provision. I believe that if, once again, the noble Baroness is anxious that no freeholds or long leaseholds will be disposed of without the Secretary of State's consent, I can assure her that, once again, the subsection provides for that most adequately.

I have listened to what the noble Lord has said and, although I cannot say that I feel at all happy about this general consent—it just seems to me that the Secretary of State is saying, "I want some money, and I really do not mind how you get it; go ahead"—I think I will not press this to a Division. We have had earlier successes, and I will not press the luck. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 238:

Page 98, line 21, leave out ("99") and insert ("125").

I hope that I shall be able to satisfy my noble friend Lord Morris with an explanation. Development corporations have had power, since the original New Towns Act 1946, to grant leases of up to 99 years without requiring ministerial consent. I think that is common ground between us. We would not wish to be restrictive in the granting of leases and at present the Secretary of State has given a general consent for leases of up to 150 years where development corporations and the commissions for the new towns exercise their existing powers of disposal. But the figure of 99 years is parallel with that in the New Towns Act 1965 and a change to 125 years would be confusing. We do not believe that the clause as it stands will in any way penalise or discourage firms intending to invest in the new towns, and I therefore call upon my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.

I am sure that I speak for my noble friend Lord Mottistone in thanking my noble friend for his helpful and full reply. I will draw my noble friend's attention to the reply. At the same time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 239:

Page 98, line 22, leave out subsection (5).

I think the Committee will be grateful to the noble Baroness for grouping the amendments as she did. I shall follow in the same vein. I shall therefore speak to Amendments Nos. 239, 241, 242, 250 and 251. Once again we are fortunate in the Committee in listening to the noble Baroness, who is a very experienced member of a board. As I listened to her moving the amendment with such skill I felt that the amendment is unsatisfactory despite her words.

Considerable sums of public money have been invested in the new towns' assets which are now to be sold, and my right honourable friend has a duty to ensure that the best possible return is obtained on them. The power affected by the amendment will enable him to do so. He will, for example, be able to regulate the release of assets for sale if he considers that there is a danger of too many simultaneous disposals depressing the assets' market value. This particular point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and I think, particularly, by the noble Baroness, Lady Denington. I think it is a very real issue. The point that I am making is that the regulation of the release of assets for sale is a matter of judgment.

The power is also necessary to ensure that disposals are carried out in accordance with Government policy. For example, the Government have asked new towns authorities to give special consideration to sitting tenants. It might be necessary to reinforce such a request with a direction. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw that amendment.

At the same time I am going to speak to Amendment No. 241. Here the development corporations would undoubtedly be alarmed that there was no statutory requirement for them to be consulted. They have detailed knowledge of their own assets and of local conditions which they certainly would wish my right honourable friend to draw upon in making directions to them and which he would wish to take into account. I believe that this is a somewhat misguided amendment and I think I must ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.

May I intervene at this point? When dealing with that particular amendment I asked in what circumstances the Minister could justify the words:

"unless he is satisfied that because of urgency consultation is impracticable".

That was the point of the amendment.

I think this is a matter for speculation. One can envisage a number of different circumstances which might make it extremely difficult, possibly when there has been quite substantial consultation previously and then there is an urgent need perhaps to implement a decision.

Surely this is very difficult. The disposal cannot be made without the consent of the Secretary of State. When he gives the consent that is the opportunity to find time to discuss the matter with the corporation. I do not see how it can possibly be that he cannot have time to consult.

If I have given a reply which did not sufficiently recommend itself to the Committee, I apologise. There can be circumstances in which discussions may take place in general terms, or perhaps on a rather broad basis, for the disposal of certain assets, anticipating either a market or a set of circumstances. It may well be that it is possible that because of the conditions of the market it may not be possible to have a further series of discussions to implement the decision.

Does that really apply? Are we not talking about the disposal of land? I would have thought the noble Lord's remarks scarcely applied to the disposal of land. Land involves long-term discussions, the planning of the town and all the rest of it. I am not saying that there are not areas of land that can be disposed of. I still find this phrase about urgency not applicable.

The noble Baroness need not worry overmuch because a provision whereby the Secretary of State need not consult a corporation because of urgency is not one which she is likely to need to use often. However, it would be useful if, for example, the property market was falling rapidly and the Secretary of State therefore wished temporarily to restrict the release of further assets for sale. This is a decision which must be made.

I am so glad that the Secretary of State is willing to consult at all.

Would the Minister be willing to take this amendment back? There seems to be a certain amount of anxiety on this point.

I would be misleading the Committee if I gave that assurance. We feel very clear in our minds that there would be circumstances in which it would be extraordinarily valuable to have this reserve power. I gave the assurance in my last reply that it would be a reserve power for particular occasions. I feel I can go no further than that.

I cannot say that I am altogether satisfied. One thing satisfied me in the noble Lord's reply: the release of assets might be regulated. That is something on the credit side. I am still surprised that the Secretary of State cannot trust these responsible boards and leave the judgment of the moment of sale to them. I will withdraw the amendment for the time being, but I reserve the right to come back on Report.

moved Amendment No. 243:

Page 99, line 12, leave out ("expedient") and insert ("to the advantage of the town").

Clause 116 enables the Secretary of State to make an order reducing the designated area of a new town, as the noble Baroness has reminded the Committee. Such orders will be necessary because substantial areas of the third generation new towns are unlikely to be required for development following the decision in 1977 to reduce the town's target population. The noble Baroness reminded the Committee about this in the case of Peterborough. It is desirable that the superfluous land should be de- designated to prevent blight and remove the development corporation's statutory duty to lay out and develop the land.

Such action is therefore expedient to implement the national policy of reducing the target populations of the towns. But the advantage of the individual new towns is not at issue. We are dealing with a situation on which the Government have a very clear view. There are plenty of precedents for the use of the word "expedient" and I hope that the noble Baroness may feel able to withdraw the amendment.

I am not very happy. I do not think that "expedient" means the same thing as "to the advantage of the town". There are problems; problems have been made now for us in Peterborough where we accommodate the numbers that are still to come into it in the two existing townships. We shall have no room for the natural expansion of population that will follow from the increase in the normal population of the new town, for which we had reserved part of the township. I will ask my noble friends to come into the lobby with me because the words "to the advantage of the town" are much better than just "expedient".

Before the noble Baroness takes that course of action, perhaps I could reply to her in greater detail. I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I add a few remarks about the background to the clause and the amendment. First, I should like to take your Lordships back to the designation of the sites of the new towns. The Minister is given power in Section 1 of the New Towns Act 1965 to designate an area as the site of a new town if this is "expedient in the national interest". If we now turn to the powers of de-designation of some of this land, we find the same test of "expediency" being applied. This is appropriate because both designation and de-designation of new town land is primarily a matter of national interest.

Clauses 116 to 118 are included in the Bill to deal with the situation stemming from decisions taken in 1977 by the previous Government. Prompted by changing national circumstances, they decided to reduce the target populations of the third generations of new towns which still have considerable development to carry out. However, many development corporations had bought land on the basis of the original targets, and this is now surplus to their needs. We now wish to de-designate this land to prevent blight and to remove the development corporation's statutory duty to lay out and develop the land as I described.

What is at issue here is the question of how big the new towns should be. Just as with the question of designation, it is primarily a matter of national and regional policy. The clause makes provision, by the consultation of local authorities, for local interests to be taken into account; and this is the point of the noble Baroness's amendment. However, it would not be sensible to make the decision turn on the local interests when the policy at stake is a national one I do hope that with those further remarks the noble Baroness may feel able to withdraw her amendment.

No, I do not think I can. I think we should still have the prime concern of the new town area which is being made smaller and the problems that will follow, and this de-designation of part of the area should not be allowed unless we are absolutely satisfied that it is to the advantage of the town. While "expedient" may have been used in other Acts, I do not think that necessarily makes it right, and I do not think it necessarily means that we should follow it in this one. I think the words, "to the advantage of the town", would be infinitely more preferable, and I must ask my noble friends to follow me into the Lobby.

Before we divide, I should like to say from these Benches that I have listened carefully to this discussion, and I am bound to say that I would advise my noble friends to follow the Government's line on this occasion. I consider that the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, is the stronger of the two arguments.