I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 10, at the end to insert:

Provided that no part of the sum of £250,000,000 by which the said aggregate amount is increased by virtue of this section shall be advanced to a development corporation which shall have been established after the date of the coming into operation of this Act unless the Order under section 1 of the New Towns Act 1965 designating the site of the new town for the purpose of which such development corporation is established shall have been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

This Amendment comes as a proviso to the Clause, which is the most important one in the Bill because it asks the Committee at this stage to approve an advance of another £250 million to the development corporations and the Commission for the New Towns. It increases the present advances from £550 million to £800 million.

Before the Committee approves of that further advance, which we understood from the Second Reading debate would probably cover about three years of the expenses of the development corporations and the Commission, we should consider how many new development corporations will be coming in to share these extra advances, and the Committee ought perhaps to know more about the Government's intentions for additional new towns, before consenting to the extra advance.

As the Bill stands, the money can be advanced not only to existing development corporations but to any new development corporations that may be formed in the next two years. We know from reports of the development corporations the financial state and the state of development of the existing new towns, but at the moment we know nothing of the new towns in contemplation.

I am exaggerating perhaps when I say "nothing", because those of us who are interested in any particular area have taken an interest in new towns which may be coming into that area. But at the moment the information is somewhat scattered and there is no overall picture of what the Government intend by way of the establishment of new towns over the next few years.

A development corporation comes into being by Section 2 of the New Towns Act, 1965. The Minister has power under that Section to establish a corporation for the purposes of a new town, the site of which has been designated under Section 1. I am endeavouring to follow this through to see what information the House receives before a site is designated as a new town and a corporation appointed to look after it.

Under Section 1 of the New Towns Act, 1965, a site is designated by an order and any such order must be made in accordance with Section 53(5) of that Act. That Section states that an order must be made by a Statutory Instrument which is

"… subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament …"

if, but only if, two conditions apply: first, if

"… the order is one designating an area as the site of a proposed new town, or designating an additional area of not less than 500 acres…"

and, secondly, if

"… an objection to the order was duly made by a local planning authority and had not been withdrawn at the time the order was made".

We see that the order never comes before the House unless there has been an objection from a local authority. I do not believe that Parliament should be left in the dark about the provision of new towns at this stage of their development. It is important that Parliament should know in any case why a particular site has been chosen for a new town, what size that new town will take and the general character of it before approving of it coming within the group which will benefit from the £250 million authorised to be advanced under this Bill.

The Parliamentary Secretary said on Second Reading that we were starting another chapter in planning. That is true. Originally, we perhaps thought of new towns as either on virgin soil, and completely new structures, or attached to small towns and, to that extent, completely new towns. We are now thinking of the attachment of new towns to much larger towns placed on the fringes.

I hope that we can go further than that in our new ideas of new towns and start the development of satellite areas of the larger towns by means of the new town procedure or in connection with industrial developments which need residential areas around them. We should, therefore, consider, each time a new town is designated, whether it is the sort of advance we want to make and, therefore, whether the Committee wishes to support it financially out of the £250 million fund which is now being authorised.

There are major considerations when a site is designated; for example, when it is designated on agricultural land. In that event there is always dispute because the owners of the land consider it far more valuable for agriculture than as a new town and plead for it to be left in its agricultural state. Indeed, more Departments than the Ministry of Housing and Local Government should consider a project for a new town which takes a substantial part of our agricultural land. I will leave my hon. Friends to develop this point, because there is very little agricultural land in my constituency. There are two farms in my area, but as their employees live outside my constituency I have never thought it incumbent on me to know much about the technique of agriculture.

11.15 a.m.

I give a different example; the development of an industrial project which needs a residential area attached to it. In this example a new town and a new development corporation might be extremely valuable. I have in my constituency about to start a big docks project costing about £39 million to develop the northern end of the Liverpool Docks, what we call the Seaforth project. Hon. Members who represent similar constituencies will appreciate that the docker wants to live near his work. It is important, therefore, to build blocks of flats with nice amenities near to the docks.

When a development of this sort is in hand there should be a residential, commercial and shopping development in depth inland from the dock area. It is almost impossible for existing local authorities to undertake a big project of that sort, and this is a good example of what might come into the other chapter of planning, about which the Parliamentary Secretary spoke. We might well think in terms of the new town procedure for an industrial plus residential development of that nature when considering a sufficiently large major development.

There are many areas of old cities which the local authorities find it extremely difficult to re-develop, starting first with the acquisition of the many plots of land into the one ownership of the local authority to carry out the development and then the professional work and services required to start that development. A development corporation could be of the greatest assistance if an area of that sort were designated as a new town.

With all these possible future uses of development corporations and the designation of areas as new towns, the House should be well informed of any site which is newly designated for a new town. The Parliamentary Secretary may be able to give a sufficient programme today for the next three years to show almost exactly how the £250 million will be spent. This might satisfy my hon. Friends and I, but, as the Bill stands, we do not know to whom the money will be advanced and although we know that existing development corporations may have a call on the money, we do not know what other development corporations may be formed in the next few years and have a call on it. By this means of bringing an Order before the House, so that hon. Members may consider it and, if necessary, debate it, we can be informed of how the money is to be spent.

The Clause provides very large sums of money for the cost of new towns, but the agricultural land which will be consumed is irreplaceable. The Committee knows that I am a fanner and interested in farming, but fanners are realistic in the sense that they fully appreciate that new towns have to be built. The burning issue is that as far as possible they should be built on land which is inferior agricultural land. That view is axiomatic in all the history of town planning. I think that there is a firm statement to that effect in one of the first debates in the House of Commons on town planning by Sir John Burns, President of the Local Government Board, as long ago as 1908, when he expressed honor at the consumption for building purposes of 500,000 acres during the 15 years previous to 1908.

Throughout the chain of White Papers, it has been emphasised that agricultural land should be chosen with careful regard for its quality. Equally, there is a chain of decisions showing that previous Ministers have rejected proposals because of the high quality of the land involved. I am not certain that in the new chapter to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred there is the same active consideration. The principles are there, but it seems that the Government are paying little more than lip service to them.

I say this because my attention has been drawn to some of the new town designation proposals which have come out this year. In general, their treatment of the agricultural problem is perfunctory. My first question, therefore, is what instructions the Government give to the planning consultants about this matter of agricultural land. I have in mind one of the latest Reports—this concerns the new town in Mid-Wales which will be entirely outside the Parliamentary Secretary's knowledge—when in the terms of reference is the statement that the consultant is asked to keep this among other objectives in mind—

"to have regard among other things to the information which will be made available to him about the agricultural value of the land and the water supply and drainage situation in the upper Severn Valley."

In the Report there are only two paragraphs on land use and only two sentences are worth quoting. The first sentence is in paragraph 620.

"The greater part of the area is at present devoted to agricultural activity."

The next paragraph starts:

"We have not been able to obtain details of present land ownership for the whole area."

The other reference to agriculture in this very important Report is the usual map of the graded land and a table giving the amount of subsidy and grant which have gone into the four counties concerned in the last few years. Yet the Report is stiff with statistics and the results of obviously detailed consultations with industries and all the other factors concerned in the consideration of a new town.

Agriculture seems to get very light treatment. Apparently, those who would have a lot of knowledge of the subject and who could have assisted the consultants with information were never approached. The National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association, who, after all, have a great deal of knowledge of both the actual facts of the land and its potential, have not contributed their information at an early stage. This seems to be a mistake and we can see the same kind of failure to consult at an early stage in the other designations for new towns under the Bill. The agricultural interests are not consulted at the earliest stages.

So much for the agricultural interests. What about the Ministry of Agriculture? I know that Departments consult, but I wonder how detailed and realistic that consultation is. In the report dealing with the area near where I live and farm, the expansion of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk, there is a great change in the general outlook, a change which came as a complete surprise to the county in the new proposals for the expansion of Ipswich. It has been realised and accepted that Ipswich must expand, but hitherto the various possibilities in the earlier plan, which was published in 1963, seemed to make it probable that the expansion of Ipswich would take place, broadly speaking, to the east of the town where the land is relatively poor.

It so happens that in the Ipswich area and up the Suffolk coast there is a marked change in the quality and character of the land between the first few miles from the coast inland and the land further inland. The first coastal land is sandy and light and gravelly, but further inland there is the benefit of the stronger clay and there is some highly productive farmland.

The county was very surprised to find that the new proposals were to expand Ipswich on much the better land. The Report gives very sketchy treatment to the land problem. Admittedly, there is a small paragraph saying that agriculture is an important interest and in the summary of proposals it is said that the factor——

Order. I must warn the hon. Gentleman that he is getting rather wide of the Amendment.

I am trying to show how important it is that Parliament should have a chance of considering the principles on which this money is to be paid out. I am trying to illustrate my case. I agree that it is undesirable to go into detail at this stage, but it seems that the principles are not being carried through. They might be being observed formally, but I do not think that they are being observed effectively.

Without pursuing the detail, I would like to know what strategic consideration is given to a matter which is so fundamental. The difference between taking the best land and using the less satisfactory land is very great. There seems to have been no consultation in the past with the Country Landowners' Association or with the National Farmers' Union who have so much knowledge and who might have suggested factors which the consultants themselves ought to have taken into consideration.

11.30 a.m.

When the Departments concerned, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Ministry of Agriculture, discuss these matters. May I be told how deeply such considerations are examined? Is there any evaluation of the potential economic loss to agriculture and the long-term relative economic costs of say, incurring higher communication development costs in the new town in order to build on poorer land, which is an issue in the case of Ipswich?

One point which does not seem to have been considered and which is equally vital deals with the question of irrigation and the water shortage. It is said that there is likely to be a water shortage in this area. One can maintain food production on the lighter ground with modern techniques, but one essential element is the large use which has to be made of irrigation. If one decides to put the new town on the best land, one is automatically building up a very much larger demand for water than if one kept the new town on the poor land, simply because the good land is productive without the need for a great deal of irrigation.

It seems to be more satisfactory to go into such big issues of land use at the outset so that we could have a decision after full consultation, and before these other very elaborate consultations take place.

I would like to put on record my appreciation of the courtesy of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) in letting me have, this morning, advance notice of some of the points that he was seeking to raise. I am obliged, because it makes life easier, when dealing with a difficult Bill of this kind, when Amendments are put down very late, as they sometimes have to be. This enables us to have a reasonably intelligent discussion.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) raised some very important and fundamental problems concerning agriculture. It is recognised that whenever a new town is designated, there is invariably a clash between those with farming interests on the one hand, and those who want the new town because of the enormous population explosion facing the country.

The hon. Gentleman asked for a number of assurances and I must be careful that I do not go too wide because they might be more appropriate on Clause stand part or Third Reading. I can give the formal assurance in that when the area is designated there is a detailed procedure to be followed very closely by this Government, and all Governments, ensuring that the interests of all concerned are protected. Farmers, industrialists, shopkeepers and the rest within this area will be able to say, long before there is any confirmation of designation, what they think and to make their views known.

After the inquiry has been held and the designation confirmed, a master plan is made. The consultants responsible for this plan are kept in close touch with the Ministry of Agriculture. They know the views expressed at the inquiry and it is our experience that they bear them in mind. Quite properly the hon. Gentleman put the farmers' case. This is a tremendous problem. We have said this so often that it is getting boring but it is worth repeating—the figures are alarming: we have to find homes for 1 million Londoners alone outside the conurbation by 1980. This is assuming that the drift to the South is stopped and that all regions are built up and standing on their own feet.

In this tiny island of ours, whatever we do and wherever we go in search of land we are faced with this problem. Understandably there are objections, and within the limits of our democracy we consult all the way down the line, where practicable. In every case those who have points of view on a particular area have every chance and right to impress those objections upon the inspector at the public inquiry.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby said that the purpose of the Amendment was to enable Parliament to consider the proposed new town. He wants to make certain that we in this House and in the other place have the chance of debating the proposals. He wanted to know how the figure of £250 million was to be spent. At the moment, there are 21 new towns in England, Scotland and Wales. There are proposals for six more in England, those at North Bucks, Ipswich, Northampton, Peterborough, Warrington-Risley and Leyland-Chorley. Designation processes have been started—I think that they are being concluded—for Irvine, in Scotland. In Wales, there will be another new town, although I do not know exactly where. The figure of £250 million will be used almost entirely on these existing and specified projects.

The hon. Gentleman's argument was a good democratic one. He wanted Parliament to have the opportunity of discussing the proposals. He will know that under Section 53(5) of the New Towns Act, 1965 a designation Order by the Minister is subject to annulment by either House if the Order is opposed by the local planning authority. This is a reasonable provision, because in a new town the planning functions of the county council are virtually taken over by the Minister. It seems right that if a senior authority opposes the loss of its planning jurisdiction to the Minister and a dispute on this exists, there should be a reference to this House.

Planning stands alone among senior local authority functions when it comes to wholesale take-over. Schools, roads, health services, continue to remain a local responsibility. If this Amendment were accepted a situation could arise when the local planning authority, the county, did not oppose the Order but welcomed it. It would be asking too much to say that in spite of that, although there were no objections, not even from the farmers, we should have to bring proposals before this House for debate. I am in favour of democracy but we have a situation which we must leave in the hands of the responsible Minister, no matter what Government are in power. The Government must be conscious of public feeling. The Conservative Government introduced the 1964 Act, legislation the form of which we are confirming. So the procedures which the Conservative Government implemented are merely being reaffirmed by us.

While I appreciate that the Amendment was tabled merely as a probing one to find out exactly what were our intentions, I hope that the hon. Member for Crosby will be satisfied about the £250 million now that I have given the list of the towns involved. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, if the local planning authority objects, we shall follow procedure and this will come before the House for annulment, if the House so decides. The hon. Gentleman will agree that, on the assumption that no such objection is made by a local planning authority, the House ought to leave it in the hands of the responsible Minister concerned. I therefore hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn.

I am grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for what he has said and for his explanation. He said, in effect, that the procedure at present ensures that all those concerned with the area to be designated, and, indeed, the county in which it lies, have full opportunity of making their voices heard, of consultation with the Minister, and of generally working it out between themselves.

That is only the voice of the particular area. What I had in mind in tabling the Amendment was that Parliament should see how any one scheme fits into the whole picture. After all, we are dealing with the development of new towns in England, Scotland and Wales, and it is Parliament's job to get the overall picture, whatever the local authorities may think.

One phrase which the hon. Gentleman used rather confirmed some of my fears. He said that we must realise that there are 1 million Londoners who must have homes. I commend the hon. Gentleman for thinking of the Londoners. We all do. We are now developing new towns for the benefit of the other cities. It may be right to push Londoners beyond the commuter belt so that they do not travel back to their work into London. However, this may not be the right policy for other cities. It may be right to rehouse close to those cities, with the new towns on the fringe of the older cities.

It is this policy which Parliament should consider in the next few years. It is true that the present procedure was laid down by a Conservative Government and operated satisfactorily under the first generation of new towns, but we are now coming to the second generation. It is a policy which Parliament should consider as it develops.

I do not think that, if the county council does not object. Parliament should be deprived of considering a new town order. This is an extraordinary argument. So is the argument that we must leave it to the Minister's discretion. I, too, would use that argument if I were a Minister, but it is our job as the Opposition to see what the Minister is doing and to bring him to account before Parliament, if we can.

I feel a little more confident about this matter since the Parliamentary Secretary's speech. My only assurance is the hon. Gentleman's statement that there are 21 new towns and six new projects, and that almost the whole of the £250 million will go to those. Therefore, we know from that assurance how the £250 million is to be spent.

In taking a certain course on the Amendment, I am relying on that assurance. If any site is designated for a new town in future, I personally shall ensure that some objection is made and that it is sustained, so that the order can come before the House for consideration. It is absolutely essential for Parliament to consider the new projects to see how they fit into the picture as a whole. On that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 10, at the end to insert:

Provided that no advance shall be made out of the £250,000,000 (by which the said aggregate amount is increased by virtue of this section) to any development corporation or to the said Commission unless the Minister shall have prescribed by regulations made in accordance with subsections (1) and (2) of section 53 of the New Towns Act 1965 the minimum contribution which shall be made by that development corporation or by the Commission (as the case may be) towards expenditure incurred or to be incurred by any local authority or statutory undertakers in the performance, in relation to the new town, of any of their statutory functions.

This Amendment again, is a proviso to the Clause for the purpose of Parliament's being able to consider the use of the £250 million before it is distributed to development corporations. This proviso deals with a matter which is of deep concern now to local authorities which have new towns grafted on to them. I say frankly that the arrangements which Conservative Governments made are not in present circumstances working satis-actorily to the old local authorities, to those authorities which have to support the social services and the welfare and health services for the new towns which have been grafted on to them.

The Amendment is a well-known device to avoid drafting what we mean by the Amendment. We seek to impose a duty on the Minister to produce regulations before he agrees to an advance. Before any part of the £250 million is advanced to any development corporation, we should be satisfied that the new town corporation, whether it be the Commission itself or a development corporation, is prepared to make a proper contribution to the social and welfare services which have to be provided by the local authority.

In many cases this is proving to be a very heavy burden on the rates. The Parliamentary Secretary gave an example the other way round on Second Reading. He scoffed at the local authority which, when asked to contribute to a £50,000 project of a new town, offered £100. It works the other way, too. That local authority might well have been thinking of the burden on its own rates that the presence of the new town had caused.

The result of having a new town in the neighbourhood of the old local authority is that the old local authority must provide schools, welfare and health services, and all the other local authority services before any real return is received from the increased rateable value. The local authority has to finance these social services for several years before it sees the return. That is a heavy burden on the rates.

Under town development, the normal procedure is an agreement between the exporting authority and the receiving authority which sets out clearly how the scheme is to be financed, both by subsidies from the Ministry on certain subjects, such as housing, and by finance and support from the exporting authority. There, before the project is started on, the contribution which is to be made from the Exchequer and from the exporting authority is known. But there does not seem to be anything so certain in the case of the development corporation and the local authority. It all seems to be left to the discretion of the development corporation and what good will it feels towards the local authority whether it will make that contribution.

I would like to have seen the duty imposed on the development corporation in a specific form of regulations by the Minister making certain that there is a substantial contribution towards the rates and that this burden on the rates, which many local authorities feel heavily, is relieved for certain, so that we can see that it is so relieved by regulations coming before the House.

I imagine that the Parliamentary Secretary will read from his Ministerial brief that all this is taken care of by the future expansion of rateable value and that there is no need to worry because at some stage the town will be that much richer and will have caught up with its backlog of expenditure. I want to inform the Committee that that simply does not happen.

That was the argument used by the Conservative Government back in 1958, when the general grant system was introduced. They assured Hertfordshire, which was the outstanding county, which has a number of new towns and has extreme experience of what happens when new towns are introduced into an area and of the expense which falls on the rates, that everything would be all right because experience would prove that there would be no great call on the rates. This is a fallacy. It is not possible to give proof by any system of logic. One can prove it only by the actual facts.

The facts are that in 1959–60, when the general grants started, Hertfordshire was receiving its proportion of sums from the Treasury as a contribution to relevant expenditure on which rates are paid. At that stage of relevant expenditure, about 55·5 per cent. of national relevant expenditure was paid for by the Treasury. Hertfordshire received 55·7 per cent. Every year thereafter, however, the proportion has dropped to 54 per cent. in one year, 53 per cent. another year, and so on, downwards until now, in 1966–67, Hertfordshire receives only 49·5 per cent. Treasury grant for rele- vant expenditure. This is directly as a consequence of the heavy cost of an expanding population.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has described the many calls which come on a local authority to provide services ahead of the time when there is an increase in rate-borne expenditure. One would certainly think that after two or three years matters would catch up, but where there is a steady expansion they never do catch up. It is necessary, therefore, for the Government to make a substantial contribution when there is an expansion of population by way of a new town. I sincerely hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

I strongly support the Amendment. I am alarmed when I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) says about new towns and the effect upon ratepayers. My hon. Friend is in a position to know, because he has had experience, and the Committee should listen carefully to his warnings on this matter.

On Second Reading, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary spoke of a new town being added on to an existing town and said:

"it would not be right to insulate ratepayers from any general rise in rate levels; moreover, if they were to enjoy a wider range of facilities than at present, it would be only fair that they should make a contribution to the cost of providing those facilities."

The hon. Gentleman went on to say that the ratepayers

"will not be asked to bear more than their fair share of the cost of the expansion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th October, 1966; Vol. 734, c. 1582.]

I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary whether, in the case of an expanded town, it is right that the existing ratepayers should have to bear any part of this cost. By their good will, and from a sense of public duty, they are simply taking in overspill from great cities and it seems wrong that the established ratepayers should have to bear from their own pockets any part of the burden, which rightly should come from the Exchequer. I make that point forcibly to the Parliamentary Secretary and I would like to know whether he does not agree with what I have said. The Parliamentary Secretary referred particularly on Second Reading to facilities and he talked about "new town blues". It is true that a grant of £4 per head is made for facilities for new towns. The hon. Gentleman has even said that he would increase that amount. One must, however, remember that in the case of new towns being grafted on to existing towns, the existing facilities are probably perfectly adequate for those who already live there. If extra facilities are to be provided it is essential, and it is the Government's duty, to grant the extra money to provide the extra facilities for the new population. To my mind, it would be quite immoral to expect the existing ratepayers to bear any part of that burden.

On the wider aspect, we have also to remember the enormous problem which arises, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has mentioned, concerning social services, welfare and health, schools, sewage works and everything which has to be built. One knows, of course, that housing is a social service and is non-profitable, and no one would expect it to be otherwise, but one hopes that the other concomitants which are promised when a town expands will become profitable. It is alarming, from what we have heard this morning, to think that those services will very likely not become profitable and that the rate burden will continue to grow year by year.

In many ways one understands the reason for this, because in the very nature of things an elected council feels that it must do the best it can for its ratepayers by the provision of extra facilities, services, community centres, new town centres and all the other things that go to make life pleasant. These councils must, however, put a brake on their ideas, because, if this expansion is to be accepted by many towns which are prepared to consider the problem, the assurance must be given that this rate burden will not fall upon the existing ratepayers. Nothing that has been said so far has denied that this happens and it looks to me as though it will continue to happen. The Government must do something about this.

The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) chided me with my remarks on Second Reading, when I referred to an idea for a £50,000 amenity which was promoted by the development corporation and the local authority offered £100. The hon. Member for Crosby said that this happens the other way round, and I do not deny this; it is perfectly true. I ought, however, to put it on record that as a consequence of the development corporation's activities, the local authority concerned, which I will not name, is receiving £450,000 a year in rates.

It really must not go out from this Committee that we think what anyone listening to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) might think, for listening to him one does get a very jaundiced view of some of these matters. To listen to him one would think that these areas do not get any money at all and that the whole burden of new town development falls on the backs of the ratepayers and that there is an immediate, tremendous increase in rates. In view of this Press publicity I saw last week I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is speaking for Hemel Hempstead in these matters. Frankly, I can only say to him that if he is speaking for the local authorities I am very surprised representations have not been made at an official level.

May I assure the hon. Gentleman that in speaking on this question of rates I am speaking for the whole of Hertfordshire? I have the warm support of Hertfordshire County Council for what I have said on this and past occasions.

Of course, when anyone speaks against rate increases he gets the warm support of anyone who is paying rates. That is very logical and very obvious, and it has been so from time immemorial, but rates have not suddenly gone up under this Labour Government; they have been going up for the last decade or so. Let us get it clear. The real question is whether people are getting value for their money. That is the real test.

I understand why the hon. Member for Crosby put forward his Amendment. He has put it forward as a probing Amendment, and I see his point. He wants something on the Statute Book to allow for a minimum contribution to be made by the development corporation in exercise of functions which it is necessary for the local authority to perform; he wants a minimum contribution laid down so that the local authority can be certain of getting at least a minimum sum of money.

The problem about an Amendment of this kind and what he is asking for is the practicality of applying it, because the functions normally carried out by local authorities must vary considerably as between one service and another and as between one new town and another. It is just not possible to accept the Amendment, I must tell the hon. Gentleman. We have looked very carefully at this, and it is just not possible to lay down any standard, not even a minimum one, as he proposes in the Amendment.

The New Towns Act, 1965, empowers development corporations and the Commission to make contributions to local authorities subject to the approval of my right hon. Friend and with the concurrence of the Treasury. There is also power under the Act for my right hon. Friend to make an order authorising a development corporation to exercise powers normally vested in the local authority in the provision of sewers and sewage disposal works; in other words, to take complete responsibility away, and the cost. In some areas local authorities welcome this; in others they do not.

So, in the case of sewerage, we can have a situation where the development corporation can make a contribution to the local authority or it can do the job entirely on its own, and receive a contribution from the local authority for doing it.

In practice, this is one field where the corporations have generally had to exercise what are normally local authority functions. In most new towns the previously existing sewage disposal facilities were inadequate at the outset and the capital expenditure involved in providing facilities suitable for major development was usually far beyond the means of local authorities. Successive Ministers, Conservative Ministers and the present holder of this office, have had to make the necessary orders to give the development corporations power to carry out the works, and in all cases we have had the agreement of the local authorities concerned.

If we were to accept this Amendment we really would be in an impossible situation. The question of which way contributions should go is always very difficult. Take the case of Skelmersdale There are four local authorities involved. About the whole of the Skelmersdale urban district is in the designated area, about 1,700 acres; 1,400 acres of the designated area are in Upholland urban district; 380 acres are in Ormskirk urban district; and 480 acres are in Wigan rural district. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that he really must accept it from me that on a matter of this kind the decision he wants about minima cannot be written into the Statute Book. These must be decided as a result of consultation between the local authorities and the development corporation in the area concerned.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) raised the question of amenities. He will know that I have been paying special attention to this. I think it is quite futile to build a new town without, at the same time as we are building the houses, paying special attention to amenities. I think that this is generally accepted on both sides of the Committee. In fact a contribution for amenities can be made from the development corporation. I think we are all generally agreed on this, that at some stage in the future all these new towns will normally be run by the local authorities concerned, and that it is right that they should play their part in building up the new towns. I have been going around trying desperately hard to get local authorities to understand this very problem.

It is true, of course, that they must be helped. The present provision is that £4 per head of incoming population is available for amenities—that is laid down by Statute. My personal view is that this is not enough. I believe this has to be increased. By how much and when are matters for future judgment, but I do not quarrel with hon. Members on either side of the Committee who say we have to try to increase it if we can, to enable local authorities to do a bigger and better job.

Could the Minister clarify whether that applies to expanded towns or to new towns? I think that my hon. Friend was referring to expanded towns. Could he also answer the point which has been made and which he has not yet come to, that there is a severe financial burden which can fall on the ratepayers and the local authorities? The Minister said there was the difference in the rules, no matter which party was in office. I would remind him that we have seen a longer period of high Bank Rate under the present Administration than ever before, and that this is having a very severe effect in prognosticating rate burdens falling on ratepayers in areas of expansion such as Basingstoke. I should be grateful for his comments on this matter.

There is, of course, a difference between an expanded town and a new town. There is a later Amendment which may enable us to develop this point of view, whether the finance available, and the principles of financing, should be applicable and parallel in new town development and expanded towns. There is an argument about this. But on the amenities of which I am talking, I think that there is a case for looking at this point, and at the money involved, because I recognise that these amenities are an essential part of the future of any new town.

I have talked earlier about the attitude of the local authorities concerned here. The hon. Member opposite seemed to convey the impression that there was almost overnight an enormous burden on the rates in consequence of a new town. I do not accept that. In fact, the provision of new towns in these areas is welcomed by the towns themselves. In many instances millions of pounds of Government money have been poured in, in bringing in new industry to the area, and in improving the life of the whole area. For that, there must be payment. No decent person would expect not to have some increase in his rates for that. What we must consider, as I said before, is whether he gets value for his money in the increased and improved services which are put in.

Would the hon. Gentleman consider, for example, the extreme case of the new town in Wales—I do not know where it is to be—and of putting it in an agricultural county, with a very low rateable value? The effect, in the early years of the new town, will be that the rates will go sky high in that county. That is the extreme case, I agree. In a fairly prosperous county like Hertfordshire the effect is not so large, but my point is that the effect is very noticeable indeed, even in Hertfordshire.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree with me that there is no net benefit to an authority from a new domestic hereditament? Each one is likely to be a debit against the rate fund, and that can only be balanced by incoming industrial and commercial development.

On the point about our friends in Wales, it is not for me to speak for them. I would assume that, when the new town is designated, that would be one of the factors to be taken into account, but I can only say to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead that the views which he has expressed will be read by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Stale for Wales.

The point raised by the hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) is a fact which we recognise. It might be a good thing that even the industrial element of a new town should go over to the local authority at the end of the life of the new town. That would be the ideal. But the other side of the coin is that the industrial element of new towns is an enormous profit-making element. It should not be forgotten that these industrial concerns are bringing in money not only to past Governments, but to this Government.

We are headed for further expansion, with more new towns costing the nation millions of pounds, and that means the taxpayer. In my opinion, it is only right that, where there are commercial profits made in existing new towns, the profit should go into a total pool to help ratepayers as a whole rather than one specific area where a new town has to be sited. That is a matter of opinion, of course. However, I shall be ruled out of order if we pursue this topic too far. It has been an interesting discussion on an Amendment which was put down to probe whether we should lay down any minimum for local authorities.

I am quite convinced that the range of services involved and the range of different circumstances that there are make it essential that we should continue to look at each particular case on its merits, and not even try to lay down a maximum or a minimum. Flexibility is desirable in all these fields.

I hope that the hon. Member for Crosby will agree with that and, in the light of what I have said, be good enough to withdraw his Amendment.

The hon. Gentleman admitted that in all cases there will be an increase in rates, and he suggested that everyone should accept that. I am not in a position to know whether anything can be done to minimise that, but every effort should be made to mitigate increases in rates on existing ratepayers living in an expanded town, otherwise it is grossly unfair to them.

I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary has not been a little more sympathetic towards this Amendment. As I understand it, his attitude is that it will cause an increase in rates and on the rate burden of a local authority, but the local authority will see its return in the end.

The hon. Gentleman has heard the facts put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) in connection with an existing new town. He has heard the fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) about a possible new town, although it may be that in his case it will be under town development; but it could be a new town. They are fears which I have heard voiced by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), where they are concerned about the expenses on the rates as a result of the new town being grafted on to Peterborough. The Parliamentary Secretary came back on the example which he gave in Second Reading and said that that local authority had received £450,000 a year in rates. That may be. It may be that it is one of the well-developed new towns and that at this stage the local authority is receiving that amount of money.

My understanding of the figures is that there is no profit out of the rateable value of new properties for very many years. Although it looks good on paper—a new house has been built with a rateable value of so much, and so much is coming in in rates—set against the services which have to be provided, there is no profit out of new residential buildings. My hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) said that there is no net benefit, and that is true. I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary does not accept that.

In due course, there will be a return from new industries, but it will be in due course, and that may be some years hence. In the meantime, a local authority is suffering a heavy burden, possibly having to borrow money at higher rates than that at which the development corporation or Commission get their money. That is where there is a certain amount of unfairness.

The Parliamentary Secretary said that the right thing is to look at each particular case, and that is what I suggest in my Amendment. I propose regulations for each particular case so that Parliament may know that this or that development corporation which seeks to obtain an advance out of the £250 million will contribute in some real form towards the rates.

While the hon. Gentleman was speaking, I looked at some of the accounts of the existing development corporations to see whether I could discover from the revenue account whether they made any contributions to local authorities. I opened the accounts at random. Starting with Skelmersdale, I see on the revenue side that, even at the present stage, there is quite a substantial amount coming in from property rents and other income—£99,000. Then there are housing subsidies of £12,000, and other income of £21,000. On the expenditure side of the account, I see no contribution at all to the local authority. It is not contributing a penny, despite the income coming in, and the local authority concerned is already having to provide services.

Whether I am looking at the right accounts, I do not know. They are the only ones I have, and they are the revenue and expenditure accounts of the development corporations.

If I look at an old-established one such as Basildon, I see that that has an income from rents and other income of over £2 million. It has housing subsidies of £622,000, and it has other income of £70,000. On the expenditure side, I cannot find a penny paid in contributions to the local authorities. It is true that the rates may be coming in from those properties; Basildon is an old-established one.

Let me take one more. In the case of Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield, there is a substantial income of about £1 million. On the other side, in this case, I find a contribution to the local authorities. However, out of an income of £1 million or so, the contribution is only £97,000.

I find that in the case of the revenue account of Welwyn Garden City, so that I do not think that I am looking at the wrong accounts in relation to the other development corporations. In many of them, there is no contribution at all towards the services provided by the local authorities. The corporations are washing their hands of this, rather like the Parliamentary Secretary has, saying that the local authorities will get their rates, and that is all that they deserve. In this new chapter of development, I do not think that that is sufficient.

The Parliamentary Secretary says, "We look at each case individually." I hope that he will do that in future and realise that there is high feeling on this.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 10, at the end to insert:

(2) The preceding subsection shall come into operation one month after the Minister shall have laid before Parliament a statement of the results of a review by him of all existing or presently proposed town development within the meaning of the Town Development Act 1932 and of his consequent intentions of designating and not designating (as the case may be) under section 1 of the New Towns Act 1965 the site of such existing or presently proposed town development as the site of a new town.

This, again, is in the nature of a proviso to Clause 1, and sets out some conditions precedent to advances under this Clause. In fact, it goes a little further than the provisos which we have been discussing so far. In this case it is desired to say that Clause 1 shall not come into operation until the Minister has carried out a certain exercise, as set out in the Amendment. Owing to my bad handwriting, there is a misprint in the Amendment. It should be 1952, and not 1932, but I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary was not misled by that. He has too great a knowledge of town development to be misled. I meant the Town Development Act, 1952.

On the Amendment we seek to ensure that before the Minister starts distributing the £250 million under this Clause he will review the existing provisions for providing for population pressure. There are two ways of doing it, either by new towns, or by town development. At the moment they are running alongside one another, and, until we get an overall picture of what is happening, Parliament cannot say whether it is right to advance £250 million to development corporations of new towns, as opposed to advancing money for town development.

As I said on an earlier Amendment, the first concept of new towns was either on completely undeveloped land, or attached to small towns. In the second generation we are now grafting some of the new towns on to the large towns, and this process is indistinguishable from town development, except in finance and government.

Perhaps there is the distinction that the new town is financed by the Exchequer. It is developed by an appointed corporation, and its properties are allocated according to that development corporation's selection. In the case of town development, it is financed by the exporting and receiving authorities, with a certain amount of subsidy from the Exchequer. It is developed by the receiving authority, or perhaps by the exporting authority as agent for the receiving authority, and the properties when built are allocated according to the exporting authority's housing waiting list, speaking generally, but sometimes, of course, according to the industrial needs.

During the Second Reading debate the Parliamentary Secretary said that there were 20 town development schemes for the relief of London, and I think that it is essential to try to see how these fit into the general scheme of both new towns and town development. In dealing with this subject, the Parliamentary Secretary, when he had explained that there were these 20 town development schemes, set out the rate of house building, and said:

"In addition, discussions are going on for further agency schemes, and the Greater London Council hopes to reach a total agency programme building at a rate of 5,000 houses a year.

Furthermore, and as a separate major project, the Greater London Council is in consultation with the Wiltshire County Council and the Swindon Borough Council on the possibility of carrying out the further expansion of Swindon under the Town Development Act. This follows the Llewellyn Davies report on development in Swindon-Newbury-Didcot area."

There are, therefore, a substantial number of projects for town development having the same purpose as new towns. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that, unfortunately, he could not report such success outside the London relief scheme, that is to say, from areas in the Midlands and in the North, and that he had certain propositions for trying to make a success of schemes there.

In relation to the new towns, may I again quote what the hon. Gentleman said, because I wish to bring this into my argument on the Amendment. He said:

"To my mind, one of the most interesting and exciting of our ideas is the use of the machinery of the New Towns Act to expand large existing towns."

Pausing there, up to the present we have thought more of using the town development procedures for expanding large existing towns.

The hon. Gentleman then said:

"Already, in the so-called second generation new towns like Redditch and Runcorn, we are integrating existing towns of substantial population with new development and incoming population from big cities on a substantial scale."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th October, 1966; Vol. 734, c. 1580–1.]

and he then mentioned Ipswich, Northampton, Warrington and Peterborough.

In all those cases in the past one would have thought of development by means of town development under the 1952 Act. Now we are starting on a new idea of new town development for the expansion of the cities. I do not wish, by any tone in my voice, in any way to deprecate this. It may be the right thing to do. In fact I have advocated this type of development for many years. All that I want is that the House should have an overall picture of a development as it proceeds.

During his Second Reading speech the Parliamentary Secretary tabulated the advantages which could be obtained from using this new town procedure in expanding the old towns. He set out several advantages, which might well have been a statement of the advantages of town development. In fact, in new town schemes, we are moving towards the principle of town development, and one wonders whether it is right to keep the two types of scheme running parallel, or whether one ought in future to use the new towns scheme entirely and abandon town development.

Perhaps I ought to explain a little more what I understand by town development, as distinct from new towns. Section 1 of the Town Development Act, 1952, in describing "town development", said that it means

"development in a county district … which will have the effect, and is undertaken primarily for the purpose, of providing accommodation for residential purposes … the provision whereof will relieve congestion or overpopulation elsewhere".

That is exactly what the new towns and, indeed, the old new towns are intended to do.

This development is carried out by contributions from the Ministry in the form of enhanced housing subsidies, assistance with land acquisition, contributions towards the cost of site works, water supplies, sewerage, drainage, and so on. But those Ministry contributions are very small compared to the support given by the Exchequer to new towns. The exporting authority generally has to bear the lion's share. It may act as agent and carry out the planning and building, or advise and support a receiving authority's planning and building.

12.30 p.m.

The exporting authority will certainly help to meet housing losses for the first few years, and for a period guarantee a loss in the receiving authority's rate income, or guarantee the receiving authority against unduly heavy rates. In short, the exporting authority underwrites the scheme until the receiving authority is getting benefit by rate revenue from the whole scheme.

That is what the taxpayer is doing in respect of new towns. We have these two schemes running parallel. Some local authorities would prefer a new town project rather than town development, but others would prefer town development rather than a new town. Parliament should be given the overall picture. We should know how much is to be done by new town procedure and how much by town development.

I will quote yet again from the Parliamentary Secretary's Second Reading speech. He said:

"The purpose of the London new towns is to accommodate overspill from London and, more particularly to believe London's housing problems."—[OFFICIAL RLPORT, 28th October. 1966; Vol. 734, c. 1587.]

That is exactly what town development has been doing for some years. London finds the industry for the receiving authority and sends people there who are appropriate to that industry—and in this connection I was a little disturbed by what the Parliamentary Secretary said about the future selection of those from London to go to the new towns. Up to the present, in town development schemes priority has been given to the employees of the industries which are moving to the town development area.

After that, as I understand, houses are allotted to persons on the industrial selection list of London if they have said that they are willing to go out of London and work out of London and they are suitable for the industries which are moving to the area. I understand from what the Parliamentary Secretary said that this practice will be altered in future, and that priority will not necessarily be given to the employees of the new industries moving into a town development area, but to unskilled and semi-skilled workers who are in desperate need of housing or rehousing and are moving out of London for that purpose.

I may be giving a wrong emphasis to what the Minister said, but it seems to me that a logical reading of his remarks in the Second Reading debate indicates a change in emphasis or priorities, and that concentration will not in future be on the need to get industries to these areas together with the proper employees for those industries. If I have misinterepreted the Minister's remarks, I hope that he will correct me. Here again, there should be a clear policy both for new towns and for town development. We should not have different priorities for the different schemes. Parliament should know on what basis both town development and the creation of new towns are being pursued. The other vitally important reason for looking at the problem as a whole and then deciding whether the development should take the form of a new town or a town development, is finance. The Exchequer contributes but the lion's share is borne by the exporting authority, with the assistance of the receiving authority.

Even in London, where the exporting authority is prepared to put a substantial sum into town development projects, there have been bitter complaints from receiving authorities that the burden placed upon them was too great. In other cities in the North, less able than London to provide the support for town development, where Government wish to develop the system of town development, or overspill—I have tried to avoid that word all the way through because I hate it; town development describes much more accurately what we are trying to do—there may be even more bitter complaints that receiving authorities are bearing a heavy burden. This again makes us ask whether there should be more new town schemes in the place of the town development schemes which are at present being considered.

Already this morning we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton), who represents a constituency faced with substantial town development, that the local authority is very worried about the financial results. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) represents a constituency where, I understand, substantial town development is in project and where, again, the local authority has expressed concern as to the burden which may be placed upon it.

Under the Bill Parliament is asked to approve the use of £250 million for new town schemes. We have heard that this is mainly for the existing new towns and the half dozen which are now in prospect. They will be doing, in many cases, the same job as is done by town development. We ought to have information before us so that the Committee and Parliament as a whole can judge the right balance to be struck between new town projects and town development.

In moving the Amendment I have tried not to come down on the side of either form of development. We have not enough information to enable us to judge at present. That is why the Amendment asks the Minister to pause before distributing any of this money and to report to the House after he has reviewed the proposed and existing town developments and put them alongside the new town projects so that the picture can be looked at as a whole.

I should like to expand on the latter part of what my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said, about the type of man and family who are to be moved from London to the expanded and new towns. I sympathise with the Parliamentary Secretary in his problem. In his speech on Second Reading, he said that as the scheme is working at present, it is not necessarily those whose housing need is greatest who are having top priority in being rehoused. He added that everybody concerned should keep clearly in mind that it was the Government's intention that those Londoners who had a housing need should become the top priority.

I can understand this problem, but he should be aware, if he is not already, that, in the overtures which the G.L.C. is making to some existing local authorities, this point is not made clear, and the "bait"—I do not mean that satirically—is that movement will be by way of the industrial selection scheme, whereby trained workers will move in with the industry.

That would be fine if it worked, but the hon. Gentleman will agree, I am sure—he has personal and practical experience of this and mine is only theoretical, through reading—that, in the last two or three years this has not been the case. Instead of the skilled men coming into the expanded or new towns, there has been a higher proportion of semiskilled and unskilled. I cannot contribute a satisfactory solution to the problem: this must be left to the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department, but it is important that the problem should be looked squarely in the eye.

Two grave difficulties arise for an expanding town in understanding the social needs of moving unskilled population out of London. We must be careful that, when they come into a new area, they do not compete for a limited number of jobs with the unskilled or semi-skilled population already there, who obviously have a prior right for consideration. That is one important point.

The other concerns the suggestion by the Parliamentary Secretary on Second Reading that retraining should take place on arrival of the unskilled labour. This is a Government responsibility, firmly and flatly, and I do not think that existing industry in a town which is accepting expansion should be called upon to play a part in this. To do so would cause increased overheads which would have a bad short-term effect on that industry. If the unskilled labour is to come into a town, its training or retraining to a higher skill should be the Government's responsibility.

The Parliamentary Secretary should give us some more information, if he can, about the extent to which unskilled labour is being moved into new and expanded towns, how he sees this problem in relation to the great social need and whether something can be done to ensure that before people are moved, if practicable, they should be upgraded so that they do not compete in a new area with the already considerable core—as there is in every town—of the lower grades of skilled men.

I like the conception in the Amendment of having a review of the present state of town development. As far as I know, no such review exists. I inquired about this a week or two ago and found that even the Greater London Council does not have a comprehensive annual report—or at least not one which is published—of progress in the 20 or more schemes which are presently in existence.

I also like the suggestion that an expanded town could, if necessary, move over to the new town procedure, If it thought fit. I do not know whether that is in the Minister's mind, but I should like to enter a caveat. I hope that, if this becomes the procedure, it will not take place except with the consent and preferably at the request, of the existing local authority.

I was interested in an earlier remark of the Parliamentary Secretary, his suggestion that he might like to increase the amount of £4 a head for amenity given to the new towns. I would stress that one of the difficulties in providing amenities in town development is shortfall of finance, apart from purely physical capacity. I disagree slightly with my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). I do not think that it is harder to provide these things in a new town. If anything, it is somewhat harder in the existing towns, where the capacity for amenities—from the town hall to the playing fields—is limited and quickly overfilled.

In the normal way, there is little or no help to provide these facilities. Help, as has been said, is mainly for advance projects of land for construction of houses and the very important grants for water supplies and sewerage. But the expanding town is usually left with a very large loan indebtedness. This reflects the town council's investment, it is true, in the industrial area. It all depends on the particular situation.

The Borough of Thetford, in my constituency, was one of the earliest boroughs to take part—at its own request—in such a scheme. We can congratulate Thetford and the G.L.C. on the great success of that scheme, but there are difficulties. One of the worst is that of phasing the different ingredients which are essential if a new home is to be provided for families leaving London. It is not only a house and a job which are important, although those are difficult enough to keep in phase, but also the provision of school and hospital services and the rest.

I know that this has been mentioned before, but I would impress on the hon. Gentleman the desirability of getting more co-operation. It is a weary job, as a Member of Parliament, going round different Departments and making the same case that the industrialists will not be willing to come to the expanded town if the new school is not provided in time for the completion of the factory and the houses. It is very difficult to expect a local education authority to make provision in its own programme—it has the allocations—for some intervening town expansion, when its own problem of providing roofs over heads is very acute. I have always hoped that the Government would provide a separate educational allocation and, I would say, a road allocation for those features in town development schemes which are essential for their success.

We do not know enough about the relative costs from the national point of view of town development schemes and new town schemes. I have often wondered what, on balance, paid the nation best, and I am very interested to find a report—it has just come into my possession—which the Minister presumably put in hand, investigating the costs of town development with particular reference to Thetford. I have not had a chance to study it in detail, but the right hon. Gentleman issued a Press notice about it some two days ago and it appears to be a most interesting study—in fact, precisely the sort of study that should be carried out.

It emerges, in so far as I have just looked at the summary, that if all goes well, according to the author of the report, Mr. S. W. Hill, the burden on the rates should be comparatively modest. He says that with a population of 18,500 the cost on the rates should be 2d. and that if the population is expanded to 50,000 the cost should be 4d. That is, provided that full grants are available for sewage disposal and water supplies.

There is also the burden on the county rate which is Id. for a population of 18,500 and 2.6d. for a population of 50,000. The only point there is that when a town expands a little, it puts a rate burden on the county ratepayers as a whole, so that it cannot be said that the movement of population into the county benefits the county ratepayers.

One of the most interesting points emerging from this report is that the capital cost per head of population moving out, with the lower population at present projected of 18,500, is £817. With a population of 50,000 the capital cost goes up to £859 a head. That is not a great difference, but the trend is interesting in that further expansion appears to be relatively more expensive than moderate expansion. These are the sorts of things that ought to be looked into nationally. I would welcome a survey and an annual report by the Minister. To that extent I support the Amendment.

First, may I thank those hon. Members who have spoken on this Amendment, particularly the hon. Members for Poole (Mr. Murton) and for Norfolk. South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill), with their proper concern about the words which I used in the Second Reading debate when I referred to what I called the sort of Londoners who ought to go to the new towns and to the town development areas. I should like to take this opportunity—indeed, the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) invited me to do so—to clarify the position.

During the past year, given the task I had of visiting the new towns—and I am dealing now only with the new towns which are responsible for London overspill—I discovered that less than 40 per cent. of those who were entering the new towns from the London area came off the London waiting lists. This means that 60 per cent.—many of them Londoners and first-class people—had no housing need so far as one could judge. At least, such a need was not registered. The industrial selection scheme—and the hon. Member for Poole was fair about this—is designed basically to help the employer to get the best type of labour for his work.

It was, therefore, obvious to all of us that the weakness of the industrial selection scheme as we saw it was that the unskilled Londoner, who invariably was the man with the most vicious housing need, hardly got a chance of being considered. Therefore, it was a question of looking to see how one could amend the situation.

I want to get put on the record. Whether it be a town development scheme or a new town, no one could ever hope to achieve anything like 100 per cent. success. What I would hope and aim for is that between 60 and 70 per cent. of those who go into these areas will be dealt with by what I call the new arrangement whereby there will be a much closer check on the housing needs of the persons going into the new areas. Between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. will have nothing to do with housing need.

I accept the argument that when a firm starts up in a new area, in the first instance it may have to take many of its own people with it to maintain continuity. Many of the people who go probably have no housing need. I accept at once, too, that the executives and special personnel may not be in housing need when they go to a factory or a business of that kind. Therefore, I agree that it would be quite impossible for us on this side of the Committee, advancing as we do the humane argument of housing need being the over-riding factor, to say that that was the only factor.

What I say—I tried to say it on Second Reading—is that I aim for a much bigger intake than ever before into the new towns and the town development areas of those who have a genuine housing need in London. On that point, I think that I carry everybody with me. These towns are not built for fun, as a planner's paradise or architects' gimmicks. They are built for one specific purpose. Those towns are built to relieve London of its housing needs. That is the prime object. Let us see whether we can achieve it.

In going around and talking to industrialists—and I made no comment until I had discussed it with industry first—I found a genuinely sincere wish on their part to help us. Local firms are most anxious to have their own training schemes. Indeed, they would prefer this. With respect to the argument that this training should be carried out at some training centre—I am speaking personally here—I favour the idea of a Londoner who is unskilled going to the firm where he is to be employed and being trained there in that firm's techniques on the floor level. This idea has been welcomed by many industrialists, and if we pursue this course I am sure that we shall get all the good will that we need. I am obliged for your courtesy, Mr. Irving, in allowing me to speak at some length on that subject in replying to the Amendment.

The Town Development Act gives much better results for what I would call the right type of Londoner going into the area, than does the New Towns Act. It is able to deal with the problem in the detail of which I have spoken. As I understand the Amendment, the intention is to make the Minister reconsider whether some town expansions should become new towns. I beg of the hon. Member to believe that this is going on now. We are all united in wanting more new towns. I think there is a genuine desire also to have more town development schemes where practicable.

The one key to town development must always be that the receiving authority wants town development. It must extend the hand of friendship and say, "We need you. Will you come in and help us to develop?" This is why the relationship in town development areas is extremely good and, in comparison with new towns, it is very much better. One can quote instances all over the country where this has gone on extremely well. If the Amendment is asking us whether we might consider town expansion schemes becoming new town schemes or vice versa, I assure the Committee that this is already done.

1.0 p.m.

Concern is expressed about financial arrangements for town development schemes, and, understandably, comparisons are made between what new towns and town development schemes get. Receiving authorities in town development schemes get certain grants for services, and will continue to get grants, in addition to the greatly increased subsidies, which we shall promote in a few weeks' time, and from which town development schemes will benefit considerably in respect of each house occupied by an overspill family, and new towns will be substantially in the same position—but I am sure that the Committee will not expect me to develop that argument now.

It is true that town development schemes do not get their capital advances in the same way as new towns. But I often wonder whether this is such a disadvantage because of the way in which the Greater London Council has been helping receiving authorities. I must put it on record that this is highly appreciated and considered extremely generous by the receiving authorities.

I want to put to the Opposition a fair proposition which I hope will enable the hon. Member for Crosby to withdraw his Amendment. If any hon. Member considers that a certain scheme, for any particular reasons, ought to be designated either a new town or a town development scheme, we shall be very willing to discuss it with him and the appropriate local authority. I would make clear that there is no prejudice on our part. Both types of scheme are successful, and they are complementary to each other. The situation is that the new town scheme is for the very large authority and the town development scheme is for the very much smaller one. I hope that on that basis, and on the understanding that I have just given, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment.

There is another point that I want to clarify. Earlier the hon. Gentleman asked me about the spending of the £250 million, and he also asked for certain assurances, which I gave. I should like him to know that we reserve the right on the expenditure of the £250 million, on the schemes I have already mentioned, for my right hon. Friend to have the right, understandably, to come before the House and indicate any further scheme that he had in mind for further expansion. If he had that intention he would announce it to the House.

The Parliamentary Secretary has cleared up a number of very important points. For example, he has made it clear, I think, that both in new town schemes and in town development schemes it will be genuine housing needs which will take priority. One has to satisfy the industries that are moving there and have to take their essential employees and executives that it will be genuine housing needs that he and the Ministry wish to see met by both new town and town development schemes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) put two very important points in connection with the expanded towns and the population going into them, one concerning the competition for the limited number of jobs there, and the other concerning the cost of retraining on arrival. In this connection, the Parliamentary Secretary said in his Second Reading speech that he was setting up the London Overspill Liaison Group to get an overall picture of the needs of the expanded town districts and ascertain to how best to deal with the industrial selection scheme. To that extent he recognised that more information is necessary, at any rate on the population side—for instance, as to how one is to populate the new town or town development area—and recognised the point that we are trying to make this morning.

I want to set two statements of his one against the other. In c. 1580 of HANSARD he told the House what was happening in connection with the 20 town development scheme and the new ones in comtemplation, such as at Swindon, with the cooperation of the Wiltshire County Council. There are obviously a number of town development schemes in contemplation at the same time. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned, in c. 1589, the consideration of new town schemes, such as South Hampshire, Humberside, Severn-side and Dundee.

We want to see co-ordination between these two sets of schemes, and we feel that Parliament ought to have an opportunity of full discussions before consenting to advances amounting to £250 million. After all, to put before us a prospectus of this sort merely saying, "We are thinking of several new town schemes here and several new town development schemes there. For this purpose we want £250 million, and for that purpose the money will come in various odd ways through present grants, and perhaps in a week's time we shall produce a Bill which will increase those grants", is treating us in a rather cavalier fashion when we are dealing with such a large sum. We are being asked to subscribe this money without sufficient information.

I think that the hon. Gentleman is really having a bit of fun with the Committee. We are asking for £250 million for the future. The Opposition have Supply days and it is open to them to discuss any of these matters on those occasions. There are also the annual reports not only of my Ministry, but of the development corporations. But to let it go out from the House of Commons that we are about to spend £250 million in a disastrous fashion and that the House is denied information about it, is a bit much.

The hon. Gentleman is probably exaggerating as much as I did. There is not the information before the Committee that one would expect when it is asked to advance £250 million. We do not know what co-ordination there will be between the schemes. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) asked, "What pays the nation best—a new town or town development?" I understand that by "pays" he meant not only economically, but socially as well.

Some receiving authorities would have more control over town development and, therefore, would prefer it, than a local authority might have over a new town grafted on to it. But things of this sort have not been put before the Committee or the House as a whole, and I still feel that that ought to be done. We are most grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his statement that this sort of thing is being considered in the Department all the time. However, if it is being considered there, let us have it out in the open by means of a White Paper, or in some other form, so that the House can consider and perhaps debate it.

I agree that both types of scheme are successful and that they are complementary. But one wants to know on which emphasis should be put in a certain area. As for saying that we can discuss this matter on Supply days, the hon. Gentleman well knows the competition for subjects on those occasions. I think that we should have great difficulty if we tried to get a Supply day to discuss new towns. We must deal with the matter here and now, while there is an opportunity. I would urge the Parliamentary Secretary to think about this very carefully and see whether something can be produced for the information of hon. Members showing the intentions in regard to the future balancing of the two types of project.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will seriously consider that. I give that undertaking because it is a reasonable request and I am as anxious as he is to see that Parliament is kept informed of our intentions.

I am grateful for that assurance and, on that basis, T beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

rose——

Order.

On a point of order. Before you rule, Sir Eric, as I believe you are about to, that the Clause has been adequately discussed, may I point out that we have not discussed the subject of housing, and that the discussion that has occurred has been on a strictly limited basis? I appreciate that you have not been in the Chamber for the whole of the discussion, but I assure you that the question of housing policy has not been discussed.

I was going to rule, under Standing Order No. 47, that we have had more than two hours in which to discuss this matter and that I have deliberately allowed the discussion on the various Amendments to travel very much wider than the narrow scope of each Amendment. My view is that the whole principle of Clause 1 has been adequately discussed. After all, there will be an opportunity on Third Reading of discussing the entire Bill and I therefore believe that I must apply the provisions of Standing Order No. 47.

With respect, Sir Eric, there is one subject on which we have not touched in discussing any of the Amendments so far. In the Clause authority is given to advance money to the Commission. Throughout our discussion the Commission has not been mentioned, although this may be a subject which it might be convenient to discuss on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

I must adhere to my view that we have had a very wide discussion which has roamed over the whole policy, not only of the amount involved but of the policy involved in regard to new towns. As I said, there will be an opportunity of discussing the entire Bill on Third Reading.

On a point of order. May I seek your guidance concerning a matter which I wished to raise and thought proper to refrain from raising until we got to the Clause stand part? It is the whole question of the rate of payment of compensation. It appears that the Clause is the part of the Bill which raises the amount of money which will be generally available to new town development corporations. Do I take it that it will be in order for me to raise that matter on Third Reading, rather than now?

It would. Indeed, I think that it might be possible to raise it when we come to the Question that Clause 2 stand part, although I will have to consider that.

It is not at all clear to a layman why the 1961 Act does not apply to an extension of a new town order. The wording of that Act appears to deal with the designation of an area as the site for a new town or part of a new town. However, it appears from Clause 2 that it does not operate in that way.

As I understand the position, the intention now is that where there is a fresh designation order extending the site of a new town, the valuation of the land in the new designation order is entirely independent of the fact of the existence of an old new town and that it is just as if an entirely fresh new town order was being made. In these circumstances, it seems fair that the 1961 procedure should apply to an extended designation order. I understood the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to agree with me on Second Reading, when he said that the existence of the new town was to be disregarded.

When considering the compensation arrangements in regard to a compulsory purchase order affecting a new town, some odd considerations come to light. The first is the question of the rights of the individual to object. When a new town is designated an inquiry is held and it is then possible for the boundaries to be adjusted. I do not believe that they are likely to be seriously altered, although they could be adjusted, and the area lying on the edges of a designated area might be excluded. It is unlikely, however, that the land right inside the new town would be excluded.

Under the compulsory purchase order procedure, an inquiry is held into whether it is necessary for the land inside the new town to be taken. The development corporation may need the land for widening a road or something of that sort and although it may be land in private ownership, with perhaps a house built on it, the corporation need have no desire to develop the land if it wishes to knock the house down to build a road. Under the present procedure, the public good must be judged in these circumstances, and there is a public inquiry.

Under the Land Commission arrangements the mere fact that the land is within the designated area of a new town is sufficient and that is the sole ground on which a compulosry purchase order may be made. There seems no point in having an inquiry since the owner of the land has no possible means of proving that his land is not in the designated area; and it seems that once it is in the designated area he will have no further right to object.

When considering the question of compensation, there appear to be two elements of betterment in land which is in an area designated for a new town. There is, first, the element attributable to the infrastructure—although we know that the development corporation is able to build up a series of roads and provide services of various kinds so that, ultimately, the land being built on becomes valuable and that if it is sold for private enterprise building it fetches a considerable sum. Thus we have a 100 per cent. levy on the infrastructure element.

The second element of betterment seems to be that, by being designated in the area of a new town and by being designated as building land, the landowner acquires planning permission for building which he would not otherwise have obtained. We have a 100 per cent. betterment charge on the infrastructure element and, on the building permission element, we now have, under the Land Commission Bill, an initial levy of 40 per cent.

Are we being entirely fair to owners of land in these circumstances? The whole argument for charging betterment is that it is not reasonable that a landowner should substantially benefit from an increase in the value of his land resulting from the services provided by the community. This is the infrastructure part of it. There is a difference of view when it comes to the granting of planning permission. Before there was town and country planing, an inherent right to build was built into freehold land. That natural right has been circumscribed by town and country planning for the benefit of the community in order that there shall be green belts and nececssary amenities and so on, but to charge a betterment levy on this element seems to be going too far.

I have spoken of compensation for the landowner, but the compensation for the tenant farmer is quite inadequate. It is based on the principle that the tenant farmer can set up in business somewhere else. However, it is well known that in fact this is not possible, that there is a tremendous demand for farm tenancies, and that gradually more and more farming land is becoming not available or disappearing. In consequence, it is not right to base compensation on the possibility of alternative employment. In fact, when his land is taken over, the tenant farmer is driven out of business. An improved basis of compensation would be the ground that he has to go out of the business, and I hope that the Government will be able to indicate that they can do something about tenant farmers.

I do not like the Clause to the extent that it discriminates against the tenant farmer and also against many owner-occupiers. We are discussing not wealthy landowners but men dedicated to farming, often to farming land on which their families have been tenant farmers for generations and from which they are being evicted through no fault of their own. It must be borne in mind that what they want is not compensation but to remain on the land. They are the first to admit that modern thinking must be accepted and that development must go on, but surely they should be given decent compensation.

It should not be forgotten that these are the people who have helped so much with our balance of payments by producing the food needed by the country. They are somewhat confused and believe that they have been let down. In his reply to a questionnaire from the National Farmers' Union before the election the Minister of Agriculture declared:

"In principle I accept that adequate "—

and that is the whole point—

"compensation should be given to a farmer who suffers because of the takeover of his land for non-agricultural use."

The farmers accepted that that was the view of the Government, but now they are suddenly told that it is not.

The point which has been missed is that these are not people cashing in because land values have increased. They are asking to be allowed to carry on the lives which they have always known and which their ancestors knew for generations before them. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find alternative land to farm, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) said. There are so many other developments besides new towns. New roads, for instance, take up a very large acreage.

It was not so bad when farms were being taken over piecemeal, but when there is suddenly a new town, as is the case with Redditch in my constituency, 40 farms can just disappear. All the farmers concerned are looking for alternative farming land at the same time, and the land is just not available for them. They have an extremely strong case for adequate compensation. If it had been called, I would have supported an Amendment—believing that the recommendations of the N.F.U. are about right—so that where a tenant quits the whole of his farm, or so much of it that the remaining land cannot afford a reasonable livelihood, compensation would be based on five years' expected profits, and not rents, as has been the case in the past.

I sincerely hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will consider these matters. These men are not asking for vast compensation for nothing. We are merely asking that the small tenant farmer, perhaps with a tradition of farming the same piece of land, will be adequately compensated for having to give up his vocation. If a man is 40 or over, it is virtually impossible for him to find alternative land. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give this serious matter due consideration.

I support what has been said by my hon. Friends the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) and the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance). As the Parliamentary Secretary knows from his visits to the area, in my constituency there is Runcorn new town, now in the process of being about to be built on virgin soil which is now being used purely for agricultural purposes. There are also proposals recently put to the Ministry about the development of Warrington.

In passing, I must make it clear that I hope that the Minister will not approve the development of Warrington into Cheshire in the way proposed, because on planning grounds alone the proposed development would bring it far too near to the edge of Runcorn new town and that there would be an industrial belt because of the new towns being too close together. However, we have to face the fact that the Minister may decide to accept the recommendations about Warrington and if he does the farmers in the Runcorn area and many in the Apple-ton and Stretton areas will be within the area designated. I urge the Minister to look again at compensation for farmers who are dispossessed.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove said, it is not only a matter of tenant farmers requiring compensation, but their difficulty in finding anywhere else to farm. The problem is not limited to the tenant farmer, but applies equally to the owner-occupier farmer. The Parliamentary Secretary knows from his visits to my area that not all the farmers there are tenant farmers. I am somewhat perturbed by the sums so far suggested as the right compensation for owner-occupier farmers in the area. The figures which I have heard have not been particularly generous, although I appreciate that this is a matter of interpretation of the existing legislation and not a matter for the House of Commons.

What seems completely wrong is that any payment towards the removal expenses of the tenant farmer and towards any loss which he may incur should be merely discretionary. Runcorn has an excellent development corporation with a general manager who is extremely concerned to see what those who are dispossessed are fairly treated. I do not want it to be thought that I am suggesting that the Runcorn New Town Development Corporation is parsimonious in the amounts that it is prepared to pay. It is faced with the difficulty that, in the end, the discretionary sums that it can pay are only those which the local district valuer considers to be reasonable. I make that point because in an Adjournment debate on this subject in February of this year, the other Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government reminded the House that a circular had been sent to the General Managers and Chairmen of Runcorn and Redditch Development Corporations, drawing attention to the difficulties of tenant farmers and the need to be generous in discretionary payments.

1.30 p.m.

That is a circular which, in spirit, the Chairman and General Manager of Runcorn Development Corporation are very anxious to carry out. The difficulty, as I understand it, is that the Corporation can pay only what the district valuer considers to be reasonable.

Where tenant farmers are to be dispossessed, and perhaps to lose their livelihood as a result of decisions taken here and in Whitehall over the need for their land for urban development, it is vital that proper compensation should be paid. It is the State which is to gain as a result of this land being developed and, if the State is taking land, the State should see that the individual does not suffer as a result. The tenant farmer, due to the uncertainty of the Government, is in danger of suffering and I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us that negotiations are in progress between the Ministry of Agriculture and the interested parties to put right what appears to be an injustice to tenant farmers.

On this question I want to spell out, for the benefit of those who have expressed some genuine fears about the intentions of the Government, what we are doing and what we propose to do. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I spell this out, not only for hon. Members but for those who are interested. A new town development corporation, like any other public authority with compulsory purchase powers, buys land on the basis prescribed in the Land Compensation Act, 1961. The general basis is the amount which the land might be expected to realise if sold in the open market by a willing seller. Within the original designated area of the new town the basis of market value is as I have said, but any increase or diminution in the value of the land in question attributable to actual or prospective development on other land in the area in the course of the area's development as a new town is excluded.

This exclusion applies whether a new town development corporation or any other public authority possessing compulsory purchase powers is the purchaser. It means that public authorities do not pay for the values created by public investment; nor, in the reverse case, where the advent of a new town or the form of this development has reduced the value of a property, does the owner bear the resultant loss. Exclusions of value created by public investment are set out in the 1961 Act for the area of a single compulsory purchase order, an area of comprehensive development, as defined in the development plan, or an area of town development under the Town Development Act, 1952.

The general basis including exclusion of increases or diminutions was first introduced by the Conservative Government in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959, which applied market values to public purchases for the first time after the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, thus replacing the basis of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1954, which was a basis of "existing use value plus development value as at 1947". The 1959 Act compensation provisions were re-enacted in the Land Compensation Act, 1961. The special exclusion for new town increases or diminutions was applied to any initially designated area, past or future, and to those extension areas already designated by 29th October, 1958, which was the date of the introduction of the Bill which became the 1959 Act.

For any area designated as an extension to a new town between 29th October, 1958, and now, straight market values have been paid, including all increases or diminutions caused either by the adjacent new town or the extension or both.

Clause 2 of the Bill seeks to correct this anomaly. During the passage of the 1959 Act, the then opposition argued that the exclusion being enacted for initially designated areas should also apply to future extension areas. The then Government resisted the argument on the grounds that:

(a) the likelihood of new town extensions was not very great; and

(b) land in an extension area or proposed extension area would change hands between initial designation and extension at prices which, quite reasonably, would reflect increases or diminutions in value caused by the neighbouring new town.

The expectation referred to by the then Government has been very different in practice and I can give one example to show this. I am not making any party point here, this is a practical reality. Take the new town of Bracknell. Its original size was 1,870 acres at the time of original designation in 1949. In 1961 and 1962 the area added to the town of Bracknell was 1,426 acres, almost as big as the original designated area. The change made by Clause 2 will not affect these extensions, since no retrospection is proposed. But in future it is likely that there will be extensions of other new town areas on a similar or even greater scale. This relates to the point made earlier in the debate about having to take an entirely new look at our new town policies and town development schemes, because we now know, if we did not know before, of the enormous demand.

I want to say why we are introducing this Clause, not only for the benefit of hon. Members but for these who will read it and argue about it later. The second argument of the Conservative Government in 1959, which seems to have been the main one, does not arise in relation to the proposition in Clause 2, since it is not proposed to exclude the effect of new town development, past, present or future, in the original designated area from the valuation of land in the extension area. Only the enhancement or diminution arising from development of land, other than the land in question, in the extension area would be excluded.

It is thus proposed to follow precisely the same principles as those enacted by the then Government in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959, and repeated by them in the Land Compensation Act, 1961. If this Clause is not enacted, the public purse stands to lose or, in the reverse case of diminution, the private owner to suffer, in the same way from the value changes caused by extension of a new town as the 1959 Act sought to avoid in the original areas of new towns. Now extension areas and original areas, as we have said, are comparable in size.

If Clause 2 becomes law the price paid by a public authority for land in a new town extension area would still include all development value reflected on to that land by the existing new town, plus any created by other relevant development or prospects, apart from development in the extension area. The percentage levy would, under the proposals of the Land Commission Bill, be payable on the element of development value which the owner realised. Since the owner would realise no development value from development or prospects of development in the extension area, no levy would be payable on it.

I have been asked about the tenant farmers and I wish to put on record my respect for those who have spoken. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromsgrove and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason), who have put their points of view about the tenant farmers very fairly, reminded us that we are talking not of huge landowners with vested estates but of humble men who have tilled the land and done a first-class job for Britain but who, because of the problems that we all face, are having their land taken away from them by authority. The existing law, Section 22 of the Agricultural (Miscellaneous Provision) Act, 1963, provides for discretionary payments to owners and occupiers and tenants on agricultural land on account of removal expenses and disturbance of trade. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Runcorn referred to the circular of 1963. It certainly was a very humane circular, sent out by the Government and, to a large extent has to be implemented by development corporations.

I want to put it on record that we do not know of complaints by owners that these payments are unsatisfactory, but we do know that tenants in particular are not at all happy. The Committee should know that this is one of the matters which is now being considered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I undertake to ensure that the remarks which hon. Members have made today are reported to him. I understand that he is having discussions with the other organisations involved. I cannot commit him as to when a statement will be made. I assure the Committee that the views which have been expressed here will be made known to my right hon. Friend, and I would hope that he will be in a position to make a statement in the not too far distant future.

Having spelled out the reasons why the Clause is necessary, having made it clear that we are following the pattern set by previous Governments, for the reasons they gave, and having explained why it is necessary now because of the new expansion of areas, which the then Tory Government did not visualise but which have now become a reality, I hope that the Clause will be accepted.

I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the most plausible speech I have ever heard him make. It was packed with a lot of nonsense, but it sounded very good. He tried to justify the Clause on the ground, first, that, if the law remained as it was, the public purse stood to lose. The public purse does not stand to lose. It stands to pay the proper price for the property it is buying. This is the type of argument which is always used when a public authority has to pay market value. If it has to pay straight market value, that is the measure of the value of the property which it is taking. If it is paying some under-price because of a fancy provision of the law, it is depriving the citizen of the proper value of his property.

In this case, the Parliamentary Secretary would not be seeking to justify the Clause unless he knew that the public authority would get the land at a price less than its market value. This is the whole purpose of the Clause. As the law stands, someone on the fringe of a new town who then comes into a designated extension is entitled to the proper market value of that land. Under the Clause, he will not get it in future. So it is said that the public purse under the existing law stands to lose.

Even worse, the Parliamentary Secretary said, "or the private owner stands to suffer". He justified this on the ground that in some cases perhaps when a new town is designated the private owner's land will become less valuable. I should like the hon. Gentleman to quote me any example of that. He knows full well that it is not the case. If it is the case, he should realise the principle which he has now admitted on behalf of the Government—they are prepared to recognise worsenment. I use that word because it has been coined as opposed to "betterment". The Clause recognises that there can be worsenment of land by public development and that the owner is entitled to be compensated for that.

indicated assent.

I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary is nodding. I have tried to bring this into legislation for the past 12 years. I am very glad that I now have the Government on my side. I shall take the opportunity to bring it into the next possible piece of legislation, because the citizen whose property deteriorates because of development near it is entitled to some compensation.

The hon. Gentleman must not assume too much from my nodding. We are here following the principle of the 1961 Act, which was passed by the Conservative Government. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the principles today are wrong, he should have said so in 1961.

I think that the principle of compensation for worsenment is absolutely right. Let us look at the Clause a little closer. We are grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for spelling out what the Clause does. He said that he spelled out the need for it. I do not think that he spelled out any need for it. He explained what it does. He mentioned a fact which was new to me, at any rate—an extension which has occurred at Bracknell. We have the fact that the Clause has some meaning in the context of facts which have happened.

And many others.

I am obliged. It is a complicated piece of law, but any law on compensation is a human problem. We cannot forget that, by reason of one compulsory acquisition and compensation branch of the law, there was a very famous suicide because it had become a very human problem to one man.

I oppose the Clause, for two reasons. The first is the practical difficulty. Under the present law, the owner of land in an area which becomes part of a new town by an extension order is entitled to the straight market value for his property. Under the Bill, what he will be entitled to in future, if the Clause is passed, is the current use value of his land, which may be agricultural land, plus the development value by reason of the adjacent new town, but not any development value arising from the designation of the extension.

This is valuation acrobatics. It is pure guesswork to divide up development value into those two factors—the development value by reason of the adjacent new town, as opposed to the development value arising from the designation of the extension. It is only the latter of which he is being deprived by the Clause. In practice, it will be an extremely difficult Clause to operate. It is entirely different from the provision of a new new town. The Parliamentary Secretary said that it is just the same principle. It is not the same principle, because a fictitious division must be made between one type of development value and another.

The other grounds on which I oppose it are purely and simply fairness. This was very clearly and simply stated in Committee on the Town and Country Planning Bill, 1959, when the law as it stands at present was introduced. I have before me the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee stage of Standing Committee D, 10th February, 1959. I have come across a speech by myself on this very subject.

The hon. Gentleman should read it.

I have read it, but I cannot understand what I was saying. That is not unusual in any case of compensation.

What I noticed about that debate is that almost every other person who took part in the debate has now been translated to another place. There was Mr. Lindgren, as he then was, Mr. Mitchison, as he then was, Mr. Henry Brooke, as he then was, and Mr. Niall Macpherson, as he then was. I do not think that anybody else but myself spoke in the debate. I am left here, perhaps because I made such a bad speech.

The law was very well stated by Mr. Henry Brooke, as he then was:

"The Government take the view that there should properly be a distinction between the treatment of the land inside the designated area which has been subject to compulsory purchase at any time for a period of years since the designation was put on, and the treatment of land outside the existing designated area if at some future dates steps happen to be taken to bring it within. The owners of that land have had every reason to regard themselves as outside the new town. They have not been subject to compulsory purchase at any moment, as have the owners within the designated area. If land of that sort has changed hands privately, it has done so according to ordinary market value."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT. Standing Committee D, 10th February, 1959; c. 621.]

That is where the question of fairness or unfairness arises. The land will have changed hands where there has been a sale and purchase at market value during the past years and the person who happens to be the owner at the time when the extension is made it deprived of that part of his value when the land is seized compulsorily for the purpose of the extended area.

On the grounds, therefore, both of the practical difficulty of applying this provision and also of fairness, I oppose the Clause. I am wholly unconvinced by the Parliamentary Secretary's justification that the public stand to lose. If property is required for community purposes, the community should pay the individual the proper price for it.

On Second Reading, we had discussion of policy in providing houses in new towns and the Parliamentary Secretary gave a welcome promise that the ultimate intention was that 50 per cent. of houses in new towns should be owner-occupied. My concern is to see how quickly it is intended to implement that promise.

The position in Hemel Hempstead is that of 19,500 houses in the town, 5,600 are owner-occupied or privately let. What we have to consider is the 11,500 houses which have been provided by the development corporation, including just under 500 existing houses which have been acquired by agreement or by compulsory purchase.

It is interesting to see how far we are towards achieving owner-occupation in New Town Commission houses. The Commission has sold to existing owners just under 300 houses. As the Commission has acquired just under 500 houses from private enterprise, the balance is, therefore, minus 200. In addition, at 31st March just under 1,000 houses had been provided by private enterprise on land let by the Commission. Since then, about 450 additional houses have become available, either being provided by the new Towns Commission for sale or being built by private enterprise on land let by the development corporation. These 450 are welcomed as a terrific sign of repentance, but I still regard them as totally inadequate. This relates, of course, mainly to houses provided by private enterprise on land originally taken from private enterprise and graciously let back.

In addition to those figures, approximately 200 houses have been allotted as available for sale to sitting tenants—only 200 out of a total of 11,500 houses. This is where there should be a change. I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that there is feeling about this in the new towns. I do not suggest that every new town tenant wants to rush out and buy his own house—of course not—but there is general feeling by many people that they would like to buy their own homes. In particular, when they are in grade 1 houses, they are told, "Oh, no. If you transfer to a grade 2 house, then perhaps you can buy it." There are just a few grade 1 houses available for sale, but this necessitates a transfer into a grade 1 house which is allotted for sale. I suggest that all houses should be made available for sale.

In many cases, a person who wants to buy the house in which he is already living will have spent a good deal of money on the garden or decorations. He does not want to have to pick up curtains and carpets and move elsewhere. He may have invested several hundred £s in his house and he does not want to lose this by having to move.

The first argument which is put against the wholesale disposal of houses to tenants is the question of estate management, but the estate management arguments will all be demolished when we get leasehold enfranchisement. We know that the Government are about to introduce such a Measure, so we can therefore forget estate management. Then there is the control of amenities. It is said that people might hang out their washing or paint their doors the wrong colour and so spoil the general effect of the new town. That sort of thing could be dealt with by restrictive covenants

Next there is the question of future redevelopment and the possibility that in 100 years' time it may be necessary to bring the houses back into public ownership so that the whole place may be turned upside down and an entirely fresh rebuilding scheme introduced. Surely, there are already adequate powers to take back into public ownership for redevelopment in the case of new towns, and these powers are supplemented now by the Land Commission, which will have the right to reacquire any property it wants for redevelopment. Therefore, this argument in turn is demolished.

The fourth argument is that the Development Corporation or New Towns Commission is in business to let houses. I do not know whether that is quite true. They are in business to provide houses in most cases for Londoners, or at least for overspill, and as long as they provide the houses surely it is their duty to provide them in the way that the customer requires. I assure the House that many customers wish to have the right to buy their own houses.

I hope, therefore, that as the Parliamentary Secretary has gone so far as to promise us 50 per cent.—but I suggest that he will not get it except by wholesale permission to tenants to buy their own houses—he will ensure that instructions are given straight away to give effect to this.

One other subject is the housing of old people. In this direction there is a danger of new towns falling behind what is done nationally. In Hemel Hempstead, only 7·7 per cent. of houses are provided for old people. In consequence, we have just under 1,000 old people housed in houses specially provided, and the waiting list, at just around 400 applicants, closed three years ago. They cannot take any more people on to the waiting list. Surely this proves that there is great need to provide homes for the elderly.

There are various social requirements in providing homes for the elderly. We should have a balanced community in a new town just as in any other part of the country. Surely it is wrong to have in a new town only young people and middle-aged people, and wrong that the elderly should be left behind in London or the other big cities. They are needed. The advice of the grannies and the babysitting by the grannies are helpful, and it is valuable to have them here.

This is, perhaps, the selfish point of view of the rest of us, but for the old people themselves what is so desperate is loneliness, and they are being condemned to loneliness through their families going to new towns while they are being left behind in the old cities. Of course, some people would say this can be cured by the families taking their grannies with them into their homes in the new towns. This is, of course, possible; this can be done; but it is not always the desire of the elderly. Besides wanting to combat loneliness they want to have their own privacy, and the provision of separate housing in the new towns is very valuable for this, and the best solution I know of is not to put them in a separate enclave, but to put them very close to their own families. That is the best solution, I believe, to the problem of housing the elderly.

I can echo some of the sentiments which the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) has uttered in his last speech. He has a much older new town, if I may so put it, than the one I represent, but concern for the elderly in the new towns is something we all share, and we want to see some more positive thinking about this problem along those lines. The new town at Skelmersdale, in my constituency, is working very closely with the local authority, and they have already established some lead in this field.

The hon. Member spoke about the increasing number of owner-occupiers in the new towns. The policy of encouraging people to buy their own local-authority-built houses is something we should follow in the country, not merely in the new towns. If the hon. Member will recollect—and I think he would agree now—in the Second Reading debate he made a most unfortunate statement about owner-occupiers. He was told that, contrary to what he was trying to convey to the House, the proportion of owner-occupiers since the Labour Government came in has more than doubled in the new towns. It is the new towns we are speaking about now.

I think that there has been an attempt to misrepresent what I said. What I said was that if we did not have the possibility of people being able to buy their houses in the new towns, we would drive out the best citizens. I explained that that was not a reflection on all the others, or to say that other citizens are bad citizens—because some want to live in their own houses. I have not had a chance of checking the figures, but I would suggest that the increase in the proportion of owner-occupiers is in consequence of there being a huge number of owner-occupiers in the new town of the City of Peterborough and no development corporation yet.

I think that the more the hon. Member tries to wriggle out of what he definitely did say about good grace and manners being almost the prerogative of owner-occupiers——

No, no.

That is how it reads. I challenge the hon. Member. He was taken up by, I think it was, my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Newens). But I want to leave that, and simply said that I disagree with him, and wonder how the comments in his next election address will read.

As to the allocation of the £250 million, I would like a firm declaration from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that a positive instruction is to be given to relieve what I consider to be—I am speaking now only of my own constituency and the new town of Skelmersdale in it—a serious imbalance. It is not the kind of imbalance that has been suggested during this debate this morning, that it is the local authority and the people living in its area who are suffering and to some extent subsidising those who live in the new town property.

In Skelmersdale, precisely the opposite is the case. The imbalance there is by the people who are renting the houses built by the Skelmersdale Development Corporation. The Minister recognised that, and I hope that he will give instructions to relieve this imbalance, because the rates paid to the local authority are levied on new town property, and the rate content must be the same, but then we are left with the cost of renting property exceedingly dearer than the cost of the local authority houses. I want this imbalance to be corrected.

I know that is has been suggested that it is the other way round, but I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give a firm declaration about this and about how the money is to be spent, because the people in Skelmersdale see this as being the biggest imbalance. I hope my hon. Friend, from the Dispatch Box, will say exactly what is to be done.

One problem which exercises my mind very considerably is something about which I know a little, and reinforces considerably what my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) said on Second Reading about the difficulties we get where we have a development corporation and a local authority both dealing with the problem of housing. I think that there is a very real danger here, and that it is up to the Government to watch this through the person of the Parliamentary Secretary, that we do not get arising a situation, which could arise in a new town, or even more particularly in an expanded town, where we have an imagined—it may be no more than an imagined—priority being given to new entrants in the obtaining of houses.

The hon. Gentleman will admit, and we admit it, too, that housing is the biggest problem this country has, and that much has been done in the past and much more must be done in the future. It is a social service, yet there is not a town which has not a fairly considerable waiting list of people requiring houses, be they for young families or be they for elderly persons.

We must be very careful always in any new town or in an expanded town to see that we do not get the problem of suspicion growing up in the minds of the inhabitants of the town that the new entrants are in some way having preference in obtaining the available accommodation. This would arise particularly in an expanded town rather than in a new one because in an expanded town there would be houses being built within the boundaries of the local authority. The only way I can see of this being put right is by careful phasing of the building programme. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned system-built houses as a means of encouraging the speed of building houses. We have to be careful about that, because I am certain that people on the housing lists of existing towns will be very worried, some of them having waited for five or 10 years, in case their priorities are upset by incoming people from London.

The hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Derek Page) drew attention in the Second Reading debate to a worry which he had when he said that King's Lynn and Norfolk generally is a low-income area compared with the rest of the country. They have pretty well the lowest average income. The hon. Member asked why his constituents should have to provide a service for London as well as for themselves and yet have to help subsidies indirectly the new towns, which have incomes that on average are £5 or £6 a week more than theirs, obviously referring to those coming in who are employed.

Many expanded and new towns will be in areas where the income structure is lower than it is in the big conurbations. We have to be fair to the existing inhabitants and see that they are not called upon to subsidise unduly the expansion of these towns in an endeavour to help London's problems. I should rather see them not having to subsidise it at all.

I am sure that I echo the thoughts of hon. Members on both sides, many of whom are not here today, in paying tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary for the breadth of knowledge and practical experience which he brings to problems such as those that we are discussing. That is in contrast, perhaps, to some of his colleagues, but they are fortunate to have a man of such long, active and purposeful service in the realm of housing particularly and local government generally.

I want to qualify that by saying that I was surprised that he made no reference to the record of the previous Conservative Government on new towns and overspill arrangements. It was rather uncharacteristic of his otherwise generous nature that no tribute was paid to those who have gone before and set the pattern of much of what is being carried out today. He may have been sticking strictly to his brief. Understandably, his advisers would not get involved in the political content of a subject such as I mention. But I am sure that there must be recognition of the part which the previous Conservative Government and this Government have played in housing, because, in many respects, it is not a political subject.

The Conservative Government laid their plans well, and the firm foundations which they ensured are a substantial contributory factor to the progress which is now continuing.

During he Second Reading the Parliamentary Secretary referred to Members of Parliament from countries represented on the Council of Europe whom he took round a number of our new towns. I am sure that he did not try and claim all the credit for the present Government for what they were shown.

Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that he should also pay tribute to the 1945–51 Labour Government, who were responsible for laying down the real basis for the new towns when they first began in the post-war years?

The hon. Member will have realised from what I have said that I am not trying to make any political point. There is a substantial content in housing which is non-political. We are all after the same results, but we may choose a different method of getting there.

I welcome the conception of new towns and the great pressure which the Parliamentary Secretary and his colleagues are bringing to bear on new towns, town expansion schemes and overspill schemes, particularly from the Greater London area.

Is not the hon. Gentleman rather making a rod for his own back in seeking to point out to us that there were no laurels given by my hon. Friend to the Conservative Government, when he goes on to qualify that by saying that he is sure my hon. Friend did these things? However, can he tell us how many new towns the Conservative Administration designated during their 13 years of office, and will he compare that with the number which we have designated in the period of office of the second Labour Government?

I think that the hon. Member will be with me when I say that very few new towns have been designated during the last two years. Most of the work now being done by the Government was initiated by the previous Conservative Administration. I remember that the expansions of Ipswich, Peterborough and Northampton were mentioned before the present Government became responsible for these matters. The hon. Gentleman is on very thin ground in asking for any comparison to be made. I am fairly confident that what I say would not be denied by the Parliamentary Secretary.

The concern which I have about overspill arrangements is substantially in architectural terms. I want to refer specifically to Houghton Regis, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilyn Roberts). That arrangement was agreed some years ago between the then L.C.C., the Bedfordshire County Council and the Luton Rural District Council. What we have in Houghton Regis is a high-density residential development of the low rise variety. It is something which has been lifted out of a London location and put down in an elevated rural location. It shows a complete disregard for trying to retain the natural characteristics of the area in which overspill development takes place.

Another example is Huntingdon, which has had the same experience in recent years. A high-density G.L.C. type of development has been put in what has been an historic, delightful county town. As far as we can see, no endeavour has been made to try to fit the new high-density development into the local scene and reflect to some extent the characteristics of the area in which the development is taking place.

I can well understand the Parliamentary Secretary saying, in reply, that it is a matter for agreement between the planning authority, on the one hand, and the G.L.C., on the other. But there is great influence that he and his colleagues can bring to bear. I realise the necessity for high-density development in order to keep down demands on agricultural land, but surely high-density can be achieved by the introduction of a proportion of high rise development and by trying to get away from the high-density enclosed type of architectural treatment which many of these G.L.C. overspill schemes seem to mirror.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we ought to look for a better liaison at member level. He mentioned it particularly during Second Reading at c. 1583. May I ask him to see whether it is possible to ensure that locally elected representatives are given an opportunity by way of plans, models, and so on, to see the type of development which they are asked to accept into their districts, to ensure that they are able to have a visual idea of the type of development proposed by the architects and town planners?

There are many examples of local authorities not being used to this type of development, and the speed with which it is introduced. These authorities are often overshadowed by the development corporation, and it is necessary to try, on the one hand, to see that there is some easing here, that there is a greater recognition by the exporting authorities of the character of the locality in which they are to fulfil their schemes, and, on the other, to ensure that the legally elected representatives are able to bring their judgment to bear.

I hope that the type of scheme to which I have referred will not be imposed, be- cause I think that that is what happened at both Northampton and Banbury. Parts of my constituency will be affected by these two schemes, and I emphasise the points which I have tried to make with regard to Houghton Regis and Huntingdon.

What happened to the Wilson Report on Northampton, Bletchley and Bedford, which was published about six or eight months ago? On reading it carefully, it seemed to add no information that we had not been aware of before, and I wonder whether it was a defect in the brief which Mr. Wilson and his colleagues were given. As it was understood locally, the Wilson Report was to try to see the effect which the expansion of Northampton, the new town in North Bucks., and Bedford, would bring about in the countryside in between. They are, roughly, in an equilateral relationship, being about 20 miles from one another. I notice now that the Ministry is undertaking a further inquiry. I hope that this does not mean that, because of a lack of a proper brief, the work done by Mr. Wilson and his colleagues was not very fruitful.

With regard to the new town, or new city as it is called in North Bucks, I have been concerned about the problems of water supply and sewage disposal. I went to the meeting which the Minister of the day held on 14th January last, and during question time I specifically raised these two issues. I was assured that the technical officers had these questions well in hand, and that satisfactory solutions would be found. I subsequently wrote to the Minister pressing the matter.

The reply, dated 3rd March last, dealt with the consumption by the Bucks Water Board, and the present yield. It said that consumption was 17 million gallons a day, and the present yield about 20 millions, but there were inadequate references and assurance about a further supply. It also said that the Great Ouse Water Authority had been asked to supply about 5 million gallons a day from its Diddington reservoir, and that this should be enough to satisfy the Bletchley expansion until the expansion figure reached about 80,000. The supply of new reservoirs in the Thames catchment area was also referred to, and it was suggested that it should be possible to develop this new source in about seven years.

I know that the figures and the dates are complicated, and I do not want to put the Parliamentary Secretary at a disadvantage, but my correspondence shows that there is no firm undertaking about where the water will come from, and negotiations with the adjoining water authorities are by no means complete. They involve the Bedfordshire Water Board in an assessment of its rising responsibilities for water supply, and the expansion in the Ouse Valley generally. The attitude that it will be all right on the night will not do.

Similar circumstances apply with regard to sewage disposal, and the final paragraph of the letter from the Parliamentary Secretary's joint colleague contains this extraordinary sentence:

"Similarly we are satisfied that sewage disposal can be dealt with satisfactorily".

We have not had a satisfactory assurance that the water supply is available. Water supply and sewerage are two quite different problems, and two different facets of expansion, of the dimensions which the Parliamentary Secretary is considering in this area.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that for some years development in the Ouse Valley has been held up because a tremendous amount of sewage is going into this river and its tributary, the Ousel, and it has been agreed by the planning authorities that there shall not be further development down the Ouse Valley as far as Bedford——

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but it is not really relevant to go into this detail on the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I apologise for the detail which I was introducing, but I wanted to emphasise the difficulties facing the local planning authorities in these areas as a result of the large new city, to use the Government's term, of 250,000 I think it is, which is proposed in North Bucks. When one considers the outfall of surface water—there is no course other than the Great Ouse into which it can flow—and the fact that all the sewage disposal works in this part of the country now lead into the Ouse, one realises that great difficulties can arise.

What are the added problems with which this area will be faced when we get a tremendous amount of sewage from the new town? This must be relevant to the whole concept of it.

Order. I think that the hon. Member has made his point effectively. It is usual on Third Reading to confine oneself to the principles of the Bill.

Thank you for your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I propose now to deal with another important issue with regard to new towns. I have in mind the terms of compensation for owners and tenants of agricultural land. I was fortunate to receive this morning a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary, in which he was kind enough to set out the full terms. It is clear that owners are able to obtain compensation on the existing use, plus the permitted alternative use if that exists, but the emphasis which I wish to give is to tenant farmers. A tenant farmer has no protection if the new town development corporation acquires the land of which he is the tenant, and he is not able to resist a notice to quit. I do not think that there is a direct comparison here, as suggested in the hon. Gentleman's letter, between the tenant of a farmer and the tenant of a development corporation.

I know that similar terms of compensation exist, but an agricultural tenant has wide protection against the private landowner. I notice the restrictive terms of compensation which the tenant can claim when an area is designated, and I think that there is genuine hardship for tenants. It puts them out of business, whether they are tenants of a large area, or a small one. There is very little chance of an agricultural tenant obtaining a new tenancy, and he is left with two years' rent as compensation, with inadequate funds subsequently to acquire a farm for himself.

The Parliamentary Secretary has stated that more generous terms may be forthcoming. I suggest that consideration might be given to loans for the purchase of land by dispossessed tenant farmers, underwritten to some extent by the new town development corporations. I realise the economic factors involved, but a tenant who has been successful should be able to carry on in business.

These problems must substantially affect the whole conception of new towns and the questions of water supply and sewerage, and our attitude towards farmers who lose their livelihoods in many cases, especially when they are tenants. I hope that we can be given some firm assurances on these matters, which I was able to mention to the Parliamentary Secretary beforehand.

I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) in paying tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary for carrying through the Bill and, in particular, for the very courteous and complete answers that he has given to the questions that we have thrown at him. I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has disappeared, because I was going to pay him a compliment for sitting patiently listening, and being ready to answer questions if any were asked of him—because the Bill applies to Scotland, although we have not mentioned that country very much in our debate.

I am sorry that the Bill reaches the House without Amendment. As a result, the House will be giving a blank cheque for £250 million to the Minister to distribute to development corporations present and future, and to the Commission for the New Towns. Such advances have been authorised in previous Acts, but I again stress that we are entering upon another chapter in new town development and I am sure that new thoughts applied to these questions now will prove of great benefit to the country in the future, if we can be more flexible in the application of new town procedure and not stick to the fixed ideas of the past.

I want to raise two points arising out of the contents of the Bill and our previous discussions. We have referred to consultation with local authorities before the formation of a development corporation which might share in this advance of £250 million, but we have not touched on the position of the regions. I am not sure where the regions come into the discussions of new towns, but if we are creating a new town, with perhaps, a future population of 250,000, the region surrounding it is very much concerned, and I hope that we can be given an assurance that such a new town will fit in with the plans for the whole of the region and will not be imposed upon it just for the sake of relieving London or some other big city.

The second question concerns the position of the Commission for the New Towns. Clause 1 authorises advances to development corporations and to the Commission. In the Second Reading debate we dealt to a limited extent with the position of the Commission. The Parliamentary Secretary then said:

"The Government have therefore said that they will change the law, and they have said they will take powers to dissolve the Commission when the time is ripe."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th October, 1966; Vol. 734, c. 1584.]

He went on to say that it was the Government's intention to bring in legislation but that it was unlikely to be done until the third Session of this Parliament. Despite those statements that the Commission is to be dissolved or wound up, and is to go into liquidation, we are authorising advances to it under Clause 1.

Is money really to be advanced to the Minister between now and the third Session of this Parliament—if it ever occurs under this Government? If so, how much? Are we thinking of large or small sums? What is involved? I turned up the last annual report of the Commission in order to see the sort of sums which have been advanced to it so far, and I found, on page 35, in respect of the period ended 31st March, 1966, that advances since the establishment of the Commission, up to 31st March, 1966, amounted to £6,727,000. This seems a comparatively small sum, spread over four or five years, but are we to advance money at that rate for the remaining life of the Commission?

Parliament should know the sort of figures that will be involved when the Commission is wound up in the near future. What happens to the money that we shall be advancing to the Commission in the short period between now and its dissolution? What happens to the Commission's assets when it is dissolved?

In the balance sheet for 31st March, 1966, no value is given in respect of the Commission's assets; we are merely told that they cost £72 million, which means that there are some very substantial assets in the hands of the Commission to be distributed. In the same report there is an interesting appendix, on pages 42 and 43, setting out the state of the major works schemes which the Commission has in hand. What happens to those on the dissolution of the Commission?

These are matters which the House should know about, since we are authorising an advance to a dying body. Is this money required to keep this body going until the third Session of this Parliament, or is it required to pay for the winding up of the Commission? The Parliamentary Secretary laughs, but we have not been told. The Commission is to be wound up, and we want to know the amount of money that is going into its pockets before it is wound up and also, when it has been wound up, what is to happen to the money.

This is an example of the lack of information upon which the House has been asked to authorise and approve advances of £250 million. We have been greatly helped by the statements and assurances of the Parliamentary Secretary today, but they had to be wrung out of him by making the Committee stage a real one. Incidentally, no Member from the Government benches took part in our debate in Committee, apart from the Minister himself, although many of them represent new towns. I am surprised that not until we reached the Third Reading debate did anybody on the opposite benches take part in the discussion.

The Parliamentary Secretary has given us assurances that Parliament will be kept informed of the working of the Bill. I think that he meant not only retrospectively but prospectively—telling us, besides what has happened in respect of the £250 million advanced, how it is intended to use the money from time to time. Therefore, apart from Clause 2, a Conservative Government will have much pleasure in operating this Bill in the near future.

I would repeat again, in winding-up the Third Reading debate, what I said in Committee: that I am personally indebted to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) for his courtesy to me personally and for the way in which he gave me advance notice of some of his points. This has been a good example of how Parliamentary business can be achieved with good will on both sides. If he had not given me advance notice, I should not have been able to give the answers which I have given today, because some of the questions have been technical.

The point about the Commission's functions is an important one. They are not the same as those of a development corporation, although they are substantial. We on this side have great reservations about the Tightness of having a Commission at all: I spelt this out on Second Reading. In the meantime, it is important that we should let the Commission get on with its job in the best interests of the towns. It has a big job to do. In Hemel Hempstead, it has started work on a new neighbourhood scheme which will ultimately house 10,000 people. Crawley has reached its original target population of 56,000 and we asked the Commission if this could be extended to 60,000.

There is no doubt that there is a lot of work ahead of the Commission during the next three years, for which it will need this money. The Commission cannot incur capital expenditure without the approval of my right hon. Friend and it is forbidden to borrow money except by advance from him. The moneys from the Consolidated Fund are, therefore, its only source of capital.

I said on Second Reading where we stand on the future of the Commission. I have given assurances to the staff which, the hon. Member will be glad to know, they welcomed, even if he did not. I think it will be accepted that it was right that I should have said that on Second Reading.

A number of questions have been asked. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) referred to money being spent in new towns and the need to make sure that we should try to provide homes for old people. I am sorry that the hon. Member is not here, and should explain that he let me know that he had to go to another appointment. We have increased the percentage figures in the housing of old people and we intend to carry on doing so. I do not believe that any new town is complete unless there is an element of the old along with a proportion of the young.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) raised the difficult question of the Skelmersdale rents. The corporation rents there are 54s. 3d. a week, whereas his own local authority rents are 26s. 6d. Hon. Members will understand that my hon. Friend is worried about this disparity. Speaking as one from down South I would say that a rent of 54s. 3d. is not disastrous, but I understand that incomes down South may be much higher. We realise, therefore, that, in Skelmersdale, 54s. 3d. may be a great deal.

The rent of 26s. 6d. is so low because this local authority has a very large pool of older houses and is able to spread out the housing income over this older pool, whereas the development corporation has only new housing and everything therefore has to fall on the backs of those coming to them. We are alerted to the problems here. I cannot, of course, say this afternoon that we have a solution to this, but I would have thought that, as time moved on——

While it is true that the relation of 54s. a week rent to the rents in London is not disastrous, it is bound to be a disaster in Skelmersdale. The best comparison would be between rents of £4 in London with those of a local authority in a new town charging almost double that figure. That would be a disaster, my hon. Friend would agree.

I respect my hon. Friend for that. I was not trying to be cheap or facetious. I was making the point that 54s. 3d. a week to anyone in the South is low, but I understand that in Skelmersdale it is high, for the reason which my hon. Friend mentioned. The reason for this disparity is as I have stated. It is our intention to do what we can, but I can make no promises except to say that I honestly believe that these rents will not deter people from going to Skelmersdale. I am sure that my hon. Friend would be the first to admit that.

The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) raised a very important problem, that of the relationship between local authorities and the development corporations. I could not agree more. Unless we establish a far better relationship than ever before, we are in for a great deal of trouble. The pattern in the new towns must be, from the word "go", the establishment of a constant liaison at what I would call "member" level between the development corporation on the one hand and the local authority on the other. This was also the point of the hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones).

The hon. Member for Northants, South again raised the question of the payment of compensation to tenant farmers. I repeat that the Government are considering this. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is having discussions with the appropriate organisations, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that I can go no further than that. This must be a matter for my right hon. Friend. I understand the doubts which he has, but he should not be too worried. On the North Bucks water problem, I have noted his point about water and sewerage, but we must believe that other people are aware of this problem. I cannot believe that the North Bucks water problem would be missed by the appropriate planning authority—the county council. It would be aware of this.

The Wilson Report, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, has been the base upon which there have been general discussions for some time, which are still going on, on services in the area generally.

I know that these matters must be before the planning authority, but all that a Member of Parliament can do is put in an inquiry and get a Parliamentary reply. That is no help to someone. If we could be told in confidence just what the problem was and what the technical difficulties were, it would be a great help. With great respect, the correspondence which I have had with the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues is of no use to me at all.

Having been in opposition for 13 years, I know how hard life can be. If the hon. Member wants to be told something in confidence, he has only to pick up the telephone or come to see me and I would regard it as something about which I would talk to him, so long as there was no question of a public inquiry in the matter. I can do this, because I know that his intentions would be honourable.

The Bill has had a good reception. So it should—£250 million of Government money, of the country's money, is to be found for future schemes. The hon. Member for Crosby complained that we have not spelt out those schemes in detail. I am sure that he did not mean that. He knows what this is about. We have to plan, in the future, for new towns to deal with the appalling problem of increased production and population in our great towns and cities. To do this, we need money and we need plans. I believe that the Government are competent to produce the sort of plan of which Britain may be proud.

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 17, line 28, to leave out 'of veterinary surgeons'.

I understand that it would be for the convenience of the House if we took the first 10 Government Amendments together. Is there any objection to that?

No, Mr. Speaker.

If, as you say, Mr. Speaker, it would be in order, with the agreement of the Opposition, to take these Amendments together, will it be in order if I move them in one block?

The hon. Member will move the first Amendment, and the others will be moved afterwards.

The purpose of the first Amendment is to refer simply to the "register" instead of the "register of veterinary surgeons" since "register" is thus defined in the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman may now refer to the other Amendments if he wishes to do so.

The two following Amendments are consequential and drafting, and I beg to move them. The next four Amendments are purely drafting and tidying-up Amendments, and I beg to move them.

The hon. Gentleman does not move them yet. He merely explains them.

The last three Amendments are also small drafting ones.

We welcome the drafting Amendments. I wish that all the other parts of the Bill that could be improved by redrafting were going to be improved as well.

I have two questions for the Joint Parliamentary Secretary which are perhaps appropriate here. First, would he say when the different parts of the Bill and the Schedules are to come into operation? Secondly, in the Committee stage when it became clear that the elections would have to be put off for a year, some doubt was expressed whether any of the other powers of the Royal College, particularly the power to change the fees, would also be delayed. I believe that not to be the case and that the power with respect to fees would operate as from the passing of the Bill, but I should be grateful if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary would confirm these points.

If I may speak again with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I can confirm that as soon as the Bill becomes an Act it will come into force. With regard to the delay in the elections which we discussed in Committee, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no effect on anything else in the Bill.

I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 25, line 25, after 'person', to insert 'who has been!.

It might be convenient, Mr. Speaker, if we also take the following Amendment standing in my name, Amendment No. 12, in line 26, after 'institution', insert:

'and who has himself previously received appropriate instructions from a veterinary surgeon'.

If there are no objections, so be it.

This is an attempt to put into legislative form the requirement that lay instructors, when teaching or supervising students' practical work in the operations listed in the Schedule, should themselves have been instructed by veterinary surgeons or practitioners. The operations that the students would be carrying out as part of their practical tuition might include operations that they could not legally carry out on their own. It is, therefore, important that the educational supervision should be adequate and proper.

We hope for a general expansion of agricultural tuition with the Agricultural Training Board, the apprenticeship scheme and the recommendations of the Pilkington Committee on agricultural education, especially the suggestion for more practical training of students on approved commercial training farms. All this means that there will, we hope, be many more full- and part-time students in more places of instruction. Much of this will be in stockmanship, where a sound veterinary understanding of what the stockman does with animals is essential.

There has, therefore, been considerable discussion between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Education and Science, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the British Veterinary Association and the National Farmers' Union and the R.S.P.C.A. on the desirable syllabus and type of instruction that should be given.

Particular concern for animal welfare has been expressed, as well as the need for adequate safeguards, bearing in mind that the age of students undergoing this tuition—and, therefore, taking part in these operations—has been reduced from 18 to 17. The reduction in age, which was advocated by the Department of Education and Science, led to some misgivings being expressed by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association. It is fair to say that the discussions were based on a letter of 28th April last from the Department of Education and Science, which was circulated to local education authorities as a guide to the ideal arrangements for instruction.

The principle was that the initial teaching and demonstration in certain operations—such as the castration of calves, sheep and pigs, trimming of the feet of cattle, the debudding of calves and certain minor operations—should be given by qualified veterinary surgeons or practitioners. Further training and demonstration and supervision of work which students need to do in order to become proficient need not necessarily be done by a member of the veterinary profession, provided that it was done by a teacher or member of the local education authority staff who—and these are the important words

"has received instruction from a veterinary surgeon".

I think that it is fair to say that that letter became the basis for the subsequent agreement.

But an examination of the relevant parts of the Schedule will show that the requirements that the teacher should himself have had veterinary instruction is omitted. It is therefore possible that the teachers themselves, for instance a junior instructor on a farm, might not have had any veterinary instruction at all. This is thought by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association to be most unsatisfactory.

The point has come to notice only recently because the new Schedule 3 came out only a few days before the Committee stage of the Bill on 2nd November. Had we had more time, the Government could have drafted the desired restrictions and safeguards more exactly. I agree that there is an inherent difficulty about deciding what constitutes veterinary instruction so as to make an instructor fulfil the required conditions-Personally, I believe that the word "appropriate" in the second Amendment meets the variety of cases which might arise.

If the Amendment were accepted, I would suppose that new staff would in future clearly be required to have had a course of veterinary instruction covering the subjects which they themselves were to teach and demonstrate and in which they were to supervise the work of students. I accept that there would be a difficulty with existing staff, some of whom would have had considerable previous veterinary instruction and others less and yet all might be very competent in the work which they were being asked to undertake. In institutions it should not be too difficult to have a once-and-for-all operation in which a member of the veterinary profession checked and if necessary examined the instructing staff in order to satisfy himself that they had sufficient veterinary knowledge to fulfil their duties. I hope that the word "appropriate" will be acceped as meeting the case.

As the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) said, the purpose of his Amendment is to ensure that a person giving instruction has himself received appropriate training from a veterinary surgeon. Local and other educational authorities have been advised by the Department of Education and Science that instructors should have been trained by a veterinary surgeon. I say at once that I think that the training of these young people should be carried out by persons who are themselves trained, and I hope that education authorities will ensure that they are.

3.15 p.m.

Unfortunately, it has not been possible to specify this in the Bill, because there are no easily recognised training courses or certificates of training available to be included in a definition. This means that the appropriate training would be very difficult to define. This is an administrative matter upon which the Department of Education and Science is co-operating with the veterinary profession, and arranging courses. It would perhaps be better left like that, because of the difficulty in reaching a wording that would cover all training which could be defined.

We will keep a close watch on the situation and if it is thought necessary and is practicable, an amending Order can be introduced under the provisions of Clause 19(5). In resisting this Amendment I would like to give the assurance that we will certainly look at this point. With that explanation I trust that the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.

I appreciate the difficulty of the Parliamentary Secretary. The Government could have got this right had they allowed more time for the Bill. At this late stage, as this is the last occasion on which the Bill can be discussed in Parliament, having been started in the other place, I have to accept that there is no way of improving the drafting. In view of the undertaking given by the Parliamentary Secretary that this will be watched and, if there are any complaints of insufficiently qualified instructors they will be looked into swifty and, if necessary, an amending Order brought forward, I beg to ask leave to withdrawn the Amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 25, line 28, after 'maintained' to insert 'or assisted'.

The purpose and effect of this Amendment is to extend the definition of "recognised institution" to cover not only institutions maintained by an education authority but also those assisted by such an authority.

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for submitting this Amendment. It was in response to my criticism in Committee that the paragraph as drafted was too narrow. This has widened it so that the Schedule includes all institutions which would be supported by public money.

I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 25, line 32 at the end to insert:

'or an institution recognised for the purposes of this paragraph by the Secretary of State'.

May I say how grateful I am that a starred Amendment has been called. It replaces one which had a very fleeting appearance on the Notice Paper, but which the Parliamentary Secretary was vigilant enough to spot. He was kind enough to suggest that the wording could be improved. I have accepted his advice, because this Amendment should enable any independent institution not in receipt of public funds to be recognised if it should wish to give instruction and training covered by the Schedule.

At the moment I cannot think of any such institution, but as the Schedule stood the test was whether the institution received a grant from public sources. That seemed to be unnecessarily restrictive, because a charity or large firm might want to set up an institution to train people as stockmen and equally might not require any public funds. I would not, therefore, wish legislation to go forward which cut out in advance any such desirable development.

In accepting this Amendment, and reverting to Amendment No. 13, I would recall that in Committee we promised the hon. Gentleman that we would look at the question of independent institutions giving instruction in this field. As far as we are aware, no such institutions are involved in this type of training. However, we agreed to take the opportunity of extending the definition to cover not only maintained institutions but also those assisted by local education authorities.

We think that the legislation will now adequately cover all institutions likely to be involved.

I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 25, line 39, to leave out 'or mule;' and to insert 'mule, cat or dog;'.

I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we discussed at the same time Amendment No. 16, in page 25, line 41, leave out 'boar, cat or dog' and insert 'or boar'.

The effect of the Amendments is simple. It is to place cats and dogs in the category of animals which cannot be castrated by lay persons. In Committee we had considerable discussion about this, and the proposal met with no real opposition. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that he would consider the proposal before Report. It has now fallen to me to move the Amendment. I did not press the matter in Committee.

Under the Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) Act, no castration can be effected by lay people. It must be done by qualified veterinary surgeons or practitioners. The effect of the Amendments would be to make this position quite clear. This proposition has the approval of all the veterinary associations, the N.F.U. and the R.S.P.C.A. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it.

The hon. Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger) has moved an Amendment which the professional interests would like. As both the hon. Gentlemen and I are appointed by the Privy Council as members of the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, I have sympathy with the Amendment.

However, it is my duty, representing the Opposition, to present some wider considerations which are, perhaps, outside my responsibility when thinking purely in terms of the Royal College. Before amending the Bill, which is, after all, the Bill the Government arrived at after much consultation, there are certain questions on which we should have more information.

First, is it alleged that serious cruelty and ineffieciency arises under the existing law? The hon. Gentleman emphasised that in all cases of the castration of dogs and cats an anaesthetic is required. Any operations which are being conducted at the moment by unqualified people such as assistants and stockmen are subject to all the existing legislation with regard to cruelty to animals, anaesthetics and the rest.

Secondly, we should consider who would be affected by the change. First, it would include any owner or stockman who at present is exempted by the provisions of Part I of Schedule 3. These people would be stopped from carrying out operations which they may have been accustomed to carry out on their own farms. This might especially apply to those who regularly have experience of castrating other farm animals, although I agree, and I should make it plain, that the operations and methods required for cats and dogs may be dissimilar to those for farm animals. I do not know to what extent these operations are carried on. I cannot believe that there are not stockmen, owners and farmers who do not themselves carry on these operations and who have done so perfectly satisfactorily.

No doubt the point of view that the hon. Member is putting forward has been considered by the National Farmers' Union, which is in favour of my Amendments.

I do not quite know how positively in favour the N.F.U. might be held to be. I should have thought that on balance it was prepared to leave the matter to the judgment of the House and the Government. I do not think that the Union feels strongly either way. I would say that its satisfaction is in having reached agreement on the other farm animals. Be that as it may, all I am asking is whether we know to what extent the practice is already going on without serious complaint or injury.

The second category of people who would be affected by the Amendment would be specific organisations such as some of the animal welfare societies and, in particular, the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals, which in many dispensaries throughout the big cities employs trained assistants who work under the supervision of veterinary surgeons or veterinary practitioners and carry out these operations. I am informed that a considerable part of the work of these dispensaries is the castration of dogs and cats. It is done in the dispensaries with chloroform and all the rules are observed. I am told that any doubtful or difficult case is at once referred to the veterinary surgeon.

The People's Dispensary therefore opposes this total prohibition and has not been party to the agreement, first, because it regards it as illogical to prohibit lay treatment of cats and dogs while allowing it for farm animals. What is, perhaps, more significant is the view of the P.D.S.A. that the ban would mean that its dispensaries could no longer cope with the work which is brought to them.

The P.D.S.A. has told me that it currently has 20 vacancies for full-time veterinary surgeons and is offering a starting salary, which, I should have thought, would attract people if they were available, of £1,300 a year. It is significant that these veterinary surgeons are not forthcoming. Therefore, the P.D.S.A. says that the ban would be likely to produce more indiscriminate breeding by stray animals.

Here is a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to answer. From his investigations—I admit that time has been short, but I asked him about this in Committee—is there any evidence or danger that the demand for qualified veterinary skill in this respect might exceed the supply? It is the Government's responsibility to see that professions produce sufficient numbers of qualified people, but we are aware of the increasing shortage in most of the professions. Indeed, in most professions the tendency is to rely on auxiliary help for some of the simpler tasks which do not need expert professional skill.

3.30 p.m.

I do not see any redundant vets. Within the Ministry it has always been the load on the Ministry's veterinary surgeons which has limited them in further campaigns for the eradication of animal diseases. I am glad, in parenthesis, to see they are starting on brucellosis.

But could it not be that the agricultural demand for veterinary surgeons would be the indirect cause of a shortage elsewhere, as in towns covered by the P.D.S.A.? If this urban shortage of veterinary surgeons be accepted, and lay operations on dogs and cats under six months are prohibited, what will be the effect on the problem of stray animals breeding indiscriminately? Here there is a divergence in the forecasts by the P.D.S.A. and the R.S.P.C.A., but I think both will admit that, in the short time available, it is very difficult to make a reasonably accurate judgment.

Today we are mainly concerned about animals and the people who tend them, but there is one final question, and I think the House of Commons as a whole must be the judge. Suppose the Amendment is accepted, and suppose some unqualified person is found to perform this operation—and, let us say, with all the skill and care and due observance of the statutory requirements. In such a case do the Government intend to prosecute? I think that is the necessary consequence of an absolute ban, and I think it must be faced.

These, to my mind, are the difficulties of the Amendment, and even if on this subject I feel schizophrenic because of my dual responsibility, I thought it right to indicate these doubts. Obviously, there is much to be said on both sides. There are no politics in this. In my view, it is a matter for individual judgment and decision, at any rate for Members of the Opposition, but it is the Government's responsibility to decide whether this Amendment will, on balance, operate to the improvement or to the detriment of animal welfare.

This Amendment is a difficult one. When we discussed the problem in Committee upstairs the decision was made that the Government should make some further inquiries and table an Amendment if the inquiries justified it. We have, even in the short time since, made further inquiries, but, unfortunately, the results were not such as to enable the Government to come to a definite conclusion and to table an Amendment in time for today's debate. Therefore, I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger) for moving this Amendment to enable us to discuss the whole question of the ages at which cats and dogs can be castrated.

I should first of all make it clear that what we are dealing with is the age, if any, at which cats or dogs may be castrated by laymen. Now whatever the decision on this point, the provisions of the Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) Act will have to be complied with and an anaesthetic used. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) made this point and made it very well.

I should like, however, to summarise the arguments for and against allowing laymen to carry out these operations on dogs and cats. The veterinary profession is opposed to laymen carrying out castration at all; not only on cats and dogs, but, I think I am right in saying, on other animals, but, of course, they recognise the difficulties, which the hon. Member for Norfolk, South put to us, involved in prohibiting lay castration in the case of farm animals. Their case is quite simple. They hold that this is veterinary surgery and that no exemption should be made for laymen as there is no need for such an exemption.

The People's Dispensary for Sick Animals, on the other hand, says that if cats and dogs are to be removed from group (c) and added to group (a) on humane grounds there is no logical reason for not excluding the other animals in groups (b) and (c) on the same grounds. I have already mentioned the practical difficulties of this, and I appreciate the point very much.

The organisation operates a large number of clinics and no doubt carries out a large number of the operations which are under consideration. In some of its clinics, the operations are carried out by laymen under veterinary supervision. There is undoubtedly an economic factor here. The P.D.S.A. is a charitable organisation providing a service for people who cannot afford the normal fees of a veterinary surgeon.

Both the veterinary profession and the P.D.S.A. may be said to have an interest in this. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, whose interest is solely in the prevention of cruelty to animals, recommends that lay castration of dogs and cats should not be permitted. It does not seem to feel the same apprehension expressed by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South about the possibility of an increase in stray dogs and cats, particularly in urban areas, as a result of its ban.

Other bodies to whom we appealed for advice have not yet replied. Informally, I understand that the Kennel Club is surprised that laymen castrate dogs. In any case, unfortunately, our consultations have not been as detailed as we would have wished, because of the shortage of time.

Therefore, after the Bill becomes law, I think that we should have a look at this again. But, before I go on to that, I might take up the point about prosecutions. This could land us in considerable difficulty, because we know that it is likely that some shepherds would carry out these castrations which the hon. Member for Norfolk, South mentioned. To prosecute them would be an extremely difficult operation.

This is the second time that I shall have withdrawn this Amendment, or failed to press it, in spite of the fact that, in Committee, my hon. Friend said that he would give urgent consideration to it and was on the point of moving a similar Amendment himself. However, he has given the House the assurance that it will receive detailed consideration in the future and that, if necessary, an Amendment will be brought forward. With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger) for withdrawing his Amendment and allowing the Bill to proceed to Third Reading.

The one thing to which I am particularly glad to refer is the welcome which the Bill has received both in Committee upstairs and on Second Reading. This is the first Bill to get this far under the new Second Reading Committee procedure. This in itself is very interesting, and I express my appreciation to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for being so helpful n getting the Bill under way. I know that the profession wants the Bill as early as possible, and I have great pleasure in asking the House to give it a Third Reading.

I, too, am glad that the Bill is at last approaching the Statute Book. It has had a long history, defeated by one General Election, remounted, and now at last completing the course late on a Friday afternoon.

I think that it is a good Bill. The defects which have been mentioned can be remedied, and they represent the narrow balance which did not achieve perfect agreement and legislative expression. It will enable great improvements to be made. It is important that the majority of the council should be elected members. The temporary list will encourage overseas students to pursue post-graduate studies in this country, and it is very important that the power to change fees should be there.

We welcome, too, the accompanying probability of a new Royal Charter to match the Bill. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber)—who is sorry not to be here today—was right when, in the closing stages of our discussion in Committee, he suggested that it was worth waiting to get a new Schedule 3 so that we could send out a complete Bill from this House.

It is from Britain that higher veterinary standards and higher standards of animal welfare are spreading. Our veterinary profession is working overseas to a considerable extent. I hope that some of the under-developed countries will look at the Bill as a pattern for arranging veterinary matters. The profession is faced with a formidable challenge in the prevention and cure of animal diseases, and I hope that this Measure will give it a good foundation on which to pursue its work.

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

The reason for this Clause is to place the wife who obtains a separation order in a magistrates' court in a similar position to a wife who obtains a decree of judicial separation in the High Court. I do not want to keep the Committee for very long at this late hour, but the reason for this is that people of one social class tend to go to the High Court to get a decree of judicial separation because of ante-nuptial or post-nuptial settlement, or perhaps because a greater amount of maintenance can be obtained there, and people from a lower social background, or a less wealthy social background, tend to go to a magistrates' court for a separation order. It is not logical, in respect of the law of intestacy, to draw a distinction between a wife who goes to one court and a wife who goes to another.

The second purpose of the Amendment is to be fair to the husband and to achieve equality between the sexes. It would put the husband who is subject to a decree of judicial separation in the High Court in precisely the same position as the wife who obtains a decree in that court. It is not an attack upon the rights of poor hard-done-by wives, because Section 20 of the 1965 Matrimonial Causes Act, as it stands, affects the law of intestacy irrespective of guilt, or of who was to blame for the order being made in the High Court. Therefore, even if a decision is made against a guilty wife in the High Court she obtains the benefit of Section 20, which benefit is denied to the husband.

The third purpose is to move nearer the situation where the law takes proper account of a marriage which has broken up and where the parties have separated. It recognises that where the parties are separated they are bound to order their affairs so as to take account of that fact, and they may have taken on other obligations and sought to make better provision for their children.

There is one other point to which I should draw attention. As well as separation orders I have made special provision for maintenance orders made in a magistrates' court on grounds of desertion, because clearly a wife seeking an order there is not seeking a separation order, which she might wish to seek in the High Court later on the ground of desertion. I want to widen the law further to take account of this situation.

I am attracted to the Amendment upon grounds other than those put forward by my hon. Friend. I am well aware of the grim consequences that can, as the law stands, follow when a maintenance order is made in favour of a woman who has been married to her husband for only 12 months, and when the husband then lives with another woman for, perhaps, 20 years. Although the husband has lived with her for all those years, cohabiting, never being able to obtain a divorce because his wife, who has obtained a maintenance order, will not take proceedings, upon his death the children of the permanent cohabiting union, together with the common law wife of that union, can be turned out of their home, with no redress.

The Amendment would prevent such a situation arising. I am aware, however, that it by no means covers every situation. Other provisions are required, and I would not wish to press the Amendment if I felt that there was any assurance coming from the Solicitor-General that these issues, which were touched upon and formed part of the recommendations of the Russell Committee, were to be dealt with by the Government. If so, such a patchwork Amendment as this would not be the answer.

Since expectations have been raised about the Russell Committee in another place, however, I express the hope that during the course of these short proceedings we shall have a clear and unequivocal indication from the Solicitor-General about the position of the Government in this matter, so that we shall no longer have any doubt of the real status of illegitimate children in the situation to which our attention has been called.

I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) said. I share with him the view that much of what the Russell Committee decided could fruitfully be translated into legislation in the near future. Many of us would be interested to hear whether the Government have in mind bringing on to the Statute Book parts, if not all, of the Report of that Committee. It is very important that we should do that in a proper substantive manner. One of the legitimate criticisms against Parliament is sometimes of the manner in which we legislate. After all, it is this kind of Bill and this kind of new Clause which affects many individual citizens.

Therefore, I hope that we may hear from the Solicitor-General whether there are any plans in the Government about that. I would not wish to see imported into this Bill by a side-wind these other matters which could be dealt with better by other legislation. I am not happy with this proposal in this new Clause, although I realise why the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) has raised the matter.

The hon. Member indicated the reasoning behind the new Clause, but I would like to hear from the Solicitor-General how far it goes. What does it affect? Does it carry out the purpose of the hon. Member? As it is at present drafted, does it fulfil his purpose? The Clause begins:

"In a case of judicial separation or a separation order … or a maintenance order"

and goes on to refer to

"any property which is acquired by or devolves upon either party."

Yet some people get separation orders and then come together again and do not bother to have those orders discharged. On the death of one of them who does not bother to make a will, there may be outstanding, technically, a separation order.

Would the new Clause provide, in that case, that it would nevertheless follow that property, as the Amendment says in the last two lines:

"if either party to the marriage dies intestate devolve as if the surviving party to the marriage had then been dead."?

This would seem to destroy one of the main purposes of the new Clause. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman can explain its effect to us. Although it may have a very desirable purpose, as proposed by the hon. Gentleman, is it wholly appropriate to introduce it into this Bill at this stage?

I am sympathetic towards the new Clause. I entirely agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) and Pontypool (Mr. Abse) that the present law needs amending. The present law is contained in Section 20(3) of the 1965 Act, which re-enacts earlier statutory provisions. I believe that it is open to serious criticism. In the first place, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood pointed out, it makes a distinction, which most of us would not now consider justifiable, between husbands and wives, and, second, many of us would find difficulty nowadays in accepting the distinction between innocent and guilty wives.

However, although there is force in the criticisms of the existing law, I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment. I say that largely for the reason advanced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson). The new Clause takes within its scope maintenance orders. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, a maintenance order may be made on grounds of desertion, although the desertion lasted only a very short time. It might be only a temporary thing but the wife might be in urgent need of maintenance.

The effect of the Clause would be that, if either the husband or the wife died intestate during a period of desertion, which might, but for the death, very soon have come to an end, the surviving spouse, whether or not the guilty party, would have no share in the estate. That could work very great hardship particularly in the case of a surviving wife because she might not have any substantial assets. There are other difficulties which would be created by this proposed Clause, particularly with regard to the administration of the estate. It is mainly on that ground that I suggest that this Clause as it stands should not be accepted. As is well known, the Law Commissioners are now engaged on an examination of family law and that examination will certainly cover these points.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool took the occasion to refer to the recommendations of the Russell Committee. All I can say at this stage is that the Government entirely approve, at any rate, most of the recommendations of that Committee, and that, although I cannot give a precise undertaking, I hope that it will not be long before we are able to give them legislative effect.

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend and, for the reasons that he has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.