I beg to move,

That the draft New Towns (Extinguishment of Libilities) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.

The draft order gives effect to the financial reconstruction of four new I own development corporations — Milton Keynes, Peterborough, Telford and Warrington and Runcorn. Powers to carry out the financial reconstruction of the new town corporations were included in the New Towns and Urban Development Corporations Act 1985, which contained two distinct powers to effect financial reconstruction of the new towns — by the extinguishment of corporations' liabilities to repay loans made by the Secretary of State, and to provide for the suspension of repayments on such loans. The power to extinguish corporations' liabilities under which this order is being made lapses on 30 September 1986.

As I have said, the Order deals with four new town development corporations, but we also propose to implement a financial reconstruction of other new town bodies—the development corporations for Aycliffe and Peterlee and for Washington and the Commission for the New Towns. The financial reconstruction of these bodies will be effected under the power to suspend payments of loans and we expect to bring forward the necessary orders in due course.

In the debates on the 1985 Act there was, I believe, general recognition in all parts of the House of the need to place the corporations on a sound financial footing. The original financial regime of the new towns was established by a Labour Government in 1946 and continued more or less unchanged until the 1985 legislation. Apart from housing, which was subject to the same subsidy arrangements as for local authorities, development corporations' main source of finance for all their activities was long-term fixed interest borrowing from the Secretary of State, who in turn drew loans from the National Loans Fund. This applied both to new investment and to deficits on revenue account which were also capitalised and met by borrowing.

The sum of the liabilities being extinguished in this order is approximately £1,688 million and is thus within the £1,750 million ceiling set in the 1985 Act.

I may be wrong, and I apologise if my hon. Friend will come to this point later in his important speech, but I assume that some assets of the new towns are housing assets. If the debts are to be extinguished, and if, as we all hope, some of the houses will later be purchased by the sitting tenants, what will happen to the money that is so released? Will it come back to the Exchequer to make up the debt from which we are releasing the new towns?

My hon. Friend raises a good point on which I can reassure him.

The sum that I have mentioned is admittedly large, and it could well be asked why it is necessary to write that off. However, it was always envisaged that the corporations' revenue deficits would continue for the early years of development, but that in due course they would be able to achieve break-even and be in a position to redeem the borrowing.

Most of the first generation of new towns achieved that. They were Basildon, Harlow in Essex, Bracknell in Berkshire, Crawley in West Sussex, Hatfield, Hemel Hempstead, Stevenage and Welwyn Garden City. There were also the new towns at Corby, Aycliffe and Peterlee.

Whereas those corporations benefited from the boom of the 1950s and early 1960s, the second and third generation new towns developed against a background of growing economic difficulties in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Was the money that the Government now want to write off spent primarily on infrastructure by the new towns in years gone by?

That was an important part of the construction of the new towns but, as I have explained, under the legislation of 1946, this was the major method of financing the new towns. I covered that point earlier and I am now explaining the further developments and why we now believe that we must extinguish the liabilities.

The second generation towns were Runcorn in Cheshire, Skelmersdale in Yorkshire, Washington in Tyne and Wear, and Redditch and Dawley, which is now called Telford, in Shropshire. The third generation new towns are perhaps better known — Milton Keynes, Peterborough, Northampton, Warrington in Cheshire, and the central Lancashire new town.

My hon. Friend mentioned Northampton which woke me up as I was dozing off.

This is a complex and important subject and, as the debate unwinds, there is a lot of information that some of us would be interested to have. It would be wrong to expect my hon. Friend to have the information at the moment, but perhaps it could be provided for him before the debate is concluded. One thing that would be of interest to myself and to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) is the amount of money that we are writing off that is attributable to housing assets and the interest arising from the establishment of those housing assets in the first place, and I hope that that information can be found.

I take good note of what my hon. Friend says. No doubt he will be developing that point and posing further questions as the debate goes on. We shall seek to give him the answers that he wants.

The task facing the second and third generation towns was in many respects fairly onerous. For example, at Telford more than a quarter of the designated areas was derelict at the beginning of the operation. There was also a substantial reclamation task at Warrington, while at Milton Keynes the scale of infrastructure required was larger than anything which had previously been undertaken because of the nature of the site on which Milton Keynes is being constructed.

High rates of interest and low economic growth over the period contributed to a situation in which the deficits of the second and third generation towns spiralled inevitably upwards. Thus a number of factors worsened the financial position of the new town corporations.

I happen to be a member of the Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust which has done a great deal to improve and enhance Telford's environment. I live near to Telford and I would not want any impression to be gained—I hope that my hon. Friend is not giving the impression—that there is a state of dereliction in that area. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Many would regard that area as one of the most outstandingly beautiful parts of this great British isle.

I proceed quickly to deny that I am in any way suggesting that the state of dereliction which may have been there at the beginning has remained. Indeed, I pay tribute to the work that has been done in the Telford area were there have been great environmental benefits. My hon. Friend has noted, in an articulate way, some of them. I certainly do not want to say that there is a problem at present as great as there was when the work on the new town began.

In November 1982 the then Minister for Housing and Construction, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Mr. Stanley), explained that legislation would be needed to deal with the problem. As an interim measure, the Finance Act 1983 introduced a power to suspend repayments on some new town debts until 30 September this year. The order, under the powers taken in the 1985 Act, provides a long-term solution which will give the four corporations a realistic debt structure so that they are able to service and repay their debts in due course.

The financial reconstruction proposals embodied in the order have been formulated by reference to projections of income and expenditure over the next 20 years. This exercise has been carried out with the co-operation of the corporations and the results have been analysed by consultants commissioned by the Department of the Environment.

In parallel with the financial reconstruction, we are introducing other measures which should improve the financial regime which the new towns operate. New towns' capital investment in the provision of roads, which is the major item of expenditure on which there is no direct return to them will in future be eligible for grant under a provision introduced in the 1985 Act. We are also in the process of introducing an improved system of corporate planning which will provide the focus for discussion of the corporations' activities and resource allocation. Some changes will be introduced to the form of the corporations' published accounts to make them more informative and these will include a requirement for the corporations to report on their progress towards achieving cumulative break-even. Taken together, these measures will provide a sound financial basis for the corporations during the remaining period of their lives as they complete their development programmes. An essential element of this is the financial reconstruction of the corporations to establish a capital structure which they will be capable of servicing. If the house approves this order today, this will be achieved.

My hon. Friend appears to be coming to the end of his speech. I apologise for interrupting again. I accept that we are writing off certain debts, but the new towns will still own assets. As the years unfold, how much do the Government expect to get back? How much will the taxpayer get back from the new towns?

The aim is to conduct the exercise in the most efficient way. I cannot give my hon. Friend a figure, but we believe that by the extinguishment of liabilities and by building from a sound base we shall achieve a sound financial basis.

Before my hon. Friend leaves that point and moves on to the second part of his speech, will he kindly tell the House to what extent he has studied reports produced by the development corporations for the year ended 31 March 1985? These are the most recent reports available in the Vote Office. My hon. Friend knows that.

I refer my hon. Friend to the pictures on page 210. I am grateful to the Opposition for following what I am saying with such care. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has before him a copy of the report. The assiduous spokesman for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) has a copy. Perhaps I should allow my hon. Friend time to obtain a copy of the pictures. Perhaps his private secretary, or one of my hon. Friends, can assist him.

Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) is not making a speech. This is supposed to be an intervention.

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was referring my hon. Friend and the official Opposition spokesman to some pictures. I do not know whether you have a copy, but they appear on page 210. One picture is of Milton Keynes' Texas Homecare store. Is that store and the loan that applied to it included in the order?

I cannot answer that question at the moment, but if my hon. Friend will bear with me I shall seek the information.

I was about to conclude my speech. We believe that the essential element is the financial reconstruction to establish a capital structure which the corporations will be capable of servicing. If the House approves the order, this will be achieved.

I commend the order to the House.

I welcome the order, but I am slightly disappointed at the way in which it was introduced. I had hoped for more detail in my hon. Friend's explanation. My concern is about Telford in my constituency. About £440 million of the capital given to that new town over the years is to be extinguished. I am shocked and surprised at the complete lack of details about the loans involved in the statutory instrument.

New town corporations should be more receptive to people's wishes and to the views of our constituents. They should tell people exactly what is happening. New towns should open their board room doors so that the public can see what is happening. It would be possible to deal with the commercial confidentiality problems which apply to new town corporations as they do to local authorities. New towns such as Telford are happy to provide publicity on matter about which they want the public to know, but that does not reveal the whole picture.

I am unable to find out what the Telford new town corporation is debating, but I believe that the board papers were available to my Labour predecessor. The Labour-controlled local district and county council chief executives are furnished with the information, so they know exactly what is happening and according to Lord Northfield, the new town corporation chairman, they are able to brief their members. It is extraordinary that a new town corporation should keep a Member of Parliament in the dark but advise officers of the local councils. After all,. new town corporations are Government-supported bodies.

I hope that the Government will persuade the corporations to be more forthcoming in the advice and information that they pass on to Members of Parliament. Board members have asked for me to be furnished with papers, but that request has been refused by the chairman of the corporation.

Were any reasons given for the information not being disclosed? My constituency is next to my hon. Friend's constituency, and I have an interst since many of my constituents work in Telford.

I have not been given a satisfactory explanation. Lord Northfield told me that he had taken advice from the Department before refusing my request for the papers.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that it is not necessary to have a constituency which abuts his own to take a keen interest in this matter. He will find if he studies the order that the powers exist as a result of the New Towns and Urban Development Corporations Act 1985, and some of the members of the Committee which considered that measure did not have new towns in their constituencies.

I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me of that fact, which I admit had slipped my mind.

I turned to the draft statutory instrument with hopes that I would be able to ascertain exactly what the Telford development corporation had been doing with the large sum that we shall write off today. Unfortunately, the order provided no clues. We are asked in respect of all four new towns to accept the writing-off of nearly £1,750 million without one word about what the money has been spent on. I was so worried that last week I tabled a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I asked him whether he would give details of each of the advances from T1 to T409, which appear in the order. I thought that that would provide helpful information for the House to have when debating this important issue. I received a reply on Wednesday 16 July 1986. The written answer stated:

"Long-term loans from the Secretary of State have been the principal source of finance for the new towns programme. Individual loans cannot be linked to specific activities or items of expenditure."—[Official Report, 16 July 1986.]

That is an extraordinary answer.

Does my hon. Friend think it possible that some of the money to which he has referred went into the fine new public house that is known as Quenchers, or the sophisticated night club and disco complex that is called Cascades? We are told the Cascades has lost no time in becoming the local "Talk of the Town".

I should declare an interest because I was involved in the opening of one of those premises. There are good facilities within my constituency. The town centre is currently owned by the development corporation and we may well find that some of the money has gone that way. It is frightening that an answer to a parliamentary question fails to list the items of expenditure. The House will be aware that T399 is one item of expenditure of £27 million, and presumably the Department passed that sum over Telford development corporation. I find it frightening that the answer to my question does not tell us what the items of expenditure were.

I must assume that the items that we are debating, which are listed in the order, cover all the expenditures of the Telford development corporation. They seem to appear as half-year expenditure groups, and we must assume that the expenditure in the new town has come from these funds. I hope that I shall be in order when I try to deal with some items of the expenditure which I believe need discussion.

When I was elected the hon. Member of Parliament for The Wrekin in 1979 I said in my maiden speech that I believed that the new town corporation should be supported by the Government. I said also that I believed that the Government could and would give the help that was needed. I never dreamt that the Government would give so much help and do so much for the area. The opposition in this place and at local level in the district council is The Wrekin deride on many occasions the Government's expenditure plans, but I believe that this instrument puts to rest the charge that the Government are not spending the money that should be expended in the area.

When my hon. Friend the Minister introduced the order he talked about the state of Telford when the corporation was set up. There were old quarries and old collieries. There was much reclamation to be done. Although it has not been finished yet, much has been done. I welcome the expenditure that has allowed that to happen.

It should be remembered that in 1979 Telford had no hospital and no motorway. Telford was in a worse position than previously because of the closure of the Cosford hospital. There was no accident or emergency cover in the east of the county. There were no motorway connections to the M6, which all the industrialists in the area told us were essential. We went into a third inquiry because the previous Labour Government kept changing their mind. We had no development status and there was no station in central Telford.

What is the position now? Thanks, presumably, to some of the money that we are talking about, we shall have a new hospital. That hospital is almost built. I suppose that the roads approaching it have been financed by the new town's money. The M54 is open and it is bringing jobs to the area. The Government have given the area intermediate status, which gives it money from Europe as well as from our Exchequer. We have an enterprise zone and a station has been built and opened. This is all good news.

Jobs are being created in the town. Although we have an unacceptable level of unemployment at 21 per cent., 3,000 jobs have been created in the past year within the new town of Telford, thanks to the Government's help. We have international firms and many of them have come to the area with Government money. These include Maxell, Ricco and Tutung. Local companies such as Brintons and Blockleys have been expanding quickly. This has happened in Telford because of the facilities that have been provided by the new town corporation.

The Government have given every support for which we could possibly ask and I am upset that the creation of 3,000 extra jobs has been hailed by certain Socialist councillors as the 'sham of Telford'. I welcome an additional 3,000 jobs. It reflects great credit on Telford that at this time it has been able to create that number of jobs, even with Government help.

I address myself to a couple of the outstanding issues that will arise if we pass the order. One has been mentioned already by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). Housing transfer is an important issue in Telford. The demise of the corporation is envisaged in the early 1990s and we are talking of housing being transferred to housing associations, the district councils or to trusts. I welcome the decision to allow tenants to have their views listened to and I want to know when the Government will ask for their views. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that housing may be transferred legally to authorities other than district councils. I know that some district councils claim that that cannot happen and that they must have first option. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to clarify the position.

To repeat the question my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North asked, what will happen to the proceeds that are received as a result writing off these assets today? I wish to put on record my appreciation of the hard work that the chairman of the corporation, Lord Northfield, carries out on behalf of the new town. He spends money wisely and takes a great personal interest in every housing scheme. I have in mind especially the Admaston scheme. The corporation encouraged and persuaded a developer to design houses that would be appropriate for that area, which is one of outstanding beauty. Lord Northfield was personally and closely involved with the choice of the builder and the way in which a decision was arrived at. The land did not go to the highest bidder. It went instead to the one which, it was thought, would produce the right sort of development.

Will my hon. Friend tell the House what discussions he has had with Lord Northfield on this important matter? If Lord Northfield were a Member of this place instead of the other place, would he vote for the order?

I assume that my hon. Friend is correct. I have not discussed the order with the noble Lord. I believe that he would welcome the proposals. I know of his great interest in housing. The matter that creates, great concern in Telford. As the House knows, the noble Lord is the paid chairman of Consortium Development, which is a consortium of building companies such as Barretts, Wimpey, Tarmac, Brosely and Christian Salvesen. My constituents are worried that there may be a conflict of interest in his chairmanship of the new town corporation.

Order. The hon. Member must confine his remarks to the order. He must not stray as wide as he is doing at the moment.

I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that warning. Respecting your decision, I wonder whether the payment of the chairman and the expenditure and the policies that he implements in the corporation have not something to do with the items of expenditure that we are writing off and about which we have been told so little. The Government should advise us whether they are happy that the chairman of their corporation, which is allocated a large sum of money, has a conflict of interest as chairman of a consortium that has interests in the town. That is the important point, because nearly all those building companies do work in Telford.

I gather that there is a precedent. When the Docklands board was set up, it had a chairman who was involved in housing. It was decided that his companies could not operate in Docklands. Will the same happen in Telford? Is the land sold to private builders to be excluded from companies in the consortium of which the noble Lord is chairman? We want to know the answer to that important point. If we cannot solve this conflict to the satisfaction of my constituents and many builders in the area who are not members of the consortium of which his Lordship is chairman, his Lordship may have to resign, or he may have to be replaced.

In a most interesting speech, my hon. Friend has referred to the advances to the Telford development corporation. I have studied the expenditure closely, as I know my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) has. Will my hon. Friend direct his formidable intellect to the final line of page 9 of the order, which has puzzled my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary as it has puzzled me. What has happened to the sum of £373·26, which is the difference between the sum in the first column and the sum in the second column? Will my hon. Friend address himself to that problem? He has not got round to doing so.

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention. I am sure that the Minister heard the question. I hope that, whith the advice of his civil servants, he will be able to answer that in reply. My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point. It shows the lack of information that we are receiving on this important order.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) spoke of his personal involvement with the Ironbridge Gorge Museum. That museum was set up with finance from the corporation. It was a Museum of Europe a few years ago. It is the leading tourist attraction in Shropshire. It is doing a good job for the area. If we are to write off loans, we should be told what the Government believe should happen to the sites of the museum that are currently owned by the Telford development corporation. We should be interested to know whether the Government intend to give continued support to the museum to ensure that it has the resources it needs and which are now channelled through the new town corporation of Telford. We must support and welcome the museum and its development, because it has an important part to play within the ambit of the Telford development corporation.

I turn to a further item of expenditure in the order. As I do not have the details, I am unable to pinpoint the number of the item. It concerns the purchase, in the late 1960s, of land at Nedge Hill. That involves a scandal of frightening proportions. I believe that the corporation has wasted £500,000 of public money, and that it is hiding that fact. The corporation purchased the land, with vacant possession, with money that was given in the late 1960s for the purchase. The corporation then offered to let the land back to the farmer.

The corporation has found, now that it wants the land back, that instead of giving a 364-day licence, it gave a full agricultural tenancy. The corporation is now having to pay anything up to £500,000 to get its own land back. In view of the fact that the corporation bought the land with vacant possession, I believe the public would view the expenditure of an extra £500,000 ill spent.

I believe that there should be an inquiry by Ministers into the reason why the expenditure is necessary. It may be, as the corporation has implied, that the last Labour Government, as a policy decision, insisted that the land was let back to the former owner. On the other hand, it may be that the officers of the corporation made a mistake when they issued the licence for an agricultural tenancy. In any case it is scandalous that £500,000 could have been wasted.

Perhaps my hon. Friend would consider the importance of getting the matter that he has raised — the purchase of land for £500,000 — cleared up following the extinguishment of liabilities and the handing over to the corporation and the district council. In Skelmersdale, we found that many projects that needed to be sorted ur were left over. I urge my hon. Friend to consider, when he advises the local development corporation what to do, to ensure that all the loose ends are tied up so that the problems will not continue into the future, as was the case in the north-west.

I thank my hon. Friend for those words. It is essential that the matter be sorted out quickly. The corporation wants the land for its own use. However, a similar position may apply in respect of other land in the Telford area. The public should be told whether the corporation has put other land that it bought with vacant possession under an agricultural tenancy that it must buy back when it wants to use the site.

I wonder whether it is proper to point out at this stage that, in this important debate about new towns, apart from the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—

Order. The hon. Member should not intervene. It has nothing to do with the order before us.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Until the last election I represented the Deans and Knightsridge area of the new town of Livingston. As I understand it, I would be ruled out of order if I raised the problems of Livingston in this debate.

Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Order. Hon. Members know very well that they do not have to represent a new town in order to take part in a debate or be interested in what goes on in the House.

rose—

The hon. Member must not pursue this matter because it is out of order.

It is a separate point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are a number of hon. Members present who do not represent the new towns which are listed in the order but who represent other new towns. Would it be proper to raise the problems that occur in those other new towns that are similar to the problems that will be created in the new towns listed in the order?

It is not for me to give advice to the House. If an hon. Member is out of order, I shall say so. I shall decide when an hon. Member is speaking whether he is in or out of order.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I remind the House that I began by praising the Government for their support for Telford. They are not given, locally or nationally, the credit that is deserved for the size of the expenditure on all the new towns, especially on Telford.

The Telford development corporation built an ice skating rink in the Telford town cenre. Many of my constituents welcomed that project. But the corporation gave that rink away—it would probably claim that it was sold—to the Wrekin district council for £1 towards the cost of building the rink. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will clarify how the budgeting was done in charging for that item. I wonder whether this is one of those items that are being written off.

It is interesting that The Wreckin district council, having taken over the rink for £1 and having said that it would break even on running costs, succeeded in the first year in incurring a loss of amost £200,000. That is not very good. I know that the district council is aware of the problems and is trying to correct them. Credit must be given to the Government, the TDC and Ministers for giving Telford an ice skating rink for £1. My electors appreciate that. Credit should go where it belongs—to the Government for having provided those resources.

Will my hon. Friend please direct his mind to the specific problems revealed between pages 7 and 14 of the order? Has he noticed that it is the Telford development corporation, not the development coroporation of any of my hon. Friends, which has the largest number of items—419? Will my hon. Friend explain how we are supposed to know to which item each number relates? In my respectful submission, we cannot debate this matter properly unless we know to which items those numbers relate. Can my hon. Friend tell me one of those 419 items that relates to a specific project?

I am afraid that my hon. Friend is right. I cannot give one item with a specific expenditure against it.

Not even one?

Not even one. The reason is, to quote from the parliamentary answer to one of my questions,

"Individual loans cannot be linked to specific activities or items of expenditure."—[Official Report, 16 July 1986.]

It is frightening that in this document there is a large number of items, which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) rightly highlights, which are attributable to Telford, yet we do not know what any of them are. I hope that we shall be enlightened before the end of the debate as to the exact purpose of the loans that we are asked to write off.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley). There are 419 items before the House which relate to my hon. Friend's new town, but he cannot identify one project that is related to an individual loan. Do you not think that a Treasury Minister or possibly my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General should be present to help us in these serious matters?

The hon. Member has been a Member for a long time and he knows very well that the presence of Ministers is not a matter for the Chair.

Thank you for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am slightly disappointed because I had hoped that the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne would help the House in our proceedings on the order. I hope that we shall be advised of the details of these items of expenditure. Because we are talking of such large sums, I hope that it is possible for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to find out what at least some of the items are. I assume that the items to which I have referred in the corporation's expenditure are hidden away somewhere in those figures. I assume that I am right, because you have not yet ruled me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for dealing with the expenditure on these items.

Order. The hon. Member must not tempt me.

Thank you for that second warning, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion to allow my hon. Friends who represent other new towns to speak of the experiences of their corporations. It is important that we put on the record the amounts that the Government have put in to the new town corporations. I hope that the questions of vacant land, of Lord Northfield's chairmanship of the Telford development corporation and of the items of expenditure listed in the order will be clarified. Provided we are given clarification that I consider to be satisfactory I shall be only too happy to support the order.

It may be helpful if I say a few words at this time.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) asked me whether the order should be discussed upstairs or on the Floor of the House, I advised my hon. Friend, who with others made the final decision, that it should be taken on the Floor of the House to give those hon. Members who live in, represent or are interested in the new towns an opportunity to take part in this debate in public and, as the Under-Secretary of State has done, to make constructive criticism and offer helpful suggestions and even praise.

In future I shall hesitate long before making such a recommendation if Conservative Members abuse it by talking at great length with the single objective of preventing a second Adjournment debate.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to criticise other hon. Members before they have even spoken, especially those who represent new towns and therefore have a particular interest in the order? I beg you to make a ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I am listening carefully to the preamble of the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes). I am grateful for hon. Members' great interest in what is in order and what is not, but that is really a matter for the Chair to decide.

I have not as yet made any criticism of any individual Conservative Member. I am saying merely that I hope that my recommendation is not abused by Conservative Members speaking at great length with the objective, which is now well known to the House, of preventing a second Adjournment debate.

rose—

As hon. Members know full well, I am one of the great "givers away" in debates, whether I am on the Back Bench or at the Dispatch Box, but I intend to give no assistance to those who want unnecessarily to prolong the debate.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) to make dire allegations about hon. Members without giving way and responding to the legitimate points that they might wish to make? This is Parliament at its worst.

The hon. Gentleman knows that whether an hon. Member gives way or not is a matter for him.

The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) again suggests that I am accusing Tory Members of something. I am merely suggesting that I hope they will not abuse my decision on this occasion.

This is an extremely short order, as is the explanatory note, but I shall argue that it has some important political significance. As the Minister said, the objective of the order is to extinguish, on 1 September 1986, liabilities in respect of certain advances made by the Secretary of State to the development corporations of Milton Keynes, Peterborough, Telford and Warrington and Runcorn. In section 62A of the New Towns Act 1981 there is a limit to which the liability can be extinguished, but the figure of approximately £1·7 billion is well within that limit.

As I have said, this debate is of interest to people regardless of whether they represent or live in a new town. My experience of new towns is extremely wide. I have lived in Peterlee in the north-east of England for 25 years and represented it at local authority level. I now represent the new town of Washington, having represented it from 1979 to 1984 in the European Parliament. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware that the new town movement is very important. When a student ccomes to write the history of the new towns, he or she will note the significant contribution that they have made to all aspects of our lives. They are one of the great post-war experiments carried out by many, at great risk. There is no doubt that the risk has been well worth while and that the new town movement is undoubtedly highly successful.

The new town movement is a great tribute to Lewis Silkin, the father of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin), who was the great architect and innovator of the new town movement. He had the foresight to see that housing, economics and other problems would arise in the future and, most importantly and significantly, he was able to find a solution to those perceived problems. His son, the right hon. Member for Deptford, in a distinguished career in the House, has continued his father's aspirations.

The director of the Town and Country Planning Association agrees with the point that I have made. He wrote in Town and Country Planning in October 1985:

"I believe it amply confirms that the new towns' programme represents one of the greatest achievements of post-war planning."

It is because of the success of the jobs started by many corporations but which have not yet been finished that I am resentful of the Government's policies. The Government are putting their fingers, sticky with the glue of privatisation, into areas where they have no right to go, sometimes less openly than others. Opposition Members and others outside the Chamber have demonstrated on many occasions that sometimes their privatisation plans are carried out overtly and sometimes covertly. I shall make a few remarks about that, because the order is directly related to those privatisation plans. Privatisation of new towns may make sense in the extremely narrow ideoligical thoughts of the Government, but it makes little sense politically, economically, financially or socially for many others.

Conservative Members have already referred in speeches and interventions to economic development. The new towns have played a vital role in the generation of jobs. In the process, they have demanded billions of pounds of public investment in town centres, house building, factory site preparation and job promotion. I do not think that anyone on either side of the House can question the fact that the experiment has proved to be worthwhile and that the investment is important for those who chose to live in the new towns. That investment has also been of great help to people who live in the areas surrounding new towns. In areas of high unemployment, new towns have played a particularly important role. Although the new town that I represent and the one in which I live are not the subject of this debate, they have been essential in promoting, obtaining and protecting jobs.

No one on either side of the House believes that the new towns, run by development corporations, or by quangos with representatives appointed by the Secretary of State, should last for ever. There will come a time when the new towns will be considered to have completed their useful lives and their assets will have to be disposed of. What is of concern is that the Government appear to be hell-bent on winding up the new towns without considering their role within the region in which they exist. In particular, they are ignoring their relationship to industrial decline and the related high unemployment levels. Although those aspects are not the main subject of the debate today, they will have to be the subject of a debate in the near future.

This debate is concerned with the disposal of assets—how, and to whom. I have listened with great interest to the intervention of Conservative Members who have been trying to get more details about what this mass of figures represents. Clearly, judging by the number of hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate, they have found the order extremely interesting — I cannot say enlightening—reading.

The reports of the four new towns under discussion today, Peterborough, Milton Keynes, Warrington and Runcorn and Telford are, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) pointed out, referred to in the "Reports of the Development Corporations," dated 31 March 1985 and, as the hon. Gentleman rightly stated, that is the latest available annual report. We expect the next one a little later in the year.

The board of each new town has expressed a desire, in its annual report, to carry on with the work that it is doing. The chairmen especially want to complete the job aspect of the new towns. I shall consider one comment from the remarks of the chairmen of the four boards.

Peterborough, which has a population of 128,000, was designated as a new town in 1967. The chairman in his annual report said:

"To enhance the attractions of Peterborough — and underpin this success—more building and infrastructure are required. But for the most part, the need is to keep together, for as long as necessary, the special expertise that an established development corporation provides to promote enterprise and foster further growth."

The chairman of Milton Keynes with a population of 122,000, which was first designated as a new town in 1967, said:

"It is our emphatic view that the city should be completed with the care and attention to balance so necessary for a 'greenfield' site and that the skills of the Corporation are essential to that task. The benefits of Milton Keynes to the region and the nation, as well as to the local inhabitants, must be fully realised."

As hon. Members are well aware, Warrington and Runcorn is a combined development corporation. Warrington development corporation was designated in 1968, and Runcorn in 1964. The population at the latest known figures, was about 210,000. In his annual report, the chairman of the board said:

"A great deal undoubtedly remains to be done, if the continued development of the two New Towns and the satisfactory termination of the Corporation's role in the process are to be accomplished in parallel and with equal success."

The fourth new town under consideration is Telford, to which the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) addressed his remarks. It has a population of about 109,000. As has been correctly stated, it was originally designated as Dawley new town in 1963. In the 22nd annual report of the Telford development corporation, the chairman said:

"My regret is that the constraints of government policies on the new towns emphasise less what could be achieved than how little time there is to do something worthwhile. It is perhaps even more regrettable that so successful an instrument of national policy should be seen as having no further role in the revival of the economic fortunes of other parts of the United Kingdom."

Whether this is the correct time to be winding up development corporations is an important matter for debate. On the other hand, each of the remarks that I have chosen from the annual reports shows that each development corporation is putting much energy, expertise, money and cash into the promotion and development of jobs. The Government's policy has led to massive unemployment, and each of those corporations sees the continuation of its existence as important in the battle to create jobs throughout the nation.

Although many people would say that the development corporations have been successful to date, there are still many problems to be solved. I note that some hon. Members in the Chamber were present at the meeting with representatives of the Association of District Councils new towns committee earlier this week. Problems were raised which will need to be discussed at great length in the House in future. Some of the problems raised related to housing assets. There was quite a good discussion about whether local authorities should be offered the houses, and whether housing associations or co-operatives should run groups of the houses. The debate was on whether the local authority should have an automatic right, or whether tenants should be consulted as to their desires about the houses in which they live. That is a vital debate, which will have to be concluded. It is of interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House.

One of the aspects of the Government's privatisation programme is to sell off the town centres in the new towns. As a former member of a local authority, I am not suggesting for one moment that the local authorities should take over and run town centres, but I believe, as do many of my collagues in local authorities, that at least the local authority should have some say in how the town centres in the new towns are disposed of.

When assets are sold, what happens to the proceeds? Surely some of the proceeds, especially in areas of high unemployment, should go to the local authorities. Surely it is not unreasonable for the local authority to have a share in something that it has been instrumental in helping to develop. The director of the Town and Country Planning Association shares that view and said in an article in The Guardian by the journalist John Cunningham on 10 April 1985:

"The basic idea is that the enhanced values created by the development corporations on the community's behalf should be ploughed back. It was the initial investment of the taxpayer which set them off."

If those assets went back to the local authority, the product of the assets would stay fairly and squarely in that area, where the development corporation is.

What is the order all about? Many interventions were made by Conservative Members to the Minister about that. The purpose of the order is to extinguish certain liabilities of the development corporations that are under discussion. The power to make the order was provided by section 62A of the New Towns Act 1981, which was inserted by section 8(1) of the New Towns and Urban Development Corporations Act 1985.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne, the then Minister for Housing and Construction, led for the Government when the Bill was going through the House. Some of my colleagues and I asked particularly about what is now section 8, and its consequences. To clarify the point, I shall quote from section 62A of the New Towns Act. It says:

"(1) The Secretary of State may, with the Treasury's consent, by order extinguish to such extent as may be specified in the order any liabilities of a development corporation in respect of advances made by him to the corporation under section 58(1) of the corresponding provisions of the 1946 Act or the 1965 Act.

(2) The aggregate amount of liabilities extinguished by order under this section shall not exceed £1·750."

If Conservative Members have studied the new towns annual reports for the year ending 31 March 1985, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne clearly has, they will have seen the financial statements for each of the development corporations. For those who are following closely, I refer to page 121 dealing with Milton Keynes development corporation's annual report, although a similiar paragraph is inserted in each of the new town's reports. The paragraph is headed, "Suspended Loans" and states:

"The Government has announced that it intends to take measures to produce a permanent solution to the problem of the substantial and growing revenue deficits of certain development corporations."

We are discussing that this morning.

The New Towns and Urban Development Corporations Bill was debated on 20 November 1984. The then Minister for Housing and Construction, the hon. Member for Eastbourne, explained why the provision was necessary. He said:

"clause 8 gives to the Secretary of State power to write off sufficient debt to give a capital structure which is capable of being serviced by the assets which the corporations hold."—[Official Report, 20 November 1984; Vol. 68, c. 165.]

That is to say that the Government wanted to achieve the objective of reaching a financial break-even point. That argument is put forward to justify the writing-off of debts and liabilities of new towns to enable further growth and expansion, and especially to attract industry and jobs as part of the immediate sub-region development.

However, other than ideological dogma—a perpetual drive fuelled by monetarist policies — it is difficult to find a justification for what the Government are doing. When the Labour party forms the next Government it should take a leaf out of the Conservative book and introduce mechanisms to write off some of the massive debts that local authorities face as a consequence of many years of Conservative Government.

rose—

I shall certainly not give way to that hon. Member.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I am certainly not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.

Local authorities suffer the same long-term debt problem as new towns, because they have had to take out loans over a 60-year period—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I regret having to raise a point of order, but the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) has said to every Labour local authority in the land, "Spend as much as you like. When we come into power, if we come into power, we will pay"—

Order. That is not—

rose—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. He knows very well that that is a matter for debate and not a point of order for the Chair. He is certainly not raising a point of order.

The nonsense spoken by the hon. Member for Northampton, North absolutely justifies my not giving way to him. What he said about me was quite incorrect and not worth an intervention. I shall not join in the charade in which some Conservative Members are hoping to play a part later this morning. To save hon. Members rising, I say now that I shall not give way—

Will my hon. Friend please stop banging the Dispatch Box, as he might destroy it?

My hon. Friend is worried that I might destroy the Dispatch Box because he wants to speak from it later this morning.

No, it is being reserved for the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who will be on the Opposition Benches in the near future.

I fear that my hon. Friend's interventions are encouraging Conservative Members.

What was the motivation behind section 8? The hon. Member for Eastbourne said in the debate on 20 November 1984:

"If investment is needed, it will be met from receipts. The surplus will be used to redeem debt. In this way, the assets of the new towns will be realised as quickly as practicable for the benefit of the taxpayer."—[Official Report, 20 November 1984; Vol. 68, c. 166.]

There is a contradiction in terms there. It is all part and parcel of the Government's privatisation programme. The new towns are being privatised and the extinguishment of liabilities is an essential and necessary element in the process to make them more attractive to purchasers.

That is a well-known technique. As my hon. Friends know, I have been involved in the anti-water privatisation campaign. There is an interesting comparison here, as the Government are threatening to write-off £5 billion debts of water authorities, forcing them to make price increases to make abnormal profits. The Northumbria water authority has increased its profits sevenfold, and the Thames water authority, on an increased turnover of £46 million, has made an increased profit of £45 million.

Section 8 is part and parcel of the Government's programme to privatise new towns. Hon. Members should be aware that the reason for the liabilities being written-off is to make the new towns more attractive to purchasers.

If I may digress for a moment on the question of water authorities and tell the House what Mr. Watts, the chairman of the Thames water authority, said yesterday—

Order. The hon. Gentleman really is digressing and he must address himself to the order.

I am trying to establish a point that has not been made by any Conservative Member — the real intention behind the writing-off of new town liabilities.

During the latter stages of the 1970 to 1974 Conservative Government, the third generation new towns faced problems caused by rising interest rates and rising inflation. However, the power in section 8 was introduced for quite different reasons. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said, section 8 was clearly designed

"to whet the appetite of the private profit motive." — [Official Report, 20 November 1984; Vol. 68, c. 173.]

The fact that this order is to do with privatisation is echoed in an article by John Cunningham in The Guardian on 10 April 1985 and by Gareth David in The Observer on 13 October 1985. John Cunningham wrote:

"Compared with the furore over the privatisation of the aerospace, oil and telecommunications industries, the Government's disposal of the substantial national assets represented by the new towns is proceeding almost by stealth."

Gareth David wrote:

"one equally far-reaching privatisation exercise has been taking place almost unnoticed. Since 1979 the Commission for the New Towns has been selling off the assets of the 8 towns it inherited when their respective development corporations completed their work. By the end of March 1985, it had raised some £317 million."

On 10 June 1986 the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he would

"indicate the main achievements of Her Majesty's Government with respect to urban and new town affairs in the last seven years."

The Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction replied:

"The Government's policy is to bring the programme to a successful conclusion with the maximum possible involvement of the private sector."

He said that an important achievement was

"The realisation since 1979 of about £1·25 billion from the sale of assets (approximately £850 million from sales of industrial and commercial property and approximately £450 million from sales of dwellings and housing land)."—[Official Report, 10 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 115–17.]

That represents a typical Government objective. Irrespective of the needs of the people and the local authorities, cash must be raised by selling assets to the private sector. Assets can be sold only once, and clearly the best parts go first. It is what Lord Macmillan described as selling off the family silver. It has created an imbalance in the economics of the new towns.

In simple terms, this order means that the four new towns — Milton Keynes, Warrington and Runcorn, Telford and Peterborough—will have enough of their debts written-off so that income from assets will balance costs. For the past three years, financially, time has been frozen. However, the premature forced selling of assets to the private sector meant that a break-even point could not be reached, so a calculation was made of how much debt needed to be written-off to balance the books.

If the objective had been financial manipulation to deal with losses related to long-term borrowing agreements with the Treasury, that would have been a logical move with which the Opposition could agree. There is little point in accumulating debt that can never be repaid. However, that was not the reason. The reason for the write-off is to make assets more attractive to private investors but, as more and more assets are sold, servicing the accumulated debts becomes more difficult and eventually impossible. Clearly the most valuable assets, producing the most income, are sold first, and the assets left cannot produce enough income to pay off the interest on the debts. That makes what is left behind less attractive to the private sector and means that fewer liabilities are extinguished.

The Minister may talk about financial reconstruction, but we in the Labour party are well aware that the Government's real objective is to move further down the road towards privatisation. They are making the new towns that have been developed over many years attractive to private investors in order to line the pockets of their friends in the City.

With the leave of the House, I should like to make a statement about the establishment of the College of the Air.

In 1981 my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) announced the introduction and the formation of Open Tech. Open Tech was not a new institution but a series of programmes sponsored by the Manpower Services Commission designed to introduce new courses of technician training and to improve the accessibility of these courses by the preparation and the use of distance learning techniques. Distance learning enables people to undertake studies in particular subjects using books, other printed material, sound tape and video in their own homes or offices at their own speed and at a time of their choosing.

Since then we have invested some £45 million in Open Tech, enabling some 50,000 students to obtain new skills and qualifications. These programmes were often prepared in conjunction with private industry. Firms, such as Austin Rover, Lucas and ICI, among others, have taken part in the preparation of training programmes and helped in the accumulation of experience and knowledge in this modern method of training. Today the United Kingdom has taken a leading position in this field.

We now propose to build on these developments by assisting with the creation of an open college, the College of the Air. Our aim is to enlist the full contribution of radio and television to support and deliver open learning courses in all areas of vocational competence. The college will be able to assess needs and arrange, co-ordinate and promote courses. It will work through other organisations to ensure student enrolment, tutor support, work assessment and testing according to the individual requirements of the students.

We plan that the college should be a company limited by guarantee and registered as a charity. The college will be able to seek and obtain the active support and involvement of commerce and industry. It should be able to attract sponsorship consistent with the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1981 and to establish good relations with the educational interests and the broadcasting authorities.

Once established I anticipate that at the heart of the college's relationship with the broadcasters will be an agreement with the Independent Broadcasting Authority. This agreement will as a minumum provide for regular programmes on Channel 4 devoted to college purposes commissioned from a variety of sources by the channel, and for arrangements for promotion of the college. It will set out the participation of the ITV companies in the production and transmission of college programmes and arrange for the involvement of independent local radio. The BBC, too, has expressed a willingness to provide series of programmes and course materials for the college as part of the BBC's continuing education output and there will also be some wider opportunities on daytime television. I would expect the college to pursue those opportunities.

I hope shortly to be able to announce the name of the chairman of the college whose first task will be to conclude detailed plans for the formation of the college after discussions with the Manpower Services Commission, broadcasters, educationists and the many potential sponsors and guarantors who have already indicated their interest. The Government will be prepared to join with others in acting as guarantors of the College and in contributing to its cost until it is fully established. Our aim is to create a self-sustaining institution which will not have to rely indefinitely on the public purse.

I hope that the College of the Air will start broadcasting no later than September 1987. This is an ambitious project and I anticipate that its range of courses could, within the first five years, provide up to 1 million students with the opportunities to progress towards vocational and technical qualifications.

The establishment of the college, following the developments outlined in our recent White Paper, "Working Together—Education and Training" will offer further radical developments in our training and education systems. It will help with the introduction of courses for the technical and vocational education initiative and be of valuable assistance in the training of teachers in scarce skills. It will also assist in the introduction of enterprise training and give help to careers officers in the field. It will also build on the national vocational qualification to be introduced by the new national council for vocational qualifications. I commend the initiative to the House.

The idea of a College of the Air is a good one, and in principle hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome it. Unfortunately, when one looks closer at the proposals, one sees some sinister motives behind its creation.

Is the Paymaster General aware that his proposals involved the privatisation of the non-advanced sector of further education? Is it not the case that the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Paymaster General will go cap in hand to British industry, asking for sponsorship for training? That is bizarre. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the complete collapse of industrial training since the Government came to power in 1979? We need a much bolder initiative than this. Is he further aware that the level of training has decreased from 5–9 per cent. of those working in manufacturing 10 years ago to 2 per cent. now, and that only 112,000 men, women and youngsters are in training in the whole of industry?

A College of the Air based on a voluntary system will not work. How can it be a working proposition when in the past industry has refused to pay for training? Does the Paymaster General believe that industry will suddenly come forward to sponsor the College of the Air? We in the Labour party know that the only way to train our people is to make industry pay and to levy industry.

There is a further exceedingly worrying aspect. It is all very well having television programmes on various channels, but is the Paymaster General aware that the real task of vocational training is done on the ground, face to face, by qualified tutors and teachers? Are we right in thinking that all the contracts for delivery on the ground will be open to tender from any source, whether private contractors or Johnny-come-latelys into training? Is it the case that our further education colleges, their leaders and unions have not been consulted about the College of the Air? Is the Paymaster General aware that, given the widespread despondency in the education and training world, if there has not been consultation on the document and if the Government are to create a private sector of non-advanced further education, it will be resisted throughout the teaching and training profession?

The idea of a College of the Air is a good one. Unfortunately, it will be based on private sponsorship and on the privatisation of the non-advanced further education sector. If that is the case, as we believe it to be, it will not be a success. The spectacle of the Paymaster General trying to sell this as a bold new initiative does no credit to the Government or to the House.

Obviously I am glad that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) began by saying that the idea was good and that he welcomed it in principle. I found most of the rest of his comments a most curiously political reaction, and his desperate attempt to find sinister motives behind the idea particularly curious. There is no question of this being part of any privatisation programme. The college will enter into arrangements with existing colleges of advanced and non-advanced further education and with private training agencies and training organisations set up by companies for their work forces to provide contact with students and to enable them to have access to new material. The College of the Air will have a small central unit and will enter into arrangements with all these groups, including the colleges, for the use of the material by the students.

The hon. Gentleman objects to sponsorship. The companies which have so far expressed support in principle and interest in becoming involved include the Mirror Group, ICI, Prudential Assurance, Lucas, the Burton Group, Unilever and the Bank of England. The motives of these companies are not sinister. They are showing their concern about training, and their support for an idea which will have a substantial impact in opening opportunities to people presently in employment and to the unemployed to add to their skills and improve their position in the labour market.

That should have had an unqualified welcome from the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry that, having accepted that there is a need for such a scheme and that it is a good idea, he went on to produce such extremely tortuous at tempts to find something to object to.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, as a strong supporter of distance learning in principle, I welcome the proposal, but it is difficult enough to get industry and business to invest in and support universities and polytechnics? This will clearly be an extremely expensive project. Will he hear in mind that, if it is carrried out at the expense of other institutions of higher education, I shall have to look at it very carefully?

I note my hon. Friend's comments, and I appreciate that he has a strong interest and involvement in higher and further education. I assure him that the cost will not be as heavy as he expects. We are looking for guarantors for the company to support the central unit. We must ensure that the scheme does not lead to competition for funds among instituions of education. The amount of sponsorship and support that we want will be forthcoming without causing damage to other institutions. Among the main users of the College of the Air will be companies which wish to train their work forces. It will become part of their ordinary industrial costs.

On behalf of the Liberal party, I warmly welcome the idea and regret the somewhat mean spirit in which it was received by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) on behalf of the Labour party. However, there are those in education and broadcasting who have already expressed their concern on professional grounds about some of the strategic proposals. I hope that the Paymaster General will note the constructive suggestions from the professionals.

On funding, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the best solution to such projects is a partnership of funding between public and private bodies? Will he encourage the public education authorities and other education bodies to play a proper part, through their own funding, in the College of the Air?

On a personal note, as one who missed out completely on further and higher education at the age of 16 and who had the benefit of second-chance education later, I welcome any chance to broaden the opportunities and widen the horizons of British people. I hope that the idea works and I wish it every success.

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for the idea and for the fact that he offered himself as an example of what can be achieved if people take advantage of such opportunities. In the discussions which have taken place so far, we have been very much involved with educationists, and we shall continue those discussions. Plainly, it is essential to have the support of those interested in education and training and to have the co-operation and support of professional bodies. Those who are engaged professionally in the colleges and in training organisations will enter into arrangements with the College of the Air to enable students to have access to the programme.

What role will the Open University play in this scheme? I refer especially to the spare capacity in its modern television and radio studios and to the expertise that it has in distance learning.

I realise that the Open University has been extremely successful in developing its programmes and that it has some spare capacity. We are discussing with the broadcasting authorities access to the main television channels, promotional activity during the day, and the potential for broadcasting training videos. There is not necessarily a conflict or competition with the Open University. If we can build on the experience of the Open University where it is relevant to the project, we shall be glad to do so.

What will be achieved by the new college that cannot be achieved by existing educational institutions such as the universities, the Open University and the polytechnics, given adequate resources? In view of the Government's mean and shortsighted handling of the universities, does it not augur ill for any new proposition? How much additional new public money will be involved as a direct consequence of the proposal?

The hon. Gentleman does not fully appreciate the difference between distance learning, to use the jargon, and the traditional position of students in colleges and universities that he described. Distance learning, which involves the use of material made available through video tapes, audio tapes, books and other material by students such as we describe, enables people to improve their training while they are at work. They can learn during working hours if the firm enters into the right arrangements. It enables people to acquire more training and education without having to enrol as full-time students at polytechnics, universities or colleges of education. Many people can learn only in that way. It is impossible for them to take one or two years out of their lives to become full-time students.

The proposal is not in any way a challenge to the education institutions or to the professions. It is an addition and a new facility which will support the growth of distance learning and give more opportunities to more people.

As one whio has an honours degree in the university of life, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that I am delighted to welcome the College of the Air? Will he take on board the warm welcome expressed by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft)? Those who missed out on higher education will have an opportunity to expand their skills and learning through the scheme. Does he agree that there will be no difficulty in finding sponsorship as companies will flock to the idea? It is very much to their advantage to support the scheme. I warmly congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the scheme.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. No doubt he has a first-class degree in the university of life, which he demonstrates in his lifestyle. He also acknowledges that sometimes more tangible qualifications are required in many walks of life. The scheme will provide an opportunity for many people to acquire skills.

Can the Minister explain what the sponsors will get out of this? Since big business will be involved in one form or another, and since it is involved in making profit at the expense of everyone else, what will it get out of the scheme? Will Imperial tobacco plc be a sponsor? Will any of the companies that are heavily involved in South Africa take part in sponsorship? Can he give me a guarantee that the College of the Air will not be the 18th occasion on which the Government have fiddled the dole figures?

Big and small companies are interested in improving their competitiveness and performance and, therefore, guaranteeing their continued existence and giving added security to their work forces. What a company will get out of this scheme is the ability to give extra training to its work force, to raise the level of skill and, therefore, improve competitiveness and the job security of the workers. Big companies have expressed a general interest in the scheme and have supported it in principle. Small companies will receive assistance, if necessary, through the Manpower Services Commission's training programmes to participate in the scheme. The effect can only be beneficial, both for industry and for employment.

I shall treat the hon. Gentleman's comment about tobacco companies as a serious one and tell him that they will be governed by the usual rules that apply to sponsorship and advertising by those companies, particularly in broadcast material. Therefore, the ability of tobacco companies to participate in sponsorship would be limited. Cigarette manufacturers would be barred from being involved in broadcast material. There would be no such sponsorship on the air; that has been banned for many years.

The hon. Gentleman's persistence in trying to find a connection with other political issues, such as South Africa and the calculation of the unemployment figures, is about as pathetic as the attempts of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) to link my statement with the usual political debate. The new college will be beneficial for companies and their employees and for the unemployed. It ought to be welcomed.

rose—

Order. I have to bear in mind the fact that Friday provides a greater opportunity for Back Benchers to take part in debates. I will allow questions on the statement to go on for another 10 minutes and I hope that in that time everyone who wishes to be called will be called.

May I press the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the open learning courses? Would one such course be a study in depth of Select Committee recommendations in relation to the behaviour of most senior civil servants who are as close to the Prime Minister as Haldeman and Ehrlichman were to Richard Nixon? The description is "improper".

As one who frequently has to study Select Committee reports as part of his job, I am sure that I am being educated and trained every time that I turn to one from the Select Committee on Employment or elsewhere, just as I am always educated by the hon. Gentleman's ability to make his point in the most ingenious way on what are otherwise irrelevant matters.

I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend extremely warmly on this timely, important and imaginative initiative. May I point out, as I have sought to do in the House on previous occasions, that the value of a service of this kind is enormously enhanced if it is not confined to an English language service? We should aim to produce a world service, on the model of the English language services of the BBC.

There would be a new source of funds to finance the project if we worked with the European Community to make the project part of our contribution to the Lomé convention.

As we must have further discussions with the broadcasting authorities, I shall bear in mind the points made by my hon. Friend. Certainly the Open University and the Open Tech have gained substantial export earnings and found substantial interest abroad in the learning material that they produce.

Will the Minister tell us what significant feature is found in the new scheme, other than commercial sponsorship, that is not actually or potentially within the present structure, including the Open University and the public system of education?

Secondly, what proportion of public and private sponsorship money does the Minister expect to find for the scheme? Thirdly, when people have done their distance learning, who will provide the money for centres where machinery, plant and experienced skilled persons will top it up?

The Open University is providing extremely good quality academic education. The Open Tech is a procurer of programmes, largely aimed at training technicians—quite a narrow field — and also achieving good quality programmes. The College of the Air will be much broader and is aimed at a wide range of education or training for skills. It will aim to provide a much wider range of qualifications and steps towards qualifications in each course. It will fill a gap and invite collaboration with a much wider range of organisations than is the case with existing institutions.

It is not intended that the College of the Air will be sustained by public funds except in the early stages, because there is no doubt that it will be of such value to industry that it will have no difficulty in attracting sponsorship. Obviously there is a political divide between us. I cannot understand why the Labour party is instinctively hostile to a scheme the moment it discovers that it is not dependent on the taxpayer for its financing.

I join in the general welcome that my right hon. and learned Friend's statement deserves and I hope that the College of the Air will succeed, but I draw attention to the fact that the statement raises again the question whether we need a Department of education and training. After all, the very name of the new institution suggests that the Department of Education and Science should be closely interested in it. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) illustrates the great need for co-ordination.

We are promoting an exciting new enterprise in education and training, and some public funds will be necessary, but under the existing policy we are depriving Birkbeck college of London university of funds. Birkbeck does a useful job in a related field to that about which my right hon. and learned Friend has been speaking. May we have some co-ordination to ensure that Birkbeck has a part to play in the new institution?

Questions about the structure of Government ought to he addressed to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but I am sure that she would agree with me and my hon. Friend that concentrating on the structure of Government and the shape of Government Departments is less important than concentrating on what they do. I assure my hon. Friend that there are close relationships between myself and my rght hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Employment and that we work closely in all these areas. I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments about Birkbeck college to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

We were saddened to hear about the academic shortcomings of the Eton education enjoyed by the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), but we recognise that in his case perhaps Eton is not entirely to blame.

May I return to the important matter of funding? We do not want any fudging. May we have a simple answer? What proportion of the funding of the new service will be provided by the Government? Is it true that the proportion will probably be less than 5 per cent.?

Knowing my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) as I do, I can vouch for the fact that his mind is as formidable as his physique.

The Government will be one of the guarantors of the company when it is set up. We expect that the college will require pump-priming funding, which will be derived from the budget of the Manpower Services Commission, but we expect that the college will be self-financing. If we can start with as little as 5 per cent. public funding, I shall regard that as a virtue. We cannot be specific at this stage, because one of the first tasks of the chairman and the college will be to work out proposals in more detail, to get the costs specified, and to begin to attract sponsorship. We shall put in the public money required to get it under way. It is intended that it will become wholly self-financing within a short period.

I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the initiative. Does he agree that the concern expressed by industry about the need for employees to be trained for vocational jobs will be met by the initiative, because employers will be able to say to the College of the Air, "These are the sort of training programmes that we want and these are the skills and employees that we want you to produce"?

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is essential that training is geared closely to the needs of employers and what is required in employment. It is a positive advantage of the scheme that it will attract private sponsorship, because that will enable it to meet that essential requirement.

I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement. Many will be surprised at the carping tone of the Opposition, coming as it does from the party of Lord Wilson of Rievaulx who created the Open University; although one recalls that it was my right hon. Friend the leader of the Conservative party who, as Secretary of State for Education and Science, gave new life to it. My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of my interest in the TVEI scheme, especially as it was pioneered in Gainsborough, as well as my interest in vocational training. How does he expect schools to benefit from the new scheme and how will the scheme be sponsored by industry as regards the perhaps 40 per cent. of children who do not receive an adequate technical training under the present comprehensive system?

I agree with my hon. Friend's first comment, despite the barracking from Labour Members insisting that they provided the cash. The Opposition apparently welcome our proposal as a good idea in principle but insist that the taxpayer must pay for it despite the willingness of many large firms to sponsor it a most curious reaction.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's continued support for TVEI which, to some extent, was pioneered in Lincolnshire. The College of the Air will encourage the production of programmes which could be used directly by post-16-year-old students in schools involved in TVEI. The material that we have in mind is aimed at anyone in education from 16-plus and schools may well participate in the arrangements.

rose—

Order. As we are approaching the summer holiday, I will call the three hon. Members who have been seeking to catch my eye, but I ask them to be brief.

When the scheme achieves the success that it deserves, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider re-examining the basis on which some existing facilities such as the Open University are funded and moving them in the directon of this scheme rather than vice versa?

I note my hon. Friend's comments. The Open University has already taken great steps to market its material and to raise a considerable proportion of its own resources to supplement the public funding and the other universities are also making great efforts to involve industry much more and to have access to the type of funding that American universities have enjoyed for years. I entirely share my hon. Friend's approach to this.

What an excellent idea that is! As my right hon. and learned Friend will no doubt be looking for somewhere to locate the headquarters of this exciting scheme — somewhere central, growing, expanding, positive and energetic, with above average intelligence and possibly quite close to Milton Keynes — will he consider placing it in Northampton?

My hon. Friend is right in saying that one of the first things to be discussed when the chairman is appointed will be the location of the central unit to start the college's work. I shall certainly note that my hon. Friend has made the first bid for the location of the unit in suggesting his own constituency.

I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on this superb initiative. With regard to the carping remarks of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and other Opposition Members, does he agree that Oxford, Cambridge and many of our other universities were endowed by the people who had the money at that time—great merchants and others—and that without that kind of sponsorship there would be no universities of the sort now being created through my right hon. and learned Friend's brilliant initiative?

I entirely agree. Had we announced that the scheme would be wholly financed from public funds, when Labour Members discovered the huge commercial advantage to companies in the upgrading of the skills of their work force the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and other Labour Members would doubtless have criticised the extent to which we were subsidising capitalism out of taxpayers' money. I think that they have merely latched on to the argument mentioned by my hon. Friend today for lack of any other argument to latch on to.

Is the Minister aware that the Opposition greet his announcement with some suspicion because it comes after seven years of dismantling education and training in this country? Like UK2000, it is yet again something that will cost the Government very little. A scheme with a large element of privatisation which will not be financed by the Government will look to most people like another example of the gimmick a day that the Government hope will keep the electorate at bay. Scheme after scheme is being announced by the Government because they know that they are deeply unpopular in all these spheres, and the election is coming.

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that his suspicions are groundless and I trust that they will be allayed as the details are worked out. I advise him to stick to his original comment that the scheme is a good idea which he welcomes in principle.

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts and measure:

1. Incest and Related Offences (Scotland) Act 1986

2. Latent Damage Act 1986

3. Outer Space Act 1986

4. Patents, Designs and Marks Act 1986

5. Education Act 1986

6. Patronage (Benefices) Measure 1986

rose—

I call Mr. Christopher Murphy.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Four towns are mentioned in the order. Apart from my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley), I am the only Member present representing one of those towns. Why have I been banished to outer darkness?

That is most unlike the hon. Gentleman. It is only 11.30 and he has certainly not been banished. Indeed, if he remains in the Chamber he may well catch the eye of the Chair, but I now call Mr. Christopher Murphy.

The order marks another signpost on the route towards the fulfilment of the Government's welcome commitment to bring about a successful conclusion to the new towns programme. The Department's policy has rightly concentrated on the maximum possible involvement of the private sector and a disengagement which leaves self-sufficient communities able to generate their own growth without special assistance from the public sector. The new towns specifically mentioned in the order are taken further towards the achievement of those goals, but the measure arouses concern in terms of both the present and the future situation. The word "accountability" perhaps sums up that concern.

This extinguishment of liabilities gives no indication of how public money has been spent by the quango development corporations and whether it has been spent wisely. In due course, presumably, the new towns will find themselves under yet another quango authority, as the two that I represent in mid-Hertfordshire have found themselves, the corporations being transmuted into one New Towns Commission with a modus operandi that is equally hard to scrutinise.

The extinguishment of liabilities — this time to the taxpayer — will be taken on by the New Towns Commission in terms of realising the assets of the towns in its care. The success or otherwise of that operation is highly relevant to today's debate. Questions of wisdom again might well be raised, as current actions show marked contrasts; for example, Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield had only £6·5 million and £2 million of their assets sold in the last 12 months, compared with £20 million for Hemel Hempstead, a town of similar size in the same county.

With the passing of this order, the need for legislation enabling the New Towns Commission and the development corporations to be the subject of inquiries by the ombudsman becomes the more acute. At present, constituents experiencing difficulties related to the management or purchase of remaining assets are denied recourse to the ombudsman. The Government's intentions in this regard are welcome, but the necessary legislation would be even more welcome

It is to be hoped that the order, despite the problems of accountability that it raises, will assist in bringing the remaining new towns closer to the normality of being simply towns, as the winding up of the New Town Commission legislation correctly envisages. The Government can then concentrate their efforts on inner city regeneration rather then greenfield development, with the success of the London Docklands Development Corporation as the new waymark.

I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley), with one interruption from the Conservative Benches, because the figures that are involved in his new town are almost precisely the same as in mine.

I shall endeavour to put to the House a rather different appreciation of how we see matters in Milton Keynes. However, I sincerely welcome the order. It is long overdue. We were forced to borrow long when we should have been borrowing short, and the order puts us back on the right financial footing. I hope to be able to show that the Government have achieved fantastic value for their investment.

I was adopted as a candidate for the then constituency of Buckingham in 1967, the year that Milton Keynes was designated. It started building in earnest in 1973, some 13 years ago. In those days, we were a music hall joke. We were the place to which one sent one's mother-in-law, and that attitude gathered weight when we had our concrete cows.

Now, 13 years later, we have 128,000—not 122,000—inhabitants, 60,000 new jobs and a first-class infrastructure which is the envy of many other part of the country — a very good communications service with a new railway station, new roads, and all the rest of the infrastructure that is needed for a modern city. We have a flourishing commercial and retail centre, and recreational and cultural activities to go with it. We also have an energy park, which is just about to open its first development.

We have been innovative in housing design and tenure. There is more shared ownership in Milton Keynes than anywhere else in the country. We have 3,000 houses in shared ownership. In short, it is the most successful, the fastest growing community in the United Kingdom.

How has that been achieved with the money that we are now proposing to write off in the order? First and foremost, it has been achieved by a development corporation, well backed by local authorities which have put the needs of industry and commerce above everything else. As a result, over £1 billion of private investment has been attracted since Milton Keynes started. That has resulted in the success of this city. Without the jobs and the wealth creation that goes with them, that sort of growth would have been impossible.

The important thing, however, is the gearing between public expenditure on the one hand, which is what we are talking about with this order, and private investment. In Milton Keynes it is 1:4.

Does my hon. Friend recall the occasion when he kindly accompanied me on a visit to Milton Keynes? Has he not omitted one remarkable feature of Milton Keynes? Will he tell the House of the nearly 1,250,000 trees and shrubs that have been planted?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that additional investment. That is all part of the same picture. It makes the place more attractive. It makes firms want to go there, and it creates the sort of environment in which people want to live.

And birds.

Indeed.

People sometimes complain to me that some of the investment that has been made has resulted in too few directly employed people, but they fail to realise the enormous spin-off in the service industries that comes from these investments. That is often forgotten.

The process which culminates in this order has coloured my view of the role of the state in a modern capitalist society. I see that as a pump-priming and innovative role, where the state starts things moving and then gets out. I was one of those who attended the meeting referred to by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) of representatives of local authorities in whose areas new towns are situated. I was horrified that they seemed to be interested only in retaining assets in their own control and ownership. That is not the way forward for the future.

What we have managed to do in Milton Keynes and other new towns is an example that must be followed elsewhere.

My hon. Friend says that that example must be followed elsewhere, but, I recall that when I was a member of the Greater London council we were in the process of reversing our policy of encouraging London overspill and the movement of industry out of London to the new towns on the ground that it was denuding central London of resources which London needed to survive. Therefore, does my hon. Friend, with his great experience of these matters, feel that the process should be continued?

I have obviously not explained myself well enough. I was going on to say that the example of Milton Keynes should be followed in urban centres. It has already been followed by the urban development corporation— very successfully in the docklands and fairly successfully in Merseyside, although, obviously, the difficulties there are far greater. That example needs to be followed far more widely than by just the urban development corporations.

This sort of operation should cover the depressed urban areas of England. I suppose that what I am really asking for is an English Development Board, on the lines of the Scottish and Welsh equivalents. The order shows the way forward. I am suggesting an organisation with a finite life of, say, 20 years, with the planning powers that exist at present in urban development corporations and new town corporations and—this is essential in urban areas—it should be the only source of housing finance in those areas. Therefore, it should be able to override, if necessary, the programmes of local authorities.

How should that be funded? It should be funded initially, as were these four new towns, by the Government — the taxpayer. That is an essential characteristic. I noticed from the speech of the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) that the Opposition have missed the point that the Government provide all the finance for the new towns. Therefore, they are the sole shareholder in a substantial property investment.

I am suggesting that the Government should be the shareholder in this new development agency and should also take over the assets of the new towns commission and be the repository of assets on the winding-up of new towns, so that there is a roll-over of finance. That is what I have always wanted for Britain's housing regeneration. I want an organisation which will roll over funds and will not go anywhere near the Treasury. The proceeds of what is sold should not go to the Treasury, but should be rolled over into further development in these depressed urban areas and improve them.

Local authorities are not fitted to undertake that task, and most of them admit it. Over the past year or so we have been faced with the difficulty of the winding up date for the Milton Keynes corporation. We have now been given a date of 1992. I make no secret of the fact that I should have preferred it to be later, and a future Government when it comes to consider the matter again in the 1990s will probably have to decide to go on a bit longer.

The point is that from every political party, local authority, business, trade union, and so on, the message to the Government was the same—"Look, this is a good thing. This is not something that the local authorities can take on. They do not want to do it, they do not have the resources and they want the development corporation to continue."

We are talking about a commercial operation. That is the key to the success of the new towns. It requires special skills. Most new towns are nearing completion and have a great reserve of staff with the necessary expertise. We should draw on that expertise and add to it from industry and the property world. It is a most exciting prospect. We should draw on experience in the United States of America, where enormous strides in urban renovation have been taken. The United States has been particularly successful in dealing with the problems in ethnic minority communities.

If such investment could be coupled with a new look at housing finance on the lines of the report by the Duke of Edinburgh's committee which inquired into British housing, we would be on the verge of a major breakthrough in the inner cities. The regeneration of our inner cities is by far the greatest challenge that faces the country. We should meet that challenge with all the vigour and expertise at our command.

It is a sign of the enormous importance of this debate that the Minister responsible for sport is seated on the Treasury Bench and not watching a game of cricket. It is a matter of never-ending debate whether my hon. Friend the Minister is better seated on the Treasury Bench or employed encouraging our sportsmen. There is little doubt that our sportsmen are in need of encouragement. At a time of the one-day test matches against New Zealand — which has not yet withdrawn from the Commonwealth games—I wish to pay a particular tribute to the Minister responsible for sport, even though I do not wish to judge whether he might be better employed giving instruction to the English cricket team.

You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have had the good fortune, as I have, to listen to the whole debate. It is a matter of misfortune for Mr. speaker that he did not have the opportuniy to listen to my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for sport. However, mercifully, due to the Official Report, Mr. Speaker will be able to read, study and even commit to memory the Minister's introductory speech.

I must remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, even though you were in the Chair at the time, that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) criticised my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley). That is within the recollection of all hon. Members. It was suggested that my hon. Friend was trying to prolong the debate. But what do I find? I find that my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for sport, tearing himself away from the test match, addressed the House for 19 minutes. I find that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrekin, even though he gave way with his customary courtesy to those of his hon. Friends who sought to intervene — however relevant or irrelevant those interventions were — spoke for 31 minutes. For how long did the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington delay the House? He detained the House for 34 minutes.

Order. We are all thankful for small mercies, but we really must get on to the order.

Since it was in order for the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington to comment on the length of the speeches by two of my hon. Friends, it is surely in order for me, so that Mr. Speaker can read my response in the Official Report, to say that the official Opposition spokesman addressed the House for three minutes longer than my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin.

Does my hon. Friend recall that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) was unable to give way to interventions? Does my hon. Friend agree that, if any of my hon. Friends catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye, we may have to make our remarks more elaborate to provide the answers which the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington did not give us.

I agree. Although the official Opposition spokesman addressed the House for 15 minutes longer than the Minister, he said in that lengthy speech a great deal less than my hon. Friend.

In the second part of my preamble I want to address myself to an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin. He referred to the chairman of the Telford development corporation who appropriately, is known not only as the noble Lord Lord Northfield but as the noble Lord Lord Northfield of Telford. I am sure that my hon. Friend did not wish to give the wrong impression. I am sure that he did not wish to give the impression that he had anything other than total confidence in the noble Lord who is the chairman of the development corporation. I hope that my hon. Friend can confirm that assumption.

I turn from those preliminary points to the order. All my hon. Friends will share my deep regret that no Treasury Minister is seated on the Treasury Bench. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert), who is listening attentively to the debate, is not yet a Lords Commissioner, but perhaps I am wrong.

Order. I must say that this is a very long preamble. The hon. Gentleman must discuss the order before the House.

I was asking my hon. Friend the Member for Romford, from whom we do not hear sufficiently frequently—

I feel that it is my duty to confirm that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) is, indeed, a Lords Commissioner.

I apologise. I asked the question because I was not certain. We do not ask questions to which we know the answers. I am, of course, pleased that a Lords Commissioner is sitting on the Treasury Bench. He is not alone because, mercifully, sitting beside him is the Treasurer to Her Majesty's Household, my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Cope).

While the hon. Gentleman is on about Treasurers, what about the International Monetary Fund and Mr. Witteveen, about whom the hon. Gentleman used to talk in the early 1970s? Where has he gone?

I shall certainly not disappoint the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who I understand has one of the Adjournment debates, because I shall be coming to Mr. Witteveen. The hon. Gentleman will recall the famour letter of 15 December 1976 when the present Shadow Foreign Secretary—

Order. I say seriously to the hon. Gentleman that I do not want to have to ask him to resume his seat. He must come to the matter that is before the House. The discussion so far has been wide of the order which is before the House.

It was not I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who referred to Dr. Johannes Witteveen. It was the hon. Member for Linlithgow who was addressing the House on that subject.

I wish to comment upon the order, which was presented by the Minister with responsibility for sport. He commended the order to the House. In my opinion, there should have been present on the Government Front Bench a Treasury Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford, though a Lords Commissioner, was not upon the Treasury Bench when my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport was moving the order.

Would my right hon. Friend—

I am not a right hon. Member.

That was an accident, and an unfortunate one. I am sorry that I was wrong in the first place. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that it is entirely appropriate that our hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport should be present? One of the great shames of the new towns has been experienced recently in my constituency, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will have a great deal of sympathy with it. Land formerly owned by the Commission for the New Towns that was used to provide playing fields has been sold for development, thereby taking away land on which competitive games could be played. The use of the land for that purpose has ended and instead it will be used for the provision of supermarkets. Surely it is not inappropriate that my hon. Friend the Minister is here to take account of the punishment that we shall have to give him later on for that.

I have already paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport. I was trying to pay him an eloquent tribute, and it was certainly intended to be so. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) — his constituency used to be Horsham and Crawley—has made quite an important point because within some of the development corporation areas we have both playing fields and houses. It is interesting that my hon. Friend the Minister—we hope that he will have responsibility for sport for many, many years to come—is a member of the ministerial team of the Department of the Environment, which has responsibility for some aspects of housing, which you may think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am qualified to judge.

Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) was making an extremely interesting intervention with regard to my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport. He talked about competitive spirit. Local Labour parties are in a controlling position in some of the new towns and I fear that they may soon be adopting the position of the Labour group on ILEA. I do not know whether my hon. Friend read the interesting letter that appeared in The Times from a master at the Oratory school. Apparently that school, which once excelled at cricket—

Order. If the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) pursues that line, he will be entirely out of order.

I shall not be led astray, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by any of my hon. Friends. I wish now—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I regret having to raise another point of order. This debate involves a considerable sum of public money. It is being spent on new towns. Much of it has been spent on the establishment of schools at taxpayers' expense, at the people's expense. How these schools are operated within new towns is surely germane to the expenditure of this public money. I should be grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you would reconsider your ruling in response to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh).

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not challenging the judgment of the Chair.

I was confirming to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am sure to your significant relief, that I shall not be led astray by any of my hon. Friends.

I wish to direct your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to page 19 of the order, the order having been moved by my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport. The notes to the order do not form part of the order. I want to make that clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon). I am referring to an explanatory note, and I think that the learned Clerk will confirm that we are able to refer to the explanatory note in the debate. This matter was not mentioned even in the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes. Apparently, he could not make time enough to refer to it and so I want to put right his omission. I do not want to criticise my hon. Friend's speech, but I think that he is guilty of an omission.

We are invited in the order, with the presence of only my hon. Friend the Member for Romford, a Lords Commissioner, and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport, to agree to "extinguish"—you may think that that is an interesting word, Mr. Deputy Speaker—£1,687,686,405·98. Some of my hon. Friends who are chartered accountants may wonder how 98p found its way into a sum that is close to the limit that was laid down in the New Towns and Urban Development Corporations Act 1985.

It so happens that in an earlier incarnation I was responsible for putting what was then the Bill upon the statute book. We note the serried ranks of the Liberal party, which has taken such a keen interest in our affairs. We find that in the order we are almost up to the limit which is laid down in the Act. It is that which is causing such deep concern to my hon. Friends. It is something that 1 expected would excite the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes. I want to refer to my hon. Friends—I cannot refer the Opposition Front Bench to this because it is empty—and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley, who I see is leaving his place —I hope that he is not going too far, but if he leaves the Chamber perhaps he will find out what the cricket score is in the test match and come back to tell my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport, who may be interested—to section 8(2), which refers to the

"aggregate amount of liabilities extinguished by order under this section shall not exceed £1,750 million."

But what do we find? We find that in the first order to be made under the Act, which reached the statute book only last year, on 11 March—it is now 18 July, so barely a year has passed — the Minister with responsibility for sport, not the the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury or even my hon. Friend the Minster of State, Treasury, has invited the House to write off nearly the full amount that is set out in the order. It is my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport who has done that. I mean no discourtesy to my hon. Friend—how can I?—when I say that we need not only my hon. Friend the Member for Romford, the Lords Commissioner, who was not present at the start of the debate, but my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen).

The Vice-Chamberlain.

My hon. Friend is right. He is clearly well informed on these matters.

I can confirm that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome is the Vice-Chamberlain to Her Majesty's Household, and that he does not have specific responsibilities for Treasury matters, however. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) has entered the Chamber. He told me that he had a particular interest in new town development corporations, but it is not only that interest which is so pertinent to these proceedings. I see also that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder) is in his place. My hon. Friend used to be the PPS to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He has referred to my interest in new towns. It so happens that the constituency of Epping Forest abuts upon Harlow, the centre of a new town of great beauty. I wish I could say that all of the inhabitants live up to the beauty of that environment. There is a serious matter between Epping Forest and Harlow, and the House may be aware that Harlow is endeavouring to extend its boundaries and to build houses in the green belt.

Order. The issue that is between Harlow and the constituency of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) is nothing to do with the order. The extension of boundaries is not mentioned in the order.

I do not want to be led astray by any of my hon. Friends, however eminent they may be. It is difficult to think of a Member of greater eminence than my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest, with the possible exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes.

rose—

I shall not give way, even to my hon. Friend. I shall do so later. I want to make progress. We do not wish the debate to be protracted because the Minister wants to watch the test match. He is not the only one. I would much rather be watching it than making a speech.

It is only just over a year since the New Towns and Urban Development Corporations Act 1985—perhaps I can call it the parent Act — reached the statute book. Yet the Minister with responsibility for sport has used up almost all the authority contained in the parent Act. We are allowed to extinguish only £1,750 million worth of debt. I was surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes did not address that issue. We have almost exhausted the total authority conferred in the parent Act.

rose—

I wish to make progress. I mean no discourtesy to my hon. Friend.

I invite my hon. Friends to study the order. I have been a Member only for a short time — possibly an even shorter time than my hon. Friend the Minister. I find it impossible to relate the many figures in the order to specific items. The figures must relate to specific items, otherwise they would not be listed separately. If they do not relate to individual items, why not keep them all together and total them up?

My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley has an acute financial brain. I have just seen him studying the order with great care. He has studied with particular care the advances made to the Warrington and Runcorn development corporation. I refer my hon. Friend to page 18 of the order. I shall try to take my hon. Friends through it I invite them to turn to page 18 of the order for my seminar. You might like to join in, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The penultimate line relates to No. WA397. Can my hon. Friend see the figure of £1 million?

Yes, I can see that.

I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) can see it. the figure in the next column is £999,899·38. I ask the Minister what has happened to the £100·62. Am I right in saying that the difference between the two figures is £100·62? If I have got that wrong, I shall give way to any of my hon. Friends who wishes to put me right.

I refer to the debate on 20 November 1984. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), the then Minister for Housing and Construction, moved the Second Reading of the Bill. He referred to clause 8 — it is now section 8 — under which the powers are obtained. He said that the clause gave power to his right hon. Friend, his then senior Minister,

"to suspend sufficient of their debt to enable them to break even."—(Official Report, 20 November 1984; Vol.68, col. 166.]

I fail to understand how he, as the person who created the Bill, can say that there are discrepancies on the figures.

I think that the surname of my hon. Friend shows why he is able so readily to comment on the two figures. I am responsible for the debate only in the sense that I was in charge of the Bill before it was enacted. I cannot assume the responsibility, which rests on the broad shoulders of the Minister with responsibility with sport, for the order. I am happy to take criticisms from any of my hon. Friends. I shall plead guilty to almost every charge levelled at me, but I shall not plead guilty to drawing up the order because I did not do so.

rose—

I shall not give way. I wish to make progress. I ask the Minister what happened to that £100·62? That is the difference between the amount of the advance and the principal outstanding on 31 August 1986. The Minister is not saying that that is the amount outstanding on 18 July. He is saying something quite different. He is saying that on 31 August the amount outstanding will be £999,899·38. I find it difficult to see how the amount under WA397 could have been £1 million precisely when the advance was made. By 31 August all the test matches will have been completed and the Minister will be able to direct more of his time to important financial matters. How does he hit on that figure? I have studied the matter with the same keen interest as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder). I refer the Minister to page 7 of the order. I shall take my hon. Friends through it again. Is my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley with me?

Yes, all the way.

No. T57—

It is a frigate.

It is not a frigate. My hon. Friend is the vice-chairman of the Conservative defence committee. We are discussing new towns, not frigates. It is quite difficult to distinguish between the two. The numbers chosen by my hon. Friend may have been chosen to confuse my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest. That is why we are happy to have the chance to explain the matters. No. T57 shows a figure of £70,000. The next column shows that the principal outstanding on 31 August 1986 is £69,423·15. I ask the Minister what has happened to the £576·85. I am doing the figures in my head. Is that the difference?

It is £476.

I think that I was right. The figure is £576·85. I pose a question to the Minster with responsibility for sport not a Treasury Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes—

rose—

I am trying to make progress.

What has happened to that £576·85? On which date was it repaid? What rate of interest was charged between the date when the advance was made and when it was repaid? What happened to the public sector borrowing requirement between those dates? Those are all questions to which the House will require answers from my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport.

Before my hon. Friend leaves this important matter and seeks the answers which the House must have, will he look at T8 and the advance of £13,886·21 and the principal outstanding of £12,887·77? What has happened to that £999? Will the House be given an answer to that?

That will be a matter of great hope for all of my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley may catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have no doubt that, if my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport, who is one of the most courteous, well-informed and diligent of Ministers, cannot deal with all the points raised, he will write to each of my hon. Friends whose questions remain unanswered.

I wish to move from the relevant point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley. One is often tempted to refer to his constituency as Horsham and Crawley, but that temptation must be resisted, as others should be. I shall now consider the principle of this matter. The speech by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State — which you were lucky enough to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker—did not show that he had discharged the duty which each of us has to our constituents when we are discussing public funds. The words "public funds" should never be used in the House because we are not talking about public money. We are talking about other people's money of which we are trustees. Each of us had a duty, which was not discharged by my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport, to ensure that we take much greater care of other people's money than of our own.

The motion was not moved in a manner that led me to believe that my hon. Friend the Minister is totally committed at all times in all circumstances to taking greater care of other people's money than of our own. The order asks us to write off a debt by development corporations to the Treasury. It is not really a debt to the Treasury; it is a debt owed to the British people. Hon. Members are invited not by a Treasury Minister but by a sports Minister to write off the debt owed to the British people.

Perhaps, to my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport, a sum of just under £1·75 billion is not significant, but it is a large sum to his hon. Friends. The "extinguishment", to use the words of the order, of a sum of that magnitude required a speech by a Minister other than the Minister with responsibility for sport. I mean no discourtesy to my hon. Friend. It is just a question whether the House has its priorities right and whether it should insist that, in considering so large a sum, a Treasury Minister who can explain these grave matters should be present.

My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes who is on earlier incomation represented Buckingham, made on excellent and important speech. No hon. Member is better informed about new towns than my hon. Friend. From the gestation of planning to growth of his town, my hon. Friend has watched one of the most remarkable success stories of this century. When 1 was responsible for these maters, I had the privilege of being taken by my hon.

Friend around his new town. I endorse everything that he has said. I believe that my hon. Friend is a member of the Centre Forward group.—Is that what it is called?

That is correct.

I think that my hon. Friend is a member—do not know whether you are a member, Mr. Deputy Speaker—of what is called the Centre Forward group. It is well known that I have received no invitation to join that group, although I criticise no one for that.

The point which I am making to—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I realise that, as a distinguished Deputy Speaker, you are in some difficulty with the speech of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). We all find it sad when a distinguished former Minister has to perform in the way he has today, but that reflects what is perhaps happening to the Conservative party. The hon. Gentleman is abusing the privileges of the House. I should like you to rule whether his remarks about political grouping—revealing the splits in the Conservative party—are relevant to the order and are in order. I rise with great reluctance to raise this point of order.

Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not the intervention by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) intolerable in view of the lack of support on the Labour Benches and the fact that there is no representative of the Social Democratic party or of the Liberal party present?

I am listening carefully to the debate. I shall judge when comments are out of order.

My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes is not always regarded as occupying precisely the same place in the political spectrum as me; yet I have found myself in warm and enthusiastic agreement with every word he uttered. I pay tribute to his knowldege, deep understanding and concern on this issue. I hope that it will not be too long before my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes is sitting, not on the fourth Bench below the Gangway but on the Treasury Bench. Before long, we will be invited to vote on this order. There may not be a vote—

There will be a vote.

Well, it would not surprise me if there is a vote because the duty of protecting the public purse, the money of the people, is one of the highest duties conferred upon hon. Members. If my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley should decide to vote against this order—I will not be in the Lobby with him because, despite the reservations I have expressed, I intend to support it—I would find it perfectly in accordance with the honour and reputation for financial probity enjoyed by my hon. Friend. Therefore, I will understand if he decides to lead some of my hon. Friends into the Opposition Lobby, but I am sure that my hon. Friends would understand that I would regret it. In so far as I may have any influence with my hon. Friends, and in so far as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley may value my advice, my advice is that they should support the Government, despite the reservations I have expressed.

There can be few of us present this morning who have not been much seized by what my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) has had to say on this important matter. I am sure that all those who have listened to what he has had to say will have to reconsider their position on this matter. It is unfortunate that my hon. Friend was not allowed 10 pursue the line that he used to take with Dr. Johannes Witteveen in the early 1970s. When I was not a member of the House, I remember reading avidly in Hansard and in the newspapers about the many opportunities that my hon. Friend had to use that correspondence in the House to devastating effect and to the great encouragement of those of us outside the House. It is a shame that we did not have a chance to develop that argument. I shall not develop it, because I want to make some serious points about the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne.

The spending of public funds, of other people's money, as my hon. Friend rightly said, is like marriage. It is not something to be entered into lightly or wantonly. My hon. Friend the Minister, without meaning to do so, but because of his many responsibilities over an enormous area in the Department of the Environment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne knows well, was almost obliged to discuss this matter in a light and wanton way. We are talking about vast sums of taxpayers' money being written off under this order. There is a lack of equity in this order and I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to address himself to that.

My constituency was one of the first generation of new towns. It profited and grew enormously in the 1950s and 1960s. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne wishes to see the second generation new towns repaying their debt to the British people. My constituency, I am proud to say, is repaying its debt in a major way. In some respects, it is being asked to do too much. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minster will consider the almost rapacious attitude of the Commission for the New Towns when disposing of these properties, which it is rightly charged to do by Her Majesty's Treasury.

There is an obligation laid upon the commission by the House to discharge its duties in what is called the rationalisation of these properties. I do not quarrel with the way that it does that, because it does it very efficiently, but one of the side effects in my constituency is that the small trader—an important part of the economy, the backbone of the recreation of the enormous number of new jobs for which the Government have been responsible —is being driven from his property by the Commission for the New Towns because of the enormous values being placed on these properties in the open market. I do not quarrel with that. Dr. Witteveen would not have quarrelled with that. The fact is that Crawley is repaying its debt in a significant way.

The principles, which were laid down by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now the shadow Foreign Secretary, are being put at risk, because it was the International Monetary Fund which insisted on the Labour party pursuing a policy of relative financial rectitude. What we are concerned about is whether in the order we may be slightly slipping from the path of total financial rectitude. I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned Dr. Witteveen. I think that he is still alive, and I hope that he will have a very long life.

We in the House owe a great debt to Dr. Witteveen. Indeed, the Conservative Opposition in the late 1970s owed a particular debt to him. I have no doubt that he would have been grateful and proud of the fact that the mouthpiece of his opinion in the Chamber should have been my hon. Friend.

I return to the order. My hon. Friend is right to drag us relentlessly back to the grind of argument and the rapier thrust in the debate, which is how we are to deal with the extinguishment of these liabilities. You were not here. Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the earlier part of the debate, which has not been marred in any way by the clash of alternative views on the Conservative Benches as to the best way to handle the matter.

The order gives effect to a financial reconstruction of four new town development corporations — Milton Keynes, Peterborough, Telford and Warrington and Runcorn. I should like to say a word about Milton Keynes and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon). I represent a new town seat. It has been my privilege to learn a great deal about the new towns movement from my hon. Friend, to whom a warm and right tribute was paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne.

My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes knows a great deal about these matters and I would be guided in the debate to a great extent by the points that he makes, but there is some inequity, with which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will deal. I wonder why my constituency should be penalised in the most extraordinary way in the disposal of the assets imposed on it by the present shadow Foreign Secretary in his terrible and desperate attempts to pull this country's economy round after he had half bankrupted it. Why should my constituents be penalised to pay for Telford, Warrington and Runcorn and Peterborough?

That is an important point. My constituents will not easily understand why a town such as Milton Keynes, where I know an enormous amount of money had to be spent on the infrastructure, the development of the roads, and so on, and which is a successful town, should be able to have its liabilities discharged on an enormous scale, when many of them are paying hand over fist to try to secure commercial properties. Extraordinary sums of money are involved.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne will know the reason for that, because he is a learned and distinguished man. He knows my constituency and my part of the world. He will know that my constituency has the lowest unemployment rate in the United Kingdom. I discussed it only the other day with the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes). I grieve with him over the problems that he has compared with the benefits of full employment that 1 have in my constituency. I wish that he could have the same in his constituency.

One of the penalties of success for my constituency has been the extraordinary value that has been attached to commercial properties. I come back to the lack of equity in the order. I wonder why these millions of pounds should be written off overnight when my constituents are carrying the can for Warrington and Runcorn, Telford, Peterborough and Milton Keynes.

I come to the burden of what I have to say. We are told that the financial reconstruction proposals embodied in the order have been formulated by reference to projections of income and expenditure over the next 20 years. What expressions of confidence will My hon. Friend the Minister make to the House today about the reliability of those forecasts? What expressions of confidence were made in the House 20 years ago about the forecasts for Warrington and Runcorn, Telford and Peterborough?

Is my hon. Friend aware that responsibility for weather forecasting rests partly with the Ministry of Defence and partly with the Department of the Environment? I say that only because the Department of the Environment has responsibility for the water industry—

Order. That clearly has nothing to do with the business before the House.

I was about to make the point about forecasting because my hon. Friend—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is clearly raising matters that are irrelevant. I hope that he will not disregard my ruling again.

With the greatest respect to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker — and of course my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne will abide by your judgment—forecasting is crucial. I remind you that you were in the Chair on one occasion when I had a difficult debate with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about the forecasting of traffic on the M25 and where that had got us—

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the business before us concerns the financing and liabilities of the new towns named in the order. I hope that he will return to that matter.

It might help my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) if I inform the House that the figures forecast for Telford 20 years ago were double the current figures. The estimation was out by more than 100 per cent.

My hon. Friend, as always, shows a perspicacity and sagacity for which he is well known in the House. It is a matter of regret to many of my hon. Friends that Government forecasting is so lamentably bad.

They cannot even get the weather right.

That is true. Government forecasting is a matter of some concern.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to settle the mind of the House on this matter. I hope that he can say that his confidence reposes in the figures for financial reconstruction embodied in the order, formulated by projection of income and expenditure over the next 20 years.

We are now told that this exercise has been carried out with the co-operation of the corporations and that the results have been analysed by consultants commissioned by the Department of the Environment. I have to say, with great regret, that it was consultants commissioned by the Department of Transport who made such an awful mess of the figures for the M25. What confidence can my hon. Friend the Minister have in figures for the new towns put forward by consultants? Is he satisfied that there will not be another order in the House in 20 years' time — I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne is concerned about this—asking for another huge sum of money to write off these forecasts, especially when, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) said, previously they have been 100 per cent. wrong?

It is alleged that these measures will provide a sound financial basis for the corporations during their remaining lives. How often have we heard the expression "sound financial basis" in this House? How many industries, enterprises and businesses controlled or administered by the state or its organisations have we been told would provide a sound financial basis? We were told that about De Lorean, Rolls-Royce in the bad old days, British Shipbuilders and British Leyland. Yet who but the taxpayers living in our constituencies has had to keep shelling out money time after time?

You can afford it.

The hon. Gentleman glibly suggests that we can afford it — we cannot afford it. It was Opposition Members who recently tabled a motion to give a 52 per cent. increase in secretarial allowances—

When I said "you", I was in the second person singular. I was referring directly to the hon. Gentleman.

I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you did not hear that. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who is also my friend, might like to discuss that with me later. Indeed, I know that he is a beady-eyed steward keeping a careful watch on every penny of public money that is spent. He is responsible for the scrutiny of that money in this House. I am sure he will agree that it has been said many times in this House, and claimed by Ministers of all Governments, that certain organisations and enterprises provided a sound financial basis for the corporations during their remaining lives.

Does my hon. Friend remember that when his distinguished father was an hon. Member of this House rather than of another place there was another scheme which, I think was conceived by the Labour party and called the groundnuts scheme—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not persist in this irresponsible way in making irrelevant observations. Let us return to the order.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In my opening preamble I said that I had asked for the debate to be taken on the Floor of the House and hoped that Conservative Members would not abuse that decision. It is now absolutely clear that my request is being wholly ignored and that the debate is being reduced to an unacceptable level. Conservative Members for reasons only known to themselves—

Order. The hon. Gentleman need not persist. I have got the measure of the position. He can leave the chairing of the House this afternoon to me.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. To tell you the truth, I had rather forgotten the thread of my argument. I was in the middle of a major disquisition on the stewardship of public funds when suddenly there jumped up from the Opposition Front Bench an objector. I do not regard lightly the writing off of £1,750 billion of taxpayers' money. The hon. Gentleman rightly insisted that the matter should be debated on the Floor of the House because it is important. If he thinks that it is being treated with levity, he is wanting both in judgment and in the quality of his observations.

It was always envisaged that the corporations' revenue deficits would continue for the early years of development, but that in due course they could achieve break even and be able to redeem their borrowing. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin rightly pointed out in the case of Telford, those forecasts were more than 100 per cent. inaccurate. What confidence does my hon. Friend the Minister repose in the figures implied in the order? The House will demand a proper answer. By the time the order returns, my hon. Friend will be in the Cabinet, but I hope that whoever fills his job in 10 years' time will not have to stand at the Dispatch Box and take the same stick on this matter from, God willing, my lion. Friend the Member for Eastbourne, myself and other hon. Friends here assembled this morning.

Other hon. Members wish to participate. The new towns and the Commission for the New Towns have been a remarkable success. Nothing that we say about the financial side of the order should in any way alter the debt of gratitude that the country owes to those who with vision set up the new towns, bringing immense prosperity and a force for good into the United Kingdom. In these islands there are many towns which could greatly benefit from the Commission for the New Towns coming with overarching authority to sweep aside all the useless objections raised by reactionary, revisionist local authorities against any form of development or expansion and to build, develop and expand—with all the verve and vigour of south; and with enthusiasm and desire — a bright new Jerusalem in our inner cities. There could be no finer body to do that than the new towns movement, but it is not for the House, the steward and guardian of public funds, to allow the write-off of £1,750 billion in the flicker of an eyelid or with a snap of the fingers. The taxpayer will be done out of more than £1 billion.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me this opportunity, as a Member of Parliament for a new town, to speak in the debate. My constituency is very fortunate, and we are grateful for the benefits that were conferred upon us. However, my constituents will not be pleased if today we approve an order which means that they will have to pay heavy debts for the hard work, enterprise and drive that they have put into developing Crawley, while Warrington and Runcorn, Peterborough, Telford and Milton Keynes will have their liabilities written off. What would Dr. Johannes Witteveen have said had he been here?

It is appropriate that I should follow in the footsteps of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), because I wish to echo some of the points that he made and expand on some of his thoughts. We are all aware—especially those of us who have the honour to represent constituencies with new towns—of the enormous contribution made by the new towns since the war. I hesitate to use the term used earlier by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) when he spoke about the new town movement. There is a tendency to attribute the word "movement" to anything, certainly on the Left of politics. One might say, "If it moves, call it a movement."

The development of new towns since the war has been remarkable. They have made a remarkable contribution to the social and economic life and to the development of a new form of social existence. When my hon. Friend the Minister opened the debate, he mentioned the financial reconstruction that the order involves. That has rightly caused much anxiety among my hon. Friends as to the aim and purpose of the reconstruction and what might lie behind it.

I do not propose to go too far down that road, but I shall illustrate by reference to Redditch in Worcestershire the fact that we are somewhat uneasy about the development of new towns in the future. Some of us wish to know whether the new towns will continue indefinitely, or whether it may be more realistic —my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley was moving in this direction in his eloquent remarks— to say that the new towns have fulfilled their purpose and that it is time for a rapid end to them.

If I had the power to sustain a speech for as long as and in such depth I know that my hon. Friend can, I would have developed my argument along his lines. We must develop a hybrid between the Commission for the New Towns, the new towns corporations and the London Docklands development corporation, which has proved so outstandingly successful. These attitudes and skills—

Order. I do not think that the London Docklands development corporation comes within the framework of the order. I hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) will not respond to that suggestion.

Indeed not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, my hon. Friend has, as usual, put his finger on a key point.

Redditch represents the transition from development corporation to the role of the commission. We want to know what the Minister has in mind for the development of new towns. Although the development corporations have played a magnificent role in the past, and made a wonderful contribution, the transition to the rule of the commission may not bring the sort of development that we want, because it does not contain the commercial element which my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley implied in the remarks which I shall not repeat.

Redditch is a classic case. Like all the new towns referred to in the order, it started with the kernel of an established community. One can trace back the origins of Redditch many centuries, and the town has a worldwide reputation for its needle industry. After being set up in the 1960s, the new town moved rapidly from being a sleepy midlands town with a population of 20,000 to a centre with a population of 75,000. There was a remarkable development of housing, landscaping and infrastructure and the new town is a fine example of the genre.

Is it still in debt?

That issue is not strictly relevant, as I shall explain. The relevant point is the transition of the new town and whether it should go into the hands of the Commission for the New Towns or, as some of us would prefer, move to full privatisation. I use that term without blushing. The Opposition have said many times today that there is a deep, dark secret and a sinister plot to privatise new towns. There is nothing of the sort. I hope that the Minister will confirm that privatisation is precisely what we have in mind. Surely that would be the culmination of the development of the new towns.

I know of my hon. Friend's keen interest in the European Commission and I wonder whether he will answer the point which was in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames). Do we need the consent of Lord Cockfield before the order can be approved?