HC Deb 27 January 1953 vol 510 cc831-3
31. Mr. McLeavy

asked the Minister of Works for what amounts and on what dates since 1st January, 1946, he has granted building licences in respect of the premises of Barclays Bank, Market Street, Bradford; and what information he has as to the total amount expended.

The Minister of Works (Mr. David Eccles)

The original licence for £50,000 was issued on 19th April, 1949. Because of the increasing labour and materials costs, a supplementary licence for £5,000 was issued on 2nd May, 1951. The increased costs proved greater than the amount of the supplementary licence and the final cost worked out at £60,867.

Mr. McLeavy

Will the Minister agree that in this case there were two very serious expenditures exceeding the licence figure? Will he inform the House whether, in view of these two breaches of the regulations, his Department decided to prosecute the persons concerned in June of last year and then, for some reason or other, within a week of having to lay the information, decided to withdraw the prosecution? If that is correct, will the Minister inform the House of the reason for this extraordinary conduct on the part of his Department?

Mr. Eccles

In April, 1951, the Bank applied for a larger supplementary licence and justified their request, but my Department felt that they were asking for too much. In the event the Bank were right, and any form of prosecution would, I am quite certain, fail.

Mr. Pannell

Will the Minister remember that in the last Parliament there was considerable enthusiasm on the part of his hon. Friends behind him for the prosecution of a nationalised board upon evidence which was certainly no stronger than faces us here? Will he attempt to hold the balance fairly between nationalised undertakings and private banks, and examine this matter again with a view to a prosecution?

Mr. Eccles

The two cases are not at all comparable. Here is a case where there has been no deviation from the original conditions of the licence except an increase in costs, which the Bank brought to our notice when they saw that it was taking place. Really, it is not comparable with the other case.

Mr. McLeavy

Will the Minister state definitely whether his Department decided to proceed against the persons responsible in June of last year and whether my information is correct that that was discontinued in November? Will he explain this extraordinary conduct on the part of his Department in this matter?

Mr. Eccles

I have no information of any such decision.

32. Mr. McLeavy

asked the Minister of Works why a Question, put down by the hon. Member for Bradford. East, to be answered by him on Tuesday, 16th December, was the subject of a Press statement by one of his Department's officials, subsequent to the tabling of the Question.

Mr. Eccles

The inquiry from the Press was answered several days before the hon. Member's Question was circulated on the Order Paper.

Mr. McLeavy

Apart from the extraordinary circumstances of the explanation being accompanied by the Question I put to the Minister, will the right hon. Gentleman explain the reason why the explanation by a responsible official of his Department should totally misrepresent the facts and be deliberately designed to mislead members of the public as to the facts at issue in this case? In view of the charge I make of deliberate misrepresentation of the facts by an official of his Department, will the Minister have an investigation made and make a further statement to the House on the matter?

Mr. Eccles

Nothing of the kind is true. A statement was made on 26th November in response to an inquiry from the Westminster Press who, I believe, are the owners of the "Yorkshire Observer" and the "Bradford Telegraph and Argus." On 4th December the "Yorkshire Observer" inquired whether they could use the statement. They had an absolute right to use it and the statement as I saw it in the Press was quite right.

Mr. McLeavy

In view of the fact that the statement which was published in the Yorkshire Press is in direct contradiction of the statement the Minister has now made from the Despatch Box, may I quote—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] —for the information of the Minister and to substantiate what I am saying—[Interruption.]? Do hon. Members not want the truth? The statement was: The Ministry of Works spokesman told a 'Telegraph and Argus' London representive that the work was licensed for £50,000 before the war and begun but was stopped during the war. That is a deliberate misstatement.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member's question is exceeding the bounds of length.

Mr. McLeavy

In view of the very unsatisfactory reply by the Minister, I propose to raise the whole question on the Adjournment.