HC Deb 19 April 1956 vol 551 cc1306-16

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

10.1 p.m.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins (Bristol, South)

May I, first, extend my sympathy to the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who seems to get more than her share of Adjournment debates, for having brought her to the House again tonight? I only hope that the hon. Lady is in the same conciliatory mood as she was last night when answering some of her hon. Friends in the shrimp catchers debate.

The matter to which I wish to call the attention of the House and of the Minister of Health in particular is one of great concern to the local authority and the ratepayers in Bristol. I also believe it to be a matter of first principle to many local authorities throughout the country. Very briefly, the history of Chapel Pill Farm is this. It was acquired in 1921 by the Bristol Corporation for £10,605, for which loan sanction was obtained. At that time, it comprised in all about 136 acres, which were added to land already in the possession of the local authority. Subsequently, other lands adjacent to it were purchased and added to it, so that the total area thus became 415 acres. All these lands were transferred to the Ministry of Health as hospital assets—and I want to stress that—under the National Health Service Act, 1946, the date of the transfer being 5th July, 1948.

The outstanding debt at the time of the transfer was £7,997, and I am advised that, since it has been in the Ministry's possession, that amount has been reduced to £6,747. Under the National Health Service Act, 1946, all lands and buildings held by the local authority for hospital purposes were compulsorily transferred to the Minister of Health without compensation. This transfer applied to land which was used as hospital farms, provided that such lands were held for the statutory purposes of the hospital concerned, so that, at that time—and I should like also to emphasise this point most strongly to the Parliamentary Secretary—the Minister of Health was in no doubt that he was entitled as a matter of law to expropriate this land.

The hon. Lady may very well say that it was a Government to which I gave my support which carried out this expropriation. That is perfectly true, and my local authority had no complaint, and still has no complaint, about this transfer so long as those lands continue to be used for the purposes for which our ratepayers bought them, which was primarily and essentially the supply of good, clean, fresh, wholesome food, and especially the provision of the very highest grade of T.T. milk from one of the finest pedigree herds of cattle in the country. This hospital, which this farm served and supplied, was and, indeed, still is, primarily a tuberculosis sanatorium, and, secondly, an infectious diseases hospital. Nobody would, therefore, deny either its value or the need for the finest food supply possible.

I am not interested in this matter from the point of view of my local authority alone. For ten years before coming to this House I served on the Bristol local authority committee which administered this farm, and I share the pride of my colleagues on that committee that we developed the farm until it became a model of its kind. Today, it is literally derelict. A very fine herd of pedigree cattle has been disposed of in the open market at, I am advised, far below its real value. A farm bailiff of outstanding ability, who served my local authority with great skill and devotion for about thirty-four years, has had to give up his home and uproot his family and find a farm in the North of England.

Why? It seems that someone in the legal department of the Ministry of Health, or may be in the Attorney-General's office, has suddenly discovered that it is illegal for the Minister of Health to engage in farming activities, that such activities cannot be part of hospital functions. It seems rather strange that eight or nine years after acquisition it is discovered that as a matter of law farming activities are no part of the function of the Minister of Health. That may well be, of course, but why, I ask, was my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), the then Minister of Health, not so advised by his legal department? Is Bristol Corporation, or any other local authority for that matter, called upon to pay for the incredible failure of the Minister's Departmental advisers properly to advise him of his rights in a matter of expropriation?

Now this land has to be disposed of on the open market at the district valuer's figure, which would show—I am not quoting the figure—a substantial profit to the Minister. I do not hesitate to characterise this as a monstrous and outrageous example of confiscation perpetrated by a Government who so sanctimoniously proclaim the almighty sanctity of property.

Although this farm was taken from one authority and vested in another, so long as its advantages and amenities were conferred upon the people who bought it, who were the ratepayers of Bristol, there could be no complaint, but now that which they previously owned and enjoyed they can continue to enjoy only if they buy it a second time. I want to ask a pertinent question. Is it proper for a person, the Minister in this case, to sell something of which he is now shown to be in illegal possession, however innocently he may have acquired? Or should he be required to restore it to its previous owners, from whom it was expropriated, on the same terms as when he dispossessed them of it?

This, of course, is the burden of the whole case. From the point of view of Bristol Corporation, there are two issues in this matter: first, the general point as to whether the land expropriated without compensation should not first be offered to the local authority at a nominal or concessional figure; secondly—and I say this without prejudice to the first—there is the question of the right of the local authority to have the use of any such surplus land—and there is a number of such parcels we urgently need—which it requires for immediate statutory purposes.

In 1946, the Government explained that they were not liable to pay compensation because, they said, it was not proper that public money should be spent by the Government on buying lands which had already been paid for with public money by local authorities. Subsequently, in August, 1951, the Association of Municipal Corporations reached an agreement with the Ministry of Health whereby, over a period terminating on the 5th July, 1953, local authorities could acquire lands surplus to the Ministry's requirements, provided the lands were wanted for immediate use in the public interest, in which case they could purchase them for a nominal amount, and payment on any loans made in the interim by the Ministry.

The Minister, however, will not extend this period, nor will they accept the corporation's contention that what they regarded as fair and just when they compulsorily took the lands without compensation should operate when the local authority requires the return of the lands, and that as it is a matter of re-transfer of land acquired with ratepayers' money, it should be effected without further cost to the corporation.

My council regards this attitude as an amoral one, because the Government, having expropriated something which they find they do not require and which we contend in the circumstances should never have been expropriated, they are now seeking to make a profit on it. The situation is really a scandalous one. In the circumstances, it really amounts to disposing of somebody else's property, and in that sense of the word it is fraudulent.

It appears that the Minister is now advised that he was not entitled to take this land and farm it, because, in law, it is not in fact a part of the hospital equipment. Is he then entitled to retain it, or sell that which apparently he was never legally entitled to acquire?

It may be asked why my local authority did not take advantage of the arrangement or agreement made by the Association of Municipal Corporations in August, 1951. The answer is that the initiative rests with the Minister. He first of all was required to declare what lands were surplus to his needs, and then offer them to the local authorities. This he did not do.

On the 14th December last, a deputation waited upon the Minister. They were able to meet only officials. They achieved no result, save a suggestion by them that they might instruct the district valuer to value sympathetically the surplus lands of Chapel Pill Farm.

It is now clear that not only has the district valuer not received any instructions as to sympathetic valuation, but neither is it likely that he would or could value other than on the basis of open market value. Therefore, any concession in valuation would have to be allowed by the Ministry and not by the district valuer.

It is very difficult to deploy in 15 minutes a case which is essentially lengthy. I have previously tried to give the Parliamentary Secretary some advice on the major points which I propose to raise. Briefly, our contention is that this land, having been purchased by the Bristol ratepayers out of their money, should be now returned to the city at a nominal or concessional price, and the Ministry of Health, if it has a legal right, has no moral right whatsoever to seek now to dispose of the land at a profit to the Ministry.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health will be able to say tonight that she has given consideration to the points which I advised her that I would raise and that if she is not able to go any further she will at least be able to say that she is prepared to enter into negotiations with my local authority with a view to re-transferring this land back to the local authority at what ought to be a reasonable or concessional price.

10.17 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith)

In raising this matter in debate the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) has, not unnaturally, enlarged upon the claims of his own local authority. But I am sure he would recognise that the policy of a Government Department has to cover the whole country and be so defined as to ensure proper continuity in working its own service whilst treating the other authorities with whom it may have negotiations as fairly as possible.

Criticisms which the hon. Member has made, stem from the policy laid down by his own right hon. Friends in the National Health Service Act, 1946, and as this is a matter which not only concerns his own local authority but others, I think that it would be helpful if I gave the history of these developments.

The 1946 Act empowered the Minister to take over from local authorities and many other voluntary bodies buildings and land being used for hospital purposes in order that they should be applied to the National Health Service. Where, before the appointed day, the Minister considered that any hospital was not required for the purpose of providing hospital services, he could, under Section 6 (3) of the National Health Service Act, 1946, serve a notice on the owning authority to that effect, and the property in question was not then transferred to him.

Any such disclaimer had to be notified before 5th July, 1948, as the power to disclaim could not be exercised, retrospectively, after that date. Thereafter, it was implicit in the 1946 Act that the Minister, in taking over these assets, did so in perpetuity, and whilst local authorities lost certain capital assets they were relieved, as in the case of Bristol Corporation, of very heavy expenses indeed in the running of their hospitals. These properties so transferred became Crown property and thereafter, if found surplus to requirements, could be disposed of only under the usual arrangements governing the disposal of Government property.

Whilst there had been a general survey of hospitals prior to the date of takeover in 1948, it was quite obvious that a really detailed survey of the needs and requirements of the Service could not be carried out until the Ministry was in complete control. As a result of this investigation it was discovered that certain properties were immediately and obviously redundant to the Service. For example, six infectious diseases hospitals were found to be surplus to our needs, owing to the advance of medicine and the lessening incidence of infectious diseases. Had this more detailed information been available—and I am making no criticism of the administration at that time because the setting up of the vast National Health Service was a complicated task—these properties would have been disclaimed prior to the appointed day.

To meet the situation and to restore the position as it existed at the appointed day, and to overcome the inability of the Minister to issue disclaiming notices retrospectively, the then Minister of Health, the right hon. Gentleman for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), with Treasury concurrence, agreed to enter into an administrative arrangement whereby such hospitals could be returned to the former owning authorities on a nominal payment of 1. However, this was only on condition that there should be immediate statutory use for the property. If there was no immediate statutory use, he was entitled to sell them on the market otherwise.

Mr. Stan Awbery (Bristol, Central)

Did not that agreement cease to exist?

Miss Hornsby-Smith

I am referring to the arrangements which existed then. There were very full negotiations with the Association of Municipal Corporations, culminating in an agreement being reached in 1950. It was implicit in the terms of that agreement, which was a concession arising out of the particular difficulties that arose immediately after the introduction of the National Health Service, that, first, the only justification for the concessionary arrangement was the concern of the Minister to restore as far as practicable the position, as at the appointed day, of property that would have been disclaimed under Section 6 (3) of the Act had the full implications of the transfer been appreciated. Retrospective disclaimer was not possible. Secondly, that the property could only be offered to the local authority from which it had been transferred. Thirdly, that there could be no question of extending the period of concession beyond five years from 5th July, 1948.

Mr. Awbery

rose—

Miss Hornsby-Smith

I shall cover the hon. Gentleman's point.

Fourthly, that the authority should pay the full value of any capital alteration carried out subsequent to 5th July, 1948. Fifthly, that the Minister could not accept liability for payment of rent during the period the property had been held for hospital purposes. Those were the terms negotiated in the original circumstances.

After having agreed that the property could only be returned if there was an immediate statutory purpose for it, and that there could be no extension beyond July, 1953, the Association of Municipal Corporations, on 2nd January, 1951, stated that they had decided to raise no objection to these arrangements. Under these arrangements, 45 complete and 25 part properties were dealt with. That gave the Ministry and local authorities five years to survey their properties, to dispose of any surplus land or buildings, and to carry out a general tidying up measure.

Mr. Awbery

The local authority was in urgent need of that land at the time of the extension of this agreement in 1953.

Miss Hornsby-Smith

That was never part of the agreement. The agreement applied if the Minister did not need it, not if the local authority wanted it.

Mr. Awbery

But the local authority happened to be in urgent need of the land.

Miss Hornsby-Smith

What the hon. Gentleman is now asking is that the general policy of Government Departments regarding the sale of assets—and this applies not only to the Ministry of Health, but is the general policy of the Government regarding the sale of assets—should be thrown overboard for the benefit of one local authority.

If the rule is broken for Bristol, what about the other local authorities who, since 1953, have paid the market value for transferred properties in conformity with Government policy? If there is to be no limit on those, where do we go from there? Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that in perpetuity local authorities should have a claim to receive back land and property for the nominal sum of £1 at whatever date? I beg of him to consider the wide implications of such a suggestion.

With the building of new hospitals, in time many small units may become redundant. His suggestion is that if the Ministry of Health decides to build a big hospital in a new town, and to dispose of a small unit, it is to be denied the capital arising from the sale of assets at the very time when it is having to spend more capital on a larger unit—

Mr. Coldrick (Bristol, North-East)

rose—

Miss Hornsby-Smith

I cannot give way.

The same policy applies whether it is buildings or land. It is suggested that the Ministry of Health should be denied the capital arising from the sale of assets, be it buildings or lands, at the very time when it is having to spend more capital on a larger and more up-to-date unit. At present, because of the decrease in tuberculosis, many T.B. beds have been turned over to other purposes. It may well be that many small sanatoria will become redundant. Are we in perpetuity to have to let them go back to the local authority at a time when the Health Service could reasonably expect to regard them as a capital asset?

Mr. Awbery

What about farms?

Miss Hornsby-Smith

The principle is the same whether it is farms or buildings.

Turning to the claim of Bristol Corporation in relation to Chapel Pill Farm, the authority has not even complied with the essential condition laid down in the arrangement which terminated in 1953. At no time in its negotiations with my Department has the authority ever notified an immediate statutory use. When the authority was specifically asked for what purpose it required the land at the interview in the Ministry of Health, it could give no reply. It may well be—and I do not blame the authority—that it would like to sell it and apply the capital to some other purpose, but that Procedure of selling it as an asset and applying the capital elsewhere was never allowed, not even under the 1946 Act.

Mr. Wilkins

The hon. Lady is now on the vital point. My advice is that such application could not be made until the Minister had declared the lands which were surplus to his needs.

Miss Hornsby-Smith

The authority would have known in the negotiations, which went on for some months, whether it had an immediate statutory use for the land. As I said, the procedure of taking land without a statutory use in mind has never been admissible. It was not admissible under the 1946 Act, nor under the concessionary arrangement of 1950.

Despite the fact that these assets are now vested in the Ministry, it is, nevertheless, Government policy that surplus land should be offered first to other Departments, but the Minister also recognises the special claim of local authorities from whom the land was taken in 1948. Indeed, a considerable area was taken from Bristol.

At this stage we cannot agree to offer land at less than the district valuer's valuation. That is in complete conformity with the policy both of this Government and of the hon. Member's colleagues in the former Government. Nor do we accept that a local authority has a prior right to the land whether or not it has an immediate use for it. The A.M.C. agreement was a once-and-for-all transaction, with a dead-line of 1953 imposed by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, and by that we stand.

Hospital land is now Government property, taken over as part of the whole operation of 1948, and it is quite unrealistic to look at a particular piece of it and ignore the general picture. It would be improper to dispose of land as and when it may, for one reason or another, become surplus, except under the rules for disposing of Government property.

The policy about farm land cannot be static. It may well be that at the takeover it was thought that that quantity of land was necessary, but originally enormous tracts of land were bought on the deliberate policy of security and isolation for mental hospitials. In the last seven years there has been a new policy, involving less isolation of mental hospitals.

There has been a mechanisation of farms, which has meant that they were not being worked much by patients. It was farming for farming's sake, with normal, skilled labour—not labour from the patients. A great change in the policy on the farms has been brought about by the differing conditions in modern circumstances. Many of these changes have taken place since 1948. I do not put the blame on the former Minister, because at the time the farm was taken over it may well have been considered that the large area of land was needed.

As the hon. Member knows from a previous debate, with the greatly increased turnover of higher grade patients, which has been tremendously accelerated in the last seven years, the need for large farms as occupational therapy for the patients has steadily decreased. In fact, conditions have changed substantially, so that the position today is far more advanced than it was on the take-over. I do not make it as any criticism that at the time of the take-over it may have been thought necessary to have this land.

I realise that there may have been some delay in the early years in the survey of the amount of farm land needed but, with the size of the Service, I do not criticise the hon. Member's right hon. Friends for that. The Department was firmly prodded by the Comptroller and Auditor General in 1952, as a result of which a survey has been made. The rule was made with the deadline of 1953, and we cannot abandon it. It is completely in conformity with Government policy enunciated not only by this Government but by the previous Government, and with the general policy of all Government Departments on the disposal of property, that this estate, if sold, should be sold at the district valuer's price.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.