HC Deb 03 April 1958 vol 585 cc1466-74

3.59 p.m.

Mr. John Eden (Bournemouth, West)

I rise to question the purchase by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority of Durley Hall Hotel and affiliated buildings in Bournemouth. Whilst I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for giving me the opportunity to speak today, I nevertheless regret the necessity for having to raise this matter in an Adjournment debate, particularly because it has kept my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General here and already he has more than enough to bear upon his shoulders. This is adding one further burden to him.

I should not have had to raise this matter had it been possible for me to get the information I wanted by Question and Answer. It is probably hard enough in any case to get any Question on a nationalised industry past the Table. Even if one succeeds in that, invariably the questioner is given the answer that "This is a day-to-day matter" and he is politely but firmly brushed aside without any further information being given to him.

It appears to me that the activities of nationalised bodies as a whole are in danger of becoming sacrosanct and virtually beyond Parliamentary scrutiny. We are warned in friendly language that one should not pursue the question too far and that if we do, there is the danger that the chairman of the body concerned might be tempted to resign from his position of responsibility. One is asked how the chairman can be expected to run his business successfully if every and any step that he is likely to take might be the object of public cross-examination.

I agree that there must be some limitation. Nationalised concerns, however, and the Atomic Energy Authority in particular, depend to a great extent upon public money for their resources. When the taxpayer is called upon to subsidise some especially grandiose operation, it is hardly surprising if he wishes to satisfy himself as to its necessity and justification.

There is in this case very real concern in Bournemouth and in the neighbouring constituencies, particularly in Dorset. In fact, for the past few weeks, the air has been literally filled with rumours of one kind or another. There is a general feeling that once again a Government body has managed to get away with it, at a time when private industry is being particularly hampered and restricted by the effects of the credit squeeze.

When one recalls the many examples in the past of somewhat lavish expenditure by nationalised bodies on staff accommodation and office buildings, it is hardly to be wondered at that the public are highly critical and sensitive to any hint of further extravagance.

What is the history of this purchase and what lies behind it? Before the Atomic Energy Authority came to Winfrith Heath, in Dorset, it was avowed that the Authority would do its utmost to bring trade and employment to the people of Dorset. My hon. Friends who represent constituencies in that county have informed me that they received a great number of representations directly as a consequence of the interest shown by the Authority in acquiring property in Bournemouth.

I should like to know what steps the Authority took to find suitable accommodation nearer to the site in question.

I have been told that several other properties were offered to the A.E.A. before it came to Bournemouth. In each case, had the Authority taken one of these properties, the journey to and from Winfrith Heath would have been considerably less than that which now must be done by the employees of the Authority from Bournemouth.

What made the Authority fall back upon this particular purchase? Why did it decide in the end to purchase a 96- bedroomed hotel on the seaside in Bournemouth, on one of the finest sites that Bournemouth has to offer—a well-known hotel, fully equipped, with such pleasant amenities as a games room, even a dispense bar, a panelled dining hall and, believe it or not, a heated garage?

Who was it who advised the Authority that this was the most economical way of housing its scientists? Was it the district valuer? Was it he who was in charge of the negotiations? If so, what were his instructions before he entered into them?

Mr. Douglas Houghton (Sowerby)

I just want to be clear. Is this living accommodation or office accommodation?

Mr. Eden

This is living accommodation, in so far as my information goes, for scientists who are employed by the Atomic Energy Authority at Winfrith Heath, and presumably they will be based in this hotel and so to carry out their work will have to go every single day a distance which is, I believe, not under 25 miles between Bournemouth and Winfrith Heath.

If it was not the district valuer, who conducted these negotiations? Perhaps it was some official of the Treasury. Did he give his approval to this purchase, and if so, on what grounds? What information did he have in coming to the conclusion that this was the best possible and most economical purchase to make? On what grounds, for example, did he decide it was necessary to buy the goodwill of the hotel? What use to the Atomic Energy Authority would be the goodwill of an hotel which was a thriving business in the town? Since the whole affair has been distinguished by an atmosphere of secrecy and urgency, could it possibly be that considerably more than the minimum figure acceptable to the vendor was paid by the Authority?

It would appear that the house-purchasing activities of the Authority do not end with this hotel. In Bournemouth, I am given to understand, a number of other similar properties have been bought by the Authority, and from the Dorchester office of the Authority recently has come a general inquiry for houses and bungalows in the Bournemouth area at a price range of between £2,000 and £4,000. This has come at a time when the whole of the housing position in Bournemouth is going through rather a changeover process as a result of the operation of the Rent Act. I think it particularly unfortunate that the activities of the Authority should have been at this moment.

What does the Authority want with these other houses? Whom is it to house there in addition to those people it will house in the 96-bedroomed hotel? Who is in charge of the negotiations for the purchase of those other houses? What instructions has he received? Why could it not provide equally suitable accommodation much nearer to the place of work, thereby doing away with the necessity of daily travel to and fro?

One is tempted to wonder whether, in coming to Winfrith Heath at all in the first place, the Authority was tempted by the seclusion of the spot. Or was it more a case of being tempted by its proximity to the delights and attractions of Bournemouth, the leading holiday town, as we all know it to be? I do not blame it if this was the case, but at least it might have made it clear from the beginning, especially to the people of Dorset, that a large part of the employment which might have been brought to them by bringing in top-ranking scientists either to the villages or the towns or by building suitable accommodation for them would not in fact take place.

It may well be that the Authority has a good answer to all this. The Authority may be justified on grounds both of economy and of expediency in all it has done, but I take this opportunity of impressing upon my right hon. Friend that its purchase of this hotel has given rise to considerable anxiety and disquiet. It has been added to by the difficulty that is being placed, both in my way and in that of anybody else, of finding out what has taken place. I beg my right hon. Friend to set my own mind and the public mind at rest on this question.

4.11 p.m.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling)

There are two questions involved here: first, the general position of the Atomic Energy Authority, and. secondly, the particular purchase. I will deal, first, with the constitutional position.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. J. Eden), who has put this matter so eloquently before the House, complained about the secrecy. One must recognise, however, that the purpose of Parliament in establishing this Authority by the Act of 1954, as other nationalised industries have been established by Parliament, was to put these bodies, so far as is practicable and desirable, on the same footing as commercial undertakings. If any large private commercial undertaking chose to buy an hotel in Bournemouth, the matter could not possibly arise in the House of Commons. It can arise only in so far as there is Ministerial responsibility.

The normal position of the nationalised industries is that Ministers have powers of general direction, but not powers of particular direction; in other words, they cannot, in the case of transport or coal, for example, intervene in the day-to-day running of the affairs of the nationalised industry. The position of the Atomic Energy Authority is somewhat different and I will explain what it is.

In the case of the Atomic Energy Authority the governing Act provides that the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, has powers to give directions to the Authority in matters of a detailed character as well as in matters of a general character, and to that extent it is different from other nationalised industries. There was, however, a specific provision put into Section 3(3) of the 1954 Act to the effect that the Prime Minister … shall not regard it as his duty to intervene in detail in the conduct by the authority of their affairs unless in his opinion over-riding national interests so require. As was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal in reply to a Question on 3rd March, the Prime Minister did not consider that this was a matter in which over-riding national interests required his intervention in the day-to-day conduct by the Authority of its own affairs. I think it would be generally agreed that it would be making nonsense of the Statute and its wording to treat the purchase of a particular building as a matter in which over-riding national interests required the intervention of the Prime Minister in the conduct of the affairs of the Authority.

So the constitutional position is clear. It is that this is a matter of the type which Parliament has provided, by the Act of 1954, should be the responsibility of the Authority and not one in which the Minister concerned should intervene. However, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recognises that this is a matter which has aroused considerable public interest, particularly in Bournemouth, and I have been in touch with the Atomic Energy Authority. The Authority has expressed to me the desire that this matter should be made clear and has supplied me with certain information which I think the House would like to have. I think I should once again stress that in providing this information I must in no way appear to derogate from the very clear principles of the Atomic Energy Act.

Why does the Authority require this accommodation? It is establishing at Winfrith Heath a new and extremely important research establishment, the purposes of which were described to the House fairly fully when we had the Winfrith Heath Bill before us. Much as I share my hon. Friend's admiration for the attractions of Bournemouth, which are many—including golf courses, beaches and others which I know well—proximity to Bournemouth was not in any way the reason for the choice of Winfrith Heath.

Having decided to set up the new establishment and the case for urgency being very considerable—as was explained to the House when we dealt with the Winfrith Heath Bill, the main justification for the Bill and the abolition of the common rights was the very great urgency of the work to be carried out at Winfrith Heath—it is clear that the Authority had to obtain accommodation for the staff who are to work there, and also, of course, for visitors to the establishment. The flow of visitors to the Authority's establishments is a very large one. It is a very important part of the Authority's activities that it should have visitors interested in these matters, particularly from the Commonwealth, to maintain the flow of information and the sense of technical leadership that the British Authority has been able to establish.

Mr. Eden

Is it more a hostel or a living place for visitors than a living place for employees of the Authority? Will it be a place where scientists will live, or is it to accommodate visitors to Winfrith Heath?

Mr. Maudling

It is to be a hostel for the staff, but I understand that some accommodation for visitors will also be provided. The principal purpose is to provide accommodation for the staff. Large as the building is, the total number of staff accommodated will be only a very small percentage of the total staff employed at Winfrith Heath.

The Authority set about trying to find accommodation. It considered both the question of building new accommodation and the question of buying an existing building. I understand that it looked at 22 properties, 18 of which were in the County of Dorset. It also considered the possibility of building, but to build a hostel to house the number of staff involved, according even to normal Government standards, which, I think it will be generally agreed, are not very high in these matters—they are adequate but not luxurious—would have cost substantially more than the price paid for the hotel. Therefore, the Authority decided that it was better to buy this building. Of all the properties that it looked at, it was the one which met its requirements.

The question arises of how it negotiated and what price it paid. The negotiations were carried out on its behalf by the district valuer of the Inland Revenue. From discussions which I have heard in the House, I do not think he would on the whole be regarded as an official who is too generous in his assessment of the value of properties. He approved the price, and so did the Treasury. I cannot disclose the actual price paid. I am sure it would be quite wrong and contrary to any normal commercial practice to disclose the actual price paid by the Authority.

However, as there have been certain rumours about the matter I should like to say one or two things. First, the Authority purchased not only the house but also its contents, and also two adjacent houses. Secondly, there has been a story to the effect that the property was being offered at a sum of £85,000. The Authority received written assurance from the estate agent from whom the purchase was effected that at no time was the property in his books for as low a figure as £85,000. I can tell my hon. Friend, without disclosing the actual price, which would be wrong, that the price paid was one substantially below that originally asked by the seller.

We reach the position that the Atomic Energy Authority had to find this accommodation for its staff. It looked at a large number of alternatives—I said that 22 properties were inspected—and also considered the possibility of building. It put the negotiations in the hands of the district valuer, as a result of which it bought this property at a price lower than the price initially requested and substantially lower than it would have cost it to build similar accommodation.

I feel, therefore, that the action of the Authority was entirely justified. I must once again say that I do not want to give the impression that in any way justification of these actions of this type to Parliament is within the normal compass of the Statute, because it is a day-to-day matter for the Authority. It is true that the Authority used public money, but the Atomic Energy Act requires the Authority to keep proper accounts and send them to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Those accounts are laid before the Public Accounts Committee and in that way accountability to Parliament is main- tained, without infringing the very proper rule under which the Authority has to work, in the way that we think it should work and has been successfully working. Day-to-day Ministerial intervention in the affairs of the Authority would not be generally in the public interest. I hope that I have been able to say enough to convince my hon. Friend that some of the stories circulating about this transaction are incorrect.

Finally, I think that it is generally felt that the Atomic Energy Authority is one of the great assets of the country and that it is conducted and run by men of very great acumen and very great experience in administration and science and business matters. My hon. Friend can take it that they are not the sort of people to pay more for a property than they have to pay. They will always seek, as they have done on this occasion, the best impartial, professional advice before embarking on any transaction.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Four o'clock, till Tuesday, 15th April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.