§ 25. Mr. Parkinasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what steps he is taking to curb speculation in derelict land.
§ 30. Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, in view of the need to reclaim derelict land for housing and other purposes, if he will set up a committee to investigate how far these purposes are being frustrated by the speculative buying and selling of derelict sites.
§ Mr. CorfieldI have no evidence that the reclamation of derelict land which is normally undertaken by local authorities is being frustrated as suggested. In these circumstances there is no need for a committee.
§ Mr. ParkinIs the Parliamentary Secretary aware that I hold in my hand a mortgage signed by Peter Rachman eight days before his death between a company of his and the Eagle Star Insurance Company Limited for £100,000, prima facieevidence of fraud which needs investigation by the Inland Revenue and perhaps the Law Society? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the unencumbered assets on which the money was raised consisted of the Apedale Estate in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler), which was bought not long ago for £20,000 or £30,000 and now is apparently valued at well over £100,000? Will the hon. Gentleman now alert the little district councils all over the industrial areas of England, who were hoping that the scars of the Industrial Revolution would be bulldozed away and replaced by housing estates, that funds are 705 available for these sharks who are making a fresh invasion—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Member has ample opportunity to make speeches. This is Question Time.
§ Mr. ParkinWith respect, Mr. Speaker, this is directly relevant. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that he has no evidence. I give it to him and ask him to follow this up. Will the hon. Gentleman undertake that he will not only follow the course of these funds but others from the previous Rachman empire, such as those from the sale of Nos. 63, 65, 67 and 69, Chepstow Road, Paddington, put on the market on the instructions of Captain Anthony Sykes?
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Swingler.
§ Mr. ParkinWith the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not often behave like this, but I am impelled by a grave sense of responsibility. I would ask you to exercise tolerance because it is difficult to make half a statement on a matter of this importance which carries such terrible responsibility. Captain Anthony Sykes, who is one of the "rich Charlies", as Rachman delighted to call them when he sold them some of his more disreputable property—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The reason why we have to keep to the rules about Questions and have to keep supplementary questions short and not make speeches at Question Time is so that the common interest of all hon. Members with Questions on the Paper may be served.
§ Mr. CorfieldHon. Gentlemen shout "Answer", but I have not had very much opportunity. What the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) has not made out is the argument that because this man paid a very large sum in the belief that there was oil on this site—
§ Mr. ParkinThe hon. Gentleman still does not know anything about it.
§ Mr. CorfieldBecause he had paid that sum it does not put up the value of the land by that amount to this or any other purchaser.
§ Mr. SwinglerI take it that the Parliamentary Secretary is not a complete fool, but people in north Staffordshire 706 will think that he is, because none of them would fall for that sort of thing. Will the hon. Gentleman explain how on earth a parcel of mainly derelict land is taken over in my constituency and used to raise the sum of £100,000 for the purpose of speculating in London property and prostitution? This is what we want to know. Is the hon. Gentleman doing anything about this racket?
§ Mr. CorfieldIt really is not for me to answer for the reasons why any lender considered this to be reasonable security for that amount of money. All I am saying is that it does not follow at all that if there were a compulsory purchase order the Lands Tribunal would take any account whatever of that price.
§ Dr. KingIs the hon. Gentleman aware that, without any prospect of oil at all, a piece of land in Hampshire on which the county council placed a value of £10,000 in 1957 is being sold to London County Council after passing through several hands for £500,000? Does he not think that this is disgraceful?
§ Mr. SwinglerThis is racketeering.
§ Mr. CorfieldWhatever may be the reasons for that particular amount, I cannot believe that a piece of land worth £10,000 in 1957 was or is derelict.
§ Mr. M. StewartDoes the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the policy of his Government is to encourage the use of derelict land, and if they proceed with that policy without any measures at all to check profiteering in land their advertising of their policy is simply an advertisement to people to make money out of it in return for no service at all to the community?
§ Mr. CorfieldWe have, of course, debated this matter on a number of occasions, and on the most recent of them the Opposition were singularly lacking in answering my criticisms of their scheme. I would remind the hon. Member once more, as he knows perfectly well, that whether or not this man gave this amount of money for this land is no conclusive evidence of its value.
§ Mr. M. StewartThe hon. Gentleman talks about not answering his criticisms of our proposals. Are we to understand 707 that he has no answer to criticisms of the present situation and that he and his hon. Friends defend the kind of thing that Peter Rachman did and others do?
§ Mr. CorfieldThe hon. Member knows as well as everybody else does that that is not true. The Question relates to whether or not speculation in derelict land prevents its reclamation by local authorities. There is no evidence whatever that this or any other transaction would put up the price which would be determined by the Lands Tribunal, which is the last resort.