HC Deb 03 February 1969 vol 777 cc171-80

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

10.11 p.m.

Mr. John M. Temple (City of Chester)

I am grateful for this opportunity to speak briefly about a problem which has been troubling me for some months. It is the provision of sufficient staff accommodation at one of the largest psychiatric hospitals in the country, the Deva Hospital near the City of Chester.

This hospital has 1,400 beds and is situated on the site of what will be one of the largest hospital complexes in the country, which will embrace the site of a new district general hospital. It requires eight new houses to house additional staff, largely because seven houses were lost due to road widening and other developments in connection with the new hospital. I regret to report that deadlock has been reached on the question of the provision of a site, or the price of a site, for the new houses. I need hardly emphasise that good staff housing is absolutely essential for the running of this large hospital.

About a year ago the hospital authorities approached Chester Rural District Council urging that the council should provide these eight houses. The council, of which I was once a member, is an extraordinarily helpful authority. Indeed, about 12 years ago it built 12 houses for staff on the site of the Deva Hospital, which was generous of the council because the hospital serves a catchment area which is far wider than the area of the council. The catchment area embraces the County Borough of Birkenhead, most of the Wirral peninsula and a good deal of North Wales. The question of staff is not, therefore, a purely local matter for Chester.

On the site there are already married quarters and staff accommodation, owned and administered by the hospital management committee. It seems to some of us that a dual administration for housing on this one site is both costly and unsatisfactory.

I report this matter to the House because an impasse has arisen.

The scene is an extremely scruffy derelict orchard which I believe was part of the grounds of the one-time senior physician of the hospital. It is about one acre in extent, situated in a green belt, and also on Crown land. I have visited this site and seen the foundations of married quarters being built on half this orchard site. Those married quarters are being built by the hospital authorities.

There was no charge whatsoever for the land because the hospital authorities are building those married quarters. The difficulty has arisen because the rural district council was asked to pay at the rate of approximately £10,000 per acre for this half acre of land. The Minister said in correspondence with me that it is expected that the rural district council should pay the market value for this land, but he agreed in correspondence that no other developer could have had planning permission for the land. So I say that there is, in effect, no market value for the land. In 1956 12 houses were built on one acre of land for which £2,000 was asked but after negotiations the nominal sum of £200 was agreed upon.

To recap the correspondence between myself and various Ministers, on 15th October last I wrote to the then Minister of Health and stated the case fully. I asked for a full report and possibly an interview. On 28th October the Minister replied that it was now Government policy where land is sold to a local authority that the transaction should be at full market value. No mention was made of any report, nor of an interview with the Minister. I then had a conference with the local authority and subsequently a conference with the secretary of the West Cheshire Hospital Management Committee. Both these authorities back absolutely to the hilt the case I am putting tonight.

On 16th October I wrote to the present Secretary of State for Health and Social Security. I said that the rural district council was not impressed by the Minister's letter, and I asked for an interview. On 9th December the Joint Minister of State wrote to me reiterating the policy and admitted that the site was not for sale in the open market, but said that the hospital board could build houses but had higher priorities. In other words it wanted the rural district council to build the houses for it. Rather strangely, married quarters are going up on exactly the same site—in fact, in the same orchard—and are being built by the hospital authorities.

I was offered an interview but not with the Secretary of State as a result of the Minister of State's letter of 9th December. I realised that an impasse had arisen and so I wrote to the Minister of State and warned him of my intention to raise this matter in Parliament as I judged that it was a matter of policy and one of extraordinary importance and urgency. I recognised that we were getting nowhere as in correspondence the Minister referred always to Government policy as set out in Circular 48/59 and particularly to paragraphs 29 and 30 of that Circular. I then consulted various advisers because this was a technical matter.

I will quote from the Circular because it offers the Minister a way out of the impasse. It deals in paragraph 29 with transfers of land by agreement to or from a local authority or Statutory undertaker or a Government Department"— in other words the situation to which I am referring. It goes on to say: Consideration for such transfers of land should normally be the market value of the land. Paragraph 30 significantly admits that in "some exception cases" strict adherence to the 1959 price might make special problems for some authorities concerned, and refers to "types of case".

The Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Julian Snow)

Will the hon. Member give the reference to that Circular again?

Mr. Temple

It is paragraphs 29 and 30 of Circular 48/59, which is referred to in the letter. Those are the paragraphs I have quoted. The Circular refers to what are called "normal cases". I believe that this is an abnormal case. It also refers to "exceptional circumstances". I believe that these are exceptional circumstances, because, on the Minister's admissions, no market value can accrue to this small parcel of land. I believe that I am offering the Minister a very fair and reasonable way out of this impasse, because I believe that there is provision for him to use his judgment in these circumstances.

Another aspect is that four of the houses which are sought to be replaced were actually demolished because of the road widening which is taking place as a result of the siting of the new district general hospital. The Cheshire County Council, acting as agents for the Ministry of Transport, has paid the Ministry of Health £14,000 in compensation for four of the houses which were demolished, at the rate of £3,500 per house demolished.

Additionally—I think that this is a very important point in my case—in this road widening operation 11,500 square yards of land—approximately 2½ acres—were released by the hospital authorities to the Cheshire County Council, a local authority, without cost. I have a letter to that effect in my hands from the West Cheshire Hospital Management Committee. I cannot see why it was right and proper for hospital land to be released without payment to the Cheshire County Council for road widening, whereas hospital land cannot be released to the rural district council for the vital purpose of building houses specifically for housing the personnel of the hospital concerned. This is extraordinarily surprising, but there must be some very good reason which is unknown to me.

To sum up, the position that I am most concerned about is the replacement of staff houses. This is absolutely essential. I beg the Minister to cut through the red tape and get these houses built at once. If this land can be released to the district council quickly and at a nominal cost, the council is ready and willing and would do its level best to get these houses built. If not, it will be a case of the Minister getting his Department to build these houses, because, after all, he has had the compensation. I again stress that the land in question has always been and will always be part of the hospital grounds. It is of absolutely no value to any other developer, because it just could not be developed for normal residential use. Therefore, there cannot be any proper market value in respect of this site.

I emphasise once again how extraordinarily helpful the Chester Rural District Council has been and wishes to be. It has every wish and desire to help this great hospital whenever it can. But it thinks that it is being asked something which is extremely unreasonable, and I agree with the Council.

I hope very much that I have pointed the way so that the Under-Secretary can breach this administrative impasse. I implore him to use his discretion and all his power and ingenuity to overcome the obstacles and release the land to the rural district council at a nominal price so that it can get on with the job of building the houses.

10.23 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Julian Snow)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) for the interest he has shown in this problem which faces the hospital and my Department. May I correct one slight misconception? He said that £14,000 compensation had been received by the Liverpool Regional Hospital Board or its agents. This is not so, because that sum is automatically appropriated by the Exchequer and is not of benefit in itself to the regional hospital board. This is normal practice.

I was aware that the housing authority, the Chester Rural District Council, had offered to build more houses and to let them to hospital staff. I was also aware that, although hospital land could be made available on which to build, difficulty had arisen over the question of the price which should be paid for the land. This last question was the subject of correspondence between the hon. Member and my right hon. Friend the Minister last year.

Perhaps I can first deal with the general situation regarding the provision of residential accommodation for hospital staff. The provision of accommodation is part of the Minister's powers and duties in providing a hospital service. The accommodation can be provided in various ways. The choice depends on the cost, the effect on the efficient working of the hospital, the convenience of the staff and local circumstances.

It is for the hospital authorities, in this case the Liverpool Regional Hospital Board, to assess the degree of need and to determine the priority of the demand for the capital resources which have been made available to it. The Board must, in making this choice keep a proper balance between providing residential accommodation for staff and making funds available for the general development of the hospital service. But there is no inherent necessity for nurses and other staff to be provided with residential accommodation in the hospital, and, indeed, it is generally considered better that they should make their homes in the community at large. This, incidentally, normally accords with their own preference.

Direct provision of accommodation is not the only way open to hospital authorities. Suitable accommodation can be bought or leased on the open market. Arrangements may also be made with local authorities, which may accept the need to provide for hospital staff, as they do for others in general need of houses. These may be in existing local authority housing, but in some cases the Minister may be able to make hospital land available to the local authority on which to build, usually land on which the hospital authority might otherwise build itself.

In such cases the land is sold to the local authority, and any houses which it builds become part of its general pool of housing, although it would be expected that the authority would rent at least a substantial proportion of houses built on such land to the staff of the hospital, while the demand remains, and on the nomination by the hospital authority of its essential staff.

Mr. Temple

These houses and the other houses built by the rural district council are being built for the hospital authority's exclusive use. That was the demand

Mr. Snow

I am explaining the general principle as it applies in many other cases. It is a fact, which should be remembered, that if a deal is done with the local authority, the houses will be on that local authority's account and in its ownership.

The proposed West Cheshire District General Hospital development on land adjoining Deva Hospital, construction of which has now begun, will incorporate residential units and this development, coupled with an increase in vehicular traffic along the Liverpool Road, which passes alongside the hospital, has made it necessary for the county council to improve this part of the highway, as the hon. Member has said, to dual-carriageway standard.

The county council also considered it necessary, to increase the safety factor of the improved road, to construct a pedestrian subway near the hospital entrance. Unfortunately, these works involved the demolition of the four houses which have been referred to, and there has, therefore, been a loss of some residential accommodation.

Mr. Temple

May I correct the hon. Gentleman? Seven houses, in fact, were lost, four by road widening and three as a result of the scheme.

Mr. Snow

I noticed the disparity. My information was that the number was eight, but it may well be seven. I do not, however, think that it affects the general argument.

Discussions are taking place between the regional hospital board, the county council and the rural district council about these developments. The rural district council was willing to help and offered to purchase a piece of land. It was at that point that, the hon. Member says, a dispute arose about price.

The site on which the rural district council offered to build is conveniently situated adjacent to the hospital and might well have been used already to build staff accommodation, but there was the question of priorities for the capital resources which have been allotted to the hospital. It might, therefore, have been of mutual convenience to the rural district council and the hospital authority that a deal should be done by which the houses would become part of the housing stock of the local authority.

The proposals to sell land to the rural district council on which it could build eight houses were entirely in accordance with the advice given to hospital authorities on the various ways open to them of meeting their need for residential accommodation. No difficulty occurred until the council made it known that it was not prepared to pay the full market price for the land. This was where the trouble arose.

Land is at present bought and sold between Government Departments and local authorities at the market value assessed by the district valuer as for a compulsory purchase, to which the Land Compensation Act, 1961, applies. This principle was laid down in paragraph 34 of Treasury Circular 2/59, which applied the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959, but when the appropriate sections of the 1959 Act were repealed by the Land Compensation Act, 1961, the provisions of the latter Act were then applied and were circularised in Treasury Circular 1/66.

It will, therefore, be seen that this deal is stuck on the vital question as to the value of the land. We feel that the regional hospital board must act within the terms of what stemmed from the 1961 Act. In fact, it is bound to. The hon. Gentleman says that abnormal cases were implied in the Circulars, and he is quite right. But the sort of exceptional cases mentioned were not, according to my advice, applicable to this sort of case.

Mr. Temple

I have the Under-Secretary of State's letter of 9th December here. He quotes paragraphs 29 and 30 of the circular covering these transactions but is now quoting entirely different paragraphs. I cannot understand the disparity.

Mr. Snow

The disparity arises from the fact that it was not absolutely clear for a certain time what precisely was the case being made by the rural district council. I concede that it might have been better earlier to refer to the 1961 Act, but, without being tendentious, I remind the hon. Gentleman that this Act was passed by the Conservative Government. I know that he is not making any political points, but we have to take the law as we understand it, and my advice is that this case is conditioned by what stems from the 1961 Act.

I hope that the local authority will see reason in this, and if, after consideration of what I have said, it feels it still has a case, I am prepared to go into further discussion with the hon. Member. At present, our advice is as I have stated it, and we feel that if this matter is going to "stick" much longer we may have to provide houses by building out of our existing resources, much as we should prefer not to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.