§ 2.9 p.m.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTONMy Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the fact that the recommendations of the Franks Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Enquiries, which have been accepted in the main by the Government, run contrary to the procedure at the public inquiry into the amendment of the development plan for the Burgh of St. Andrews, they will, in fairness to the objectors, make further investigation into the University's plan to acquire the Westburn Lane site for purposes of expansion.]
§ LORD STRATHCLYDEMy Lords, the Government's broad acceptance of the recommendations of the Franks Committee does not mean the reopening of proceedings already carried to a conclusion under the requirements and practices hitherto obtaining. Your Lordships will recognise that such a course would be wholly impracticable. In the present case the statutory position is that the decision taken by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland cannot now be reconsidered; nor, in the absence of new circumstances, could he seek to alter its effect by fresh proceedings.
With regard to what the noble Earl says about the procedure in this case, I should explain that the decision followed a full public inquiry, which lasted for ten days. The inquiry was conducted by a senior and very experienced advocate, wholly independent of the Government Department concerned, and the decision was in accordance with the recommendations in his report, of which copies were sent to all the parties.
§ LORD TEVIOTMy Lords, may I ask a supplementary question on that Answer of the noble Lord? Why was it that neither a professor of chemistry nor a professor of physics, both of whom will be intimately connected with the proposed scientific development, gave evidence at this inquiry? I hope that the 836 noble Lord will reconsider his Answer, for I should have thought that here was an opportunity to test that very admirable Report of the Franks Committee. I hope that the opportunity will not be missed and that Her Majesty's Government will go fully into the recommendations made in the Report.
§ LORD STRATHCLYDEMy Lords. I have already stated the situation in regard to the Franks Report. I presume that if the professors to whom the noble Lord has referred had so desired, they could have given evidence before the inquiry.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTONMy Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his reply. I quite appreciate that statutory regulations do not permit the Secretary of State to alter his decision. But if new circumstances arise—and I submit strongly that new circumstances have arisen, not only through the publication of the Franks Report but through the intervention of the National Trust for Scotland and the desire of the University now to acquire still more land on the Westburn Lane site area for further development—is there or is there not any legal impediment to the publishing by the Minister of a further amendment to the development plan, before what is unique in the architectural heritage of Scotland is swept away for ever?
§ LORD STRATHCLYDEMy Lords, the effect of the decision must alter the Town Council's statutory development plan. A further alteration would require the responsible authority—that is the Town Council—in the first place, to formulate a further amendment, in new circumstances. No new circumstances bearing on the merits of the position have so far emerged.
§ LORD MATHERSMy Lords, may I ask the Minister one or two questions? Is he aware that the Westburn Lane site is too small for the University's requirements, and that this is proved by the University's application to the Town Council to sell them Town Council property immediately adjoining the area, in order that they may have room for the developments they want to make? Is he aware that the University own within a short distance sufficient land and are 837 capable of carrying out all that they want to do in the way of development, and that many owners of small properties will be very seriously affected? Is he aware, further, that a new house has recently been built in the Westburn Lane area, with proper planning permission and also with the assurance of the Principal of the University that it was safe to build, but that this house is due for demolition in order that what is required may be carried out? And is he aware that inaccurate statements were made in the course of the inquiry that has been held; that there is not complete agreement amongst the University professors about taking the site, and that if the Westburn Lane site is taken, grave injustice will be done and the University's relationship with the town of St. Andrews seriously affected? Will not the Secretary of State prevent these harmful consequences by preventing the unjust and what is looked upon as predatory action by the University authorities?
§ LORD STRATHCLYDEMy Lords, of course I cannot give any reply in regard to inaccuracies which the noble Lord alleges were made during the course of the inquiry. But may I say that all the points which he has raised must have been taken up during the course of the inquiry. I would also remind the noble Lord that there has been not only one inquiry but two inquiries, both by independent persons, and the result of the final inquiry was quite definite on the matter.
§ LORD SILKINWould not the noble Lord agree that it was never the intention of the Oliver Franks Committee, in their recommendations, that where, after an inquiry, a decision had been given to the dissatisfaction of one of the parties, the matter should be capable of being reopened?
§ LORD STRATHCLYDEMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord. That is what I tried to indicate in the opening words of my reply.
LORD KINNAIRDMy Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, stated, I believe, that already the University have announced they require further property on the Westburn Lane site.
LORD KINNAIRDI understand from the authorities that they have given an undertaking not to require further land on that site. Would the noble Lord tell me whether or not a definite undertaking not to ask for a further extension on the Westburn Lane site has been given?
§ LORD STRATHCLYDEMy Lords, I am unable to answer that question. The proposals were to allocate for the purposes an area of 3.78 acres.
§ LORD POLWARTHMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to suggest to his colleague, the Secretary of State, in future cases of this sort that he should consult the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland, that statutory body of which I have the honour to be a member?