§ LORD BEVERIDGEMy Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are now able to appoint an early date for setting up the comprehensive public inquiry on Oxford's traffic problem by an independent person, as promised by Her Majesty's Government in the debate in this House on the 13th of February last, and on the faith of which the Motion then before the House asking for an inquiry by a Royal Commission was withdrawn, after it had received the support of nearly every unofficial speaker.]
592§ THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT)My Lords, during the debate on February 13 last, the Government undertook to appoint an independent person to conduct a public inquiry into any proposals which the Oxford City Council might submit. An assurance was given by the Government that it would be an inquiry of the widest scope and that views about alternative solutions to the problem would be heard, but it was made abundantly clear that the starting point of the inquiry was to be the City Council's scheme. The City Council have, however, stated that they are unwilling to put forward the scheme which they were asked to submit, and they have not yet proposed any other scheme. A new situation thus confronts us.
My right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has discussed this new situation with representatives of the Oxford City Council. He explained to them that he was most anxious, as he knew the Council were, to reach a final decision on this problem as soon as possible, but that in view of the very strong conflicts of opinion he thought that up-to-date traffic information must be obtained as a first step before any public inquiry was held. The Council have now agreed to conduct an up-to-date traffic and parking survey. When this survey is complete, further action will clearly be necessary.
§ LORD BEVERIDGEMy 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 they adhere to the assurance given on their behalf in the debate in this House on February 13 last that nothing further would be done on the whole problem of Oxford's traffic congestion until the independent comprehensive public inquiry then proposed had taken place and this House had had an opportunity of discussing its report; and how the action just taken by the Minister of Housing and Local Government confirming the order for approval of land acquisition for a shopping centre in Cowley can be reconciled with that assurance.]
593§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, my right honourable friend's action in confirming the Oxford City Council's compulsory purchase order for the land required for the Cowley shopping centre in no way conflicts with the statements made on behalf of the Government in the debate on February 13 last. My right honourable friend believes it is widely agreed that the development of a major shopping centre in Cowley would contribute to reduction of the traffic congestion in the city, and that the sooner such a centre can be started the better. The site for the centre was settled three years ago when the Development Plan was approved. It was never in my right honourable friend's mind—nor I think in your Lordships'—that a start on the Cowley shopping centre should be deferred until the whole traffic problem had been re-examined. I believe that your Lordships will agree that that would have been unrealistic in the extreme.
§ LORD BEVERIDGEMy Lords, may I thank Her Majesty's Government for their full and reasoned answers to my questions? I hope they will not mind my saying that those answers are disappointing to me personally in several ways. May I, in thanking them, put to them one more question in the form of an entreaty? Will they recall the long debate which took place upon my Motion and the spirit in which that debate ended? My Motion, as your Lordships will know, was designed to argue that restoration of the past beauties of Oxford was a national and international problem too vital to be left to narrow vision or narrow interests or current procedure—
§ LORD BEVERIDGEMay I put this question? Was it not the case that the Government also accepted in principle my Motion, though we were not informed? May I not beg the Government to show that we were not mistaken in our belief as to the sympathetic attitude of the Government to a question of an inquiry, and to bringing the House into consultation again at the earliest possible moment?
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, I am afraid I am not quite certain what question it is that the noble Lord would like me to answer. However, perhaps I can 594 satisfy him by assuring him that the Government are just as anxious as he and as everybody else is who is concerned with this problem, that we should reach a speedy and satisfactory conclusion.