HL Deb 20 July 1961 vol 233 cc778-81

3.15 p.m.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that variations have been permitted by the City of Bristol Corporation to the development plan for the central area of Bristol, as approved by the Minister of Housing and Local Government in 1952; and whether the Minister will take appropriate action in pursuance of such permissions.]

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EARL JELLICOE)

My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord is referring to the erection of office buildings for the Bank of England and the Norwich Union in the Wine Street area. The land concerned was allocated for civic purposes in the development plan and had already been acquired by the Corporation. Bristol Corporation sought the consent of my right honourable friend to the disposal of the sites for office building, and this was given, since development by the Bank and the Norwich Union seemed appropriate to the character of the area. The Corporation themselves gave planning permission for the erection of the buildings.

My right honourable friend is aware that this matter has given rise to controversy and he is considering the position.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, does the noble Lord consider it right that land should be compulsorily acquired for one purpose and then disposed of for another purpose entirely; that land acquired for the purpose of municipal buildings should be disposed of for the purpose of a private insurance company?

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, with such an expert as the noble Lord I shall be very cautious in replying to this, but it was certainly my impression that the land was acquired by the municipality, and it was the municipality themselves who asked to dispose of it in this way.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, that does not really answer the supplementary question I nut. Does the noble Earl think it right that the land which has been acquired for civic purposes, presumably for civic buildings, should then be used for an entirely different purpose, for the building of an insurance company's offices? May I, while I am on my feet, ask him another question? Is he aware that the Fine Art Commission have sought to put their views before the Council and that the Council have refused to see them?

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I thought I had answered the noble Lord's first supplementary question. In answer to his second, I am aware that the Royal Fine Art Commission have sought to put their views before the Bristol Corporation on this matter, and I understand that they are in touch with them on it now.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, is it not a fact that the municipality can requisition a building without specifying the purpose for which the site is to be used?

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I do not think there is any question of requisitioning these buildings. They were acquired by the municipality, and before there was a change of use the Corporation did what I understand is perfectly appropriate in these cases; that is, they sought the Minister's permission for a change of development and use. And that permission was granted. I understand that that is a perfectly correct procedure.

LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE

My Lords, is not the implication of Lord Silkin's question that it might be wrong, or less in the public interest or less profitable to the nation, to devote a site to a money-making concern rather than to a civic purpose? If that is so, does it not follow that, had it been known that the Norwich Union was to get this site they would have paid more for it, and therefore perhaps less was paid than should have been paid?

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, that was certainly not the implication of my question, whatever inference the noble Lord may draw from it. The implication of my question was a perfectly simple one. The compulsory purchase procedure is devised in order to enable a local authority to carry out their functions. I was asking: when the authority take somebody's else's land, and say they want it for the purpose of municipal buildings, is it right then, having acquired it compulsorily, to use it for some other purpose?

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord I can only repeat that, as I understand it, all the correct procedures were gone through in this particular case so far as planning is concerned.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I certainly think the Minister should never have agreed to it, particularly as there has been a public inquiry and the public have attended the inquiry and given evidence. The Minister should never have agreed to it. I think it was quite improper, and I propose to raise the matter again at some convenient time.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl, if the Corporation did not require the land for their own purposes, why they did not offer it back to its original owner from whom they compulsorily acquired it?

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I shall be glad to look into the answer to that particular question, which off-hand I do not know.