HL Deb 06 March 1962 vol 237 cc1094-7

2.42 p.m.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, I beg leave 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 will set up an independent body to review and report upon the occupation of land by Government Departments with a view to putting on the market as quickly as possible those areas suitable for building purposes which are not being adequately used at present.]

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

My Lords, land-owning Government Departments keep their holdings under review with the object of releasing land for development or redevelopment as soon as it is no longer required. Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that Departments have been made aware of the importance of limiting their holdings of land suitable for building purposes to the minimum essential for their present or clearly foreseen requirements. In these circumstances, it is not felt that a special inquiry as suggested by my noble friend is required.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, I should like to ask him this supplementary question. When building land is commanding famine prices in many parts of the country, is it not right that Government Departments should be called upon to justify their retention of such land? And can Her Majesty's Government suggest a better way of bringing that about than the method suggested in my Question?

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I should certainly agree with my noble friend that it is extremely important now, as indeed it was in the past, that Government Departments should not hold unnecessarily land which could be used for development; but the Government are satisfied that the machinery which exists is perfectly satisfactory for avoiding any unnecessary holding of land.

LORD REA

My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether the machinery to which he refers deals only with land, or does it deal also with buildings originally erected for private occupation but now occupied by the Government?

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, it deals with buildings as well as land.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, is it really essential that, even where land is not required by a Government Department for the purpose for which it has been held, it should be sold? Is it not better that it should be used for some public purpose, if at all possible, rather than that it should be sold to private enterprise?

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I think it would be very difficult to generalise on that particular question, but the whole question of the disposal of land owned by Government Departments is kept under careful review by an official committee called the Land Transactions Committee.

LORD SILKIN

I am, of course, aware of that. But the assumption in the Question, and I thought in the Answer, was that once land was surplus to Government requirements the proper thing was to sell it to private enterprise. I was hoping the noble Earl would be able to say that that is not necessarily the case.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I was not aware that there was any such assumption in the Question, and certainly there was no such assumption in my Answer.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, would the noble Earl keep in mind that an alternative to selling land in public ownership—I am not talking about odd plots here and there—is to lease it? Is it not the case that Regent Street, for example, which is Crown land, has brought revenue to the nation, as other properties have similarly done? It has happened that the London County Council have done very well out of leasing land for commercial purposes. Is not that an equally, if not a more, advantageous course than selling it in all cases?

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, before my noble friend replies, would he refer to my Question, in which he will read the words "putting on the market"? I deliberately worded that in such a way as to include the ground renting or selling.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I think the last two supplementaries go a little beyond the original Question put to me—

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.

EARL JELLICOE

—but I was aware, in replying to one of the supplementaries, of the particular wording used by my noble friend.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, this Question refers to putting land on the market. Is it not perfectly plain to the noble Earl that in the last ten years the exploitation of land in the market for private profit has brought very great burdens to bear upon the ordinary citizen? That stands out a mile in most people's observations. I hope, therefore, that he will do all he can to conserve the property which the Government have, and either keep it for some beneficent purpose or see that when it goes on the market it is leased for the benefit of the public.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I hardly think the noble Viscount's supplementary arises from the original Question.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the more land that he keeps for use in the hands of Government Departments the higher will be the cost of the remaining land to the public?

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!