§ 2.35 p.m.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy 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 their attention has been called to the speech of Mr. Rodway Stephens to the Court of Common Council, City of London, on March 8, 1962; and whether they have any comment to make on his allegation that the decision of the Minister of Housing and Local Government had put it beyond the power of the City Corporation to accept Lord Mottistone's scheme for saving the Coal Exchange, since that allegation conflicts with ministerial Answers in this House.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EARL JELLICOE)My Lords, the letter sent on behalf of my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to the City Corporation, giving his views on the three schemes which had been submitted to him, was included in the report which was before 390 the Court of Common Council on March 8. I am sending my noble friend a copy of the letter. I think he will agree that my statements in this House are entirely consistent with it.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, I entirely agree. I have no complaint whatever of the statements of my noble friend. The point is that the statement made to the Court of Common Council by Mr. Rodway Stephens is wholly inconsistent both with the letter and with the statements made in this House. Does not my noble friend agree that what the Minister did was to release the Corporation from their undertaking to defer demolition? As my noble friend explained in the House, he left it entirely to the Corporation whether or not they demolished it. I have a further supplementary question, but I should like to know whether my noble friend agrees so far.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I would entirely agree with the interpretation which my noble friend has placed upon the letter which was sent from the Ministry.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, in that case does my noble friend recall that this gentleman is the Chairman of the Committee proposing the principal resolution to the Corporation? Is it not deplorable that he should have been guilty of such reckless inaccuracy? And are the Court of Common Council content that their consent to the demolition of this building should have been obtained by misrepresentation?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I am sure that my noble friend will agree with me that I can answer neither for the Court of Common Council nor for remarks made by members of the Court of Common Council.
§ BARONESS HORSBRUGHMy Lords, will the noble Earl say whether the matter has been taken up with the Court of Common Council: either that they have made a statement which is not correct or that they have made a mistake?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, what I was saying to my noble friend just now was that I could not answer for the Court of Common Council on this matter. Because of that, it is not for me to say whether they placed the right interpretation on the letter from the Ministry.
§ THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGHMy Lords, will Her Majesty's Government make it possible for interested members of the public to see this building before it is demolished?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I understand that it is possible for private persons who are interested in the building to see it by application to the City Surveyor. I understand also that the Corporation are considering making arrangements for it to be open to the public before it is demolished.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, if the noble Earl makes a statement in this House which cannot be reconciled with a statement by an important body like the Court of Common Council, does he not ask the Court of Common Council what is their explanation for making a statement which, obviously, is very disappointing to many people and which, it is now revealed, cannot be reconciled with his own statement?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I did not say that the statement could not necessarily be reconciled. If I may quote from it, what the Ministry's letter said was:
The Minister does not consider that he could reasonably ask the Corporation to adopt any of these schemes.According to The Times of March 9, Mr. Rodway Stephens is reported as saying that it was impossible for the Corporation to proceed with Lord Mottistone's scheme after its rejection. What I am saying now is that it is quite possible that the Corporation may have read the Ministry's letter in such a way that they would take it that it was impossible for them to proceed, not because they misinterpreted it but because they decided as a result that it was beyond their capability or beyond their financial resources. I am not saying that they necessarily placed a false interpretation on the Ministry's letter.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, what I am now asking is whether, in view of the fact that the Minister did not give a direct negative in this House, he has informed the Court of Common Council of that.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I understand that this matter has been taken up privately with the Court of Common Council.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, have the City Corporation informed Her Majesty's Government that the report, which is in substantially identical terms in The Times, the Daily Telegraph and, I think, some other papers, is in any way incorrect? The Daily Telegraph states categorically that the words used—they were in inverted commas—were:
It has gone beyond our power to accept Lord Mottistone's scheme in view of the decision of the Minister.As there is not one word in the letter which supports that statement, can we really leave the matter where it now is?