HL Deb 29 April 1964 vol 257 cc962-6

2.38 p.m.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

My Lords, I beg leave 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 what inquiries for alternative sites were made before the decision of the Prison Department of the Home Office was taken to propose the use of part of the former Royal Naval Air Station at Culham, Oxfordshire, for the building of a new full security prison for 500 men.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT)

My Lords, the search for sites for new prisons is a continuous one. Suitable sites are hard to find, and no other suitable site was in view when the proposal to build at Culham was first made.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether in fact the site at Didcot was considered, and whether the alternative sites of two aerodromes which are now being given up by the Americans, at Brize Norton and Upper Heyford, have also been considered?

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, all these sites are considered as they come forward. The Didcot depôt became available after the proposal was first made to build at Culham. It was examined, but the only available site there was less suitable than the one at Culham; and this applies also to the other two sites

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether or not this new building is to be within the Green Belt?

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, this question of the Green Belt was thoroughly considered at the public inquiry, in the report of the inquiry, and by my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Minister of Housing and Local Government. The county planning authority did not object to the proposal, and the conclusion reached was that the prison would be secluded and that its situation in a proposed Green Belt ought not, in all the circumstances, to be regarded as an overriding objection.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, may I take it, then, that this prison is to be in the Green Belt? Further, is this not a violation of avowed Government policy? Is the noble Lord aware that in the Green Belt surrounding Oxford there has been one violation of a commercial building for the British Motor Corporation, now there is the violation for the erection of this prison, and yet it is impossible for houses to be built in the Green Belt, or for permission to be obtained to build them, to house the overspill of thousands from the City of Oxford?

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, it is to be in the Green Belt. The original buildings there are in the Green Belt. This matter was thoroughly considered by all concerned and, in the circumstances, it was thought that, as it was replacing existing buildings in the Green Belt, it was not an overriding matter.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Then are we to take it that the Green Belt policy of Her Majesty's Government is now jettisoned?

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, the noble Lord is not to take that to be so.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, when authority was given for the existence of the building in this Green Belt, it was given deliberately on condition that it did not set a precedent for any further building? Can there really be any justification whatsoever for planting down 25 acres of prison buildings, with a 12 foot surrounding wall, plus 30 additional houses, in the middle of the Green Belt?

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, as I say, there was an inquiry and all concerned went into the matter. Prisons have to be built somewhere. There were existing buildings and, in all the circumstances, it was thought necessary and wise to build the prison in this particular place.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, will the noble Lord answer the point put by the noble Viscount opposite—namely, whether an undertaking was given earlier that the buildings then existing would not be replaced by other types of building? If there was, it looks as if there is a breach of the understanding. Further, do the Government take the Green Belt seriously, or do they take it flippantly? Are they going in for a policy of nibbling at the Green Belt, which may lead us anywhere?

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, as regards the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I have explained why this building comes within the policy of the Green Belt in these particular circumstances. As regards the first part of his supplementary question, I am not aware of any such undertaking. I had not heard about it until this moment, so I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord an answer.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

Would the noble Lord inquire and let the House, or somebody, know?

LORD DERWENT

Certainly.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

My Lords, will the Government now consider these three alternative sites which the noble Lord says have come to light since the original decision to seek permision to build at Culham?

LORD DERWENT

They have, in fact, been considered, and I am afraid we are not likely to go back on our policy of building this prison at Culham.

2.44 p.m.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

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 what is the estimated inclusive cost of the provision of the projected prison at Culham, Oxfordshire.]

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, as the prison scheme at Culham has not yet been formulated in detail, no estimate of its cost can be made at this stage.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

My Lords, if it has not even got as far as that, surely there is still plenty of time to consider alternative sites. Is my noble friend aware that it is going to cost Her Majesty's Government considerably more to build the prison at Culham than it would to build it at any of the other sites to which reference has been made?

LORD DERWENT

The first Question which the noble Viscount asked was a question as to site, which has now been settled. This is a question of buildings. I cannot agree that the other sites, in particular the Didcot site, would cost less. It is clear from examination of the Didcot site that, since far more and much heavier demolition work would be necessary, the cost of a prison here would be greater than at Culham.

LORD SALTER

My Lords, if the Minister finds on inquiry that such a pledge was made that the earlier building would not be a precedent, will he then consider whether that is not a sufficient reason for considering alternative sites, realising—apart from the particular damage done to the Green Belt in a particular case—that there is a great danger that it will form a precedent for future breaches?

LORD DERWENT

I think I had better make the inquiry before I answer that question.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, is the noble Lord seriously saying that the Government, having decided to go forward with this scheme, have acquired a site, and yet have no estimate as to the cost of building?

LORD DERWENT

I said I had no detail about the cost of building. It is probably likely to cost over £1 million, but the exact estimate I cannot give.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

The noble Lord had better ask the Ministry of Aviation.