HL Deb 14 May 1969 vol 302 cc118-20

2.47 p.m.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

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 investigators of historic buildings under the Town and Country Planning Acts can be directed to notify owners that their houses are about to be investigated for the purpose of listing as buildings of interest, and of the date of investigation.]

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET

My Lords, the majority of buildings listed are listed for external features alone and can therefore normally be surveyed from the public highway. If an invesigator wishes to enter premises the practice is to call and ask permission to enter. In view of this my right honourable friend does not think it necessary to add a formal notification of intention to survey buildings to the existing procedures. Its addition would delay the very great task of reviewing the lists which is now in progress.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

My Lords, arising out of the Answer of the noble Lord, may I ask him three questions? First, since when has an archaeological matter of this sort been regarded as a matter for great haste? Secondly, as to an inspector's obtaining access to buildings to survey the inside, is the noble Lord aware that his Answer does not deal with my question, which is that the inspector should obtain permission from the landlord and not necessarily from the person who lives in the house? Lastly, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the Ministry of Public Building and Works, when dealing with ancient monuments as opposed to historic buildings, use a practice much more satisfactory to landlords? I will give the noble Lord an example of it after Question Time.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, an archaeclogical matter of this sort should not, of course, be the subject of haste, nor is it. It has taken twenty years to get the lists to the state they are now; it will take twenty years to get them up to date. All I am saying is that the addition of what the noble Lord requires will probably double that to forty years. The question of the permission of the landlord is, in the view of my right honourable friend, irrelevant. It does not matter who owns the building; it is listed solely on its merits as a building. Property rights are not affected by the listing. The Minister of Public Building and Works pursues a different procedure, I believe, because the obligations which may be imposed upon the owner of a building that is scheduled as an ancient monument are graver than those imposed upon the owner of a building listed as being of architectural or historic interest.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

My Lords, will the noble Lord consider instructing the officials concerned with town and country planning to revert, or to change, to the courteous procedures that was always adopted in the past by the former Ministry of Works? Does he realise that the arrogant attitude of certain officials in turning up unannounced does not lead to co-operation from either owner or occupier; and does he not consider that this is by no means either a democratic or a satisfactory way of conducting researches which, however desirable, ought always to be done in a proper and civil manner?

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I think that I have already answered the point about the Ministry of Public Building and Works. If the noble Earl has examples of arrogant behaviour by any of my right honourable friend's investigators, I shall be grateful if he will notify me of them.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

My Lords, is the noble Lord further aware that it is perfectly easy to find out from the local rating authorities who is the owner-occupier of premises; and to suggest that they cannot provide information is an insult to them all over the country, as they are most competent?

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I made no such suggestion.