HL Deb 18 June 1990 vol 520 cc595-7

2.43 p.m.

The Viscount of Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:

What factors influenced their decision to intervene and prevent the transfer of the London Gay and Lesbian Centre from the London Residuary Body to the borough of Islington.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh)

My Lords, the principal factor to be taken into account when my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment determines an application is the interest of the chargepayers in the cost-effective and efficient discharge of the functions of the applicant authority. In the case of the London Residuary Body, its interest extends to London's chargepayers as a whole through the distribution of capital receipts.

The Viscount of Falkland

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. However, does he agree with me that this has been a conspicuously successful example of public funding of a body which has made itself self-sufficient over the years? Does it not seem rather strange that that body should have been singled out for the treatment that it received from the department, particularly in view of the strong social role that it plays in counselling and giving advice to an increasingly threatened minority group?

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, under Section 123(2) consent is normally refused unless it can be shown that it will be in the interests of the chargepayers of the disposing authority. Each case that comes before the Secretary of State under Section 123(2) is judged on its own merits.

Lord Renton

My Lords, do gays and lesbians mix freely together at the centre and how much does it cost the public?

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, if one looks at the name of the centre, one sees that various groups attend it. However, the interest here is with regard not to the cost of the operation on a revenue basis but with regard to the property itself, which is held by the LRB.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the centre has done valuable work in counselling people during the epidemic of AIDS which has spread through the community and that it is a matter not of frivolity but of serious concern that the organisation has been singled out, as my noble friend said, for special treatment?

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, the lease that is effective at the moment lasts until August 1992. It is not within the LRB's remit to deal with the matters of policy to which the noble Lord referred.

Lord Stallard

My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us what are the immediate to medium-term commercial and planning development interests in that area and how much they have influenced the decision?

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, in the current property market, I would say that it was a fluctuating figure.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, in view of the response which the Minister gave to an earlier question, is it not extraordinary that this is the only one of the 7,000 properties which the LRB inherited from the GLC to be treated in the manner that has been described? Is it not extraordinary that the centre, being in need, tries to raise the money to buy the property, is refused and it is then decided that the property is not to be transferred on the grounds that the centre can raise a commercial rent? If that is not discrimination, what is?

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as always makes a forceful case. However, it is important to realise that although the figure of 7,000 is accurate with regard to the total stock held or managed by the London Residuary Body, the important issue here is Section 123 of the Act. That has applied to only six properties; this is the seventh.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, for which of the other six properties has disposal been refused?

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, if a property is considered significant enough to come under the terms of Section 123 and must go before the Secretary of State it must be judged in each and every case on its merits. The first six properties were considered to have those merits. On the seventh, with regard to the matters to which I referred earlier concerning the prospects for the relationship to the chargepayers, the merits did not appear the same.

The Viscount of Falkland

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister to give me a straight answer; no pun is intended. In the exchanges between the department, the local authority and the gay centre, the department mentioned the word "unacceptable" with regard to the level of subsidy, as it was described. What was unacceptable: the level of subsidy or the use of the building?

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, I think I am correct in saying that if the word "unacceptable" has been used in the context to which the noble Viscount referred, it refers to the level of subsidy.