§ 3.2 p.m.
§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
§ On what basis the Department of Transport has spent more than £1.1 billion since 1986 on acquiring land and property purportedly for road building purposes, most of which is unlikely to be required.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish)My Lords, the department seeks to acquire the minimum amount of land and property consistent with the known requirements of the road programme. It is obliged under the statutory compensation code to buy property if certain criteria are met. That results in some land and property being acquired which is not ultimately needed.
§ Lord Stoddart of SwindonMy Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. But does he accept that the National Audit Office found a history of unnecessary acquisitions, waste and mismanagement by the department? Does he recognise that, as well as the losses incurred by the taxpayer, there has been much heartache, stress and, indeed, financial loss on the part of house owners whose properties have been acquired unnecessarily? Finally, why did it cost the Minister's department £4.3 million in 1992–93 to collect only £7.5 million in rental income? The most inefficient local housing authority would be a paragon of financial and managerial rectitude by those standards.
§ Lord Mackay of ArdbrecknishMy Lords, perhaps I should preface my answer by saying that, as the noble Lord will know, the report by the National Audit Office was published a fortnight ago and we are currently considering its recommendations. By convention, substantive comments on the findings of the National Audit Office are not made before the Public Accounts Committee has had an opportunity to take evidence from the department on that report. That evidence will be taken later in the year.
The National Audit Office's report conceded that the statutory compensation code places an obligation on the department to compensate owners by buying blighted properties regardless of the need for them. Indeed, many people wished their properties to be purchased because they did not wish to remain under the blight. It is a 1642 difficult problem but, as I say, we shall give our response to the Public Accounts Committee when it takes evidence on the issue later in the year.
§ Lord Clinton-DavisMy Lords, does the Minister not recognise the power of the indictment delivered by the National Audit Office in terms of wasteful management? Property records are incomplete. Rent arrears have burgeoned. Vacancy levels are far too high. Sales of surplus property are taking too long. And 60 per cent. of properties acquired compulsorily were found ultimately not to be needed. Why are the Minister and his colleagues so swift to condemn local authorities for offences that are far less grave and yet so slow and mealy-mouthed when it comes to recognising the ineptitude of the department?
§ Lord Mackay of ArdbrecknishMy Lords, the problem has been that when road schemes are being considered often a number of options are put in the frame. The NAO accepted that the department is under an obligation to deal with statutory blight and eligibility for blight claims. And yet at the end of the day of course the department will choose only one route for the road. Therefore, property will have been purchased on other routes which is not then needed.
In fact, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport said earlier this year, we have taken steps to attempt to speed up the road programme and reach decisions more quickly as to which route should be chosen. That is what we intend to do in the future and that should mean a reduction in the number of properties covered by blight.
§ Lord Clinton-DavisMy Lords, but does the Minister not accept that 60 per cent. of the properties acquired were not needed? Is that not almost a record of which his department should be thoroughly ashamed? Is not an apology due?
§ Lord Mackay of ArdbrecknishMy Lords, the noble Lord will know, as I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that the convention is that substantive comments on the findings of the NAO are not made until the Public Accounts Committee has had an opportunity to hear evidence. I do not wish to breach that convention but nor do I wish to appear unwilling to answer the noble Lord's question. Therefore, I am in something of a dilemma. However, as I said a few moments ago, we hope that our new approach to the road building programme and concentration on category 1 and category 2 projects will reduce the number of plans which at initial stages cause blight and lead to large property holdings. But it must be said also that there is an obligation on my department to minimise the distress, hardship and uncertainty of property owners affected by trunk roads. Noble Lords opposite would be critical of the department if that were not done.