§ Mr. Chris SmithI beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 17, line 14, leave out clause 28.
We touched on some of the issues relating to the amendment in our discussion on the last group of amendments. The amendment would delete clause 28 on the abolition of rights of reverter and pre-emption. The purpose of clause 28 is to abolish rights given to landowners in the 1840s and 1850s when King's Cross station and the Great Northern railway were created.
Pre-emption means the right to buy back land acquired under the Great Northern Railway Act of 1846, if and when it ceases to be used for railway purposes, and here is the real sting in the tail: pre-emption means the buying back of that land at the original purchase price. Hon. Members will immediately identify the importance of that particular right. The original purchase price was about £100 per acre and, if the land were now available to the original holder at such a price, it would constitute an extremely valuable asset.
The reference to rights of reverter is a reference to the equivalent rights written into contracts for voluntary sale by at least one landowner; so the principle in the case of both rights—pre-emption and reverter—is exactly the same. Those who owned the original land back in the 1850s, who either had the land compulsorily purchased by the railway company or sold it by voluntary agreement, should have the right to re-acquire it if it ceases to be used for railway purposes—and to do so at the original purchase price. British Rail does not require some of the land for railway purposes, and seeks, under clause 28, to override the provisions of the 1846 Act.
Two major organisations have come forward to claim their rights to the land referred to in the clause. Many other people and organisations owned land in the King's Cross station area in the 1850s, and there may well be substantial numbers of descendants of the original owners 892 who, were they aware of their rights under the 1846 Act, would be extremely concerned to learn that clause 28 would remove those rights. We know of two organisations in precisely that position—the special trustees of St. Bartholomew's hospital and the Church Commissioners.
Both organisations have gone to court to prove and protect their rights. They won their case in the chancery division. British Rail appealed and judgment on that appeal is awaited, so the matter is, strictly, sub judice. It is generally believed that, whatever the outcome of the appeal, the matter is likely to go before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
British Rail wants to short-circuit that process. It is intent on abolishing the right of pre-emption and reverter and ensuring that, when any of the land is no longer required for railway purposes—it has used the land and no longer needs it once the works are completed—it can develop that land. For some years now, British Rail and the London Regeneration Consortium have been discussing the possibility of such development, which would be extremely valuable, although the current state of the property market—with 20 or 25 per cent. overcapacity in office space in London and surrounding areas—the package has become somewhat less financially attractive for British Rail and the developers. That is throwing into question some of the financial calculations that British Rail must have been making in relation to the King's Cross project.
The point is quite clear: British Rail wants to hang on to such land even though it no longer requires it to run a railway or a station, and to overturn rights which, for the past 150 years, have pertained to St. Bartholomew's and the Church Commissioners—and, for all we know, many other organisations and individuals. I do not think that it is right that British Rail should seek to overturn such long-standing rights. I do not think that it is right for British Rail to seek to expropriate property which it no longer needs for running a railway.
British Rail should be in the business of creating stations and running trains. BR should not be in the business of taking rights away from the descendants of previous owners of the land to enable BR to make a profit out of property development. That is what clause 28 would make possible. I believe that clause 28 should be removed from the Bill, and that is precisely what my amendment would do.
§ Mr. WallerIf the amendment were accepted, it would remove from the Bill a power to be conferred on the British Railways Board to abolish certain rights of reverter and pre-emption that may exist over land specified in clause 28. The bodies that would be affected by the exercise of that power—the Church Commissioners, St. Bartholomew's hospital and the National Freight Corporation—would be suitably compensated. The matter is the subject of litigation between the board and those bodies. The parties are fully protected by the litigation, which, I submit, should be allowed to run its proper course. The question whether the clause should remain in the Bill may then be settled in the other place, when that litigation has been determined. Nothing could be achieved by our accepting the amendment.
893 I hope that that answer will satisfy the hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that any good purpose would be achieved by accepting the amendment, and I therefore have to disappoint him.
§ Mr. Chris SmithWith the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the hon. Gentleman.
I must confess that I am as disappointed by the hon. Gentleman's response as I expected to be. I did not expect that British Rail would be prepared to give way on this rather important point.
We all hope that the judicial process which is currently under way will take proper and fair cognisance of the rights of not just British Rail but the original owners of the land in question. But, if the hon. Gentleman is so convinced that the judicial process ought to decide this matter, there is no need for British Rail to have this clause in the Bill.
We hope that, when the Bill goes to another place, their Lordships will be mindful of the concern that several of us have expressed in the House about overriding the rights of pre-emption and reverter. It is a matter to which the Committee that considered the Bill referred and on which a number of hon. Members have consistently expressed concern. It is a matter which ought to be, and could be, decided by judicial process rather than by the inclusion of clause 28 in the Bill and I certainly hope that their Lordships will take note of these facts.
I am not convinced by what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I wish to put the matter to the House.
§ Question put and negatived.