§ 2.36 p.m.
§ LORD BOSSOMMy 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 they will state the approximate area within the limit of Greater London held in the possession of British Railways, and which, like Park Avenue, New York City, could be covered and thus make available a considerable area of land on which to build housing accommodation or blocks of flats, factories, thoroughfares, et cetera, but would in no way restrict or limit the full and free use of the land below for railway uses.]
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM)My Lords, before answering the noble Lord's Question, I should explain that this is a complex matter. The actual use that could be made of the land owned by British Railways will be governed largely by factors partially or wholly outside the control of the railway, such as planning require-merits and the availability of finance. It can therefore by no means be assumed that the amount of land I mention can in practice be developed to its full potential.
British Railways own in the Greater London area approximately 1,350 acres of land which it is thought could, if redeveloped, whether with decking-over techniques or otherwise, ultimately be used for combined operational and non- 878 operational purposes or wholly for non-operational purposes. It is estimated that, in addition to this 1,350 acres, an area amounting to about 300 acres could eventually be made available, where physical circumstances permitted, by decking over existing operational land.
§ LORD BOSSOMMy Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, is it not a fact that this is nationalised land, and, if it were decked over, would there not be a great saving for the ratepayer and taxpayer in using it as it could be used, and is used in several other countries, to the great advantage of the railways and of the general public? Is there any reason why this is not done in this country when it is done in several countries in Europe and in America?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I think my noble friend is right in principle about this use of the land. There are two factors that I think he must remember. One is that, as things are at present, and have been up to now, the railways have not had powers to develop their own land. Secondly, I understand—my noble friend will know more about it than I do—that this business of decking over and building on top is extremely expensive, and that in many instances, while technically possible, it might be difficult to spend the money to advantage and obtain a return from it.
§ EARL HOWEMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the decking-over idea mentioned just now covers the use of development of this land for car parks?
§ LORD CHESHAMI expect it could be, my Lords.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, if this idea were to be adopted—and I agree it is worthy of consideration, though there are practical difficulties—would it be the case that, unless the railways were electrified, there would be objection on grounds of smoke; and even holes made above would be objectionable because the smoke would meet the public? Am I not right in saying that the New York railways which terminate underground in New York City are all electrified?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I should have thought that it was certainly much more desirable. The noble Lord is right: it would be better to build over electrified lines, because with diesel or steam there would certainly have to be the necessary ventilation and smoke escape.
§ LORD BOSSOMMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that the railways in Chicago are all smoke railways, or were smoke railways, that they are all decked over and that there is no trouble at all? It is a perfectly simple matter to handle, so the smoke part is no problem. We had a debate on this subject last week. The cost of land is tremendous, and this can be done without delaying a single train. Is my noble friend aware that the Americans built all those buildings—Park Avenue and so on—without delaying a solitary train? It was all done without undue expense. I think we should find it would be better than buying the land we now have to buy.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I am very interested to hear these facts from my noble friend, and I have no doubt that, as the matter comes to be investigated, due regard will be paid to what he has said.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Bossom, may say about the railways underground in Chicago, some of us are old enough to remember the beastly smell of smoke and the sight of the Metropolitan and District Railways in London before they were electrified. We do not want that again.
§ LORD BOSSOMIf you go to Chicago you do not have it, and that is the simple answer.
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, could the noble Lord say whether discussions are in fact taking place between British Transport and the London County Council, and, if so, could he say what progress is being made with those discussions?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I can certainly tell the noble Lord that such discussions are going on. I cannot tell him positively what progress is being 880 made with them because I understand it has been found that it is a question of dealing with sites almost individually because of their varying characteristics.
§ LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGHMy Lords, might I ask the noble Lord whether he has any reason to doubt that those in charge of the railways, which, of course, include these bits of land here and there, will fail to commercialise their land if they find a suitable opportunity?
§ LORD CHESHAMWhat I have a little doubt about is whether that question arises from the Question put down by my noble friend.