HL Deb 30 July 1963 vol 252 cc1118-33

4.37 p.m.

LORD HAWKE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the admitted urgent need of additional houses in the London area, they will aim at securing the use of all the railway land now becoming surplus for housing purposes. The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Molson is making all speed to London, but Dr. Beeching is unable to get him here in time to ask his Question. Therefore he asked me if I would put the Question on his behalf, if it came on a little earlier than he expected.

In this Question there are two facts about which there is no dispute at all: first of all, there is the grave shortage of housing in London; secondly, there is probably already a surplus of office space, having regard to the capacity of the transport undertaking serving London to move people in and out to their work. Here, in the hands of the railway, are surplus lands. The areas are substantial. No precise figure has ever been stated to my knowledge, but I believe a Government spokesman has agreed that the figure is more than 1,000 acres, and my noble friend in the past has mentioned a figure of 1,500 acres. The problem is how to secure this area for housing in face of much higher values current for land for business premises.

The 1947 Transport Act did not give the Transport Commission power to develop land except for the purposes of their own undertakings. However, that omission was corrected in the Transport Act, 1962. During the passage of that Bill through this House, we tried to amend the Bill so that the power should be used only for what appeared to be the public good. In the event, the Government were reluctant to interfere with the market economy, and they lost a Division on this point by 59 votes to 39. As a result, they introduced a new clause to the Bill, which is Clause 87, and, in short, the purport of it is that the Railway Board must submit to the, Minister proper planning proposals for a balanced development.

Since the passage of that Act there have been moves on the question of railway land, and one hears that the ideas of the Railway Board and the London County Council, as the planning authority, differ as to what constitutes proper balanced development. Of course, the Minister is the arbiter, and the problem is either with him now or will eventually have to go to him. I think my noble friend has put his Question down to ensure that the Minister of Housing and Local Government does not lose sight of the point of view of your Lordships' House when we decided on that Bill, a year ago, that London housing should take precedence over other uses.

The difficulties that I envisage are of two needs. First of all, there is the obvious personal need. The land department of the railways, with its executives, sees great power and glory to be had in big schemes of office development, and they will obviously fight tooth and nail to keep their empire intact if there is any danger of the land being taken away from them and handed over to the local authority for housing purposes. Secondly, there is the question of finance. If land is used for offices, someone will pay more for its use than they will if it is used for houses. The railways will naturally claim: "Why should we lose money in the interests of housing?"

This is where I believe the matter in the past has been badly handled, through lack of imagination. We have written off hundreds of millions of railway capital, and we have put (I think the figure is) £800 million of railway capital to suspense account. As we all know, the prospects of any return on that capital put in suspense are very remote indeed. Yet nobody seems to have thought of the obvious quid pro quo for these financial operations: that the surplus land or, at any rate, the development value of that land should accrue to the State which has forgone its debt owed by the railways. The railways are still, I believe, quite unrealistically capitalised, and I consider we should still write off further capital and, in return, do a deal for the land. There are various forms which this deal could take and I will not go into them, but the most probable form would end up with some sort of State enterprise holding the land, or its development value, and it would be up to Parliament to say that the land shall be sold or leased on long leases to the housing authorities for housing purposes. The fact that the State had passed over to local authorities assets at less than their market value would require some accounting adjustment in the national accounts, but I believe it would be quite possible to do that.

My Lords, this is possibly the last great chance we shall have to get a big slice of land for housing Londoners within reach of their work. If we miss it and allow the railway land to be covered with office premises, adding to the congestion of traffic, then I do not think our descendants will lightly forgive us.

4.42 p.m.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, we are sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Molson, is not here to ask his Question. I think that I and my noble friends on this side would heartily support the demand expressed to the Government in his Question. I believe that everything the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has said is true; the situation in London is quite tragic, as we all know, in probably millions of cases. But I am not prepared to discuss the general question. I have risen to bring a particular case to the attention of the Government. I have heard about it only within the last twenty-four hours, so my information, which obviously cannot wait because the House is about to rise for the Summer Recess, will possibly be incomplete, and I must ask the Minister to accept it as it is. When I get further information, I shall be able to write to him.

The position is that not far outside Central London there is a working-class housing estate containing 540 flats, which means housing for 1,500 or more people. The estate was built to rehouse the families whose land was needed for the Great Central Railway development about 1898 or 1899. It was put up by the railways, who, I believe, formed a subsidiary company for that purpose. They are large, old-fashioned housing blocks, and as they were built over 60 years ago they obviously have not the modern amenities that we expect to-day. But they are solid, well built and convenient for people whose work is in Central London; and the rents are reasonable.

In the last few days some alarming rumours have reached the tenants that the flats are to be sold by the railways over their heads. In these days, a sale of that kind can mean only one thing: that the buyer proposes to redevelop in such a way as to produce the maximum capital profit. That will mean, if the blocks are converted and modernised in a way that has happened in so many working-class housing areas in London, that the decontrolled tenants, of whom there are a great many in this estate, will have to leave; the flats will have money spent on them; they will be brought up into a quite different economic class and will be let or sold for far greater sums of money. To the best of my belief the position is that half the capital of the company which owns this estate of flats—capital with voting rights and to the value, I am told, of some £45,000—belongs to British Railways. It is that block of shares, I am told, that British Railways are contemplating selling. Obviously, if that half of the share capital is sold to somebody who already owns a few shares in the other half, it will give the purchaser control over the company.

Local opinion is, I think, disturbed for two reasons. First, there is the personal tragedy of those families involved, who may lose their homes; but there is the further question that the local authority's housing waiting list is going to be inflated enormously. I am told that the borough waiting list in St. Marylebone contains some 900 names. If another 500 or more are added, it will be an enormous increase to the housing problem facing the council. I believe that local authorities have power to buy housing property when it comes on to the market if it appears that the property is likely to suffer a change of character as a result of the sale. But I am not sure whether it could be proved that a sale like this would necessarily entail a change of character in the housing. It seems, therefore, from what I hear, that the position is not such that action by the borough council is possible.

What I should like to ask the Minister (as I have said, I do not expect him to give me an answer straight away) is whether he will find out if British Railways are, in fact, proposing to carry through this sale; and, if so, what is to happen to the families involved. As I have said, it would mean that a considerable proportion of the flats would become decontrolled, and that must mean an enormous worsening of the already very serious housing situation in that part of London.

4.49 p.m.

LORD WALERAN

My Lords, I should like to speak for just a moment or two on this matter. I fully appreciate the point of the Question which is down in the name of my noble friend Lord Molson, and the desire for further housing in our London area—and in our other great cities for that matter. Nevertheless, I believe that we are wrong in perpetuating the mistakes we have already made in not allowing enough road space or parking space in our cities. Naturally I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, that railway land, which I believe is often unsuitable for housing, should not be used for office building, thus bringing more people into our big cities and, as he said, making our road transportation facilities worse. On the other hand, if railway land is sold for housing purposes it, to my mind, involves a change of user; and all I would ask Her Majesty's Government and the right honourable gentleman the Minister concerned would be to be very certain that before they allow a change of user—in other words, something that is not concerned with transportation, as the railways were—the land is very seriously looked at with a view to its being used either for road improvements or for off-street garage accommodation for the people already coming into and living in London.

4.50 p.m.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, if I might deal first with the point just made by my noble friend Lord Waleran, I feel fairly certain that my noble friend Lord Molson, had he been here, would have had no quarrel with what he has just said. The contrast made in Section 87 of the Transport Act, 1962, to which I would allude, refers to a proper balance between offices and business premises, on the one hand, and housing and other amenity uses required for the resident community, on the other. So I am sure my noble friend Lord Molson would have agreed with that point.

What I should like to impress on Her Majesty's Government is the extreme urgency of this matter, and the danger that London will face unless the Government take the right steps now. I moved the Amendment on May 28 last year which was carried against the Government on the following day by a majority of 59 to 39. I am still absolutely convinced that the principle of that Amendment was right. It provided that none of these boards, the British Railways Board being the chief, could develop any of their land in the County of London to provide office accommodation not required for their own purposes unless the Minister of Housing and Local Government certified that by the time it became available for use an equivalent amount of existing office accommodation in London would have been converted to residential use. In other words, it might be that some of this railway land was suitable for offices, but it could not be used for offices, unless existing offices employing roughly the same number of people were converted to residential use; the reason for that being that there was so much office accommodation in central London already, that any increase of that accommodation at the expense of housing would mean an increase in the population travelling into and out of London daily, which would bring London to a complete standstill.

Unless the Government take the action that is now required, the future of this capital is in danger. It will become inefficient for all uses, including the requirements of business, and it will become very unpleasant to live in. I could not hold the whole of that victory of May 29, 1962, but nevertheless the Government did insert Section 87 of the Transport Act, 1962, which made it necessary for the Railways Board to attempt to agree this matter with the London County Council, which it appears they have not been able to do, and for the matter then to go to the Minister; and that is the position which we have now reached. It may be that my noble friend Lord Hastings, when he comes to reply, will admit—I am sure he will—the great importance of all these considerations, but will say the Minister has not yet made up his mind. Well, my Lords, I think this House would like to help him make up his mind, because the urgency is even greater than it was at the time that we had this crucial Division last year. As I reminded the House on the Second Reading of the recent Town and Country Planning Bill, I asked an oral Question in this House on November 8 last year. This is what I asked Her Majesty's Government [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 244, cols. 382–3]: … whether they will give their estimate․

  1. (a) of the number of persons entering and leaving the county of London daily for the purpose of work; and
  2. (b) of the increase expected when tenants have been found for all the office buildings already erected, or now in course of construction, or for the erection of which planning permission has already been given."
The Answer of the Minister, my noble friend Lord Chesham, on that occasion was this: he gave the figure of 1,340,000 as the number of people who now travel daily to and from work in the central area of London, and then he said this—and I use his actual words: New offices in the central area are expected to provide employment for some 80,000 additional people, most of whom will travel into, and out of, the area daily. So there are an additional 80,000 people as a result of permissions already given by that date in November when I asked my Question.

If Her Majesty's Government go on allowing this process to continue, London will lose its greatness as a capital city. From being one of the pleasantest of capitals in which to live, it will become one of the least pleasant. Office workers will suffer the utmost hardship in travelling to and from their work daily. The congestion will be quite appalling. The efficiency and reputation of our capital city will suffer. I am perfectly certain—at least, I have very little doubt—that the Minister when he comes to reply will say that his right honourable friend proposes to preserve the balance laid down in Section 87 of the Transport Act, 1962. That is the section that provides these temporary provisions for London.

It is possible, however, that that section will not enable the Minister, in the view of his legal advisers, to say that none of this property, none of this land, shall be used for office purposes unless an equivalent amount of office accommodation is given up, even if he thinks that that is required in the interests of good planning. If that is the case, it is not beyond the wit of Her Majesty's Government or of Parliament to ask for the strengthening of the powers conferred by Section 87 of that Act. If Section 87 is in itself insufficient to stop the proposals of the railways in relation to Euston alone, then further powers are needed, and needed urgently.

I beg Her Majesty's Government not to say, as an excuse for allowing this process, which is threatening efficiency and the standard of living in London, to continue, merely that their existing statutory powers are limited. Their existing statutory powers would be a good deal stronger, if they had accepted and put into their own language the Amendment which I moved, and which this House carried by a majority of three to two, a little over a year ago. But there is now in the Statute their own Section 87. I should like to know from my noble friend whether he thinks that that section would enable the Minister to stop the further growth of office employment in central London through the use of railway property; and, if so, whether he will use his powers. But if he thinks that Section 87 will not suffice for this purpose, then I believe it is the virtually unanimous view of this House that further powers should be sought to stop a real disaster to our capital city.

5.2 p.m.

LORD MANCROFT

My Lords, may I turn briefly once again to the point which has been raised by my noble friend Lord Waleran—namely, the need for providing space for off-street parking and garages in the centre of our capital city? One of the chief objections raised to the proposals that are put forward by the local authorities is that the sites they have selected are land which could otherwise be used for housing, which of course directly reflects upon the Question of my noble friend Lord Molson. But I think there is becoming increasingly available railway land which could usefully be put to this purpose and which is at the moment under-developed—I refer, of course, to the main line railway stations and the adjoining areas in the centre of the city.

This has not been possible in the past, during the reign of the steam engine. But the steam engine, much mourned by some of us, not always from a practical point of view, is now vanishing, and I believe Victoria Station has almost no steam engines entering it at all. In North America—Canada in particular, and of course in New York—great building developments are in course of projection over main line railway stations. We have only to look at a map of London to see what an enormous quantity of land is occupied by these stations which could snow be properly built over and developed, principally for off-street parking for those who come to those stations and who could leave their cars on top of the stations. I know that this point has been made several times in similar debates. It seems to me to reflect directly upon Lord Molson's Question, and I should be grateful if my noble friend Lord Hastings would at least give me an assurance that from a long-term point of view the development of the main line railway stations for off-street parking on top of the buildings is under active consideration.

5.4 p.m.

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, I think we are bound to agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, about the dangers to London. They are clear to anyone who has spent any time at all walking about the streets of London, and certainly to anyone who has ever tried to park a car, or has had to go home during the rush hours or come in here during the rush hours in the morning. But I am bound to ask, why should the railway undertaking be placed in a worse position than any private owner in relation to this sort of thing? After all, Parliament has placed upon the railway undertaking a statutory duty to try to make its undertaking pay. That means that if it has any property to dispose of, surely it should be enabled to dispose of it to the highest bidder—that is, unless other property owners have the same restriction placed upon them.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? I never suggested that the railways should do anything of the kind. I suggested that their capital should be written off in consideration of their handing over this land. They would not lose a penny.

LORD CHAMPION

If that is so, I would entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. I am sorry that I was not able to be here when he made his speech for Lord Molson. If he made this point, clearly it is a point which the Government should consider in this connection. I feel strongly about this as an ex-railwayman. We in Parliament ought not to place a duty upon the undertaking to pay if possible, and on the other hand say to it, "As property owners you must do something entirely different from all the property owners in London, so many of whom are getting the highest prices for the erection of office blocks, and the rest." I believe that this is a point that one should make in this connection. While agreeing with everything that has been said in regard to trying to safeguard amenity and the use of land in the future, I am bound to return to this point: do not do anything to the railway undertaking that you would not do to a private landowner.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, I do not know whether I might interrupt the noble Lord to say this, that, of course, as he can guess, I want the greatest possible restriction placed upon excessive office development by everybody. The reason that the question is particularly urgent in regard to railway property is that it is enormous in amount. There is nothing else threatening such an increase at the present moment, and it is dealt with under a separate part of the Statute. I apologise for the length of this interruption, but I am sure the noble Lord will agree that his argument is an argument for stopping undesirable office development by everybody; it is no argument for permitting it to the railways.

LORD CHAMPION

Yes; I think there is something in that point, and I well remember Lord Conesford's useful intervention in this connection on the Transport Act, 1962. Nevertheless, despite the fact that these properties are now coming on to the market, as it were, I think we ought to be careful about the restrictions that we place upon the Railway Boards if we do not at the same time take some steps to cause a sufficient regulation of the use of land which would prevent this undersirable development to which the noble Lords, Lord Conesford and Lord Hawke, and others, have referred.

I have tremendous sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, about parking facilities for London. Clearly, this might be an opportunity. This is an important point. There are places which might be used for this purpose. But let us try to secure that the railway undertaking at least gets for its property a reasonable price, and such a price as would be got by any private landowner in the circumstances of such a sale as obviously is going to take place.

5.8 p.m.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molson, saw fit to put down this Question on the use of surplus railway land in the London area, and I am the first to regret that he has not been able to be here to ask the Question himself, in his usual manner of extreme perspicacity and ability interlaced with charm. I am sure that all noble Lords who have taken part in this little discussion will regret his absence, too. On the other hand, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Hawke for asking the Question on his behalf, and doing it in such an admirable way, because I am indeed glad to have the opportunity of making quite clear to your Lordships what the present situation is.

The noble Lord has put down his Question just before we are to disperse for the long Summer Recess, not only in order to gain information—possibly not to gain information at all—but also, I suspect, in view of the number of occasions on which he has returned to this subject, not merely in a housing debate or during the London Government Bill, but on many many occasions, for another reason. I think that he has brought it up now before we scatter to the four corners of the earth (if that is where we are going, for the next three months) as a sort of warning to the Government (and what my noble friend Lord Cones-ford said rather endorses this suggestion) not to take any decision during the Recess with which he and his friends might strongly disapprove. I have nothing against that, and I am sure that everything which has been said will be of great use to my right honourable friend.

Be that as it may, I am glad to note that in the first part of his Question the noble Lord refers to the admitted urgent need of additional houses in the London area". I would emphasise the word "admitted". That, as least, is an acknowledgment that my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is fully aware of that need—indeed, who more so than he? My right honourable friend has made that need perfectly apparent in the White Paper on London issued earlier this year and by his many references to the importance of the South-East study. Indeed, his whole attitude towards housing is motivated by a sense of urgency, as I am sure my noble friends will agree.

The question of urgency brings me, of course, to the matter of time—the amount of time which it is taking the Railway Board to work out proposals for surplus railway land. Discussions have, of course, been going on for a long time, but the subject is highly technical and extremely complicated. Very important issues are involved—important to the Board, because of the large sums of money involved; important to the L.C.C. because of the major planning problems which are bound to arise when so much land in the built-up area of London is to change from operational to other uses. Nevertheless, the urgency of the matter is thoroughly appreciated by all concerned. It is, of course, for the Railway Board to submit proposals to my right honourable friend, and no such proposals have as yet been made; but it will, I know, be of some comfort to your Lordships that I can now say that the submission of the railways proposals is not likely to be delayed much longer.

Turning to the substance of the noble Lord's Question, which asks that Her Majesty's Government should aim at securing the use of all the railway land now becoming surplus in the London area for housing purposes", I must draw the attention of all noble Lords first to Section 11 and then to Section 87 of the Transport Act, 1962. Section 11 gives each Railway Board power to develop their land in such manner as they may think fit, and therefore it is obviously in their interest to develop it to the best financial advantage. I think the noble Lord, Lord Champion, made this point very strongly and very legitimately. The Boards must be allowed to develop their land to financial advantage. Why should they be put, as they otherwise would be, in a worse position than the private individual?

If I may deviate for a moment to deal with the matter brought up by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, about the particular housing estate not far outside central London, this is said to be up for sale, presumably for redevelopment. The noble Earl will appreciate that this matter does not form part of the particular Question we are now debating. It is a much more straightforward housing problem; it is not dealing with surplus railway land. The Railway Board are under an obligation to obey all the rules of the Town and Country Planning Act—that is, provided, in this particular case, in Section 86 of the Transport Act. They would have to go through the normal procedure; whoever bought the property would have to go through the procedure of planning permission. I will make inquiries to see whether we know anything about this matter, but it is a rather different issue from the one we are now discussing.

To return to Section 11, it was because of the invitation under that section to the railways to gain the maximum financial advantage from their properties that Section 87 was inserted into the Bill in your Lordships' House, under the rubric, Temporary provision as to development of land in London. Section 87 says that the duty of the Commission and of the Boards is to consult the London County Council as to the use of any land in the administrative county of London or its immediate vicinity not required for the purposes of their business, and to submit proposals to the Minister of Housing and Local Government—and here I quote: consistent with the need for keeping a proper balance in the use of their land as between new office accommodation and other accommodation for trade, business and industry on the one hand, and new living accommodation (with the amenities required by a resident community) on the other hand … Here I might well refer to the points brought up by my noble friends Lord Waleran and Lord Mancroft in respect of road space and parking space. Lord Waleran said he thought that not all railway land was suitable for housing; and I am sure he is quite right. When it comes to the amenities required by "a resident community" I feel that, with modern planning attitudes, one must always allow for road space and parking space. That is not quite the same point as was introduced by Lord Mancroft, who referred to parking space over mainline stations when they are rebuilt, or if, in any particular instance, they were given up. These are certainly very interesting points that must be considered, and these matters will be taken into consideration when the proposals are put forward, because we have to maintain a proper balance and gain all the benefits we can from good planning. It is clear that a proper balance between residential use and other uses involving employment is called for.

The main problem on which the Railway Board are working is to get a balance sheet which fairly reconciles the housing, planning and railway interests. It must be clear from this that it is too much to expect that literally all the railway land, in the words of the Question, "now becoming surplus" in London will be available for housing purposes, and I do not believe that that was ever the intention of Section 87 of the Transport Act. I would revert to the remark of Lord Waleran, that not all land is necessarily suitable; and, quite apart from the fact that a proper balance must be achieved, we much consider whether the land is suitable or acceptable for housing. There is, of course, the related problem of decking over railway sites, and the L.C.C. naturally wish to study the costs of any such schemes, which may not in all cases prove to be feasible on the one hand or economic on the other hand. They have got to bear these matters in mind for economics necessarily come into the matter.

Subject to these points, however, which I am bound to bring before your Lordships, it is clearly desirable that as much land as possible be made available for housing; and when the proposals which must be put forward by the railways are considered by my right honourable friend he will have prominently in mind the need for housing land in London. What extent of housing land will be available, I should not like to say. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, mentioned more than 1,000 acres, even up to 1,500 acres. But in a debate more than a year ago, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe—the predecessor in my position—mentioned, I think, a figure of about 850 acres. But I do not think that at this stage one can be dogmatic about any acreage, and I should not like to suggest a figure to noble Lords, except to say that it will be a very large area and one that can make a great contribution to housing in London. There is no doubt about that.

My right honourable friend has made it plain on many occasions (and the last time was as recently as July 22 in another place), that the building of more houses is the answer to the exploitation of the housing shortage. Noble Lords need have no fear that my right honourable friend will overlook this necessity; nor the urgency with which this whole problem of surplus railway land needs to be solved. At the same time, it is only fair to say that the speed with which land for housing can be made available must depend, to some extent at least, on the railways' operational requirements. Finally, my Lords, I repeat that the aim is to obtain an appropriate balance, to examine all the considerations involved, and to reconcile conflicting interests against the background of general policy.

The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, invited me to say whether the powers under Section 87 of the Transport Act would prove sufficient for the Minister to take the decision which he believed to be right or desirable, and whether, if they were not sufficient, he would then take other powers. As my noble friend knows very well, I cannot anticipate an answer to a question which I did not know he was going to ask. At the same time, I think I can assure him that the Minister is fully aware of the views of your Lordships' House, and that he is not going to ignore the very strongly felt views which have been expressed, that this matter of office development is of great importance. But, of course, it is not the only matter which has to be considered and settled in the whole problem of railway surplus land. There are other sites, as we know, for industrial or trade development of various sorts, and it is only when the proposal is seen, and one is able to see the whole balanced picture, that my right honourable friend can begin to decide what will be the best thing to do. I can only repeat that he will act in the best interests of all the parties concerned, and that he will certainly hope to satisfy your Lordships with the solution which he will reach. Certainly I shall be ready on his behalf to convince your Lordships that the decision which is made is the right one and is in the interests of London and the people who live in it.