§ 2.40 p.m.
§ LORD MOLSONMy 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 have any statement to make with regard to the disposal by the Railways Board of surplus railway land in London and the Provinces.]
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LINDGREN)My Lords, in general, the disposal of surplus railway land is a matter within the management responsibility of the British Railways Board. As your Lordships will be aware, the disposal of such land in London has been the subject of consultations between my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Board. The latter have given an assurance that they are willing to make available for housing and associated purposes all their surplus land in the Metropolitan area that is suitable for those purposes. Negotiations to this end are proceeding between the Board and the Greater London Council.
§ LORD MOLSONMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the only reason why this land is now available is that this House insisted that the Railways Board should not dispose of all land in London for the highest possible financial reward, and that, as a result of the defeat of the then Government on an Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Conesford, Section 87 of the Transport Act was introduced? Will the noble Lord explain how the state of affairs which he has now described arises out of the operation of Section 87 of the Transport Act?
§ LORD LINDGRENMy Lords, of course it arises out of Section 87 of the Transport Act and, in fact, it shows that this was an embargo, or restriction, or handicap placed on a nationalised board, which would not have been placed upon private enterprise. It shows the value of land being held in municipal or national Board ownership and thereby gives any Government the opportunity to direct the use to which that land is likely to be put.
§ LORD MOLSONMy Lords, does the noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary regret having voted against most of his noble friends on that side of the House and some of my noble friends on this side of the House and having supported the Government of that day?
§ LORD LINDGRENMy Lords, this is hardly the place for confession, but I then took the view that no Conservative Government had a right to place on a nationalised Board restrictions which they were not prepared to place upon private enterprise.
LORD HAWKEMy Lords, will Her Majesty's Government suggest to the Greater London Council that the largest of these estates, presumably on the Marylebone Road goods sidings, might be called the Conesford Estate?
§ LORD LINDGRENMy Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to say that, although this Section 87 placed a commercial restriction upon the Railways Board, as Parliament had decided the line of policy the Board have faithfully co-operated with the London County Council, with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and now with the Greater London Council to the extent 6 that over 700 acres of land are being made available on 144 sites, and even on 85 sites outside the Greater London Area.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, are the Government aware how most Members of this House will welcome the fact that this land is to be made available for the thousands of homeless who are in London?