INTERPRETATION (Hansard, 21 July 1987)

§ Mr. David Mitchell
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos 83, 84, 89, 91 to 94, 101. 114 to 132 and 172.

§ Mr. Mitchell
These amendments give effect to the decision of the Select Committee in another place to replace the access provisions contained in the Bill on introduction with the joint southern access arrangements that were worked out between the local authorities and Eurotunnel after the original alternative access proposals were rejected by the Select Committee of this House. As the House knows, these revised access arrangements were widely welcomed by many petitioners and by many of the constituents of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who may be regarded as the godfather of these proposals.

§ Mr. Aitken
Having had the not very agreeable duty of quarrelling with the Government about the procedural arrangements for the access road, it gives me pleasure to be able to say how strongly I am in favour of this change in the Bill, which I believe to be of environmental benefit, because it will save many acres of the countryside. It will also bring more trade and business to the beleaguered economies of many east Kent towns, including the Thanet towns in my constituency.
287 I ask the Minister for an assurance, however, that signposting will be given proper priority. This road, curling towards east Kent, will nevertheless fail in one of its purposes if it is inadequately signposted and if the various tourist and business attractions of east Kent are not clearly marked.
I join in paying tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) who is indeed the godfather of this group of amendments. They are most welcome. If the Channel tunnel is built, I hope that they will bring some benefit to the economies of those communities who will lose jobs.

§ Mr. Mitchell
My hon. Friend has asked me about signposting. I have taken a personal interest in that subject. It will not have escaped his attention that it was specifically mentioned by the House of Commons Select Committee when it considered the alternative access. It will be on the agenda of the next meeting of the joint consultative committee when it meets in Kent. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's points are taken into account on that occasion.

§ Mr. David Mitchell
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 95, 111 and 113.

§ Mr. Mitchell
These are drafting amendments.

§ Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith)
These are slightly more than drafting amendments. I shall not delay the House long, but this is an important matter that affects my constituency with regard to compensation that is paid for land damage. I shall address my remarks in particular to amendment No. 111.
The land that I shall refer to is Scrubs wood in my constituency, which will be used for sidings and the toilet-emptying facilities of trains when they are parked overnight. It is a surprising area in inner-city terms. It is a wildlife area and British Rail accepts—the Minister will know this from the debate that we had in Committee—that a large part of it will be destroyed.
This matter was brought to my attention by a young man who is aged 15 years. Lester Holloway has already received a considerable amount of publicity with regard to the matter. As a result of his work, he has been nominated for the Youth of the Year award in a BBC programme. His work is impressive, and over the years he has collated the wildlife that lives in the area, including his main interest of birds. He has the support of the London Wildlife Trust, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other such groups.
The relevant part of amendment No. 111 is the requirement for British Rail to pay compensation. The compensation that is being mentioned is about £36,000. The costing of the amount that will be required to protect the area is about £260,000. Amendment No. 111 refers to damage done, and its effect is to remove those words from the Bill, which should not happen.
I shall now explain the background to the matter and explain the importance and relevance of it. Lester 288 Holloway produced his report and has received a wide degree of support. When he came to see me at the House I drew the matter to the attention of my friend, Nick Raynsford, who was the Member for Fulham and who was on the Committee. The Government accepted an amendment that was tabled by him which called for consultations with the London Wildlife Trust and the London boroughs of Hammersmith, Fulham and Ealing because of the damage that would be done to this unique area.
It is a unique area because it has evolved over many years, partly as a result of industrial use as a railway siding and partly as a result of having allotments there in the past. According to a number of experts, not just Lester Holloway, it has produced an amazingly wide variety of plant life in a small area, which in turn supports a wide variety of insects, animals and bird life. The area contains semi-mature woodland of several different types, dry heathland, grassland and gorse near the wetter habitats of the canal.
I have a petition which has been signed by some 4,000 people. It expresses opposition to the development and calls for British Rail to make compensation in the amount that I have mentioned. I shall not go into detail, but in this area an extraordinarily wide variety of birds, animals and insects have been identified, many of which have been unknown to other areas of London. One of the matters that I want to stress to the Minister—I am seeking his support to urge British Rail to increase the compensation for the damage done—is that the Secretary of State for Education and Science has passed regulations that in the new GCSE curriculum all biology students need to do field work and ecological studies. All inner-London and inner-city areas have difficulties in identifying areas for such work. This is such an area, yet it will be destroyed.
If the worst comes to the worst British Rail must take over this area, but we are asking that it restructures the area to the south. It has offered some £36,000 to do that, but reading between the lines British Rail seems to take the view that it is just a matter of moving the fence back a few hundred yards. It is not; it is a matter of restructuring the environment.
I shall quote from the House of Lords with regard to this matter. Lord Belstead said: During the proceedings of the Select Committee, the London Wildlife Trust raised the question of extending the consultation requirement to clearance of the land and asked British Rail to give an undertaking that it would not at any time alter the site in any way without adequate prior consultation. The Noble Baroness"— Baroness Nicol— said that she thought that British Rail was sympathetic to that course. Indeed, British Rail was able to give an assurance that if the London Wildlife Trust wished to identify a particular species or habitat that it wanted to preserve or remove, that opportunity would be given. I believe that we ought to accept that assurance in good faith. Baroness Nicol said: The Minister seems to base his case on the need to trust the undertaking given by British Rail. I am sorry to say that the damage that has been done to the site as a preliminary to survey work has been done within the last two weeks, which is after the undertaking was given. Noble Lords can scarcely be surprised therefore if the London Wildlife Trust and the other local groups feel a little diffident about accepting the rest of British Rail's undertakings. I am sorry to have to undermine the Minister's argument but this is a fact, and somewhere I have photographs of the damage"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 July 1987; Vol. 488, c. 587 and 589.] 289 An excellent report has been made by Land Use Consultants, which is an expert in this sector. It argued that the site can be moved but it must be done well in advance of the work that will destroy the existing area and that the cost will be about £260,000. We must bear in mind that the depot in this area is estimated to cost £41.9 million. British Rail has offered £36,000.
I ask the Minister to recognise that the amendment that the Lords have inserted has reduced the pressure on British Rail to pay compensation for the damage that everybody acknowledges will be done to a unique inner-city area. If we regard it as important to protect areas such as Kent, which I support and understand, we must consider it exceptionally important to do so in inner city areas, where everyone acknowledges that there are species of animals, bird life and insects that have not been seen not only in the inner city areas but the surrounding areas of London. It is that rare wildlife that is in danger of being wiped out.
I do not know whether the Minister has seen the report from Lester Holloway, but I am happy to let him have a copy. It details different and rare things that he has spotted, including a swallowtail butterfly, which has not been seen in that area for many years. There is a moth, of which I had no knowledge, called the wormwood shark, which also inhabits that area and is regarded as very rare. I urge the Minister to look again at the amendment or to use his good offices with British Rail to ensure that it makes a more realistic offer to compensate for the damage that everyone acknowledges will be done.

§ Mr. David Mitchell
I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman but amendment No. 111 has nothing to do with Scrubs wood. It is a drafting amendment to the provisions concerning temporary occupation of land. There is no temporary occupation of land at Scrubs wood. British Rail's offer of £36,000 was accepted by the Select Committee as a reasonable offer.

§ Mr. Soley
Obviously, the Minister is right about the terms of temporary occupation. I spotted that years ago. however, the words removed by the Lord's amendment are: in respect of damage arising from the execution of any works, other than damage for which".

§ Mr. Mitchell
As I was saying, the sum of £36,000 was accepted by the Select Committee as being reasonable and proper. It is not for me to interfere. I am aware of the work that has been done by the hon. Gentleman's young constituent, Lester Holloway. I was impressed with what I saw of his work. I have written to him to congratulate him on his work and to thank him for having drawn attention to the important ecological aspects to which the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has drawn the attention of the House.
I hope that with those sympathetic comments, the hon. Gentleman may feel that it is right that we should agree with the Lords in the amendment.