§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
§ 1.33pm
§ Miss Anne Widdecombe (Maidstone)I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the issue of compensation for people who will be affected by the proposed high-speed rail link between the Channel tunnel and London, running through Kent. I sincerely hope that, in the event, my constituents will not be affected.
British Rail has proposed four routes for the high-speed railway. The fourth has been dropped as being too costly and taking too long to construct. One of the three remaining routes will affect my constituents very badly. The other two give rise to points that I am raising on behalf of the people of Kent generally, rather than of my constituents alone.
Routes one or two should be chosen. I have to agree with the Chairman of Eurotunnel, Alistair Morton, who says that he can see no good reason why we are even still considering route three. Whichever route is chosen will cause problems for the people of Kent and there are objections to be advanced against all three. Therefore we must consider whether there are any positive reasons for accepting any of the routes and whether they provide any benefit for the people of Kent.
The prospects with routes one and two are quite good. First, there is the possibility of an economic boost for the Medway, which traditionally has been the poorer part of Kent. Secondly, there is the possibility of an improved rail commuter service, of a parkway at Maidstone, and, not least, of a link with the north through King's Cross. That must surely play a fairly major part in British Rail's long-term plans.
More important, all Kent is up in arms over the environmental threat from the high-speed railway. Routes one or two could probably be put through tunnels, and certainly through cuttings, for much of their length. Route three runs across the Weald with its wet clay soil, and the line would have to be raised. As such, it would be unsightly and noisy and the environmental damage would be very much greater than from routes one and two. Thus there is no advantage in it, especially as it would be slower than route one, and on this high-speed link the faster the service the higher the revenue for British Rail, and more costly than route two. I see no reason why we are still considering it and why my constituents cannot be immediately relieved of their fear, their worry and the planning blight that is caused by this wholly pointless route. Alistair Morton can see no point in it, nor can British Rail, and nor can the people of Kent.
Enormous questions are raised about compensation for people along the chosen route. I have made available in advance the points that I shall raise both with the Minister and British Rail in the hope that I shall obtain some fairly clear and definite answers, at least where possible. The issues are complex. We have built no new railways since the turn of the century and our compensation laws are therefore inadequate and in a mess. The laws that apply to 1020 motorways do not apply in the same way to railways, which leaves far too little protection for Kent constituents who are affected by the new project.
So worried are my constituents that they have formed a campaign to save the heart of Kent—the Weald, Bourne valley and the villages that will be destroyed should route three be chosen. The village of Collier Street will become competely unrecognisable. Headcorn and Staplehurst will be sandwiched between two railway lines and a naturally beautiful part of Kent will be destroyed. Those are just some of the disadvantages.
It has been suggested that the building of a high-speed rail link will mean also a more intensive use of existing track, perhaps to carry more freight or perhaps to cope with the extra custom that British Rail expects. Residents near a railway line that carries no traffic between 11.30 pm and 6 am may sleep undisturbed throughout the night. But if the line is used more intensively, with trains running through the night, no statutory compensation is provided for the people who suffer from the consequent noise. Compensation, would, however, have been payable when the line was built. Thousands of people in Kent will be affected if there is, as is generally projected, an intensification of use. I should like to hear some solid proposals for helping those people.
I do not join in the general bashing of British Rail that has been prevalent recently. British Rail had a hopeless task. It had to produce four hideous propositions, take them into the heart of Kent and sell them to people who were to be affected by them. Inevitably, it has been castigated for mistakes which it undoubtedly made. The people trying to sell the proposals were not official public relations men but British Rail officials. They did a good job, and are continuing to do so, under difficult circumstances.
I am extremely grateful to British Rail for agreeing to make ex gratia payments to some of my constituents. Those payments must be ex gratia because, by law, British Rail is not obliged to provide compensation to persons affected by the route until the Bill needed to authorise the scheme receives Royal Assent. In the ordinary course of events, given that the project will probably proceed through Parliament under the auspices of a private Bill, and as we have yet to have decisions from Kent county council and British Rail, and they will have to wait for the matter to come before Parliament, it could be two years before that Royal Assent is granted.
However, British Rail has recognised the practical difficulties, one of which has already affected dozens of my constituents. People who had started to sell their houses before the routes were announced believed that the sales would go through. They therefore entered into commitments to buy elsewhere, sometimes in a completely different part of the country, to accommodate job moves and so on. When the routes were published the purchasers of their properties backed out. The vendors were stuck without compensation until Royal Assent. However, British Rail very properly agreed to make ex gratia payments to them to ease their financial burden. That is all very well for the people who had already started the sale process, but the position between now and Royal Assent of those hundreds of people who have not started the sale process but who will want, for perfectly genuine reasons, to sell their houses, is not clear.
British Rail has promised a package of assistance before the route is chosen. Again I offer my thanks. 1021 However, it is wholly unacceptable that there is no proper legal provision or guidance about how people should be treated in those circumstances. For example, I understand that in some EEC countries when railway disturbance is caused, not only is the property bought, as it would be here, through compulsory purchase, but a disturbance premium is paid in addition. Will our constituents get a disturbance premium, or will they merely get the compulsory purchase value? How will the value be determined? The market value of houses in Kent is extremely high. Once the chosen route is announced, the market value of the houses on it will decline. Will compensation be payable at the current market value, or at the prevailing market value when my constituents finally sell?
Agricultural land gives rise to many other problems. Whatever route is chosen, some farmers' land will obviously be required. Will they simply be compensated for the price of the land, or will the compensation also reflect the loss of income from that land? If they move the activities on that land elsewhere on the farm, it will take many years before the new location becomes income bearing. Will they be compensated for that? How will compensation be assessed when the land is purchased? Will it be based on agricultural land prices, which are not, wonderful, or on development land prices, which, in the south-east, are? May we be told now, or do my constituents have to worry for a further two years about the basis of compensation?
Then there are those who fall outside the compulsory purchase bracket, but who will still be mightily affected by the railway. Again, that will apply no matter which route is chosen. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), who is here, is one of those hon. Members who are extremely worried about the plight of their constituents. There is a law on injurious affection, which I am informed has nothing to do with unfortunate love affairs, but is about being affected by noise, unsightliness or other such factors. That law was never designed to cover the impact of a railway.
Believe it or not, there is no statutory maximum noise limit on railways. There is a noise level above which compensation must be paid and noise bafflement measures must be taken, but a railway may emit any amount of noise. If this project leads to increased railway activity, there will be a fantastic increase also in noise. The people affected do not know what compensation they would get. There is no defined corridor within which it will be paid. Will it be paid to people who live within 200 yards of the railway, or within 400 yards? Will it depend on whether there are cuttings or embankments? Will it be measured with a noise meter? Nobody appears to know.
Will people get money if they find that their living conditions become intolerable? Will they simply be given double glazing and told to get on with it? Will any account be taken of the complete destruction of a beautiful part of the country and of such views as our constituents may have enjoyed in the past? How exactly will the injurious affection law be applied?
It is easy to concentrate solely on residential properties, and most of the pronouncements from British Rail have been in respect of such properties and, very occasionally, of agricultural holdings. However, another class of person will be badly affected by the railway—the business man, particularly, the small business man.
1022 I am beginning to receive quite a few letters from such people—one is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling—who are losing orders because of the railway. Home improvement firms are particularly affected. They have had orders to build conservatories, for example, but suddenly their customers, believing that they might lose their properties, have cancelled those orders. The problem applies to people selling all sorts of goods and services in the affected areas. Will such people be compensated for loss of income? How long will they have to wait? Will they have gone into liquidation by the time any compensation is proposed? What will be done for businesses?
It is difficult to produce a full package of measures to deal with a completely new set of circumstances, but surely it was realised that the day would inevitably come when a new railway track would have be be built. It must have been realised that we could not go on for ever without any expansion of the rail network. It must have been clear that any major railway construction project would have presented complex and manifold problems. However, insufficient thought was given before the proposals were announced to ensuring that the necessary laws were on the statute book or that British Rail, as a nationalised industry, was given firm guidance.
There are many points that I have not raised, partly because time will not allow and partly because they are so numerous that I would not know where to begin. However, I can assure my hon. Friend the Minister that I have received thousands of letters, the vast bulk of which is against route three. Many of those letters contain heart-rending pleas from my constituents who are suffering personally as a result of the railway line.
To those people the choice of route, the method of calculating the compensation, and the permitted noise levels are personal, not academic, matters. Whichever route is chosen, constituents somewhere will be affected. However, wherever they are, the compensation laws that will cover them are in a mess. Ad hoc and emergency provision and ex gratia payments are not enough. We need a complete and utter overhaul of our compensation laws.
§ Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling)I should like to start by congratulating most warmly my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) on securing this Adjournment debate, which is on a matter of the greatest interest and concern to thousands of people in Kent, from one end of the county to another. I thank her for allowing me to intervene briefly in her debate.
As we all know, planning blight can occur instantly and to individuals with the utmost severe effect. That has been precisely the position in Kent since the day that British Rail published its proposals in July of this year. British Rail took a conscious decision to publish not merely one corridor, but a total of three corridors through various parts of the county, magnifying the blighting effect. In doing so, it has destroyed the value of thousands of people's properties as of now and, in many other cases, it has substantially reduced that value.
Those people—and there will be such people at any moment—who are having to move simply because their jobs have changed, because there has been a change in their personal circumstances or because there are 1023 tragedies, bankruptcy or severe financial pressure in their families which have forced the realisation of capital assets, are now having to try to sell their homes.
It is grossly unfair, completely unreasonable and inequitable that any individual should be made to suffer the loss of half, two thirds or virtually 100 per cent. of the value of what is in most cases his only major asset, simply because of the publication of these proposals by a public sector body. I make it clear to my hon. Friend the Minister of State that this is the responsibility not only of British Rail, but of the Government. The proposals published by British Rail can only have been published with the approval of the Secretary of State for Transport. He must have approved publication, because he initiated these studies. The Government must have known that, by sanctioning the act of publication, they would confer instantaneous and severe planning blight from one end of Kent to the other. Therefore, a real responsibility lies with the Government, as well as with British Rail, to clear up the severe difficulties created.
Within a matter of days of the publication of these proposals, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State will know, I asked our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to initiate an ex gratia compensation scheme. I am grateful to him and our right hon. Friend that that call was heeded, and that British Rail has come forward with at least an ex gratia compensation scheme of some sort. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone has so cogently and eloquently stated, the scope of the scheme is entirely inadequate in the present circumstances. Frankly, it is a lottery as to whether a property falls within or outside the scope of the scheme. It depends largely on whether the property is adjudged to be one which will be compulsorily acquired by British Rail. The fact is that few properties are judged by British Rail to fall within the scope of the compulsory purchase powers. However, because they are a few yards away from the boundaries of the embankments to the line, does not mean that the value of these properties will not be drastically affected. At present there could be two homes side by side, one falling within the scope of the ex gratia scheme and the other—though virtually equally affected—falling outside. That is an inequity and an anomaly that is not tolerable. I ask my hon. Friend to reach the position as fast as possible where the basic principles of the Land Compensation Act are applied, as they apply to similar projects for which his Department has responsibility, notably road schemes.
The basic principle that must be immediately established, is that those who suffer a significant loss in the value of their homes—because of the publication of proposals for new major works by a nationalised undertaking—must be given compensation equal to the full difference between the open market value of their properties before publication of the proposals and after. If my hon. Friend cannot announce acceptance of that proposal today, I hope that he will rapidly work with his right hon. Friend to do so as soon as possible.
§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)I am grateful to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) for raising this matter. It gives me an opportunity, in a brief intervention, to mention the second rail terminal. 1024 Clearly, whichever route is chosen, it will end up in London. The London borough of Newham wants the second terminal to be in Stratford rather than at King's Cross. With the Minister at the Dispatch Box, it is a golden opportunity to ask him a couple of questions. It will at least save me the postage and the letter that I was going to write to him.
The Minister will be aware that about 42 second terminal sites in London were identified. We now seem effectively to be down to two. Out of the four that were left, White City has gone and St. Pancras seems to be highly unlikely, so it is either King's Cross or Stratford. It is clear that British Rail wants the second terminal to be at King's Cross. Frankly, we do not consider that the way in which British Rail is going about the matter—using the private Bill procedure—is a satisfactory way of resolving something that many hon. Members think is of great strategic importance to Greater London and to the south-east generally. The private Bill procedure is wholly inadequate for something of this enormity.
I shall not refer to the report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, but this is a clear example of the way in which the private Bill procedure should not be used. That is why, at this late stage, I ask the Minister, when he replies to the real fears expressed by the hon. Member for Maidstone and the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley), to state what consideration he has given to intervening more directly in the decision-making process on the siting of the second terminal.
Of course there are divisions across the House, just as there is unity. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) has written to the London borough of Camden. He has allowed me to quote from his letter. He wrote:
I thought I would let you know that I do not believe the proposed terminal should be at King's Cross because it seems far more logical that it should go to Stratford.On this occasion, I am delighted to be able to quote the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate in support of my argument.Will the Minister be prepared to see a delegation from the London borough of Newham—which has made it quite clear that it is ready to receive the terminal at Stratford—consisting of myself, the leader of the council, Fred Jones, and the chairman of planning, councillor Timms? We are not asking the Minister to decide in favour of Stratford. All we are asking for is an opportunity for an objective evaluation to be made of King's Cross and Stratford. We believe that if there is an objective and impartial study, based on the needs of the travelling public, the needs of London and the strategic significance of the project itself, we shall be quite satisfied with the result. We consider that it will inevitably lead to Stratford being selected.
According to our latest advice, it appears that British Rail officers are advising that the board is likely to make a decision on terminal location in February or March 1989. We have little time at our disposal. It will make nonsense of the private Bill procedure, as I have mentioned.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Maidstone for allowing me the opportunity to speak in the debate. Will the Minister now reply and give me for once, some good news to take from the House of Commons to the people of Newham?
§ 2.4 pm
§ The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo)I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) on securing this Adjournment debate. The congratulations that I offer her are more than ritualistic on this occasion. She has given the House the first opportunity to discuss the issues arising from the proposal for a new railway line from Folkestone to London for Channel tunnel traffic. I thank her most warmly for that and for the opportunity that it provides for me also to set out the Government's position, to record some remarks about the way forward and, I hope, to deal with certain misapprehensions that may have arisen.
I thank my hon. Friend also for the great courtesy that she has shown towards me in the run-up to the debate. She and I have already had several meetings about the subject, both formal and informal, and she has taken those opportunities forcefully to impress upon me her constituents' case. As she said today, she spoke even more widely for other people in Kent. She has expressed her deep concern to me and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary if State about the anxiety, hardship and difficulty caused in her constituency and elsewhere in Kent by the proposal to build this railway line. She has done so with the commitment and sincerity which characterise her every intervention on behalf of her constituents. On their behalf she has spoken in an impressive and effective manner and I have every sympathy with her and with her constituents. I have no delusions about the great importance of this matter, its impact on people and the anxiety that it produces.
I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Kent, and hon. Members who represent London constituencies that are affected, on their patience and good humour at a time of great difficulty for them and their constituents. I do not mistake their patience for any lack of concern, and frequent visits to Kent have reinforced my understanding of the gravity of this matter.
The House will be aware of the background. There is concern about the capacity of the railway lines and terminals in south-east England as traffic through the Channel tunnel and on to the railways grows following the opening of the tunnel in 1993. There are various estimates of the growth of that traffic, and the British Rail estimates are at the lower end of the range. Other estimates are appreciably higher and those ranges are clearly set out in the British Rail study on long-term route and terminal capacity which was published in July and about which my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and my right hon. Friend for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) spoke. That study leads to the conclusion that, sooner or later, new capacity will be needed in the form of a new railway line. That still leaves open the question of when it will be needed.
British Rail does not see the need for a new line arising for some years, and I do not think that it would see a commercial case for building that line immediately. Others may see a commercial case for immediate building based on existing higher traffic forecasts. Therefore, it is right that British Rail should invite the private sector to show its interest and it has asked that those who wish to pre-qualify should come forward by the end of January 1989. Given British Rail's view that the line will be needed sooner or 1026 later, it is right that it should try to establish the route now, so as to provide certainty for the people of Kent and London.
Without intending any discourtesy to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone I should like to reply to the intervention by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) who raised some points about the private Bill procedure. I am acutely aware of the Committee report that he mentioned in passing. For the moment, the House has no way to proceed on the building of railway lines other than by private Bill and there is every precedent for this. In case there is any confusion about the matter, the Bill dealing with King's Cross which has been laid before the House in no way prejudges the decision on terminals. It simply safeguards the site.
I would not go as far as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West in that, as I understand it, there are still three possible sites—White City, Stratford and King's Cross. The considerations will be commercial, which means that the attractiveness to travellers of each site will be taken into account and, in a sense, site costs will be different. There will also be strategic considerations—the connections which exist or could be provided to other parts of London and to the regions. There will be practical difficulties about the route through London and in end the routes may determine the choice of terminal.
I am always delighted to see the hon. Member for Newham, North-West and to discuss such issues. However, the friends that he said he would like to bring to see me would be better advised at this stage to talk to British Rail because they can explain to British Rail the attractions of Stratford. I have no doubt that Stratford will be an important strategic site. It is on the North London line, on the Docklands light railway, connected to the Central line and on the Network Southeast services in the Essex corridor. It stands in the centre of a vast site in British Rail ownership and I am sure that it will play an important part in Britain's transport needs.
I revert to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing. It is inevitable that the publication of the British Rail report to which I have referred would cause concern in many parts of Kent, but I think that British Rail was right to publish a report containing options. Had it developed plans in secret and presented the world with a fait accompli, it would justifiably have been criticised for excessive secrecy and lack of consultation. As it is, it chose to publish a number of options and to consult widely with local authorities and others affected before making a final choice. That has not been a pleasant process for those who may be affected by one of the corridors identified but I feel sure that it was the right way in which to proceed. It was the best way to ensure that when British Rail comes to make a firm proposal, it is made in the light of observations about the relative merits of the three possible routes and, especially, their impact upon the environment.
It is unfortunate that what should have been a debate about the relative merits of three broad corridors has turned into a discussion about detailed route alignments. It was never intended that at this stage there should be discussion on specific alignments or the effect on particular properties. Paragraph 10.9 of the study states:
The routes shown on the map should not be taken as representing a specific alignment, but only a general indication of the areas through which they might pass. The 1027 choice of which route should be adopted and its precise alignment cannot be determined without further detailed design work and wider public discussion.I agree entirely with that. Any more specific discussion at this stage would be premature and inappropriate. We are some way off deciding on which line might be proposed by British Rail. Even when one line is firmly proposed, there will still be the opportunity for further discussion on precise alignment.It is extremely regrettable that so many people in Kent have been caused so much anxiety. The anxiety of very many will prove to have been caused unnecessarily in that only one line will be proposed. Currently, worry is spread along three routes. I am determined that the present uncertainty which is affecting certain parts of Kent should not be allowed to last any longer than is strictly necessary. The sooner that British Rail is able to identify the preferred corridor, the better.
I have been in frequent contact with Kent county council and British Rail to establish the time that each needs to carry out its necessary procedures. Kent county council has retained consultants to comment. Council members will doubtless wish to receive views from their officers. I understand that the county council expects to have preliminary views by January. Following that important input, British Rail hopes to be able to indentify the preferred corridor soon after that. I took the opportunity of spelling out this likely timetable to the joint consultative committee on the Channel tunnel, which I chaired on Wednesday in Folkestone. Among others, it was attended by Kent county council and the Shepway, Ashford, Dover, Canterbury, Swale and Thanet district councils and the Kent Association of Parish Councils. I recognise that there are other bodies which have an interest.
I have impressed upon British Rail—this it accepts—that its announcement at the beginning of next year should not be confined to the choice of corridor. It recognises the need to spell out also the benefits to Kent. I believe that they derive from the freeing of existing lines and, therefore, less congestion. Unreduced congestion might threaten to block commuter services. There will be the benefit of the freeing of paths for freight along existing lines, which means that there will be less risk of freight drifting back on to the roads of Kent where it is not wanted. There will be the scope that the new line may offer directly to benefit Kent travellers through the provision of new services, such as express commuter services, in a county which is currently poorly served.
I believe that British Rail will wish to spell out also its general approach to environmental protection when it announces its proposal for a line. It will wish to bring forward information on noise. I suspect that that should be prepared independently or verified independently. It will want also to spell out arrangements for compensation for those who are affected by the chosen route. That is an issue to which I shall revert.
I want to make it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing that it will not be a bargain basement line. British Rail will need authorisation from Parliament for the construction of the new line. The traditional method of statutory authorisation for new railway works is the private Bill procedure, which confers 1028 compulsory purchase powers on the promoter and confers the power to operate the railway. Objectors have the opportunity to petition Parliament and their objections can be fully considered by Select Committees in both Houses.
I do not wish to prejudge Parliament's views, but it seems likely that the more British Rail has been able to secure the approval in advance of local authorities, including Kent county council, and their endorsement that the line has been designed with due sensitivity to the environment, the smoother will be the passage of the Bill through Parliament. A line that violated the environment and caused fierce opposition from local authorities and hon. Members would face greater problems in Parliament. I am convinced that a private Bill is the right way to proceed and I see no reason to depart from well-precedented procedure.
§ Miss WiddecombeI am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. Although he has given the House an assurance that it will not be a bargain basement operation, he will appreciate that if British Rail builds in the full environmental protection that I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling expect, the line will become a hugely costly enterprise. How does my hon. Friend square Parliament's insistence on a full environmental package with the Treasury's requirement for a proper internal rate of return?
§ Mr. PortilloMy hon. Friend has raised an interesting point, to which I shall be coming in a few minutes in the remarks that I intended to make.
I see no reason to depart from well-precedented procedures, nor do I consider that the matter will be affected if the line is constructed in the private sector, with British Rail entering into a toll agreement to run trains along it. The route would still be selected in the way that I have described and the Bill would still be promoted by British Rail.
I hope that what I have said demonstrates that British Rail will need to satisfy Parliament that it has dealt sympathetically with environmental concerns and has made all reasonable efforts to minimise the line's impact. There is no question of the cheapest line being built regardless of wider effects.
I shall now deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone. I know that it also concerns my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing because he asked me about it in a written question a week ago. British Rail must have regard to the cost of any environmental protection measures that are proposed. It will not receive any subsidy for the new line and will have to demonstrate a commercial case, so a balance must be struck between commercial and environmental considerations that will satisfy Parliament. I gave my right hon. Friend an assurance in my written answer that the cost of associated environmental works will form part of the capital cost of the project for the purpose of calculating the rate of return.
The commerciality of the line is essentially dependent on the journey times that it can help to achieve. Speed is an important element in British Rail's considerations because speed can bring three vital benefits. More customers will be attracted to the line and those customers will be prepared to pay more, so British Rail will receive a greater share of the joint revenues under the agreement 1029 with the Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Francais—the French railway. Some people have seen something peculiar or sinister in that arrangement, but I have not. The agreement simply recognises that the railway which spends money to improve the service should reap the major part of any benefits from those improvements.
The optimum speed of the line is a matter for British Rail, which will have to justify its eventual decision. A balance will have to be struck between commercial and environmental considerations.
I hope that I have made it clear that the decision on the preferred route will be British Rail's, not the Government's. Nor would it be fair to put the local authorities in the position of having to decide, although British Rail will wish to take account of what those authorities advise. Eventually, British Rail will have to justify its decision to Parliament.
In that connection, I make it clear that there is no truth in the suggestion that the Government prefer a particular route. The Government have no basis for expressing such a preference between route options. We expect British Rail to do that on the basis of widespread consultation. Nevertheless, if after reading the record of this debate any of the Kent district councils, Kent county council or the London authorities wish to ask me about the Government's position, I shall be happy to meet them. I explained that when I was in Kent on Wednesday.
The matter of principle concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling is compensation. Although it is many years since anyone built a completely new railway in the United Kingdom, the issues are no different from those raised by the construction of a new road. There has been a tendency for people to think that there is something special about the construction of a railway line. It is a different project, but many of the issues are the same.
The statutory framework for compensation to owners of properties affected will be laid down in the private Act which authorises the construction of the new line. It is normal for such Acts to apply the provisions of the Land Compensation Acts 1961 and 1973. For people whose property is compulsorily acquired, the 1961 Act sets out the basis of compensation, which is market value. Market value is calculated on the basis of the value of the property at the time it is acquired, ignoring the effect of the proposed development but taking into account any private development that might have been allowed had not the scheme for which compulsory powers are being exercised come along. The 1973 Act added to the entitlement a provision for home loss payments for home owners and compensation for expenses incurred in having to move, and compensation for farmers for the loss of livelihood brought about by compulsory purchase of all or part of their land.
For people whose property does not need to be compulsorily purchased, but who are adversely affected by the operation of a new facility, the 1973 Act provides for compensation for depreciation in the value of their property as a result of the use of a new road or railway. It is also normal practice for British Rail to make arrangements for the noise insulation of properties affected when it seeks statutory powers for new works. I understand that the board's proposals for dealing with noise and other environmental issues are being prepared. 1030 The method employed will be independently assessed by outside experts before finalising any compensation arrangements.
I refer briefly to my hon. Friend's suggestion that we should institute what she described as the French system of compensating above the value of the property. Traditionally, we have taken the view that it is wrong to use taxpayers' money to give a windfall gain on the value of people's properties, but that is a much broader question.
§ Miss WiddecombeWill my hon. Friend draw an analogy with the law of damages? It is not enough merely to buy the property. Damages must be awarded for the worry that has been caused, for the hassle of acquiring a new property and for the financial penalties that the person may have to endure if his property is being bought without account being taken of the injurious effect of the development that has caused his property to be bought. Is there not a series of problems from which a person could suffer and on which, in a civil case, he could sue for damages?
§ Mr. PortilloI do not wish to be drawn by my hon. Friend further than to say that the issues that she is putting forward are much the same as those that occur year after year or even day after day in the case of highway developments. Therefore, she is considerably broadening the subject. I do not blame her for that, but I ask her to recognise what she is doing. No doubt she will take heart from the fact that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Environment is on the Front Bench to hear her remarks and doubtless he will want to take account of her case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone also raised the possibility of compensation for people affected by intensification of use of existing railway lines. I find it difficult to accept that it would be right for British Rail to change its long-standing policy in that way. Its policy has always been that people who live near railway lines must expect trains to use them and must take the risk that the traffic might increase. There is also the possibility that it will decrease. That is no different from the position of those living near main roads, who are not entitled to compensation if traffic increases. Many thousands of people up and down the country must feel that they have been affected by roads on which traffic has increased in a way that they did not expect. Similarly, many people may be affected by intensification of the use of railways. Traffic can increase or decrease for a variety of reasons. My hon. Friend's proposal would have enormous consequences over a wide area. The issue goes very much wider than this particular railway line.
My hon. Friend also expressed concern at the restrictive nature of the existing definition of injurious affection and at the basis on which market value, particularly of agricultural land, is calculated under the statutory compensation code. Again I ask my hon. Friend to recognise, without in any way questioning the validity of her argument, that the ramifications of those questions are much wider than the area of transport. I undertake to draw those points to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of the Environment.
Provisions already exist to compensate property owners affected by the adverse effects of traffic on new railway lines. I appreciate that problems have been caused by the 1031 fact that statutory compensation provisions do not come into force until British Rail has acquired statutory powers for the construction of the new line. My hon. Friend was right to make that point. Problems of blight arise particularly where property owners wish to sell properties now and cannot wait until the statutory procedures have been completed to take advantage of the statutory compensation provisions. Like my hon. Friend, I recognise that there is no predicting how long those procedures might take.
British Rail has shown that it is conscious of the problem and it intends to tackle it in two ways. First, it announced on 10 November that it would take action in cases of genuine hardship where individuals are unable to complete the sale of their property. In such cases, British Rail has said that it will buy property situated within any of the three route corridors identified in the report provided that the property is likely to be subject to compulsory purchase if that route is selected as the preferred route. I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling recognised the value of that statement.
Applicants must demonstrate the need to sell their property for reasons other than the rail link proposal. they must also show that reasonable efforts to sell the property have been made and that it could be sold only at a price substantially lower than it might reasonably have been expected to realise. Any dispute about the valuation can be referred to an expert appointed by the president of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. That is a welcome step by the board to relieve the problems of hardship caused by its proposals.
Secondly, British Rail is actively considering the appropriate approach to compensation for implementation when the preferred route is announced. The details are still being considered, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling and the House as a whole will welcome British Rail's willingness to go beyond strict statutory requirements. As I said earlier, I recognise 1032 the importance of British Rail coming forward at one and the same time with all the elements of the package—the advantages to Kent, the proposal for a line and a statement of what the compensation arrangements will be.
It is clear to the House that a new line between the Channel tunnel and London will be needed at some stage in the future. The alternative is to choke the Kent rail network, which will adversely affect domestic as well as international services. That is a reason why this is not simply a matter of disadvantage, and anxiety to Kent, but has the potential for considerable gain to Kent. That is important.
§ It being half past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maclean.]
§ Mr. PortilloI am pleased that my hon. Friend recognises that there can be advantages to Kent. I hope that the new line will benefit Kent travellers directly. An important part of the commercial case that could be made for this railway line could be that there should be express commuter services running along it. I am pleased that British Rail is examining the scope for such domestic services to use the line.
We all recognise that it is absolutely impossible to build a new line without some impact on the environment and adverse effects on the properties in its path. We need to ensure a reasonable approach to alleviating those effects. British Rail's announcement on 10 November is the first step down that road. I shall discuss with British Rail the approach that it will want to adopt once the preferred route has been announced, until such time as compensation provisions come into effect. I assure the House that the Government will take a close interest in that.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone for this opportunity to debate the matter. I hope that my remarks will be of some help to her and her constituents. I am under no illusion about the importance of this problem. I hope that the matter can be brought to a head as soon as possible so that certainty can reign and people in Kent and in those parts of London which will be affected can know exactly where they stand.