British Railways (No. 3) Bill [Lords]

HC Deb 16 July 1991 vol 195 cc274-306

Order for Second Reading read.

7.15 pm

Mr. Neil Thorne (Ilford, South)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The works set out in the Bill are designed to add capacity and to improve the flexibility of the rail system in the years following the opening of the channel tunnel. They represent a small but important part of the rolling programme of investment being undertaken by British Rail.

The year 1993 offers unprecedented opportunities: the single European market will be in operation and the channel tunnel will be ready to open. The development of the nation's infrastructure to maximise business potential is of vital importance. The final section of the M20 is now in place and it will link the tunnel with Britain's motorway network. British Rail is investing more than £1,500 million in new high-speed trains, in a new international station at Waterloo and in renewed infrastructure to meet the new needs. Many other changes are necessary, some large and some small. The works outlined in the Bill represent, for the most part, the latter type. Each item is in itself a modest measure but is vital to the infrastructure of the national rail system.

In brief, the Bill would connect the proposed Ashford international station with the existing channel tunnel route and provide for three new freight loops in Kent; for a railway chord link in north London and for improvements to the layout at Bickley junction in south-east London. Together, those works represent an important element of the investment programme in the rail network designed to carry the predicted level of passenger and freight traffic in the years before the opening of the proposed high-speed rail link at the end of the century.

However, it is worth noting that, although new powers are needed for the works proposed in the Bill, those works represent only a small part of the overall programme of works which the board has undertaken in contemplation of the opening of the channel tunnel in 1993, most of which are being carried out under existing powers.

Works Nos. 1A and 1B of the Bill provide for the construction of a railway connection to the proposed international station at Ashford which is excellently located, providing easy access from Kent and Sussex to mainland Europe without a journey into London. The introduction of the Networker express for Kent coast services and the proposed electrification of the line between Ashford and Hastings will ensure continuing improvements to the strategic benefits which the station will provide.

Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)

I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend, who is speaking on behalf of British Rail on this occasion, mention the introduction of the Networker express service. I agree that it is a matter of tremendous importance, but has he been informed of when British Rail might make even an application to the Minister for the investment authority to go ahead with the programme? I should be very interested to know.

Mr. Thorne

My hon. Friend raises an important point and I shall seek clarification if I have the opportunity to reply later. However, I expected that it was certainly to be within the next three or four years.

The proposals currently before the Secretary of State have received outline planning permission and have been commended by the Royal Fine Art Commission. Work No. 2 in the Bill, the West Hampstead chord, will provide a 650 m line connecting the midland main line with the west coast main line. That will allow the proposed King's Cross low-level station to have direct access to the west midlands and the north-west on its completion, with or without the new rail link from the tunnel into central London.

Work No. 6 provides for an extra link between two existing railways at Bickley junction in the London borough of Bromley to ensure sufficient capacity to accommodate international traffic and existing domestic train services. Works Nos. 3, 4 and 5 look to the construction of three loops in Kent at Headcorn, Borough Green and Otford. The purpose of the loops, which are approximately 900 m in length, is to allow slower moving freight trains to be bypassed by current Network SouthEast and proposed international passenger services. Their sites have been chosen to avoid points of conflict between passenger and freight timetables. It is vital that the loops are constructed if British Rail is to maximise the opportunity for moving freight by rail with no disadvantage to existing Network SouthEast customers.

I am aware that the issue of how freight should be carried through Kent is of concern to many hon. Members from that beautiful county. The building of the channel tunnel and the single European market will lead initially to a growth in freight equivalent to about 400,000 lorry movements a year. British Rail proposes the introduction of up to 27 channel tunnel freight services a day each way. Those trains will be able to take the equivalent of up to 1,500 lorry loads each day off the already heavily congested roads of Kent.

The growth of freight traffic raises the issue of noise. That main environmental concern is being addressed by British Rail. Quieter welded track, new train and wagon design and the use of new electric rather than diesel locomotives will make a major contribution to noise reduction for residents living close to the railway. Many people in the south-east are accustomed to diesel locomotives hauling slow and heavy traffic, whereas the new freight train, like the new international passenger train, will be a different breed. I am sure that the people of Kent will welcome the change.

The House of Lords Select Committee on the British Railways (No. 3) Bill spoke of the need to address the issue of "major and relatively sudden" intensification of services on existing lines. The Bill will not in itself cause a major intensification of services, but follows naturally from the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 through which the House approved the principle of developing international freight and passenger rail services. British Rail is convinced that the net environmental impact of the channel tunnel rail freight business will be overwhelmingly positive. As I said, it will carry the equivalent of 400,000 lorry movements in Kent each year.

Kent county council has argued that the increase in traffic due to the channel tunnel is a unique case, but that is not so. Examples from the recent past include the introduction of the hourly night service on the Gatwick express, the introduction of channel tunnel construction material trains and coal traffic to the Aire valley power stations. British Rail has said that it is willing to discuss with Kent county council proposals for local measures of mitigation. Since the Report stage of the Planning and Compensation Bill, the chairman of British Rail and the leader of Kent county council have been in touch and they are agreed on the need to come up with some workable solutions.

Mr. Mark Wolfson (Sevenoaks)

My hon. Friend mentioned the activity of trains carrying freight for the channel tunnel construction. I bring to my hon. Friend's notice the fact that constituents are already greatly disturbed by that traffic in a way in which they were not disturbed before.

Mr. Thorne

My hon. Friend raised the question of comparing those trains with the trains that are proposed to carry freight in the future. They will vary considerably. The point was not whether the noise that they make is disturbing. The question was whether such noise had existed before. Kent county council claims that the new network will be the first occasion on which such noise will occur. I was attempting to point out that that was not the case.

I remind the House that the works in the Bill are limited in scope, but important. As the House of Lords Select Committee noted: without the works in the Bill, British Rail would be compelled to find other means of operating services to the Channel Tunnel, although doubtless at some cost to operational efficiency. The Committee said that it was the responsibility of British Rail to maximise the potential benefit of the tunnel and the single European market for rail traffic and that it must seek to do so without prejudicing its many customers in Kent and elsewhere.

With the permission of the House, I shall endeavour to answer further questions later. I have explained the purpose of the Bill and why I commend it to the House.

7.24 pm

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)

I want to speak both generally and particularly from a Scottish and northern point of view. I speak with some trepidation because I am aware that there may be more local concerns into which I have no intention of intruding. When I look at a measure that includes the creation of passing loops at Headcorn, Borough Green and Otford in Kent, I fear that I may step into a hornets' nest and that there may be matters of intense local concern.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent)

Whatever the hon. Gentleman's apprehensions, many of us welcome enormously the fact that he is prepared to speak this evening. One of the great problems in addressing the works needed to cope with the channel tunnel is that far too little interest has been taken by hon. Members from other parts of the United Kingdom. I know that I speak for all hon. Members here when I say how much we welcome the hon. Gentleman's taking part in our debate.

Mr. Wilson

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I want to extend his point a little. What he says is regrettable, but true. People—and hon. Members—in other parts of the country may be waking up pretty late in the day to the fact that by neglecting the debate that has been taking place largely in the south-east of England— and I am sure that there are perfectly legitimate concerns relating to the channel tunnel and especially to the provision of links—the rest of the country is in danger of losing the benefits of the channel tunnel. Unless matters can be sorted out in the south-east, those of us who depend on links far beyond the immediate source of the controversies will also lose the benefits of the tunnel.

I make no apology for saying that my interest in the matter has been greatly stimulated by visiting France and by seeing what is going on on the other side of the tunnel. I have seen the construction project under way and the way in which the whole tunnel project is being approached as a great national undertaking, with the specific purpose of bringing maximum benefit to all parts of France, rather than simply concentrating the impact of the tunnel within the small corner of France which is directly related to it.

I have also looked at the parallel scene on this side of the channel. At this late stage, no direct route has yet been designated between the tunnel and London—never mind further north. There is still no station in London which has been designated in the long term. We still do not have approval for King's Cross. With one solitary exception which I understand will be the subject of a public inquiry, we have no freight depots designated in Scotland for the channel tunnel. The months and years tick away, and none of the infrastructural preparations which we are entitled to expect to ensure that the benefits of the tunnel extend throughout the country are being brought to a conclusion.

I remind the House that 75 per cent. of the freight that will pass through the tunnel will go north of London. This is not a parochial matter for the south-east, but is of far wider concern. I have a vested interest in supporting any small measure that can facilitate improvements.

The Bill does not prejudice the choice of route for the high-speed rail link and should not get caught up in that controversy. No domestic properties would be purchased in association with the works and, therefore, it should not get caught up in that concern. I am sure that the Bill is a small measure. I have no wish to impinge on other people's local controversies. I apologise for the fact that I shall have to leave the Chamber shortly after I have made my remarks.

This is a matter of wide concern. Let us get on with the project. The tunnel is potentially a wonderful project which should do much to link the whole of Britain with the whole of the continent, yet on this side of the channel we have got bogged down in local difficulties in the south-east. Let us get the routes built, the lines designated and the necessary infrastructure in place so that when the tunnel opens we have a realistic prospect of fast passenger trains and dedicated freight routes being ready to maximise the benefits for the whole country.

7.30 pm

Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling)

I am taking part in the debate not because proposed Work No. 4—the Borough Green passing loop—is in my constituency, but because there is a significant omission from the Bill. Compensation for people who will be directly affected by the works that are the subject of the Bill has been omitted.

As the House is aware, I endeavoured during the Report stage of the Planning and Compensation Bill to set out at some length the case, which is supported by a considerable number of us, for compensation to be paid in connection with railway works on designated lines to the channel tunnel. The House will be relieved to know that I have no intention of reading out that entire speech verbatim—

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington)

It was a very good speech.

Sir John Stanley

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I believe that what I said then is just as highly pertinent and relevant now.

There was a sequel to our debate on new clause 16 of the Planning and Compensation Bill on 19 June. When my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport wound up the debate, he mentioned eight specific steps suggested by the Government and by British Rail to deal with the problem of noise. In connection with the first step, my hon. Friend said: First, the chairman of British Rail told me, after speaking with the chairman of Kent county council, that he is ready to discuss with that authority how British Rail can help in the further measures that it has proposed, to alleviate the prospective increased noise for the homes that will be most affected."—[Official Report, 19 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 348.] If I may say so, my hon. Friend's remarks were somewhat obscure, and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), thought that he might have been alluding to the possibility of British Rail offering compensation as part of the package of further measures to be discussed between itself and Kent county council.

I then tabled the following specific question: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the further noise alleviation measures to which his hon. Friend the Minister of State referred on 19 June, Official Report, column 348; and whether or not they included compensation. My hon. Friend the Minister of State replied: My reference was to measures mentioned in Kent county council's paper: 'International Rail Services Noise Protection', which suggests action that could be taken where railway noise increases and exceeds specific levels at certain times of day or night. The suggested action includes the provision of noise barriers or sound insulation for people's homes. It is these physical measures which British Rail will be discussing with the council."—[Official Report, 26 June 1991; Vol. 193, column 462.] I am therefore sorry to tell the House that, sadly, compensation, as opposed to discussion of the further physical works, is apparently not on the agenda for the discussions between the British Rail chairman and officials and Kent county council. That is regrettable.

My first question is this: what responsibilities does British Rail accept towards those whose homes will seriously depreciate in value due to the noise from the railway works? The answer appears to be that where British Rail proposes to construct a new line, or a piece of new line, it accepts an obligation both to buy, through voluntary agreements, the worst affected houses, and to pay injurious affection compensation under the Land Compensation Act in respect of less seriously affected houses. However, where no new line will be constructed, although major railway works of another sort may take place, British Rail seems unwilling to contemplate compensation.

I ask the House to consider the impact of that policy on compensation in connection with the proposals in the Bill —not least with regard to the passing loops at Borough Green in my constituency and elsewhere in other Kent constituencies. In respect of the section of line approaching the passing loop, no compensation will be payable, but the moment the newly constructed passing loop splits off, compensation under the Land Compensation Act becomes payable. The moment the loop rejoins the existing line, compensation ceases to be payable. It is a lottery. The situation is grotesquely unfair. Compensation will not be payable on certain sections of line, although exactly the same noise disturbance, created by the same passenger and freight trains, will be suffered. A few hundred yards away, compensation will become payable, but it will be extinguished again as soon as the loop finishes.

Mr. Wolfson

Is not the position made even more ludicrous by the fact, which was pointed out in debate in the other place, that the loop lines tend to run clear of housing, as they do in my constituency?

Sir John Stanley

I agree with my hon. Friend. The situation is ludicrous in relation to the works proposed in the Bill, but that anomaly is a small forerunner of the even more grotesque situation that may arise when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, whom I am glad to see in the Chamber tonight, announces his decision on the new high-speed line. If he announces that that line will enter London from the south-east, where new track is laid alongside the existing track, there will be full rights to compensation, whereas elsewhere in London, where the same trains, whether passenger or freight will run on existing track, no compensation will be payable. If the situation is ludicrous and anomalous now, in Kent, in connection with the Bill, such an announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend would create a far worse position.

What is the basis in law for British Rail's adoption of such a compensation policy? The answer is that there is no basis in law for the way in which British Rail chooses to interpret its obligations under the Land Compensation Act 1973.

British Rail has decided that, in its view, train noise approximates to car and lorry noise and it is therefore choosing to adopt the highway provisions of the Land Compensation Act to determine compensation in this case. That is an arbitrary decision. As I explained in introducing new clause 16 to the Planning and Compensation Bill, it would be equally possible to argue—indeed, some of us would argue most strongly—that train noise approximates much more closely to aircraft noise than to car and lorry noise and the airport and aerodrome provisions of the Land Compensation Act should therefore apply. That would entitle those living along large sections of the line to compensation. British Rail, however, is entirely ignoring what is said in part I of the Land Compensation Act about airport and aerodrome compensation and, equally, the specific provisions included in part I for payment in respect of public works being carried out under statutory provisions, as the proposed works in this case would be, in relation to neither highways nor airports.

Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)

Can the right hon. Gentleman make it plain for our benefit that what he is saying is, in effect, that the extra train noise generated is to be compared with aircraft noise rather than with highway noise? Can he tell the House what impact that comparison, if accepted by the Government, would have on the prospects of introducing any new rail services anywhere in the country?

Sir John Stanley

The position with regard to the channel tunnel trains and the rail infrastructure for the channel trains is unique. In terms of its magnitude and intensity, the development is without parallel elsewhere in the country. If it were not, I venture to suggest that hon. Members on both sides of the House would have been campaigning for many years for a change in the compensation law. I do not believe that it has ever previously been the case that the value of such a significant number of homes has been faced with destruction or large scale erosion as a result of railway works of the magnitude of those proposed in the Bill.

I wish to refer to two points that were made in the report of the Select Committee in the other place. I am certainly not prepared to support the Bill tonight. I shall oppose it, because it is seriously flawed, and I wish to make that point on my constituents' behalf. But if the House decides to give the Bill its Second Reading, I certainly hope that the Select Committee appointed to examine it will consider the compensation issue in much greater depth and with much greater sophistication than appears to have been the case in the other place.

I was disappointed to read in paragraph 25 of the special report of the Select Committee of the other place, which was printed on 8 October 1990: To propose compensation would therefore be to establish a new principle of compensation for disturbance caused by intensification of use. It is simply not correct to dismiss the proposals in the Bill as a mere intensification of use. The Bill proposes massive new works—new works on a huge scale costing, according to the Minister's parliamentary answer, £700 million, even before the channel tunnel costs have been taken into account. The central question here is whether the proposed works are new works—new public works—which should trigger the entitlement to compensation. In my view, they most certainly should.

It is also claimed that a new principle of compensation would be established if our suggestion were accepted. That, too, is quite wrong. As the Land Compensation Act makes clear in relation to airports and aerodromes, it is not necessary for a new runway—in this case, new track —to be created to trigger entitlement to compensation. In cases where major new works permit a major increase in the volume of traffic and therefore in the magnitude of disturbance, an entitlement to compensation can already be created under the Land Compensation Act. We are not, therefore, talking about a new matter of principle.

The second sentence in the Select Committee's report with which I wish to take issue is the one which says that the proposals for compensation in these cases would be better dealt with by general legislation. I accept immediately that they can perfectly well be dealt with by general legislation. It is significant that, on 19 June, during the Report stage of the Planning and Compensation Bill, no fewer than 180 Members from both sides of the House supported new clause 16, and proposed that the matter be dealt with by general legislation. The point that I wish to make tonight is that it does not have to be dealt with by general legislation—it can be dealt with administratively, in a non-statutory form. If hon. Members are interested in precedent, I point them to what is done by the Ministry of Defence in relation to the build-up of aircraft noise disturbance from military airfields and, in particular, to the answer that I was given by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on 8 May, at column 506 of Hansard, in which he confirmed that the Ministry of Defence operates a policy of voluntary acquisition of houses that are seriously affected by noise and a policy of paying injurious affection to less seriously affected householders. Both policies are operated on a non-statutory basis. It would therefore be entirely possible for British Rail to deal with the problem on a non-statutory basis.

Sir David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I do not wish to intrude on what is basically a Kent issue, but will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me that one of the reasons why some of us support the general principle of legislation is that our experience in the north-east and in Scotland is that undertakings from British Rail are not really worth the paper they are written on? Many of us gave way on the abandonment of the sleeper services to Newcastle and Edinburgh—my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who vowed to raise the matter in each and every British Rail debate, would not forgive me if I did not make this point—following undertakings to the effect that the services would be resumed on electrification. We were then given a whole lot of reasons why they could not be resumed, all of which were known at the time the original undertaking was given by BR. That is why some of us prefer to place our faith in legislation rather than in undertakings.

Sir John Stanley

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the preferred course is general legislation. When we proposed that course on 19 June, our proposal attracted widespread support. Personally, I am saddened by the fact that the Government missed an open opportunity to deal with the issue in a flexible, fair way when the Planning and Compensation Bill came before the House. However, the Government chose to let that opportunity go by and we are left with no suitable public Bill before the House. It is therefore right to make the point that it is wholly precedented, in matters of precisely this kind, for the question to be dealt with by administrative means.

I feel that I have no alternative but to oppose the Bill, which would place my constituents, and constituents elsewhere along the line, in a grossly unfair position. It is quite wrong, as a matter of principle, that people should have the value of their main asset destroyed, or largely destroyed, as a result of the public interest in improving our communications infrastructure. It is of the utmost importance that this serious injustice should be righted as quickly as possible.

7.48 pm

Mr. Roger Sims (Chislehurst)

I confess that I am surprised to be speaking in this debate. The Bill completed its passage in another place at the turn of the year and we have been waiting ever since for it to appear in this House. It went into abeyance for some time, and curiously a carry-over motion in respect of the Bill appeared on the Order Paper a week ago. The motion was not passed and, hey presto, we find ourselves debating this Second Reading tonight.

I must declare a particular and precise personal interest; works No. 6 are not only in my constituency, but are only a few hundred yards from my house and literally within earshot, as I was reminded at midnight last night. Some work is already proceeding on the site. I am assured that it is simply preliminary work to the work for which parliamentary approval, as sought in the Bill, is required. However, it makes one wonder what noise levels will be involved in the construction work. We have had no information or assurances about that point.

The issue is allied to, although separate from, the channel tunnel fast link. That link may or may not follow the particular route which is the subject of the Bill. Uncertainty about the route continues and we wait anxiously for more information. It was reported in The Daily Telegraph yesterday that we could not expect a statement about that until October. I was told today that there is a rumour that my hon. Friend the Minister is to make a statement on Thursday. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister can clear the air this evening, but that would obviously be helpful for all of us and our constituents. Wherever it is finally decided that the fast link shall run, between the completion of the construction of the tunnel and the use of the link, it is inevitable that the tunnel traffic will use the route that is the subject of this Bill, and that gives rise to my wider concerns.

The implications must be very much heavier use of the existing lines. British Rail has issued estimates of increased traffic along the line. Although I do not intend to burden the House with statistics, it is interesting to note that at Bickley, adjacent to works No. 6, it is estimated that, while four freight trains would have passed that point in 1990 every 24 hours, we can expect 32 freight trains in 1995. That is close to the figure of 27 referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) as the increase in the number of freight trains. Of those 32 trains, 15 will run between 11 pm and 7 am. We all know how very much more noise trains make at night than in the morning and their effect when we are trying to get a little sleep. There is bound to be a noticeable increase in passenger traffic. There must be more noise, especially from freight trains.

That point has not been denied. The Committee in another place stated that it accepted that there will be a substantial increase in noise levels once the Channel Tunnel opens. What will be the effect of that noise? To answer that I call in aid a Department of Transport booklet entitled "Transport and the Environment", which states: Noise is a pollutant. It can cause stress and annoyance. It can disturb communication and, more subjectively, cause distress and irritation". It is not difficult to visualise the effect on hundreds of properties in my constituency and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) and for Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt).

What assurances have we had from British Rail about the effect of that increased freight traffic and increased noise? We have had no assurances of any value. It is incumbent on BR to provide forms of environmental protection to ensure that residents close to the line will not be adversely affected and, where that is not possible, to ensure that those people are adequately compensated.

British Rail denies that it has any legal obligation to provide protection or compensation. I accept that that is correct as the law now stands. However, BR also seems to be denying a moral obligation, and I cannot accept that. Amongst its literature about the channel tunnel fast link, British Rail issued a leaflet entitled, "Noise and the New Channel Tunnel Rail Link" which states: If the required noise level cannot reasonably be achieved by alternative means, BR will pay for sound insulation to be installed in homes that are affected. In addition, compensation may also be paid under the Land Compensation Act 1973 to people whose homes lose their value as a consequence of the level of noise that will result from operating the line. However, that is in respect of the new link. If it applies to the new link, why should it not apply for the intensification on the existing lines which will carry the same traffic? To be fair, the Department of Transport has recognised and addressed that problem. In its booklet, "Transport and the Environment" to which I have referred, the Department states: The prospect of a possible major new railway line between London and the Channel Tunnel and increasing public sensitivity to noise generally prompted the Government last year to appoint a Departmental Committee to recommend a national noise insulation standard for new railway lines which relate equitably to the standards already set by regulations for new highways. The Department then refers to the committee's report which was published at the end of February and then states: The Committee's recommendations are intended to provide the basis for making noise insulation regulations for new railways. That is the nub of the matter. British Rail is prepared to take steps about new railways, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) explained, it seems quite unwilling to do so in respect of the intensification of use of existing lines.

The statement issued on behalf of the Bill's promoters reads: The Board have given assurances that, if Noise Insulation Regulations are made applicable to new railways in accordance with the recommendations of the report of the Mitchell Committee, then, to the extent that these Regulations apply also to the alteration of existing railways, the Board will apply them in relation to the works proposed in the Bill in the same way as would have been required if the Regulations had been in force before the works were executed. That sounds all right in principle, but we should notice the saving clause to the extent that those Regulations apply also to the alteration of existing railways". In other words, if British Rail is required by law to pay compensation, it will. I am glad to hear that but, by implication, if it is not so required, presumably it will not pay it.

I sought to argue in the debate on 19 June—I will not cover the same ground again—that, although physically we are talking about existing lines, to the extent that the channel tunnel will link existing lines to the entire continental rail network, that line is, to all intents and purposes, a new line and should be treated as such. As a result, therefore, we must contend with the environmental protection and planning issues to which I have referred. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling said, the Minister argued on 19 June that he could not accept the new clause that my right hon. Friend so ably moved because it had far wider implications. I have to accept that that may well be the case, and that that Bill had national implications. However, British Rail has promoted this Bill specifically to enable it to carry out the works that are detailed in the Bill.

Ideally, undertakings should be written into the Bill to deal with noise protection and, where that is not possible, there should be compensation. If we cannot have that written on the face of the Bill, we want cast-iron assurances about exactly what British Rail proposes to do in the circumstances that have been described. Those undertakings should include not only the payment of compensation, but the purchase of property. We are not talking only about a noise problem—although the noise can be such as to make it virtually impossible to live in property close to the line; vibration can also present a real problem, especially with the long heavy freight trains that we expect to use the line in the numbers that I have suggested.

The Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South should not be under any illusions about the strength of feeling on this matter in the London borough of Bromley and in my constituency. My hon Friend the Minister was good enough to visit the borough and has seen for himself how close many properties are to the railway, so I am sure that he understands the effect of the intensified use that we are discussing.

The threat of that intensified use has not simply devalued properties along the line; some are unsaleable. It has now reached the stage where some estate agents will not take such properties on their books. I have files of letters from constituents who are anxious to move away on retirement but who are unable to do so, and many more from people who prefer to stay in their own homes and who knew, when they bought the properties, that there was a railway at the bottom of the garden and who expected to have trains running along it, but who did not know—they could not have visualised—the enormous increase in traffic that will be the inevitable result of the line being used for channel tunnel traffic.

Neither I nor my constituents are being unreasonable or obstructive. Obviously, on parochial grounds, we can hardly be expected to welcome the extra traffic which the tunnel will generate coming through our district, but we accept that that is inevitable. For its part, British Rail must accept that it has obligations to us. If it is prepared to do that, in the form of firm commitments and not just pious phrases, I would not wish to impede the Bill's progress, but if those assurances are not forthcoming, I shall seek to oppose the Bill's Second Reading, and I hope that the rest of the House will join me in that.

8.4 pm

Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)

I had better get the non-controversial part of the Bill out of the way first, before commenting on some of the speeches that have been made. The Bill is not solely and exclusively about Kent, Network SouthEast and the various routes to Dover; it also provides for the building of a chord at West Hampstead, thus linking international services with destinations on the west coast mainline about which I feel strongly, representing—as you do, Madam Deputy Speaker—a constituency close to Birmingham.

Those of us who have supported the channel tunnel project throughout our parliamentary careers have always been concerned to ensure that it benefits the whole of the United Kingdom. The provision of such a chord, linking the east and west coast mainlines, is an essential part of the future success of the United Kingdom's passenger railway including, of course, that in Scotland.

I am a little surprised at the controversy that the Bill has already engendered. I understand the views of hon. Members representingKent and elsewhere about the likely disruption to the lives of their constituents once the Government have announced the preferred route for the new high-speed link. I join those hon. Members in pressing the Minister to put us all out of our misery as quickly as possible by letting us know the preferred option preferably before the recess—I, too, have read the conflicting press articles of the past week—so that those along the route will know their fate and those elsewhere can feel suitably relieved as soon as possible.

That might be the last time in my speech that I receive so many affirmative nods from Conservative Members, because the rest of this Bill, which is causing so much controversy, only sets out the need for a number of spur lines and loops to increase the capacity of international and commuter trains on the existing busy routes to Dover. The principle of routing trains to London via Tonbridge and Maidstone was established in the Channel Tunnel Act 1987.

As far as I understand the speeches that have been made tonight and the reasons for the blocking motion which has led to this debate, hon. Members representing Kent constituencies feel that their constituents should be compensated by monetary or other means for the additional traffic that will use the existing route after 1993 when the channel tunnel opens. It is somewhat surprising to hear them say that. Some of them have given the impression that, regardless of the opening of the channel tunnel in 1993, nothing—no railway—must be allowed to disturb the tranquillity of what they call the garden of England. I have always taken the view that that is a short-sighted attitude. If there is no new rail link and if there are no new improvements to the existing rail links, I have a feeling that the number of additional heavy goods vehicle movements that will result from the opening of the tunnel will cause more disruption to the tranquillity in the garden of England than any of the spur or loop lines that we are discussing.

Mr. Rowe

I know that the hon. Gentleman would wish to be totally fair-minded. There are those of us who accept the need for a purpose-built line between the channel tunnel and the rest of the country, but who feel that the people of Kent—and much of the rest of the country—would be better served by a route that passes only a few habitations rather than by a combination of routes affecting literally thousands of homes.

Mr. Snape

So say all of us. However, that is not what the Bill is all about. We do not have such a route at present, because there is a considerable amount of controversy about exactly where it should run. The Bill is about the improvement of the existing rail route. Without such an improvement the constituents of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and of other hon. Members who represent Kent constituencies will find their passage by both road and rail to and from London considerably inconvenienced. Perhaps it is just my innate pessimism, but I have a feeling that, regardless of the provisions of the Bill, inconvenience is coming.

To concentrate solely on the Bill, it appears to be the view of hon. Members who have spoken so far—or the view was inherent in their speeches—that there is something unique about channel tunnel trains using the existing rail network, so special and specific compensation should be paid to people in Kent who, in the view of some Conservative Members, will be adversely affected by the passage of those trains.

I have made the point previously—although it did not arouse great popularity among the people to whom I made it—that it is an odd philosophy to buy a house near a railway line and then complain about the noise of trains. I made the point during the Select Committee which took evidence on the Channel Tunnel Bill. People said, "Ah, but when we bought our houses there were not many trains. As the channel tunnel will mean extra trains, surely we are entitled to some compensation. Whether it should be paid by British Rail or the Government, we leave to you." Again, I find that philosophy somewhat hard to understand.

I am often accused in these debates of being such a rail buff that I am blinded to the realities of life for people who do not share my support for the railway industry. The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) indicates from a sedentary position some agreement with that. People are entitled to their opinion. I do not have any great affection for the railway industry, believe it or not, Madam Deputy Speaker. It did not pay my father or me one iota of what we were both worth. However, that is a purely personal view. I am prepared to accept that there might be some dissension in the ranks of the Conservative party about that opinion.

It struck me as surprising that the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) said that his constituents found that their properties were unsaleable because of fears about the extra rail traffic that would be generated by the channel tunnel. If people who live alongside the existing railway line cannot sell their properties, I venture to suggest that the reason might be the depth of the current recession as much as the proposal to run extra trains on the line. I have often made the point, and I do so again, that I have never discovered a domestic property of which the value was reduced by its proximity to a comprehensive railway service to and from the capital city. If any Conservative Member can produce an example, I am willing to be surprised. It looks as if that surprise is heading my way.

Mr. Wolfson

I beg the hon. Gentleman to appreciate that blight has arisen which stems from fear of the unknown. It is real and significant blight. In the town of Swanley, houses close to the railway line have dropped in value by much more than comparable houses in other parts of the town as a result of anxieties about freight trains and the noise that will be produced, especially at night. It is real blight.

Mr. Snape

I have exchanged opinions with the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) on many occasions over the years. I accept the point that he makes on behalf of his constituents. I hope that it will not sound too callous about the anxieties of his constituents if I say that it is for hon. Members to reassure their constituents about the reality of the position. The hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned freight trains. There is nothing unusual about freight trains on railway lines—except under this Government, because much of the freight that was previously carried by rail now goes on heavy goods vehicles which are much more obtrusive than any railway line in terms of the environment and pollution. I hope that together we can examine that in a moment.

Let me deal with the extra passenger trains, which I gather are also regarded as a problem. I remind hon. Members for Kent constituencies that increases and decreases in the number of trains on the main line from the Kent coast are nothing unusual. Let us confine ourselves to more modern times—say the past 50 years. The Kent coast electrification scheme about 30 years ago resulted in a large increase in passenger trains. Compensation was neither considered nor paid for the intensification of the railway service. I remind the House that the trains that were introduced following electrification were electrical multiple units running on the old-fashioned jointed rail tracks which were considerably noisier than the modern electrical multiple units travelling on continuous welded rails.

To turn to freight, I remind the hon. Members for Sevenoaks and for Chislehurst that during the 1960s there was a great deal more freight than there is now on the line to which the Bill refers and about which Conservative Members raise the anxieties of their constituents. I have looked back at freight flows by rail in the 1960s. They included coal from the Kent pits, oil for ships and for Richborough power station, and cars from Lenham. Soft fruit and manufactured goods were carried to a much greater extent by the train-ferry system than, alas, they are today. In addition, general goods were moved to local stations throughout Kent. There was the noise of shunting at yards at stations such as Faversham, Ashford and Tonbridge, to name but three, all of which are now empty of freight traffic.

The hon. Member for Sevenoaks mentioned the length of modern freight trains. Again I remind him, without seeking to score any points, that the freight trains of the 1960s were loose-coupled, unbraked small wagon trains which clanked and banged their way along in a much more noisy way than present-day freight trains. In the 1960s and earlier, for obvious reasons, many of those trains ran through the night because the intensive commuter passenger service, then as now, took up a good proportion of the train paths during the hours of daylight.

The other freight trains that ran in the 1960s but do not run today carried paper products and coal from Maidstone to New Hythe and coal, especially from the east midlands, to Southfleet cement works. Without exception, that traffic now travels by road. None of it uses the railway lines of Kent.

Before the war—to end these reminiscences, which I have gleaned from other than personal sources—there were no fewer than 40 freight transfer trips a day from Brent or Firm Park to Hither Green through Peckham and Lewisham, none of which uses the railway tracks today. So it is not true to say that the freight which will be engendered by this project is something new for Kent.

Does the hon. Member for Faversham wish to intervene? If so, he should do so rather than simply pull strange faces which do not do anything for the tone of the debate or to excite me.

Mr. Moate

I proposed to reserve my comments until later, but I will let the hon. Gentleman know why I was reacting. I was hoping he would appreciate that we have moved on a lot in the last 50 years or more, when clanking freight trains were part of the way of life. We expect a higher standard these days to help to prevent noise pollution. Perhaps he will come up to date and appreciate some of the problems facing people living along railway lines which can expect intensification of use.

Mr. Snape

The hon. Gentleman misunderstood what I said, or I did not explain myself well enough, or he was too busy pulling faces to listen to what I said. One reason why freight was lost by the railways and moved on to lorries —which, despite 30 or 40 years of progress, are no less obtrusive in the 1990s, despite the higher standards which the hon. Gentleman and I desire—was precisely because of those old-fashioned methods of freight carrying which were common in the United Kingdom, not just 40 or 50 years ago but until the mid-1970s.

The clanking and clanging of the unbraked freight train did not disappear from British Rail until comparatively recently. Some Conservative Members appear to be objecting to the very modernisation that the hon. Member for Faversham urges. We are talking now about modern freight trains with air brakes running on continuous welded rails and, under this measure, passing through newly constructed loops of up to 900 m in length. I cannot imagine any other country objecting to such progress, but it obviously makes the hon. Member for Faversham tuck his head under the bedclothes in terror at the thought of such trains running past his bedroom window. I hope that other, less easily frightened Conservative Members will use the opportunity to reassure their constituents about the so-called horrors to come, because the rest of us in the United Kingdom have an interest in the outcome of the debate.

The Government's pledge is that the new project will benefit as much of the population of the country as possible. Without the provision of passing loops and extra works, many of a minor nature, many of the bottlenecks in the south-east will make the passage of such freight trains more difficult for the rest of the country.

It is likely that if these works do not go ahead, the rest of us will suffer the same increase in heavy goods vehicles that some Conservative Members who represent Kent constituencies appear to look at with a more relaxed attitude than do the rest of us. I put it no higher than that. I think that I see the hon. Member for Faversham indicating dissent at those remarks. The freight must go by road or rail. If the improvements to the railway line inherent in the Bill are not carried out, it is not fanciful to suppose that it will go by road. Nor is it fanciful to say that that will be enormously more disturbing to the environment of the hon. Gentleman's constituents than any proposals in the Bill.

About 75 per cent. of international freight coming into the United Kingdom after 1993 will be going to destinations beyond London, most on direct services. It is, in our view, essential that that freight is not delayed in the south-east to the disadvantage of the west midlands, the north of England and Scotland.

I ask Conservative Members in a non-party way to reflect on the effect on transport patterns in this country of their wishes being acceded to as regards the payment of compensation resulting from intensification on existing railway lines. The competition between road and rail, so beloved of the hon. Member for Faversham and others, would be distorted in an even more anti-rail form in future were their pleas to be accepted by the Government.

The cost of compensation under the provisions of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, and particularly section 42, would have to be borne by the customer if the Government insisted, as did the Government of the day, that no public money should be spent on the project. Presumably the demands that are now being made would have to be met from the depleted resources of British Rail, so making it even less likely that rail freight could be competitive in its non-stop battle against road freight. Road hauliers face no demands similar to those being made on British Rail.

If the pledge of the Secretary of State—so far not backed up by any evidence or extra cash—to encourage freight traffic to transfer from road to rail is to mean anything, the Government must ensure that no additional burden is placed on any sectors of British Rail, particularly on rail freight.

Sir John Stanley

My constituents and those in south-east England and London will be noting carefully that the Labour party is opposed to compensation being given to those whose homes have been destroyed in value by channel tunnel traffic. That will be noted in many marginal constituencies in London and the south-east. Will the Labour party's opposition to compensation for the intensification of use of the railways be combined with the removal of compensation for the intensification of noise disturbance from airports, which currently carries compensation?

Mr. Snape

We are terribly impressed by those deep political points which, typically, came from the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley). If he wishes to spend the time of debates such as this making cheap political points, he will no doubt do so. But that will not earn him any greater respect than did his previous activities in the House. If we are talking about the proposed new rail link, there are circumstances in which compensation should be payable. We are talking about high-speed trains but not about a new rail link. We are discussing the intensification of service on an existing railway.

I remind the right hon. Gentleman, before he goes round Kent distorting the reality of the situation—and he must be desperate to have made those points in his intervention—that my hon. Friends and I would not allow such a concession to apply only in Kent. We hope that channel tunnel freight trains will pass through our constituencies, too, that channel tunnel freight terminals will be built in other parts of the United Kingdom. Will we be entitled to the same compensation, or shall we tell our constituents that the only people whom the Conservative party care about are those who live in the affluent suburbs of Tonbridge, or wherever the right hon. Gentleman temporarily represents?

Proposals for other railway projects will apply not only to London and the south but to other parts of the country. For example, proposals have been made to open existing freight railway lines to passenger trains from Nottingham, through Mansfield to Worksop, and through Leicester to Burton. If the principle of intensification is to be accepted, British Rail may show an even greater reluctance to reopen railway lines in the rest of the United Kingdom and the enormous additional cost will fall on the public purse.

The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling may try to explain away his support for the channel tunnel to his constituents. His position is close to that of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). He particularly supports section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, which specifically precludes public support for the protection and provision that, belatedly and in the run up to a general election, the right hon. Gentleman seeks to establish during the passage of this Bill. I am not too bothered about the right hon. Gentleman, because, like most other hon. Members, I do not take him particularly seriously anyway.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

How very rude.

Mr. Snape

The hon. Lady has just arrived and cannot wait to get her name on the record. She has not heard any of the debate so far. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling should explain the discrepancies in his support for a Bill which led to a situation about which he now complains to his constituents and to people in the south.

I shall continue to argue that the railway alternative for moving freight is infinitely preferable, whether it is in the west midlands or in the more leafy suburbs of Kent. I hope that the Minister for Public Transport will make it plain that, if the pleas of Conservative Members are to be accepted, Opposition Members will expect such provision to extend throughout the country and to be funded directly from the Treasury rather than from the already over-stretched budget of British Rail.

8.35 pm

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman)

The Government consented to the deposit of this Bill by British Rail. We support it and urge the House to give it a Second Reading so that the Committee can consider it in greater detail. It concerns the construction of the facilities necessary to carry freight and passengers through the channel tunnel and is therefore important for the whole country.

The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) raised the important issue of the treatment of road and rail freight. It is not my job to answer the points raised in the debate—that is for my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), who would wish me to deal with some of the points that are not pertinent to the Bill. How the burden is placed on the road or rail operator is important for the schemes mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley).

As for rail freight, the Government believe that any rail operator—in this case, British Rail—should be responsible for undertaking any measures deemed necessary. In our debate on 19 June, I said that British Rail was already in contact with Kent county council to plan the works that both parties deem necessary. It is for British Rail to undertake those works. I agree with the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East that one must, in all fairness and equity, look at comparable situations throughout the country. It is not possible to isolate one particular problem and the Government acknowledge that there is a problem in this case. I dissociate myself to some extent from the hon. Gentleman's remarks—

Mr. Snape

The Minister had better.

Mr. Freeman

—well, the serious remarks that he made pertaining to the issues that we are debating.

The Government accept that there is a real problem relating to noise caused at night by freight trains on those lines. That is not to say that there are not additional problems in other parts of the country. Several hon. Members have written to me about the problems on rail lines in constituencies which are not in Kent. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friends are in no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I take the issue seriously and acknowledge that a problem exists, although we may disagree about how to approach the problem.

As for road freight, through the regime of taxation, vehicle excise duty and fuel duty, our heavy goods vehicles bear one of the heaviest burdens in Europe. They contribute approximately four to five times the value of Government funds for the maintenance and further construction of our road and motorway system. Our hauliers pay a much higher proportion than those in many other European countries. Any financial burden that may be placed on road hauliers in the future in relation to noise mitigation measures is already amply covered by taxation. In their role as the highway authority for trunk roads, or through the revenue support grant to local authorities for their work on highways, the Government amply cover the expenditure.

In a brief intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) raised a point that is outwith the Bill and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South will want me to deal with it. It concerns class 471s. I sought to deal with that issue in the British Railways Board (Finance) Bill which was debated recently. Although further work is needed on the detail of the investment submission, as I made clear in the debate, British Rail and the Government recognise the importance of replacing and improving the existing rolling stock for the Kent coastal services. It is a matter of investment priorities. It is important that British Rail completes the Kent link services first—a massive investment programme of more than £500 million—before turning to the 471s. In the course of this year's public expenditure survey, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will consider the relative importance of further assistance to British Rail to enable it to continue its investment programme. Although it is for British Rail to determine its investment priorities, we understand the importance of that project.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling raised several issues. He repeated the arguments deployed on 19 June and alluded to passing loops, the parallels with aircraft noise, and the fact that, in his judgment and in the judgment of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), the opening of the channel tunnel, the associated works and the new freight services constitute a major new work. The Government are aware of those arguments. The fact that my right hon. Friend outlined an alternative way to deal administratively with the issue is helpful. His definition of "administrative treatment" may be slightly different from that of the Government, but if by that he means a non-statutory approach, I hope that as time passes he and his constituents, and some of my other hon. Friends, will feel a little more assured about what British Rail is accomplishing with regard to noise mitigation. I am certain that those measures will not entirely satisfy some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but that is the approach that British Rail and the Government are adopting at present. With the advice and representations of the local authorities involved, the rail operator is deciding what to do.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst raised similar issues. The Government in no way seek to exclude the London boroughs, including Bromley, from the wider issues of noise mitigation. Reference was made to Kent county council because it has made specific representations. I know that I speak for British Rail when I say that conversations with Kent county council in no way exclude similar conversations with other appropriate local authorities.

In my speech on 19 June, I said that the Government are considering the Batho report, which the House will have already studied and which deals with a range of matters associated with excessive noise, including those relating to aircraft, the intensification of use of railway lines, roads and other nuisances. The Government will make a statement on that in due course. I cannot envisage when, but the announcement will represent the Government's comprehensive approach to noise problems.

As for press speculation on the timing of an announcement about the rail link, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst does not believe what he reads in the newspapers, and he should not be led to believe that there is any significance in any particular newspaper article. It is an important subject, and as soon as the Government have considered the issues, we shall come straight to the House to make a statement, but I cannot forecast whether that will be before or after the recess. Any suggestion that the announcement will be made when the House returns in October as a statement of Government policy is not true.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) will doubtless seek to speak later and I shall read with care what he says. He raised the important issue about the fear of the unknown. British Rail and the Government should take whatever action they can to mitigate that fear. In the debate on 19 June I announced that I intend to take an initiative, although it can probably be attributed to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) who originally put the thought in my mind. British Rail and the Government—I accept the key responsibility—will talk to representatives of the professional advisers from building societies, banks and firms of solicitors who can advise people whose properties are affected by the line. We shall seek to ensure that they are not alarmist and do not exaggerate the problems created either by the intensification of use of existing lines or by a new rail link when it is built. I intend to speak to leading representatives of some professional organisations shortly to see what can be done to ensure that we do not exacerbate a problem that we acknowledge exists.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I have no illusions about the strength of feeling on the subject. Although we support the Bill and believe that it should be given a Second Reading today, I assure the House that we shall continue to give the problems of noise as they exist throughout the country our full attention. We do not seek simply to ring-fence the problems of some of my hon. Friends in Kent, nor would they wish us to do so. I accept the logic of the argument of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East on that score, as I have made plain on a number of occasions. We shall continue to give the matter our careful, close and continuing attention.

Mr. Snape

I am grateful for that assurance. Will the Minister comment on the likely attitude of his right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury to any such concession, whether applied in Kent or anywhere else? Would such a concession make railway expansion in the United Kingdom more or less likely?

Mr. Freeman

I have always said that I accept the argument advanced by a number of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden), that in any announcement and consideration of a new high-speed rail link, there must be—

Mr. Snape

That is what I am talking about.

Mr. Freeman

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer in my own way.

Any announcement of a new rail link involves a massive increase in rail capacity and it is most important that there should be no doubt in the minds of those affected as to where they stand in relation to noise mitigation and compensation. I hope that the House will be persuaded by my arguments tonight.

8.46 pm

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent)

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for making a number of assertions, not least on a day when some of his ministerial colleagues have shown discourtesy to the House by holding a press conference rather than making a statement to the House. I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Minister is contemplating that, when the decision is taken, a statement will be made to the House and not outside this place. I also welcome my hon. Friend's well-demonstrated, clear interest in compensation and noise protection matters. I shall return to the specific assurance that he gave about building societies because I wish to enlarge on that point.

We are discussing a simple matter. Wherever a form of public—or, in the case of roads, private—transport operates there is an agreed level of noise beyond which the Government believes that it is not right to subject citizens. That standard applies to transport, whether vehicles on roads, aircraft or railways. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) made an important point when he said that rail noise was more akin to aircraft noise than to the almost continuous roar of motorways or other roads.

The recent report of the Mitchell committee, which was set up to recommend to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport a national noise insulation standard, raised another important issue. It said that the traffic on a railway can be intensified by minor construction such as passing loops and re-signalling or traffic can be re-scheduled into previously lightly loaded times. This can lead to situations where intensification could not have been foreseen and is so great that it completely changes the nature of the line. That is important—there comes a point when the intensification of use effectively means that we have a new line. What is more, at a time when we are linking our railway system to that on mainland Europe, it is interesting that some of our mainland European friends, such as the Netherlands, have taken that very point and reclassified some lines that have been subjected to intensified use as, in effect, new lines.

It is also important that the present expectation, and in some cases experience, of the noise on existing lines well surpasses the level which the Mitchell committee recommended as a tolerable noise level. Therefore, there is a powerful case for insisting on British Rail providing protection to the houses alongside some parts of those lines. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) will make that commitment rather than simply saying, as he appeared to say in his opening remarks, that if he looks hard enough he can find precedents to allow British Rail to escape that obligation.

Mr. Gerald Bowden (Dulwich)

Many people have a passenger line at the bottom of their garden which they have accepted as part of their way of life, but when this becomes a freight line overnight, with trains half a mile long rumbling through the night, the character of the line is changed. Is this not a new line, by any judgment?

Mr. Rowe

That is my view. It would be better if the trains rumbled through the night without cease, because a curious phenomenon of human hearing is that it adapts to continuous noise very much more easily than to sporadic noise. When I worked at Edinburgh university, it was in a purpose-built modern building of the kind with which we are all so familiar. One could hear everything in the room next door. One of the cheapest ways to overcome that problem was to have pumped into the room what was called white noise—a kind of toneless muzak—which would quickly become unnoticed but which would allow one to carry on one's business without being overheard from the room next door.

The European Commission has at last taken seriously the business of co-ordinating the railways of Europe. This will mean that there will be pressure to harmonise protection for citizens alongside railways in a way that will prove helpful to our constituents. I hope that both British Rail and my hon. Friend the Minister will keep abreast of what is going on in Europe.

I was disappointed by one statement in what was otherwise an admirable production from the Department of Transport about environmental protection. It said that freight is not "time sensitive". I think that that means that freight as conducted in the past by British Rail has never been time-sensitive because it has nearly always been late. I believe that there will be a massive intensification of the use of freight lines. Contrary to what British Rail believes, there is a great market for freight that is time-sensitive and that delivers even perishable goods to urban centres in the middle of the night, as is necessary. However, if we have such a system, people must be protected.

Of all the miseries that come to the surgeries and through the postbags of hon. Members, probably some of the most intense, and certainly the most common, involve those whose lives have been destroyed by blight. This is a massive problem. British Rail has, on the whole, handled the problem of individual sufferers from blight with as much sensitivity as it is easy for it to use. However, it has not shown itself capable of taking account of people whose misery has suddenly intensified. For example, somebody may have been widowed in the past month, or someone's marriage may have broken up. There is a constant need for British Rail to go on buying up the properties of people whose lives have been destroyed. I should like to see rather more generosity in that.

In any part of the country, properties are moving into blight, but a similar number of properties are moving out of blight. As blight is mainly a fear of what is to come, and often when it has come it proves to be much less frightening than people thought it was, there is scope for examining whether it would be possible to set up a national agency. This could be a purchaser of last resort for people who have made every effort to dispose of their property and who, as in the example used by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims)—I share his experience—live in properties that estate agents will not even take on their books.

People in this position can have all their capital tied up in this one asset. They cannot move. If they are promoted, they lose the promotion because they cannot take the job. If a spouse has died, the widow or widower cannot get rid of the property. For 101 different reasons, people's lives can be in ruins. It should not be beyond the wit of the Government, the private sector and the voluntary sector, working together, to devise an agency as a purchaser of last resort. Once it had been set up, it would finance its continuing operation. I accept that houses would have to be bought at a discount and that there should not be a distress payment. The price paid should be between the going rate and a distress payment. The agency would then be able to sell the property at a profit once whatever was causing the blight had been overcome. If that were done on a large enough scale—a nationwide scale—it would not be out of the question to alleviate what is, for virtually every hon. Member, probably the largest single source of human distress.

8.56 pm

Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) and my hon. Friend the Minister for introducing into our debate on the Bill the Networker express programme. It is particularly relevant, when considering the immediate future of our railways in the south-east, to know precisely what will happen to that programme. In some respects, we are talking about new rail lines. The Networker express service rolling stock is much more than rolling stock. It is almost a new railway line. It is of tremendous importance, because it will increase capacity on the Kent line by 50 per cent. Few other measures could be carried through at a relatively small capital expenditure—I use the word advisedly—and have such a dramatic effect on rail services.

It is a little galling that we are all encouraged to exhort the Government to approve a programme, but when we do so we are told that a formal submission has not been made. I welcome the comforting words that the Minister offered us, but what we want is formal approval this autumn, so that we know that that important programme can be put in hand as soon as possible.

I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's helpful response to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). In contrast, the hon. Gentleman's irrational and irascible approach to the matter has done a great disservice to British Rail and to the Bill. If he calls himself a friend of the railways, I can only say with friends like that, who needs enemies? The hon. Gentleman has completely missed the point.

Mr. Snape

Not as badly as the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Moate

There are some moments when one has to agree with the hon. Gentleman although they are seldom.

The hon. Gentleman has completely missed an important development. There he was, believing that he was defending railway investment by arguing against compensation for those suffering from intensification of noise when already major and helpful concessions have been made. He has completely missed the point and his diatribe made him sound very callous. Many of our constituents will be surprised to find him saying that people living alongside a railway line knew what they were likely to get and so should put up with intensification of noise. That was the message he was delivering. However, British Rail has already taken steps in the right direction, which he should know about but clearly he does not.

Mr. Snape

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also tell his constituents that if this minor Bill is not approved—I understand that some of his hon. Friends intend to vote against it tonight—in 1993 they will experience the misery that heavy goods vehicles on Kent roads will cause. I think that we are talking about some 1,500 heavy goods vehicles which will not be on Kent roads as a result of the freight trains about which he complains. Those heavy goods vehicles will have a far more damaging effect and so far I have yet to hear the hon. Gentleman or anyone else talk about the intensification of noise that some of the more rural roads will have to suffer when the channel tunnel opens.

Mr. Moate

The hon. Gentleman seems to be assuming that we are against the Bill, but he is wrong. Many of us enthusiastically welcome British Rail's investment in preparation for 1993 to have a first-class high-speed rail link ready for the opening of the channel tunnel. If the hon. Gentleman were to listen for a while instead of reacting so violently, he would learn something. The readiness with which the hon. Gentleman attacks is quite alarming. Most of the time he is attacking British Rail and the Government's record, which is infinitely better than the record of the Labour Government whom he supported.

We should emphasise that the Bill makes it possible to have in place a first-class railway system ready for the opening of the channel tunnel. It always surprises me that Ministers and British Rail seem to hide their light under a bushel when it comes to the building of the new railway. Because of the arguments about the new high-speed link, which was never going to be in place before the turn of the century anyway, we have failed to proclaim the fact that when the tunnel opens it will be possible to catch a non-stop train from Waterloo through to Paris or Brussels, a three-hour service probably manned by a British Rail or a French driver.

The majority of the British public have become so used to the knocking campaign against everything British that they have come to the view that there will not be a rail service ready for the opening of the tunnel. But there will be and it will be a good service. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South said, it is coming as a result of £1.5 billion of new investment to make sure that the service is ready. Why are not we proclaiming the fact that Britain is not lagging behind? We will have a good, attractive rail service in place ready for the opening of the channel tunnel, and the Bill provides for that.

If the hon. Gentleman would listen for a while instead of reacting so violently, as he seems to do more and more these days, he would understand that many of us support the Bill. But with such legislation, we are entitled to tell British Rail that we want to ensure that the terms are right for all those of our constituents who are likely to be affected.

Mr. Rowe

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would help a lot if we had a station?

Mr. Moate

I am tempted to become involved in the much bigger argument. We are all aware of the need to make progress on the international station, but that is not my subject at the moment. We are fully aware of the need to make progress and we can all see the benefit of that.

Those who take the rather old-fashioned view that there should not be any form of compensation or help as a result of intensification of noise should consider what is happening. Some of us received a letter this morning from Kent county council—I will not read it all—which says: a project team which will include Kent county council officers is in the process of being established by BR's Railfreight Distribution to look at the issue of noise protection for existing lines on the opening of the Channel Tunnel. Despite this, it still remains unclear at this stage whether there is any prospect of BR paying compensation to those affected, or funding noise protection measures. Doubt remains, but British Rail, working with the Kent county council, has taken the initiative in finding ways of ameliorating the problem for those living near existing lines, and we should welcome that major step. If everyone took the negative attitude shown by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East we would not have progressed that far.

I should like to go further. Why cannot we ask British Rail to give an undertaking to examine ways of compensating—not necessarily under the statutory regime, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) sensibly put it, as a matter of administration—those who suffer the serious dislocation, disruption or damage caused by noise intensification? I suspect that the number affected would not be large and that British Rail could handle the problem. If it gave such an undertaking, that would be a major advance in not only securing the passage of the Bill —important though that is—but in railway development generally.

If we have secured, as I believe is the case, an important concession in Kent in respect of the amelioration of noise on existing routes through, perhaps, Faversham, Sittingbourne and other parts of my constituency—we hope that it will not happen, but freight trains might travel through those places at night, on lines that do not currently carry them—the same concession must apply to south London, which will almost certainly suffer noise intensification as well, in which case not only my right hon. and hon. Friends but many Labour Members will be clamouring for help for their constituents.

I do not believe that such a scheme would impose an enormous burden on rail development. Much of it will be concerned with noise insulation measures, the cost of which need not be exorbitant. I say to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East—who I know cares passionately about railway development—that the best way to achieve broad acceptance of railway development in the rest of the 1990s and into the next century is to accept the logic of giving protection to those people who live alongside existing routes—by offering them help, particularly with noise insulation, grants, or even compensation if their property is severely damaged.

Mr. Snape

I put to the hon. Gentleman the same question that I asked the Minister, without receiving much of a response: would the countrywide provision of noise insulation or compensation make the Treasury warmer than it is at present towards future development, or would that have the reverse effect?

Mr. Moate

If one reverses the sense of the hon. Gentleman's question, it implies that he would be prepared to go ahead with railway development even where he realised that it would cause severe environmental damage —and that is something that few constituents would accept. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that we must get it right. If the modest price of intensification of usage of existing lines is noise insulation grants, we must face up to it. However, I do not accept that that would impose a great burden on British Rail or private investors. Any major development—whether it involves railways, roads, or the construction of new buildings—is subject to the polluter pays principle, whether noise or any other kind of pollution is involved. It is universally accepted that environmental protection should be built in, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, alone almost, should fight that concept.

Mr. Snape

Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House of any cases in which, in respect of road intensification, compensation has been paid, or is to be paid, to people living alongside roads that have seen a dramatic increase in traffic in recent years?

Mr. Moate

The hon. Gentleman is reawakening memories of earlier debates about noise compensation. Many of us are not unhappy about the possibility that the concession already made by British Rail will lead to a re-examination of the principles that apply elsewhere. I am not saying that the Treasury will like that; in areas where traffic has intensified, however, many people feel that it is only fair for the Government to offer help with noise insulation.

Mr. Rowe

I believe that, because an absolute standard has been set in relation to the amount of noise that people are expected to put up with, protection is being provided in some areas where intensification has taken place.

Mr. Moate

It is all a question of degree.

We are not talking about a theoretical exercise. British Rail has been very helpful, and has gone some way towards meeting the point. My hon. Friend the Minister is trying to resolve the problem: the Government, unlike the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East, are taking it seriously.

I believe that British Rail should consider providing compensation when serious damage is done to existing properties. In doing so, it would secure considerable public support. The cost would not be excessive, and the future path of railway development would be eased. If my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South can give us any encouragement on that score, I for one will not oppose the Bill.

9.11 pm

Mr. Mark Wolfson (Sevenoaks)

I am doubtful about the message that we have received from the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). Again, we are encountering a divided policy. In the debate on new clause 16 of the Planning and Compensation Bill, many Opposition Members—not just Labour Members—firmly supported the provision of compensation.

Mr. Snape

What my hon. Friends supported was the principle of compensation. We all accept that the noise that will be generated by a new high-speed rail link constitutes a unique phenomenon, and is likely to cause a good deal more dislocation than any noise caused by the existing links. We are not talking about the intensification of traffic on existing railway lines.

Mr. Wolfson

The hon. Gentleman is clearly very badly briefed; he has not done his homework. The new clause and debate to which I referred specifically concerned the very line that we are discussing now.

I support the intentions of the Bill, but like many of my constituents I consider it incomplete. I therefore cannot support the Bill itself. As the promoters have said, it will allow British Rail to carry out major works on the line that runs from Ashford to London, via Maidstone and Otford. The works are part of an investment programme costing more than £1 billion, on which British Rail has embarked to meet the huge surge in demand for rail travel that is expected to follow the opening of the channel tunnel.

I should make it clear—especially to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East, who tried to suggest that those of us who were concerned about protection and compensation were sticking our heads in the sand, and were not interested in progress—that in my view it is high time that Britain took rapid steps to provide not just an adequate but a top-grade infrastructure for British routes to and from the channel tunnel, both road and rail. We have many lessons to learn from the French who are already ahead of us in building their rail links, junctions and stations ready for the opening of the tunnel and the years that follow. There are major benefits to be gained from providing an adequate rail freight service which can compete effectively with lorry traffic.

I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) about the estimate of the impact of the growth in trade after 1992. Part of the impact will be to increase by 100,000 every year the lorry movements on the roads of Kent and the south-east. In comparison, in the first years of operation after the opening of the channel tunnel, rail freight services will offer—depending on the vigour with which the services are sold—the equivalent of 400,000 trunk lorry movements a year over the same roads, so I accept that there are clear benefits to be gained from moving freight by rail. That gain will limit the growth of heavy lorry traffic. It will be an environmental and energy-saving gain and something that most of us will applaud. It is also a clear gain for Britain as a whole. Therefore, it seems even more of a pity that the individuals whose homes will be severely blighted or made unsaleable—and when their value is already depressed by the fact that they live close to a quiet and little-used railway—will overnight, on the day that the tunnel opens, find themselves alongside a main European railway line. Those people have, as yet, no recourse to compensation or to noise and vibration protection measures.

We are not asking for anything unrealistic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) pointed out, we are asking for reasonable measures which could ease the passage of the Bill and future railway development all over Britain. We have had to fight for every concession on this. When British Rail first published its alternative routes for the channel tunnel—the high speed line—it had no concept of providing any sort of noise protection or compensation. It based its approach on the law for existing lines and that has been a public relations disaster. It is utterly inexcusable and a total contrast to the way in which Eurotunnel—a private company—has operated at Folkestone from the beginning, producing good compensation plans, which have been kept live over about 10 years, for dealing with people whose homes have been damaged in any way, whether financially or environmentally, by development there. So there are lessons to be learnt and we need to learn them fast.

Because we have had to fight every inch, it may sometimes seem to other hon. Members that Kent Members become unnecessarily worked up about the issue, but I believe that we are justified in doing so. We value the interest taken in the matter by those from other areas of the country. I could not be more strongly in support of the need to ensure that the national transport infrastructure is ready and in position to service the channel tunnel properly so that the benefits are spread all over Britain. If that is not so, there is no point in having the tunnel.

So far, there has been a sharp contrast between this country and others, and I am critical of the Government in that respect. The French have used the development of the high-speed rail link as a generator of economic development and have funded it accordingly. The line to Brittany was one-third paid for by Government money —separately from SNCF's two-thirds contribution—in order to achieve economic development. Some parts of this country—and certainly parts of the south-east—are not looking for dynamic economic growth because they are already over-heated, or were until recently. However, other parts of the country badly need such growth and that is where rail development will play a major part, as it should.

I refer to the passage of the Bill in another place and stress that when it reaches its Committee stage in this place I hope that it will be more fully examined and greater note taken of various issues. I hope that firm recommendations will be made to deal with the problems of those who are disadvantaged by the intensification of use of existing lines. While asking for a more in-depth consideration to be taken in this place than was carried out in another place, it is interesting to note that, during the Third Reading debate in another place, all those who spoke referred to the concerns that had been raised in Committee and on Second Reading about the intensification of use, its environmental effects and its negative effect on people's houses. They asked that those effects should be taken into account by the Government and by British Rail during the further stages of the Bill, so it is wholly reasonable that precisely that issue should be emphasised now.

Some progress has been made and the Government have responded. I will summarise some of the steps in that progress. The Minister for Public Transport has made it clear—he confirmed it again today—that he and the Secretary of State accept that intensification of use of existing railway lines will pose a problem when the channel tunnel opens and that he would consider that problem carefully. I am grateful to him for confirming that again today.

The House of Lords Select Committee on the British Railways (No. 3) Bill concluded that, just as the Mitchell committee had been established to examine noise from new railway lines, a similar study should be undertaken into noise arising from intensification of use. The Committee's conclusion makes it clear that this is an issue of real import.

The recommendation of the Department of the Environment's noise review working party in 1990 was that consideration should be given to extending the regulations about the insulation of residential property against railway noise so as to include householders affected by the significant intensification of use of a railway line which could not reasonably have been foreseen. Surely there is common agreement that for people who bought houses along many points of this line the intensification that they now face could not reasonably have been foreseen.

I refer to the Mitchell committee's recent report which has already been mentioned. Its conclusion was to recommend to the Secretary of State for Transport a national noise insulation standard for new railway lines. We are asking for that insulation standard to be extended to intensification of use.

In this debate, as in the debate on the Compensation and Planning Bill, it is arguable whether we are talking about intensification of use on existing lines or whether the capital investment put into the lines plus the opening of the channel tunnel—the biggest ever infrastructure project in Europe—constitutes a new line with new traffic, operating in a wholly different way from anything that has happened before.

I ask for a narrower point than my hon. Friend the Minister is prepared to accept. I ask that the channel tunnel routes between London and Folkestone should be accepted as unique in terms of the volume of and increase in night-time traffic by rail. That is a major difference compared with routes in other parts of the country. I also ask that British Rail should be asked to confirm the lack of an equivalent level of night-time traffic elsewhere and should be asked whether similar increases are expected elsewhere in the next five years. That is a key measure of whether the situation in Kent and south-east London is unique.

Kent county council has put in an immense amount of work over the past three to four years on achieving sensible noise standards. I suggest that the Kent authority's noise standards should form the basis of any noise scheme unless we get subsequent national noise regulation standards which would obviously be better than the local ones.

British Rail should produce a noise action scheme which would concentrate first on protection by barriers and by insulation. Many examples of that exist on the continent, so we do not have to reinvent the wheel. We can use experience from abroad, evaluate the costs and know that such methods work. The noise action scheme should also include provision for compensation by monetary payments for the loss in value to which so many speakers have referred.

The Secretary of State should go further and require British Rail to implement an agreed scheme for a specifically defined area. If he did that, it would do much to restore confidence among people in Kent and south-east London, and it would help them to accept the fact that the benefits of an effective rail freight scheme are real and can help environmentally, as well as provide the right and proper method by which to move as much freight as possible on the railway lines between the channel tunnel and the rest of the country.

I am not against the intentions of the Bill, but I am dissatisfied with the fact that it still does not provide my constituents and those of all the other Kent and south-east London Members—other areas of the country could also be affected at a later state—with reasonable protection and compensation.

9.23 pm

Mr. Thorne

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that we have had an extremely useful debate on an important matter. The debate has been extremely constructive in that everyone has welcomed the need for providing a rail link to the coast. The major source of disagreement has been the question of compensation, and I shall deal with that in a few moments. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) asked a question about the Networker which was answered by my hon. Friend the Minister of State.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) was especially concerned about compensation, and the fact that there was virtually a new line, even if it might run on old rails—or, rather, run where the old rails used to be. He said that that circumstance should give rise to a special form of compensation.

We have to take two factors into account. We must accept that this is a national problem, and is not limited simply to railway lines. Roads, too, can be affected, and we run into serious difficulty in determining exactly where to draw the line. I do not say that that cannot be done, but national legislation is not now in place because of that difficulty.

Perhaps what my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) said about Kent county council's work on standards could represent a foundation upon which something could be worked out. It is a difficult problem, and we must make it clear that we cannot consider compensation in isolation; we must deal with all forms of transport, not just one.

Sir John Stanley

National legislation is in place for civil airports and military airfields, where public works leading to intensification of use trigger entitlements to compensation. The problem is that British Rail has chosen —arbitrarily, I suggest—to align railways with roads rather than with airports. The provisions exist; they are on the statute book and are administered by the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Thorne

British Rail is going to considerable lengths to discuss the matter at a high level with Kent county council. We accept that the county council has done a considerable amount of work in the past few years.

There is no doubt that there are statutory provisions that apply to new railway lines, but we are talking specifically about lines being used more intensively. We must await the outcome of the discussions between British Rail and Kent county council to see whether there is a basis on which to work. Nevertheless, we must be careful not to treat one section of the community differently from others. Real problems arise on the road network, and it would be wrong if people affected by them were not taken care of in the same way.

The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) was concerned about sleepers. I know that he and one or two of his colleagues have had problems travelling on the sleeper to and from their constituencies. The right hon. Gentleman felt that British Rail had broken an undertaking, but I do not believe that it has. British Rail gave an undertaking to consider the matter after the electrification of the line to see whether the service could be made viable. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not dream of suggesting that British Rail should lay on a sleeper service especially for Members of Parliament. That would be entirely wrong. The service has to be financially viable, and I believe that British Rail has considered the matter.

Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks, raised the question of blight, with special reference to the value of property being seriously affected. I know that that can happen; it has happened in my own constituency. Conversely, where blight is lifted, the opposite can happen. I knew of a number of houses that were blighted because a flyover was to be built over a roundabout. When it was decided to re-route the road, the value of the properties affected increased by 50 per cent. overnight. So I know that it happens, but, nevertheless, we must ensure that we can cater for all those who lose and not just for one group, particularly when the funding is then thrown upon the users of the route. It would not be fair to pick some people out for special treatment. We must be consistent, and that is why this is a national matter which will clearly have to be resolved in due course.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) was anxious to have a cast-iron assurance regarding compensation and blight purchase. I am afraid that I cannot give him any cast-iron assurances, but I can assure him that every possible attempt will be made to arrive at an amicable agreement on this point between Kent county council—and, for that matter, the London boroughs, should they so wish—and British Rail.

The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) welcomed the Bill, and I was pleased to receive support from the Opposition Benches. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the fact that the Bill is essential to northern England and Scotland. That is absolutely true. We must accept that certain inconvenience will be caused, and that is why we must go to great lengths to try to ensure that those who are inconvenienced by the extra use are not unduly out of pocket as a result.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport replied to many of the questions that were raised, and I do not want to repeat what he said.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) also referred to the question of intensification, and felt that if, as a result of the Bill, our rail system were connected to the European system, a new line would be involved. That is an interesting point, but it must also apply to roads, and we must try to identify exactly how what is proposed can be made separate and special. My hon. Friend also referred to the question of the blight, and I am grateful to him for acknowledging British Rail's sensitivity in trying to deal with the matter. My hon. Friend's suggestion of setting up an agency as the purchaser of last resort was noted by my hon. Friend the Minister, and it is to be hoped that we shall hear a little more about that in due course. Nevertheless, blight is a great worry to those trapped in such circumstances.

Mr. Moate

My hon. Friend was trying to be helpful in saying that efforts would be made to reach agreement between the local authorities concerned and British Rail with regard to compensation or forms of noise protection —I am not sure which. Earlier, however, he said that he felt that the matter had to be dealt with on a national basis. There is a problem in reconciling those two propositions. I wonder whether my hon. Friend can encourage me to think that British Rail is ready to make an undertaking to extend the scope of the committee with Kent county council to include compensation—or is that too optimistic?

Mr. Thorne

I think that my hon.. Friend is being a little too optimistic, as he suggests. The matter will certainly be discussed in Committee, and any undertakings that are sought can be more properly directed in that way. I was referring to two separate issues—on the one hand, the Bill and the way in which British Rail is trying to reach agreement on compensation or sound-proofing—it is one thing or the other—and, on the other, belief that, ultimately, we must find a national yardstick by which we can determine whether compensation should be paid. If we do not have a national yardstick, there will tend to be enormous variations and much criticism from different parts of the country about the fact that they have been dealt with in different ways.

There has been a great deal of agreement about the Bill. I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading tonight, and that it will make progress in Committee.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 10.

Division No. 214]	[9.39 pm
AYES
Aitken, Jonathan	Bellingham, Henry
Alton, David	Bermingham, Gerald
Anderson, Donald	Bevan, David Gilroy
Ashby, David	Blackburn, Dr John G.
Aspinwall, Jack	Blair, Tony
Atkins, Robert	Boswell, Tim
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Brazier, Julian
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Bright, Graham
Beggs, Roy	Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Budgen, Nicholas	Hawkins, Christopher
Burt, Alistair	Hayes, Jerry
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Carr, Michael	Haynes, Frank
Carrington, Matthew	Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Cash, William	Hill, James
Chapman, Sydney	Home Robertson, John
Chope, Christopher	Howells, Geraint
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William	Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)	Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John	Illsley, Eric
Cormack, Patrick	Irvine, Michael
Cox, Tom	Jack, Michael
Cryer, Bob	Jackson, Robert
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Janman, Tim
Dalyell, Tam	Janner, Greville
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)	Jessel, Toby
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Dover, Den	Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Duffy, Sir A. E. P.	Kilfedder, James
Dunnachie, Jimmy	Kilfoyle, Peter
Durant, Sir Anthony	Kirkhope, Timothy
Emery, Sir Peter	Knapman, Roger
Fearn, Ronald	Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Flynn, Paul	Knowles, Michael
Fookes, Dame Janet	Lamond, James
Forman, Nigel	Latham, Michael
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)	Lawrence, Ivan
Freeman, Roger	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
French, Douglas	Lightbown, David
Fry, Peter	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Gale, Roger	Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan	Lord, Michael
Godman, Dr Norman A.	Loyden, Eddie
Golding, Mrs Llin	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Goodlad, Alastair	McAvoy, Thomas
Gordon, Mildred	McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Gorst, John	Maclean, David
Graham, Thomas	McLoughlin, Patrick
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)	McMaster, Gordon
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')	Malins, Humfrey
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Ground, Patrick	Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Hague, William	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')	Maxton, John
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)	Meale, Alan
Harris, David	Michael, Alun
Haselhurst, Alan	Mills, Iain

Miscampbell, Norman	Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Morrison, Sir Charles	Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Moss, Malcolm	Stern, Michael
Neale, Sir Gerrard	Stevens, Lewis
Neubert, Sir Michael	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony	Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Nicholls, Patrick	Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian
O'Brien, William	Summerson, Hugo
O'Hara, Edward	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Oppenheim, Phillip	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Page, Richard	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Paice, James	Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Parry, Robert	Temple-Morris, Peter
Patnick, Irvine	Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Patten, Rt Hon John	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Thornton, Malcolm
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth	Thurnham, Peter
Pike, Peter L.	Tredinnick, David
Porter, David (Waveney)	Trimble, David
Powell, William (Corby)	Trotter, Neville
Prescott, John	Twinn, Dr Ian
Primarolo, Dawn	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Raffan, Keith	Viggers, Peter
Redmond, Martin	Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Riddick, Graham	Wallace, James
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Rooney, Terence	Watts, John
Ross, William (Londonderry E)	Wells, Bowen
Rowlands, Ted	Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela	Wiggin, Jerry
Sackville, Hon Tom	Wilshire, David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)	Wilson, Brian
Sheerman, Barry	Winterton, Mrs Ann
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Short, Clare	Wood, Timothy
Skeet, Sir Trevor	Wray, Jimmy
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)	Yeo, Tim
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Snape, Peter	Tellers for the Ayes:
Spearing, Nigel	Mr. Neil Thorne and Mr. Gary Waller.
Speed, Keith

NOES
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Sims, Roger
Dixon, Don	Skinner, Dennis
Goodhart, Sir Philip	Stanbrook, Ivor
Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Tellers for the Noes:
Moate, Roger	Mr. Mark Wolfson and Sir John Stanley.
Rowe, Andrew

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed.