COMPENSATION FOR WORKS IN CONNECTION WITH RAILWAYS

HC Deb 19 June 1991 vol 193 cc323-53

`.—After section 27 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (Execution of works etc. in connection with public works) there is inserted—

1. "27A.—(1) The Secretary of State may compensate any person with a qualifying interest in land the enjoyment of which will in his opinion be seriously or injuriously affected by the carrying out of works or the use of public works or the intensification of operations by or in connection with the activities of the British Railways Board.
2. (2) In the section 'qualifying interest' has the meaning given in section 149(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
3. (3) In this section the power to compensate includes the power to acquire by agreement property at a value established by reference to the value of the property which would have obtained if the relevant operations had not been subject to intensification.
4. (4) Save as provided in subsection (3) the provisions of Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (Compensation for depreciation caused by use of public works) shall apply to compensation paid under this section.".'.—[Sir J. Stanley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Mailing)

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

Although the new clause has been tabled by right hon. and hon. Members of different parties who represent constituencies in London, Kent and Surrey, it raises an aspect of compensation policy which is of considerable importance to any constituency, wherever it is located, if, like ours, it faces a quantum leap in noise levels from the railways as a result of a different type of train which will travel with much greater frequency on the existing railway system. The issue that we are about to debate will be seen to be a part of general compensation policy, not one that flows from the channel tunnel project.

The problem faced by our constituents can be stated relatively simply. The Government have so far been unable —or unwilling—to agree to the construction of a new high-speed line from London to the channel tunnel portal. Therefore, it is inescapable that for at least five years after the channel tunnel opens in 1993, all through international passenger and freight trains to and from the continent will travel on the existing designated railway system between London and the continent. They will travel especially on two lines—the main line that has been used by the previous boat train service through Tonbridge down to Ashford, and the secondary line through Maidstone east.

The implications for people who have properties close to the railway lines are little short of disastrous, because the increase in usage, especially at night, will have drastic effects. At present, virtually no use is made of the Tonbridge to Ashford line at night. Equally, there is really no use of the Maidstone east line at night.

According to British Rail's own forecast of the international freight traffic alone, international freight trains about half a mile long and travelling at about 75 mph will take at least half a minute to pass a given point which, as far as our constituents are concerned, will be their bedroom windows, which may be a few metres from the railway line. The trains will pass by about every 20 minutes throughout the night from 10 pm to 6 am. They will pass every night of the week, every week of the year. I am happy to say that it will affect relatively few people who are unfortunate enough to have property alongside the designated channel tunnel routes.

5.30 pm

New clause 16 seeks to deal with that problem by conferring on my right and hon. learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport two discretionary powers. The first power would enable him voluntarily to acquire, with the agreement of the owner, homes that are seriously affected by the build-up of rail traffic. In practice, I would expect that power to be used in the case of houses that have, to all intents and purposes, been rendered valueless and uninhabitable by the rail traffic build-up. My hon. Friend the Minister of State kindly visited a house in my constituency, which I believe that he will agree will be rendered effectively valueless.

The second power is a discretionary power to apply the injurious affection provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973 to those houses that are not made totally uninhabitable but whose value is seriously affected. Those two powers will provide a sensible and fair answer to the problem.

The House may ask, what are the objections to new clause 16? I shall anticipate two arguments that may be used by my hon. Friend the Minister. The first argument —he would be ill-advised to use it—is that compensation is paid only in relation to new works and not in the case of intensification of existing use. He may claim that this is an example of intensification of existing use and that, therefore, compensation cannot be paid. That argument cannot run. To try to pretend that the build-up of rail traffic as a result of the channel tunnel is simply an intensification of existing use without any new works does not accord with reality. There are massive new works which are making it possible for the intensification to occur.

At one end of the line we have the biggest single new work that has ever been undertaken by the British civil engineering industry—the channel tunnel. It will link the entire continental rail system with the British rail system. That is a pretty good new work. At the other end we have the £150 million new work taking place at Waterloo station. Some of us went to see it the other day. There is a new international terminal with five new platforms, each a quarter of a mile long, to take the new international passenger trains. There is a massive new work between Tonbridge and Redhill where the line is being electrified to take the international freight trains. Mile upon mile of continuous rail is being installed, bridges are being reconstructed, there is tremendous investment in new signalling and track is being reconstructed. My right hon. Friend the Minister recently confirmed in a parliamentary answer that, even ignoring the cost of the channel tunnel, the associated rail works to enable the channel tunnel trains to travel on the existing designated routes will total £700 million. By every possible argument, major new works are involved and the issue cannot be dismissed as simply an intensification of existing use.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent)

My hon. Friend suggested that if the Government had been able or had wished to approve a new line, some of the problems might have been avoided. Is it not the case that British Rail has stubbornly persisted in its view that there is no need for a new freight line and that, therefore, our constituents will be subjected to this burden for the foreseeable future?

Sir John Stanley

I agree with my hon. Friend. British Rail's proposals, which as far as we know have not yet been accepted by the Government, envisage a new line for passenger traffic only. Therefore, the problem will arise for freight.

My hon. Friend the Minister may concede my first point about intensification of existing use. The real issue is what type of new works should trigger an entitlement to compensation. My hon. Friend the Minister may fall back on a second line of resistance. He may say, "Yes, I acknowledge that there are major new works but, I am afraid, the works are of the wrong type. In a road scheme no compensation is payable unless there is a new road or a new carriageway to an existing road. In this case, by and large, there is no new track and compensation cannot be paid." If my hon. Friend is tempted to use that argument, I hope that he will think again. An analogy between the compensation problem for railways and the compensation problem for a road scheme is wholly bogus because the railway noise profile is totally different from that of a highway. The noise profile is critical. It is that which depreciates the value of homes and possibly creates the entitlement to compensation.

I invite the House to consider the noise profile of an international freight or passenger train. First there is a total silence. Then, from a very faint noise, there is a gradual crescendo, which builds to an intense noise for those whose homes are right by the railway line. That noise is sustained for at least half a minute as the train passes. The noise then diminishes back into total silence until the next train in about 15 minutes or so. That is not the noise profile of a passing car or lorry or of continuous traffic from a highway scheme. That noise profile approximates to that of an aircraft. The passage of an aircraft overhead is the correct analogy for the problem facing our constituents.

When we consider this as an issue of compensation policy in relation not to a highway scheme, where the analogy is false, but to aircraft, a different perspective emerges. As I hope to demonstrate, existing practice for civil and military aircraft is wholly in line with what we propose in new clause 16. We are not asking the Department of Transport to take a radical step forward or to create a dangerous new precedent. We are asking the Department to bring itself into line with the practice of those operating civil and military airfields and accept the same responsibility to householders in the vicinity of railway lines as is already accepted by those operators.

Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford)

Before my right hon. Friend extends the theme a little further, will he confirm that the problem with the noise profile will be worse during the day and evening? The noise from passing trains will not be confined to office hours from 8 o'clock in the morning until 6 o'clock at night but will continue through the night. On returning from work to home, where people want to enjoy their leisure and rest, owners will find that the noise profile is distinctly disturbing and wrecks their tranquil hours.

Sir John Stanley

My hon. Friend is correct. There will be noise disturbances on a 24-hour basis. My hon. Friend's point is extremely telling, not least because there is a ban on night-time flying by civil aircraft. Our constituents will be in a worse position than those affected by civil flights.

I remind the House of the two key powers that are available under new clause 16—the power to set up a voluntary acquisition scheme for owners of houses that are, in effect, made valueless and the power to pay injurious affection compensation.

I have considered the existing practice of civil aviation operators and the Ministry of Defence. On the civil side, I start with the issue of a voluntary acquisition scheme. Sir Norman Payne, the chairman of the British Airports Authority plc, has confirmed to me that BAA already operates a voluntary acquisition programme for houses seriously affected by noise from BAA airports, whereby those home owners who wish to sell are bought out for an amount equivalent to the unblighted value of their homes. Ironically, that power was made possible only by the Government's action in privatising the British Airports Authority. It would be sad and paradoxical if, having introduced those powers in relation to civil aircraft, the Government resisted introducing similar powers to cover those who are equally seriously affected by railway noise.

Sir Norman Payne confirmed in his letter that injurious affection compensation was payable. In respect of what new works is it payable by BAA? My hon. Friend the Minister may be under the impression that injurious affection compensation is payable only where there is the equivalent of new track—a new runway or an extension of an existing runway.

Sir Norman Payne confirmed that BAA is willing to pay injurious affection compensation where new works stop short of a new runway or an extension of an existing runway. As that point is fundamental, I hope that the House will forgive me if I read the key sentence in Sir Norman Payne's letter, and I ask hon. Members to consider in particular the end of that sentence. Sir Norman Payne said: With regard to injurious affection compensation BAA's airports, in common with all other airports in the United Kingdom, are liable to pay compensation under the Land Compensation Act 1973 where the value of property has diminished as a result of physical factors, including noise, vibration, smell, fumes and artificial lighting, resulting from any works at the airports which involve the construction, realignment, extension or strengthening of an existing runway"— and this is the crucial passage— or substantial additions to or alterations of taxiways or aprons where those additions or alterations are designed to provide facilities for a greater number of aircraft. 5.45 pm

In other words, injurious affection compensation is triggered by new works which may necessarily fall short of a new runway or an extension to an existing runway but which provide facilities for a greater number of aircraft. Those of us who tabled new clause 16 argue strongly that that is precisely the position with which we are dealing —major new works which provide facilities for much greater use of railway lines by international trains.

I turn to the defence sector and military aircraft. I can speak with a little first-hand experience because I was Minister of State for the Armed Forces when the Ministry of Defence had to deal with this problem in relation to military aircraft. A massive increase in noise was predicted at an airfield, resulting in those with homes nearby finding the value of their homes, if not destroyed, at least seriously reduced. The airfield was RAF Leeming in north Yorkshire, which at that time was a training airfield, deploying Bulldog basic trainers and Jet Provost trainers, which are the first trainers used in converting to flying jet aircraft. They are relatively small and not particularly noisy aircraft.

It was decided to use RAF Leeming as one of the main operational bases for Tornados in this country. That occasion mirrored the present situation with channel tunnel trains. A new type of aircraft was deployed, with much longer hours of operation and causing much greater noise disturbance.

The House will not be surprised to hear, perhaps, that our policy response was precisely the same as the provisions in new clause 16. We introduced a voluntary acquisition scheme for owners of those houses most seriously affected by noise and injurious affection compensation. I am glad to be able to tell the House, because of written answers given to me by my successor, the present Minister of State for the Armed Forces, that the principles that we applied to RAF Leeming have been applied to a considerable number of other RAF airfields where the same problem has arisen. On 3 June, my hon. Friend the Minister said that the voluntary acquisition scheme applied at Stornoway, Leeming, Upper Heyford, Fairford and Yeovilton and that injurious affection compensation applied at Upper Heyford, Leuchars, Cottesmore, Coningsby, Marham, Wattisham, Honington, Leeming and Yeovilton.

What new works triggered an entitlement to injurious affection compensation at RAF Leeming? There was no new runway or extension to the existing runway. There was no new taxiway or new apron. The new works were of a different variety, but they still triggered an entitlement to injurious affection compensation.

I hope that I have been able to show that the principle in new clause 16 is well precedented in relation to aircraft and we should draw the parallel with a passing aircraft. There is a precedent for a voluntary acquisition scheme at the unblighted value of a property. There is a precedent for the operation of an injurious affection compensation scheme where there is intensification of existing use accompanied by new works, but where those works do not necessitate the construction of a new runway or railway track.

Although the Department of Transport may claim that the principle is difficult and dangerous, we are asking the Department and British Rail to accept the same degree of responsibility for folk, the value of whose houses may have been devastated, as is already accepted by the operators of civil airfields and by the MOD.

Ultimately we must consider the individuals concerned. We must ask whether it is fair and reasonable with regard to a channel tunnel project that is required in the national interest that relatively small numbers of people should have the value of their main asset destroyed or substantially reduced as a result of the construction of that project and the proper utilisation of the tunnel by rail traffic. We believe that that is unreasonable. The Government must act to ensure that that injustice is rectified. Justice would be done under new clause 16 and therefore I hope that the House will support it.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)

I am grateful, as other hon. Members must be, for the initiative taken by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) in tabling his new clause and seeking to discover whether there is widespread support for it. He does not need to look far for such support. Since 1986, hon. Members have been aware of the concern expressed by their constituents about the effect of the current policy on the construction of railways and the issue of compensation. New clause 16, which has cross-party support, is an attempt to rectify the unfair balance in favour of the national interest, to the great detriment of private interests.

The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing made a carefully argued and persuasive point about the precedent for his proposition, which is already adopted by the Government. I will not elaborate on that, as the right hon. Gentleman quoted chapter and verse in respect of two clear and obvious examples. He also stated clearly that the best parallel lies not with road traffic, but with other forms of transport which have comparable effects on the residential population and on householders.

My first point is obvious, but it underlines the importance of what the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing has just said. The cost of a channel tunnel link —or a similar railway route—is shared among many taxpayers. It is spread abroad among those who contribute to the public purse. If someone is not adequately compensated, probably his largest asset is lost, and that may have a catastrophic effect on that family and its wealth. There is an inordinate and disproportionate unfairness in the way in which one could attribute the cost of what new clause 16 seeks to achieve.

Under new clause 16, the public purse would compensate or permit compensation at the objectively assessed value for loss suffered by anyone who, in the public interest, must pay the personal price of forfeiting his home in total, or the benefit of the value of that home as it was before the scheme was proposed.

We should address the issue now, not later. As the Minister for Public Transport is aware, there have been a couple of false starts in relation to the channel tunnel route. I do not want to make a prejudicial point about that; I heard the Minister on the radio this morning refer to the timetable. British Rail has had a rethink and has produced a proposal about the options for the channel tunnel rail link from its agreed end point in Kent to London. It has produced a preferred option which is on the Secretary of State's desk, and the Secretary of State and the Minister for Public Transport are considering the options.

Some weeks ago, the Secretary of State confirmed to me that, when the Government select an option, they will consult about the environmental implications. We all come to this debate unaware of the proposal. We come to argue from a point of principle. I hope that it is accepted that this is not a NIMBY argument. It should not be. None of us would like to see such problems occur whether or not they affected our constituents, constituents in our local authority areas—as applies in my case—or constituents more widely. It is a matter of public policy. We are not praying for exceptional treatment for people who may be affected by the proposal for the channel tunnel link, but in the immediate future the problems are likely to apply to those affected by the channel tunnel link.

The issue has political significance because this kind of issue—a proposal made or endorsed by the Government —will affect the Government supporters who may be criticised if the proposal does not compensate their constituents adequately. The channel tunnel link will affect the south east and the majority of the constituencies affected have Conservative Members. Only a handful of seats in inner London held by Labour Members will be affected, as will my constituency. Quite rightly, Conservative Members will hope to persuade the Government of the political and the personal significance of the case.

In a way, the new clause is a minimalist proposal. I tabled the same proposition in relation to underground works in new clause 23. My new clause raises the same issue, but relates to different legislation. The Minister for Public Transport is aware that proposals currently before the House to construct new underground lines raise similar issues. It is not simply a matter of which property is to be demolished: the issue relates also to which properties are affected by existing activity or by intensification of activity.

I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that, if the general argument is acceptable, it is logical that the provisions should apply to those who are affected in any way by railway works, whether they are above or below ground. The similarity between the railways and the channel tunnel proposal will be the closer because the latter will also be underground in London, although it will be above ground in outer London and Kent.

6 pm

As the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing said, the present law is anomalous. That has happened not as a matter of public policy but because of the failure of legislation to catch up with what should be the natural justice principle. As a result, some people have suffered disproportionately and in a particular way, while others have not suffered at all. As the right hon. Gentleman said, and as the new clause proposes, we are most concerned to ensure that we include in the "powers to compensate" provisions those who are suffering from an intensification of works as opposed to the commencement of new works only. Their previous omission from the compensation provisions is the most obvious anomaly, but there are others.

I have in mind the case of two constituents, living in neighbouring properties. One has been told that he will be compensated because he works at home, while the neighbour will not be compensated because his home is not his place of work. They live in similar and adjacent properties, but the law does not treat them the same. That is unfair.

This may be Parliament's last opportunity on this Bill to amend the existing law. Given that Ministers normally have a greater ability than other hon. Members to find technical defects in proposed provisions, the Minister may well do so. However, even if there are technical defects in the new clause, and even if it does not go as widely as some of us would wish, I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that the Government now accept the principle of compensating people for any loss—objectively assessed—in the value of their property as a result of railway proposals that would be a public benefit and increase the use of the railways.

I hope that principle will be accepted now, before the consequences become particular to certain constituencies and their Members of Parliament. I hope that it will be accepted as a matter of general principle to apply across the United Kingdom and in all such cases from now on.

I think that I am right in saying that this question will not go away if the Minister finds, for whatever reason, that it is not possible to accept even that proposition. That is not an unreal threat, because the problem affects many people's largest investment. Effectively, everything that people have built up as their community, home and base could be at risk if we do not amend the law.

For many people today, the most worrying thing, in any political agenda, is whether, as a result of legislation and Government policy decisions in the coming months, they will lose their home or a significant part of its value. That could finish those people, and it should not be acceptable as a matter of public policy. I hope that the Government will accept that the new clause gives us all a way off this hook and out of this dilemma. It is a straightforward principle of justice, and I hope that it will be accepted.

Mr. Wolfson

I start by congratulating my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), on so clearly outlining the case for the new clause. That it was masterly is no surprise.

I should like to comment specifically and briefly on two or three of my right hon. Friend's points. The new clause deals with compensation policy as a whole and could provide a way of dealing fairly with relatively few people. It provides the Secretary of State with a discretionary power. It was important that my right hon. Friend drew an analogy with airports rather than roads because that is the proper comparison. As we know, there are currently tight controls on night flying at airports. We know, equally, that the channel tunnel will not operate effectively if similar night controls are applied. As my right hon. Friend said, night trains will be running and that fact pushes up the agenda the crucial importance of properly looking after those relatively few people whose lives will be seriously damaged by them.

If ever the small man needed the protection of Parliament, it is upon the issue that new clause 16 addresses. The Englishman's home is his castle, but for the great majority of the population it is also his, or her, main —and often sole—investment. We should not forget those who rent, for whom the security of their own home, in known surroundings, in a settled community and among familiar sights and sounds is a large part of what makes life worthwhile. I ask hon Members to think of their own home—their families and their own feelings for it—in relation to what I have just said. Are those things not true for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as they are for all of us?

It is for those reasons that the prospect of a sudden and dramatic change in the level of rail traffic—immediately the channel tunnel opens, on the lines that run through my constituency and those of other hon. Members representing Kent, but possibly in other parts of the country in the future—is causing such understandable alarm and dismay. Householders who live close to the existing rail lines—Maidstone to Swanley, Tonbridge to Redhill, and the line from Tonbridge to Sevenoaks and then direct to London—have up to now been little troubled by rail traffic, especially at night. Daytime activity is not great at the moment on two of those lines, which will be used for British Rail freight for the foreseeable future. The trains are relatively slow and short. Until recent years, disturbance between the night hours of 11 pm and 6 am has been minimal. They are quiet lines.

The sale of houses had not, therefore, been much affected by proximity to the railway. Indeed, within the past five years new houses have been built at Swanky right under the embankment and, in the past, have sold well and readily. That was because the line was relatively little used. Now, all that is horribly changed. Those houses and others similarly situated are blighted. Individuals have had their lives disrupted. Their retirement or job change plans have been aborted, causing real worry and sometimes serious distress. And why? Not because they have made any mistakes or even errors of financial judgment themselves; not because the national housing market has been flat and not because their neighbourhood is old or run down—for none of those reasons. The blight has been caused by a factor quite outside their own control, let alone their ability to foresee.

On the day the channel tunnel opens, British Rail will inevitably make a quantum leap in the volume of trains using those lines night and day. Trains will be more frequent, longer and heavier. They will also be noisier and cause more vibration. Whatever the improvements that can be achieved by welded rails and modern rolling stock, international freight trains running through the night on previously empty tracks will be the cause of major and unacceptable disturbance.

Controls exist to minimise disturbance from night flights at airports. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing has said, rail disturbance could be similar for some houses. Radical measures are therefore essential to mitigate the injurious effects that may be suffered, and that is what new clause 16 seeks to achieve.

As the law stands, when new railways are built, however short, or when an additional track is laid alongside a railway to widen the line, this counts as new development and compensation may be paid to those who are affected. In my constituency a new loop line is being constructed to allow a stationary train to be overtaken —in other words, a train parking line. Compensation may be payable to people who are affected. Yet to those who suffer from the vastly increased use of an existing line no compensation is available. In an age when environmental issues, quality of life and noise control measures are high on the social and political agenda, that position is unacceptable to me, to my constituents and, increasingly, it will be unacceptable to the nation as a whole.

It has already been said that this issue will not go away. The law must be changed to give householders who are injuriously affected, or whose enjoyment is seriously affected by an intensification of the use of existing lines, the opportunity to be treated in a way similar to those who live beside new works. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing argued clearly and eloquently that the development of rail traffic from the channel tunnel to London can be described as new development. That was one of the points that he made. The other and most important one—I finish where I began—was that the nuisance should be equated with that of airport noise, not with that of roads.

Mr. Gerald Bowden (Dulwich)

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) analysed with great clarity the problem, outlined the planning principles and procedures which are relevant to it, and suggested a practical solution to alleviate the difficulties of disturbance and nuisance, loss of amenity and environmental damage which will arise for those who live near lines, the use of which is intensified, particularly by the passage of freight trains during unsocial hours.

I cannot add to or better what my right hon. Friend said but I am prompted to speak on behalf of my constituents in the Dulwich area who will be affected by the increase in the use of the West Dulwich line from Sydenham Hill through West Dulwich station to Herne Hill and also of the East Dulwich line which runs through Peckham and Denmark Hill to Loughborough junction and takes in the Warwick gardens area. My constituents face not only the threat of intensification of use but the blight that lies on all properties in the area as a result of British Rail's ill-conceived high-speed passenger link. In those circumstances, the time is right to consider the high-speed link, whether it covers freight and passengers or only passengers, and to determine what compensation should be available to those who are injuriously affected.

I speak not only for myself today. I have been asked to say that I speak on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), whose duties do not allow him to participate in the debate but who nevertheless shares the problems that I face. To alleviate the problem that lies with my constituents and, indeed, those of my hon. Friend, we need a proper compensation package which deals with this new threat and the problem that arises as a result of the intensification of use. There is no doubt that if British Rail persists in planning to pass freight traffic over existing commuter passenger lines, the problem will be greatly intensified beyond what is predicted.

Another issue perhaps runs beyond the scope of this debate but is relevant to it. There is an urgent and immediate need for a dedicated freight route to take freight off the passenger lines of south-east London, perhaps via the route that has been suggested through north-east Kent, crossing the Thames at Dartford, south-east Essex and on to the remainder of the United Kingdom beyond the capital. That issue and the issue of compensation cannot properly be separated. We must consider a dedicated freight route to take the majority of freight which is not destined for the capital. That would reduce the amount of freight that travels on existing lines.

6.15 pm

Sir Philip Goodhart (Beckenham)

My hon. Friend describes the Thurrock route. Does he agree that an alternative for freight is to take it, as it were, left of London from Tonbridge, via Redhill and Reading and that way? I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it is insane to push the main bulk of our freight through the already crowded lines of south London.

Mr. Bowden

My hon. Friend is right. It is crazy to consider that the only way to transport freight from the channel tunnel through to London or the rest of the United Kingdom is by pushing it through the bottleneck of London on passenger lines which go through built-up areas, over viaducts and bridges and near houses, with all the danger that that involves. There have been several disasters in the past few years in which trains have come off the rails and done great damage, not only to those travelling in them but to those who live near the lines. It is imperative to create a dedicated freight route. If we had that, the amount of freight that travelled on the lines that we are discussing today would be reduced. If we used the other line, which my hon. Friend suggested, the amount would be even smaller. A dedicated freight route would also reduce the intensification of traffic which is threatened by the present proposal.

I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to produce a package that not only meets the need to convey freight but recognises that those who live near freight or passenger routes that will carry freight must be compensated for the loss that they will sustain. They will suffer loss in the value of their property, loss of amenity, damage to the environment and loss of quality in their lives.

Mr. Roger Sims (Chislehurst)

The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to current speculation about the route to be taken by the channel tunnel fast link. We know that papers are on the Minister's desk. Many of us in south London hope that they will be published sooner rather than later so that at least we know the worst or the best.

One thing is clear. During the time between the opening of the channel tunnel and the completion of the fast link —along whatever route—there will be very much more traffic on existing routes, because it will not be able to go anywhere else. Whereas the fast link and its construction will be covered by completely fresh legislation which is likely to include compensation, environmental protection and other requirements, there are no requirements, either legal or moral, for British Rail to recognise the effect of the increased traffic along the existing routes, especially between the inner parts of Kent and central London.

I join my hon. Friends in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) on raising this issue and putting the case so effectively. I do not intend to protract the proceedings by speaking at length, but I have to take issue with my right hon. Friend on one point. At two stages in his otherwise admirable speech, he referred to the effect of intensified traffic on, in his words, "relatively few properties". It may be relatively few properties in his constituency, and perhaps in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson), but in suburban London in, for example, the London borough of Bromley—all four Members of Parliament who have constituencies in that borough are present in the Chamber—it is not relatively few properties but scores or hundreds of properties that will be affected.

I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for taking the time to come to Bromley and see for himself how close some properties are to existing lines, the effect of present train traffic and the effect that much more intensified traffic will have. My hon. Friends and I have files of letters that we could show the Minister from people who have houses adjacent to railway lines and who are naturally concerned about the effect of much more intensive use of the lines.

It can be argued that if one buys a house with a railway line at the bottom of the garden, one would expect trains to use it. That is a perfectly fair argument, but we are considering an increase in the use of lines that was entirely unforeseen. No doubt it will be argued that they are not new lines, but existing ones and literally that must be so. However, let us bear in mind that the existing lines will link up with the channel tunnel and, in turn, with the entire rail network of continental Europe. If that is not the construction of a new line, what is? It is a completely new network.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not fall back on the argument that they are not new lines. It is a completely new network and was unforeseen by anybody buying property except, perhaps, by those buying in very recent years. Most of my constituents have lived in their properties for 10, 20 or 30 years and more and could not possibly have foreseen the increase in traffic.

It is not the first time that this type of issue has been debated in Parliament. There is a British Railways (No. 3) Bill, involving works along the line, which will no doubt come before the House in the fullness of time. The House will be aware that it has already been discussed in another place. A House of Lords Select Committee issued a report on the Bill and the various petitions that were presented, which included petitions from Kent county council and Bromley borough council.

The special report on the Bill from the Lords Select Committee said: The Committee have very considerable sympathy with the predicament of the Petitioners and others who live alongside the railway that will be used by traffic arising from the Channel Tunnel. It is worth noting that the Committee accepts that there will be a substantial increase in noise levels once the Channel Tunnel opens. The report then considers how the matter should be dealt with and whether it is appropriate to deal with it through the British Railways (No. 3) Bill. The Committee adds that the provisions would be better dealt with by general legislation and it recommends that the Government give urgent consideration to the question of compensation for those directly affected by major and relatively sudden intensification of the use of existing railway lines. This is a national problem, requiring national solutions". We have a solution at hand in this Bill. The insertion of the new clause tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing would deal with the problem, and I hope that the House will support it.

Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)

I recall taking part in the proceedings on the Land Compensation Act 1973. I was very proud that a Conservative Government was introducing a long-overdue measure to extend compensation to individuals who would suffer in the public interest as a result of major road developments. I am also proud that this Bill goes a long way in handing out justice to individuals, especially those likely to suffer the loss of their homes because of public works. The extra compensation due to them is generous and fair, albeit overdue.

We are discussing another major step that should be taken to offer justice to individuals whose homes are likely to be damaged in some way or other because the public interest decrees that there should be major public works. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept the point that was made earlier—it is not an issue that will go away. We are discussing an important principle, and if it is not resolved by the Bill it will come back time and again, especially during our proceedings on the high-speed link.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to help the House and the country by at least conceding the principle—and, I hope, accepting the new clause moved eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley). It has been pointed out that it is not a NIMBY—not in my backyard—proposal. Many hon. Members from Kent and other areas that could be affected are present, but many others are too. The point is that we do not know where the high-speed link will go. It could be any one of a number of routes. It could be in Essex, Kent or south London. I favour the Ove Arup route, but I recognise that if that is selected many people in Essex will be affected. If some of the more far-fetched Labour schemes come to fruition, we shall have high-speed links all over the country and many householders will be affected by new railway development.

We are dealing with a major principle which could affect many areas. I therefore hope that the House will treat it as a national issue and that we shall not leave those constituencies which are ultimately affected forlornly to fight their own corner when a private or hybrid. Bill is introduced. I hope that the House will speak for the people and treat the issue as a matter of principle, wherever new railway lines go.

In the meantime, long before consideration of a high-speed link, there was a major generation of new traffic on existing routes as a result of the channel tunnel. I heard my hon. Friend the Minister on the radio this morning and he was challenged on when we would have a high-speed link and asked whether anything would be in place by the time the channel tunnel opened. I was a bit disappointed again by his reply and I have yet to hear British Rail proclaim that when the channel tunnel opens in 1993 there will be a high-speed link in existence so that people can travel directly from Waterloo to Paris or Brussels in roughly three hours. I am surprised that we continue to hide our light under a bushel and allow our railways to be denigrated by failing to remind people that nearly £1,500 million has been spent to ensure that when the tunnel opens one can take a fast rail link from London to the major capitals of Europe. The corollary is that those trains will run on existing lines.

The lines in Kent that have been mentioned will be used by high-speed trains on a scale which has not been experienced before. It is also significant that British Rail has pointed out it can operate a considerable amount of capacity which is not used at the moment to cope with the extra freight traffic that it hopes to attract through the tunnel. That traffic will travel on existing routes, not just during the day, but at night as well. Many of our constituents will be facing noise and traffic on a scale that they have never previously experienced. It might be rightly decreed that that is in the national interest, and so be it, but the national interest will also accept that people suffering from the intensification of noise on that scale should receive some help and compensation. We are not asking for very much. The proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling is modest.

In some cases a house close to a line where there is major intensification of day and night-time traffic could lose a great deal of its value, but I suspect that in most cases we are talking about the need for noise insulation and the like. I do not believe for one moment that the British people or hon. Members would deny the justice of extending to such individuals the right to receive some assistance by way of noise insulation or compensation for loss of value if that arose. That is the principle that the House should and must endorse today. Just as Kent Members speak in a united way for the county of Kent, I hope that others will also speak much more broadly in the national interest.

So often great national projects take much longer than necessary, and vastly longer than they do in other countries, fundamentally because we are mean-minded in our approach to compensation. How much more readily would people accept proposals such as this if compensation was reasonably generous. If the country knew that there would be reasonable noise insulation and some compensation for those who suffer from rail projects such as this, it is likely that my hon. Friend the Minister and others would find it much easier to get such projects on the statute book and constructed much more quickly. It is in the interests of the project as well as in the interests of justice that the new clause on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing spoke so eloquently should be accepted.

6.30 pm

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington)

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) has made a powerful and convincing case for new clause 16, which I accept and wish to support. In addition, my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) has put the argument for a constituency such as mine, which neighbours the constituency of my hon. Friend. Therefore, I do not feel called upon to delay the debate unnecessarily.

We are dealing with a matter of fundamental importance, so I hope that the Government will not say that the Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for deciding such a matter. Great events often turn upon comparatively small things, especially in relation to the House. This is a way in which the matter can be determined without all the palaver, delays, commissions of inquiry and so on which often go into deciding matters of great moments.

We are dealing with what may well be a change in the attitude of Government towards public works. No longer, as may have been the case in the 19th century, can public utilities expect statutory permission to execute works which, while in accordance with statutory duties, nevertheless do great harm to private individuals. We have passed that stage in our history. There should now be a balance between the interests of a statutory undertaking, whether it be British Rail or any other, and the interests of private housholders. That is the situation with which new clause 16 deals.

Whether or not the rail link goes through Bromley, the use of existing tracks through Bromley and my constituency will intensify. Already, not only due to the recession and the recent, I hope temporary, fall in land values, but because of the expectations of such developments, there has been a fall in property values in areas adjacent to existing railway lines. It is fully expected that those railway lines will be used to an ever greater extent, especially by freight traffic. Freight traffic will travel during the night on occasions and to an extent which has never been experienced before.

Many of my constituents are suffering now from their inability to obtain any sort of compensation for the dramatic fall in values of their properties. There must be a remedy for that, and that remedy is contained in new clause 16. That is why I am happy to support it, and I am anxious that others will do so too.

Mr. Edward Heath (Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I support most strongly new clause 16, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley), to which I put my name—the first time that my name has appeared on the Order Paper since March 1975. I have done that because I regard the new clause as vital, first to my constituents and, secondly, to all those who may also be affected either in the Greater London area or in Kent.

But the matter goes much further than that. It is a national question. Those who are looking ahead realise that the channel tunnel will lead to dramatic changes in transport throughout Britain which will affect British Rail going up to Inverness and further. Therefore, we are dealing not just with the present proposals but with what will be the eventual result of the channel tunnel and the resultant changes in transport. That is why I ask the Minister to take a national view and to recognise how wide are the implications of the changes and the way in which the new clause seeks to deal with them.

The effect of the original proposals has been catastrophic in many ways. When rumours first began to circulate about where the line for the fast link would go, people asked, "Are we going to take the chance of it coming here?" When the four alternative plans were produced, the whole area was intensely affected. It was a case of widespread blight. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) was quite right—it is not just a question of a few houses; many hundreds of houses are affected by blight.

Although the plans were withdrawn, the blight continues, and my constituents and many others who wish to move for some reason or other—they may receive promotion and have to go to another part of the country, or be offered a new job in another firm further away —cannot do so because they cannot sell their properties. I am constantly being shown lists of people who have applied to view my constituents' properties who, on seeing their position, at once say that it is not on because they do not know what will happen about the railway line. That situation has continued for many months—indeed, years.

I hope that the Minister will try to use his influence with the Secretary of State for Transport to rectify that situation at the earliest possible moment. I do not think that the Department of Transport realises the effect that it is having on individuals in the Kent and London area at this moment.

When it comes to the wider issues of compensation for noise and disturbance and the change in people's lives, the Government would be justified, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing said, to take not roads but airports as the model on which such compensation should be based. I apologise to the House because I was not here for my right hon. Friend's speech, but I have been able to read it in his notes since I arrived, and he is right in what he said.

If I may cast my mind back, I remember well the problems that arose when the A2 was doubled in order to go into the M2. That went through my constituency. All the problems of noise and disturbance, as well as those created by taking people's land and in some cases their houses, had to be dealt with. It is perfectly true that the two cases are not the same and are not comparable, but if the Government are to offer the valuation plus 10 per cent. for buildings, I welcome that.

The Government have done a good job, but we must remember that 10 per cent. on top of the valuation is what is on offer. In the years when we were dealing with the road that I mentioned before, district valuers were told to offer the lowest possible amount and that, if people did not like the offer, they could get their lawyers to challenge it in the courts. That went on for years; I remember a case in point to do with a piece of land on a corner of the road, which continued for three years. So it is not enough to give compensation plus 10 per cent., because that all depends on what the 10 per cent. is based on. I want district auditors to be told to make an initial offer based on a fair valuation, not on the lowest possible amount which would force people to negotiate in the courts.

Fair offers must not be based on the prices of houses in areas through which the line will pass. When the first plans were produced and the resulting blight was obvious, British Rail offered compensation to a certain number of people who, because they had to move for various reasons, accepted it. After that, the plans were withdrawn, but British Rail was left holding the houses—which it sold at knockdown prices. That has clearly affected the price of housing in the area in my constituency through which the line runs. It is not good enough to use the knockdown sale prices offered by British Rail as a basis. The properties must be correctly valued in line with house prices before British Rail's sales, since when house prices have changed considerably.

This is the only way to remove resentment, although 10 per cent. does not compare well with what happens in France, where 25 per cent. is added to the valuation. Nevertheless, it is a welcome step forward, and I hope that valuations of properties will be based on true values.

Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills)

I am sorry to trouble my right hon. Friend, but is it not true that, the moment a scheme is mooted, blight descends on the properties involved—and that is to the advantage of the district valuer, who can then argue that the prices reflect the uncertainty in the market even though the exact route of the line in question is as yet undecided? That argument then becomes the baseline from which to proceed. I support my right hon. Friend's idea that the very notion of blight depresses house prices. The Government's argument that a 10 per cent. supplement approximates more closely to the true price does not achieve their purpose, which is to secure the purchase of the property and the movement on of people who will not feel aggrieved at having been disadvantaged by prices negotiated as low as possible.

Mr. Heath

My hon. Friend should not worry about troubling me—I am troubled by all sorts of things. He has put the point that I was trying to make at much greater length and much better than I did. Perhaps the Minister will now take proper notice of it.

Some of my colleagues have said that, when the tunnel opens in 1993, those in the vicinity will be greatly troubled by a vast increase in noise. British Rail argues that nothing can be done about that: that, if people want a railway, they must be prepared for anything to happen and they must put up with it. That is not acceptable, but it is already happening.

In my constituency, the night traffic on British Rail has increased enormously in the past year, largely due to the building of the channel tunnel. We are not being compensated for that. Buyers coming to the area do not want to pay for houses there, because they can already see the troubles to which they will be subjected. So there should be compensation, wherever the line eventually ends up.

My right hon. and hon. Friends have suggested various routes for the tunnel lines. I do not want to suggest any, except to say that they should not go through Bexley. That is the only answer one can give British Rail when it seeks one's opinions on the matter. We should remember, however, that these are nationwide problems.

The Conservative party and the Government are committed to protecting the environment, and rightly so. It has become a major issue. We should not tell a publicly owned body to cover the costs of protecting the environment. British Rail may say that it can run the railway straight through Bexley and London at a certain cost but that, if it is instructed to protect the environment by tunnelling for the last 20 miles or cutting deep ravines, the project will be much more expensive, rendering it impossible to make a profit. This is a national responsibility; the Government must be prepared to contribute, in the national interest, to safeguarding the environment. They already do that in other ways; the same should be done for the channel tunnel railway.

It is argued that the Act which established the channel tunnel does not allow Government subsidy. I do not believe that, and nor do the lawyers whom I have consulted. The Act concerns the railway in the tunnel and the stations outside it. It does not cover the area from the tunnel up to the north of Scotland, and when the legislation was before the House, no one believed it did it cannot be interpreted in that way. So the Government have a free hand. They can agree that protection of the environment is at stake, as we demand they do, and they should be prepared to contribute to the costs so that the line can be run as a commercial concern once the channel tunnel is established.

This is a vital new clause—vital in the interests of fairness and of the individual, to which our party is committed. I do not accept the argument that, because this will cost more money, we should reject the idea. The money will go to people deliberately and directly affected by the line, and I urge the House to support the new clause. I also urge the Minister to accept it, and if he cannot do so tonight, at least to announce that he will at a later stage. All I ask the Minister for is a straightforward, "Yes, I accept the new clause."

6.45 pm

Mr. Soley

It is one of the curiosities of this debate that we are discussing a Bill which is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Environment, yet this new clause is being dealt with by a Minister from the Department of Transport. I welcome the improved compensation under the Bill, but we in this country have still not grasped the principle of a proper compensation scheme devised for a number of projects which affect people's lives in the way in which the people of Kent and south London will be affected by the channel tunnel. In comparable countries in Europe, compensation would be much better—there would be more of it and the rationale behind its apportionment would be more clearly thought out. It would be handled largely through the planning process.

The new clause implies that the Secretary of State for the Environment would have to administer the scheme, but the presence of the Minister for Public Transport makes me suspect, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) hinted, that British Rail may be asked—wrongly—to pay for the scheme.

Sir John Stanley

The new clause is drafted in the usual way. It refers to "the Secretary of State" without specifying which, but the intention is that the discretionary power would lie with the Secretary of State for Transport to administer.

Mr. Soley

That is rather unusual, and it would not necessarily be done in that way in other countries. It is one option, however.

I want to put an important point to the Minister—it has already been put by a number of his Back Benchers— about the principle of better compensation. As I said, we welcome the Bill as a step in the right direction, but we have not got it right. The Europeans have managed to devise a system for the railways. It is sad that France—a classic example—has obtained planning permission for the high-speed rail link more rapidly than we have, with very generous compensation. As I have said on other occasions although transport is not my brief—until we obtain planning permission, we will whistle across Europe in a 180 mph train, travel under the channel at 120 mph and then transfer in Dover to the equivalent of Thomas the Tank Engine and finish the journey at about 60 mph. The reason that it is proving so difficult to obtain planning permission is partly that we do not have the planning powers in place, and partly that our compensation schemes are less generous. To put it bluntly, the French often buy out opposition.

The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) said that the time had passed when we could accept that a proposal could be pushed through regardless of the consequences for people living in the area. One way is to ensure that people receive full and fair compensation.

Mr. Keith Speed (Ashford)

The hon. Gentleman is right on that point. Does he also recognise that in Europe, apart from the physical compensation of money, sound barriers and other noise remedial measures have been provided for existing as well as new lines, whereas we are still in the kindergarten stage?

Mr. Soley

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I had not planned to raise it, but I believe that he is correct.

The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) made a powerful and persuasive speech. However, I still have some reservations. I am not convinced that this is the best way to proceed. He made great play of the fact that the comparison should be with airports and aircraft noise. I understand that. He also made great play of the fact that the high-speed rail link would mean a massive increase in use. Residents will hear a sudden, high-pitched sound that will then disappear, and it will be quiet for 10 minutes, an hour or however long it is before the next one. I would not like to live in that situation.

It is perhaps a mistake to dismiss too lightly the comparison with road noise. People living on the edge of the A4 before it becomes the elevated section of the M4 in west London have to put up with a continuous thundering noise for the best part of 20 hours a day, seven days a week. They also have to put up with their houses cracking and their windows shattering. The impact in that area is very dramatic.

I do not wish to do the Minister's job for him, but I am sure that he will not be slow to point out that, if compensation is provided on this link, it will not be hard to think of other examples that might need similar compensation in the near future. Compensation may be required not only for the extension of the high-speed line throughout the United Kingdom in the next century, but for the proposed dedicated rail link from Paddington to Heathrow. That link is an eminently good idea. Such works and such intensification of use would lead to the real possibility of such a scheme being introduced. There are many other examples.

I am not convinced that the way to deal with this matter is to give this power to the Secretary of State—in this case, the Secretary of State for Transport, as the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing implied. Perhaps the right way would be to give the Secretary of State the discretion to decide whether a scheme should be introduced and what its parameters should be. There is a big difference between living 20 yd from the high-speed line and living 200 or 400 yd away. Where to draw the boundary for the type and extent of compensation is critical.

I make the point in passing—but it has some depth—that, under the present alternative to the poll tax, the rating system could not be used to give people a sliding scale of values. One of the advantages of a fair rates system is to be able to give assistance without going all the way to full possession, which is what the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing understandably and rightly wants for people living right next to the line—and, I would argue, for people living next to major roads or airports.

We need to consider the principle. I shall listen carefully to what the Minister has to say. I am not entirely persuaded that the new clause is the right way in which to proceed, but, if the Minister does not consider the principle and find a way of compensating people, it will be hard to resist the temptation to vote for the new clause as the best available way that we have of putting pressure on the Government to reconsider the matter. We want genuine assurances about the alternatives, and we want to know the Government's thinking. It is on that basis that I shall advise my hon. Friends.

It is important that the burden is not put only on British Rail. If it were, British Rail could rightly point out that the intensification of use as a result of the channel tunnel link or the Paddington-Heathrow dedicated service would have serious consequences. It would have to consider the implications for its future programmes if it had to take into account the additional compensation that would be required. It might also argue with some force that the consequences of the intensification of road use do not fall directly on road users. A bypass may be expanded or developed, and the number of trucks and vehicles using it may increase rapidly, but the burden does not fall on the road users. Why should British Rail alone carry the burden?

Mr. Wolfson

The hon. Gentleman is confusing the issue. The clause deals with a narrow point—allowing the same ability, on a discretionary basis, to compensate people who are affected by intensification of use. In some of the examples to which he referred, compensation would be available anyway, because it would be a new line.

Mr. Soley

I am not sure that that is right. I do not speak as a shadow Transport Minister, but I understand that some of the existing line would be used for the dedicated Heathrow-Paddington link. If I am wrong, I withdraw that example, but there are others. I am not thinking of a new line or a new road, where, I agree, that would not apply. My understanding is that the existing line would be used, and the scheme would be triggered.

Although the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing made a powerful and persuasive case—I would not want to rule out the new clause altogether—it seems to me that there are better ways of doing this. We want the Minister to clarify his proposals and to give us a time scale. It is no good saying to people, either in the channel tunnel area or anywhere else, that resources will be put into rail that will result in an intensification of use on a number of lines, but we may wait for ever for a compensation scheme that is at least comparable to the equivalent European scheme.

We should copy the European model. I am not universally in favour of following what other countries do, but in Britain we lack a good regional government structure and a compensation scheme that—despite the improvements provided in the Bill, which I welcome—is still rather haphazard and contradictory. We should accept that, for major new developments, especially those related to transport, we need a more coherent scheme. The measure proposed by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing recognises the impact of the channel tunnel on Kent—no one should under-estimate that. I am not convinced that we need a nationwide scheme, which he and some of his hon. Friends want. I await with interest what the Government have to say. We want a significant commitment from them. We are travelling hopefully—although we may not do so in very fast trains. If the Minister gives such a commitment, my advice to my hon. Friends will reflect that.

7 pm

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman)

The debate has been serious and well argued. I cannot help feeling that it may be a precursor of inevitable debates on a new high-speed rail-link line, as many of the issues that have been raised are germane to the planning problems that consideration of the case for such a link, and its route, is bound to involve.

Powerful speeches were made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) —who spoke in his normal firm but courteous fashion—and my hon. Friends the Members for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson), for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden), for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). Another powerful speech was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). I note that it is 21 years to the day since my right hon. Friend was appointed Prime Minister; and, as he has said, this is the first time that his name has appeared on an amendment paper for nearly 16 years. We must therefore take his remarks seriously.

My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham raised the question of the Ove Arup route. That is one of the options being considered by the Government and British Rail for the high-speed rail link. However the BBC may have reported my remarks this morning, once the Government have reached a conclusion on the preferred route—which I hope they will do as quickly as possible—and once that conclusion is published with the supporting papers, the environmental impact of the route on Kent and London will have to he considered for perhaps a year. That will happen regardless of whether a prima facie case has been made out. Both Houses may then need as long as two years to consider the resulting Bill. Who knows? I have not as much experience of parliamentary procedures as some hon. Members. It will take a long time—too long, some may argue—for all the issues to be considered.

It is true that the procedures are speedier in France; that is because the French have a different approach to planning. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling will know, once the conseil d'état has decided that a scheme is in the national interest, the normal planning procedures usually follow. I note, however, that it has taken the Germans 10 years to plan, and then construct, what they describe as a high-speed link between Hanover and Würzburg.

I am well aware that my arguments may not convince my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing, and some of my other hon. Friends. I shall advise the House to resist the new clause, although I hope that I shall do so in a reasoned fashion. I have some positive and constructive things to say, but I realise that the arguments will not go away. My right hon. Friend and others will present them again when we debate the British Railways (No 3) Bill—a private Bill that seeks permission for certain channel tunnel works—and in our debates on any high-speed rail link proposal and on a Bill to enshrine planning powers for such a line. I know that, if I do not convince my right hon. Friend tonight, he will continue to present the concerns of his constituents and his own strong feelings—as, indeed, he is right to do.

I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not make a debating speech, but instead read my prepared notes. We have given considerable thought to what has been said, and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said that he would be listening carefully.

As a society, we are rightly becoming increasingly concerned about the quality of life; noise, from whatever source, tends to depress that quality, and noise from railway trains is no exception. It was 12 months ago that the issue was raised during a statement by the then Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), about the channel tunnel rail link.

I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing and to other colleagues for the time that it has taken for me to make a substantive response to the issues that were raised then. The delay does not point to inactivity or to a lack of interest on the part of the Department. Far from it: I have taken a close interest in the subject. On no fewer than six occasions in the past year, I have travelled along the routes that the channel tunnel trains will take through Kent and south London.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst made a fair point. We tend to be preoccupied with Kentish issues, but we must not forget that many London boroughs will be equally affected by the channel tunnel. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling accepts that.

I have also visited the homes of people living close to the railway lines. On those visits, I have been accompanied not only by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling but by other colleagues, and I have now been to nine of the 14 constituencies that will be most directly affected. Earlier this year, I went with the chairman of British Rail to BR's research establishment at Derby to hear and to see at first hand what BR is doing about developing a quieter railway. In the Easter recess, I went to France and Germany to see how their Governments and railway administrations deal with noise. No one can accuse the Department, or me, of a lack of interest in the matter.

Before I deal with the new clause, let me make a number of brief but general points about railway noise. In connection with channel tunnel services, we are concerned with two entirely separate matters: noise from any new rail link that is built—which cannot occur for several years yet —and the increase in noise resulting from the running of more trains on existing lines.

To deal with the problem of the new railway lines, we plan to make regulations that will make mandatory the insulation of houses along the line where the noise is at more than a specified level. Compensation provisions for injurious affection will also apply. Such regulations have existed since 1973 in respect of new roads. Let me point out to the hon. Member for Hammersmith that our new provisions will apply to the relevant portion of the Heathrow-Paddington express railway.

Hitherto, there has been no real need for any railway equivalent to the 1973 regulations, as very few new lines of any length have been built since the war. Now, however, we may be entering a new era, and the proposed channel tunnel rail link will certainly be a major new line by any standards. We intend that British Rail, in designing and building a new line, will have to comply with the regulations that we plan to make.

The measurement of noise is a very technical and difficult matter. Last year, to help us to frame the regulations, we appointed a group of experts to recommend to us a noise standard, or standards, for new railways, equivalent to that which exists for new roads. We published the report of the group—commonly known as the Mitchell committee—in February. Subject to the views that we received on the committee's regulations, we shall proceed with the regulations and present them to Parliament for scrutiny in due course, in the usual way.

My next point concerns the intensified use of the lines that will take channel tunnel traffic initially. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich that any decision on a new rail link might or might not have consequences for the use of existing lines. That important point has not escaped the Government's attention, nor will it escape that of the House.

There is no doubt that there will be a sharp and significant increase in traffic, although the extent of that increase will vary from stretch to stretch along the existing routes. I well understand the special concern about the increase in freight traffic, much of which—although not all—will run at night, for operational reasons.

Mr. Speed

From day one, in June 1993, every British Rail train going through the channel tunnel will travel from Ashford to Folkestone on tracks in my constituency and that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). When the high-speed rail link is built, two new lines will be placed alongside the existing Network SouthEast lines. At that stage—but, under the present law, at that stage only—my constituents, and those of my right hon. and learned Friend will be entitled to compensation and amelioration.

Will not that part of the line have a special problem? Wherever the other trains may go, it will carry all the existing traffic as well as that of the high-speed link.

Mr. Freeman

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling would be the first to point out that, in terms of intensification of use, there is no difference in principle between the section of the existing railway line that runs through my hon. Friend's constituency and that which runs through his own constituency. There may be a different degree, but the principal point would apply to all stretches. However, I understand the specific problems of the stretch mentioned by my hon. Friend.

On the section between Cheriton and Ashford on which the trains will run, BR expects the number of freight trains, international and domestic together, to build up to about 66 a day—24 hours—in 1995. That compares with 48 freight trains on an average day in 1990. Many of those were carrying materials for the construction of the channel tunnel, and that traffic has now largely disappeared. The 48 trains in 1990 were all relatively noisy diesel, hauled over jointed track, many of them with heavy axle load wagons. Elsewhere, the increases vary greatly, but the Government understand the intensification of the use and the problems that that brings, especially at night and with freight.

Although the extra traffic will not begin to run for another two years, it is important that we address the problem of mitigation of noise carefully and correctly now. I appreciate the point, expressed to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing on a number of occasions, that some of his constituents are having difficulty in selling their homes now, especially in the current housing market. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup made the same point, although in a wider context. I have a great deal of sympathy with the people who have been affected in this way and with my right hon. Friend's intentions. However, I have to say, although with some regret, that the Government are unable to accept his new clause. Before I take a more positive note at the end of my speech, I shall explain, in a reasoned fashion, why we cannot commend the new clause to the House.

The new clause would introduce an important new principle into the law. It would extend financial compensation for depreciation in the value of a property to situations involving the greater use of railways and, as the House must admit, in all frankness, other public works including roads. It is not possible to draw a hard and fast line between intensification on railways and that on roads. As I said, the new clause would extend the financial compensation provided under statutory powers without any works necessarily having taken place. Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, which deals with compensation for depreciation in value due to various physical factors, quite expressly excludes, in section 97, situations in which there is an intensification of an existing use. Therefore, it cannot apply if the amount of traffic on a road or a railway line increases.

As hon. Members will know, it has been a long-standing policy of successive Governments to make a clear distinction in this respect between the construction or alteration of public works and the intensification of use of existing works. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing made the fair point that the substantial and increased use of the existing railway line constitutes a new service and that that, combined with the work on the channel tunnel, constitutes a qualification under existing legislation. I understand the argument, which was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst on behalf of his local borough. However, that is not the legal advice given to the Department of Transport. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling went on to say that, irrespective of the legal advice, we should address the principal issue, and I shall now do that.

Sir John Stanley

It has nothing to do with legal advice. There is no question of anybody claiming that there is an entitlement to compensation under the law as it stands, so legal advice is a red herring. We have to address the issue of classification of the new works that should properly trigger entitlement to compensation. This is not intensification of existing use; it is a multi-billion pound project, constructing the channel tunnel on one end, and linking the continental rail system with the British rail system. The parliamentary answer from my hon. Friend tells us that £700 million worth of new works have been entered into to enable the channel tunnel rail passenger and freight trains to exit the tunnel.

Mr. Freeman

If my right hon. Friend is not making that point, perhaps he will accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst is, on behalf of Bromley. It is a serious point that requires an answer. I have given the answer that, as legislation stands, the intensification of use —no one denies that—would fall outwith the provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973.

7.15 pm

Moreover, to the best of my knowledge, there is no major international precedent for extending compensation to intensification of use in that way. Both the policy and the cost implications of any such change are considerable. They would need to be thought through fully and carefully before any provision of that kind could be considered. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing has argued that this is a permissive, not a mandatory, clause, but he will no doubt accept that there is no point in legislating unless Parliament wishes the powers to be used.

My right hon. Friend argued that the sudden and significant increase in traffic that will run on the lines in Kent between the channel tunnel and London creates a new and unforeseen situation, that it will be tantamount to the construction of a new line. But we must continue to draw a clear distinction between injurious affection or loss of enjoyment resulting from the carrying out of works, and loss of enjoyment resulting from a change in the use of a railway, a road, or some other public works. There are and will continue to be many other instances—even if less dramatic perhaps—where the use of existing public works changes and people claim that they are adversely affected.

The new clause would also make the Secretary of State responsible for paying any compensation, rather than the owner or manager of the public works in question. That would breach the important principle embodied in the Land Compensation Act and in this Bill, that if compensation is to be paid for depreciation, it should be paid by the responsible authority. It should be paid, in the case of a highway, by the highway authority, and in the case of a railway, by the owner and operator of the railway. There is in my view no justification for putting the burden of the net additional cost directly upon the taxpayer.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling spoke about aircraft noise. He will recall that I was his Parliamentary Private Secretary when he served with distinction as Minister of State for the Armed Services. He is right about the provisions to mitigate noise at airfields. The provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973 are being followed by the Ministry of Defence and my right hon. Friend was responsible for initiating that policy. I am advised that injurious compensation is triggered by major new works. He will recall that at Leeming new runways had to be laid and major new installations had to be built, and that that was the trigger for the payment. I can confirm that British Rail has the power to make ex gratia purchases of houses. Some of my hon. Friends will recall substantial purchases in Kent and in London connected with earlier plans for the channel tunnel link.

My right hon. Friend made an interesting point on insulation. He asked the Government to compare the consequences of rail noise and aircraft noise. The Government will study carefully the argument that he has deployed at greater length tonight than on any other occasion. It is an interesting and relevant argument, but not one that I will accept tonight.

Sir John Stanley

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, but I have to correct him on this essential point. I referred to the fact that, where civil aviation works are concerned, no new runway or extension of an existing runway is necessary to trigger injurious compensation. As he appeared to differ with what I said about RAF Leeming, I will read the answer that I received to my recent parliamentary question. I asked: what were the main works undertaken at RAF Leeming to enable the deployment of Tornado aircraft to take place there; and whether they included any extension to the main runway. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Armed Forces replied: The main works undertaken at RAF Leeming were associated with the upgrading of the Station's utilities, the enhancement of technical accommodation, married quarter developments and the construction of airfield survival measures, which included hardened aircraft shelters and command and control centres. The runway was resurfaced and re-profiled, but no extension work was undertaken."— [Official Report, 15 May 1991; Vol. 191, c. 218.] In other words, there was no new runway. There was no extension of a runway. That is our central point. New works do not have to include a new runway to trigger injurious compensation in relation to aircraft noise.

Mr. Freeman

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his helpful contribution, which refreshed my memory and will help in our consideration of the comparison between aircraft and railway noise.

I will conclude on a more positive note, by describing the eight steps that British Rail and the Government are taking and will take. They are not all of gigantic significance, but I hope that they will be taken in the constructive spirit in which I offer them. In drawing up this list, I tried to accommodate in particular the representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich, who came to see me on a number of occasions.

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.

As British Rail has no statutory obligation—and I stress that, because it is in exactly the same position as a highway authority in respect of a road that is used by more traffic and thus creates more noise—there is no statutory basis on which any such measures would be carried out. It will be up to British Rail and the local authority to agree on the most sensitive areas, type of measure to be taken, and financial arrangements. I hope that those discussions will begin soon, and I look forward to hearing how they progress. I am sure that, with good will and ingenuity, it should be possible to achieve some worthwhile alleviation for those most affected. I shall continue to take the closest personal interest in that aspect.

Secondly, at the end of next year British Rail hopes to demonstrate its new freight rolling stock, to show how quiet it will be in -comparison with today's equipment. That may not persuade my right hon. Friend, but I intend to be present at that demonstration, and I hope that a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me. There will be new electric locomotives, the railway lines will be continuously welded, and there will be new electrified lines running through my right hon. Friend's constituency. They will be considerably quieter than at present.

Thirdly, later this year the Government will announce their views on the recommendations of the Mitchell committee on specific noise insulation standards for new railway lines, and will then prepare regulations to put those standards into effect. Fourthly, the Government are not ready to make a response to the various recommendations of the noise review working party, the Batho committee, on railway noise or on other types of transport noise, but we will respond in due course. We intend to commission research within our own departmental vote to assess whether the existing noise standards for new roads are still appropriate. If we decide as a result of that work that those standards ought to be changed, we will at the same time make a corresponding change in the standards applying to new railways.

Fifthly, I mentioned by implication the research that British Rail is undertaking at Derby into damping the noise arising from wheel on rail. If British Rail can usefully undertake any further research in that connection, the Department is prepared to consider whether it might qualify for some financial support under section 57 of the Transport Act 1968.

Sixthly, in some places, the throb of idling diesel locomotives can cause vibration and nuisance to householders. That was pointed out by three of my hon. Friends, who have witnessed the consequences of the noise emitted from a standing locomotive at night. I confirm that British Rail has a standing rule that diesel engine drivers should switch off their engines if they are brought to a halt and expect to be held up for more than 10 minutes. The House will have noted that British Rail has already ordered new, quieter electric locomotives.

As to fears of damage to houses by vibration, Kent county council agreed with British Rail that it is not practicable to deal with that aspect in advance of any development in the use made of a railway line. Each case must be considered on its merits. If someone complains to British Rail about vibration, BR will undertake a specific test at the location in question, and it has agreed with Kent county council to monitor the situation when the traffic on the lines increases. It is rare for vibration damage to occur, but the party causing the damage would be liable.

Finally, to counteract the fears that have been expressed—understandably, though not always rationally —about the impact of channel tunnel trains on local housing markets, I plan to take steps to ensure that professional people, such as those working in estate agents and building societies, engaged in the selling and buying of properties near the railway lines are fully and accurately informed as to what is proposed, as opposed to what is rumoured. I do not belittle householders' fears and anxieties, but the facts should be as fully and widely known as possible, so that legitimate concern is not fed by exaggeration.

Mr. Soley

I listened carefully to the Minister's remarks about research and back-up facilities, which are wholly desirable. However, from the list that the Minister read out, it seems that British Rail will consider paying compensation only in respect of some householders. That does not sound very convincing in terms of moving on the principle to which so many right hon. and hon. Members have referred.

Mr. Freeman

I understand the concern that has been expressed. I hope that I have made a reasoned argument as to why we cannot accept that principle in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman must address that important point. He cannot separate the problem of intensification of the use of railways and roads—which I am sure is one with which he would want to deal—from that of the significant financial consequences for public expenditure that would flow from accepting the new clause as drafted.

Mr. Soley

That is precisely the point that I am making. I am unhappy about the new clause because I do not think that its consequences have been thought through. It does not seem that the Minister or his Department, along with the Department of the Environment, have come up with anything remotely resembling a transport scheme compensation policy that gives hope for the future. Although I would not give the clause as drafted carte blanche support, unless the Government give a stronger indication of their willingness to move on the principle, I have to acknowledge that the new clause is necessary, if only to put pressure on the Government to think again.

Mr. Freeman

We will debate compensation later tonight—and as to compulsory purchase, the Bill makes significant strides in the direction of a fairer scheme. I hope that my remarks will be taken in the constructive and positive spirit in which I make them, and that my right hon. Friend accepts at least that the Government acknowledge the problem of intensification of use and will continue to address it.

Sir John Stanley

With the leave of the House, I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who contributed to our useful and important debate on the significant question of compensation policy. Whatever may be the result of any subsequent Division, it is worth recording that every right hon. and hon. Member who spoke from the Back Benches was in favour of new clause 16.

I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend the Minister because, as he was kind enough to acknowledge, he was responsible, with me, for implementing in the Ministry of Defence the very policy that he has resisted as a transport Minister this evening. I appreciate his quandary.

No Minister could have been more conscientious and concerned to understand the problems faced in Kent and in London, and we are grateful to my hon. Friend for his personal attention to them. Having said that, his reply was very disappointing. The Government have missed a major opportunity. The issue will not go away—the injustice to individuals is too glaring, too patent to be simply dismissed. It will have to be the subject of general legislation, and the Bill is the perfect medium for dealing with the problem. The Government have been on notice for nearly two years, and I much regret that they have not taken the opportunity that presented itself. It is certainly my wish and, I believe, that of many right hon. and hon. Members who support new clause 16 to press the question to a Division.

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

The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 255.

Division No. 181]	[7.29 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Corbett, Robin
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)	Corbyn, Jeremy
Allen, Graham	Couchman, James
Alton, David	Cousins, Jim
Anderson, Donald	Crowther, Stan
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Cryer, Bob
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Dalyell, Tam
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Darling, Alistair
Ashton, Joe	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Dewar, Donald
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)	Dixon, Don
Barron, Kevin	Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
Battle, John	Dunn, Bob
Beith, A. J.	Dunnachie, Jimmy
Bell, Stuart	Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Bellotti, David	Eadie, Alexander
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Eastham, Ken
Boateng, Paul	Edwards, Huw
Boyes, Roland	Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)	Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)	Faulds, Andrew
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)	Fearn, Ronald
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Fenner, Dame Peggy
Buckley, George J.	Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Caborn, Richard	Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Callaghan, Jim	Fisher, Mark
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Flynn, Paul
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)	Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	Foster, Derek
Carr, Michael	Fraser, John
Cartwright, John	Fyfe, Maria
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)	Galloway, George
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Gardiner, Sir George
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)	Moonie, Dr Lewis
George, Bruce	Morgan, Rhodri
Godman, Dr Norman A.	Morley, Elliot
Golding, Mrs Llin	Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Goodhart, Sir Philip	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Gordon, Mildred	Mullin, Chris
Graham, Thomas	Murphy, Paul
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Nellist, Dave
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Haynes, Frank	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Heal, Mrs Sylvia	Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Heath, Rt Hon Edward	Patchett, Terry
Henderson, Doug	Pike, Peter L.
Hinchliffe, David	Primarolo, Dawn
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)	Radice, Giles
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Home Robertson, John	Reid, Dr John
Hood, Jimmy	Richardson, Jo
Howells, Geraint	Robinson, Geoffrey
Hoyle, Doug	Rogers, Allan
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)	Rooker, Jeff
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Rooney, Terence
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)	Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Rowlands, Ted
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)	Salmond, Alex
Illsley, Eric	Sedgemore, Brian
Johnston, Sir Russell	Sheerman, Barry
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)	Short, Clare
Kennedy, Charles	Sims, Roger
Kirkwood, Archy	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Leighton, Ron	Skinner, Dennis
Lewis, Terry	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Livingstone, Ken	Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Livsey, Richard	Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey	Soley, Clive
Loyden, Eddie	Stanbrook, Ivor
McAllion, John	Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
McAvoy, Thomas	Strang, Gavin
Macdonald, Calum A.	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
McFall, John	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
McKelvey, William	Wallace, James
Maclennan, Robert	Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
McMaster, Gordon	Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Madden, Max	Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Marek, Dr John	Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Wilson, Brian
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Winnick, David
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Martlew, Eric	Wolfson, Mark
Maxton, John	Wray, Jimmy
Meacher, Michael	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Meale, Alan
Michael, Alun	Tellers for the Ayes:
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)	Sir John Stanley and
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)	Mr. Roger Moate
NOES
Alexander, Richard	Boswell, Tim
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Allason, Rupert	Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Amess, David	Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Arbuthnot, James	Bowis, John
Arnold, Sir Thomas	Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Ashby, David	Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Aspinwall, Jack	Brazier, Julian
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Bright, Graham
Baldry, Tony	Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Browne, John (Winchester)
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Bellingham, Henry	Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Bendall, Vivian	Buck, Sir Antony
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Burns, Simon
Benyon, W.	Burt, Alistair
Bevan, David Gilroy	Butler, Chris
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Butterfill, John
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Carrington, Matthew
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Carttiss, Michael

Cash, William	Janman, Tim
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda	Jessel, Toby
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Chapman, Sydney	Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Chope, Christopher	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Churchill, Mr	Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)	Key, Robert
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Kilfedder, James
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Colvin, Michael	King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Conway, Derek	Kirkhope, Timothy
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)	Knapman, Roger
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Cran, James	Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Knowles, Michael
Curry, David	Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)	Latham, Michael
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Lawrence, Ivan
Day, Stephen	Lee, John (Pendle)
Devlin, Tim	Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Dicks, Terry	Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Dorrell, Stephen	Lightbown, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Durant, Sir Anthony	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Dykes, Hugh	Lord, Michael
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)	Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Evennett, David	McCrindle, Sir Robert
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas	MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Favell, Tony	Maclean, David
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	McLoughlin, Patrick
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey	McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Fishburn, John Dudley	McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Fookes, Dame Janet	Madel, David
Forman, Nigel	Malins, Humfrey
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	Mans, Keith
Fox, Sir Marcus	Maples, John
Franks, Cecil	Marlow, Tony
Freeman, Roger	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
French, Douglas	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Fry, Peter	Maude, Hon Francis
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Goodlad, Alastair	Mills, Iain
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Miscampbell, Norman
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Gorst, John	Mitchell, Sir David
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)	Monro, Sir Hector
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Gregory, Conal	Morrison, Sir Charles
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Moss, Malcolm
Grist, Ian	Moynihan, Hon Colin
Ground, Patrick	Mudd, David
Grylls, Michael	Needham, Richard
Hague, William	Nelson, Anthony
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Neubert, Sir Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Hannam, John	Nicholls, Patrick
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)	Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Harris, David	Norris, Steve
Haselhurst, Alan	Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Hawkins, Christopher	Paice, James
Hayes, Jerry	Patnick, Irvine
Hayward, Robert	Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Pawsey, James
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)	Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.	Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Hill, James	Porter, David (Waveney)
Holt, Richard	Portillo, Michael
Hordern, Sir Peter	Powell, William (Corby)
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)	Price, Sir David
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)	Rathbone, Tim
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)	Rhodes James, Sir Robert
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)	Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Hunt, Rt Hon David	Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Irvine, Michael	Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Irving, Sir Charles	Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Jack, Michael	Roe, Mrs Marion

Rossi, Sir Hugh	Thornton, Malcolm
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela	Thurnham, Peter
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard	Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Sayeed, Jonathan	Trotter, Neville
Shaw, David (Dover)	Twinn, Dr lan
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Shelton, Sir William	Viggers, Peter
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Walden, George
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)	Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)	Waller, Gary
Speller, Tony	Walters, Sir Dennis
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)	Watts, John
Squire, Robin	Wells, Bowen
Stern, Michael	Wheeler, Sir John
Stevens, Lewis	Whitney, Ray
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)	Widdecombe, Ann
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)	Wilshire, David
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian	Winterton, Nicholas
Stokes, Sir John	Wood, Timothy
Summerson, Hugo	Woodcock, Dr. Mike
Tapsell, Sir Peter	Yeo, Tim
Taylor, Ian (Esher)	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Taylor, Sir Teddy
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman	Tellers for the Noes:
Temple-Morris, Peter	Mr. John M. Taylor and
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)	Mr. Tom Sackville.
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Question accordingly negatived.