Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Hansard, 15 December 1994)

§ Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling)
This promises to be the last Adjournment debate following an all-night sitting on the Consolidated Fund. At 6.53 am, I am sorry that I have to keep my hon. Friend the Minister of State from his beauty sleep. I only hope that at some point in the course of the night he got a rather longer forty winks than I did on the floor of my office.
I want to raise two important aspects of blight in relation to the channel tunnel trains, those that are now running and those that will run in the future.
The first is the issue of blight and the related question of compensation on the existing lines to the channel tunnel through Maidstone East and Tonbridge, in my constituency. The second is the issue of blight that is now being created as a result of the publication of the plans for the new channel tunnel rail link.
On the point about the existing lines, for almost four years I have been raising on the Floor of the House the issue of entitlement in law under the Land Compensation Act 1973 for those whose homes on the existing lines are now being depreciated in value with the commencement of the channel tunnel freight and passenger services.
I first raised the issue on 12 March 1991 on the Second Reading of the Planning and Compensation Bill. From then on, I have been arguing that injurious affection compensation was claimable under the Land Compensation Act because of the major reconstruction and alteration of the existing lines to enable them to take channel tunnel trains.
That same legal view was also taken by counsel in an opinion provided for the local authorities concerned and given by Mr. Gregory Stone. I set out the arguments fully in my last Adjournment debate on the subject on 13 January. What was significant was that at the end of my debate my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), the then Minister for Public Transport, agreed that compensation was, in principle, claimable. He said: We accept my right hon. Friend's understanding and interpretation of the Land Compensation Act 1973… British Rail and the Department acknowledge that under section 9(1)(b) it is open to individuals who believe that they are affected to apply for compensation. That is not the issue, because I certainly accept that as a point of principle. The question is to what extent that applies."—[Official Report, 13 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 434.] My right hon. Friend also said that he wanted to study carefully both what I had said in the debate and Mr. Gregory Stone's opinion.
I sent Mr. Stone's opinion to my right hon. Friend who, of course, studied it closely with his legal advisers. Then, having studied it, he came back to me with the same view of the application of the Land Compensation Act. He did so in a written answer on 15 February, when he said: Counsel made the point that it follows from these provisions that changes of use which are limited to intensification of the use of existing lines do not give rise to compensation, whereas reconstructions, extensions and other alterations may do so. The Government see no reason to dissent from this interpretation … I fully recognise that compensation may be payable where existing railway lines are reconstructed, extended or otherwise altered after they have first been used and where it can be shown that depreciation has resulted from physical factors, such as noise and vibration, caused by their use."—[Official Report, 15 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 728–29.] 1292 A few weeks after that written answer was given, the ownership of the lines passed to Railtrack at the beginning of April this year. That was an unhappy event for my constituents, as it turned out, and perhaps in more ways than one. At that point I resumed my compensation quest with the chairman of Railtrack, Mr. Robert Horton. I saw Mr. Horton personally. I corresponded with him. On 19 September this year there arrived what I can only describe as Mr. Horton's final, in effect "go-and-get-lost" letter. It read as follows: We could probably debate indefinitely the interpretation of the words that appear in Hansard. Railtrack's position is clear: even if the Minister was accepting on behalf of the Government that the Land Compensation Act 1973 does entitle those living near existing railway lines used by Channel Tunnel traffic to claim compensation (subject to proving diminution in value), Railtrack does not agree with that interpretation of the Act. I am afraid, therefore, that Railtrack will continue to resist these claims". That is a deeply unsatisfactory position.
Railtrack has effectively said to me and to my constituents and, indeed, to many others up and down the line that they can forget what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said in the House. Railtrack does not intend to pay compensation to anyone under any circumstances. That issue will clearly have to be resolved in the courts. My only comment at this point is that if the courts find that in some circumstances compensation is payable—I believe that they will so find—Railtrack will bear an extremely heavy responsibility. It will bear the responsibility of having denied people their legal rights and having done so when an entitlement to compensation in principle was stated to exist by a Minister in the House of Commons not once but twice.
I shall now deal with the new line—the channel tunnel rail link—and the performance on the issue of blight of another wholly owned subsidiary of British Rail, Union Railways Ltd. The voluntary purchase scheme for blighted homes was set out first by my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), the then Secretary of State for Transport, in his statement on the channel tunnel rail link on 24 January 1994. It was then elaborated in the Union Railways paper of 23 February this year entitled, "Guide to property purchase procedures for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link."
I initiated an Adjournment debate on the voluntary purchase scheme on 31 March this year. I voiced considerable worries about the adequacy of the scheme. I am sorry to say that I still regard the voluntary purchase scheme as seriously inadequate in two key matters. It is inadequate in defining which properties are blighted and in producing a reasonable system whereby those who suffer acute hardship because they are unable to sell their blighted homes can do so.
It is demonstrable now that those who have homes which are clearly blighted in the eyes of prospective purchasers—that is the key factor—are unable to secure the purchase of their homes under the voluntary purchase scheme. A number of my constituents received letters from Union Railways stating that the subsoil to their properties may be affected as a result of the future construction of the tunnel under Blue Bell Hill. Anyone who receives such a letter, even if it is coupled with a statement saying that any damage will be put right, is effectively receiving the kiss of death on any likelihood of selling his home to a third party. Potential buyers would not take the risk.
1293 Many of the homeowners who have been trying to sell their properties since the proposal to tunnel beneath them was announced have a bundle of letters from surveyors, estate agents and others, making it clear that their homes are unsaleable as a result of the channel tunnel rail link proposals.
British Rail maintains that the properties are not blighted. A profoundly unsatisfactory feature of the voluntary purchase scheme is that the sole and exclusive arbiter of whether a home is blighted is Union Railways. That is not reasonable. I want to propose a way forward that would be reasonable for both sides.
The way is happily precedented—and I know that Government Departments always like precedents. Even more happily, it is precedented in the Department of Transport. I commend the procedure already adopted by the Department in relation to the voluntary acquisition of homes blighted by road schemes. One excellent piece of legislation from this Government is section 62 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, which gives a voluntary acquisition power to highway authorities to purchase blighted homes that are beyond the geographical limits of statutory blight. I have substantial experience of the operation of section 62 in my constituency in connection with the widening of the M20 and the channel tunnel.
The Department has operated section 62 reasonably fairly and sensibly in the widening of the M20. In many cases, it said that a property should be independently valued by the district valuer and then marketed at that valuation for a given period—usually around three months—and that if at the end of that period the property was not sold, the Department would be willing to purchase it.
That procedure was set out in the letter of 27 August 1992 from my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London in the case of my constituents Mr. and Mrs. Martin. He wrote: We need to be satisfied before agreeing to purchase the property that the asking price is reasonable. The District Valuer suggests without inspection of the property, that this is more likely to be in the region of £85,000 in current conditions. The Department have recently written to Mr. and Mrs. Martin pointing this out and asking them to arrange for the property to be marketed at a more realistic price level. If after 10 weeks they receive no reasonable offers, then we will agree to purchase their property. That is a reasonable and fair procedure, which has worked well in the context of the widening of the M20. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to tell Union Railways to adopt the same procedure in dealing with homes where there is a dispute between the owners of the homes and Union Railways about whether they are blighted in the context of the channel tunnel rail link.
The second deficiency of the voluntary purchase scheme is that it is conspicuously failing to achieve purchase in cases of hardship when a house is blighted. To illustrate that point, I need not go further than the case of a house above the proposed tunnel under Blue Bell Hill owned by a married couple in my constituency to whom, for both medical and personal reasons, I shall refer as Mr. and Mrs. Y.
Mr. and Mrs. Y suffered last year the appalling experience of their son committing suicide by hanging himself in their home. His body was discovered by his mother and this experience has had a devastating effect on her mentally. Some indication of this can be gauged from 1294 the open letter I have received from her consultant psychiatrist. I shall quote two extracts. The first reads as follows: The reason for her illness is the tragic death of her son, who hung himself in the house. Mrs. Y found her son's body hanging and she tried to untie the corpse in desperation to save him, but he was already dead …. She cannot sleep and cries all the time. She cannot get over the death of her son, as long as the memory is there. Everything in the house reminds her of one image and one image only; her beloved son's corpse dangling from the ceiling. The consultant psychiatrist concludes as follows: I support any effort to help this unfortunate family find an alternative accommodation, but it seems that they are unable to sell their house because of the geography and plans to build the channel tunnel. It is essential that she is given all the help necessary, in order to leave that house as soon as possible, to enable her to heal her wound and come to terms with the loss of her son. The consultant psychiatrist makes the plea that all help necessary is given to Mr. and Mrs. Y to help them move from their home. I am sorry to report to the House that that plea to Union Railways has, so far, fallen on totally stony ground. Mr. and Mrs. Y have been desperately trying to sell their home. They have been unable to do so because of the blight created by the tunnelling proposed under their home. Union Railways claims that they are not blighted and, therefore, refuses to buy them out on hardship grounds. I consider that for a public authority in these circumstances to refuse to buy a blighted house on hardship grounds is quite intolerable and unacceptable.
The voluntary purchase scheme is not working properly. It is not enabling blighted homes to be bought when those homes are demonstrably blighted in the view of surveyors and estate agents. It is not providing a means whereby blighted properties can be purchased in cases of conspicuous and clear personal hardship. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to deal with extreme seriousness with the issues I have raised and to use the utmost force at his disposal to ensure that Union Railways adopts a more reasonable and more humane voluntary purchase acquisition scheme at a very early date.

§ The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) for returning to this important subject yet again. He last brought it to our attention on 31 March. He has campaigned consistently and vigorously on behalf of constituents who may be affected by existing channel tunnel rail services or by the future channel tunnel rail link, and I have no doubt that his energetic efforts on their behalf are very much appreciated.
My right hon. Friend referred to nuisance arising from existing lines, to an exchange in the House with my predecessor and to subsequent correspondence. He also referred to entitlements in law under the Land Compensation Act 1973. He acknowledged that these are matters to be settled by legal process if they cannot be settled by agreement between Railtrack and the parties involved.
My hon. Friend mentioned comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) when he had my current responsibilities. I wish neither to add to, nor to subtract from, anything that he said then, but clearly Railtrack has taken its own legal advice—advice that differs from the opinion of Mr. Stone, which was given to my right hon. Friend the Member for 1295 Kettering by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling. I am sure that Railtrack will take careful note of what my right hon. Friend has said this morning about the consequences of the course on which it appears to be set.
My right hon. Friend is aware of the importance of the channel tunnel rail link project, and the great benefits that the Government expect to flow from it. Unfortunately, those substantial benefits are not unqualified good news for everyone, especially those who live on the route of the new link—and, indeed, those who live alongside existing lines that are currently being used for channel tunnel traffic.
The Government are keen to ensure that satisfactory arrangements exist for properties that are blighted as a result of the link. Compulsory purchase powers are, of course, being sought for property and land required for the construction of the new link by the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, which received its First Reading on 23 November. Meanwhile, the approach of Union Railways has been based as far as possible on the existing statutory blight provisions, and on other purchase arrangements such as those used for road planning. They have been adapted to accommodate the differences between roads and railways.
My right hon. Friend has argued forcefully that the similarities between roads and railways are rather greater than is currently acknowledged by Union Railways. As the first Minister for Railways and Roads, I have a keen interest in achieving as much symmetry as possible in the correspondence between provisions applying to railways and those applying to roads. In all the work that is being done in my Department, I am seeking to ensure that we have a set of schemes that apply equally validly to both roads and railways, as there is a clear "read across" between the two. I shall certainly reflect carefully on my right hon. Friend's constructive suggestions—although I think he will appreciate that I cannot necessarily give him any further undertakings off the cuff at 7.17 am.
The present arrangements are based on the safeguarding directions issued to local authorities, which were initially published in February and recently reissued—although there are no substantial changes. Safeguarding is important in that it brings the statutory blight procedures into play, so that owner-occupiers of domestic properties within the safeguarded zone have a right to serve blight notices and to require Union Railways to purchase the blighted properties.
In advance of use of any of those compulsory powers, Union Railways has instituted a voluntary purchase scheme that simplifies the purchase arrangements, but really applies them as they would be applied if blight notices had been issued and accepted. The basis on which this is done is set out in pamphlets produced by Union Railways.
For residential owner-occupied properties outside the safeguarded areas, and which are not required for the construction of the railway, there is a separate discretionary or hardship purchase scheme. When assessing whether to purchase properties under this scheme, Union Railways has to be satisfied that there are legitimate hardship grounds and that enjoyment of the home will be seriously affected by the operation of the railway. It is in meeting those two requirements that most of the problems arise.
1296 I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend said about the case of Mr. and Mrs. Y. It is clearly a great personal tragedy and, on humanitarian grounds, one would wish to offer as much assistance as possible. I undertake to re-examine the case to ascertain whether there is anything that we could justifiably do to provide assistance but, as my right hon. Friend knows, it has been considered many times. The prime difficulty is that the tunnel under Blue Bell Hill is about 300 ft under the surface and, on technical grounds, it is not accepted ithat that would have a significant effect on the house.
However, I acknowledge my right hon. Friend's point that the technical argument about whether there will or will not be a serious effect does not matter; if someone needs to sell a home, what matters is whether prospective purchasers believe that there is a serious problem. There can often be a great gulf between the two perceptions. It is difficult to assist in this particular case because to do so would clearly have ramifications for other parts of the route where there is housing above deep tunnel. However, I undertake to have the case reconsidered carefully to see whether there is any way in which we can be of assistance.

§ Sir John Stanley
Does my hon. Friend agree that in cases of serious hardship it is intolerable on moral and ethical grounds that people should be locked into a home until 2002 which, unless they can be bought out voluntarily, will be their position before they can claim any compensation entitlement?

§ Mr. Watts
I would seek to achieve arrangements that can accommodate severe hardship and compassionate circumstances without creating a precedent which would require us to purchase hundreds of houses at substantial cost to the public purse and with some other undesirable consequences.
Widespread purchase of property in a given area can cause substantial disruption to a community. We had some experience of that with earlier routes for the channel tunnel rail link. British Rail operated a system whereby properties in a very broad band were purchased and, having bought many properties not needed for the link, it is having to dispose of them. Meanwhile, communities have been disrupted.
The intention is to design into the rail link measures to deal with the problems of noise and vibration at source. I am sure that everyone will agree that that is the preferable way to handle the matter.
I commend my right hon. Friend for his continuing interest in the subject. I know that it has been borne in on my predecessors and it has certainly been borne in on me this morning. I shall

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)
Before I call the final "Order", I think that it is appropriate to record that at 7.23 am it seems likely that the House ends the procedure on the Consolidated Fund, including all-night sittings, which has existed for some 30 years. Order.
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Seven o'clock.