HC Deb 14 December 1995 vol 268 cc1197-204

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Wells.]

10.2 pm

Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling)

When I had my previous Adjournment debate on the subject of blight and compensation in relation to channel tunnel trains, I earnestly hoped that it would be my last debate on that subject. I assume that my hon. Friend the Minister took the same view, especially as the debate began at 6.53 in the morning. Unhappily, I am obliged to return to that key issue, because important issues remain unresolved. Indeed, a major new issue has emerged since I brought the subject before the House.

I wish to raise three specific issues. The first is the well-worn topic that I have been addressing for more than four years—the extent to which the provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973 apply to existing lines to the channel tunnel, on which very major works have taken place to enable them to accommodate both passenger and freight trains.

I have consistently argued that that Act applies to at least some areas of the existing lines, and that interpretation has been endorsed by counsel, Mr. Gregory Stone, on behalf of the local authorities concerned. I believe that it was also endorsed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who was then Minister for Public Transport, because of what he said in response to my Adjournment debate on 13 January 1994. I will not repeat what was said in that debate, apart from quoting again from the letter I received from Bob Horton, the chairman of Railtrack, on 19 September 1994. The chairman took a very different view from that of myself, Gregory Stone and the Minister concerned. Mr. Horton said:

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".—[Official Report, 15 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 1292.] Railtrack's apparent conclusion in September 1994 was that it would resist all claims for injurious affectation compensation under the Land Compensation Act 1973 from properties anywhere along the existing lines to the channel tunnel from Waterloo to Cheriton, and through either the Tonbridge line or the Maidstone East line.

In the ensuing months, it appears that there has been a change in Railtrack's position with a view to its legal responsibilities. Unhappily, Railtrack has been extraordinarily unforthcoming in making public its change of view. The first indication which I picked up that it had changed its view was in the letter I received from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on 24 July this year, in which my right hon. Friend said:

Railtrack contend that the vast majority of the engineering works carried out on existing lines in Kent do not constitute works of reconstruction, extension or alteration within the meaning of the Act. The significant phrase in that sentence was "vast majority". If it is the case that Railtrack contends that the vast majority of works do not trigger entitlement to compensation, the very clear implication is that Railtrack does now accept that a minority of works at least trigger an entitlement to compensation.

It was because of that clear implication that I wrote back to the Secretary of State for Transport, asking him to obtain from Railtrack a list of the engineering works along the existing lines which Railtrack does accept fall within the meaning of the Act, and therefore trigger an entitlement to compensation.

The reply I received from my right hon. Friend, dated 6 October this year, was both extraordinary and extremely illuminating. My right hon. Friend said:

You also asked for a list of the works that Railtrack clearly accept as falling within the meaning of the Act. I do not doubt that some of the engineering works that Railtrack have carried out may qualify as eligible works within the meaning of the Act; indeed, I understand that in a limited number of cases the company is considering claims and have instructed surveyors and compensation specialists to advise and negotiate with surveyors representing claimants. My officials asked Railtrack for a list of eligible works, but the company says that, to date, it has not accepted that any of the works cited by claimants qualify for compensation within the meaning of the Act. Therefore it is unable to provide a list. Although I have no power to intervene statutorily in Railtrack's handling of compensation claims, I intend raising this matter personally with Bob Horton at my next regular meeting with him. I have to say that I found that to be extraordinary. First we have the Cabinet Minister responsible for the matter accepting in that letter that some works do qualify. We have a clear statement from him in that letter that Railtrack also clearly accepts that and has instructed surveyors and compensation specialists to negotiate with surveyors of the claimants, but at the same time, with extraordinary stubbornness, Railtrack is deliberately refusing to supply the list of eligible works that I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport demand.

I consider Railtrack's behaviour evasive, obstructive and well below the level of public accountability that one would expect from a public body such as Railtrack. I believe that its attitude is in breach of the provisions of the citizens charter. One of the kernel points of the charter is that public bodies and authorities should inform individual citizens of their rights. The taxpayers charter clearly states in relation to HM Customs and Excise:

You are entitled to expect HM Customs and Excise to help you to understand your rights. I submit that it is equally incumbent on a body such as Railtrack to help people understand their rights to compensation—rights in law, passed by Parliament. On this issue, it is incumbent on Railtrack immediately to make public a list of the eligible works that have been carried out along the existing lines—those works which in its view trigger an entitlement to compensation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been asking for such a list for months. I have been asking for it for months. It is Railtrack's obligation to disclose the list. I hope that my right hon. Friend will obtain it from Railtrack and make it available to all Members of Parliament for constituencies between Waterloo and Cheriton. I hope that he will make certain that that key information is placed in the public domain.

The second issue that I want to raise is the major blight that is being created by the proposals of the Central Railway Group to create an additional freight line from the midlands to Cheriton. The new scheme is already creating substantial blight. Those who consider that their homes are already blighted should exercise considerable care and take professional advice before they accept the proposals put before them by the Central Railway Group under its so-called property protection scheme. The proposals will involve individual householders making a contractual commitment to the company to sell their home to it at an agreed price at some future date.

The group's proposal contains a trap. Payment for those homes will take place only if the scheme goes ahead. It could be years before it is decided whether the scheme will go ahead and the individuals concerned could be left in blighted limbo for many years. They should give careful consideration to an alternative means of removing themselves from that blighted position.

I have received an important letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dated 13 October 1995, in which he makes it clear that if the Central Railway Group makes an application to him to handle the project under the procedures of the Transport and Works Act 1992, the statutory provisions will take effect from the date of the application. My right hon. Friend's exact words were:

Assuming an application is made, the statutory blight provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 take effect from the date of the application. That is extremely important to those who believe that they may suffer from statutory blight and I want my hon. Friend to deal with the following three questions in his reply.

First, will my hon. Friend confirm that those affected by statutory blight, because of the Central Railway Group's proposal, will be able to serve a blight purchase notice on the company to buy their homes at full, unblighted value from the date of its application for an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992? Secondly, will my hon. Friend confirm that those affected by statutory blight will also be entitled to obtain from the Central Railway Group the statutory home loss payments that were increased by the Government in 1991?

Thirdly, will my hon. Friend also provide this assurance? If his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State considers that the immediately available financial resources of the Central Railway Group are not sufficient to enable it to discharge its financial obligations to meet blight purchase notices, when the order comes before the House for debate on a Government motion, will he advise the House in the motion to refuse to proceed with the project?

Mr. Mark Wolfson (Sevenoaks)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, on both the issue of compensation and the key second point about the Central Railway Group, a large number of constituents of a considerable number of hon. Members who might not be here this evening are equally affected by the problems of blight? It is a huge worry for them. Through no fault of their own, they are going to suffer horrendous financial difficulties.

Sir John Stanley

I wholly endorse what my hon. Friend says. This is a massive proposal and it affects a large number of constituencies and individuals, all the way from Rugby in the midlands to the Cheriton terminal area in Kent.

The third group of constituents to whom I must briefly refer are those who are blighted and still without compensation along the line of the channel tunnel rail link. As far as those in my constituency are concerned—those on Blue Bell hill in particular—I very much welcome the markedly different attitude that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken compared to that of his predecessor in relation to the findings of the ombudsman on maladministration by the Department of Transport.

I welcome the fact that, when writing to my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey)— my right hon. Friend said:

the Government is prepared to consider afresh whether a scheme might be formulated to implement the Committee's recommendation that redress should be granted to those affected to an extreme and exceptional degree by generalised blight from the CTRL"— the channel tunnel rail link—

from the period June 1990 to April 1994 and how it might operate. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us in reply when we can expect his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to produce proposals to give effect to the recommendations of the ombudsman, which were accepted by the Select Committee.

10.18 pm
The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts)

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) has reminded us, this is not the first time that we have debated these issues, although this evening it is at a more sociable hour. I thank him for this further opportunity to respond to him about the concerns of his constituents, for whom he has been such a vigorous and persistent advocate.

First, it is important to be clear about the provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973 and the other measures intended to alleviate any adverse effects that may be caused by the operation of the railway system.

The Land Compensation Act 1973 allows householders to claim compensation from the responsible authority when the value of their property is diminished by physical factors, such as railway noise or vibration, caused by the use of new or altered public works. In the case of railways, the Act is not specific as to what is meant by "altered works" but it refers to their being

reconstructed, extended or otherwise altered. My right hon. Friend knows that the Act also provides for compensation to be claimed where there has been a change of use in respect of an existing railway line, but that in this case the Act specifies that "change of use" does not include intensification of an existing use. There is therefore no statutory requirement for compensation to be paid purely because traffic on an existing railway line has increased; this parallels the situation for roads. If people buy properties near an existing railway line—or, indeed, a road—they do so knowing that traffic can change in composition or volume. The law does not therefore require the body responsible to pay compensation in those circumstances.

In the case of an altered railway line, my right hon. Friend will appreciate that it is not for me to determine whether particular works undertaken are covered within the meaning of the Act; this is, in the first instance, for the responsible authority—in this case, Railtrack—to decide. It and its predecessor, British Rail, carried out the works. As my right hon. Friend knows, Railtrack has not to date accepted that any of the works cited by householders seeking compensation under the Act are works of

reconstruction, extension or other alteration". It is not for the Department of Transport to interpret the law but if householders believe that they have a case, the Act provides for them to pursue it with the Lands Tribunal and, ultimately, the courts. Householders who are not satisfied with Railtrack's response to their claims should seek professional legal advice.

As my right hon. Friend has acknowledged, although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no statutory locus in the matter, he has both written and spoken to the chairman of Railtrack to ascertain the current position on claims which have been submitted to the company. The situation has not changed since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to my right hon. Friend in July and October this year, although Railtrack is conducting some technical investigations following claims arising from works in the area of Bickley. The outcome of those investigations is awaited. I give an undertaking to my right hon. Friend that both I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will pursue a response from Railtrack on the outcome of those investigations.

My right hon. Friend mentioned also the proposals of the Central Railway Group. I am pleased to confirm that statutory blight provisions under the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 will take effect from the date of an application under the Transport and Works Act 1992.

People whose land, or rights in land, would be compulsorily acquired under the proposals and were unable to sell their property at the open market value, would be able to serve blight notices on Central Railway. If Central Railway did not accept the owner's valuation, the matter would go to the Lands Tribunal for settlement.

Landowners who are entitled to serve blight notices may also be entitled to home loss payments. These are made in recognition of the personal distress and inconvenience suffered by people who are displaced by an authority acting under statutory powers.

In addition, people whose property, or rights in property, would be compulsorily acquired, are entitled to disturbance compensation for their reasonable expenses in moving. This would cover legal costs of conveyance of the house or flat, and other reasonable expenses as a result of the compulsory purchase.

If only part of the property is wanted, it may be possible to require Central Railway to buy the whole of the property, but this will depend on the particular circumstances. People affected in this way are advised to consult a solicitor or surveyor. If Central Railway disputes the claim, the matter can be referred to the Lands Tribunal for a decision.

Outside the limits of deviation of the works, claims for compensation for depreciation in the value of a property can be made under the Land Compensation Act; I have already outlined the provisions included in that Act.

My right hon. Friend mentioned the option to purchase scheme that Central Railway has been offering. I can confirm to him that I am advised that signing such options does not affect a person's statutory rights under the compensation code.

With regard to the ability of the proposer of a scheme under the Transport and Works Act 1992 to fund the compensation, we would need to be satisfied that compensation could be paid. When a motion to allow the scheme to go to a public inquiry comes before the House, hon. Members, too, will wish to be satisfied that sufficient funding is available to deal with compensation for blight before the House gives authority to take the scheme to a public inquiry, which would be the next stage.

I am also grateful to my right hon. Friend for this opportunity to explain to the House the current position in relation to the Government's response to the sixth report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration about the channel tunnel rail link and exceptional hardship. The House last had a substantive discussion of this case in a debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on 6 March.

It may be helpful if I remind the House briefly of the history of this subject. The Parliamentary Commissioner's report was published on 9 February. The Commissioner had investigated five specimen cases relating to individuals who claimed that they could not sell their properties and had suffered exceptional hardship during the period of generalised blight relating to the rail link from June 1990 to April 1994. He found that my Department was guilty of maladministration in not considering the position of persons who had suffered that exceptional and extreme hardship and in not providing for redress where appropriate.

My Department has consistently rejected the Parliamentary Commissioner's findings: initially in its response to the Commissioner, which was published as an appendix to his report, and later in evidence given to the Select Committee by the permanent secretary on 1 March and by my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio, the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) on 23 May.

The Select Committee published its report on 25 July endorsing the Parliamentary Commissioner's findings in this case. The Government seriously considered the Select Committee's recommendations and my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Transport gave the Government's response on 1 November. That response was published the same day in the Select Committee's fifth special report.

The House will be aware that the Government concluded that they had to continue to resist the finding of maladministration, and that any new principle of administration implied in the Committee's report was unacceptable, but that they were prepared to consider afresh whether a scheme might be formulated to implement the Committee's recommendation that redress should be granted to those affected to an extreme and exceptional degree and to look at how it might operate. The Government agreed to look again at the possibility of a compensation scheme out of respect for the Select Committee and the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner, and without admission of fault or liability. We also made it clear that the Government would have to consider seriously the possible costs of a scheme, which cannot yet be established, and that, in view of their responsibilities to the taxpayer, they could not offer an open-ended commitment on an uncosted basis. Our consideration of whether such a scheme might be formulated is currently under way and we shall make as speedy progress as possible, taking account of the Government's undertaking to consult the Select Committee as proposals are developed and the need to consider seriously the possible costs of a scheme. However, until the process of fresh consideration is completed, it is impossible to say whether or what compensation arrangements might eventually apply.

I hope that I have been able to give my right hon. Friend a soupcon of reassurance on some of those important matters. I continue to appreciate his close interest in compensation and related issues. I hope that this will be the last time that we debate these issues, although that is ultimately a matter for my right hon. Friend.

Sir John Stanley

On my hon. Friend's first point, will he assure me that he and the Secretary of State will provide the House with a list of any other places along the line, apart from Bickley, where Railtrack feels that the works in question would entitle people to compensation? Will he ensure that that list is included in the information that he will give the House?

Mr. Watts

If there are instances of "new or altered" works which Railtrack accepts fall within the definition of the Act, those will be included in the list and that information will be made available to my right hon. Friend and the House. The difficulty is that until there are such works which Railtrack accepts are within the definition, there is no list. Therefore, any list that I might supply would merely be a blank piece of paper. We will convey to my right hon. Friend any information of the sort that he seeks which we can obtain from Railtrack.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.