HC Deb 25 April 1996 vol 276 cc635-51

'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, if so requested by an owner or occupier, either—

  1. (a) acquire the interest of such owner or occupier in any property which as a consequence of the provisions of this Act cannot be sold except at a discount to unblighted market value, or
    2. 636
  2. (b) pay to such owner or occupier the difference between the unblighted market value of such interest and the amount actually realised in the open market when it is sold.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order appoint one or more persons to perform on his behalf the duty imposed on him by subsection (1) above.

(3) Compensation shall be payable to an owner or occupier whose interest is acquired under this section on the same basis as compensation in respect of blighted property under Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

(4) The Secretary of State may—

  1. (a) by regulations, amend or extend the provisions of Chapter II of Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to implement the provisions of this section, or
  2. (b) by order, repeal this section.

(5) An order repealing this section shall not be made before the implementation of improvements to existing arrangements for property purchase and compensation resulting from recommendations by the Inter-Departmental Review established following the Special Report of the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill.

(6) The power to make orders or regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be laid before Parliament in draft and shall be subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Rowe.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Rowe

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

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2—Compensation— ',—(1) On application being made to him the Secretary of State shall pay compensation to any residential occupier of property the value of whose interest in such property has been diminished by reason of the provisions of this Act. (2) The amount of such compensation shall be the difference between the value that interest would have had if this Act had not been passed and the value it has following the passing of this Act; and both such values shall be calculated at the date of application to the Secretary of State. (3) In default of any agreement between the Secretary of State and the applicant as to whether the provisions of this Act have caused such a diminution in value or as to the values referred to in subsection (2) above these matters shall be decided by a single arbitrator to be agreed between the parties or (in default of such agreement) to be appointed on the application of either party after notice in writing to the other by the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.'. New clause 3—Hardship— 'Neither the Secretary of State in exercising any discretionary powers to purchase property affected by the provisions of this Act, nor the nominated undertaker in operating any similar or other discretionary or voluntary purchase scheme, shall require any applicant to show any degree of personal hardship in order to qualify for any purchase or other benefit.'.

Mr. Rowe

The debate so far has emphasised again that the line, when it is built, will belong to the whole nation and that the links that extend to the east and west coast main lines and other areas are indispensable to making the project a success. I agree, but it is worth recalling that the line will be built through Kent and south-east London. Whatever benefits the rest of the country will derive from its construction, the costs will fall most heavily on us.

The story has gone on for a very long time and part of the cost that has been carried by my constituents and many other people along the route has been the sheer anxiety and uncertainty that that long delay has occasioned. The purpose of new clause 1 is twofold. First, it would add to the Bill a recognition of the gain that we have made in the course of the long-drawn-out proceedings.

When the proceedings on the project began, the Department of Transport was adamant that there were only two forms of blight—statutory blight and discretionary blight. I am glad to say that after the long series of arduous debates, hearings, Select Committee meetings on the ombudsman's hearings, and the ombudsman's inquiry itself, we have now arrived at the recognition—I believe with the sympathy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport—that there is a third kind of blight which, in some ways, is the most damaging of all. That is the blight which destroys the price of somebody's home or business, not because it will be acquired compulsorily for the project and not because it is in the corridor sufficiently for the owner to claim compensation, but because nobody will buy or even come to look at the property if he realises that it is in a village in an area affected by the route.

6.45 pm

On this project, the matter has been made worse by the tergiversations about the actual route. For example, two of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Atkins, live in Harrietsham. They are 76 years old and have been trying to sell their house for a long time. Their family now live some distance away, and Mr. Atkins has had open-heart surgery. They live only 10 m outside the original rail corridor, and that totally destroyed any interest that any potential purchaser might have had in buying their property. After the route was changed, it is true that the line moved somewhat away from their property, but the effect on potential purchasers remained the same. That old couple have been effectively imprisoned in their home by that generalised blight.

Similarly, Mr. Gardiner, another of my constituents, had his family business plunged into bankruptcy when the bank revalued his property. The properties of both his immediate neighbours had been bought by British Rail, which was the lead promoter at the time, but his property was not bought. He had secured a loan for his business against the value of his property, and when the bank revalued his property, it valued it at nil. The result was that the security on his loan was withdrawn, and he had to take his family business, which had been going for 30 years, into bankruptcy.

Those are the costs that fall on citizens up and down the land when there are such massive projects, inspired by the Government and bringing ruin in their wake. The first purpose of new clause 1 is to add to the Bill, as I said, the recognition of that type of blight. Secondly, the new clause contains a feature to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is sympathetic. I know that, because we have talked about it informally on several occasions. Under the new clause, a property would be valued by an independent assessor, because sometimes there is a genuine doubt about the market value of a property. If the property were then sold on the open market, the compensation paid would make up the difference. It would be based not on a notional price, but on the price fixed by the market.

Those two provisions are just and overdue. I hope that when the interdepartmental working party, which is one of the gains from the whole tortuous business of the link, publishes its results, it will accept the second provision.

The new clause would deal with a third problem. It would be monstrous if the householders and other owners, whose plight has caused the working party to be set up, were unable to benefit from any of its findings because those findings came too late or could not be implemented until after the project was under way. Therefore, the new clause contains the proposition that until an improvement in the compensation rules is achieved as a result of the interdepartmental working party, the purchasing of properties that can be shown to be blighted, in the way that I have described, should go ahead.

It is unacceptable for major Government schemes to stride through the country, wrecking people's lives in a wholly unpredictable way. In our case, four routes were put on the table at the beginning. Two of those routes were manifestly different and although they seem to have been a blind to conceal British Rail's original intentions, that does not alter the fact that the blight was spread over many families. I commend the new clause to the House.

Ms Margaret Hodge (Barking)

I am delighted to be able to speak in support of new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), whom I am glad to see able to speak in defence of his constituents. He was not a member of the Committee and so at that stage had to depend on Opposition Members to defend his constituents' interests.

Mr. Rowe

The hon. Lady is being extremely kind, but I must be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), who also spoke with considerable eloquence on behalf of my constituents.

Ms Hodge

The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) did try his best, but his constituents are not as directly affected as are those of the hon. Gentleman. Our proceedings might have been enhanced by having his contributions and those of other Conservative Members with a specific constituency interest.

This is the final opportunity for those for whose constituents this is a major issue to argue the case across the political spectrum, for a fair and just system for responding to all residents who, through no fault of their own, have been affected by the route.

None of the new clauses that are concerned with compensation has been motivated by NIMBY—not in my backyard—interests. All who have a constituency interest have supported the building of the high-speed rail link. We have all argued that, in the interests of the British economy, it is imperative that it should be constructed. Only a week ago, I made my first trip on Eurostar from Paris to London. I was deeply impressed at the speed with which we travelled across France, but deeply depressed by the slowness with which we travelled through the English countryside. Of course, we want to promote the rail link in the national interest, but at whose expense? It is in answer to that question that we raise the issue of compensation.

I remain of the view that the route need never have gone through the centre of Barking, either above ground or through a tunnel. There was a perfectly sensible alternative solution, which would not have resulted in thousands of my constituents being unable to move or to sell their property. A disservice has been done to my constituents by all those involved before I became a Member of the House, in their determination to stick to that route and not to seek the sensible alternative of taking the route across a large tract of derelict land in Barking reach. People in the constituency, in the town hall and in Union Railways must share much of the blame for what has happened.

At the same time, I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who was a member of the Select Committee, that I am grateful to the Committee for its work in ameliorating the absurd plans that were originally put forward by Union Railways. It is heartening that the concerns raised by individuals who attended on their own account to put their case before the Select Committee were listened to. The original proposals were led by engineers who had no regard to the impact that they would have on the lives of ordinary people all along the route but, in particular, in Barking.

The issue of compensation is important, not only because of the impact of the route on many people, but because of the time that it takes to build a railway. Ten years have elapsed between the original decision to build the tunnel and today, when the Bill will be sent to the other place. During that time, there have been rumours, counter-rumours, proposals, further proposals and changes of mind that have blighted the property of many householders along the route.

That is not the end of it. Under the current compensation scheme, were anybody to qualify for compensation and to get back some of the money that they have lost through no fault of their own, they would have to wait until well after the channel tunnel rail link was built, certainly in my constituency. I would love to think that we were talking about 2002, but in all probability we are talking about 2005 and perhaps even closer to 2010.

To qualify under the current discretionary purchase scheme, not only do people have to prove a diminution in value of their property, but they have to show that they are suffering from ill health or noise. My constituents, who are now to have a tunnel directly under their houses, will not know whether they will be eligible under the current scheme until after the tunnel has been built and tested—in 2007 or 2008. Since 1990, they have been unable to sell their properties. There is no market for any property, certainly in Barking, on the channel tunnel rail link route.

The residents believe that there will be a noise impact, although the promoter says that there will not. That dispute will not be resolved until 2005 or even 2009, whenever the route is completed. That is simply not good enough for ordinary people.

The other criterion of the current discretionary purchase scheme which has to be met is one of ill health. I have constituents who are suffering from real ill health brought about by the stress of not having the freedom to sell their property and move house. They are nervous wrecks, taking endless drugs, and some have had to be hospitalised as a direct result of the nervous tension that they have suffered. But that is not sufficient for them to qualify under the current scheme. The current scheme is simply not good enough.

What does all that mean for people in Barking? More than 300 properties abut the railway. As I have said in the Chamber and in Committee, those are not properties with long gardens. The distance between the railway line and the kitchen window is the distance between the two Front Benches. Those properties were bought on the understanding that they were close to an existing line, the London-Tilbury-Southend line, on which traffic is limited.

Mr. Tony Banks

If one is lucky.

Ms Hodge

As my hon. Friend says, one is lucky to get anything. There is probably a train every 20 minutes in the rush hour. At the weekends, there is hardly any traffic, because it is primarily a commuter line and there is very little traffic after the rush hour in the evening and during the night.

That is what life was like. That is what those residents committed themselves to when they purchased those properties. As I have consistently said, they are ordinary people. They do not live in high-price, high-value properties. When the market was at its peak, the properties probably went for £75,000 or £80,000. Today, they are worthless, although the odd property has been sold for about £20,000.

A further 2,000 to 3,000 properties have been blighted by the proposals. We can look at maps and say that only properties on one side of a road should be blighted because only they abut the railway, but purchasers who understand what is about to happen, certainly now that a tunnel is to be constructed, will not touch properties that are a far greater distance from the railway line than those involved in the scheme would expect. Those properties simply cannot be sold.

Some people argue that the blight should have lifted, now that we have determined that a tunnel should go through Barking. In particular, Union Railways—or the new promoter—has told me on a number of occasions that there is blight because I and the residents have drawn attention to it. That is absolute nonsense. The blight has been created, first, by Union Railways' original, chaotic proposals—which were then amended by the Select Committee—and, secondly, by the Government's plans. The route for the tunnel was not planned by people in Barking; it was planned by the Government.

There is not one estate agent who will put on his list a property in Barking that is along the channel tunnel rail link. There is not a building society that will lend to a potential purchaser who wants to buy property in Barking. The council, working with a local housing association, has been unable to persuade the housing association to buy properties along the route so that they can at least be used for social housing. No one seems to care.

7 pm

At every surgery that I hold in my constituency, at least one family come to see me with yet another heart-rending story about how their inability to move is impacting on their lives. I realise that hon. Members would like to finish this debate, but this is our final opportunity to go through some of the cases.

There is one family with a young son who has bacterial meningitis, which was contracted when he was eight months old. Because of his condition, he suffers from respiratory and hearing problems. Two summers ago, he had an operation to remove tonsils and adenoids and to put grommets in his ear. The family doctor has recommended that the family move to a rural area, and they want to move as soon as possible for the sake of their child's health. The channel tunnel rail link proposals have made it impossible for them to sell their house, so they cannot move.

Down the road lives an elderly lady with angina. She can no longer climb the stairs in her little home. She is desperate to sell her house so that she can buy a bungalow in Norfolk and retire there to be nearer her daughter, but she cannot move.

There is a gentleman who was on the verge of selling his house in 1992, until prospective purchasers became aware of the rail link. His son has chronic asthma. His family's GP has recommended that the family move to a coastal area. He works for the Post Office and was recently offered a transfer to Colchester, but he had to turn it down because he cannot sell his house. He is now redundant. His wife is unable to work because she suffers from a chronic breast disease and has arthritis of the spine. They are stuck there.

There is a family who have lived at an address for, probably, 17 years. Mrs. Downs is confined to a wheelchair and requires periods of quiet during the day in a stress-free environment. The family already suffer some noise nuisance from passing trains. Their lives would be made intolerable by the construction and operation of the channel tunnel rail link, which would go through their back garden. They have made no progress in selling their house.

There is a family who inherited a house when their mother died. They live in another house down the road, because it is a very close community. They want to sell both homes so that they can move, and to use some of the resources that they would realise to put their children through higher education. They have tried to sell the houses by significantly reducing the asking price, but both properties are still unsaleable. They sought to rent out one of the properties, but a local accommodation agency advised them that a property that would normally rent at £120 a week cannot be rented out even at £90.

One couple bought a house in 1983. They have had a family since then. The house has two bedrooms, but they have three children. They want to move to a larger property as the children are of different sexes and have grown older. They cannot sell their property. The list goes on and on.

There is a family in which the father has an arthritic spine. He has had an operation, but it was unsuccessful. He has now had a second operation. Doctors and consultants have sent letters to, at that time, Union Railways, but the family have had no luck under the discretionary purchase scheme. They are stuck there.

There is a family who want to buy a business in Devon. They cannot buy it because they cannot sell their house.

In another family, the husband died. The wife is an epileptic and has been advised by doctors not to live alone. She wants to sell the house and go to live with her son.

The parents died in one family and left the house to their three daughters. They cannot sell the house. The list goes on and on.

In one family, the woman is on a breathing apparatus and really needs to move out of the area into a different environment. They cannot sell their house.

There is a family in which an elderly widow suffers from angina. She wanted to buy a bungalow when she retired. She cannot sell her house. It goes on and on.

I think that probably the worst case—it made me very cross—was one in which I was finally able to get Union Railways to agree to purchase the property. The couple in that house were desperate to move. Before the purchase went through, however, the husband died.

Those examples show the proposals' impact on ordinary people in a very ordinary part of London.

The Select Committee's and the ombudsman's reports recognised the importance of blight. On page xxix, referring to environmental improvements, the Select Committee stated: Blight cannot be dealt with in this way, and can only be responded to by compensation. Later, it added: Furthermore, we require that the promoter improves the operation of the discretionary purchase scheme to reduce the apparent delays in making payments under the scheme. The Select Committee stated on page xxxi: We have observed that the present law appears totally inadequate in situations in which a reduction in the price of a property is attributable to a project such as the rail link even though the property will not actually be physically affected. The ombudsman's report stated: In my view, it is unquestionable maladministration not to have considered the effects of the policy upon those to be affected by it. Such maladministration is more evident when the problems caused to individuals by the implementation of a policy become apparent, but still no action is taken to consider a remedy. I have found that that is what happened in respect of the CTRL.

I welcome the Government's response in setting up the interdepartmental working party, although, as I said in Committee, we need a time frame for it. I suspect that the Government will not bring the results of the working party's efforts to the House—I would welcome an assurance to the contrary—before the end of this Parliament.

The French can build railway lines properly—why on earth cannot we do the same? When the French want to construct a railway line, they provide generous compensation to people who, through no fault of their own, experience a diminution in the value of their property and who lose the freedom to move—that primary control over their lives.

Mr. Tony Banks

I endorse what my hon. Friend said, and merely underline her point that the French can construct lines so swiftly because people genuinely welcome them and there is not a long-drawn-out battle, as there is when people realise that they are going to suffer physical and economic hazards. Perhaps that is why the French are able to build lines so much more quickly than we can.

Ms Hodge

I concur with my hon. Friend entirely.

Additional costs would be involved in a more generous compensation scheme, but in relation to the project as a whole, they would be marginal. Compared with the additional costs that have already been incurred by the delay in this case, the costs of additional compensation would be peanuts. The Government appear to have accepted the additional costs arising from the changes in the scheme, so why cannot they accept the additional costs arising out of an appropriate compensation scheme?

I hope that hon. Members will today take this issue seriously. The question is who pays. In this context, is it fair that ordinary residents—householders who have found that, through no fault of their own, the value of their property has been massively diminished and that their ability to sell it has been annihilated—should pay? In other matters, the Government say that the polluter pays. In this instance, the Government are the polluter and they should pick up the bill and support the three new clauses.

Mr. Jacques Arnold

I have considerable sympathy with the new clauses. The key point is the one that has been made on several occasions—that the House and the country want the rail link, in which case the developer and/or the Government should pay for it. The people who should not pay for it are those whose properties are in the line of the rail link and who face the diminution of the value of their homes and businesses.

Like the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), I have had dozens of people come to my surgery over the years, some with cases just as heart-rending as those that she mentioned. I should point out that this blight hit my constituency all the way back in 1988 when the original route was proposed. So we are no novices in this dreadful business of blight and the compensation that is required.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) referred to three forms of blight. I strongly support his comments about peripheral blight. Where the rail link goes through the urban area of my constituency, it passes literally thousands of homes. In that broad swathe, those residents have found that they cannot sell their houses or achieve properly secured mortgages. They are well and truly stuck, whether or not the circumstances of their family or employment require them to move. We must examine the matter of peripheral blight.

Another form of blight was brought before the Select Committee, although it did not grapple with it—the blight that brings about bankruptcy. I brought two cases before the House in an Adjournment debate, which were also heard in the Select Committee, of residents in the direct line of the high-speed rail link. They were small business men who used their properties to secure loans for their businesses. In both cases, the security of their loans proved inadequate, the finance ceased to become available and their private companies withered and died. The blight compensation provisions include no provision to compensate people in such dreadful cases.

I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's announcement that he will appoint a working party to consider matters of blight. I hope that the working party and the Minister will give careful and rapid consideration to peripheral blight and the extraordinary cases of failure of family businesses resulting from the impact of the rail link.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)

May I add to the litany of overwhelmingly strong cases? I notice that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) also wishes to catch your eye in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He has been an assiduous chaser after the same solutions. I have no direct vested interest on behalf of my constituency in this particular Bill, although the borough of Southwark was directly affected by the previous proposals and route and the issue of blight was very pertinent. When my constituents and those of two other constituencies in my borough were spared, it would not have been fair if we walked away and left the case to be fought by those who are in the same position. People in the boroughs of Barking and Dagenham and of Newham and in Kent and Essex—

Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury)

And Islington.

7.15 pm
Mr. Hughes

—and in Islington, are still directly affected. It is a very important issue.

I wish to rehearse again the fact that we have had an unsatisfactory law on compensation for a ridiculously long period. Of course the interdepartmental working party is a good idea, but unless they result in proposals, good ideas are not much use. The Minister will be aware that, on a regular basis, I persist in arguing the same case in relation to those who suffer blight from works connected with the underground. My constituents have an interest in that.

Some businesses in my constituency have gone under—not physically, but commercially—as a result of the Jubilee line extension. Some of them fall within the rules. If a building is physically taken out of the local geography because the line or the works go through it, people are compensated. If it happens to be two yards away—as a building is in Borough high street by London Bridge station—such that all a person's business is taken away, they are not. If a great hole is dug before the front door, if people can hardly see that the business is still there and if to get to it they have to be athletes or trapeze artists—in short if the business is clearly no longer viable, people do not qualify for compensation. If the traffic is redirected because the works are outside the door of a business and passing trade disappears, no help is available.

It could be said that people just have to take the commercial risk. That is true as long as it is not a matter of public provision for public benefit made through an Act of Parliament. However, when we are talking about a rail link between the channel tunnel and the capital city, about public railways—even under a privatised Railtrack—or about public tube services—even under a privatised tube network, although I hope that that never happens—it is not good enough to say that people must take the commercial risk and accept that they may be sitting pretty one day and the next be blighted by a proposal that affects their business or home life.

People can suffer blight even with the benefit of the advice of the most vigilant lawyers in the world. One of my constituents inquired whether his business would be affected by the route. He was expressly told that it would not. On the day on which he bought the business, there was no blight. Literally a month later, the proposals changed. It was too late. He had made the commercial transaction, acquired the business, laid out the investment and borrowed the money. He got into difficulties, but when the plans changed, it was too late. That was a risk that he was meant to take.

I should be grateful to hear in the Minister's response how soon we shall hear the results of the review and how soon legislation will be introduced. I join my colleagues in requesting that any response does not benefit generations to come, to the exclusion of those who have precipitated this call for a fairer compensation system. Other countries have such a system. Compensation can be provided through insurance. It need not cost the nation a fortune. We really must stop blighting the lives of hundreds and thousands of families and business people without compensating them, when simple legislation such as has been introduced by many colleagues over many years could reasonably do so. It is not beyond the wit of men and women to devise a system. We ought to get on with it.

I hope that this is the last time that we have to put in a plea in the Report stage of a Bill. I am sure that if the Government wanted to introduce a compensation Bill in the one remaining Session of this Parliament, all of us would be willing to postpone the general election by a few months to put it on the statute book.

Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling)

I, too, support new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), and the comments made by those who have spoken in the debate so far. I also support the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge). I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will note that hon. Members from the three major parties are all saying the same thing on the issue of blight and compensation. The position is profoundly unsatisfactory.

The issue of blight was raised at the very outset of proceedings on the Bill in the Second Reading debate on 16 January 1995. Fifteen months later, we still have had no practical response other than the formation of an interdepartmental working party. Those of us who have been privileged to serve in government know well the immense length of time that it takes for any legislation to emerge from interdepartmental working parties, if it ever does.

Also, as far as I am aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not responded to the specific recommendations of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Perhaps he has now proposed a scheme to the Committee, but, if so, it has not been reported to the House. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us whether a scheme has now been devised in accordance with the undertaking to produce one in response to the Committee's recommendation, whether it has been submitted to the Committee and when we shall know the details.

The Select Committee examined the Bill over a long period, and did heroic and sterling work. The issue of blight and compensation was raised continually. Now the Bill is on Report, but as far as I know—unless my hon. Friend the Minister can tell us something positive—we have been given neither a Government amendment nor a Government policy to deal with the problem.

As the hon. Member for Barking pointed out, this is not really a public expenditure issue but an equity issue affecting individuals. It cannot ever be right for a responsible public body to look to individuals, through the value—or devaluation—of their assets, to subsidise the public sector infrastructure work that is required in the public interest. It is fundamental that people must be treated fairly, and not be faced with a massive, long-term and perhaps permanent reduction in the value of their main asset so that a public sector project can proceed. The burden should be spread across all taxpayers.

I consider it morally incumbent on the House, on Union Railways and on the Government to provide an equitable answer to a problem that has been described eloquently by members of all the major parties in the House. If that cannot be done here, perhaps it can be done in the other place. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will respond positively.

Mr. Chris Smith

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief constituency contribution from the Back Benches, and to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge). As I always do on these occasions, I declare an interest, not only on behalf of the hundreds of constituents who are affected by the rail link but on my own behalf: my home abuts directly on to the line.

I want to make two specific constituency points about blight. First, however, let me pay a warm tribute to the Select Committee's work. It deliberated carefully for many hours, and listened attentively to the numerous representations of my constituents.

Last July, when the Committee made its initial findings public, my constituents were overjoyed by its recommendation that the line running under the borough of Islington should be in tunnel all the way into the railway land behind St. Pancras. For a few weeks, it appeared that the blight that had threatened many of the streets immediately surrounding the western end of the line through Islington would be lifted. Then rumours began in the press that the Government were reconsidering the Committee's recommendation, and Union Railways subsequently submitted a revised version of the scheme. That revised version is now included in the Bill.

It must be said that the revised scheme is still massively better than the original reference case first advanced by Union Railways, but it gives the petitioners less than the arrangement that everyone thought had been decided last July, and a number of concerns remain—two in particular. The first relates to the timing of any decisions arising from the deliberations of the interdepartmental working party. The timing of any compensation scheme is vital to the affected areas.

I am particularly concerned about the impact on homes in Bunning way—flats and houses in my constituency that were sold a few years ago, specifically as starter homes. Many were sold to young couples who were buying their first home, intending to move in due course. A number of those couples now want to start families, but their homes are not large enough for them to bring up children there, and they wish to move. At present, however, their homes are severely blighted, and they could sell only at sharply reduced prices.

Under the present scheme, even if those people qualify for compensation, they will not receive it until the railway has been running for a year—and it may not start running until seven to 10 years from now. By then, they will have had to give up the idea of having children at all, or they will have had to subsidise a railway by selling their homes at a loss. I do not consider that a just way of dealing with the impact that the line will have.

My other concern relates to the Gifford street embankment. It is currently proposed that the line should be tunnelled through the embankment until it reaches a point just before the east coast main line, when it will emerge into the open to cross that line. It is extremely important to those living in Gifford street—one of those homes happens to be mine—that the tunnel be bored through the bank rather than dug in a "cut and cover" operation. A ministerial assurance has been given, in a letter to the local representative group that raised the issue with the Minister, that the tunnel will indeed be bored, but I fear that that assurance will mean little if a problem suddenly arises on the site. When the time comes for the work to be carried out, we may be told that it is far too difficult to bore the tunnel, and that half the embankment will have to be removed instead.

We asked for the requirement for the tunnel to be bored to be inserted in the Bill, but, sadly, the Select Committee did not agree to that. I hope that the Government will none the less give enforceable undertakings to the Committee in the other place, because that particular question will substantially affect the issue of blight in Gifford street.

Those are two specific issues, but they reflect the general concern that I know is shared by all of us with constituents who are directly affected by the proposed line. We all want to see the channel tunnel rail link in place and we want trains travelling fast from St. Pancras through the tunnel to the continent. However, we must make sure that that is done in the right way and with due consideration for the lives and livelihoods of the people who live immediately beside the line and who will be directly affected by the work when it starts and when the trains are running.

7.30 pm
Mr. Brooke

I follow my parliamentary neighbour, the hon Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). If, in speaking to the new clauses, I referred to a railway line or route other than the one that eponymously gives its name to the Bill, I would almost certainly be ruled out of order. Therefore, I say elliptically that if my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) had tabled his new clause mutatis mutandis in relation to another Bill that related to another railway line, I would have supported it in the same way as I support this new clause.

I cannot claim a constituency interest, for the reasons set out by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), because the original line changed for both of us. There is also the historic fact that the profession of British consulting engineers grew up along Victoria street in the last century so that its members could be within walking distance of the House to advise Committees on railway legislation during that era.

I support the principle of the new clause and I should like to make a supportive reference to what I would call the long-standing anticipatory blight about which other hon. Members have spoken—caused because no compensation is affordable until the relevant works are triggered. I shall also refer to those unfortunate people who, when the works are going on, will have to sustain the aggravation, potentially without receiving in benefit from the completed works even a tithe of the disruption that they have suffered. In that respect, I found a sympathetic resonance in the speech by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), whose new clause we are also discussing.

I have been delighted to hear about the interdepartmental working party. In view of all the rail workings that stretch in front of us, I hope that its terms of reference are wide and that they relate to the widest possible range of contingencies so that we may make the maximum use of fallow time as this line and others unroll. The hon. Member for Barking spoke about the French arrangements and in that context I have taken the liberty of suggesting to London First, which rightly presses London Members on a series of issues on London's behalf, that it might sensibly mount an examination of those arrangements to see whether their application would economically accelerate the building of railways that they otherwise support.

As I have not so far been ruled out of order, I shall conclude by reminding the House of Miss Katherine Whitehorn's account of the effect of the London motorway box in the street in which she once lived. She recounted that the only house adversely affected by the plans had been bought three months earlier by a professional clairvoyant.

Mr. Watts

I can tell my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) that the terms of reference of the interdepartmental working party are broad.

Mr. Simon Hughes

Do they include clairvoyants?

Mr. Watts

I do not think so.

The working party will look at changes in the compensation codes that could be applied not just to this project but more broadly and, undoubtedly, to another project that my right hon. Friend might have had in mind.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) asked about the working party devising a scheme to meet the requirements of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. That work is still in progress but, as we said when the setting up of the working party was announced in November, it will be brought to a conclusion as soon as possible. I am afraid that I cannot be more precise on that.

Mr. Hughes

When is "as soon as possible"?

Mr. Watts

Perhaps I should consult a clairvoyant on that.

I sympathise with the view of many hon. Members that property owners or occupiers should not suffer loss on the sale of property as a result of perceived blight. However, I do not think that the new clause is the right way to address the problem. It goes much further than the concerns that were expressed by the Select Committee and that led to the setting up of the working party. It is premature, as it is in advance of the outcome of that review, which we announced on 18 March.

We should briefly consider the principles that underlie all existing compensation provisions. They include that the basis for any claim should be assessable against objective criteria; that the cause and effect must be demonstrable; and that the claimant should not finish up in a better position than would otherwise have been the case. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment explained in Standing Committee the three main circumstances under which owners may be compensated under current law. They are, first, where property is acquired compulsorily for the purposes of a public project; secondly, where property is subject to statutory blight, that is, blighted because of a future intention to acquire it; and, thirdly, where property is subject to injurious affection. It may not need to be acquired, but the conditions apply if there is a clearly demonstrable adverse affect on its value as a result of, for example, noise or vibration.

Mr. Rowe

I hoped that I had made it clear that, by putting properties on the market and seeing just how much less they fetched than would have been their valuation otherwise, we had met the standard of objectivity that the Minister has just stated.

Mr. Watts

My hon. Friend's suggestion and those made in the debate by other hon. Members will be looked at by the working party. I have said that the terms of reference are wide, and we shall wish to consider all relevant experience and suggestions, including, of course, overseas experience.

The new clause ignores the principles under which existing arrangements have operated. Some hon. Members may say, "That is well and good, but we think that the existing arrangements are inadequate." However, such fundamental changes should not be made just in respect of a specific project, but made only after careful review and as the basis for making changes that would apply to all similar projects.

We recognise the legitimate concern about the wider effects of blight—so-called perceived or generalised blight—which may affect property values even where there is no direct effect on the property, so existing compensation provisions may therefore not apply. That concern was raised by the Select Committee, which heard a great deal of evidence on a wide variety of concerns related to the Bill. Many of the matters that were raised essentially had to do with the provisions in general law rather than those in the Bill. The Committee concluded that in all such cases the existing national rules should apply. Even in the case of property compensation, the Committee concluded that existing arrangements were inadequate and called for a national review rather than special treatment for the project. In response, we set up the interdepartmental review of blight which the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment announced in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) on 18 March, Official Report, column 9.

New clause 1 recognises that any scheme now instigated may be premature, in that subsection (5) provides for the arrangements to be repealed in the light of the recommendations following the review.

The new clause raises practical issues and difficulties. If we were to agree to such a radical extension of the statutory blight concept, it would raise difficult issues about the definition of "unblighted value" and on the means of disaggregating the various factors that may have reduced the property's value, given that "perceived blight" can be widespread and is a thoroughly subjective, although pernicious, concept. By definition, there would be no identifiable or measurable physical effects.

Furthermore, the scheme that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) proposes might increase blight if it encouraged people to sell at a loss because they knew that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be obliged to pay the difference between unblighted market value and any amount realised.

I am not rejecting out of hand the notion of a compensation rather than a purchase basis. As my hon. Friend alluded, in my discussions with him, I have acknowledged that that might be a sensible approach, but, today, I am not prepared to say that I have reached that conclusion. These important matters must be considered carefully in the review.

Mr. Allen

Will the Minister consider asking the interdepartmental working group to consider also non-monetary compensation so that, for example, the homes for the frail elderly on the Euston side of St. Pancras might have to be rebuilt rather than an exchange of money taking place?

Mr. Watts

The working party can consider all suggestions made during this important debate.

There is a danger that the effects of a scheme such as the one that my hon. Friend suggests could lead to snowballing blight. There could be a perverse effect. If the new clause were added to the Bill, his scheme would be part of the Act and if the new clause caused a blighting effect on other property, the operation of the scheme under the Act would be compensatable under the new clause's powers.

I understand that my hon. Friend is concerned about blight caused by earlier routes and proposals. I understand that his new clause would not cover that and that it cannot be made to do so within the scope of the Bill, so I am not sure that the new clause would achieve all that I know that he wants it to achieve on behalf of his constituents.

I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will accept what I have said about the inadvisability of making piecemeal changes to the compensation code on blight before the outcome of the review, specifically set up, at the Select Committee's request, to consider that subject, but the important issue that remains is how any changes that are made as a result of the review would be applied to people affected by the project.

The House will know that, for obvious reasons, it is not the usual practice of Governments to give any prior commitment in respect of policy reviews that have yet to be completed and in, Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said that he would consider sympathetically how the review's outcome could be applied.

I have given further thought to that. I take the point made in the debate that it would be perverse if a review that led to changes in the compensation code—a review prompted by the blight problems caused by the project—and the outcome of its recommendations were such that people affected by the project could not benefit from the review. Therefore, I am prepared to go further and to give a clear undertaking that any changes introduced to the compensation code as a result of the review will be given effect in respect of blight arising from the channel tunnel rail link. I hope that, with that assurance, my hon. Friend will not feel it necessary to press the new clause.

Mr. Rowe

Is it in order for hon. Members and members of public to submit evidence to the working group and, if so, how do we do it?

Mr. Watts

Certainly. A total of 130 organisations, professional and otherwise, have been invited specifically to submit their views, but the views of hon. Members and of members of the public, submitted in writing to the Department of the Environment, would be most welcome.

Mr. Simon Hughes

I am sure that the House will be encouraged to hear what the Minister said to the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). We are grateful for that and for the additional information. This may not have been put to the Minister in these terms and therefore I will not expect an immediate reply. The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) raised a similar matter. Will the Minister consider whether people affected simultaneously, not by channel tunnel works, but by the same issue and who have raised those effects in parallel—although they do not come under this specific legislation primarily—could also be considered? We are looking at a date start for a new scheme. I hope that the Minister will consider whether, equitably, all people affected in similar ways by similar legislated-for proposals might be considered and reply in due course, as soon as he has had a chance to examine the matter.

Mr. Watts

I shall reflect on what the hon. Gentleman says and reply to him in due course. That is one of the factors that can be taken into account in the review.

I hope that, with the clear assurance that I have given hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent and the House, he will not feel it necessary to press his new clause to a vote.

7.45 pm
Mr. Rowe

I have been in this place long enough to know that it is frequently wise to accept half a loaf rather than no bread at all and, given that we are shortly to send the Bill to another bakery, I am inclined to accept my hon. Friend the Minister's concession with considerable gratitude and pleasure. I wish that he had been able to go much further, but I understand the constraints under which he is operating and, therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to