HC Deb 11 March 1996 vol 273 cc640-2
8. Mr. Simon Hughes

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to review the rules covering compensation following railway, underground and other public transport works. [17999]

Mr. Norris

We have no plans to review part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973, under which compensation is payable upon completion of public works.

Mr. Hughes

That is the answer that I feared. May I try to persuade the Minister to look again at two issues which colleagues have raised in relation to the channel tunnel rail link? My concerns relate to the Jubilee line and its consequences. First, if a business is adversely affected and the property is taken or partly taken, could we guarantee that the owner is put back into no worse a position than he would have been in if the works had not taken place? Secondly, in relation to public legislation or public works—railways or an underground system—the rules state that if a building is physically touched, compensation is payable. However, if the building is not touched, although there may be a huge hole a yard from the front door so that for years no one can find the door, let alone use it, compensation is not payable. Will the Minister look at the illogicality of the division between a building being physically affected and the clear effect on work, profit and viability of all the other consequences of the works?

Mr. Norris

The hon. Gentleman is being assiduous in prosecuting the interests of his constituents, particularly those in Borough High street, which I know, in relation to the Jubilee line extension. I hope that in all fairness he will understand when I say that I would prefer not to be drawn into negotiations on compensation claims that affect a number of his constituents. On his second point, he is aware that there are substantial provisions to allow for compensation and purchase of affected property where the property is not required for the scheme but is clearly blighted by it. New rules in relation to that were recently published by my Department following the Owen case.

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has among his constituents some shopkeepers and property owners who are finding it difficult to establish a link between the loss that they suffer and the statutory compensation that is available. I stress that that will always be a difficult area. Limitless compensation for blight or perceived blight in relation to any public sector works would put most of them beyond the purse or reach of the taxpayer or of the Government.

Dr. Twinn

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a link between planning delays and the lack of compensation or levels of compensation? If the Government relaxed their rules and looked at the French system of compensation, they might get much more public sympathy for public investment in infrastructure.

Mr. Norris

My hon. Friend, whose constituency contains the north circular road, knows that the average time between a good idea and that idea being rolled out as a piece of tarmac is 13 and a half years, of which 11 and a half are spent in the planning and public inquiry process. I have heard it suggested that we should adopt more generous compensation methods to truncate those inquiries. I hope that he will appreciate that that is a potentially extremely expensive course of action. In general, our compensation scheme attempts to put people who are affected in the same position as they would have been had the scheme not taken place. That involves negotiation, and on occasions, leads to delay. My hon. Friend's alternative, seductive as it may be in its simplicity, would in practice be a very expensive option.

Mr. William O'Brien

In view of the length of time that the rules of compensation have been in effect, does the Minister not think that it is time for a review, especially with regard to motorway and highway planning, for which the full information on pollution emissions is not being made available? If we are to have a proper and fair system of compensation, all information should be made available and the rules on compensation for blight should be updated through a review.

Mr. Norris

Following recent action in the Court of Appeal, we issued new guidelines on compensation precisely to try to relate more sympathetically to the position of property owners, especially with regard to discretionary purchase. As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), this is a very difficult area. Inevitably, if one considers all the cases where there may be some blight, a line has to be drawn and some people who are affected by schemes fall outside it. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular cases in mind, I would of course be very happy to look at them.

Sir Alan Haselhurst

Is it not totally unsatisfactory that claimants against Stansted airport in my constituency are having to wait about four years, if not longer, before a settlement figure is reached? Is it not totally indefensible that the British Airports Authority should take upwards of four months after a settlement has been agreed to pay compensation? Does my hon. Friend accept that we need to look at the matter?

Mr. Norris

My hon. Friend has been extremely assiduous on behalf of his constituents who have been affected by noise at Stansted. He has made his own point in his own way. I am sure that the BAA will want to reflect on what he has said.