Dartford—Thurrock Crossing Bill (Hansard, 10 May 1988)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill.

§ Viscount Hood
Perhaps I may comment briefly on the work of the Select Committee. There were only six petitions, all of which dealt with matters of disturbance, either in the river or on the approach roads. Of those, five commercial petitions were withdrawn before the committee concluded its proceedings, leaving one petition related to residential disturbance.
The committee was governed by existing law. The requisition will take place under Clause 2 of the Bill and the compensation will be payable in accordance with the land compensation code. The supplementary home loss payment is governed by the Land Compensation Act 1973. Therefore in neither case had the committee any opportunity to do other than express sympathy.
That is all I have to say except to wish god speed to the legislation as the bridge is very necessary.

§ Lord Underhill
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to follow the speech of the noble Viscount. I agree with him. I have read the report of the Select Committee, and various other documents. I agree that the committee has done an exceptionally good job. Most of the amendments before us in the Bill are technical but we have had some explanation about them. However, I was very pleased to note the attitude of the committee towards the two individual applicants, and the attitude taken by the committee on the question of compulsory acquisition and the home loss payments.
I readily recognise the Government's response to those two points. I thought that the attitude of the committee was very praiseworthy. I hope that there will be some quick action regarding the home loss position. I do not know whether it can be made retrospective in this case. But one must also recognise that the compulsory acquisition leaves these two individuals in a sorry situation because no one will want their house once the new bridge is being built.

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
I am sure that the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Hood and to the other members of the Select Committee for hearing petitions and presenting this report to the House. The committee had what I believe my noble friend termed a chequered history, with petitioners frequently asking for adjournments. I am sorry that that was so. The department took pains from the outset to consult a series of interested parties, including some who did not find it necessary to petition. I hope that the Committee will accept that the negotiations with petitioners did not drag on through stubbornness on the part of the department.
On the petition which was pressed, the department found itself in the same difficulty as the Select Committee in that it is bound by the present land compensation legislation, including that dealing with home loss payments, and has no discretion in the matter. As our response says, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is looking at the whole question of the home loss payments system, which has to change in accordance with the Local Government Finance Bill, which we debated yesterday.
I hope Mr. Michie and Mr. Waddington will enter into informal discussions with the district valuer, who has the duty to take account of house prices in the area up to the date of entry into the property, which will take place in the autumn. The department will treat Mr. Michie and Mr. Waddington as sympathetically as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, raised the point of whether any changes could be made retrospective. That is unlikely. We tend not on the whole to have retrospective legislation. However, I can assure the noble Lord that we shall not move before the date upon which we have to move. If changes have been made by that time they will be to the advantage of petitioners.