§ Mr. ButterfillTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the issues examined earlier in respect of the statutory compensation code referred to by the Minister for Transport in London in the Second Reading debate on the Crossrail Bill on 8 June 1993,Official Report, column 219; and if he will make a statement concerning the details of the extent and character of the facts and evidence that were taken into account in deciding that the provisions strike a fair balance between the interests of landowners and the community as a whole.
§ Mr. BaldryThe main compensation concerns raised in relation to the Crossrail project have been, firstly, that owners of high value commercial property which may need to be compulsorily acquired should have the protection of the statutory blight code and, secondly, that London Regional Transport should be statutorily required to acquire property which stands to be seriously affected by construction work.
The provisions of the compensation code reflect a judgment as to what constitutes a sensible balance between, on the one hand, the interests of those whose land is required for or affected by public development and, on the other, the prudent use of public funds. We have carefully examined the representations made to my Department by the Crossrail compensation campaign. But the present Government, like their predecessors, are not persuaded of the case for bringing high value commercial property within the scope of the statutory blight code or for placing bodies responsible for public development under an obligation to acquire property for which they have no use. Commercial interests in London will ultimately derive substantial benefits from major infrastructure projects such as Crossrail