House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Jun 1991

Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham) : I recall taking part in the proceedings on the Land Compensation Act 1973. I was very proud that a Conservative Government was introducing a long-overdue measure to extend compensation to individuals who would suffer in the public interest as a result of major road developments. I am also proud that this Bill goes a long way in handing out justice to individuals, especially those likely to suffer the loss of their homes because of public works. The extra compensation due to them is generous and fair, albeit overdue.

We are discussing another major step that should be taken to offer justice to individuals whose homes are likely to be damaged in some way or other because the public interest decrees that there should be major public works. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept the point that was made earlier--it is not an issue that will go away. We are discussing an important principle, and if it is not resolved by the Bill it will come back time and again, especially during our proceedings on the high-speed link.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to help the House and the country by at least conceding the principle--and, I hope, accepting the new clause moved eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley). It has been pointed

Column 335

out that it is not a NIMBY--not in my backyard--proposal. Many hon. Members from Kent and other areas that could be affected are present, but many others are too. The point is that we do not know where the high-speed link will go. It could be any one of a number of routes. It could be in Essex, Kent or south London. I favour the Ove Arup route, but I recognise that if that is selected many people in Essex will be affected. If some of the more far-fetched Labour schemes come to fruition, we shall have high-speed links all over the country and many householders will be affected by new railway development. We are dealing with a major principle which could affect many areas. I therefore hope that the House will treat it as a national issue and that we shall not leave those constituencies which are ultimately affected forlornly to fight their own corner when a private or hybrid Bill is introduced. I hope that the House will speak for the people and treat the issue as a matter of principle, wherever new railway lines go.

In the meantime, long before consideration of a high-speed link, there was a major generation of new traffic on existing routes as a result of the channel tunnel. I heard my hon. Friend the Minister on the radio this morning and he was challenged on when we would have a high-speed link and asked whether anything would be in place by the time the channel tunnel opened. I was a bit disappointed again by his reply and I have yet to hear British Rail proclaim that when the channel tunnel opens in 1993 there will be a high-speed link in existence so that people can travel directly from Waterloo to Paris or Brussels in roughly three hours. I am surprised that we continue to hide our light under a bushel and allow our railways to be denigrated by failing to remind people that nearly £1,500 million has been spent to ensure that when the tunnel opens one can take a fast rail link from London to the major capitals of Europe. The corollary is that those trains will run on existing lines.

The lines in Kent that have been mentioned will be used by high-speed trains on a scale which has not been experienced before. It is also significant that British Rail has pointed out it can operate a considerable amount of capacity which is not used at the moment to cope with the extra freight traffic that it hopes to attract through the tunnel. That traffic will travel on existing routes, not just during the day, but at night as well. Many of our constituents will be facing noise and traffic on a scale that they have never previously experienced. It might be rightly decreed that that is in the national interest, and so be it, but the national interest will also accept that people suffering from the intensification of noise on that scale should receive some help and compensation. We are not asking for very much. The proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling is modest. In some cases a house close to a line where there is major intensification of day and night-time traffic could lose a great deal of its value, but I suspect that in most cases we are talking about the need for noise insulation and the like. I do not believe for one moment that the British people or hon. Members would deny the justice of extending to such individuals the right to receive some assistance by way of noise insulation or compensation for loss of value if that arose. That is the principle that the House should and must endorse today. Just as Kent Members speak in a united way for the county of Kent, I hope that others will also speak much more broadly in the national interest.

Column 336

So often great national projects take much longer than necessary, and vastly longer than they do in other countries, fundamentally because we are mean-minded in our approach to compensation. How much more readily would people accept proposals such as this if compensation was reasonably generous. If the country knew that there would be reasonable noise insulation and some compensation for those who suffer from rail projects such as this, it is likely that my hon. Friend the Minister and others would find it much easier to get such projects on the statute book and constructed much more quickly. It is in the interests of the project as well as in the interests of justice that the new clause on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling spoke so eloquently should be accepted. 6.30 pm

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington) : My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) has made a powerful and convincing case for new clause 16, which I accept and wish to support. In addition, my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) has put the argument for a constituency such as mine, which neighbours the constituency of my hon. Friend. Therefore, I do not feel called upon to delay the debate unnecessarily.

We are dealing with a matter of fundamental importance, so I hope that the Government will not say that the Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for deciding such a matter. Great events often turn upon comparatively small things, especially in relation to the House. This is a way in which the matter can be determined without all the palaver, delays, commissions of inquiry and so on which often go into deciding matters of great moments.

We are dealing with what may well be a change in the attitude of Government towards public works. No longer, as may have been the case in the 19th century, can public utilities expect statutory permission to execute works which, while in accordance with statutory duties, nevertheless do great harm to private individuals. We have passed that stage in our history. There should now be a balance between the interests of a statutory undertaking, whether it be British Rail or any other, and the interests of private housholders. That is the situation with which new clause 16 deals.

Whether or not the rail link goes through Bromley, the use of existing tracks through Bromley and my constituency will intensify. Already, not only due to the recession and the recent, I hope temporary, fall in land values, but because of the expectations of such developments, there has been a fall in property values in areas adjacent to existing railway lines. It is fully expected that those railway lines will be used to an ever greater extent, especially by freight traffic. Freight traffic will travel during the night on occasions and to an extent which has never been experienced before. Many of my constituents are suffering now from their inability to obtain any sort of compensation for the dramatic fall in values of their properties. There must be a remedy for that, and that remedy is contained in new clause 16. That is why I am happy to support it, and I am anxious that others will do so too.

Mr. Edward Heath (Old Bexley and Sidcup) : I support most strongly new clause 16, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley), to which I put my name--the first time that my

Column 337

name has appeared on the Order Paper since March 1975. I have done that because I regard the new clause as vital, first to my constituents and, secondly, to all those who may also be affected either in the Greater London area or in Kent.

But the matter goes much further than that. It is a national question. Those who are looking ahead realise that the channel tunnel will lead to dramatic changes in transport throughout Britain which will affect British Rail going up to Inverness and further. Therefore, we are dealing not just with the present proposals but with what will be the eventual result of the channel tunnel and the resultant changes in transport. That is why I ask the Minister to take a national view and to recognise how wide are the implications of the changes and the way in which the new clause seeks to deal with them. The effect of the original proposals has been catastrophic in many ways. When rumours first began to circulate about where the line for the fast link would go, people asked, "Are we going to take the chance of it coming here?" When the four alternative plans were produced, the whole area was intensely affected. It was a case of widespread blight. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) was quite right--it is not just a question of a few houses ; many hundreds of houses are affected by blight.

Although the plans were withdrawn, the blight continues, and my constituents and many others who wish to move for some reason or other-- they may receive promotion and have to go to another part of the country, or be offered a new job in another firm further away--cannot do so because they cannot sell their properties. I am constantly being shown lists of people who have applied to view my constituents' properties who, on seeing their position, at once say that it is not on because they do not know what will happen about the railway line. That situation has continued for many months--indeed, years.

I hope that the Minister will try to use his influence with the Secretary of State for Transport to rectify that situation at the earliest possible moment. I do not think that the Department of Transport realises the effect that it is having on individuals in the Kent and London area at this moment.

When it comes to the wider issues of compensation for noise and disturbance and the change in people's lives, the Government would be justified, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling said, to take not roads but airports as the model on which such compensation should be based. I apologise to the House because I was not here for my right hon. Friend's speech, but I have been able to read it in his notes since I arrived, and he is right in what he said.

If I may cast my mind back, I remember well the problems that arose when the A2 was doubled in order to go into the M2. That went through my constituency. All the problems of noise and disturbance, as well as those created by taking people's land and in some cases their houses, had to be dealt with. It is perfectly true that the two cases are not the same and are not comparable, but if the Government are to offer the valuation plus 10 per cent. for buildings, I welcome that.

Column 338

The Government have done a good job, but we must remember that 10 per cent. on top of the valuation is what is on offer. In the years when we were dealing with the road that I mentioned before, district valuers were told to offer the lowest possible amount and that, if people did not like the offer, they could get their lawyers to challenge it in the courts. That went on for years ; I remember a case in point to do with a piece of land on a corner of the road, which continued for three years. So it is not enough to give compensation plus 10 per cent., because that all depends on what the 10 per cent. is based on. I want district auditors to be told to make an initial offer based on a fair valuation, not on the lowest possible amount which would force people to negotiate in the courts. Fair offers must not be based on the prices of houses in areas through which the line will pass. When the first plans were produced and the resulting blight was obvious, British Rail offered compensation to a certain number of people who, because they had to move for various reasons, accepted it. After that, the plans were withdrawn, but British Rail was left holding the houses--which it sold at knockdown prices. That has clearly affected the price of housing in the area in my constituency through which the line runs. It is not good enough to use the knockdown sale prices offered by British Rail as a basis. The properties must be correctly valued in line with house prices before British Rail's sales, since when house prices have changed considerably.

This is the only way to remove resentment, although 10 per cent. does not compare well with what happens in France, where 25 per cent. is added to the valuation. Nevertheless, it is a welcome step forward, and I hope that valuations of properties will be based on true values.

Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) : I am sorry to trouble my right hon. Friend, but is it not true that, the moment a scheme is mooted, blight descends on the properties involved--and that is to the advantage of the district valuer, who can then argue that the prices reflect the uncertainty in the market even though the exact route of the line in question is as yet undecided? That argument then becomes the baseline from which to proceed. I support my right hon. Friend's idea that the very notion of blight depresses house prices. The Government's argument that a 10 per cent. supplement approximates more closely to the true price does not achieve their purpose, which is to secure the purchase of the property and the movement on of people who will not feel aggrieved at having been disadvantaged by prices negotiated as low as possible.

Mr. Heath : My hon. Friend should not worry about troubling me--I am troubled by all sorts of things. He has put the point that I was trying to make at much greater length and much better than I did. Perhaps the Minister will now take proper notice of it.

Some of my colleagues have said that, when the tunnel opens in 1993, those in the vicinity will be greatly troubled by a vast increase in noise. British Rail argues that nothing can be done about that : that, if people want a railway, they must be prepared for anything to happen and they must put up with it. That is not acceptable, but it is already happening.

In my constituency, the night traffic on British Rail has increased enormously in the past year, largely due to the building of the channel tunnel. We are not being

Column 339

compensated for that. Buyers coming to the area do not want to pay for houses there, because they can already see the troubles to which they will be subjected. So there should be compensation, wherever the line eventually ends up.

My right hon. and hon. Friends have suggested various routes for the tunnel lines. I do not want to suggest any, except to say that they should not go through Bexley. That is the only answer one can give British Rail when it seeks one's opinions on the matter. We should remember, however, that these are nationwide problems. The Conservative party and the Government are committed to protecting the environment, and rightly so. It has become a major issue. We should not tell a publicly owned body to cover the costs of protecting the environment. British Rail may say that it can run the railway straight through Bexley and London at a certain cost but that, if it is instructed to protect the environment by tunnelling for the last 20 miles or cutting deep ravines, the project will be much more expensive, rendering it impossible to make a profit. This is a national responsibility ; the Government must be prepared to contribute, in the national interest, to safeguarding the environment. They already do that in other ways ; the same should be done for the channel tunnel railway.

It is argued that the Act which established the channel tunnel does not allow Government subsidy. I do not believe that, and nor do the lawyers whom I have consulted. The Act concerns the railway in the tunnel and the stations outside it. It does not cover the area from the tunnel up to the north of Scotland, and when the legislation was before the House, no one believed it did--it cannot be interpreted in that way. So the Government have a free hand. They can agree that protection of the environment is at stake, as we demand they do, and they should be prepared to contribute to the costs so that the line can be run as a commercial concern once the channel tunnel is established.

This is a vital new clause--vital in the interests of fairness and of the individual, to which our party is committed. I do not accept the argument that, because this will cost more money, we should reject the idea. The money will go to people deliberately and directly affected by the line, and I urge the House to support the new clause. I also urge the Minister to accept it, and if he cannot do so tonight, at least to announce that he will at a later stage. All I ask the Minister for is a straightforward, "Yes, I accept the new clause."

6.45 pm

Mr. Soley : It is one of the curiosities of this debate that we are discussing a Bill which is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Environment, yet this new clause is being dealt with by a Minister from the Department of Transport. I welcome the improved compensation under the Bill, but we in this country have still not grasped the principle of a proper compensation scheme devised for a number of projects which affect people's lives in the way in which the people of Kent and south London will be affected by the channel tunnel. In comparable countries in Europe, compensation would be much better--there would be more of it and the rationale behind its apportionment would be more clearly thought out. It would be handled largely through the planning process.

Column 340

The new clause implies that the Secretary of State for the Environment would have to administer the scheme, but the presence of the Minister for Public Transport makes me suspect, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) hinted, that British Rail may be asked--wrongly--to pay for the scheme.

Sir John Stanley : The new clause is drafted in the usual way. It refers to "the Secretary of State" without specifying which, but the intention is that the discretionary power would lie with the Secretary of State for Transport to administer.

Mr. Soley : That is rather unusual, and it would not necessarily be done in that way in other countries. It is one option, however. I want to put an important point to the Minister--it has already been put by a number of his Back Benchers--about the principle of better compensation. As I said, we welcome the Bill as a step in the right direction, but we have not got it right. The Europeans have managed to devise a system for the railways. It is sad that France--a classic example--has obtained planning permission for the high-speed rail link more rapidly than we have, with very generous compensation. As I have said on other occasions--although transport is not my brief--until we obtain planning permission, we will whistle across Europe in a 180 mph train, travel under the channel at 120 mph and then transfer in Dover to the equivalent of Thomas the Tank Engine and finish the journey at about 60 mph. The reason that it is proving so difficult to obtain planning permission is partly that we do not have the planning powers in place, and partly that our compensation schemes are less generous. To put it bluntly, the French often buy out opposition.

The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) said that the time had passed when we could accept that a proposal could be pushed through regardless of the consequences for people living in the area. One way is to ensure that people receive full and fair compensation.

Mr. Keith Speed (Ashford) : The hon. Gentleman is right on that point. Does he also recognise that in Europe, apart from the physical compensation of money, sound barriers and other noise remedial measures have been provided for existing as well as new lines, whereas we are still in the kindergarten stage?

Mr. Soley : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I had not planned to raise it, but I believe that he is correct.

The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) made a powerful and persuasive speech. However, I still have some reservations. I am not convinced that this is the best way to proceed. He made great play of the fact that the comparison should be with airports and aircraft noise. I understand that. He also made great play of the fact that the high-speed rail link would mean a massive increase in use. Residents will hear a sudden, high-pitched sound that will then disappear, and it will be quiet for 10 minutes, an hour or however long it is before the next one. I would not like to live in that situation.

It is perhaps a mistake to dismiss too lightly the comparison with road noise. People living on the edge of the A4 before it becomes the elevated section of the M4 in west London have to put up with a continuous thundering

Column 341

noise for the best part of 20 hours a day, seven days a week. They also have to put up with their houses cracking and their windows shattering. The impact in that area is very dramatic.

I do not wish to do the Minister's job for him, but I am sure that he will not be slow to point out that, if compensation is provided on this link, it will not be hard to think of other examples that might need similar compensation in the near future. Compensation may be required not only for the extension of the high-speed line throughout the United Kingdom in the next century, but for the proposed dedicated rail link from Paddington to Heathrow. That link is an eminently good idea. Such works and such intensification of use would lead to the real possibility of such a scheme being introduced. There are many other examples.

I am not convinced that the way to deal with this matter is to give this power to the Secretary of State--in this case, the Secretary of State for Transport, as the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling implied. Perhaps the right way would be to give the Secretary of State the discretion to decide whether a scheme should be introduced and what its parameters should be. There is a big difference between living 20 yd from the high-speed line and living 200 or 400 yd away. Where to draw the boundary for the type and extent of compensation is critical.

I make the point in passing--but it has some depth--that, under the present alternative to the poll tax, the rating system could not be used to give people a sliding scale of values. One of the advantages of a fair rates system is to be able to give assistance without going all the way to full possession, which is what the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling understandably and rightly wants for people living right next to the line-- and, I would argue, for people living next to major roads or airports.

We need to consider the principle. I shall listen carefully to what the Minister has to say. I am not entirely persuaded that the new clause is the right way in which to proceed, but, if the Minister does not consider the principle and find a way of compensating people, it will be hard to resist the temptation to vote for the new clause as the best available way that we have of putting pressure on the Government to reconsider the matter. We want genuine assurances about the alternatives, and we want to know the Government's thinking. It is on that basis that I shall advise my hon. Friends.

It is important that the burden is not put only on British Rail. If it were, British Rail could rightly point out that the

intensification of use as a result of the channel tunnel link or the Paddington-Heathrow dedicated service would have serious consequences. It would have to consider the implications for its future programmes if it had to take into account the additional compensation that would be required. It might also argue with some force that the consequences of the intensification of road use do not fall directly on road users. A bypass may be expanded or developed, and the number of trucks and vehicles using it may increase rapidly, but the burden does not fall on the road users. Why should British Rail alone carry the burden?

Mr. Wolfson : The hon. Gentleman is confusing the issue. The clause deals with a narrow point--allowing the

Column 342

same ability, on a discretionary basis, to compensate people who are affected by intensification of use. In some of the examples to which he referred, compensation would be available anyway, because it would be a new line.

Mr. Soley : I am not sure that that is right. I do not speak as a shadow Transport Minister, but I understand that some of the existing line would be used for the dedicated Heathrow-Paddington link. If I am wrong, I withdraw that example, but there are others. I am not thinking of a new line or a new road, where, I agree, that would not apply. My understanding is that the existing line would be used, and the scheme would be triggered.

Although the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling made a powerful and persuasive case--I would not want to rule out the new clause altogether --it seems to me that there are better ways of doing this. We want the Minister to clarify his proposals and to give us a time scale. It is no good saying to people, either in the channel tunnel area or anywhere else, that resources will be put into rail that will result in an intensification of use on a number of lines, but we may wait for ever for a compensation scheme that is at least comparable to the equivalent European scheme.

We should copy the European model. I am not universally in favour of following what other countries do, but in Britain we lack a good regional government structure and a compensation scheme that--despite the improvements provided in the Bill, which I welcome--is still rather haphazard and contradictory. We should accept that, for major new developments, especially those related to transport, we need a more coherent scheme. The measure proposed by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling recognises the impact of the channel tunnel on Kent-- no one should under-estimate that. I am not convinced that we need a nationwide scheme, which he and some of his hon. Friends want. I await with interest what the Government have to say. We want a significant commitment from them. We are travelling

hopefully--although we may not do so in very fast trains. If the Minister gives such a commitment, my advice to my hon. Friends will reflect that.

7 pm

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman) : The debate has been serious and well argued. I cannot help feeling that it may be a precursor of inevitable debates on a new high-speed rail-link line, as many of the issues that have been raised are germane to the planning problems that consideration of the case for such a link, and its route, is bound to involve.

Powerful speeches were made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley)--who spoke in his normal firm but courteous fashion--and my hon. Friends the Members for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson), for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden), for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). Another powerful speech was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). I note that it is 21 years to the day since my right hon. Friend was appointed Prime Minister ; and, as he has said, this is the first time that his name has appeared on an amendment paper for nearly 16 years. We must therefore take his remarks seriously.

My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham raised the question of the Ove Arup route. That is one of the options

Column 343

being considered by the Government and British Rail for the high-speed rail link. However the BBC may have reported my remarks this morning, once the Government have reached a conclusion on the preferred route--which I hope they will do as quickly as possible--and once that conclusion is published with the supporting papers, the environmental impact of the route on Kent and London will have to be considered for perhaps a year. That will happen regardless of whether a prima facie case has been made out. Both Houses may then need as long as two years to consider the resulting Bill. Who knows? I have not as much experience of parliamentary procedures as some hon. Members. It will take a long time--too long, some may argue--for all the issues to be considered.

It is true that the procedures are speedier in France ; that is because the French have a different approach to planning. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling will know, once the conseil d'e tat has decided that a scheme is in the national interest, the normal planning procedures usually follow. I note, however, that it has taken the Germans 10 years to plan, and then construct, what they describe as a high-speed link between Hanover and Wu"rzburg. I am well aware that my arguments may not convince my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling, and some of my other hon. Friends. I shall advise the House to resist the new clause, although I hope that I shall do so in a reasoned fashion. I have some positive and constructive things to say, but I realise that the arguments will not go away. My right hon. Friend and others will present them again when we debate the British Railways (No 3) Bill--a private Bill that seeks permission for certain channel tunnel works--and in our debates on any high-speed rail link proposal and on a Bill to enshrine planning powers for such a line. I know that, if I do not convince my right hon. Friend tonight, he will continue to present the concerns of his constituents and his own strong feelings--as, indeed, he is right to do.

I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not make a debating speech, but instead read my prepared notes. We have given considerable thought to what has been said, and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said that he would be listening carefully. As a society, we are rightly becoming increasingly concerned about the quality of life ; noise, from whatever source, tends to depress that quality, and noise from railway trains is no exception. It was 12 months ago that the issue was raised during a statement by the then Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), about the channel tunnel rail link.

I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling and to other colleagues for the time that it has taken for me to make a substantive response to the issues that were raised then. The delay does not point to inactivity or to a lack of interest on the part of the Department. Far from it : I have taken a close interest in the subject. On no fewer than six occasions in the past year, I have travelled along the routes that the channel tunnel trains will take through Kent and south London.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst made a fair point. We tend to be preoccupied with Kentish issues, but we must not forget that many London boroughs will

Column 344

be equally affected by the channel tunnel. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling accepts that. I have also visited the homes of people living close to the railway lines. On those visits, I have been accompanied not only by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling but by other colleagues, and I have now been to nine of the 14 constituencies that will be most directly affected. Earlier this year, I went with the chairman of British Rail to BR's research establishment at Derby to hear and to see at first hand what BR is doing about developing a quieter railway. In the Easter recess, I went to France and Germany to see how their Governments and railway administrations deal with noise. No one can accuse the Department, or me, of a lack of interest in the matter.

Before I deal with the new clause, let me make a number of brief but general points about railway noise. In connection with channel tunnel services, we are concerned with two entirely separate matters : noise from any new rail link that is built--which cannot occur for several years yet-- and the increase in noise resulting from the running of more trains on existing lines.

To deal with the problem of the new railway lines, we plan to make regulations that will make mandatory the insulation of houses along the line where the noise is at more than a specified level. Compensation provisions for injurious affection will also apply. Such regulations have existed since 1973 in respect of new roads. Let me point out to the hon. Member for Hammersmith that our new provisions will apply to the relevant portion of the Heathrow-Paddington express railway.

Hitherto, there has been no real need for any railway equivalent to the 1973 regulations, as very few new lines of any length have been built since the war. Now, however, we may be entering a new era, and the proposed channel tunnel rail link will certainly be a major new line by any standards. We intend that British Rail, in designing and building a new line, will have to comply with the regulations that we plan to make.

The measurement of noise is a very technical and difficult matter. Last year, to help us to frame the regulations, we appointed a group of experts to recommend to us a noise standard, or standards, for new railways, equivalent to that which exists for new roads. We published the report of the group--commonly known as the Mitchell committee--in February. Subject to the views that we received on the committee's regulations, we shall proceed with the regulations and present them to Parliament for scrutiny in due course, in the usual way. My next point concerns the intensified use of the lines that will take channel tunnel traffic initially. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich that any decision on a new rail link might or might not have consequences for the use of existing lines. That important point has not escaped the Government's attention, nor will it escape that of the House.

There is no doubt that there will be a sharp and significant increase in traffic, although the extent of that increase will vary from stretch to stretch along the existing routes. I well understand the special concern about the increase in freight traffic, much of which--although not all-- will run at night, for operational reasons.

Mr. Speed : From day one, in June 1993, every British Rail train going through the channel tunnel will travel

Column 345

from Ashford to Folkestone on tracks in my constituency and that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). When the high-speed rail link is built, two new lines will be placed alongside the existing Network SouthEast lines. At that stage--but, under the present law, at that stage only--my constituents, and those of my right hon. and learned Friend will be entitled to compensation and amelioration.

Will not that part of the line have a special problem? Wherever the other trains may go, it will carry all the existing traffic as well as that of the high-speed link.

Mr. Freeman : My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling would be the first to point out that, in terms of intensification of use, there is no difference in principle between the section of the existing railway line that runs through my hon. Friend's constituency and that which runs through his own constituency. There may be a different degree, but the principal point would apply to all stretches. However, I understand the specific problems of the stretch mentioned by my hon. Friend. On the section between Cheriton and Ashford on which the trains will run, BR expects the number of freight trains, international and domestic together, to build up to about 66 a day--24 hours--in 1995. That compares with 48 freight trains on an average day in 1990. Many of those were carrying materials for the construction of the channel tunnel, and that traffic has now largely disappeared. The 48 trains in 1990 were all relatively noisy diesel, hauled over jointed track, many of them with heavy axle load wagons. Elsewhere, the increases vary greatly, but the Government understand the intensification of the use and the problems that that brings, especially at night and with freight.

Although the extra traffic will not begin to run for another two years, it is important that we address the problem of mitigation of noise carefully and correctly now. I appreciate the point, expressed to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling on a number of occasions, that some of his constituents are having difficulty in selling their homes now, especially in the current housing market. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup made the same point, although in a wider context. I have a great deal of sympathy with the people who have been affected in this way and with my right hon. Friend's intentions. However, I have to say, although with some regret, that the Government are unable to accept his new clause. Before I take a more positive note at the end of my speech, I shall explain, in a reasoned fashion, why we cannot commend the new clause to the House.

The new clause would introduce an important new principle into the law. It would extend financial compensation for depreciation in the value of a property to situations involving the greater use of railways and, as the House must admit, in all frankness, other public works including roads. It is not possible to draw a hard and fast line between intensification on railways and that on roads. As I said, the new clause would extend the financial compensation provided under statutory powers without any works necessarily having taken place. Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, which deals with compensation for depreciation in value due to various physical factors, quite expressly excludes, in section 97,

Column 346

situations in which there is an intensification of an existing use. Therefore, it cannot apply if the amount of traffic on a road or a railway line increases.

As hon. Members will know, it has been a long-standing policy of successive Governments to make a clear distinction in this respect between the construction or alteration of public works and the intensification of use of existing works. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling made the fair point that the substantial and increased use of the existing railway line constitutes a new service and that that, combined with the work on the channel tunnel, constitutes a qualification under existing legislation. I understand the argument, which was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst on behalf of his local borough. However, that is not the legal advice given to the Department of Transport. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling went on to say that, irrespective of the legal advice, we should address the principal issue, and I shall now do that.

Sir John Stanley : It has nothing to do with legal advice. There is no question of anybody claiming that there is an entitlement to compensation under the law as it stands, so legal advice is a red herring. We have to address the issue of classification of the new works that should properly trigger entitlement to compensation. This is not intensification of existing use ; it is a multi-billion pound project, constructing the channel tunnel on one end, and linking the continental rail system with the British rail system. The parliamentary answer from my hon. Friend tells us that £700 million worth of new works have been entered into to enable the channel tunnel rail passenger and freight trains to exit the tunnel.

Mr. Freeman : If my right hon. Friend is not making that point, perhaps he will accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst is, on behalf of Bromley. It is a serious point that requires an answer. I have given the answer that, as legislation stands, the intensification of use-- no one denies that--would fall outwith the provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973.

7.15 pm

Moreover, to the best of my knowledge, there is no major international precedent for extending compensation to intensification of use in that way. Both the policy and the cost implications of any such change are considerable. They would need to be thought through fully and carefully before any provision of that kind could be considered. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling has argued that this is a permissive, not a mandatory, clause, but he will no doubt accept that there is no point in legislating unless Parliament wishes the powers to be used.

My right hon. Friend argued that the sudden and significant increase in traffic that will run on the lines in Kent between the channel tunnel and London creates a new and unforeseen situation, that it will be tantamount to the construction of a new line. But we must continue to draw a clear distinction between injurious affection or loss of enjoyment resulting from the carrying out of works, and loss of enjoyment resulting from a change in the use of a railway, a road, or some other public works. There are and will continue to be many other instances--even if less dramatic perhaps-- where the use of existing public works changes and people claim that they are adversely affected.

Column 347

The new clause would also make the Secretary of State responsible for paying any compensation, rather than the owner or manager of the public works in question. That would breach the important principle embodied in the Land Compensation Act and in this Bill, that if compensation is to be paid for depreciation, it should be paid by the responsible authority. It should be paid, in the case of a highway, by the highway authority, and in the case of a railway, by the owner and operator of the railway. There is in my view no justification for putting the burden of the net additional cost directly upon the taxpayer.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling spoke about aircraft noise. He will recall that I was his Parliamentary Private Secretary when he served with distinction as Minister of State for the Armed Services. He is right about the provisions to mitigate noise at airfields. The provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973 are being followed by the Ministry of Defence and my right hon. Friend was responsible for initiating that policy. I am advised that injurious compensation is triggered by major new works. He will recall that at Leeming new runways had to be laid and major new installations had to be built, and that that was the trigger for the payment. I can confirm that British Rail has the power to make ex gratia purchases of houses. Some of my hon. Friends will recall substantial purchases in Kent and in London connected with earlier plans for the channel tunnel link.

My right hon. Friend made an interesting point on insulation. He asked the Government to compare the consequences of rail noise and aircraft noise. The Government will study carefully the argument that he has deployed at greater length tonight than on any other occasion. It is an interesting and relevant argument, but not one that I will accept tonight.

Sir John Stanley : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, but I have to correct him on this essential point. I referred to the fact that, where civil aviation works are concerned, no new runway or extension of an existing runway is necessary to trigger injurious compensation. As he appeared to differ with what I said about RAF Leeming, I will read the answer that I received to my recent parliamentary question. I asked :

"what were the main works undertaken at RAF Leeming to enable the deployment of Tornado aircraft to take place there ; and whether they included any extension to the main runway."

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Armed Forces replied :

"The main works undertaken at RAF Leeming were associated with the upgrading of the Station's utilities, the enhancement of technical accommodation, married quarter developments and the construction of airfield survival measures, which included hardened aircraft shelters and command and control centres. The runway was resurfaced and re-profiled, but no extension work was undertaken."--[ Official Report, 15 May 1991 ; Vol. 191, c. 218. ]

In other words, there was no new runway. There was no extension of a runway. That is our central point. New works do not have to include a new runway to trigger injurious compensation in relation to aircraft noise.

Mr. Freeman : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his helpful contribution, which refreshed my memory and will help in our consideration of the comparison between aircraft and railway noise.

Column 348

I will conclude on a more positive note, by describing the eight steps that British Rail and the Government are taking and will take. They are not all of gigantic significance, but I hope that they will be taken in the constructive spirit in which I offer them. In drawing up this list, I tried to accommodate in particular the

representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich, who came to see me on a number of occasions.

First, the chairman of British Rail told me, after speaking with the chairman of Kent county council, that he is ready to discuss with that authority how British Rail can help, in the further measures that it has proposed, to alleviate the prospective increased noise for the homes that will be most affected.

As British Rail has no statutory obligation--and I stress that, because it is in exactly the same position as a highway authority in respect of a road that is used by more traffic and thus creates more noise--there is no statutory basis on which any such measures would be carried out. It will be up to British Rail and the local authority to agree on the most sensitive areas, type of measure to be taken, and financial arrangements. I hope that those discussions will begin soon, and I look forward to hearing how they progress. I am sure that, with good will and ingenuity, it should be possible to achieve some worthwhile alleviation for those most affected. I shall continue to take the closest personal interest in that aspect.

Secondly, at the end of next year British Rail hopes to demonstrate its new freight rolling stock, to show how quiet it will be in comparison with today's equipment. That may not persuade my right hon. Friend, but I intend to be present at that demonstration, and I hope that a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me. There will be new electric locomotives, the railway lines will be continuously welded, and there will be new electrified lines running through my right hon. Friend's constituency. They will be considerably quieter than at present.

Thirdly, later this year the Government will announce their views on the recommendations of the Mitchell committee on specific noise insulation standards for new railway lines, and will then prepare regulations to put those standards into effect. Fourthly, the Government are not ready to make a response to the various recommendations of the noise review working party, the Batho committee, on railway noise or on other types of transport noise, but we will respond in due course. We intend to commission research within our own departmental vote to assess whether the existing noise standards for new roads are still appropriate. If we decide as a result of that work that those standards ought to be changed, we will at the same time make a corresponding change in the standards applying to new railways.

Fifthly, I mentioned by implication the research that British Rail is undertaking at Derby into damping the noise arising from wheel on rail. If British Rail can usefully undertake any further research in that connection, the Department is prepared to consider whether it might qualify for some financial support under section 57 of the Transport Act 1968.

Sixthly, in some places, the throb of idling diesel locomotives can cause vibration and nuisance to householders. That was pointed out by three of my hon. Friends, who have witnessed the consequences of the noise emitted from a standing locomotive at night. I confirm that British Rail has a standing rule that diesel engine

Column 349

drivers should switch off their engines if they are brought to a halt and expect to be held up for more than 10 minutes. The House will have noted that British Rail has already ordered new, quieter electric locomotives.

As to fears of damage to houses by vibration, Kent county council agreed with British Rail that it is not practicable to deal with that aspect in advance of any development in the use made of a railway line. Each case must be considered on its merits. If someone complains to British Rail about vibration, BR will undertake a specific test at the location in question, and it has agreed with Kent county council to monitor the situation when the traffic on the lines increases. It is rare for vibration damage to occur, but the party causing the damage would be liable.

Finally, to counteract the fears that have been

expressed--understandably, though not always rationally--about the impact of channel tunnel trains on local housing markets, I plan to take steps to ensure that professional people, such as those working in estate agents and building societies, engaged in the selling and buying of properties near the railway lines are fully and accurately informed as to what is proposed, as opposed to what is rumoured. I do not belittle householders' fears and anxieties, but the facts should be as fully and widely known as possible, so that legitimate concern is not fed by exaggeration.

Next Section

Home Page