---

Column 301

it is interesting to note that, during the Third Reading debate in another place, all those who spoke referred to the concerns that had been raised in Committee and on Second Reading about the intensification of use, its environmental effects and its negative effect on people's houses. They asked that those effects should be taken into account by the Government and by British Rail during the further stages of the Bill, so it is wholly reasonable that precisely that issue should be emphasised now.

Some progress has been made and the Government have responded. I will summarise some of the steps in that progress. The Minister for Public Transport has made it clear--he confirmed it again today--that he and the Secretary of State accept that intensification of use of existing railway lines will pose a problem when the channel tunnel opens and that he would consider that problem carefully. I am grateful to him for confirming that again today.

The House of Lords Select Committee on the British Railways (No. 3) Bill concluded that, just as the Mitchell committee had been established to examine noise from new railway lines, a similar study should be undertaken into noise arising from intensification of use. The Committee's conclusion makes it clear that this is an issue of real import.

The recommendation of the Department of the Environment's noise review working party in 1990 was that

"consideration should be given to extending the regulations about the insulation of residential property against railway noise so as to include householders affected by the significant intensification of use of a railway line which could not reasonably have been foreseen."

Surely there is common agreement that for people who bought houses along many points of this line the intensification that they now face could not reasonably have been foreseen.

I refer to the Mitchell committee's recent report which has already been mentioned. Its conclusion was

"to recommend to the Secretary of State for Transport a national noise insulation standard for new railway lines."

We are asking for that insulation standard to be extended to intensification of use.

In this debate, as in the debate on the Compensation and Planning Bill, it is arguable whether we are talking about intensification of use on existing lines or whether the capital investment put into the lines plus the opening of the channel tunnel--the biggest ever infrastructure project in Europe-- constitutes a new line with new traffic, operating in a wholly different way from anything that has happened before.

I ask for a narrower point than my hon. Friend the Minister is prepared to accept. I ask that the channel tunnel routes between London and Folkestone should be accepted as unique in terms of the volume of and increase in night-time traffic by rail. That is a major difference compared with routes in other parts of the country. I also ask that British Rail should be asked to confirm the lack of an equivalent level of night-time traffic elsewhere and should be asked whether similar increases are expected elsewhere in the next five years. That is a key measure of whether the situation in Kent and south-east London is unique.

Kent county council has put in an immense amount of work over the past three to four years on achieving sensible noise standards. I suggest that the Kent authority's noise standards should form the basis of any

---

Column 302

noise scheme unless we get subsequent national noise regulation standards which would obviously be better than the local ones. British Rail should produce a noise action scheme which would concentrate first on protection by barriers and by insulation. Many examples of that exist on the continent, so we do not have to reinvent the wheel. We can use experience from abroad, evaluate the costs and know that such methods work. The noise action scheme should also include provision for compensation by monetary payments for the loss in value to which so many speakers have referred.

The Secretary of State should go further and require British Rail to implement an agreed scheme for a specifically defined area. If he did that, it would do much to restore confidence among people in Kent and south-east London, and it would help them to accept the fact that the benefits of an effective rail freight scheme are real and can help environmentally, as well as provide the right and proper method by which to move as much freight as possible on the railway lines between the channel tunnel and the rest of the country.

I am not against the intentions of the Bill, but I am dissatisfied with the fact that it still does not provide my constituents and those of all the other Kent and south-east London Members--other areas of the country could also be affected at a later state--with reasonable protection and compensation.

9.23 pm

Mr. Thorne : With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that we have had an extremely useful debate on an important matter. The debate has been extremely constructive in that everyone has welcomed the need for providing a rail link to the coast. The major source of disagreement has been the question of compensation, and I shall deal with that in a few moments. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) asked a question about the Networker which was answered by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) was especially concerned about compensation, and the fact that there was virtually a new line, even if it might run on old rails--or, rather, run where the old rails used to be. He said that that circumstance should give rise to a special form of compensation.

We have to take two factors into account. We must accept that this is a national problem, and is not limited simply to railway lines. Roads, too, can be affected, and we run into serious difficulty in determining exactly where to draw the line. I do not say that that cannot be done, but national legislation is not now in place because of that difficulty.

Perhaps what my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) said about Kent county council's work on standards could represent a foundation upon which something could be worked out. It is a difficult problem, and we must make it clear that we cannot consider compensation in isolation ; we must deal with all forms of transport, not just one.

Sir John Stanley : National legislation is in place for civil airports and military airfields, where public works leading to intensification of use trigger entitlements to compensation. The problem is that British Rail has chosen--arbitrarily, I suggest--to align railways with roads

---

Column 303

rather than with airports. The provisions exist ; they are on the statute book and are administered by the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Thorne : British Rail is going to considerable lengths to discuss the matter at a high level with Kent county council. We accept that the county council has done a considerable amount of work in the past few years.

There is no doubt that there are statutory provisions that apply to new railway lines, but we are talking specifically about lines being used more intensively. We must await the outcome of the discussions between British Rail and Kent county council to see whether there is a basis on which to work. Nevertheless, we must be careful not to treat one section of the community differently from others. Real problems arise on the road network, and it would be wrong if people affected by them were not taken care of in the same way.

The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) was concerned about sleepers. I know that he and one or two of his colleagues have had problems travelling on the sleeper to and from their constituencies. The right hon. Gentleman felt that British Rail had broken an undertaking, but I do not believe that it has. British Rail gave an undertaking to consider the matter after the electrification of the line to see whether the service could be made viable. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not dream of suggesting that British Rail should lay on a sleeper service especially for Members of Parliament. That would be entirely wrong. The service has to be financially viable, and I believe that British Rail has considered the matter.

Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks, raised the question of blight, with special reference to the value of property being seriously affected. I know that that can happen ; it has happened in my own constituency. Conversely, where blight is lifted, the opposite can happen. I knew of a number of houses that were blighted because a flyover was to be built over a roundabout. When it was decided to re-route the road, the value of the properties affected increased by 50 per cent. overnight. So I know that it happens, but, nevertheless, we must ensure that we can cater for all those who lose and not just for one group, particularly when the funding is then thrown upon the users of the route. It would not be fair to pick some people out for special treatment. We must be consistent, and that is why this is a national matter which will clearly have to be resolved in due course.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) was anxious to have a cast-iron assurance regarding compensation and blight purchase. I am afraid that I cannot give him any cast-iron assurances, but I can assure him that every possible attempt will be made to arrive at an amicable agreement on this point between Kent county council--and, for that matter, the London boroughs, should they so wish--and British Rail.

The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) welcomed the Bill, and I was pleased to receive support from the Opposition Benches. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the fact that the Bill is essential to northern England and Scotland. That is absolutely true. We must accept that certain inconvenience

---

Column 304

will be caused, and that is why we must go to great lengths to try to ensure that those who are inconvenienced by the extra use are not unduly out of pocket as a result.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport replied to many of the questions that were raised, and I do not want to repeat what he said.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) also referred to the question of intensification, and felt that if, as a result of the Bill, our rail system were connected to the European system, a new line would be involved. That is an interesting point, but it must also apply to roads, and we must try to identify exactly how what is proposed can be made separate and special. My hon. Friend also referred to the question of the blight, and I am grateful to him for acknowledging British Rail's sensitivity in trying to deal with the matter. My hon. Friend's suggestion of setting up an agency as the purchaser of last resort was noted by my hon. Friend the Minister, and it is to be hoped that we shall hear a little more about that in due course. Nevertheless, blight is a great worry to those trapped in such circumstances.

Mr. Moate : My hon. Friend was trying to be helpful in saying that efforts would be made to reach agreement between the local authorities concerned and British Rail with regard to compensation or forms of noise protection--I am not sure which. Earlier, however, he said that he felt that the matter had to be dealt with on a national basis. There is a problem in reconciling those two propositions. I wonder whether my hon. Friend can encourage me to think that British Rail is ready to make an undertaking to extend the scope of the committee with Kent county council to include compensation--or is that too optimistic?

Mr. Thorne : I think that my hon. Friend is being a little too optimistic, as he suggests. The matter will certainly be discussed in Committee, and any undertakings that are sought can be more properly directed in that way. I was referring to two separate issues--on the one hand, the Bill and the way in which British Rail is trying to reach agreement on compensation or sound-proofing--it is one thing or the other-- and, on the other, belief that, ultimately, we must find a national yardstick by which we can determine whether compensation should be paid. If we do not have a national yardstick, there will tend to be enormous variations and much criticism from different parts of the country about the fact that they have been dealt with in different ways.

There has been a great deal of agreement about the Bill. I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading tonight, and that it will make progress in Committee.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time : The House divided : Ayes 210, Noes 10.

Division No. 214] [9.39 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Alton, David

Anderson, Donald

Ashby, David

Aspinwall, Jack

Atkins, Robert

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Beggs, Roy

Bellingham, Henry

Bermingham, Gerald

Bevan, David Gilroy

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Blair, Tony

Boswell, Tim

Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Brazier, Julian

Bright, Graham

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

---

Column 305

Budgen, Nicholas

Burt, Alistair

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Carr, Michael

Carrington, Matthew

Cash, William

Chapman, Sydney

Chope, Christopher

Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Cormack, Patrick

Cox, Tom

Cryer, Bob

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Dalyell, Tam

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Dover, Den

Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Durant, Sir Anthony

Emery, Sir Peter

Fearn, Ronald

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Flynn, Paul

Fookes, Dame Janet

Forman, Nigel

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Freeman, Roger

French, Douglas

Fry, Peter

Gale, Roger

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Golding, Mrs Llin

Goodlad, Alastair

Gordon, Mildred

Gorst, John

Graham, Thomas

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Ground, Patrick

Hague, William

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Harris, David

Haselhurst, Alan

Hawkins, Christopher

Hayes, Jerry

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Haynes, Frank

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Hill, James

Home Robertson, John

Howells, Geraint

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Illsley, Eric

Irvine, Michael

Jack, Michael

Jackson, Robert

Janman, Tim

Janner, Greville

Jessel, Toby

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Kilfedder, James

Kilfoyle, Peter

Kirkhope, Timothy

Knapman, Roger

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Knowles, Michael

Lamond, James

Latham, Michael

Lawrence, Ivan

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Lightbown, David

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Lord, Michael

Loyden, Eddie

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

McAvoy, Thomas

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Maclean, David

McLoughlin, Patrick

McMaster, Gordon

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Malins, Humfrey

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Maxton, John

Meale, Alan

Michael, Alun

Mills, Iain

---