Previous Section Home Page

Column 415

Willetts, David

Wilshire, David

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Wolfson, Mark

Wood, Timothy

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Tellers for the Noes :

Mr. Michael Brown and

Mr. Derek Conway.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Henderson : I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 2, leave out lines 23 and 24.

Perhaps it is fortuitous that this issue is being discussed in a Committee of the whole House. It is encouraging to see that Conservative Members have begun to take an interest in proceedings on the Bill. Those of them who had other things to do yesterday evening would have been welcome to join us then and to make their views known on the important issues that affect businesses in their constituencies. Their decision to join us today, and at least to listen to the debate--perhaps even to participate in it--is welcome. Some of the things that I shall say may encourage them to join in the debate. I see a smile on the face of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), who is always keen to take part--indeed, he was the only Conservative Member who took part in the debate yesterday. This is a key amendment. There is considerable regret among Opposition Members that the Bill is not being debated in a way that would allow representations to be made by interested parties. The clause, and our amendment to it, represent the nub of the Bill. The clause allows the Secretary of State to make a judgment on how the level of transitional relief should relate to the rating pool and to decide whether any funding from central Government should be paid into that pool to compensate for any gaps caused by the relief that businesses may have been given.

8.45 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and the Minister of State have both claimed that if the Government introduce transitional relief they intend to top up the pool and to make good any losses arising. I am not one who necessarily distrusts commitments given by the aforesaid Ministers, but, as has already been pointed out, we can never be sure that they will still be in post by the time the Bill takes effect. Indeed, the Bill will have a long-term effect on business rates way beyond 1995. It is not good enough practice for Ministers simply to give commitments--although I am sure that those commitments will go some way towards warming the hearts of the businesses affected. Parliament is supposed to legislate and if the Minister believes that there is a case for topping up the rating pool, he, on behalf of the Government, should be prepared to say that in the event of transitional relief being granted the Government will top up the pool and add to the amount of public money available for local authorities to meet important needs all over the country. If we believe that there should be legislative backing to the Government's intention, it is important to press the amendment so that the commitment will be given and businesses around the country will be assured that the Government do not necessarily intend to reduce the funding available to meet the important needs of the community. If that is really the Government's position, there is a strong case for their accepting the amendment.

Column 416

Mr. Baldry : We may have a rather frustrating debate because the amendment does not do what the hon. Member thinks that it should do or that he wants it to do.

Mr. Vaz : Why?

Mr. Baldry : Because the hon. Gentleman has sought to explain in his speech what he had hoped that the amendment would do. Anybody who reads Hansard tomorrow will see that that was what he had hoped that it would do.

The effect of the amendment would be to deny the Government the power to make transitional arrangements after 1995 which included a measure of Exchequer support for businesses facing rate increases as a result of the revaluation. Any arrangement would therefore have to be self-financing, with the cost of any protection for losers having to be borne by the gainers.

The Committee does not need to be reminded that the 1990 transitional arrangements were originally self-financing. Ratepayers who were potential beneficiaries of the 1990 revaluation had their rate reductions limited to meet the cost of cushioning the effects of increases. Not surprisingly, that was unpopular with businesses and added considerably to the administrative complexity of the arrangements. We listened to the concerns of businesses and that was why we introduced the Non-Domestic Rating Act 1992 to provide £1.25 billion of Government support for the arrangements. The Act froze rate increases beyond the rate of inflation for 1992-93, while allowing greater reductions for businesses whose bills were being phased downwards.

Mr. Vaz : Why will not the Minister accept that there is a fundamental difference between what was proposed in 1992 and what is being proposed in this Bill?

Mr. Baldry : I am concerned about what is proposed in the amendment.

Further relief worth £550 million was provided by the Non-Domestic Rating Act 1993 and, as we have made clear, this Bill provides further assistance. The Bill is entirely consistent with what we have sought to do in the past couple of years in providing support for the business community. The amendment would deny the Government the chance to make regulations giving further relief to businesses in 1995-96 and beyond should that appear to us to be necessary.

Mr. Vaz : I refer the Under-Secretary to what his hon. Friend said yesterday. I realise that he was not in the House, but at column 197 of Hansard, the Minister makes it quite clear that the scheme to be used has not yet been devised. Therefore, the amendment moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) does not mitigate against the scheme because the scheme itself has not been designed.

Mr. Baldry : That is why I began my comments on the amendment by saying that I thought that we were going to have a somewhat frustrating debate. The amendment does not propose anything that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North suggests, because it would remove the provision which would allow the Government to make the transitional arrangements that are not self-financing. I am sure that businesses would be interested to know if the Opposition were seeking to prevent us entirely from helping businesses with their rates by that means.

Column 417

We can always come back to Parliament with further Bills such as this Bill each year, but if the aim of the amendment is to ensure that decisions on any such funding are given parliamentary scrutiny, I can assure hon. Members that any transitional arrangements that we make after 1995 are already required by the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. There would be a full opportunity for hon. Members to consider any proposals carefully and there is no question that the arrangements could be used to increase the burden of rates on businesses, so we would not expect the regulations to prove contentious.

Mr. Vaz : How can the Minister expect Labour Members to accept any of his assurances when we bear in mind the fact that the Bill is being rushed through the House at record speed? How can we accept assurances that we will have the opportunity to scrutinise the complex regulations in the future when he has treated the House with such contempt over the past two days?

Mr. Baldry : The hon. Gentleman cannot quite keep a straight face when asking that question. As I have just explained, the statutory provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 oblige us to bring the measures before the House. That is a much more practicable way in which to deal with the matters than the administrative complexity and timetabling problems with further full-blown Bills. I remind hon. Members that businesses and local authorities will be looking for clear and early notice of any decisions that could affect rates bills. The simpler and faster the procedure, the more easily it is likely to be achieved. Flexibility is therefore essential. An amendment which would remove the provision that allows the Government to make transitional arrangements which are not self- financing would reassure businesses.

Mr. Betts : The Minister referred to the frustrating nature of the debate. Is not the greatest frustration that he keeps saying that there will be no occasion on which the shortfall in the business rate pool will not be made up by Government? If that is the case, why does not he cut across the Bill and give a commitment to legislate to that effect? What is the problem? There has never been any explanation of why the Bill cannot be drafted to achieve that. Why, if the Under-Secretary does not believe that our amendment achieves that commitment, does not he propose another amendment instead?

Mr. Baldry : To use a rather legalistic phrase, we have given those undertakings during the debate on occasions too numerous to particularise. My hon. Friend the Minister and I have sought to explain that it would not benefit the business community to seek to proscribe the scheme that we may introduce after 1995 until we have consulted. We have made it perfectly clear time after time that we would not expect council tax payers to bear the cost if the pool had to be topped up. Little short of putting it in bright lights, I am not sure what more we can do. Nor, with respect, do I think that the more times that we say it the more it will impact on hon. Members. It is clear that the whole debate about powers and duties was a spurious debate in an attempt to keep business going yesterday. There is no validity in it and the amendment does not seek to address that point.

Column 418

I hope that the Committee recognises that the amendment does not do what it is even intended to do. It would remove the provisions which would allow the Government to make transitional arrangements that are not self-financing and would not be to the advantage of the business community.

Mr. Henderson : I had some doubts about whether we should proceed with the two final amendments because they deal with matters of fairly general concern which could have been covered partially on Second Reading with the remaining points being taken up on Third Reading. I am glad that I proceeded with amendment No. 6 because we have scratched a surface and exposed a flaw in the Bill.

If I understand the Minister correctly, he does not accept the sentiment of my argument in support of the amendment. He does not accept that there should be a provision which requires the Government to top up the rating pool in the event of transitional relief being given to certain businesses. He gave a commitment that he would do so next year, but he made it clear that he does not feel required to make such a provision.

9 pm

Mr. Baldry : As I said, this is going to be a frustrating debate. The amendment goes nowhere near achieving the hon. Gentleman's intentions. If he is asking me to undertake that if in future there is a need to top up the scheme the Government will do so, if that were the means we used, we have already given that undertaking. My hon. Friend the Minister and I made that clear and anyone who reads yesterday's Hansard will see that undertaking being given on a number of occasions. The amendment has nothing to do with that. As drafted, it simply removes the Government's ability to do exactly that. Indeed, it makes the task that the hon. Gentleman wants us to perform much more difficult. The amendment would oblige the gainers to pay for the losers. That is not a sensible way to proceed.

Mr. Henderson : I am pleased that the Minister intervened in my speech because he now appears to be clarifying his earlier remarks.

Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva (Brentford and Isleworth) : On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. On a matter which the Labour party has claimed to be so important, I find it outrageous that only one Labour Member is on the Back Benches.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : Order. The hon. Gentleman is reasonably new to the Hous but he has been here long enough to know that that is not a point of order for the Chair. [ Hon. Members :-- "But what he said is true."] Order. It is not a point of order for the Chair, whether or not it is true.

Mr. Henderson : I have always found contributions from Tory Members more helpful before they have their dinner than after it. That has been confirmed again this evening.

If I understand the Minister correctly, he is saying that in any future year when transitional relief is given to businesses, any moneys that are lost to the rating pool because of that transitional relief will be made good by central Government finance and that will be in addition to the aggregate external financing limit. I am assuming that I have been given that commitment by the Minister unless

Column 419

he again intervenes to correct any misunderstanding. I should be happy to give way to him if he believes that I have misunderstood his position.

Mr. Baldry : I am not sure how often it will be necessary for us to put this on the record. I had hoped that if we had a sensible debate yesterday it could be accepted first time round. As we did not have a sensible debate and this was the only point that the hon. Gentleman could run yesterday, he is obviously having to make something of it again today.

Let me make the point again. Let us suppose that in due course we design, as we may well do, a scheme for some future year which is not fully self- financing. The hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that the amendment would make that more difficult, but let us leave that to one side. Clearly, this would leave a shortfall in local authority revenue, which would need to be made up in one way or another. Clearly, it would be inappropriate for the council tax payer to bear that shortfall. In those circumstances, the Government would anticipate making up that sum. That is what we have said time and time again.

Of course, the most obvious way would indeed be to top up the rating pool by a compensating amount. That is what we have done for the past two years and what we propose to do for 1994-95, but it is not the only conceivable option. For example, we could decide instead to give local government as a whole a larger amount of revenue support grant than it would otherwise receive. [ Hon. Members-- : "Oh!"] Of course, that would compensate local government by another route, but it would not fall to the cost of either the council tax payer or local government. I am not sure how many more times it will be necessary to make that clear before Labour Members understand the point. I do not think that I can put it more clearly than that. I am sure that any reasonable person who reads Hansard from yesterday and today will see how clearly we have made the point. If the hon. Gentleman takes the matter further, it will demonstrate that this is not a serious debate but merely an attempt to take a bad point further, as was done yesterday.

Mr. Henderson : I assure the House that this is not an attempt to prolong the debate. Indeed, the debate is guillotined--there is no way that we can prolong it beyond 10 o'clock. The only reason why I am sticking to this point is that I want it to be absolutely clear. Yesterday, there was some confusion about the Government's intention. Even a Tory Back Bencher who came in to listen to a small part of the debate was confused.

If the Government are so firm in their response--I welcome their response, which has clarified their position--it would be better if they wrote that into the Bill. I assure the Minister that I will be watching to see what happens next year if transitional relief is granted. In subsequent years, if I am in the same post, I will be watching from this Front Bench. If I am on the Back Benches, I will still be watching.

Councils around the country will be watching to see that there is no camouflage by the Government in an attempt to reduce the amount of the revenue support grant before the announcement on transitional relief is made, only to restore it to what councils would have had to compensate for the relief given to the rating pool. If transitional relief is

Column 420

granted, I hope that the pool will be topped up by a genuine increase in resources which will be made available to councils by the Exchequer through the Department of the Environment.

My exchange with the Minister demonstrates the importance of having a gap between the Second Reading and the Committee stage so that there is more time for representative organisations to lobby Members of the House and for hon. Members to examine perhaps in more detail the implications of the wording of any amendments that they table. That demonstrates the point made by Labour Members in this debate. Based on the commitment given by the Minister, and based on some of the doubt about the wording of the amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Order for Third Reading read.--

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

9.8 pm

Mr. Curry : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I was taken aback because I knew that Labour Members were anxious to give the Bill a profound scrutiny and I had not expected such rapid progress. Undoubtedly, debate on the technical clauses is proceeding apace on the trains heading out of London tonight. This is an excellent Bill, which is in time. [ Hon. Members :-- "He has forgotten his notes."] I can manage without notes, thank you very much.

The Bill will enable local authorities to get bills out on time, which has not happened for various reasons in previous years. It is to the benefit of business, particularly small business, and it helps those in areas which are worst affected. The Bill continues the Government's pledge to moderate what was a difficult transition following the re-rating in 1990.

The Bill also looks to the future, and we know that there will be a new rating in 1995. That will be based upon facts which are being collected at the moment, and if that creates turbulence, clearly we will have to tackle it. The Bill gives us the means to do so. When we do that, we will put before the House the measures which we will take. Any shortfall in the financial pool will be made up from public funds. The Government have made that clear, and I have made that clear before.

In the past, the Opposition have been happy to welcome and support the Bill and, in practice, they do not have it in their heart today to oppose it. I think that Opposition Members know that it is right and necessary to create help for small business. It is important that the parties should be seen to be united on the matter, which is of great importance. The measure is opportune and the help is necessary. The small businesses which we are talking about in the centres of towns--particularly in London and the south east, which are the areas worst affected--will welcome the measure. Local authorities will welcome it, as will the business community and its representatives. It is important that the measure be right and in time. We have ensured this and I commend the measure to the House.

Column 421

9.12 pm

Mr. Henderson : Proceedings have moved with such alacrity that hon. Members can forget where they are on the detail of the Bill. The Opposition are concerned about the way in which the Bill has been dealt with in the House. We are happy that the question of business rates has been dealt with earlier in the parliamentary cycle and we are happy that Second Reading took place in January. We are not happy, and we are extremely worried, that the Government forced through the measure without due concern for the representations which might have been made by concerned parties on the impact of the Bill. All along, the Opposition have been intent on making sure that the democratic processes take place in the House-- [Interruption.]

Mr. Vaz : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) has been in the House for two days on the Bill. He is trying to make his Third Reading speech, and there is a lot of frivolity on the Government Front Bench. Perhaps they would like to listen to what my hon. Friend is saying.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : Order. I have noticed the frivolity. If that is the case, I am sure that the Minister will listen to what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Curry : It is very rare that we derive frivolity from the hon. Gentleman. On the few occasions we do, we are most grateful for it.

Mr. Henderson : It is so pleasing to see Government Members with smiling faces for a change. When I see frivolity among Ministers, I begin to wonder who it is that they are talking about who raises laughter and humour among them. It is pleasing to see that there is still lightness among Government Members.

We said yesterday on Second Reading that we wanted to conduct real arguments about the Bill, and that is what we did. It was not the wish of the Opposition that a guillotine motion be moved. The 10 o'clock motion was not moved last night because the Government neither had the confidence of its Back Benchers to proceed with the Bill, nor sufficient confidence in themselves to face the arguments in a session which may have lasted for a few hours.

The way in which the Bill has been dealt with in Committee demonstrates that the Opposition made the arguments expeditiously and moved through the Bill expressing our opposition. We have done so in a way with which the procedures of the House have coped easily. It has taken no more than about two hours to deal with the Committee stage and Third Reading since discussion of the guillotine motion finished.

The matter could have been dealt with yesterday if the Government were intent on dealing with all stages of the Bill in one day. Our position is that it negates many of the democratic processes in the House and in the country to deal with the Bill in one day. But if the Government wanted to deal with the Bill in one day, it would have been possible for that to happen. The reason why it did not happen was the Government's lack of confidence and because they wanted to scupper some of the debate that

Column 422

might have taken place today on the national health service. They were frightened to come to the House to deal with that matter. I know that you will want me to dwell on the Bill rather than the Government's fear of the House of Commons, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Opposition support the purpose of the Bill. We recognise that transitional relief needs to be granted to businesses because of the way in which the current structure of business rates has been introduced and the way in which transitional relief has been granted.

Business will judge whether the size of the relief is appropriate in the circumstances this year. Business will be extremely disappointed that it has not had full consultation with the Government on the economic circumstances that it faces and on what relief might have been helpful.

Many of us are suspicious of clause 3 of the Bill. Although the Government confirmed in Committee earlier this evening that if transitional relief were given, the rating pool would be topped up in a real sense, they are still opposed to putting that commitment in the Bill. That demonstrates to the House that the Government will not necessarily increase the aggregate external financial limit to take into account any need to top it up because relief has been given. The Opposition will not oppose the Third Reading of the Bill because we want to see business in Britain receive the relief which it believes at least partly helps it in the present difficult economic circumstances. However, democracy in the country and in the House would have been better protected if, through the usual channels, the Government had dealt with the Bill in a sensible, workmanlike way--the way in which the matter has been dealt with in past years. The Bill is much more complicated than the legislation of the past two years. It deals with structural, not merely financial, issues. That is why the matter needs much wider debate than in past years. It would have been better if the Government had been able to take account of representations that might have been made by organisations throughout the country and by Members of Parliament.

9.23 pm

Mr. Betts : The debate has been important because it has allowed us to raise in the House the real fears about the finance of local government and the part that the business rate plays within that. It has allowed hon. Members to draw attention to the fact that, because the business rate has been centralised and because central Government have taken over raising that rate and fixing the poundage, the amount of local finance that is directly under the control of local authorities has been substantially reduced. That has led to the problem of gearing.

The impact on the council tax of any increase in expenditure that a local authority wants to undertake, within the cap limits that the Government lay down, is multiplied several times because the council tax, which is the only part of their revenue in which local authorities have flexibility, is only a small part of the revenue available to local authorities. If the business rate were transferred to local authorities, that situation would be substantially amended and that would be to the benefit of the local authorities, democracy and accountability.

During the debate, we have been able to explore the reasons for the Government's decision to take over control

Column 423

of the business rate as part of their general approach--taking powers from local authorities and restricting their freedom of operation, including the freedom to provide local services that their communities vote for and want to be provided.

We have had a substantial discussion of the Government's intentions and of whether we can believe and trust ministerial assurances given now that if there are shortfalls in the pool of business rate money, because of transitional arrangements introduced by the Government, they will automatically compensate local authorities for that shortfall and will ensure that council tax payers and the recipients of local services will not be in any way disadvantaged because of the effects of those arrangements.

Throughout the debate, Opposition Members have tried to persuade Ministers to realise that an assurance given now may not be worth anything in two years' time if circumstances or Ministers change. We simply cannot take on trust that that assurance will always be honoured. We have, therefore, invited Ministers to change the legislation to include the word "shall" instead of "may". That seems a very small change.

If Ministers keep telling us that they have no intention other than to compensate local authorities for any loss in the pool because of transitional arrangements, why do they not write that into the legislation? That question has been asked many times, but I have not heard a clear and simple answer. Only a few moments ago, the Under-Secretary of State sought to explain that, as the transitional arrangements were not fixed and could vary from year to year, the legislation could not include a commitment to compensate in a particular way for any losses because of those arrangements. I simply do not accept that and he did not explain why it was the case-- [Hon. Members :-- "Yes, he did."] No, it was a non sequitur. A Bill could prescribe compensation for local authorities and contain a commitment to compensate while not prescribing the form of transitional arrangements. The two are not linked.

The Under-Secretary did not explain why the fact that the transitional arrangements were not prescribed in the legislation meant that no commitment to compensate could be written into it. However, he also let the cat out of the bag. Throughout the debate, Ministers have implied that compensation will be provided by the Government topping up the pool, as they intend to do in 1994-95 when £90

Column 424

million will be paid in directly. The Government have given the impression that future compensation will always be provided in that way.

However, the Under-Secretary of State said something else. He said that compensation, to make up any loss in the business rate, might be given by increasing the revenue support grant to local authorities and that that would have no impact on council tax payers or the recipients of council services. He is absolutely wrong, because revenue support grant is paid out under a different system and by different allocations from those of the business rate. The latter is paid on a per capita basis, while the revenue support grant is paid out according to the standard spending assessment system ; the two are not the same. If there were another £90 million shortfall in the pool and the Government made it up by compensating local authorities through a £90 million increase in revenue support grant rather than compensating the pool directly, the total impact on local government would be the same, but the impact on each authority would be different. That means of compensation would, therefore, have a consequence, which is what we have been arguing throughout. We want an assurance that that will not happen to be written into the legislation.

Furthermore, when the Government tell us that there is a £90 million shortfall in the pool because of their transitional arrangements but they will not top it up because they have already given that sum of money in the revenue support grant announced in the autumn, how do we know that that is the case? The Government could come along at any time and say that they do not need to top up the pool because they have already included £90 million, or whatever the sum is for that year, in the previously announced revenue support grant.

Frankly, that is not transparent. The Government will be able to claim that they have carried out their commitments as promised, but will merely be pretending that the compensation has been paid. It is difficult to accept ministerial assurances tonight when we know that they could devise a future system that made it unclear whether those assurances had been met.

It would have been much simpler if the Government had accepted, right at the start, the need to include in the Bill a promise always to compensate for any shortfall by topping up the pool. If that had happened, the debate could have been concluded many hours ago. The Government could have got their way, but, equally, local authorities and the recipients of their services could have been assured that future transitional arrangements would not adversely affect their council tax or the services that local people receive.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Column 425

Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Compensation)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Conway.]

9.25 pm

Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) : This is the fifth occasion on which I have detained the House on the question of entitlements to compensation under the Land Compensation Act 1973 for those with properties alongside the existing designated railway routes to the channel tunnel. I hope that this will be the fifth and last occasion on which I shall do so, which I am sure will be a relief to the House and will be a not inconsiderable relief to myself.

The designated rail routes are for passengers and freight through Kent on the Maidstone East line and the Tonbridge line running up to Waterloo, where the new international terminal has been constructed. In addition, there is a designated freight route going from Tonbridge through Surrey to Redhill and round the south and west of London. I am raising this issue again tonight for two reasons. First, because it has a real immediacy. We are now some four months away from the opening of the channel tunnel. There is no doubt that when it is opened in May, those with homes alongside the designated freight and passenger routes will suffer considerable deterioration in their living and, in particular, their sleeping environment. Many of those lines are lightly used during the night, if at all. With the gradual build up of channel tunnel traffic, particularly freight traffic during the night, it is possible that individuals will find the channel tunnel international freight trains going past their bedroom windows approximately once every 15 minutes during the night hours. Therefore, we are talking about the real prospect of a considerable deterioration in those people's environments. The position that they face is unhappily one that will continue for the foreseeable future, because the new high speed line is still years away from construction. Even after that, in accordance with Government plans and statements, the overwhelming proportion of freight will continue to travel on the existing designated channel tunnel rail route to which I have referred. It would be very surprising therefore if there was not some impact on the property values of those homes alongside those designated routes, which is why compensation is now a matter of such immediacy.

I raise this issue for a second and even more crucial reason, because having examined most closely the legal background, I am in no doubt that the legal basis on which Ministers previously made statements about the application of the Land Compensation Act to this issue was incorrect. My first reference point for that opinion is the previous full debate that we had on this matter on 19 June 1991, when I moved what was new clause 16 to the Planning Compensation [Lords] Bill. I endeavoured, along with some of my hon. Friends, and I am glad to say with the support of those on the Opposition Front Bench and members of the Liberal party, to secure new powers to enable compensation to be paid in the circumstances I have outlined. My right hon. Friend, in responding to that debate, said : "Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, which deals with compensation for depreciation in value due to various physical

Column 426

factors, quite expressly excludes, in section 9(7) 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."--[ Official Report, 19 June 1991 ; Vol. 193, c. 345-6.] My right hon. Friend left the House with a clear view that the Department's legal advice was that there could be no application of injurious affection compensation under the Land Compensation Act to the properties alongside the designated routes to the channel tunnel.

I have harboured some considerable doubts about the validity of that interpretation, and in recent months the local authorities concerned, at my instigation, have sought counsel's opinion on that issue. Counsel has been instructed, and a leading planning and compensation barrister, Mr. Gregory Stone, at Gray's Inn, has furnished an opinion on that point, which I have with me this evening, and from which he has given me his permission to quote.

Mr. Stone is in no doubt that it is going to be possible to claim injurious affection compensation under the Land Compensation Act 1973 in the context of the substantial reconstruction and alteration of the existing designated rail routes to the channel tunnel. I shall first put the basis of his legal argument in my own words--no doubt somewhat inadequately--but will then give the House the benefit of the exact quotation from his opinion.

The statement of my right hon. Friend in the debate in June 1991 was in relation to section 9(7) of the Act, which reads as follows : "For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that references in this section to a change of use do not include references to the intensification of an existing use."

That reference must be seen against the three heads of claim under which injurious affection can be claimed, which are detailed in section 9(1). Those heads of claim are listed in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). We can leave aside paragraph (a), because that relates to claims in relation to highways, about which we are not concerned here. Claims under paragraphs (b) and (c) can both apply to railways.

Head of claim (c) reads :

"there has been a change of use in respect of any public works other than a highway or aerodrome."

The House will appreciate that the use of the phrase "a change of use" in head of claim (c) effectively makes it impossible, because of the qualification in section 9(7), to make a claim under that head. However, the critical point is the wording of head of claim (b), which reads :

"any public works other than a highway have been reconstructed, extended or otherwise altered after they have been first used". The critical point is that the phrase "a change of use" does not appear in head of claim (b) and therefore claims under (b) are not qualified by subsection (7) to which the Minister referred in his June 1991 speech.

Now I shall give the House the benefit of Mr. Gregory Stone's opinion on the crucial point. He summarises succinctly and in proper legal form what I have just said in two key paragraphs of his opinion. He says :

Next Section

  Home Page