| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCYPROVISIONS) BILL [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified--
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 5OA(1)(a),
Question agreed to.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94E(5),
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Dr. Liam Fox.]
Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham):
I am most grateful to Madam Speaker for granting me this debate this evening. The House has heard over the past seven years a long and sorry catalogue of statements about the environmental impact of the channel tunnel rail link project across the fair county of Kent. Since 1988, blight has been with us, particularly in the borough of Gravesham, but also throughout Kent. The blight originally cut a swathe across my constituency by the villages of Istead Rise and New Barn. For two years, massive blight hit those areas, and British Rail ran a rather generous scheme of buy-out, which was invoked for dozens of properties.
In the autumn of 1990, a new announcement was made that the route would be switched to a line closely parallel with the A2. The new route affected a minimum of properties, some 10, at Henhurst road and Scalers hill in the parish of Cobham. The relevant railway promoter, British Rail's Union Railways subsidiary, showed considerable caution in the light of its previous massive compensation costs. Over the years, I have had to fight for every compensation and buy-out case. All have concerned domestic properties inhabited by their owners.
I have called the debate tonight because of two complex cases involving small businesses which have resulted in the collapse of the businesses, at great cost to the owners. Both cases have been aired before the Select Committee which is considering the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, but they represent such injustice to what may be termed
"little people" that I thought that the House should be made directly aware of them. I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads to find the means of giving early redress for loss arising directly out of the actions of what were then this country's nationalised industries--British Rail and its subsidiaries.
The first case relates to Mr. and Mrs. Colin Winzar of The Nook, Scalers hill, Cobham. The proposed line of the new route of the rail link went through their house, which was to be demolished by a deep cutting. They bought the property in September 1990, only one month before the announcement of the route. They secured the loan to buy it with a non-status mortgage over the property. Their intention to convert that mortgage to a standard one and to finance further business loans on the free equity of the house was frustrated, because all lenders viewed the property as blighted and effectively worthless as security for borrowings.
Mr. and Mrs. Winzar were at that time proprietors of two profitable companies, an industrial cleaning company and a company of stonemasons. They had contracts with, for example, the corporation of the City of London, Thames Water and a project on Middlesex guildhall, opposite this place across Parliament square. Their inability to raise finance meant that significant contracts were lost; borrowings were impossible; Union Railways refused to make any advance payments on a future purchase--so insurance policies were cashed in. However, all their attempts to keep the businesses going
failed, with the result that the companies ceased to trade in April 1995. Mr. and Mrs. Winzar now exist on income support, and suffer growing overdrafts.
The second case is that of Mr. and Mrs. Smith of Mallard cottage, Old Watling street, Cobham. Their house is also in the direct line of the route of the rail link. It will disappear into a wide cutting which is proposed for Ashenbank wood, a site of special scientific interest, the destruction of which would be a dreadful act of vandalism. Mr. and Mrs. Smith have occupied their property since 1987, and they had a thriving business importing and selling flowers wholesale. Their success led to expansion, and they planned to extend the property.
However, in late 1990 they planned to move the business elsewhere to have scope for expansion. They then found that their property was unsaleable because of the rail link blight. They also ran into business difficulties, due not least to the recession and to bad debts and also to the inflexibility of their property in being able to act as security for them to raise finance. That resulted in the company going into terminal decline.
Ironically, Union Railways--despite representations that I made at the time--would not come to an arrangement, because of the varied financial difficulties to which the company's own blight had contributed. As a result, the business has collapsed. Mr. Smith and his young family now exist on income support, with considerable debts around their necks. In both these cases, the families stood on their own feet and created small businesses of their own. They have been ruthlessly bulldozed on to the scrapheap by a massive national project--one could call it a pan-European project.
Because this is a novel project--it is the first major new railway in this country for more than 100 years--and because it is unprecedented in this century, the House has not made provision for cases such as this, which have had disastrous consequences for those two families. Two reports have been published on the side effects of the project--the ombudsman's report on the channel tunnel rail link and blight and the Select Committee's report on the rail link and exceptional hardship. The latter report states that it should be possible to distinguish a small number of cases of exceptional hardship.
In the two cases to which I have referred, it has been calculated that Mr. and Mrs. Winzar lost £450,000 between the forfeited house and incurred debts, while Mr. and Mrs. Smith lost some £235,000 on their home, plus a considerable sum in terms of their destroyed business. The House should look at the value of domestic properties for which provision is made for compensation and the total of their loss--including the debts incurred and the equity the families had in their businesses--and see that compensation is given.
Debates on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill in the House and on the channel tunnel rail link itself over many years have made it quite clear that there is an overwhelming majority on both sides of the House for the channel tunnel rail link project. So be it. If there is to be such a project, the full costs should be financed by the promoters--who are shortly to be identified--and even, if necessary, by the taxpayer if the House thinks that this is an excellent project. The House is not entitled to finance a massive project effectively at the expense of small householders and small business men who just have the immense bad luck to find that their properties are located in the direct path of the channel tunnel rail link.
The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts):
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House and for the eloquence and conviction with which he has presented the problems of his constituents, with which, I am sure, the whole House will have sympathy. I appreciate the concerns of property owners and businesses who are affected by major infrastructure projects such as the proposed channel tunnel rail link. Blight and compensation are difficult matters that have occupied the House to a considerable extent.
Parliament's most recent substantive consideration of the general law regarding compensation and blight was, of course, during the passage of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. As my hon. Friend is aware, generic issues such as compensation and blight are currently being considered by the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill Select Committee. The Committee has received a large number of petitions and has heard a great deal of evidence on the issues, including the representations made by my hon. Friend's constituents, that are the subject of tonight's debate.
The Committee will, of course, reach and announce its decisions on generic issues in relation to the Bill in due course. In what I have to say about the specific cases raised by my hon. Friend, I do not wish in any way to pre-empt the recommendations of the Committee or the decisions we shall reach in relation to those recommendations.
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State under that Act.--[Dr. Liam Fox.]
That the Bill be committed to a Special Standing Committee.--
[Dr. Liam Fox.]
Channel Tunnel Rail Link
10.29 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |