House of Commons Hansard Debates for 14 Dec 1995 (pt 30)

10.2 pm

Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling): When I had my previous Adjournment debate on the subject of blight and compensation in relation to channel tunnel trains, I earnestly hoped that it would be my last debate on that subject. I assume that my hon. Friend the Minister took the same view, especially as the debate began at 6.53 in the morning. Unhappily, I am obliged to return to that key issue, because important issues remain unresolved. Indeed, a major new issue has emerged since I brought the subject before the House.

I wish to raise three specific issues. The first is the well-worn topic that I have been addressing for more than four years--the extent to which the provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973 apply to existing lines to the channel tunnel, on which very major works have taken place to enable them to accommodate both passenger and freight trains.

I have consistently argued that that Act applies to at least some areas of the existing lines, and that interpretation has been endorsed by counsel, Mr. Gregory Stone, on behalf of the local authorities concerned. I believe that it was also endorsed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who was then Minister for Public Transport, because of what he said in response to my Adjournment debate on 13 January 1994. I will not repeat what was said in that debate, apart from quoting again from the letter I received from Bob Horton, the chairman of Railtrack, on 19 September 1994. The chairman took a very different view from that of myself, Gregory Stone and the Minister concerned. Mr. Horton said:

"We could probably debate indefinitely the interpretation of the words that appear in Hansard. Railtrack's position is clear: even if the Minister was accepting on behalf of the Government that the Land Compensation Act 1973 does entitle those living near existing railway lines used by Channel Tunnel traffic to claim compensation (subject to proving diminution in value), Railtrack does not agree with that interpretation of the Act. I am afraid, therefore, that Railtrack will continue to resist these claims".--[Official Report, 15 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 1292.]

Railtrack's apparent conclusion in September 1994 was that it would resist all claims for injurious affectation compensation under the Land Compensation Act 1973 from properties anywhere along the existing lines to the channel tunnel from Waterloo to Cheriton, and through either the Tonbridge line or the Maidstone East line.

In the ensuing months, it appears that there has been a change in Railtrack's position with a view to its legal responsibilities. Unhappily, Railtrack has been extraordinarily unforthcoming in making public its change of view. The first indication which I picked up that it had changed its view was in the letter I received from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on 24 July this year, in which my right hon. Friend said:

"Railtrack contend that the vast majority of the engineering works carried out on existing lines in Kent do not constitute works of reconstruction, extension or alteration within the meaning of the Act."

The significant phrase in that sentence was "vast majority". If it is the case that Railtrack contends that the vast majority of works do not trigger entitlement to

14 Dec 1995 : Column 1197

compensation, the very clear implication is that Railtrack does now accept that a minority of works at least trigger an entitlement to compensation.

It was because of that clear implication that I wrote back to the Secretary of State for Transport, asking him to obtain from Railtrack a list of the engineering works along the existing lines which Railtrack does accept fall within the meaning of the Act, and therefore trigger an entitlement to compensation.

The reply I received from my right hon. Friend, dated 6 October this year, was both extraordinary and extremely illuminating. My right hon. Friend said:

"You also asked for a list of the works that Railtrack clearly accept as falling within the meaning of the Act. I do not doubt that some of the engineering works that Railtrack have carried out may qualify as eligible works within the meaning of the Act; indeed, I understand that in a limited number of cases the company is considering claims and have instructed surveyors and compensation specialists to advise and negotiate with surveyors representing claimants. My officials asked Railtrack for a list of eligible works, but the company says that, to date, it has not accepted that any of the works cited by claimants qualify for compensation within the meaning of the Act. Therefore it is unable to provide a list. Although I have no power to intervene statutorily in Railtrack's handling of compensation claims, I intend raising this matter personally with Bob Horton at my next regular meeting with him."