| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Mark Wolfson (Sevenoaks): Does my right hon. Friend agree that, on both the issue of compensation and the key second point about the Central Railway Group, a large number of constituents of a considerable number of hon. Members who might not be here this evening are equally affected by the problems of blight? It is a huge worry for them. Through no fault of their own, they are going to suffer horrendous financial difficulties.
Sir John Stanley: I wholly endorse what my hon. Friend says. This is a massive proposal and it affects a large number of constituencies and individuals, all the way from Rugby in the midlands to the Cheriton terminal area in Kent.
The third group of constituents to whom I must briefly refer are those who are blighted and still without compensation along the line of the channel tunnel rail
link. As far as those in my constituency are concerned-- those on Blue Bell hill in particular--I very much welcome the markedly different attitude that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken compared to that of his predecessor in relation to the findings of the ombudsman on maladministration by the Department of Transport.
I welcome the fact that, when writing to my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration--the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey)-- my right hon. Friend said:
The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts):
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) has reminded us, this is not the first time that we have debated these issues, although this evening it is at a more sociable hour. I thank him for this further opportunity to respond to him about the concerns of his constituents, for whom he has been such a vigorous and persistent advocate.
First, it is important to be clear about the provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973 and the other measures intended to alleviate any adverse effects that may be caused by the operation of the railway system.
The Land Compensation Act 1973 allows householders to claim compensation from the responsible authority when the value of their property is diminished by physical factors, such as railway noise or vibration, caused by the use of new or altered public works. In the case of railways, the Act is not specific as to what is meant by
"altered works" but it refers to their being
My right hon. Friend knows that the Act also provides for compensation to be claimed where there has been a change of use in respect of an existing railway line, but that in this case the Act specifies that "change of use" does not include intensification of an existing use. There is therefore no statutory requirement for compensation to be paid purely because traffic on an existing railway line has increased; this parallels the situation for roads. If people buy properties near an existing railway line-- or, indeed, a road--they do so knowing that traffic can change in composition or volume. The law does not therefore require the body responsible to pay compensation in those circumstances.
In the case of an altered railway line, my right hon. Friend will appreciate that it is not for me to determine whether particular works undertaken are covered within the meaning of the Act; this is, in the first instance, for the responsible authority--in this case, Railtrack-- to decide. It and its predecessor, British Rail, carried out the works.
As my right hon. Friend knows, Railtrack has not to date accepted that any of the works cited by householders seeking compensation under the Act are works of
As my right hon. Friend has acknowledged, although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no statutory locus in the matter, he has both written and spoken to the chairman of Railtrack to ascertain the current position on claims which have been submitted to the company. The situation has not changed since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to my right hon. Friend in July and October this year, although Railtrack is conducting some technical investigations following claims arising from works in the area of Bickley. The outcome of those investigations is awaited. I give an undertaking to my right hon. Friend that both I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will pursue a response from Railtrack on the outcome of those investigations.
My right hon. Friend mentioned also the proposals of the Central Railway Group. I am pleased to confirm that statutory blight provisions under the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 will take effect from the date of an application under the Transport and Works Act 1992.
People whose land, or rights in land, would be compulsorily acquired under the proposals and were unable to sell their property at the open market value, would be able to serve blight notices on Central Railway. If Central Railway did not accept the owner's valuation, the matter would go to the Lands Tribunal for settlement.
Landowners who are entitled to serve blight notices may also be entitled to home loss payments. These are made in recognition of the personal distress and inconvenience suffered by people who are displaced by an authority acting under statutory powers.
In addition, people whose property, or rights in property, would be compulsorily acquired, are entitled to disturbance compensation for their reasonable expenses in moving. This would cover legal costs of conveyance of the house or flat, and other reasonable expenses as a result of the compulsory purchase.
If only part of the property is wanted, it may be possible to require Central Railway to buy the whole of the property, but this will depend on the particular circumstances. People affected in this way are advised to consult a solicitor or surveyor. If Central Railway disputes the claim, the matter can be referred to the Lands Tribunal for a decision.
Outside the limits of deviation of the works, claims for compensation for depreciation in the value of a property can be made under the Land Compensation Act; I have already outlined the provisions included in that Act.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the option to purchase scheme that Central Railway has been offering. I can confirm to him that I am advised that signing such options does not affect a person's statutory rights under the compensation code.
With regard to the ability of the proposer of a scheme under the Transport and Works Act 1992 to fund the compensation, we would need to be satisfied that compensation could be paid. When a motion to allow the scheme to go to a public inquiry comes before the House, hon. Members, too, will wish to be satisfied that sufficient funding is available to deal with compensation for blight before the House gives authority to take the scheme to a public inquiry, which would be the next stage.
I am also grateful to my right hon. Friend for this opportunity to explain to the House the current position in relation to the Government's response to the sixth report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration about the channel tunnel rail link and exceptional hardship. The House last had a substantive discussion of this case in a debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on 6 March.
It may be helpful if I remind the House briefly of the history of this subject. The Parliamentary Commissioner's report was published on 9 February. The Commissioner had investigated five specimen cases relating to individuals who claimed that they could not sell their properties and had suffered exceptional hardship during the period of generalised blight relating to the rail link from June 1990 to April 1994. He found that my Department was guilty of maladministration in not considering the position of persons who had suffered that exceptional and extreme hardship and in not providing for redress where appropriate.
My Department has consistently rejected the Parliamentary Commissioner's findings: initially in its response to the Commissioner, which was published as an appendix to his report, and later in evidence given to the Select Committee by the permanent secretary on 1 March and by my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio, the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) on 23 May.
The Select Committee published its report on 25 July endorsing the Parliamentary Commissioner's findings in this case. The Government seriously considered the Select Committee's recommendations and my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Transport gave the Government's response on 1 November. That response was published the same day in the Select Committee's fifth special report.
The House will be aware that the Government concluded that they had to continue to resist the finding of maladministration, and that any new principle of administration implied in the Committee's report was unacceptable, but that they were prepared to consider afresh whether a scheme might be formulated to implement the Committee's recommendation that redress should be granted to those affected to an extreme and exceptional degree and to look at how it might operate. The Government agreed to look again at the possibility of a compensation scheme out of respect for the Select Committee and the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner, and without admission of fault or liability. We also made it clear that the Government would have to consider seriously the possible costs of a scheme, which cannot yet be established, and that, in view of their responsibilities to the taxpayer, they could not offer an open-ended commitment on an uncosted basis.
"the Government is prepared to consider afresh whether a scheme might be formulated to implement the Committee's recommendation that redress should be granted to those affected to an extreme and exceptional degree by generalised blight from the CTRL"--
the channel tunnel rail link--
"from the period June 1990 to April 1994 and how it might operate."
"reconstructed, extended or otherwise altered."
"reconstruction, extension or other alteration".
It is not for the Department of Transport to interpret the law but if householders believe that they have a case, the Act provides for them to pursue it with the Lands Tribunal and, ultimately, the courts. Householders who are not satisfied with Railtrack's response to their claims should seek professional legal advice.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |