| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2--Compensation--
' .--(1) On application being made to him the Secretary of State shall pay compensation to any residential occupier of property the value of whose interest in such property has been diminished by reason of the provisions of this Act.
(2) The amount of such compensation shall be the difference between the value that interest would have had if this Act had not been passed and the value it has following the passing of this Act; and both such values shall be calculated at the date of application to the Secretary of State.
(3) In default of any agreement between the Secretary of State and the applicant as to whether the provisions of this Act have caused such a diminution in value or as to the values referred to in subsection (2) above these matters shall be decided by a single arbitrator to be agreed between the parties or (in default of such agreement) to be appointed on the application of either party after notice in writing to the other by the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.'.
New clause 3--Hardship--
Mr. Rowe:
The debate so far has emphasised again that the line, when it is built, will belong to the whole nation and that the links that extend to the east and west coast main lines and other areas are indispensable to making the project a success. I agree, but it is worth recalling that the line will be built through Kent and south-east London. Whatever benefits the rest of the country will derive from its construction, the costs will fall most heavily on us.
The story has gone on for a very long time and part of the cost that has been carried by my constituents and many other people along the route has been the sheer anxiety and uncertainty that that long delay has occasioned. The purpose of new clause 1 is twofold. First, it would add to the Bill a recognition of the gain that we have made in the course of the long-drawn-out proceedings.
On this project, the matter has been made worse by the tergiversations about the actual route. For example, two of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Atkins, live in Harrietsham. They are 76 years old and have been trying to sell their house for a long time. Their family now live some distance away, and Mr. Atkins has had open-heart surgery. They live only 10 m outside the original rail corridor, and that totally destroyed any interest that any potential purchaser might have had in buying their property. After the route was changed, it is true that the line moved somewhat away from their property, but the effect on potential purchasers remained the same. That old couple have been effectively imprisoned in their home by that generalised blight.
Similarly, Mr. Gardiner, another of my constituents, had his family business plunged into bankruptcy when the bank revalued his property. The properties of both his immediate neighbours had been bought by British Rail, which was the lead promoter at the time, but his property was not bought. He had secured a loan for his business against the value of his property, and when the bank revalued his property, it valued it at nil. The result was that the security on his loan was withdrawn, and he had to take his family business, which had been going for 30 years, into bankruptcy.
Those are the costs that fall on citizens up and down the land when there are such massive projects, inspired by the Government and bringing ruin in their wake. The first purpose of new clause 1 is to add to the Bill, as I said, the recognition of that type of blight. Secondly, the new clause contains a feature to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is sympathetic. I know that, because we have talked about it informally on several occasions. Under the new clause, a property would be valued by an independent assessor, because sometimes there is a genuine doubt about the market value of a property. If the property were then sold on the open
market, the compensation paid would make up the difference. It would be based not on a notional price, but on the price fixed by the market.
Those two provisions are just and overdue. I hope that when the interdepartmental working party, which is one of the gains from the whole tortuous business of the link, publishes its results, it will accept the second provision.
The new clause would deal with a third problem. It would be monstrous if the householders and other owners, whose plight has caused the working party to be set up, were unable to benefit from any of its findings because those findings came too late or could not be implemented until after the project was under way. Therefore, the new clause contains the proposition that until an improvement in the compensation rules is achieved as a result of the interdepartmental working party, the purchasing of properties that can be shown to be blighted, in the way that I have described, should go ahead.
It is unacceptable for major Government schemes to stride through the country, wrecking people's lives in a wholly unpredictable way. In our case, four routes were put on the table at the beginning. Two of those routes were manifestly different and although they seem to have been a blind to conceal British Rail's original intentions, that does not alter the fact that the blight was spread over many families. I commend the new clause to the House.
Ms Margaret Hodge (Barking):
I am delighted to be able to speak in support of new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), whom I am glad to see able to speak in defence of his constituents. He was not a member of the Committee and so at that stage had to depend on Opposition Members to defend his constituents' interests.
Mr. Rowe:
The hon. Lady is being extremely kind, but I must be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), who also spoke with considerable eloquence on behalf of my constituents.
Ms Hodge:
The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) did try his best, but his constituents are not as directly affected as are those of the hon. Gentleman. Our proceedings might have been enhanced by having his contributions and those of other Conservative Members with a specific constituency interest.
This is the final opportunity for those for whose constituents this is a major issue to argue the case across the political spectrum, for a fair and just system for responding to all residents who, through no fault of their own, have been affected by the route.
None of the new clauses that are concerned with compensation has been motivated by NIMBY--not in my backyard--interests. All who have a constituency interest have supported the building of the high-speed rail link. We have all argued that, in the interests of the British economy, it is imperative that it should be constructed. Only a week ago, I made my first trip on Eurostar from Paris to London. I was deeply impressed at the speed with which we travelled across France, but deeply depressed by the slowness with which we travelled through the English countryside. Of course, we want to promote the rail link in the national interest, but at whose expense? It is in answer to that question that we raise the issue of compensation.
I remain of the view that the route need never have gone through the centre of Barking, either above ground or through a tunnel. There was a perfectly sensible alternative solution, which would not have resulted in thousands of my constituents being unable to move or to sell their property. A disservice has been done to my constituents by all those involved before I became a Member of the House, in their determination to stick to that route and not to seek the sensible alternative of taking the route across a large tract of derelict land in Barking reach. People in the constituency, in the town hall and in Union Railways must share much of the blame for what has happened.
At the same time, I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who was a member of the Select Committee, that I am grateful to the Committee for its work in ameliorating the absurd plans that were originally put forward by Union Railways. It is heartening that the concerns raised by individuals who attended on their own account to put their case before the Select Committee were listened to. The original proposals were led by engineers who had no regard to the impact that they would have on the lives of ordinary people all along the route but, in particular, in Barking.
The issue of compensation is important, not only because of the impact of the route on many people, but because of the time that it takes to build a railway. Ten years have elapsed between the original decision to build the tunnel and today, when the Bill will be sent to the other place. During that time, there have been rumours, counter-rumours, proposals, further proposals and changes of mind that have blighted the property of many householders along the route.
That is not the end of it. Under the current compensation scheme, were anybody to qualify for compensation and to get back some of the money that they have lost through no fault of their own, they would have to wait until well after the channel tunnel rail link was built, certainly in my constituency. I would love to think that we were talking about 2002, but in all probability we are talking about 2005 and perhaps even closer to 2010.
To qualify under the current discretionary purchase scheme, not only do people have to prove a diminution in value of their property, but they have to show that they are suffering from ill health or noise. My constituents, who are now to have a tunnel directly under their houses, will not know whether they will be eligible under the current scheme until after the tunnel has been built and tested--in 2007 or 2008. Since 1990, they have been unable to sell their properties. There is no market for any property, certainly in Barking, on the channel tunnel rail link route.
The residents believe that there will be a noise impact, although the promoter says that there will not. That dispute will not be resolved until 2005 or even 2009, whenever the route is completed. That is simply not good enough for ordinary people.
'Neither the Secretary of State in exercising any discretionary powers to purchase property affected by the provisions of this Act, nor the nominated undertaker in operating any similar or other discretionary or voluntary purchase scheme, shall require any applicant to show any degree of personal hardship in order to qualify for any purchase or other benefit.'.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |