Clause
53
Compensation
for injurious
affection
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 65, in
clause 53, page 32, line 27, leave
out ‘nominated undertaker’ and insert ‘Secretary
of State’.
The
clause is probably the shortest in the Bill, but it is significant. I
return to the issue of compensation, which we have discussed more than
once in Committee. The clause provides that section
10(1) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 will apply in respect of land
used for or in connection with the construction of Crossrail. That
section deals with those
claiming
“compensation in
respect of any land, or any interest in land, which has been taken for
or injuriously affected by the execution of the works, and for which
the acquiring authority have not made
satisfaction”.
There is,
however, a small but significant alteration to the wording of the 1965
Act—the substitution of “nominated undertaker” for
“the acquiring authority”. If we do not do that, the Bill
will effectively muddy what is already the grey area of the respective
duties and responsibilities of the Secretary of State and the nominated
undertaker.
The
Committee might recall that when we dealt with clause
6 on compulsory purchase, I tabled an amendment that would have given
the nominated undertaker, as opposed to the Secretary of State, the
powers to purchase compulsorily. The Minister said that he was
tempted by my amendment, but not quite enough, and it was
therefore withdrawn. It is clear in the clause that the Secretary of
State alone is responsible for the compulsory purchase of land.
However, on the question of compensation, it appears that, although the
Secretary of State will have compulsorily purchased the land and will
be the acquiring authority, the responsibility for compensation now
passes to the nominated
undertaker.
To make
the clause work, therefore, we need to insert the words
“Secretary of State” rather than “nominated
undertaker”, as outlined in the amendment. Otherwise, we will
have an odd perversity, which is that the Secretary of State will have
compulsorily acquired the land, yet the nominated undertaker—who
may or may not be the Secretary of State, as we discovered
previously—will pay out the compensation. That is very
strange.
If a
landowner’s land were seized or compulsorily purchased by one
person, it would seem strange if he had to seek compensation from
another. If, as is the case in clause 6, we make the Secretary of State
the person who compulsorily acquires the land, it seems perfectly
consistent that that Secretary of State must also take on the duties
and responsibilities associated with the purchase. Therefore, my
amendment would make the clause consistent with other clauses by taking
out the words “nominated undertaker” and replacing them
with “Secretary of
State”.
Mr.
Harris:
On this occasion, I am not even tempted to support
the amendment, and I can explain why. Clause 53 is a technical
provision that arises from the fact that, although under the Bill the
power to acquire land compulsorily for Crossrail is conferred on the
Secretary of State, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says,
the power to carry out works on that land is conferred on the nominated
undertaker. Section 10 of the 1965 Act gives a right to compensation in
certain cases where, although landowners do not have particular land
that they own compulsorily acquired from them, they none the less have
rights associated with their land adversely affected by things done by
the undertaker in constructing works on neighbouring land that has been
acquired from someone
else.
The purpose of
clause 53 is to reflect the division of responsibilities made in the
Bill so that, in such cases, it is made absolutely clear that the
nominated undertaker pays the compensation under section 10 of the 1965
Act, rather than the Secretary of State, simply because
of the practical reason that the actions of the
nominated undertaker, in carrying out work on neighbouring land, have
given rise to the right of
compensation.
In this
case, it is not the purchase of the land that has
given rise to the right of compensation, but the
“injurious affection”, as it is described in the clause.
The clause does not change the cases where compensation arises, or the
amount of compensation payable. It is concerned only with who will pay,
as a consequence of the particular division of responsibilities in the
Bill.
The amendment
would negatively affect the clause by providing for the Secretary of
State to pay the compensation. For that reason alone, I cannot support
the amendment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman
understands my point and withdraws the
amendment.
Stephen
Hammond:
I certainly understand the Minister’s
point. Effectively, he is saying that the actions that occur on the
land after it has been compulsorily acquired attract compensation, not
the physical act of compulsory purchase itself. However, I am not quite
sure that I follow his point that the amendment would negatively affect
the Secretary of State. Can he clarify
that?
Mr.
Harris:
To clarify, the clause refers to section 10(1) of
the 1965 Act. I am not accusing the Secretary of State of carrying out
any injurious affection on anyone. My point is that the nominated
undertaker will carry out the work. Therefore, there is a clear
division of responsibility. The Secretary of State purchases the land,
and there are compensation arrangements in place for that purchase,
separate from the clause. The nominated undertaker, however, will be
responsible for carrying out any work that may be injurious to the
private landowner, so it does not make sense for the Secretary of State
to pay compensation for the purchase and the work that is carried
out.
Stephen
Hammond:
I thank the Minister for that very full
explanation, and the matter is now perfectly clear. With your
permission, Lady Winterton, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn
.
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Susan
Kramer (Richmond Park) (LD): In many senses, the clause
represents a huge lost opportunity. When it was proposed that Crossrail
might come down into my neck of the woods, properties along the route
under discussion immediately lost about 25 per cent. of
their value. The proposal was not particularly serious and it
disappeared in a matter of months, but I did have
extensive conversations with Crossrail’s management about a
property protection scheme to ensure that proper compensation was paid
to people whose property was affected. In cases of direct compulsory
purchase, it was well understood that the needs of the property owner
would be satisfied, but the clause talks about others whose property is
impacted by the
scheme.
Crossrail’s
management was very positive about the property protection scheme that
we discussed. It had been piloted by the central railway project, which
never happened, although I should declare that I had an
interest in it. Much of Crossrail’s management
was familiar with the scheme, which would have given anyone who
believed that their property had been affected the option of requiring
it to be compulsorily purchased at the point of construction at what
would have been the full market value without the
affliction.
In effect,
the scheme was structured like an insurance scheme, in that it would
have remained attached to the project and been exercised only at the
point of construction. The money would not have been drawn down, and
the option would have attached to the sale of the property so that
people could have sold freely, knowing that they were selling on
protection to whoever purchased their property from them. The matter
would finally have resolved itself during the construction
phase.
We have a
serious problem with major projects such as Crossrail, which have an
impact on people who must sell their property because they need the
money as part of their retirement plan or for some other purpose. The
existing legislation is not adequate to cover such circumstances, and I
hope that the Minister will use the opportunity afforded by the Bill to
set out how such people can be protected
appropriately.
Sir
Peter Soulsby (Leicester, South) (Lab): I understand the
hon. Lady’s concern about property owners affected by major
projects such as Crossrail, but I remind the Committee yet again that
it is for that reason that Parliament has the hybrid Bill procedure,
which is intended to protect private interests during the promotion of
such public Bills. We go through the process of specially establishing
a Select Committee so that we can look at exactly the concerns she
expressed.
Susan
Kramer:
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, even with the
hybrid Bill process, there is often a long delay and that people
selling property in the interim are inevitably injured? Does he also
accept that one advantage of a property protection scheme is that the
market identifies who has suffered because the price that they are
offered for their property is different from that offered for a
comparable property that is not afflicted? Many issues of contention
regarding which property is or is not affected therefore disappear
because the market establishes the
facts.
4.30
pm
Sir
Peter Soulsby:
Again, I entirely understand the hon.
Lady’s point, but the hybrid Bill process allows for precisely
the concerns that she has expressed. It enables those who fear that
their land or property might be
adversely affected by the Bill and the scheme that it enables to
petition against the Bill in the Commons—the stage that we have
gone through—and the Lords. I assure her that that the hybrid
Bill Committee heard many petitions on matters related to compensation.
Many people expressed both their particular and general concern about
the likely effects of the Bill on their neighbourhood on behalf of
those who lived around them. We took careful note of
the concerns that were expressed and, in some cases, made
recommendations to the promoters and the Government on ways in which
those interests could be given special protection. We are grateful to
the promoters for the attention that they paid to those concerns and
the amendments that they made to deal with specific situations and more
generally as a result of those representations.
I certainly think that the
other members of the Select Committee all felt at the end of the
process that those who had had concerns similar to those expressed
today by the hon. Member for Richmond Park were heard appropriately and
had the opportunity for their concerns to be taken into account. In the
overwhelming number of cases, those people felt that their concerns had
been adequately satisfied and their interests appropriately protected.
I feel that her concern about what she described as a missed
opportunity in the clause is misplaced. Those concerns have already
been taken into account and those with lingering concerns will have the
opportunity to petition again when the Bill goes through the Lords and
to ensure that their concerns are taken into account if they have not
yet been so.
Mr.
Brian Binley (Northampton, South) (Con): As the other
member of the Committee who was also a member of the hybrid Bill
Committee, I support what has just been said. The hybrid Bill Committee
concerned itself at great length with the whole issue of compensation,
because it seemed to us that the promoters were shoving through a
project, rightly so from many people’s perspectives, but that
was not the fault of the people who would be affected. Therefore, we
fought long and hard on their behalf and gained some considerable
advantages for them as a result.
My fear is that the amendment
would be immensely misplaced in relation to the work that we did. I
think that the rights are already protected in the Bill and I am well
satisfied that the compensation code would be properly applied.
Additional rights were given as a result of the work of the hybrid Bill
Committee and it therefore seems that, not only is the amendment pretty
pointless, it could also be harmful.
Mr.
Harris:
I thank hon. Members for their contributions on
the stand part debate. The hon. Member for Richmond Park made some
important points, and I know that she is concerned about the general
problem of blight as it affects many private property owners. Of
course, that problem has impeded any number of civil engineering and
construction projects throughout the country and it continues to
trouble many private property owners along the routes of roads and
other potential civil engineering projects.
I disagree that the clause is a
missed opportunity. If I understand the comments of the hon. Member for
Richmond Park correctly, she is looking for a new, general purpose
procedure that would apply not only to Crossrail, but to other civil
engineering projects. Of course, that is not part of the purpose of the
Bill and the clause is somewhat narrower than the scope of her points,
but they were well made and I am sure she will want to continue that
campaign elsewhere.
I
echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South and
those of the hon. Member for Northampton, South. It is invaluable to
have two previous members of the Select Committee, as they bring a
certain perspective that none of the rest of us have or would have
wanted, given the length of time that they served on that Committee.
Their remarks have always contributed to positive debate and I am
grateful to them both.
I agree with
the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South made
about the opportunity for petitioners to speak to the Committee, raise
the issues with which they had concerns and have them addressed. A
discretionary hardship policy exists that allows qualifying landowners
to require the purchase of their property. Of course, it is
discretionary and will not meet all the demands of the hon. Member for
Richmond Park. However, now that we have explored the breadth of this
modest and short clause, I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause
53
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
54
Compensation
for water
abstraction
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Stephen
Hammond:
Before we move on, I want some clarification from
the Minister. The clause disapplies the provisions of the Water
Resources Act 1991, which prohibits any form of water abstraction if it
has injurious effects on another person. I understand that water
abstraction might be a necessary part of the works performed to build
Crossrail, but there are some serious implications that I want to
consider with the Minister. Have the deposited plans identified any
scenarios in which water will need to be abstracted in a way that might
cause loss or damage? As I understand it, the clause is one of the few
that has no precedent in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996. The
Minister wants extra new powers that have no precedent. I am sure that
they will be necessary because of the uniqueness of the Crossrail
project, but will he tell us why the Secretary of State will need those
plans and where on the identified route they are likely to
apply?
Mr.
Harris:
As far as I know, the hon. Gentleman is correct
that the measure is unprecedented in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act.
The Bill is not intended as a carbon copy of that Act and many of the
clauses in the Bill will be adopted by future Governments to inform the
construction of their policy.
Clause 54(1)
disapplies the provisions of the Water Resources Act 1991 that would
otherwise impose an absolute prohibition on
abstracting water if that causes loss or damage to another person. Such
a restriction could well prevent or delay Crossrail works from being
constructed. Clause 54(2) provides that where water abstraction has
caused loss or damage, the person suffering the loss or damage must be
compensated. The overall effect of the clause is that the duty to avoid
damage by water abstraction creates the possibility of compensation for
damage but not the possibility of a court injunction. The practical
protection for property owners arises from the requirement that the
Environment Agency pre-approve abstraction, for which the hon.
Gentleman can refer to paragraph 3 of part 3 of schedule 16.
The hon. Gentleman asked
whether any work had been done that would suggest that water
abstraction could be to the detriment of the construction of Crossrail.
Once again, because we are at such an early stage without even having
started construction, the purpose of those who drafted the Bill was to
try to foresee all circumstances in the hope that the powers in the
clause would not ever have to be used. Once again, going back to the
cost and importance of the project, it is only fair that we should
adopt a belt-and-braces attitude.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause
54
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
55
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
