| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 14:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 15:
The noble Viscount said: This is a technical amendment which removes Clause 22(8) from the Bill. We have concluded that the subsection is no longer necessary and that the public interest would now be better served if those agreements which would have been caught by this clause were to be handled using the normal procedures of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 [Sections 22 to 24: supplementary provisions]:
Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 16 and 17:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 12, line 18, leave out from ("and,") to end of line 21 and insert ("on the coming into force of an order made by virtue of this subsection, that Act shall be deemed not to have applied to the agreement concerned.").
Page 12, line 39, leave out subsection (8).
Page 14, line 5, after ("above") insert (", and orders made by virtue of section 22(4) above,").
Page 14, line 6, at end insert ("which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause--
(".--(1) Any undertaking of the Secretary of State which--
(a) is given with respect to applications for assistance of a kind to which subsection (2) below applies, and
(b) is contained in a development agreement,
shall be effective notwithstanding that it fetters his discretion.
(2) This subsection applies to--
(a) any kind of financial or other assistance in relation to an existing railway line which might allow it to be used to provide a line speed in excess of 200 kilometres per hour before 31st December 2030, and
(b) any kind of financial or other assistance which before that date would enable or assist a person to provide services or facilities for international rail passenger services.").
The noble Viscount said: This new clause is aimed at giving legislative underpinning to the provisions of the development agreement which we signed with London and Continental Railways that set out the Secretary of State's contractual obligations to LCR in relation to the non-provision of financial assistance to a CTRL competitor. The clause seeks to achieve full consonance between the contractual position and the statutory position, and no more than that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 [Holder of functions of nominated undertaker]:
Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 19:
The noble Viscount said: The above amendment was spoken to when I moved Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33 [Transfer of functions relating to works]:
Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 20 and 21:
The noble Viscount said: These are purely drafting amendments designed to increase the flexibility of the clause as introduced in Select Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 [Acquisition of land]:
Clause 43 [Blight: compensation for pre-enactment acquisition]:
On Question, Whether Clause 43 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Clinton-Davis: Again, I have given the Minister notice of my intention to raise the issue of generalised blight. I do not wish to pursue the matter in any detail, but I should like to know what is happening so far as concerns the inter-departmental working party which has been convened. That arose as a result of a number of exchanges which took place in both Chambers, as no doubt the Minister will recall. It relates to the Government's initial decision to oppose the parliamentary ombudsman's findings which had been upheld by the Select Committee in the other place. If I may say so, a most sensible decision was then taken on 18th March to establish the inter-departmental working party to consider the problem of perceived blight. That was a recommendation of the Select Committee in another place.
Perhaps the Minister could give us a little further information on the matter. For example, is he able to indicate a date for the presentation of interim findings, if indeed it is the Government's intention to present such findings? Can the Minister give some idea as to when a final report is likely to be published? Finally--and this is most important in the context of the Bill--is the Minister in a position to confirm that any recommendations which the Government are able to adopt in relation to the matter will be applied to the legislation now before us?
Viscount Goschen: The issue of blight is clearly of major importance when dealing with any infrastructure projects. As the noble Lord raised the issue and the review is under way, I shall have to answer him in a small amount of detail in order to make the position absolutely clear.
As we know, the background is that the rail link route has been carefully selected, including extensive use of tunnelling so that very few homes have to be taken. In fact, there is an average of only one home being taken for every mile of route. For homes that are required to be taken for the rail link--that is, those that are the subject of statutory blight--voluntary purchase from Union Railways is available now at the request of the owner in terms of the unblighted market value of the property, as if the CTRL did not exist, plus all fees, disturbance and home loss payments.
Any homes required for the building of the rail link which have not been acquired voluntarily by the time of Royal Assent will be subject to compulsory purchase at that time on the same terms. For residential owner occupiers whose properties are close to the surface sections of the rail link but which are not actually taken, there is a discretionary purchase scheme operated by Union Railways. To qualify, home owners must demonstrate that their property is likely to be seriously affected by the construction or use of the CTRL resulting in loss of value and physical effects. The test is usually whether the property would qualify for noise insulation under the national railway regulations. There must also be proof of hardship arising from a pressing need to move. Illness, growing family and job move are indeed common grounds for hardship.
The Select Committee in another place was satisfied with the treatment of those with properties taken or seriously affected by the link. The committee's concern was that the blight that petitioners claimed spread further from the rail link, which we term "generalised blight". That is the subject of the government review. In response to the special report of the Select Committee of another place, the Government undertook to convene an inter-departmental working group to carry out a review of the scope, causes and effects of blight arising during the various stages of major infrastructure projects in order to ascertain whether any practical changes could be made to the existing national arrangements for property purchase and compensation.
The terms of reference of the working group were announced in a Written Answer in another place on 18th March. Those terms made clear that the review will focus on issues of perceived or generalised blight and
I turn now to the noble Lord's specific question. A progress report will be available shortly which will set out the evidence which has been collected so far, including an analysis of the main points made in response to a discussion paper issued in June outlining the work in hand. The group expects to complete its work and submit its final report to Ministers by the end of the year. The timing will depend on whether any further issues are identified. We shall then wish to consider carefully the next steps. Any changes to the legislation that may be proposed would of course be the subject of formal public consultation. I believe that what I have said gives the flavour of what is happening with the review of generalised blight in terms of the inter-departmental working group.
I believe that there is a small amount of confusion in the noble Lord's mind--although perhaps I misheard him--in terms of his reference to the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. That is a separate issue which I could go into now at some length, but I believe that the noble Lord's primary question was about the working group. I hope, therefore, that I satisfied him on that subject.
Page 17, line 43, at end insert--
("( ) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (5) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
Page 17, line 47, leave out ("to him").
Page 17, line 48, at end insert--
("(a) to him, or
(b) to a person specified under section 32 above.
(1A) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the further transfer--
(a) to him, or
(b) to a person specified under section 32 above,
of a power or duty transferred under subsection (1) above or this subsection.").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page