| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Howe: My Lords, to answer the last part of the question of the noble Lord, Lord St. John, first, I mentioned that the UN Special Envoy in the area is charged with the job of trying to bring the warring parties together to defuse tensions and to achieve a ceasefire; in other words, to achieve the conditions we would all like to see for a well-ordered humanitarian operation.
The African multinational force is still only a concept, though a useful one. But it remains to be seen which countries in Africa would wish to be a part of such an arrangement; who indeed could afford to be. While I take some encouragement from the fact that a number of African nations have indicated their willingness to take part in the immediate relief operation, it begs a number of questions as to which will be able to deliver real capability on the ground. We for our part believe that only the western nations can deliver the results in the first instance that we would all like to see. A multinational force has the capacity to deploy much more quickly than any UN-organised pan-African force, and that of course is important here, when time is of the essence.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, could the noble Earl tell us which units have been earmarked for this task and, in particular, in view of the nature of the task, what medical units have been earmarked?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I cannot yet tell the noble Lord which units will be deployed, but it is our intention
that certain units from the Joint Rapid Deployment Force will be sent. I shall be able to give him more concrete information on that as our plans develop.As regards medical care, I am quite clear that we shall have adequate medical facilities at our disposal and, of course, as the noble Lord will know, over the next few months we shall be withdrawing quite a number of troops from Bosnia. That will enable us to transfer a good part of the medical facilities from there to where we need them in Africa, should this mission take place.
Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill
4.22 p.m.
Clause 4 [Acquisition within limits shown on deposited plans]:
Lord Cornwallis moved Amendment No. 1:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1 standing in my name and to speak to Amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 5. The objective of my amendments is to ensure that the Channel Tunnel Rail Link project does not result in the excessive taking of land which it transpires is required only temporarily, whilst at the same time presenting no obstruction or delay to the project's progress.
I remind your Lordships that we are dealing with the construction of a railway. Unlike other railway projects and, indeed, other projects that have gone before it, the land needed for the active completion of the enterprise far exceeds that which is required for its actual operation. Less than half of the land to be taken will be required permanently, and my amendments seek to ensure that approximately 1,200 acres--twice the area of the City of London--surplus to the promoters' needs are returned to the original owners. This is not covered by any provision on the face of the Bill nor by any undertaking. The Bill authorises the promoters to take over 2,100 acres of which they have said they require only 850 acres for permanent operation.
I moved amendments substantially to the same effect in Committee on 31st October and I was most grateful for the support that I received from noble Lords on all sides of the House. Although the Minister resisted the amendments on that occasion, I should like to place on record my thanks to him for meeting with me and my advisers and subsequently meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, during the course of last week to discuss the Government's concerns on what we are proposing. I believe it is fair to describe the Government's central concern as being the fear that our amendments would introduce an element of uncertainty, and this in turn would make it more difficult to obtain funding for the project in the City. Whilst my own view is that the Government's concerns on these points has been exaggerated, I have taken full account of them in bringing this revised set of amendments to the attention of your Lordships.
The principle which underlies the amendments is that espoused by the chairman of the Select Committee on the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, who said in Committee,
As the final detailed design of the scheme cannot be determined until it has been constructed, in many cases final decisions on which land can be returned to owners after temporary use have to await that stage.
The amendments do not disturb the existing provisions for the acquisition of land under the Bill, save for adding one safeguard: when an owner of agricultural land receives a notice to treat for the acquisition of his land and it is not clear how much of that land will be needed permanently, he would have the option--I repeat "option"--to serve a counter notice. This would have the effect of delaying the acquisition but, crucially, not the possession of the land, as the amendments provide for an irrevocable and incontestable licence for the promoters to take occupation of the land without delay in order to undertake all necessary works for the construction and operation of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.
Furthermore, where the Secretary of State is satisfied from the outset that the land will be required permanently, the amendments allow him to proceed straightaway to overrule the counternotice and to acquire the land in the normal way. In the case of land occupied under licence he can require the conveyance of any area where he is satisfied that it will be needed permanently.
There are four important changes to these amendments compared to those moved in Committee and which meet the Government's concerns. First, the provisions are confined exclusively to agricultural land, reflecting the fact that the limits of deviation have been drawn wider in the rural section of the route and also that this land is used by and needed for the farm businesses on the route.
Secondly, the amendments have been adjusted to permit the promoters to occupy the land under licence for up to five years after the completion of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link to allow sufficient time for the precise requirements to be identified. The Minister indicated to me that it might take some years after the opening of the line for the land requirements for maintenance and safety regimes to be determined. The five-year provision now covers this concern.
Thirdly, the power to serve a counternotice rests only with the owner of the freehold. Any other minor interests in the land would remain subject to the powers of acquisition with the right to compensation on the statutory basis.
Fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, these amendments differ from the Committee amendments in that the provision for arbitration on which land is required permanently has been removed. Under these amendments the exercise of the power to acquire the freehold of the land remains with the Secretary of State
This is a unique project. In delivering the public benefits of the scheme with certainty, it must be fair to those owners of land who are unfortunate enough to find themselves in its path. My amendments achieve justice for them without in any way fettering the ability of the Secretary of State or the promoters to put the scheme into full operation as soon as possible. They achieve the balance of interests which the Select Committee supported and which the promoters themselves have accepted. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, because discussions have taken place between the Minister and a number of your Lordships about this amendment, would it not be helpful for the Minister at this stage of the debate to intervene to indicate what the Government's reaction has been? Otherwise the debate is a little unrealistic. I would therefore invite the noble Viscount to say what his position is in the light of those discussions, because, for the most part, your Lordships have not been party to them. The Minister has the right to intervene in the course of a debate on Report without prejudice to his right to speak again and without curtailing the debate for the rest of your Lordships.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall intervene very briefly now just to say that I think it would be appropriate to listen carefully to all noble Lords who want to make representations on this amendment. I understand that it is very usual procedure for noble Lords to talk to each other outside the Chamber and to discuss various matters relating to various amendments. We have had meetings with the noble Lords, Lord Cornwallis and Lord Stanley, privately, and with their advisers. But I do not think that materially affects the normal procedures of your Lordships' House.
Page 2, line 16, at beginning insert ("Subject to paragraph 12A of Schedule 4 to this Act").
"In other words, ownership remains with the farmer. Only the bit of land that is really absolutely necessarily required for the running of the railway line is what has to be handed over at the end and not the beginning of the period concerned".--[Official Report, 31/10/96; col. 464.]
4.30 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page