| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, it certainly could not happen in this House.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that. I doubt very much whether it could happen in another place. Therefore, the Government are faced with a dilemma. How do they draw to the attention of the committee something which is highly relevant and which is motivated by a number of the speeches which have been made in the House today? Therefore, I ask the noble Viscount to explain that situation and perhaps reflect upon it in future so that we can have some guidance on the matter. It may be that he would wish to do that at a later stage of the Bill.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it may be appropriate for me to intervene at this stage of the debate. Perhaps I may deal first with the issue which is not directly related to the amendment but as noble Lords opposite have raised it, it may be better to deal with the matter at this stage so that we can then concentrate on the argument at hand.
The noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to an article in the Independent newspaper entitled:
- "Ministers subvert Kent blight inquiry".
Of course, that is not the case. That issue was resolved satisfactorily in another place last autumn. It was hardly exposed last night.
The fact is that no undue pressure was brought to bear on the Select Committee in question. Sir Tony Durant, chairman of the House of Commons Select Committee, spoke to my right honourable friend the Secretary of
State for Transport on behalf of his all-party committee about the letter. He and his committee received an assurance that the Government have not in the past and will not in the future bring undue influence to bear on the Select Committee or its chairman. The assurance was read out in Public Session and the committee was satisfied. I hope that that answers completely the noble Lords' concerns.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am in no way adopting the argument of that headline which I think is unacceptable. I have not sought to condemn the Government over what has happened. However, the Minister may find it useful to reflect on the points which I made and perhaps deal with them at another stage of the Bill. I think they are important issues which any government would have to address.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am more than happy to discuss the Select Committee procedures of your Lordships' House with regard to a hybrid Bill, but it may be better to do that through correspondence.
I turn now to the amendments themselves. The issues of land acquisition and disposal are central to the workings of this Bill. At re-committal, we had a very detailed debate about the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, and my noble friend Lord Stanley during which I voiced the Government's major concerns about the workability of the amendments. In particular they would not deliver certainty that land needed for the project can be acquired and then can be held permanently if needed for the operation of the railway. There would instead be a patchwork of licences. Since that time, I have had meetings with the noble Lords and their advisers, but I have to say that although the amendments before us today have been substantially changed, our concerns remain.
In considering the noble Lords' amendments, I believe we must keep at the forefront of our thinking that we are talking about probably the largest civil engineering project this country has seen since the last war, with a cost of about £3 billion. It is the flagship of the Government's Private Finance Initiative and a classic example of a partnership with the private sector.
The House and another place have given very strong support to the CTRL throughout the passage of this Bill. Although it may be tempting to think that Royal Assent virtually delivers the project, that is not the case. The Bill, when enacted, will create the conditions within which the project can be got off the ground. But the real construction will not start until project financing has been achieved. Raising the finance will be a major hurdle, and it is important during this debate this afternoon to bear in mind that the content of the Bill will be a major influence on LCR's ability to clear that hurdle.
We have heard a great deal about the question of uncertainty and new procedures. The noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Ampthill, among others, referred to that. That is one of the key points.
I think it can fairly be said that nobody enjoys having to acquire land by compulsion. But it is the only satisfactory way that successive governments have
found of securing land acquisition and assembly for projects--and especially linear projects--which benefit the national interest. The Bill uses perfectly standard compulsory purchase procedures, which have stood the tests of time and general acceptability. Indeed the powers sought in the Bill are no different from those that would be used for building a new road. Compulsory purchase is, of course, never to be embarked upon lightly. There has to be a clear justification for public benefit and those affected must have a proper say. The CTRL is undoubtedly of national importance, which has been stressed in debates in both Houses. Also--and this is important--those whose land is affected by the CTRL project have had a full opportunity in each House to be heard by a Select Committee.The Select Committee in another place sat for a full year; the Select Committee of your Lordships' House sat for three months, hearing nearly 300 petitions, many from those with land interests. These two committees heard vast quantities of evidence and probed every nook and cranny of the project. They considered their conclusions with evident diligence and authority. Yet at no stage did either Select Committee throw doubt on the compulsory purchase procedures, still less recommend that they be abandoned in favour of a scheme of certification of the need for land such as that set out in the amendments before us.
Perhaps I may describe to the House the standard regime. Under the standard procedures the promoters have the certainty that they can have all the land needed for the construction of the project and also that they can hold on to land that is needed permanently without risk of challenge. But under these amendments the land assembly process is turned on its head. The problem is not just with the initial assembly of land for the construction of the project. There is then another hurdle to be cleared--and one which has never been tested before--on what land can be held permanently. This hurdle involves the Secretary of State having to certify, using set criteria, whether every separate piece of land is needed permanently. As we have heard, that would be bureaucratic, but it would also open up the possibility of challenge in the courts.
There are also various technical defects in the amendments and areas which are unclear. However, I believe that it will be for the convenience of the House if I concentrate on the main principles. I certainly accept that, as far as possible, land that we are certain will only be needed temporarily should in fact be taken temporarily. That is why we have provided in Schedule 5 to the Bill special powers for the temporary possession and use of certain plots of land which we think will not be radically altered and we need to take only temporarily. We have made it clear all along that we do not wish to purchase land under compulsion where that is not necessary and we have given an undertaking to that effect, which was debated extensively in the Committee of the Whole House.
I feel that I ought to say a few words about the undertakings because that was a major item in the speech made by my noble friend Lord Renton--and, indeed, if I may say so, heavily disagreed to by my other
noble friend Lord Jenkin. The point about the undertakings really has been made crystal clear at all stages of the proceedings in this House. The letter that has been referred to is one from myself to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, which I instructed should be copied to all noble Lords who spoke at the recommittal stage. I shall be most unhappy if it transpires that my noble friend did not receive a copy of that letter. However, a copy of it was also placed in the Library of the House.There have been nearly 600 undertakings for this Bill. They are legally binding. Perhaps I may repeat: from the early days of the project, it was recognised that various undertakings and assurances would be needed to be given to Parliament, local authorities, affected landowners, and others, to ease the concerns of the various affected parties. Therefore, we have set up a special mechanism to ensure that all the undertakings and assurances given during the passage of the Bill are accurately and faithfully recorded on the Register of Undertakings and Assurances, so that the nominated undertaker who will design, construct and operate the CTRL will be in no doubt as to his obligations. I believe that to be a fairly categorical description of where we stand with undertakings. They are vital to the Bill. They are not merely casual assurances. As I said, they are legally binding undertakings which are recorded in detail and which can be acted upon if there are any breaches thereof.
The undertaking that I was describing which relates to temporary land is contractually binding on London and Continental Railways. It requires LCR to seek to negotiate a tenancy or licence where land is only needed temporarily, though that is dependent on there being no legal problems with dealing with any other interests and rights in the land in the licence.
My noble friend Lord Kinnoull made a powerful speech. He feels that there is a case for promulgating this information; and, indeed, that idea was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. During both Select Committees--that is, both in this House and in the other place--the promoters of the Bill produced a document called, The Guide to Farmers and Growers, which was sent to all the agricultural petitioners. That document set out the approach that will be taken to farmers and growers both during the design and the construction phases of the project. It contains some assurances and explains the procedure for maintaining communications with landowners and occupiers. It is via those communications that LCR intend to keep farmers and growers abreast of developments and inform them of undertakings and assurances that affect them. I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene. I give way.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page