| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Brougham and Vaux: The noble Lord, Lord Thompson of Monifieth, is quite correct as regards what the chairman of the Select Committee had to say on 3rd October. He also said to Lady Bain-Smith that the promoters must do that, if it is practicable. If it is not practicable, it is unreasonable of the Committee to demand that they do it, and that has to be conceded. We will have to wait for detailed drawings before the promoters can see whether it is practicable. With great respect to the noble Lord, I do not believe that we can write something into the Bill which is impractical.
Viscount Goschen: I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Thompson of Monifieth, for his affliction and for the brave way in which he moved his amendment. I believe that I can give the noble Lord comfort in terms of what will actually happen. However, it will be explained in the course of my remarks why I do not believe that it would be appropriate to accept his amendments. I thank my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux for his clarification of the issue.
Essentially, the issue of lowering the railway in the parish of Charing is not a new one. There is no dispute about the principle that the railway should be lowered at Charing if that proves to be a practicable proposition at the detailed design stage, as my noble friend said. An undertaking to that effect was given by the department to Kent County Council in May this year. The Select Committee then confirmed that it was its wish that the railway should be lowered at Charing if practicable. In response, the promoters reaffirmed their undertaking. On the last day of the Select Committee hearing the representative of Charing Parish Council sought clarification that the undertaking would result in the railway being lowered at Charing if practicable. She received confirmation that that was what the committee wished and that that is what the promoters had undertaken to do. I would say that the position could not be more clear.
The undertaking takes the form of a binding undertaking given by Kent County Council. Essentially, nearly 600 undertakings and assurances have been given in connection with this Bill. Rather than having large numbers of potentially complex amendments adding more thick schedules to the Bill, the route of binding
undertakings has been followed. I suggest that it is not sensible or practicable to single out for inclusion in the Bill this one undertaking on lowering the railway at Charing. In addition, the drafting is not straightforward because there cannot be certainty about how much lowering, if any, is feasible until detailed designs have been undertaken. I hope that that gives the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, some reassurance and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation but I think he will understand the degree of distrust--I do not think that that is too strong a word--that still exists about whether the promoters and the nominated contractors will find that lowering the line is practicable when the decision on that matter is left to this late stage and the design arrangements are still in the future. That is why it would have been a very great reassurance to have had this commitment spelled out in the text of what will finally be an Act of Parliament. However, I shall consider carefully what the noble Viscount said and I am grateful to him for spelling out his views. I shall, of course, want to consult Charing Parish Council and I may want to return--
Lord Brougham and Vaux: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, I think that I am right in saying--I believe that the chairman of the Select Committee will back me up--that if the promoters have given an assurance to the committee and do not honour it, they will be in great trouble.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I hope that that is so, but the truth of the matter is that the promoters' response to the Select Committee's interim or draft report (produced in July) did not go further than their earlier statement to Kent County Council. If I remember rightly, it referred to looking at the various options, and so on. I put it no higher than saying that there is a very real difference of emphasis between the enthusiasm of the promoters for dealing seriously with this matter, ensuring as far as is humanly possible that the lowering is practicable, and the desire of the people of that part of Kent to believe that if that lowering is practicable, "it must be done" to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill. However, I shall consider carefully what the Minster has said--
Lord Clinton-Davis: Perhaps I may raise a point which I believe will be relevant to the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill. The noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, said a moment ago that if the promoters were to fail to honour their "undertakings" they would be in great trouble. That theme runs right through the Bill. Is the so-called "undertaking" legally enforceable? At whose instance would such proceedings be brought? Would it be at the instance of the Government or at the instance of any third party alleging that some damage has been caused as a result of the breach of the undertaking?
The matter is not clear. With respect, I do not think that it is elaborated upon in any great detail in the report. When the Minister rises to say a word or two about what has been said perhaps he will comment on that point which I think is most important.
Lord Ampthill: If I may, I shall leave the Minister to answer the specific point which has just been made. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, knows full well that the whole committee was on-side on this matter and that we went just as far as it was humanly possible to go in the light of the fact that we are not designing this particular railway line. It has to be left, reluctantly, to the experts. I think that it would have been ill-advised of the Select Committee to have gone any further on such a technical matter and, if I may be so bold, I think that it would be ill-advised of the House and this Committee to go any further.
Those responsible will lower this part of the line as far as they humanly can. It is an intrusion and could be as high as 10 metres above the surrounding land. It would be a very great pity if the promoters do not do what we have asked them to do. Indeed, I am quite certain that they will because I think that there is a degree of good will on the part of the promoters and the undertakers to do the job as well as it humanly can be done. I hope that the noble Lord will not feel that we let him down--I am sure that he does not. We went as far as we possibly could and I hope that the Committee will recognise that.
Lord Howie of Troon: I beg the Committee's pardon for intervening so late in the business, but I have been listening to the debate carefully. Speaking now as a civil engineer, perhaps I may say in response to the last comment that I do not believe that the Committee should leave this matter "reluctantly" to the experts. I think that we should leave it happily to the experts because they will do what needs to be done.
Lord Ampthill: I am very much in favour of what the noble Lord has just said, but I felt that for the sake of the pride of the House it might be better to put it that way round.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I wonder whether the noble Viscount can help us on one matter which follows the point made by his noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. What exactly happens if a binding undertaking is not honoured by the promoters? The question has been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I am bound to say that I do not know the answer--no doubt I should--but it would be helpful if the Minister could assist us.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Before the Minister utters his final words on this matter I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, that I accept, of course, that the Select Committee went as far as it possibly could. We appreciate and recognise that fact. However, given the background, I am not sure that the Bill goes as far as it possibly could. That is the point I have been pressing.
Viscount Goschen: We have probably covered the ground in and out, in and out and even back again during our brief discussion on this amendment. The principles of binding, legal, contractual undertakings are fully understood in law--and these are contractual undertakings. If there are breaches of those contractual undertakings, the remedy will depend on what the breach is and who was responsible. Legal remedies are always available and the Secretary of State would no doubt avail himself of such remedies if he saw fit. The whole principle on which a Bill such as this is taken forward is on the basis of binding, legal, contractual arrangements such as these. I do not think that there is much more to be said. Nearly 600 such undertakings have been properly registered and they are legal, binding, contractual undertakings. They bind the parties to what they have undertaken to do.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: On the basis of what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 not moved.]
4 p.m.
Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 5:
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page