| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, the House should know what has happened since your Lordships gave support to this amendment at the Committee stage. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, I want to thank my noble friend Lord Goschen for all the time and trouble he has taken to meet us and to explain the Government's primary concern, which was that our original amendment might hinder the ability of the developers to make the railway. We did not accept that it did. However, to make absolutely certain, we have drafted the amendment now before your Lordships. Perhaps I should disclose that it was the weakest--by that I mean the most tolerant to the developers'
imaginary fears--of a series of amendments which we had considered. The noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, has explained how our amendment deals with and clarifies the concerns which the Government quite rightly have regarding certainty for the promoters to develop the rail link. We have no wish to, and the amendment does not, hinder this major project.The second and lesser concern expressed by my noble friend was that our amendment created a precedent in the existing compulsory purchase rules. So far as concerns certainty for the promoter to construct the line, our amendment clarifies the position by putting on the face of the Bill those assurances suggested by the Select Committee on 25th July and, as the House has just heard the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, say, supported by the Select Committee's chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, in Committee two weeks ago.
Our amendment also clarifies and puts on the face of the Bill the promoters' commentary on the Select Committee's suggestion that we discussed at very great length at the Committee stage. I suggested, and was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, that the language in that was gobbledegook. My heart went out to my noble friend Lord Goschen when he had to explain it to your Lordships two weeks ago. As my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out in Committee, assurances made by the Select Committee carry, sadly, little legal weight. Indeed, they merely create the very thing that the Government do not want--uncertainty. Assurances and such phrases as "negotiate in good faith" and "willing", frequently used in promoters' statements, carry very little weight. If they do carry weight, let us hear what weight they carry.
What certainty is there in assurances for either the promoter or the individual? If I were a developer I would dislike the uncertainty of having nothing on the face of the Bill bar assurances to guide me on what I had to do if I wanted land temporarily. I can see litigation resting on what weight the so-called assurances carry. I repeat: our amendment creates no such uncertainty. It puts on the face of the Bill those assurances that the Select Committee wanted. However, the Government objected to our original amendment because they appear to distrust decisions taken by an independent arbitrator. We have therefore allowed the Secretary of State to take this decision. He of all people will be most anxious to see the project completed quickly. I have to admit that it concerns me that the Government distrust independent arbitrators.
As regards the argument that we are altering the existing compulsory purchase rules, that is rubbish. Our amendment is exactly the same as that in the Coal Industry Bill, but that Bill went further as regards compensation. Our amendment does not do that. In our amendment the developer has an absolute right to take what land he wants. All our amendment does is to draw the Secretary of State's attention to certain matters as enumerated by the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, before he takes permanent ownership of land required only temporarily.
As I said in Committee, our amendment does not affect or bypass the protocol known as the Crichel Down rules--where land is taken and put to permanent use but then becomes surplus, it should be offered back to the original owner. However, the rules were never intended to apply, and should not apply, to land which is taken permanently when it is needed only temporarily. That is the crux of our amendment and the problem that the Crichel Down rules do not address.
I trust my noble friend will not suggest that our amendment either restricts certainty for the promoter or makes a major change in the compulsory purchase power. It does neither. Moreover, I would not support an amendment to hinder this major project.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I have read carefully the amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Cornwallis and Lord Stanley of Alderley, and I listened carefully to what was said at the Committee stage. I am not persuaded. I bring to the House some experience of the Channel Tunnel. I was involved in the exercise some years ago when the Channel Tunnel Bill, as it then was, became an Act. Exactly similar powers were then available for compulsory purchase.
Before I go into the detail of the amendment, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to an article in today's Independent which appears to suggest that the Government have put undue pressure on the Select Committee in another place about how much compensation might be made available. I hope that I am incorrect in assuming that this is seen as improper advice from government Ministers. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond because it is obviously a rather serious allegation against the Select Committee, which is obviously acting in a quasi-judicial role.
I now turn to the amendment. I see the Channel Tunnel rail link as being no different from any other major road or rail project; the Birmingham North relief road, the Channel Tunnel or whatever. We must reflect on the state of the project now and where it is likely to be in about a year's time when, one hopes, the finance will have been raised and the construction work can start. As your Lordships know, it has been designed in outline and development is going on all the time. But because of the standard procedures with a hybrid Bill, the land purchase outlines have to be defined in extreme detail on the documentation to the widest possible areas, as we have just heard. That must include temporary work sites, future landscaping, which obviously will not have been designed yet, and things like river works, access roads and diversion roads while a bridge is built, for example. As in any other project the design development will go on for several years. But what the promoters cannot do is increase their land take from what they have put on the plans now. The procedures would be long and complicated.
The noble Lords, Lord Cornwallis and Lord Stanley of Alderley, say that they do not wish to affect the certainty of the project going ahead. Obviously, one accepts that. But the one thing that a major project needs to go ahead is certainty as regards the land required to
undertake the work. When one is raising large sums of money in the City from people who are not engineers and not used to construction works, they do not understand the detail. But if they see anything which smacks of uncertainty I am sure it will have an effect. When they read something like Amendment No. 5 to Schedule 4 they find that the amendment is designed as regards the owners of the land. I expect that there are several hundred owners of agricultural land along the route. If it appears to the owner that the whole or any part of the land is not required permanently for the authorised purpose, then there will have to be several hundred amateur designers working out how big the embankment, the drainage ditches and the road are going to be. That is a nightmare. I know that there are additions to the Bill which allow the Secretary of State to take over the land, but I invite the House to consider the legal costs and the bureaucratic delay when several hundred owners are arguing as to whether a particular embankment or ditch is permanent or temporary. Is that really the way to get a project going? Obviously it cannot be said whether those things are temporary or permanent as yet.I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, who referred to the number of acres. I made a quick calculation that there was an average of 50 metres of land required each side for 100 kilometres over the length of the route in the country. Fifty metres is 25 metres on either side of the permanent way, which is not very much. When I look at assurances from the Government--and I am sure that noble Lords will agree that occasionally I do question such assurances--I have to see what is in it for either side. What is in it for the promoter not to sell back the land? A strip of land 25 metres wide on either side of a railway is no good to anyone. One cannot build a motorway service station beside the railway because the trains cannot stop. Why should not the promoter sell the land back to the farmer?
In fact, I go much further and suggest proceeding as Eurotunnel did with the Channel Tunnel. A great many small parcels of land were bought and sold and shared out between different farmers in order to create a much better shape for an agriculture holding and so make it easier to work. I see no reason at all why a promoter should not want to sell back land that he did not want to whoever wanted it. The obvious person to ask first is the person from whom it was bought. That person may well not want it, but he may. That is the logical thing to do. I do not see any motive at all for the Government or the promoter not to sell back the land.
At the end of the day the promoter will need certainty and assurance. The day he raises the money and the Government say, "Yes, go ahead", he wants to know that within a month or two, or whatever the timescale is, he has that land. He has done his planning. That is critical because the shorter the time he needs to build a project the sooner the revenue will come in. We have seen that as regards the Channel Tunnel although that was not a very great success. However, it could have been a lot worse.
I remind the House that both this House and the other place have debated the principle of the Bill and have supported it. I believe that this amendment could
frustrate the implementation of the project. In my view there is nothing particularly special about the rail link. As I said, it is just another big project. If the legislation on compulsory purchase is wrong, it is open to noble Lords to introduce another Bill, or to persuade the Government to do so rather than to attempt to frustrate the implementation of, and to change the legislation for, one particular project.4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I have not taken part before in the proceedings on this Bill. I do so now because I believe that we have reached a very critical stage on a very important issue. I read the Select Committee's special report and I congratulate it on the care it took and the effort it made to try to provide the proper assurance that noble Lords seek.
The Select Committee quoted the case of the Holt family land in Folkestone. I looked up the plans. It was a clear case of a great deal of surplus land, or land which could be returned. I believe that the Select Committee drew attention to that very well indeed. I do not believe that my noble friend has been unsympathetic in all the discussions. In fact, he has sought to give assurances, but understandably perhaps they do not go far enough.
As I see it, the practical trouble, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, is how one defines in the Bill land that is temporary. It is a difficult practical problem, which is not addressed in the Bill. It is addressed in the amendment. The answer is that the farmer himself can serve a counternotice to the notice to treat, not to delay the promoter but to remove the compulsory purchase order and for the promoter to continue on an irrevocable licence.
I believe that the practical answer to that suggestion is that farmers generally could misuse their power. I am not satisfied that that would be a good precedent. Equally, under the Bill there is no timetable or procedure for farmers to insist that the Secretary of State should look to see what has become temporary land. Clearly, from the amendment there could be a five-year rule that a farmer or owner can insist under the Bill that the Secretary of State should decide whether within five years land was no longer required and it was temporary land.
My noble friend's amendment includes the term "owner" rather than just "farmer". That is a fair comment. After all, today there are many owners of land who have been encouraged to offer farm business tenancies and quite rightly so. As I understand it, they would not qualify under the assurances that have been given.
As to the undertakings, I ask my noble friend the Minister to make certain that, if the Government are to rely on the assurances, when a notice to retreat is served on any farmer or owner he or she is made aware of the assurances. There needs to be clear evidence that farmers and owners are aware of the assurances that have been given because that would give a great deal of comfort to people, particularly to Members of your Lordships' House who worry, as I worry, that in the years to come those assurances could so easily be forgotten.
My noble friend Lord Stanley referred to the Crichel Down rules. Noble Lords will remember that it all began with Commander Martin and the case that he started. As I recall, when the Government and local authorities acquire land by compulsory purchase, they have what is basically an unwritten duty to offer back that land first to the original owner. I think that I am right in saying that under the Bill the Secretary of State may acquire land by compulsory purchase within the limits of the Bill and the landowners have no right of appeal. There is no local inquiry. Under Clause 5, if the Secretary of State acquires land outside the limits of the Bill, that would be subject to a local inquiry.
A practical point arising from that is that the Government pass the land or the scheme to the promoter and the promoter passes it to the undertaker who builds the link. There may well be delays and one may forget about the value and the safeguard of the Crichel Down rules. Therefore, I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he can reinforce the principle of the Crichel Down rules and ensure that no land acquired by the Secretary of State under the Bill will ever be used or sold for other commercial purposes without first offering that land back to the original owner at a value equal to that pertaining on its acquisition.
Some years ago I was involved in quite a large statutory flood alleviation scheme. Large areas of land were acquired under compulsory purchase, of which something like 25 per cent. was required for temporary use only. It was a long and hard-fought case and in the end the largest owner achieved an agreement with the statutory body without the use of compulsory purchase despite the fact that that had been confirmed. It was a sensible and good result for all. I hope that we can achieve the same under this Bill.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page