---

Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I am always full of admiration for my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley for the persistence with which he pursues land use issues. The agriculture lobby is extremely fortunate to have a champion of such vigour who pursues such issues so formidably. However, we must be careful not to succumb too easily to blandishments.

The noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, said that there would be no delay, but I question that. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and, as he said, it is difficult to see how this amendment would not cause delays in the implementation of what is an enormously overdue project. Not only is it a project of major national interest, but it is also a vital link in the development of our trading interests in Europe. We need the link and we need it as fast as possible. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will resist the amendment so that we may proceed with all haste to the successful conclusion of this vital project.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, since a certain amount of this argument seems to turn on the Crichel Down rules, which were raised by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, may I ask the Minister to confirm that my understanding of those rules is correct? My understanding is that the Crichel Down protocol was

14 Nov 1996 : Column 1051

generated in connection with the disposal of land which had been acquired for permanent use, was used for such purpose permanently for some time, but was then sold. That is a different proposition from that which we are discussing. We are discussing the question of land being acquired partly for permanent use and partly for temporary use.

My understanding is that under the Crichel Down rules fairly onerous conditions apply to the offer of the land back to the landowner. Am I correct in believing, first, that the statutory undertaker must resolve that the land has become surplus to his operations, which is not unreasonable? Secondly, is it correct that the land must be offered to any other statutory undertaker or authority which might have a use for it and that only after that is it to be offered back to the owner, and then only subject to stringent conditions which include a duty to get the best possible price, a duty to include within that price any development potential which may have arisen during the period that it was occupied by the statutory undertaker and, thirdly, that the price is to be decided unilaterally by a valuer appointed by the statutory undertaker? Bearing in mind that the land will probably have been acquired at agricultural value, does it not seem unjust that it may have to be acquired back with a significant element of hope value or even with planning permission?

Referring to the subject more generally, it seems to me that a number of the arguments that have been adduced this afternoon suggest that because this is a very important scheme a certain small number of farmers or landowners should suffer the risk of a financial disadvantage and that that would be a fair sacrifice. If the Government would say that frankly, I would vote for them. If not, I think that it is up to the Minister to satisfy the House that the landowners are not being disadvantaged.

Lord Renton: My Lords, we are all obviously agreed that when land is needed only temporarily for the construction of this rail link, that part which is not needed after construction should be returned to the owner or farmer concerned. We are offered two ways of achieving that purpose. One is to have it written into the Bill with all the legal certainty that follows from that. The other method is to rely upon what is written in the report of the Select Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, quoted those words in Committee. In passing, perhaps I may say that the noble Lord did a formidable job in presiding over that Select Committee for so many sittings. The subject occupied his attention for a long time.

We are faced with a constitutional position. Instead of writing the matter into the Bill with the authority of both Houses of Parliament and with the legal certainty which we hope would follow, it is suggested that we should rely upon what the Select Committee of your Lordships' House said in its report that it requires. However, a Select Committee of one House does not make the law. We must get this right. It may be said that this has happened in the past and that one has to rely on the good will of contractors and their promoters, especially when the promoter is the Secretary of State.

14 Nov 1996 : Column 1052

However, as several noble Lords have said, there may well be cases in which that good will does not prevail. There needs to be either a firm contractual undertaking by the undertakers (the owners) to the promoter (the Secretary of State), who will be answerable to Parliament, or certainty written into the Bill. The question arises whether the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, and supported by my noble friend Lord Stanley, provides that certainty. In view of the manner in which the remainder of the Bill is drafted, it has become a rather elaborate amendment. I believe that that was unavoidable. However, it seems to provide the certainty required. We might be making a great mistake and erring constitutionally if instead we relied merely on something which a Select Committee of your Lordships' House said it required.

Lord Ampthill: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I should like to refer to a letter addressed to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, which deals with the specific points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton:

"Under the Development Agreement with London and Continental Railways (LCR), LCR are required to comply with all these undertakings and assurances. Compliance is a clear contractual obligation and one of the key minimum requirements of the project imposed on LCR by the Government".

I say no more.

Lord Renton: My Lords, if that is a contract that has been entered into it is a pity it was not drawn to the attention of the House long before. We might not have had to hold this discussion. I do not believe that merely to have read out to the House a statement virtually at the last minute, which we are told is evidence of a contract having been made, is the correct way to legislate in this important matter. Between whom exactly has it been made? Obviously, subcontractors will be involved in this matter. It would be far better and safer and, in the long run more likely to be just, to amend the Bill. If your Lordships pass the amendment, or better still my noble friend Lord Goschen, having taken advice, accepts the amendment and any adjustment is to be made purely from the drafting and technical point of view, let it be made. Meanwhile, your Lordships will have established an important constitutional principle.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, with respect to my noble friend Lord Renton, I do not believe that he ought to try to persuade the House that this is the first time this matter has been raised. At Committee stage my noble friend Lord Goschen spelt out the position with great clarity. No doubt he would wish to say the same today in different words. It is right to put on record the clear procedure:

"It has been understood that it is not possible, nor practicable, to put every single minor or major detailed technical undertaking into legislation. Therefore the procedure is that the undertakers give assurances which are registered in a registry of undertakings. Those are contractually binding. If the promoters do not comply with them, they can be enforced by the Secretary of State through the development agreement in the usual way. However, there is an additional safeguard. Compulsory purchase powers are vested in the Secretary of State. In exercising those powers, he will wish to be

14 Nov 1996 : Column 1053

satisfied that the LCR has done everything reasonable to negotiate licences where they are feasible".--[Official Report, 31/10/96; col.464.]

Nothing could be clearer than that. It seems to me that to try to persuade the House that somehow all of it has to be written into the Bill in great detail when there is a well established procedure and a complete register of the undertakings--

Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to intervene.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, if my noble friend allows me to finish my sentence, I shall be happy to give way. Where there is an established procedure with a Select Committee and a register of undertakings which become contractually binding, I cannot see that any purpose is served by writing into the Bill the complicated provisions proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, and his noble friend. The argument of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is that every owner would have the opportunity to come along and suggest that something was temporary and not permanent. If ever there were uncertainty, it would be that.

Lord Renton: My Lords, I ask my noble friend to bear in mind that there is no suggestion that all of the detail of the kind he suggests should be written into the Bill. What the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, seeks to write into the Bill is the principle at stake. That is expressed in a somewhat complicated piece of drafting merely because it must be dovetailed into a long and complicated Bill. With great respect to my noble friend, he has not got it right.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I believe that I have got it right. The statement made by my noble friend at Committee stage was perfectly clear. I hope that the House will reject this amendment.

---