HL Deb 10 April 1984 vol 450 cc1034-8

2.54 p.m.

Lord Orr-Ewing

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the land for the Mount Pleasant Airfield in the Falkland Islands has now been purchased and what was the price for all the relevant elements.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, the contracts for the purchase have now been exchanged. The price paid for the 8,300 acres was £55,000. In addition the normal severance compensation has been paid and was assessed to be £100,000. The construction of the airfield necessitates the resiting of Mount Pleasant House and other farm facilities and services to enable farming operations to continue, the cost of which is £83,877.

Lord Orr-Ewing

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Could he say whether, as a result of using negotiations rather than compulsory purchase, he was able to buy this farming land at just over £6.50 an acre? Was this because negotiation was used? Could he perhaps tell the House when the first runway on this land will become serviceable for operational purposes?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, we always prefer to acquire land by voluntary agreement rather than compulsory purchase. Indeed, as a result of reaching the voluntary agreement with the owners of this land they were able to grant us a licence to begin work on the aerodrome, as a result of which the first runway will now be operational about this time next year.

Lord Beswick

My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that when I first asked this Question he said on 13th March that this was a confidential matter between the Government and the owners of the land? May I ask him why he is now able to change his mind about this? Could he not have an equally satisfactory U-turn about my previous Question?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's supplementary question is that the contract has now been signed. It had not been signed when the noble Lord put to me his original Question.

Lord Beswick

My Lords, may I just follow on? Now that the contract has been signed, on the question of the amount of compensation under the general heading of disturbance is it not a fact that the price comes to the £30 an acre which I said originally?

Lord Trefgarne

No, my Lords; the price per acre was in fact as my noble friend recounted. The compensation is a quite separate matter which is of course calculated by different means.

Lord Broxbourne

My Lords, could my noble friend say whether the price paid here reflects the principles and criteria of assessment of compensation in English statute law, and, if there are any divergences therefrom, of what they consist?

Lord Trefgarne

Yes, my Lords. Had we gone to compulsory purchase the price would no doubt have been subject to arbitration, and our belief is that the amount we have agreed to pay would have been the sort of figure that would have been arrived at by arbitration.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, is this not even so an excessive amount to pay for this land, the total being over £238,000? Could the noble Lord answer the following questions? First, could he confirm what he said during the last exchange on this matter, that the Property Services Agency consulted the Government, and did representatives of the Property Services Agency visit the Falkland Islands to inspect the land in question? Secondly, could he say what is the average price of land in this area of the Falkland Islands? Is it true, as was reported in the press, that it is between £1 and £2 per acre? That would be of interest. Thirdly, on the question of disturbance, where the sum paid or agreed on the exchange of contracts, as he said, was £100,000, can the noble Lord describe how that can be justified for disturbance in this part of the world?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, may I take the noble Lord's questions in order? First, yes, it was the case that the Property Services Agency were the Government's principal but not sole advisers in this matter; and, indeed, they have a number of represen-tatives on the islands at the present time. As for the rate per acre, that very much depends upon the profitability of the land, or, rather, the number of sheep that it will sustain. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked me about that on the last occasion on which we discussed this matter. The price we have paid reflects the fact that this is in fact rather good land. The site is in the middle of a much larger farm, and thus the piece of land that we have acquired for the purpose of building the aerodrome has divided that farm up very substantially. It was that factor which we took into account in reaching the compensation figure to which I referred.

Lord Shackleton

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that applying criteria as to the division of farms in a part of the world where there are no roads anyway is not of the same significance? Would he not agree that in fact the payment for the land, which is moderate land—even if it were very good land the amount would still be excessive—is out of all proportion to other sales of land and farms with complete houses elsewhere in the Falklands?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, that was not the conclusion which the Government reached in considering this matter. But I would emphasise that this was originally a much larger farm. We have taken a substantial piece of land from virtually the middle of the site, and I think it is quite reasonable to suggest that we have therefore greatly affected the future viability of that farm.

Lord Bishopston

My Lords, when the Minister speaks of compensation, that is being paid to the Falkland Islands Company or the Coalite Company, I presume, has he reminded the company in purchasing and paying the price they demand that unless the British forces had ensured that the islands were still under British control none of the assets of these companies would be worth anything? Is it not rather outrageous that we have to pay a price demanded in this way? Is the Minister aware also that there are many other facilities which people will need in the Falklands, our forces included, which are also under monopoly control? Will he remind the Falklands Islands Government of the need for immediate land reform by using the powers which they have in their possession?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, that is another question, if I may say so, but the fact remains that the alterna-tives that confronted us were to acquire the land either by voluntary agreement or else by compulsory purchase. Had it been by compulsory purchase the price would have been set by arbitration, if agreement could not have been reached. We have no powers and do not seek to take any powers to confiscate the land.

Lord Orr-Ewing

My Lords, it has been reported, and would my noble friend like to comment, that the Falklands Islands Company offered some of this land as a gift to the Government because of their gratitude? Was this offer made? Was it considered and, if so, why was it refused?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, the Falkland Islands Company initially offered to donate about half the land required and suggested that the Ministry of Defence might in turn make a similar contribution in cash towards the cost of a swimming pool in Port Stanley. There would thus have been no real savings to public funds and, in any event, they did not say what price they would have required for the other half.

Lord Beswick

My Lords, when the noble Lord talks about disturbance—I think the term used in the contract was "dislocation"—did that dislocation mean only the moving of an old hut and a telephone line? Is that not the dislocation that was incurred? Will the noble Lord make it clear that when one includes compensation the actual price paid per acre for this land is £30, as I originally said, which compares very strangely with £1 to £6 per acre for similar land in the area?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, the noble Lord asks about the dislocation or the disruption as he suggests. I am not a great expert on fanning but I imagine that it is much more difficult to run a farm in two parts with a big aerodrome in the middle than it is to run one particular area.

Lord Hankey

My Lords, are the Government aware that most people will be delighted that the Government are getting on rapidly with the construction of this airfield which is essential both for the development and the defence of the Falklands?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord.

Viscount Montgomery of Alamein

My Lords, will my noble friend confirm whether the very sad news which has appeared on the tape in the last few hours concerning a very serious fire at Port Stanley hospital is correct?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, yes, I am very sorry to have to say that a major fire broke out at five o'clock this morning local time at the combined civil and military hospital at Port Stanley. About two-thirds of the building, including the military wing, has been destroyed. Six civilians are confirmed dead and one civilian is missing. All three services provided assistance in fighting the fire. The cause has not yet been established. An inquiry will, of course, be set in hand.

Lord Shackleton

My Lords, I accept that the Leader of the House must be concerned at the width of the questioning that we have now reached on this particular point, but as the question of a swimming pool has come up, is the Minister aware that the Falkland islanders were offered a swimming pool, an offer which has never yet been honoured, at the time the "Great Britain" was brought back to this country? Is he now aware that there is very serious concern that this transaction calls for further investigation?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I must confess that I do not agree with the noble Lord about that. As to the question of a swimming pool, I hope that the Falkland islanders will not have to wait another hundred years.

Lord Beswick

My Lords, the whole House will wish to be associated with the expression of sympathy and sadness at the tragedy at the hospital in Port Stanley.

Forward to