Noble Lords have different views about the precise scope of the special parliamentary procedure, which we have heard expressed in Committee, but it is important that the scope is consistently applied. It is therefore important that the Minister answers the point made by my noble friend Lord Faulkner. Why does Clause 22(5) preserve the application of the SP procedure to propose compulsory purchase acquisition of National Trust land, which is held inalienably, but does not provide equivalent protection for land held in trust for the nation by the Canal & River Trust? Since
the land is held for precisely the same purpose in both cases, why should the same legal procedure not apply to both?