HC Deb 30 July 1951 vol 491 cc1106-8

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 8, leave out "average" and insert "standard."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Dalton.]

Mr. Powell

I think this Amendment is a paving Amendment to the Amendment which immediately follows. As the Clause stands, it determines the average rate of the cost of land restoration so that where an operator necessarily incurs more expenditure than that average rate, he can obtain' reimbursement from the Ironstone Restoration Fund. That average rate, which was based upon the average cost per acre of carrying out the restoration operations specified in subsection (1) has now disappeared completely and is to be replaced by a standard rate determined by the Minister on two criteria which are set out in the Amendment.

These two criteria are the application of the sort of restoration which ironstone workers used to have to carry out and, secondly, in the second half of paragraph (b) the cost this sort of work used to involve them in. I want to ask the Minister why he has gone back to the cost of the sort of restoration that used to be imposed upon ironstone working under the old leases as the whole basis for this future standard rate, instead of taking into account the actual cost under current conditions of the full restoration which is now to be required.

Mr. Molson

I should like to press this inquiry a little bit further. During the Committee stage, I raised with the Government the great desirability of insuring that there should be a maximum inducement for those restoring land to do so in the most economical and efficient manner, and I understood that the way in which that desirable purpose would be effected was that the criterion of payment would be the average cost of restoration, so that if there was some ironstone operator who was able to restore the land more cheaply than the average he would stand to benefit by the payment. If owing to his inefficiency or using old equipment his cost of restoration was higher, he would suffer to that extent. That is a repetition from my memory of the explanation given, I think, at the time by the Parliamentary Secretary.

When I turn to this new Amendment, which is, I understand, the result of discussions that have taken place between the Government and the industry, I find myself unable to understand quite how it is to operate. Reading the Clause, I am not quite satisfied that that very important point upon which I was reassured by the Parliamentary Secretary in the case of the original draft is going to be safeguarded in this Amendment.

Mr. Dalton

As the hon. Gentleman has surmised, I have been discussing with the industry, as we undertook that we would do, the best way of fixing the rate under subsection (3), and we have introduced this new provision because we are satisfied, after discussions with the Iron and Steel Corporation and others, that this is really better.

The new subsection leaves the Minister a reasonably free hand to fix a fair figure after due consultation. If the hon. Member looks at Clause 14, he will see that the Minister shall consult with the Corporation. He may also consult the Advisory Committee which is to be set up under the Bill. Under the new subsection the Minister will now fix a fair figure having regard to the general run of lease obligations and the cost of the restoration that was actually being carried out on 25th July, 1950—the date on which the special Order I made came into operation, which pre-dates this Bill. Having that information, and having been duly advised by the Corporation and the Advisory Committee, either I or my successors will be able to fix a reasonably fair figure.

Payments from the Ironstone Fund will be made, where the reasonable cost of restoring the land exceeds the amount, irrespective of the depth of the ironstone —which the hon. Gentleman said was an arbitrary figure when we were discussing the matter in Committee. I have accepted that now, following consultations, and I hope that this new procedure will be more equitable and will not be unduly bound by the specific depth of work.

Mr. Walker-Smith

It is true that the other figure was rather arbitrary, but it seems to me that this Clause really leaves the Minister an almost completely free hand and that the two matters to which he has to have regard have very little effect in fettering his discretion at all. That may have been the purpose of the Clause, but it is a little unsatisfactory when one looks at the two matters to which he has to have regard. The nature and extent of the works may be defined, but so far as the obligations usually imposed on lessees are concerned, my experience, which may be small compared with the august bodies and persons who advise the Minister, is that they vary immensely in mining leases in regard to this matter. I should have thought that the first matter to which the Minister has to have regard is one which he will have difficulty in translating into actuality.

Mr. Mitchison (Kettering)

I have only one question to ask: why, if the persons who are about to be kicked prefer the length of the Minister's foot to some other arbitrary standard, should they not be allowed to choose accordingly?

Question put, and agreed to.