HC Deb 30 July 1951 vol 491 cc1109-12

"(1) Where any ironstone.comprised in a mining lease made before the commencement of this Act is worked by opencast operations in accordance with planning permission, then if—

  1. (a) the lease contains provisions requiring or enabling the lessee to pay a specified sum in lieu of compliance with any obligation relating to the restoration of the land, or by way of liquidated damages for breach of such an obligation, or to return the land after restoration or upon payment of a specified sum. in lieu of restoration; and
  2. (b) the planning permission is subject to conditions regulating the manner in which the land is to be dealt with after working, but not requiring its restoration in the manner or to the extent specified in the lease, and those conditions are complied with,
the sum payable by the lessee as aforesaid under the lease in respect of that land shall be reduced to such extent (if any) as may be just having regard to any benefit accruing to the lesson or any person deriving title from him in consequence of compliance with the said conditions.

(2) Any question whether any and if so what reduction falls to be made under this section in the sums payable under a lease shall, in default of agreement between the parties, be determined by arbitration.

(3) For the purpose of calculating the amount of any reduction under this section the value of any benefit accruing in consequence of compliance with any conditions shall be ascertained by reference to prices of land current at the time when the sum to be reduced is payable; but if that sum is less than the sum which would represent the value of the land at that time if it were restored to the extent contemplated in the lease, the value of the benefit accruing as aforesaid shall be reduced proportionately.

(4) The provisions of this section shall apply in relation to a conveyance of ironstone or a conveyance of land subject to an exception of ironstone as they apply in relation to a mining lease, and as if for references to the lessee and to the lessor there were substituted respectively references to the person entitled to the ironstone by virtue of the conveyance or exception and to the person entitled to the surface of the land."

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

Mr. Molson

I rise to ask the Government to give us some explanation of this, substantial Clause.

Mr. Dalton

This is a new Clause which makes provision for the re-assessment of the sum payable in lieu of restoration of land. In most ironstone leases there is a. covenant for a payment in lieu of restoration. Frequently the amount of this payment is less than the cost of the restoration, and frequently the conditions attached to a planning permission will require restoration which falls short of the. restoration required by the lease, and wilt be less stringent. This Clause is intended to allow an operator to obtain a reduction of the payment in lieu in certain circumstances, having regard to the work carried out under the terms of his planning permission and the benefit which accrues to the owner as a result of his work.

My recollection is that this was asked for by hon. Members opposite, and we have put it in the Bill after considerable discussion, because it has been subject to full consideration with representatives of the landowners and operators. It is in agreed terms. We ask the House to agree with it, but if the House should reject it, they would do so in opposition to some of their own people.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Powell

I am afraid the Minister's recent history of this Clause is a little inaccurate. So far from it having been introduced in another place by the Opposition, it came as a complete surprise to them. Neither they nor the Government could understand it, so that it was necessary for proceedings to be adjourned for a time in order that discussions should take place, I imagine, behind the Woolsack.

The Clause had been agreed between two bodies described 'as the Landowners' Association and the Federation of British Industries, but by no means between the two sides of the House. I feel that it re- quires no excuse for examining a little more closely what the Clause does before we agree to it being added to the Bill. It seems to me that the Minister's explanation was a great surprise after all we have heard about the effect of the Bill.

We have been told throughout that in the past restoration had been inadequate in scale and that only recently, since the middle of last year, have planning conditions been imposed which have ensured a suitable degree of restoration. Now we are being told that we have to add this Clause to the Bill to deal with cases where restoration carried out in accordance with the terms of a lease would be a fuller restoration than that involved in planning permission.

It is possible that the full restoration which was envisaged when the sum in lieu was fixed in the lease was a fuller restoration than the Minister feels disposed to write into the planning conditions, but the fact remains that we have here pre-Act agreements between landowners and mineral workers implying a higher degree of restoration than the Minister expects he is going to impose under his planning conditions. If that is not the meaning of it, then it only indicates how insufficient is the explanation of this Clause which he has given to the House.

Mr. Mitchison

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us of any such instances. I have a suspicion that he is pulling the Woolsack over our eyes.

Mr. Powell

If the hon. and learned Member had taken the trouble to read this new Clause, he would have seen the wording presupposes such cases.

Mr. Walker-Smith

I share the apprehensions of my hon. Friend about the wording of the Clause. It is surprising that it should now be envisaged that the conditions imposed by planning permissions as a general rule should fall short of what must be contained in the covenants of leases. In the course of the Second Reading, I ventured to express the hope that restoration would now become governed by the conditions of the planning permission and would not normally be the concern of private individuals in the covenants of their leases. The Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to indicate assent on that occasion, and it is a little disappointing now to see in this Clause that that will not be so.

May I venture to remind the Minister that compensation fixed in lieu of restoration in some leases was very small indeed. If there is something which is going to be paid back in respect of that amount, the restoration envisaged by the planning conditions cannot be very much. It is all very well to say this is an agreed Clause but, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, it did not achieve any notable discussion in another place, and it has not achieved an elaborate explanation from the right hon. Gentleman now. If the Clause goes on the Statute Book, it is the Clause of the Federation of British Industries and the other body—I forget its name now—much more than of the Houses of Parliament.

Question put, and agreed to.