Clause 4.—(CONTRIBUTIONS FROM IRONSTONE OWNERS.) (Hansard, 29 June 1951)

§ Mr. Dalton
I beg to move, in page 3, line 44, at the end, to insert: (3) For the purposes of this section and of the said Second Schedule, no account shall be taken of development value attributable to the prospect of developing land by winning and working ironstone which immediately before the fifteenth day of February, nineteen hundred and fifty-one, was subject to a full restoring lease. This is the first of a group of Amendments consequential on a discussion we had in Committee when an Amendment was made to the Third Schedule. I will put the matter as simply as I can for the benefit of anyone who was not present during the Committee discussions.
The general form of the lease which we have found in this area contains the provision for a payment in lieu of restoration. Messrs. Stewarts and Lloyds—I am speaking objectively and I am not criticising anyone—have a standard form in which a payment in lieu may be offered in place of restoration, and in many cases it is found that the payments in lieu have not been at all sufficient to restore the land. That is not always so, but it has been so in many cases. That has been one of the weaknesses of these arrangements from the point of view of the public interest.
It has been represented to me that there are quite a number of small land owners who have insisted upon full restoration covenants without any payment in lieu as an alternative, and it has also been represented to me that they will get a lesser royalty than they would have got had that covenant not been inserted. There are comparatively few of them. I was asked to consider their case sympathetically. I have done so, and since they are few I think there is a case to exempt them from contributions where a full restoration covenant without an alternative payment in lieu is provided for. The object of this group of Amendments is so to exempt them.

§ Colonel Lancaster
We on this side of the House welcome this small concession made by the Minister. I am not sure that I fully agreed with the facts as he put them forward. In the past this provision covered a fairly wide number of landowners. It was, of course, the general practice in the past that there should be 1777 full restoration, although in many of the leases there was a clause to the effect that money payments could be made in lieu of full restoration. I think it would put the matter in a more correct focus if we accept the fact that that was the standard practice.
I personally think it was to be deplored that the alternative practice crept in. I am by no means happy about the fact that advantage was taken of that clause in the lease, but I understand the circumstances. In the first place, it was mostly done during the bad times of farming, and mostly by what were called owner-occupiers. It was no reflection on them that they needed the money at that time to carry on their livelihood. Nevertheless, it brought about an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
The Minister has mentioned that a body of landowners insisted on full restoration and took a lower royalty as a result of that clause in their lease, and in their case I feel that some measure of justice is being done here. I support the Amendment.

§ Mr. Dalton
I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, at the end, to insert: and subsection (2) of section sixty-five of that Act (which prescribes the date on which stock is to be issued in respect of such payments) shall have effect as if the reference therein to the amount of any payment required by that section to be satisfied by the issue of stock included a reference to the amount of any contribution to be made under this section out of such a payment. This Amendment is linked with some others later on the Order Paper and the effect is that a payment from the £300 million need not be made until the slice to be taken off the Ironstone Restoration Fund has been obtained. The reason is that unless we can make a provision of this sort it might be necessary to make a payment from the fund without any deduction and then to take steps to recover the slice. By this means, through the Amendment, we simplify the procedure.