HC Deb 29 June 1951 vol 489 cc1778-81
Mr. Powell

I beg to move, in page 6, line 19, to leave out "or," and to insert "and."

This Amendment is somewhat more than a mere verbal drafting Amendment. I believe it has some point of substance although, upon further study, I am inclined to think that for its completeness it would be necessary to leave out the word "for" in line 20. Perhaps I may put the point as I see it to the Minister for consideration in case it is found necessary to make an alteration at a later stage.

Subsection (1) of the Clause entitles an operator who does certain work to receive certain payments. Subsection (2) explains that the payments are the difference between the cost of the work and the average rate. Subsection (3) defines the average rate. The work referred to in subsection (1) is described disjunctively as either work for levelling or work for respreading. For the moment I will ignore the further words about restoring surface fertility.

The payment in subsection (2) is admittedly made in respect of work which is carried out, and no other, so that if the work carried out was merely levelling presumably the payment would be made only in respect of the cost of levelling. But when we come to subsection (3), there are not two average rates—one for the average cost of levelling and the other for the average cost of respreading the surface soil—but a single composite average rate for both operations considered as one operation.

It is impossible, therefore, to have "and" in line 38, which results in a single average rate and the word "or" in line 19 which results in two alternative and separate operations. If I am correct in that contention it would be necessary to leave out the word "for" in line 20 so that "otherwise restoring fertility" becomes an alternative to "re-spreading of surface soil" and not, as it stands at present, an alternative to either of the two previously-mentioned operations. I hope what I have said will be sufficient to make the point clear, right or wrong, so that it can be considered at a later stage.

Mr. Walker-Smith

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Dalton

As at present advised, I do not see the necessity for this Amendment. The effect of it would be to limit payments out of the fund to cases where the planning permission required both levelling and top-soiling or some other treatment for ensuring fertility. But there will be cases in which we shall not need these matters of technical handling. I do not want to seek, out of my amateur and second-hand knowledge, to give a long address about draglines, shovels, excavators, and so on. The point is that there will be some cases where we shall do top soiling and there will be some cases where we shall not. The effect of this Amendment would be to limit payments to where we required both levelling and top soiling or some other treatment, but there may be cases in which we require only one of those operations. I should have thought that we ought therefore to leave the Clause in its present form, otherwise there will be excluded cases which I should have thought we would wish to see included.

12 noon.

Mr. Powell

I do not wish to detain the House over this, although I think that there is a point which perhaps the Minister has not apprehended, namely, that he has only one average rate, and that average rate is for two operations to be considered as one. He will find that if levelling only is carried out, he has no average rate for levelling only with which he can compare the cost incurred by the actual operator in the levelling. Having said that, and wishing to leave it for later consideration, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 6, line 21, leave out "either," and insert "any."—[Mr. Dalton.]

Mr. Powell

I beg to move, in page 6, line 39, at the end to insert: or otherwise restoring fertility thereto. At an earlier stage the Government accepted an Amendment to insert in line 20 the alternative "otherwise restoring fertility" to the process of re-spreading surface soil. This Amendment appears to be consequential, so that the same alternative is added at the end of subsection (3).

Mr. Molson (The High Peak)

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Dalton

We did discuss this in Committee, when I accepted similar words to this in subsection (1), as the hon. Gentleman has reminded us. However, I do not myself see why it is necessary to do the same in subsection (3). I think the words are appropriate in the place where I have accepted them, namely, in subsection (1), because there the cost is estimated by reference to the work which is required to be done with permission. In subsection (3) that is not so. There, a rate has to be fixed by reference to notional circumstances, and the Minister can only do that if the facts on which he has to estimate the average rate are quite clear.

The hon. Gentleman is generally a great pursuer of ambiguities, but here I think that he introduces an ambiguity, because one can readily estimate the cost of re-spreading surface soil; that is a clear-cut job. But to estimate "otherwise restoring fertility" is a much more general conception. We have had some discussion about methods, but it is very difficult indeed to estimate that with precision in advance. It must evidently vary from case to case. I should have thought that on this occasion the hon. Gentleman's Amendment did not, as his Amendments are generally designed to do, clarify the position but did the reverse.

Mr. Powell

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.