§ Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 11. at end, insert:
§
and
(c) the quantity of soil so removed in any period of three months amounts to more than five cubic yards.
§ 11.5 a.m.
§ Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan (Reigate)I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Hon. Members will have had the terms of this Amendment before them, but as it is rather a change in the Bill I should, as the promoter of the Bill, like to say a few words about it. This Bill has had a rather longer and more chequered career than most Private Members' Bills. It was introduced once into this House, but did not finish the course. It was introduced once in another place and did not finish the course. However, nothing daunted I started again, and it now comes back to this House on its last lap.
This Amendment greatly improves the principle of the Bill—or, to be more exact, the way in which the provisions of the Bill will be carried out. The Bill, as those who were here may remember, 968 was initiated by me on the strength of complaints which I and many others had received, and which the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, as it then was, had received, on the subject of the large amount of agricultural land which was being wantonly despoiled by the owners, who bought the land and wantonly removed such a large amount of the top soil as to make the land useless for agricultural purposes thereafter. With the encouragement of hon. Members on both sides of the House, I promoted this Bill so as to try to put a stop to that practice.
In the course of promoting the Bill I received one or two complaints from a number of horticulturists who felt that the quite legitimate way in which they bought soil for horticulture might be harmed by this Bill, and I was at pains to allay any fears or suspicions that there might be in that direction. When the Bill was being considered in another place, this Amendment was proposed by a former Lord Chancellor who, it is quite clear, is also an ardent gardener. There was some discussion as to whether another Member of the other place would be able to finish the new asparagus bed which he had recently established.
This Amendment will, I think, make it quite clear that it is not a heinous crime to remove soil provided the quantity is reasonable and the results will not so damage the land that it cannot thereafter be used for agricultural purposes. The text of the Amendment refers to being able to remove not more than five cubic yards of soil in any period of three months. For the benefit of those who are not gardeners, five cubic yards of soil is about five tons, and about 20 tons a year cannot be said finally or irreparably to damage any agricultural property, unless, of course, it is so small that there cannot be any question of tillage on any very considerable scale. I therefore hope that the House will agree to this Lords Amendment.
§ Mr. A. J. Champion (Derbyshire. South-East)I beg to second the Motion.
I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan), not only on having steered the course so well despite the difficulties, but on having overcome what appears to be the final hurdle.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Emest Marples)Perhaps I might say a word about the Government's view on this Amendment. The Government support the Amendment. Before a person can be convicted of an offence he must remove surface soil from agricultural land with a view to its sale. The removal of the soil must constitute development under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. It must not be carried out without a permission granted under Part III of the Act.
The removal of a small amount of soil might constitute development, and the effect of this Amendment is that the prosecution will also have to show that the amount of soil removed in any period of three months was more than five cubic yards. The removal of smaller quantities of soil is not the mischief which the Bill seeks to prevent, nor the mischief which my hon. Friend had in mind when he started this Bill, but without this Amendment such removal might be an offence, and therefore the Government support it.
§ Mr. Robert Crouch (Dorset, North)As a supporter of the Bill, and having watched its various stages, I think that the delay which has occurred has been to its advantage. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the painstaking way in which he has dealt with this problem. I know that in my own constituency some horticulturists were disturbed about the previous Bill. I am happy to know that we have had no complaints about this one, and I am pleased to associate myself with it.
§ Question put, and agreed to.