HC Deb 21 December 1954 vol 535 cc2688-703

8.14 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. W. F. Deedes)

I beg to move, That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulation 1954, dated 8th December, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th December, be approved. These Regulations have been made by the Minister with the consent of the Treasury under powers granted in the Town and Country Planning Acts, 1947 and 1954. I admit at once that they are pretty complicated. Even by comparison with the parts of the latter Act which we have recently experienced, they are exceedingly difficult for the layman to comprehend.

The explanation is simple enough. It is because we are trying to apply the provisions of an already complex Act to the circumstances of an industry which already has complications and customs of its own. In those circumstances, I think I should try to give as full and lucid an account of these Regulations as I can, and I would like to apologise in advance for the time that this may take. If, after I have given the account, there are still questions in the minds of hon. Members, perhaps it will be convenient to the House if I may reply to them by the leave of the House, at the end of the debate.

So as to put matters in perspective, I should point out that not all these Regulations stem from the new Act. For the convenience of everybody concerned, we have tried to consolidate three sets of Regulations which have been in force for a varying number of years under the Act of 1947. These are the Minerals Regulations 1948, 1949 and 1953. Part II of the present Regulations—that is to say, Regulations 3 to 10—re-enact those of the existing Regulations which are still required. Part II might, therefore, be described as mainly consolidatory in character, but there are one or two new provisions in Part II to which I must refer in a moment.

It is, I think, on Part III that the main interest of the House centred—that is to say, Regulations 11 to 24, which adapt the provisions of the 1954 Act to the mineral industry. Before I tackle either part in detail, I think that perhaps three general observations may assist the House to understand why the provisions of the Planning Acts need to be specially adapted in order to deal with minerals.

There are a number of features of mineral development which are not to be found in any other type of development. First of all, mining operations differ from other kinds of development, in that they add nothing to the value or the land. The value of the permission to work minerals lies solely in the right to take them away, and this removal frequently destroys what value there was in the land.

Secondly, the process of extraction and treatment of minerals usually requires the provision of expensive fixed plant and buildings near the area of working. That is because the minerals in their raw state are often too low in value to make them worth transporting any distance. There are such things as cement works, the plant of which is so expensive that it takes between 80 and 100 years to amortise its cost. In these circumstances, it will be seen that the value of the plant depends on the availability of suitable minerals, while the presence of plant enhances the value of the minerals which feed it. They are, one might say, interdependent.

The third general point which I should like to make is that the 1947 Act treated the winning and working of minerals as a continuous operation and not as a use of land. Therefore, planning permission is required as long as working continues. As a result of this—and the importance of this point will emerge when we consider Regulations in more detail—the working of minerals is not an existing use. Consequently, the buildings, plant and machinery used for the purpose have no real existing use value.

In the light of these remarks, let me pass in a little more detail to the provisions of Part II. I must make a passing reference to Regulation 2 in Part I, which sweeps away all the existing mineral Regulations made under the Act of 1947. Part II reinstates such of these Regulations as we still require, amended where necessary to take into account the effect of the Act of 1954. I have said that Part II is mainly re-enactment, but there are three points here upon which I should comment.

First, the House may wonder why certain Regulations, notably Regulations 8 and 9, still make reference to the calculation of claims on the £300 million and the determination of development charge. The point there is that some claims made by mineral undertakers have not yet been determined. The reason is that negotiations on some claims have been protracted. They are difficult and complicated, and some are still outstanding. That, in the main, explains why it is necessary to include in the Regulations those provisions which relate to claims on the Fund. Similarly, there are a number of development charges which are still not determined.

The second special reference which I should like to make in Part II relates to Regulation 10, and, again, possibly some words of preliminary explanation might be helpful. It will be understood that in the years immediately before the coming into force of the 1947 Act, planning control of the winning and working of minerals was very much less stringent. At the appointed day, 1st July, 1948, therefore, some transitional arrangements had to be made to enable operators who were already at work to go on extracting minerals without specific permission until their applications for specific permission could be determined. The General Development Order, 1948, required the operator to apply for specific planning permission within a given time but left him free in the meanwhile to go on working minerals in land adjoining his existing working.

Generally speaking, any compensation for refusal of permission to work minerals can be founded only on loss of development value in the minerals. Under the 1954 Act, the compensation will be based on the claim on the £300 million Fund and, in future, the unexpended balance. In the ordinary way, plainly, refusal cannot damage the value of buildings, plant and machinery, because they ought not to be erected until the necessary permission is forthcoming, but in the case of workings existing in 1948 something had to be devised to meet a situation in which buildings, plant and machinery existed and could be damaged by refusal to allow the continuance of working in land covered by the General Development Order.

Regulation 10 (1), which appeared in the 1948 and 1953 Regulations, was a means of providing for compensation for such damage. The main change which has now been made is by Regulation 10 (2), which is new. The applicant is enabled to claim compensation for loss through disturbance of his undertaking as though the permission under which he was working had been revoked or modified. It appeared to the Government, in the circumstances which I have just described, that the effect of a refusal of permission was very much the same as the effect of a revocation of permission, and that the compensation ought, therefore, to be on the same basis.

The third point which I want to mention before leaving Part II is the addition which has been made in Regulation 7, which corresponds to No. 5 in the 1948 Regulations. Regulation 5 of the 1948 Regulations provided, among other things, for the calculation of compensation where buildings, plant and machinery were compulsorily acquired. In those circumstances, regard was to be had to the existence of any specific planning permission to work minerals. Nothing was then said about the effect of a permission under the general Development Order, and the purpose of the second paragraph of Regulation 7 is to enable the value of a General Development Order permission to be taken into account.

That, for the moment, concludes points which I thought might interest hon. Members on Part II. I tan assure the House that it covers the points of substance created by our additions and our adaptations. I come now to Part III which, the House will learn with regret, contains the substance of these Regulations.

Here, I think it would be helpful if I first stated one general problem which has to be faced in applying the provisions of the 1954 Act to minerals. It stems from the rather unusual financial arrangements incorporated in leases of minerals. The most significant is the custom of reserving an annual rent under the lease which is payable by the lessee whether he works any minerals or not. As a corollary to this liability, the mineral lessee normally has the right to work, without any further payment, an appropriate tonnage of minerals at a subsequent time.

Although it will take a moment or two, I think it would be of benefit to the House—for this is a very complicated point—if I attempted to give a simple example of how this works out in practice. For instance, a lease of ironstone might include provision for the payment of an annual minimum rent, of, say, £200. This amount would represent a certain tonnage of minerals at the royalty paid under the lease. Let us say that in this case the royalty reserved in the lease is 6d. a ton. The rent of £200, as will be seen by simple arithmetical calculation, would represent 8,000 tons of minerals.

If, in any one year, the operator worked more than 8,000 tons, he would normally begin paying 6d. a ton over and above that figure, but if in any one year he failed to work 8,000 tons, he would be allowed to work the amount by which he had fallen short in the subsequent years free of royalty. That is the custom known as accumulating short working.

Supposing that in the first year the lessee works no minerals at all, in the second year he works 4,000 tons and in the third year he works 12,000 tons. The position is roughly as follows: in the first year he pays £200 minimum rent and no royalties, so that at the start of the second year he has accumulated short workings of £200. In the second year he pays £200 minimum rent and works 4,000 tons, representing £100 worth of royalties. At the beginning of the third year, therefore, he has accumulated short workings of £300—that is, £200 from the first year and £100 from the second year.

In the third year he pays £200 minimum rent and works 12,000 tons, representing £300 worth of royalties. At the beginning of the fourth year, therefore—and I hope I have been followed so far—he has accumulated short workings of £200—that is, the £300 with which he started the year less £100, being the excess of his workings over his minimum rent.

So much for short workings which, in the context of these Regulations, is primarily a matter of interest for the lessee. To complete the picture, I should explain one other feature of a normal mining lease. This is quite essential to a number of Regulations which fit in when one has completed the picture. This is known as a break clause which enables either party to break, or terminate, a lease at certain pre-arranged intervals, say ever five years. I will try to relate the two arrangements I have described to each other. When the lessee and the lessor made their claims on the £300 million, the lessee's claim would be based in the main on the value of the short workings he had accumulated at the appointed day. The amount of the lessor's claim would depend largely upon the value of his right to receive the minimum rate for the years up to the next operation of any break clause.

Now we come at last to the point of all this. If when a payment falls to be made under the Act the lessee has accumulated—as he might well have done—more short workings than he had at the appointed day while the number of years until the next break in the lease has increased, the share of development value held by each of the two parties is quite different from what it was on the appointed day. This fluctuation or movement in development value is often quite considerable and might take place in either direction, from the lessor to the lessee or the other way about, and there is nothing like this in any other field of development.

It would be inequitable if the respective claim holdings were not adjusted to take account of this movement of development value before a payment under Parts I or V of the Act were made. I mention those Parts particularly because, although in the Parts which deal with the future the same factors have to be taken into account, the provisions required for the purpose are much more straightforward because all claim holdings are amalgamated into the unexpended value. It will no longer be the case of dealing with two cakes and cutting off from one and adding to another but there will be only one cake to be divided.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas (Leicester, North-East)

I gather that in that case the same total amount is involved and all that the hon. Gentleman is concerned with is the division between the lessor and lessee?

Mr. Deedes

The hon. and learned Member is quite right—it is an important point—the lump remains exactly the same, but it is the apportionment between the lessor and lessee which is at stake and which concerns the Regulations.

I hope that explanation will enable hon. Members to see more clearly why certain of the more important Regulations are to be made. Their numbers are, 16, 17, 18, 21 and 24 (2). All these Regulations relate to the arrangements I have described. But for the fact that I should be taking up the time of the House, I should like to relate each of these Regulations to the exposition I have given, but I do not think that would be welcomed. The most helpful thing I can do is to mention Regulation 21 and to show how the factors I have been describing are brought into reckoning there.

Regulation 21 provides on a compulsory acquisition for the division between a lessor and lessee under a mining lease of the unexpended balance of established development value. The division is made on a principle already familiar to us from discussions on Part III of the 1954 Act, that is to say, in relation to the proportion of the development value in the land acquired already held by each of the parties to the lease. In calculating those proportions account has to be taken of three factors. I have dealt with two of them—the value of short workings accumulated by the lessee at the time of the acquisition and, secondly, the value of the lessor's right to receive a minimum rent up to the next operation of the break clause.

The third is the value of any profit royalty owned by the lessee. The lessee is said to own a profit royalty if the royalty reserved under the lease is less than the full market royalty. If he is lucky enough to own a profit royalty, he is plainly entitled on that account to be compensated in the event of compulsory acquisition.

The other main theme in Part III of the Regulations centres around a provision made for damage to the value of buildings, plant and machinery resulting from compulsory acquisition of other land held by the same operator. That provision will be found in paragraph (b) of Regulation 23. I have already said that the value of this kind of building is almost entirely related to the availability of minerals in the vicinity. The inclusion of such buildings and plant in the calculation of Part VI claims under the 1947 Act would have entailed considerable difficulties of valuation and by mutual agreement between the industry and the Central Land Board this value was excluded.

In consequence the unexpended balance attaching to land does not provide a sufficiently large source of compensation for affected minerals and buildings. It is only enough and is only proper to compensate for depreciation of the development value of the minerals themselves. It has therefore been necessary to provide for compensation for injurious affection to such buildings and plant over and above the unexpended value attaching to the injured land and the compensation is not to be drawn from the unexpended balance. The primary object, therefore, of Regulation 23 is to remedy an unforeseen result of the arrangements made under the earlier Regulations under the 1947 Act for the assessment of Part VI claims.

Having stated thus the two main themes underlying the provisions in Part III, perhaps I should end as briefly as possible with a round-up of less important matters contained in the remaining Regulations. Regulations 11 and 12—

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that part, I find a little difficulty in following him on this rather complicated point. If the injurious affection of these buildings was not included in the unexpended balance, I do not fallow what is the new consideration that now arises that persuades the Government to introduce it. I do not see the contrast or precisely why it has to be brought in at this stage. One would have thought prima facie that if it had not been brought in in the first place, there would be no justification for bringing it in at this stage.

Mr. Deedes

As the hon. and learned Member is aware, in town and country planning we learn from our progress as we go along. It was borne in upon the Government that there was inequity in the absence of compensation for the injurious affection to buildings, plant and machinery, for the reason that I outlined earlier in my speech. I pointed out then that we regard the value of buildings and plant, particularly the plant of mineral operators, as interdependent with that of the minerals; in other words, they are inseparable from the minerals; without the plant, the minerals cannot be worked. Therefore, they are one and the same thing. Consequently, it seemed that in equity the compensation for injurious affection should be added, but it cannot come out of the unexpended balance. If any subsequent questions arise, perhaps we can deal with them in a little more detail.

Regulations 11 and 12, which form the commencement of Part III, will be accepted, I think, as self-explanatory. Regulation 13 is necessary because minerals below the ground may have development value independent of that on the surface. For the purposes of the Regulations, the respective claim holdings and unexpended balances are kept separate, because in effect they relate to two quite separate parcels of land.

Regulation 14 provides for an appropriate deduction to be made from the claim holding before the making of a payment under Part I or Part V of the Act if the land which is the subject of the payment has been worked in whole or in part free of development charge. Regulation 19 achieves in the case of the unexpended balance what Regulation 14 achieves in the case of claim holdings.

Regulation 15 adapts in two relatively minor respects Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, which provide for payments to claim holders where a development charge has been incurred by the holder or his predecessor in title. Regulation 20 can be conveniently linked with the first paragraph of Regulation 24. Their effect is simply to ensure that there shall be no duplication of compensation payable by virtue of Regulation 10 of these Regulations and compensation payable under Parts II and V of the 1954 Act.

Next, I come to Regulation 22. Under Section 33 of the Act, protection is given to a prospective purchaser of land. As it stands, this would not benefit the prospective lessee of a mineral lease. In effect, however, due to the payment of minimum rent, and so on, the mineral lessee purchases at least part of the minerals comprised in the lease, and his financial risk is correspondingly increased. All that Regulation 22 does is to extend the protection of Section 33 of the Act to a prospective mineral lessee.

I have already dealt with the other Regulations. I apologise for the time I have taken, but I think I have covered everything, and certainly the points of substance. I warned the House at the beginning that this was an abstruse subject and that it would take time to give a reasonable explanation. I only hope that those hon. Members who have endured the exposition now find the Regulations a little less abstruse.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine (Liverpool, Edge Hill)

The House will be grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for the helpful manner in which he has moved the Motion. I take the view, subject to what is said later in the discussion upon the Regulations, that, broadly, they meet fairly well what one understands to be the requirements of the situation. I want to raise three matters upon the Regulations, and I shall be grateful for elucidation of them, They all relate to the points which the Parliamentary Secretary has particularly dealt with in his speech.

There is, first, the effect of Regulation 7 (2), which deals with the compensation to be paid where land is compulsorily acquired and there is attached to the land a planning permission to win and work minerals. As was pointed out, that permission may be given specifically by a local planning authority, or it may be given by the effect of the general development order. In the accompanying Memorandum, with which some of us have been equipped, and in which these Regulations are explained, it is suggested that, by Regulation 7, for the first time planning permission under the general development order is to be treated as a factor in the valuation. I want to raise the question whether that is so. I do not think it is a point of very great substance, but I hope that it may be thought a point of sufficient substance to be worth mentioning.

The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the fact that Regulation 5 of the 1948 Regulations provided that this element of value existing in a planning permission should be incorporated. He said that that Regulation in 1948 referred to a specific planning permission, and he drew attention, as it seemed to me, to a distinction there was between permission of that kind and permission under the general development order. I stand open to correction in regard to this, but I think it will be found that in Regulation 5 of the 1948 Regulations there is no reference to specific permission by a local planning authority or by anybody else.

What the 1948 Regulation provides is that this element of value will be taken into account when there is planning permission in force, and I should have thought that the result of that provision in the 1948 Regulation would have been, when the 1950 general development order came along, that that element would have been automatically taken into account. The moment the general development order took effect these provisions of the 1948 Regulation would have applied to it. I therefore suggest that this provision in Regulation 7 is probably, at best, declaratory. I shall be grateful if the matter receives consideration.

Another matter which arises, and which, I think, is of some importance, is under Regulation 10. Regulation 10 of these Regulations has the effect of bringing within the term "abortive expenditure" in Section 79 of the 1947 Act, depreciation of plant and buildings. Abortive expenditure, which has become something of a term of art in this field, has not hitherto been applied to comprise depreciation in this context, so far as I know, and I think that that needs examination, and I invite the House to consider what the consequences of that may be.

One takes the case where plant is installed with the purpose of winning minerals in two adjoining pieces of land and one where—this is a perfectly natural and possible case—permission to win the minerals in one of the two pieces of land has been revoked. The plant and the equipment of the buildings were designed to exploit two adjoining pieces of land and then permission to develop one of them is revoked or refused. As I understand it, in that event the owner of the interest will recover the amount of his expenditure upon the plant which can be attributed to the object of recovering minerals in the piece of land which he cannot now develop. That will be an actuarial calculation which will have to be made. That will be recovered by him as abortive expenditure, and it may well be thought very properly and fairly recovered by him as such.

But how, in that situation, is he entitled to anything more? Such depreciation of the plant in a case of that kind may have taken place as a result of remunerative employment of the plant on the piece of land to which permission still attaches. It is surely unthinkable that he should be entitled to any payment in respect of any depreciation of that kind. It would be quite wrong for the owner in such a case to be heard to say, "I was going to use the plant for the development of the adjoining land. Now I am not allowed to do so and I can get something back on depreciation." That would be quite wrong if, in fact, depreciation to his plant had been incurred as a consequence of remunerative employment of plant upon the land to which the permission continued to attach.

I should be very glad if the Government felt able to give an assurance that these Regulations do not have the effect of enabling depreciation to be recovered in cases where depreciation is the result of remunerative use of plant and is for all practical purposes not connected with any refusal or revocation of permission. It is true that these cases will go to the Lands Tribunal for determination, but the matter should be made clear in the Regulations.

There is only one other point which I wish to put before the House in connection with these Regulations. I would welcome elucidation of Regulation 15. It is the only point which I desire to raise on Part III of the Regulations. Regulation 15, and particularly Regulation 15 (2), requires further explanation than we have so far received, although it has been touched upon. The Regulation deals with Case A, the case where payment has been made to a claim holder who has paid a development charge or has incurred liability to development charge.

I quite concede that in these Cases A, mineral workings need special treatment and I entirely agree that regulations are necessary to give effect to such special treatment as they receive. I appreciate also that in many cases where the development charge is calculated as a lump sum it will have been calculated on a heavily deferred basis. The owner of an interest, quite fairly and rightly, pays less down in a lump sum than the total which he would have had to pay over a long period of years on a royalty basis.

The expression used in the Memorandum, which has been issued in con- nection with these Regulations, seems to suggest that the owner who has paid a development charge in a capital sum in the way to which I have referred may be entitled to receive a payment—greater than the amount of the payment he has made. I would be grateful to be told whether that is the intended effect of the Regulations and, if so, what is the explanation of it.

It may well be that I have misconstrued the matter, but the position seems to be open to doubt when we consider the passage in the Memorandum to which I particularly refer, namely, in page 4, where it is stated: A capital sum assessment would, therefore, fall short of the gross amount of a charge paid by way of royalty and it would be inequitable to limit the Case A payment in such circumstances to the capital sum prescribed. I would be grateful if these matters could be dealt with. As I say, they are only raised in a context of general agreement with the purpose of the Regulations.

8.52 p.m.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas (Leicester, North-East)

I have not much to say in view of the observations which my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) has made and the exposition which the Parliamentary Secretary has given. I just want to make one or two general observations. Obviously, these are complicated provisions, and it is extremely important that a memorandum should be available to explain their effect to those who have to work them. What would be particularly valuable would be the general opening exposition of the Parliamentary Secretary linked up with each of these specific Regulations, so that one could see how a particular Regulation fits into the general scheme.

A number of these Regulations, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, consolidate earlier regulations with amendments. It would be a great convenience to those who have to work the superseded regulations to be able to see at a glance the amendments that are made and their effect. So I would suggest that he should consider indicating the text which embodies the amendments together, of course, with something linking his explanation to that text.

That sort of treatment would be useful in all the regulations under the Town and Country Planning Act. It is an extremely complicated Measure, which is very difficult to follow and it is—I do not think I am putting it too high—quite impossible under the Act and the Regulations for the great mass not only of ordinary people., who are entitled to be able to understand the provisions of an Act of Parliament, but even for the experts to understand these provisions. We have reached a stage where compromise upon compromise, has been imposed to such an extent that the provisions are left in a state of utter confusion, and at some time some Government will have to deal drastically with the position.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill said, we are in agreement on the general scheme of these particular Regulations. We are obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for his explanation. I could not pay him a more sincere compliment than to say that it was worthy of a lawyer. In the course of his observations the hon. Gentleman covered the main difficulties which have occurred to us.

The two points about which we are particularly troubled are the second two of those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill. As regards the one under Regulation 10, it is the use of the word "depreciation" there which troubles us. One has become accustomed, in connection with plant and machinery, to have that word used as signifying depreciation in value through use, whereas what is contemplated here, as I understand, is not that, but depreciation in value through refusal of permission to mine or work the minerals of an adjoining piece of land. That may be what has been causing us difficulty in dealing with the Regulation. I mention that by way of supplement to what my hon. Friend has said. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can explain it?

I need not labour the second of these two points raised by my hon. Friend, but we should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would deal with those two points and also express his view on the point arising under Regulation 7. Subject to that, we shall not press any objection to these Regulations going through.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Deedes

By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, perhaps I may attempt to deal with the points raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine)? I am grateful for the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas). He is quite right, these Regulations are extremely complicated and we are only too anxious to do anything we can to simplify them. I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to mean the annotating of the Regulation by the corresponding Regulation?

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

Yes.

Mr. Deedes

I will try to find out if that kind of thing is possible for the future. It appears on the last page of the Explanatory Memorandum, but it is difficult to find out which refers to what. The hon. Member for Edge Hill asked three questions. The first two related to Regulations 7 and 10, which embody somewhat the same principle, and the third related to Regulation 15. Sensing that there might be some special interest in Regulations 7 and 10, I made some inquiries as to the extent to which there may be cases affected by them. I am advised that there are very few. I do not want to give a figure, but these Regulations cover a minute field and are more precautionary than anything. However, this field is a complicated one and, as the cases are difficult, they have to be covered.

On Regulation 7, the General Development Order permission would not be brought into account unless it were so provided.

Regulation 5, 1948, refers to a planning permission to win and work minerals and is in force under the Act. We understand that these words would not cover a General Development Order permission. I do not overrate the significance of the Regulation. The hon. Gentleman may well be right in saying that it does not advance anything very new.

However, on the second point relating to Regulation 10, the entitlement to depreciation and how much compensation the operator would receive in respect of his plant, I am advised—I say that advisedly, because these are not matters on which one can answer off one's cuff— that abortive expenditure here includes depreciation in value from the refusal of specific planning permission which will often reduce the valuable life of the buildings, plant and so on; but it is almost impossible to attribute the loss to abortive expenditure and to relate it to a particular item of expense. If value is lost, the valuer will undoubtedly assess a net loss having regard to the other land with which the plant may be worked.

Mr. A. J. Irvine

Is the valuer required to have regard to that fact in any part of the Regulations?

Mr. Deedes

The hon. Gentleman is asking me about a specific matter on which I shall probably be unable to put my finger. Regulation 10 is rather a long one to look through in a hurry to find the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised.

With regard to his final point, the second part of Regulation 15 enables the ceiling of the amount of a claim holding available for the case A payment to be raised. The amount of the case A payment is either the amount of development charge paid or the amount of the available claim holding, whichever is less.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman in an intervention raised a point on Regulation 23. It is necessary now to make sure that compensation can be paid, because there is no provision at all to compensate for such damage in the absence of something on the lines of Regulation 23. The value of buildings and so on was excluded by mutual agreement from the claims because of the complexities of the calculations involved. Section 119 (4) of the 1947 Act, which governed injurious affection in the past was repealed by the 1954 Act. In the case of surface injurious affection, compensation can, of course, properly be obtained from the unexpended balance.

I apologise again for this very complicated matter and hope that my explanation will satisfy the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations, 1954, dated 8th December, 1954, a copy of which was Laid before this House on 9th December, be approved.