HC Deb 22 November 1954 vol 533 cc916-20

Lords Amendment: In page 69, line 43, at end, insert: and the Minister may by order made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, direct that, as from the date of the order or such earlier date as may be specified in the order, this subsection shall not apply to such other ironstone as may be so specified, being ironstone an interest in which is held on the date of the order on charitable trusts or for charitable purposes.

Mr. Deedes

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The Amendment enables the Minister to make orders, subject to annulment in either House, exempting certain ironstone land owned by charities from the liability imposed by the Mineral Workings Act, 1951, as amended by this Clause, to contribute a full 2¼d. a ton to the Ironstone Restoration Fund.

Mr. Irvine

This Amendment raises an interesting point. One effect of the Bill is to increase the rate of contribution from ironstone operators to the Ironstone Restoration Fund, but the proviso exempts ironstone, interest in which is held by a charitable trust. The point that needs watching is that under the Mineral Workings Act, 1951, that class of interest is already exempted from payment to that fund. The proviso makes it clear that the increase proposed in the Bill shall not apply where the proprietors are already exempted from payment to the Fund.

Apart from that, another interesting point arises from the Amendment. Under the Mineral Workings Act, 1951, the Minister of Fuel and Power has authority to determine which developer of ironstone operations is to be exempted from the payment to the Ironstone Restoration Fund on the ground that it is a charitable trust. That duty and obligation was placed by the 1951 Act on the Minister of Fuel and Power.

It was expressly provided by Section 7 of the Mineral Workings Act, 1951, that no order was to be made under that Section after 31st December, 1952. I ask my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to be good enough to observe the significance of the fact that under the Mineral Workings Act, 1951, the Minister of Fuel and Power was given the power to determine in respect of any ironstone operator that he was a charitable trust and should, therefore, be exempted from this contribution to the Ironstone Restoration Fund, but that the Minister was not permitted under the statute to exercise those powers after 31st December, 1952.

What do we find would happen under the Amendment now before the House? We find that those powers which were formerly held by the Minister of Fuel and Power, and which were expressly limited to making an order before a date in 1952, are being revised and entrusted to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. One knows that all sorts of unforeseen consequences follow from a reshuffle, but I suggest that this is the kind of consequence that no rational society can possibly attribute to that sort of occasion.

It really is a serious point which I venture to make to the House. It is a matter of importance and significance that a power formerly allocated by Parliament to the Minister of Fuel and Power under the 1951 Act, and which was subjected to the most explicit reservations so that he could not make an order after 1952, should now be revised and handed over to the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

Quite apart from being a fearful trap for those who practice in the law, I venture to suggest that this is something to which there is bound to be objection because of its inconsequence and because of the abandonment which it manifests from the provisions formerly operating under the 1951 Act. I hope that some explanation of the process may be given, and, if anyone is daring enough, some defence.

Mr. Deedes

By leave of the House, I should like to say that the hon. Gentleman has some claim to special knowledge on this point, but I should like to give a little more background to this Amendment which, I think, will provide some answers to the points he has raised. As he has already said, Section 7 of the Mineral Workings Act, 1951, enabled the Minister to make orders exempting land held on charitable trusts or for charitable purposes from the obligation imposed by that Act.

Under Section 7 (2) of the Act, a time limit up to 31st December, 1952, was imposed on the Minister's powers to ensure that the financial picture should be clear before the Part VI payments were made. It is understood, however, at this point, that there is some amount of charity-owned ironstone land for which no Part VI claim has been established. Previously, this did not affect the position for, as no Part VI payment would fall to be made, therefore no slice for the fund could be taken. Now, under subsection (1), such charities would be forced to contribute 1⅛d. per ton to the fund unless exempted by the Minister from doing so.

Mr. Irvine

What is the explanation of the removal of this power from the Minister of Fuel and Power?

Mr. Deedes

I am not aware of the point which the hon. Member made and I do not feel that it arises directly out of the Amendment. Nevertheless, I agree that it is an interesting point.

Where, in the circumstances described, no request for exemption under Section 7 was made, this Amendment will enable the Minister to make an exemption order. I think that that generally covers the point.

10.0 p.m.

Lords Amendment: In page 69, line 46, after "lease" insert: or by the person granted a right to work minerals by an order under Part I of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923,".

Mr. Deedes

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The substance of the Amendments made to the Clause is contained in this Amendment and that which follows it. As they are interrelated, perhaps I may deal with them together.

The main purpose of the Amendments is to establish a uniform basis for the payment of the royalty owner's contributions to the Ironstone Restoration Fund by deleting the provisos (a) and (b) which at present apply to Clause 56 (2). The effect will be that in every leasehold case where an ironstone producer has to pay 2¼d. per ton of ironstone to the fund, this being his own and the royalty owner's contribution—which is half of that—he will have the right to recover the royalty owner's share by way of a deduction from the royalties or other payments under the lease.

A secondary purpose is to ensure that the right to deduct from royalties applies also to an operator working under an award of working rights by the High Court under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923. That is achieved by the first Amendment; and it explains why the main purpose is not achieved in the second by a simple deletion of the provisos (a) and (b). Certain consequential Amendments to the Mineral Workings Act, 1951, are made in the Seventh Schedule.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 70, line 2, leave out from "lease" to "(which" in line 20 and insert: or order, be deducted in accordance with the provisions of that Schedule from payments by the lessee under the lease or by that person under the order, or may be otherwise recovered in accordance with those provisions by the lessee or by that person: Provided that this subsection shall not apply to any mining lease made after the fifteenth day of February and before the first day of August, nineteen hundred and fifty-one, which contained a provision expressly excluding the operation of paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section six of the said Act of 1951.

Lords Amendment: In page 70, line 23, leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Deedes

I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This relates to subsection (3), which it is proposed shall be dropped. The subsection provides for a deduction to be made for the Ironstone Restoration Fund from all compensation payments made in respect of ironstone under this Bill or under any other enactment, for example the Mining Code. The Amendment is made in order to simplfy the administration of the provisions of the Bill in relation to the fund. The fund is not likely to suffer financially by the deletion of the subsection.