HC Deb 21 January 1969 vol 776 cc421-7
Mr. Freeson

I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 10, line 21, leave out: or is likely to become unstable ',

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay)

With this Amendment we can take Government Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 24 and 26.

Mr. Freeson

Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The existing provision in Clause 36(2), though not intended as a definition of stability, has come in for a good deal of criticism from civil engineers largely because they construed it as such and it conflicted with their understanding of what constituted stability. An engineer regards a structure as stable only if he has no reason to believe that it is likely to fail in the future. The present words, however, refer only to the present condition of a tip, and the likelihood of failure appears in the operative Clauses, where the phrase "likely to become unstable "is repeatedly used.

The Advisory Committee on Tip Safety has given a good deal of thought to the question and endorses the series of Amendments now proposed. They will define the conditions under which a tip is to be treated as "unstable" for the purposes of Part II of the Bill in a form which will be readily understood and accepted by the engineers who will be responsible in practice for examining tips and recommending remedial operations.

12 m.

These Amendments will also delete the references to "potential failure" in the operative Clauses, since this concept is now covered by the new form of words. The new form of words in Clause 36(2) will make it clear that instability is a condition in which there is reasonable ground for believing that a tip is likely to fail and spill beyond its existing boundaries, such as happend at Aberfan, and remedial operations will be designed to prevent this happening if such a movement of material would constitute, or be likely to constitute, a danger to members of the public.

If the need for a definition of instability is challenged we can point out that the words have been inserted as a guide to the courts, which will have to decide on the justification for remedial operations, about which there may be conflicting evidence. The new words seek to clarify the matter, as do the series of related Amendments.

Mr. Gibson-Watt

In general we welcome the Amendment. What the Minister has decided to do goes some way to meet the feeling of anxiety among civil engineers. There was anxiety about the definition of a stable tip, and the definition was considered to be inadequate. This was shown to be inadequate on page 37, paragraph 71, of the Aberfan Report. These Amendments make the matter more definite.

Amendment No. 24 says that a tip is unstable if and only if there is, or there is reasonable ground for believing that there is likely to be, such a movement of the refuse which makes up the tip as to cause a significant increase in the area of land covered by the tip". Can the Minister assure us that his form of words covers all eventualities which might cause a competent engineer grave concern? His new words mean that if the base area of the tip is not increased by slide, the tip shall be treated as stable. Is it not possible that, in a complex of tips, some spoil can shift from one upper tip to a lower one, causing considerable damage, but by virtue of this Amendment, and this form of words, it would still be considered a stable tip? Is the Minister's new criteria adequate? Has his Department any experience of any such an occurrence? I am a bit unhappy about the Amendment and would be grateful if the Minister could say a little more to allay our anxieties.

Mr. Freeson

I will not pursue the illustration because I am not qualified to do so. The new form of words, which seeks to clarify the definition which was queried in Committee and by some civil engineers since, should not be taken as replacing the regulations and the guidance which will be issued after the Tip Safety Advisory Committee have considered the advice on this which they will give to the Minister. The regulations, and subsequently the tip management rules in the light of the regulations, will lay down the principles of management of the tips. It will be a matter for local authorities and the owners and managers of tips and quarries under the respective Parts of the Act to see that tips are secure and safe. It should not be assumed that we are replacing the intention in the Act to produce regulations and embark upon good practice by the definition which we are seeking to make. It will be for the experts who are called in to advise whether conditions are dangerous, or likely to be dangerous, to members of the public and to the security of the tips.

Mr. Gibson-Watt

I do not think that the Minister has quite followed my argument. Amendment No. 24 deals with Part 2 of the Act, disused tips. The movement of material from the top complex to the bottom complex of a tip could be dangerous but, at the same time, the total area covered by the whole complex might not have moved. I am therefore querying the adequacy of the wording of Amendment No. 24. Why has the Minister used this form of words to say that if there is not a significant increase caused by a movement of refuse in the area of land covered by the tip then the tip should be considered to be a stable tip?

Mr. Freeson

It should be recognised that the words are not intended to restrict the conduct of inspectors who may wish to have certain action taken in the tips. If they consider that any movement is dangerous, then they will recommend appropriate action. We are getting into the kind of difficulty we pointed out in Committee. If we were to seek to define these words too closely we would run into other difficulties. We have done the best we can on the advice of the experts of the Tip Safety Advisory Committee. Let us not treat the attempt at definition as a replacement of the responsibility of the authorities concerned, the inspectors who will be called in, or the consultants, to ensure that the conditions are safe. It is not intended to prevent this. The intention is to try to define the matter in law.

Mr. S. O. Davies

My difficulty is with the phrase "reasonable ground for believing", and so on. My long experience of one of the oldest large-scale coalfields is that where coal has been mined on a large scale every tip is potentially dangerous. Where millions of tons of slurry are tipped on to a steep hillside such as is characteristic of the South Wales mining valleys, in the process of time where coal seams are at a fairly substantial depth subsidence occurs some time before it becomes obvious, and the tip becomes a menace to people living nearby.

I know that I am asking my right hon. Friend to do a difficult job, but, when the regulations are drafted, I hope that generalities like "reasonable grounds", and so on, will not be too conspicuous in them. Any regulations should be definite. Where tips stand on dangerous inclines under which millions of tons of coal have been mined, they are definitely dangerous. There is no gainsaying that. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not use obscure phrases in drafting regulations. The dangers have been made abundantly clear, and I hope that the Government will accept the facts.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Emery

I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 10, line 28, leave out 'twenty-four hours' and insert 'at least forty-eight hours'.

In Clause 13, duly authorised persons are given the right of entry for the purpose of investigation, for the purpose of carrying out any operations, and for the purpose of inspecting any operations after they have been carried out. For any of those purposes, they have the right of entry once they have demanded admission by notice in writing. As the Bill stands, such notice must be given at least 24 hours before entry.

The Amendment in no way limits the right of entry in an emergency. If there is an emergency, the right of entry by an authorised person can be immediate at all times. We do not want to stop that, and in fact it is essential to the working of the Bill.

However, we feel that an owner has the right to receive more than 24 hours' notice that it is intended to carry out an inspection or an operation. We argued in Committee that, under Clause 13(1)(b), proof of notice is proof of posting, but that, with the state of the post at the moment, an authorised person could arrive before the letter if the required notice is only 24 hours. We suggested that it should be 72 hours, but the Government said that that was too long. We hope that they will have had second thoughts.

We believe that 48 hours is a fairly short time. We see that owners or their agents may well want to make arrangements to have a representative present when anyone is coming to carry out any of the three purposes listed in the Clause. In view of that, we feel that we are not asking for too much if we urge the Government to extend the notice from 24 hours to 48 hours. I hope that the Government will see the sweet reasonableness of our case and, for once, feel able to accept an Amendment from this side.

12.15 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington)

To save time, may I say that we are prepared to accept the Amendment to extend the period to 48 hours.

In fairness to the argument that I deployed in Committee, the one ground of concern was where it might be thought that operations were likely of themselves to cause instability and, therefore, 24 hours was a reasonable time. I can assure the House that, in accepting the Amendment, we do not think that there is any danger, because in practically every case, as far as we can see, such operations would have had planning permission at some stage. Consequently, the authorities would know what sort of operations were going on. Therefore, the potential danger that I foresaw in practice is not likely to arise, and we have pleasure in accepting the Amendment.

Mr. Emery

I thank the Minister for his brief speech and his acceptance of the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Gibson-Watt

I beg to move Amendment No. II, in page 10, line 29, at end insert: 'and to the owner or to his representative'. The arguments on this Amendment have already been gone over in Committee to a large extent. It concerns the point that notice should be given not only to the occupier, but to the owner and, in the owner's absence, to his representative.

Many who know the South Wales valleys—and this probably applies to other parts of the country—know that owners of ground which has tips on it are not always living in the vicinity, but they almost always have a representative—probably a local lawyer or agent. Therefore, we think it fair and reasonable that the owner, or his representative, as well as the occupier, should have notice given to him.

Mr. Skeffington

I am sorry that I cannot be as forthcoming on this Amendment as on the previous one. The argument that we advanced and explored at length in Committee still stands. We think that this would be impractical in many cases and certainly might cause serious delay.

The question arises: what is meant by "owner"? It is not just a simple owner of a freehold. If one looks at the definition in Clause 36(3) it is extensive. It covers all sorts of other interests, except two which are specially excluded. There is not much point in informing the owner at this stage, because this is purely an investigation to see what is happening. His interests are not imperilled. There is a special provision in Clause 14.

It may be that the hon. Gentleman would like to know whether the undertaking that I gave in Committee about this matter being dealt with administratively still stands. It does still stand. I am pleased to confirm that the appropriate Ministers, in their circulars, will draw the attention of local authorities to the desirability of acquainting the owner, or his representative, where this can be done. This means that there will not be the kind of delay and the perils which might arise if, by Statute, there were to be exhaustive attempts to find perhaps many owners in certain cases, or their representatives.

I think that the hon. Gentleman will feel that he has achieved something if I repeat the undertaking that I gave in Committee.

Mr. Gibson-Watt

I thank the Minister for his assurance that this will be done by administrative means. We feel that by airing the matter again on Report and the Minister underlining what he said upstairs, the point is fully covered. I, therefore, beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 12, in page 11, line 2, leave out: or may be about to become ".—[Mr. Freeson.]

Forward to