TRANSFER AND RELINQUISHMENT OF LICENCES

HC Deb 19 July 1974 vol 877 cc949-52

Mr. Arthur Jones

I beg to move Amendment No. 7 in page 12, line 30, at end insert: Provided that a disposal authority may on receipt of such a notice serve a counter notice on the holder of the disposal licence requiring him within such reasonable period as may be specified in the counter notice either to reinstate the land to which the licence relates to the condition in which it was before the licence was issued or to take such measures as may be reasonably necessary to prevent pollution of water or danger to public health or injury to the amenities of the locality and, if within the period specified in the counter notice the holder of the disposal licence has failed to take the action specified therein, the disposal authority may enter on the land, take such action and recover from the holder of the licence the reasonable costs thereby incurred by it. A holder of a disposal licence may appeal to the Secretary of State against any requirement of a disposal authority under this subsection. The amendment relates to another point which has been raised by the National Water Council. The clause deals with the transfer and relinquishment of licences. I understand that the water authority advisers have expressed concern at the possibility of a licence holder's cancelling his licence at a time convenient to himself, or allowing it to lapse in certain events—perhaps when he has derived the maximum profit from his site and does not wish to incur the expense of putting it into a proper state when the licence deposits come to an end, or of complying with the conditions which remain to be fulfilled at a later date. In other words, a person shall not suddenly be able to terminate the arrangements under which he is working a site.

The amendment would ensure that a licence cannot be revoked or cancelled when that may be prejudicial to any outstanding proceedings for breach of con- dition. This point is expressly made by Clause 9(4) but not by Clause 8(4). Neither this provision nor anything in Clause 16 seems to require a licence holder to meet his contingent liabilities, which may be disposed of by a premature cancellation. The amendment seeks to provide the necessary safeguard against that eventuality.

Mr. Denis Howell

As the hon. Gentleman said, the amendment would enable the authority to require a licence holder to restore his land before ceasing operations or, in default of doing so, to carry out work itself at the holder's expense. I appreciate that objective but suggest that the procedure proposed is too complex and in any case unnecessary since restoration requirements are primarily a matter for planning control.

We should bear it in mind that there always has to be the element of dual control under the new system. First, there will be a planning application, at which stage the planning authority will have to determine whether waste disposal should be permitted on the site at all and what general planning conditions should be imposed before the application is granted. There will then be a licence application, which is what we are dealing with, and the licence will be able to impose more detailed operating conditions on the site. So the two proposals will interlock.

The restoration of a site after waste disposal operations for some long-term use is essentially one of the questions to be considered by the planning authority on the planning application and embodied in the planning conditions. As I have said, the Government would like to see planning authorities making absolutely certain that they take the long-term consequences of granting applications into account when considering them. The licensing control is intended to deal with the day-to-day operating conditions. It would not be appropriate in our judgment to go into details of restoration or reinstatement. By the same token, it would not be appropriate for the disposal authorities to seek to enforce compliance with reinstatement conditions on a licence holder who gives up his licence.

In any case, we think the proposal unreasonable. The amendment refers to the reinstating of land to which the licence relates to the condition that it was in before the licence was granted. If the hon. Gentleman thinks about this for a moment I am sure he will appreciate that with a site on which tipping was taking place that would not be practicable. It would not be possible to go back to the state in which the land was before the licence was granted. I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Gentleman that this amendment is unnecesary.

Mr. Arthur Jones

The hon. Gentleman has by no means satisfied me. I hardly think that he convinced himself, particularly when he brought in the question of the planning issues involved. I had not associated them with this. We all know of occasions when planning conditions have not been fulfilled for all sorts of reasons, through neglect or companies going into liquidation. As a result we have tremendous areas of dereliction. Inadequate control by planning authorities is widespread and has been through the years. This is fundamental to what the Bill is trying to ensure.

How can we accept without question the possibility that a licence holder may suddenly pack up operations? That is surely not what the Minister intended to say, that a licence holder should take this sudden decision and that there should be no assurance that matters will be dealt with properly and effectively monitored. It should not be possible unilaterally to cancel a licence. I cannot think that the Minister has given enough thought to this. I hope that he will give an assurance that the matter will be looked at a little more carefully.

Mr. Denis Howell

By leave of the House. I think we are in difficulties. I accept that I may not have given enough thought to this. We are trying to deal with things in a hurry. I have tried to give it as much thought as I can. It does not seem to us that it will be appropriate or practical to impose this requirement upon a licence holder. The licensing control is intended to deal with day-to-day operations.

It would not be appropriate to go into details for restoration or reinstatement. That is why I mentioned planning. We are dealing with the boundary between planning and licensing. These interact one upon the other. For this reason I do not think it would be appropriate for the disposal authority to seek to enforce compliance with reinstatement provisions. We have given some thought to this. We do not think it is practical but I will give more thought to it in the 48 hours I have left before the Bill is recommitted to another place. If there is anything in the hon. Gentleman's assertion which arises from my lack of time for adequate thought, as he kindly put it, we will seek to deal with it. At the moment I do not think that he is right.

Mr. Arthur Jones

In view of that undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.