HC Deb 17 June 1981 vol 6 cc1147-53

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 27, line 26, after 'subsection', insert 'whom the applicant knows to be such a person and'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Mr. Giles Shaw

I beg to move amendment No. 19 in page 28, leave out lines 3 to 18 and insert— '(2A) In order to comply with this subsection— (a) the applicant must post the requisite notice of the application, sited so as to be easily visible to and legible by members of the public, in at least one place in the district of the planning authority to which the application is being made; and (a) the notice must be in position for not less than 7 days during the period of 21 days prior to the making of the application. (2B) At any time before granting an application for planning permission for development consisting of the winning and working of minerals the planning authority dealing with the application may in writing direct the applicant to post copies of the said notice in such places in its district not exceeding 4 in number as may be specified in the direction. (2C) Where any such direction as is mentioned in subsection (2B) above has been given the planning authority shall not grant the application until the applicant has furnished to the authority a certificate stating— (a) that he has complied with the direction; and (b) that any notice required by the direction has been in position for not less than 7 days in the period of 21 days prior to the date on which he lodged the certificate with the planning authority.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22.

Mr. Shaw

This is a technical amendment, but I must inform the House why it has been moved. Its purpose is to improve the drafting of the new subsection (2A) of section 24 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972. I am acting on behalf of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland.

The amendment provides for the partial replacement of the present system of notification of planning applications for deep mining operations by local advertisement. The developer will be required in such cases to post one notice of his application in the district of the planning authority concerned before he makes his application. The planning authority will have power to require him to post up to four further copies of the notice within its district after the application is made.

This relatively complex provision is the equivalent of the English requirement that such an advertisement shall be displayed in at least one place in every parish or community containing any part of the land to which the application relates. It is necessary because in Scotland neither parish nor community is a suitable unit for such purposes. We expect, however, that in the majority of cases developers will consult the planning authority about the adequacy of its advertisement arrangements before the application is submitted, and that relatively little use will need to be made of the planning authority's subsequent power of direction for further advertisement.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 20, in page 28, line 20, leave out from 'subsection' to 'is' and insert— '(2A) or (2C) of this section if the notice or, as the case may be, any copy thereof'.

No. 21, in page 28, line 22, leave out 'subsection (2A) (b)' and insert 'subsection (2A)(b) or (2C)(b)'

No. 22, in page 28, line 26, leave out '(1)(aa)' and insert '(1)(cc)' . —[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

12.39 am
Mr. Giles Shaw

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I ought perhaps to say a brief word about how we see the Bill being implemented. Only Clause 33, dealing with the amendment on pipelines, comes into force immediately. All of the remaining clauses require commencement orders. The modified compensation scheme cannot come into effect until compensation regulations have been made, and as this requires both a further period of detailed discussion with interested parties and then affirmative resolutions in both Houses this will clearly take some time. Separately from this, in accordance with assurances given here and in the other place, clause 1 will not be brought in until certain amendments to the general development order have been made and approved. The remaining clauses will be brought in just as soon as the necessary orders can be laid and guidance can be prepared.

May I express in general terms my appreciation of the constructive way in which the Bill has been discussed? I pay specific tribute to the positive and helpful approach of the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) both in Committee and in the House. The deliberations in Committee were enhanced by the detailed knowledge of the industry provided by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). On the Government side of the House I should like to thank all my hon. Friends, who provided a complete spectrum of views.

I commend the Bill to the House.

12.40 am
Mr. Oakes

I had not intended to speak on Third Reading, but I should like to thank the Minister for his kind words. In turn, I pay tribute to him for the way in which he piloted the Bill both in Committee and in the House.

The Bill will have an enormously good effect on the environment of many of our people. It has had a long gestation period. In the Second Reading Committee we paid tribute to the Stevens committee for its invaluable work in producing the report that led to the Bill. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in paying tribute to it again.

This has been an all-party Bill. There have hardly been any Divisions. Both sides have been concerned with the question of balance. We have been concerned that those who extract minerals for the British economy as well as for themselves must pay regard to the environment that they will inevitably disturb. I hope that we have got the balance right. I may have said various things in Committee and on the Floor of the House that implied that the balance was slightly wrong. However, on the whole the Government have got the balance right.

I was a little concerned by what the Minister said about the commencement orders. After so long a gestation period for the Stevens committee and after successive Governments have failed to find the legislative time, I hope that the commencement orders will be made soon. The Bill is important not only for the industry but for those of us, such as the Minister, who live in areas that have been blighted by mineral operations. It is important that those who live in those areas should have the protection that I hope and trust this Bill will afford.

Therefore, I applaud the Government for having introduced the Bill. I agree with the Minister that discussion of the Bill in Committee and on the Floor of the House has proved to be one of our happier occasions. The Bill has been debated not with unanimity but with a common accord and purpose, namely, to protect our environment without damaging those who earn their living by extracting minerals. We appreciate their contribution to the nation as a whole.

12.42 am
Mr. Dickens

Even at this late hour, I congratulate the Minister and all Committee Members on the Bill. All hon. Members will agree that the Bill is a great joy to environmentalists. In addition, it has been quite kind to industry. The Bill is sound and good and it is our good fortune that the Minister was moved from the Northern Ireland Office to the Department of the Environment.

However, the Bill seems to have neglected part of the industry. Funnily enough, the very people who parade outside the House as environmentalists will also parade outside seeking hope for this part of the industry. I refer to the Stone Federation, whose members are responsible for mining natural stone. Buildings such as the House of Commons are constructed in such stone. One has only to walk outside Westminster Abbey to see the stockpiles of stones carefully measured and prepared for restoration.

I hope that the Minister will be able to alleviate the fears of members of the federation. The 60-year limit on planning permissions is a concern, because most existing quarries have reserves that will last well beyond this period. Stone quarry owners fear that, although the norm is intended to be 60 years, planning authorities will in many cases impose shorter terms, as has happened in the West Yorkshire structure plan. That seriously threatens the capital investment necessary to maintain such operations and the production and employment they create. We hope that if the Stone Federation were to reapply for 60 years it would get just that.

There are also general fears that the powers to close quarries that have not been worked for two years will mean that operators will automatically lose their rights to work long-established quarries if operations cease because of a temporary fall in demand. The demand for block stone fluctuates considerably in line with new construction and restoration activities. The Government amendment agreed in Committee has improved the situation by adding that the mineral planning authority can assume that development of minerals has permanently ceased only when no development has taken place for two years and it appears on the available evidence that resumption of such development is unlikely.

However, in some cases the quarry may have to be reopened after a number of years when matching stone is required for a restoration project on buildings such as the House of Commons. That irregular pattern of working should be recognised by planning authorities.

The re-definition of mining operations to include the working of stockpiles and waste heaps could mean that operators have to apply for planning permission to use stockpiles. In many instances, quarries are worked for sufficient time to establish a stockpile of material and remain silent until the reserves have been consumed.

It would be helpful if the Minister would concede that those characteristics which differentiate the dimensioned stone industry from other extractive industries will be recognised in the green book that is issued as a guide to local planning officers. I hope that the Minister w ill make a statement, perhaps tonight, to help those who are responsible for maintaining our heritage, in the shape of our listed buildings.

12.7 am

Mr. Penhaligon

I was determined to speak on Third Reading, because I disagreed with the decision to take the Second Reading of the Bill in Committee. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens) was affected by that, because he had been denied a personal opportunity to present his arguments, though, to be fair, they were covered in Committee.

We have, for once, passed some useful legislation. I am fairly cynical and take the view that nearly all legislation has almost exactly the opposite effect from that which Governments intend. I think particularly of the Acts that reorganised the water industry and local government. Several measures have not worked out as Ministers no doubt claimed that they would.

The Bill is useful and has helped to restore the balance between an important industry and reasonable environmental demands of those living near quarries. The Government should be congratulated on putting the Stevens report, which was published a number of years ago, into legislative form.

The industry is often underestimated, and the Minister may have underestimated it until he saw the arrival of many hon. Members to argue about five-year or 10-year aftercare. That demonstrated the importance of the industry better than anything else. Hon. Members expressed the views put to them in their constituencies and even though I did not agree with their arguments I recognise their right to put that case. It was interesting to see so many hon. Members in the Chamber to discuss minerals. It was probably a record attendance.

Minerals could be a growth industry for Britain. The restoration of regional development grants and the introduction of legislation to sort out mineral rights could lead to a revival of hard-rock mineral extraction such as the country has not seen for a long time.

Cornwall is proud to supply Britain and Europe with virtually all their china clay. We produce substantial quantities of tin, zinc, lead and silver and I understand that a tungsten mine is about to open. Of course, Cornish granite has long been a product of the county. That is an important industry in my county, probably one of the most important three or four that the county has. The important thing about the Bill is that it will allow planning permission in the extractive industry, of which I am a supporter, gradually to adjust to changing standards.

The Minister may be aware that there is great tolerance to the extractive industry in my county—a tolerance that is justified as the industry supplies so much employment and so much of the county's economy. The Bill will allow the county authority to reflect opinion in areas where the industry is strong and gradually to move towards an improvement of the environment. The Bill ensures that the eyesores of the past cannot happen again. The House should at some time concentrate its mind on clearing up the eyesores—Blue Hills at St. Agnes and St. Agnes itself. I know that the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) and I had a vigorous exchange, but great parts of his constituency and mine are waste lands from the activities of 100 to 150 years ago. I do not think that any of us expresses real satisfaction at the rate at which restoration is taking place in those areas.

My final point is a bouquet for the Minister. He has been superb. He has displayed a capacity for U-turns that I wish would extend to the rest of his ministerial colleagues. He managed one in seven minutes and another in an hour. That puts him in an order of Ministers that I have not witnessed before. Perhaps at the end of the day he reached the right conclusion. I promise him that, if I have good reason to believe that it is not working out as he said, I shall use any opportunity made available to me to put the point.

12.2 am

Mr. Christopher Murphy (Welwyn and Hatfield)

On a number of occasions the Government have rightly shown a great concern for derelict land. That is a fundamental issue affecting the relationship between town and country, development and conservation and economics and aesthetics.

The Bill is therefore to be welcomed as a practical demonstration of the realisation that positive action should be taken to end the blight of land decay. The opportunity is being provided to overcome the consequences of a temporary land use which can result in far-reaching destruction and abandonment of areas both large and small.

Mineral working is rightly recognised as a major industry of considerable value to the country. It is essential, therefore, to achieve a correct balance between firms and organisations involved in such activity and the effects of mineral exploitation upon people and their immediate surroundings.

My constituency is in mid-Hertfordshire, which has provided—and continues to do so—a major source of aggregates used in the creation of the new towns and their services and for commercial opportunities further afield. The knowledge gained from such a location provides pointers for governmental action and that, combined with the recognition of the necessity for restoring land to normal use, is encapsulated in the Bill.

A welcome will be given to those provisions relating to the review of all mining and quarrying activities, thereby ensuring a reasoned relationship between the needs of industry and the environment. A similar welcome will surely be accorded to the concept of aftercare, thereby ensuring the potential of the landscape in question. The extractive industries, on which so much building work inevitably depends, and the public, who share the consequences, advantageous and disadvantageous, have both had their interests represented fully in discussions on this measure, that it is to be hoped, will find common cause in its successful implementation. Land is a most precious commodity. The House must carefully guard its future use for the benefit of us all.

12.5 am

Mr. Giles Shaw

With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to say first to the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) that I do not want to give him or the House the impression that the Government will delay unduly the implementation of this important measure. However, we have to make certain that the guidance is correct and that the regulations, produced after consultation, are laid before the House for implementation. This must be done in an orderly fashion. I assure the House, nevertheless, that it is our intention to see that this important measure is introduced as soon as is correct, bearing in mind its complexity.

I understand the view expressed so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens) on behalf of the Stone Federation. I assure him that, so far as the Government can see, the anxiety of the industry about the 60-year rule is misplaced. We believe that the vast majority of mineral planning authorities will seek to renew planning approvals that have been given in the light of the industry's undoubted need for long-term stability. There is the appeal procedure available, which the industry will no doubt use if it considers that it is unfairly treated. There is also the important advice that we shall be giving to planning authorities about how they should operate in the context of the Bill. The problem of the stone industry will be involved in the advice that we give mineral planning authorities.

The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) made points in relation to the industry about which he is concerned. This is the first time, I believe, since 1948 that the mineral industry has had the benefit of a new legislative framework. The hon. Gentleman can rightly say "And about time, too." I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) for his comments on the Bill.

It would seem that the future success of the minerals industry depends more than anything upon partnership between the industry and minerals planning authorities. That partnership is essential, and must be based upon trust. It is also important that there should be a legislative framework that strikes a balance between an insistence on a high standard of environmental restoration from the consequences of mineral working and, at the same time, a high rate of working of aggregates or other minerals to ensure that we get a fundamentally sound industry that can continue to make a major contribution to our economy.

Because the Bill has obtained not only the considerable support of local authorities and the industries themselves, but has attracted support from all parties in its progress through the House, we can look with confidence, I trust, to the Bill's receiving an unopposed Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.