HC Deb 17 June 1981 vol 6 cc1140-2
Mr. Oakes

I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 11, line 37 after 'land', insert 'on or after the appointed day; but'. The amendment brings us back to a debate in Committee arising from the National Coal Board's concern that the present wording would render it liable for what was done by its predecessors a long time ago. I understand from the CBI that certain member industries feel similar concern that they would have to remedy defects caused by predecessors many years ago and put right the environment.

The amendment would set a limit of 1948, the year of the coming into force of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, which the NCB thinks would be a reasonable time to go back to. It points out that mining of one form or another has gone on in this country since Roman times.

In Committee the Minister rightly pointed out that the Secretary of State held the key to the matter, as he could determine on any application by a county council that it was unjust to the industry concerned. All industries require some certainty.

In an earlier debate the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) said that one sometimes had to deal, not with a benevolent, but with a malevolent authority. The NCB is worried about a malevolent authority, and possibly a malevolent Secretary of State who supported that authority, which demanded reinstatement of land long before the NCB came into existence because it was a successor in title of that industry.

I know that the Minister is corresponding with the NCB about the problem. I do not know the outcome of the discussions. Perhaps he will tell us. I suggest that he might extend the magnanimity that he showed earlier with other amendments to this one. It would do no harm to accept the amendment. It would prevent a county council from going back further than 1948 to demand that land should be restored.

Mr. Giles Shaw

The right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) has rightly raised this point. I know that the NCB and, I suspect, other mineral operators, are concerned. We have considered the amendment and the reasons advanced for it. I accept that in most circumstances it would not be right for prohibition orders to be made where mineral working was abandoned prior to 1948. However, I believe that there will be a few occasions where the use of this power in relation to pre-1948 working might be justified. For that reason I am not prepared at this stage to advise the House to accept the amendment, although I understand why the safeguard is required.

I believe that the proper safeguard lies in the provision that all prohibition orders must be confirmed by the appropriate Secretary of State. Such orders can be confirmed only where, in his opinion, it is reasonable to do so. In relation to workings that ceased before 1948, that will be done only in those exceptional circumstances where the mineral planning authority can demonstrate that it is fair to take action after so long an interval of time.

I know that the National Coal Board has been particularly concerned about this point, although the clause does cover more than old coal mines. I have discussed the board's fears with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, and we both hope that the Board, and indeed others who may be affected, will feel satisfied, in the light of what I have just said, that there are adequate safeguards to control any unreasonable use of the new powers. In that way we shall ensure that the NCB and others are treated fairly under the Bill.

Mr. Penhaligon

Suppose a china clay pit had been operated up to 1976, and that the company, for reasons that we discussed fully in Committee, then decided temporarily to move to another china clay pit, perhaps because of the mixture of materials or the way in which the industry tended to work made it more economical to do so—which is the way in which the industry has operated satisfactorily for a long time. What is the position of the company vis-a-vis the pit that it closed down temporarily in 1976? Can the council close the pit, or can it be closed only when the Minister gives the nod to that effect? I wish to clear up that matter, as it is an important point, which has been raised many times with me in my constituency.

Mr. Shaw

The hon. Gentleman raises a fair point. I remind him that we are talking about a period prior to 1948. That is the basis of the point raised by the right hon. Member for Widnes, which I am seeking to answer. It is clear that when the Bill is in operation permissions will be granted by the mineral planning authority, with this Bill at its back and with the appeal system available should the mineral operator feel that he is being dispossessed. Above all, there is flexibility built into the provisions so that the mineral planning authority will consider the workings and the context in which permission is given for the original planning application. Provided that that context is sound at the time of application, the review period as established, if the permission expires, will be taken in hand. If mineral planning authorities adhere to the Bill and the green book that we shall shortly be publishing, I think that the right hon. Member will find that that will not result in mineral operators having their permissions withdrawn on an arbitrary basis. If they are dissatisfied with the commission, the appeal system will be available.

I respond to the contribution of the right hon. Member for Widnes. The Department of Energy and my Department feel that the procedures in the Bill, along with the assurances that I have given tonight, should leave the board satisfied.

Mr. Oakes

I ask for the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make a further contribution. The Minister's answer was somewhat similar to the one that he gave in Committee. That answer did not satisfy the NCB. Industry likes a degree of certainty. It does not like loopholes. It does not like the possibility of a malevolent county and a malevolent Minister putting a burden on it for something that its predecessors in title have done and on which it has to spend money to clear up.

Yesterday the Government rightly gave a considerable sum to the National Coal Board. It will want to spend that money not on clearing up the defects left by its predecessors but on developing the industry. It is worried about uncertainty. I am sure that the Minister would not operate the provision in a way that would be adverse to the interests of the board. I am sure that his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy a post that I once occupied—would not do so. However, there is still uncertainty in the mind of the board whether it has a contingent liability.

I shall not press the amendment to a Division, but I hope that the Minister will continue his discussions with the board to ensure that it is satisfied beyond peradventure that it will not be held responsible for defects arising from mining operations that took place before 1948. I am not asking a lot of the Minister, because we are going back to the concept of the Town and Country Planning Act 1948.

I hoped that the Minister would accept the amendment. I cannot conceive that it is the intention of any Minister to go back beyond 1948 and to charge an industry for the defects of its predecessors. I am certain that industries other than the coal industry may face the same difficulties. They have not approached me, but the board has. I hope that the discussions with the board continue and that there will be an end to the uncertainty for it or for any other industry that considers that it may find itself liable for something that took place much earlier —for example, as I said in Committee to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), for what the Phoenicians may have done in Cornwall 2,000 years ago. As the Bill stands, someone could be liable for that.

Mr. Giles Shaw

I ask for the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to respond to the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes). The NCB has been reassured by the extent of the commitment that we have given in the debate. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman's amendment would be an absolute safeguard, but there could be circumstances in which it would be desirable to make prohibition orders where mineral working was abandoned prior to 1948. In this instance we would prefer to work by the advice given rather than accept the cast-iron nature of the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Forward to