HC Deb 17 June 1981 vol 6 cc1143-4
Mr. Alexander

I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 20, line 26 leave out 'five', and insert 'ten'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 16, in page 21, line 6 leave out 'five', and insert 'ten'.

Mr. Alexander

I apologise for detaining the House at this late hour, but I assure it that I shall be brief.

Since the Bill was first introduced, there have been fears by those engaged in the extractive industries about the effects upon them of the compensation provisions. In a moment we shall discuss amendment No. 17 which, if it were carried, would be completely unacceptable to the industry.

Several Government amendments have been welcomed by the industry. It will welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's views on many of the amendments so far this evening. However, throughout the Bill, there is still that divergence of interest between local government planning committees and those in the extractive industry.

The amendment to extend the period in which mineral compensation requirements are to be satisfied would correct the present imbalance between environmental safeguards on the one hand and the industry's long-term planning needs on the other. The Bill as drafted so far exposes the industry to changes in its working conditions without adequate compensation for consequential loss or damage. To repeat that every five years is grossly unfair and puts the industry at the mercy of some of those malevolent planning committees about which we have heard this evening. Some of their attitudes to the industry might be extremely hostile. We have to guard against what might be when we are considering a Bill.

The amendment, which extends the period to 10 years, allows the industry to make more effective forward plans and to respond more efficiently to changing market conditions. Ten years would be more in keeping with a proper balance between planning requirements and those of the extractive industry.

Mr. Penhaligon

I admit that I could be persuaded to vote for the amendment, but only on condition that the amendment next to be taken was passed as well.

The review will take place every five years. The mineral compensation that could be expected is up to 10 per cent. of the mineral value. That is what the Bill says. The alternative, made possible by the two amendments, of the review taking place only once every 10 years, with the mineral compensation that could be expected being up to 20 per cent., makes more sense when one considers the lifetime of a mineral operation and the bureaucracy that a five-year review could impose on the county minerals committee, especially in counties such as mine, where the operating rights of the sites can be counted in their hundreds as opposed to three or four, as in some counties.

I welcome the fact that the Minister, by an amendment accepted in Committee expected the industry to contribute less. Let us not forget that in Committee the Minister halved the amount expected from the industry. I believe that he has the global sum right, but I still believe that the matter could be more reasonably and properly dealt with if the review took place every 10 years but the mineral compensation that could be expected at the end of that period was doubled. To achieve that amendment, amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17 would have to be passed.

Mr. Giles Shaw

Throughout the passage of the Bill in Committee we endeavoured to ensure a reasonable balance between environmental considerations and the needs of the industry. The amendment would seriously upset the balance.

I accept that it will not often be necessary for mineral planning authorities to make a further modification to the conditions controlling mineral operations at a site only five years after an earlier modificaion order relating to the same site, but it may be necessary in a few cases, particularly when a great deal needs to be done to bring a site up to current standards, and the improvements, therefore, need to be spread over a period. Of course, operators should not be subjected to constant changes of this kind, but I believe that the five-year period provides them with some stability, while still allowing the authorities the flexibility that they need to deal with exceptional situations.

It is worth noting that the Stevens committee came to exactly the same conclusions in relation to its proposals for the review of permission. Moreover, there is the usual right of appeal to the Secretary of State, as well as safeguards that limit the amount of loss or damage than an operator can be required to sustain without payment of compensation, and others that protect permissions against fundamental changes.

So, frankly, I believe that the safeguards provided adequate protection for the operator against unreasonable requirements, and I must, therefore, resist the amendment. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree to withdraw it.

Mr. Alexander

Although I still believe that my amendment would not upset the balance, in view of what the Minister has said I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to