Lords Sitting of 23 July 1951

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

WEST RIDING COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
TRENT RIVER BOARD BILL
Read 3, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ASSASSINATION OF KING ABDULLAH
2.38 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I wish to inform you that I propose to move an appropriate Motion to-morrow expressing our horror and regret at the assassination of His late Majesty King Abdullah of Jordan.

WALSALL CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (LYMINGTON) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MINERAL WORKINGS BILL
2.39 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1:
The ironstone district
(2) The Minister may by order direct that the said First Schedule shall have effect as if there were included therein any other area specified in the order; and any such order may direct that, in relation to the area so specified, this Act shall have effect as if for any reference to the twenty-fifth day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty, the fifteenth day of February, the thirtieth day of June or the first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-one, or the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, or to the commencement of this to Act, there were substituted a such later date (whether earlier than the date of the order or not) as may be specified in the order, or to the coming into operation of the order, as the case may be.
(4) The power to make orders under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and shall include power to revoke or vary any such order by a subsequent order.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (2), after the first "order" to insert:
"prior to the date prescribed for the purposes of subsection (2) of section sixty-five of the principal Act."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name and in the names of two of my colleagues. In Clause l the ironstone districts are defined, and they are set out in the First Schedule to the Bill. Noble Lords will realise, if they will look at the First Schedule, that the districts concerned represent a considerable area of the country. It is not as if this country were a completely new one from the development point of view. Moreover, its geological content is widely known. Therefore, it looks prima facie as though all the large area set out in the First Schedule comprises the whole area in which ironstone can be found. Nevertheless, out of abundant caution the Minister is taking power, under subsection (2) of Clause 1,

1099
to direct that the First Schedule may he extended. If he does so before the date prescribed in Section 65 of the principal Act, the matter is a fairly simple one, but if he should do so afterwards complexities are bound to arise in regard to the contributions to the fund for the restoration of these areas. In regard to these new districts, the Treasury will presumably still provide its quota and those working minerals will presumably go on providing theirs. Clause 5, which brings in the owner to make a contribution will, I think, not operate in these circumstances.
I move this Amendment largely to ask what is going to happen to that contribution. Is there some method by which it can and by which it is intended that it shall be collected? Is it intended that, in regard to districts outside those defined in the Schedule, if they are not brought in until after the prescribed date, no contribution shall be extracted from the owners, and that therefore the restoration fund will be left without that part of its revenue? Or is it intended that in regard to those areas the Treasury shall provide not only its own contribution but also that which should have been provided by the mineral owners? If the noble Lord in charge of the Bill is going to say that that is going to happen, we shall all be quite satisfied, and I will immediately ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. Probably it would be right that the Treasury should do it, because these undiscovered areas of ironstone will have been taken over by the State with nobody knowing that there was ironstone under them. That is why they are not included in the Bill. Therefore, the result will be that the State will have obtained the ironstone for nothing, because under the Town and Country Planning Act the development rights will be with the State, and it would be a small compensation to pay back 1½d. per ton for minerals obtained for absolutely nothing. Perhaps that is the way that the scheme is intended to work. It is largely so that I may receive an explanation from the noble Lord as to areas which are not brought in until after the prescribed date, that I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 1, after ("order") insert the said words.—(Lord Llewellin.)
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR): I was inclined to the view that perhaps it was fear of retrospective action that accounted for this Amendment, but I am satisfied that, after the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and his two noble friends have heard my reply, he will be willing to withdraw the Amendment. The fear that if the ironstone district is extended at some later date than 1953. Clause 5 of the Bill may be operated retrospectively, is not well-founded. The Amendment would prevent the Minister from making an order to extend the ironstone district after the date on which stock is issued in satisfaction of claims against the £300,000,000 fund—that is, 1953. So far as is known at the moment there are no known deposits of ironstone which are likely to be worked by opencast methods outside the area specified in the Bill. No one can say that this power will never be used. For instance, who can say that within the next fifty years it may not be necessary to use this power or that it may not be a desirable power to have? But what we can say, and say for certain—and this will be some consolation to the noble Lords opposite—is that it will not be used within the next two or three years. We feel that to limit the operation of the clause in the way suggested by the Amendment is not likely to serve any useful purpose. However, if the point the noble Lord has in mind in an extension of the ironstone district is found necessary after 1953, then I can say that in so far as the mineral owner has already received any payment due to him under the 1947 Act. the Ironstone Fund will get no payment from that source. There is one other sentence which answers the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin: the effect on the finances of the Fund is likely to be negligible—a result that the Exchequer are prepared to accept.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I thought, when the noble Lord used those last words, that the effect on the Fund would be negligible, that he was going to say not that the Treasury were prepared to accept that fact but that they were prepared to make up the negligible difference. That was the handsome gesture which I thought the noble Lord was going to make in order to get me to withdraw my Amendment. I am glad of his assurance that in these matters Clause 5 will not be made retrospective. It is not drafted so that it

1101
should be. As I said at the start, I was doubtful whether there were any large ironstone districts in this country about which we did not know, after this period of intensive development of our minerals. I gather from the noble Lord that if any areas are brought in. the owner's contribution will drop; therefore there will then be only the contribution from the Treasury and from the persons working the minerals.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Quite so.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I only hope that does not mean that some of this land will not be properly restored after the minerals have been taken out of it. If the noble Lord assures me that it will be negligible in regard to the extent of the Fund as a whole, I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is a drafting Amendment, and is put forward as a matter of tidiness. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 15, leave out from ("section") to ("shall") in line 16.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
THE MARQUESS OF READING: It may be of satisfaction to the noble Lord, and may assist him to put his foot on the accelerator, if I say that we have no objection to any of the next nine Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Contributions from ironstone owners]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This Amendment also is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 7, leave out ("land") and insert ("an interest").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Application to land held by operators or, 1st July, 1948]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This and the remain-
1102
ing Amendments to Clause 6 are all drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 8, leave out ("the winning and working") and insert ("any development").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 10, at end insert ("compensation becomes payable").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 11, leave out from the beginning to ("under") in line 12.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 16, leave out from ("permission") to ("under") in line 17 and insert ("for the development;
(b)").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 19, leave out from ("amended") to ("on") in line 20.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 21, leave out ("the land") and insert ("land comprising the ironstone;").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 25, leave out ("the charge so set off") and insert ("loss of the prospect of that development").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Payments to operators from the fund
(5) In determining for the purposes of this section the cost which would be incurred by an operator as mentioned in subsection (2) of this section, the Minister may consult any advisory committee designated by him for the purpose.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is a drafting Amendment preparatory to the following Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 8, leave out ("average") and insert ("standard")—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This Amendment provides a revised formula by which the Minister fixes the amount of the cost of restoration which an ironstone operator is required to bear himself, without payment from the Ironstone Fund. The Minister has been discussing with the industry the best method of fixing the average rate, and this new subsection is put forward for that purpose. It leaves the Minister a reasonably free hand to fix a fair figure, after consulting with the Iron and Steel Corporation, as provided for in Clause 14, and the advisory committee, as provided for in Clause 8; but in fixing this figure the Minister is required to have regard, first, to the general run of lease obligations, and, secondly, to the cost of the restoration that was actually being carried out on July 25, 1950, the date on which the special Ironstone Order came into force, requiring levelling or other restoration in practically all cases. With that information before him the Minister will be able to fix a fair figure. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 9, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) In this section 'the standard rate' means such sum per acre as the Minister may by order determine; and for the purpose of determining that sum the Minister shall have regard—

(a) to the obligations usually imposed on lessees by mining leases of ironstone in force on the twenty-fifth day of July nineteen hundred and fifty with respect to the carrying out of works for the restoration of land after working by opencast operations or the payments of sums in lieu of the carrying out of such works;

(b) to the nature and extent of any such works in progress on the said date (whether carried out under mining leases or not) and the costs incurred in carrying out those works or any other such works of which those works form part.")—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

THE MARQUESS OF READING: On Second Reading we pointed out that the appearance in this clause of the word "average" and the procedure based upon the average was not a satisfactory one, because it removed any incentive to economy. We had contemplated putting
1104
down an Amendment of our own to deal with the situation, but with the intimation that an Amendment would be moved on behalf of the Government, we took no action. We are prepared to accept the Amendment now put forward on behalf of the Government, with an expression of thanks to them for having, to that extent, met our objection to the original provision.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 19, leave out ("required") and insert ("necessary").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
2.54 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON moved to leave out subsection (5) and insert,
"( ) The Minister shall appoint a committee to advise him as to the matters which fall to he dealt with under this section and any other matters as to which from time to time he considers it necessary to consult the said committee, consisting of such number of persons having such qualifications as the Minister thinks expedient, including at least one person appointed by the Minister who shall nave had practical experience of soil mechanics and the restoration of worked ironstone land.
( ) The Minister may pay to members of the committee such travelling and other allowances as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment which my noble friends and I have put down has a two-fold purpose: first, to stress the importance of the advisory committee. They have an important job to do, and on their decisions is going to rest the general code of practice which is carried on in this industry in the future. Furthermore, they are going to hear all the appeals against the determination of the rates of payment by the operators. Yet only once, so far as I can make out, are the advisory committee mentioned in this Bill—namely, in Clause 8, subsection (5), where it says:
"the Minister may consult any advisory committee designated by him for the purpose."
A very similar Amendment was moved in another place with the same objects.
The second purpose is to strengthen the composition of the committee by appointing to it a man who has knowledge of the

1105
mechanics of soil restoration. The entire purpose of this Part of the Bill is to see that the land is restored properly, and it seems rather curious that nobody with knowledge of that operation is put on the committee. When a similar Amendment was moved in another place it was resisted by the Minister on the ground that he did not want to be bound to set up a statutory committee, and that he did not want to be bound to its constitution and its powers. In redrafting the Amendment we have tried to meet the Minister's objections. He cannot object to setting up a committee because in point of fact he has already done so. All we are doing is to strengthen his committee which, although it is composed of very eminent people, contains no member having knowledge of the mechanics of soil restoration. I think this is a modest and reasonable Amendment, and one which I hope the noble Lord will accept.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 22, leave out subsection (5) and insert the said new subsections.—(Lord Carrington.)
LORD HAWKE: Perhaps when the noble Lord is replying to the Amendment he would also explain exactly what the drafting of subsection (5) means, because I must confess I have some doubts in my mind. The words used are
"any advisory committee designated by him for the purpose."
What precisely does that mean? Does it mean, "appointed by him for the purpose," or that the Minister consults with a committee which already exists and which he is going to turn into an advisory committee for this particular purpose?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: May I reply first to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, by saying that it does mean a committee which the Minister has already appointed, and one of its purposes is to investigate the matter referred to here. I am sorry that I am not able to accept this Amendment, for the reasons given in another place. The Minister gave a definite assurance that he would consider any suggestions for strengthening the existing advisory committee, but there are doubts as to whether making it a statutory committee would of necessity strengthen It is a fact that it would inevitably suffer to some degree from rigidity, and it is undesirable that
1106
matters of this kind should be tied to statutory provisions. What the noble Lords are asking for is an advisory committee that can call for expert witnesses, and whose members are able to understand, weigh up and, if necessary, criticise the evidence given. In my view, the committee already appointed is such a committee. It is well suited for that task by reason of the thorough knowledge and experience of the individual members, and the Minister will constantly keep the matter under review. I may add, as regards the assurance given by the Minister in another place as to the appointment of an additional member, that I am advised that, in accordance with that assurance, he is actively pursuing the whole question hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not find it necessary to press his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I find it very difficult to understand why the Minister is so coy about accepting a statutory committee. The Amendment which we have put down proposes a committee which is based very much on the committee set up under Section 25 of the Agriculture, Act, and, so far as I know, the work of that committee has never caused any particular embarrassment to the Minister concerned. Indeed, quite the reverse has been the case. The mere fact that the Minister has appointed a committee seems all the less reason why he should oppose the Amendment which we have put down. The noble Lord said something about expert witnesses. We do not specify anything about expert witnesses. All we ask is that there shall he in the Statute an obligation upon the Minister to appoint a committee such as he already has in contemplation and, indeed, to some extent has already appointed. If we were endeavouring to tie him down in some way—saying, for example, that the committee should consist of this or that number of persons, or that these or those persons should be appointed to the committee, or that there should be upon it a representative of this or that organisation, as does happen under some Statutes—then I could understand his saying: "I do not want to be tied in this way." But in this Amendment we have left his hands absolutely free, except that we say (and surely this is reasonable, when the whole point of having a committee is that it should deal with the

1107
restoration of land for agricultural purposes) that there should be some person on the committee who is familiar with that particular subject. I am quite unable to understand why the Minister resists this Amendment.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I think the reason is fairly obvious. The Minister has such confidence in the committee which he has already appointed. Perhaps if I tell your Lordships exactly who the members are—
THE MARQUESS OF READING: We know who they are.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: When noble Lords ask why the Minister objects to a statutory committee, I repeat that it is because of the rigidity which is associated with a statutory committee. The present advisory committee—I think perhaps this information may be new to some of your Lordships—already includes a representative of the Ministry of Agriculture, and he has available to him the expert advice of his Ministry's technical advisers on all agricultural aspects. The committee also includes the Chairman or Vice-chairman of the National Council of Iron Ore Producers, who were nominated by the National Council itself. The Committee includes, further, a mineral valuer, and, finally—let me just give this one name, because perhaps it is the most important of all—Mr. Waters, who made a thorough investigation of the ironstone problem in 1946. It must be remembered that the people with the most experience of restoration are undoubtedly those actually engaged on the work, but it is not always possible to appoint them because, when the rate of payment is being fixed, they may have to appear before the advisory committee, on behalf of the firms by whom they are employed. Nor, indeed, is it necessarily desirable. My right honourable friend is satisfied that this committee is admirably suited for its task, but he is prepared to keep the matter under review.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: May I ask one question? Am I right in thinking that, as the Bill stands, if this Amendment is not accepted, it would be in the Minister's power to abolish this
1108
committee at any time he desired and to substitute no other committee for it?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I am not prepared offhand to give a reply to that question, but I will have an inquiry made, and will answer later. I think it unlikely that the Minister would ever consider abolishing a committee which, clearly, will be so helpful to him.
LORD SILKIN: It seems to me that there is a point of principle involved in this Amendment, and that the noble Marquess is right in putting forward the possibility that the Minister may, if he chooses, not seek the advice of this Committee. He may maintain the committee, but all the Bill, as it stands, says is that he
"may consult any advisory committee designated by him for the purpose."
I presume that that implies that he may not consult.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: He may not designate.
LORD SILKIN: I take it that the point of the Amendment is to ensure that he shall consult the committee, though he is not necessarily to be bound by their advice. The Amendment says simply that there shall be this committee. It contains nothing which requires the Minister to act on the advice of the committee. I should have thought nothing would be lost by accepting this Amendment up to the point where it seeks to impose upon the Minister an obligation to include on that committee a person with a particular type of experience. Of course, that may not always be practicable. Although the idea is to strengthen the committee, it may not always be practicable or easy to find a suitable person with the necessary qualifications to serve on the committee in that capacity. Therefore, to place on the Minister a statutory obligation to have such a person on the committee may be imposing rather an onerous obligation. I respectfully suggest that this Amendment may be accepted, provided that there is no obligation on the Minister to appoint a person having this particular experience, which is, after all, rather rare. As I say, a suitable person may not always be easy to find. If the course which I suggest were followed, I

1109
can see no way in which the Minister would suffer. This committee is merely the kind of committee which, I understand from Lord Macdonald it is proposed to maintain. The effect of the Amendment would be to ensure that the Minister would be bound at least to seek the advice of that committee on the very difficult matters which will come before him. I therefore suggest that there is a possibility of a reasonable compromise upon this Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I agree very largely with what has been said by the noble Lord who has just sat down. I appreciate that it may not always be easy to find a person to represent the experts in soil restoration. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, is right in saying that the people who have expert knowledge of this subject are likely to be interested in firms which may have to come before this committee. I can see that that might cause slight difficulties. What I cannot understand is why Lord Macdonald says that provision for a statutory committee of necessity imports rigidity. It does not do anything of the sort. The Minister can appoint any committee he likes; he can reconstitute it if he likes. But it will be a statutory committee, and the country and Parliament will know that there will always be such an advisory committee as the Minister may think fit to set up. As things are at present, we have no assurance whatever that any committee will continue in being.
The noble Lord has said, quite rightly, that the Minister already has a very good committee. But if it could be strengthened by the addition of some impartial man, with perhaps greater knowledge of soil restoration, it would perhaps be an even better committee. What we want to ensure is that not only the present Minister but his successors also have such a committee available to them, that they do not suddenly dispense with such a committee. The fact that a committee is in existence already makes the matter so much easier. If the Minister were to say, "I never thought of such a thing, and I do not need such a committee," there might be some justification for the Government's saying, "We do not want provision for it in the Bill." But when the Minister says, "I am proud of the committee which I have set up," surely
1110
there is far less reason for not making this committee a statutory body.
What I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, to do on this matter, because I feel it is left in a rather unsatisfactory state, is to reconsider this question of the drafting of subsection (5) between now and Report Stage, to see whether he cannot accept at least the first four lines of this Amendment, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Sikin, so that the Minister may be free to appoint whom he wishes. If the Minister undertook to appoint to the committee an independent expert on soil restoration, then I think we should he satisfied. I would ask the mover to withdraw this Amendment now, and Lord Macdonald to look into this question, to see whether he cannot make this committee into a permanent one, instead of leaving the matter so vague as it now is in the last two lines of subsection (5) of the clause.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: It would shock your Lordships if I were to refuse to have any regard to what has been submitted by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, my noble friend Lord Silkin, and the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. Since your Lordships are anxious that this committee should remain in existence, I will accept the suggestion of the three noble Lords to look at this matter again before Report stage. Report stage must be on Thursday of this week, which does not give us much time, and I hope that not too many points will be left over from the Committee stage.
LORD CARRINGTON: On that understanding, I shall be happy to withdraw my Amendment. I hope the noble Lord opposite will be prepared to accept some words about having on the committee someone with practical experience of soil mechanics. Such men are not so few and far between; a number of men have had experience in restoration after opencast coal mining. If we were appointing a committee to inquire into road accidents, we should surely have someone on the committee who has driven a car. On the understanding that the noble Lord will look into the matter, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: The purpose of this Amendment, and the next, is to enable the

1111
Minister to consult the advisory committee about the standard rate as well as about the costs of restoration. It is very necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 22, leave out from beginning to the second ("the") and insert ("For the purpose of determining—
(a)").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This Amendment follows the previous one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 24, after ("this section") insert ("or
(b) the standard rate").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Determination of rates of payments to operators]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment made to Clause 8. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 39, leave out from ("land") to ("or") in line 42 and insert ("in respect of which no payment would he made under section eight of this Act").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.14 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING THE MARQUESS OF READING moved, in subsection (5), after paragraph (a) to insert:
"(b) if the applicant so requires, he shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard by a panel or person appointed by the Minister for the purpose."
The noble Marquess said: This is an attempt to import into the Bill a rather more satisfactory method of appeal than is at present contained in it. Under Clause 9, which deals with the determination of rates of payment to operators, subsection (5) sets out what is to happen if an applicant is dissatisfied with the provisional determination. It begins by saying—and, of course, this is necessary if anything is going to happen at all:
"the applicant may, within such period and in such manner as may he prescribed, make representations to the Minister."
1112
But when he has made representations to the Minister, what happens under the Bill? Paragraph (b) of subsection (5) says:
"The Minister may, if he thinks fit, give to the applicant an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by"—
the advisory committee—
"or any other Committee or person designated or appointed by the Minister for the purpose."
That leaves the whole of the discretion in any case in the hands of the Minister, and gives to the person who considers himself injured by the decision on the amount of money he will receive no right to appeal unless the Minister is prepared to accede it. We do not think that is a satisfactory form of appeal. We do not think it should be left to the Minister to say whether the matter should go forward or not, as the Minister who is responsible for these matters thinks fit. Therefore, we suggest in this Amendment that if the applicant so desires—and it shall not be left to the Minister to say one way or another what shall happen —he shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard by a panel or person appointed by the Minister for that purpose.
The Amendment tries to achieve the not unreasonable purpose of seeing that, where there is a dispute, the applicant shall have the right to be heard by a panel or by an individual person whom the Minister may appoint for the purpose. The original discussion in another place proceeded on the basis—and I think that is carried out in the subsection—that a person who thinks he has a grievance may, with the permission of the Minister, but only with that permission, be heard by this still somewhat elusive advisory committee. It is not practicable, however, to adopt that sort of procedure, because the members of the advisory committee are very busy men and must not be cumbered with a large number of appeals. Very well, take them away from the advisory committee, who, in any case, do not seem to me to be the right people to deal with appeals of this kind, and give them to a panel or person appointed by the Minister, and do not leave it to the Minister to say whether he is to appoint a panel or person. Let us give it as a right to an applicant to say, if he so desires, that

1113
there shall be an inquiry into the rights or wrongs of his case. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 17, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Marquess of Reading.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I have no doubt your Lordships are in agreement with the desires expressed by the noble Marquess, that justice shall be done to the individual, but I am sure we are all just as anxious to have simple and quick administration. My right honourable friend is not without some sympathy for the substance of this Amendment and he is prepared to consider an Amendment on the following basis, which I hope will be acceptable to the noble Marquess and his two noble friends: first, that the applicant first submits his representations in writing; and secondly, that when he submits them, if he asks for a hearing, the Minister must be left free to decide whether he appears before the whole advisory committee; or before an inspector, or before an official of the Ministry, or before the chairman or a member of the advisory committee If noble Lords accept those provisions as the basis for an Amendment, I think it will be possible to draft an Amendment between now and Thursday which will satisfy both sides.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I think I have the point clear, but I should like to ask one question on it, just to be sure. Leaving out of account for the moment the exact person or body to whom the appeal is to be referred, do I understand that the Minister is prepared to say that the applicant shall have a right to go before some body or person, the Minister deciding which body or which person, and that it shall no longer be left to the Minister to say whether or not he goes before any person?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I have here a form of words which it is thought might meet the case. I will read them to your Lordships:
"Page 8, line 18, leave out line 18, and insert:
(b) If at the time of making such representations the applicant informs the Minister that he wishes to be heard upon them, the Minister shall afford to him ….'"
I think that meets the point raised by the noble Marquess.
LORD SILKIN: There is one small point on the Amendment suggested by the noble
1114
Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, to which I would call attention—namely, that it contemplates that the appeal may be heard by the advisory committee. The advisory committee is the body which has, in fact, recommended the determination, and in all probability the Minister has acted on that advice. This is, in effect, an appeal against that advice, and it seems rather unfair that it should be to the very body against whose advice the appeal is being made: it is, in fact, an appeal from Cæesar unto Cæesar. Would it not be better if the advisory committee were not the tribunal to decide the appeal, but that it should be the other bodies or persons? I put that forward merely for consideration It would appear to be fairer to the appellant that he should not go hack to the very body against whose decision he is appealing.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I think the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, has really met our case. What we wanted to establish was that if a man wished to be heard, he should be heard by someone. It is most unsatisfactory just to write to a Ministry putting forward your reasons. You see no one; some weeks later you get a reply signed by somebody you do not know, have never seen and perhaps have never heard of. It is far better that a man should be seen and his case heard by someone. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that an appeal is no good if you appeal to the people who heard the original case, and elaborate provisions are made throughout the courts of this country so that this shall not happen. I have no doubt that that would not be the case, because if it were a matter on which the advisory committee had recommended, surely the Minister would appoint some impartial person to advise him separately on the individual case. So far as I can make out, the noble Lord's words would meet the point we have in mind, although we should like an opportunity of seeing them in writing before we definitely agree to them.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: The alteration which the noble Lord has indicated certainly gives us something to discuss between now and the Report stage, and I desire leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 26, leave out ("determine the rate finally") and insert ("either confirm the provisional determination or make a revised determination").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: This and some succeeding Amendments to be moved by the noble Lord dispose of our Amendments Nos. 23 and 25. It may be convenient at this moment to thank the noble Lord for having met those points, and to say that our Amendments will not be moved.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 29, leave out ("become final") and insert ("be deemed to have been confirmed").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Variation of rates of payments to operators]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 3, leave Out ("finally determined") and insert ("determined under that section").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: The next Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 24, leave out ("final") and insert ("confirmation or revision of the").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Payments of sums due to operators]:
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON moved to add to subsection (2):
to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries."
The noble Lord said: As the Bill now stands, it contains nothing about the manner in which the restoration of land shall be carried out. The only mention
1116
of this is in subsection (4) of this clause. where it says:
On being satisfied that the work in respect of which the claim is made has been duly carried out … the Minister shall pay. …"
There is nothing there about the work being carried out satisfactorily. The object of this Amendment is to place the duty of seeing that the restoration is well carried out on the Ministry of Agriculture. Your Lordships will remember that owners of land, the mineral operators and, indeed, the taxpayer are contributing quite a large sum of money to the restoration of this land after the iron ore has been removed. It is manifestly right that there should be some provision in the Bill that the work should be properly done and the overburden not just thrown back anyhow. There seems to be a good parallel in the case of opencast coal working. When that first started it was not very well done, and the restoration was not successful. But when the regulations were tightened up and the Ministry of Agriculture were brought in, their restoration officers in the agricultural committees supervised the restoration of the land: the results have been most successful, and the land has been very well restored. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, will answer me by saying that he does not want to introduce another Ministry into this matter: that it is the function of the Ministry of Local Government and Planning to see that this Bill is carried out and worked properly. But, again, there is a parallel in the case of opencast coal mining. The Ministry of Fuel and Power do the opencast coal mining, but it is the Ministry of Agriculture who restore the land. I hope that the noble Lord will accept this Amendment, because I think it is most reasonable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 37, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Carrington.)
LORD MACDONALD of GWAENYSGOR: There has been no division of opinion in this House as to the importance of safeguarding in this Bill, so far as possible, the interests of agriculture. That is the desire of us all. In so far as this Bill can do it, I am sure that we shall see that it is done. But I think the Amendment overlooks one or two considerations. For instance, it does not cover restoration except that which

1117
qualifies for a payment. Restoration in the areas of shallow overburden is just as important from the agricultural point of view. There will be cases where the worked ironstone land is to be restored to purposes other than agriculture—purposes of which in some cases (such as those of housing, playing fields, or industrial use) I feel sure your Lordships will approve. In such cases we should not wish to impose statutory responsibility for supervision upon the Ministry of Agriculture. The work involved in the restoration of worked ironstone land is work which the operator has to carry out in order to comply with the conditions imposed by his planning permission. As the noble Lord will know, that is so whether he has a claim on the Fund or not. That is a legal responsibility. The responsibility for the enforcement of such conditions already lies with the Minister of Local Government and Planning. The Minister is just as anxious as any of your Lordships about safeguarding the interests of agriculture, and it is intended that the regional officers of the Ministry of Agriculture shall, as a normal arrangement, co-operate with and advise the officials of the planning authorities and, where necessary, of the Minister, in all cases where the land is to be restored to agricultural use.
Clause 8 (4), as your Lordships will have noticed, requires the Minister of Local Government and Planning to be satisfied that the work has been duly carried out before he makes a payment. It is clearly right, as I feel sure your Lordships will agree, that the Minister who is responsible for the Fund, and who has to make the payments, should also have the statutory responsibility of satisfying himself that the work has been properly done. I can give to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, a firm undertaking, which I hope will satisfy him and his noble friends, that the Minister of Agriculture will be kept fully in the picture, and that arrangements will be made to keep a check on the restoration work to see that it is done in a proper manner. I hope the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment.
LORD CARRINGTON: I am a little disappointed at what the noble Lord has said. I do not think that his arguments are very convincing, because almost all of them apply to opencast coal mines, and
1118
yet in that case the two Ministries seem to have overcome the difficulties which he has propounded. However, he has given me an assurance that the Minister of Agriculture will be consulted, and on that understanding I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Development charge in respect of ironstone workings
13.—(1) For the purposes of subsection (2) of section seventy of the principal Act (which requires development charges to be determined having regard to the difference between the value of land with the benefit of planning permission and without the benefit of such permission) no account shall be taken of any liability to pay contributions under this Act in respect of ironstone extracted by opencast operations.
3.33 p.m.
The MARQUESS OF READING The MARQUESS OF READING moved, in subsection (1) to delete the word "no." The noble Marquess said: This Amendmen also has reference to criticism of provisions of the Bill which I made on Second. Reading, and which, indeed, was elaborated at some length in another place. Very simply, the Amendment desires to substitute a positive for a negative which, on the face of it, is perhaps about as drastic an alteration as one could contemplate. But, none the less, it seems to us that the alteration which we propose is right. The position under the 1947 Act is never a very simple one, from whatever angle or for whatever purpose one regards it, but as I understand the position it is this. When you are talking about a development charge under the principal Act, what has to be paid is the difference between what I think is called the existing use value, and the consent value of the land—the difference between the land as it is for the moment employed and the value which it will have once planning permission attaches to it. That is what we have come to call, perhaps not with very great accuracy, the development value. The amount of that value depends, at least to a large extent, upon the profitability of the use which is permitted by the planning permission given in any particular case. Any factor which intervenes to diminish that profitability is, in our view, a factor

1119
which ought to be taken into consideration, and not specifically excluded from consideration, when we are assessing in any particular case the amount of the development charge.
That is exactly the opposite of the policy which is enunciated in Clause 13 of this Bill, because what this Bill does is to impose a duty upon a person working ironstone to pay to the Ironstone Fund the new contribution of 1⅛d. per ton which is established by this Bill. In proportion as he pays that 1⅛d. per ton for every ton extracted from his ironstone workings, so is diminished the profitability of the general undertaking which he is carrying on: it is an extra burden which he has to carry; his overheads are increased by that amount, the amount of the levy which is now being imposed upon him—I am not saying wrongly imposed, but rightly imposed—to produce a Fund to carry out the restoration of land in the circumstances conceived by this Bill. But it is a new overhead which he is being asked to carry and, therefore, the development value of the permission which he is taken to have obtained to extract ironstone from the land is diminished by the amount that the profitability of the undertaking is decreased, that amount representing the amount which he has to pay out in the ironstone levy contemplated by this Bill. That seems to us to be a direct antithesis of the right way of going about this procedure.
When I raised this point on Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, said that the effect of doing what we thought ought to be done would be that the Treasury would have to pay that amount of the levy as well as the ¾d. which, under the Bill, they are already held to contribute. But in 1947 the Government took over the mineral interests, and surely they did not take over only the assets of the owners of those interests but must be regarded as having taken over the liabilities as well. If the payment of this ⅛d. per ton of ironstone extracted, which this Bill is about to impose, is to be a liability upon the operators, surely that is a liability which it is not unjust to say ought to fall upon the Treasury if they have taken over—as they did in 1947—the whole of the undertaking. Those, as simply as I
1120
can explain the point in my mind, are the reasons which lead us to think that the Government have approached this matter from entirely the wrong angle, and that the just way to deal with the imposition of an extra burden upon the ironstone operators is the way envisaged by our Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 43, leave out ("no").—(The Marquess of Reading.)
3.39 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Marquess cannot have moved this Amendment with any great optimism for his success. After all, if this Amendment were carried it would destroy the whole basis of this Bill, which contemplates that restoration has to be carried out and that the burden has to be borne by three parties in the proportions set out in the Bill. If the Amendment were carried, one of the parties would be entirely exempt, and the burden would then fall upon the owners and upon the Treasury. I cannot believe that the noble Marquess really believes that at this late stage this fundamental alteration could be accepted by the Government. It seems to me perfectly fair and reasonable that the operator should pay for the restoration out of his profits, and that there should be a definite levy on him, just as there is on the owner of the land. To release him would call forth at least an equal claim by the owner of the land to be released; and that is not the scheme of the Bill. In fact, it would have been quite logical to place the whole of the burden upon the operator. The operator does, in fact, receive the benefit of the work done to the value of at least 3d. per ton—it may be more. He pays 1⅛d., and he is doing quite well out of it. There is no justification for relieving him of what is intended to be a responsibility on his part. After all, apart from this Bill, there is an obligation under the development order placed upon the operator to carry out restoration. This Bill, in effect, relieves him of a considerable burden, because if there were no Bill he would still have to carry out this work. I feel that the operator is doing quite well, and has no real cause for complaint, and I think the clause should remain as it is.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I agree with what

1121
has been said here by my noble friend Lord Silkin. If subsection (2) of the clause were to be omitted or the Amendment accepted, it would mean the land owner and the state would bear between them the cost of the restoration. The ironstone producer is to enjoy the benefits of this fund; and, incidentally, he expects—and we expect—that he will make a substantial profit. Yet he, apparently, is the one to be exempted from making a contribution to the fund. I cannot believe that noble Lords are very strong in their feeling about this Amendment. I tried on Second Reading to give an example of how it would work and I thought, having given that example, that an Amendment such as this would not be forthcoming now. I have nothing to add to what I said then. The noble Marquess's point was that if the levy had been imposed before the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 the ironstone producer would have paid to the land owner a correspondingly lower royalty—that is to say, he would automatically have made the land owner pay twice and would have avoided any liability himself. If that had happened, it would clearly have been indefensible. The Kennet Committee in 1938 proposed a levy on both the industry and the land owner, but they clearly contemplated that the industry should pay a contribution. If legislation had been prepared in 1938 to give effect to the Kennet proposals it would obviously have had to be made clear that the industry could not dodge its responsibilities in the way suggested. I hope that the noble Marquess will not think it necessary to press this Amendment We are not asking anything unreasonable of the ironstone industry.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: As the noble Lord knows very well, considerable importance was attached to this Amendment in another place, and lengthy discussion took place on the Committee stage. We therefore thought it right to give an opportunity of discussing the matter in a little more detail than was possible on Second Reading. Whether or not I am convinced by the arguments of noble Lords on the other side has, perhaps, no great bearing on the situation at the moment because, having ventilated what we thought was a considerable weight of view, I do not propose to ask
1122
anything more than leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This Amendment is merely drafting consequent upon Amendments already carried. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 7, leave, out ("in respect of that ironstone").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This Amendment is also a drafting one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 8, after ("Act") insert ("in respect of works to he carried out in connection with the winning and working of that ironstone").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Provisions relating to Iron and Steel Corporation]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This Amendment is consequential on an Amendment to Clause 8. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 25, leave out ("average") and insert ("standard").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Powers of Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This Amendment is purely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 25, leave out ("that Act") and insert ("the Agriculture Act, 1947").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to.
Clause 22:
Compulsory acquisition for purposes of agriculture
(3) Regulations made under section ninety-three of the Agriculture Act. 1947, with respect

1123
to the compulsory hiring of any such land as aforesaid—
(c) may provide, notwithstanding anything in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of the said section ninety-three, for applying to the hiring, subject to such modifications as may be prescribed by the regulations, any of the provisions of the Schedule to the War Damaged Sites Act, 1949, relating to procedure for authorising the compulsory taking possession of land under that Act, in substitution for the corresponding provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946.
3.48 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING THE MARQUESS OF READING moved to add to subsection (3):
"Provided that the regulations as aforesaid may not so provide in respect of procedure for authorising the compulsory taking possession of more than two acres of land."
The noble Marquess said: This Amendment again is directed to a point raised in passing on the Second Reading. It is a form of mild protest against the appearance in this Bill of the War Damaged Sites Act. Our objection to the use of that Act for the purpose of the present Bill is that that Act was passed for an entirely different purpose, and ought not now to be bent into a different shape in order to be used for the purposes of this Bill.
Noble Lords will remember that the War Damaged Sites Act was passed in order to expedite the clearance of a number of badly bombed cities throughout the country, so that they might present a clean and agreeable face, primarily for the benefit of people visiting this country for the Festival of Britain. I do not think any of us who was present when that Bill was going through the House and when it ultimately became an Act expected to see it make a reappearance in a Bill of this kind, concerned with the winning of ironstone, and for the purpose of enabling the authorities to requisition land for the purposes of this Bill. It is not as if there were no measure on the Statute Book which enabled an authority to acquire land on terms when it so requires, because, after all, the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act of 1946 gave very extensive powers to the Government and others in authority in that behalf. It seems to us quite unnecessary to use this other Act for the purpose of this Bill, more especially because the use of it for that purpose is in some degree a dis-
1124
tortion of the purpose for which Parliament passed it.
We recognise that there may be cases of a small area of land, an island isolated in the middle of a larger area, which it is sought to take over under an expeditious and convenient procedure; and, for that purpose, we have suggested that it is not unreasonable to use the machinery of the War Damaged Sites Act to acquire land up to the extent of two acres. If it is a question of using that Act in order to take over wide areas of land, however, we think that that is a wholly wrong application of it and that recourse should be had to the normal existing machinery for the purpose. Something was said, I think, by way of excuse for the use of the powers of that Act under this Bill, about the necessity for moving with great speed; but surely, the cases in which time is of the essence of an operation under this Bill cannot be many. In any case, the machinery for the acquisition of land, by the normal procedure is not so cumbersome or dilatory that resort ought to be had to this other and quite unrelated measure, except in the most exceptional circumstances. In our view, those exceptional circumstances ought to be limited to the cases mentioned in our Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 20, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Marquess of Reading.)
LORD SILKIN: I must say that I have some sympathy with this Amendment for the reasons stated by the noble Marquess, but, in addition, it seems to me quite inappropriate to use the War Damaged Sites Act for this purpose. I am speaking from recollection, and the noble Lord will no doubt correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that the War Damaged Sites Act had for its main purpose the leasing of sites by the local authorities for relatively short periods in order to clean them up and to use them for brightening up the cities of this country. By and large, it was always intended that those sites should be returned to their original owners. That Act was not primarily an Act for compulsory acquisition; and to use that machinery or to take powers to use it indiscriminately seems to me quite wrong. I think that the cases where it is urgently necessary to acquire small parcels of land would be amply met by the Amendment,

1125
which limits the use of the War Damaged Sites Act to areas under two acres. The Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act is an Act which was passed in 1946 for the very purpose of speeding up compulsory acquisition of land as against the earlier procedure, and I think it has worked and can operate most effectively where necessary. Therefore. I would suggest that my noble friend should look again at this Amendment and consider it between now and the Report stage.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: When I find the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who himself was a Minister of Town and Country Planning, joining hands with the noble Marquess, my position does not become any easier.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It is a very bad position.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I feel, however, that the War Damaged Sites Act does help us. The noble Marquess himself intends that it shall help us in the case of sites of two acres and under. What surprises me is that the procedure for compulsory hiring should depend upon the extent of the land to be hired. As I said on Second Reading, the only reason for making use of the other Act is because the powers of that Act enable the Minister to get on with the job a little more quickly. I do not know whether the noble Marquess and his friends would be prepared to accept, in place of their Amendment, an Amendment on Report for the deletion of paragraph (c). I think we can go as far as that. I believe that if, instead of adding to paragraph (c), we remove paragraph (c) from this clause, it will meet all that is required, and if that is acceptable it will be done on Report stage.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am always prepared to be given more than I ask for. If the noble Lord is contemplating removing the whole of that paragraph from the Bill upon Report stage, we shall in no way obstruct his intention. Indeed, we shall welcome its departure. I am much obliged to him. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clauses 23 to 27 agreed to.
3.57 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, to insert the following new clause:
Enforceable Options
"—.(1) Notwithstanding anything in section one hundred and nineteen of the principal Act a lease for the purpose of that Act shall include, and shall be deemed to have always included, an enforceable option to acquire or lease land tor the winning and working of minerals
(2) Regulations made under section twenty-seven of this Act may provide that their provisions shall apply to the whole or any part of an interest in minerals on the appointed day which consists of an enforceable option."
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, let me first say that I am obliged to the noble Lord for the way in which he has met us so far with this Bill. If I had been drafting the last Amendment, I should have put it down in the form in which the noble Lord offered its acceptance, because I do not believe in using that measure for the particular purpose of this Bill.
The present Amendment seeks to extend the area in which no development charge is payable. As your Lordships who were here when we were dealing with the Town and Country Planning Bill may remember, on the question of these minerals I always said—and I still believe that I was right—that if a development charge were imposed, it would inevitably put up the costs of the minerals and so, ultimately, of the goods that we produce out of them. The present Minister of Local Government and Planning by his action seems to be rather adopting that point of view, because he is gradually exempting a large number of works from paying the development charge, and so is, wisely, putting off the day when, owing to the direct action of the Government, the cost of goods—which, heaven knows! is already rising quickly enough—will rise still further. My Amendment would give a little further breathing space, or at any rate a breathing space, to some of those people who, whilst not owning the land, yet have a firm option on it to work the minerals. An option is obviously an interest in land, but it is not an interest in land, according to the definition in this Bill, sufficiently to bring it within Clause 27 which your Lordships have just passed.
I am not seeking to bring within the ambit of Clause 27 the land covered by every option, but I am trying to do that

1127
in those cases where, from the general course of treatment of the land, the option is a really effective one. Under my Amendment it would then receive near-ripe treatment. The kind of case I have in mind is one where an operator has a £10,000 option and uses up the land, let us say, at the rate of £1,000 each year. What is envisaged by my Amendment is that the Central Land Board shall have power to make regulations providing the conditions in which a part or all of the land subject to an option shall qualify for near-ripe treatment. Such conditions would be that adequate and full consideration has been given for the option, that there is a history of past practice of securing reserves by way of option, and that the option is enforceable, and is in fact enforced, within a reasonable period. Those are the kind of conditions that I have in mind, for the simple reason that some people have operated their workings under these options with just as much security as they would have had if they had themselves owned the leases. Clause 27 deals with the case where the people own the land; but where a man has not, perhaps, had enough capital to buy all the land outright, and has worked the kind of system which I have just outlined to the Committee, it seems to me that he equally should get the advantage of the provisions relating to near-ripe development. For those reasons I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 27 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD SILKIN: On this Amendment I am afraid that I do not see eye-to-eye with the noble Lord, who is seeking to extend the meaning of near-ripe land to a purpose for which it was never intended. Near-ripe land used for minerals or for any other purpose is land which is, in actual fact, ready to be mined or developed. The noble Lord may remember that there is a definition of land which is dead-ripe in Section 80 of the principal Act. That land has to satisfy certain conditions. It was represented that there may be other land which does not quite satisfy the particular conditions laid down in Section 80, but which is, nevertheless, land which the developer in January, 1947 —the date of the introduction of the Act—had ready to be developed. The land to which the Amendment refers is land which
1128
is not ready to be mined at all. It is land which is being held in reserve, which may not be mined for many years to come—indeed, which may never be mined, because the developer may not exercise the option. Therefore, it is land which in no sense can be described as "near-ripe" land, and for that reason it should not receive near-ripe treatment.
I quite understand the convenience to operators of having an option on land which they may want to use in five, ten, fifteen or twenty years' time, when their existing land ceases to be useful to them. But they may not want to use it. That is the very purpose of an option. If they were quite certain about it they would have acquired the land. I think it is completely altering the character of near-ripe treatment to regard land of that kind as near-ripe, and to give it the benefits for which the noble Lord is now asking. Moreover, noble Lords here, and Members in another place, have complained of the growing number of preferential claimants on the £300,000,000, and now the noble Lord is himself asking for a further addition to those prior claimants, as I think quite unjustly. Therefore, in this case I hope that my noble friend will not see his way to agree to this Amendment.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is an Amendment to which I have given a lot of thought. The reason is fairly obvious. It is not too easy an Amendment to follow, and I thought I had better attend to it in a little detail. I do not intend to trouble the Committee with too much of the detail. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, as usual when he introduces an Amendment to us, has set out all the good things and all the dangerous things which are associated with this Amendment. This new clause would widen the definition so that "lease" would include an option to buy or lease minerals. It would also enable the near-ripe regulations under Clause 27 to apply to minerals covered merely by an option, and which are anything but near-ripe, as my noble friend Lord Silkin has already said. There are three main reasons against accepting this new clause. The first is that it would extend the scope of near-ripe treatment to enlarge the class of preference claimant whose claim is to be paid at 100 per cent. of development

1129
value. Lord Llewellin himself referred to the fact that the number of these claimants is on the increase, and any such extension as he now suggests means less of the £300,000,000 for non-preference claimants. There has already been much criticism that the three near-ripe schemes—those for minerals, builders and single plot owners—absorb an undue share of the £300,000,000. I submit that it would be unfair to claimants generally to make any further extension of the preference classes until we know how the non-preference claimants will fare. The assessment of claims up to date is not yet sufficient to enable us to make any reliable estimate.
The second reason against accepting this Amendment is that options are as common with building land as with minerals. Land on which a builder or a single plot owner had merely an option on the appointed day has been excluded from those near-ripe schemes; indeed, the machinery of those schemes is such that option land could not be admitted. It would be wrong, I submit, to give holders of mineral options preferential treatment which cannot be granted to holders of other options. The minerals scheme is already generous in comparison with the other schemes and we must preserve a balance between them. The third reason for objecting to the Amendment is that. so far, near-ripe treatment has been confined to land which the developer owned, or leased, or was committed to buy or lease, at the appointed day. It is the essence of an option that the holder is not committed. It may be that the option provides for purchase on terms, including development value, and the mineral undertaker would be out of pocket if he bought on those terms, since he would have to pay development charge in addition. But it is open to him to negotiate fresh terms, in view of his liability for development charge; and, if he cannot obtain reasonable terms, he can apply for compulsory purchase by the Central Land Board, or by a local authority, or for a grant of compulsory working rights by the High Court. The Central Land Board have told the Federation of British Industries that they are prepared to consider using their powers of compulsory purchase under Section 43 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, in cases of this type. For these
1130
three reasons, I trust that the noble Lord will not think it necessary to press this Amendment.
4.10 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: May I say a word upon this matter? It seems to me that a good deal of the criticism directed to this proposed new clause leaves out of account the terms of Clause 27. When you say that you must not treat these enforceable options as being on the same basis as near-ripe land, you should not forget that Clause 27 makes a great departure from the original, principal Act and for the first time treats the whole of these mineral interests as near-ripe. Therefore, all we are suggesting is that consequentially, if, for the first time, you are treating these mineral interests on the basis of near-ripe land, then you ought also, on any fair and logical basis—in view of the practice in this particular industry of holding reserves in the shape of enforceable options—to take enforceable options into account on the same basis. It is said that great inroads are being made in advance on the £300,000,000 fund. We uttered criticisms in this connection as long ago as the time when the principal Act was passed, and we pointed out that the way in which mineral interests were being treated under that Act was not likely to be successful but was likely to cause hardship. If it be right that the holders of enforceable options should be treated on the same basis as the holders of other mineral interests, it surely cannot be argued that you ought to exclude them because there are already two or three other categories of preferential creditors upon the£3000,000,000 fund. That is a mere argument of expediency. If, on the other hand, justice demands that they should be put on the same footing, then surely you cannot possibly object to one more type of candidate queueing up for the £300,000,000, however undesirable it may be in practice from the point of view of those who have claims upon that fund.
The noble Lord dismissed what is a very substantial point a little cavalierly, because there are certain peculiarities in the mineral industry in relation to this matter of enforceable options. I think the practice of holding reserves in that form is a widespread and long-established

1131
one in that industry, and we are not suggesting by the Amendment that all land which is held under enforceable option should be treated as near-ripe land. That would be a ridiculous and exaggerated claim to put forward. What we are suggesting is that you admit the principle that enforceable options are part of the mineral interests covered by Clause 27, and you should then have regulations made saying to what extent and on what conditions those enforceable options should be brought within the Bill. I am still hopeful that the noble Lord may be prepared to give a little more consideration to this proposal than he indicated in his earlier remarks.
LORD LLEWELLTN: I must say that I never thought for one moment that Lord Silkin was going to agree with this Amendment. I remember the struggles we had with him when he was Minister of Town and Country Planning with a view to getting him to extend the area of the dead-ripe category and not leave so much in the near-ripe category. We failed in most of our efforts on that score, and I did not expect to have his support to-day. The point on which I quite agree that I am vulnerable in moving an Amendment of this sort is that it will add more people to this preferential class. I have already complained—and I admit it—that there are too many people in that class already. In fact, I always took the view that if there were to be people in that preferential class which is included in near-ripe, the right place for them was in the dead-ripe category (that is why I tried originally to extend that category), and that the £300,000.000 fund should not, as it were, pay a preference dividend, and an ordinary dividend afterwards, but should be divided equally amongst all those with land outside the dead-ripe category. Because it is a mere fiction to take over the whole of the charge with one hand and pay exactly the same amount back with the other, as is done in regard to the near-ripe category.
But when we come to the problem with which we are now dealing, as I understand the position under Clause 27 it is that so long as a man owned or leased the land at the appropriate date under this Bill, that man would be able to claim that his land (because he owned it or leased it at that time) came into the near-ripe category.
1132
If, however, he had not the money to buy it, or had not the money to pay for a lease, but merely took an option, then you are going to say that because he was not rich enough to do either of those things the land shall not come into the near-ripe category. That is what we shall be doing by not accepting this Amendment to-day. However, I have made my point. I believe it would have been right in appropriate cases—I do not say in every case; it would not be, for instance, in cases in which there was a vast option which might never be taken up—to give the Central Land Board a power to deal with those cases, by including them in Clause 27 although they were only options. I believe that if we do not accept this Amendment some very hard cases will occur. They may be few in number, but nevertheless they will be hard. However, I do not intend to press this matter to-day. Although I am not satisfied with the action which the noble Lord has taken—after all, we were not proposing to widen this provision very much but only to give power to widen it—I will not press the matter. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28:
Modification of leases granted before 1st July>, 1948
(3) Where an order is made under this section in respect of a mining lease, any sums paid under the lease by the lessee in respect of any period after the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and fifty-one and before the making of the order shall, to the extent that they exceed the sums payable in accordance with the lease as modified by the order, be recoverable as money had and received to the use of the plaintiff.
4.18 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am not going to pretend that this Amendment is likely to have any very dramatic effect on the Bill, but I think it does perform a not un-useful if limited function. As I have had some indication that His Majesty's Government may consider accepting this Amendment, I will pursue the matter no further until I have heard what the noble Lord has to say. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 21, after ("received") insert ("by the person to whom it was paid ").—(The Marquess of Reading.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: It is thought that the Bill as it stands does what the noble Marquess would like to have done. But, in case it does not, I accept his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am grateful for that acceptance. In the circumstances, we need not discuss whether the Bill does or does not perform this function without the words of the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 29 and 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Offences]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 18, after ("corporate") insert ("or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity.")—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Powers of entry]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is slightly more than a drafting Amendment. Clause 33 enables an authorised person to enter land for the purpose of determining the rate of payment under Clause 9. The same provision is clearly necessary for varying the rate of payment under Clause 10, and that is what this Amendment does. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 37, after ("Act") insert ("or of the variation of any such determination.")—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 34 and 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Regulations]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This Amendment is partly consequential on the Amendment we have inserted in Clause I, but it also requires that the Minister shall determine by way of statutory instrument the standard rate under Clause 8. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 28, after ("Act") insert ("the power of the Minister to make orders under section one or section eight of this Act").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Interpretation]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 42, leave out from ("Minister") to ("means").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule [Areas comprised in the Ironstone District]:
On Question, Whether the First Schedule shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD REA: I have put down no Amendment, but I should like to say one or two words on the First Schedule. I think it should be made clear on the Floor of the House that the areas comprised in the Ironstone District as described in the Schedule are not comprehensive. Your Lordships will see that there is a complementary reference in subsection (2) of Clause 1, by which the Minister has power to apply this Act to other districts. I am moved to make these remarks having in mind the case of West Cumberland, where there are considerable iron deposits. This area lies on the border of the Western part of the Lake District, the most beautiful part. Although the iron ore is supposed to have been worked out some fifty or sixty years ago, some enterprising people are again openly quarrying iron ore. I have no criticism of this activity, because they are employing local labour and so on; but I think it is desirable that those who have amenities at heart should know that, when cases of this sort arise in other parts of the country, this Bill, when it becomes an Act, may equally apply to these areas.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Perhaps it will be some consolation to the noble Lord to know that any extension of the Act must

1135
have the approval of the Minister. I feel sure that the noble Lord and others would make any representations they found necessary if and when any suggestion was made to apply this measure to the Cumberland area.
First Schedule agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE (AMENDMENT) BILL
4.26 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I rise to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this small but important Bill. As its Title indicates, the Bill seeks to amend the provisions of Section 47 of the National Assistance Act, 1948, for dealing expeditiously with urgent cases in need of immediate care and attention. Section 47 of the Act lays down that seven clear days' notice must be given to the person concerned before an application can be made for his removal to a hospital or other institution. To illustrate the necessity for bringing in this Bill, I cannot do better than quote a case which was brought before another place by the honourable Member who introduced the Bill there. The case is so extraordinary that one wonders whether there is not some exaggeration, but the honourable Member spoke from his own knowledge as a medical man.
A spinster aged fifty-eight fell and broke her thigh. She was assisted back to her house by some neighbours, but refused assistance from doctors, nurses or home help, in spite of every effort made to persuade her. The medical officer of health was called in, and when he suggested at once that she should be removed to hospital, she refused to go. He had no power to move her. All he could do, under the Act, was to give notice for her removal, and that required seven days—nine effective days. This woman lay on the floor of her house for nine days, refusing all help, with the result that sores formed on her body and tetanus germs entered. After the notice had become effective, she was removed to
1136
hospital, where she died a few days afterwards. Had this been an infectious case, or if she had been certified as mentally defective, it would have been possible to give instructions for her to be removed to hospital at once. Or had this happened before July 5, 1948, when the National Assistance Act came into operation, it would have been possible for the relieving officer to take immediate action, on the ground of her being neglected. On inquiry, it was found that this was not the only case of its kind. Therefore, it was decided that the law required amendment.
This Bill makes no fundamental change in the law. What it provides is a shortening of the waiting period. I think there are few Bills which have come before your Lordships' House more strongly recommended. It is a Private Member's Bill, and was backed in another place by members of all Parties. It impressed the Government so much that facilities were provided for its rapid passage through the other place. It now comes to your Lordships without amendment. It shows the almost utter impossibility of legislating to meet all the vagaries of human nature. We have to do this in order that people like the person I have mentioned should be saved from themselves in such circumstances. It will be necessary on Committee stage to move a small drafting Amendment to meet the particular case with regard to justices in Scotland. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Amnion.)
4.31 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I rise to support this measure. It is evident that, not for all cases but for some, when we passed the National Assistance Act, 1948, we made the qualifications for getting a person into hospital by order of justices too rigid. After all, as the noble Lord has said, a person suffering from an infectious disease can immediately be taken into what used to be called a fever hospital—I do not know whether they are still called fever hospitals—on the order of the medical officer of health; and a person who is of unsound mind, when certified by a doctor and a Justice of the Peace, can

1137
be taken into a mental home. All this measure seeks to do is, where the medical officer of health is supported by another doctor, and obtains the assent of a bench of magistrates, or of one magistrate having jurisdiction in the area, to make it possible to move a person suffering from a grave chronic disease to a place where he or she can receive proper care and attention.
Some of these people are, quite naturally, reluctant to be moved from their own homes. They are reluctant if they have an infectious disease, and there is even greater reluctance when a person has to be moved to a mental hospital. Even people who fall down and break a limb, who have perhaps never been in hospital in their life, hate the thought of leaving home and going into hospital. But it is for their own good that they should go there, and not lie unattended for days, until eventually, as in the case which the ruble Lord cited, death intervenes. Ample safeguards for the liberty of the subject are provided, in that this action must be commenced by a responsible official either the local authority itself or the medical officer of health, if he is designated by them. His opinion has to be backed up by another doctor, and the whole thing approved either by the local bench or by a justice having jurisdiction for that area. We can eliminate all the difficulty with regard to the time factor that exists with the main Act without in any way departing from the principle of preserving the liberty of the subject. It is for those reasons that I hope that this Bill will be speedily passed into law.
4.35 p.m.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, this is a Private Member's Bill which was brought forward in another place and to which the Government have no objection. Both the noble Lords, Lord Ammon and Lord Llewellin, have indicated to your Lordships the provisions of the Bill. All I desire to emphasise is that it makes no fundamental change in the law but does increase the safeguards against any infringement of liberty, in that under the provisions of this Bill the signatures of two doctors, and not one as before, are now necessary prior to a person in need of assistance being removed to the place where that assistance can be obtained. Further, as tile procedure laid down in
1138
the Bill does not allow for an appeal, it is provided that the period for which the patient may be detained in hospital, or such other place where treatment can be obtained, shall be limited to three weeks, instead of, as previously, three months. During that period of three weeks it will be possible to initiate procedure under Section 47 of the main Act which will enable the individual concerned to be detained for further treatment if necessary. The Bill makes no fundamental change in the law, but it does make a great and desirable improvement in the method of administration, and I hope that your Lordships will pass it speedily.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SIR WILLIAM TURNER'S HOSPITAL AT KIRKLEATHAM BILL
4.37 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.

SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS (AMENDMENT) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (CIVIL LIST PROVISIONS) BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with a certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read la; and to be printed.
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with a certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read la; and to be printed.
DANGEROUS DRUGS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
FORESTRY BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments, the said Amendments to be printed.
RAG FLOCK AND OTHER FILLING MATERIALS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments, the said Amendments to be printed.
TITHE ACT, 1936 (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments, the said Amendments to be printed.
FAVERSHAM NAVIGATION BILL [H.L.]
  LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]

    UNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
    House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before five o'clock.