HL Deb 27 January 1953 vol 180 cc13-20

3.10 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to he put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]

Clause 1:

Removal of surface soil without planning permission to be an offence against this Act.

1.—(1) if—

  1. (a) a person removes surface soil from agricultural land with a view to the sale of that soil, and
  2. (b) the removal of that soil constitutes development within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and is carried out without the grant of permission required in that behalf under Part III of that Act,
he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.

EARL JOWITT had given notice of an Amendment, in subsection (1), at the end of paragraph (b) to add: and (c) the quantity of soil so removed in any one quarter amounts to more than five cubic yards,

The noble and learned Earl said: I have gone through this Bill again, and although I am not opposed to the principle of the Bill at all it seems to me that we should do something to improve it in certain respects. The great case that called attention to this problem arose not far from London, where land was being devastated by someone taking off the top soil from a large acreage and disposing of it at considerable profit. It was felt right that there should he some machinery by which such practices could be stopped. On the other hand, I think everybody agrees that it is desirable not to cast our net so wide that we bring within it all sorts of small and trivial matters which ought not to be the subject of criminal proceedings.

To my mind, the weak feature of the Bill, as it is now drafted, is that the test of whether or not a criminal offence has been committed, depends on whether there has been technically a development under the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947. The object of fixing what was development, within the meaning of that Act, was to attract development charge, and I think it undesirable to use the somewhat vague terminology of that Act to create a criminal offence. The development is defined under the Act as: Carrying out building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land. The whole question is: What are "other operations?" I suppose these words must be read having regard to what has gone before—engineering and mining and the like—but it is by no means easy to assert with authority what are "other operations." There is an exception in the Town and Country Planning Act which makes it plain what is not covered—namely the carrying out by a local authority or statutory undertakers of any works for the inspection or renewing of pipes. From that I infer that, had there not been that express provision, the work of inspecting pipes on land would have been "other operations" within the meaning of the main part of the Act. That is the definition of what is development, although, of course, there is a provision under Section 17 of the Act, if I remember aright, which enables anyone to go to the planning authority and expound what he is going to do, and they can assert whether that will or will not constitute development.

I must here declare an interest. For many years past I have been very interested in gardening. I believe that people make a great mistake in paying too much money in buying plants. I think it would be much better to spend more money in getting the soil in which they are going to put the plants into the right sort of condition, by the drainage of beds, the taking away of the clay subsoil, if there is a clay subsoil, and providing a proper drainage system. If you do that, you will find that you will have to get some other soil to top up. You will find it necessary, as I found it necessary, to get a lorry load of top soil in order that you may create a bed. In my area, where I am living now, near Bury St. Edmunds, the soil is extraordinarily good for growing asparagus. A noble Lord who lives at The ford grows what he claims to be, and what I believe is, the best asparagus grown in this country. It is not unknown for residents of my neighbourhood to get a lorry load of soil from The ford to make an asparagus bed. I hope that is not a reprehensible thing to do. After all, I take it that the public interest is that all soil should be put to the best advantage, and it may be that soil in an asparagus bed in Bury St. Edmunds is performing just as useful a work as soil on the open land at The ford. I understand that the promoters of this Bill do not want to deal with that sort of case, but with the kind of serious waste found in the other case. I am surprised that the horticultural societies have not taken more interest in this matter. We find that horticultural merchants provide special compost mixtures of top soil and silver sand or river sand, which give suitable soils for growing whatever it may be. They must buy top soil in considerable quantities in order to be able to deal with all their customers, though the composts are sold to customers in comparatively small bags

My object in this Amendment is to try to take these comparatively small operations out of the ambit of the Bill. In this Amendment I put the arbitrary figure of five cubic yards in any one quarter as something we should not trouble about. I understand that my Amendment would be more acceptable and more legal if, instead of "one quarter," I substituted the words "period of three months" so as to make the Amendment read: and (c) the quantity of soil so removed in any period of three months amounts to more than five cubic yards. With your Lordships' permission, I will move the Amendment in that form. That is my sole object. I do not want to interfere in any way with the purpose of the Bill. I want to prevent small transactions such as this from coming within the purview of an Act of Parliament, becoming a criminal offence and rendering a person so offending liable to a fine not exceeding£100, which is a serious matter. Of course, there is the view that, under Section 17 of the Town and Country Planning Act, one can go and fill up what is no doubt rather a formidable form explaining what is proposed to be done and asking whether it is or is not a development. I suggest that this Amendment carries out the object of this legislation much better and more faithfully if we exempt from its purview these small and trivial matters. I have suggested as a test five cubic yards in any period of three months, which I hope and believe will be acceptable to the authorities and will improve the Bill by confining it to the sort of case that really ought to need it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 1, line 11, after ("Act") insert: and (c) the quantity of soil so removed in any period of three months amounts to more than five cubic yards."—(Earl Jowitt.)

LORDAMHERST OF HACKNEY

I am grateful to the noble and learned Earl for moving this Amendment. As he so rightly says, the object of the Bill is to prevent the devastation of large areas of land by the removal of top soil: it is not intended to prevent the noble Earl from buying a small load of soil to improve his garden. The definite figure of five cubic yards makes it clear to people whether or not they are likely to be committing an offence. Therefore, I have great pleasure in accepting the Amendment in the terms in which the noble and learned Earl moved it.

3.20 p.m.

LORD LLEWELLIN

As your Lordships know, I took an interest in this Bill and, indeed, introduced it in this House on the first occasion. As the noble and learned Earl has said, no doubt a local planning authority would have given permission to take away a lorry load of soil, and application could have been made to them under Section 17 of the Town and Country Planning Act for such permission. But that is not the kind of act with which this measure is intended to deal. It is intended to deal with, and to give a quicker remedy against, the man who is devastating a large area of ground by taking off all the top soil and thereafter making it almost impossible to grow anything upon the land. I feel that the noble and learned Earl's Amendment makes it plain that the Bill is not meant to deal with a minor operation of that kind.

However, when I come to look at the terms of this Amendment, I rather wonder about two things. First, the noble and learned Earl defines what may be taken in cubic yards—I believe that one cubic yard is about one ton of soil. It is not too easy to determine what is a cubic yard, and I wonder whether we should define by weight the amount of soil that may be removed. Throughout the country, as noble Lords will realise, we have weighbridges; and since the weight of the lorry unladen would be well known, it would be only a question, if the soil were thought to exceed the permitted amount, of weighing the lorry that was taking it away. I am not saying that mine is the better method, but I wonder whether it would not be more convenient than that of the noble and learned Earl. It may be that it will be easier to measure five cubic yards, but I think we should consider whether we are doing it in the right way by adopting the Amendment of the noble and learned Earl.

I should also like to raise this point with the noble and learned Earl. When I read the proposed paragraph (c), in conjunction with paragraph (a) of subsection (1), which says: If (a) a person removes surface soil from agricultural land with a view to the sale of that soil… and the quantity of soil so removed in any period of three months amounts to more than five cubic yards, I gather that the five cubic yards would have to be taken away and sold by the same person. But I am wondering whether it would have to be taken from the same piece of agricultural land. That is merely a point that occurs to me. It may well be that those two points can be looked into—perhaps we might have some advice from the Ministry of Agriculture or the Ministry of Local Government and Planning—between now and the Report stage. In that event, I suggest that this measure should not be put down for another week or ten days, to give time to look into those points, because we want to get the drafting in the most convenient form.

EARL JOWITT

I hope that the representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture will speak to us on this matter. I shall be perfectly prepared to put myself in the hands of the Ministry if they are going to look into the matter, and to accept their decision. When you buy soil for this purpose, you always buy it by the cubic yard. I think the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, will find that the cubic yard is perfectly well understood as the kind of measure people have in mind. If I am wrong about that, I shall be told. I should not mind changing to weight, if that were more convenient, but I imagine that the cubic yard is the better of the two. As to the form of the thing, I should be grateful if some expert could look into it, and should naturally be prepared to accept, on the next stage of the Bill, whatever modification might be thought desirable of the Amendment.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I should like to say a few words on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. We have looked into this matter, in conjunction with the promoters of the Bill, and, subject to the slight changes which the noble and learned Earl has made, we are perfectly satisfied with this Amendment as it has now been moved. With regard to the two points raised by the noble Lord. Lord Llewellin, I agree with the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, that the measurement of a cubic yard, rather than a ton, is probably more convenient, as all manure and soil is bought in that way, and it is a measure that is well understood when discussing that sort of commodity. I will ask the promoters to look into the other point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin.

Owing to previous legislation, this matter comes under town and country planning and the use of land, but it is really an agricultural matter, and it was this particularly grave case, which has been mentioned and which occurred in the southern counties, that led to the introduction of the original Bill. It is purely an agricultural matter. It concerns cases where people buy a fair-sized block of land—land which should be used for cultivating and producing a large amount of foodstuffs but which is used merely to sell off the top soil, the rest beings old for building plots, and one thing and another, leaving the land, from an agricultural point of view, derelict for all time. After all, we are trustees of the land of this island, and we should all try to guard it to see that it is kept and used for the best purpose. That is really the point of the Bill. As regards the soil merchants mentioned by the noble and learned Earl Lord Jowitt, I think they are well safeguarded, because under the Act you have to get planning permission to develop building sites, playing grounds, chalk pits, sand pits, and so on, and then, when planning permission has been given, the top soil is taken off in large quantities, and is the soil on which the reputable soil merchants rely for their produce. Quite frankly, I do not think we can grumble at this, and I can say, on behalf of the Government, that we support the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

3.29 p.m.

EARL JOWITT had given notice of an Amendment, after Clause 2 to insert the following new clause:

Consent of Attorney-General before prosecution

".No prosecution under this Act shall be brought save with the consent of the Attorney-General."

The noble and learned Earl said: There are many illustrations of this Amendment in our Statute Book. The object, I suppose, is to see that trivial and annoying prosecutions are not brought; that there is some good reason for prosecuting. I am ashamed to say that my draft has one very bad mistake—and I apologise to the Scotsmen. My Amendment should read: No prosecution under this Act shall be brought in England and Wales save with the consent of the Attorney-General.

LORD LLEWELLIN

"England or Wales."

EARL JOWITT

Yes, I think that is right.

LORD LLEWELLIN

The noble Earl said "and."

EARL JOWITT

I am not seeking by a side wind to extend the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General to the Scots, and I will, if I may, move the Amendment in this form: No prosecution under this Act shall be brought in England or Wales save with the consent of the Attorney-General. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 2, insert the following new clause: (".No prosecution under this Act shall be brought in England or Wales save with the consent of the Attorney-General.")—(Earl Jowitt.)

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I have no objection to the Amendment which the noble and learned Earl has moved, and I am grateful to him for moving it. There is no question that there should be any trivial prosecutions.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

House resumed.