§ 4.46 p.m.
§ Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
§ LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEYMy Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
§ Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEYMy Lords, your Lordships will remember that on the Committee stage a new paragraph (c) was added to subsection (1) of Clause 1 of this Bill. The Amendment provided that the quantity of top soil removed in any period of three months must not amount to more than five cubic yards. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, asked whether the removal of the limited 127 amount of soil referred in the Amendment would have to be from the same piece of land, and asked for the point to be looked into before the next stage of the Bill. This has been done and the answer is to be found in the requirement in Clause 1 (1) (b) of the Bill, that for an offence to be committed the removal must constitute development. Where there are substantial removals of soil from several sites, each removal will constitute development. Whether operations on a number of adjacent sites, from each of which less than five cubic yards of soil is extracted, could be considered as constituting development in the aggregate must depend on the particular facts. When the Amendment was first put down by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, the possibility of defining an area for the purposes of the Bill was carefully considered, but the difficulties of doing so in the Statute, and the fact that any 128 definition would overlap with Clause 1 (1) (b), led to the conclusion that, on the whole, it would be better not to attempt to define an area.
THE LORD CHANCELLORThe House is very glad to hear what the noble Lord has had to say, but as a matter of record, to put the position in order, perhaps I should mention that I think the noble Lord's observations should have been made on the Motion that the Report be received.
§ LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEYI apologise.