HL Deb 16 December 1954 vol 190 cc473-83

3.43 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)

My Lords, during their consideration by the Special Orders Committee of your Lordships' House, these regulations have been found to Contain some complexity, and, therefore, if I trespass on your Lordships' time for a little longer than I should otherwise have done, I hope your Lordships will appreciate the reason. I do not think anyone can fail to understand why the regulations have a certain complexity, because they apply an Act which your Lordships have found to be complex in itself to an industry which has its own complications and special practices—the mineral industry in this country. I will try to put them before your Lordships as quickly as I can, but yet adequately. I should like to make this point. In accordance with what I believe to be the appropriate modern legislative practice, these regulations, before they have been made, have been shown to those most likely to be interested in them. They have been shown to local authorities, to the Federation of British Industries, to the Country Landowners' Association and to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. I think your Lordships will agree that that is in accordance with modern legislative practice, and is very helpful in bringing regulations in as good a form as one can get before your Lordships' House.

There are three preliminary points which I should like your Lordships to have in mind. The first is that, with regard to mineral regulations, mining operations, unlike most other forms of development, add nothing to the value of the land. The value of permission to work minerals lies solely in the right to take them away. This removal frequently destroys what value there is in the land. Secondly, the process of extraction and treatment of minerals usually requires the provision of expensive fixed plant and buildings near the area of working. The third point I would ask your Lordships to have in mind is that the 1947 Act treated the winning and working of minerals as a continuous operation, and not as a use of land. Therefore, permission is required so long as working continues.

With those points in mind, I now ask your Lordships to consider what these regulations are. Not all of them stem, as your Lordships will appreciate, from the recent Act. For the convenience, I think, of everyone concerned, we are trying to consolidate the three sets of regulations which have been in force for a varying number of years. These are the Minerals Regulations of 1948, 1949 and 1953. I hope that the noble and learned Earl who leads the Opposition will agree that that is the proper course to take when one is making fresh regulations. Your Lordships will appreciate that Part II of the present regulations—that is regulations 3 to 10–deal with this point, and they reenact those of the existing regulations which are still required. Therefore, they are mainly consolidatory in character. There are, however, one or two new provisions in Part II, to which I should like to call your Lordships' attention, and I will then do the same with regard to Part III.

First, with regard to Part II, Your Lordships will have seen that regulation 2 in Part I sweeps away existing regulations, and Part II reinstates such regulations as we still require, amended where necessary to take into account the effect of the Act of 1954. I think there are only a few points to which I need draw your Lordships' attention. First, the House may wonder why certain regulations—notably regulation 8 and regulation 9–still make reference to the calculation of claims on the £300 million fund and the determination of the development charge. The answer is that some of the claims made by mineral undertakers have not yet been determined, because the negotiations on some claims are difficult and complicated and have, therefore, been protracted. Similarly, there are a number of development charges which are still not determined. The House may remember (because we discussed this during the progress of the Bill) that under Section 54 of the Act of 1954 many mineral undertakings—namely, those where development began before November 18, 1952–remain liable for a development charge up to January 1, 1955, and the final determination and payment of some charges may not be made until after these regulations come into force. Therefore it is necessary to preserve powers found in regulation 9. I mention that point because I feel that, unless that background is known, and the reason for delays is known, it may strike noble Lords as curious that that aspect of planning is still dealt with in the regulations.

The second special reference I should like to make to Part II is to regulation 10. Your Lordships will understand that in the years immediately before the 1947 Act came into force, planning control of the winning and working of minerals was much less stringent. Therefore, at the appointed date (July 1, 1948) some transitional arrangements had to be made to enable operators who were already at work to extract minerals without specific permission until the application for specific permission could be determined. That was done by the General Development Order of 1948. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will appreciate, that Order authorised those who were still on the job to go on with it.

That presented us with a problem, because, as I have indicated, generally speaking, any compensation for refusal of permission to work minerals can be founded on the loss of development value in minerals, and under the Act of 1954 compensation will be based on the claim on the £300 million fund, and, in future, on the unexpended balance. In the ordinary way, a refusal cannot damage the value of buildings, plant and machinery, because they should not have been erected until permission was forthcoming; but in cases of working still going on in 1948, something had to be devised to meet the situation where buildings and plant existed and could be damaged by refusal to allow the continuation of working, which was not then covered by the General Development Order. Regulation 10 (1), which appeared in the 1948 and 1953 regulations, was a means of providing compensation for such damage, and the main change we have made is that by regulation 10 (2), which is new, the applicant is enabled to obtain compensation for loss through disturbance of these undertakings as though permission for which he was asking had been revoked or modified. I think your Lordships will see the common sense of that. There being a General Development Order and the person in question working under that Order, we considered that this was the best approximation and that, in these circumstances, the effect of a refusal of permission was very much the same as the effect of a revocation of permission, and the compensation ought to be on the same basis.

The third reference I want to make to Part II is to the addition that has been made to regulation 7. Your Lordships may have in mind that regulation 5 of the 1948 regulations provided for the calculation of compensation where buildings, plant and machinery were compulsorily acquired. In this circumstance regard was to be had to the existence of any specific planning permission to work minerals. Nothing was said about the effect of permission under the General Development Order, and the purpose of paragraph 2 of regulation 7 is to enable the value of a General Development Order permission to be taken into account. I think these are the important points in Part II.

If I may treat Part III in the same way, I hope that I can cover the important points. The most significant financial arrangements which are special to mineral workings, and which are incorporated in leases of minerals, are, first, the custom of reserving an amount of rent under the lease which is payable by the lessee, whether he works any minerals or not. The corollary to that is that the mineral lessee normally has the right to work without any further payment an appropriate tonnage of minerals at a subsequent time. I am anxious not to trouble your Lordships with details, but your Lordships will see the two factors which have to be taken into account with regard to mineral leases. The first is what is known in the industry as accumulated short workings—that is, where the amount of minerals that has been got does not come up to the amount that is covered by the rent under the lease. The second factor arises when the next break in the lease comes by which the lease can be terminated. It is obvious that these two factors vary at different times of the lease. A lessee might come up to a period where the break is only a week or two off and past that week or two there is a further period of five years. On the other side, it may be that the amount of accumulated short working is entirely different at the time when the payment becomes due from the amount at the appointed day.

That is the problem with which we have had to deal. Stated in a word or two it is this. If, when payment falls to be made under the Act, the lessee has accumulated more short workings than he had at the appointed day, while the number of years until the next break in the lease has increased, then the share of development value held by each of the parties is quite different from what it was at the appointed day. This fluctuation or movement in value is often considerable and has to be taken into account. That is the problem that we are trying to deal with in Part III of these regulations. Your Lordships will appreciate that it is a problem dealing with the past when we were still in the field of claim-holdings. In the future all claim-holdings relating to minerals in a given piece of land are amalgamated into the unexpended balance, of which we have heard so much. Your Lordships will see particularly that regulations 16, 17, 18, 21 and 24 (2) deal with this problem.

I will say a word on regulation 21, as I think that would help your Lordships most, because it deals with compulsory purchase in the future of land subject to a mineral lease. Regulation 21 provides for the division between the lessor and the lessee under a mining lease of the unexpended balance of an established development value. The division is made on a principle already familiar to your Lordships from our discussions on Part III of the 1954 Act. In calculating the proportion three factors have to be taken into account: accumulated short workings, which I have mentioned; the value of the lessor's right to receive a minimum rent up to the next operation of a break in the lease; and thirdly, the value of any profit royalty owned by the lessee—that is, if the lessee has held his lease under a royalty reserve which is less than the full market value.

The only other point in Part III to which I need to draw your Lordships' attention centres round the provision made for damage to the value of buildings, plant and machinery resulting from a compulsory acquisition of other land held by the same operator. This provision will be found in regulation 23 (b). I hesitate to go into that fascinating topic at any length, but, as your Lordships will see, that is the point, and we have tried to deal with it in the regulations. I could go through the regulations seriatim, but that would be a poor return for the courtesy and patience which your Lordships have shown to what has already been a long explanation. I would say only this. I feel it is important that when the Special Orders Committee draw attention to a matter as being deserving of special consideration, the Minister in charge ought to put it before the House. With that apology I beg to move.

Moved, That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations, 1954, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

4.1 p.m.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, nobody could possibly complain of the manner in which the noble and learned Viscount has introduced this Motion. I can assure him that he has given as full an explanation as this House could possibly stand, and if he had gone any further I think he might have fared worse. I feel that the explanation is adequate at the moment. I have vivid recollections of studying from time to time, when I was Minister, various problems relating to minerals, and I remember that after great effort, if I thought at a particular moment that I got a glimpse of what was involved, I could not swear that a few minutes later I would retain such impression as I had. I had the same feeling when the noble and learned Viscount was explaining these regulations: I think I understood them while he was speaking, but I should not like to swear that I would understand what he had said soon afterwards. However, it seemed all right to me, and I am comforted by the fact that these regulations have been shown in draft to the various bodies to which he referred.

I was going to ask the Lord Chancellor about that matter. I do not know whether he was being cautious when he said that they had been shown to these bodies, because he did not say what was the effect of showing them. We should like to know that. I should feel some additional assurance if I knew that these reputable bodies, which are, on the whole, more competent to understand these regulations than most of us in this Chamber, had actually approved them. If that were so, I would say that it would be difficult for any one of us to quarrel with them. No doubt the noble and learned Viscount will be able to tell us whether they did approve generally, and whether any amendments were made to these regulations as the result of representations made by one or more of these bodies.

In view of the representations of the Special Orders Committee, I believe it might have been helpful if we had had a little more time to study these regulations. I do not want to emphasise—the noble and learned Viscount has done so quite adequately—their difficulty and complexity. Since this is regulation by reference in the most complicated way, I consider that the time that has been given to this House to deal with the matter is inadequate to enable us properly to discharge our duties. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House will see that these regulations were made on December 8, and they were not presented to the House until later. I understand that they were printed on the 15th, which was yesterday, and I presume that we are being told today that these regulations are of such a character that they require special consideration. The noble Marquess must have heard the Lord Chancellor explaining them, and I am sure he will agree that they do require special consideration.

It is said that, In the opinion of the Committee the regulations cannot be passed by the House without special attention. The House has not had much opportunity to give the special attention to these regulations that it ought to give, its attention having only now been directed to the point. Some of us who would be prepared to devote a certain amount of time in trying to understand the regulations and in satisfying ourselves that they are right have had no opportunity of doing so since this morning; indeed, unless we had paid particular attention to this Report, which would presumably have come to us this morning, we should not have realised that this was a matter which required special consideration. I feel that if this House is to discharge its functions adequately we should be given a little more time, to make a pretence, at any rate, of understanding what we are doing, than has been the case with these regulations. I am prepared to "call it a day" on these regulations, but I hope that the noble Marquess will realise that I have raised a point on this matter and that we ought to try to give ourselves sufficient time to appreciate what we are doing.

The only comment I want to make on the substance of the regulations, which have been adequately described by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, is on No. 21. This is complicated and needs time for consideration. Can the noble and learned Viscount make a statement as to whether the treatment that is being afforded to owners of mineral workings is more favourable, less favourable or just as favourable as that which is being given to other owners whose land is being compulsorily acquired? Obviously it is different, because that is the purpose of this regulation. But it is not easy to see whether they are being treated in a more favourable or less favourable way than other owners, and perhaps the noble and learned Viscount could give us some explanation of that point. With those few words—indeed, that is all anybody can say, in view of the time we have had to consider the matter—I hope that we can have an assurance that in future we shall be given rather more time and warning of matters that require special attention than we have been given in regard to these particular regulations.

LORD AMMON

My Lords, as a member of the Special Orders Committee, I should like to express my gratitude and, I am sure, the gratitude of the other members of the Committee, to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, for the manner in which he has explained this Motion, and also justified our action. I take a measure of responsibility for this.

LORD SILKIN

May I interrupt the noble Lord? I was not criticising the Special Orders Committee, and there is no need to justify them.

LORD AMMON

I am not referring to what the noble Lord said. As the noble and learned Viscount has already indicated, your Lordships' attention has to be called to anything entirely new, or anything that is not founded on precedent. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has indicated that we were amply justified in taking the steps that we did take on those grounds. The matter was discussed. It ought to be said, too, that, so far as the Special Orders Committee are concerned, the papers are in the hands of the members some time before the meeting takes place. But the fact that we met only yesterday was not our fault. I think we may take it as an indication of our assiduity that in a short space of time we took the steps that we did.

4.10 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, may I deal with the points that noble Lords have raised in the order in which they were raised? I think the first point upon which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, wanted information from me was whether the consultation that I described had been useful, if I may put it in that way. I should like to say to him that of course all the bodies were given a full chance of considering the matter. But with regard to two of them in particular, it went far beyond that. The Federation of British Industries who speak for, I think, about twenty different sections of the mining industry, together with some of the surveyors, have been very close and thorough in their co-operation, and many amendments were made as a result. As I understand it—I hope the noble Lord will not take me to the fool of the letter—I think it was rather left to them. The local authorities, as I understand, had not any particular points of their own to raise. They knew that the matter would be threshed out in the other way. The other point about which the noble Lord asked me related to regulation 21, I think he will find that this follows the principle with which he is very familiar, and which he examined again in considering Part III of the 1954 Act. I do not think it changes the balance of preferment, if I may put it that way; but I did tell the House of the three factors that it took into account—accumulated short workings, the rental up to the next period of break, and the possible existence of a profit royalty in those matters. I think they are the right criteria and the method of operating them does not change.

With regard to the general position, if I may say so to your Lordships, what we have heard to-day (with the exception that your Lordships have had to listen to a speech of mine) shows the value of the Special Orders Committee procedure. As the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, said, the drafts of the Orders have been available for a period of about a week to the Special Orders Committee. I know that, having regard to the calls on your Lordships in general, it must be a relief to feel that that Committee do the work of examination; and, if I may intrude a personal matter, it is a gratification to me, because I think it was when I was a Law Officer of the Crown that the suggestion was put forward that there should be a corresponding Committee in the House of Commons to deal with this point. I am grateful to the Special Orders Committee that they have indicated that the matter should be examined. I have apologised to your Lordships as sincerely as I can for examining it at some length myself, and I hope that, at the end of the day, your Lordships will feel that the matter has been properly and seriously put before the House and that your Lordships will now approve these regulations.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I had hoped that we should have received some reply to the point I made. I am not complaining in the least: of course I am grateful to the Special Orders Committee for having drawn our attention to the difficulties of these regulations. My point was that we knew that they had drawn our attention to them only this morning, at the earliest. That does not give us an opportunity of giving to them that attention which the Committee thought was necessary. Nor am I complaining of the way in which the noble and learned Viscount explained them, but surely this House is entitled to something more than that. We are entitled not only to have an explanation of these Orders: we are entitled to consider them and to try to understand them for ourselves. My complaint is that we have not had that opportunity.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am sure that that aspect will be considered by my noble friend the Leader of the House, and by all of us who have to deal with these matters from the departmental aspect. I can only tell the noble Lord that it is one of the difficulties—we found it in another place, as well as in your Lordships' House—of getting suitable intervals of time between the various stages that have to be gone through. I can assure the noble Lord, on behalf of my noble friend, and on behalf of the Departments which we can influence, that in the future we will try to see that a reasonable time is given to your Lordships for studying and considering regulations which take that course.

On Question, Motion agreed to.