OPENCAST COAL BILL

HL Deb 10 July 1958 vol 210 cc880-946

11.59 a.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 Mills.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Authorisation of opencast working of coal

1.—(1) The National Coal Board (in this Act referred to as "the Board") shall not work any coal by opencast operations, or cause or permit any coal to be worked by such operations, except in pursuance of an authorisation granted in that behalf by the Minister of Power (in this Act referred to as "the Minister"):

VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved in subsection (1), immediately before the proviso, to insert: who shall be satisfied that the National shortage of coal is such as to warrant his consideration of an application by the Board for an authorisation under this section:

The noble Viscount said: This is quite a simple Amendment. This Bill introduces a new system of working coal under a new law. It has always been understood that opencast coal mining is an emergency measure which is taken only when the national interest requires it. All the agricultural interests oppose it but have been led to accept it as a disagreeable necessity, so long as the country really needs the coal, either for reasons of shortage of coal or for reasons of foreign currency. What this Amendment does, quite simply, is to make the Bill say the reasons for its existence, and it makes sure that at any time during the next ten years the power conferred by the Bill shall be used, properly speaking, only in the national interest. I do not think the Amendment is very restrictive on the Minister, because the phrase used is that the Minister "shall be satisfied", and I have no doubt that no Minister would make an authorisation unless he was satisfied. I think it right, however, that as a matter of policy the Bill should seek to justify itself at the outset. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 13, at end insert the said words. — (Viscount Ridley.)

LORD LAWSON

The noble Viscount has made a gallant attempt to modify the effect of the change that is taking place. I am sorry that on this occasion I cannot agree with him, because I am against this new proposal lock, stock, and barrel. I think it is time that this opencast mining in the coal fields was ended, and I want to warn your Lordships—and the Minister particularly—about it. There are communities in the coal fields suffering in many ways from this opencast working, and I am not so sure that they will bear it quietly for ever. I am against this Amendment because I am against giving the power to the Minister to continue this opencast working. The noble Viscount rendered a very great service, I think, by giving a vivid description, from first-hand experience, of what this opencast working means. He said last week [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 210, col. 328]: I have been living for the last two years or so with working"— that means opencast working— 200 yards away from me. It is tolerable, but it is by no means pleasant. And I may say that I think he is very generous when he says that it is "tolerable." He went on: It is noisy, it is dirty, there are violent explosions and there are lights on all night; but one just has to put up with it … Then the noble Viscount goes on to say that there is a space between his house and the opencast working, but he very generously gives us this description of what it is like, and adds that they are working right up to the doorway of certain men in his immediate area.

I venture to say that there is not in your Lordships' House—nor, indeed, in the other House—a single person who, if he had to live in an area where opencast mining was in operation, would live there five minutes: he would be out of it. It is a well-known fact in my particular county that people have had to suffer in a multitude of ways because opencast working has been virtually at their doors. If one had to get up for work at, say, three or four o'clock in the morning—or even if one were in what is known as the "back shift". which begins at nine o'clock in the morning—how would one like to live in an area where opencast working was going on, with blasting such as the noble Viscount has described from his own experience, with great are lights on all night, and with the rumbling of the carriage of coal away from the workings? How would anybody like to go to work in the morning in those circumstances?

It was quite natural that we should have given way to this proposal during the war, although it was a very unusual proposal for us in this country. Ours is a small country, and the coalfields are small and comparatively concentrated. This is an American method, and in America they have wide spaces. They have great machines, and they have deep seams quite near the surface. I have seen some of them. They have the same system in Australia, I believe. But we have to keep to a comparatively small area, in which people are living and working. Many of the men do very heavy work in the mine in the mornings, and it is quite impossible for them to live in an area like this where they carry on blasting and have these great lights on all night.

There is another thing about this opencast working that people object to and that I object to particularly. I told your Lordships' House a few months ago of the surprise I had when, in my own county, I came from the deep seams in which I had worked on the East side of the county and went to the West side. It was like going to another country. There are smaller collieries there because the coal is nearer the surface. Some of the spoil has been used by landowners who, very wisely, see to it that their land is not spoiled, and there are plantations in my immediate area practically built upon some of this spoil. The thing that surprised me was to see these great plantations, which were like new life to look at. I had come from an area where, for nearly all my life, I had seen great pyramids. I remember when I went to Egypt and saw the Pyramids for the first time. I was puzzled at first because I was not greatly impressed by them. Then it occurred to me that it was because I had been looking at homemade mountains all my life. We did not have them of the same height, but we had the best of them in quantity. From my front door I can see quite reputable Pyramids round about me some miles away. We do not have to go to Switzerland for mountains—we have got them.

LORD MILLS

I wonder whether the noble Lord would forgive me for interrupting? I hardly find that he is speaking to the Amendment. I know his views; they are shared by many of us; but I would suggest that he is making a Second Reading speech rather than dealing with the Amendment.

LORD LAWSON

I went over this matter carefully, and some of my colleagues have done so too, and so far as I can see this clause gives the Minister power to take over and continue opencast working. The noble Lord suggests that this should be modified in a certain way. In speaking against this, and against any modification of it, I think that I am within bounds in what I am saying. Is it a fact that the use of even bigger machines for digging coal is contemplated? There is a good deal of talk about that in the mining areas, because it is feared that it may lead to unemployment. I would also ask the noble Lord what he is going to do about the plantations. I believe that the National Coal Board are dealing with this matter and as the noble Lord said, consideration is being given to the proposal that the Forestry Commissioners should restore the plantations. If bigger machines are to be used, so far as I can see it means the wholesale destruction of these plantations.

Speaking from first-hand experience, I have noticed that as a rule landowners deal reasonably with those they employ. Is it only in industry where human feelings have to be overridden, where beautiful things have to be torn up and where people have to be asked to live under veritable demoniac conditions? I say that the Government have no right to take advantage of the good will of the miners and of the mining communities, not only to admit but also to encourage opencast working. They have no right to take advantage of the present situation and continue it in area after area where there is misery beyond words. I do not agree with the Amendment.

LORD MILLS

Before I reply to the noble Viscount on his Amendment and to the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, I should like to apologise to your Lordships for the large number of Government Amendments appearing on the Marshalled List. It will also be necessary, I am afraid, to introduce more at the Report stage of the Bill. As your Lordships will appreciate, this is a complicated measure and it has been necessary to make a number of changes to meet the representations that were made in another place during the later stages of the consideration of the Bill, as well as to meet points made by outside interests. Most of the Government Amendments are of a technical or drafting character and I hope that your Lordships will bear with my noble friend, Lord Chesham, and myself in our introduction of them.

Coming to the proposed Amendment, I am afraid I must say that it is one which we could not accept. I think it is based on a misconception of the way the Bill is going to work and that it would prove very difficult to operate it in practice. As I understand it, the Amendment requires the Minister not to consider an application from the Board for an authorisation to work a site unless he is satisfied that there is a national shortage of coal which warrants this course. It seems to me that such a provision would work only if there were such a big improvement in our coal situation that we could do without opencast output altogether—as the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, would like us to do. However, as I explained in the Second Reading debate, we shall probably need some opencast output for the next few years. That will mean that we shall have to bring new sites into production, though I hope that we shall be able to be more and more selective in our choice of sites. But in order to make that selection and choose the sites the working of which will provide the greatest benefit to the national economy with the least damage to agriculture and amenity, the Government will have to examine under the authorisation procedure all potential sites, and will have to decide, in the light of the objections and arguments, which of them should be selected for working and which for exemption. In taking these decisions, the Government will pay full regard to the general coal situation and to the quantity and quality of the coal which could be obtained from the site under consideration; but it is not possible in advance of this examination for the Minister to say that he does not think the national shortage of coal warrants his examination of a particular proposal, and even after he has completed his examination, the national coal situation can be only one of the factors—although a very important one—in his decision.

The second objection to the Amendment is that the Minister's authorisation, which is essentially a planning permission, is required whether or not there are objections to the working of a particular site. There are some deposits of coal which can best be obtained by opencast methods and which it might be desirable to work even if there were no great shortage of coal. There might be cases where the Board had obtained the right to work this coal by agreement with the owners and occupiers of the land and when the local authorities and others interested had no objections to the working. This Amendment would prevent the Minister from granting an authorisation in such a case unless there was a national shortage of coal. I do not think it would be sensible for us to impose such a sweeping prohibition on the Minister's discretion.

Dealing now with the points put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, I am sure we all share his view and his anxiety, and we do not wish to carry on opencast coal production any longer than is necessary in the national interest. The noble Lord raised the question of the use of bigger machines. My authorisation and consent covers the use of land, and not the method, but I shall be happy to discuss this problem with the National Coal Board and to give the noble Lord a glimpse of what the future is likely to be in that respect. So far as the question of plantations is concerned, we deal with that fairly fully in subsequent clauses, and I hope the noble Lord will be content to follow these points as they are then dealt with. In view of the difficulties I have explained, I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, will not press his Amendment.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

While appreciating what the noble Lord, Lord Mills, has said in regard to the Amendments, I could not help feeling that the purpose of this Bill has not been thoroughly thought out by Her Majesty's Government. I have in mind the vast number of Amendments moved in another place, the vast number of Amendments here on the Committee stage and the vast number of Amendments we are now told we shall have on the Report stage. I am sure that a well-thought-out Bill would not need all these Amendments at all these stages. It seems to me that there has been a lack of thought in the initial stages regarding this Bill. That is all I propose to say on that point.

As regards this particular Amendment, I appreciate what the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has in mind. We on this side of the Committee would oppose opencast mining as a substitute for deep-mined coal, but we do not oppose it as a supplement to deep-mined coal. I agree with the Minister on this particular Amendment. I am rather surprised that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has put the word "national" in his Amendment, because by so doing I do not think he strengthens it. I can well see, as I have seen many times, that in this country there may be a real local shortage. I imagine that in the future nuclear factories will be built in various places, and I can well imagine their being built where coal in the vicinity would be opencast coal to suit the purpose. Moreover, I am quite satisfied that any Minister of Power, and especially the present Minister, would have this in mind if we had great stocks of coal scattered all over the country, and maybe the deep mines going on short time because of the amount of coal. If ever there was a prospect of deep mines not being able to work full time for production purposes, I cannot imagine any Minister continuing with opencast coal mining in this country. Therefore, I do not think the noble Viscount need worry unduly, because I feel that anything he has in mind will be dealt with by any Minister of Power.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I agree that this Amendment is not really of any force. I put it down as I thought there should be some declaration of policy that this is not the normal thing to do and will be done only when it has to be done. The noble Lord, Lord Mills, said that it might be embarrassing in relation to an authorisation. I think that that is true, and, indeed, I first thought of putting it down in relation to a compulsory order; I think it would have been better placed there. I do not want to press the Amendment, because I do not think it is by any means vital. I should have hoped that there would be something in the Bill indicating that this was not the normal thing to do and that it would be done only in, as it were, some sort of emergency. One must, of course, accept the view that any Minister has to take everything into consideration before he gives an authorisation or makes an order. As I say, I do not think this Amendment would make much difference one way or the other, and in view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Planning permission for authorised operations

(2) Any directions given by the Minister under this section shall include such conditions as the Minister may consider reasonable with respect to the restoration, by or at the cost of the Board, of land worked or damaged in the course of any authorised operations:

Provided that, in the case of land which, at the time when the directions are given, is agricultural land, the conditions so included (except where the Minister is satisfied that the land is not likely to be used as agricultural land when it ceases to be occupied for the authorised purposes) shall be such as in the opinion of the Minister will secure its restoration so as to be reasonably fit for use as agricultural land.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, after subsection (1) to insert: (2) The Minister shall not authorise working of land within 50 yards of any building whereof the whole or any part thereof is occupied as a dwelling-house, or the working of land which is part of the land adjacent to such building, which is occupied with that building and forms part of a garden, yard, court or forecourt, belonging to that building, and which is not agricultural land.

The noble Vicount said: This is quite a different subject, but again there is a slight confusion about the position in the Bill at which this Amendment should be made. In Clause 9, which deals with limitations on land which may be subject to an order, there is a reference to the making of a compulsory order for workings within certain distances of houses, gardens and so on. There is an Amendment down later to that clause which says that no order may be made empowering working within fifty yards of any occupied dwelling house. It would seem to me, also, that, apart from an order, authorisation should not be possible, because it might well be that one individual would make a bargain with the Coal Board to work his land, which might border on to somebody else's land and involve working close up to that person's house without his being consulted or, indeed, being allowed any recompense whatever. He is a third party who has no standing in the matter.

Under this Part of the Bill, as I understand it, the Minister is acting as Minister of Planning—this is a planning provision—and I think one should consider him much in the same position as a planning committee or a Minister of Planning dealing with industrial development of one kind or another. The protection that a third party, such as I have described, would have against the building of a factory close up to the wall of his house, would be that the planning permission would not be given. The Minister would have to act in that way. It would seem to me that if he is willing to limit his powers in this respect as regards compulsory orders, so he should be willing to limit his powers as to authorisation in regard to a voluntary agreement between the Coal Board and others.

It cannot be said that the restriction to within fifty yards of an occupied house is going to make any appreciable difference to the amount of land which can be used and, therefore, the amount of coal which can be extracted. I do not believe that the area of which we are talking could ever in practice be as much as one-half of 1 per cent. of any area which is likely to be taken, and I think I should be right in saying that in the future, with the more powerful machinery which now exists—and the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, suggested that there might be even more powerful machinery—the sites would almost automatically have to be larger. Therefore the proportion of land affected by keeping fifty yards away from people's houses is not really an alarming one. The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, was good enough to quote what I said on Second Reading about this matter—that it is not right that the Government should allow working to go right up against the walls of anybody's house. May I correct the noble Lord, in that I said in the Second Reading speech that I had heard of working going up against somebody's house. I have not actually seen it. It has happened, and I do not believe it should. That is simply the case I put, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 32 at end insert the new sub-section.— (Viscount Ridley.)

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENTYSGOR

I hope the Minister will approach this Amendment sympathetically, whether he agrees or not with the number of yards mentioned. I am certain that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, is asking for something which is necessary. I have known places in the north-west where we were going within ten yards of buildings of this kind. That is far too near, and I do not think it is an unreasonable request that fifty yards should be kept clear of opencast mining. Even fifty yards is rather near for private purposes and for enjoyment, and I think the purpose of the Amendment is deserving of consideration by the Minister.

LORD MILLS

This is an Amendment which is closely associated with Amendment No. 15 on the Marshalled List, and is one with which I have every sympathy. I have seen only a few opencast coal sites, but that has been enough to make me realise the almost intolerable inconvenience which must be caused when working is close to houses. If I say that I cannot accept this Amendment, it is not because of any lack of sympathy with people who suffer this inconvenience, but because there are real objections to it. I have examined this position very carefully, and it is not a practical proposition.

Apart from the legal aspect, it is not possible to name a distance. There are all kinds of considerations, like access to the site, which complicate the issue. So far as the legal position is concerned, unless a householder owns or occupies the land around his house or has some special legal rights over it, he cannot stop the legal development of that land. He is constantly exposed to the risk of such development. There is, for example, nothing to stop another mineral worker from buying land very close to a house and obtaining permission to work the minerals by opencast methods. I feel that, apart from the practical difficulties which I think are even more important, to accept the Amendment would impose a general limitation on the National Coal Board's freedom which is not imposed on other mineral workers.

I should, however, like to give a firm assurance that. when considering applications for authorisation, I will take into account of the proximity of occupied houses, and I will allow a site to come within fifty yards, or perhaps even more, of a dwelling house only in quite exceptional circumstances. I am sorry I cannot go further, but I hope that this undertaking will be of some satisfaction to the noble Viscount, the noble Lord, and to your Lordships, and that the noble Viscount will not press this Amendment.

VISCOUNT HALL

I have a good deal of sympathy with the noble Lord in this matter. If he should agree to an Amendment of this kind there are many opencast sites which would not be worked, and it would interfere greatly with production in the event of coal by opencast working being required. I should say that whilst I have every sympathy with him, I should wish, and I am sure all of us would wish, that opencast coal working should not be conducted except in time of an emergency, such as that of a war. Opencast working in this country cannot be carried on without great inconvenience, not only to the people who are living on the sites where it is carried on, but to people who are living in the district.

I hope that the Minister will not consider for a moment dealing with opencast mining in a similar way to that adopted in many of the countries which are benefiting considerably from opencast coal. I was taught that unless you can get a foot of coal for every yard of overburden, then opencast coal is not an economic proposition. I am assuming, from what I have heard, that opencast coal is going down to a great depth—down, say, to two, three, four or five seams. How that could be a workable or an economic proposition I cannot say. I have seen opencast working in America, where there is an overburden of about 15 or 16 yards, and the seam of coal is about 30 feet thick. In Australia recently I saw opencast workings with an overburden of 10 feet and there was 98 feet of really good steam coal. The same thing applies in relation to brown coal in other parts of the country. One thing which I hope that the Minister and his successors will not contemplate for a moment is that we should attempt to emulate the nations who have wide open spaces, and where it is very profitable to work opencast coal.

I must say that I have some sympathy with the Minister in connection with an Amendment of this kind. He would like to agree to it; and, whilst he has given an assurance himself, unfortunately we are not always going to have him as the Minister, and I should infinitely prefer that something were put into the Bill that would give some safeguard, instead of leaving the matter quite open as it is at the present time

LORD MILLS

I thank the noble Viscount. I wish I could say that we could put something in the Bill. I find the practical difficulty too great. But this is an enabling Bill, and the National Coal Board, this Minister and future Ministers, I am sure, will be judged by the way they use their powers. I am very impressed with what noble Lords opposite have said.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I must say I am a little confused. The noble Lord has said that he finds objections to putting something of this sort in the Bill. One of them I think he named was that he found it difficult to specify a distance. I am confused by that because the Bill does name a distance in Clause 9. The legal position, I think he would agree, is not what is operative here. There is strong legal argument justifying exemption under Clause 9, but this is not a legal matter; this is simply a matter that nobody ought by Act of Parliament to be put in the position of having this kind of interference too near his home, where he hopes to live in peace and quiet. It is simply that. I am sure it really could be done. I do not think it is fair to say that this is imposing a limitation on the National Coal Board to which other mineral workers are not subject, because the whole object of this Bill is to put the National Coal Board in a better position than others by authorising certain things and the making of compulsory orders.

I do not feel convinced by the Minister's arguments. The Minister is reasonable, but we do not know whether the next Minister is going to be reasonable. It is always said in a case like this, "If it is the intention of the Government to do such and such a thing, why not put it in the Bill?" I think that that is as far as I can get with this Amendment. I feel quite satisfied that the Minister and the Coal Board as minded at present will be reasonable, but I wish it had been possible to put something in the Bill. In the circumstances there is nothing I can do except ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, after subsection (1) to insert: () Any authorisation made by the Minister under this Act which comprises land on which trees are growing shall imply a licence to fell those trees for the purposes of the Forestry Act, 1951; and if it comprises land which is dedicated woodlands, it shall exempt that land from a dedication covenant made between the owner and the Forestry Commission.

The noble Viscount said: This deals with two points. They are both simple ones. On an authorisation the person who owns the trees should have the right to fell them straight away. They have got to come down, because the land is authorised to be worked upon. It is possible under the Bill for the authorisation and the compulsory order to be made at the same time. I do not know whether it is intended that that should be done, but it is possible. Once an order is made, there are fifty-six days before the Coal Board has the right of entry. That is the only time the owner has to fell his trees. If he does not fell them they become the property of the Board, and, as the Bill now is, they pay for them only at the end of their occupation, although there are Amendments which might affect that situation. It may take an appreciable proportion of the fifty-six days for the owner to get a felling licence. The Bill simply says "when authorisation is made"; but that is recognition of the fact that the land is to be used and the trees have to go. That argument has been held. Therefore, automatically let the felling licence operate and let the owner of the trees have as much of the fifty-six days as he can to get his timber off the land. Fifty-six days is not long in any case.

The second part of the Amendment deals with dedicated woodlands. Dedicated woodlands affected by a compulsory rights order are dealt with under Clause 44. It refers to Crown land, and I think a dedication covenant would be covered by that. But that clause applies only to a compulsory order. It seems to me that something should be done to cover the case where a voluntary agreement is made between the Coal Board and the owner which involves dedicated woodlands. I am not sure what should be done, but I feel quite certain that the matter should not be entirely overlooked. For that reason I put down this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 32, at end insert the said new subsection,—(Viscount Ridley.)

LORD LAWSON

May I ask the noble Viscount whether he means that in the case of dedicated woodlands special arrangements have to be made to exempt them from the previous arrangement, so that trees can be felled on dedicated ground?

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

As I understand it, if the land is authorised to be worked for coal, the trees have to go; and I suppose that the argument whether or not they should go takes place under the authorisation procedure. That being done, it would seem that the land is not going to be used for growing trees. But the owner has covenanted that he would do that. He has been persuaded to make a bargain with the National Coal Board that the land should be used for coal, and something must be said about his existing bargain with the Forestry Commission to use the land for forestry

LORD MILLS

I think I can reassure the noble Viscount on both the points covered in this Amendment, and at the same time answer the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. The noble Viscount's first point was that an authorisation of opencast coal working should imply a licence to fell any trees on the land it covers. He was anxious that a landowner who wants to fell his trees before the Board enter his land should not be delayed by having to obtain a licence from the Forestry Commission. I am glad to be able to tell the noble Viscount that this point is already covered by paragraph (h) of subsection (1) of Clause 2 of the Forestry Act, 1951. That paragraph provides that no licence is required when the trees are felled in order to carry out a development for which planning permission has been granted or has been deemed to have been granted under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. Under Clause 2 of this Bill authorisations of opencast coal working will be accompanied by a deemed planning permission under the 1947 Act and that will automatically bring this provision of the Forestry Act into play.

On the second point a dedication covenant in effect gives the Forestry Commission a restrictive right over land which prevents its use otherwise than for forestry. Under the Bill as drafted the Minister's authorisation of opencast coal working is essentially a planning permission, and it does not override any interests in or restrictive rights over the land covered by it. It merely gives the Board permission to work coal if they can obtain the necessary rights in the land, either by voluntary agreement or by means of a compulsory rights order. Forestry dedication covenants, however, cannot be overridden by a compulsory rights order for they are a restrictive right held by the Crown, and subsection (5) of Clause 44 makes it clear that Crown rights cannot be overridden by an order. Thus, under the Bill as drafted opencast coal working can take place on land subject to a dedication covenant only if the Forestry Commission agree to release the owner from the terms of the covenant. This is an important safeguard for forestry land which was welcomed in another place and which I feel sure your Lordships will be equally anxious to preserve. The safeguard would be completely destroyed by this Amendment.

There are, however, two other important objections to the Amendment. First, there is an objection on grounds of constitutional principle. It is a general principle in our laws on compulsory acquisition of land that non-departmental bodies, such as local authorities and nationalised industries, are not given powers, even though the use of those powers may be subject to ministerial control, which enable them to override rights and interests held by the Crown. The Amendment would infringe that principle. The second objection is that a landowner who has entered into a forestry dedication convenant, has done so of his own free will and in return for certain material advantages. If this Amendment were accepted, it would be possible for such a landowner, despite the commitment he has made to the Forestry Commission, to enter into a voluntary agreement with the National Coal Board for opencast coal working. If the Minister granted an authorisation for that working the dedication covenant would then be overridden, and the Forestry Commission would get no compensation either from the landowner or the Board for the loss which it suffered. No one would suggest that restrictive rights held by private individuals should be dealt with in this summary fashion, and it would be even more wrong to deal thus with restrictive rights held by the Crown. I hope that the noble Viscount will find these explanations satisfactory and that he will not press this Amendment.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I am most grateful to the noble Lord. What he has just said is exactly what I wanted to know. I should have realised the point in regard to the Forestry Act. Now that his explanation has been given, the position of dedicated woodlands is clear. But at first sight it was not clear what would happen in the case of an authorisation without an order. The noble Lord has been good enough to tell us that. What has puzzled me slightly is that there are many people who on planning grounds would object to an authorisation for use of their land—perhaps because it is too good, or because it has a special characteristic, or the amenity value is high—but who would then, if the authorisation were given for this land to be worked, wish to avoid a compulsory order and to make a bargain. It is at that point that one began to wonder what would happen if, in a case of that kind, an individual does not make a voluntary agreement but knows that there is to be an order against him. There is no agreement, so he is forced to bargain. It is rather bad luck on him if he is prevented from doing this by a forestry covenant in regard to a very small part of the land. The noble Lord's explanation makes the matter clearer, and I think that it probably will be all right. I am most grateful for the information that we have had, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

LORD LAWSON

I take it that the Forestry Commission's rights over dedicated land stand unaltered. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation, because it seemed to me that if the dedicated lands were to go without the consent of the Forestry Commission that would be going against the feelings voiced in the many debates we have had in this House. Your Lordships will remember that some years after the war your Lordships' House began to be alarmed at the slaying of trees in some of these woodland areas. There were many debates and discussions upon the matter, and it seemed to me to be rather ridiculous, having had all that commotion, having felt the necessity of saving these trees and woodlands, and having taken the necessary steps to do so, to take away that power again. So I am grateful to the noble Lord. I have in mind many cases of that kind. I hope that he does not trouble the Forestry Commission too much over them, because in some mining areas woodlands are few and far between.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[The Sitting was suspended at four minutes before one o'clock, and resumed at a quarter past two.]

VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, in subsection (2), after the first "land" to insert "or woodland". The noble Viscount said: This is a very simple Amendment. In this clause the Minister is enjoined that he must make certain directions and conditions about the restoration of agricultural land if he is satisfied that in fact it is to be used for agriculture. It is proposed here that forestry land should be treated in the same way. I am not suggesting that such land should be restored to the extent that trees must necessarily be planted on it or that it must be used only for forestry. The kind of place that comes to my mind is the typical case where there are rather small areas of woodland in and among agricultural land and where a somewhat large area has been taken which comprises both.

In replacing such land, the practical course would be to level, grade and restore the whole and afterwards to decide what areas should be planted and what areas should be used for agriculture. Those decisions would be taken on the basis of such considerations as: where shelter is needed, the actual structure of the land in various parts of the site, what drainage there will be, and so on. I am not saying that land which has been forest must always be forest, because in practice there is a good deal of interchange between agriculture and forestry in many parts of the country. Essentially, the same land is used from time to time for one purpose or the other.

There is a long history behind this matter. Since the start of the requisitioning of land for opencast coal mining, the conditions of restoration of agricultural land over the years have been gradually improved, due to negotiations between those interested in the land, on the one hand, and Government Departments and Ministers on the other. Through all that time there has never been an admission that forestry land was to be treated in that regard like agricultural land; and it is perfectly possible, therefore, that land which has had trees growing on it and from which the top soil or subsoil has been removed would be left a jumble of clay, shale and so on. Obviously, that is a mistake. As I have said, such areas must be levelled and graded and treated as a whole and afterwards planted with whatever crop may best be grown upon it. I submit that if, as in this clause, the Minister is willing to be bound to give directions for the restoration of agricultural land, he would only be being consistent if he were to be bound to make a direction for the restoration of forestry land in the same way. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 39, after ("land") insert ("or woodland").—(Viscount Ridley.)

LORD MILLS

I believe that Amendment. No. 5 can conveniently be considered with Amendments Nos. 6 and 8. I am afraid that there are real difficulties in the way of accepting these Amendments, but hope I shall be able to give the noble Viscount assurances which he will find almost as satisfactory as acceptance. The purpose of these Amendments is to ensure that woodland which is used for opencast coal working is restored in such a way that it is reasonably fit for use as woodland or, if that use is no longer possible and desirable, for use as agricultural land. That is an objective to which I subscribe wholeheartedly, and it is already the policy of Her Majesty's Government to restore in that way woodland which has been requisitioned under the present arrangements.

Clause 2 (2) requires the Minister—and I emphasise the word "requires"—to attach to a deemed planning permission for opencast coal working conditions for the restoration of the land. That obligation is imposed on the Minister in respect of all types of land—agricultural land, sports grounds, public open spaces, woodland and so on. The presence of this provision in the Bill ensures that all types of land, including woodland, will be restored to a high standard. In the proviso to subsection (2) we have made special mention of agricultural land because about 90 per cent. of the land used for opencast working is agricultural land. The restoration of woodland is, of course, very important, but so is the restoration of many other types of land, such as open spaces and playing fields.

I know that the local authority associations and some of the other authorities whom we have consulted about this Bill have been concerned lest the special mention of agricultural land in the proviso should cast doubt on whether subsection (2) requires the restoration of other types of land; but they eventually agreed that the special importance of agricultural land in connection with opencast coal operations made it reasonable to mention agricultural land. If, however, we were to add a special mention of woodland I believe we should either have to enumerate all categories of non-agricultural land or run the risk of casting doubt on the position regarding such land. I am sure we should all wish to avoid that. It is for this technical reason, and this reason alone, that I would ask the noble Viscount not to press these Amendments. I assure him, however, that subsection (2) already requires the Minister to secure the restoration of woodland, and that we will in practice impose conditions which will secure a high standard of restoration.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I am not altogether happy. While one appreciates that the general effect of that part of the clause is to ensure the restoration of all land, I would suggest that, if agricultural land is specifically mentioned, as indeed I think it should be, it is almost inevitable in practice that whatever is done to that land must also be done to woodlands which are included in it. I should not have thought that that would have brought in any competition from other forms of what the Bill calls "non-agricultural land". I am inclined to think that a way out might be consideration of a definition of "agricultural land" which would include woodlands associated with it. If that could be done I think it would meet the point. I do not know whether the noble Lord would consider such a proposal before the Report stage, in which case it might avoid any complication with other forms of land.

LORD MILLS

I will certainly give consideration to it before the Report stage. However, I am very anxious, as I am sure your Lordships are, too, that we do not add unnecessarily to this very complicated Bill; and as at present advised, I feel that it is quite unnecessary to include these words. But, as I have said, I will give further consideration to the matter before the Report stage.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I repeat that my reason for feeling about this is what has happened in the past. We want to be certain that it will not happen again in the future. I am sure the noble Lord will see to this, but one likes to think that it is in the Bill. However, with that assurance, I shall be glad to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

2.26 p.m.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, in the proviso to subsection (2), after "restoration" to insert: (including rehabilitation, the replacement of fixed equipment and drainage, and operations associated therewith)". The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment on which I hope the noble Lord will be able to help us. I am not at all sure that my Amendment uses the right words for what I want to achieve. I hope the noble Lord will tell us what in this Bill is meant by the word "restoration". This is really purely a practical point, but it has a considerable influence on the application of Clauses 22 and 23.

The operation, as one understands it now, is that restoration consists of replacement of the overburden from above where the coal was, replacement of subsoil above that, and topsoil on top of that, followed by the replacement of fences, water supplies, roads, gates and fixed equipment of all kinds. After all that has been done, the land is kept occupied by agricultural executive committees; it is cultivated, and probably drained, and various quantities of extra fertilisers are no doubt applied. Then, after something like five years of that treatment, the land is derequisitioned. I assume that the same procedure would happen here, except that where I have referred to the derequisitioning, the corresponding point would be the ending of the order. Following that, it is very important that there should be, as there is now, some arrangement for the subsequent reinstallation of the drains, which cannot be put in until after the land is settled. If the noble Lord can assure me that that is what he understands to be the meaning of "restoration", I shall be more than happy. I think it is important that something should be said about this matter, because the people who have to deal with these things will have to know from where they start.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 43, after ("restoration") insert the said words.—(Viscount Ridley.)

LORD MILLS

In this Bill, "restoration" is meant to cover the substance of this Amendment, and, as I told the House when moving the Second Reading, it is our intention in all cases of opencast coal working on agricultural land, except when the land is not going back to agricultural use, to impose conditions which will apply the Code of Restoration which was adopted in 1951 and which has recently been improved as a result of discussions with the agricultural organisations. This code includes provision for up to five years' agricultural treatment of the restored sites. I realise, however, that the term used in the Bill can give rise to confusion, and that farmers and landowners whose land is taken might feel happier if some reference to "rehabilitation" were included in the Bill. I do not think the noble Viscount's Amendment quite does the trick, but if he will withdraw it, I will ask the draftsman to try to find a suitable form of words, and I will move a Government Amendment on Report stage.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I am grateful for that suggestion; it is exactly what I hoped would be put in the Bill. At this stage I should like to say one further thing. The noble Lord has referred to the Code of Restoration, which was agreed on, as he said, in 1951. I am a little distressed, because I believe that for more than a year now the agricultural interests in which I have been connected have been hoping for further meetings with Government representatives to settle on an improved and a later version of the code. Just when it was hoped to get on with the matter the Bill was published, and of course consideration of the revised code has been suspended. I hope very much that the code can be improved, and, although it is not mentioned in the Bill (and I appreciate that it cannot be mentioned in the Bill) I have no doubt that the intention is that it should apply. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

2.31 p.m.

LORD CHORLEY moved, after subsection (4), to insert (5) Where the Minister has granted an authorisation under the preceding section, and any of the land comprised in the authorisation has trees growing upon it but is not affected by a tree preservation order, the Minister, in giving any directions under this section in connection with such an authorisation in relation to such land, shall consider what conditions (if any) should be imposed with respect to the planting of trees in place of any which may be felled in the course of operations, or for securing the preservation of particular trees.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is not dissimilar to Amendment No. 5 which was moved by the noble Viscount who has just resumed his seat and withdrawn, but while he was concerned rather with the rehabilitation of commercial woodlands, the object here is to protect what one might call the amenity value of trees. If your Lordships will look at subsection (4) of Clause 2, you will see that specific mention of tree preservation orders is made. In subsection (4) the Minister is given the power to override existing tree preservation orders, but in return for that he is put under the mandatory obligation, as I understand it, to consider the whole situation carefully and to impose, I think one may fairly say, if possible, some conditions which will at any rate go some way towards re-establishing the status quo.

But, of course, this applies only to cases where tree preservation orders have been made; and, as your Lordships are very well aware, in many parts of the country local planning authorities have been exceedingly parsimonious in the making of tree preservation orders. Very differing policies have been pursued by different planning authorities, and my information is that in quite a number of parts of the country these orders have very seldom been made. I am quite sure that in many of the areas which may be brought within the scope of this Bill there are large numbers of beautiful trees which have not been the subject of preservation orders, whereas, if they had been in other parts of the country, they would have had such orders. Quite apart from these exceptionally good trees, there are many trees of real amenity value dotted about on the land the loss of which, without some measure of replacement, would undoubtedly strike a serious blow at the loveliness of our English countryside.

It is for this reason that I felt that it would be useful to have in Clause 2 an additional subsection referring more particularly to this general type of tree and requiring that the Minister should not only lay down conditions in relation to trees where tree preservation orders have been made but should also consider the situation in regard to what one might call amenity trees generally, and in those cases also impose such conditions as may be appropriate. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 31, at end insert the said subsection.— (Lord Chorley).

LORD MILLS

I have a great deal of sympathy with this Amendment. One of the most distressing features of opencast coal working is that it often entails the destruction of trees which are a source of recreation and pleasure to many people in areas which have not a lot of natural amenities. Under our present requisitioning arrangements we do what we can to avoid the destruction of trees, and when this is unavoidable we almost always insist on replanting. It is not, therefore, because I disagree in any way with the noble Lord's objective but solely for technical reasons that I am going to ask him not to press this Amendment.

Trees are one of the most important amenities of our countryside, but we also have many other amenities—lakes, hedges, old buildings and houses and their gardens, and so on. The Government's aim is to ensure that opencast coal working does the absolute minimum of damage to all these amenities, and Clause 2 gives the Minister all the power he needs to impose conditions to achieve that end, In addition, we have included in the Bill Clause 3, with its special provisions about the preservation and, if necessary, the restoration of amenity. That clause is certainly wide enough to cover the preservation or replanting of trees. My difficulty with the noble Lord's Amendment is that as with woodlands, it might be thought that Parliament, by singling out trees for special mention considered the preservation and restoration of other amenities to be of rather minor importance; and I am sure that no one in this House would wish to give that impression.

Noble Lords may well ask why, then, have we included special provisions about trees which are protected by a tree preservation order? The answer is that we had to include those provisions to make sure that a tree preservation order could be overridden if, after weighing all the arguments, the Minister reluctantly came to the conclusion that, in a particular case, the trees had to be sacrificed in order to allow the coal to be worked. It is for these technical reasons that I find the Amendment unacceptable, but I should like to assure the House that when considering any proposals for opencast coal working which entail the destruction of trees I shall give great weight to that factor in deciding whether to authorise the working; and if I do decide that it is in the national interest for the working to go ahead, I shall, wherever it is reasonable and practicable, impose conditions under Clause 2 to secure the preservation of particular trees and the replanting of those which have had to be destroyed. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

On this particular Amendment I am intrigued by the manner in which the Minister gives yet another assurance as to the way in which this Bill will be put into effect when it becomes an Act of Parliament. When we are reading the Bill after it has become an Act, we shall need not only the Act but also a list of all the assurances that have been given to us to-day; otherwise, we shall never understand what the Act means. An assurance has been given on practically every Amendment moved to-day. I know that there will be more assurances between now and the end of the discussion, and we shall need the Bill and a list of assurances to be sure what was in the Minister's mind when he agreed to accept or rejected an Amendment. In regard to this particular Amendment, if your Lordships can visualise a mining village you will realise that, as a rule, there are not many trees in the area—not enough, at any rate—and if opencast mining is going to endanger the few that there are, one can understand the attitude of the local people. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mills, that Clause 2, administered by the right people in the right way, would give us what we want regarding trees, and it is for that reason that I hope my noble friend will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment.

LORD LAWSON

May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Mills, whether photographs are taken of the country before the beginning of opencast working and then of the country afterwards? My noble friend has said that there are few trees in the mining areas but the few are often a feature of the countryside. A small clump of trees set in the right place can give an appearance of dignity to an area.

LORD MILLS

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, for his remarks. I know that I lay myself open to the charge of giving assurance after assurance, but the reason for giving these assurances is that I find that points raised by noble Lords are already covered in the Bill and that the Minister has powers. Therefore, I think it is all to the good that there should be in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of how the Minister of the day interpreted the use of his powers. If we could have a Marshalled List of assurances given by the Minister, I should be only too happy to provide it. In regard to the query of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, I have studied many of these inquiries which were held before authorisation was given and in almost all cases photographs were shown of the districts before opencast working; and subsequently we have had photographs of the districts afterwards.

LORD CHORLEY

I am sensible of what the cogency of the technical argument which the noble Lord has put up means to the proposed Amendment. In the circumstances, I feel that I must withdraw it. I should like to thank the noble Lord for the assurances he has given. We in the amenities movement, particularly in the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, where this matter has received a great deal of close attention, are glad to have the present Minister, because we feel that he is really sensitive to the objectives we have in view. I am sure that so far as his own conduct of this business is concerned he will do his best for us. But, as we know. Ministers come and go and not all Ministers may have the same sensitivity of the beauties of England as the noble Lord, Lord Mills. Having said that and thanked him for his assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4:

Compulsory rights orders

4.—(1) For the purpose of facilitating the working of coal by opencast operations, the Board may, by means of an order (in this Act referred to as a "compulsory rights order") made by the Board and confirmed by the Minister, compulsorily acquire temporary rights of occupation and use of land in accordance with the following provisions of this Part of this Act:

Provided that no compulsory rights order shall be made after the end of the period of ten years beginning with the commencement of this Act.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, in subsection (1), after "Minister" to insert: (who shall be satisfied that the Board have taken all reasonable steps to reach agreement with the persons directly concerned in the land).

The noble Viscount said: This is a matter of policy under the Bill. It has been said by members of the Government that the intention is that after an authorisation is made, the owners and occupiers of agricultural or other land should seek to make an agreement with the Coal Board whereby the land can be worked without the need of, a compulsory order. As it stands now, the Bill does not refer to that at any place. This matter was debated in another place, where it was said on behalf of the Government that it was not necessary to put anything about that in the Bill because the Coal Board already have powers to make such agreements. No doubt that is true, but I still think it necessary to put something in to show that it is not the intention of this Bill that a compulsory order should be made in every case but that where it is possible voluntary agreements should be made. I think that so complicated and difficult is the Bill that it will drive people to make voluntary agreements if they possibly can; therefore, when a person reads the Bill, he should see plainly that it is possible to do this.

I envisage certain difficulties in connection with the matter. At some point in the Bill it is stated that it is possible for authorisation, which is planning procedure, and the order, which is operative against the owners and occupiers, to be made at one and the same time. I hope that that will not result in a person who wishes to object on grounds of planning being prevented by reason of time from making a favourable bargain and avoiding the difficulties and complexities of an enforced bargain under the rest of the Bill. That is why I want to see somewhere, in some form, something to stress the necessity that attempts shall be made to make agreements before orders are approved. What I have put down in the Amendment may not be the best way of bringing that about, but this is the only part of the Bill which I could find suitable for putting in something to that effect. The Amendment begins by saying that the Minister "shall be satisfied"—that is a very flexible expression and I think we can take it that in practice he will be satisfied on this point before he approves an order. I do not suggest that these are the only words which could be used but, as a matter of policy, I believe that some words should be put in. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 4, after "Minister" insert the said words.—(Viscount Ridley.)

LORD MILLS

At first sight, this is an Amendment which the Government ought to be able to accept, for it appears to do no more than give effect to our declared policy that the Board will use their compulsory powers only after they have made every effort to reach a voluntary agreement with the owners, occupiers or others interested in the land they want. We do hope that there will be a voluntary agreement in the large majority of opencast work and it seems reasonable therefore to include some reference to those agreements in the Bill. The Amendment proposed, however, is contrary to all precedents. It is the general policy of all public authorities with powers of compulsory purchase to seek to obtain the land they want by agreement and to use their compulsory powers only when this is not possible. But the Acts which conferred powers of compulsory purchase, such as the Electricity Act, 1947, and the Gas Act, 1948, do not say specifically that compulsory powers cannot be used until after an attempt has been made to reach agreement.

We have followed these precedents in this Bill, not just because they are the precedents but because there are two very good reasons for them. In the first place, the question of what is a reasonable agreement involves questions of compensation: the Minister could not be satisfied whether reasonable efforts had been made to reach agreement without going into those questions. If, however, a compulsory rights order is confirmed, the question of compensation may have to be settled by the Lands Tribunal and any consideration of this question by the Minister at an earlier stage might prejudice a subsequent reference to the Tribunal. In the second place, quite apart from this difficulty, it would often be hard for the Minister to say when reasonable efforts have been made to reach an agreement. It would be only too easy for the objector to a compulsory rights order to argue that there should just have been one more round of negotiations.

For these reasons I cannot hold out any hope that the Government will be able to accept an Amendment on these lines. But I have received a categorical assurance from the National Coal Board that they will always seek to obtain the land they want for opencast coal working by agreement with those concerned and that they will use their compulsory powers only in the last resort. This is another case of assurance; but while I do not hold out any great hope that I can introduce any words into the Bill which will not present me with other difficulties, I will, between now and Report stage, give further consideration to this matter, if the noble Viscount would agree in the meantime to withdraw his Amendment.

VISCOUNT HALL

We are a little disappointed with the Minister in regard to this Amendment, which I should have thought was one of the most easily acceptable of the Amendments. After all, it only emphasises a point which I feel should be emphasised, and it would be helpful to both sides if something like this were inserted. Everything has not gone smoothly under the new Electricity Acts; there are difficulties. Something like this Amendment in the Bill could be referred to from both sides in the event of the issue of a compulsory notice. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider accepting this Amendment, which I feel will be helpful both to the Board and to the occupier of the land.

LORD MILLS

I am grateful to the noble Viscount. I have already said that, for the reasons I have given, I cannot accept this Amendment, but I will study the matter between now and the Report stage to see whether any other form of words can be introduced to give effect to your Lordships' desire.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I am glad to hear that. I do not feel convinced about the precedents of other compulsory purchase orders, for this reason. Until now, land for opencast coal working has been obtained by requisitioning, where there has been no possibility of consultation or agreement. I think, therefore, it is important to get it into people's minds that it is now expected to be done by agreement. That leads me to a further point which I would put forward for the consideration of the Government—namely, that if this Bill ever finally comes to an end, in spite of all the Amendments we are told may be necessary on the Report stage, and becomes an Act, it will be important to have some sort of simplified description of it made available for people, particularly those who are likely to be concerned with it. I think it would be a good thing if in due course the Government would do that. This is not something that can be understood quickly, and I think it only fair that people should be given some simple guidance on how they should set about negotiations, if the need should arise. On what the noble Lord, Lord Mills, has said, I am only too pleased to withdraw this Amendment, because no doubt he will produce a better Amendment than I can. I hope that he will put something down, but perhaps he will not mind if I again put down this Amendment on Report, in case he is unable to find a form of words, in order that we can have a further discussion then. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Effect of opencast site orders]:

LORD CHESHAM

In moving the first of the Amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Mills, I feel that I must briefly refer to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, when he gently chided the Government on producing a badly-thought-out Bill, and pointed to the number of Government Amendments as evidence. I could more readily accept his mild reproof were it not for the fact that this is a long Bill, of great legal and technical complexity, and our one desire is that it should be as clear as possible.

Few of the Government Amendments contain anything of substance or principle, and many are purely drafting or technical, or consequential. The Government have tried to be helpful, and a number of these Amendments are in fulfilment of assurances given to the Opposition in another place during the later stages of the consideration of the Bill there. This Amendment and the next are such Amendments, and are purely drafting. A similar Amendment was put down by the Opposition in another place, but because they did not put down the following Amendment, which is consequential, it was not called. We thought, however, on examining the Amendment that it represented a definite drafting improvement, and it is now put down again with the appropriate consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 35, leave out ("a compulsory rights order, being").—(Lord Chesham.)

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

On behalf of my colleagues in another place and in your Lordships' House, I should like to thank the noble Lord for putting down these Amendments as a result of argument put forward by my colleagues in another place. There will be several other Amendments put forward on the same basis and, in order to curtail the proceedings, I should like to thank the Minister and his colleagues now for all those Amendments.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

This is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 5, leave out ("compulsory rights").— (Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 [Limited compulsory rights orders]:

LORD CHESHAM

This and the next Amendment, No. 14, are the first of a series of technical Amendments which do two things. First of all, they provide that a person who has obtained the right to work minerals by means of a court order under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923, shall be treated for the purposes of this Bill, and particularly for compensation, in the same way as a mineral lessee. Secondly, they leave out various odd references to timber felling contracts which have survived from an earlier draft of the Bill. I shall in due course move an Amendment to Clause 51, which provides that contracts which give a man a right to fell timber are to be treated as, "easements or similar rights." This is quite logical, as well as much simpler, since these similar rights already include the right to take water, wood, turf and so on from the land. This is entirely a tidying operation, and as the tidying involves quite a number of Amendments scattered right through the Bill on the same subject, as I come to them, for the convenience of your Lordships I shall refer to them briefly as either mineral working rights or timber felling contracts and say no more about them. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 29, after ("lease") insert ("or order conferring working rights").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

This Amendment refers to the timber felling contracts I have just mentioned. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 31, leave out paragraph (d).— (Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9:

Property exempt from inclusion in compulsory rights orders

9.—(1) A compulsory rights order shall not comprise any part of a building which, at the time when the order is made, is a building whereof the whole or any part is occupied as a dwelling-house, or any part of the land adjacent to such a building which, at that time, is occupied together with the whole or part of that building and either—

1. (a) is within fifty yards from a part of that building or
2. (b) not being land falling within the preceding paragraph, and not being agricultural land, forms part of a garden, yard court or forecourt belonging to that building.

(3) No compulsory rights order shall be made so as to comprise any land which is or has been comprised in a previous compulsory rights order as confirmed by the Minister. other than a previous order which, as so confirmed, provided that its operation should be limited as mentioned in subsection (1) of the last preceding section.

3.5 p.m.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, in subsection (1), to omit all words after the second "or" down to the end of the subsection: and insert: land within fifty yards of any part of such a building or any other land occupied together with that building, and not being agricultural land, which forms part of the garden, yard, court or forecourt to that building. The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is somewhat similar to the Amendment under the authorisation, but it is different in this respect. We are now dealing with the types or parts of land which must be exempted from an order. In the Bill as now written, an occupied dwelling-house which has a garden adjoining it or land forming a courtyard, or something of that sort, occupied by the person occupying the house, cannot have an order made against it; and, indeed, the order must keep fifty yards away from the House. If, on the other hand (I think I may be wrong here): a house has land next to it which is not occupied by the occupier of the house, a compulsory order may be made close up against the wall of the house itself.

When we were discussing general questions under authorisations, the Minister said that there were various reasons why, although he was in sympathy, he could not agree to this in all cases. However, he has proposals in the Bill under which certain houses would be exempted. That is justified, I suppose, by the legal position under which the person who lives in a house and does not occupy the land next to him has no rights over the land. I thought it was a similar question to that which we discussed earlier. It might, and I think probably will, lead to the position that a rather large house with a big garden round it would be protected if the owner of the house occupied all his garden, while a small cottage, which might have a small garden in front and none behind (the occupier, therefore, not occupying the land behind him) might have a works close up against the wall of his house.

It seems to me that if, on compassionate grounds, anybody is exempted from works coming too close, then everybody should be exempted, whether he has a large garden and land round his house or only a small one in front of it. It is quite a simple point. As the Minister said he could not accept authorisation being evaded in respect of all houses, I am not quite clear why in the Bill he has arranged for a compulsory order to be limited in respect of some. I do not quite see the distinction. I do not see why there should be a distinction between the larger house, with a large garden, and a small one without any garden. For that reason, I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 12, leave out from ("or") to the end of line 18, and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Ridley.)

LORD MILLS

I am a little surprised that the noble Viscount has gone forward with this Amendment, because we dealt fully in Amendment No. 3 with this problem of preventing opencast coal mining within fifty yards of a dwelling house. The position in regard to a dwelling-house which has a garden or other land occupied with it is that there is no right to interfere with the occupier's enjoyment of the garden or other land within fifty yards of that dwelling-house. Other land is in the same category in relation to a compulsory rights order as it is in relation to an authorisation and if we take the line that for practical reasons it is impossible to exempt that land from authorisation, the same applies to this Amendment. Therefore, I would ask the noble Viscount to consider withdrawing it.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I am not very clear about it, but I will study what the noble Lord has said in Hansard and perhaps suggest something on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved to add to the clause: (4) No compulsory rights order shall be made so as to comprise any land which has been requisitioned under the Emergency Powers, for the purpose of opencast coal working. The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is very similar to the one following in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor. The argument on it is this. If land which has had a compulsory rights order on it is exempted from a later order, then land which has had a requisitioning order put on it should also be exempted. As I understand it, earlier working on requisition was done with machinery which could only go to a certain depth. At the present time the machinery can go very much deeper so it is naturally desired to go back to that land and work it again. On the other hand, would it not be reasonable to assume that in the next ten years machinery will be developed which might go deeper still? If it is proper to go back to land and work it again if it has been requisitioned, it would be equally proper to go back if it had had a compulsory order upon it. If, on the other hand, it is not right to go back if the land has had a compulsory order, then surely it is equally not right if it had been requisitioned. It seems to me that the same should apply to both, and that the Bill ought to be logical in this matter. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 45, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Ridley.)

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

We are in a slight difficulty here, in so far as my Amendment cannot be called until we have disposed of No. 16. But they both deal with the same matter, so I think we will take the debate on Amendment No. 16, and No. 17 can be dealt with in the light of that. We need to go back to the war period, to the initial stages of opencast, to get a real picture of what is happening. In those days we needed coal, and we needed it immediately, with the result that we took the upper seams everywhere we could, in order to get immediate coal. There was the reason put forward by the noble Viscount; we had not the machinery to go much lower. But in any case we did not want at that time to go lower; we wanted all the surface seams; and we got them, and then we restored the land. It was known then that there were several seams below, but no one ever thought of working them because it would have meant delaying getting the coal. Now, however, it is suggested that where the Coal Board consider it advisable it should be possible to return to those places which have been restored.

Bear in mind what that means. The land had been worked by opencast methods, and when finally the position was that no more coal could be got, the site was closed and the land restored. Then for a number of years the farmer has been getting his crops. Now it is suggested that the Coal Board might go back there to work these deeper seams. I can appreciate the argument, provided that it is related to an emergency, that we need the coal below immediately, regardless of any disturbance to a pre-disturbed place. But I want to look at the matter fairly carefully, because, after all, we do not need that coal, in my opinion, just at this moment. I say that for this reason: in all the new sites we can go down to the deepest seam possible. Let us therefore open up our new sites, get down to the deepest seam where coal can be got by opencast and work upwards. I think that if that were done the Coal Board would get as much coal as they want by opencast methods. So I say: leave alone those sites which have been worked before. If in the course of ten years we find that we have exhausted all our coal in these new sites, then we can consider going back to those which have been disturbed, but I do not see the argument for disturbing them now.

Moreover, we have to remember this fact: when you have taken your top seam you could take the remainder by shaft methods. There is no reason why you should not. But if you take what you can by opencast methods you may lose several seams which opencast cannot get. Then you are faced with a shaft to go down to the bottom seams. I am not sure whether the question of what is at stake in tonnage of coal has been examined in that way. You will have several seams you cannot touch by opencast methods. You have taken the top four or five. It may be expensive to get down to those bottom seams afterwards. I know that the Minister is a technical man and well-informed on these matters, and I do hope that he will look at the point again. I am not going into the human argument; I am not concerned with that at the moment. I am on the purely technical argument, the amount we may lose by using this method and the amount we may lose by not using this method.

What does one find happened in another place? There was an assurance given. I find that the Parliamentary Secretary, Sir Ian Horobin, had this to say [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 589 (No. 121), col. 810]: After this discussion in the Standing Committee on the question of re-entry on to land previously requisitioned I made a detailed survey of all the new sites likely to be available for production in the next three years. This survey showed that new sites containing about 35 million tons of coal would be available, and that if there were no re-entry on to land previously requisitioned under Defence Regulations, about 10 million tons of this coal would be lost. I question that statement, having regard to what I have said about deeper seams. He went on: In these circumstances, to prevent the Board from making C.R.O.s on land previously requisitioned would involve putting at risk an unacceptably high proportion of future output. The Board might still get some of this coal by agreement with the landowners and occupiers, but without compulsory powers in the background we could not rely on that. The Government, therefore, cannot amend the Bill,"— I do not know why, but that is what he said— but it is already our policy to avoid re-excavating land which has previously been excavated except in those cases where the land was worked in the early days of opencast, and re-excavation to a greater depth will now yield a substantial tonnage of coal. The Government and the Board propose, if this Bill goes into operation, to extend this policy, and the Minister—the House will forgive my reading from my brief but the statement is important—will not confirm compulsory rights orders against the wishes of the owners and occupiers of land which has been previously requisitioned for opencast coal operations unless there is a really substantial tonnage of coal at stake. There is the point—another undertaking! I would suggest that the Minister, if he possibly can, should look at this point again to see whether he himself could find a form of words that would meet what we all have in mind. I do not want to lose coal and see the sterilisation of millions of tons, but that will be the result of re-entry on these sites for opencast working. He will lose tremendous tonnage if he has re-entry powers. I should like him to look at that aspect again. If the calculations have been made taking that fact into account, there it is; but I think the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and myself have made a case for reconsideration.

LORD HASTINGS

I should like to support this Amendment of the noble Viscount or the alternative one of the noble Lord opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, has given technical reasons from the mining viewpoint why this Amendment should be accepted. He has also mentioned very briefly grounds of personal hardship which may be inflicted upon farmers and others. I should like to mention a third reason, again a technical one, from the agricultural viewpoint. Is there any case yet where land has been worked twice for opencast mining and restoration has been made? I believe not. Has the Minister taken the advice of any agricultural experts as to the possibility or likelihood of land which is restored a second time being in any way comparable to its present condition after even the first restoration?

I do not believe that one can expect such a result after a second digging or working of opencast. I feel that that land may be ruined permanently, especially from the drainage point of view. Technically speaking, I believe that it would be a disaster, from the agricultural point of view, to allow any site which has once been worked for opencast to be worked a second time, and I hope the Minister will accept the suggestions which have been put to him that new sites shall always be worked in priority, and only in special circumstances—special stress and national need—should old sites be worked a second time.

LORD LAWSON

May I just comment upon this Amendment? This morning I tried to bring the Committee to some sensible understanding of the general irritation and indignation which prevails in many areas in the country over this opencast business. If you go back a second time or, as I understand, even a third time, I can imagine the indignation there will be among farmers as well as miners. All I would add to this discussion is the question: is not this an illustration of the fact that larger machines for deep working are contemplated? The only reason for not working the coal on the first occasion was that the machines did not dig to that depth. Now it is contemplated that they will go back a second or a third time, and I am most disturbed about the rumours that I have heard about the use of larger machines. I was disturbed about it because I have lived in an area which is, as to a good deal of it, more shallow than the depth to which some of the machines can dig down. If they are going to dig down 500 or 600 feet there is going to be trouble with those who are working the seams. It seems to me absurd and really asking for trouble to go back a second time, to say nothing of a third time.

3.23 p.m.

LORD MILLS

I can well understand the reason which prompted the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, to put down this Amendment, and the reasons which have prompted noble Lords to talk on it. Of all the Amendments that have been put down, this is the one which I should most have liked to accept. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, has, I think, been most helpful to me and to your Lordships in this matter. He said what I think is very true: that we should not use this power except in case of real necessity. But this is an enabling Bill, and we must see that in this Bill we preserve those powers which might, in certain circumstances, become necessary.

The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said that he thought that new sites ought to have priority. I quite agree. Because of our anxiety to avoid the situation of working land more than once, we have provided in Clause 9 (3), that no compulsory rights order can be made on land comprised in a previous general compulsory rights order. The question of extending this safeguard to cover land previously requisitioned was raised in another place, and I have gone into it very carefully. It was only with reluctance that I came to the conclusion that it would be necessary for us to keep this particular power. It is true that in future when a compulsory rights order is made the Board will know that they cannot go to that place again, and they have to plan on that basis. But we must have regard to the fact that in the past they have worked on quite different assumptions, and that it may be that there is coal there which we should not rule out as being impossible to get. Therefore I think it is right that we should keep this power.

I have been twitted—perhaps rightly so—on giving a lot of assurances, and I have also given a lot of promises that I will look at the matter again and will reconsider it before Report. I do not know what it is possible to do here. We must not deny ourselves the right to go back to places and obtain substantial tonnages of coal if we need them, but I hope the Committee will be satisfied with my saying that I will have another look at this matter, not from the point of view of denying ourselves that right but to see whether in any way we can express it in a manner more acceptable to your Lordships.

VISCOUNT HALL

We are most grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for saying that he will have another look at this matter. I thought the commitment given by his Parliamentary Secretary in another place was a most definite one. Strange to say, he said that he could not amend the Bill; yet the Government have down for our consideration to-day no fewer than fifty to sixty Amendments. And here this most important—I should say, outstanding—difficulty has arisen. I repeat that my noble friends and myself think that going down too deep, or indeed dealing with opencast coal at normal times, is a great mistake. Where enterprising contractors are most anxious to continue with opencast, of course they will do all they can to carry on. After or during the consideration which the Minister will give to this matter—I know he will give it consideration—I should like him to let not only myself but the mining industry know to what depth it is intended to go to secure coal by opencast methods instead of by deep-mining methods.

Some of us have lived on the coalfields. To take my own coalfield, which I know best, we have about nine seams, almost all of which are outcropping at various points. The seams vary from about 18 inches to 9 feet, or not very much larger than that. But the first seam in many cases is down to a depth of at least 200 feet; it goes deeper and deeper and the other, thicker, seams are down between 20 to 40 feet, each seam below the upper one. If this opencast coal is to be in competition with deep-mined coal, then I believe the National Coal Board and indeed the Minister himself should let us know where we stand in the matter, for it is a very important one. I hope consideration will be given to it. I cannot, for a moment, conceive that anything more than, say, 30 feet or 40 feet of overburden should be removed to get 2 feet or 3 feet of coal. In South Wales, at any rate, one cannot get thicker seams of coal within workable distance for sensible men to work with opencast operation.

I conclude by saying that we are very pleased that the noble Lord the Minister is to give consideration to this matter, and I trust that some of the points to which I have referred will be taken into consideration. We hope he will give us some information as to the depth of working and the amount of overbearing which it will be necessary to remove to obtain the coal he expects to obtain if, as we understand, opencast working is to continue.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

The noble Lord the Minister has been good enough to say that he will look into this subject; and while I appreciate his point that it may be necessary to keep the ultimate power, I understand him to mean that he hopes to put into the Bill something to show that this provision applies only where there is extreme necessity. On that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 [Provisions as to minerals other than coal, and as to timber, crops etc.]:

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I believe a certain amount of time can be saved here, because since I put down this Amendment a number of others have been tabled, particularly one to Clause 51, which appeared only yesterday. While I am not at all sure of its effect on the point I wish to bring up, I believe it has some bearing upon it. I think it will save time, therefore, if, after moving this Amendment, I ask leave to withdraw it and, if necessary, put something down on the Report stage if my point has not by then been met. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 3, leave out "get" and insert, "purchase at a reasonable price."—(Viscount Ridley.)

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

Having said what I have said, it will save time if this matter is not discussed now, as I believe the point is covered. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clauses 11 to 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 [Suspension of certain public rights of way]:

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

This is quite a simple point. There is special procedure for diverting or temporarily closing a footpath. It is merely a question of whether it would not be simpler to provide also for the closing or diversion of a road, which often has to be done. If the Minister is to have discretion to authorise, and indeed to give an order for, the working of a rather large area of land, should he not, in co-operation with other Ministers, be in a position to make an order for temporarily closing a road? It is purely a point of machinery. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17 Line 5, leave out "not being a right enjoyable by vehicular traffic."—(Viscount Ridley.)

LORD MILLS

I suggest that it is not right to extend the powers of the Minister in this way. It is arguable where the line should be drawn in a matter of this kind, but Her Majesty's Government consider that it is better to follow the precedent in the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, and restrict the special expedited procedure to rights of way not enjoyable by vehicular traffic. That does not mean that it will be impossible to close roads which cross opencast coal sites. The National Coal Board will be able to apply to the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation for a closure or suspension order to be made under the ordinary procedures of Section 49 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and Section 32 of the Mineral Workings Act, 1951. Her Majesty's Government think that the closing of a road, which is a pretty important matter and may affect a great many people, should be dealt with under these full procedures, and that decisions should rest with the Minister mainly concerned—the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation—although he would, of course, always consult the Minister of Power in a case affecting opencast coal working. I hope that the noble Viscount will be content to leave it in that way.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

It seems to me that in this Bill the Minister of Power is given authority over so many matters not strictly within his Department that he might have this power also. There may be cases—indeed, I know of some—where a site could not be worked at all without this being done, and I should have thought that such a provision would make matters simpler. But I do not want to press the Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 agreed to.

Clause 16 [Acquisition of rights for purposes of drainage or water supply]:

LORD CHESHAM

This Amendment is designed to make it quite clear that the compulsory purchase under Clause 16 of a right to discharge water on to land does not relieve the Board from complying with the general law and, in particular, with the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951. It has been put down to meet a point raised by the River Boards' Association. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 20, line 32, at end insert— ("(8) Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising any interference with the exercise of a public right of way, or any contravention of a prohibition or restriction imposed by or under any enactment (whether contained in a public general Act or in any other Act).").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 17 to 21 agreed to.

Clause 22 [Compensation by way of payment of cost of works]:

LORD CHESHAM

This is a drafting Amendment designed to make it quite clear that the obligation on the National Coal Board to pay the cost-of-works compensation applies only in relation to special work needed to complete the restoration of the land, and not to work involved in the ordinary maintenance and use of that land. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 21, after ("out") insert ("(over and above the ordinary maintenance and use of the land)").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD TERRINGTON)

There is an Amendment to the next Amendment as printed. In subsection (5) (a) the wording should be "The works referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the preceding subsection shall be …"; and in (5) (b) it should be "An estimate shall be made, and agreed, of the total cost of the works in paragraph (c) of the preceding subsection, and one-fifth …" I do not know whether your Lordships have that Amendment.

3.40 p.m.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, after subsection (2), to insert: (3) At the end of the occupation of the land by the Board, the Board shall agree with all persons interested in the land the actual works to be done to the land, and only such works as are so agreed shall qualify for payment of cost of works. In default of agreement, the matter shall be referred to arbitration, under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948

(4) The works which may qualify for cost of works payment are—

1. (a) Drainage of the land, subsoiling or other cultivations, before or after drainage, and replacement of a crop on the land after the land has been drained.
2. (b) Maintenance of Tile drains for five years after the land has been drained.
923
3. (c) Other works to be carried out within five years of the end of the Board's occupation, being works which can be carried out without disturbing the subsoil of the land, and which are agreed to be necessary to complete the restoration of the land to a reasonable condition for the use to which it is to be put, whether for forestry or agriculture.

(5).—(a) The works referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the preceding subsection shall be carried out and paid for as cost of works at a time when it is agreed between the owner and the Board that the land is ready to be drained.

• >(b) An estimate shall be made, and agreed, of the total cost of the works in paragraph (c) of the preceding subsection, and one-fifth part of this amount shall be paid to the occupier for each of the five years following the end of the occupation of the land by the Board."

The noble Viscount said: In moving this Amendment I must apologise for the mistake in it as printed. I think it must have been due to my handwriting. As the Amendment appears in the Marshalled List the references are in fact wrong, and I thought it might be helpful to have a note made of the right references, because that makes the Amendment a little more clear. I excuse myself a little for the mistake on the ground that one day last week the noble Earl the Leader of the House said that he wanted the Amendments put in the next day, and they were rather hurriedly and inadequately dealt with. I apologise in respect of this Amendment and for another which comes later on and which was so amateurishly drawn up that I suppose, as written, it could not stand in the Bill. There was very little time to deal with it. I am quite clear, however, as to what is intended under this Amendment.

What has happened about general compensation provisions is a long and rather difficult story. As I see it, the objects of these compensation provisions should be, first of all, to ensure that the land is fully restored, and, secondly, to ensure that the owner and occupier do not suffer any loss of their interests. The original proposal was that terminal compensation could be claimed either as cost of works or because of diminution of value. That was clearly unworkable, and I am glad that the Government have made the change they have as regards both cost of works and diminution of value. But as it is now, and even allowing for the new Schedule, I do not think that the cost-of-works arrangements are done in such a way as to correspond with the actual treatment required by the land. As I see it, the land must be drained, and that cannot in fact be done at the time of the ending of the occupation by the Board, because the land almost certainly has not settled, and until it is settled it has to be looked after. Until the drains are in the land, there is, in practice, I submit, little one can do to it. I have had the opportunity in the last few days of consulting a number of people who have been in practice concerned with restoration and treatment of land, and I have heard that common view. All that one can do is a little extra cultivation and use extra manures. That does not have any permanent effect on the land, particularly before it has been drained, and that is why I make an attempt to define how this cost-of-works compensation should be dealt with.

First I mean to express that there should be an arrangement, as there is now with requisitioned land, between the Coal Board and the owner of the land, that drains will be installed, and that they will be installed at such a time as it is mutually agreed that the land is ready to be drained. That seems to me a commonsense method of approach. Associated with the drainage is the restoration of the crop on the land when the land is actually drained. Modern drainage methods make a great mess; the work is done by machine, the land needs subsoiling and it is nearly always necessary to reseed it also. Further, there is the question of maintenance of drains for a period of, say, five years when the end of occupation comes, and the compensation under Clause 23 comes to be settled. Those items will be in the future, but they should not be unknown; they should be operations which are clearly understood. They can then be defined from a knowledge of the land as it is and the nature of the land, and they can be settled as a commitment on behalf of the Coal Board.

Other cost-of-works payments will, to my mind, be very minor items. Having put the drains in, there is nothing else one can do to the land. One cannot dig it up again; it is not practicable to dig it up and put it back on a different level. All one can do is to farm it well, and rather expensively. I would suggest that the practical thing is that the actual cost-of-works operations should be considered at the end of the period of occupation. They will consist of things which are really minor rectifications of restoration, such as the cost of removing stones, which periodically creep up to the surface, the extra cost of maintenance of fences, the replacement of fences or gates, and minor items of that sort. I suggest a period of five years, but I would not insist that that is the period over which the payment should be made.

What requires to be done to the land after that—and this is what has happened so far—is this. When the period of occupation ends, the terminal compensation is paid, and out of that payment the owner, if the land is let, must reduce his rent. The tenant therefore has a cheaper rent, and he spends more on fertilisers and cultivators and is in a better position to improve the land. He is in a far better position in that way than if he is left, as under this Bill, for an unspecified period of years, with the feeling that he can go back to the Coal Board for practically everything he wants. I believe the result of that would be expenditure which is unnecessary; it would not have any permanent effect on the land itself, and it would make the question of the diminution of value of the land extremely difficult and complicated. I base that view on the fact that the land I know of, which is heavy land, suffers from the structure and the composition of the land which is some good way below the surface. It is true, I have been told (and I believe it), that lighter land does not suffer in that way, and probably there is little diminution in value. I have not seen any, but I have no doubt that that is so.

I come back to the question of heavy land, which appears to me to be the type of land which suffers and is therefore the main type of land we have under consideration—the fact that it is packed closely together for a depth of 100 feet or more is something one can never get over. You can cultivate such land only on the surface; you have to work on the surface, at the top; and I think the practical thing is to sum up at the end of the occupation the minor things which want putting right; and then to sum up the diminution in value and to pay that. Then let the rent be reduced, and the tenant, or the occupier, can farm the land. He can farm it better and buy some fertiliser and carry out cultivation.

I do not think that that is a contradiction of the principle of having both cost-of-works payments and diminution of value payments. I think that that is right, but I have attempted to show what I think should be the relationship between the two things. It does not qualify the cost-of-works payment principle, but it qualifies it in amount, and I think rightly. The noble Lord has a new Amendment down to leave out the Third Schedule and insert a new one which comes to nearly six pages, and in that new Schedule he qualifies it. He qualifies it in a different way than I qualify it, but I submit that mine is the more practical way. This is not the right time to refer to that Schedule in any detail because it comes much later, but it bears very closely on this Amendment which I am now moving. In view of all those considerations, I believe that something along the lines which I propose is the more practical way than what we find comes later, in the Third Schedule. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 30, at end insert the said subsections.—(Viscount Ridley.)

LORD MILLS

I regret that this is not a subject which I can deal with in a few words. I greatly respect, as I am sure we all do, the noble Viscount's knowledge and experience of this subject, but the Government have had access to the Agricultural Departments and to other authorities in different phases of this matter. Their advice differs in many respects from that of the noble Viscount, and I feel that the Government have no option but to conform to the advice they have received from the sources which they have consulted.

As the noble Viscount has said, when this Bill was originally introduced in another place the landowners had a choice between compensation on the diminution in value basis and compensation on the cost-of-works basis, and I am glad that the noble Viscount agrees that that was wrong. The Government finally decided that terminal compensation should consist of cost-of-works compensation plus compensation for the residual loss of value calculated after taking into account the Board's outstanding liability to pay cost-of-works compensation. That change was generally felt to be in the national interest, and it was also felt to be much fairer to the tenant farmer—that is an important point—who had to go on using the land and would benefit from the works which were executed but who would not get any share in the diminution in value compensation except in respect of his own improvements. The majority of the large number of Government Amendments which were introduced in another place were in one way or another consequential on this one change of policy. The Amendment which we are considering this afternoon would not only reverse this change of policy but would put us even further back. The landowner would not even have the choice but, willy nilly, would have to take an important part of his terminal compensation in the form of a diminution in value payment. Indeed, the cost of works compensation, other than on drains, is so limited by the Amendment that in many cases all the eligible works would have been carried out before the end of the Board's occupation and all the terminal compensation would be in the form of a diminution in value payment.

That is my main objection of principle to this Amendment, but there are several important but detailed objections. In the first place, no provision is made for paying the costs of the extra fertilisers, which I understand are often necessary for up to fifteen years after the end of the Board's occupation, in order to restore the full fertility of the soil. In the second place, the noble Viscount has naturally concentrated on agricultural land and woodland. As a result of changes which were made, and generally welcomed, in another place, cost of works compensation is now also payable on non-agricultural land. The list of works contained in the noble Viscount's Amendment is inapplicable to non-agricultural land, but it would be quite impracticable to draw up lists of works for all the various types of non-agricultural land which might be taken under a compulsory rights order.

In the third place, I am advised that it is impracticable to draw up a complete list of works of restoration at the end of the Board's occupation. The work needed may be affected by later developments, such as settlement, and by year-to-year experience in using the land. In the fourth place, the work of restoration cannot possibly be completed in five years from the end of the Board's occupation, particularly if settlement occurs. If that settlement was due to deep-mined subsidence, the Board would under other legislation have to repair the damage, however long ago they worked the coal; it seems to me only fair that the same principle should apply to land which has been taken under compulsory powers for opencast coal working.

I appreciate the noble Viscount's anxiety to protect the National Coal Board against unreasonable claims. The noble Viscount recognises that the installation of permanent drains may have to be delayed beyond five years from the end of the Board's occupation, and I think he would agree that the Board ought to have to repair damage caused by settlement in the same way as they have to repair damage caused by deep-mine subsidence. On the other hand, I agree with the noble Viscount that the Board's liability to pay cost-of-works compensation cannot be without limit. It was announced on Report stage in another place that we should be introducing Amendments (they are contained in the new version of the Third Schedule to which the noble Viscount referred and to which we shall be coming later) which would limit the Board's liability, with a special exception for settlement, to work carried out within fifteen years of the end of their occupation of the land.

The difference between us is thus whether it should be for five years or for fifteen years after the end of the Board's occupation that works other than those on account of drainage and settlement should qualify for compensation. As I said at the beginning, on the best advice available to us, five years would be definitely too short a time in which to complete all the work which needs to be done. Ten years would be rather too short, but fifteen years should be long enough, in the large majority of cases, to complete a very large part of the work of restoration. I trust that, in view of the difference of opinion, of the really substantial difficulties which his Amendment would involve, and of the new Amendments set down by the Government, the noble Viscount will not press his point.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I obviously cannot press this Amendment, because it is so badly drawn. On the point of the period of years, I do not feel adamant as to the five years. When I put down the five years, I did not know that the fifteen was coming in the Third Schedule. My object here is to simplify the procedure if possible and to recognise the fact that in my belief, and in my experience so far. there is nothing we can do to this land except farm it well, provided that we have arranged for draining it. Somewhere in the Bill it should be provided that drainage must be carried out after the end of occupation. I think that it is rather dangerous to leave it to the cost of works not referred to, because this is the most important and vital matter of the lot. I am not certain that fifteen years is long enough to wait for drainage in every case and that is why I wanted to allow drainage to be left open as to time. When opencast working began, it was thought that it would take at least ten years for land to settle before it was safe to drain, but the opinion in my locality now is that it should be drained within a year or two of de-requisition. But, in fact, nobody knows. I think that the drainage period should be left open.

As regards restoration, after the land is put back together physically (this was one of the points which the noble Lord was good enough to speak on earlier), there is a period of rehabilitation which lasts for five years, so that the Coal Board, or whatever body is responsible—probably the agricultural executive committee—will be working the land for that period and watching it while it is restored; so that on top of the period of which we speak we already have five years during which we shall obtain a good deal of knowledge of what the land is like and how it is behaving. That ought to be remembered. To summarise, I should like to leave the timetable for drainage entirely open and to have some means of assessing at the end of the five years, what is required for the land over the ensuing few years.

The noble Lord said that when there was subsidence in deep mines the Coal Board are obliged to repair the damage. They have either to pay for the damage or for the diminution in the value of the land. Certainly in deep mining there are a good many places where it is practically impossible to restore land to its level and in those cases depreciation damage is paid. I take the view that if land settles badly, it will not be possible or practicable to do much about it. These are all practical points, and my reason for putting them down was to get something that I thought might work better. However, we shall have a discussion on them when we come to the Third Schedule and may be able then to suggest to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill some way to improve it. Meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 23 [Compensation by reference to the diminution in value of the holding]:

4.5 p.m.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

This Amendment raises an important point, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to explain to us precisely what subsection (1) means. It refers to compensation for diminution of value and the method of valuation. Subsection (1) provides that compensation shall be payable with the benefit of any prospective right to compensation by way of payment of cost of works in respect of the holding. My Amendment is to leave out those words. I do not want to leave them out: I want to ask the Minister what they mean in terms of the Bill. I hope they mean that in the end the land will be valued at what it would be worth at that time if it were drained and if whatever works likely to be put upon it were done. That is the method which is more or less familiar under requisitioning. It would help if the Minister would clarify the point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 39, leave out from ("be") to ("is") in line 41.—(Viscount Ridley.)

LORD MILLS

I am glad that the noble Viscount has put down this Amendment as it gives me an opportunity to explain how these important terminal compensation provisions are going to work. Terminal compensation under the Bill consists of two elements. First, there is compensation under Clause 22 equal to the cost reasonably incurred in restoring the land taken by the Board to its original condition—that is, cost of works. Secondly, there is compensation under Clause 23, equal to the difference between the value of the land in its undamaged condition and its value in its damaged condition. In assessing the value of the land in its damaged condition, the valuers are to take into account the Board's outstanding liability to pay cost of works compensation. This is rather a difficult concept and it may be helpful if I illustrate it by an example.

Let us assume that a piece of land is worth £100 in its condition before opencast coal operations began. After working and restoration by the Board and the agricultural treatment by the Ministry of Agriculture it is worth £80. The Board have a liability to pay for further works of restoration which will get the land back to almost the same condition as when it was worth £100. At the end of the Board's occupation, however, no one will pay £100 for that land because the further restoration will take time and it is uncertain how complete the restoration will eventually be. The market value of the land might be only, say, £95, which would mean that the market was in effect allowing £5 for the delay and uncertainty. It is this £5 which we call residual loss of value and which will be payable by the Board to the landowner under Clause 23. There is one point I should like to stress. In calculating this residual loss of value, the actual cost of the works is irrelevant. We know that in many cases that cost will exceed the value which the works add to the land. What matters is what the market will give for land which carries with it this right to claim on the Board for cost of works.

The effect of the noble Viscount's Amendment would be to disregard altogether the Board's liability to pay cost of works compensation. That means that in the example I have given the landowner would get £20 in diminution in value compensation or the full decline in the value of the land attributable to the damage caused by the Board. He would subsequently get most of this damage repaired at the Board's expense. That would involve a substantial overpayment of compensation. I understand that the noble Viscount put down this Amendment in order to obtain an explanation of the way in which these difficult provisions will work. I hope that my explanation has been clear and satisfactory and that he will not feel it necessary to press his point.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

The noble Lord has been most helpful. This is not an Amendment that I thought should be agreed to, and, as I explained, it was put down with the object of finding out the meaning attributed to these words. The noble Lord has explained it clearly, but I should be grateful if he could go a little further. He said that at the time the Board went out of the land to which he was referring its value was estimated at £95, and that, after the completion of the cost of works, in so many years' time it would be worth more. He said that the difference which the owner would receive would be the deferment value—that is to say, the fact that it was worth only £95 instead of £100 for a period of so many years. I understand that, and it is helpful.

There is, however, this further point. I assume that a valuer experienced in these matters who has seen opencast coal land in the neighbourhood would conclude that there would probably be a permanent reduction in the value of the land. I should like to hear from the noble Lord whether he thinks, if that were so, it would be met by this part of the Bill. I know of land which has been restored and drained, but which is not improving very much. Nobody knows how long it will take. I think it is inevitable that during the upheaval, in the digging up, some percentage of the topsoil must be lost. I realise that contractors try to keep the topsoil and subsoil separated, but there is some loss which it takes time to replace. There is the other matter of the actual structure and condition of the subsoil. In the result, the belief at present is that there is a permanent drop in the value of the land. From what the noble Lord said, I think that would be covered by the valuation made, but he can help me a little further by telling me if that would be so.

LORD MILLS

I thought I had made it clear in the illustration I gave—perhaps I did not—that it would be uncertain how complete the restoration would eventually be, and that would be one of the factors the valuer would take into account. The difference between that and the value of the land when it was taken over by the National Coal Board would be paid to the landowner.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I must read in Hansard what he has said. He has given a clear explanation, but I was not entirely clear on the second point. I thank him for what he has been able to tell us, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CHESHAM

This is another Amendment dealing with the points about timber felling contracts and mineral working rights that I explained to your Lordships earlier. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 32, leave out ("timber felling contract") and insert ("order conferring working rights").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 24 to 32 agreed to.

Clause 33 [Compensation in respect of minerals]:

LORD CHESHAM

This is mineral working rights again. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 40, line 20, after ("lease") insert ("or order conferring working rights").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 34 agreed to.

Clause 35 [Time when compensation accrues due]:

LORD CHESHAM

This and the next Amendment simply deal with the time when compensation under Clause 32 is to become payable. They are consequential Amendments on the introduction of Clause 32 in another place. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 40, line 39, after ("thirty-one") insert ("or subsection (2) of section thirty-two").—(Lord Cheshanm.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 41, line 24, at end insert— (" (d) under subsection (4) of section thirty-two of this Act, or").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

This and the next Amendment fulfil an undertaking given in another place that we should consider providing for compensation on forced sales to become payable when the transfer of the property takes place. The next Amendment also provides that the quarterly advance payments of annual compensation shall be payable on the usual quarter days. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 33, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 36 and insert ("in respect of a forced sale shall accrue due on the effective date of the sale, or, if that date was before the operative date of the order, shall be treated as having accrued due on the effective date of the sale").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 41, line 47, at end insert— ("(9) In this section 'quarterly payments' means payments calculated by reference to the usual quarter days, and 'effective date', in relation to a sale, means the date on which the property sold becomes the property of the purchaser,")—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 36 [Record of condition of land]:

LORD CHESHAM

This and the next Amendment fulfil a further undertaking given in another place. Clause 36 requires the Board to make various records of the condition of the land which are necessary to help in the assessment of compensation and to send copies of those records to all persons known to them to have a legal right in the land or a restrictive right over it. This undertaking, which is now fulfilled, was that we should require those records to be served under cover of a notice in a prescribed form. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 36, leave out from beginning to ("every") and insert ("serve on").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 37, at end insert ("a notice in the prescribed form together with a copy of the record").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 37 [Consequential adjustments between landlords and tenants in respect of mortgages and mining leases]:

LORD CHESHAM

This Amendment deals with mineral works rights. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 43, line 37, after ("leases") insert ("or orders conferring working rights").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 37 agreed to.

Clauses 38 to 41 agreed to.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved, after Clause 41 to insert the following new clause:

Prevention of water pollution

" .—(1) Nothing in this Act or in any authorisation granted or compulsory rights order made under this Act shall prejudice or limit in any way—

1. (a) the operation of section twenty-one of the Water Act, 1945 (which imposes a penalty for the pollution of water used for human consumption), or
2. (b) the provisions of any byelaws made by statutory water undertakers under section eighteen of the Water Act, 1945, for the purpose of protecting water against pollution.

(2) For the purpose of subsection (3) of the said section eighteen (which provides for the payment of compensation where legal rights are injuriously affected by byelaws relating to water pollution) a right to work coal by opencast operations in pursuance of an authorisation under this Act shall be deemed not to be a legal right."

The noble Lord said: I have the privilege of moving this Amendment because, for some reason or another, the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, was promoted following our Second Reading debate. That might also be the reward for somebody else—one never knows! Had he not been promoted, the noble Earl would have moved this Amendment. This is an Amendment with which I am quite certain the whole House agrees. Coal is important—no one would suggest that it was not—but I think water, to say the least, is equally important. If the extraction of coal were to lead to the pollution of water, it would not be a good thing for this country. That is the basis of this new clause.

I understand that it was thought by the Government in another place that the Bill safeguarded the position as it should be safeguarded, but on May 22 a letter was addressed to the British Water Works Association informing them that there had been a slight mistake. I will read a part of it. It says: In our discussions on the Bill we have several times made the point that there was nothing in the Bill which enabled the National Coal Board to override the Water Act, 1945, or by-laws made under it. The Parliamentary Secretary made the same point in the discussion of the new clause about the pollution of water supplies at the meeting of Standing Committee B on 29th April. We have been looking again at this point and we are now advised that although our previous statements were, broadly speaking, correct, the rights to control the use of land which statutory water undertakers may enjoy under the 1945 Act or by-laws may sometimes fall within the class of rights restrictive of the use of land. In that case they would be overridden by a compulsory rights order made under the Bill, but the statutory water undertakers would be 'persons directly concerned' in the relation to that order. Under Clause 3 (5) and the Second Schedule they would have the right to receive individual notices of the making of the order, to lodge objections and to have their objections heard at a public local inquiry or hearing. We should, of course, act in the closest contact with the Ministry of Housing in dealing with any such cases which arose.

Then follows this: I think that in our earlier discussions your main concern was to ensure that statutory water undertakers received notice of any opencast coal working which was likely to affect their interests so that they would have an opportunity to lodge objections. The arrangements under the Bill as drafted fully meet this point in the case of land over which the water undertakers have restrictive rights but as the position is a little different from our previous explanation of it we thought we should drop you a line. As a result of that "line," this new clause and the Amendment to Clause 52 were drafted by the British Water Works Association. I will not say any more. I think the Minister is fully informed on this matter and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 41 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

LORD MILLS

This Amendment, which is associated with Nos. 49 and 74 on the Marshalled List, is not acceptable as it stands, but I think I can go a long way to meet the points which the noble Lord has raised. The first objective of this Amendment is to make it quite clear that nothing in the Bill permits the National Coal Board to override the Water Act, 1945, or by-laws made under it. I am glad to say that, with one exception, that is already the position under the Bill as drafted. Clause 1, subsection (3) states explicitly that the grant of an authorisation for opencast coal working does not in itself confer any new rights or powers on the Board, and Clause 5, subsection (5) and Clause 6, subsection (3) make it clear that the Board's rights under a compulsory rights order are only against the "persons directly concerned" and do not permit the Board to override statutory provisions.

The one exception which I have mentioned is that the rights conferred by water by-laws may sometimes fall within the class of rights restrictive of the use of land, and when that happens they may be overriden by a compulsory rights order. It is not our intention to override statutory provisions in this way, and I shall be moving an Amendment at a later stage to close this loophole. When that has been done, the Bill as drafted will fully meet the objective of this new clause. Indeed, the only reason why I cannot include a specific provision about the Water Act, 1945, is that it is only one of many Acts with which the Board will have to comply when carrying out opencast operations, and to refer to it specifically would inevitably cast doubt on whether those other Acts, which could not all be specifically mentioned, still applied.

I am afraid I cannot be quite so forthcoming about the second but subsidiary objective of this clause. Under Section 18 of the Water Act, compensation is payable by a statutory water undertaking if one of their by-laws curtails or injuriously affects the legal rights of another person. That compensation is already payable to public authorities as well as to private individuals and to other mineral workers who may be prevented by water by-laws from working their minerals. The Amendment would deny such compensation in opencast coal cases. I can see no reason why the Coal Board, when prevented from exercising their legal rights to work coal by opencast means, should be denied the compensation which is payable to everybody else, and which is indeed already payable to the Board in respect of their deep-mine activities. I hope that, in view of the Amendment we are putting down, and the extent to which the Bill meets the objectives of this new clause, the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press it.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

I am most grateful, and I am glad to withdraw it. It may be that those advising me will want something else on Report stage, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 42 agreed to.

Clause 43 [Provisions as to mortgaged land and other special cases]:

LORD CHESHAM

This Amendment is consequential on the introduction of Clause 32 to the Bill on Report stage in another place. It provides that when the land to which that clause relates is in possession of a mortgagee, the annual compensation will be payable to him. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 49, line 14, at end insert— ("(3) Where under subsection (2) of section thirty-two of this Act a person is entitled to compensation as the owner of any land, and his interest in that land is subject to a mortgage and the mortgagee is, to the extent of that interest, in possession of the land or of the rents and profits thereof, the compensation shall be paid by the Board to the mortgagee, and shall be paid or applied by him as mentioned in the last preceding subsection."). (Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

The purpose of this Amendment is to make it quite clear that the cost-of-works compensation under Clause 22 will, in cases when land is subject to a mortgage, be payable to the actual person who carried out the works and not to the mortgagee. This is reasonable, as he is the person who has incurred all the expense of doing the work, while the mortgagee will benefit indirectly because the execution of the work will have increased the value of his security. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 16, leave out ("other than any annual compensation") and insert ("not being annual compensation or compensation under section twenty-two of this Act").— (Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 29, leave out from ("compensation") to ("would") in line 30 and insert ("falling within subsection (3) of this section"). (Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

This is entirely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 34, leave out from beginning to ("by") in line 36 and insert ("by virtue of the operation in relation to that land of section twenty-four or section thirty of this Act, compensation is recoverable from him").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

This is a technical Amendment which defines the person to whom terminal compensation is to be paid where the land concerned is settled land. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 49, line 40, at end insert— ("(5) Where any compensation falling within subsection {3) of this section is payable in right of an interest in land which is subject to a settlement, or is otherwise held in such a manner that the person entitled to that interest would not be competent to give an effective discharge for the proceeds of a sale thereof, that compensation shall be paid by the Board to the person who would be competent to give such a discharge.

(6) In this section 'annual compensation' means any such compensation as is mentioned in subsection (2) of section thirty-five of this Act.").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 44 to 50 agreed to.

Clause 51 [Interpretation]:

4.32 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM

This is a drafting Amendment designed to make it quite clear that a compulsory rights order enables the Board to exclude from the land comprised in it any persons who may have a customary right to use that land. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 55, line 4, leave out ("includes any interest in land") and insert ("in relation to any land, includes any interest in or right over that land (including any such right inuring for the benefit of the public or of a section thereof)").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

This is another drafting Amendment, designed to make it quite clear that land includes land covered by water. It is required because the Coal Board occasionally take ponds and small lakes and drain them in order to get at the coal underneath. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 55, line 4, at end insert— ("'land' includes land covered by water").—(Lord Chesham.)

LORD McCORQUODALE OF NEWTON

I should like to ask whether it should not be land covered by fresh water. Appalling complications will arise if it means sea water as well as fresh water.

VISCOUNT HALL

Might I ask whether this concerns reservoirs in the coal areas? There are many reservoirs owned by local authorities and by water boards in a coal area, and when they were built they purchased, of course, the coal from the lower seams, the workable coal, to prevent subsidence of the reservoirs. But if opencast coal is not going to give the same guarantee in relation to the working of the coal of the upper seams, then, as we have seen in some of the areas in South Wales, there may be difficulties. Some of the reservoirs have suffered so much from subsidence that they are no longer able to contain water. I will not ask the Minister to give a reply now, but if he will consider that point I can raise it again.

LORD CHESHAM

I think the best thing is that I should look at these points again. My impression at the moment is that no problem arises, but I will certainly double check that point and see that there can be no misunderstanding about it. My impression on Lord Hall's point is that that would be overriding other statutory considerations and I do not think it would occur. I will make inquiries about it.

VISCOUNT HALL

I am very grateful. It is an important matter for these local authorities. I think it is a concession which we deserve in return for the Government's having a quick run through with the Bill to-day.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

This Amendment and Amendment No. 48 are designed to meet a point raised in another place. The point was that it is now not unusual for mineral operators to work the minerals in waste heaps. It was suggested that the definition of "minerals" now in the Bill would not cover minerals in waste heaps and that, as a result, the concerns which were working them might not be entitled to compensation under the Fifth Schedule. We are anxious to avoid even the slightest possibility of doubt, so we are moving these two Amendments. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 55, line 8, leave out ("other natural") and insert ("similar").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

This Amendment deals with mineral working rights. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 55, line 29, at end insert— ("'order conferring working rights' means an order made under Part I of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

This deals with timber felling contracts. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 56, line 16, leave out lines 16 to 20.—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

This Amendment makes two important changes in the definition contained in Clause 51, subsection (2), of the words "similar right" when used in the phrase "easement or similar right". In the first place, the new definition brings in such sporting rights as do not constitute an interest in land, which were previously excluded. I understand that in Scotland, in particular, sporting rights may not constitute an interest in land, and. I see no reason why the owner of those rights should on that account be deprived of compensation for their loss. Secondly, to cover the timber felling contracts which I have already mentioned, we bring into the phrase "easement or similar right" any right to fell and remove trees standing on land. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 56, line 33, leave out from ("means ") to end of line 39 and insert ("any of the following rights, that is to say, any right to take game or fish or other sporting right exercisable in respect of that land, any right to fell and remove trees standing thereon, any right to take timber or other wood, water, turf or other materials therefrom, any right to work minerals thereon (otherwise than by virtue of a mining lease or of an order conferring working rights), and any right to depasture cattle or other animals thereon, except any such sporting or other right which—

1. (a) subsists only as a right incidental to the ownership of the land in question, or to 942 some other interest therein, or to a right to occupy that land, or
2. (b) is exercisable by virtue of a licence granted otherwise than for valuable consideration;

and any right over land which constitutes an easement or similar right in relation thereto, if apart from this subsection it would not constitute an interest in that land, shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as constituting an interest therein.").—(Lord Chesham.)

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

Would the noble Lord help me with the meaning of paragraph (a) of this Amendment. It excepts rights which subsist only as a right incidental to the ownership of the land in question, or to some other interest therein, or to a right to occupy that land. I take that to mean—though I hope I am wrong—that if an owner of land lets his shooting he gets compensation, whereas if he does not let it but shoots it himself he will not get compensation. I hope I am wrong, but I should be grateful for an explanation.

LORD CHESHAM

The noble Viscount is wrong. The purpose is to bring in sporting rights which do not constitute an interest in land, and to make the position completely clear it does exclude, by paragraph (a), such rights as are only incidental to the owner's right in the land, which, naturally, are catered for elsewhere in the Bill.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.40 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM

I am proposing this Amendment to clarify the numerous places in the Bill where compensation is in some way related to the state or condition of the land. It has been suggested, and particularly by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, that the Bill is not very clear about the matters which ought to be taken into account in assessing the state or condition of land, and, in particular, that it is not clear that, for the purposes of assessing the diminution of value compensation under Clause 23, land is to be taken to include the minerals in it. I think that this Amendment completely removes these doubts and that it should make things much easier for those who have to operate the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 56, line 39, at end insert— ("(4) For the purposes of any provision of this Act, in so far as it refers to the state or condition in which land was at a time specified in that provision, regard shall be had to all matters relevant to the state or condition of the land at that time, including (but without prejudice to the generality of this subsection) the characteristics of the soil (whether on or below the surface), the presence of any minerals in or under the land, the growth of trees, hedges or other vegetation thereon, and any buildings, structures, apparatus or other works which were on, in, under or over the land at that time; and any reference in any provision of this Act to the state or condition in which land would have been, or might reasonably have been expected to be, in circumstances specified in that provision, shall be construed accordingly.")—(Lord Chesham.)

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I think this Amendment is helpful, but as it was put down only yesterday it needs to be considered. I have an idea that it meets some of the points which I have been trying to establish in some other way. To that extent I am grateful for it. But I should like to be able to make some comment on it on the Report stage in case it does not, in fact, do what I now think it does.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

I referred to this Amendment also when moving Amendment No. 43. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 57, line 5, at end insert— (" (6) For the purposes of this Act waste heaps and other deposits resulting from the working of minerals shall be taken to form part of the land on which they are situated, if apart from this subsection they would not be taken to form part thereof, and any reference in this Act to the working of minerals on, in or under land, or to underground or surface working, shall be construed accordingly.")—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 52 [General application to Scotland]:

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR had given Notice of his intention to move to add to subsection (3): and for any reference to section eighteen or section twenty-one of the Water Act, 1945, there shall be substituted a reference to section sixty-one or section sixty-four respectively of the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential on an Amendment that I have already withdrawn, and therefore I have no option but not to move it. In saying that, I would now ask the Minister whether he would agree to adjourn the Committee stage at this point. We are coming to the rather substantial Amendments on the Schedules. He will notice that my good friends behind me have vanished already, and I do not wish to shoulder the rest of the Bill alone. It would suit my personal convenience also if he would agree, and I can say definitely that his agreeing will facilitate the passage of the Bill.

Clause 52 agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

The Schedules are more important than any Amendment we have discussed. I thought it would be right that they should stand adjourned to the Report stage. That will facilitate the passage of the Bill on the Report stage.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

Does that mean that these Amendments will remain on the Report stage?

EARL ST. ALDWYN

Yes; they will be transferred from the Committee stage to the Report stage.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

That would mean, in the case of difficulty about these Amendments to the Schedules, that there would be only one opportunity to discuss them. To-day there have been many matters in regard to which it has been considered necessary to defer further consideration to the Report stage. That would not be possible in this connection. I wonder how that can be arranged.

Schedules agreed to.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

Do I understand now that the Amendments to the Schedules set out in the Marshalled List are all going in the Bill? Exactly what is happening now? If we approve the Schedules now, the Amendments go in the Bill in their present form, without any discussion whatever.

LORD CHESHAM

Not the Amendments.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

They are the Amendments to the Schedules on the Marshalled List. Are we now agreeing to those Amendments on the Marshalled List?

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

I have not put the Amendments. The Bill in that respect goes through as it stands.

LORD MILLS

I should just like to say that we have accepted the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, that we should dispose of the remainder of these Amendments on the understanding that all matters relating thereto will be dealt with on the Report stage. I would ask for the cooperation of noble Lords opposite and my noble friends in dealing with these matters, for, as I have already warned your Lordships, there are still many Amendments to come on the Report stage and I think your Lordships will have a formidable day's work in front of you next Thursday.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

Will the noble Lord, Lord Mills, tell us when the Amendments will be printed? We saw many of these Amendments only yesterday and I hope that for the Report stage we shall have a little more time in which to try to understand them.

LORD MILLS

I will keep the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, firmly in mind and see that as long notice as possible is given of those Amendments.

House resumed.

House adjourned at eight minutes before five a'clock.