HL Deb 17 July 1958 vol 210 cc1315-28

5.38 p.m.

Report stage resumed.

Clause 31 [Compensation in respect of easements and similar rights]:

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, this Amendment and Amendment No. 16 are drafting Amendments designed to get complete clarity in the wording. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 24, after (" land ") insert (" comprised in the order, over which the easement or right is exercisable ").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 29, leave out (" in question ") and insert (" to which the benefit of the easement or right is annexed ").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 33 [Compensation in respect of minerals]:

VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved after subsection (1) to insert: (2) Where the Minister certifies that by reason of the grant of an authorisation under section one of this Act, other minerals associated with coal in the land on which it is proposed to work coal by opencast operations will be worked by the Board, or that the working of such minerals will be rendered impracticable, the compensation payable by the Board, and assessed in accordance with this section, shall be paid by the Board within three months of such certification. (3) Compensation under this section shall be assessed upon the basis of market value as defined in sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 12 of the Sixth Schedule to this Act.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment refers to Clause 33, dealing with the various interests who are owners of or have an interest in the minerals in the land. The point I wish to make is quite a simple one. This time, unlike in the case of the Amendments to which I referred on the Committee stage, I cannot apologise for the wording, because it is not mine, and if on the ground of the wording this Amendment is not acceptable I can only hope for the best. It simply means that in the case where the mineral undertaker receives compensation of a capital nature, instead of, as under the Bill, its being paid to him at the end of the period of occupation by the Coal Board, he should be paid at the time the Coal Board go in. I believe that in any case he gets whatever annual compensation may be due to him for loss of rights, and he also gets his terminal compensation. I suggest that this is not, in principle, a difficult proposal to accept, because the Minister has practically accepted it in the case of forestry. It was one of the points I was trying to make in the Amendments I was moving, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to cover it in his Amendment concerning woodlands. An occupier of land who is farming receives his compensation for crops when the Coal Board go in and when he loses his assets.

The point behind this proposal is that if a mineral operator who is working minerals loses them because of opencast working, he ought to be free to employ his assets and his cash resources in working minerals elsewhere, if he is in a position to negotiate for some other site. If he does not get his money until the end of the period of occupation, it is more difficult for him to negotiate. The Amendment is simply to provide for that situation. It may be said that, in the very nature of the case, it is not possible to make a valuation at the beginning as to what these minerals are worth. But we have heard only this afternoon that in some cases under the requisitioning procedure the Coal Board have made such a valuation and paid it to people who have interests of this sort; they have made their calculations and paid a lump sum of some kind. I think it is fairly well understood that rights in minerals have a market value and can be sold. The land is bought or leased on the basis of the minerals in it before they have been exploited. So one would think that, in practice, this is something that could be done. I hope I have explained what I desire here, and that the Minister will agree that it is not unreasonable. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 40, line 25, at end insert the said subsections.—(Viscount Ridley.)

LORD MILLS

My Lords, this Amendment proposes that compensation to a mineral undertaker whose land is comprised in a compulsory rights order should, in certain circumstances, be paid at the beginning of the Board's occupation of that land. This is a very important point, and one to which we have given much thought. The suggestion does not sound unattractive, but we have come to the conclusion that the balance of argument is against it.

I think the main argument for the Amendment is that opencast coal working destroys the minerals, and that they should therefore be bought outright. That, however, is a misconception. Only a part—in most cases about one-third—of an opencast coal site is excavated. Often the minerals in the remainder of the site will remain workable after the end of the Board's occupation. Our aim must be to devise provisions which will compensate the mineral worker for the fact that he has been deprived of the opportunity of working all the minerals in that site during the Board's occupation, and that at the end of the Board's occupation some of his minerals may have been destroyed or rendered unworkable. It is not possible to say in advance exactly which minerals will be destroyed and which will be left workable, so it seemed to us that the only way of achieving our objective was to follow the general pattern of the provisions for compensation in this Bill and provide for the mineral undertaker to receive annual and terminal compensation; and that is what we have done in the Fifth Schedule.

A second difficulty about paying for the mineral compensation at the beginning of the Board's occupation is that new information which may affect the assessment of compensation may be brought to light by the Board's operations. This may not often happen, but it is a possibility which we cannot ignore. I think the noble Viscount has recognised some of these difficulties by providing that compensation will be payable in advance only in those cases when the Minister certifies that the minerals are likely to be destroyed or their working rendered impracticable. I do not think that this really overcomes the difficulty, however, for I do not see how any Minister could say in advance whether the working of a particular site will go according to plan or will involve changes of plan which will affect the amount of compensation payable for the minerals.

So much for the case against making such a provision in the Bill. The arguments which I have used, however, do not apply anything like so strongly to a voluntary agreement between the Board and a mineral undertaker. I have already said that the Board intend to seek the rights in land they need by agreement, and to use compulsory powers only in the last resort. The Board have told me that in mineral cases they would be willing to base agreements on a once-for-all settlement of compensation if the mineral undertaker is also willing to accept this more rough and ready basis of settlement. I hope that, in view of the difficulties about his Amendment, and with this undertaking from the Board, the noble Viscount will not press it.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

My Lords, the noble Viscount has been helpful in what he has said. It is a pity that what has been done in the past by voluntary agreement as a rough and ready method cannot be done under this Bill. One could have hoped that, as in other things, regulations could have provided for this. However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Clause 39 [Entry on land]:

5.45 p.m.

LORD BURDEN moved, in subsection (6) (b), to leave out "held" where that word occurs a second time, and insert: "land in respect of which functions are exercisable". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that this Amendment will commend itself to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. Clause 39 of the Bill seeks to authorise the Minister to empower the Board to enter upon land with a view to testing its suitability for opencast coal operations. It is clearly contemplated in subsection (6) that such tests may include an excavation of land and the making of trial borings. In the Bill as introduced in another place, there would have been nothing to prevent such operations from being carried out in such a way as to affect the stability of the banks of a watercourse—I emphasise that point—under the jurisdiction of a drainage authority.

As a result an Amendment to deal with this was moved in another place on behalf of the drainage boards. Like so many Amendments which are moved without expert drafting, however, it was said that the form of the Amendment was not satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government. But, as I am advised, the principle underlying the Amendment was accepted, and as a result an Amendment was moved at a later stage on behalf of the Government which now forms paragraph (b) of subsection (6) of the clause. When that subsection is examined, I am sure that any impartial person must agree that it is far from satisfactory from the point of view of the drainage authorities. This is the essential point. The subsection assumes that the land in question is held—to use the actual term of the Amendment—by the drainage authority. As I have said previously, the work of drainage authorities is not well known. It may not be as well known in the Ministry of Power as it may be in other Departments. But it is a common error—and this is where the subsection falls down—to think that drainage authorities exercise their statutory functions on land actually owned by them.

This Amendment which I venture to submit to your Lordships is designed to reflect the true position, and will provide that the protection afforded by the paragraph is to apply to land in respect of which the drainage authorities exercise their functions, and not, as the subsection stands, where land is owned by them. I hope I have made that somewhat technical point clear, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 46, line 28, leave out (" held ") and insert the said words.—(Lord Burden.)

LORD MILLS

My Lords, I quite understand that the Bill provides for the case of land held by boards and drainage authorities. This Amendment seeks to make it apply, in the case of river boards and drainage authorities, to land in respect of which they exercise their functions. That I quite understand. The present provision is modelled on the proviso to subsection (9) of Clause 103 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. That provision is also limited to land held by the authorities in question; so to accept this Amendment would impose on the National Coal Board a limitation which is not imposed on any other public authority with powers of compulsory entry.

There are practical difficulties about this Amendment. We could not confine the change to river boards and drainage authorities but would have to extend subsection (6) of Clause 39 to cover land in respect of which the functions of all the public authorities mentioned are exercisable. That would bring in land used as water-gathering grounds and for many other purposes, and would cover very wide areas indeed. Moreover, while the land held by a public authority is clearly defined and easily recognisable, land used for the purposes of their functions is often ill-defined, and in many cases there would be the greatest difficulty in knowing to which land the subsection applied.

For these reasons I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment, but I think I can tell the noble Lord that the objectives which he is seeking to achieve are already partially achieved in other ways. The proviso to subsection (2) of Clause 39 makes it quite clear that the Board's powers to prospect under this clause do not enable them to contravene any prohibition or restriction imposed by any enactment. This would include prohibitions or restrictions imposed under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, which is designed to safeguard the purity of our rivers.

Moreover, this proviso means that the Board will require town and country planning permission for their prospecting operations. It is the intention of my right honourable friends the Minister of Housing and the Secretary of State for Scotland to amend the Town and Country Planning General Development Order so as to make opencast coal prospecting what we call "permitted development". That means that the Board will have to go through the full planning procedure for each prospecting proposal. The amending order will, however, require the Board to give 42 days' notice of their plans to prospect a particular site to the local planning authority concerned, who will have an opportunity to issue a direction which, if confirmed by the Minister of Housing or the Secretary of State, will bring that particular proposal under full planning control. I am sure that local planning authorities will keep in close touch with river boards, drainage authorities and other public bodies, and if any prospecting proposal is likely to affect any public interest take steps to bring it under planning control. I hope that in view of what I have said the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

LORD BURDEN

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his explanation, but I hope that in the amending of the general order under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, it is not intended to impose the limitation which is in this Schedule so far as the people who are to be notified are concerned. I hope that the wide scope of people to be notified as prescribed in the Town and Country Planning Act will apply, and therefore the river boards and the drainage authorities will be notified of the proposal to prospect.

LORD MILLS

My Lords, I can only say that I note what the noble Lord has said and will keep the point in my mind.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 40 [Claims for compensation payable by Board]:

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment designed to make it clear that Clause 40, which deals with the method of claiming compensation under the Bill, will not apply to claims for compensation under certain provisions of other Acts which are applied by the Bill. Those claims will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Acts in question. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 48, line 7, at end insert— ("(4) References in this section to compensation under this Act do not include any compensation payable in accordance with any enactment applied by section thirteen or section sixteen of this Act, or any sum payable in accordance with any enactment applied by section forty-five of this Act.").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 42 [Special provisions as to property held for religious purposes]:

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment, designed to make it clear that cost of works terminal moved compensation under Clause 22 in respect of work carried out on land in which an interest is held for religious purposes shall be payable to the person who carried out the work and not to the Church Commissioners or other central religious body. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 48, line 24, at end insert— ("Provided that this section shall not apply to any compensation payable by virtue of section twenty-two of this Act.").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 1, leave out from beginning to (" by ") in line 3 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.

Clause 51 [Interpretation]:

5.57 p.m.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved to add to the definition of "agricultural land": For the avoidance of doubt land used for agriculture shall include land used for woodland. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is one last plea to the Minister. We had a long discussion about forestry land and agricultural land, and while he did not give any undertaking, he almost said that it might be possible to do something on the definition part of the Bill. If it is easier to put it in the definition clause, that undoubtedly will meet the case. I will not weary the House with a repetition of what was said before, but this is a plea that forestry land should be recognised as agricultural land and have physical restoration in the same way. There is a history to this matter, in that under the old requisitioning that was not always done. Those concerned want it to be stated in the Bill that it should be done. The Minister has told us that restoration will be done in all cases where it should be, and we accept that; but many of us would be happier if something could be put in the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 55, line 38, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Ridley.)

LORD MILLS

My Lords, I wish I could meet the noble Viscount. If I may say so, the noble Viscount has been most ingenious in devising this Amendment as a way of bringing woodland within the scope of the proviso to Clause 2 (2) of this Bill. I am afraid, however, that the Amendment goes much beyond this, and would have some very odd effects indeed on certain other provisions of the Bill for which the definition of agricultural land is important. For example, the Amendment would bring woodland within the scope of Clause 14, which makes various adjustments in the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, and of Clauses 26 and 28, which contain certain special provisions for compensating the occupiers of agricultural land for their short term improvements and for tenant-right. It would be quite inappropriate to bring woodland within the scope of these provisions. Indeed, I am advised that this Bill is so closely linked with the general Agriculture Acts that it would be very dangerous to use in it a different definition of agricultural land from the one used in the Agriculture Act, 1947. For these reasons, I cannot accept this Amendment, though I should like to make two points which I hope will help the noble Viscount.

The first is that the definition of "agriculture" in this Bill is the one in the Agriculture Act, 1947, which states that "agriculture" includes the use of land for woodland where that use is ancillary to the use of land for other agricultural purposes. I realise that this does not go as far as the noble Viscount wants but I think it goes some way to meet him. Secondly, I should like to repeat what I said during the Committee stage. Subsection (2) of Clause 2 imposes on the Minister a general obligation to secure the restoration of all kinds of land. This general obligation includes woodland, and to add special provisions about the restoration of woodland would in no way strengthen the Minister's obligation in respect of woodland. It would, however, cast doubt on the position of other types of land. I hope that, in view of the technical difficulties to which this Amendment would give rise, and the points I have made, the noble Viscount will not feel it necessary to press it.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

My Lords, I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment. I appreciate the technical point, and there is nothing that can be done, so I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.4 p.m.

LORD BURDEN moved, in the interpretation of "appropriate minister" after "sewage disposal undertaking" to insert: or in relation to any matter affecting the functions of a river board under Section nine of the River Boards Act, 1948, or under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act. 1951. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment and the next three in my name are linked, and to put it, I hope frankly but not unkindly, they are designed to ensure, if possible, that the Ministry of Power does not ride roughshod over the work which has been carried out by river boards and other authorities in accordance with the instructions or agreement of the appropriate Ministry. For example, the apparatus of a river board, which is liable to removal under Clause 13, might be gauges placed in the river in pursuance of a direction by the Minister of Housing and Local Government under Section 9 of the River Boards Act, 1948, to measure river flow, or apparatus for measuring pollution to enable the river board to carry out its duties under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951. In that case, of course, the Minister who had been in contact with the river board, and had made those arrangements about the gauges and so on to be placed in the river, might find his work rendered of no account if he were just ridden over rough-shod by the Ministry of Power.

If I may put the point perhaps more kindly, may I ask what co-operation, what measure of understanding or of agreement will be reached by the Ministry of Power with the other Departments in connection with work which impinges upon what they have done? For example, some of the work may have been carried out in connection with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I know that this is an Opencast Coal Bill and that what it is designed to achieve is an important matter in our national economy. On the other hand, everything ought not to be subordinated to that end; there are other interests which ought to be considered.

It is with a view to obtaining some assurance that the Ministry of Power, as one of the latest creations among the Ministries—the Ministry of Agriculture, has a long history behind it, and the Ministry of Housing and Local Goverment is an offshoot of other Departments—does not feel it incumbent on it to assume all the responsibility for the work of other Departments, and that it should interfere with anything that they have done without bringing them fully into consultation, that these Amendments have been put down. We should like to have some understanding of how the scheme will function. I venture to assert that both the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government are worthy of consideration in any operations which impinge upon their work. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 55, line 42, after (" undertaking ") insert the said words.—(Lord Burden.)

LORD MILLS

My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, it would be convenient to consider Amendment No. 25 along with Amendments Nos. 26 to 28 and Amendment No. 30. It is really a question here of which Minister should act in these cases, and we have chosen the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food because he is the appropriate Minister for most river board cases and for all cases affecting internal drainage authorities. This Amendment would make the Minister of Housing and Local Government the appropriate Minister. The Gov- ernment have carefully considered that, and considered it when drafting the provisions of the Bill, and we came to the conclusion that it would lead to a great deal of practical difficulty, particularly for the National Coal Board, if, when proposing action affecting the property and apparatus of a river board, they had to decide in a particular case whether they should get the consent of the Minister of Housing and Local Government or the Minister of Agriculture. There is complete consultation between the Departments in these cases. Therefore we felt it wise and appropriate to nominate one Minister and our choice fell upon the Minister of Agriculture, which is quite agreeable to my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I hope that the noble Lord will feel satisfied with that assurance and be able to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD BURDEN

My Lords, I am not going to fight for a Department which is not going to look after its own interests. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MILLS moved, after the definition of "prescribed", to insert: 'restoration', in relation to land, includes rehabilitation, and 'restore' shall be construed accordingly". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am moving this Amendment to fulfil the undertaking which I gave on Committee stage to the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, to ask the draftsman to try to find a suitable form of words which would include a reference in the Bill to "rehabilitation". When speaking on this point the noble Viscount asked about discussions with the agricultural organisations about improving the Code of Restoration which was introduced in 1951. We have already had some discussions with the organisations and have agreed on a number of improvements, but, as the noble Viscount said, these discussions were rather overtaken by the publication of the Bill. We should, however, welcome an opportunity to have further discussions about the code in relation to the new Bill, and we shall shortly be getting in touch with the various organisations. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 57 line 23, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Mills.)

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord has been able to put this into the Bill. I believe that it will be helpful. It will help people to see what is intended, and it will also be helpful when consideration is being given to the code. I am sorry that drainage has not been included, for that is one of the most important things and was one of the matters referred to during Committee stage. This, however, is a good deal and I am grateful for it. I believe that during the Committee stage debate it was mentioned that, because all these are very difficult and complicated matters for owners and occupiers of land, it was to be hoped that in due course Her Majesty's Government would be able to send out some simplified description of them—a book or pamphlet describing the law in simple words for the sake of those who may be affected by this legislation. Perhaps that is more of a general point, but possibly if the noble Lord has time to consider it he may be able to say something about it on Third Reading, if such a course seems desirable. I am very grateful for this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 52 [General application to Scotland]:

LORD BURDEN

My Lords, I am not quite sure whether this Amendment is necessary, but I will move it formally and no doubt the noble Lord the Minister will put me right one way or the other. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 60, line 25, at end insert ("and for any reference to the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, there shall be substituted a reference to the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act. 1951").—(Lord Burden.)

LORD MILLS

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his invitation. I do not think the Amendment is necessary.

LORD BURDEN

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 53 [Short title, commencement and extent]:

6.12 p.m.

LORD MILLS

My Lords, this Amendment provides that the Bill shall come into operation on September 30, 1958, instead of one month after the Royal Assent, as is now provided in Clause 53. We originally provided that the Bill should come into operation one month after the Royal Assent because we were not sure that it would be possible to pass this long and complicated measure before the Summer Recess. Thanks to the co-operation of all Parties in both Houses, this has proved possible, and that being so there are three good reasons for deferring the date of operation until September 30. In the first place it will give all concerned a littler longer in which to prepare to bring the Bill into operation, and in particular to make the various sets of regulations which will be necessary, and to publish the popular explanatory leaflet which the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has mentioned and which Her Majesty's Government intend to issue. Secondly, bringing the Bill into operation on the day after the next English quarter day eases the Board's administrative arrangements for the payment of compensation. Thirdly, there are advantages to all concerned in not bringing the Bill into operation in the middle of the summer holidays. For these reasons the Government think this is a sensible Amendment which will help the new arrangements to get off to a good start. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 62, line 35, leave out from ("operation") to end of line 36, and insert ("on the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight.")—(Lord Mills.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.