MINERAL EXPLORATION AND INVESTMENT GRANTS BILL (Hansard, 15 February 1972)

EARL FERRERS
My Lords, as a noble Lord has given me notice that he wishes to speak on the Committee stage of this Bill I shall not move that the Order of Commitment be discharged. Instead, in accordance with Standing Order No. 43, I beg to move that the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

§ LORD DIAMOND
First, I am grateful to the noble Earl for making it possible for me to say a very few words on the question of whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill. I do so in the hope that this will be a more constructive way of dealing with the matter I wish to raise than by putting down an Amendment. I propose to deal with only one matter which was referred to during the Second Reading debate on February 3. Many of your Lordships (I think I am right in saying "many", for I think there were at least four) took an interest in a particular point. These were noble Lords, from all parts of the House, who took an interest in that aspect of the Bill concerned with the preservation of the amenities of the countryside and, in particular, with the need to consult the Natural Environment Research Council—or bodies which are, as I understand it, part of that Council—with regard to any proposal which might affect areas of particular interest. That, at least, was the first idea; but the noble Earl was good enough to say: 94 … in all cases where an application is received, irrespective of whether it covers these particular areas,"— the areas of special interest which I have mentioned— there will be consultation with the NERC"— I say "N.E.R.C.". I prefer not to call it "NERC", because "NERC" has undertones in connection with another Act that we debated for many moons— because they are the people who know where the areas are and whether such a proposal is likely to affect any area in which they are interested."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2/2/72, col. 1043.] I am delighted that the noble Earl said that. I am sure that he gave considerable consolation and relief to those who were raising this very point. But in my usual awkward way I then rose and asked the noble Earl where this compulsion was to be found in the Bill, and the noble Earl, with his usual frankness, said that it was not to be found in the Bill. He said: It is an assurance that I have given the noble Lord as to what the Minister intends to do. The noble Earl is sufficiently experienced in these matters to know that it is no discourtesy to him personally to say that such an assurance is valuable, but would count for nought if proceedings were to be taken after a Minister had failed to consult in this way. Nobody could found an action against the Minister on the ground that somebody had said at some stage or other when the Bill was going through one or other House that certain consultations would take place. It is therefore necessary to strengthen that in some way, and I was wondering whether it was the noble Earl's intention to strengthen it by introducing an appropriate Amendment into the Bill. I should not have been surprised to see an Amendment put down. Of course we have plenty of time to do that.
It is an important issue, and it is completely non-contentious. The request for this kind of consultation and this kind of special interest came, I assure your Lordships—and those who were here at the time will remember this—from all quarters of your Lordships' House. I am merely doing what I think is the appropriate duty of an Opposition in drawing the attention of the Government to things that they should do perhaps a little better than they are proposing 95 to do them. They are proposing to consult; and that is fine. But they are not proposing to put into the Bill their statutory responsibility to consult. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to say that at some stage, perhaps at a later stage in the Bill's progress, such an Amendment will be introduced by the Government, in whatever form of words suits them. It is not a question of my trying to suggest a particular form of words that suits us; whatever suits the Government, in order to carry out the undertaking which they gave but which is not to be found in the Bill, will suffice.

EARL FERRERS
The noble Lord has, with his usual clarity, made perfectly plain what he wants the Government to do. The point that he referred to was one which was considered carefully by a number of noble Lords in Committee. The noble Lord was kind enough to say that this is not a contentious matter, and he merely wants the assurance that the Government then gave—which in fact I gave on behalf of the Minister—to be written into the Bill. I hope he will recognise that when I gave that assurance, which he has repeated this evening, it was no off-the-cuff remark but was a considered assurance of what the Minister intends to do.
What we are concerned with here is the initial exploration which will be done and which may consist of a person's walking over land and taking samples, possibly of soil or rock. In doing so he may destroy or walk upon vital and unique bits of flora, and possibly disturb animals and birds. We absolutely accept that this is a very reasonable concern. It is the reason why we have given the assurance that all applications which are received under Clause 1 of the Bill will be referred to the N.E.R.C. We must remember that this particular stage of exploration is not a very expensive one. If one makes the scheme too circumscribed, I think it is well possible that the explorer may go ahead with this part of the exploration without any grant aid. In other words, he may say: "If the scheme is going to be so difficult and to be hedged about with so many things, then I would rather forgo the grant and go ahead on my own." In that case of course there 96 will be no reference of his work to the N.E.R.C. I hope that the noble Lord may feel that this in itself is one possible reason why the inclusion of this point in the Bill would be a bad thing.
Again, one must recognise that we are concerned here with only a limited range of exploration. For instance, products such as gravel, sand, hydrocarbons and coal are not covered by the scheme. Similar initial exploration for these commodities would not go before the N.E.R.C. Obviously it is just as important to protect nature reserves from this type of exploration as it is for that which is covered by the Bill. If further protection is required—and I am not convinced that it is—for nature reserves and sites of special scientific interest, I suggest that the right course would he for amending legislation to provide the protection not only for exploration under this Bill but for exploration for any minerals, and indeed for any intrusion.
I hope the noble Lord will accept the assurance that I have given him, and also the fact that we have considered the possibility of writing this matter into the Bill and have come to the conclusion that if we make the Bill too restrictive, we shall not enhance the incentive effect of the Bill but will detract from it.

§ LORD DIAMOND
I am grateful to the noble Earl and recognise immediately that careful consideration has been given to this matter. I am glad that he has repeated the assurance in full detail and said that it was not given off-the-cuff, because that adds weight to it, which is always welcome. I do not, however, completely give up hope that he will take this further thought and consider it. I would agree with him entirely that the only really adequate method of dealing with this matter and protecting the environment, which is an interest that we all share, is to have amending legislation which covers all kinds of exploration—sand, gravel and all the rest. It merely occurred to me that as we have this Bill here, a great deal could he done by the Government's setting a pattern which others would he expected to follow. It is not unusual for those, for instance, who may be exploring for sand and gravel to say to themselves: "It is now accepted as good business attitude for those about to explore to consult the 97 N.E.R.C. This is made clear in the latest Bill and represents the latest thinking of the Government." I find people extremely law-abiding in that sense, and they will take a hint of that kind. All I am saying to the noble Earl is that I hope he will be good enough to consider that point further.

EARL FERRERS
It would be the greatest discourtesy on my part if I were not to take a hint of that kind, and I will certainly see that the remarks the noble Lord has made, which are very pertinent and made in great good faith, are considered.