Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 05 February 1981 vol 416 cc1314-66

5.45 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bellwin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Meaning of "development"]:

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 13, at end insert ("other than in connection with a current operation for the winning and working of minerals").

The noble Lord said: I should like to take with this amendment, Amendment No. 6. This will repeatedly come up in the Bill as the Scottish part gets brought into line with the English and Welsh, as I am sure your Lordships are aware. This particular clause, as drafted, seems to require specific planning permission before material, even from stockpiles, can be used. The movement of any material that happened to be piled within a quarry would require specific permission to be moved. This definition will of course apply retrospectively, and my proposed amendment would allow material to be moved around within a working quarry but as soon as extraction was finished then permission would be needed. In the vast majority of cases this must be the proper answer. I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

At the beginning of this Committee stage I think I should say that I shall be resisting many of Lord Mottistone's amendments. I owe him a brief word of explanation. I fully share his desire, that of the CBI, and other interested bodies, to get this technical and specialised Bill right in detail. I am indeed grateful for the time and effort which they have given to help us to achieve this. However, by the time the Bill was introduced these discussions had been going on for a considerable time. As I am sure my noble friend knows, many of their comments have already been incorporated in the Bill. Of course, there is inevitably still room for improvement. I have put down a number of Government amendments, most of which arise out of our continuing consultations.

There are other places where there may be room for debate about the balance which we have struck between the needs of the minerals industry and environmental considerations. I am bound to say that I believe that the balance in the Bill is a fair one. There are some amendments which I think are not necessary and I hope that we shall be able to show that. There are some amendments which are harmful to the Bill and I shall be bound to ask the Committee to reject them. I know that my noble friend understands this and the spirit in which I say it.

Coming to this specific amendment, I accept at once that the provisions of Clause 1 are wider than we should like. Stevens recommended that we should bring under control the working of waste heaps but not stockpiles. For the past 12 months we have been seeking a definition which seeks to distinguish between them. Frankly, no one has found one. We have been told that any waste heap is a potential stockpile.

This is why we have gone for this very wide provision with the intention of covering specific cases such as raw materials at industrial premises in the General Development Order. While we are still ready to consider a better approach if one can be found, I cannot advise your Lordships to accept this particular amendment. Mineral working is a long-term activity, as we are often reminded, and there are plenty of tips which are related to a current working such as coalmining or china working, which have nevertheless been restored and become naturally revegetated. It is precisely those cases where we consider there should be some control over reworking. In view of that, I wonder whether my noble friend will feel able not to press this amendment.

Lord Gisborough

I should like to support my noble friend over this. Where it is a question of shifting over these temporary piles, it seems common sense that a company should be allowed to do that without planning permission, particularly in view of the fact that there will be this very high cost of applying for planning permission each time it is needed. I wonder whether this could be linked to the fact that there is no vegetation. There is a difference between a pile which has vegetation and has become camouflaged and one which is without vegetation, so that it therefore makes no odds whether it is moved or not.

Lord Bellwin

I do not know that there is much that I can add to what I have already said. I indicated that I had some sympathy with the objective of the amendment, because the provision is a very wide one, but I think that in the circumstances I would want to stick with the position as I have already outlined it.

Lord Mottistone

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bellwin, not only for his remarks now but for the great help he has given to me during the past three or four weeks and which he gave earlier to the Confederation of British Industry, who have been advising me. On this specific amendment, I take a certain amount of heart from the fact that my noble friend agrees there is room for finding some better phraseology. We are not altogether happy about a GDO coverage, in the same way as one is not happy about regulations. One wants to see something in the Bill itself which is a bit clearer to cover the point which I think we are all agreed is a reasonable one. Perhaps I might take this away and see if we cannot find a form of wording which would satisfy your Lordships on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.52 p.m.

Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 2: Page 1 line 13, at end insert ("other than the removal of a mineral-working deposit for the purposes of the improvement of agricultural land or for the construction or maintenance of farm access roads within the boundaries of the adjacent land owned by the owner of the mineral working site").

The noble Lord said: The proposed new subsection to be added to Section 22 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 will oblige anyone moving the whole or part of a mineral working deposit to obtain planning permission, as has been mentioned already, before any removal takes place. The amendment propose seeks to exempt from planning permission such acts of removal as are done for limited purposes such as, for example, improving agricultural land or by making level or repairing farm roads on adjacent land. I do not think that removal of small parts of an unvegetated spoil heap can be unreasonable.

I think that what will happen in practice is that where there is a heap of gravel of similar material which may have been left over from previous workings, farmers will go and dig in there for a few cubic yards to fill in potholes, and so on, rather than spend a hundred pounds on planning permission. Also there are cases where farmers might dig into a river bed for a few cubic yards of repair material which is to be used. The damage, if any, to the river bed will be repaired by the river itself at the next flood, or perhaps even before. I wonder whether this could be considered, if not now then at a later stage, linked with a blanket condition which would insist that if farmers did this they would have to leave a clean profile, or whatever other condition might be thought reasonable. I think it is asking a lot to expect farmers not to take material from local heaps.

Removal of these heaps is often very desirable and in fact grants are available from the Government for doing so. Every encouragement should be given for it. However, it may be necessary to limit the taking of shale, if you like, from shale tips to perhaps not less than 6 ft. depth or not more than a third of it. One could put in any form of condition that one thought would be suitable, but I think some form of general condition, subject to certain conditions, should be allowed so that farmers could move material from tips on their own land.

Baroness Elliot of Harwood

I should like to support my noble friend Lord Gisborough in his amendment. There is all the difference in the world between developments which are on a commercial basis or which involve other interests and other people and the farmer or landowner being allowed to move a small proportion of gravel, or whatever it may be, for the sole purpose of mending a hole in the road or doing some other improvement which is important to him but which has no significance for a planning authority.

I am not suggesting for a moment that anybody should not have to get planning authority for something which affects a fairly large area or which in any way affects the public, but this amendment is simply concerned with the private convenience of a farmer or landowner. I myself have an amendment down (No. 5) which applies to Scotland and which has the same effect. I think there is quite a considerable difference between planning permission for something which is (a) possibly commercial or (b) a very big enterprise, and doing something which is quite small which you can do on your own or with your own men and which has no significance from the planning point of view.

For instance, if you dig up some gravel from a river or burn in order to fill up a pothole in the road, that has no significance at all and, as the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, says, it would probably be filled in by the next flood. If you want to mend a hill road so that a tractor can go across it because there may be some damp or boggy places which need tilling in, that has nothing to do with planning permission. It is simply a practical thing; and I hope very much that the Government will look at this and recognise the quite considerable difference between a commercial enterprise concerned with digging on mineral workings of any kind and a matter which concerns nobody except the farmer or the landowner and which affects his work.

Lord Bellwin

As I said in opening the Second Reading debate, I fully recognise that Clause 1 encompasses rather more than is necessary. However, as I said then, I think the best way of narrowing this down is through amendments to the General Development Order. There is already a class of permitted development in the GDO which deals with the winning and working of minerals for the purposes of agriculture, and, if my noble friends would agree, I think the neatest way of covering the point raised in this amendment would be by amending this class of the GDO. I have already given an assurance, which I gladly repeat, that this clause will not be brought into operstion before the General Development Order has been amended. I hope this assurance will assuage any fears my noble friends might have.

Baroness Birk

May I just say that I should like to support the Minister in what he has just said. It seems to me that the best way is to amend the GDO: I would certainly support that.

Lord Gisborough

With that assurance, and as I understand—I hope correctly—that the point will be met, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6 p.m.

Viscount Ridley moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 1, line 13, at end insert— ("(b) a deposit of domestic, industrial or commercial waste

1. (c) a deposit of iron or steel slag
2. (d) pulverised fuel ash
3. (e) a disused road or railway embankment.").

The noble Viscount said: Before I speak to this amendment, I wonder whether I may apologise to the Committee for the fact that I was unavoidably unable to come to the Second Reading debate. But I have seen the report and enjoyed reading it. Surprisingly, it seems that the whole subject is less controversial than the budgerigars and so on, with which we have been so much concerned in the last few days.

I believe that this amendment is very similar to Amendment No. 4, which is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I am not sure whether we are trying to get the same thing, but I think we are. We are still talking about the definition of "development" in this context. The Bill makes extraction of minerals from waste heaps into development, but it seems that deposits of iron or steel slag and pulverised fuel ash will still be excluded.

Although the DoE stated in a circular in 1978 that this did not seem to be cause for concern, a lot of counties—and I speak for the Association of County Councils—are experiencing problems with the reworking of these deposits, and quite a number feel that these deposits should be treated in the same way as mineral waste under the new Bill. Indeed, I think that Section 16 of the Local Government Act 1972 recognises that these materials may be regarded as minerals for this purpose. It seems to me, and to many other people, logical that the removal of materials from these places should be brought within the scope of Clause 1.

There have also been quite a number of representations from county councils about the confusion which seems to exist regarding the legal situation in respect of the extraction of materials from disused road and railway embankments. Although it would seem that these types of operation are, in practice, no different from normal mineral workings, and their impact on the environment and the traffic which they generate are the same, there are doubts as to whether they are within the scope of mineral extraction at the moment. My amendment seeks to place them there and to remove any possible doubt, and I hope that in those terms it will be acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.

Baroness Birk

I wonder whether it would be helpful to the Committee if I spoke to my amendment now, because, as the noble Viscount said, our two amendments are rather similar and are trying to achieve the same end by different means. I think we are at one in feeling that there needs to be an extension of the definition of "minerals" and the Association of County Councils and the AMA have made representations about this. Together they represent all the mineral planning authorities in England and Wales and they wish to see the definition extended.

The difference between the two amendments is that the amendment moved by the noble Viscount includes disused road and railway embankments. I am not too sure about that. I think we are getting away from the area of minerals, and more into the area of waste, so this needs thinking about. On the other hand, whereas ours is a rather "chatty" paragraph, which includes materials, the noble Viscount's amendment lists them and that may be a more precise method. I hope the Government will agree to have further discussions on these points. That will be quite acceptable to me, as long as the Minister is able to give us some indication of the Government's general attitude to the proposal. In other words, perhaps the Minister could say, "Yes, the Government agree in principle that there should be an extension of the definition", because I do not think it will be possible in the Committee this evening to draft something suitable.

Lord Gisborough

I should like to support the second amendment, but to oppose the first, simply on the basis of the disused road and railway embankment. On farms and so on, there arc many old roads and railways which were put there for old mining works. Very often they need digging out, in order that a field can be ploughed right to the edge, and it is rather silly for that to be subject to planning permission. Also, there is the peculiar situation that nobody wants to see a new embankment put across the countryside, but if there is already an embankment there and you want to remove it, nobody wants that to be done away with because everyone likes it and has known it for years. It is an absurd conservation situation. If you have an embankment which nobody wants, then the sooner somebody pulls it down the better, and it should not need planning permission to do so.

Lord Bellwin

I shall have to get used at this early stage to finding myself in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. It is quite a novel experience for me and it makes a difference. May I say at once that I am glad to be able to tell my noble friend, and, indeed, the noble Baroness, that I accept in principle the extension of planning, control to the removal of material from some of the matters listed in my noble friend's amendment, although I wonder whether—and this is a point to which my noble friend Lord Gisborough referred—the reference to disused road embankments is really necessary, since I should have thought that the very few cases which exist would hence become part of the land.

However, I do not think it would be right to extend this to the removal of material from tips of domestic, industrial and commercial waste. Where such material is covered over with soil or subsoil, it is already subject to planning control since it is once again land. On the other hand, this amendment would bring under planning control, for example, the removal of old cars from unsightly areas—surely something which town and country planning is trying to encourage, rather than prevent. In addition, I do not think the amendment is quite right, particularly in relation to its position in the Bill.

I, too, am dealing with both amendments together, and may I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that, again, I accept in principle this extension of planning control to the removal of material from some types of deposits, including those listed in her amendment. If my noble friend would agree to withdraw his amendment and the noble Baroness would agree not to move her amendment, I will certainly bring forward on Report an amendment to deal with this matter, which is perhaps more narrowly drawn. In doing so, as I have said, we will certainly take into account the point which has been made by my noble friend Lord Gisborough, and will try to cover that as well.

Lord Mottistone

I must confess that I am absolutely horrified to hear my noble friend on the Front Bench say that he is in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, because I think that both amendments go much too far in the way of narrowing down the definitions. I hope very much that, when my noble friend puts together some alternative, he does not narrow it down to the point where it identifies each and every item that is covered in both amendments. I also hope very much that freedom in this direction is maintained, and the sense of my earlier amendment, which I withdrew, is one which I would recommend to my noble friend as being much more in the direction in which this total clause should move.

Lord Bellwin

I had better get used at once to the feeling that the table tennis ball must have of being in between the parties. I am sure that this will not take me too long. I hear what my noble friend says and I am aware of his general concern and of his position in these matters.

Viscount Ridley

I quite frequently find that I am in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and I look forward to being in agreement with her once or twice more before we are through. But in view of my noble friend's undertaking to look at this matter, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment. But I would say that it is not a frivolous amendment, as this matter is causing serious concern to some county councils. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 18 [Meaning of "development"]:

6.10 p.m.

Baroness Elliot of Harwood moved Amendment No. 5: Page 22, line 16, at end insert ("except minerals extracted by an occupier from a mineral working deposit on his land and used for the purposes of his occupation of that land.").

The noble Baroness said: The same principle applies to this amendment as to those which have been withdrawn but this one applies to Scotland. I should like to be assured by the Minister that if he makes a variation based upon the amendments which have been withdrawn he will ensure that Clause 18, which contains that part of the Bill which I wish to amend, includes the same words so that there is no interference by planning authorities with work on private farmland. All we are asking is that we should be allowed to use the material that we have on our own land for our own purposes, when there is no question of it being a commercial enterprise. I am asking that whatever is arranged shall cover also that part of the Bill which deals with Scotland. I beg to move.

Lord Gisborough

I support this amendment for one additional reason. In Scotland there are vast distances, with farms way out in the outback—either on the hills or on the West coast. The practical effect will be that farmers will certainly dig up nearby rather than try to get planning permission from somebody 100 miles away in Inverness.

Lord Bellwin

The Government are in sympathy with the intention of the amendment. We are conscious that this clause is wide. This is necessary because of the difficulties involved in drafting the clause so as to distinguish between things we want to bring under control—for example, the reworking of large waste heaps—and those which we do not, such as the movement of stockpiles around a quarry site, or the use by farmers of minerals on their own land for their own purposes.

My noble friend has illustrated our difficulties. The amendment which she has moved would go further than the Government's policy intention. It appears to exempt from planning control any working of minerals taken from a mineral waste heap and used anywhere on the land occupied by the person who extracts them. While we have no intention of bringing purely agricultural uses under planning control, the amendment as drafted would allow a landowner to quarry minerals from a waste heap on his land for roadmaking or for building anywhere else on his land. This quarrying could in itself have an adverse environmental impact. We do not think that it should be exempt from planning control.

Following the enactment of the Bill, we intend to amend the general development orders to extend the existing permitted development rights of farmers to win and work minerals to include the removal of material from deposits and to take account of the needs of mineral operators to move stockpiles and waste within their sites. In the light of this assurance which I am happy to give, I hope that my noble friend will feel prepared to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Elliot of Harwood

I thank the Minister for his reply. I am very much reassured. He spoke about the use of minerals for roadmaking. I was thinking about roads over the hills and the use of these minerals to fill up bog holes so that tractors can get across the hills instead of disappearing into the mud. My amendment has nothing to do with making roads to be used by the public. One would of course need planning permission for that. When the clause is redrafted I hope that will be made clear. I am concerned about the private use of private material. It has got nothing at all to do with the public. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 22, line 28, at end insert— ("; and an interest in land" includes an interest in minerals").

The noble Lord said: I am advised that most Scottish Acts of Parliament specifically include an interest in minerals in the definition of an interest in land. The purpose of the amendment is to bring the town and country planning legislation into line with that general practice. I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

We have considered the point raised by my noble friend's amendment, but in our view we think that it is unnecessary. It is considered that in Scottish law any interest in minerals is an interest in the land containing the minerals. For that reason, the Bill contains no Scottish equivalents to Clauses 11 and 13 which set out in the compensation context that an interest in minerals shall be treated in the same way as an interest in land. We feel that the amendment is unnecessary. I hope that my noble friend will accept this.

Lord Mottistone

At this stage, I accept the points which my noble friend has made and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.17 p.m.

Lord Boardman moved Amendment No. 9:

Page 22, line 28, at end insert— ("(3) Subsection (3) of section 38 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (limit of duration of planning permission) shall be amended by the insertion at the end of the paragraph (d) of the following words: or (e) to any planning permission granted for development consisting of the winning and working of minerals.".").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment and at the same time, as I did at Second Reading, to declare an interest as the chairman of a large minerals company concerned with quarrying. It may also be convenient to consider Amendment No. 12, which is exactly the same except that it applies to the non-Scottish part of the United Kingdom. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Mottistone has put down Amendments Nos. 11 and 15 which are in similar but probably rather better drafted form than the amendment which I move.

My amendment goes to the heart of the Bill, in so far as it is a fundamental part of the package contained in the Stevens Report. My noble friend will have considered carefully the Stevens Report. I am sure that he will have read with interest Chapter 7, in which the reasoning is impeccable as to why there is need for long-term planning and why no limit should be placed upon the time of starting the extraction of minerals, provided that the planning authority are satisfied that the working has a defined place in the operator's programme or, if it has not, that it takes into account the needs of the operator. It was because of the strong recommendation by the Stevens Committee, that these time limits should not be imposed and indeed should be removed, that all those concerned with the mining and quarrying industry have given support to the Bill and have accepted provision for a review and for reduced compensation.

The need for the long-term planning of the development of minerals is considerable. I shall not repeat what I said, perhaps all too briefly, in the Second Reading debate. It is a very long process; first, one has to find the minerals, then get planning permission and then acquire the minerals. In many cases, this is coupled with extremely costly work on roads, railways, buildings, kilns and all the other plant and equipment which is needed to develop minerals. If I may give my noble friend an illustration, I am not speaking so much of the run-of-the-mill minerals, such as sand and gravel and the like, important though they are. I am thinking of the more sophisticated minerals which are so important to our industrial base.

May I give my noble friend as an example the mineral bentonite, which is an essential material for oil drilling, but which to many of us is more commonly known as fuller's earth, from the days when as children we had it put on our chests. It is a very scarce yet very important mineral in this country. It would be quite impossible—irresponsible is perhaps the right word—for a mineral operator who was mining, quarrying and processing bentonite, to wait until he was down to the last five years of his reserves before he secured fresh supplies. There are delays in finding such minerals—indeed, they are difficult to find—in the obtaining of the planning permission and acquisition. Then at a later stage the planning permission may be refused after going through the appeals procedure; he can then find that he has not the minerals which he needs and on which so much of our industry depends.

I really wonder whether the Government have fully understood the complexities of what is involved in this type of mineral operation. Indeed, the Stevens Committee report made it clear that there was a lack of mineral expertise within the planning authorities, and therefore it is a matter of concern within the industry that the planning applications would not take account of these very important factors. I hope my noble friend will not oppose this amendment, but if he does oppose it that he will not use the arguments which have been deployed by many in discussions with his department, that it would create countervailing pressures from the environmental lobby. As the Stevens Committee report made clear, there are net gains to the environmental lobby by having long-term planning.

Another argument which is used against this removal of the time limit is that it would make a special case of mineral development, but I am sure my noble friend recognises that mineral development and mineral planning is of a very different character from other planning permissions. It is, as the Stevens Report said, both an operation and the use of land. Of course, it may be suggested that if operators do not like the limitation of time they can always apply to the Minister for consent. I am sure my noble friend recognises the further uncertainty, delay and cost which that would cause. I hope my noble friend will be able to accept this amendment or at any rate to give an assurance that something on these lines will be considered. It is designed to give the industry the quid in the quid pro quo to which I referred earlier in the acceptance of the Stevens Report; the acceptance of certain obligations and reduced compensation in return for the benefits of long-term planning. I beg to move.

Lord Mottistone

Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee, as was suggested by my noble friend Lord Boardman, if we dealt with my Amendments Nos. 11 and 15 at the same time. They are in all but extreme detail exactly the same as his amendment. I would not seek to add to what my noble friend Lord Boardman has just told the Committee because it seemed to me to put the case very well indeed. Furthermore, on Second Reading (at col. 412) I made a point on this same issue as being one of the fundamental things which I took as an example to put to the House at that stage.

Perhaps I may suggest to the Committee and to my noble friend that the problem about this Bill, and indeed several of the amendments which have been tabled by noble Lords, is that whereas in general terms I think we would all agree that the Stevens Committee struck a remarkable balance of interests, some of the features of this Bill and some of the amendments which we shall come to later on, unbalance Stevens and where that happens I do not say that changes to the Stevens Report's recommendations should not be made but that it is necessary, if they are made, for them to be balanced by other changes to match them.

In this particular case I would suggest that is much more in keeping with what might be called the Stevens overall proposal to accept the amendment either of the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, or my own, whichever my noble friend the Minister prefers. This would allow a mineral planning permission to be started at any time unless an actual starting time was specified by the planning authority when it was granted. I suggest to your Lordships that that is a very reasonable approach but the important thing is that it takes account of the fact that mining is a very long-term operation and that being nagged at in between does not help, either economically or in the sense of getting the best out of the land when one is seeking to exploit it. So I very much support the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Boardman, and I commend my own to the Minister if he prefers that way of tackling the problem.

Baroness Birk

I very much hope that the Government will resist this series of amendments. I am rather amused when the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, brings in Stevens in aid because he has a number of amendments running through this Bill which are way out from Stevens and are so different that one would think it was an entirely different Bill.

The point here is that under our general planning legislation if a detailed planning permission is not taken up within five years it lapses. There is no reason—it works perfectly well in other areas—why applications cannot be made for the renewal of such permissions, and current procedures allow and in fact encourage local authorities to plan ahead systematically. But this is without what I would submit would be a total confusion that would follow if planning permissions lasted for ever, with no certainty that they would be taken up.

The two noble Lords opposite who have just spoken in support of their amendments wish to exempt minerals permissions from this proposal and that proposal is something which both the ACC and the AMA—the local authority associations which are responsible for the mineral authorities which will deal with this—strongly object to. I believe it would undermine long-term mineral planning, it would generate uncertainty in the community at large, and it would cause grave problems and individual mineral operators would be unsure as to jut what competing developments would take place in an area where they intended to sell their material.

I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, and with his knowledge and experience of the industry I can understand why he feels as he does, but if everything else goes ahead it is in the interests of an area for the productivity to continue, so it is in their interests to extend the planning permissions.

To accept this amendment would seem to me to be a retrograde step in the whole of our planning organisation. It was for that reason, guessing that such moves would be made, that at Second Reading, at col. 505, I said: If they are not resisted then, as the number of planning permissions for mineral extraction build up, any hope of orderly development and everything that goes with it will disappear. The basis of long-term mineral planning will be totally undermined … and we shall be left with an increasingly random set of permissions to extract minerals, which may be valuable capital assets for the operators but which will become a series of time bombs in the environment which could explode at any time and with devastating effect".—[Official Report, 22/1/81; col. 505.] I believe it is the purpose of this Bill—and on the whole it achieves it very well—to try to get the balance right between the very real and important industrial needs of the operators and the environmental needs. In this area this is exactly what the Bill will do, but I think that to do away with the five-year planning permission would be an unfortunate step; not only would it be bad environmentally but also in the long run I do not think it would work out satisfactorily even for the operators.

Viscount Ridley

As I promised, I am again finding myself entirely on the side of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I am quite sure she is right, and she has said everything very much better than I could. This does seem to me to be wrecking the whole planning process and making the very thing my noble friend Lord Boardman wants, proper future planning of mineral extraction, that much more difficult. If you have a lot of untaken-up planning permissions it is impossible to plan for the future. I hope very much the Government will resist this series of amendments.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

May I join the increasing number of noble Lords who are agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, this evening and say that we on these Benches support her. I must apologise that I was not present at the Second Reading, and I am only here by proxy of Lord Beaumont of Whitley who was unable to attend the Committee longer. May I say that on this occasion I must agree with the noble Baroness.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

I should like to say a word on these amendments. I very much sympathise with the needs of industry, and it would be a mistake to think that local authorities do not understand the needs of industry. Certainly in the South-Eastern region, where we work very closely with the extractive industry, we understand the needs very well and I think they understand the needs of the local authorities very well. I should say to my noble friends that local opinion is very sensitive now about opening any new pit for the getting of aggregates, which I am speaking about particularly here. In the South-East there are very few areas left which have not been worked.

As I said at Second Reading, almost all of them are now under good farmland, some of them under exceptionally beautiful land alongside the river and so on. Public opinion needs great deal of persuading that this should be opened up at all. It really is very difficult for local authorities to give these consents, and their only prospect of being able to carry local opinion with them at all is that the restoration is going of be really satisfactory—this is the absolute guts of the whole problem—and that the timing of it is going to be as acceptable as possible. Whenever it comes it is going to be unpleasant.

The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is right; if you have a large number of consents over an area waiting to be developed at any time, they really are like environmental time bombs. It is not in the interests of the industry to think that they can have complete flexibility, because public opinion becomes so hostile that areas which are rich in aggregates simply will not be worked because of the strength of public opinion objecting. This really is the position in the South-East now, and it is going to get worse as we proceed over the next couple of decades in order to meet the needs of the construction industry.

This is a very nice balance. While I sympathise with my noble friends in putting the needs of industry, I think they are well understood now by local authorities and the balance in this Bill is just about right. As the point has been well made, a five-year condition, which is normal, can always be renewed if there is a good enough case, and if there is not a good enough case then it should not be renewed. I am sure my noble friend would be right to stand firm on this and trust the local authorities to be reasonable. I am sure they will be.

Lord Gisborough

I would like to support my noble friend Lord Boardman, for another reason which I think should be considered, that a company might well get planning permission for five years and then a political turn either way could result in a political refusal of planning permission, perhaps from public pressure. It would be very difficult for industry to know just where it stood.

Lord Mottistone

There is just one point I might suggest, in view of what has been said. I appreciate very much particularly what my noble friend Lord Nugent has said, because he speaks with such wisdom and experience. It is just possible that in the place of a five-year limit industry might consider, within the confines of a specific long-term permission, conditions made after full consultation with the authorities concerned, conditions as to the phasing of particular developments. A working programme sequence would provide a more equitable and practicable solution than the present arbitrary time limit system. That might be a way to get over this hurdle. I put that to my noble friend as a possible way out.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

Before my noble friend replies, may I put this point to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who obviously understands the needs of the industry well. Again I am speaking about aggregates. The normal practice, as he knows, is for the industry to acquire areas of gravel-bearing land wherever they can get it, to give themselves a "bank", as it were, for the future. They have a rough plan in their minds of how they might work these in the future, long before they have got consents. Is that not sufficient for them to work on, along with the kind of assurances given that authorities will renew consents where they ought to be renewed? Everybody knows that at the end of the day this material has got to be got in order to build the houses, roads or anything else you want. The industry has got a very strong argument in the end, that we all want this stuff, although we do not want it taken from the places we like. Is not that the right way for the industry to continue dealing with it, by acquiring areas of land where they know there is gravel and phasing that accordingly.

Lord Mottistone

It being a Committee stage, perhaps I could take the point made by my noble friend Lord Nugent. It is precisely the point he has just made that I made at Second Reading in order to justify the very amendment we are seeking to put forward. It is because in the end the minerals have to be worked, and in the end the local authority knows this is going to happen, that it is not so necessary to have relatively narrow time limits for checking up on the process. This is really the nub of my argument. I hope my noble friend will see that he has actually supported me, though perhaps he did not want to.

Lord Boardman

Before my noble friend replies, may I add two further points? I should not like my noble friend Lord Nugent to think I was being critical of planning staffs and their ability. The Stevens Committee commented very strongly on the lack of experience of mining and quarrying activities within the planning authorities, and it is understandable that it should be so. The noble Baroness who put forward the arguments against the amendment did so, I think, more in the context of minerals which are plentiful and minerals which you can work shortly after getting permission. All these arguments were considered very fully by the Stevens Committee. I am sure that, if the Committee would bear with me while I read Chapter 7 of the report of the Stevens Committee, there would be no one left in this Committee to oppose the amendment. The arguments there are very formidable; I believe they are impeccable. They refer to the specific difficulties of not being able to have long-term planning for the development of particular types of minerals which are essential to our industrial base. I hope that my noble friend, without my having to read Chapter 7, will take account of the points formidably made there and be able to give some sympathetic response to the amendment which I have moved.

Lord Bellwin

As I suspected, a, Solomon-like posture is clearly called for on this issue, and I suspect on many others before we are finished with this Bill. Quite clearly, there are important points of view on both sides. When experts like my noble friend Lord Boardman and others speak on the interests of the industry their considerable experience must be listened to very carefully. At the same time, they would be the first to acknowledge that the concerns of those who are interested in the environmental aspects also are very important. I think it is very gratifying in many ways that the Government have finally come forward with a Bill which is trying to strike a balance, to grasp the nettle, and to take on board these differences and try to get somewhere.

It is so easy to sit back and say: "If you put this forward the industry would not like it and if you put the industry's point of view forward the environmentalists would have so much to say. Therefore, let us take the middle line of masterly inactivity and do nothing". That would be the easy way out and we are trying not to do that. I readily accept what my noble friend Lord Boardman has said. This clause is one of the most important clauses in the Bill, because for the first time mineral planning authorities will be under a statutory duty to undertake periodic reviews of mineral working in their areas.

Let me stress for a moment why we think that this is necessary. As has been said, mineral working is a long-term activity. It is often undertaken on the basis of a planning permission granted many years ago. Planning permissions granted years ago may have conditions upon them which are no longer regarded as adequate. Indeed, our grandchildren may not regard the conditions being placed upon minerals permissions today as adequate at sometime in the future. I should think that my grandchildren would certainly not so consider them. Circumstances and environmental standards change and with such a long-term activity as minerals working it is important that it is reviewed from time to time.

My noble friend Lord Boardman said that the concept of a review is unacceptable to the industry unless, in return, something is done to recognise its long-term needs. As I said on Second Reading, the implementation of Stevens should be looked at as a package which will bring benefits to the industry to balance the additional environmental constraints envisaged by the Bill. However, I cannot accept that the particular quid pro quo which my noble friend is seeking is the right answer. We believe that the right way to meet the long-term needs of the industry is through the development plan system and not by enabling the industry to obtain permissions now for implementation at some indeterminate time in the future. We are developing guidelines for sand and gravel to provide precisely the long-term planning needed by this section of the industry, and similar work is now under way in relation to industrial sand and chalk. At the same time, we have been considering how development plans can best be used to provide positive long-term guidance and we hope, shortly, to be issuing an advice note on that.

We are also revising the Memorandum on the Control of Mineral Working—the Green Book—to provide an up-to-date best practice manual which gives a framework for the developing relationship between the industry and local authorities. That will stress the long-term nature of the industry's operations. I, therefore, consider that we are keeping our side of the bargain on the Stevens package and I think that the industry should recognise that when we consider Clause 3 and the amendments that we have before us in connection with it.

Two other points have been made on this clause generally, both on Second Reading and in other places. I hope that your Lordships will think it relevant that I should refer to them now. Doubt has been raised about the need to extend Section 51 to cover cases where mineral working is being carried out without a specific grant of planning permission. I have explained our position as regards this and if noble Lords wish to press the point, it might best be done when we come to discuss Clause 8.

Secondly, I have said that we shall consider points about how far back the review should go. So the whole of Clause 3 places a duty on mineral planning authorities periodically to review mineral workings in their area and then to consider whether or not to make one of the four types of order referred to in the Bill. The Government believe that it should be possible for these authorities to be able to do that by utilising the staff already working in county planning departments and that the frequency of reviews will depend to some extent on the number of staff available. Therefore, this duty will not impose an additional financial burden on the ratepayer and taxpayer, but at the same time it will mean that the environmental effects of mineral working will be carefully watched. I think that the periodic review of mineral working, together with the new powers provided elsewhere in the Bill, will herald a new era in which the creation of the dereliction which is such a vivid illustration of our past insensitivity towards the environment can be avoided.

I could try to pick up more of the points that were made previously in the main by my noble friends, although in most cases they supported the points which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, had mentioned. However, I think that we would still come back at the end of the discussion to the following conclusion. If the Bill is looked at in isolation, then there is justification, without question, for the industry's view on this. It is only when one looks at the package as a whole that I think one can see mitigation of its concerns. I am hoping that my noble friends who are so anxious about this matter will feel that their cause for concern may not be quite as great as perhaps they had originally feared. Certainly I take the view as my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford said—and I am grateful to him for his observations on this point—that the local authorities are concerned about what industry's needs are in this as in any other connection. They have to be concerned. They cannot be in isolation. I am confident that they are concerned and indeed I feel in the light of my own experience that they will be more concerned about this aspect in the future than they may ever have been in the past. So with those observations, I hope that my noble friends may feel slightly less apprehensive than they have done hitherto and that perhaps they will not press the amendment.

Lord Boardman

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that full answer. I shall certainly happily wait to see the full package as it develops during the course of this Committee stage and beyond. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18 agreed to.

6.47 p.m.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 10: After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:

("Long-term planning

. It shall be the duty of every mineral planning authority to make such provision as may be appropriate to provide for the long-term needs for the minerals in its area.").

The noble Lord said: I recognise—as indeed my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford said in relation to the last amendment—that many local authorities are fully aware of their problems and can be relied upon to do their part of the duties that the Bill is imposing upon them—and indeed those that they have at the moment—without any further prompting. However, there are some authorities—and I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is always the case—who are perhaps not quite as aware of the problems of mineral operators as would be most helpful in order to make this Bill, and indeed town and country planning as a whole, work as effectively as it should. It is with that underlying feeling that I am proposing this amendment, which is a small reminder-type of clause to add to the Bill, to make sure that a proper appreciation is given of the long-term needs for minerals in the area.

Perhaps I may give your Lordships four reasons why it is necessary. First, it could provide financial security for the very heavy investment which industry frequenty has to make at the start of a project and which is only recouped over an extended period of development. The second reason is to avoid the minerals-bearing strata being sterilised by other developments. That is a very important problem. I hope that my noble friend Lord Nugent will forgive me for continually referring to his excellent contribution, but he made the point that it could be that minerals will not be developed in the best interests of the country, let alone anybody else, because of action taken that is to prevent that happening, or indeed other developments taking place which prevent it from happening. That is a second very good reason for underpinning the need for a long-term look at the problem.

The third reason is to integrate properly and progressively the project into its environment and to minimise any adverse effects. I am sure that all noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, will welcome that reason, because it is very much in accord with the general recommendations of the Stevens Report and indeed with what has been said by most noble Lords this evening. Fourthly, this will allow the development to proceed in line with an ever-fluctuating demand. I suggest that these are all good reasons for giving legal recognition to the need for long-term planning of minerals. I beg to move.

Lord Boardman

Briefly, I should like to support my noble friend on this amendment. I referred to the long-term needs when I spoke to the previous amendment, and I shall not repeat the arguments. Enormous capital investment has to go in to dealing with the processing of more sophisticated metals. Some noble Lords may have knowledge of the smaller sand and gravel, and readimixed plants. In many cases we are talking of what is vital to this country. It can cost £20 million, £30 million or £40 million to erect processing plant to deal with many of these sophisticated metals. Therefore, it is important that those who are planning such projects should be able to do so on the basis of long-term planning permissions. I support the four reasons which my noble friend has given as to why this would not only be in the interests of the industry but in the interests of the environment as well. I strongly support this amendment.

Lord Bellwin

As the amendment stands, I am afraid that I cannot accept it. Where, for example, is the provision referred to to be made? In the development plan? Are planning authorities to cater only for their own needs and not for wider requirements? This latter point would go against so much of the good which has happened in recent years in the regional co-operation between the industry, local authorities and central Government. As drafted, the amendment is also defective in its reference to mineral planning authorities, as these are not defined in the Scottish part of the Bill. But even if these points were corrected, I wonder whether this amendment is really necessary. Do planning authorities need to have this additional duty placed on them when they already have a duty to make proper planning provision for their area—including housing, employment and mineral working?

Having said that, I think there is a point here which we ought to look at more closely. I am willing to consider this matter once again. I think that the points made have a certain relevance, and I am particularly concerned with the point made by my noble friend Lord Boardman. Certainly, as it stands, the amendment would not do, and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Mottistone accepts that. But the subject is one which perhaps at least we ought to consider again. If my noble friend would withdraw the amendment, I would give him the assurance that we would do that.

Lord Mottistone

I am indeed grateful to my noble friend the Minister for those remarks. Perhaps I could apologise to your Lordships for not saying that I wish to take Amendment No. 14 in conjunction with this, which is the Scottish amendment. I apologise for having left "minerals" in Amendment No. 14; I tried hard to get them out and in some cases I succeeded, but I failed in this amendment. With the very splendid assurances of my noble friend, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Mottistone had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 11: After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:

("Time limit on commencement of development

. The following shall be added to section 39(3) of the 1972 Act (limit of duration of planning permission):— (e) to any planning permission in respect of development consisting of the winning and working of minerals".").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I listened with great care to what my noble friend the Minister had to say in reply to Amendment No. 9. I shall read his remarks with care and possibly give thought to tabling an amendment on Report, which would be adjusted to take care of what has been said. In those circumstances, I shall not move this amendment.

[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]

Clause 2 agreed to.

6.55 p.m.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 13: After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:

("County Planning Matters

. The following sub-paragraph shall be inserted after sub-paragraph (cd) of paragraph 32 of Schedule 16 to the Local Government Act 1972— (ce) the erection of any building, plant or machinery which it is proposed to use for the manufacture of bricks or clay roofing or floor tiles.".").

The noble Lord said: This amendment reopens a subject which we fought long and hard in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act. I shall not weary your Lordships with a long speech at this stage. I would ask my noble friend the Minister to read again what I said during the Report stage of that Act at column 261 on 28th October, where the argument was put very fully.

The fact of the matter is that the Government were very understanding about the needs of various types of mining activity, in transferring them to a county responsibility. But they dug their heels in over bricks. As I say, the arguments are very neatly balanced and, indeed, my noble friend said so in his reply to me at column 264. Of course, the industry has given immense thought to this matter since the debate to which I have referred and this amendment is brought forward with every possible consideration of what was said before. We believe that the fine balance should fall gently in the direction that I now suggest.

Perhaps I could sum it up by saying that where a brickworks is connected in any way to its minerals—by a pipeline, a conveyor or private road—it is now, in accordance with the Local Government, Planning and Land Act, a county measure. However, where a brickworks is not so connected—for example, where the clay is brought into the works and is separated by some minor public highway—technically it would probably be a district matter. It is this point which we wish to have put right in the same way as it has been altered for other minerals. It is this point which we believe is justifiable in this case because there are not very many brickworks to which it will apply. I beg to move.

Viscount Ridley

This may be the only occasion when I find myself able to support my noble friend Lord Mottistone. Therefore, I have great pleasure in taking the opportinity to do so. I am sure that what he proposes is logical; it tidies up the 1980 Act, and I am all for trying to get it agreed to. I hope that the Government will approve.

Baroness Birk

I do not have anything against the amendment in principle, but I thought that it was covered by the existing development system anyhow, and, therefore, while worthy, was not necessary.

Lord Bellwin

This re-opens a debate that we had before, and I hope that it comes as no surprise to my noble friend Lord Mottistone that, in fact, I cannot accept the amendment. I suspect that it does not come as a surprise to him because he will recall the extent to which we debated this at the time and how the Government went to such great lengths in this part of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act to draw a balance yet again between the functions of the counties and those of the districts. That was another "no-win" situation, if I may so call it, where we could not satisfy everyone; we were bound to be wrong somewhere.

At the end of the day I know that the districts felt rather let down when they had expected so much, because of all the alterations that took place the only one in fact was planning, albeit the important one that it is. On the other hand, the counties felt very anxious and, to some extent, aggrieved that this aspect of local planning was going out of their hands in the way it was. So they, too, were not happy. Yet the Government had to strike a balance. I think that we struck the right balance then. I think that the point on brickworks was well talked through; it was ably presented, as always, by my noble friend Lord Mottistone.

I do not think that he would thank me if I were to read column 264 of the debate that took place at that time. I am tempted to do so because the case, if I may immodestly say so, was put very clearly. I really could not do any better if I were to have another shot at it now, so I will not. I will only say that I understand the point he makes. I even more understand the support he received from my noble friend Lord Ridley. I always respect his views, but in turn I know that he understands why we cannot proceed to accept this amendment on this occasion.

Lord Sandford

I should like to rise and console the noble Baroness, if it is a consolation, that if she has now lost the support of my noble friend Lord Ridley and my noble friend Lord Mottistone, she has now gained mine.

Lord Mottistone

I am really rather sad. Perhaps it is too short a time since last October. A sign, I always think, of a great Minister is one who is prepared to adjust his attitude, particularly when, as he himself said, the matter is so finely balanced. However, I appreciate that he has not. We shall consider this at a later stage of the Bill and keep our eyes sharply open for other Bills in the future into which one can insert amendments of this sort without upsetting anyone at all. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.]

Clause 3 [Periodical reviews of mineral workings]:

Lord Mottistone had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 16: Page 2, line 35, after ("of") insert ("all").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is satisfactorarily covered by the Government's Amendment No. 17. Therefore, I shall not move it.

[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]

7.2 p.m.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 17: Page 2, line 35, leave out ("sites") and insert ("every site").

The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to make clear the Government's intention that a mineral planning authority should periodically review all sites in their area. Fears have been expressed that the current drafting of the clause could lead to a mineral planning authority concentrating on sites belonging to one operator while failing to review others. This is not the purpose of the clause, and this amendment makes that clear. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Sandford moved Amendment No. 18:

Page 2, line 40, at end insert— ("(iii) for which planning consent has been granted").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 18. Before I start to speak to that, perhaps I could say that I too welcome Amendment No. 17 and because that has now been moved I shall not have to move Amendment No. 19. The Stevens Report in Chapter 8 recommended a review, but the review they recommended was a review of the conditions attaching to all the planning permissions in an area governing mineral working sites. They made it clear in paragraph 8.6 that that review did not apply to those items covered by Section 45 of the main Act relating to the permanent features of the mineral working site.

Stevens also recommended that each and every permission, and the conditions attaching to that, pertaining to each site should be subject to review, and that point has been safeguarded by Amendment No. 17. But he did not limit the idea of a review to the conditions pertaining to the permissions on sites on which work had already started. The review he envisaged covered all permissions that had been granted whether work had started or not. This is a probing amendment to see why it is that in drafting the Bill the Government seem to have departed from what Stevens recommended in this particular respect. I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

There may be cases where mineral working is being carried out without an express grant of planning permission, including cases where working began before the onset of planning control. It is clearly necessary in our view to review these workings so that the possibility of imposing up-to-date environmental or restoration conditions can be considered. I accept that in some, but not all, of these cases enforcement action could provide an alternative procedure, but we think that even in these cases the review procedure envisaged in the Bill is to be preferred.

I am not sure that at this stage there is more that I can add to that. I shall certainly discuss the points made by my noble friend Lord Sandford and look carefully at what he has said, but at the moment I cannot accept the amendment and would have to leave it at that. However, I shall look carefully in case there may be another view when we have considered it again.

Lord Sandford

I thank my noble friend. I appreciate that one of the reasons for referring to sites and not to permissions under which the sites are being worked is in order to catch those sites on which minerals are being worked without permission. I appreciate that point. But in adopting the wording they have used the Government failed to capture the permissions which have been given and on which work has not yet started. Those permissions will normally, unless something else is specified, last for five years before they lapse.

It is possible that there is provision in the 1971 Act for the mineral planning authorities to allow a period of 10 years to elapse, for instance—and this is recommended by Stevens in some cases—before the permission need be taken up. Surely in any review that is being undertaken of all the permissions outstanding, and all the sites being worked, it ought to be possible for the mineral planning authority to review a permission on which work has not yet started. That is the point on which I want elucidation.

Viscount Ridley

I think that my noble friend Lord Sandford made a good case. I hope that this could be looked at again before we leave it.

Lord Bellwin

I said that I think that we ought to consider what my noble friend has said, and that I gladly undertake to do.

Lord Sandford

I am most grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 20: Page 2, line 41, leave out ("site") and insert ("planning permissions").

The noble Lord said: This is not dissimilar from my noble friend Lord Sandford's amendments. One of the things which puzzled us is how the noble Lord the Minister expects reviews to resolve the discrepancies between sites and the areas covered by planning permissions. The object of this amendment is really probing, to see whether my noble friend can explain this to us.

Lord Bellwin

I would just say here that there are two reasons why we are unhappy about this amendment. First, we believe that there are some mineral operations which are being carried out without an expressed grant of planning permission because, for example, they predate planning control. If it is necessary to update a planning permission granted in 1949 it is equally necessary to impose up-to-date conditions on working which began in 1946, before the onset of planning controls. We shall return to this point on Clause 8. Secondly, there are many sites covered by several permissions, and these should clearly be reviewed as one site. A review of each permission separately, as the amendment implies, would be highly undesirable, not least from the point of view of the operator.

We believe we need to apply Section 51 to mineral workings to cover cases where there is no permission which can be modified under Section 45, but we will be discussing that when we come to Clause 8. In the meantime, I hope that gives my noble friend Lord Mottistone an indication of how we view this point, and if he would care to bring it forward in another way we should be glad to look at it.

Lord Mottistone

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. We will look at the matter further. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.11 p.m.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 21: Page 2, line 42, leave out ("51").

The noble Lord said: This too relates to Clause 8 in the sense that it is consequential on various amendments proposed to that clause. Section 51 empowers planning authorities to require the discontinuance of use or alteration or removal of buildings or works. The Local Government, Planning and Land Act sensibly made a county matter the planning of works integrated with mineral workings. But it does not follow that once planning permission has been given by a planning authority for such buildings or works, the operator should be deprived of the compensation properly payable when a Section 51 order is made. It is with that in mind that we seek to leave out "51" from the clause.

Lord Bellwin

There is little I can add to what I said on the previous amendment; the situation is the same and we do not want to accept this amendment for the reasons I gave. However, we wish to see whether my noble friend can come at this in another way, in which case we should be glad to look at it.

Lord Mottistone

I am grateful to my noble friend and we shall give great thought to this. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 22: Page 3, line 2, leave out from ("means") to end of line 4 and insert ("any period specified by the mineral planning authority being a period of not less than the five years preceding the date of the beginning of the review.").

The noble Baroness said: It is already common practice for local authorities to conduct informal reviews of mineral workings and this clause now makes such reviews a statutory duty at periodic intervals, and happily will now lend statutory authority to the existing informal review procedures where they have been conducted in the past. Clearly it would be wrong if any such duty should require a local authority to look at its abandoned neolithic flint mines or disused Roman quarries unless it particularly wished to do so. Local authorities should therefore be able to specify the historical period about which they will look at workings which have become non-operational.

The amendment would enable local authorities to consider in their reviews workings that finished, say, eight or 13 years ago, but which remain important because they contain substantial unworked material. My feeling is that that is the implication of the Bill; but, with respect, that is not clearly enough spelled out, as it would be if the amendment were made. Conditions will obviously vary from one area to another, but if only a five-year period were specified that would result in the sort of inflexibility which the Bill sets out to avoid.

Lord Bellwin

Briefly, I am sympathetic to the point made by the noble Baroness. Perhaps she will leave the point with us so that we may consider whether the amendment achieves the object in the best way. We will certainly want to take it up along these lines.

Baroness Birk

I am obliged to the Minister and, on that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 3, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Boardman

This clause is part of the package to which I referred when we were discussing an earlier amendment, as one of the heavy obligations which the industry are required, and have been prepared, to accept if they receive the compensating provisions to which reference was previously made. My noble friend has been good enough to say that at the end of the day we should be satisfied that such imbalance as appears at this stage will have been restored, and I am happy to wait to be so satisfied.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19 [Periodical Reviews of mineral workings]:

[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 24: Page 22, line 35, leave out ("sites") and insert ("every site").

The noble Lord said: This amendment makes it clear that the duty of planning authorities to review mineral workings shall extend to all sites in their area. This is the Scottish equivalent of Government Amendment No. 17.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 27 not moved.]

Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 [Notification of applications for planning permission]:

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 28: Page 3, leave out lines 19 to 34.

The noble Lord said: The lines we seek to delete seem to import quite unnecessary complication, including authority for yet another line of ministerial orders. It seems to us that the areas where the owners of excluded minerals should be notified of a mineral planning application will be limited and will basically be known by the planning authority. Furthermore, these are areas where they not only should be notified but they should be consulted by the mineral planning authority on the consequences of the excluded minerals of the application proposal. In these circumstances, it seems preferable that the owners of the excluded minerals should become statutory consultees in the areas that would require notification and that the need to notify which the Bill proposes could therefore be removed.

Lord Bellwin

I am aware that the industry considers that the procedure outlined in lines 21 to 34 is an unnecessary complication, but it is considered essential that some means of consulting owners of excluded minerals should be provided. Having said that, we have some sympathy with the industry's view that the procedure outlined is complicated and we are looking to see whether a simpler procedure can be devised. I therefore tell my noble friend that we want to consider the matter further with that in mind, but I think it essential that owners of excluded minerals should be notified of minerals applications which could directly affect their interests. However, I gladly undertake to take the matter away and consider it.

Baroness Birk

Does the Minister by that reply mean that the provision itself will not be lost, since I believe that the core of it is absolutely essential? If he is talking of perhaps redrafting it, I should go along with that, but not if it means eroding the whole provision.

Lord Bellwin

I am saying that the point made here is sufficient for us to consider the wording as we have it at the moment. While doing that we shall look to see whether we are satisfied as we were when we originally drafted the provision. I think that we probably are still satisfied, but I should want to look at the point.

Lord Mottistone

With that reassurance, for which I am most grateful, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 agreed to.

7.21 p.m.

Lord Sandford moved Amendment No. 29: After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:

(" Restoration condition to planning permission

. The following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (3) of section 30 of that Act:—

"(4) Where planning permission for development consisting of the winning and working of minerals is granted subject to a restoration condition, before imposing such a condition, the mineral planning authority shall consult as to its terms:

1. (a) the Minister, where they propose that the use specified in the condition shall be a use for agriculture; and
2. (b) the Forestry Commission, where they propose that the use so specified shall be a use for forestry.

(5) The mineral planning authority shall also, from time to time as they consider expedient, and at least every year, consult the Minister or the Commission, as to whether adequate steps are being taken to comply with a restoration condition.".").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 29. This, too, is a probing amendment in order to gain some elucidation on two points. I have no intention of pressing the amendment at this or any other stage. First, Stevens, at Chapter 9, says quite categorically that a restoration condition must be attached to every planning permission for mineral working, and whenever possible that restoration must provide for progressive restoration.

One might have supposed that in reviewing the whole area of mineral working he would find that there were certain types of working where restoration was not suitable or apt, but that is not the case. He has looked at all forms of mineral working—such as china clay, bricks, sand and gravel; everything under the sun—and says quite categorically in respect of every single one of them that a restoration condition must be attached to every planning permission. I do not see that reflected in this piece of legislation, and I should like to know, first, where it is if it is not here. Alternatively, is it intended to insert it somewhere else?

The amendment is important in order to reflect the recommendations of Stevens, and it is also important because the application of aftercare conditions, to which Clause 5 applies—and this is why I have put down my probing amendment at this point—is entirely contingent on the restoration condition being there. If a restoration condition is not applied to a permission for mineral working, then because of the wording of Clause 5, the aftercare conditions cannot be superimposed; they can only be tacked on to a restoration condition.

So we have the odd situation where aftercare conditions and the duty to impose them are contained in Clause 5 of the Bill, but the prerequisite for the application of aftercare conditions is not provided for anywhere so far as I can see. That is the main point on which I wanted elucidation. Compared with it, the details of the amendment are not tremendously important. I shall speak on the question of amenity planting when we reach Clause 5. I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

This proposal goes well beyond anything arising directly out of Stevens. There is a good deal of logic in the proposition that where MAFF or the Forestry Commission is being consulted on the terms of an aftercare condition, it should also be consulted on the terms of the restoration condition and on how well it has been complied with. However, there are a number of other considerations. I should have thought that the industry would be likely to oppose this, given its reaction to consultation on aftercare conditions, and its opposition is likely to be even stronger since this consultation would take place regardless of whether or not it was sensible to impose an aftercare condition. However, I should like to have an opportunity to examine the full implications of this proposal in the light of what my noble friend has said, and therefore I say forthwith that I shall gladly take it away to consider.

Baroness Birk

When the Minister takes away the amendment to consider it will he bear in mind the fact that throughout the debates on the local government Bill many of us, including perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, remarked on how everything was going to the centre, whereas local authorities themselves ought to have more responsibility. I understand very well the motivation behind the amendment, but again it is all a question of coming back to the centre. I am greatly in favour of watchdogs, but I think that in this case the noble Lord is perhaps overdoing the barking. I should have thought that the way the matter is left at the moment there is absolutely no reason why, if necessary, the mineral authority should not consult the Forestry Commission or the relevant Ministry, either the Department of the Environment, or the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. When I think of the amount of paper work and the number of officials which would be involved, I wince to think that consultation should take place every year. If the Government can find such resources, let them put them into housing or something similar that is more necessary than this.

Viscount Ridley

The noble Baroness has again got it absolutely right. This seems to me to be a recipe for enormous bureaucracy and time-wasting. Subsection (5), proposing consultation every year, reminds me rather of painting the Forth Bridge. It would be a job for life. One knows how long it takes to get an answer from any Ministry, and the next year would soon come round. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will not bring back this proposal in any form at all. I believe that mineral authorities and planning authorities are perfectly capable. They already have a tremendous body of expert opinion and knowledge, as well as experience of how these things should be done. Certainly all the counties that I have had anything to do with have known much more about it than has the Ministry of Agriculture, and certainly much more than the Forestry Commission is ever likely to know. They have all had great experience of reclaiming derelict land and mineral relics. I would oppose very strongly any proposal of this kind, if only on the grounds of the increased public expenditure which would be bound to result from it.

Lord Mottistone

I, too, should like to add my voice of opposition. It is a pleasure to be able to speak on the same front as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for the first time today—and probably the last. As my noble friend the Minister is well aware, this proposal is anathema to industry. In particular, subsection (5), if enacted in any form, would amount to an incredible imposition on industry, and as my noble friend Lord Ridley said, I suppose that it would also be a terrible imposition on the local authority, too. I observe that my noble friend Lord Sandford said that this is a probing amendment. I hope that it now disappears into the mists of the past and no one ever considers it again.

Lord Sandford

It is very nice to have been able to unite the noble Baroness with her two erstwhile friends. As I said, this is a probing amendment and the main purpose of it is to ascertain from my noble friend where the duty to impose a restoration condition resides, since that was something which Stevens prescribed quite categorically. Such a condition does not seem to be in the Bill, or anywhere else, and without it, it would not seem possible to me to attach the aftercare conditions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]

Clause 20 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Imposition of aftercare conditions on planning permission]:

7.30 p.m.

Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 31: Page 4, line 5, at end insert ("or where restoration is to be carried out in stages").

The noble Lord said: I have enormous confidence in all mining companies, but at the same time there is no doubt that every industry has its "wide boys". It is certainly possible—in fact, it does happen—that workings are undertaken and then either the restoration is evaded in spirit or what can easily happen is that the firm can go bankrupt and leave the workings in a terrible state, with no possibility of putting it right. Furthermore, this is an extremely dangerous situation for the owner of the land, who may then have to restore the land himself at his own cost, with nothing coming in with which to do it.

One of the answers is the performance bond, but this, I think, is too expensive for industry and is not practical. I think the prudent owner will insist on restoration by stages, so that, during stage 2, stage 1 is retored, and stage 3 cannot start until stage 1 is satisfactorily restored to its final state. This, I think, ensures that restoration is done most economically for the mining company and most safely as respects both planning and the surface owner's peace of mind. Whether my amendment helps the situation in the words which I have used I am not sure, but I believe that some amendment to encourage restoration by stages would be most useful. I beg to move.

Lord Mottistone

I should very much like briefly to support my noble friend Lord Gisborough in the principle of his amendment. I am sure that restoration in stages is a thing which needs to be considered, and some of my later amendments in fact embody the same general theme.

Baroness Birk

What I am concerned about is that I do not quite know what "stages" means. Does it mean as the outer parts are done or does it mean that, for instance, as the drains, or whatever it is, are put in the whole operation stops until the end of that stage? I think we must have a functional definition and understanding of what the word "stages" means, because obviously is not clear from the amendment.

Lord Gisborough

I wonder whether I could explain this. As an example, perhaps a mining company might be allowed five acres to start with, where they might open-cast. Then they would have a second five acres, perhaps, and while they were open-casting that they would replace all the topsoil back on to the first five acres, and until the first five acres were completely finished with topsoil and whatever was required they would not be allowed to go into the third stage. Really, it is just the same, I think, as the efficient form of double digging—putting manure in and then putting a load of topsoil on the first deep dig.

Lord Bellwin

Let me say at once that I entirely accept that the drafting of the Bill needs to be extended to cover progressive restoration. I shall be moving an amendment later to deal with these points, and I hope that with that assurance my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Gisborough

I thank the Minister for that, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 33: Page 4, line 10, leave out from ("that") to ("and") in line 13 and insert ("after operations for the winning and working of minerals have been completed, the site shall be restored by the use of any or all of the following, namely, subsoil, topsoil and soil-making material;").

The noble Lord said: This amendment provides for an improved definition of "restoration condition". It makes clearer that such a condition can cover the deposition of any one of sub-soil, top-soil or soil-making material on land once mineral working has been completed. This takes account of the fact that restoration to forestry can in certain circumstances be successful on sub-soil. The amendment also removes any misunderstanding that the word "replaced" in the existing definition may cause. Sub-soil, top-soil, et cetera, may not always be still available on a site to be replaced, and the amended definition makes clear that fill material can be brought in. I beg to move.

Viscount Ridley

I do not want to waste time, but I wondered what "soil-making material" means. I have never heard of anything of that kind before, and I should very much like to know where to get some.

Lord Bellwin

I shall be very glad indeed to write to my noble friend and give him what I am sure will be a lengthy and comprehensive definition.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Segal)

I have to point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 34 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 35.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 34: Page 4, line 15, leave out from ("that") to ("to") in line 18 and insert ("such steps shall be taken, during such period as may be specified for each step, as may be necessary to bring land").

The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to provide an improved definition of an aftercare condition which makes clearer our intention that a mineral planning authority should specify, in an aftercare condition, the actual steps which must be taken and the time within which each step must be taken. The existing wording is ambiguous in that it could be interpreted to mean that the planning authority need specify only that necessary steps should be taken to bring the land to the required standard for agriculture or forestry, without saying what are these steps. I hope your Lordships will agree that this makes it clearer, and I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]

Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 636:

Page 4, line 22, at end insert— ("; or (c) use for amenity purposes.")

The noble Bafroness said: I think that later on we are going to discuss Clause 5 on an amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, so at this point I will restrict myself to the particular amendment on the Marshalled List. The after-care provisions, which I welcome very much indeed, at the moment cover only agriculture and forestry, which I think is rather a pity because it is rather narrow. The amendment would extend it to cover amenity or amenity purposes—and I notice, looking through the amendments, that in some cases I have one description and in some places the other, but no doubt all that can be straightened out when the Government, as I hope they will, manage to sort it out—and it would seem a great pity if this Bill were left quite as restricted as it is at the moment.

What I think we are concerned with is this—that is, the two noble Lords who have joined their names to mine on this amendment as well as others by whom I have heard it raised; and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who said that, unfortunately, he could not stay, also said that he would greatly support an extension of this which would include recreational purposes. What I should like to include is land which is planted for amenity purposes. I am not thinking of putting on to the operator the imposition of creating, say, a surface for a golf course—I am not considering anything like that which in any case will be covered through Section 52 agreements—but I think we ought to have some sort of category covering land which is planted with, for instance, trees as windbreaks, or with shrubs or bulbs (and flowers and bulbs do not really come under the Forestry Commission), to improve the look of the area. In that way this whole exercise of after-care will have, as I am quite sure it is intended to have, an effect on the quality of the life of the whole community; so that the look of the area is improved, and then it is necessary for the land to be subject to after-care for several years to make sure that the scheme is viable.

There are other ways in which I think it could be used if we apply some imagination. At little expense—and, very often, at no expense—one could increase the spread of such recreational amenities; for example, quarries for climbing where there is limestone or sandstone. It is in this area that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is concerned. Mineshafts can be used by cavers. All these would be there already and one would not have to do much about them. Then some of the large mineral sites have become water-filled and could be used for water sports. Other sites could be used for motor-cycle training and for tests and trials. I am not suggesting we can come up with an answer tonight because I know it is difficult; and I appreciate that definition. But I would ask the Minister to look at it. Perhaps we could put in the Bill a phrase like "for amenity purposes" and then have it more clearly defined in one of the schedules.

I am conscious of the fact that this has taken many years. The last Bill dealing with this subject in this manner was in 1947 and probably we are not going to get another Bill like this within the next decade or two. I think that all the way through this Bill, and particularly in this area, we have to be conscious that we have to be a little ahead of the field and, even though financial resources are very restricted at the moment, I should like to feel that in the Bill, and particularly in this area which is a good example, there is the provision, incentive and encouragement for this very important after-care condition (which I think is magnificent and essential) to be used to the best of our ability and that of the local government areas.

What I am asking the Minister tonight is whether he would accept that this is something which is important and that there should be a way found of getting it in the Bill. I do not think it is beyond the expertise of the draftsmen to find a way to work this out, as long as we all know what we want. I hope that the Committee, whatever view they take on the other aspects of the Bill, will support what I am asking for in this clause. I beg to move.

Lord Sandford

The noble Baroness and I are once again together. I hope a number of other noble Lords will join us in supporting this amendment. I have not much more to add to what she said. I think, as a first step, we want the addition of these words. The same amendment will have to be made to the Scottish section if the principle is agreed, and there will have to be a few other changes. But the main additional point is that it is realistic to think of land restored after mineral working to be used for agriculture or for forestry as defined in the Bill; that is to say, for growing commercial crops, trees or grain, provided that the restoration condition included the stockpiling of the subsoil and the topsoil and that the topsoil and the subsoil have been properly put back again. Alas! this condition has not in many cases been fulfilled and in some cases even in the future it may not be able to be fulfilled as completely as we should like.

In those circumstances, the use for forestry and agriculture is ruled out; and one is then obliged to look to the land for amenity purposes and to see what could be done to improve the landscape and to make the land available for recreation. That use, which is often forced upon us, is not covered by subsection (2)(a) or (2)(b) in the Bill as drafted. For that reason alone, we need to have included some such phrase as "use for amenity purposes". In the case of agriculture, it is appropriate to consult the Minitry of Agriculture about the after-care (as it was to consult about restoration) and in the case of forestry, it is appropriate to consult the Forestry Commission. In the case of amenity purposes, it would be appropriate for the district council to be consulted.

I should like my noble friend to consider that aspect; but I shall not move my Amendment No. 50 in view of the withering attacks that I suffered on my earlier amendment. But I should like my noble friend to take the general point that the district council is interested when it comes to recreation and amenity purposes. The point I should like to make now is that I support the noble Baroness in asking for the insertion of "use for amenity purposes" in parallel with agriculture and forestry.

Lord Gisborough

Would it be convenient to talk on Amendment No. 57 which comes later but which is dealing with virtually the same thing? That amendment reads: Nothing in this Act shall have the effect of restraining a mineral planning authority from granting planning permission with restoration conditions for purposes other than agriculture and forestry". That could be debated later.

I agree that there may be occasions when it would be convenient to have, say, motorcycle trials or an aquatic country park in a gravel pit, and so on. I think it is not unreasonable to ask a mining company to restore to some other use (even to a golf course) provided the mining company are in agreement with it and that they do not consider it a substantially greater cost than restoring it to agriculture. The overall cost to them of restoring to levels which are suitable for a golf course is probably no greater than the cost of levelling flat for agriculture. If a condition of after-care is made for public use as a park, it must be with the full agreement of the surface owner and the developer, and not against the wishes of those people who have to live in the area afterwards.

Viscount Ridley

I should like to add a word of support for this amendment. I feel that it would he valuable and in some cases could save the developer of minerals a lot of money. I have experience of the open cast coal situation. I realise that that is not covered in this Bill; it has its own legislation. On one occasion, in order to improve the landscape after coal workings, it was proposed to construct a lake as a part of a country park and to produce recreation facilities with boats. Unfortunately, the lake developed a leak which still continues, so nothing came of it; but the idea is sound. It could be that mineral workings in other parts of the country could be encouraged to revert to recreational use by something of this kind. I would support the amendment.

Lord Bellwin

While it is reasonable to expect an operator to bring land back to the standard required for agriculture or forestry, we think that the amendment, as it is in front of us, is too wide in that it could lead to requirements for other purposes. I know this is not the intention of the noble Baroness; she said as much. Nevertheless, it could be interpreted in this way. While speaking, may I say that I am covering points which come in Amendments Nos. 43, 44 and 93; and my noble friend Lord Gisborough referred to Amendment No. 57.

We accept that there might be a particular problem in relation to community tree planting which arises from the definition of forest used in Schedule 1; the definition is rather narrow. Without making much ado of it—because there seems to be a unanimity of viewpoint on this—certainly the Government recognize the position. I say without hestiation that, while this amendment is too wide to be acceptable, we should like to see whether we can come up with one which would be acceptable. We shall read very carefully what has been said.

Baroness Birk

In withdrawing the amendment, I should like to thank the Minister. I am sure that he will take into consideration that this is the first amendment where there has been all-round agreement from everybody who has spoken. I know that it will be difficult but I hope that an imaginative result will be forthcoming, otherwise a very great opportunity will be missed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.51 p.m.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 37:

Page 4, line 22, at end insert— ("(2A) The steps that may be specified in an aftercare condition may consist of planting, cultivating, fertilising, watering, draining or otherwise treating the land.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on Government Amendment No. 34 and defines the actual steps which may be specified in an aftercare condition. These steps were originally set out in subsection (2) but in this new draft they form a separate subsection. I beg to move.

Lord Mottistone

My noble friend, having pleased me by moving Amendment No. 34 (which stopped my moving Amendment No. 35) which by itself is not too objectionable, then re-introduces the closely worded definition I would have sought to exclude in my Amendment No. 35. That type of detail is not necessary and may cause more trouble to mineral operators than is reasonable. Operators accept reasonable restoration conditions, and these may include an obligation to plant suitable cover and restore land to reasonable agricultural or factory use. However, these detailed provisions are admittedly covered by the word "may" which gives a certain amount of option and could give rise to people believing that each and every stage of this will have to be followed. It is probably wiser to leave the amendment to that provided for by Amendment No. 34 without specifying the detail.

In some respects we are going very far ahead. The noble Baroness said that we need to lead the field. I have always been worried about people who lead the field. Often in the hunting field it is unpopular for one to do that unless one is the master. To be serious, there is a danger that we may get carried away in committing ourselves further than is reasonable.

The noble Baroness said that she did not think that there would be another Bill of this kind for another 20 years or something like that. She might be right. We are amending Acts of 1972, which is only eight or nine years ago, at the moment. The noble Baroness knows better than I do that the officials in departments keep tabs on Bills to see how they are working. I would have thought that there are some areas where we do not want to go too far ahead and be too specific. It would be better to say to ourselves "Let us describe it in broad principle step by step. Do not let us spell out the steps. Let us see what experience reveals". Maybe in five or 10 years' time somebody can move an amendment to this comprehensive Act (as it will then be) and tighten up any areas where experience shows this to be necessary, and loosen elsewhere. But do not overdo it now. Do not imagine that because we are so splendid in this Chamber we know all the answers and can write the whole Bill and get it perfect at this stage.

I would not wish to take the Committee—small as it is—to a Division; but I sound a note of distaste for my noble friend's Amendment No. 37 and, in advance, for his Amendment No. 38. I shall give serious thought to seeing whether I can offer at the next stage something a little less precise and detailed.

Viscount Ridley

Almost all experience in this matter—and I speak from considerable knowledge—shows that it is not enough to re-seed an area or plant it with grass or trees. You have to look after the area afterwards and see that it is maintained. That can be onerous, expensive and time-consuming. There is no point in having after-care arrangements unless some follow-up period and operation are indicated.

I am dubious about the point where it says that steps may be specified for watering land. If we get a year like 1976 that will be an expensive commitment, with mineral owners going about with watering cans. I hope and believe that we shall never have another drought quite so bad, nor another year quite so wet as last year. The Government are on the right lines in this part of the Bill and I support my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Bellwin

I am surprised that my noble friend Lord Mottistone is so concerned. I thought that it would be extremely helpful to everyone to know what types of operation we have in mind. I hear his concern; I cannot do anything about it. I shall watch for anything he comes forward with, but for the moment I shall still move the amendment.

Baroness Birk

The amendment I am moving next is to increase the period from five years to 10 years, and five years is firmly written in subsection (2)(c). In most cases five years would be an adequate period for ensuring that land has been effectively restored. Provision should be left for longer periods to cover particularly difficult restoration schemes. I hope that the Minister will take that into account. If he is going to look at this aspect altogether, then I will not move Amendment No. 39.

So far as the general substance is concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, when he comes to this legislation is a very conservative Conservative. He says that officials keep tabs on an Act and it can be amended. But life is not like that. There is no room in a legislative programme. We have too much legislation anyhow from both Governments. I am not blaming just this Government.

Where we can look ahead—and I was not thinking of leading the field in the hunting sense; I do not hunt and I am rather against it—and where we can be forward-looking, it is our duty to do so in any legislation. We do have that duty. It is quite wrong that through not looking ahead something has to be amended or needs amendment but in fact is not amended for a number of years. So I would make no apology, and I go on urging the Minister to look ahead with a certain amount of vision.

Lord Bellwin

I cannot add a great deal. I note carefully what the noble Baroness has said, and indeed I note what my noble friend Lord Mottistone has said, but I can really add nothing to my earlier remarks.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

I have to notify the Committee that if Amendment No. 38 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 39, 40, 41 and 42.

8.1 p.m.

Lord Bellwin moved amendment No. 38:

Page 4, line 23, leave out subsections (3) to (5) and insert— ("(2B) An aftercare condition may not require any step to be taken after the expiry of the aftercare period. (2C) In subsection (2B) of this section "the aftercare period" means a period of five years from compliance with the restoration condition or such other maximum period after compliance with that condition as may be prescribed; and in respect of any part of a site, the aftercare period shall commence on compliance with the restoration condition in respect of that part.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to make clear that although a mineral planning authority must specify in an after-care condition the time in which certain steps must be taken, they cannot require anything to be done after the expiry of the after-care period. It is intended that this total after-care period should be five years from compliance with a restoration condition or such other period as may be prescribed. "Prescribed" in this case has the meaning assigned to it by Section 290 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and means prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State. The definition of after-care period in the amendment is an improvement on the existing wording in that it allows for a period of after-care on each part of a site in turn following progressive restoration. I beg to move.

Baroness Birk

I have to apologise to the Committee because I made a mistake over the increase from five to 10 in connection with Amendment No. 37. I should have been making that point in connection with Amendment No. 38. It would be very nice if the Minister would say "Yes" now and accept the 10 years: otherwise I would ask him to consider the extra flexibility, that where it is necessary the period should be increased. I am not for one moment suggesting that it should always be 10 years but, as I said when speaking to the wrong amendment, it may be necessary for provision to be made for longer periods to cover particularly difficult restoration schemes. I am sorry to have confused the noble Lord, but perhaps he could answer me on that point.

Lord Mottistone

In the event of this amendment being agreed to, and it will be, my Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 will fall. I should like to make two points. One is that I would certainly strongly oppose Amendment No. 39, because Amendment No. 40 seeks to limit this to five years anyway. In view of the fact that there has not been time to study Amendment No. 38, I will give attention to it and it could be that we shall come back at another stage with amendments along the lines of Amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 42. Obviously it is too early to comment further at this stage.

Lord Bellwin

I recognise, and indeed I have recognised all the time, that there is some doubt among agriculturists about whether five years' after-care will prove to be sufficient. That is why we have taken care to amend the period if the need should arise. Once again, the Government are trying to strike a fair balance here. At present we think that the five-year period proposed by Stevens is the right one, and I hope that the noble Baroness will understand the thinking behind this.

Baroness Birk

I will not press this at the moment, but I will read what has been said and think about it again and perhaps come back at a later stage.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 39 to 44 not moved.]

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)

I have to point out that if Amendment No. 45 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 46.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 45: Page 5, leave out lines 1 to 12.

The noble Lord said: To be blunt, this subsection—because the amendment seeks to leave out subsection (8)—is inoperably vague. There are two features, and in connection with the first perhaps I might ask my noble friend to consider—perhaps he has already done so—making it more understandable and also making it so that it is operable. In lines 2 and 3 the phrase …had previously been used for that purpose… could relate back to time without limit. What record is there of the land's condition when it was last used for agriculture? The clause as drafted would give carte blanche to a planning authority, under pressure from the agricultural authorities, to require a mineral operator to take quite uneconomic measures to improve land. Therefore I feel it would be only reasonable to remove this subsection at this time. Perhaps my noble friend may have some better ideas by the time we come to the next stage of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

In commenting upon this amendment I should like also to comment on the points referred to in Amendments Nos. 94 and 117, and simply say that the Government consider it is essential to restore agricultural land once mineral working has ceased. However, my noble friend's points are valid. I am conscious of the practical difficulties arising from the current drafting and I gladly give him an assurance that we will study how this might be improved.

Lord Mottistone

With that very hopeful reassurance, I have pleasure in asking leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.8 p.m.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 46: Page 5, line 11, leave out ("possible") and insert ("is reasonably practicable").

The noble Lord said: The point of this amendment is two-fold. It is really to make sure that, when called upon to take action, it is practicable to do so. A very eminent friend of mine when I was in the Navy once said to me: "You know, everything is possible. Never write a paper or a document—now we say an Act of Parliament—which says 'If something is possible', because everything is possible". The key factor is whether it is practicable.

That is really what lies behind this amendment, but the other feature to it is that in saying "practicable" one takes into account the economic situation. As I said at Second Reading, it is the economics that need to be remembered, particularly in this sort of general area where in so many cases there is so much at stake in the way of capital investment. So I would beg my noble friend to consider that "practicable" would be a more appropriate word in every respect to be used in this subsection. I beg to move.

Baroness Birk

I was very intrigued by the noble Lord's attempt to change this, so I have got from the large Oxford Dictionary the definitions of the words "possible" and "practicable". I think, with respect, he is rather bending this a little bit and adding "reasonable". I will not read the whole thing, because there are columns of it, but merely— Possible—That may be (i.e. is capable of being); that may or can exist, be done, or happen (in general, or in given or assumed conditions or circumstances); that is in one's power, that one can do, exert, use … Practicable—Capable of being put into practice, carried out in action, effected, accomplished, or done; feasible". If one wants to bring something about and it is possible, then one would also, I think, make it practicable. If it is "practicable", then it could be "possible". What the noble Lord has done is to impose a restraint by putting the word "reasonably" in front. But by doing that he makes the whole subsection far less precise than the Government have done. If this amendment is accepted, there will be a great deal of doubt cast on the meaning of the words and, as often happens, there will he a lawyers' feast about the meaning of "reasonably".

I hope that the Bill will be left as it is, because "possible" is a simple word. If something is possible, then that implies that, in the context of the Bill, it is practicable, and if something is possible it must also be possible economically. I know that the word "reasonably" goes into a lot of statutes, but look at the trouble it causes. It is a word which is questioned and brought into doubt. "Reasonably" is not the right word and, on the evidence that I have here I prefer the Bill to be left as it is.

Lord Boardman

Without wishing to take issue with the noble Baroness on the definitions in the dictionary, I think that my noble friend has made a very valid and practical—as opposed to practicable—point on this clause, because one can visualise restoration being possible, but at quite enormous and uneconomic expense. I think that my noble friend is trying to bring a sense of reasonableness and reality into the situation, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Bellwin will accept that.

Lord Bellwin

I hope all this reads better than it sounds. It is very difficult to follow. There is a principle behind this amendment and we shall want to consider it again. If we think, as we do at the moment, that there is merit in these points, we shall have to consider how best to meet them and will want to do so in consultation with colleagues. We shall probably take up the point in considering the redrafting of subsection (8).

Lord Mottistone

With that hopeful and helpful remark, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.13 p.m.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 47:

Page 5, line 21, at end insert— ("; and (c) the person in whose name the application for planning permission has been made").

The noble Lord said: In this amendment, we seek to give an opportunity for the person in whose name an application has been made to be involved. Section 29 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 empowers a planning authority to impose on a planning permission such conditions as they think fit. They must act reasonably and in good faith, but no specific requirement is laid down for consultation. Natural justice seems to require that, if the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Forestry Commission are to be consulted before conditions are imposed, so should the operator who has to foot the bill. I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

This amendment has implications for planning control generally. It would, for the first time, impose a statutory duty on a planning authority to consult an applicant on the terms of a condition which they intend to impose in the grant of a planning permission. Many authorities already do this on a voluntary basis in mineral cases. But, in any case, the applicant, when submitting the application, is generally well aware of the issues likely to be covered in conditions. An applicant who regards any conditions imposed as unreasonable has the right of appeal to the Secretary of State under Section 36 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. The Secretary of State has the power to discharge the condition or to impose such other conditions as he thinks reasonable. If we were to accept this amendment, it would require—that is the operative word—authorities to consult applicants before imposing an after-care condition on a planning permission for a mineral working, and that is farther than we would want to go.

Lord Mottistone

There is a kind of reassurance about the right of appeal in my noble friend's reply, and perhaps this is as far as I can take the matter at the moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 48:

Page 5, line 21, at end insert ("; and (c) the surface owner of the land").

The noble Lord said: This is a rather similar amendment, except that it applies not to the applicant for the planning permission, who may be the mining interest, but to the surface owner. I am asking that as well as consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture and the Forestry Commission, as appropriate, the planning authority should consult the surface owner. He is more concerned with the result of the land at the end than anybody else. He is much more concerned than the general public, because he has to live with the result, whereas the general public see the land only once in a while. Furthermore, the surface owner has the job of looking after the land after it has had after-care, and therefore is very much concerned with what the after-care conditions are to be.

If he is prudent, he may well have restoration conditions with the operator, which could be quite as strict as the planning authority's conditions, and it will help him enormously, and it will also help the planning authority, if the conditions which each of them applies to the operator are the same. It will then be much easier to have those conditions complied with. Furthermore, the operative word is "consult", and there would be no appeal if the planning authority did not agree with the owner or vice versa. I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

This amendment, too, has important implications for planning generally. Planning authorities are not at present required to consult owners of land, as I said on the previous amendment, on the terms of conditions on planning permissions. However, by virtue of Section 27 of the 1971 Act, all owners are notified of applications for planning permission in respect of their land and can make representations to the local planning authority. This seems to me to give good opportunity for them to make their views known on the terms of any conditions which are likely to be imposed if planning permission is granted.

The purpose of the requirement to consult the Ministry of Agriculture or the Forestry Commission is not to provide a general opportunity for debate about conditions, but rather to ensure that the mineral planning authorities have the best professional advice in drafting the conditions, in a field where they do not necessarily have the appropriate expertise. I hope my noble friend will feel that, as owners of land are already notified of planning applications, it is not necessary to place this additional duty on the mineral planning authorities.

Lord Gisborough

May I just make one other point which arises from that and has to do with the advice? There will be many occasions when an owner is aware of things which a planning authority may not know; for example, underground streams, geological faults and so on. It may he greatly to the advantage of the planning authority to dove-tail with the owner.

Lord Bellwin

I entirely take that point, but the fact that the owner is notified of an application and has the opportunity to make representations to the authority, should cover it. If, however, my noble friend feels that there are reasons why that is not so, I should be glad to hear of them.

Lord Gisborough

This is quite an important point. I should like to withdraw it for the moment but I may bring it back at Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]

Lord Sandford had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 50: Page 5, line 23, after ("expedient") insert ("and at least every year").

The noble Lord said: I am still quaking from the attack made upon me under Amendment No. 29! Therefore, I do not move this amendment.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 51: Page 5, line 30, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 31 and insert (", if they are satisfied that the condition has been complied with, shall issue a certificate to that effect.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment places a requirement on mineral planning authorities rather than giving them a power to issue a certificate on request if they are satisfied that an after-care condition has been complied with. It makes it clear that if an authority is satisfied that the after-care condition has been complied with, it must issue a certificate where requested to do so by somebody with an interest in the land. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Mottistone had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 52: Page 5, line 31, at end insert ("and such certificate shall be conclusive evidence to that effect for all purposes").

The noble Lord said: In view of Amendment No. 51, for which I am indeed grateful, I do not move this amendment.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 53: Page 5, line 35, leave out ("on") and insert ("in, on or under").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment which seeks to remove an inconsistency in the drafting of the Bill so that the reference is to mineral working in, on or under the land. This will make it clear that the provision also refers to underground mining and brings the provision into line with the rest of the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Mottistone had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 54 Page 5, line 36, leave out ("a mining lease") and insert ("an agreement").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is in part covered by that of my noble friend and I shall speak to his amendment. At this stage I shall not move mine.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 55: Page 5, line 36, leave out from ("a") to end of line 38 and insert ("contract made between him and the person who last carried out such operations, to recover from that person any expenses reasonably incurred").

The noble Lord said: This amendment provides for a wider category of agreements which can be adopted by an operator and a person complying with an aftercare condition. A mining lease is the only contract currently provided for. After further discussion with the industry, this is considered to be too narrow. I beg to move.

Lord Mottistone

This amendment does not strike us as being quite what we hoped the Minister would be providing at this stage to meet the point which we tried to make under Amendment No. 54. We shall have a look at it and we may come back to it at a later stage.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 56:

Page 5, line 39, at end insert— ("(12A) Nothing in this section shall have the effect of bringing agricultural operations under planning control. (12B) Where a planning permission is granted or modified to include a condition which would not be lawful but for the provisions of this section but the condition fails to comply with the provisions for an after-care condition, that condition shall be of no effect and the permission shall continue as though that condition had never been imposed.").

The noble Lord said: These amendments, (12A) and (12B), are totally separate points and I should have had them under separate amendment numbers. I apologise to the Committee for not having done so. As they are under one amendment number I shall speak to them both, but separately.

With regard to (12A), industries complain that over the last 10 years the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have progressively raised their demands for restoration conditions and that some are now quite unreasonable. This contrasts with the absence of statutory control over agricultural operations other than to control nuisance, such as from weeds. We believe that the restoration wedge must be driven in no further. To sum up, it is thought to be totally inappropriate to specify detailed agricultural operations which must be specified many years in advance of the actual restoration.

I turn now to (12B). This is a legal point. I am advised that the law as to ultra vires conditions is uncertain, in the sense that where a condition is ultra vires one of two results can occur: either the permission can continue in effect with the condition removed or the whole permission can be found to be ineffective. This amendment is intended to make it clear that so far as after-care conditions are concerned, if an ultra vires condition is imposed the permission nevertheless continues in effect without it. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say on the second one and, indeed, on the first. I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

If I may refer first to (12A), I feel that the amendment is somewhat ambiguous. There is no question that we are seeking to bring agriculture under planning control. All that the Bill does is to provide for certain restoration operations of an agricultural nature in certain circumstances to be required as a condition of planning permission in the interests of mitigating the long-term effects of mineral working on the land.

With regard to the new (12B), if a condition imposed in the grant of planning permission is found by the courts to be invalid and the condition goes to the very root of the permission, it is possible that the court could find it unseverable and the whole would fall. It is considered that an after-care condition is severable from the permission and its invalidity would not bring down the planning permission. Thus it will be seen that the amendment as drafted is ambiguous. For this reason we could not accept it. With that clarification, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment, at least until he has had an opportunity to consider it again.

Lord Mottistone

I shall read with great care what my noble friend has said and consider whether to return to the charge at a later stage. At this stage, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.27 p.m.

Lord Gisborough had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 57:

Page 5, line 39, at end insert— ("( ) Nothing in this Act shall have the effect of restraining a mineral planning authority from granting planning permission with restoration conditions for purposes other than agriculture and forestry.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment was covered in the series of amendments about amenity use. Therefore, I do not move it.

On Question, Whether Clause 5, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Mottistone

This clause is objectionable, in that it introduces for the first time an extension of planning control to agricultural operations. Industry accepts planning conditions designed to minimise the damage to land. There is no objection to the principle of the Bill. But the proposed after-care conditions would introduce for the first time control by a planning authority of the agricultural operations themselves. I know that my noble friend the Minister has just said that this is not the intention of the clause but, as we read it now, that is what it looks like.

We sum it up by saying that it unbalances the Stevens' recommendations with which industry on the whole are in agreement. We should therefore like the Government to consider the whole of the clause, apart from the hits which we have been discussing, to see whether they think that it provides the right balance.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

I have some sympathy with that part of Amendment No. 56, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, which is notified in the Marshalled List as (12A). The clause as it now stands seems to indicate that the Government, without meaning to, may be entering into the field, which is objectionable to industry, that use for agriculture and for forestry shall become subject to planning control. I may be wrong in that assumption, but I support the submission made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that this clause should be reviewed, particularly in the light of that part of the amendment which he withdrew, (12A), which says: Nothing in this section shall have the effect of bringing agricultural operations under planning control".

Baroness Birk

I would disagree completely with what the last two noble Lords have said. I do not think for one moment that this clause or any part of the Bill brings agriculture into planning. I am getting more and more despondent about the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and some of his noble friends are dealing with this Bill. The amendments which have been moved to Clause 5 have set out to erode what is an extremely important part—in fact one of the lynchpins—of the Bill and now what he is trying to do is to leave out the whole clause. I should like to express very strong support for the after-care provisions in the Bill. I know that the emphasis on effective restoration is strongly supported by mineral planning authorities, particularly the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, and it is unfortunate that the noble Lord, supported by—or supporting, whichever way one wants to look at it—the CBI, is really attempting, as I must say, with great respect, to wreck the Bill. That opposition would not only run contrary to the mineral authorities but it would run counter to the views of the minerals industry.

A report prepared by the restoration sub-group of the South-East Regional Aggregates Group, of which the Sand and Gravel Association were full members, stated: There is considerable concern over the quality of past restoration of land to agriculture. In many cases land has not been restored to its former quality and this has resulted in a decline in production and land formerly used for arable protection being returned, at best to grassland and often to rough grazing. This has come about for a number of reasons: First of all, lack of after-care. The successful restoration of the land to an agricultural use is not only dependent on the satisfactory after treatment of the excavated site but requires a period of after-care and land management to achieve and maintain the agricultural quality of the land. … Much of the National Coal Board's success in restoring agricultural land has been due to the attention paid to after-care. This involves the rehabilitation of the land by careful management of cultivations, fertilising, cropping, control of grazing and the design and installation of a permanent under drainage system. … We believe that the imposition of after-care conditions on permissions for the extraction of sand and gravel will assist considerably in improving the quality of restoration to agriculture and therefore welcome the recommendation of the Stevens Committee and the proposed legislation by Government to provide powers for local authorities to attach conditions to allow for a period of after-care not exceeding five years of land to be restored to agriculture or horticulture". I do not apologise for subjecting your Lordships to that rather long quotation because I think this is extremely important, and also it is important that we should not be—if I may mix my metaphors—led astray by the red herring which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is pulling across the trail and in which he is being supported by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. This is absolutely untrue. This is not what this Bill is doing. I very much hope—and I have a certain amount of confidence—that the Government will not be shaken off their course but will stick to Clause 5 on after-care, and that the only thing they will do as a result of some of the comments that have been made, is to strengthen or improve it. That will be to the benefit of the Bill. But they should not be led astray by the siren voices that we are hearing tonight.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

As a matter of personal explanation, may I say that I was only concerning myself with one small point out of the many points submitted by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I was encouraged to make that observation in view of the remarks of the Minister, who said that of course the Government had no intention of introducing planning into agricultural operations, and I merely asked why that should not be made quite clear in this clause.

Lord Bellwin

I do not think I have listened to siren voices in the past and I am not likely to be doing so at this stage, from whatever direction they may come. The fact is that we consider that this clause is another of the most important clauses in the Bill. The Stevens Committee recommended that county planning authorities should be empowered to require a period of five years after-care when mineral working has ceased and the land has been restored. This recommendation is accepted by the Government. If land which is to be restored to agriculture or forestry is to achieve its full potential we believe it is essential that local authorities should be able to impose conditions of this nature. I do not believe that it is enough to rely on voluntary agreements with good operators to meet this need.

It has been suggested that the clause represents an extension of planning control to agricultural operations, but I just do not believe that it can be read in that way. I accept that even with the amendments made this evening the clause still needs clarifying in one or two places, but I have indicated our readiness to consider these points and I hope that they will meet any remaining fears about what is intended.

There are two other points which I should perhaps pick up. First, as to the period of after-care, we are satisfied with five years at present, but we are still learning about restoration and if a longer period eventually proves to be essential I am sure that the industry would wish to co-operate. Secondly, with regard to the involvement of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Forestry Commission, they have a great deal of technical help to offer and I believe this should be welcomed. They are no more innately hostile to mineral working than mineral operators are innately hostile to the needs of agriculture. I ask your Lordships to accept that this important clause should stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 21 [Imposition of after-care conditions on planning permission]:

8.38 p.m.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 58: Page 24, line 10, leave out from ("that") to ("and") in line 14 and insert ("after operations for the winning and working of minerals have been completed, the site shall be restored by the use of any or all of the following, namely, subsoil, topsoil and soil-making material;").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is the Scottish equivalent of Government Amendment No. 33. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Chairman of Committees

I have to point out that, if amendment No. 59 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 60.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 59: Page 24, line 16, leave out from ("that") to ("to") in line 20 and insert ("such steps shall be taken, during such period as may be specified for each step, as may be necessary to bring land").

The noble Lord said: This allows for the progressive restoration of land, subject to an after-care condition. It is the Scottish equivalent of Government Amendment No. 34. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 not moved.]

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 62:

Page 24, line 24, at end insert— ("(2A) The steps that may be specified in an after-care condition may consist of planting, cultivating, fertilising, watering, draining or otherwise treating the land.").

The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. It is the Scottish equivalent of Government Amendment No. 37. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Chairman of Committees

If Amendment No. 63 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 64, 65, 66 or 67.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 63:

Page 24, line 25, leave out subsections (3) to (5) and insert— ("(2B) An after-care condition may not require any step to be taken after the expiry of the after-care period. (2C) In subsection (2B) of this section "the after-care period" means a period of five years from compliance with the restoration condition or such other maximum period after compliance with that condition as may be prescribed; and in respect of any part of a site, the after-care period shall commence on compliance with the restoration condition in respect of that part.").

The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. It is the Scottish equivalent of Government Amendment No. 38. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 68 to 71 not moved.]

The Chairman of Committees

If Amendment No. 72 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 73 and 74.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 72:

Page 25, leave out lines 13 to 16 and insert— ("(9) Before imposing an after-care condition the Planning Authority shall consult as to its terms—

1. (a) The Secretary of State where they propose that the use specified in the condition shall be a use for agriculture; and
2. (b) the Forestry Commission where they propose that the use so specified shall be a use for forestry.").

The noble Lord said: I should like to take with this amendment, Amendments Nos. 75 and 76. The Explanatory Memorandum suggests that there is no particular need in Scotland to put in a statutory requirement that the Department of Agriculture should be consulted because they are consulted as a matter of practice. However, in the experience of industry and operators in Scotland this is not always so, and it is not easy to see any reasonable or logical explanation why the same statutory duty should not be implied in Scotland as is being proposed for England. I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

I have to say that planning authorities in Scotland already consult the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland informally on planning case work affecting agricultural land, including restoration following mineral working, under well-established administrative arrangements. It would be anomalous to introduce a statutory requirement in relation only to minerals after-care conditions. There is no such anomaly in the provision for statutory consultation in England and Wales, since there is an existing statutory requirement, not paralleled in Scotland, for local planning authorities South of the border to consult the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about proposed development affecting agricultural land in certain cases. The Bill is consistent in that it recognises the different arrangements which are already in force on both sides of the border. I listened to what my noble friend said on this and he recognised this point. I wonder if, on reflection, he would feel that with this explanation he would wish not to press this amendment.

Lord Mottistone

I think the burden of my argument is that, whatever the machinery—and I appreciate it is all one because it is all in one Ministry—it does not always work. Perhaps the message could go from this House to those in Scotland who have to deal with these matters to take care that in the future they do get together. In hopes that this message will go out north of the border, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 73 to 76 not moved.]

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 77: Page 25, line 23, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 25 and insert (", if they are satisfied that the condition has been complied with, shall issue a certificate to that effect.").

The noble Lord said: This is the Scottish equivalent of Government Amendment No. 51. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 79: Page 25, line 29, leave out ("on") and insert ("in, on or under").

The noble Lord said: This is the Scottish equivalent of my noble friend's earlier amendment to Clause 5. Again, I think Government Amendment No. 81 provides a better solution to the problem.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 81: Page 25, line 30, leave out from ("a") to ("by") in line 33 and insert ("contract made between him and the person who last carried out such operations, to recover expenses reasonably incurred").

The noble Lord said: This is the Scottish equivalent of Government Amendment No. 55. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 82 not moved.]

Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 [Duration of planning permission]:

The Chairman of Committees

I have to point out that if Amendment No. 83 is agreed I cannot call Amendment No. 84.

8.46 p.m.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 83: Page 7, leave out lines 4 to 14.

The noble Lord said: The subsection which this amendment seeks to delete is retrospective legislation. I think your Lordships on all sides of the Committee will agree that retrospective legislation is something that we do not like here and that it needs to be avoided where possible. The subsection effectively reduces, without compensation, the assets of any operator expecting to continue operations for more than 60 years, and though that will be a relatively rare case it is something to which I made reference at Second Reading, in column 512; I think it is necessary at the least for the Government to give very careful consideration to whether it is what one might call a fair piece of legislation, a reasonable piece of legislation. If they do not go along with me and remove the subsection altogether, perhaps they could see their way to amending it in order to remove the retrospective element within it. I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

I entirely accept that this provision is retrospective, but in the circumstances I do not consider that unreasonable. In the interests of proper planning minerals permissions cannot have an indefinite life or final restoration may never be achieved. There has been pressure for a much shorter period and we have had to try to strike a balance. I consider that 60 years is fairer to mineral operators. It is one of these parts of this Bill where one tries to strike a balance in what is the right period of time. I think this is a fair period, and that is why we are inclined to stick to the point on this issue.

Baroness Birk

I think probably it would be convenient to the Committee if in discussing this amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I also spoke to my amendment which follows, to reduce 60 years to 30 years. The Minister has dealt with the question of retrospection, but nowadays planning permission for mineral working specifies the time by which such working must stop. It was not so in the past. This is why some existing sites where no such conditions were imposed may have operated for many decades. One cannot go on indefinitely without the local authority having any control whatever unless it is forced also to pay massive compensation. This clause tackles this problem by providing that in these circumstances the workings will from the passing of the Bill, have a future life of 60 years.

Once again I find this going back, trying to have a completely eternal life for this situation, is I am afraid symptomatic of the CBI's whole approach to this whole Bill. It has been difficult enough for many communities to live with such workings for as long as they have. Then to be told that there is no end in sight I think is totally unreasonable and unacceptable. I think it is unfortunate that the clause as it is drafted gives such workings a further automatic life of 60 years, and this is why I have an amendment down to cut 60 years to 30 years.

Thirty years can be quite a long time to live with existing workings. Sixty years is a lifetime; say these workings have been there 30 or 40 years already, this brings it up to a century. Obviously there may be some occasions where after 30 years substantial deposits remain, and, while this will not often be the case operators would still be able to make fresh applications for planning permissions. These would undoubtedly be considered responsibly by local authorities, because again the industry is needed in the area and the money that is being stimulated by the industry is needed in the economy.

In any case, the Secretary of State, through the planning appeals system and the call-in procedures, would be able to determine the final outcome of any such application. Although what the Minister has just said does not make me jump with joy about the answer that I shall probably receive to my proposal of trying to reduce the period to 30 years—and I take it from what he said that he is standing quite firm—I hope he will not go beyond 60 years and certainly would not consider having no limit at all.

Lord Boardman

Looking at the amendment of the noble Baroness which has not yet been moved but which would cut the period to 30 years, I should like to make the point which I tried to make earlier about the need for long-term planning and the vast investment that is involved. Indeed, 30 years may seem a long time ahead, but as it erodes and as further investment is required year after year, it will become a very difficult problem for those who try to operate it. I hope that my noble friend will not be enticed by the blandishments from across the table.

Viscount Ridley

I am sure that 60 years is right. I think it is an appalling suggestion that there should be the removal of even this, although in an ideal world it might be desirable to reduce it to 30 years. I do not think that it is tolerable. I hope that we can settle on 60 years. It seems a very adequate protection for the mineral operators and nothing stops them applying for another 60 years if that is what they want.

Lord Bellwin

I, too, should like to say that we must not lose sight of the fact that the operators, the industry, are playing a role here which is really extremely important. The intentions of the Bill, which are essentially following the way of the environmentalists—and rightly so—is one matter; but it would be quite wrong for us not to take up the point that my noble friend Lord Nugent made earlier in the proceedings when he stressed that the industry is performing a service which is absolutely vital to us. In all our deliberations we must not overlook that at all—I certainly do not do so.

Amendment No. 84 is another of the amendments where I hold a middle position between my noble friend Lord Mottistone and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I believe that some limit needs to be imposed on the life of existing mineral workings, but 30 years is too short a period. I recognise that some people who live near mineral workings are concerned about their environmental effects and would like to see the working brought to an end as quickly as possible. As against that, the nation has a need for minerals and mineral working is often a long-term operation. I certainly consider that it would be unreasonable to impose a 30-year time limit on existing workings and that the 60 years recommended by Stevens, and included in the Bill, is about right. It does not, perhaps, entirely please my noble friend Lord Mottistone; it certainly is not pleasing—for opposite reasons—to the noble Baroness, but I think, as a balance, that it is about right and that is what we would like to stick to.

Lord Mottistone

I am delighted to hear my noble friend point out the great importance to the country of this industry. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in drawing attention to her amendment which would reduce the period to 30 years, reminds me again of the Second Reading debate in which I found myself saying to her that her interests as regards industry were not as strong as she spoke of them, because everything good that she says about industry she completely negates by the proposals she then makes, like reducing the period to 30 years.

I see my noble friend's difficulty in striking the balance. I hope that we shall not find too much further movement away from the true understanding of the long-term needs of the mining industry as we progress with the Bill and at this stage I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 83.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Birk had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 84: Page 7, line 13, leave out ("sixty") and insert ("thirty").

The noble Baroness said: In view of what the Minister has said I shall not pursue this amendment. However, I should like to say that I only wish that the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for the environment was as great as my concern for industry.

Clause 6 agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 not moved.]

Clause 22 agreed to.

Clause 7 [Orders revoking or modifying planning permission):

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 87: Page 7, line 28, leave out subsection (7).

The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to delete subsection (7) of Section 45 in this clause. This subsection is now unnecessary as a result of Amendment No. 38 which I moved earlier, which has redrafted Clause 5 so that the after-care period is appropriately defined for Section 45 orders as well as for new permissions. My next amendment will apply these new provisions of Clause 5 to orders made under Section 45 by virtue of this clause. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

8.55 p.m.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 88: Page 7, line 31, leave out ("(3) and (4) and (6)") and insert ("(2B)").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 88. As with the previous amendment, this one is purely consequential on earlier amendments which I have moved—in this case Nos. 37 and 38. It merely applies the relevant provisions of Clause 5 to orders made under Section 45 by virtue of Clause 7 in this Bill.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 23 [Orders modifying planning permission]:

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 89: Page 27, line 10, leave out subsection (7).

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 89. This is a drafting amendment. It is the Scottish equivalent of Government Amendment No. 87.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 90: Page 27, line 13, leave out ("(3) and (4) and (6)") and insert ("(2B)").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 90. This, too, is a drafting amendment. It is the Scottish equivalent of Government Amendment No. 88.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 [Discontinuance of use]:

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 91: Page 8, leave out lines 31 to 33.

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 91. This amendment seeks to delete subsection (1F) of Section 51 in this clause. This subsection is now unnecessary as a result of Amendment No. 38 which I moved earlier and which has provided a redraft of Clause 5 so that the after-care provision is appropriately defined for Section 51 orders as well as for new permissions. My next amendment will apply these new provisions of Clause 5 to orders made under Section 51 by virtue of this clause. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 92: Page 8, line 34, leave out ("(3), (4),") and insert ("(2B) to").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 92. As with the previous amendment, this one is purely consequential on earlier amendments which I have moved—in this case Amendments Nos. 37 and 38. It merely applies the relevant provisions of Clause 5 to orders made under Section 51 by virtue of Clause 8 in this Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 93 not moved.]

The Chairman of Committees

If Amendment No. 94 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 95.

[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 95: Page 9, line 13, leave out ("possible") and insert ("is reasonably practicable").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 95. The argument is as before. I do not know whether at this stage, and in this part of the Bill, the Government could accept this amendment.

Lord Bellwin

I thought that I had spoken to this amendment when I spoke earlier to Amendment No. 46. I clearly have not changed my position since then. I understand my noble friend's feelings. I commiserate with them, but I cannot go any further than I did previously.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 96:

Page 9, line 14, at end insert— ("(1K) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any lawful operation, whether the consent to that working be deemed or actual.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 96. This is a fairly significant amendment. The whole of Clause 8 is objectionable because, for the first time, it suggests that mineral extraction, which under general planning law is an operation and not a use of land, should nevertheless be treated as a use. This change of the law in only part of the field is likely to raise serious consequential problems of interpretation. The Government have been pressed to suggest any lawful operations which can now continue, which do not have either deemed or actual planning consent, and they have failed to suggest any. If that remains the position, the clause should be deleted.

On the other hand, one justification that has been produced is that it would be convenient where unlawful mining operations are being carried out but which the planning authority is prepared to permit to continue. This extension of Section 51 would allow that authority to impose suitable conditions, without the operator putting in a planning application. Although this appears to be an unsatisfactory and unnecessary power, which does not apply to any other building operations, if it has to be accepted, it is believed that the power should be limited to unlawful operations. Therefore, the significance of this is that the aim of the amendment is to restrict the application of Clause 8 to illegal operations only. I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

I understand that the purpose of this amendment is to dispense with the need to apply Section 51 to mineral workings and therefore rely on the power to revoke or modify a planning permission under Section 45. I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment which does not take account of all the reasons why we consider Section 51 should be extended to mineral working—for example, to deal with mineral working proceedings under GDO rights, unauthorised operations on which it is more sensible to impose conditions rather than take enforcement action, and other cases where an express planning permission does not exist or the mineral working has been completed.

I recognise that the industry is doubtful about the need to use Section 51 in this way, but I do not understand what disadvantage there is to it in the course we have adopted, or what advantage there is in its solution over ours. I cannot believe that the industry intends to suggest that there is no need, for example, to impose up to date environmental and restoration conditions as pre-1947 workings. The application of Section 51 to mineral working is a convenient way of ensuring that there is no inadvertent gap in the powers available to most planning authorities in this respect. I do not think that there is the need for the concern which my noble friend expresses. For that reason I cannot accept the amendment.

Lord Mottistone

Yes, I note what my noble friend has said and we will take it away and examine it. It sounds very convincing when heard like that, but I think that it needs reading. With that thought, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 8, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Mottistone

In view of the speech that my noble friend the Minister has just made, which really covers the main point of the object of the clause, I do not think that it is in the interests of the Committee that we should continue the debate. Therefore, I do not propose to speak further.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24 [Discontinuance of use]:

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 97: Page 28, leave out lines 7 to 9.

The noble Lord said: This is a consequential amendment. It is the Scottish equivalent of Government Amendment No. 91. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 98: Page 28, line 10, leave out ("(3), (4),") and insert ("(2B) to").

The noble Lord said: This, too, is a consequential amendment. It is the Scottish equivalent of Government Amendment No. 92. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]

The Chairman of Committees

I have to point out that if Amendment No. 100 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 101.

[Amendments Nos. 100 to 102 not moved.]

Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Denham

Although we probably have not got quite so far as we might have hoped, I think that we have made fairly good progress, and as the House has been rather under pressure this week, perhaps this might be a convenient moment to end without entering upon Clause 9, which I gather has quite a lot of it. I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.