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

HL Deb 16 February 1981 vol 417 cc487-548

3.6 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 again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

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

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]

Clause 9 [Orders prohibiting resumption of use and orders relating to suspension of use]:

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 103: Page 9, line 22, leave out ("two") and insert ("five").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 103 and, in doing so, I should perhaps express my gratitude to those noble Lords who also have amendments down to the Bill, that in the intervening time since the first day of this Committee stage, we do not seem to have added any amendments to the Bill, unlike many other noble Lords taking part in the Committee stages of other Bills!

As regards this amendment, I point out that changes in demand, such as in the present building slump, are a fact of life in the minerals industry. Obtaining minerals planning permissions is difficult, slow and expensive, and operators are understandably reluctant to let one lapse. If the industry is to operate efficiently and economically, operators must be able to draw what material is required from the most suitable sites—that is, suitable both technically and possibly geographically. That may mean leaving others unused for some time.

A two-year limit would force operators to operate every site to a significant extent within the two-year time limit and thus reduce their efficiency. The premature imposition of a prohibition order would involve restoration work which would have to be reversed if a new permission were given at a later date. There would also be an inevitable drop in the value of an operator's assets, and therefore in his ability to raise capital. I suggest that the Committee should think very hard before erecting still more obstacles the main effect of which will be to raise the administrative and operating costs of the industry with the consequence of raising the price of its products—products which I think your Lordships will all agree are essential to the country's economy. A period of five years is much more realistic in ensuring an orderly minerals development. I beg to move.

Baroness Birk

This clause is an extremely important clause in the Bill and one that we on this side of the Committee, and I personally, certainly support and would wish to see strengthened. It is no surprise that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in putting his own and the CBI view wishes to do exactly the opposite. Where working has stopped, local authorities will be able to go in if necessary and—and I emphasise this—subject to the Secretary of State's approval, they will be able to say that a site must be restored and that working cannot be resumed.

This power will not be used lightly; but if it is to be effective, local authorities must not have to wait around for five years, as is suggested by the noble Lord, until they can begin the process of getting a confirmed cessation order. The Stevens Committee, which, quite rightly, we have been quoting on all sides of the Committee during the passage of this Bill, recommended that the appropriate period would, in fact, be six months. The Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 1) Bill—which in many ways, fortunately, did not finally see the light of day—said that the period should be 12 months.

The Government have now moved yet again and have put forward the proposal that the period should be two years. I have no doubt that when the Minister replies he will say that further consultations took place and that they wanted to make a happier compromise. But I believe—and I do not speak just for myself and my colleagues—that we would all be in very strong opposition to any increase on two years. We cannot, as seems to be happening as we go through this Bill, contribute to an auction-like atmosphere.

I am concerned about the gradual move from the original recommendation of the Stevens Committee and would certainly wish to see this process of attrition ended and reversed, so that local authorities would have to wait only one year before beginning the cessation procedures. Although I know that the Minister will put forward the answer with his usual charm and sympathy, I very much hope that he will not accept the amendment that has just been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone.

Lord Bellwin

Once again we are back on this Bill and back to the balancing act that seems to be required as we go along. Of course, as the noble Baroness has just said, there are the points of view of those who would like the period to be less than two years. It is absolutely true that the Government have moved from the Stevens recommended six months to 12 months and then to two years, but this is because we have had consultations. It is an attempt to try to meet the genuine concern which the industry has, which I think is it proper that we should consider, while trying to achieve the environmental and other benefits.

As I say, it is a balancing act. I think that the two-year period is now about right. It should be emphasised that this is an absolute minimum before which a mineral planning authority cannot take action. In practice, I would imagine that it will often be longer and it may, indeed, be five years before something is done. But this refers to a minimum and I think that the two-year period is right. Therefore, if I do not satisfy the noble Baroness—and I certainly do not satisfy my noble friend—at least we have a balance which is not only fair to all but which, in practical terms, is the proper time. That is why I cannot help either my noble friend in accepting the amendment or, indeed, the noble Baroness.

Lord Mottistone

Perhaps I could ask my noble friend the Minister a small question. I am advised that a mineral planning authority wishing to take action sooner than the five-year period, or I suppose the two-year period, could do so via a modification or revocation order under the provisions of Section 45 of the earlier Act. The norm could be the five years, for which we plead. So there is a way, as I understand it, if a special situation arises, in which the mineral planning authority could take action in advance of the specified period. I fear that this may be rather a fast ball to bowl at my noble friend and I shall quite understand if he cannot answer it immediately, but if he can that would be very reassuring.

Lord Bellwin

Obviously I would want to look into the point which my noble friend has raised. That I undertake to do. But on the amendment I cannot help him.

Lord Mottistone

With that reassurance, and in the hope that perhaps my noble friend the Minister may be able to find confirmation of my suggestion and therefore later agreement to this, at this stage in the progress of the Bill I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.14 p.m.

Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 104: Page 9, line 22, leave out ("two years") and insert ("one year").

The noble Baroness said: I have really spoken to this amendment when I spoke to Amendment No. 103 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. At this stage I do not think that I want to withdraw it, so I should just like to move it. I shall not push it at the moment, and to save the Minister replying all over again, I shall leave the matter like that, which will give me a chance to think before we reach the Report stage. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment negatived.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 105: Page 9, line 23, leave out from ("out") to end of line 25 and insert ("to any substantial extent anywhere in, on or under the site of which the land forms part").

The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to make clear our intention that mineral working must have ceased throughout the whole site for a period of at least two years before a mineral planning authority can make a Section 51A order. This was always our intention and this amendment merely clarifies an ambiguity. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 106:

Page 9, line 25, at end insert— ("; and (c) the minerals have been substantially exhausted.").

The noble Lord said: Before mineral operations have begun on a site the deposit will have been assessed, appropriate arrangements made with the owner, and planning conditions established. The planning procedures alone for some projects have taken up to 10 years. Minerals can be worked only where they are found and when they are wanted. It seems senseless to abandon proven deposits before their exploitation is effectively complete. Conditions can be renewed if appropriate. I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

I am afraid that this amendment would destroy much of the purpose of prohibition orders. They are intended to cover precisely those circumstances where an operator has effectively abandoned a working before the reserves are substantially exhausted, and where, for that reason, restoration conditions have not become operative. The problem of the half-worked chalk pits in Thurrock is an example of what I have in mind.

Nor would I accept an argument that compensation ought to be paid for the remaining reserves if the operator has no real intention of reworking them. He has lost nothing if his right to recommence working without a fresh grant of planning permission is taken away. Again, I fear that I cannot help my noble friend with this amendment and I hope that, in the light of what I have said, he will perhaps be willing not to press it.

Baroness Birk

Once again I agree with the Minister on this. In addition to what he has said, I would only add that local authorities have neither the inclination nor the resources to try to secure unreasonable prohibition orders. Again, there is the protection of confirmation by the Secretary of State. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will accept the views expressed by the Minister and supported by this side of the Committee, and reject this amendment.

Lord Mottistone

Although in no way wishing to appear to be influenced by the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, I shall study with great care what my noble friend the Minister has said, some of which appeared to throw a slightly fresh light on the scene, and make a judgment as to whether to pursue this point at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 107: Page 9, line 29, after ("impose") insert (", in relation to the site,").

The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to make clear that any of the requirements (set out in Section 51A(2)) which can be imposed on a Section 51A order can relate to the whole site and not just part of the land. The amendment is consequential on the earlier amendments which make clear that mineral working must have ceased throughout the whole site for a period of at least two years before a mineral planning authority can make a Section 51A order prohibiting the resumption of mineral working without a fresh grant of planning permission. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

3.21 p.m.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 108: Page 9, line 33, after ("a") insert ("reasonable").

The noble Lord said: As I said earlier in the Committee stage, there is experience that some planning authorities are reasonable and sensible in the way in which they apply their powers with regard to planning in relation to mineral working, but some are not. Operators are fearful that the new powers that have been given to all planning authorities to require changes without compensation may result in some of them making unreasonable demands. As it stands, the power implied in line 40, which refers to, "any injury and amenity", is extremely wide. Therefore, we seek to strengthen this particular clause by adding the word "reasonable" in the appropriate place. This justification also applies to Amendment No. 110, which I should like to take with this one. I beg to move.

Baroness Birk

This is rather different from the involved discussion we had last time on the difference between "possible", "practicable", and "reasonable". I see what the noble Lord is trying to do. What worries me is that he is creating a weakening instrument and laying the whole thing open to interminable lawyer's arguments. It is going to be difficult to define what is a reasonable requirement. This could go on for ages and ages. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has that particular cunning point in mind, for which I do not blame him. He is trying his best, so far as I can see, to wreck a great part of this Bill.

I should have thought that this was something that would have received a considerable amount of consideration when this was being drafted, because it is just the sort of point that draftsmen and lawyers love to jump upon. If it is read all together, "a requirement" appears quite sufficient. If it were a completely outrageous requirement then this would be taken up anyhow. I do not like the word "reasonable" inserted where it is not absolutely necessary because of the doubt, the delay and the argument that it provokes. It is for that simple reason alone that I do not think I would be very happy to see it added to the Bill.

Lord Gisborough

May I briefly support this amendment? Planning decisions should be taken for planning reasons, but all who have been in local government know that there are occasions when planning decisions are taken for blatently political reasons. This can happen on either side: I am not blaming one party or the other. It may be that a planning decision has been taken against the other party's wishes, and the other party may wish to close a mine that has been open. Therefore, the addition of the word "reasonable" would give some protection against political planning decisions being taken in the middle of the operation of a mine.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

May I ask my noble friend one question on this? If the word "reasonable" be not inserted, what, in his view, would be the position were what most people would regard as an unreasonable requirement imposed?

Lord Bellwin

The question that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asks is really at the nub of what this amendment and the intention in the Bill are all about. I would submit that the amendment is not necessary to achieve what my noble friend who has moved it seeks to do. An order under this section cannot take effect unless it is confirmed by the Secretary of State either with or without modifications. Notice of the moving of the order must be served on the person who last carried out mineral operations, upon the owner and occupier of the land and upon those whom the mineral planning authority consider will be affected by the order. Anyone upon whom notice is served has 28 days within which to request the Secretary of State for an opportunity to be heard, and this must be afforded to the objector.

I suggest that the requirements of the amendment are indeed clearly implied, and for this reason it is not necessary at all that we should put this amendment into the Bill. I hope that that makes the point clear. If we were to become involved in adding the word "reasonable", not only would it be unnecessary, but it could lead to some of the problems of interpretation that the noble Baroness mentioned. I suppose that "unreasonable" could likewise then become a question of debate and argument for the appropriate adjudicating authority at that moment in time to decide. As I have given an assurance that, from the way we understand and interpret the Bill it is not necessary, perhaps my noble friend will not feel any need to take it further.

Lord Hunt

I confess to feeling a little unhappy about the addition suggested by the noble Lord of "reasonable", because it is such an imprecise and an undefined adjective. More importantly, I rise to express surprise at the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, that in making a requirement a local authority would do so on political grounds. I should have said that the whole purpose and burden of this area of the Bill is that the local authority might well make a requirement, but the requirement would be based on the desirable need to restore the landscape.

Lord Mottistone

With regard to the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I should have thought that he would agree that this word "reasonable" occurs frequently in legislation in order to provide just that bit of guidance for people involved in taking action under whatever Act of Parliament is concerned, so that they think twice before they behave unreasonably. This is the sole point of what I originally saw as just a drafting amendment to improve the Bill, rather than a great point of issue which everybody has to join in and talk about. I think it would improve the Bill.

So far as my noble friend the Minister is concerned in his very understandable explanation of the later parts of this clause which give all sorts of powers for the Secretary of State and for people to appeal and that sort of thing, what one wants to try to avoid are all the time-wasting and costs which that sort of thing involves. It is fine to have appeal to the Secretary of State written in, but we all know that that involves a lot of costs to the people who have to do it: costs not only in money but in time, which, in business terms, though perhaps not in administrative terms, are an inefficiency and an added expense.

Looking at it from a businesslike point of view, one wants to avoid that sort of thing. All we are seeking to do is to put in that extra bit of restraint for those who might be unreasonable, so that they think twice and make sure that what they are proposing is reasonable. That is all that is there. If that is not good enough for my noble friend it is not a point of desperate importance for all the reasons which have been advanced, but I should have thought that the Bill would be improved with this rather than the other way round.

Baroness Birk

The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said people would think first if they thought that what they were doing was unreasonable Can the noble Lord give me an example of anybody who has put forward anything and has then admitted it was unreasonable? The upshot of what he was saying was that, if somebody was going to put forward something that was unreasonable, that person would be likely to say, "It is unreasonable, so I will not put it forward", if the word, "reasonable", was included; but in my view things do not work that way.

Lord Bellwin

It might help if I were to make two observations. First, if the main intention of putting in the word, "reasonable", is to make people pause and think in the way my noble friend suggested, then I submit that the fact of there being an opportunity to take the matter further—in certain circumstances to the Secretary of State—is of itself an equal restraining factor on those who might be inclined to make decisions in an arbitrary way, and one is really as good as the other. Secondly, it might help my noble friend to know that the word "reasonable" does not appear in Section 30 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 relating to planning conditions. I accept that my noble friend's intention here is not to do anything sinister but merely to strike a cautionary note to those who are deciding these matters. If that is so, then what we have in the Bill achieves that purpose. I do not think he need have any fears on that score and perhaps he will agree not to press the amendment.

Lord Davies of Leek

It might be interesting in this context to consider the definition of "requirement ". One can acquire, inquire and require but none of them will lead to any action without something imperative behind it. There is nothing imperative about a requirement, is there? I may be wrong. An order may be made asking for everything to be put back in order, but suppose a hole in the ground had been made for, say, the extraction of copper. How strong is a requirement in that context? There have been examples where timber has been replanted and 50 years later kiddies have fallen down a hole that has been left because nobody has looked into the matter afterwards. I do not think the word, "requirement", is strong enough, whatever adjective is put before it. I may be wrong and I make the point just for the record because later on there may be rows about all this.

Lord Bellwin

A requirement, depending on what it is, can be very onerous indeed. It is the nature of the requirement that is the arbitor in deciding how significant it is, but I feel we are getting rather into semantics now. I still think my noble friend's fears are unfounded in that we cover the point which concerns him.

Lord Mottistone

We have spent a great deal of time on this. I would only say in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that of course people do not admit to something being unreasonable when they have already taken action. It is what goes on before the stage of taking the action when, while gazing at what is guiding you, to wit the Act, maybe you modify your actions if you feel you will exceed the powers given to you under the Act; and it was along those lines that I made the point to which she took exception. However, having said all that and the subject having been well aired, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.34 p.m.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 109: Page 9, line 36, leave out ("in, on or under the land").

The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks the deletion of the words "in, on or under the land". These words are considered unnecessary and could lead to confusion. The earlier Government amendment makes clear that working throughout a whole site and not merely on some of the land must have ceased for a period of at least two years before a mineral planning authority can make a Section 51A order. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 110 not moved.]

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 111: Page 9, line 39, leave out ("to remove or alleviate") and insert (", within such period as may be so specified, for the purpose of removing or alleviating").

The noble Lord said: This amendment required a planning authority when imposing a requirement on a Section 51 A order that steps should be taken to remove or alleviate any injury to amenity, also to specify the time period within which such steps should be taken. This was always the intention and the amendment merely makes this explicit.

Baroness Birk

I support the amendment strongly because it represents an improvement, in that it does what is necessary in this part of the Bill by inserting a time limit.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 112: Page 9, line 42, leave out ("in, on or under the land").

The noble Lord said: This achieves the same purpose as Amendment No. 109. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 113: Page 10, line 5, leave out ("in relation to the land").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is, again, to remove any possibility of confusion. A Section 51A order can be made by a mineral planning authority only when mineral working throughout a whole site has ceased for a period of at least two years.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 114: Page 10, line 14, leave out ("land") and insert ("site").

The noble Lord said: The reference to a restoration condition previously imposed in relation to the land could be misleading and the amendment brings the wording in line with the rest of the clause. A Section 51A order can be made by a mineral planning authority only when mineral working throughout the whole site has ceased. An after-care condition can therefore be imposed if a restoration condition has been imposed in relation to the whole site.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 115: Page 10, line 16, leave out subsection (4).

The noble Lord said: This seeks the deletion of subsection (4) of Section 51A. This is consequential on earlier Government amendments which have re-drafted the related provisions in Clause 5.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 116: Page 10, line 19, leave out ("(3), (4),") and insert ("(2B) to").

The noble Lord said: This is consequential on earlier amendments to subsections (3) and (4) of Section 30A in Clause 5.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)

I have to point out that if Amendment No. 117 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 118.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 117: Page 10, leave out lines 30 to 43.

The noble Lord said: This proposes the deletion of subsection (7), which is substantially the same as Clause 5(8). The criticism of them both, which I made earlier, is that they are inoperable because of the uncertainty within them. When I moved Amendment No. 45, which related to the deletion of Clause 5(8), my noble friend Lord Bellwin undertook to study how the drafting of that subsection could be improved. I hope his study will also apply to the redrafting of this subsection and that the improvements will be tabled in good time for us to examine them before Report.

Lord Bellwin

As I said in relation to Amendments Nos. 45 and 94, the Government consider it essential to restore agricultural land once mineral working has ceased. However, I am conscious of the practical difficulties arising from the current drafting and we are studying how this might be improved. I am obliged to my noble friend for bringing this matter forward and I assure him that we are looking carefully at it.

Lord Mottistone

With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.40 p.m.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 118: Page 10, line 42, leave out ("possible") and insert ("practicable").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is similar to an earlier amendment, No. 46, about which we had some discussion. I do not propose to re-enter the discussion, but when responding to Amendment No. 46 my noble friend the Minister undertook to consider the point made, and I hope that that applies equally to this amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

As I said in relation to the earlier amendment, I accept the principle behind this amendment, and I gladly confirm that, in consultation with colleagues, we shall consider how best to meet it.

Lord Mottistone

In the light of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 119: Page 11, line 8, leave out from ("on") to ("person") in line 11 and insert ("any").

The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to delete the requirement to notify persons who last carried out mineral working on land which is the subject of a Section 51A order when the order is being submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation. I understand that in certain areas, for example in Cornwall, it may be extremely difficult, or impossible, to ascertain the persons who last carried out mineral working on the land, particularly where the mineral working has ceased for some time. On reflection, I consider that adequate safeguards are already provided by the requirement stated elsewhere in the provision for the mineral planning authority to notify any person who in its opinion will be affected by the order. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 120:

Page 11, line 22, at end insert— ("(9A) If it appears to the Secretary of State that an order under this section would not be appropriate he may make a suspension order.").

The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. We believe it to be important that the Secretary of State should have the power which the amendment seeks to underpin, and I should be interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say about the power. I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

I have much sympathy with the intention behind the amendment. Unfortunately, however, it seems quite clear that it would not be sensible for the Secretary of State to substitute a suspension order for a prohibition order, as suggested. A prohibition order is intended to deal with permanent closure, and any new conditions imposed are likely to relate to restoration. A suspension order relates to a temporary situation and the conditions required are to ensure the tidying-up of the site.

Because these requirements are quite different, the best course is for the Secretary of State to indicate in suitable cases where he is not confirming a prohibition order, that consideration should be given to the making of a suspension order and leave the mineral planning authority to decide in the first instance what should be the contents of the suspension order. I hope that in the light of that clarification my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Birk

I very much hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment. While I feel that on the face of it this proposal has some merit and would seem to be acceptable, from what the Minister has said—and it is my thinking, too—there are very severe objections. With regard to the two proposals put forward, I should like to emphasise that it could be reasonable to permit a local authority to serve notice of a suspension order at the same time, so that both prohibition and suspension orders could be considered. Alternatively, there would be merit in allowing the Minister to rule that working had ceased within the meaning of the clause, and then ruling subsequently on the specific conditions imposed as a consequence of the suspension order, on the order itself. One of the great advantages of that would be that it would cut out further delay in deciding whether working had ceased. I hope that in view of what the Minister has now said, it will be possible to come back on Report with something along the lines of this compromise proposal.

Lord Mottistone

I should very much like to have time to read what the noble Baroness has said before I make a comment on it. However, I am reassured by what my noble friend the Minister has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 121:

Page 11, line 27, at end insert— ("(10A) If the Secretary of State refuses to confirm an order under this section, at least five years shall elapse after the date of such refusal before the minerals planning authority may submit a further application in respect of substantially the same land.").

The noble Lord said: I believe that an operator should not be subject to repeated attempts by a planning authority to remove, in effect, one of the operator's options in arranging his work. The Secretary of State may award costs against an authority making an unreasonable application, but such sanction is unwieldy and does not improve relations between planners and operators. The proposed amendment would avoid unnecessary trouble all round. I beg to move.

Baroness Birk

This amendment contains the same proposal in regard to suspension orders as does Amendment No. 132. Frankly speaking, I consider that these are wrecking amendments which introduce unnecessary and quite unreasonable delay—and I believe that "unreasonable" is the correct word in this context—into the procedures introduced by the Bill. Many things change in five years, in particular in shallow working, and in those rare circumstances where local authorities wish to serve a prohibition order—that is, subject to the safeguard of ministerial approval—they certainly should be enabled to do so. I hope that the Minister will take the same line in this regard.

Lord Bellwin

It really is very difficult for me agreeing all the time with the noble Baroness, though I suspect we do not agree for the same reasons. I think it perfectly proper that my noble friend should bring forward this and any other amendments he thinks necessary to try to ensure adequate protection, where it is necessary. However, I do not wish to accept this amendment because circumstances can change at any time, and when they do change the authority should be able to respond if it feels the need to do so. The further order will still require confirmation, and, as my noble friend said, if the authority has acted unreasonably, costs may be awarded against it. I should have thought that that was an adequate protection. It is right that there should be protection, and I feel that that is a good protection. I hope that my noble friend will feel the same about the matter if he considers it a little more carefully.

Lord Mottistone

At first sight the remarks of my noble friend seem to be satisfactory, though I shall reserve the right to examine them with a view possibly to coming back with a proposal at the next stage, In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 122: Page 11, line 29, after ("any") insert ("existing").

The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment intended to draw an assurance that a prohibition order does not make it impossible for a mineral planning authority later to give consents for mineral operations at the site concerned. I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

We propose to deal with this point in a somewhat different way. One of my amendments to Clause 9 is intended to meet the point, and in the circumstances perhaps my noble friend will not wish to press this amendment.

Lord Mottistone

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 123: Page 11, line 30, at end insert ("but without prejudice to the power of the mineral planning authority, on revoking the order to make a further grant of planning permission for development consisting of the winning and working of minerals").

The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to make clear that although a Section 51A order negates any existing planning permission for mineral working in relation to the site, it does not preclude a mineral planning authority from revoking the order at some future date and granting a new permission for mineral working following the submission of a fresh planning application. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

3.50 p.m.

Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 124: Page 11, line 36, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("six").

The noble Baroness said: This is similar to the amendment I moved earlier, but is for a different purpose. In essence the arguments are the same, however, so I shall move it briefly. The previous amendment was to reduce the two-year threshold to one year on cessation orders. Again, I must repeat that both the Stevens Committee and the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 1) Bill support the idea of a six-month period. It now appears, for no very clear reason, that the Government are going for a 12-month delay; and, again, not being content with one concession, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and the CBI are trying, further, to do something which I can only say will emasculate the provisions of this Bill by moving an amendment to extend the period to two years.

I would point out that the Stevens Committee, when coming to its conclusion, in fact took evidence and consulted not just with industry but with all the environmental interests as well; and I think that every now and then I should say that I am certainly not looking at this Bill in a totally blind way from the environmental point of view, but am very conscious of the need to get the right balance between industry and the environment. I think the balance that was reached by both the Stevens Committee and also the No. 1 Bill is a better focal point of balance than what is now in the Bill, and I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

This is really going over the same points as I made before. It is a question of striking a balance between two opposing points of view and yet getting that which is right in any case. We think that what we have in the Bill now is right, and therefore I cannot accept this amendment.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

We would agree with the Minister on this. I think these two amendments—the one at present being considered and the next one to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone—are an extremely good example of the contrary influences on this Bill. A very great deal of work and negotiation of one kind or another has gone into the drafting of the Bill, not just in Government offices but in the whole consideration of the matter over the last few years. On the whole, an extremely sensible result has been arrived at, and I am sure the Government are right to resist the amendments on both sides.

Lord Mottistone

It might be to the convenience of the Committee if I speak to my amendment, No. 125, because it is so wrapped up with this one, at the same time. As already explained in moving Amendment No. 103, the vagaries of demand and of the quality of deposits being worked may result in an operator suspending work on a particular deposit for considerable periods. He cannot predict when the relevant demand may resume, and should not be put prematurely to the expense of taking additional steps to protect the environment. The existing planning condition should be adequate.

I noted the point that the noble Baroness made, and it is a matter of balance. What concerns me in a lot of the arguments, and indeed in some of the points that are put forward by my noble friend the Minister in seeking to reach this balance, is that there is also the problem of the efficient and businesslike conduct of its affairs by a company that is subject to the ordinary market conditions in which it has to operate. It is really the underlying theme behind all my amendments that the balance needs to take that into account to a greater extent than, as a whole, the Bill does at the moment. It does not need to do it as strongly as might have been the case if, over many years, the Government had not sought to strike the balance and discuss at great length with all parties involved, and had not come up with what one might call a 90 per cent. right Bill.

So we are arguing only about the 10 per cent.; but it is terribly important to realise that in this mineral world, with very long lead times for the exploitation of the material, they must have some of the weight in the balance given to them for difficulties which are not understood at all by those who are interested in the environment. This is the problem. On the one side, mineral operators, the members of the companies that exploit the minerals, are people who themselves are humans. They have their houses, their wives and their families, just like everybody else, and they like beautiful scenery and want beautiful scenery whenever they can have it; and so they understand the problems of people who are trying to promote a greater care of the environment. That is why the industry is supporting this Bill, and why it supported the Stevens Report.

But the other side—that is, in particular, the people who are dedicated environmentalists, and to a certain extent officials both in local government and in central Government, who are not accustomed to having to make their judgments in response to what the market forces force upon them—are people who perhaps do not understand fully the arguments which are being put by the industry. That is not only why there are put forward these amendments, but why I am seeking to press the Government to give that extra bit of thought to making allowances for the sort of things which affect the industry and which other people do not understand.

I have endeavoured to say this in my replies, and I am taking the opportunity at this stage to press it upon the Government that when they come to read what has been said in this debate they should look very carefully, in some of these key amendments—and this is one of them—at precisely what is being advanced and think, "Now, those people are not fools; they are advancing something for a good purpose. Why are they advancing it?" The fact that two years could make quite a difference over one year, or five years could make quite a difference over two years, must not be too readily brushed aside. The arguments are all there if you look for them; and I trust that my noble friend the Minister, when he comes to look at these amendments, will give due regard to them and in that way will be more ready to accept amendments, perhaps of a similar sort, which may be advanced at the Report stage of the Bill.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

Perhaps I should declare an interest, as chairman of a company that conducts extractive processes to obtain its raw materials; but having done so I should like to put this point to my noble friend. Where one is concerned with the length of period when work must have ceased for one of these orders to be made, it is surely reasonable to take into account the possibility of temporary adverse economic conditions being the cause of that suspension of activity. It is impossible at the present moment, when one looks at the number of industries in this country, not to have in mind that there come periods, hopefully short, in which it makes sense to suspend your operations; in which simply the piling up of stocks, given also the high interest rates, is economically unsound and the sensible thing is therefore to halt your operations.

It is a matter very much, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone said, of judgment: what is the right period that you should select, with due deference to the environmental interests that take the other view. But I am bound to say, looking at the economic history of this country over the last 30 years, that it looks as if a period of a year for such a suspension might be on the narrow side, and that real harm might be done by having so short a limit. I do not know what my noble friend will do at this stage, but as a member of a Government which must be desperately concerned with the well being of British industry at this moment I hope that he and his colleagues will reflect just a little as to whether they may not inadvertently do harm by insisting on what looks like a nice tidy figure halfway between the noble Baroness and my noble friend, and whether, if they do so insist, they are not going to risk doing some damage to industry. If ever there were a time in this country's history in which the Government of the day should give concern to the needs of industry, it is surely today.

4 p.m.

Baroness Birk

I was not going to come in again on this, but I cannot let go by what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone said. One would think from what he said that the only people with a concern for the environment is the CBI. Perhaps they should change their name from CBI to environmentalists. I am sorry to say this, but it is absolute nonsense. As the Minister has said more than once, as we all know, consultations have taken place—industry has had its say and environment has had its say—to get the balance right. I think that it is grossly unfair and quite untrue to give the impression that the whole balance has gone over to the side of the environmentalists. When anything has been put which is rather more on the environmental side, it has always been brought back to try to get the balance.

I understand and appreciate the point of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, very well. In fact, if you read the Bill it says: Where it appears to the mineral planning authority … that for a period of 12 months no such development has been carried out …"— In my reading that does not leave a completely rigid mandatory duty on the mineral authority. In the case cited by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, if, because of a recession, because of a difficult time, they have to stop for a few months and say, "We will be able to start this very soon ", it seems to me that the mineral authority would certainly go along with them. Any area is desperate to get employment in the area, to get more money coming into the area, so that the area itself can do more for the community living there. I am afraid that I object strongly to this idea that only the CBI understand the right balance between the environment and industry, and that the rest of us are not looking at it at all. Every thinking person in this country today is well aware of the position we are in. Many of us feel that it is largely the fault of the present Government, but I will not go into this at this moment. Nevertheless, we are very conscious of this and do not want to do anything to wreck that.

Lord Boardman

May I also declare an interest and, based on the experience of that interest, voice my support for my noble friend Lord Mottistone? My reasons are similar to those of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. It is very often necessary in times of recession to decide upon concentrating one's production on certain quarries or plants or minerals. Indeed, 12 months' suspension of one in order to concentrate on others to get a more economic operation is a comparatively short period. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, I would say that, when she referred to a mineral planning authority taking note of these facts, the operations may be in a number of different areas under a number of different planning authorities, and it would not be one that may have an omnibus view over all the factors. I support my noble friend Lord Mottistone in this.

Lord Bellwin

When listening to my noble friend Lord Mottistone I did not think that he was implying that which was ascribed to him by the noble Baroness; that he was saying that the CBI was right on all these matters and that the environmentalists were wrong. I did not interpret what he said in that way. I thought the points made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter were very powerful points, indeed, It would be a very odd Government who were not concerned at any time—most of all at this time—as to anything that might have an adverse effect upon industry or any section of it. I am anxious about this amendment and about all the others of a like nature referring to the time that must be given to industry. In fact, during the negotiations, my information is that the CBI thought that 12 months was a reasonable period.

There is always the other point that I would have said, and now stress, that it must be remembered that orders will not automatically be made at the end of this period. I do not want to accept this amendment now, but I will undertake to think carefully and discuss again with my colleagues what has been said so that we can be sure that the time in the Bill now is the right one. But we will not be dogmatic about it. I cannot accept the amendment; I am sure that my noble friend, in these circumstances, will be glad to withdraw it. I do not promise that we will come back next time with something else; but we will talk and think about it, and see whether we ought to go with it.

Lord Mottistone

We are on amendment No. 124?

The Chairman of Committees

We are on Amendment No. 124.

Lord Mottistone

I brought in my Amendment No. 125 before we had finished with No. 124 in order to help things along.

Baroness Birk

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 125 not moved.]

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 126: Page 11, leave out lines 38 and 39 and insert ("to any substantial extent anywhere in, on or under the site of which the land forms part").

The noble Lord said: As with Section 51A orders, our intention that mineral workings throughout a whole site must have stopped for a period of at least 12 months before a mineral planning authority can make a suspension order is that which this amendment seeks to make clear. It is feared that the present drafting of the clause may lead to mineral planning authorities making a suspension order where working had stopped at one part of the site but was continuing elsewhere. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 127: Page 12, line 8, at end insert ("or").

The noble Lord said: I should like to take Amendments Nos. 128 and 129 with this one. Amendments Nos. 127 and 128 are paving amendments to Amendment 129. This seeks to leave out subsection (c). I think that subsection (c) adds nothing to subsections (a) and (b). It would appear to relate to land as yet unbroken for mineral operations, and, as referred to in earlier amendments, to import control of agriculture. We suggest that as it adds nothing, it should be deleted. Perhaps, in giving his reply, my noble friend could give examples of steps that might be required. I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

It seems to me that the point being made, that subsection (c) either adds nothing to what is covered by subsections (a) and (b) or that, if it does, such requirements are unreasonable, is not a point of view with which I could concur. The important point is that subsection (c) refers to the land while the preceding subsections both refer to the area in which the land is situated. Thus, for example, subsection (c) will permit a suspension order to impose a condition requiring the land to be kept drained during the period of suspension so that the soil quality is not irretrievably damaged. And again it will allow a condition requiring land which has yet to be worked to be kept free of weeds so that the soil's goodness is not lost and so that neighbouring farmers do not suffer undue nuisance. I hope that, on careful consideration of this aspect of it, my noble friend will agree that there is a real need for this provision and will not press his amendment.

Lord Mottistone

I will examine carefully what my noble friend has said. At first hearing, it sounds very reasonable, but I reserve the right to come back at a later stage. Meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 128 and 129 not moved.]

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 130: Page 12, line 31, leave out ("subsection (2)") and insert ("subsections (1A) and (2)").

The noble Lord said: This amendment I ask your Lordships to take with Amendment No. 131. Amendment No. 130 is a paving amendment to it. Subsection (9) of the new Section 51A of the Town and Country Planning Act will require an authority to give notice to interested parties of their proposals to submit a proposed order to the Secretary of State. If all have confirmed in writing that they have no objection to the proposed order, there seems little point in involving the Secretary of State and delaying the order until he has approved it. The amendment seeks that end. I beg to move.

Baroness Birk

On this occasion I should very much like to support the noble Lord. This amendment is not only possible; it is practicable and reasonable. It seems totally unnecessary for the Secretary of State to be involved when there is no opposition to a suspension order. If this amendment achieves its end—I cannot comment on its drafting—I shall certainly support it. I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister says on it.

Lord Bellwin

Such a streamlined procedure, in cases where there is agreement, appears to have merit. I shall gladly undertake to look into the implications to make sure that there are no other problems. I undertake to consider this amendment.

Lord Mottistone

With that splendid assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 131 not moved.]

4.11 p.m.

Lord Mottistone: moved Amendment No. 132:

Page 12, line 36, at end insert— ("(1B) The Secretary of State shall not confirm an order or supplementary order under this section within two years from the date of the last such order in respect of substantially the same land.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to add another subsection to this clause. An operator should not be subject to repeated attempts by a planning authority to impose steps for the protection of the environment which the Secretary of State has recently refused. I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

Suspension orders are intended as a temporary measure only to protect the environment while mineral working is suspended. There may well be occasions on which it would be sensible to up-date or remove some requirements in less than two years and I cannot therefore accept this amendment. If a suspension order or supplementary suspension order is not confirmed, for example, because of a procedural flaw, it would be wrong not to have the opportunity of making a new order for another two years. And even where an order has been confirmed, circumstances can change in less than two years which could necessitate amending the requirements of the suspension order. I hope that when my noble friend has considered this reply carefully he will agree with me. Perhaps he will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Mottistone

It is not a sufficient point about which to make a great issue, but this time I do not agree with my noble friend the Minister. I shall almost certainly return on this point later. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 133: Page 12, line 39, after ("order") insert ("and not requiring that any fresh step shall be taken for the protection of the environment").

The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to make clear that, although suspension orders will normally require to be confirmed by the Secretary of State, a supplementary suspension order which does no more than revoke a suspension order or previous supplementary suspension order—because, for example, working has recommenced—will not require confirmation. However, any supplementary suspension order which, in addition to revoking a previous order, also imposes additional steps which must be taken to protect the environment while working has temporarily stopped will still require confirmation. I think the amendment clarifies the position and I beg to move.

Lord Mottistone

I very much welcome this amendment and thank my noble friend the Minister for it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 134 not moved.]

Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 135: Page 13, line 10, at end insert ("within the meaning of section 1 of the Local Land Charges Act 1975").

The noble Lord said: The words "local land charge" are not defined in this Bill. They may be known to practising conveyancers but they should be defined by reference to the section of the Act which now governs the local land charges. The 1975 Act materially altered the law that formerly was set out in the Land Charges Acts 1975 and 1972. The term "local land charges" is not an adequate expression. I move this Amendment to improve the drafting. I beg to move.

Lord Mottistone

I should like to support my noble friend Lord Gisborough. His amendment is excellent and replaces the one that I did not move—No. 134—which is in default as compared with his.

Lord Bellwin

I am advised that this amendment moved by my noble friend is unnecessary. Section 1 of the Local Land Charges Act 1975 provides that where under other Acts orders are made local land charges the provisions of the 1975 Act shall apply. A local land charge is automatically a charge for the purposes of the Land Charges Act 1975. That is the position as I am clearly advised. If it should be that my noble friend can bring forth some evidence or reference that would seem to indicate to the contrary, I should be glad to look at it. However, I am told that the amendment is not necessary.

Lord Gisborough

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, which I am afraid is a little beyond me because I am not a lawyer. I should like to take the answer back and have it studied. On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 136 not moved.]

The Chairman of Committees

If Amendment No. 137 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 138.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 137:

Page 14, line 15, leave out from ("giving") to end of line 16 and insert ("the mineral planning authority notice of his intention to do so.

(1A) A notice under subsection (1) of this section shall specify the date on which the person giving the notice intends to recommence development consisting of the winning and working of minerals.").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment, and several subsequent ones, is to provide a simpler procedure for the revocation of suspension orders than the Bill, as drafted, provides. It is now considered that the 28 days' notice required in the present drafting of Clause 9 is unnecessary and that it will be sufficient for an operator merely to let the authority know on what day he intends to recommence working. A suspension order does not negate an operator's planning permission to win and work minerals, but the authority needs to know that an operator is recommencing working and not failing to comply with the terms of a suspension order. The authority will also need to make arrangements to revoke the order and amend the entry in the land charges register. I hope the Committee agrees that this makes the procedure simpler. I beg to move.

Lord Mottistone

I should very much like to support this amendment by my noble friend. It takes the place of my Amendments Nos. 138 and 140. We are grateful to him for it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 138 not moved.]

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 139:

Page 14, line 17, leave out subsection (2) and insert— ("(2) The mineral planning authority shall revoke the order if development consisting of the winning and working of minerals has re-commenced to a substantial extent in, on or under the land in relation to which the order is in effect.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on the earlier amendment, No. 137, to delete the necessity for 28 days' notice to a mineral planning authority of an operator's intention to recommence working. The present reference to a mineral planning authority being satisfied that working did not commence before the end of the 28 days' notice period is no longer considered to be necessary. The amendment provides that if a mineral planning authority are satisfied that mineral working has recommenced to a substantial extent, then they shall be required to evoke the order. I beg to move.

The Chairman of Committees

I have to point out that if this amendment is agreed I cannot call Amendment No. 140.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 140 not moved.]

The Chairman of Committees

If Amendment No. 141 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 142, 143, 144 and 145.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 141: Page 14, leave out from beginning of line 29 to end of line 11 on page 15.

The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to leave out new subsections (3) to (7). The need for the elaborate procedure which is spelt out in these subsections is not apparent. It is not clear, for example, what evil it is designed to prevent. The industry would have a remedy in the courts if a planning authority did not comply with the Act. Furthermore, we consider this to be a hypothetical case and I would suggest that this kind of provision is best not incorporated in the Bill at this stage, but the matter can be kept under review so that it can be produced at a later date when experience of the working of the Bill has been obtained. I beg to move.

Baroness Birk

I hope that this amendment will not be accepted. The local authority associations have come out very strongly in support of an appeals mechanism if local authorities refuse to revoke a suspension order. I believe that an appeals procedure is necessary because local authorities must have the power to refuse to revoke a suspension order on the grounds that substantial work has not recommenced. Clearly there could be circumstances where operators will, once the Secretary of State has confirmed a suspension order, merely notify the local authority that they intend to start work in order to avoid the cost of tidying up the site, as specified in the suspension order. This may not apply to many cases, but in a statute one has to look at every side of the problem. If in reality they may not be doing any substantial work, a local authority must have the right to monitor this and to refuse to revoke the order.

I would have thought this was something that the Government would accept, but if the noble Lord's amendment is passed there would be the rather extraordinary position in which some work might legally have begun again on the site while the local authority might have legally refused to revoke the suspension order, and it would really be the most colossal legislative and legal muddle. I do not think it could possibly work and I await with interest to hear what the noble Lord the Minister has to say.

Lord Bellwin

There is not a great deal to say on this. We are not clear in fact why the industry are opposed to these provisions, which we would have thought were very much in their interests. These subsections are designed to cover the circumstances where an operator claims to have restarted work but the mineral planning authority does not accept that work has genuinely restarted. I would have thought that an appeal to the Secretary of State seems a sensible way to resolve such a dispute, should it arise. I say again that I would have thought it would have been in the industry's interests to have it. All I can say is that if my noble friend would perhaps reconsider his amendment very carefully, and if he would like to talk to us as to why it is thought that is not the case, we should always be glad to listen to what he has to say. But at the moment we could not accept the amendment.

Lord Mottistone

Having listened with care to what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said, and also to the remarks of my noble friend the Minister, I consider there is quite a lot to be said for their respective arguments. At this stage, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.22 p.m.

Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 142: Page 14, line 29, leave out (" fail to ") and insert ("do not").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment is not quite as semantic as perhaps it looks. As currently drafted, the Bill appears to suggest that local authorities may not or will not revoke an order because of some administrative failing. That is expressed, probably inadvertently, through the words "fail to". I suppose there may be occasional administrative mistakes which could result in an order not being revoked, and clearly procedures have to be such as would deal with this; but in the vast majority of cases orders which are not revoked will be so treated because local authorities feel that work has not begun again on the site. Therefore I think it would be far better to insert the words "do not" and take out the words "fail to". That seems more precise and more in keeping with what the Bill is saying, as I understand it. I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

I entirely accept that this is an improvement in the drafting and I have no hesitation in accepting it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 143: Page 14, line 31, leave out first (" of ") and insert ("specified in").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential upon the Government's Amendment No. 137. The requirement for an operator to notify a mineral planning authority 28 days in advance of his intention to recommence mineral working is now considered unnecessary. This amendment, therefore, alters the period after which an operator may apply to the Secretary of State for the revocation of a suspension order, once mineral working has recommenced and the mineral planning authority does not revoke the order. It is intended that the period should run from the date which is specified in the notice to the mineral planning authority as being the day on which mineral working is to be recommenced. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Chairman of Committees

I have to inform your Lordships that if Amendment No. 144 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 145.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 144: Page 15, line 6, leave out ("he may") and insert ("to a substantial extent he shall").

The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to make clear that the Secretary of State will revoke a suspension order if the mineral planning authority does not do so, provided he is satisfied that mineral working has recommenced and it is not the case of an operator trying to avoid compliance with the terms of a suspension order by, for example, moving a few shovelfuls of material. I beg to move.

Lord Mottistone

I should like briefly to welcome this amendment on the part of my noble friend, which encompasses that which I would have moved in Amendment No. 145. I thank him very much.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 145 not moved.]

The Chairman of Committees

I have to inform the Committee that Amendment No. 146 has been wrongly marshalled and should appear as Amendment No. 187A.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Sandford moved Amendment No. 147:

After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:

("Enforcement and stop notices

. The following words shall be added at the end of sections 87 (enforcement notices) and 90 (Stop notices) of that Act— References to the local planning authority in this section are to be construed in relation to development consisting of the winning and working of minerals as references to the mineral planning authority.".").

The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Ridley is not here and has not provided me with a brief on this subject, but it is clear from the amendment that he is concerned to make it plain that the "local planning authority" in this particular case is a reference to the county council, the mineral planning authority, and not the district council. I, for one, would welcome that clarification, if my noble friend does not think it is already clear from the text. I beg to move.

Lord Mottistone

If I may intervene at this point, I should like to talk to Amendment No. 236, which contains another way of saying the same thing. Perhaps I could explain in rather greater detail than my noble friend Lord Sandford what we see as being the reasoning behind both amendments. I am open to accept either amendment, depending on which the Government might prefer. As I see it, the basic reasons are that the division of planning responsibilities between the county and district councils was, as the Government claim, clarified in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. Clause 2 of this Bill expressly defines "mineral planning authority" as the county authority. Thus counties are solely and clearly responsible for mineral planning and it follows that they should also be solely and clearly responsible for any consequential enforcement action. That is the intention behind my Amendment No. 236. Without this change, districts would in effect be entitled to undermine the county's authority and would engender uncertainty in the minerals industry.

Lord Bellwin

I am grateful to both my noble friends for what they have said on these amendments. I recognise the strong arguments which have been put forward by the ACC, the CBI and others that enforcement action should be limited to county councils in England and Wales. I have asked my officials to discuss this with the ADC, and if agreement can be reached I shall be happy to put down an appropriate amendment on Report stage.

Lord Mottistone

When we come to my amendment I shall not be moving it, being satisfied with the assurances given by my noble friend the Minister.

Lord Sandford

I am most grateful to my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25 [Orders prohibiting resumption of use and orders relating to suspension of use]:

[Amendments Nos. 148 and 149 not moved.]

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 150: Page 29, line 3, leave out from ("out") to end of line 4 and insert ("to any substantial extent anywhere in, on or under the site of which the land forms part").

The noble Lord said: This is the Scottish equivalent of Government Amendment No. 105. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 151 not moved.]

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 152: Page 29, line 8, after ("impose") insert (", in relation to the site,").

The noble Lord said: This is the Scottish equivalent of Government Amendment No. 107. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 153 not moved.]

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 154: Page 29, line 15, leave out ("in, on or under the land").

The noble Lord said: This amendment, and Amendment No. 157, are the Scottish equivalents of Government Amendments Nos. 109 and 112. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 155 not moved.]

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 156: Page 29, line 18, leave out ("to remove or alleviate") and insert (", within such time as may be so specified, for the purpose of removing or alleviating").

The noble Lord said: This is the Scottish equivalent of Government Amendment No. 111. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 157: Page 29, line 20, leave out ("in, on or under the land").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Drumalbyn)

It might be convenient if I put Amendments Nos. 158, 159, 159A and 159B together, if that is agreeable.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendments Nos. 158 to 159B en bloc:

Page 29, line 25, leave out ("in relation to the land")

Page 29, line 35, leave out ("land") and insert ("site")

Page 29, line 37, leave out subsection (4).

Page 29, line 40, leave out ("(3), (4),") and insert ("(2B) to").

The noble Lord said: These are Scottish equivalents of Government amendments which have already been moved. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 160 and 161 not moved.]

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 162: Page 30, line 28, leave out from (" on ") to (" person ") in line 31 and insert ("any").

The noble Lord said: This is the Scottish equivalent of Government Amendment No. 119. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 163 to 165 not moved.]

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 166: Page 31, line 3, at end insert ("but without prejudice to the power of the planning authority, on revoking the order, to make a further grant of planning permission for development consisting of the winning and working of minerals").

The noble Lord said: This is the Scottish equivalent of Government Amendment No. 123. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 167 and 168 not moved.]

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 169: Page 31, leave out lines 11 and 12 and insert ("to any substantial extent anywhere in, on or under the site of which the land forms part").

The noble Lord said: This is the Scottish equivalent of Government Amendment No. 126. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 170 to 172 not moved.]

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 173: Page 32, line 8, after ("order") insert ("and not requiring that any fresh step shall be taken for the protection of the environment").

The noble Lord said: This is the Scottish equivalent of Government Amendment No. 133. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 174 and 175 not moved.]

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 176: Page 33, line 37, leave out from (" giving ") to end of line 38 and insert ("the planning authority notice of his intention to do so. (1A) A notice under subsection (1) of this section shall specify the date on which the person giving the notice intends to recommence development consisting of the winning and working of minerals.").

The noble Lord said: This is the Scottish equivalent of Government Amendment No. 137. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 177 not moved.]

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 178:

Page 33, line 39, leave out subsection (2) and insert— ("(2) The planning authority shall revoke the order if development consisting of the winning and working of minerals has re-commenced to a substantial extent in, on or under the land in relation to which the order is in effect.").

The noble Lord said: This is the Scottish equivalent. of Government Amendment No. 139. I beg to move

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 179 and 180 not moved.]

Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 181: Page 34, line 7, leave out ("fail to") and insert ("do not").

The noble Baroness said: This is the same as the English amendment earlier, which was accepted by the Government. I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

This is the Scottish equivalent of Amendment No. 142, which was tabled by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I am happy to accept this amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 182: Page 34, line 9, leave out ("of the notice") and insert ("specified in the notice").

The noble Lord said: This is the Scottish equivalent of Government Amendment No. 143. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 183: Page 34, line 25, leave out ("he may") and insert ("to a substantial extent he shall").

The noble Lord said: This is the Scottish equivalent of Government Amendment No. 144. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 184 not moved.]

Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 [Enforcement of orders]:

4.39 p.m.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 185: Page 15, line 16, leave out ("uses") and insert ("develops").

The noble Lord said: For the convenience of the Committee, I suggest that we might take Nos. 186 and 187 with this amendment. These are all drafting amendments to improve the wording of the Bill, because mineral operators develop land rather than use it. I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

Clause 8 of the Bill provides that mineral working shall be a use of land for the purposes of Section 51 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. That section enables a local planning authority to require the discontinuance of a use of land and to impose conditions on the continuance of a use. Section 108, which is, among other things, concerned with the enforcement of orders made under Section 51, must be related to the use of land and not its development. With that clarification of what seems to have been not too clear, perhaps my noble friend will feel able to withdraw this amendment.

Lord Mottistone

I shall have pleasure in reading carefully my noble friend's remarks and will consider whether to take the matter further at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 186 and 187 not moved.]

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 187A: Page 15, line 31, after (" 51A(2) ") insert ("or (3)").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment which seeks to make it an offence to fail to comply with an after-care condition order, a Section 51A order, as is already the case in respect of other Section 51A order requirements. The amendment merely rectifies an accidental omission in the original drafting of the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 188: Page 16, line 22 at end insert ("save that where the surplus material includes any material other than material from any building structure plant or machinery the local authority shall give at least twenty-eight days notice of their intention to remove and sell that material to any person who they believe may have an interest in the land or minerals concerned.").

The noble Lord said: The Bill has used the procedure set out in the Public Health Act 1936 which is designed to deal with certain material where an authority demolish or alter an existing building. The procedure requires them to remove the material from the site and then give the owner three days within which to claim that material and remove it. Clearly, for building materials such a procedure could work quite effectively and has been in operation for many years. However, it is quite likely under these provisions that the material which would be surplus would be substantial quantities of minerals.

Clearly the procedure is unworkable because, first, it would be inappropriate to require a planning authority to remove the material from the site before they sell it. Secondly, it is certainly not always possible for the owner of the minerals, who may be separate from the occupier of the surface, to claim ownership. Indeed, he may well not know that any work is being carried out on the site. This amendment therefore is intended to provide a different procedure for non-building material which would not require the authority to have to remove the material from the site first but which does give adequate time for the owner of the minerals to indicate that he has an interest in them and to take appropriate steps. I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

With the leave of the Committee, I will speak to this amendment and its Scottish equivalent, Amendment No. 195. I must confess that until I heard my noble friend moving the amendment, I did not fully understand its purpose. Under the existing Town and Country Planning legislation, if steps required by a Section 51 order, requiring the removal or alteration of buildings, works, plant or machinery, are not taken, the authority in default may take the necessary action and to defray their expenses they are entitled to sell material they have taken within three days of its removal. Having deducted the cost of removal and sale, the balance must be paid to the owner of the material.

The Bill simply seeks to include within the existing power the new form of order under Sections 51A and B. In view of this explanation, I hope my noble friend will feel that his amendment is not necessary and that he will agree to withdraw it.

Lord Mottistone

In view of the fact that my noble friend the Minister was not clear as to the purpose of the amendment, perhaps he too will find when he reads my explanation that he has a slightly different view as to its desirability. Perhaps we could talk about the matter between this stage and the next to find out whether either of us would care to come forward with this amendment or something else in its place. Would my noble friend agree to that course of action?

Lord Bellwin

My noble friend knows that I am always happy to agree to look at anything which seems to be reasonable and which may require further clarification. Yes, of course; I shall be glad to do that.

Lord Mottistone

With that happy assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 agreed to.

4.46 p.m.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 189: After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:

("Extension of ancillary rights to include certain pipes

. For the purposes of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966 "ancillary rights" shall include a pipe for the conveyance of minerals provided the pipe was the subject of an easement which was in being at 1st August 1962; and in respect of such pipes the words "otherwise than by means of pipe" in paragraph (b) subsection (1) of section 2 of the Act shall cease to apply.").

The noble Lord said: This is a specialist amendment which perhaps I could explain at reasonable length to your Lordships in order to make it clear. The Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1923 provided that where any facility, right or privilege was required in order that minerals might be properly and conveniently worked and the person entitled to work the minerals was unduly hampered in obtaining such ancillary right, that person could apply to the then Board of Trade for the grant of the right. The Act covered renewals as well as original easements. The Pipelines Act 1962 repealed that provision in the 1923 Act and substituted a general power for obtaining from the Minister compulsory rights in respect of pipelines. It did not cater for renewals, arguably an oversight at that time. Any easements granted without a renewal provision are thus at risk, on renewal, to the attitudes of landowners and others with an interest in the land. Accordingly, a landholder can demand an extortionate sum for the renewal of easements because a procedure to obtain ancillary rights other than by agreement with him is lacking. The Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966 re-enacts the ancillary rights procedure of the 1923 Act but excludes pipeline conveyance of minerals, which is covered by the 1962 Act.

By removing the exclusion under the 1966 Act, the new clause is intended to reintroduce the power for a person involved in mineral operations to obtain an ancillary right for the renewal of easements, provided the easement existed when the 1962 Act received Royal Assent. Before that date, the mineral operator could not be expected to make provision for the renewal of easements, since he then had available a procedure under the 1923 Act for obtaining ancillary rights if agreement with the landholder could not be reached. It is believed that this amendment can suitably, and with order, be made to the Bill. I hope my noble friend will see that it is a reasonable point and that he will be disposed to accept the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

I am happy to tell my noble friend that the Government accept the principle behind the amendment and recognise that it seeks to remedy one unintended consequence of earlier legislation. The lawyers are looking closely at how best this can be done. If my noble friend will agree to withdraw his amendment, I shall table a Government amendment before Report.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

I hesitate to intervene, but on this one point relating to pipeline easements may I thank the noble Lord very much.

Lord Mottistone

I thank my noble friend for his reply and have pleasure in withdrawing the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 190: After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:

("Assessment and reinstatement of former mineral workings

.—(1) The Secretary of State shall undertake a survey of all known former mineral workings to identify land so altered that it requires remedial action to improve its appearance or to bring it into an acceptable condition for use.

(2) The necessary remedial treatment of all sites identified under subsection (1) as needing remedial action shall be initiated by the Secretary of State within ten years of the date of Royal Assent of this Act.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the new clause standing in my name on the Marshalled List. This new clause is designed to initiate a programme of reclamation of past dereliction. I am speaking of sand and gravel areas with which I am particularly familiar. As have already said on other occasions, this Bill is admirable, in its motives and indeed in its content, for dealing with new mineral working and ensuring, so far as is humanly possible, complete and perfect restoration in the future. But although it makes provision to catch up with existing working, and ensures that that will be adequately restored, it makes no provision for past dereliction. The areas of past dereliction are serious. In the South-East region alone (with which I am familiar) there are some 26 square miles of past dereliction. Over the country as a whole there must be several times that figure.

These sites include areas which have not been restored at all. They include areas where the old rotting machinery is still standing; there are huge pits in the ground, most of them full of water, looking very sad. On some sites partial restoration has been done and there is just a piece of totally infertile land which does not drain, and it is usually covered in water. These sites are useless and they really look like a battlefield. In Surrey, Essex, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire and Kent they really are awful. Of course, the operating companies have disappeared years ago, so one can attack nobody about them. There they stand, as monuments to our neglect to repair the countryside of this country.

Clearly the local authorities cannot be expected to shoulder the burden of the cost of restoration of these areas. It is bad enough for the local people to have to live with them, and, if anything, they should be entitled to a rebate on their rates instead of having to pay an addition on the rates for restoring these sites. It is perfectly obvious that when restoration is to be done the Government will have to pick up the tab. I am certainly not advocating that that should be done at this time of acute financial stringency—that would not be reasonable—but what I am asking for in this amendment is that the Government should initiate a survey throughout the country so that a register can be compiled of all such derelict areas, with a record of what restoration will be needed and to what future purpose the land may be put, and the complex problems of future ownership of many fragmented pieces—whether they can be joined up to make farms or for recreation, and so on. The survey would have to be tripartite, involving the Government, local authorities and industry, and it would take some time to do. The restoration problem would follow when the survey had been completed. I should think that would take a good 10 years to do—longer with the after-care period.

It is not so unreasonable to ask that this should be done, because in the assisted areas of the country there are 100 per cent. grants for restoring derelict areas, such as pitheads and so on, but of course in areas like the South-East no such grant is made and therefore there is no provision at present. But the fact is that some day this problem must be tackled. The Government have much to their credit, such as the fact that they have brought in this excellent Bill, and they really should take the opportunity to put into the Bill their intention of carrying out such a survey in preparation for some time in the future when Government funds can be available to set in operation a programme of this kind.

This restoration is not required just for amenity reasons, although, heaven knows!, they are strong enough. One of the major problems for local authorities in giving consent for opening up fresh sand and gravel workings is the growing and intensely hostile opposition of local feeling, much of it being conditioned by having to live with these appalling derelict areas. When we tell the local people that restoration today is different, that it is really well done, that the industry are doing a good job—and indeed they now are—the local people say, "That may be, but look at this!" The fact is that until we can show that a start is going to be made on this appalling heritage from the past, we shall not be able to convince local opinion that we really mean it and that restoration is really going to be first class. So quite a strong practical theme runs through this amendment as well, and I hope that my noble friend will be able to give me a sympathetic answer. I beg to move.

4.56 p.m.

Baroness Birk

I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, in the amendment that he has moved; but I think there are two different points involved, one in the first part of the amendment, in subsection (1) of the new clause and one in subsection (2). On the question of the review, I think it is absolutely essential that something of this sort should be written into the Bill. I know that there was a Government survey of 1974 but that was not done with this necessarily in mind. I think that today, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has so well put it, people are having to live with this historical dereliction, and that is something which, in 1981, we are far more conscious of, whether it is urban conservation, country conservation or environmental damage which has been caused in the line of industrial development.

On Second Reading I pointed out that one of the problems is that many of the operations were started before the 1947 planning Act and therefore no planning permission at all was needed for them at that time and there they still remain. It is absolutely essential to get the information. I agree with the noble Lord, and I have said so many times during the passage of the Bill, that this is an extremely enlightened, forward-looking Bill. We have not had anything on these lines so far as minerals are concerned for decades, and I do not think we can put anything off on the basis that it will take place in the near future, because we know that it will not. There is not time, and also it is not right to have separate pieces of legislation on the same subject. I think that the Bill must show some vision and looking-forward, even if everything cannot be done immediately. This is so also because we are all aware of the economic recession that we are in at the moment.

So the first thing to ask the Government to do is to accept the need for a survey and really pin it down to historical dereliction so that people know what it is about.

On subsection (2) of the noble Lord's amendment, while my sympathy is very much with him, I fear that to be quite realistic it will be difficult to get any Government to accept those terms—to put a time factor to within 10 years. I should like, in fact, to see this action taken even sooner than that. Remedial action should be initiated, but I am wondering whether one could be even more precise. Under the local government Act, I think for the first time the amount that was to be allowed to be spent on derelict land was going to be taken from capital expenditure, and if those controls could be removed so far as derelict land is concerned I think that would act as a great initiative for local authorities. There is a great danger there will be very little derelict land restoration if it has to compete for spending rights with other programmes which are of crucial human importance. If this could be done, it really is a very small drop in the ocean of public expenditure, and it is public expenditure which results in important capital assets. Not only is it something which is of visual importance—the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, referred to this when he was talking about the wives and children and families of the operators who also want to live in pleasant places—but these sites are also often found in holiday areas, in areas where there is a great deal of tourism. So we as a country have an economic interest, as well as a visual and environmental interest, in seeing that these areas are cleared up.

Then I think the Government should also give very serious consideration to the extension of the provision of 100 per cent. derelict land grants. Again, this is not going to amount to an enormous sum, but it will bring such an enormous improvement to the areas that it will more than pay for itself. It is like everything else; the longer these things are left, the more derelict, the more desperate and the more ugly they get, and the less people want to live and work around them. It seems to me that in this Bill we have nearly got there in so many areas, and to put this in would seem to me to give just that extra impetus that is needed and show the willingness of the Government, which I am certain is there, to look forward. After all, the Control of Pollution Act has a great many provisions which are being brought in at different times. We should all like to see many of the provisions come in more quickly, naturally; that is always the position. I think the ground should be set and there should be something quite specific put in this Bill. I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say in answer to this amendment.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

We on these Benches would also very much like to support this amendment. I do not think there is any need to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has said so ably. The first subsection will not cost much money and should be embarked on at once. With regard to the second subsection, I think the time-scale given—that the work should be initiated within 10 years—is absolutely right. It gets away from the point about spending money now, in the depression. I may point out that if the Government turn this down, for a period of up to 10 years, because of expense, it will be a vote of no confidence in their own plans for our economic recovery. I am sure they would not want to do that, and so I am sure they will accept this amendment.

Lord Hunt

I rise very briefly, and I thank the Minister for being patient while I add one more voice to the support given to the amendment. I have only just looked at it, but, at first flush and having listened to him and the other speakers, I would like to record my support. I think its inclusion in the Bill would fill an important gap that is there at present in this otherwise excellent Bill, in making provision for the making good of the sins of omission in the past. I think the value of the first part of this amendment can be that carrying out such a survey and having on record the things that need to be done, despite the economic difficulties in the immediate future, that record will provide a useful marker, a useful point of reference for members of the public who are affected by these various derelictions to take up with Parliament the need to make them good, as and when it is politically possible. I would like to give the amendment my support.

5.5 p.m.

Lord Bellwin

My noble friend Lord Nugent has been good enough, at Second Reading and subsequently, to give a full exposition as to why he feels that the course of action set out in this amendment is necessary. I would like to repay the courtesy by giving a fairly full reply. The first part of the amendment places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to undertake a survey of all known former mineral workings. I must confess to being somewhat concerned at the full implications of this. I wonder if indeed my noble friend wishes it to apply to all known former mineral workings. I wonder about the large areas of Cornwall in which tin mining took place, or fluorspar and lead in Derbyshire, or peat in East Anglia. Would this mean a full survey of the Norfolk Broads, which are known to be formed from old peat workings? I also note that it is central Government which is required to undertake the survey and carry out action after it, rather than the local authorities, which tends to go somewhat against what the Government have been trying since 1979 to achieve in this relationship.

To what extent is such a survey necessary? Since a full survey of derelict and despoiled land was carried out in 1974, which identified land affected by mineral workings, a number of local authorities and other organisations have carried out further survey work. I should like to pay tribute in particular to the work undertaken by the Standing Conference on London and South-East Regional Planning, of which my noble friend has been such a distinguished chairman. I understand that in 1976 the conference carried out its own survey of the extent of the restoration problem and that some further monitoring is carried out annually, at least so far as current workings are concerned, so that newly formed dereliction is at least known about in the South-East. Indeed, my noble friend did say in his opening remarks that it was the old dereliction that was really troubling him so much.

I do not want to give the impression, and indeed I am most anxious not to, that the Government are complacent. I want to say right now to my noble friend, and indeed to those who have supported him, that Ministers will shortly be giving very careful consideration both to the need for a new derelict land survey and also for survey work more directly connected with mineral workings and the provisions of this Bill. I would further want to say that what has been said today about this will have a bearing on these matters, and I do assure my noble friend that these views and comments, his in particular, will receive the most thorough and careful consideration. This is something which we take seriously, and I am hopeful that we can get certain moves in this direction. I cannot commit the Government today, but there is no doubt at all that the Government is very sympathetic to this.

Before I leave the question of surveys, I should like to add one thing: sometimes surveys get in the way of action, as I am sure my noble friend would agree. There are many cases where the extent of past dereliction is known and where what is now needed is site-by-site examination of how restoration might be tackled, involving both the planning authority and the operator. If this approach throws up more general problems, such as how to deal with sites where the operator is no longer in business, officials in my department will be ready to take part in discussions about how these might best be resolved. I think this aspect of doing something, as well as carrying out surveys, should appeal to my noble friend as a positive step.

The second part of the amendment relates to the results of the proposed survey and the action to be taken, upon it. Here the implications are worrying. Are we so certain, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, about the availability of resources in the next few years that we can commit ourselves now to starting work on every site within that period? Somehow I do not think that is my noble friend's intention. I shall gladly listen to what he has to say on that. I suspect that it is not his intention and I would be grateful if he would clarify it.

One could talk at great length about this matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, raised the question of derelict land grants. She knows that the Government have been very willing to give derelict land grants. Her concern is as to what will happen to local authorities who may receive capital allocations, which means that they will have to decide whether this is their priority in the context of the total amount of money which may have been made available to them. I know from my own work in this field that that is so and that it is a matter of some concern for such authorities. I would only say that, as with all the capital allocations, there is within them a great deal of scope for flexibility, not least from one authority to another. In many ways we went over this matter when we discussed the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill, so we need not do it again. Nevertheless, I think that the point which the noble Baroness has made is a fair one and I know that it is one that concerns some people. All that I would say to her about it today is that I hope, from what I have just said, that she recognises that I am aware of it as a matter of some concern.

I hope that I have said enough at least to explain why I am unable to accept today both parts of my noble friend's amendment. I hope that in particular the Committee will feel that at present, on reflection, the financial burden on industry and the taxpayers of this country is something that we should not take on as a commitment. Of course, we always hope that we shall be able to do more. The intentions are there because there is no quarrel at all as to the need which my noble friend has raised. I am entirely seized of that without any doubt at all.

I hope that, with the assurances I am able to give—that most careful consideration will be given to this new survey work, and that officials in my department are ready right now to be involved in discussions which seek to resolve such problems as may exist—my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment. It is one which has attracted a great deal of sympathy not only on other sides of the Committee, but on the part of the Government. I am grateful to him for bringing it forward in the way in which he has done.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

It would be ungracious of me not to thank my noble friend for his charming answer, but he will, of course, admit that there was not much substance in it. I am bound to say that it does not console me very much to know that Ministers are going to give further consideration to this point when there is no commitment of any kind that they will say anything or do anything in the future. I of course accept that this is not the time to make big new financial commitments, and that was why I put in a figure of 10 years, which seemed far enough off for it to be contemplated. But I personally would be prepared to settle for the first part of my new clause without the second—that is to say, that the Government should initiate the survey. I said in my speech that the kind of survey that I want is not just to record the areas of dereliction, but to record what treatment would be required site by site in order to restore the land and so be able to compute what would be the cost and how the land could be used afterwards. All that needs to be carefully thought out. I should have thought that my noble friend might have committed himself to that.

I know that the expert professionalism to make these surveys is scarce both in the Department of the Environment and indeed in the local authorities. However, if the Government undertook to make such a survey over the next few years it would not be done in a flash but it would be put on record that here was a national problem with which we must deal. It really is appalling. I would like to take my noble friend out one day, even in my own county of Surrey, and show him some of the devastated areas there. They really are dreadful. It is time that we made at least the beginnings of a plan to deal with the situation. That would mean that some day some Government would say, "Well, things are getting a bit easier now and we shall start a programme over the next 10 years to tackle this ". After all, what are we talking about? —perhaps a programme of £10 million or £20 million a year for 10 years or something of that order, which I should have thought would not have broken our backs although, of course, we cannot contemplate it at present.

So I would ask my noble friend to take this matter back again and talk with his right honourable friends in the Department of the Environment, in order that perhaps, on Report, if I put this amendment down again, he could give us something a little firmer than he has given today. As he knows, we all thank him for an excellent Bill. It is a very valuable measure, but with it we really want to see at least a preparation towards a recovery from the dereliction of the past. There is powerful support from the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and powerful support from the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and indeed from all round the Committee, asking that we should at least take the first trembling step in order to deal with the problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but in view of that support I ask my noble friend to see whether he could say something a little more forthcoming at the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 26 [Enforcement of orders]:

[Amendments Nos. 191 to 193 not moved.]

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 194: Page 35, line 12, after ("49A(2)") insert ("or (3)").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 194. This is the Scottish equivalent of Government Amendment No. 146.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 195 not moved.]

Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.

[Amendment No. 196 not moved.]

Clause 11 [Extension of right to compensation where planning permission revoked or modified]:

5.18 p.m.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 197: Page 17, line 11, leave out from (" but ") to end of line and insert (" is being disturbed in his enjoyment of the land or of minerals in, on or under it.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 197. This amendment is somewhat unique in that it has no Scottish equivalent. The purpose of the amendment is to echo the phrasing of Clause 13, page 18, lines 14 and 15 and, in fact, it will bring Section 164 of the previous Act into line with Section 170 in the phrasing of the Bill as it now stands. This will ensure that all the various types of interest that can exist in mineral workings have an opportunity of being compensated. I beg to move.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield)

My noble friend's amendment would extend the people to whom compensation is payable under Section 164 to include anyone who is disturbed in his enjoyment of the land or of the minerals in, on or under it. Section 164 provides compensation for the revocation or modification of planning permissions for all kinds of development and not just mineral working. So this amendment seeks to extend the right to claim compensation from those with an interest in land to include anyone who is disturbed in his enjoyment of such land. This goes far beyond anything to do with mineral working, and I hope that my noble friend will see that, as such, it is not acceptable in the context of a minerals Bill; certainly not without consultation with other interested parties, for instance, house builders and the providers of other forms of development.

Therefore, if this amendment were to be accepted, I believe that such people as traders operating in the neighbourhood of an area where a planning permission for development is revoked or modified, would be able to claim the compensation and, as such, would not be justified. In those circumstances, I hope that my noble friend will see fit to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Mottistone

With that very clear explanation from my noble friend the Minister, I am predisposed to accept it but I shall take care to examine it carefully and possibly come back to it at the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 [Special compensation in respect of orders under s. 45 relating to mineral working]:

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

We now come to Amendment No. 198. If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 199.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 198: Page 17, line 25, leave out paragraph (b).

The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 198 is a paving amendment to Amendment No. 200, which provides a revised wording, and Amendments Nos. 203 and 205 are the equivalent Scottish provision. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I deal with all the four amendments together. The amendments provide for modified compensation to be payable in respect of a modification order where certain requirements are satisfied. The requirements which Amendments Nos. 200 and 205 specify as being necessary are, first, that the order must have been made not less than five years after the date of the planning permission it modifies (this is the requirement which Amendments Nos. 198 and 200 delete so that it can be incorporated in the revised wording); or, alternatively, that an order modifies a planning permission granted before the commencement of Section 30A (which gives mineral planning authorities the power to impose an after-care condition) and the order imposes an aftercare condition and no other requirement.

In the case of recent minerals permissions, operators have often reached a voluntary agreement with the local planning authority and accepted responsibility for a period of after-care. It is desirable for there to be a power for such after-care conditions to be imposed on minerals planning permissions with the benefit of the modified compensation scheme once the power is available through this Bill, and without waiting for five years to elapse. Operators will be protected from a mineral planning authority's unreasonable use of this power because all orders will require to be confirmed by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.

Lord Mottistone

As I understand it—and I think that my noble friend explained this—these amendments will enable a planning authority to impose an aftercare condition on any permission granted before the commencement of Clause 12, without having to pay full compensation. At first sight this may seem a reasonable transitional provision designed to avoid the authority having to wait five years before imposing after-care conditions, such as the industry would accept, as part of a properly balanced Stevens-style package.

It seems to me that the Bill as a whole—and we spoke about this earlier, so I shall not repeat it—does not constitute such a package. It does not quite have the proper balance, for which we had hoped. That means that industry is correspondingly suspicious of this amendment. Can my noble friend the Minister give an assurance that after-care conditions imposed following this amendment and its implementation will be reasonably compatible with restoration conditions which will already have been accepted?

Lord Boardman

My point on this amendment is rather different from that of my noble friend because it relates to the five-year period, which indeed will not be debated under my noble friend's amendment if this amendment is agreed to. As I understand it, this amendment will mean that the review resulting in a lower rate of compensation can be carried out in every period of five years. I believe that that is far too frequent. It can mean that the reduced rate of compensation which will become payable will result in a loss to the operator carrying a heavy burden every five years. Although we do not yet know—indeed, it is not relevant to this amendment—on what basis that will be, I believe that my noble friend is already aware of the industry's concern that constant five-yearly reviews at a reduced rate of compensation can be a penalty which the industry will find very difficult to accept.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

This is a clause in which the local authorities are very interested as well as the industry. Of course I understand the point made by my noble friends; the industry is apprehensive as to how much this may cost it. It would seem to me that, once the first reviews have been made, this new liability, as it were, will not be a recurring one because, of course, new consents today will carry the necessary conditions with regard to restoration and after-care. So it will be rather once-and-for-all. Perhaps my noble friend will confirm that point.

I should also like my noble friend to make clear whether his amendment means that local planning authorities will be allowed to make a review, starting immediately, of existing consents so that they can begin without delay to introduce the new, stricter conditions that are needed in order that satisfactory restoration can be made, because I am sure that is desirable. As I understand it, that is one of the main purposes of the Bill. So perhaps my noble friend will deal with those two points when he answers my noble friends sitting behind him.

The Earl of Mansfield

I can confirm to my noble friend Lord Mottistone that the after-care condition must relate to a restriction condition already on the permission. I should like to raise a couple of matters because we are now getting to the more financial parts of the Bill. The purpose of these amendments is to delete the current reference to mineral compensation requirements being satisfied in relation to a Section 45 order where the planning permission which is being modified by the order was granted not less than five years before the date of the order, and to incorporate the requirement in a revised wording which also provides for modified compensation to be payable when a Section 45 order modifies a planning permission granted before the commencement of Section 30A (being added by Clause 5) but only imposes an aftercare condition. This matter of compensation is indeed complex. Although further details were given in the consultation paper, perhaps I could say this as we are entering this part of the Bill. We start from the basic premise proposed by the Stevens Committee that where the conditions on a minerals planning permission are modified as a result of a review, the operator should bear a reasonable amount of any loss or damage incurred by him.

Rather than allowing what is reasonable in each case to be the subject of argument which might eventually involve the Secretary of State, the Lands Tribunal or the courts, we are endeavouring to produce formulae which will set out what is reasonable. In other words, compensation thresholds will be set for each mine or quarry. For active quarries, we are proposing that the threshold should be a variable percentage of the calculated mineral asset value within maximum or minimum limits, the variation in the percentage being dependent upon the asset value. The asset value will be calculated from the valuation in the rating list and a factor based on the expected future life of the mine or quarry. We propose to adopt a similar procedure for underground mining. Where working has ceased, it is not possible to use these formulae, and, unless anyone comes up with a better suggestion, we are proposing a fixed absolute compensation threshold for use when prohibition and suspension orders are made.

So the essence of the compensation clauses in the Bill is to provide a framework for setting monetary thresholds for each mine or quarry which, if the loss or damage incurred by the operator is less than this sum, no compensation will be payable by the mineral planning authority. Not all of that information is totally applicable to these four amendments but it may well help the deliberations of the Committee for me to give it now.

Baroness Birk

Since the Minister has embarked on the general principle of compensation I would say a word on that. I appreciate the problem that it is difficult to distinguish between the different amendments because they all link together. I welcome the principle that there should be regular reviews of mineral permissions and that operators should bear part of the costs of improving conditions. The problem is that most of the meat in this issue is going to appear in regulations which we have not seen. We are rather talking around the subject without getting to the financial heart of it. Even when they are tabled they are subject to Affirmative Resolutions in both Houses, and they therefore cannot be subject to any change and have to be accepted or rejected.

I cannot believe that I am alone in this Committee in thinking it essential that this House must be able to debate the regulations during the progress of this Bill, so that the basic proposals themselves are debated and not just the general principles. As I have said on many occasions, we have too much government by regulation, and it is on the increase. It is essential that we know the basic proposals which the Government intend to introduce in regulations. The proposals contained in last year's consultation paper, to which the noble Earl referred, are broadly acceptable, but behind them there lie two assumptions which need closer scrutiny, and he has referred to them in a fairly general and oblique way.

First, the contribution from the mineral operators will, it is suggested in the consultation paper although the noble Earl did not himself put a figure to it, be subject to a ceiling of £100,000. No doubt this will be index-linked. This will benefit the large operators but it may be of great difficulty to the smaller operators. Secondly, the compenation formula proposed for cessation or prohibition orders involves a maximum contribution of £5,000 from the operator no matter what the size of the working, nor how limited the original conditions for restoration which are to be activated. It would seem that such a proposal might mean that local authorities will not use the powers available to them because of the compensation implications.

I appreciate again that this is another problem of balance, to which we have all referred throughout this Bill. But this makes it even more essential—and having listened to what was said before the noble Earl himself enlarged it into this rather general thesis on compensation, which is important—for us to know in far greater detail what is proposed and to be able to debate this, otherwise nobody is going to be satisfied. The operators are not going to be satisfied, and the mineral authorities are not going to be satisfied. I should like at least to have an undertaking from the Government that by Report stage we shall be able to debate what is going to be in these regulations. This is essential.

The Earl of Mansfield

May I just intervene? My noble friend Lord Mottistone has an amendment to leave out Clause 12, which would be perhaps the place to debate these matters. I am beginning to regret that I tried to set the scene on an otherwise perfectly inoffensive amendment. Perhaps it would be more logical if matters such as the regulations were debated at the end of the clause.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 199 not moved.]

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 200:

Page 17, line 35, at end insert (" and (e) either—

1. (i) the permission was granted not less than five years before the date of the order or
2. (ii) the conditions specified in subsection (2A) of this section arc satisfied.

(2A) The conditions mentioned in subsection (2)(e)(ii) of this section are—

1. (a) that the planning permission which the order modifies was granted before the commencement of section 30A of this Act; and
2. (b) that the order—
1. (i) imposes an aftercare condition; and
2. (ii) does not impose any other condition.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

5.36 p.m.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 201: Page 18, line 4, leave out (" five ") and insert ("ten").

The noble Lord said: I should like to take with this, Amendments Nos. 207 and 208, and the Scottish equivalents of all three. These amendments are concerned with the frequency—my noble friend Lord Bordman has already contributed to this but I thought that I would wait until we dealt with this amendment to do so—with which an operator may be exposed to changes of planning conditions with nil or reduced compensation. Industry contends that bearing in mind the serious financial implications—I cannot stress that too highly—the interval should be at least 10 years. It is questioned whether the planning conditions imposed today, for example, are sufficiently different from those imposed in 1976. In many respects 1976 seems to me like yesterday, and that is a five year interval. It seems such a short time.

Because permissions can be reviewed periodically to ensure that an operator does not lose too much value, there are two alternatives. First is to allow the threshold to be counted against the total loss on the various occasions; that is, for the compensation to be totted up against the threshold. Secondly, to ensure that the reviews are not too frequent. We shall come to the threshold business later on. These amendments are intended to make sure that the reviews are not too frequent, and indeed that they are not more than 10 years apart. It is suggested that that would be in line with the general long-term nature of planning. With that introduction, I beg to move.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

May I briefly interject a technical comment on my noble friend's speech, with which I sympathise in principle. The fact is that a great deal of technical progress has been made in the last 10 years, and from that point of view it really would not be appropriate to imagine that consents made 10 years ago with regard to restoration were adequate. They just were not. None of them of course included such conditions as after-care, which is absolutely essential in order to get adequate restoration. While this whole subject of compensation is fraught with problems, over which I have some sympathy with the industry, I would hope my noble friend would bear in mind that the shortening of the period in terms of the technical progress in this particular field would not really be justified.

Baroness Birk

May I support the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, in this. He is absolutely right over the technical changes. What we are talking about is a five-year minimum, so I hope that the Government will stick to that, as it is in the Bill.

The Earl of Mansfield

It is a question of balance. As happens frequently with the measure, one has to recognise the need to protect the industry from too onerous a burden. At the same time, circumstances may change and it is important in the interests of the environment that sites are kept under review and if necessary the conditions under which mineral working is proceeding or restoration and after-care taking place should be amended. The industry has the safeguard that all opposed orders have to be confirmed by the Secretary of State and, in the circumstances, I should have thought that five years was a reasonable interval. I think an extension to 10 years would be strongly opposed by local authority interests. I hope on reflection that my noble friend will agree that the balance is about right.

Lord Mottistone

Bluntly, my answer is: No, I do not. I am not sure whether the Committee as a whole sees it my way and in any case it is part of a package, and I feel that the time to discuss the inter-relationship of the compensation and length of time involved in this and other amendments is better dealt with when we come to the clause stand part. So at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.42 p.m.

Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 202:

Page 18, line 5, at end insert— ("(4) The Secretary of State shall pay to the mineral planning authority a sum equal to the amount of compensation payable by the mineral planning authority when:

1. (a) the mineral planning authority has made an order under section 45 of this Act modifying planning permission for 528 development consisting of the winning and working of minerals; and
2. (b) mineral compensation requirements are satisfied in relation to such an order; and
3. (c) compensation is payable by the mineral planning authority.").

The noble Lord said: This is aimed at relieving local authorities of the cost of their part of the compensation which will have to be paid following the reviews. The review process, as we have all said in various ways, is very valuable in that it will enable local planning authorities to pick up existing workings where conditions are not adequate. In other words, it will ensure that the method of working now—and I am speaking particularly of sand and gravel workings—will be such as to protect local amenities as far as it is humanly possible to do so.

First, as regards the actual working of the site, in the past it has often happened that sites have been open to an unnecessary extent to an unnecessarily large area being worked at the time, whereas the most modern practice by the most efficient operators is to open sites in strips and start the restoration process as soon as the mineral is worked out and as later strips are being opened and worked. That is all greatly to the advantage of local people and amenities. Secondly, most important of all is the condition which can now be attached of the five-year after-care period which is essential to get the land back to agricultural condition or into good condition for any other purpose, recreation or anything else. This is, therefore, all very much in the public interest.

As the Bill stands, the industry has agreed in principle to pay a certain amount towards the cost of the extra conditions being put on it. That will be quite difficult to work out, but the formula, based on the Stevens Report, we shall see in due course. The balance, as the Bill is drafted, will be paid by local authorities and I am doubtful—I believe I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, say she too was doubtful—whether local authorities will carry out the reviews, certainly as fast as we should like to see them do so, because of their apprehension about the extra costs that will fall on them. It is common knowledge that every local authority is short of cash now and finds it difficult to meet its existing commitments. I believe local authorities will be most reluctant to involve themselves in extra commitments of this kind which will then fall on the local ratepayer.

Let us also bear in mind when considering this point that many of the consents that will be reviewed were consents given by the Secretary of State on appeal, so they were his conditions that were faulty. I do not want to make too much of that. The real point is that everybody has learnt in the last 10 or 20 years something about how pits should best be worked and how restoration should best be carried out to get full and perfect restoration. It is in the light of that that the review clause is put down, so that the very large area which is now being worked and opened should be well restored when the working is finished.

The area involved in the South-Eastern region alone now is over 10 square miles, so taken over the country as a whole it is a very big area. At stake here is the restoration of very large areas of existing workings so that when they are worked out, the restoration will be really good and we shall not have a further addition to the awful dereliction of the past. It is an important practical point therefore to get this right. If the balance of the cost of compensation is to fall on local authorities, there will be a serious inhibition about them undertaking something we are very anxious they should do.

I do not claim any virtue for the drafting of the amendment—I have not covered the Scottish position—but leaving aside the technicalities, its effect would be that the Government would make a grant to local authorities to cover the cost of the compensation involved in these matters.

Lord Bellwin

With the leave of the Committee, I will reply at the same time both to this amendment and to No. 209 which is also in the name of my noble friend. Taken together, they would have the effect of providing that where compensation became payable as a result of the making of one of the four orders provided in this Bill, the mineral planning authority paying the compensation would be able to obtain complete reimbursement from the Government. As I said earlier, I have a great deal of sympathy with the view that more should be done to restore sites where mineral working has been completed. Indeed, that is why this Bill is being introduced in the first place. And it has generally been recognised that the first part of the cost of any such restoration should be borne by the mining and quarrying industry.

These amendments deal with who should pay for the remainder, and if they were accepted, a mineral planning authority would be able to impose the most excessive requirements and suffer no financial consequences. Suppose that with a large hard-rock quarry, the mineral planning authority wishes to see no cliff faces left behind but requires graded slopes of say, 45 degrees, something which might cost a couple of million pounds to do. A Section 51A order is made by the authority and the operator claims compensation. If the suggestion in the consultation paper is adopted in the regulations, the operator will have to pay the first £5,000 and can then claim the remaining £2 million or so from the authority, who in turn will be reimbursed by central Government. The taxpayer would have another £2 million to find, and multiplied across the whole country the results could be startling to say the least.

I am sure my noble friend on reflection will agree that that cannot be right, and I am sure that is not what he intends; it is of course far too open-ended. Action and financial responsibility must go together, so that when making an order the authority is fully aware of the effect on its finances of imposing excessive requirements. Once again a balance must be struck; what requirements are laid down must depend, to some extent at least, on what can be afforded.

There is also another reason why I am in difficulty regarding the amendments. Many of the conditions which will be imposed by the new orders can be imposed now. Parliament has never yet seen fit to require that where planning permissions are modified by a local planning authority, central Government should pick up the tab. In our view, it would be anomalous to make special arrangements to fund compensation in minerals cases.

So my advice to the Committee is this. Let us see how we get on with the Bill as drafted and with the proposed compensation regulations. After all, as my noble friend has said, a big step is already being made, in that for the first time mineral planning authorities will not have to pay full compensation for any loss or damage arising out of a modification or discontinuance order. If we take the case of a sand or gravel working in the South-East of England, and the only new requirement the mineral planning authority wish to impose is an after-care condition, then I would expect that the largest part of the cost would fall on the operator. Indeed, I suspect that in many cases the entire cost will fall beneath the threshold. Having said that, I should like to give my noble friend the assurance that once all the provisions of the Bill and the compensation regulations are brought into force, the Government will look carefully at how well they are working. If problems are seen to be arising, if the burden on local authorities proves to be too big, a new or amended system of grants is one possibility which may need to be considered.

From what I have said, I hope that my noble friend will recognise that we are going all the way that he would like, and that many of us would like, if it comes to that. However, we are trying to be pragmatic while at the same time making real progress in this field. I hope that with those assurances my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

5.53 p.m.

Baroness Birk

Before the noble Lord does whatever he intends to do with his amendment I must once more press the Government a little further. I can see that central Government will not accept a blank cheque. But we are in a real dilemma—the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, is absolutely right—in that local authorities just do not have the necessary resources. It is no good just paying lip service to the idea. The Minister has spoken very sympathetically, as he did on a previous amendment. He said that he understood how we all felt and that he would look at this and that. But the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, was quite right; I do not think that any of us can feel that we have achieved anything of real substance, anything which would be realistic and practical in the Bill, and which would help tackle this very difficult problem.

We must start from the point of view that local authorities' resources are squeezed so hard that what we are asking for today and what we are trying to achieve in the Bill will probably come very low in their order of priorities unless they get some help. I would again press the Government over the question of controls on capital expenditure, as well as on the point about grants for derelict land and trying to find a practical way to tackle the problem. A balance is needed here—and not just a balance between industry and environment. There must be a financial balance, so that the mineral planning authorities can find the money for compensation without completely denuding themselves of finances needed to meet other equally important demands.

This is a terrible dilemma and, in putting forward a Bill of this kind, the Government must face up to it in a more practical way than that which we have heard about this afternoon. I do not expect the Minister to give practical answers off the top of his head today, but I hope that we shall get something more at Report stage. The amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, are supported by many of us, all over the Chamber. We feel very strongly about the matter, we expressed our views on Second Reading and unless something is done, the Bill will be a very slim shadow of what it ought to be.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

I must thank the noble Baroness for her lusty support, and I feel that it ought to have shaken my noble friend into conceding something, though at the moment it does not look very much like it. I thought that my noble friend made rather a bad point about the fictitious rock face which was to be chamfered to a 45 degree slope at a cost of £2 million, because the fact is that all the orders have to be confirmed by the Secretary of State, and presumably he would not confirm such an order. My noble friend will have to think again before he comes forward with another set of arguments.

The practical position is that no one now has funds to do the job that we all want them to do. I think that perhaps we ought to see what the regulations say. I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell us that before Report stage we can see a draft, or some other document, which will indicate how much industry is going to pay, so that we can get some idea as to what share will fall on the local authorities. That would certainly be a help, at least to me, towards seeing what would fall on local authorities which are concerned with sand and gravel workings in the South-East. I have a rough idea as to what might be the cost of improved conditions regarding restoration and after-care. If my noble friend can let us have such an indication, we might get a rather clearer picture of what expense might fall on local authorities as well as some idea of whether they would be able to bear it.

I must say to my noble friend that it is not very reassuring merely to let this go, to hope that local authorities will get on with the job, carry out the surveys and bring up-to-date the conditions, as we wish—bearing in mind the kind of liabilities that may be involved—and then for Ministers in the future to see how they get on. That really could frustrate my noble friend's splendid intention, which is contained in the Bill, of having the existing workings managed in a way which will ensure that afterwards the land is properly restored. So there is at stake something quite important, and I hope that my noble friend will be able to help us, at least to that extent.

Lord Bellwin

Before my noble friend decides how to deal with his amendment, I should like to make one or two very brief comments. First, in case any Members of your Lordships' Committee are not aware of the situation, it should be made quite clear that the Government give 100 per cent. derelict land grant to local authorities which decide on that priority and wish to carry out the work. That applies in all the assisted areas, and it is for the local authorities to decide whether such work is to have priority. The noble Baroness was touching on something else which I mentioned when we discussed the previous amendment of my noble friend Lord Nugent. But I think that the point I now mention ought to be made clear. In these amendments we are being called upon to—

Baroness Birk

The Minister is not saying, is he, that every local authority which asks for 100 per cent. derelict land grant gets it?

Lord Beliwin

No, of course I am not. I am saying that it applies in the assisted areas, which are the areas with most of the land dereliction. Recently I have received representations from areas which have considerable land dereliction, and we have been willing to look very sympathetically at designating them, because that is where this kind of money should go. In fact, the Government have increased the amount of money available for this purpose, and I hope that that indicates the importance that we attach to this kind of work at a time when we have to be very careful about watching all the pennies.

On the other point that my noble friend makes, the fear we have is the open-endedness of the matter. That is the major concern. However, what I will gladly undertake to do is to study very carefully what he has said today and to discuss it again with colleagues. I clearly cannot go any further than that, and I am sure he does not expect me to do so today. But I recognise the strength of concern that there is on the point, and we will have a look at it, but beyond that, of course, I cannot go now.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

I thank my noble friend for having another go, and, of course, I give him credit for continuing to make grants of 100 per cent. for reclamation of dereliction in the assisted areas. But that is no compensation to the other areas of the country, including the South-Eastern region, with which I am particularly concerned, which are not assisted and which therefore do not get grants of that size. However, that is a point by the way. Perhaps we could have a further discussion between now and Report stage, and particularly with regard to what is to be the scheme placing part of the burden on industry, so that we can get some assessment of what the balance is that will fall on local authorities and can make an objective assessment of the prospect of the local authorities picking up the tab and doing it, which is what we really want them to do. Then, perhaps, we can see whether we should accept that or whether we ought to try again on Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.2 p.m.

On Question, Whether Clause 12, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Mottistone

This clause is a lead-in to other clauses relating to compensation, in particular Clause 15. As Members of the Committee know very well, after thorough consideration the Stevens Committee recommended a package of two interrelated components—long-term security of planning permissions for the minerals industry in exchange for a reasonable contribution by the industry to the costs, direct or indirect, of meeting revised conditions. That is the nub of the argument.

The Government saw fit not to extend the long-term security of the planning permissions in answer to various amendments where we sought that extension, and I think it is reasonable to say that the industry therefore feels somewhat let down in that the Bill as it stands seems to have picked out from Stevens the burdens for industry and ignored or distorted the counter-balances. What we are saying, therefore, is that the failure of the Government to legislate for both sides of the Stevens coin has resulted in not sufficient attention being given to the need for long-term planning on the part of the minerals industry—and this is a point of which I made some issue in my Second Reading speech, and I will not burden your Lordships with it again. The failure to do that means that the industry is reluctant to accept, as the other side of the coin, diminished compensation, and I hope that the Government will give serious attention to this.

We shall come to the details of the compensation, and the points that have been made already by noble Lords about the inadequacy of the Bill as it stands in that respect, at a later stage. But I am not seeking to convey to the Government the impression that if they stay where they are on how they define the periods of long-term planning, industry would accept that provided it has jolly good compensation. That is not the point at issue. The amount of understanding of the Stevens recommendations for long-term security for planning is not enough in itself, and I would hope that against the whole pattern of the amendments which relate to time intervals the Government might feel that they can take yet another look to see whether they cannot accept the real problems of the industry, particularly in that respect. As to the compensation, that is not looking particularly good, but I shall refer to that in greater detail when I come to a later amendment in connection with Clause 15.

Baroness Birk

Before the noble Earl replies, I do not want again to go over what I said earlier because, as he himself said, he has widened the whole thing; otherwise, I would have waited until the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, raised it here. But I should like to feel that he will give an answer on the points I raised, either in reply to this or on Clause 15; in particular, on the questions to do with thresholds and the whole question of your Lordships' House debating the regulations and what is going to be in them. But I do not want to repeat my whole speech again.

The Earl of Mansfield

It seems to me that there are two real complaints which have been voiced about the compensation elements of the Bill and, as my noble friend has said, this is really the lead-in to those. In effect, my noble friend Lord Mottistone says that Stevens is not really being put into effect. I think he is arguing that industry's acceptance is based on the whole of the recommendations of the committee being implemented as a package, and in particular that the needs of the industry for long-term planning should be recognised. My noble friend Lord Bellwin said on Second Reading, and I think also on the first Committee day, that in the view of the Government these needs are being recognised. Local planning authorities are including within their development plans strong policies which will mean the grant of the permissions required to meet this country's needs for minerals in an environmentally acceptable manner and the prevention of the sterilisation of minerals by other forms of development.

This is being backed up by good co-operation between local authorities, the industry and central Government in determining, for example, regional and national needs for aggregates and how these can best be met through inter-regional movements. Officials both in my department and in that of my noble friend Lord Bellwin are very ready to assist in overcoming any problems which may arise and in trying to ensure that the best possible advice is disseminated to interested parties through, for example, publication of a revised edition of the green book on the control of mineral working. This advice will include an exhortation to local authorities not always to put a five-year limit on the time within which working under a new permission must start, but to consider carefully the particular needs of the mineral operator making the application. That, I think, refutes (although I appreciate that it will not satisfy my noble friends) that part of the argument which says, in effect, that one part of the package is being foisted on the industry without their needs in relation to the second being properly looked at or, indeed, looked at at all.

One cannot, I think, implement the whole of the Stevens package at the same time. It is quite impossible to have the Bill, mining regulations, amendments to the general development order and publication of the green book simultaneously. But I would hope that, if everything goes well, all of these would be done by the middle of next year. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend and other noble Lords will, on reflection, agree that we are keeping to our side of the bargain and are producing a package that will have benefits for the industry as well as for local authorities and environmentalists.

I have been pressed by the noble Baroness as to the regulations, both as to their content, so that if possible they can be debated in your Lordships' House, and, arising from that, the timing. It is our intention that the regulations should, first, make clear just what the basis of compensation is for each type of order; secondly, to set out how the compensation thresholds are to be calculated for each mine or quarry—and they may be different for each type of order; and the method of calculation will differ between underground and surface workings; thirdly, to set maximum and minimum thresholds; fourthly, to provide a capitalisation scale in relation to the expected lives of workings; and, fifthly, to set out how index linking of monetary amounts in the regulations is to be achieved. All these matters were discussed at some detail in the consultation paper issued last autumn, so that I do not think the form of the regulations will come as any surprise.

If I may conclude as to the timing, I promised, in effect—certainly, I undertook when winding up the Second Reading debate—to give an indication of our thinking before Third Reading in your Lordships' House. Consideration of the reactions to the consultation paper is still continuing. I understand that officials in the department of my noble friend Lord Bellwin have only just received the response of the CBI to this paper and that they are meeting representatives of the CBI very soon, next week, I think, to discuss compensation; so that there is really no question of producing regulations just that quickly. But I hope very much that it will be possible either for my noble friend or I to make a statement during the Report stage of the Bill.

The regulations themselves cannot be laid before this House until the Bill receives the Royal Assent. That is obvious. So, assuming that it gets Third Reading in this House, it has to go to the other place; and that may be some months off. But I think I can say that it is our intention that when we are firm on what we think should go into the regulations, interested parties will be made aware of it. In any event, as the regulations are going to be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure, they will have to be debated in this House and I hope, therefore, from what I have been able to say, that noble Lords will, on reflection, agree that there will be ample opportunity to make known their views as to the regulations.

Baroness Birk

Before the noble Earl leaves that, may I thank him for that very full statement. But I am still not quite clear or happy about it. When he says that a statement will be made at Report stage, does he mean a statement of roughly what will be in the regulations or a rehash of the consultation paper; or what, in fact, has now come out from the CBI? I thought that they had spent day and night for ages discussing this, and I am surprised they are still going on in this way. I am still not convinced from what he has said that there is going to be an opportunity to debate the regulations in this House before they are laid before us in due course of time.

The noble Earl knows as well as I do that when they are laid before the House and debated, we either accept them as a whole or we do not accept them. It is not like discussing a clause of the Bill as we are now discussing it. This is what I and other noble Lords are concerned about. Despite his fluent words and the courteous way he replied, I do not feel that he has answered the question in a way about which I can feel happy. I do not get the feeling that we are going to debate the regulations. We will have a statement and then will have an affirmative order laid; and that will be it. It will be the same procedure. What we are asking * What we are asking is that the regulations themselves should be debated during the process of the primary legislation. Will the noble Earl let me know whether I am right?

The Earl of Mansfield

The noble Baroness is forcing me to be less polite. What I did was to set out the five main heads which the regulations will include. That is really as far as I can go. I also said that we intend to make a detailed of our current intentions on Report. I told the noble Baroness why it cannot be done now—because the CBI have reacted but have not yet met officials.

The actual regulations cannot be laid before the Bill received Royal Assent. Therefore, since it will have long gone, will have passed away, from this House, unless there are amendments in another place to be considered, there is no question of going through this rather like a Bill and discussing and amending these regulations. Our system does not provide for it. The only way in which that could be done is if the regulations were written into the Bill. They then could be considered in Committee or Report in the normal way. That is what it comes to. I have done what I hope is as much as I or any Minister can do, which is to give a clear indication of our intentions. That, I think, will give the noble Baroness and any other noble Lord a very reasonable opportunity to consider our intentions—which will be in much greater detail than they can be at present—and to make such criticisms (which one hopes will be constructive) as they see fit.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 27 [Special compensation in respect of orders under S. 42 relating to mineral working]:

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

I have to point out that if Amendment No. 203 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 204.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 203: Page 36, line 40, leave out paragraph (b).

The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 204 not moved.]

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 204A: Page 37, line 2, leave out (" previous ").

The noble Earl said: This is a small tidying-up amendment. It is a technical amendment to remove an unnecessary word from the listing of mineral compensation requirements in new Section 153A(2)(c). The amendment brings the wording into line with the equivalent English provisions. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

6.20 p.m.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 205:

Page 37, line 5, at end insert (" and (e) either—

1. (i) the permission was granted not less than five years before the date of the order; or
2. (ii) the conditions specified in subsection (2A) of this section are satisfied.

(2A) The conditions mentioned in subsection (2)(e)(ii) of this section are—

1. (a) that the planning permission which the order modifies was granted before the commencement of section 27A of this Act; and
2. (b>) that the order—
1. (i)imposes an aftercare condition; and
2. (ii)does not impose any other condition.").

The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 206 not moved.]

Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 agreed to.

[Amendments No. 207, 208 and 209 not moved.]

Clause 14 agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 210 and 211 not moved.]

Clause 28 agreed to.

Clause 15 [Mineral compensation modifications]:

Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 212: Page 20, line 3, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 216 which is the parallel amendment. This clause is absolutely crucial to the Bill. Without it the Bill is of very much less consequence. Therefore it is rather strange that it should say that the Secretary of State may make regulations because this weakens the clause enormously. Surely, in the context of the Bill the Secretary of State shall make regulations, the only question being their form and and content. Likewise subsection (2) in the clause is essential to the provisions of this Bill, and again to suggest that in any way such matters may be optional is, I submit, to introduce unnecessary uncertainty. I feel quite sure that the Government did not intend this and that they are following what is probably often a normal drafting practice; but I do not think that this explanation itself is sufficient. I hope that the Government will accept these amendments. I beg to move.

The Earl of Mansfield

This amendment applies also to Amendments Nos. 223 and 227, those are the Scottish equivalents. Regulations will need to be made by the Secretaries of State and these regulations should cover both the basis for compensation and a threshold below which no compensation is payable. The regulations require the approval of each House of Parliament by means of Affirmative Resolution and, in the circumstances, it would not seem necessary to depart from the usual procedure and impose an absolute obligation upon the Secretary of State. My remarks apply to the other amendment. The contents of the regulations will come before this House, and I cannot think it is likely that any government would want to make regulations which did not cover either the basis or the threshold. However, we should also need to ensure that the second "shall" will not be interpreted as "shall only" as there may be other things which we should need to include in regulations. I accept the concern of the noble Baroness. I do not think that it is altogether well founded in this case—I hope I am not being offensive—and I hope that she may feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Birk

In the circumstances, and for the time being, I shall withdraw the amendment. I should like to look at it again and look at what the noble Earl has said. If I still feel the same way, I shall come back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 213: Page 20, line 4, after ("Treasury") insert (" and after consultation with interested parties ").

The noble Lord said: Regulations made at any time under this clause will need to be, first, predictable in operation and certain in effect; secondly, enforceable and practical; and, thirdly, clearly understood by all affected parties. To achieve this it seems to me that it is vital that all interests are consulted when the regulations on compensation are being formulated. This is the object of this amendment. I beg to move.

The Earl of Mansfield

I have already twice now—on Second Reading and this evening—given an indication of the Governments thinking on the content of the regulations, and this will happen. There has been considerable consultation on this and I cannot agree that it is necessary to make it a statutory duty for the Secretary of State to consult interested parties before making regulations. I am sure that any Secretary of State would do likewise in the future.

If my noble friend is trying to impart certainty into the Bill, I have to say that this amendment is not the way to go about it if only because there is no definition of what an interested party is. It is certainly not clear who would be covered by the term. So for that reason, as well as the other, I hope that he will not press this amendment.

Baroness Birk

I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in this matter. The noble Earl practically put me off the point until he said that he was quite sure that any Secretary of State would do so in the future. That seems to me to be a commitment that the Secretary of State would in fact consult. If the problem is: Who would he consult?— and it sounds rather rude to say "Perhaps he will go away and think about it "—then there does not seem to be any reason why that should not go in. As he accepts that consultation should be part of it, and since we have this worry about regulations—and I think that we shall continue to have it—I would not be unhappy to see this amendment in the Bill if it is possible to do so without spreading the issue too widely. I know what the noble Earl means, but he did say that the Secretary of State would consult.

The Earl of Mansfield

Secretaries of State, in my brief experience, do spend their time consulting before they do anything. Nevertheless, I shall ponder the matter. If the definition can be tightened up, and it really is a good idea, then we shall come back to the matter on Report.

Lord Mottistone

That is a very pleasant reassurance to have from my noble friend the Minister. It is all very well to say that Secretaries of State are always consulting. Of course they are. But there is so much time spent consulting on those factors which are written into Bills where it says that they will do so, such as I am seeking to put into this Bill, that maybe they do not have time to consult on things where it does not say that in the Bill. The point of it is that, if it was never in a Bill and it was one of the accepted things in the country that Secretaries of State always consulted with interested parties, that would be something else. But if that were so, it would not be necessary to say that they must consult when it appears in other Bills. If in thinking about this—and I am delighted that my noble friend has said that he will do this—he also reflects on what I have said, I should be delighted at this stage to withdraw the amendment and perhaps put something else down at a later stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.30 p.m.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 214: Page 20, line 7, leave out from (" subject ") to end of line 8 and insert (", in such cases as may be specified in the regulations, to such modifications as may be so specified").

The noble Earl said: I beg to move this amendment and speak to Amendment No. 225, which refers to the equivalent Scottish provisions. The amendments are drafting ones which make it clear our intention that the mineral compensation regulations will not only specify how the existing compensation provisions in Sections 184, 170, 178 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, and Sections 153, 159 and 167 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 are to be modified, but also in which cases the modified compensation will apply. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 215:

Page 20, leave out lines 9 to 14 and insert— ("(2) The regulations may—

1. (a) make provision as to the circumstances in which the total amount of compensation which would otherwise be payable shall be reduced by a threshold equal to 10 per cent. of the capital value of the land; and
2. (b) specify the method by which the capital value is to be calculated and the minimum and maximum values for the threshold.").

The noble Lord said: We now come to the details of the regulations, and before starting to explain this particular amendment, I must say that I am very much in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, when she talks about the fact that we are not given enough detail of regulations in Acts of Parliament, and in this one in particular; and we then have to rely on regulations which, in the nature of things, are really almost unstoppable except in extreme cases. I certainly believe it is important to have a bit of detail in the relevant Act of Parliament, so as to give guidance on which the regulations can then be made.

This seems to me to be only reasonable because although my noble friend has said that he is going to have discussions with the CBI, and that he is giving the guidelines of the regulations, and all these things—and I welcome that and I thank him for saying what he has said—in the longer run it is surely important to have the guideline sufficiently tight within the regulations. So this amendment seeks to introduce into principal legislation the important parameters upon which the new compensation code should be based. The existing clause gives no clue to the Government's intentions in respect of compensation, and if such basic parameters are left to subordinate legislation they may well be afforded secondary importance both now and in the future. And it is the future which matters, because this Government may be one, as I feel, that one could rely upon to the do the best they possibly could, but one cannot always be sure that one has a Government in which to be so confident.

The importance of adequate compensation procedures cannot be over-stressed, even if in practice they should not be invoked very often. They provide industry with the security of at least some recompense for significant losses suffered and they curb over-zealous and unnecessary activities of planning authorities. The principles on which the procedures will be based should provide the minimum content of Clause 15.

Another factor which is important here is that this part of the package, this detail in the regulations, that my amendment seeks to add to the outline already in the Bill, was meant to be part of a package that included 10 years between reviews. The Government have effectively said "No" to 10 years between reviews, and so half of what we believe to be an acceptable package has already been rejected. With that in mind, I would not say that this particular amendment is one we would necessarily feel was strong enough or fair enough to industry, and we may have to progress further with it as the Bill goes through its various stages here. I beg to move.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

I have to inform your Lordships that if this amendment is agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 216.

The Earl of Mansfield

What this amendment does, first, is to delete the provisions in the Bill which permit an amendment of the basis on which compensation is to be assessed—something which has been included to reconcile the existing provisions of Sections 164 and 170 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 in respect of mineral working. Secondly, it appears to limit the setting of the threshold rather more than we think desirable. The consultation paper issued by the department suggested a figure of 20 per cent. rather than 10 per cent. in a particular range of quarries. We are already aware that different provisions will be necessary for underground and surface workings and for the different types of order to which modified compensation will apply.

I am sure my noble friend will confirm, as indeed he said, that this amendment is motivated because he, the CBI and others are unhappy that the compensation arrangements are to be set out in the regulations rather than in the Bill itself, although I am sure they understand all the arguments about complexity and updating which at different moments my noble friend and I have put forward as justification. I can only repeat my invitation to my noble friend to wait and see what is said by my noble friend Lord Bellwin or I on Report. Perhaps in the circumstances he will feel himself able at this moment to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Mottistone

From that rather guarded undertaking on the part of my noble friend the Minister, I derive some satisfaction, and at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 216 not moved.]

6.38 p.m.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 217:

Page 20, line 24, at end insert ("; and (c) shall provide that in respect of land which has already been subject of an order made under sections 45, 51, 51A or 51B of that Act, any modifications specified shall relate to the total compensation payable in respect of those orders.").

The noble Lord said: Under the Government's proposals, planning authorities will be able to impose upon review new conditions or to modify existing ones, without becoming liable to pay compensation, unless the cost to be incurred by industry exceeds a certain threshold. By requiring expenditure up to the threshold at successive reviews, an authority can avoid payment of compensation while placing a substantial financial burden on the industry concerned.

Present Government proposals set the threshold at 20 per cent. of the calculated mineral asset value (as indeed my noble friend remarked in his answer to the last amendment) for smaller developments, and 10 per cent. for larger concerns. These are the amounts at risk at each review. The Stevens Committee made it clear that it would be unjust for industry to bear the cumulative effect of such burdens and recommended that account should be taken of costs imposed arising from reviews within the preceding 30 years. The same principle applies irrespective of the actual burden imposed by the planning authority, whether by orders under Sections 45, 51, 51A or 51B of the 1971 Act, and is enshrined in the amendment which is proposed. I beg to move.

Baroness Birk

I hope that the Government do not accept this amendment. It is somewhat similar to Amendment No. 215, on which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, felt he had been given some joy by the noble Earl. I hope it does not turn out that way, because both amendments are intended to restrict compensation by more than the consultation paper indicates. This undermines the effectiveness of the Bill, by restricting the amount which an operator will have to pay on a site that is subject to a number of reviews and orders. Yet, surely, this would occur only in the case of poor and ineffective operators, where local authorities have to go back periodically to try to ensure that operations are carried out without detriment to the locality and then restored effectively. Good operators will have nothing to fear from this Bill and they do not need this kind of amendment. I am surprised that the CBI should be concerned to protect inefficient operators and those who lack concern for the environment.

The AMA which, under the Bill, will be one of the mineral planning authorities, feel that this could mean that the total amount payable by an operator will be set at the date of the first order or review, and that any balance in the contribution for which the operator is liable will not be index-linked as the compensation scales will be. Secondly, the total sum for which the operator is liable will be the maximum set by the first order to which he is subject, which might, for example, be £5,000 in the case of a suspension order, and even if conditions are subsequently reviewed, the ceiling on the operator's contribution will be any balance left over from his earlier contribution under the suspension order. This amendment is dangerous. The implications are quite unclear in their detailed operation and I strongly oppose it. I know that, unfortunately we shall not be getting any tea, but I hope that the noble Earl will not show any sympathy towards it.

The Earl of Mansfield

I accept that it would be wrong for mineral planning authorities to make new orders each year and never have to pay compensation. That is why we have included a provision that orders must be spaced by at least five years, and there is the additional safeguard that all orders must be confirmed by the Secretary of State. This amendment would mean that when a mineral planning authority had "used up" its compensation threshold for that particular quarry, it would always have to pay full com- pensation in the future, regardless of any desirable changes due to different environmental weightings.

I am sure that, on reflection, my noble friend will agree that this is not acceptable, as one of the main principles of the Bill is to permit the regular review of the conditions under which quarries operate and are restored. It is for those reasons that I cannot commend this amendment to the Committee.

Lord Mottistone

I shall have a good look at what my noble friend has said, and, indeed, at what the noble Baroness has said, with regard to this amendment. I must confess that I am disappointed. I rather thought that my noble friend might be more enthusiastic than he has turned out to be about this amendment. I shall have to take it away and have a good look at it, and maybe come back later. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 218: Page 20, line 33, after ("(a)") insert ("subject to subsection (1A) of this section,").

The noble Earl said: It may be convenient for the Committee if I deal with Amendments Nos. 218 and 219 together, along with their Scottish equivalents, Nos. 229 and 230. The amendments make allowance for the fact that when carrying out special consultations in connection with the making and terms of an order, a mineral planning authority might not always be able to trace all the persons with an interest in the land and the minerals. This could be particularly difficult where the mineral rights are severed from the ownership of the land and there are a number of people with an interest in the minerals. In such circumstances, we consider that it would be unfair if a mineral planning authority was required to pay full compensation because it failed to trace somebody with an interest provided that it took all reasonable steps open to it to do so. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 219:

Page 20, line 38, at end insert— ("(1A) The duty to consult imposed by subsection (1)(a) of this section is only a duty to consult persons whom the mineral planning authority are able to trace by taking reasonable steps to do so.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 220:

Page 21, line 30, leave out ("and") and insert ("; or (vi) for the height or the area of any tip associated with the winning and working of minerals.").

The noble Lord said: The Stevens Committee listed in paragraph 8.6 of its report the matters on which changes should not be allowed on a review of conditions. It said that if it was desired to make a reduction in the basic parameters, existing powers and liability to compensation should be involved. The matters included the size of the permitted area for extraction or for waste disposal, and others mentioned in the proposed Section 178C. The amendment seeks to rectify the lack of reference to waste disposal in that section, by adding not only the area of tip, as Stevens proposed, but also, because of the obvious interdependence, its height. The formation of tips is such an integral part of minerals production that it cannot properly be divorced from, and warrants the same attention as, the other basic matters listed. I beg to move.

Baroness Birk

I very much hope that the Government will not accept these two amendments. As it is drafted, the Bill requires local authorities to pay full compensation if they seek to vary conditions that are fundamental to the working of a site. What this amendment seeks to do is to add to the list something which is not fundamental. One can go on and on just adding things, and it should not be in the primary legislation. Local authorities should be able to vary conditions on the height or area of a tip, and they should come within the compensation provisions. But they certainly should not be spelled out in the Bill in this way; while Amendment No. 221 is a kind of catch-all amendment. It would be quite wrong to have this in the statute, much as I like to have things spelled out in statutes.

The Earl of Mansfield

This is another amendment which, in effect, seeks to move the Government from their point of balance between the views of industry and local authorities. My noble friend's amendment seeks to extend those matters which attract full compensation to include the areas of tips and their heights. It is noteworthy that the Stevens Committee recommended that the area of the tip should be one of these fundamental conditions, but not its height. So far as fundamental conditions are concerned, the Government have taken the view that full compensation should cover those things any of which would fundamentally alter the nature of the planning permission.

We do not believe that either the area of a tip or its height are of this nature. For example, if, because of new development or other environmental pressures, it becomes desirable to move a waste deposit area from one side of a site to another, we believe that the mineral planning authority should have the power to achieve this and to attract modified compensation on it. So that this is another instance where, I am afraid, I do not have unbounded sympathy for my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Mottistone

I am sorry to hear that, but I shall read with great interest the report of what my noble friend has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.50 p.m.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 221:

Page 21, line 30, at end insert— ("(vii) for restrictions similar in effect to any of the provisions in subsection (1)(a)(i) to (vi) above.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment would include with the basic parameters listed in the proposed Section 178C any others which have like effect and which should attract full compensation, if modified under existing procedures. For example, under certain circumstances noise or dust requirements imposed by the planning authority after a review of planning conditions under the Bill could determine the period during which the winning and working of minerals was to continue—for example, not at night. Thus, the authority could achieve changes to the listed matters and hence reduce its liability for paying compensation in an indirect way. The amendment proposed would prevent such clever distortions of the system. I beg to move.

The Earl of Mansfield

I was not sure of the purpose of my noble friend's amendment until he rose to his feet. Section 178C sets out clearly just what matters the modification of which will attract full compensation. What my noble friend's amendment seems to do is to extend the list of matters to include such matters as modification of hours. That must be resisted. It is likely that in some circumstances a mineral planning authority would very reasonably wish to amend the hours of working of a particular quarry. In those circumstances, I think it is right that modified compensation should be attracted.

Lord Mottistone

Again I will study what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 222:

After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:

("Compensation for sterilisation of mineral resources

. For section 146 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 shall be substituted the following— . Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, a person shall be entitled to compensation under this Part of this Act in respect of a planning decision whereby planning permission for the carrying out of a new development of land is refused, or is granted subject to conditions, if either—

1. (a)(i) at the time of the decision he is entitled to an interest in any land to which the decision relates which has an unexpected balance of established development value; and
2. (ii) the value of that interest, or, in the case of an interest extending to other land, the value of that interest in so far as it subsists in such land as is depreciated by the decision; or
3. (b)(i) he is entitled to an interest in any land to which the decision relates; and
4. (ii) the decision is in respect of development comprising the winning and working of minerals; and
5. (iii) but for the decision he would be entitled to compensation by virtue of the provisions of sections 7 and 8 of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966.".").

The noble Lord said: The first part of this proposed amendment is a restatement of Section 146 of the 1971 Act giving a general entitlement to compensation when a new development reduces the value of land. The second part is designed to implement the Stevens Committee recommendation: That the law should be amended to provide that any condition attached to a mineral permission which has the effect of sterilising some part of the mineral deposits shall not operate to remove any right of compensation which the mineral operator may have under other legislation for part or all of the mineral sterilised by condition".

The quotation is from paragraph 7.33 of the Stevens Report.

I understand that the Government recognise that occasionally it may be necessary to use planning powers to restrict or prevent mineral development taking place—for example, to support railway lines— just as, conversely, it is sometimes right to avoid sterilising valuable mineral deposits by surface developments, especially when the development conflicts with the provisions of structure or local plans. It is fair that under such circumstances proper rights to compensation are preserved and this is the intention of the proposed new clause. I appreciate that its wording may not be 100 per cent. correct but I hope that at this stage the Government will at least accept it in principle, if not its details. I beg to move.

The Earl of Mansfield

I hope my noble friend will not think me offensive if I confirm that his drafting is a little less than 100 per cent.—indeed, so much less that I did not fully understand what he was driving at until he rose to his feet.

Section 146 of the 1971 Act is limited by virtue of Section 152 to the value of the unexpended balance of established development value, so no compensation is payable on land which has no unexpended balance. Where there is a relevant unexpended balance, compensation can already be claimed if the refusal of planning permission for mineral working reduces the value of an interest in the land.

If the amendment is designed to deal with a situation where sterilisation of mineral deposits occurs to provide support to adjoining land—my noble friend gave the example of railway lines—I am not convinced at the moment that it would be right to provide compensation in cases where an essential right of support is required. May I therefore suggest to my noble friend that he should withdraw his amendment now and that each of us should study the Official Report to see what has been said. However, I fear that I cannot give any particular undertaking.

Lord Mottistone

That is more encouraging than a few of the answers which I have received. With that modified assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29 [Mineral compensation modifications]:

[Amendments Nos. 223 and 224 not moved.]

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 225: Page 39, line 12, leave out from ("subject") to end of line 13 and insert (", in such cases as may be specified in the regulations, to such modifications as may be so specified").

The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 226, 227 and 228 not moved.]

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 229: Page 39, line 37, after ("(a)") insert ("subject to subsection (1A) of this section,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 230:

Page 40, line 3, at end insert— ("(1A) The duty to consult imposed by subsection (1)(a) of this section is only a duty to consult persons whom the planning authority are able to trace by taking reasonable steps to do so.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 231 and 232 not moved.]

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 232A: Page 42, line 3, leave out ("relating to that land").

The noble Earl said: This is a technical amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.

[Amendment No. 233 not moved.]

Clauses 16, 30, 17 and 31 agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Consequential amendments—England and Wales]:

Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 234: Page 43, line 4, leave out (" timber ") and insert (" woodland produce ").

The noble Lord said: This minerals planning Bill, strangely, presents the first occasion upon which the word "forestry" has been defined. It is not defined in the Forestry Acts of 1919 and 1967. The definition given is adequate for the purposes of commercial forestry where silvicultural practices are carried out with the aim of producing timber for pulp, building, pit props and so on.

Timber at law means mainly oak, ash, elm and beech, according to the part of the country, and 20 years old at that. Only in 1967 was the term "timber" extended to include softwood and all forest products to empower the Forestry Commission to plant conifer, hazel, chestnut and coppice. The amendment attempts to achieve for private woodland the ability to plant shelter belts and the like after mining operations rather than necessarily pure commercial forestry. I beg to move.

The Earl of Mansfield

The definition of forestry at the top of page 43 of the Bill, in Schedule 1, and moreover the Scottish equivalent on page 45, was in effect provided by the Forestry Commission; and since it is they who have to be consulted on the terms of after-care conditions and on compliance with them, I think it is right that they should provide the definition.

So far as my noble friend's amendment is concerned, I am advised that it goes rather wide and would in fact embrace, for instance, the growing of mushrooms—or indeed any other produce—between trees, and for that the Commission may or may not have the most appropriate professional expertise. So to that extent I am not happy to accept my noble friend's amendment. Nevertheless, so far as after-care provisions are concerned, relating to amenity planting (which is really rather a different matter), I will draw the points my noble friend has made to the attention of my noble friend Lord Bellwin to see whether something comes of it at a later stage of the Bill.

Baroness Birk

I should very much like to support the intention behind this amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, but I hope that it will be unnecessary because I hope the Government will come back at the next stage with an interpretation of "amenity" for the Bill which will perhaps cover the point that is being made.

Lord Gisborough

I thank the noble Earl, and on that understanding I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.2 p.m.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 235:

Page 43, line 17, at end insert— ("(dd) The following shall be inserted into the definition of "minerals "after the word "working and a mineral working deposit".").

The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 238, that being the Scottish version of this amendment. The Act introduces for the first time the fact that a movement of a chattel can require planning consent. However, the chattel referred to in the Act as "a mineral-working deposit" is probably in many cases not included in the definition of an interest in land or definition of a mineral. These amendments are intended to put that right. I beg to move.

The Earl of Mansfield

I do not believe that either this amendment or its Scottish equivalent is necessary or indeed desirable. Although we are bringing the removal of material from mineral working deposits under planning control, this does not in itself alter the nature of minerals. They still include all minerals and substances in or under land of a kind ordinarily worked for removal by underground or surface working and we would not expect different substances to be in a mineral-working deposit as defined in Clauses 1 and 18. For those reasons I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Mottistone

I will certainly read my noble friend's remarks with great interest, and at this stage beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Mottistone

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 236:

Page 44, line 1, at end insert— ("(8A) In paragraph 24(2) of Schedule 16 (definition of "County matter") leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) and insert:— (2) In a case where the functions mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above relate to County matters those functions shall be exercisable only by a County Planning Authority."."). The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 147, and I am interested in what the Government will say about this.

Baroness Birk

When this matter was raised before in connection with an earlier amendment, I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said that he would consult with the ADC and the ACC. I hope the noble Earl will ask him also to consult with the AMA, which is a county planning authority, in relation to certain areas and in some respects will be a mineral planning authority.

The Earl of Mansfield

I am sure my noble friend will take heed of the request of the noble Baroness.

[Amendment No. 236 not moved.]

Schedule I agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 237 and 238 not moved.]

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clauses 32 and 33 agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.