Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Bill [Hi.]

HL Deb 05 March 1981 vol 417 cc1537-75

5.37 p.m.

Report of amendments received.

Clause 1 [Meaning of "development"]:

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin) moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert ("include—

1. (a) the removal of material of any description—
1. (i) from a mineral-working deposit;
2. (ii) from a deposit of pulverised fuel ash or other furnace ash or clinker; or
3. (iii) a deposit of iron, steel or other metallic slags; and
2. (b) the extraction of minerals from a disused railway embankment.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to refer to the fact that there is a printing error; namely, the omission of the word "from". Paragraph (a)(iii) should read "from a deposit of iron, steel or other metallic slags". Likewise in Amendment No. 3 the word "from" has been omitted from paragraph (a)(iii). In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 3, and for the first of a number of times this afternoon I shall speak at the same time to its Scottish equivalent.

In Committee my noble friend Lord Ridley and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, both tabled amendments which extended the provisions of Clause 1 to cover deposits other than mineral-working ones. I think my noble friend's amendment went rather further than that tabled by the noble Baroness. At that time, I said that I accepted in principle the extension of planning control to the removal of material from some of the deposits listed in my noble friend's amendment, and that I would bring forward an amendment today.

I think there was a general welcome to the suggested extension to cover deposits of pulverised fuel ash and various types of metallic slag, and this the amendment now does. What was much more difficult was to consider one or two of the other matters suggested by my noble friend. As I explained in Committee, I do not think it right to include tips of domestic, industrial and commercial waste, for this would bring under planning control various activities (for example, clearing dereliction) which we are trying to encourage. In relation to disused road embankments, I am not aware of any cases where the removal of material has given rise to environmental problems and I have also been influenced in deciding against including these by the reasons advanced in Committee by my noble friend Lord Gisborough.

This leaves us with railway embankments. I have to confess that I am not entirely convinced that such embankments do not always form part of the land and are therefore subject to planning control already. However, I know that some county councils feel very strongly about this, and I have therefore decided, for the avoidance of doubt, that the extraction of minerals from disused railway embankments is clearly subject to planning control. This will cover the case, for example, where such embankments are raked over in the North-East of England to recover coal, and more generally the use of embankments as a source of aggregate for the construction industry. I beg to move.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I very much welcome this Amendment. As the Minister was good enough to say, I moved a similar amendment on Committee. The main difference between the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and my own was the point about railway embankments and also disused roads. I think this amendment makes the Bill even better and Clause 1 more specific, so I welcome it and thank the Government for it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

5.41 p.m.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 5, at end insert (", there having been no intention at the time of such deposit to carry out further operations on the deposit.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I should like, as my noble friend did with the first amendment, to couple another amendment, No. 4. With the permission of the House, I will not repeat every time that we are taking the Scottish amendment in parallel. Industry is still concerned that the definition in the Bill will in practice turn out to be too wide, and operators would, therefore, be required to obtain additional planning permissions for any operations not an intrinsic part of the primary extraction of minerals. At Committee stage my noble friend the Minister felt unable to accept the amendment, No. 1 at that time (col. 1314) which I tabled, but he did express his appreciation of the industry's concern. It is still very reluctant to depend on the mercy of an as yet hypothetical GDO. This amendment is designed to incorporate in the legislation the focus on the objective agreed by the Government and the industry as reasonable, and hopefully to meet my noble friend's objections, in col. 1315, to my earlier amendment. I accept that an operator would have the difficult onus of proving his intention at the time that the deposit was made. I beg to move.

Baroness Birk

May I say a brief word on this amendment because it addresses itself to the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, raised in Committee. It is true, I believe, that this part of the Bill is drafted rather widely, and it applies to the whole section. The point I want to make is that the amendment would not tighten up the wording as such but would completely destroy the intention of this part of the Bill. As I see it, as long as an operator, when depositing waste material on a site, declared that it would be his intention to carry out further operations in the future, then any operations on that mineral deposit at any time in the future would not require planning permission. This I find so imprecise that it would effectively exempt working on all deposits, because automatically operators could state that they had the intention at some time in the future of carrying out further operations. This commitment would in no way inhibit or restrain them. They would not have to follow it up in practice, but they would automatically by a simple declaration remove certain operations from planning control. This surely cannot be a satisfactory basis for tackling the problem of the working of stockpiles which are naturally generated on a working site. I am not really surprised that at this late stage the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, should come forward with another amendment on this point. He has courage, I must say, but this is really so patently inadequate. I do very much hope that the Government will resist this amendment as strongly as I am resisting it.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I recognise the reason for this amendment. Our original intention was to bring under planning control only the working of mineral waste, and our sole reason for widening Clause 1 to cover all mineral working deposits has been the impossibility of distinguishing in legislation terms between waste and a stockpile. I do not feel that the amendment provides a satisfactory solution to this problem. The test which is proposed—the intention at the time of deposit—would introduce a great deal of uncertainty, and we are afraid that this would be difficult to resolve without the return to the Secretary of State on appeal. I still feel that the solution we are proposing to this problem—a wide definition in the Bill and granting planning permission in the GDO for cases where planning control is clearly inappropriate—is the most practical way forward. That is why I am unable to accept my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, before addressing myself to my noble friend's remarks, perhaps I could address some remarks to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, who was, as it were, taking me to task for having the effrontery to come back with a different amendment. I would invite her to look at my closing remarks at col. 1316, where I said: Perhaps I might take this away and see if we cannot find a form of words which would satisfy your Lordships on Report". Having said that to warn the House and the Committee that I might do what I have just done, I do not think it is effrontery to do it. So I trust that, when the noble Baroness refers to her notes from advisers on future occasions, where they have put in what might be described as somewhat disparaging remarks relating to my actions, she will observe that in all cases where I have put down amendments—except in one case where it was not my amendment in the first place—I had a phrase not dissimilar from the one I have juts read out from col. 1316. It was a good-humoured Committee and it is a good-humoured House, but I do rather take exception to being accused of breaking what I understand to be the Rules of the House in putting down amendments at Report stage.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, if the noble Lord the Minister will forgive me, I am very sorry the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, was upset. It really was not anything to do with my advisers. Obviously, it was a joke that fell flat; it was meant to be a very good-humoured quip. I was getting sleepy and I felt it was time we woke everything up a bit. Of course, the noble Lord has the right to put down the amendment. I just felt that when he thought it over he would think it not a very sensible thing to do. This is not casting any aspersion on him.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, it is a pity about the last remarks. I was about to accept the whole thing. Everything I say in this House I believe to be sensible, including when I pull the noble Baroness's leg.

To return to the particular amendment and my noble friend's remarks, what I see is that he is inviting us to depend on the mercy of an as yet hypothetical GDO. Once again, perhaps I might take away his words and think about this matter. I saw this as a drafting amendment which was going to improve the Bill. It seems to me that others have read it somewhat differently. At this stage of the passage of the Bill through Parliament, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18 [Meaning of "development"]:

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 22, leave out lines 36 and 37 and insert ("include—

1. (a) the removal of material of any description—
1. (i) from a mineral-working deposit;
2. (ii) from a deposit of pulverised fuel ash or other furnace ash or clinker; or
3. (iii) a deposit of iron, steel or other metallic slags; and
2. (b) the extraction of minerals from a disused railway embankment.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]

5.50 p.m.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 23, line 12, at end insert— ("(3) Subsection (3) of section 38 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (limit of duration of planning permission) shall be amended by the insertion at the end of the paragraph (d) of the following words:— or (e) to any planning permission granted for development consisting of the winning and working of minerals.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was tabled in Committee by my noble friend Lord Boardman as, I think, Amendment No. 12, in col. 1323. My noble friend unfortunately cannot be here today and has asked me if I would take it on again. I should add that not only did I support this amendment in Committee—having a somewhat similar one of my own at the time—but my support is whole-hearted.

With my noble friend Lord Boardman I shall resist the temptation to read to the House Chapter 7 of the Stevens Report, but shall draw attention simply to the fact that an operator, first, can win minerals only where nature deposited them; secondly, can buy mineral building land only when it comes on to the market; and thirdly, can work minerals only after he has obtained planning consent to do so. Stevens, after hearing a mass of evidence, recommended that in respect of mineral planning permissions, first, restoration conditions should always be imposed; secondly, planning authorities should have full discretion to impose or not to impose a limit on the period within which a development must start; thirdly, its life should generally be limited to 60 years; and fourthly, planning authorities should have powers to review conditions, the operator bearing a reasonable amount of the consequent financial benefit.

The Bill deals with restoration and after-care with a 60-year life and imposes the financial liability on operators. It does not give the recommended freedom for a planning authority not to impose a limit on the starting date. For operators with heavy investments in minerals and plant at stake, that is very serious. It may be that my noble friend the Minister might say; "There is nothing to prevent the authority from putting a date as far ahead as the starting limit. We shall encourage them to do so". But they do not, despite the Department of the Environment's encouragement as in Circular 57/78.

I have with me two planning permissions: one from the East Lothian District Council and one from the Warwickshire County Council. They both bear, in black print on the front of them, a statement. One of them says: The development to which this permission relates must be begun within five years from the date of this permission". The other says almost exactly the same thing. The period of five years is printed on the front. There is no blank so that it reads, "within (blank) years". It seems to me, therefore, that common human nature and (dare I say?) laziness, will encourage people, if they are using this particular form, not to go through the trouble of crossing out "five" and putting something else in. They will leave it as it is, and indeed they have done so.

There are other interesting facts. The East Lothian form consists of four pages of detailed instructions and no doubt the operator has, perhaps reluctantly, accepted them. It gives the authority such enormous control. I must say that I have not seen a form like this before and I think that the degree of control which the planning authority manages to exercise now, before the Bill is enacted, is something to be seen to be believed. If anybody thinks that operators are getting away with things, then they are most mistaken.

I return to my amendment. Both of these orders concern minerals. Both have a five-year starting limit printed upon them. I am informed that they are typical and that it is very rare for an authority to grant a longer starting period. Thus the minerals industry is ensnared in a limit designed and appropriate for normal building developments.

The Minister says that the operator can appeal against conditions imposed or can apply for a new permission if, for one reason or another, a permission expires unused. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister appreciates the expense and effort involved in obtaining a planning consent, let alone in mounting appeals against unreasonable conditions. Some parts of industry (and it is by no means uniform in its needs and problems) have suggested that a permission limited not by time but in relation to the operation of a previous consent—thus giving a planned sequence of consented operations—might help. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister might care to comment on whether that is legal within the terms of Section 41(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and, if not, whether the Government would consider an appropriate amendment of the law.

Finally, the amendment does not remove the power of the planning authorities to impose time limits, but should give them the flexibility in appropriate cases to allow either for planned development or for the absence of an absolute limit. I hope that my noble friend will be more encouraging this time. I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I shall not repeat today all of the arguments that I advanced in Committee about what we are doing to ensure that adequate provision is being made for the long-term needs of the mining industry. Let me just say that I have not forgotten the promise which I made to my noble friend Lord Mottistone in response to his Committee Amendment No. 10 at that time, on long-term planning. I said that I would consider whether a provision more narrowly drawn than that amendment would be a useful addition to the Bill. Unfortunately, it is not easy to see how such a provision might be added without having unfortunate repercussions elsewhere in the planning system. But we have not given up hope and it may be possible to introduce something appropriate in the other place, if not in your Lordships' House. Even if we conclude that it is not appropriate for this Bill, I should like to give an assurance to my noble friend that we shall be advising mineral planning authorities, when the Bill comes into effect, that they must ensure adequate provision for the needs of the mining industry.

I turn to the substance of the amendment. I cannot accept that mineral working should not be subject to a starting limit when planning permission is granted. That would inevitably lead to uncertainty and would be extremely harmful to the overall planning of an area. All other main types of development, including housing and industry, are subject to a five-year start period or such other longer or shorter period which the planning authority may specify.

The principle of a start period was confirmed both in relation to the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 and indeed in debate on the Mining Regulations in 1971, and on both occasions was accepted by your Lordships and, indeed, by the industry. This amendment which states that nothing in Section 41 of the 1971 Act shall apply to development consisting of the winning and working of minerals would not only take away the duty of the mineral planning authority to put a time limit on a planning permission, but would also cast serious doubt on whether the planning authority had the power to impose a time limit at all.

I recognise that five years may be inadequate in some circumstances, but the mineral planning authority does have complete discretion to set a longer period if the mineral operator puts forward a convincing case. My noble friend suggests that mineral planning authorities always impose a five-year start period, but I have been advised by the ACC only today that their authorities are always prepared to consider any requests for periods longer than five years—and I am sure that the metropolitan authorities do likewise—and they have provided a number of examples where this has been done. So, with respect, it is by no means a formality which my noble friend suggests.

Finally, I note carefully the point made by my noble friend about phased workings and I shall undertake to take that away to have it looked at by the lawyers. With that assurance, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I should like briefly to support the Minister as regards this amendment because when it came up in Committee I opposed it on the grounds that it seemed to me that there was no reason why mineral workings should be treated differently from other planning permissions, and also it did not appear that there was any hardship suffered by the operators. Like the Minister, I also have made inquiries. As well as the ACC, the AMA have also done a survey on this. In all the cases where it was examined it was found that the mineral planning authorities were always open to any applications or requests from operators for a longer starting period. In fact, the requests were practically none. As the Minister said, there were, I think, three we know of in the shires. So far as the AMA and the metropolitan district is concerned, only one has come to the surface. In many other areas there have been no requests at all. I will not rehearse the reasons because I am so much in agreement with what the Minister said about this, but I hope that the Government will stick to their last about this. He said at the beginning something to the effect that there may be opportunity in another place, but I hope he will stand firm on this. I also hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will not take this personally because I am talking about the subject of the amendment and not because he personally moved it, but if he looks at this and does his own inquiries among the mineral planning authorities he will find that there is enough flexibility. If people require it and can substantiate the reasons for a longer starting date, they will be able to get it. I hope, with the Government, that he will find it possible to withdraw this amendment.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

My Lords, may I say a brief word of support for the Minister and ask my noble friend to take this into account. The local authorities have a practical problem just as much as the industry has. Of course, all those who are familiar with this subject understand that the industry needs to plan years ahead in order to keep its very expensive processes going. We fully understand that. On the other hand, the local authority have very sensitive public opinion to handle. Certainly in the South-East region, where so much of this aggregate must be got, the sites being opened now become more and more sensitive. It really is quite an important matter to the local authorities to get the timing of these developments in the most acceptable way—or at least let me put it like this, in the least unacceptable way.

They really have big local considerations to manage in order to get these consents approved at all. After all, it is the locally elected county councillors who have to give the consent. How the hell they are to be voted in again by the local people who would cut their throats if they could get hold of them is quite a puzzle. Timing is a matter of importance, and I am sure that my noble friend can see that the local authorities have a problem here just as much as the industry. I think the right answer is what my noble friend has offered; the local authority must have power to fix a time limit, but in the guidance that is given to local authorities they should be asked to be flexible and to consider the needs of the industry as much as they can. Having done that, they really have done about all they can to get the balance right in this rather difficult matter.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I would take issue with my noble friend Lord Nugent on one point only, because I quite understand the gist of what he is saying. It is really a question of whether five years is a short period of time or not. To me things happening in 1976 were but yesterday. Frantic arguments when we were sitting on the other side of the House about the Docks Bill, and the Shipbuilding Bill, seem to have occurred about yesterday. I had been in my present job for a good year by then. It seems but yesterday when I even started it.

If you are a mineral operator with very expensive heavy machinery and a long-term operating schedule altogether, five years is obviously but a short period of your total working plan. It would seem to me therefore that it is just this one point. One almost gets carried away to repeat it too much, but one wants to make sure that all county councils—and some of them are—are fully aware that their time-scale of (what shall we say?) four years for the next election, and perhaps their time-scale in whatever operations or other things they do apart from being councillors, cannot be judged against the measurement of the mineral operators.

Having said all that, I take great heart from what my noble friend the Minister has said because he gave two very guarded undertakings at different points in his speech. We take great heart from this, and hope that perhaps something fruitful might come from it. I hope that he will not have listened too closely to the blandishments of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, who was rather pressing him to forget at any rate the first of his hopeful remarks, and will press on with that and perhaps see some way to helping us to get something in the area in which this amendment lies to improve the Bill, and make it one of which this House can be proud. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 [Distribution of planning functions]:

6.5 p.m.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 2, line 28, at end insert— ("(4) In paragraph 24 of Schedule 16 to the Local Government Act 1972 (which provides for the distribution of certain functions, including the service of enforcement notices under section 87 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and stop notices under section 90 of that Act, between the district planning authority and the county planning authority)—

1. (a) in sub-paragraph (1), for the words "sub-paragraph (2)" there shall be substituted the words "sub-paragraphs (2) to (4)";
2. (b) in sub-paragraph (3), for the word "Those" there shall be substituted the words "Subject to sub-paragraph (4) below, those"; and
1545
3. (c) the following sub-paragraph shall be added after that sub-paragraph:—

(4) In relation to a matter which is a county matter by virtue of any of the provisions of paragraph 32(a) to (cd) below the functions of a local planning authority specified in sub-paragraph (1)(b) above shall only be exercisable by the mineral planning authority.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Sandford moved Amendment No. 147 in Committee on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ridley, I recognised the strong arguments for limiting the power to serve enforcement and stop notices to mineral planning authorities—particularly as a similar amendment was tabled by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. Since then officials in my department have discussed this matter with representatives of the local authority associations, and to the best of my knowledge no objections have been raised. I am therefore delighted to fulfil my promise and I bring forward this amendment today. I beg to move.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, I should briefly like to welcome this amendment, and to thank my noble friend for having put it forward, and for following up on our previous discussions.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I was not going to say anything, but as I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on this I feel I ought to register it and be able to read it in Hansard. I also am pleased about this amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No.7 not moved.]

Clause 3 [Periodical reviews of mineral workings]:

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 2, line 40, after ("period") insert ("or (iii) are authorised by planning permission but have not been begun;").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to both this amendment and to its Scottish equivalent, No. 10. I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Sandford for drawing our attention to an inadvertent departure from the Stevens Committee recommendations when he moved his Amendment No. 18 in Committee. We have decided that it would be right to follow Stevens and place mineral planning authorities under a duty to review not only sites where mineral working is currently taking place or has ceased within the last five years but also those where working is authorised but has not yet begun.

Perhaps I can illustrate this with an example. We are encouraging mineral planning authorities where circumstances warrant it to impose periods longer than five years within which mineral working must begin. Suppose a 10-year start condition is imposed. We believe that if the mineral planning authority happens to be carrying out a review in, say, the eighth year of this permission, even if working has not commenced they should look at the conditions on the permission and consider whether they still reflect the required environmental standards—which may in themselves have changed in eight years. This amendment will achieve this. I beg to move.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I also support this amendment, and like the Minister should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for pointing out this omission to us on Committee. It is obviously necessary that the scope of these reviews should be wide enough to embrace this category of planning permissions. It was in order to make sure that the scope of reviews was sufficiently wide that I moved another amendment on 5th February, at column 1336, that would enable local authorities to look at non-operational workings which had ceased work at any time they chose in the historical past.

I have now received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, regarding such an amendment, for which he originally expressed support on Committee stage. He says: The important point is that any mineral planning authority can still go back beyond five years if it wishes to do so, and use the powers provided under the Bill, but it will not be under a statutory duty to do so". I hope this is legally correct; I think there is a certain legal difference of opinion over this—I am not for a moment suggesting the Minister is misrepresenting the position—so I am still looking into the matter and may have to return to it on Third Reading. I hope that will not be necessary.

If the Government's legal advice is that this is generally acceptable, then I shall have to accept that, but in view of the letter, the quotation from which I just read, it would be helpful (in view of this obscure point and the legal difference of opinion on it) if the issue could be clearly expressed in any circular that is prepared on the basis of the Bill in this area of planning permission. Certainly I do not want to raise the matter unless it is absolutely necessary to do so.

Lord Bellwin

I shall of course consider carefully what the noble Baroness said, my Lords, and just as she is anxious that it should be right, we are equally anxious.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 9: After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:

("National review of mineral workings

. The Secretary of State, in conjunction with the minerals planning authorities, shall be required to undertake from time to time surveys of current mineral workings and dereliction created by past mineral workings.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I discuss at the same time Amendment No. 11, the Scottish equivalent, and perhaps I might at the same time comment on No. 33, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. They are all on very much the same point. In Committee, Lord Nugent moved an amendment broadly similar to the one I am moving and to the one he proposes to move later, No. 33. It was designed to ensure that a national survey of mineral workings and derelict mineral workings should be carried out, and at the time the suggestion was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, from the Liberal Benches and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, from the Cross-Benches. At that stage the Minister replied: 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 … 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 are very sympathetic to this".—[Official Report, 16/2/81; col. 519.] In the light of that assurance, I am concerned because no Government amendment to that effect has been tabled for this stage; I waited to see if one was put down before tabling one myself, and this amendment is intended to fill the breach. It is restricted to mineral workings and derelict mineral land, although I believe strongly that another survey of all derelict land is necessary if we are not to waste precious national resources.

I am pleased to see the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, but I would say, with respect to him, that my amendment is rather better in that it allows, first, for periodic reviews while his refers only to "a survey" of all former workings, which would be a once-and-for-all review, as his amendment does not contain the words "from time to time". Secondly, my amendment contains a reference to a review of current mineral workings, and that would provide valuable information when it comes to implementing the provisions of the Bill, as well as information on the historical dereliction point about which the noble Lord and I, along with other Members of the Committee, felt strongly.

Thirdly, my amendment requires the Secretary of State to carry out such surveys in conjunction with the mineral planning authorities. That is important because it would mean co-operation between central and local government rather than there being just a direction from the centre. Fourthly, my amendment covers dereliction caused by mineral working occurring outside the site for which planning permission, if any, has been granted. Although those are particular points, the basic intention is almost exactly the same.

I cannot stress too strongly that a formal commitment to a national survey must be made in the primary legislation; in this case, ministerial assurances are not sufficient. However sincere and well-meant they may be at the time, they can always be overtaken by events. Further, whichever party may be in power, it is constantly pointed out that spoken intentions are not the same as words in legislation, and of course Hansard cannot be referred to when it comes to interpreting legislation. Whatever may be stated in Hansard, although extremely useful, it is not the same as having a provision in the primary legislation. On an issue such as this, which the Committee considered extremely fundamental—like so much in this Bill which cuts right across party lines—the Government should accept that such an amendment is necessary. I hope the wording I propose is acceptable, but at the end of the day I would not object if the Minister preferred the wording suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. We are aiming at the same thing and we should choose the best wording we can.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I too will, with permission, speak to this amendment and the others to which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, referred. Since this matter was discussed in Committee we have given much further consideration to the need for a survey of dereliction caused by past mineral working to supplement the information in the 1974 Derelict Land Survey. We have also been considering the need for a survey of current mineral working to provide a datum base against which it will be possible in later years to judge how far the provisions of this Bill are proving successful in preventing the creating of new dereliction. We have now decided that it would be desirable to carry out a survey of current and recently completed mineral workings in conjunction with minerals planning authorities, and we shall shortly be consulting the local authority associations about this survey and its possible timing.

I wish to stress that it is our intention that the proposed survey should cover all sites where mineral working is currently taking place and all those where such working has taken place in the past and where restoration is inadequate or incomplete. There may also be a separate derelict land survey similar to the one conducted in 1974, and of course we shall ensure that there is no unnecessary overlap between them. As I said, on timing we want to consult the local authority associations, but my present intention is that that survey should begin early next year.

With regard to the noble Baroness's proposed new clause and that proposed by my noble friend, the position in Scotland is different because the agency there operates on an on-going programme of survey and restoration of derelict land and in this context considers specifically the problems of former mineral workings. The noble Baroness is pressing for the imposition of a statutory obligation on the Secretary of State to undertake surveys of this nature. She wants such an obligation written into the primary legislation. I seriously question whether that is necessary. Governments undertake many surveys on a non-statutory basis. Indeed, the Derelict Land Survey itself was carried out in just that way, and I cannot see why we should not be trusted once again to do what is needed.

I have given, and I give again, the firmest possible assurance about our immediate intentions, and I have no doubt that we shall wish to repeat the exercise in a few years' time. If the noble Baroness considers that by then it is possible that we shall no longer be in power, I can only assure her that she is wrong. In any event, I am sure she is not suggesting that a Government of her persuasion would be less diligent than we in this matter.

1 should also be a little disappointed if the noble Baroness should press for a statutory obligation of this nature before there had been any opportunity for local consultations with the local authority associations. If the survey is to be undertaken in conjunction with them—and I am sure that this is right—it would be quite wrong to present them with a fait accompli written into the Bill.

I understand the reservations and concern of the noble Baroness. She approves of what we plan to do, but like my noble friend, she simply wants to be quite sure that it sticks and stays. I am sure that she will read carefully in Hansard what I have said—as she always does. My remarks may not satisfy her entirely. I have great hopes that the noble Baroness will be satisfied on the point, but, if she is not, I hope that at least my noble friend is satisfied and will feel that we have tried to meet his point. Perhaps even the noble Baroness will accept my assurances and not press for a statutory obligation to be imposed on the Secretary of State.

6.22 p.m.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

My Lords, allow me to confirm that I am quite happy to debate my two amendments, Nos. 33 and 34, with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Amendment No. 9. I thank the noble Baroness for so effectively opening the debate on this matter and for making the points with which we are all concerned, to the effect that there should be a survey of past dereliction in particular. The noble Baroness made the point that my amendment is less strong than hers because I seek only a single survey. I was optimistically supposing that since there is to go on to the statute book such a good piece of legislation, so that effective restoration will be assured, no dereliction will arise in the future from current workings and there will be only existing dereliction to tackle. I am entirely with the noble Baroness as regards the practical end that we want to reach. We certainly want to ensure that no new dereliction arises, or that if by some awful accident it does, it is dealt with.

With regard to my noble friend's reply, I must of course recognise the cogent point made by the noble Baroness to the effect that there is nothing like having the provision in the Bill to make sure that what is required is carried out. I also take the point that what is said in your Lordships' House has no binding force in this regard. One must agree that that is the case. On the other hand, my noble friend has said that the survey is to begin next year. One seldom sees Governments moving as fast as that. My only anxiety in the matter would be that, bearing in mind that my noble friend has had such a brilliant career in his office, he is almost certain to be promoted in the course of the year and therefore we should not be able to attack him and hold him to his word.

However, joking apart, I consider that a commitment to start the survey next year would be effective. The survey would be undertaken within the lifetime of this Parliament. I do not doubt that it will be carried out. My noble friend is perfectly right: the survey must be undertaken by way of a partnership with the local authorities. It will be a big undertaking. It will not be a matter simply of recording the condition of dereliction on the various sites, which, heaven knows! is bad enough. It will also be a matter of deciding what work is needed in order to restore the sites. Some of them will have to remain water-filled. There simply is not enough material to fill them all in. If they remain water-filled, how are they to be used in the future? If they are not water-filled, what is to happen to them? Would they be added to farms, or perhaps put to recreational use? All such questions have to be worked out as part of the survey. Then there must be devised a programme of how to tackle the work over a period of years when the money for doing so becomes available.

Personally I am disposed to accept my noble friend's assurance about the survey starting next year. I regard this as a firm assurance, and it is the next best thing to having a statutory obligation in the Bill. So I should certainly advise my noble friends on this side of the House that this is good enough. The local authorities will be very pleased to have this assurance—they did not really think that they would be given it—and my noble friend is to be congratulated upon geeing up his department to the point where it is willing to undertake the survey. Carrying out the survey will make considerable demands on high-class professionalism.

So I must thank my noble friend for what he has undertaken to do. My advice to my noble friends—and I hope that the noble Baroness will feel the same—is that if we accept this valuable assurance we would not be chickening out.

Lord Gisborough

My Lords, is it not true that most of the counties that have large areas of dereliction have already made surveys of the areas within their structure plans? Certainly this has been done in my county. Furthermore, such surveys have in particular been carried out in connection with the 90 per cent. Government grant for the removal of waste heaps.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, I have no objection whatsoever to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, but I am slightly alarmed at the amendment of the noble Baroness in relation to current mineral workings. If in what he is to set up the Minister is to be guided by the amendment of the noble Baroness—we have no objection to the principle—rather than by the amendment of my noble friend Lord Nugent, bearing in mind that the Minister said that he will consult the local authorities, can he give me an assurance that he will consult also the mineral operators? It could make quite a difference for the mineral operators if they were to know when they were to be surveyed. It would seem to me that there is nothing worse than a local authority official travelling perhaps 30 miles and back in a large car merely to ask a question or to see whether a gate is closed. I hope that my noble friend can give me the kind of assurance that I seek.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would say that I am always glad to give an assurance of consultation since, as I have said so many times in the House, it is only through maximum consultation that we can produce the best Bills. I readily undertake to do that. With regard to the point made by my noble friend Lord Gisborough, I would agree that much of the work is done by those who carry out the structure plans, but if one considers the country as a whole, rather than a single area, one sees that the need is very great. Without question, the survey will bring out this point, and that is why it is certainly worth undertaking.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, the Minister has made a very persuasive speech, and as I said earlier, I have no reason to believe that what he promises will not be done. I am sure he agrees with me that this matter has nothing to do with the question of which Government are in power; rather it is a question of what should be included in legislation to be implemented by whichever Government happen to be in power at the material time. I still feel that the obligation ought to be written into the legislation.

The object that we have in mind here can be expressed quite simply. The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and my amendments seem to be perfectly well drafted, but if a question of drafting arises, I am sure that either of us would be quite prepared for the parliamentary draftsmen to see whether the wording could be improved. We should have no objection to that. What I object to is this sort of resistance to putting into primary legislation something which ought to be there.

I accept the point the Minister made that other surveys have taken place in the past, and that they have been done in this way, but this is a new piece of legislation. I repeat again what I think we have all said either in Committee or on Second Reading, that so far as minerals are concerned it is the first piece of legislation of its sort since 1947, and I really am most anxious that we should make it as watertight as possible and as forward-looking as possible: because we should be "kidding" ourselves if we think we are going to see another piece of mineral legislation at all. There will not be room in anybody's legislative programme for probably the next 20, 30 or 40, or it could even be 50 years. Therefore, I am very reluctant to let it go without trying to make it better than it is at the moment, even taking into account what the Minister has said.

On Question, amendment negatived.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 23, line 24, after ("period") insert ("or (iii) are authorised by planning permission but have not been begun;").

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

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]

Clause 5 [Imposition of after-care conditions on planning permission]:

6.33 p.m.

Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 12:

Page 4, line 22, at end insert— (""aftercare condition" shall also mean a condition requiring that such steps shall be taken, during such period as may be specified for each step as may be necessary to ensure that the land has been made suitable to sustain trees, shrubs or plants.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at the Committee stage on 5th February, at col. 1343, I moved an amendment to extend the provisions of the clause on after-care to cover land for use for amenity purposes. Those who spoke on the amendment at that time included the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. I think the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, spoke; and, although he could not be here, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, sent me a note about his views on it which were supportive of the amendment, which I quoted at that time. So I think one can say that this amendment had support from each of the three parties in your Lordships' House, and also the Cross-Benches.

The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said then, at col. 1346: We accept that there might be a particular problem in relation to community tree planting … while this amendment is too wide to be acceptable, we should like to see whether we can come up with one which would be acceptable". Unfortunately, so far the Government have not come up with an amendment and the amendment which I now move seeks to rectify that omission; because I accepted at the time (and I think we all did) that it was extremely difficult, perhaps, for the Government to accept something as wide as "for amenity purposes".

However, I have now received a letter from the noble Lord the Minister which I find generally reassuring on this point, since he gives a commitment that an amendment will be tabled at Third Reading, and explains that the delay is due to other pressures on parliamentary counsel. I must confess I am disappointed, because as I understand it we are now going to be tougher in this House about amendments being moved on Third Reading, although the Government will be able to do so, obviously. But in moving this amendment I should like to have a verbal confirmation from the Minister that the Government are moving an amendment along these lines; and perhaps he could tell me whether, since he wrote the letter to me, he is able to add anything to it. I would be grateful if he could give the House some indication of the lines along which the Government are thinking, because I want the amendment but I also want to save having a long debate on this point, about which so many of us feel so very strongly, on Third Reading. I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, as the noble Baroness rightly says I wrote to her to explain why, although we fully intend to make an amendment on these lines, it has not yet been possible to come up with a suitable form of words. I gladly assure the House that it is my intention to bring forward such an amendment on Third Reading; and, of course, an equivalent one to the Scottish part of the Bill.

I am afraid that the noble Baroness's amendment is unlikely to be quite adequate as it stands because of the various references to "after-care condition" in the succeeding subsections of Clause 5 and elsewhere in the Bill, but I hope that with the assurance I have given of a Government amendment being tabled, certainly in time for Third Reading, she will feel able to withdraw her amendent now. While I am speaking I wonder whether I may add that it is also our intention to make one or two other amendments to Clause 5 at Third Reading, in particular to fulfil the promise that I made to my noble friend Lord Mottistone in relation to making subsection (8) of this clause more workable, and to make it clear that after-care provisions can be subject to a scheme agreed between the mineral planning authority and the operator.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, with that explanation from the Minister—and may I say how glad I am that the Minister is also thinking of other amendments; and, in particular, the one he mentioned about co-operation and consultaton is one with which I would agree entirely—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 13:

Page 5, line 25, at end insert— ("; and (c) the owner of the surface land").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage, at col. 1353, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said: …the fact that the owner is notified of an application and has the opportunity to make representations to the authority, should cover it…". He was referring to the question whether the owner should be consulted. He went on: If, however, my noble friend feels that there are reasons why that is not so, I should be glad to hear of them". My Lords, these are the reasons that I should like to give.

While the operator must comply with conditions as to after-care, the owner must not only be able to resume subsequent occupation but may also be required to implement the conditions himself if the operator fails to restore by reason of his going bankrupt. It is essential, therefore, that full regard should be paid to the owner's future interest. It is therefore vital that the planning authority should consult the owner before issuing conditions. The planning authority will be extremely unlikely to have mining experts on its staff, and even the Ministry have inadequate experience of the after-effects of restoration—and they are the people who are needed to advise the planning authority. Meanwhile, the owner will have useful knowledge of streams, local problems of geology and other information like the direction of streams, and so on—information which is vital to good restoration. It is simply not good enough that he should just be informed of the conditions, as it is anyhow by then too late for the conditions to be changed if an error is found without a claim for compensation by the operator.

Further, while the operator is consulted in the very respect of his application and has the ability not to proceed if the conditions are too onerous, the owner, even though he may be called upon to implement those conditions if the operator goes bankrupt, has no say in the conditions affecting his own responsibility. Further, having regard to his ability to make representations, which is more a theory than a practical likelihood, I am informed that some planning authorities will not accept an individual approach other than by written statement.

A further problem is that most mining leases now have the right by the operator to terminate the lease in 12 months, giving further risk to the surface owner. Going to detail, the owner may require, and write in a lease, restoration and, for example, seeding with, perhaps, cocklepark mixture. What does the operator do if the mineral planning authority writes it in that he has to finish off with a clover ley? This is a very important matter, because through a default of the operator the owner is being bounced into a huge financial obligation of restoration without even being consulted. Consultation is the word. No appeal is asked for, no change of intent of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I resisted a very similar amendment at Committee stage, and I regret that I must do so again. We accept that it may well be sensible to consult the landowner, and indeed the operator, as an after-care condition. But there are other cases outside the mineral field where such consultation is equally sensible, but it is never actually required in the planning legislation. We will commend the practice of such consultation to mineral planning authorities, but we can see no reason for making this the first occasion on which it is required by statute. It should be remembered that the landowner is already notified of the application itself, and in this way does have the opportunity to make his views known. I can understand my noble friend's anxiety, but it is covered in the way I have suggested.

Lord Gisborough

My Lords, could my noble friend say whether the other examples that he mentioned also carried with them such a very big financial liability as there would be if the operator goes bust and is left with everything to pay?

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, when I was talking about planning legislation in general, it covers such a great field that I would not be in a position to say that there were no situations at all. I take the point my noble friend is making and I am sure it is a valid one. I still feel we do not want this to be the first time where we put something like this into legislation. In view of what my noble friend has said, we will have a look at this point and if there is something arising from it that gives cause for concern we will look at that. I cannot go further than that.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, would my noble friend think that this is something that could start entering legislation? Until the middle of this century nobody would dare not consult with the landowner. He was an important character. Nowadays, landowners are not treated with such great respect by local authorities or by anybody else, and it could be that the time has come, with the move in history and the change of everybody's relevant position, that for the first time since before the Roman time, the landowner is required to be protected by legislation. I throw that out as an idea. I have no brief for the landowners; but to say that it is the first time is not necessarily an excellent argument.

Lord Gisborough

My Lords, I will have to withdraw the amendment but I hope, if my noble friend cannot find some way around it, that he will find a way of absolving the owner who has not been consulted from the risk of having to restore the land himself. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.43 p.m.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 14: Page 5, line 32, leave out ("an") and insert ("a restoration or").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I speak also to Amendment No. 15, to which this amendment is a paving amendment, and to Nos. 19 and 20, which are the two Scottish ones? This relates to an amendment, No. 51, which the Government put down at the Committee stage which I then welcomed as being more than sufficient to cope with the particular tidying up of the Bill that I was seeking with Amendment No. 32. However, looking more carefully at No. 51, as now inserted in the Bill, we think it could be further improved for complete clarity. After-care has been for some time a natural sequel to restoration conditions and the industry has co-operated accordingly. Now that it is to become the subject of normal statute, the industry is concerned to examine the letter of the statute however much it, and presumably the planning authorities, hope that the letter of the statute will not kill the spirit of co-operation.

These amendments are designed to ensure that an operator can obtain a certificate to show when restoration or after-care conditions have been satisfied and liabilities on that count fully discharged. Restoration certificates will also implicitly establish the period for any after-care conditions. On the understanding that this is to clarify the Bill and to tidy it up, with no hidden sense behind it, I hope that my noble friend will see his way to accepting these amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I have considered carefully my noble friend's proposal to extend the certification procedure to restoration conditions as well as to aftercare ones, but on balance I do not think this is necessary nor do I think it right to impose this additional duty on mineral planning authorities. The certification procedure has been introduced for after-care because there may be genuine uncertainty as to whether the condition has been complied with during the five-year period, and it is to the benefit of all that the mineral planning authority should state whether or not it is satisfied. A restoration condition as defined in this clause is much narrower, in that it merely refers to the use of topsoil, subsoil or soil-making material. It seems to me that there is much less doubt as to whether or not this has been done to the satisfaction of the mineral planning authority, and, although of course the mineral planning authority has complete discretion to certify that the restoration condition has been complied with it if wishes to do so, I must resist this amendment which would make it a statutory duty. I hope that, with this explanation, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, while I accept what my noble friend has said, I should like to read what he said and perhaps at a later stage of the Bill we might return to the charge. I am not sure that the wording here (which is better than it was originally) is yet right to satisfy the situation fully. With those words at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 15: not moved.]

The Deputy Speaker (Baroness White)

My Lords, I have to inform the House that should Amendment No. 16 be agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 17.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 16: Page 5, line 42, leave out from beginning to ("the") and insert ("which is enforceable against him by").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like also to speak to the Scottish equivalent Amendment No. 22. When in Committee I moved Government Amendment No. 55, it did not quite receive the rapturous reception I had been expecting from my noble friend Lord Mottistone. Accordingly, we have looked at this provision again, as I see my noble friend has tabled his own Amendments Nos. 17 and 23. I hope the House will agree that this will remove an unintentional limitation in the amendment which I moved in Committee so that contracts between a previous owner of the land and the mineral operator are not excluded. I beg to move.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for trying to improve the Bill. I am in the difficulty that I should like, with permission, to take my amendment, No. 17. I think it is better than the Government amendment. To talk in the first place of the Government amendment, we wonder whether the Government intend to tip the scales against the operator to the extent that this clause, even with my noble friend's amendment, will do. A typical arrangement between operator and landowner provides for the operator to extract the minerals, to restore the land to the extent of replacing topsoil and planting grass; and to sell it back to the original owner at a price reduced to take account of its condition. Existing contracts will have been made without the knowledge of subsection (12), which this amendment and my amendment seek to change, and therefore will contain no provision relevant to that proviso which it contains.

It would seem that a landowner, having enjoyed his minerals royalty and bought back his land at a depressed price, may under this provision be able to compel the operator to foot the bill for further improvements which it was intended when the arrangements were made should be for the landowner's account. I should be grateful if my noble friend could tell me whether that is what the Government intend. As I understand it, furthermore, the mineral operator, under the circumstances that I have just described, cannot claim compensation.

So I turn now to my own amendment, Amendment No. 17, and suggest to your Lordships that the shortcomings which I have just outlined in the Government amendment are, we hope, overcome in Amendment No. 17. I should be very grateful if my noble friend could say whether he would agree with that interpretation of the two of them.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, so far as Amendment No. 17 is concerned, I fear that this is defective in that by removing the words that my noble friend proposes, the following reference to "that person" in line 43 is made meaningless. There is not much that I can add to what I said before. I noted my noble friend's concern, as I said a few moments ago, when I moved Government Amendment No. 55 in Committee. In moving our amendment today to remove the limitation that the contract must have been made between the two parties, I had hoped that my noble friend and the House would feel that this meets the point. Whether or not any other observations that he makes adversely affect this, as he often and fairly says that he will read what has been said and consider it, I shall do the same, but I cannot go beyond that today.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, in the circumstances I cannot call Amendment No. 17. The next amendment is Amendment No. 17A.

6.52 p.m.

Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 17A: After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:

("Agreements

. A Mineral Planning Authority may enter into an agreement with any person interested in the land for regulating the development and use of the land of a mineral working site in lieu of the making of a suspension, or supplementary suspension order or revocation order, to secure the future use of the land for amenity, recreation or sport.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the definition of restoration conditions of a site after working is still indefinite but assumes the restoration by use of subsoil and top soil. It is only after-care condition for which planning conditions are attached. This amendment returns to the point made in Committee that agriculture or forestry may not necessarily be the best form of restoration. Apart from an amenity project, it might be appropriate to produce a car park of rolled flat stone, to leave the area as a motorcycle scramble or even to leave a huge hole in the ground for eventual fill by waste materials. The planning authority have great power to force operators or owners to enforce costly reinstatement while all the time there may be easier and less expensive treatments suitable for the site. The Minister said he had an amendment which dealt with the whole question and so perhaps this amendment may be proved surplus. I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, we believe that this amendment is unnecessary. Under Section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 a local planning authority may enter into an agreement with any person interested in land in their area for the purpose of restricting or regulating the development or use of the land, either permanently or during such periods as may be prescribed by the agreement. Mineral working sites will certainly include land and it is of course possible to use such an agreement to cover the future uses mentioned by my noble friend and for it to be used in lieu of an order under some other section of the 1971 Act. I hope that, with that explanation, my noble friend will be satisfied and feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Gisborough

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

[Amendments Nos. 18 to 21 not moved.]

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 22: Page 26, line 11, leave out ("made between him and") and insert ("which is enforceable against him by").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this with Amendment No. 16. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]

Clause 6 [Duration of planning permission]:

Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 24: Page 7, line 17, leave out ("sixty") and insert ("thirty").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I come back after a great deal of consideration with an amendment which was discussed on Committee. I listened very carefully and read again what the Minister said. I am afraid that I still remain very concerned indeed that workings which may well have gone on for decades and decades will now be allowed a further 60 years' operational life under the provisions of the Bill. This could add up in some instances to 100 years or more. The extraction of minerals, particularly when it is not carried out under the conditions that nowadays would automatically be required, could be, as has been said on various clauses of this Bill, a major disruptive influence on the lives of people in local communities—even those several miles away who have to live with the lorry traffic.

On Committee the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, wanted to remove the 60-year period giving such workings indefinite future life, while I wanted a 30-year period, which certainly has the support of some of the local authority associations. The Minister in reply to this (at column 1362 of Hansard for 5th February) said that this was a case where he held a middle position between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I can see his problem and that the middle position is a compromise; but, after careful reflection, I do not believe that the fundamental issue of the quality of life of the community (which is what this is all about) can be a matter of compromise.

If existing workings which operate without time limit are to go on, it seems to me that 30 years would be extraordinarily reasonable. It would then be possible for futrher permission to be applied for, and for the Secretary of State, in certain circumstances, to determine those applications. If the minerals industry are generally concerned about their relationships with the community—and they have expressed their thoughts about this on several occasions during consideration of this Bill, and I think it was discussed across the Floor with the noble Lord, Lord Boardman—certainly the responsible minerals operators, of whom there are a great many, are concerned with the environmental consequences of their work.

This is an amendment which they could also readily accept. It will introduce certainty in the minds of local people. On a previous amendment the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, referred to the anxiety of local people in a community. One has to look at that side as well when talking about local authorities. In this area this is also extremely important. I very much hope that the Government have thought about this again and that the Minister, even if he will not agree to it on the spot now, will have another look at it and perhaps move away from the position where he is trying to keep a balance, a compromise, between the "unto eternity" side and the 30 years that I have proposed, rather than come down in favour of the 60 years. A number of things have come out during our discussions, expressed in other amendments and in other clauses which are very relevant, and, even if the Government agree to 40 years, that is better than 60 years, which seems to me to be a very long time. I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I fear I cannot help the noble Baroness. It is true we were trying to get a balance somewhere and we are still in that same position. It seems to me that that is the right thing to do. I said in Committee that some time limit should be placed on all existing workings so that we are no longer left with mines and quarries with an indeterminate life. However, I am also very conscious of the industry's long-term planning needs, as I have said on so many occasions during the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House. When operators have received permissions with no time limit upon them in the past, they clearly expected to be able to go on working those quarries to the end of their useful life—and, of course, they would have had a right of appeal when permission was granted had too short a life been imposed. I do believe that 30 years is too short for some existing mines and quarries and that the time limit of 60 years, which was the period recommended by both the Stevens Committee and this Government, should be retained. Therefore I cannot accept the noble Baroness's amendment.

On Question, amendment negatived.

[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]

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

7.2 p.m.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 26:

Page 9, line 23, at end insert— ("; and (c) that neither of the following circumstances exist:—

1. (i) A reasonable prospect that such development will be resumed within a period of ten years; or
2. (ii) The site of such development forms part of the reserves of an adjacent active and permitted working and there is an intention to work the site during or at the end of the life of that working".).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 26 is a rather improved version of Amendment No. 106, which I moved in Committee. There is a very strong reason for this, of which I have made my noble friend aware. I understand that he is sympathetic to the idea of it and perhaps might consider this further. It might be for the convenience of the House that I should not explain to your Lordships in detail why this amendment is a sound one if my noble friend can confirm that that is his thinking at the moment.

Lord Bellwin

Yes, my Lords, we do have some doubts about the precise way in which this should be done, but we are sympathetic. We want to consider this and I gladly give my noble friend the assurance that we will do so if he will withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I should just like to say that I also understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I agree that the way in which it is drafted at the moment is still far too wide and when the Minister is looking at it I hope he will take very clearly into account that local authorities, in deciding whether or not a prohibition order is appropriate, would take into account the possibility of future working on that site from an adjacent operation. Therefore to place such requirements in primary legislation could prove unnecessarily restrictive in practice.

Again, if we are talking, as we have in connection with previous amendments, about balance, then I think it is very important that, although the principles behind these amendments may be accepted, one has also to be very careful about not restricting the local authorities, and also, to accept that from the way the rest of the Bill is drafted, it does not seem to me that there would be the opportunity or desire for them to exercise this power unreasonably. They would also be subject to the confirmation of such orders by the Secretary of State; so I hope that the noble Lord will take these points into account when he is trying to draft something which relates to the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, with my noble friend's assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 27:

Page 12, line 30, after ("unless") insert— ("(a) all the persons who are required to be notified under subsection (3) of this section have notified the authority in writing that they do not object to the proposed order or supplementary order; or (b)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is another version of Amendment No. 131, which my noble friend agreed had merit. Indeed it had the blessing in principle also of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I have noticed that no Government amendment is tabled and I wonder therefore whether the Government will accept this. I beg to move.

Baroness Birk

Yes, my Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is quite right. I did support this and it still seems to me to be perfectly all right in principle. Regarding the wording or the drafting, perhaps we might hear what the Minister has to say.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I certainly welcome, as I said in Committee, a streamlined procedure for the coining into operation of suspension orders, if that could be done without leaving weaknesses. Unfortunately, we have yet to come up with a satisfactory answer. My noble friend's amendment today seems to have two main weaknesses. First, there is no procedure whereby those entitled to be served with notice are actually told that the order has come into effect; and clearly it is essential that everyone should know that date. Secondly, there would be no way of knowing whether all those people who are— required to be notified under subsection (3)"— have actually been so notified and therefore have had the opportunity to write and say they have no objection. As currently drafted, the Mineral Planning Authority could never be certain that everybody who had been required to be notified had been contacted and therefore the streamlined procedure could never be used.

I hope, with that explanation, that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment, with the assurance that we will continue to explore whether a legally watertight streamlined procedure can be developed.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, with that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 28: Page 13, line 10, at end insert ("by reason of this Act and section 1 of the Local Land Charges Act 1975").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Committee stage there was an amendment similar to this, and the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said regarding the definition of land charges that it was unnecessary and that where, in connection with the making of local land charges Section 1 of the Local Land Charges Act 1975 applies, it is automatically a charge for the purposes of the 1975 Act.

With respect, this does not seem satisfactory. I believe that one of the objects or advantages of a second Chamber is to make legislation more comprehensible not only to lawyers but also to non-lawyers. The words "local land charge", I am advised, are not in common parlance and therefore not needless of an explanation. Only real estate lawyers will grasp the full import of the term "for owners and occupiers".

Without reference to the 1975 Act the term means little to non-lawyers. It is unacceptable because the 1975 Act materially amends the 1925 and the 1972 Acts. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, it was interesting that during the Committee stage he had down an amendment relating to the 1925 and the 1972 Acts and even with all his knowledge and the backing of the experts behind him they got it wrong. If they can get it wrong, so can anyone else. The 1975 Act also amended the practice and responsibility of local authorities in keeping land charge registers and in the replies it gives to those who make searches of the register. There is no request here for any change of the Bill or change of the law; it is purely a matter of simplification and clarity. My Lords, I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, when this matter was raised in Committee I did, as my noble friend said, advise that the amendment was unnecessary. We have, of course, had another careful look at this but, with respect to my noble friend, we do not think it would be right to put into the Bill what would amount to a superfluous reference having, in the opinion of my legal advisers, no legal effect. As I explained in Committee, Section 1 of the 1975 Act provides that a charge or other matter affecting land shall be a local land charge, if it falls within any of the descriptions contained in the section, and is not one of the matters set out in Section 2.

A local land charge includes any charge or other matter which is expressly made a local land charge by any other statutory provision. Thus the 1975 Act applies automatically to such statutory provisions, which will include, of course, the reference in this Bill once it becomes an Act. We looked very carefully at this, in view of the fact that this is very much a matter of legal interpretation, and that is the advice given to me. That is why I feel unable to accept my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Gisborough

My Lords, I thank my noble friend again, and I must beg leave to withdraw the amendment. It is a battle between background lawyers.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.12 p.m.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 29: Page 14, line 12, after ("in") insert ("on,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 32, which is the Scottish equivalent. This is a purely drafting amendment and brings this subsection into line with the rest of the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

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

[Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 not moved.]

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 32: Page 34, line 4 after ("in") insert ("on").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment earlier. My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 not moved.]

[Clause 15 Mineral compensation modifications]:

Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 35: Page 20, line 15, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 37. These are amendments that I moved in Committee and it was the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, who replied to them at the time. They are concerned with the regulations procedure. The answer which I then received was that there seemed no reason to depart from the usual procedure and to impose an absolute obligation on the Secretary of State. I never have believed that precedent itself constitutes a reasoned argument, and that is particularly so with reference to Amendment No. 35. No sound reason was given to me in Committee to justify the proposal that the requirement to make regulations should not be mandatory.

I shall be prepared to accept that there are certain consequential matters which flow from the second of these two amendments, but the first is the important one. Without repeating all that was said in Committee, this is basic to the regulation procedure. We do not know very much about what will be in the regulations or how they will work out. Of course we had the consultation paper, which is now getting fairly elderly, but we were hoping at the beginning of the discussions on this Bill—I certainly was—that by this stage we should have more specific information about the regulations and what would be in them. But the mandatory aspect is extremely important, particularly when we are diving into the unknown. It is for that reason, and because there has been no further information in this area from the Government that I felt I should have another go at, at least, trying to make it mandatory. I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I fear that I can do nothing to help the noble Baroness with the first of these amendments. I shall shortly be moving Government Amendment No. 41, which introduces a new consultation requirement, as noble Lords requested in Committee, and, in addition, financial regulations such as these can be made only with the consent of the Treasury. However, I hope it will be of some help to the noble Baroness if I say that I am prepared to consider the second of these amendments, since I recognise that the contents of the regulations should include the two matters set out in subsection (2). Counsel has, however, advised that the wording of the amendment is unacceptable in its present form. I hope that with that assurance the noble Baroness will be willing to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I am delighted that the Minister will accept the second amendment. I hope that counsel will do what is required and that the noble Lord is not relying on me to find words that are acceptable. If he is, we shall go on for ever. But, seriously, I am pleased to hear that. I agree that Amendment No. 41 moved things along a considerable way, but I did not feel that the reply which I had in Committee permitted me to leave the matter as it was. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 36: Page 20, line 17, leave out ("and 178") and insert (", 178, 237 and 238").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 45, which is the Scottish equivalent, with this one. This amendment is necessary because of the special position of the National Coal Board as a statutory undertaker. Sections 237 and 238 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 make special provisions for the calculation of compensation to statutory undertakers in respect of orders made under Sections 45 and 51 respectively, and it is likely that these will need to be modified so that compensation provisions similar to those for other mineral operators can be introduced for the National Coal Board. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]

7.20 p.m.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 38:

Page 20, line 27, at end insert— ("(2A) The provisions of the regulations shall not be such that they reduce over a period of ten years by more than the amount specified in subsection (2B) of this section the amount of compensation to be paid. (2B) The amount mentioned in subsection (2A) above shall be equivalent to 10 per cent. of the calculated Capital Value").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 38 and 46, which is the Scottish equivalent, bring me to the real core of the industry's fear of this Bill. Their fear relates primarily to two interdependent factors: first, the amount by which the compensation payable under the present law is to be abated under powers which this Bill proposes; and, secondly, the frequency with which they can be required to bear this burden. The House may be surprised to hear that, after studying the proposals in the Ministry's consultation paper, the industry concluded that operators could be faced, in effect, with a new tax unique to the minerals industry, equivalent to 20 per cent. of capital assets, and that this tax could be repeated every five years.

Discussions between the industry and my noble friend's department have revealed substantially different forecasts of the potential additional burden on the industry, but the figure deduced, even from the department's forecast which was lower than the industry's, is alarmingly high. I should be most interested to hear what my noble friend considers to be an acceptable figure and how this relates to the industry's liability under the present proposals.

As I understand it, the estimate for 1980–81 tends to indicate a potential cost to industry, on a total five-year programme, at the rate initially of £100 million in real terms. Costs will be mainly on the operations which are consequent upon review. That, as we see it, means that industry writes a blank cheque for up to £100 million on the enactment of the Bill. Can your Lordships therefore wonder that industry is alarmed at what might be imposed upon it by some future Secretary of State? That is the point which one needs to observe: it will not necessarily be the present Secretary of State, who perhaps might take industry's problems into account more closely than somebody else might in the future. In effect, Clause 15 gives to the Secretary of State unlimited powers. Do your Lordships doubt that the planning authorities and the Secretary of State would be under very heavy pressure to squeeze industry to the maximum permitted by the law in certain circumstances and up to limits above which planning authorities would have to make a contribution?

As the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said earlier, the likelihood is that this Bill when it becomes an Act will be in force for many years to come. Though I appreciate that regulations could be changed on the way, this underpinning of the regulations which my amendment seeks to make would seem to be necessary to safeguard us through to the future.

May I make three final points which I hope might help my noble friend in arriving at a decision. First, an important sector of the industry exports over 80 per cent. of its output in a highly competitive market where slight price adjustments can have serious trading effects. Secondly, 60 per cent. of the aggregates industry's sales are to the public sector, which will necessarily pay in one way or another for increased costs. Thirdly, the effect on small businesses such as small gravel pit operators could be disastrous and would be disastrous if the amendments which I hope your Lordships will consider are not included in the Bill.

My amendments would give to operators the assurance that the burden on them and on them alone which this Bill seeks to impose could not exceed 10 per cent. of their capital assets, repeated every 10 years. The industry needs and deserves this assurance. I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, this amendment brings us once again to the subject of the compensation regulations. My noble friend Lord Mansfield said in Committee on 16th February that he hoped it would be possible for a statement on the content of the regulations to be made today. Your Lordships will appreciate that discussion of the consultation paper which we issued last autumn is still continuing, and indeed officials in my department have met representatives of the CBI and of mineral planning authorities within the last two weeks to consider the matter further. However, I hope it will be for the convenience of the House if briefly I set out our current thinking and its likely implications.

We start from the basic principle proposed by the Stevens Committee that where the conditions of a minerals planning permission are modified or new conditions are imposed, the operator should bear a reasonable amount of any loss or damage incurred by him. This is a principle which has been accepted by the industry, and which indeed is already applied in some cases on a voluntary basis. 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 as well as the operator and the mineral planning authority, we are endeavouring to arrive at a method which will show how what is reasonable in relation to each mine or quarry is to be calculated. In other words, a compensation threshold can be determined in each case. If the total loss or damage incurred by the operator, assessed in accordance with provisions based on Section 164 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, is less than this threshold, no compensation will be paid. If the loss or damage exceeds the threshold, then the operator will be able to claim the difference between the two figures. So each mine or quarry will have a threshold for the purpose of orders made under Sections 45 or 51 of the 1971 Act. There is likely to be a different threshold for other types of order.

A method for the calculation of thresholds for quarries where planning conditions are being imposed or modified was proposed in the consultation paper. The reaction to this paper leads us to think once again that we have struck a fair balance. The industry feels that the thresholds are too high, while local authorities and those representing environmental interests are concerned that it will not be possible to achieve all that is required without the payment of compensation. So for the present we wish to stick to the proposal set out in the consultation paper.

This proposal is that for most quarries the threshold should be 20 per cent. of the mineral asset value, calculated by means of a specified formula. This asset value is to be calculated from two elements—the entry in respect of the mineral element of the quarry in the rating list, index-linked to current values, which reflects the annual rental which would be paid for the right to work the quarry, and a factor based on the expected future life of the quarry. I would emphasise that, although value based, this is not a capital valuation of the quarry but a readily ascertainable figure which can be used to determine a threshold. There would be absolute minima and maxima thresholds of £2,000 and £100,000 respectively, and before the maximum is reached, it is proposed that the percentage of the mineral asset value taken into account should be tapered so that the £100,000 level is not reached until the asset value is £1 million or more. This tapering threshold proposal has been criticised as being unfair to small businesses, as we heard my noble friend say. We are therefore considering whether it would not be better to use a straight 20 per cent. of the mineral asset value between the same minimum and maximum figures. It is also proposed that the maximum and minimum thresholds should be index-linked to their values in 1980, and various indices are currently being examined for their suitability for this purpose.

What would be the effect of our proposals in monetary terms? My noble friends Lord Nugent and Lord Mottistone, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, were among those who asked this question at Committee stage. The Valuation Office of the Inland Revenue have carried out a 10 per cent. sample of surface mineral workings in England and Wales based on the position at 31st March 1980. On the basis of this survey, we estimate that some 30 per cent. of quarries would have compensation thresholds between £2,000 and £4,000. Another 20 per cent. of the thresholds would be between £4,000 and £12,000, and this means that half of our quarries would have thresholds of £12,000 or less. The next 20 per cent. would take us up to £24,000, the 20 per cent. after that to a threshold of £60,000, and the final 10 per cent. of quarries would have a threshold of between £60,000 and £100,000. The 10 per cent. sample was made on a random basis, and involved some 340 quarries.

Of course, it is possible to look at these figures in two ways. The member of a mineral planning authority or an environmentalist may look at a particular quarry in his area, and conclude that not a great deal can be achieved for £4,000—and remember that three out of every 10 quarries are estimated to have a threshold of this amount or less. If the quarry is an old one, which is restricted by few if any planning conditions at the present time, it will certainly not be possible to achieve within a £4,000 threshold all that an authority is likely to consider necessary to bring the quarry to an environmentally acceptable standard. Moreover, the authority will not be able to make a further order and to claim the benefit on the threshold again for at least five years. However, we believe that the costs to be borne by the operator must bear some relation to the value of the quarry if the principle of reasonableness is to be maintained.

I know that the industry, on the other hand, is fearful of the total burden which could be imposed upon it. If we assume that the average threshold is £20,000, and that there are some 4,000 quarries in Great Britain, then in theory the industry would be required to forgo compensation totalling £80 million if every mineral planning authority imposed new requirements at every quarry up to the maximum of the threshold. Indeed, this could in theory happen every five years. However, with respect, this is an extreme and theoretical view of what could occur, and we have no doubt that the actual burden on the industry will be very much less than this. The cost of bringing modern quarries into line with current planning standards is likely to be well below the threshold level, if indeed any action at all is required in such cases. Nor do we envisage the need for a new order every five years in most cases. The requirement for orders to be confirmed by the Secretary of State provides a guard against unreasonable action, and in practice, orders will require no more than the good operator might have been expected to offer on a voluntary basis. Indeed, the real effect of these proposals is not a blanket charge on industry, but an attempt to bring the less good operator to standards nearer to those of the best.

My Lords, there are other points which I could cover, such as the need to modify the formula to deal with underground mining, the proposals in respect of prohibition and suspension orders, the need for a power to amend the basis of compensation, and the suggestion which has been made to us that we could abandon the formula entirely in favour of standard conditions which would bring a quarry up to the level of an agreed code of good quarry practice. However, I hope that I have said enough to give a general indication of the likely effect, as we see it, of our proposals as they stand at present. We shall, of course, continue to listen to representations which are made before the time comes to bring the regulations before your Lordships, but I hope from what I have said that you will agree that, once again, in this most difficult of all tasks, we are trying to strike a reasonable balance between the needs of industry and the needs of the environment.

I am most concerned at some of the fears that my noble friend Lord Mottistone has put forward, and if it was really felt that they were justified to the extent that he said then, of course, that would also affect the thinking when trying to draw this balance, but I know that he will study carefully in Hansard what I have said. I have gone to some lengths to do it carefully and in detail because I accept that it is an extremely important matter. The very last thing we want to do is anything that will have an adverse effect on industry, particularly in times like these. So with the difficult task of trying to draw a balance, I ask my noble friend whether he will feel able to withdraw this amendment in view of what I have said; and, as I have also said, I am sure he will consider this very carefully indeed.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for spelling out so carefully and so fully what he sees to be the regulations and the arguments that have persuaded him of the form that they still may or may not take. Also, I was aware of the fact that in his closing remarks he made the point that in these difficult times for industry it is not the moment to impose great additional costs, particularly when one speaks about an important sector of the industry exporting over 80 per cent. of its output, when exports are so important to this country and so difficult with the high value of the pound. It still is high.

I accept what my noble friend said about the fact that perhaps it may not be the extreme figure at which I arrived of £100 million, or that which he arrived at of £80 million, and that it might not be over a five-year period and repeated over a five-year period. I accept all those points, but I am sure that he will understand that the fact that it could be that sort of figure and that it could be that sort of rate of repetition makes it very difficult for people to plan.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, if my noble friend would give way for a moment, before he sits down I am anxious to get on the record that I recognise that this is a fundamental issue and that some concern about it still exists. If, as I hope, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment, I intend to ask the officials to make an attempt to refine our formula so as to meet the industry's criteria while providing threshold levels which will enable the Bill to operate in the way that we intend, and we will discuss the results with both sides in the hope that a measure of agreement can be reached before the regulations come to be made.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, I am grateful indeed for that further reassurance, and with those remarks I beg leave to—

Baroness Birk

My Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, I take it that we can only discuss the amendments put forward, although the Minister has made a long and meaty statement on compensation which I shall really have to study. I think perhaps we should have had it circularised in advance because it was very difficult to take it all in. However, it was necessary and it came at the right time and we were promised that we should have it. All I can say after a first hearing, without the words in front of me, is that having considered the consultation paper on compensation, and having listened to what the Ministers have said during the passage of the Bill—and particularly what the Minister has said today—I am now largely convinced that the proposals put forward by the Government are reasonable and practicable.

As I understand it, the survey on which the points that the Minister has put forward was based was carried out on a sound statistical and methodological basis, and as I understand it the survey showed that in most cases mineral operators will be expected to pay a reasonable amount towards the costs of meeting orders under this Bill. If anything, it may well be significantly to the advantage of our operators and I appreciate—and I emphasise again—that I think it is absolutely essential that there should be the right balance between the needs of industry and also the demands of the environment and the quality of life. But I think it is important that when a scheme is introduced the figures should be updated from the start to take account of inflation between September 1980 and the coming into operation of the regulations.

I know, as indeed I think we all do, that there have been discussions with the local authority associations and the AMA and others are still considering the detailed findings of the Government survey. Obviously further discussions will be necessary, but if the broad principles are accepted it will still be necessary to make sure that, on the one hand, the local authorities are not inhibited from using their powers by massive financial implications and, on the other hand, that the operators make a reasonable contribution, but naturally again so that it is in line with their being able to carry out their operations and productivity.

However I am not convinced, before being able to study in detail what the Minister has just said, that the proposals for compensation on prohibition orders are reasonable, although he was not able to go into detail about that. At the moment, as I understand it, it is still suggested that the operators should find the first £5,000 of the cost of the imposition of any conditions on sites related to a prohibition order. That figure is really rather low today, and also it does not appear to relate to the size of the workings. I understand why the Government have adopted a different approach from that which they adopt for a review of conditions—that is the non-availability of grading information, which can be a problem. But to fix the figure at £5,000 means that if local authorities wish to impose conditions on the site so that it is effectively restored, then they will have to foot a massive bill.

It has been suggested that this must be set against loss of minerals which are sterilised by the restoration requirements. However, in these cases the operators have already written off the value of these deposits. They have chosen not to work them, and in fact they may well represent no real value at all because they are very low grade or difficult to work. In many cases they may have been left for years. There have been a lot of sites, and there still are, where prohibition orders will be appropriate where the minerals are effectively of little or no value.

These sites will not be tackled by local government if local government has to foot the total bill. That is why, as I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, moved an amendment on Committee which he did not repeat today—because of this terrible dilemma of the cutback in public expenditure and responsibility being put on local authorities who do not have the resources to meet it. One, of course, hopes that this is going to be a transient situation, but I think it is going to be quite a long transient period. That is why it is very important that a formula be found that will relate the operator's contribution realistically to the work which still requires to be done on a site, and that as soon as possible resources will be made available to the local authorities. Otherwise, the dereliction on which the surveys are going to be made will get worse and worse, and we are going to get more and more shoddy areas which are going to affect local communities.

I rose to speak on this situation as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, was about to withdraw the amendment because there did not seem to be any other way to comment on it. Due to the lateness of the hour I will not comment further on his amendment. I simply wanted to get on the record some of the points on compensation generally.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 39: Page 20, line 30, leave out ("subsection (1) of").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 40 and to the Scottish equivalents Nos. 47 and 48. These are pure drafting amendments which bring the provisions in subsections (3) and (4) into line with subsection (5). I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 40: Page 20, line 31, leave out ("subsection (1) of").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 41:

Page 20, line 40, at end insert— ("(6) Before making any such regulations the Secretary of State shall consult such persons or bodies of persons as appear to him to be representative—

1. (a) of persons carrying out mining operations;
2. (b) of owners of interests in land containing minerals; and
3. (c) of mineral planning authorities.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like also to speak to the Scottish equivalent, No. 49. When my noble friend Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 213 in Committee, my noble friend Lord Mansfield promised that the Government would consider whether a requirement to consult should be written into the Bill. We have concluded that it would be right to put such a requirement in the Bill, but to specify rather more precisely the "interested parties" referred to by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. This amendment does this. I beg to move.

Lord Gisborough

My Lords, may I ask about one point? It is now established that owners of land do not get consulted. Here we have an amendment which relates to consultation with owners with interest in the land. Is that not rather an anomaly?

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I do not consider it to be an anomaly. Indeed, with respect, I am not sure I am altogether following the point my noble friend is making. Perhaps he would like to put it forward again.

Lord Gisborough

My Lords, the noble Lord said earlier, on a previous amendment, that if the owner was to be consulted it would be the first time. He said that on an amendment which I withdrew. Here we have a case of the owner being consulted. It seems to me rather an anomaly.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I do not think that that is so. I did not say it would be the first time the owner would be consulted. The fact is that owners of land are notified of planning applications, and hence that was the reason why they would not be consulted in that sense. It is a question of what you mean by consultation. If you are notified that an application has been made you then know what is happening and you are in a position, if you wish to do so, to take steps to do something about it. I think that is the difference.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for following up my earlier amendment and including something satisfactory in its place.

Baroness Birk

I, too, should also like to welcome this formal recognition of consultation, particularly as it ties up with the amendments I was moving earlier, Nos. 35 and 37. This seems to me to help the situation along.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 42: Page 22, line 6, leave out from ("period") to ("and") in line 8 and insert ("at the expiration of which the winning and working of minerals was to cease").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am moving this amendment and its Scottish equivalent No. 50 to clarify something which arose in Committee. When we were discussing what I might call the five fundamental conditions listed in Section 178C, my noble friend Lord Mottistone seemed to suggest that a condition limiting hours of working might fall within the terms of provision (v). This was certainly not the intention of the Stevens Committee, nor is it ours, and, as my noble friend Lord Mansfield said in Committee, we must resist any extension of the fundamental conditions to include such matters as modification of hours. What the Stevens Committee recommended, and we have followed, is that modified compensation should not apply where additional restriction is placed on the total life of the working. This drafting amendment modifies the provision to make it clear that it is the total life which is meant. I beg to move.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, once again I should like to thank my noble friend for this amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 43: Page 22, line 14, leave out ("of") and insert ("or").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting amendment which corrects a printing error. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 29 [Mineral compesation modifications]:

[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 45: Page 39, line 38, leave out ("and 167") and insert (", 167, 226 and 227").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 47: Page 40, line 6, leave out ("subsection (1) of").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 48: Page 40, line 7, leave out ("subsection (1) of").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 49:

Page 40, line 16, at end insert— ("(6) Before making any such regulations the Secretary of State shall consult such persons or bodies of persons as appear to him to be representative—

1. (a) of persons carrying out mining operations;
1572
2. (b) of owners of interests in land containing minerals; and
3. (c) of planning authorities.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 50: Page 41, line 19, leave out from ("period") to ("and") in line 21 and insert ("at the expiration of which the winning and working of minerals was to cease,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 51: After Clause 30, insert the following new clause:

("Rights to convey minerals by means of pipes

(1) In section 2(1) of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966 (which so defines ancillary rights that the court may confer as to exclude rights to convey minerals by means of pipes) for the words "or conveyance of minerals (otherwise than by means of a pipe) or" there shall be substituted the words "minerals, or, to the extent provided by subsection (1A) below, their conveyance, or for the purpose of".

(2) The following subsection shall be inserted after that subsection:— (1A) The rights for the purpose of the conveyance of minerals mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above are—

1. (a) rights for the purpose of their conveyance otherwise than by means of a pipe; and
2. (b) rights for the purpose of their conveyance by means of a pipe, where there was a right to convey them by means of the pipe before 1st January 1963.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should also like to speak to amendments which are consequential upon it. I said in Committee that the Government accepted in principle Amendment No. 189 moved by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, and these amendments are the result. This new clause seeks to restore to mineral operators who negotiated ancillary rights for the purpose of the conveyance of minerals by pipeline before 1st January 1963, a right to apply to the High Court, if necessary, for the renewal of such rights.

Under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1923 a mineral operator could apply to the Railway and Canal Commission (and since 1949 to the High Court) for rights to seek for and work minerals and ancillary rights thereto, provided he could show that it was in the national interest for such rights to be granted and that it was not reasonably practicable to obtain the rights by private agreement.

The Pipe-lines Act 1962 removed the right of the mineral operator under the 1923 Act to apply to the court for the grant of ancillary rights for the purpose of conveying minerals by pipe-line; the reason for that change was to provide under the one Act—the 1962 Act—a single and more suitable method of acquiring compulsory rights in land. In 1966, the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966 consolidated Part 1 of the 1923 Act including the provisions dealing with the rights of working and rights ancillary to the working of minerals.

I said during the Second Reading that this Bill was part of a package of changes that the Government proposed to make, and explained why we wished to postpone the coming into operation of this primary legislation. But these reasons do not apply to this particular clause, the need for which is pressing, and we intend, therefore, that it should come into operation upon the receipt of Royal Assent. Amendment No. 58 changes Clause 32 accordingly. Amendment No. 59 extends the title of the Bill. This is necessary to ensure that the new clause will fall within the scope of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, I should like deeply to thank my noble friend for responding to the request that was made during the Committee stage. I am most grateful for the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Consequential amendments—England and Wales]:

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 52:

Page 43, line 8, at end insert— ("1A. In section 36(5) (provisions applying with modifications in relation to art appeal to Secretary of State) for the words "and 30(1)" there shall be substituted the words , 30(1) and 30A".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 52 and I should like to speak to the Scottish equivalent, Amendment No. 55, as well. This amendment is consequential upon Clause 5 of the Bill. In paragraph 1 of the schedules, we have already provided that where a minerals application is called in and determined by the Secretary of State he may when granting planning permission subject to a restoration condition also impose an after-care condition. This amendment is the equivalent provision relating to appeals made to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 53:

Page 43, line 18, at end insert— ("4A. In subsection (1)(b) of section 238 (measure of compensation to statutory undertakers) after the words "51" there shall be inserted the words", 51A or 51B".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 53. This amendment and its Scottish equivalent, No. 56, are consequential upon the special position of the National Coal Board as a statutory undertaker. There is, in fact, a printing error in the Scottish equivalent Amendment No. 56 as tabled. It should read, "49A or 49B" so as to correspond with the English amendments and, with your Lordships' permission, I shall move it in that form. As I said when moving Amendment No. 36, Section 238 of the 1971 Act makes special provision for the calculation of compensation to statutory undertakers when an order is made under Section 51, and in line with Clause 14 it is considered right to extend this special provision to prohibition and suspension orders. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

7.54 p.m.

Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 54: Page 44, line 4, at end insert ("or the growing of trees for shelter or amenity").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 54. During the Committee stage I attempted to broaden the definition of forestry from that of "utilisable crop of timber". The words that I requested would apparently have also included mushrooms, so they were obviously inadequate. So this is a second attempt to alter the definition to allow forestry which is not necessarily for timber production. The point was taken on board by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, who said that he would draw it to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. I do not know whether he can accept these words. If he cannot do so, can he say whether it would be within the restoration conditions for amenity trees to be planted which would, as it stands, be outside the definition within the Bill? I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, for the convenience of the House I shall speak also to Amendment No. 57. One consequence of my noble friend's amendment would be that the Forestry Commission would be consulted on trees grown for shelter or amenity as well as those planted for commercial forestry. I understand that the commission do not want to take this on, nor indeed do I see any need for them to do so. I hope that my noble friend will feel that, with the extension of Clause 5 to cover making land suitable for sustaining trees, shrubs and plants, the substance of his amendment has already been met.

I listened just now carefully to what my noble friend said. One is anxious to be helpful in this matter because I think that it is an important point. However, I am advised that, in view of the extension to Clause 5, the substance of his amendment has been met, and perhaps in those circumstances my noble friend will feel able not to press the amendment.

Lord Gisborough

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for meeting that point and, if Clause 5 does do the job, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 2 [Consequential amendments—Scotland]:

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 55:

Page 45, line 13, at end insert— ("1A. In section 33(5) (provision applying with modifications in relation to an appeal to Secretary of State) for the words "and 27(1)" there shall be substituted the words ", 27(1) and 27A.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 56:

Page 45, line 23, at end insert— ("4A. In subsection (1)(b) of section 227 (measure of compensation to statutory undertakers) after the words "49" there shall be inserted the words "49A or 49B".).

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]

Clause 32 [Commencement]:

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 58: Page 42, line 1, after ("except") insert ("section [Rights to convey minerals by means of pipes] above").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

In the Title:

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 59: Line 4, after ("1972") insert ("and amendments relating to rights for the purpose of the conveyance of minerals in section 2 of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966").

On Question, amendment agreed to.