HL Deb 12 March 1981 vol 418 cc445-59

6.58 p.m.

Read 3a.

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

Lord Bellwin moved Amendments Nos. 1 to 10:

Page 4, line 42, leave out ("during such period as may be specified for each step")

Page 4, line 47, leave out ("or")

Page 5, line 1, at end insert ("or (c) use for amenity. (2A) An aftercare condition may either—

  1. (a) specify the steps to be taken; or
  2. (b) require that the steps be taken in accordance with a scheme (in this section referred to as an "aftercare scheme") approved by the mineral planning authority.
(2B) A mineral planning authority may approve an aftercare scheme in the form in which it is submitted to them or may modify it and approve it as modified.")

Page 5, line 3, after ("condition") insert ("or an aftercare scheme")

Page 5, line 6, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 7 and insert— ("(4) Where a step is specified in a condition or a scheme, the period during which it is to be taken may also be specified, but no step may be required")

Page 5, line 19, leave out from ("prescribe") to end of line 23 and insert ("maximum periods differing according to the use specified")

Page 5, line 19, leave out lines 24 to 39 and insert— ("(7) In a case where—

  1. (a) the use specified is a use for agriculture; and
  2. (b) the land was in use for agriculture at the time of the grant of the planning permission or had previously been used for that purpose and had not at the time of the grant been used for any authorised purpose since its use for agriculture ceased; and
  3. (c) the Minister has notified the mineral planning authority of the physical characteristics of the land when it was last used for agriculture,
the land is brought to the required standard when its physical characteristics are restored, so far as it is practicable to do so, to what they were when it was last used for agriculture. (7A) In any other case where the use specified is a use for agriculture the land is brought to the required standard when it is reasonably fit for that use. (7B) Where the use specified is a use for forestry, the land is brought to the required standard when it is reasonably fit for that use. (7C) Where the use specified is a use for amenity, the land is brought to the required standard when it is suitable for sustaining trees, shrubs or plants.")

Page 5, line 41, leave out ("as to its terms")

Page 5, line 48, at end insert ("as to whether it is appropriate to specify that use. (9A) Where after consultations required by subsection (9) of this section the mineral planning authority are satisfied that the use that they ought to specify is a use for agriculture or for forestry, they shall consult—

  1. (a) where it is for agriculture, the Minister; and
  2. (b) where it is for forestry, the Forestry Commission, with regard to whether the steps to be taken should be specified in the aftercare condition or in an aftercare scheme.
(9B) The mineral planning authority shall also consult the Minister or the Forestry Commission, as the case may be,—
  1. (a) as to the steps to be specified in an aftercare condition which specifics a use for agriculture or for forestry; and
  2. (b) before approving an aftercare scheme submitted in accordance with an aftercare condition which specifies such a use.")

Page 6, line 4, leave out from ("whether") to end of line 5 and insert ("the steps specified in an aftercare condition or an aftercare scheme are being taken").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to move all the amendments to Clause 5—that is, Nos. 1 to 10—en bloc and to speak to them now. These amendments stem from the discussion that we had in Committee on 5th February on Amendment No. 36 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and on Amendment No. 45 moved by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. At that time I promised that we would study how the Bill might be improved along the lines suggested. Last week during the Report stage I assured the House that the Government would be bringing forward amendments on Third Reading, and I am glad to say that this batch of amendments fulfils that promise. These 10 amendments contain four points of substance, but I need to speak to them together since the clause has had to be recast and some amendments are therefore relevant to more than one point.

First, the Government agree that the after-care provision should be extended to cover certain amenity planting. This was originally proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and welcomed on all sides of the House. The noble Baroness will see that parliamentary counsel has achieved this by combining her original amendment as the first part of Amendment No. 3 with the substance of my letter to her last week as the last part of Amendment No. 7—the new subsection (7C)—which states that where the use specified is a use for amenity, the land is brought to the required standard when it is suitable for sustaining trees, shrubs or plants. I hope, too, that this meets the points raised at earlier stages by my noble friend Lord Gisborough. Amendments Nos. 2 and 6 are consequential to this.

Secondly, in response to my noble friend Lord Mottistone I promised that the drafting of subsection (8) of the new Section 30A would be improved to take account of his criticism of its inoperability. The substance of our proposals is in Amendment No. 7, which replaces the old subsection (8) with a new subsection (7). The main changes are: first, a proviso that the subsection applies only where the Minister of Agriculture has notified the mineral planning authority of the physical characteristics of the land when it was last used for agriculture; and, secondly, replacement of the previous reference to the condition of the land by a reference to its physical characteristics, which is a more accurate definition of what we had in mind from the first. The Ministry of Agriculture's land classification scheme is based on an assessment of the land's physical characteristics. In addition, we have studied the Hansard record of the discussion of "possible" and "practicable" and have concluded that the latter is the better word to use. As a consequence of this amendment, the old subsection (7) is being replaced by new subsections (7A) and (7B).

Thirdly, in discussion with the Ministry of Agriculture and certain minerals interests it has become clear that it would be of benefit to all concerned if as an alternative to specifying after-care steps in a condition the option was available of specifying them by means of the submission of an after-care scheme to the mineral planning authority at an appropriate time. Such schemes are often used in minerals permissions to cover phased working, landscaping, restoration, et cetera. The new subsection (2A) in Amendment No. 3 provides for this, and Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 10 are consequential amendments where it is necessary to refer to a scheme as an alternative to the steps being specified in the condition.

Amendment No. 1 deletes some words which have now been better incorporated into Amendment No. 4. The new subsection (2B) in Amendment No. 3 permits a mineral planning authority to modify an after-care scheme which has been submitted to them but the interests of the mineral operator are protected by the right of appeal in Section 36 of the 1971 Act, which was extended to such schemes by paragraph 4 of Schedule 15 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.

Fourthly, and really as a result of the new after-care scheme provisions which I have just described, Amendment No. 9 clarifies that the mineral planning authority must consult the Ministry of Agriculture or the Forestry Commission, whichever is relevant, on: first, the appropriateness of the intended after-use; second, whether the steps should be specified in the after-care condition or in a scheme; and, third, the steps to be specified. Amendment No. 8 is merely a paving amendment for Amendment No. 9.

I hope that this brief explanation of the relatively convoluted drafting has clarified the purpose of these amendments, and how this is to be achieved. I therefore beg to move Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 en bloc.

7.3 p.m.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the way in which the new amendments have been drafted—in fact, for the way in which practically the whole of one clause has been redrafted in such a short time to meet some of the points raised by me and by noble Lords opposite, about which we were all in agreement. I extend in particular a warm welcome to the amendments relating to amenity and after-care. Between them they meet the case which, with the support of many noble Lords, I originally put in Committee on 5th February. They are an amalgamation of two amendments which I moved, the first in Committee at col. 1343. At the time the Minister felt that this was too wide to be acceptable, but now it has been found to be acceptable. For this I am very grateful. I moved the second amendment during the Report stage on 5th March, at col. 1551. Naturally I am delighted that these amendments, which were always intended to be constructive, to convey the spirit of the Bill and to extend its scope, have now been recognised as a meeting point which has general support both inside and outside the House.

I turn to Amendment No. 7. I believe that subsection (7) is a reasonable compromise so long as the industry does not attempt to interpret the words "so far as it is practicable" in a very narrow way. That is the only doubt I have about it. However, I am hopeful that responsible operators will co-operate. If it is interpreted with a fairly broad brush, then it should work out very well.

I am not quite so sure about the effectiveness of subsection (7A). This will cover after-care conditions which are introduced following a review of conditions or following a prohibition order rather than at the time when permission is granted. The Minister mentioned this amendment when he spoke. I know that this point of detailed concern has already been raised with his department by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. I hope that the Minister will look again at the problems which could arise if local authorities are to ensure that good quality agricultural land is returned to the community when a mineral site is restored to such use. I believe it to be important that this subsection should not be used to justify restoring land to a far lower standard than that in which it was before the mineral workings started.

In this connection, I should like to ask the Minister why the word reasonably is inserted before the word "fit". To me it reads as a qualification. It will possibly be argued that it is a legal term of art, but it has the effect of loosening the tightness on the land being made fit for use. I have nothing to add on the other amendments except to give my support to them and to thank the Minister for what seems to me to be a great improvement so far as agriculture and forestry are concerned.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, I, too, would like to thank my noble friend the Minister for having done his best to meet some of the points which I raised in amendments during earlier stages of the Bill. Unfortunately, we have not had time to study these amendments in detail, and at this stage I cannot guarantee that my CBI advisers will be entirely happy with them. They may find themselves having to advise somebody else to return to the charge in another place.

On the face of it, I think my noble friend has done his level best to meet the points. I am delighted to see the word "reasonably" inserted in appropriate places. It is quite absurd that one should try to force people to do something which is unreasonable. "Reasonably" at least makes it sure that unreasonable pressure is not brought to bear. With those few words and with overall thanks to my noble friend, I shall sit down.

Lord Gisborough

My Lords, may I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and thank the Minister for dealing with so many of the points which were made during earlier stages of the Bill.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness and to my noble friends Lord Mottistone and Lord Gisborough. On the question of how one should interpret the word "reasonably", I see that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is smiling. He, perhaps more than most of us, must have spent many years of his life in the courts, trying to interpret that very word. In the end it will depend upon what the people concerned feel is reasonable when the circumstances are applied to a situation which may arise. I hope that the insertion of this word does not cause difficulty in any way. The concern of the noble Baroness is that it may leave room for argument, upon which somebody will have to decide at the end of the day. I appreciate that. At the same time, in turn I hope that she will appreciate that throughout the whole of this Bill we have been trying to steer a middle course and to get the best we could for all concerned. It is in that context that I would ask her whether we might leave it at that.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 7 [Orders revoking or modifying planning permission]:

7.10 p.m.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 11: Page 8, line 4, leave out ("(4)") and insert ("(2A)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential upon the changes to Clause 5 which have just been approved. It ensures that all the relevant subsections of the new Section 30A apply when an aftercare condition is imposed on an existing permission using an order under Section 45 of the 1971 Act. There is perhaps just one specific point to which I ought to refer. The new subsection (7) of Section 30A introduced by Amendment No. 7 provides that this subsection only applies where the Minister of Agriculture has notified the mineral planning authority of the physical characteristics of the land when it was last used for agriculture. Although this is unlikely to be a problem for the Ministry in respect of new permissions to which Clause 5 solely relates, in relation to existing workings there are likely to be some circumstances where the Ministry has no record of what the characteristics were when the land was last used for agriculture—for example, when this was 30 or 40 years ago. In such cases I should point out that the new subsection (7) will not apply, and instead the operator will be bound by the less exacting provisions of subsection (7A). I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 8 [Discontinuance of use]:

Lord Bellwin moved Amendments Nos. 12 and 13:

Page 8, line 42, leave out ("(4) to (6) and (9)") and insert ("(2A) to (6) and (7B)").

Page 9, leave out lines 1 to 17 and insert— ("(1G) In a case where—

  1. (a) the use specified is a use for agriculture; and
  2. (b) the land was in use for agriculture immediately before development consisting of the winning and working of minerals began to be carried out in, on or under it or had previously been used for agriculture and had not been used for any authorised purpose since its use for agriculture ceased; and
  3. (c) the Minister has notified the mineral planning authority of the physical characteristics of the land when it was last used for agriculture,
the land is brought to the required standard when its physical characteristics are restored, so far as it is practicable to do so, to what they were when it was last used for agriculture. (1H) In any other case where the use specified is a use for agriculture the land is brought to the required standard when it is reasonably fit for that use.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope it will be for the convenience of the House if I speak to the two amendments to Clause 8 together, since they are both consequential on the amendments already made to Clause 5. Amendment No. 12 applies all of the subsections of Section 30A to aftercare conditions imposed on the continuance of the use of land for development consisting of the winning and working of minerals using an order under Section 51 of the 1971 Act except for the new subsections (7) and (7A) of Section 30A. Amendment No. 13 deletes the existing subsections (1G) and (1H) of Section 51, and replaces them with new subsections which incorporate the relevant points arising out of the drafting of the subsections (7) and (7A). I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

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

Lord Bellwin moved Amendments Nos. 14 and 15:

Page 10, line 18, leave out ("(4) to (6) and (9)") and insert ("(2A) to (6) and (7B)")

Page 10, line 18, leave out lines 23 to 42 and insert— ("(5) In a case where—

  1. (a) the use specified is a use for agriculture; and
  2. (b) the land was in use for agriculture immediately before development consisting of the winning and working of minerals began to be carried out in, on or under it or had previously been used for agriculture and had not been used for any authorised purpose since its use for agriculture ceased; and
  3. (c) the Minister has notified the mineral planning authority of the physical characteristics of the land when it was last used for agriculture,
the land is brought to the required standard when its physical characteristics are restored, so far as it is practicable to do so, to what they were when it was last used for agriculture. (6) In any other case where the use specified is a use for agriculture the land is brought to the required standard when it is reasonably fit for that use.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I should like to speak to the two amendments to Claues 9 together. They are in fact identical to the two amendments to Clause 8 which have ju,t been approved. Therefore, I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 21 [Imposition of aftercare conditions on planning permission]:

Lord Bellwin moved Amendments Nos. 16 to 24:

Page 24, line 39, leave out ("during such period as may be specified for each step")

Page 24, line 44, leave out ("or")

Page 25, line 1, at end insert ("or (c) use for amenity. (2A) An aftercare condition may either—

  1. (a) specify the steps to be taken; or
  2. (b) require that the steps be taken in accordance with a scheme (in this section referred to as an "aftercare scheme") approved by the planning authority.
(2B) A planning authority may approve an aftercare scheme in the form in which it is submitted to them or may modify it and approve it as modified.")

Page 25, line 3, after ("condition") insert ("or an aftercare scheme")

Page 25, line 5, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 6 and insert— ("(4) Where a step is specified in a condition or a scheme, the period during which it is to be taken may also be specified, but no step may be required ")

Page 25, line 18, leave out from ("prescribe") to end of line 22 and insert ("maximum periods differing according to the use specified")

Page 25, line 18, leave out lines 23 to 38 and insert— ("(7) In a case where—

  1. (a) the use specified is a use for agriculture; and
  2. (b) the land was in use for agriculture at the time of the grant of the planning permission or had previously been used for that purpose and had not at the time of the grant been used for any authorised purpose since its use for agriculture ceased; and
  3. (c) the planning authority is aware of or can readily ascertain the physical characteristics of the land when it was last used for agriculture,
the land is brought to the required standard when its physical characteristics are restored, so far as it is practicable to do so, to what they were when it was last used for agriculture. (7A) In any other case where the use specified is a use for agriculture the land is brought to the required standard when it is reasonably fit for that use. (7B) Where the use specified is a use for forestry, the land is brought to the required standard when it is reasonably fit for that use. (7C) Where the use specified is a use for amenity, the land is brought to the required standard when it is suitable for sustaining trees, shrubs or plants.").

Page 25, line 42, leave out ("as to its terms") and insert ("as to whether it is appropriate to specify that use. (9A) Where after consultations required by subsection (9) of this section the planning authority are satisfied that the use that they ought to specify is a use for forestry, they shall consult the Forestry Commission with regard to whether the steps to be taken should be specified in the aftercare condition or in an aftercare scheme. (9B) The planning authority shall also consult the Forestry Commission—

  1. (a) as to the steps to be specified in an aftercare condition which specifies a use for forestry; and
  2. (b) before approving an aftercare scheme submitted in accordance with an aftercare condition which specifies such a use.")

Page 26, line 1, leave out from ("whether") to end of line 2 and insert ("the steps specified in an aftercare condition or an aftercare scheme are being taken").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, as with Clause 5, and with the leave of the House, I should like to speak to all the amendments to Clause 21 and to move them en bloc. There are, in fact, only nine of these, Nos. 16 to 24, rather than 10 since Amendment 23 is equivalent to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 together.

These Scottish amendments are directly equivalent to those made for England and Wales, except on one point. In Scotland, the criterion for the application of subsection (7) to after-care conditions will be met when the planning authority is aware of or can readily ascertain the physical characteristics of the land when it was last used for agriculture, whereas in England and Wales the responsibility rests with the Minister of Agriculture to notify the mineral planning authority. In most cases the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland will provide the necessary information as part of the non-statutory consultation procedure on the terms of the after-care condition, and since in Scotland this procedure is not to be made the subject of a statutory requirement we consider that the Secretary of State's role in providing the information need not appear on the face of the Bill. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 16 to 24 en bloc.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister will be kind enough to explain something, only for my own edification because it may be that other noble Lords have seen the point of it already. Would he be good enough to explain why it is that the words, "during such period as may be specified for each step"—which is Amendment No. 16—are necessary? I did not catch his explanation of that in the very useful remarks that he made.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I do not know that I specifically covered that in what I said. Amendment No. 23 in fact is equivalent to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 together; that is why I did not speak on it. Am I right in thinking that it is that one to which the noble Lord refers?

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, obviously I bow to the Minister and I am anxious not to waste the time of the House, but I did not quite understand that that was the reason for the exclusion of these words from the definition clause.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, perhaps I may just make sure that we are talking about the same thing. This also comes under Amendment No. 16 and it is referred to later on in the one that I omitted to mention. I understand the noble Lord to be asking about the words, "during such period as may be specified for each step". In fact, the words in Amendment No. 16 are deleted and replaced in Amendment No. 20, but in the drafting in this way we have made so many reshufflings—indeed the first 10 clauses were completely recast—that it is a little confusing, but I hope the noble Lord will find it there in Amendment No. 20.

Lord Mishcon

I think that is so and I am much obliged.

Lord Gisborough

My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether this particular case is to do with the matter of suggesting to councils that after-care should take place step by step and phase by phase and was this not brought in by amendments and is this not a further amendment on amendments relating to phasing of after-care step by step?

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I suspect that my noble friend has it right and I do not want to go into the detail of it. I think that is probably where it originates. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was concerned as to why it was there at all.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 23 [Orders revoking or modifying planning permission]:

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 25: Page 27, line 35, leave out ("(4)") and insert ("(2A)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the idcntial Scottish equivalent of Amendment No. 11 which applied to England and Wales. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 24 [Discontinuance of use]:

Lord Bellwin moved Amendments Nos. 26 and 27:

Page 28, line 26, leave out ("(4) to (6) and (9)") and insert ("(2A) to (6) and (7B)").

Page 28, line 26, leave out from beginning of line 30 to end of line 3 on page 29 and insert— ("(1F) In a case where—

  1. (a) the use specified is a use for agriculture; and
  2. (b) the land was in use for agriculture immediately before development consisting of the winning and working of minerals began to be carried out in, on or under it or had previously been used for agriculture and had not been used for any authorised purpose since it use for agriculture ceased; and
  3. (c) the planning authority is aware of or can readily ascertain the physical characteristics of the land when it was last used for agriculture,
the land is brought to the required standard when its physical characteristics are restored, so far as it is practicable to do so, to what they were when it was last used for agriculture. (1G) In any other case where the use specified is a use for agriculture the land is brought to the required standard when it is reasonably fit for that use.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak to the two amendments to Clause 24 together. They are the identical amendments to the Scottish provisions which Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 made to Part I of the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

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

Lord Bellwin moved Amendments Nos. 28 and 29:

Page 30, line 9, leave out ("(4) to (6) and (9)") and insert ("(2A) to (6) and (7B)").

Page 30, line 9, leave out lines 14 to 33 and insert— ("(5) In a case where—

  1. (a) the use specified is a use for agriculture; and
  2. (b) the land was in use for agriculture immediately before development consisting of the winning and working of minerals began to be carried out in, on or under it or had previously been used for agriculture and had not 454 been used for any authorised purpose since its use for agriculture ceased; and
  3. (c) the planning authority is aware of or can readily ascertain the physical characteristics of the land when it was last used for agriculture,
the land is brought to the required standard when its physical characteristics are restored, so far as it is practicable to do so, to what they were when it was last used for agriculture. (6) In any other case where the use specified is a use for agriculture the land is brought to the required standard when it is reasonably fit for that use.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak to the two amendments to Clause 25 together. They are the identical amendments to Part II of the Bill which Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 made to Part I. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

An amendment (privilege) made.

7.20 p.m.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. I think this Bill has provided an excellent example of just what a good job this House can do in giving due attention to the detailed drafting of Bills. We have had a number of interesting and wide-ranging debates on the Bill, and I would be the first to recognise that it has been substantially improved by the amendments which have been made, many of them at the suggestion of your Lordships. I am particularly glad that we have been able to incorporate a number of new points, for example, on pipelines and on the limitation of enforcement action to mineral planning authorities.

This process has continued even today, and I hope your Lordships will agree that the amendments to the after-care provisions which we have just discussed have added further clarification and usefulness to the Bill. I think we now have a Bill which provides within the present planning system more sensitive and more flexible measures than are now available to deal with mineral working and its impact upon the environment. Considerate use of these new powers by mineral planning authorities should enable mineral workings now proceeding in an environmentally unacceptable manner to be controlled and brought up to the standards of the good operator.

At the same time, there is an emphasis on the need to make provision for the long-term planning of the minerals industry so that it can play its full part in the economic regeneration of this country. I recognise, of course, that it may still be possible to improve the Bill in a few places, and we have agreed to take away a number of points which can be considered in another place. I am thinking in particular of our promises to look again at the need for a specific mention of longterm planning, to consider whether the application of prohibition orders might be limited in the Bill to abandoned workings, and to re-examine the details of our proposals in relation to compensation. I also know that officials are still considering a number of technical points which can be incorporated later if this seems right. I think we now have a very workable Bill.

I should like, as is customary, to express my grateful thanks to all who have participated in the debates on this Bill. Although I have not by any means been able to accept all of the amendments of my noble friend Lord Mottistone, I hope he will feel that I have listened carefully to what he has said and that a good number, at least, of his points have borne fruit. While I recognise that the mining industry has had reservations about the Bill, their assistance is ensuring that its provisions are workable has been invaluable. I am grateful to my noble friend for the courteous way he has moved his amendments and has accepted my response.

I recall, too, the eloquent case on behalf of the industry put forward by my noble friend Lord Boardman. My noble friend Lord Gisborough has, in an as always reasonable way, ensured that the interests of the private landowner and forester have not been forgotten, while my noble friends Lord Ridley and Lord Sandford have been, as always, powerful advocates for the interests of non-metropolitan planning authorities. My noble friend Lord Nugent impressed upon me the case that not only should future dereliction be prevented but also that more should be done to tackle existing dereliction. Officials will be sitting down shortly with the local authority associations to discuss details of the survey of past and present mineral workings which I promised at Report stage.

The contributions to the debates from all parts of the House have been pertinent and timely. I would like particularly to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, who has argued with much conviction, but always in a helpful and indeed a charming and constructive manner, where she has considered that the Bill might be improved. I am grateful for the support she has given to our proposals and am delighted that the Bill has been able to proceed in such an atmosphere of goodwill, with so few elements of party political controversy. I hope it might set some precedent for future Bills where the noble Baroness and I find ourselves at the Dispatch Boxes, but I suppose that is too much to wish for. Nevertheless, in saying that I in no way detract from the other remarks I have made, which were made most sincerely.

Finally, I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Mansfield for the help he has given me, and in particular for agreeing to take in Committee the formidable burden of the compensation provisions. I would like to pay tribute to the officials who have worked with me and all concerned. They have shown knowledge and have been helpful to the highest possible degree. It has been a great pleasure to work with them. As I sit down, may I say it has been an unusual and welcome experience to be able to take a Solomon-like view of the arguments, that the provisions of the Bill should be tilted a little further either to the local authority or to the industry side. At the conclusion the arguments have balanced each other out. I think in the process of debate the baby has grown into a healthy infant and can now be safely left to the care of another place. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Bellwin).

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I should first like to thank the Minister very much for the very kind remarks he made about myself and my noble friends on this side. Then, I should like to thank him for the very courteous and informative approach he has adopted throughout the progress of the Bill through this House. Like him, I have found it extremely pleasant to be on the same side for once. I hope it will happen again. It depends what sort of Bill we have. I am always ready to respond. The noble Lord himself has always been ready to respond to suggestions from all sides.

I am delighted to have been able to help with the progress of the Bill, which I think is an extremely important one, if not considered one of the major Bills, and one which had the interest and support of all sides of the House. I cannot resist saying, with the greatest rsepect, that I think it would have been a very much worse Bill had some of the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, been accepted, but thankfully they were not. I hope the noble Lord will not take this personally but let the CBI bear the brunt of that rather muted criticism.

This Bill has been the subject of very much detailed discussion between departmental officials and other organisations, particularly the local authority associations, and its progress has undoubtedly been helped by the very helpful and positive approach which has been adopted by departmental officials in their dealings with all of us who have been concerned with this Bill. This happy co-operation has resulted in what I believe to be a good Minerals Bill, which was very badly needed, and will, I am afraid, have to last for a very long time in the future, which is why it is so important to get it as right as we possibly can. I do, however, regret that although the Government have promised a survey of current and past mineral workings this has not been put in the Bill. I do find this a great pity. I would have liked to see this stated in the primary legislation, because I would have liked to see the point about historical dereliction underlined.

Of course, the road to hell, or to the Opposition Benches, is paved with good intentions. This Bill must evolve into more than the good intentions embedded in it. First, the regulations on compensation do need to be thoroughly and publicly discussed, and drafted so as to ensure that effective restoration is carried out. Secondly, money must at some time be made available if it is to work properly. Money is being made available in the form of grant, but for this to be really effective expenditure on derelict land should be removed from capital expenditure controls altogether. Then the grants would be taken up very much more readily then they are at the present time. The Government's instinctive opposition to public spending means, I am afraid, that they often lose sight of the productive and wealth creating nature of a great deal of public spending. In this context land restoration creates material assets just as tangible and just as valuable, sometimes even more so, than those produced by industry.

Finally, the Bill provides an essential framework for a productive marriage between the minerals industry and the enhancement of the environment. It can be a great step forward if its provisions are used assiduously and constructively.

7.30 p.m.

Viscount Ridley

My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the Minister for steering this very good Bill through the House and speaking, as he has tonight, to what look rather like overcrowded Benches all around him and a vast audience which has listened to every word that he has said ! I believe the Government have got the Bill exactly right and have secured the right balance between the inevitably conflicting interests of mineral operators and local authorities on the two different sides. I hope and believe that the Bill will provide the right framework for the future operation of a new and satisfactory period of control over mineral working.

I hope the Government will not allow any amendments in another place to destroy what has been done here, and the very good balance which we have all achieved. Unfortunately, I was not able to be in the House for most of the debates. I was present on only one or two days and I apologise for that. However, I should like to make the point that the review of mineral workings, the survey which has been referred to, and the question of compensation will inevitably (and we must face this) generate the need for additional resources of both finance and manpower if they are to be completed properly. We must realise that, and I am sure that we do so.

Secondly, there is the question of compensation, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. The Government now have powers to make regulations concerning compensation, and when they do I hope they will consult freely both with the local authority associations and with the CBI and other interested bodies. I have no doubt that they will, but. that is something that I feel I should mention again. When they do that perhaps they will realise that they now also have powers to ensure that there are circumstances in which compensation should not be payable. I hope that that will be very carefully spelled out after full discussions, because it will mean that any matters which at present can be achieved through discussion and agreement between the planning authorities and the mineral operators will continue to be dealt with by negotiation and agreement outside the scope of these regulations, which are still to come, without allowing for any compensation liability to arise. If no such exceptions are to be made in future, it might be that a planning authority will find itself in a potentially worse position than it would be in if we did not have the Bill.

I was interested that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, suddenly managed to slip in a remark about the reclamation of derelict land. The Minister knows that I am in correspondence with him on this subject, but I think that it is probably outwith, as my noble friend Lord Mansfield might say, the terms of this Bill. However, I hope he will join me in a return to this subject on a separate occasion because I agree with the noble Baroness that this is an important issue, but not one for tonight. Finally, in thanking the Minister and sincerely congratulating him for his grasp of the matter, I have been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, the president of the AMA, to say that he fully agrees that this is an excellent Bill. I hope that it achieves all that we hope of it.

Lord Gisborough

My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the Minister. This has been a most interesting Bill to work with, and it has been particularly encouraging because so many amendments have had a good chance of success, which is often unusual as regards many Bills. However, there are one or two matters which still need consideration. The constitution of the Mineral Planning Authority is a matter which still needs looking at, because it is doubtful that councils will have qualified staff who are well acquainted with the problems of mining. The question of who sits on the mineral planning committees will be quite important, because there will be scope for the adoption of special representatives of industry and owners. It will be interesting to see how the Minister, perhaps in another place, sees the proper contact between the county, the owners and representatives of the operators.

There is still the matter of the local land charge, which has been discussed twice, both in Committee and on Report; and it is odd that the drafting is not defined in relation to 1975. That clarification would be useful for non-lawyers. There seems little point in not accepting clarification. It was nice to know that there was flexibility on the part of the Minister, and I think that we have a much better Bill as a result. It is good, too, that this has been a non-political Bill, and I should like to thank the Minister for making the Bill so worthwhile.

7.35 p.m.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to my noble friend the Minister for the even-handed and even-tempered way in which he has taken this splendid Bill through your Lordships' House. It is a good thing—and I think that we would recognise this from the mineral operators' point of view just as much as from anybody else's—that the Stevens Report, at any rate in part, is now on its way to enactment. That is perhaps a tribute to my noble friend Lord Sandford, who set up the Stevens Committee. Indeed, it may be that our good temper, if that is the right way of putting it, is a reflection of the fact that he selected a diplomat to chair the Stevens Committee and that that has made its way through to us in our debates.

I am deeply grateful, of course, for such of my amendments as have found their way into the Bill at this stage, and for the courteous way in which my noble friend the Minister dealt with those which lie was unable to accept. However, I cannot say that I am altogether happy that the Bill is now in a perfect form. I am delighted that my noble friend rejected several of the amendments that were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in the same way that she was delighted that some of mine were rejected. There is no doubt about it; the Bill would have been ruined if her amendments had been included.

We have the feeling that perhaps the Bill can be improved further. We are particularly concerned about long-term planning, which, on the whole, is not reflected in the Bill as well as we would like. It seems to us that there is a tendency to feel that we can treat the planning of mineral operations in the same way as any other building operation for which planning is required, except, of course, when it comes to compensation, and then the mineral operators get clobbered. So there is room for further work on the Bill in areas of that sort. However, having said all that, I must say that I think that this Bill has been handled in your Lordships' House with the usual calm and general charity of my noble friend the Minister. I hope that it has as happy a passage through another place.

On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

[The Sitting was suspended from 7.37 to 8 p.m.]