Source: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1958/jul/17/provisions-as-to-compensation-by-way-of
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 16:17:46+00:00

Document:
§ 1. In this Schedule— 'compensation' means compensation under section twenty-two of this Act; 'former use', in relation to any land, means the use for which it was used immediately before the operative date of the order in question; 'proper cost', in relation to any work, means such cost as is reasonable, having regard to the prices of materials and rates of remuneration for services current at the time when the work is carried out; 'the Tribunal' means the Lands Tribunal.
(b) at all reasonable times after the service of that notice, that person afforded to the Board reasonable facilities to inspect the land to which the notice related, in so far as he was in a position to afford such facilities.
§ (2) In the following provisions of this Schedule 'the applicant', in relation to a notice under this paragraph, means the person who gave that notice.
(b) that they object thereto on such one or more grounds as may be specified in the counter-notice, being one or more of the grounds mentioned in the next following paragraph.
(g) that the work if carried out at the time specified in the applicant's notice, would not have been carried out at the first reasonable opportunity after the end of the period of occupation, or within a reasonable time after that opportunity arose.
§ 5.—(1) In so far as a notice given under paragraph 2 of this Schedule (in this paragraph referred to as 'the current notice') specifies any work (in this paragraph referred to as 'the new work') in a case where the applicant has previously given one or more notices under that paragraph specifying similar work which he proposed to carry out in respect of the same land, the last preceding paragraph shall apply in relation to the new work with the substitution, for sub-paragraph (c) of that paragraph, of the following sub-paragraph (in this paragraph referred to as 'the substituted subparagraph (c)')— '(c) that the aggregate cost of that work and of all relevant work specified in previous notices relating to the same land is grossly disproportionate to the aggregate increase attributable to all such work in the value of the land'.
(c) the proper cost of any similar work specified in any previous notice given by the applicant in respect of which a claim for compensation has been allowed before the relevant date or is still outstanding on that date.
(c) the increase in that value attributable to any similar work specified in any previous notice given by the applicant in respect of which a claim for compensation has been allowed before the revelant date or is still outstanding on that date.
(iii) it has not been agreed by the Board, or determined by the Tribunal, that compensation is payable in respect of those expenses.
§ (5) In this paragraph. 'similar work,' in relation to the new work, means work directed to the same aspect of restoration as the new work; 'previous notice,' in relation to the current notice, means a notice given under paragraph 2 of this Schedule before the date on which the current notice was given; and 'the relevant date,' in relation to the current notice, means the date on which the Board serve a counter-notice objecting to the new work, or the date on which the time for serving such a counter-notice expires, whichever is the earlier.
§ (6) In the following provisions of this Schedule (except where the contrary is expressly provided) any reference to sub-paragraph (c) of the last preceding paragraph, in relation to work to which that paragraph applies in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph, shall be construed as a reference to the substituted sub-paragraph (c), and any reference in this Schedule to the grounds mentioned in the last preceding paragraph shall be construed accordingly.
§ 6. For the purpose of determining whether an objection on the grounds mentioned in sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 4 of this Schedule is well-founded, the estimated cost of any work shall be taken to be such amount as may be agreed, or determined by the Tribunal, to be a fair estimate of the cost of the work, whether that amount is equal to, or greater or less than, the estimated cost of the work as stated in the applicant's notice specifying that work.
§ 7.—(1) In sub-paragraph (e) of paragraph 4 of this Schedule, the reference to default on the part of the owner or of an occupier of the land shall be construed in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
(2) In relation to agricultural land, the reference to default on the part of the owner shall be construed as a reference to failure on his part to manage the land in accordance with the rules of good estate management, and the reference to default on the part of an occupier of the land shall be construed as a reference to failure on the part of such an occupier to fulfil his responsibilities to farm the land in accordance with the rules of good husbandry.
land shall be construed as a reference to failure on the part of such an occupier to maintain and use the land in a reasonable manner.
(4) Sections ten and eleven of the Agriculture Act, 1947 (which prescribe tests for determining good estate management and good husbandry) shall apply for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph.
(5) In the application of this paragraph to Scotland, for the reference to sections ten and eleven of the Agriculture Act, 1947, there shall be substituted a reference to the Fifth and Sixth Schedules to the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948.
(b) if the Board have served such a counter-notice, they shall not be entitled to object to that claim on any of the grounds mentioned in paragraph 4 of this Schedule, except in so far as the claim relates to items which were specified in the counter-notice and the objection is on grounds which were so specified in relation to those items.
§ 9.—(1) Where a notice has been given under paragraph 2 of this Schedule, and the Board have served a counter-notice objecting to the work specified in the notice, or to one or more items thereof, the applicant, before beginning to carry out any item to which such an objection relates, may require the question whether the objection is well-founded to be referred to the Tribunal.
(2) If on such a reference the Tribunal determines that the objection is not well-founded, and the applicant incurs expenses in carrying out any of the work to which the objection relates and claims compensation in respect of those expenses, then (in addition to any grounds on which the Board are precluded by the last preceding paragraph from objecting to that claim) the Board shall not be entitled to object to that claim on any of the grounds which were the grounds of that objection.
(c) if the objection was on the grounds mentioned in sub-paragraph (g) of the said paragraph 4, the expenses shall be disallowed by virtue of this sub-paragraph in so far as (but no further than) they were greater than they would have been if the work to which the objection related had been carried out at the first reasonable opportunity after the end of the period of occupation.
the provisions of heads (a) to (c) of subparagraph (3) of the last preceding paragraph shall apply (subject to the following provisions of this paragraph) as they apply in the circumstances mentioned in that sub-paragraph.
§ (2) Where the objection was on the grounds mentioned in sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 4 of this Schedule (otherwise than in a case falling within paragraph 5 of this Schedule) so much of the preceding sub-paragraph as relates to the maintenance of the objection, and to a determination that the objection is well-founded, shall apply as if, in the said sub-paragraph (c), the reference to the estimated cost of the work were a reference to the proper cost of the work.
§ (3) Where the objection was on the grounds mentioned in the substituted sub-paragraph (c), within the meaning of paragraph 5 of this Schedule, so much of sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph as relates to the maintenance of the objection, and to a determination that the objection is well-founded, shall apply as if, in the said paragraph 5, any reference to the relevant date were a reference to the date on which the question whether compensation is payable in respect of expenses incurred in carrying out the new work (within the meaning of that paragraph) falls to be determined by the Tribunal, and the objection had been formulated accordingly.
§ 11.—(1) Subject to the next following subparagraph, expenses incurred in carrying out any work shall not be treated as having been reasonably incurred as mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section twenty-two of this Act, if the work was begun more than fifteen years after the end of the period of occupation.
§ (2) The preceding sub-paragraph shall not apply to any work required for making good damage caused by the settlement of soil replaced in the course of restoring the land or 1217 any other damage to the land caused by subsidence which is attributable to anything done in the exercise of rights conferred by the compulsory rights order in question.
§ 12. Where it is shown that the expenses incurred in carrying out any work exceeding the proper cost of the work, any claim for compensation in respect of those expenses shall (without prejudice to any other grounds on which the claim may be liable Ito be disallowed, wholly or in part) be disallowed to the extent of the excess.
§ 13.—(1) Except in so far as objection is made to any work on the grounds mentioned in sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 4 of this Schedule, and subject to the provisions of this Schedule relating to any such objection, expenses incurred in carrying out any work shall not be disallowed (wholly or in part) on the grounds that the proper cost of that work (or of that work together with any other work) is greater than any increase attributable thereto in the value of the land.
§ (2) Subject to the preceding sub-paragraph, nothing in the preceding provisions of this Schedule shall be construed as precluding the Board from maintaining any objection to a claim for compensation, in so far as the objection is on any grounds other than those mentioned in paragraph 4 of this Schedule."
§ The noble Lord said: I am sorry to have to introduce this long and complicated Schedule, but it deals with an important matter and gives effect to three undertakings given on the Report stage in another place. The most important change made by this new Schedule is the provision in paragraph 11 that the Board's liability to pay cost of works compensation shall be limited to work carried out within fifteen years of the end of their occupation of land comprised in a compulsory rights order. This period should be long enough to permit completion of all the main restoration work, including the application of extra fertilisers to restore the fertility of the soil. The fifteen-year limitation will, however, relieve the Board of the administrative burden of paying for very small items of restoration work which may continue more or less indefinitely. The fact that the Board will not have to pay for these small items of work will, of course, be taken into account when the diminution of value compensation is assessed, so there will be no injustice to the landowners.
§ Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 11 provides that there will be an exception to the fifteen-year limit for the repair of damage caused by settlement of the land which is due to opencast coal working. Settlement may occur and cause damage long after the Board have given up an 1218 opencast coal site. If that damage was caused by deep-mine subsidence the Board would have to pay for its repair, irrespective of when the coal was extracted. I think we ought to apply the same principle when a person's land is taken compulsorily for opencast coal working and that is done in this subparagraph.
§ The second undertaking fulfilled in this new Schedule is that we should make it possible for disputes about the reasonableness of a proposed work of restoration to be settled in advance of the start of the work. We give effect to this undertaking in paragraphs 2, 3, 8 and 9. They provide that on receiving a notice of work the Board must, if they want to object to that work on the grounds that it is unreasonable, serve a counter-notice within a time limit which I shall lay down in regulations and which will be such as to ensure that the person concerned knows the Board's views in good time before he is due to start the work. The Board's counter-notice must specify the grounds on which they are objecting to the work, and they cannot subsequently object on grounds not mentioned in the notice. When the person proposing to carry out the work receives the counter-notice he can either refer the dispute to the Lands Tribunal or go ahead with the work at his own risk.
§ The third undertaking given in another place was that we would check the drafting of the old Third Schedule to make sure there were no loopholes which would enable a person to obtain from the Board the cost of obviously unreasonable works. As a result of this check, we have included three new provisions in paragraphs 4 and 5. First, we have included a new provision in sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph 4 to the effect that the Board can object to the carrying out of the work on the grounds that it is premature. A landowner might, for example, propose to instal a drainage system at a time when the Board knew that it was likely to be wrecked by further settlement. There is no reason why the Board should pay for the installation of that drainage system and subsequently for its repair, and this provision safeguards them. The landowner, on the other hand, is protected by paragraph 9, sub-paragraph (3) (b), which makes it clear that even if the Lands Tribunal hold that the work is premature, he can 1219 serve a further notice of his intention to carry out the work later on, when it is no longer premature.
§ Secondly, we have made it clear all along the line that the Board's liability to pay costs-of-works compensation should not be limited to work which costs no more than it adds to the value of the land. That provision is retained in paragraph 13. However, no one wants the Board to have to pay for wildly uneconomic work. We have therefore included a new provision in sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 4, which says that work can be held to be unreasonable if its estimated cost is "grossly disproportionate" to the estimated addition it will make to the value of the land. It will be up to the Lands Tribunal to say what is "grossly disproportionate" in practice, but I think the use of these words makes it clear that we do not want work to be disallowed just because it costs a little more than it adds to the value of the land, but only if it costs a lot more.
§ Finally, there is the new paragraph 5. I must confess that I had considerable misgivings about this long paragraph and it was only with great reluctance that I agreed to it. It is, however, designed to meet a very simple point. It is possible that the Board will admit items of work each of which appears to be reasonable in itself but which in practice adds very little to the value of the land. For example, a man might try one type of fertiliser that did little or no good, then another type, then yet a third type. We do not think the Board should have to go on pumping good money after bad in a case of this sort: they must be able, after two or three tries, to call a halt. Paragraph 5 therefore provides that when a person is carrying out a whole series of works on the same aspect of restoration, and the Board think that the cost is becoming grossly disproportionate to the increase in the value of the land, the parties to the dispute and the Tribunal will look not at each individual item of work but at all the items together.
§ The reason the paragraph is so long and complicated is that, to give effect to this idea, we have had to add together three different things. The first is the actual cost of works already carried out; the second is the estimated cost of work 1220 which has been agreed to be reasonable but which has not yet been carried out; the third is the estimated cost of the new items of work under consideration. We have had to spell out in detail how this sum is added up. Paragraph 5 applies only to work directed to the same aspect of restoration. The Board cannot, for example, seek to disallow expenditure on restoring a stone wall on the ground that a lot of money has been spent uselessly on fertilisers. I think that that would be too harsh on the claimant, but it is reasonable to look at all the money spent on the same aspect of restoration.
§ There are a few other technical provisions; some of them, such as paragraph 7, are repeated from the present version of the Third Schedule. I think that I have covered the main points. In general, the new Schedule seems to me to be a reasonable way of meeting the misgivings about cost-of-works compensation, which were expressed earlier in our discussion, and I hope it will prove acceptable to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On the Paper there is an Amendment to this Amendment, and I must call that Amendment first. It will then no doubt be for the convenience of the Committee to debate Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 together.
§ VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, as an Amendment to the above Amendment, in paragraph 11, sub-paragraph (2), line 1, after "to" insert: work done in draining the land or in associated operations, or". The noble Viscount said: As has been suggested by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, it would seem better to say what one has to say on both these Amendments simultaneously. This Schedule is a very difficult one. I am glad that the House did not continue with the Committee stage on these Amendments on the previous occasion, because this long Schedule had appeared only the day before and it was extremely difficult to sum it up. So perhaps it is not unfortunate that it has been recommitted to-day. On the general purpose of this Schedule, I should say that, if it is really desired to tie up everything in detail, the 1221 Schedule no doubt does it. But I would refer back, only briefly, to the debates which we had in Committee on Clauses 22 and 23. It seemed to me then—and this was the main difficulty, I felt—that it would be impossible to determine what the compensation under Clause 23 would be unless something was done to define what the compensation under Clause 22 (concerning cost of works) would be. This Schedule makes some attempt to do that. I should say that it would have been far better to adopt something of the nature of what I suggested under Clause 22.
§ As to the details of this Schedule, there are some points which I think will lead to difficulty. There are one or two points which, even with the careful explanation that the noble Lord has given us, are still a little difficult to follow. Perhaps I might refer first to my Amendment to the Amendment. That concerns a limitation of fifteen years. In the Schedule as it is before us the costs of works are to be paid for and carried out only up to a period of fifteen years from the termination of the order, whereas any work connected with making good damage due to subsidence goes on afterwards. I entirely agree with that, but I have put down this Amendment about drainage for a quite simple reason: that for certain types of land there is at present no knowledge as to the date on which the land ought to be drained after it has been worked.
§ The beginnings of opencast coal working in this country occurred about 1942, and it was then thought that land ought not to be drained for quite a long period. I believe that it is only within the last two or three years that any of the land has, in fact, been drained. Those concerned are now beginning to think that it has been done too soon. Of course, everyone who has land which has been damaged wishes to have it drained as soon as possible, because certain types of land are practically useless until they are drained; but it is a poor satisfaction to an owner or occupier to have the land drained and then to find the drains are moving and useless. There is the practical point that modern drainage operations are not carried out by hand; they are done by machine, and there is considerable disruption to the surface of the land and to the crop, involving loss of grazing and so on. So if it is at all possible, even from the owner's and the 1222 occupier's point of view, it is better that drainage, once done, should be left alone. Moreover, I think it would be said from the point of view of the Coal Board that they would not want the expense of doing the work twice.
§ The Amendment to the Amendment, therefore, is simply for the purpose of making it possible to do the drainage later if, in fact, at some later date—a few years' time—it becomes generally agreed that the drainage ought to be done later. I am not at the moment prepared to say that that is the general opinion, but it might become so, in which case it should be provided for. I realise that after the actual working of the land it remains in the Board's occupation for some four or five years more, and that on top of this there is the fifteen-year period. It may be suggested that that is too long a period altogether. What I am suggesting is simply a precaution in case it is found subsequently that the general consensus of opinion of those interested in the land and those trying to get it restored is that the drainage ought to be done later.
§ Having explained what I am trying to do in my Amendment, I should like to ask the noble Lord if he could help us a little more on paragraph 13 of his Third Schedule. He has told us there that to a limited extent expenditure would not be disallowed if it was found to be more than the resultant benefit which would accrue to the land. I am worried, however, as to what will be the effect when it comes to drainage because I maintain that the one vital thing is to drain this land. That, to my mind, is the thing which really matters, because it affects the future of the land.
§ I am still a little puzzled here. The noble Lord was good enough to explain this matter to me, but I wonder whether he could go a little further. Drainage at the present time is a very expensive item—it costs up to £70 or more an acre—and after drainage the land has to be back-filled, re-planted and re-seeded. The whole of that is quite an expensive operation and it may well be that it would involve a good deal more cost than the resultant benefit to the land. Nevertheless, it is a thing which has to be done, because in certain types of land—and I think probably most—it is no good attempting to restore the land until it has been drained. I should like to be a little clearer as to what the situation 1223 would be under paragraph 13 if the costs of the work I have referred to are substantially more than the benefit which might be estimated to accrue to the land. I think that the intention behind this Bill is that the land should be drained, and I want to be satisfied that paragraph 13 will not, by accident, interfere with that intention. Having said that, I beg to move.
May I preface my remarks by saying that I was rather reluctant last Thursday to ask that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, should agree to adjourn the proceedings, but that I did so in the main because of this very Amendment, along with a few other Amendments to the Schedules. This is, to us, a very important Amendment. It was not that we disagreed with it, but that we were anxious to have time to consult with our colleagues in another place. They had made certain representations, and we were not quite certain how far those representations had been accepted in this new Schedule. I therefore suggested that we should adjourn so that we could consult with them, and I promised that in doing so we would facilitate the progress of this Bill. That is our intention. We on this side of the House will do everything we can to facilitate the progress of this Bill, but I also have in mind its progress in another place. The more we improve the Bill in this place the better is its chance in another place, because most of these Amendments will be discussed again there.
I am not going to refer to the Amendment to the Amendment: I will leave that to the Minister and to the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. This new Schedule deals with one of the grievances that was ventilated in another place—namely, that there was no way of dealing in advance with any dispute between the Board and the applicants about their rights to compensation if further costs were incurred. The new paragraph 9 does it—and does it well, if I might say so—but there are one or two comments 1224 that I should like to make on other paragraphs in the Schedule.
For instance, the Schedule does not provide for the most vital disagreement, in our view, which is what is to happen if the applicant's estimate of the cost of work under paragraph 2(1)(b) exceeds what the Board consider to be the estimated cost of work as defined in paragraph 6. Here I would ask: why has the Minister omitted from paragraph 4 those particular grounds? He himself said that he was most reluctant to agree that paragraph 5 should go in the Schedule. My colleagues in another place and myself are just as reluctant as he is, and we should like to see it out. We think it is an unnecessary complication, and we do not see any reason why further costs of work should not be judged on their own in the same way as the original costs of work. I am asked to put to the Minister whether he would consider deleting paragraph 5 from the Schedule. If so, it would make the Schedule more acceptable to my colleagues and myself.
There is just one question with regard to paragraph 11. Why fifteen years? Why not some lesser figure? My colleagues and I feel that there is no need for fifteen years; indeed, they suggest as an Amendment five years. I should like the noble Lord's comments on those small points. I notice that there are ninety Amendments on this Committee stage and thirty-one on the Report stage. We shall need to make very rapid progress in the early part of our discussions if we are to get through all those today. We welcome this new Schedule. We think it is an effort to meet—and that it does meet part way, if not the whole way—representations made by my colleagues in another place.
Perhaps I might first deal with the noble Viscount's Amendment to the Amendment. This Amendment deals with a point which was raised by the noble Viscount during our discussion on Committee stage on cost-of-works compensation. Since then I have looked into very carefully and I have obtained the views of the Government's agricultural advisers. When an opencast coal site has been back-filled after working, it is given, as the noble Viscount has mentioned, five years' agricultural treatment 1225 before the Board give up possession of the land. The time limit of fifteen years on cost-of-works compensation begins to run from the end of the Board's occupation, so there is a total of 20 years after the back-filling of the site during which permanent drains can be installed. In many cases the drains are installed during the five years' agricultural treatment, but that is not always possible. I am advised, however, that it should always be possible to instal them within a few years after the end of the agricultural treatment, and that fifteen years is ample time to allow for their installation.
Of course, there is always the risk that drains will be damaged by settlement, but if we waited until all risk of settlement had passed, the land would remain undrained almost indefinitely. To guard against this risk, however, we have provided in paragraph 11 (2) of this Schedule that the fifteen years' limitation shall not apply to the repair of damage caused by settlement. This will ensure that the Board will have to pay for the repair of any new drainage system which may happen to be damaged in this way. The noble Viscount asked me whether paragraph 13 stands in the way of the proper drainage of the land. I am quite sure that it does not stand in the way. The Board appreciate that the land has to be properly drained and will see that it is properly drained. I hope that this removes the noble Viscount's misgivings about this provision.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor. I quite understand his reason for suggesting last time that we should adjourn; I think it was a very proper reason. I am glad we are going to have his support in doing what we can to get this Bill through. I explained that I did not particularly like this complicated paragraph 5 in the Schedule, but it deals with a very real point, and I think that if it were omitted the Board would be put in considerable difficulty. I am therefore going to ask the noble Lord to agree to its inclusion. The noble Lord asked me: "Why fifteen years? Why not some other period?" The only reason I can give is that it was recommended by our advisers on this matter and that it was the wish of another place, where the matter was fully debated. In fact, the re-writing of the Schedule was necessary to give effect to undertakings given in another place.
This question of leaving open the drainage date is not one which I think of the greatest importance or one on which a lot of time should be spent, and I am happy not to press the Amendment to the Amendment. I agree with the noble Lord that paragraph 5 is difficult; I do not think I like it a bit. As to the rest of the Schedule, it is probably better than the Third Schedule as it was before, but I do not believe that it takes the right view of Clause 22 and we can only hope that it will work as it is intended to do. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, in paragraph 8, after "harvested crops" to insert "including timber". The noble Viscount said: This Amendment attempts to deal with forestry. It leads on to an Amendment which I have on paragraph 14 of the Sixth Schedule and is connected with one of the Amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Mills, so possibly it would not be wrong to refer to matters connected with those Amendments while discussing this one. The idea that lies behind this Amendment is simple. In the same way as an occupier of land who is farming is paid for his crops, cultivation and tenant right at the time when an order begins and the Board go in, so an occupier who has a crop of forest trees should be paid for his trees at the time the Board go in. We shall be interested to see what is the intention of the noble Lord in his Amendment. It may cover what we are hoping for.
§ I think the reason why the Bill as it stands does not provide for the payment for a crop until the end of the order is because it is directed at dealing with ornamental timber rather than commercial forests. While I agree that the case is not so strong on the face of it, I think it becomes stronger in practice. The Bill, as it stands, provides that when a final valuation is made it will include the timber which was on the land when it was taken, and it will compare the land when bearing the timber with the land without it, increment which would 1227 have existed if the timber had still been there being assumed. It also provides for annual compensation for thinnings and other products which would have been taken from the land during the period of the order. On the other hand, any timber which is mature and ready to fell at the beginning of the order, and which in the ordinary way would probably have been felled before the end of the order, cannot be taken to show any increment or, therefore, any increase of value when the final reckoning comes to be made, because the trees will have already reached their mature value at the beginning of the order.
§ The effect of this provision would be that the owner of the timber would be paid the value of the timber at the end of the order but it would be no more than its value was at the beginning—unless, of course, inflationary tendencies had to be allowed for—so that the owner would have lent to the Coal Board for perhaps ten years the value of that timber, without anything being paid about it. In many cases of what is known as amenity timber, the trees will have reached their full age—indeed, they will mostly be older than they ought to be from the point of view of good forestry principles, and should have been replaced—so that this question affects amenity timber as well as commercial forests, whether on dedicated land or not.
§ I think it would be much simpler if the valuation were made under the Sixth Schedule, and I attempt in a very amateurish way to say how the valuation of timber should be made. The owner could be paid for the timber and he could invest that money either in another crop somewhere else or in another part of his property on improvements to farm buildings, or whatever it may be; and when the time comes for the land to be replaced a decision could be made about whether the land is worth planting again or cultivating. The owner must then find the resources with which to plant his land. I do not suggest that after paying to the owner the value of the land, the Coal Board should be expected, when they go in, to pay also for the planting at the end of the period.
§ That seems to me to be the simplest way to look at the matter. I do not know whether it would be right to say 1228 that under the unfortunate process of requisitioning which now goes on, by which land is taken for opencast coal, that is in fact what is done. In practice, there is no difficulty in achieving a valuation which suits both parties; the timber is paid for and cut down, the owner gets his money, and when the working comes to an end he replants as he thinks best, or as is best fitted to the land. That is the purpose behind these Amendments. I hope the noble Lord by his Amendment to Clause 14 and the Sixth Schedule will be able to meet what we need, and I am interested to hear how he intends that that should work. I beg to move.
The Government have given much thought to the problem of compensation on woodlands taken for opencast coal working. It is a very difficult technical problem and it has been clear to us for some time that the main compensation provisions of the Bill do not quite fit the case of woodlands. I think it would be wrong to burden this already lengthy Bill with further complicated technical provisions, and I shall, therefore, be moving Amendments to the Sixth Schedule which will provide for this problem to be dealt with in regulations.
I cannot promise that these regulations will provide, as the noble Viscount suggests, that compensation for timber should be payable when the Board take over the land comprised in a compulsory rights order, for we see considerable difficulties about such a course; we think it might lead to a substantial double payment in the frequent cases when, in the interest of amenity, we shall impose conditions on the Board requiring them to replant trees which are destroyed during opencast operations. I can promise the noble Viscount, however, that in preparing these regulations I will consider very carefully what he has said and that my Department will consult the agricultural organisations, the local authority associations and others interested. In addition, it will, of course, be possible for any noble Lord who wishes to debate the regulations. I am advised that the noble Viscount's Amendments are, in any case, technically 1229 defective—I am sure he will not be surprised to hear that—and I hope that, with the assurance I have just given, he will agree to withdraw them and leave this complicated problem to be dealt with in the regulations.
I must accept that my Amendments are technically wrong, but I think what I mean is clear. The regulations are probably the best way to deal with this matter, but I am a little worried that the Minister should refer again to amenity timber as if that were the biggest part of the problem. I think the biggest part of the problem is the forestry question. However, the noble Lord has encouraged me, because he did not say that the problem could not be dealt with under the measures I suggested. It may be that his regulations will provide for a combination of two systems. I can appreciate the point which he made: that this proposal is perhaps too long and too elaborate to put into an already complicated Bill. I welcome the suggestion of the Amendment which he is going to move, and on that I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
This is entirely a drafting Amendment designed to bring the wording of the Fourth Schedule to the Bill into line with that of the Fourth Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, as amended by the Agricultural Holdings Act (Variation of Fourth Schedule) Order, 1951. I beg to move.
§ (2) In this Schedule "the mineral operator"— (a) in relation to land which, immediately before the operative date of the order in question, is subject to a mining lease as mentioned in paragraph (a) of the said subsection (1), means the person for the time being entitled to the benefit of that mining lease, and and, in relation to any land to which this Schedule applies, "the relevant undertaking' 1230 means the mineral undertaking of the mineral operator.
§ VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved in paragraph 1 (2) (a), after "subject" to insert "directly or indirectly". The noble Viscount said: This Amendment concerns the treatment of owners or operators of mineral leases and their compensation. It is perhaps a little difficult, because there are two Amendments of this kind to the clauses which I am afraid I did not manage to put down on the Committee stage and I have ventured to put them down on Report. The principle, however, is exactly the same here, so possibly the matter may be settled during the discussion now. The intention here is that there should be a fair degree of wideness in the definition of who, in fact, owns these mineral rights or mineral leases. In the Town and Country Planning Act there is quite a wide definition of various classes of people who, under certain conditions, can receive compensation for their interest in minerals, whether they be mineral operators who are mining, or whether they are holders of the minerals in anticipation of their being worked. There is a large number of types of ownership by one person on behalf of an operating company or a mining company, and one would not attempt to define all of them in an Amendment of this kind. What one wants to be sure of, however, is that the words cover the ownership of mineral rights not actually in the names of those who are beneficiaries of them. It is really an Amendment to try to get an explanation as to who is and who is not covered. I beg to move.
This Amendment, which can conveniently be considered with Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17, deals with a complicated subject. It might be as well if I deal separately with the two points which lie behind these Amendments. The first object is to make sure that compensation is paid in accordance with the Fifth Schedule on mineral-bearing lands which are not held directly for the benefit of a mineral undertaking but which in fact are indirectly available for the purposes of that undertaking. We have examined various cases in which that might arise, and I am 1231 advised that they are adequately covered by the Bill as drafted. The Fifth Schedule is applied by Clause 33, and that clause says that compensation will be paid in accordance with the Fifth Schedule on land in which the benefit of a mining lease or the landowner's interest is held "for the purposes of a mineral undertaking". I am advised that this covers the case in which the benefit of the mining lease or the interest of the landowner are held indirectly for those purposes.
The second and more difficult point underlying the Amendment is the definition of the mineral undertaking, and, as I understand it, the purpose of the Amendment is to make sure that a group of associated companies are treated as a single undertaking. Under the Bill as drafted, the "undertaking" is not precisely defined and is left to be decided on the merits of each case. I think that that is probably the best course, and that we should run into very considerable difficulties if we tried to find a precise definition of "undertaking". If we adopted the definition in these Amendments we might well find that in some cases we had to look at the profit and loss accounts of a nation-wide or even world-wide concern, while in other cases the definition was too restrictive.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 17 refer to Section 47 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1954. That section was included in the 1954 Act to ensure that a company would not be prejudiced because it had transferred land to another company at an artificially low book-keeping price. There is no danger that a company will be prejudiced in this way under the provisions of the Fifth Schedule, for the loss of profits compensation is going to be calculated by reference to notional market profits and not by reference to book-keeping profits. I hope that, in view of these explanations of the difficulties in the way of these Amendments, the noble Viscount will not press this point.
With regard to my Amendment No. 12, the noble Lord has explained it far better than I could. He has assured me that it is in fact covered, so I am perfectly happy. I apologise for wasting time on it, and beg leave to withdraw it.
Your Lordships will remember that I explained on the last occasion that there would be a string of Amendments relating to the fact that it was necessary to bring a man who enjoyed mineral working rights under a court order for the purposes of the Bill into the same position as a mineral lessee. A number of those Amendments were accepted, and this and the next are two more Amendments in that series. There is a similar position with regard to timber felling contracts. There are a large number of redundant references throughout the Bill which have now been dealt with by an Amendment your Lordships were good enough to accept to Clause 51. It covers the entire position, and from time to time there will be others to which, for your Lordships' convenience, I will give the short title of "mineral working rights" or "timber felling contracts". I beg to move.
The noble Lord, Lord Mills, has really answered this Amendment before I have moved it; he answered it together with Amendment No. 12. I should like him to be good enough to clarify the point a little more. What this Amendment intends to do is to bring in a group of companies as defined in the Companies Act, because the Town and Country Planning Act referred back to that. The noble Lord implied that such a group would be impossible to define. I do not quite follow that, because it seems to me that any company concerned as an owner of minerals, or having rights in minerals, would naturally come under the group of companies as defined in the Companies Act, and that its finance and taxation, and its liabilities and assets, including its rights in minerals, would all be treated in the same way. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell me whether I am wrong. I beg to move.
What I tried to explain to the noble Viscount was that a company would not be prejudiced because it had transferred minerals to another company at an artificially low book-keeping price. I pointed out that the loss of profits compensation is going to be calculated by reference to notional market profits, and not by reference to book-keeping profits.
I think that meets my point. I did not quite follow it the first time, because I was thinking of Amendment No. 12, and listening to the explanation on Amendment No. 15. With that I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
This Amendment fulfils an undertaking given in another place that the Government would make quite sure that the definition of, "the relevant rights and facilities" in paragraph 1 (3) of the Fifth Schedule covered the processing of minerals. The words chosen to give effect to this undertaking are those used in Section 1 (2) of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923. I beg to move.
This Amendment deals with mineral working rights. I beg to move.
This is a technical Amendment designed to eliminate the possibility of a double payment of compensation which might arise under the Fifth Schedule as drafted. Paragraph 13 of that Schedule provides for the payment of terminal compensation to people other than mineral operators who have an interest in land which is used for mineral 1234 working and which has been comprised in a compulsory rights order. The purpose of the present Amendment is to make sure that these people do not obtain terminal compensation for the same damage under the main compensation provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
the amount of any profit assessed for that year under subsection (1) of section nineteen of this Act shall be reduced by the amount by which he has augmented his income for that year by availing himself of those opportunities, or by which he might reasonably have been expected to augment his income for that year if he had availed himself of those opportunities, as the case may be.
the amount of any profit assessed for that year under subsection (1) of section nineteen of this Act shall be reduced by the amount of the income from that compensation which is attributable to that year.
§ 14.—(1) Where any part of a holding to which section twenty-one of this Act applies consists of land which, immediately before the date of entry, was used as woodlands, section twenty-three of this Act shall apply in relation to the holding as if, for the value mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of that section, there were substituted the value mentioned in the next following sub-paragraph.
(b) the remainder of the holding were in the state in which it was immediately before the date of entry.
§ (3) Subsection (4) of section twenty-two of this Act shall apply for the purpose of computing value as mentioned in the last preceding sub-paragraph as it applies for the purpose of computing the values referred to in that subsection.
I think it would be convenient if I dealt with this Amendment and the following Amendment No. 22, together. Paragraph 3 of the Sixth Schedule is designed to provide that the annual loss of profits compensation under Clause 19 will not be payable to a person who becomes entitled to occupy the holding in question after the date of operation of a compulsory rights order, unless he becomes so entitled through inheritance. Compensation under Clause 19 is designed to compensate the occupiers of land taken for opencast coal production for the personal loss which they suffer. We felt that a person who takes over the occupation of such land after the date of operation of a compulsory rights order does so with his eyes open and that he has not suffered any personal loss for which he ought to be compensated. These two Amendments correct some technical defects in the present wording. They also provide that 1236 the loss of profits compensation will be payable to someone who becomes entitled to occupy the land after the date of operation of a compulsory rights order but under an agreement made before that date. This seems to us fair as the person in question could not know in advance whether the compulsory rights order would be confirmed. I beg to move.
§ VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved in the last line of paragraph 8, after "opportunities" to insert "other than by way of change of occupation". The noble Viscount said: I wish to move this Amendment to replace No. 23 which I did not move. This concerns the reduction of compensation for loss of profit under Clause 19 which is to be made in certain circumstances. As the occupier has already under an earlier clause received an annual sum by way of rent, there remains for him the loss of profit annual sum which comes under Clause 19, and paragraph 8 of this Schedule says that although his 1237 loss of profit may have been calculated accurately and carefully, under the provisions of the Bill it is to be reduced on the notion that he should have been able to earn some money in other ways. Whether that principle exists in law I do not know; I believe it is a new one. But the practical way to consider it, I think, is that one should try to relate it to what happens in other ways.
§ In the case of a civil contract, an employee of a firm may be under a contract of employment. If his contract is terminated a calculation is made of what is due to him, and there it is. After that calculation is made I do not think it is the usual practice to mitigate it by considering what in fact he might earn elsewhere. However, there is an exception that I think one should consider which would make this case different from the sort of case I have quoted, and that is this. If an occupier of land is dispossessed of his land, he has at his disposal his stock, implements and equipment which, unless he can get another farm, he cannot use, and it is reasonable to suppose that, that being his capital, he would sell his stock and probably most of his implements. There is, of course, provision for the loss due to forced sale. Having done that, he has a capital sum in his hands; his capital is no longer invested in farm stock. It is not unreasonable to say, as I think paragraph 8 does say, that account should be taken of the fact that this money is invested and the interest which accrues to him should be used to reduce his compensation for loss of profit accordingly. That seems to me to be a proposition which one could not argue against, and I think that is the intention of the first part of this part of the Schedule.
§ On the other hand, there is one matter upon which I feel very strongly, and that is that paragraph 8 would seem to imply that a farmer who has had his land taken from him might be expected to go and earn his living in some other capacity. That is all right, perhaps, for a young and active man who does not mind getting a job on a neighbouring farm, if he can. It is all right for a farmer who can get another farm, but they are not easy to get; there are not often farms to let and available, and if there are there is no reason to be sure the farmer would necessarily be accepted 1238 as a tenant. It is all right for a man who has already got another occupation. He may be considered to have more time to spare to work up his business and earn something. The same applies to a man who may have a farm rather as a sideline and whose occupation may be something else. Those are cases in which one must accept the force of the argument of the paragraph. But the case which I have in mind is a typical one and the one which will happen most; that is the case of the small farmer who has no other occupation, who has been farming all his life, who may be getting old and who knows no other occupation at all. It would appear from this paragraph that he is expected either to go and get himself a job in some other trade or occupation nearby or to suffer a loss of income.
§ I do not think that that is fair, and I think this will fall particularly on the smaller farmers, for two reasons: first, because it is more likely, by the very nature of things, that the whole of a small farm will more often be taken than the whole of a large one—I think that is geographically inevitable; secondly, because the larger farmer has more capital and more resources and is not put in the position of the small farmer who has nothing to fall back upon. I have known of one or two cases where opencast coal working was under consideration and the farmer objected and asked what his living was to be, and he was told that he could perfectly well get a job driving his tractor on civil engineering on the opencast coal working. It is not fair to force that on a man. He has been a farmer all his life; his family have probably been farmers for a very long time. I think it is very much cheese-paring to try to reduce his compensation in this way.
§ Again, I must readily admit that the wording of my Amendment is probably wrong, but I think the noble Lord will see what I mean. I do not want to delete the whole paragraph. I had put down Amendment No. 23 in the way I had worded it, to leave out paragraph 8, because I thought it might be easier to have a general discussion on this paragraph on the Committee stage and then get a precise Amendment on the Report stage; but as the two stages have run together I have accordingly put down the detailed Amendment No. 24 which I 1239 am now moving. I hope the Minister will be able to do something in this direction. I beg to move.
I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for putting down this Amendment. While we have felt that we must maintain the principle of mitigation, nevertheless it is our wish, and I think it is also your Lordships' wish, that we should avoid hardship and that the mitigation provision should not operate in such a way as to face a man with the choice of taking an unsuitable job or losing his compensation.
I have been giving a lot of thought to the best way of tackling this point. I cannot accept the noble Viscount's Amendment as it stands, but if he will now withdraw it I will propose an Amendment on Third Reading which will have the effect that a man's compensation will not be mitigated on account of an opportunity of mitigation which he did not take and which would have involved his engaging in a substantially different occupation from those in which he was engaged during a period, which will normally be four years, before the date of operation of the compulsory rights order. I hope the suggestion will commend itself to the noble Viscount and to the Committee as a fair solution of this difficult problem.
I am very grateful indeed to the noble Lord. I am quite sure that everybody who is concerned with this Bill will be grateful to him for it and will see that it is fair. I am only too glad, on the noble Lord's assurance, to withdraw my Amendment as quickly as I can.
This Amendment is moved really by way of a correction. Here again the Bill says that compensation paid for loss of profits—in effect, what we call, tenant-right—when paid to the occupier on the Board's coming in, is a capital sum to be invested, and therefore the income from it should 1240 be used in mitigation. My contention is that although tenant-right—described in this Bill for some reason that I cannot fathom as "short-term improvements"—is shown as a capital sum, in fact it is an income sum. It is part of the annual income and outgoing of the farmer occupier, and therefore to treat it as capable of being invested and to use the income in mitigation would seem to me to be a mistake. I beg to move.
I am grateful to the noble Viscount for raising a useful point. I am glad to say that I can accept his Amendment in principle. I am sure, however, that he will not be surprised to hear that we are not happy about the drafting of it, and if he will now withdraw it I will move Amendments Nos. 26 to 28 on the Marshalled List.
I should never expect anybody to be happy about the words that I use in an Amendment, but as the noble Lord has been good enough to agree with me on the principle, I beg leave to withdraw it.
The next three Amendments, Nos. 26, 27 and 28 can be conveniently considered together. These Amendments are designed to deal with the point raised by Lord Ridley's Amendment No. 25. This was that investment income on tenant-right compensation (which compensation is treated as annual income for income tax purposes) should not be deducted in assessing the loss of profits compensation under Clause 19. These Government Amendments give effect to the principle raised by the noble Viscount, with suitable drafting. I beg to move.
This Amendment and Amendment No. 30 on the Marshalled List can conveniently be considered together. The annual value compensation under Clause 18 is normally based on the rent at which the land comprised in a compulsory rights order would let from year to year. This, however, would work out harshly in the case of land such as building land which is not let from year to year, for the rent on a year-to-year basis would be negligible. We are providing in paragraph 12 of the Sixth Schedule for the Minister to make regulations to overcome this difficulty.
There are many ways of making these regulations. The first is to remove Clause 18 completely and replace it by a completely new provision which would be contained in the regulations. The second method is to retain the structure of Clause 18, but to provide in regulations for a notional method of calculating annual value on these special types of land in a way which would prove fair to the people being compensated. Paragraph 12 of the Sixth Schedule is at present drafted on the first basis. We have, however, now started work on the regulations, and it has become clear that they will be very much simplified if they can be drafted on the second basis. These two Amendments enable that to be done. The regulations under this provision will be debatable in your Lordships' House and we will discuss them in draft with the agricultural organisations, local authority associations and other interested bodies. I beg to move.
This Amendment is consequential on No. 29. I beg to move.
This Amendment, which is similar in purpose to Amendment No. 29 which I moved, is consequential on the introduction during the Report stage in another place of Clause 32, Compensation for depreciation of other land in the same ownership. It provides that the annual value for the purpose of that land shall, in the case of land which is used for a purpose for which land is not normally let from year to year, be assessed in accordance with regulations made by the Minister. It is on all fours with paragraph 12 of the Sixth Schedule which contains similar provisions about the assessment of annual value for the purposes of Clauses 18 and 19. I beg Ito move.
This is the Amendment which I mentioned in replying to Lord Ridley's Amendment regarding timber. It provides that the whole question of compensation on woodlands shall be dealt with in regulations. I think that that is the sensible way of dealing with this complicated technical problem, and I hope the Amendment will commend itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.
As I have indicated before, I welcome this Amendment and I am grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Mills, for approaching the matter in this way.
(b) any easement or similar right over land.
§ 20. For the purposes of the following provisions of this Act, that is to say. Subections (2) and (3) of section seventeen, subsection (2) of section twenty-one, subsection (1) of section twenty-nine, and the provisions of subsection (3) of section seventeen as applied by subsection (2) of section twenty-nine, any right to which the last preceding paragraph applies shall be disregarded; and, in relation to any land which is subject to any such right, those provisions shall apply as if that right had not been conferred, reserved or otherwise acquired, as the case may be.
§ 21.—(1) Where in accordance with the provisions of section seventeen of this Act (as modified by the last preceding paragraph) any land constitutes a holding to which that section applies, and, during any year for which compensation is payable in respect of that holding by virtue of that section, any land comprised in the holding is subject to any right to which paragraph 19 of this Schedule applies, the provisions of the next following sub-paragraph shall have effect as to the assessment under section nineteen of this Act of profit or loss for that year in respect of that holding.
(c) in all other respects, on the terms and in the circumstances specified in subsection (1) or subsection (3) of that section, as the case may be.
§ (3) For the purposes of the last preceding sub-paragraph it shall be assumed that the manner and extent of the exercise of the right in question, during the year for which the profit or loss is required to be assessed, is such as it might reasonably have been expected to be during that year if the compulsory rights order had not been made.
§ (4) Where the preceding provisions of this paragraph have effect in relation to the assessment of compensation for any year in accordance with section nineteen of this Act, and in respect of the right in question, in so far as it relates to land comprised in the holding, any rent is payable for that year (notwithstanding the compulsory rights order) to the person entitled to that compensation, the amount of that compensation (calculated apart from this sub-paragraph) shall be reduced by the amount of that rent.
§ (5) In the preceding provisions of this paragraph any reference to section seventeen of this Act includes a reference to section twenty-nine of this Act, and any reference to section nineteen of this Act includes a reference to the provisions of that section as applied by section twenty-nine of this Act.
§ (6) In this paragraph "rent" includes any sums payable in respect of the exercise of a right to which paragraph 19 of this Schedule applies.
§ 22. Where the whole or part of the land comprised in a compulsory rights order is subject 1245 to any such right as is mentioned in subparagraph (a) of paragraph 19 of this Schedule, and in any year in which that right subsists, being any such year as is mentioned in subsection (2) of section thirty-one of this Act, the exercise of that right is prevented or injuriously affected by reason of the order or of anything done in the exercise of rights conferred by the order, the said subsection (2) shall have effect in relation to that right as if it were an easement to which that section applies.
§ 23. Any agreement for the letting of land or the grant of a licence in respect of land, where, before the agreement was entered into, the letting or grant was approved by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the purposes of section two of the Act of 1948 (which relates to the effect of certain lettings and licences to occupy agricultural land, but excepts lettings and licences approved by the said Minister from the operation of the section) shall be treated for the purposes of section seventeen of this Act as conferring a right to occupy the land to which the agreement relates, if apart from this paragraph it would not be treated as conferring such a right.
subsection (2) of section thirty-one of this Act shall have effect in relation to that right as if it were an easement to which that section applies."
§ The noble Lord said: I feel that I should apologise to your Lordships for moving such an enormous Amendment. It is a long and complicated one, but it really deals with three fairly simple points, and I am happy to think that my explanation can be much shorter and simpler than the Amendment itself. In the first place, it eliminates a double payment of compensation which might arise under the Bill as drafted. The occupier of a holding is entitled under Clauses 18 and 19 to annual compensation which is worked out on the assumption that the holding is free from incumbrances. However, if some other person is entitled to an easement or other right over that part of the holding which is comprised in the compulsory rights order, that person gets annual compensa- 1246 tion under Clause 31 for the loss which he suffers because the exercise of his easement or right has been interfered with by the Board's operations. There may sometimes be overlapping between these two provisions and paragraph 21 of this Amendment ensures that it will not lead to a double payment of compensation.
§ Secondly, the Amendment deals with the position when part of a holding is let out for part of a year under a mowing or grazing licence. Under the Bill as drafted the whole of the annual compensation goes to the occupier and the licensee gets nothing. We do not think that that is quite fair, so we have provided in paragraph 22 that the licensee is to be compensated in the same way as the holder of an easement—that is to say, he will get compensation for the loss which he suffers. The annual compensation of the main occupier will be correspondingly reduced under the provisions I have just mentioned.
§ Finally we deal in paragraphs 23 and 24 with the case where land is held under certain special short-term tenancy agreements approved by the Ministry of Agriculture. In some of these cases the owner may retain certain rights to use the land. We think it is proper that the main annual compensation should go to the tenant because he is the main occupier, but the owner's right to use the land is also to be treated as pan easement or similar right and compensated for on that basis. All three cases are unusual but they do sometimes arise, and, with the last two cases, there is a chance that art individual might suffer considerable hardship if our compensation provisions do not cover them adequately. That is my reason for moving this Amendment. I am sure it is one with which your Lordships will agree. I beg to move.
We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for his explanation of this Amendment. The only good thing I can say on this Amendment as compared with the Sixth Schedule in the original list of Amendments is that it is shorter than the other was. It will be very helpful and I believe that it is an improvement upon the provisions which it is replacing. May I say here, for my 1247 colleagues, that we on this side of the House are very anxious to get this Bill though as quickly as possible. That is why we are in general agreement with all the Amendments. We hope that our attitude in sitting as we are and allowing them to pass through in this way is not misunderstood. It is simply for the reason that we are in complete agreement with almost all the Amendments which are down on the Order Paper.
I, too, think that this Amendment is a good one. However, there is a point which might arise under paragraph 23. That is, what would be the effect of this Amendment on annual lettings, as approved by the Ministry of Agriculture for the purpose, under Section 2—often known as "364-day tenancies". Those are often continued from year to year to the same tenant. One would like to think that he would not be deprived of getting compensation the next year if, had not the order intervened, he would have continued as a tenant.
I do not think there is any risk such as the noble Viscount fears in that respect. I see no reason why we should interfere with the continuance of the man's tenancy. The Amendment really deals with the question of making certain that both he and the occupier in certain circumstances are adequately compensated. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, for his kind words as regards both this Amendment and the Bill in general; we appreciate his attitude on the whole matter.
This Amendment is designed to meet a point raised by the Opposition on Report stage in another place. Annual compensation on land comprised in a compulsory rights order starts to run from the operative date of the order; because the Board have to give at least a 56-days' notice of entry this is earlier than the date on which they actually enter the land. The reason for paying compensation during this period is that the occupier will be preparing to vacate the land and so will not be able to earn the profits he normally earns from using it in the normal way. The point raised by the Opposition was that if the two-months' notice of entry period 1248 covered the harvest period the occupier might be able both to gather his harvest and to obtain loss of profits compensation from the Board for the lost harvest. This Amendment overcomes the difficulty by making it quite clear that the occupier's annual compensation for this period will be a proportionate part of the compensation for a year and will not be increased, for example, because it is the period during which the harvest might be gathered. This is also quite fair to the occupier because should he in fact lose his crops, he will receive lump sum compensation for them under Clause 26. I beg to move.
This Amendment is consequential on the introduction of Clause 32 on Report stage in another place. It deals with the case in which annual compensation under that clause is payable for only part of a year. I beg to move.
This new paragraph empowers the Minister to make regulations adapting the compensation provisions in cases where a holding is affected by more than one compulsory rights order. I should like to make it clear that we are not concerned here with the making of successive compulsory rights orders on the same land, 1249 which is, of course, forbidden under Clause 9. What we are concerned with is the case where one part of a holding, probably a farm, is comprised in one compulsory rights order and another part of it in another. It has begun to seem clear that, although the problem could be dealt with in the Bill, and although it would be nice to accede to the plea that it should be dealt with in the Bill, it would mean that there would have to be long and complicated technical provisions of a kind that are better left to regulations. Outside organisations will be consulted about the drafting of these regulations, and when they are made it will, of course, be possible for them to be debated either in your Lordships' House or in another place, or in both places. I beg to move.
This matter rather alarms me. Although, as the noble Lord has said, it is not possible for a compulsory rights order to come twice in respect of the same land, it is awful to think of a holding with two separate orders, perhaps at the same time, or one following the other. It is going to create the most appallingly difficult position for the occupiers. It will require a long and complicated set of regulations or Schedules to deal with this problem. I should have thought it might be possible to connect this Amendment in some way with Clause 9, to ensure that at least the smallest of the holdings cannot have compulsory orders on two parts at the same time or at different times, and I wonder 1250 whether that point ought not to be considered.
I believe that the case which has sprung to the mind of the noble Viscount is an extreme one. What I can more easily visualise is a certain holding with adjoining land for which there might be orders in operation, and there might be an overlap in respect of that land in two different places. Whilst it is right to consider the possibility that a small holding might be wiped out by two orders, it is also right to consider the case of a much larger farm which might have a two-acre overlap at each end. The problem is, when assessing the compensation, to take account of what is going on on the rest of the holding and if what is going on on the rest of the holding is partly affected by another order, the situation becomes so complicated that I do not think it can be dealt with in the Bill. For that reason, I think that it is necessary to deal with this matter by regulations.
From the point of view of compensation, I quite appreciate that; but perhaps, if I may be allowed to say so, that is a little off the point. This raises the question, which has not come up before on this Bill, of subsequent orders being made on the same holding. I must admit that the point had not occurred to me, but there are practical cases of this. I have recollection of one where the intention was to take the whole of the holding, but fortunately we were able to persuade the then Minister of Fuel and Power, I think it was, to leave the occupier with at least part of it. One would not like to think that it would be policy—I am not saying this should be put in the Bill—to go back and take the rest from him at another date. I hope that, so far as possible the noble Lord will adopt a policy of not going back again to the same holding, particularly if it is a small one, and where the margin is perhaps rather low.
I can fully sympathise with the noble Viscount's view on this question of two orders on one farm or on one holding, but that is not really the problem here. This Amendment does not suggest that that will necessarily happen: all the Amendment says is that if for any reason it does happen, the question of compensation will be dealt with properly by treating the land affected as 1251 one holding. I do not think the noble Viscount need have any fears that we are giving any power here. It is only there to deal with the situation if it should arise.
I quite appreciate that, but it did raise in my mind this question which has not yet been discussed. It is an administrative point only.
This Amendment and the next four—that is, Nos. 42 to 45 inclusive—all deal with the rights to work minerals and with timber felling contracts. I beg to move.
This Amendment is consequential on Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 in the Marshalled List. I beg to move.
This Amendment contains the Scottish adaptation of the new Amendment No. 37 to which your Lordships have just agreed. I beg to move.
§ VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, in paragraph 4, after sub-paragraph (3) to insert: (4) In determining what variations (if any) should be made in the terms and conditions of the tenancy as mentioned in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of this paragraph the arbitrator shall have regard to the payments made or to be made by the Board to the landlord and to the tenant under sections twenty-two and twenty-three of this Act.
§ The noble Viscount said: This Amendment raises a point of some difficulty, I think. It is in connection with terminal compensation payable under Clauses 22 and 23, and to some extent, I think, the Third Schedule, which we discussed earlier. The point is that under this Seventh Schedule either the owner or the occupier of the land, if it is let, has the right to compulsory arbitration on rent and other matters as provided for under the Agriculture Act. That would seem to me to be only reasonable, and if the owner has been paid his terminal compensation for diminution in value he can well reduce his rent and the matter is straightforward. But owing to the way that Clauses 22 and 23 work together, I have some doubt as to what will actually happen.
§ The arbitrator to whom this matter would be referred would be an agricultural valuer. As things are, he will value the land at what it would let for, and he will be conditioned by the Agriculture Bill now going through Parliament (assuming, of course, that it becomes an Act, as it probably will), which tells him the matters which he must take into 1253 consideration in fixing the rent; that is to say, the rent payable by a willing tenant and a willing landlord. Since part of his duty is defined in those words, it means that he cannot take any account of other considerations. It seems to me that it would be wise to put in here a provision that he must take into account not only the matters referred to in the Agriculture Bill but also the appropriate matters which arise under this Bill.
§ Let me put it this way. If the landlord has received diminution-in-value compensation he should reduce his rent, and there it is. The tenant, having to pay that reduced rent, could therefore afford more fertilisers, and so on. If, on the other hand, cost-of-works payments (under Clause 22), and diminution-invalue compensation (under Clause 23) are such that they do not make available to the landlord any compensation, or adequate compensation, then the situation will be the opposite, because, as I understand it, the Clause 22 compensation payable for such matters as cultivation, fertilisers, and so on, would go to the tenant. What I am seeking to do here is to see that the arbitrator takes those two matters into consideration, and can decide upon what is fair as between the one party and the other. If the noble Lord could tell me that, as the Bill stands, the arbitrator can take those matters into consideration, I should be perfectly happy; but it has been suggested to me that there is some doubt whether that is so.
§ I should just like to add this point. If it is suggested that the valuer who arbitrates on the rent cannot decide what the amount of the cost-of-works payments is likely to be, because they have not yet been decided, I think the answer is that, as the Bill stands, the Lands Tribunal, who give the ultimate decision on the valuations for the cost-of-works and the diminution-in-value payments, will be in the same position because they are bound by this Bill to settle the diminution-in-value payments having regard to the benefit of the works done. So there must be some idea that at that stage it will be possible to estimate what the works will be. It seems to me consistent that if that matter is taken into consideration when assessing the cost of works compensation it should also be taken into consideration when settling 1254 the revised rents for the land after the working period has finished.
I understand that the thought underlying this Amendment is that under the new Agriculture Bill, combined with paragraph 4 of the Seventh Schedule, the tenant, in addition to benefiting from cost of works compensation under Clause 22, would be able to secure an undue reduction in rent. This would be unfair to the landlord who, because cost-of-works compensation was likely to be substantial, might only get a small lump sum diminution-in-value payment under Clause 23. The new definition of the rent properly payable for an agricultural holding is contained in Clause 2 of the Agriculture Bill. It is, broadly speaking, the rent at which the holding might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market between a willing landlord and a willing tenant. This "open market" rent would certainly be calculated after taking into account all the relevant factors, including the fact that works of restoration were due to be carried out on the land at the expense of the Board. I suggest that the noble Viscount's Amendment would add nothing to the Bill, and I hope that, in view of the explanation I have given, the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw it.
If I am told that my point is already covered, I am perfectly happy. The noble Lord said that among other relevant considerations to be taken into account was the amount expected to be paid for costs of works. Would he say also that consideration would be given in valuation to the other method of terminal compensation—that is, diminution in value?
I have no hesitation in saying that that will be the effect.
§ LORD CHESHAM moved to leave out from beginning of paragraph 5 to "date", where that word occurs a second time, and insert— ("(1) Where the land comprised in a compulsory rights order consists of or includes 1255 the whole or part of an agricultural holding, section thirteen of the Act of 1948 (which relates to the removal of fixtures and buildings) shall have effect in relation to the holding subject to the following provisions of this paragraph. (2) In relation to the service of a notice by the tenant on or after the operative date of the order, in respect of a fixture or building on a part of the holding which is within the land comprised in the order, paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of that section (under which the tenant is required to give at least one month's notice of his intention to remove a fixture or building) shall apply with the substitution, for the words ' one month ', of the words ' fourteen days '. (3) Where the tenant has given to the landlord notice under the said subsection (2) (or under that subsection as modified by the last preceding sub-paragraph) of his intention to remove a fixture or building on a part of the holding which is within the land comprised in the order and that notice is given on or after the operative date of the order, or, if given before that date expires on or after that ").
§ The noble Lord said: This is a technical Amendment. Under Section 13 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, a tenant is entitled to remove certain fixtures from his holding. He is required to give his landlord one month's notice of his intention to remove the fixtures and the landlord is entitled to serve a counter-notice, the effect of which is that the tenant is no longer entitled to remove the fixtures, but the landlord has to pay him compensation representing the fair value of the fixtures to an incoming tenant. The Bill as drafted deprives the landlord of the right to serve this counter-notice when the tenant's notice expires on or after the operative date of a compulsory rights order. We do not believe that any landlord will want to pay the tenant compensation for fixtures when the Board are due to enter the land and destroy those fixtures. We are retaining the requirement that the tenant must serve a notice on his landlord because, apart from serving a counter-notice, the landlord may want to challenge the tenant's right to remove the fixtures. The present Amendment, however, reduces the period of notice to the landlord to fourteen days. I think that should be long enough to enable the landlord to decide whether to challenge the tenant's right to remove the fixtures; and, if there is no such challenge, it gives the tenant a benefit in that he has more time to remove his fixtures before the Board's entry on to the land. I beg to move.
This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
This is entirely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
This Amendment and the Amendments up to No. 57 inclusive all deal with mineral working rights. I beg to move.
I be to move the next Amendment.
This Amendment and No. 59 are both consequential on Amendment No. 52. I beg to move.
This is a technical Amendment, designed to bring within the scope of the Eighth Schedule allotments which are occupied wholly or mainly for the purposes of agriculture carried on by way of trade or business. This is to the advantage of the allotment tenants as it ensures that they receive the compensation for improvements which they would have received under the Allotments Acts if their tenancies had terminated in the ordinary way. I beg to move.
This is a drafting Amendment, designed to make it quite clear that the compensation under the Eighth Schedule is payable by the Board to the allotment tenant. I beg to move.
Paragraph 5 of the Eighth Schedule entitled an allotment tenant to compensation for 1258 losses on the forced sale of fixtures removed under Section 4 of the Allotments Act, 1922, from an allotment garden. This Amendment extends that provision to cover fixtures removed under Section 5 of that Act from an allotment which is not an allotment garden. I beg to move.
This and the next Amendment are consequential on the Amendment to Clause 35 which was made during the original Committee stage in your Lordships' House and provided that compensation for losses on forced sales should become payable when the transfer of the property took place. I beg to move.
This and the next Amendment are drafting Amendments designed to ensure that cost of works terminal compensation under Clause 22 as well as diminution in value terminal compensation under Clause 23, is related to the condition of the land without the allotment improvements for which the Board will have paid compensation under the Eighth Schedule at the time of their entry. The Amendments bring this paragraph into line with paragraph 15 of the Sixth Schedule, which deals similarly with short-term agricultural improvements for which the Board pay contribution on entry under Clause 26. I beg to move.
I should like to ask the noble Lord a question on this Amendment. Do gardens got the same privilege or assistance as allotments? I should have thought that it might be "allotments or gardens" or "gardens or allotments".
As I understand the position, that would not be necessary, because they are catered for elsewhere in the Bill. The purpose of this Amendment is to pick up the point about allotment holders who might have been hardly treated as a result of a small loophole in the Bill. I think I may have created some confusion by referring to an allotment, which is not an allotment garden. That is entirely a technical definition under the Allotments Act.
May I ask whether it is within the powers of those doing the opencast work to drive right into the allotments? Are they the judges of how far they leave the allotment to the owner?
That depends entirely on the authorisations. I should like to stress again that the point in the Amendment under discussion is to make certain that where allotments have to be taken, the holders have to be properly and fairly treated for the purposes of the Bill.
That assumes that a man's allotment can be taken from him for opencast purposes.
In answer to the noble Lord, I would say that it can be if it is so authorised. But I think he would be a very bold Minister who would attempt to authorise it unless there were some special circumstances for such authorisation.
I know of cases where people doing the opencast work have driven right up to the edge of small allotments. I was wondering whether it is left to the gentle disposition of the opencasters to destroy the allotment altogether, if they want to, and go right up to the doors of the house, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said they do in some cases.
I can only repeat that it depends on the authorisation. There is plenty of opportunity, as your Lordships are aware, for the holder of an allotment and for the Allotments Associa- 1260 tion to protest and have the case heard if such a proposal were made. I think the noble Lord need have no fear, because we are providing here for proper compensation to be made if it does happen.
I ask that only for clarification. Your Lordships may understand the paragraphs that we have passed in this Bill, but I do not. I have heard the most amazing things put through, which I have tried to understand, but I cannot. You cannot expect a poor fellow who is doing a day's work and running an allotment to understand paragraphs of this description. I think that steps should be taken to make it much more clear to him than it will be as a result of this Bill.
This, too, is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
This Amendment is consequential on No. 62. I beg to move.
This is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
§ Ninth Schedule agreed to.
This is a drafting Amendment designed to make it clear that the existing compensation arrangements referred to at various points in the Tenth Schedule cover the arrangements under which compensation is paid by or on behalf of the Minister, whether under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, or various extra-statutory arrangements approved by the Treasury, but do not cover certain ex gratia payments made by the Board which are on an ad hoc basis. The Board do make certain ex gratia payments in cases when special hardship has been caused by the requisitioning of land for opencast coal production. It will normally be to the advantage of the recipients of these payments to have their compensation re-assessed on the basis set out in the Bill, but the Board have told me that they will continue with the ex gratia payments if the recipients choose to continue receiving compensation on the present basis. I beg to move.
This is a drafting Amendment designed to make it quite clear that references to advance payments on account of terminal compensation include references to sums paid in return for a waiver of terminal compensation. I beg to move.
This Amendment and Amendment No. 76 are drafting Amendments designed to attract the provisions of the Ninth Schedule, which deals with the method of serving notices and other documents, to the service of the certificates about compensation which the 1262 Minister is required to issue under paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Tenth Schedule. I beg to move.
This Amendment and Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 are drafting Amendments. It is intended that the compensation certificates issued under paragraph 14 shall show both the statutory and extra-statutory annual compensation which the occupiers of land requisitioned for opencast coal production now receive. It might be argued, however, that the use of the word "entitled", in line 42, on page 108, limits the certificates to the statutory compensation to which the occupiers are legally entitled. These three Amendments remove this doubt. This is a protection for the occupiers, as the compensation which the Board will pay until the occupiers elect to have the amount reassessed on the basis set out in the Bill will be the amount shown in the certificate. I beg to move.
This is a drafting Amendment associated with Amendment No. 72. I beg to move.
This is a drafting Amendment to correct a misprint. I beg to move.
This is a drafting Amendment designed to ensure that a tenant of land now under requisition for opencast coal production and derequisitioned after the commencement of the Act will be entitled to compensation from his landlord under Clauses 24 and 30 for any of his improvements which have been destroyed by the Board's operations. The landlord will receive terminal compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Bill, and there is no reason why the tenant should not receive his share in the same way as if the land had been comprised in a compulsory rights order. I beg to move.
This Amendment is consequential on the introduction of Clause 32 on Report stage in another place. Its object is to ensure that the compensation for injurious affection on land owned by the owner of land comprised in a compulsory rights order is, from the date of operation of the Bill, paid also on land which is adversely affected by opencast coal operations under requisition. To give effect to this object requires very complicated technical provisions, and we thought it would be best to leave these to regulations rather than burden the Bill with them. We will consult interested outside bodies about the drafting of these regulations and, if your Lordships wish, there can be an opportunity to debate them. I beg to move.
§ 31.—(1) The Minister may by regulations make provision for the payment of compensation in respect of land which, at such time as 1264 may be prescribed by the regulations, is land wherein the interest of the owner is held by a person who is also the owner of land requisitioned for opencast operations.
This Amendment and No. 81 on the Marshalled List are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
the Minister shall, as soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, issue a certificate specifying the amount and date of payment of that sum and the person to whom it was paid. 1265 (2) Any certificate required to be issued in respect of any land in accordance with the preceding subparagraph shall be served on any person who, at the date of issue of the certificate, would (within the meaning of the Fifth Schedule to this Act) be the mineral operator in relation to that land if the land were comprised in such a compulsory rights order as is mentioned in the preceding sub-paragraph. (3) The Minister shall serve on the Board a copy of any certificate issued under this paragraph.
§ 36.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect with respect to any sum specified in a certificate issued under the last preceding paragraph. (2) So much (if any) of that sum as was paid in respect of compensation which (apart from paragraph 32 of this Schedule) would have accrued due after the commencement of this Act under paragraph (4) or paragraph (5) of the said Regulation fifty-one A shall be set off against any compensation becoming payable, in respect of any of the land to which the certificate relates, under paragraph 4 or paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule to this Act. (3) So much (if any) of that sum as was paid in respect of a prospective right to compensation under paragraph (6) or paragraph (7) of the said Regulation fifty-one A shall be set off against any compensation which may become payable by virtue of the operation, in relation to any of the land to which the certificate relates, of any provisions of the Fifth Schedule to this Act in accordance with paragraph 33 or paragraph 34 of this Schedule. (4) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby cleaned that subsection (3) of section forty of this Act applies to any dispute about what proportion of any sum specified in such a certificate was paid as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) or sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph.
§ The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to eliminate the possibility of a double payment of compensation which might arise under the Bill as drafted. Compensation to mineral operators whose land is taken for opencast coal production is at present payable under Defence Regulation 51A. When the Bill comes into operation compensation will no longer be payable under Defence Regulation 51A but will be payable in accordance with the Fifth Schedule to the Bill. The National Coal Board, who settle these claims as agents for the Minister, have recently told us that in some cases they have made lump sum payments in settlement of prospective rights to both annual and terminal compensation under Defence Regulation 51A. To avoid over-payment of compensation it is necessary that these lump sum payments, in so far as they have been made in respect of compensation which becomes payable after the date of com- 1266 mencement of the Act, should be set off against claims for compensation arising under the Fifth Schedule. This Amendment enables this to be done. It is long and complicated because the agreements which the Board have made with the mineral operators have not always been very precise as to the items in respect of which the lump sum payments will be made; it is therefore necessary to provide for disputes on this point to be settled by agreement or, if necessary, by reference to the Lands Tribunal. I beg to move.
This Amendment provides that the Eighth Schedule, which deals with allotment tenancies, shall not apply to land under requisition when the Bill comes into operation. Broadly speaking, the Eighth Schedule provides that allotment tenancies on land comprised in a compulsory rights order will be terminated on the date of the Board's entry, and the tenant will receive compensation for disturbance and the loss of his improvements. We understand that a few allotment tenants ore at present hanging on to their tenancies of requisitioned land and receiving annual compensation during the Board's occupation. We think it would be wrong to dispossess them at this stage, so this Amendment provides that the Eighth Schedule will not apply in such cases. As a result, the tenants will be entitled to continue to receive annual compensation. I beg to move.
This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 40, which deals with the problem of two or more compulsory rights orders on the same holding. The present Amendment empowers the Minister to make regulations adapting the compensation 1267 provisions in cases when two or more parcels of land comprised in a holding are, when the Bill comes into operation, under requisition for opencast coal operations. I beg to move.
This is consequential on Amendment No. 79. I beg to move.
§ On Question. Amendment agreed to.
This is consequential on Amendment No. 85 on the Marshalled List. I beg to move.
This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 35, which provides for the problem of com- 1268 pensation on woodlands to be dealt with in regulations. The present Amendment makes a similar provision in relation to the transitional provisions for compensation on woodlands. I beg to move.
Game to the last, I am pursuing right into the Title the interests of those working mineral rights under an order. These are the last two Amendments of this sort. I beg to move.
Before the House resumes, it is left to me just to say how pleased we ought to be with this big "knock," not 100 but 90 Amendments, which we have taken since the House sat at eleven o'clock this morning. I should like to congratulate the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and also the noble Lord, the Chairman of Committees. This has been an enormous task. The Bill started off with about fifty-three pages 1269 and then went up to 113 pages. It was fourteen days in Standing Committee and there were 100 Amendments on Report stage in another place. I think that by the time it is complete we shall have dealt with 200 Amendments. I do not know whether the draftsmen should be congratulated, but the Minister certainly should receive our congratulations for the way he has handled it.
I am very grateful to the noble Viscount.
My Lords, I beg to move that the Report of the Amendments be now received.
§ LORD CHORLEY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Power" and insert "Housing and Local Government". The noble Lord said: My Lords, before moving the Amendment which stands in my name, I should like to apologise for the fact that owing to a misunderstanding about the time of meeting on that day I was not in my place on the Committee stage when this Amendment was reached. This is a matter of some importance, and I felt that it should have the advantage of discussion in your Lordships' House; therefore I put this Amendment down again at this stage. I felt a certain reluctance in doing so because I suppose it might possibly be taken to cast some sort of reflection on the noble Lord, the Minister of Power, but that of course is not in my mind at all. He will possibly remember that in moving another Amendment—which he would not accept any more, I am afraid, than he will accept this one—I paid a tribute to what he has done for the amenity societies.
§ It is not only a question of the interests of the amenity societies which is at stake 1270 here. I think a fundamental principle of the whole of the concept of planning is involved, and therefore I am sure that the noble Lord will forgive me and will understand why I feel it necessary to pursue this matter this afternoon. As your Lordships are aware, Clause 1 of the Bill is in a sense the central one, the basic one, of the whole Bill. It entrusts the decision as to whether there is to be opencast coal working in any particular area to the Minister of Power. Clause 3 contains supplementary provisions of almost equal importance. It is my submission that decisions of this kind are in essence planning decisions, and indeed I think that has been accepted by the Government in the discussions in another place. They are decisions of a planning character in the widest sense of the term, and it is my submission to your Lordships, and indeed to Her Majesty's Government, that they ought therefore to be entrusted to the Minister who is in charge of planning; that is, of course, the Minister of Housing and Local Government. It is for that reason that I am proposing that we should substitute in the clause the words "Housing and Local Government" for the word "Power".
§ I think that this essential character of the Bill really appears from Clause 2 of the Bill itself, which links the whole process under this particular Bill with the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. The decision as to whether there should be opencast mining in a particular area is obviously one of substantial importance in the great majority of cases, and I suggest to your Lordships that it depends on the consideration of all kinds of factors, many of which are really not concerned at all with the problem of power, which is the noble Lord's province of work in the Government, involving matters which are at any rate of equivalent importance to the question of power, and which are really outside the expertise of the Ministry over which the noble Lord presides.
§ In the first place, there are other sorts of minerals and earths which may be involved, in addition to coal. There are limestones; there are chalks involved in cement workings there are clays used for various very important industrial purposes; there are ironstones; there is gypsum and there are gravels, just to mention a few of the minerals and metals 1271 which may be involved in connection with the decision which has to be taken. These are obviously of great industrial value and it is important that the problem should be looked at from a rather wider angle than that which is provided by the particular scope of authority which has been entrusted to the Minister of Power and his officials. Apart from these matters there are agricultural values of outstanding importance. There are also the amenity values which have been particularly mentioned in this connection from time to time, and in which, as Honorary Secretary of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, I take great interest. There are housing problems which have been referred to by, I think, my noble friend Lord Lawson on more than one occasion, and which are also of great interest and importance from the national point of view.
§ I do not think there is any need to discuss these matters in great detail: they really leap to the eye and speak for themselves. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government, which absorbed the Ministry of Town and Country Planning which was set up immediately after the war and worked for some years under my noble friend Lord Silkin, under the important Act of 1948 is, I suggest, the Ministry which is primarily concerned with the problem of balancing against each other all the interests of the kind to which I have just referred. I suggest that the whole problem of planning is one of balancing interests the one against the other. Over the past ten years it has been specifically the function of, first, the Minister of Town and Country Planning and then of the Minister of Housing and Local Government to pay particular attention to this matter. Indeed, for some twenty-five or thirty years before that these matters were already receiving consideration and expert attention in the equivalent Department of those days.
§ Obviously, in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government valuable experience and techniques of essential importance to the whole question of planning in this country have been acquired. In particular, that Ministry has, over all this period, been particularly concerned with the question of the correct use of the land in this country. 1272 It has been repeated time after time—almost ad nauseam—that this is a small country with a large population, and the question of the correct and most economic use of the land is one of the most fundamental questions with which Parliament has to deal. Its essential importance has not perhaps always been realised, but I do not think that one has to think about it much to appreciate how fundamental is this whole matter.
§ I submit that the Government themselves acknowledged this when they agreed during the passage of this Bill through another place to add a clause which provides that any inquiries which have to be held into the question of whether an order should be made for opencast in any particular district shall be held by the inspectors not of the Ministry of Power but of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Surely that accepts the principle of this Amendment. We are grateful for this concession so far as it goes; but I suggest that the logical sequence is to transfer the decision itself. Surely if the inquiry is to be made and the report is to be drawn up, and the recommendations are to be put before the Minister by the inspectors of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, it is only logical that the final stage in that process, that is the decision, should be taken by the Minister of that Department himself.
§ It is most interesting to notice that in the winding up speech of, I think it was, the Paymaster General who conducted this matter in another place for Her Majesty's Government, he more or less gave this point away, saying that "In the last resort the conditions imposed by the Minister will in fact be planning conditions; they will be enforceable by the local planning authorities, and, if they fail, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government have full powers to enforce the conditions themselves." What more powerful argument could there be for the Amendment which I am suggesting we should put into this Bill to-day?
§ There is another reason which, to my mind, is a secondary one, because I put this planning principle first, but which with some people carries I think even more weight than the considerations which I have been suggesting this afternoon—namely, that in entrusting these decisions to the Minister of Power this 1273 Bill is an infraction of the principles enunciated by the Franks Committee. This point was powerfully put in speeches in another place. I would remind your Lordships that the Franks Report has been accepted by the Government and that one of the basic considerations which the Franks Committee emphasise is the essential importance of impartiality in regard to these matters. I suggest that the Minister of Power, who is concerned with the provision of power, is not really the person who can bring an objective and impartial mind to bear upon matters of this sort. Probably the noble Lord is better able to do so than many other Ministers, but Ministers come and go. But even if he could, I suggest that to the people as a whole it will not appear to be an impartial decision.
§ We had most appositely quoted to us the other day by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in connection with the Park Lane Improvement Scheme, a famous dictum of the late Lord Hewart, that justice should not only be done but that it must be clearly and manifestly be seen to be done. Surely it is just the same in regard to reaching an impartial decision of the kind which the Franks Committee emphasised was so important. Not only must there be impartiality, but it must be clear and obvious and must stand out to everybody that impartiality has been observed in connection with reaching decisions of this particular kind. If the Government could give way, as they did on the Park Lane Improvement Scheme because they felt that there was an infraction involved in the scheme which they had originally brought forward, surely all the more should they be prepared to do so this afternoon.
§ I should like to say a word or two about the two answers that were given to this proposal when it was discussed in another place by the Minister who was in charge of the Bill there. I do not myself feel that the noble Lord the Minister of Power could adopt arguments of such a completely ineffectual character as those which were put forward in another place. Possibly the Members of another place are more gullible than Members of your Lordships' House. But as I have the opportunity of addressing your Lordships only 1274 once this afternoon, I think I ought perhaps to deal with the two arguments which were brought up by the Minister there.
§ First of all, he said that he could not accept an Amendment of this kind because the problem was a national and not a local one. I find it extremely difficult to see the relevance of that to this question. Is it suggested that the Minister of Housing and Local Government is a Minister who is not capable of handling problems which are national in character? Of course he is. He is handling them all the time, and while no doubt a number of the inquiries which are conducted by this Minister are of a local character a very large number are of the most basic national importance. The planning Minister's job is essentially to plan in the interests of the nation and having regard to the very small resources, at any rate from the point of view of land, which this nation has at its disposal. He has to take a wide view, and I suggest that in fact he has been taking a wide view in regard to many matters of equivalent national importance to these questions of opencast mining during the past ten years while the present Town and Country Planning Act has been in operation. One could take the cement decisions which obviously were very important from the point of view of the industry of the country, from the point of view of amenities and of local agriculture and in many other ways. Through the offices of his Department the Minister has conducted a number of national surveys of the mineral and earth resources of this country which have been made on the very basis of the need for wide surveys and national planning of the use of our resources. So I suggest here that the Minister is just as qualified and that it is just as much his duty to look at these smatters from a national point of view as is the Minister of Power himself.
§ A second reason given by the spokesman for Her Majesty's Government in another place was I believe even more absurd than the first. He said that the Minister of Power ought to be in charge of this particular matter because he alone understands the steps which have to be taken for the restoration of the land afterwards. The answer to that is, first, that it is just not true that the Minister 1275 of Power is the only person capable of looking after this side of the matter. The Minister of Housing and Local Government has very great experience in dealing with the minimising of damage and the restoration of the position after the extraction of all kinds of ores and earths, and it is his duty to do so, for example, under the Mineral Workings Act, 1951, in respect of ironstone restoration. He also has very wide experience of restoration work in connection with the extraction of sand and gravel. I suggest that this Ministry is at least as adequately staffed for handling problems of this kind as is the Ministry of Power. Secondly, I suggest that it is obvious that the decision whether or not opencast mining should be permitted in a particular area has logically nothing whatever to do with the enforcement of restoration afterwards. There is no logical connection at all between those two matters.
§ Finally, I should like to assure the Minister that I am not moving this Amendment simply because of its importance as an amenity Amendment. There is a very considerable feeling that a mistake is being made here in entrusting this decision to the Ministry of Power. That feeling exists not only among those of us who work in the amenities movement but among professional planning bodies—the Town and Country Planning Association, who have authorised me to associate them with this particular matter, and also the body which, I submit, is best qualified to speak in the interests of British industry, the Federation of British Industries, which also takes the view that this matter ought to be handled in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government because of the essential importance of getting a wide conspectus and a decision which takes into account the interests of all the different kinds of people involved when these decisions are reached. For these reasons I beg to move.
§ House adjourned during pleasure and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.
My Lords, I well understand the reasons which have actuated the noble Lord in putting down this Amendment, and I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity of saying a few words on this subject, because it is a matter to which Her Majesty's Government have given much thought.
Let me emphasise, first of all, that the decisions in question will be the decisions of the Government as a whole, and will be taken only after full consultation between all the Departments concerned. I realise, however, that it is not self-evident in a matter of this kind which Minister should be chosen to take the ultimate responsibility on behalf of the Government. The interests of agriculture, of amenity and of conflicting land uses will, I have no doubt, be adequately represented by the Departments concerned and taken fully into account. These are, as it were, the constant elements in the problem, because the general policies of the Government on agriculture and planning within the relevant Statutes, are not likely to be affected fundamentally by considerations of opencast coal mining. The fluctuating element in the problem is the national coal situation, for which the Minister of Power takes general responsibility. We cannot foresee with certainty how this will develop over the period covered by the Bill, but it will clearly be for the Minister of Power to justify from time to time to Parliament the authorisation of opencast coal mining in the light of the known objections to it. For this reason the Government have thought it right that the decisions should be taken by the Minister of Power.
There are, however, two secondary arguments which point in the same direction. Under the Opencast Coal Bill the grant of an authorisation is closely linked with the confirmation of a compulsory rights order. In all legislation giving powers of compulsory purchase to subordinate authorities, responsibility for confirming a compulsory purchase order rests with the parent Minister for the authority concerned; this is natural as he is the Minister best qualified to say whether the order is necessary to enable the authority to carry out its duties and functions. The same is true of compulsory rights orders under this Bill. I think that responsibility for confirming them must rest with the Minister of 1277 Power, and I note that the noble Lord does not challenge that view. It would, however, be extremely inconvenient, to say the least, for one Minister to grant an authorisation and for another to confirm a compulsory rights order.
Lastly, it is not without precedent for a Minister other than the Minister of Housing and Local Government to be responsible for decisions which involve questions of land use. For example, I already grant consents for the construction of electricity generating stations, and I authorise the placing of electric lines above ground—sometimes much to the annoyance of your Lordships—and these consents and authorisations can, if I so direct, carry a deemed planning permission. We thus came to the conclusion that it would be best that formal responsibility for decisions on the granting of authorisations should rest with the Minister of Power. I hope that the noble Lord will recognise the force of these arguments and will not press his Amendment, which I am afraid the Government could not advise your Lordships to accept.
This Amendment fulfils my undertaking to Lord MacDonald of Gwaenysgor in Committee to introduce Amendments which would ensure that the Board cannot override, by means of a compulsory rights order, certain provisions of the Water Act, 1945, and bylaws made under it.
My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord. He has covered the point I raised.
My Lords, this Amendment and the next deals with a similar point to Amendment No. 2. They ensure 1278 that the Board cannot override by means of a compulsory rights order certain provisions of the Railway Clauses Act, 1845, and of various local Acts for the protection of transport undertakings.
My Lords, this Amendment, together with Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 in the Marshalled List are consequential on Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
unless, at the time of confirming the order, the Minister is satisfied that there are special circumstances existing at that time, or special circumstances relating to the land in question, which justify its inclusion in an opencast site order notwithstanding that possession thereof has previously been so taken and retained.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am moving this Amendment to give effect to my undertaking on Committee stage to try to find a form of words which would give expression to the general wish of your Lordships' House that a compulsory rights order on land which has been previously requisitioned for opencast coal operations should be made only in special circumstances. I think that this Amendment does put into statutory form the undertakings which have already been given, and I hope it will meet the general views of the House. It makes it quite clear that the Minister can confirm compulsory rights orders on land previously requisitioned only if there are special circumstances existing at that time or in relation to the particular piece of land which is under consideration.
§ There are two points on the Amendment which I should mention. The first is that it applies only to opencast coal site orders. Storage site orders are, by definition, restricted to land now under requisition, but under Clause 4 (3) they can be made only on land which was 1280 under requisition and used as an opencast coal disposal point or stocking ground on December 18, 1957. The second point I should mention is that the new subsection applies only to land which has been requisitioned and given up. We shall have to make some compulsory rights orders in accordance with the Tenth Schedule on land which is under requisition when the Bill comes into operation. Finally, I should like to say that, although this subsection will not become law until the Bill comes into operation, I have given instructions that the principles contained in it should be followed in considering certain current proposals from the National Coal Board to requisition for a second time land which has previously been requisitioned. I beg to move.
§ LORD CHESHAM moved in subsection (2), after paragraph (b) to insert: (c) any reference to the provision of a suitable alternative right of way shall be construed as a reference to the making of a suitable alternative way available for use by the public during the period for which the order under that section remains in force; ".
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it might be convenient to your Lordships if I dealt with all the Government Amendments to Clause 15 together—that is, Amendments Nos. 9 to 13 inclusive—because they are designed to meet a very simple point. Clause 15 applies the provisions of Section 3 of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, which deals with the closure of public rights of way, to the suspension of rights of way which cross opencast coal sites. Section 3 of the 1946 Act requires the provision of an alternative public right of way in place of the one which is closed. This is obviously sensible when the right of way is being closed for good but it does not quite work when the right of way is being only suspended temporarily, because the creation of a new right of way entails dedication in perpetuity. As a result, when the suspension order is revoked there will be two rights of way in place of the original one. To get over this difficulty these Amendments require that the Board, during the period in which the right of way is suspended, shall make 1281 available for public use an alternative way. It will not be necessary to dedicate the alternative way in perpetuity, and no problem will arise when the old right of way is reopened and the suspension order is revoked. I beg to move.
My Lords, this Amendment is moved at the request of the National Coal Board. Under Clause 27 the Board have to pay compensation for losses on the forced sale of equipment, and so on, that is used on land comprised in a compulsory rights order, provided that they are given five days advance notice of the sale. The purpose of the advance notice is, of course, to give the Board an opportunity to inspect the property before it is sold. The short period was chosen because a longer period of notice involves a greater risk that a good opportunity for a sale will be missed and that the Board will have to pay increased compensation for the losses suffered. On thinking the matter over, however, the Board have come to the conclusion that five days is rather too short a time for them to inspect the property to be sold and that, on balance, it would be better to increase the period to ten days. This will not in any way prejudice the person making the sale, for if he loses a good opportunity of making a sale the Board will have to pay increased compensation. The only people affected by the Amendment are the Board, and the Government think it right to meet their wishes in this mattes. I beg to move.
I beg to move that further proceedings on this Bill be adjourned until later to-day.

References: § 5

§ 6

§ 7

§ 9

§ 11

§ 12

§ 13

§ 14

§ 20

§ 21

§ 22

§ 23

§ 31

§ 36