House of Commons Hansard Debates for 16 May 1991

Column 435

be a debate on the subject of charge capping. As he probably knows, the announcements are being made this afternoon. My right hon. Friend said nothing in his statement about a possible debate. When are we likely to have one?

Mr. MacGregor : There was reference to such a debate in the statement, but it may not have been immediately obvious. The motion on the Charge Limitation (England) (Maximum Amount) Order on Tuesday next week is precisely that.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : Will the Leader of the House answer a question the answer to which will be of interest to the public. Will he confirm

Mr. Speaker : Order. Is the question about business next week?

Mr. Campbell-Savours : Yes. Will the Leader of the House make provision for a statement setting out the role of Members of Parliament? Will he confirm that there are at least 100 Members of Parliament, who are all Conservative Members and who are all on the payroll vote because they are Ministers, who cannot ask written or oral questions? They do not have that right. Will the right hon. Gentleman simply confirm from the Dispatch Box that that is the case?

Mr. MacGregor : There has been no change in the position on Ministers in relation to questions. I do not think a statement is required next week.

Sir Ian Lloyd (Havant) : My right hon. Friend will doubtless have had his attention drawn to the grave warning issued yesterday by the director general of the general agreement on tariffs and trade that, if the European Community and the United States do not reach agreement early, the collapse of trade, employment and growth could make the great depression look like a period to which we would wish to return. If that is so, should not we debate the matter as soon as possible?

Mr. MacGregor : I have answered questions on the subject on a number of occasions. I confirm that I believe that the GATT talks are extremely important. The British Government regretted that the talks did not reach a conclusion in the timetable for which people hoped and we are using every endeavour to try to achieve a successful outcome of the GATT talks. There will no doubt be times when it will be appropriate to have a discussion in the House, but I do not think that it will be next week.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South) : Does the Leader of the House recall that in the past year I have often asked for a debate on the present condition of the prison service? Since I last asked for a debate, there have been, as the right hon. Gentleman will recall, further suicides in prison. Prisons are overcrowded and more than 800 persons are presently remanded in police station cells rather than in prisons. There have been rulings against us in the European Court of Justice and various other matters have been raised in connection with prison discipline and medical services. It is a disgrace. May we have a debate as soon as possible on the whole future of the prison service?

Column 436

Mr. MacGregor : I note the hon. Gentleman's request and I am grateful for his reference to "as soon as possible". Contrary to the view that the hon. Gentleman seems to take, my difficulty is that an immense amount of business is being undertaken and there are many requests for parliamentary time. I will bear it in mind.

Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test) : My right hon. Friend will be aware of early-day motion 667, which has been signed by more than 100 hon. Members.

[That this House notes with grave concern the findings of a survey by the National Association of Taxi and Private Hire Licensing and Enforcement Officers which revealed that in the 136 councils that replied 486 criminal records had actually been discovered in a 18 month period, none of which had initially been declared during the interviews which took place under the provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 which required a district council not to grant a licence unless they are satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a taxi driver's licence ; calls upon the Home Office, the Department of Transport and the Association of Chief Police Officers to co-operate in the release of past criminal records of all new applicants to the chairmen of district licensing committees in a confidential file, so as to prevent any recurrence of what occurred in Southampton where a licence was given to a convicted rapist ; and calls for a similar system to be introduced as that practised in London where the Metropolitan Police have access to criminal records when determining applicants for Hackney carriage driver's licences to be expanded to all district councils in the United Kingdom.]

The matter is worrying many local authorities and it requires legislation and, possibly, a debate next week. Surely we can persuade the police to release criminal histories of would-be applicants for taxi drivers' licences. The situation in many local authorities is a scandal and the House is becoming extremely worried about it.

Mr. MacGregor : I think that my hon. Friend has raised that point before during business questions. Let me bring my hon. Friend up to date. The Home Office has recently discussed with the Association of Chief Police Officers whether the police could take on that task. The question will be looked at again in the light of the forthcoming report of the Home Office on criminal records.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) : I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to new clause 3 of the Planning and Compensation Bill which is to be debated this afternoon. That clause provides for the enactment of equivalent legislation for Northern Ireland by an Order in Council subject to negative resolution which, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, is never debated at any time in the House. Is it not inappropriate to add such a clause at virtually the last stage of the Bill, thus depriving Northern Ireland Members of the opportunity of debating its application to Northern Ireland at a later stage? Can the Leader of the House provide a better way of handling that matter and enable us to debate it at another time?

Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman will be able to raise that matter this afternoon during the debate on new clause 3.

Mr. Trimble : Not when I am attending the Northern Ireland Committee.

Column 437

Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South) : May we please have a debate on the management of public sector pension funds in the light of the report published this week on the management of Derbyshire county council's pension fund by the district auditor, who says that the council has claimed a profit on shares which turned out to be worthless and that councillors voted £2 million of public money to be put into shares in a private company of which they were secretly directors, most of which has gone missing? Does he agree with the district auditor and the council's independent financial adviser that those actions amount to chicanery--that is the word that was used? What does my right hon. Friend feel that we should now do to bring those people to book?

Mr. MacGregor : I have not had the benefit of seeing the report, but I know there is much local concern about the issue. My hon. Friend may wish to find other opportunities to have it discussed in the House.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : Before a general election is called, should we not have a debate about the state of the franchise, since it appears from the number of people aged over 18 in the population that 750,000 people are missing from the electoral register? We should discuss how that can be corrected before a general election.

Mr. MacGregor : I notice that the hon. Gentleman is worried about the election. This is not a matter for which I can find Government time next week.

Mr. Michael Latham (Rutland and Melton) : Why are we wasting yet more time next week on the obsolete Victorian farce of private legislation? Is it not high time that it was all scrapped? At the same time, will my hon. Friend find time for my Established Church Bill, which would scrap Church Measures as well?

Mr. MacGregor : I do not know about finding time for my hon. Friend's Bill next week, but I agree that there is a need to reform the way in which the House handles private Bills. As he will know, we have already proposed changes to the procedures which will come into operation next Session and which will make some difference. But more important than that is the legislation which will follow from the Department of Transport consultation document on various aspects of private Bill procedure for which we hope to find early legislative time. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will shortly be giving the Government's response to that consultation document.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : May we have an early debate on foreign affairs, which would allow the House to review the relationship between Her Majesty's Government and the Indian Government, and discussion of the continuing and serious human rights violations in the Punjab and Kashmir? The House could also consider the case of Mr. Karamjit Singh Chahal, whose circumstances are set out in early-day motion 828.

[That this House expresses concern that Karamjit Singh Chahal, a British citizen settled in the United Kingdom since 1974, has been detained in Bedford Prison since August 1990 ; notes Mr. Chahal is detained subject to a notice of the Secretary of State's decision to make a deportation order under section 3(5)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971 for reasons of national security and other reasons of a political

Column 438

nature ; calls for Mr. Chahal to be released immediately pending his being allowed to appeal, with legal representation, against refusal by the Home Secretary to grant political asylum in the United Kingdom ; expresses concern that if Mr. Chahal is deported to India he is likely, in the view of Amnesty International, to be subjected to torture, disappearance or extrajudicial execution ; recalls Mr. Chahal, when visiting India in 1984, was arrested and detained at Mehta police station for nine days, during which he was beaten and otherwise ill-treated and that he was transferred to a police station in Amritsar and held for another 10 or 11 days, during which he was subjected to torture, including severe beatings and electric shock treatments ; and regrets that a number of Mr. Chahal's relatives have been tortured or ill-treated while held in police custody, that two relatives have recently been killed by security forces, allegedly in fake encounters and that another relative, Kulwant Singh Nagoke, died in police custody.]

If Mr. Chahal has committed offences relating to national security, why is he not being brought to trial in a British court rather than be facing removal to India without the right of appeal or of legal representation-- removal to a place where he was tortured in 1984? Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate so that all those matters can be raised by the many right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House who are deeply concerned about the deteriorating human rights situation in India?

Mr. MacGregor : I am aware that a number of hon. Members want a foreign affairs debate to be arranged. However, it is not possible to find time for one at present.

As for early-day motion 828 and the case of Mr. Chahal, it is not the practice--as the hon. Member knows--to give detailed reasons for deportation decisions taken on national security grounds. Mr. Chahal has access to legal advice, and he has intimated his wish to make representations to the three advisers. Arrangements are being made for them to consider his case, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will review it fully in the light of the advisers' recommendations.

Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford) : Will my right hon. Friend provide time for an urgent debate on the position of teachers in grant-maintained schools? Is he aware that there are strong voices in the Labour movement arguing that those teaching in grant-maintained schools should be sacked, discriminated against or denied employment in maintained schools simply because they work in the grant-maintained sector? Is that not a particularly nasty, vicious, and spineless example of modern-day Labour party thinking, and should it not be resisted by the House at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend will know that I am aware of some of the statements made by some Labour education spokesmen on those matters.

Mr. Derek Foster (Bishop Auckland) : Not from this Front Bench.

Mr. MacGregor : I said "some Labour spokesmen" on education matters. I chose my words with great care. As far as I am aware, they were not said from the Labour Front Bench. However, I know that such action has been suggested, and therefore that there is a debate in the Labour party on that issue. I know also that those threats have sometimes been made. I entirely agree with my hon.

Column 439

Friend, and I hope that those threats will not be tolerated and will be rejected by the teachers--not least those in grant-maintained schools who are active Labour supporters and who see for themselves their great merits.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : Will the Leader of the House confirm that the debate that is to take place in European Standing Committee B next Wednesday morning on the labelling of tobacco is distinct from the recent proposal relating to the advertising of tobacco goods? Does he agree that it is wholly undesirable for EEC Commissioners to hold press conferences about proposals when the documents relating to them are not in the possession of the Government, the House, or the British public? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the issues raised by the set of documents on tobacco relate not only to the merits of the matter and to the law, on which very strong views are held in the House, but to who makes the law, where it is made, and under what powers it is determined under the treaties? Both aspects are relevant to the documents.

Mr. MacGregor : I agree that both aspects are relevant, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue so that I can clear up any confusion that might arise in the minds of the public. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to say that the two matters are distinct. Next week, Standing Committee B will debate labelling and a ban on oral snuff products. It represents an amendment to an existing directive. The proposed new directive relates to the advertising of tobacco products. As the hon. Gentleman knows very well--because this is on the recommendation of his Select Committee on European Legislation--the labelling directive needs to be debated soon, because a decision by the Council on a common position may be imminent. The advertising issue is quite separate, as is its timing.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, it will be a good many months before the European Council is asked to make a decision, so it is not urgent, and there will be time to consider the issues in a measured and sensible way. That will include, when the documents are available, scrutiny by the Select Committee of the new draft directive and its decision on what the House should do about it.

Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay) : My right hon. Friend will know that local authorities have been given until 14 June to submit evidence to the Department of the Environment about the future structure of local government. Bearing in mind the pressure of time, will he consider arranging a debate soon after the recess so that the matter can be dealt with in the House before local authorities have managed to give their evidence?

Mr. MacGregor : I note what my hon. Friend has said, but I fear that it is extremely unlikely that we shall have time for such a debate before 14 June. That date, of course, marks only the end of the consultation process ; there will be time for the House to consider the issues after that.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : May we have a debate next week on the allocation of the new accommodation that will become available in the offices in Upper Parliament street? While we are at it, perhaps we could decide in the same debate how we can make our facilities more attractive to ex-Prime Ministers, so that the

Column 440

right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) can come and make a speech here. I believe that she has been here only three times since last November. We could save her all the time and effort involved in travelling around the world and making speeches in the United States and South Africa--but perhaps she does not feel comfortable sitting among her so-called friends on the Conservative Benches.

Mr. MacGregor : I do not think that we can have a debate about accommodation next week. Perhaps worry about his own accommodation is at the back of the hon. Gentleman's question ; if so, he knows that there are those to whom he can make application.

Mr. John Browne (Winchester) : Has my right hon. Friend read early- day motion 776?

[That this House, conscious of the fact that real care for the men and women of our armed forces has enabled our country to rely, even to the point of ultimate sacrifice, upon their loyalty, steadfastness and efficiency in times of grave national threat, is astounded to note that, when digging a trench during an official Army exercise in Canada in July 1989, three men of the Grenadier Guards (Adrian Hicks, John Ray and Sean Povey) detonated a six year old unexploded shell which not only rendered them limbless but caused them such grievous wounds that Mr. Ray and Mr. Povey are still, after almost two years, in receipt of hospital treatment ; notes that the Ministry of Defence find themselves unable, on the grounds of unattributable negligence, to pay compensation ; and calls upon the Prime Minister to review this case personally and to ensure that, regardless of the possible legal responsibility of some unknown nation who failed to clear' the shell some six years previously, Her Majesty's Government is seen to follow truly a policy that shows an appreciation of human understanding, human dignity and the value of a human life on earth by awarding generous compensation and a return of the accumulated legal costs to these youthful British Grenadiers.]

The motion, which has been signed by more than 160 right hon. and hon. Members on a cross-Bench basis, refers to a tragic Army training accident in Canada, in which three men of the Grenadier Guards--Adrian Hicks, John Ray and Sean Povey--had their legs blown off. Their injuries were so grievous that now, after two years, only one of them is fit enough to be invalided out of the Army ; and he was invalided out with legal benefits that can at best be described only as derisory. That was the fault not of the Army, but of a gap in the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987. May we please have a debate on the Act so that we can ensure that that gap is filled? In the meantime, will my right hon. Friend urge the Prime Minister to look at the matter personally and urgently to ensure that generous ex gratia compensation is given to those men? If that creates a precedent, so be it : surely we are here to create a good precedent.

Mr. MacGregor : I am sure that every hon. Member fully sympathises with those three service men, and was very concerned to hear what happened to them. I assure the House and my hon. Friend that the Government are dealing fully and sympathetically with the matter, and would do the same for any other service man injured as a result of serving in the armed forces.

As my hon. Friend knows, in this unfortunate case the Ministry of Defence was not legally liable for the injuries that were sustained. None of the three service men is in

Column 441

receipt of a service invaliding pension from the Ministry. I understand, however, that yesterday the Department of Social Security approved the award of a war pension to one of them. If they are discharged, the other two will be entitled to apply for such award. Once such awards are approved, the Ministry of Defence converts the service invaliding pensions already being paid to service men to tax-free service attributable pensions.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish) : The Leader of the House will be aware that between 1964 and 1966, and between 1974 and 1979, both the major parties in the House required hon. Members to be brought into the precincts of Westminster when they were ill--sometimes seriously ill. On occasion they were brought from hospital so that they could be nodded through and majorities could be maintained or, in some instances, challenged.

Given that, at the next general election, the electorate may not confer an absolute majority on one party, would it not be a good idea to embark on urgent talks so that we can find a far more civilised way of enabling hon. Members to vote when they are critically ill?

Mr. MacGregor : That is not a matter for the business of the House next week. The hon. Gentleman raises a hypothetical question. I expect that the Conservative party will be on this side of the House for some time with a big enough majority.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West) : My right hon. Friend will recall that, on the relief of Mafeking, the House sent a message of congratulation to its people. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate so that a similar message can be sent to the people of Brent? The people in that beleaguered borough were relieved last night from the yoke of a Labour council when two Labour members defected to an independent party which supports the Conservative party. Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate so that the Liberal party can explain to the country why, when even Labour elected members found the policies of their party unpalatable, the Liberals supported them to the end?

Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend makes an effective point. I am sure that he will continue to make it, and that it will be made clear to the people of Brent.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : Will the Leader of the House give the most serious consideration to an early debate, even just a three-hour debate, on the current circumstances of the United Kingdom shipbuilding and marine engineering industry? That industry has become the forgotten industry of the United Kingdom. We have not had a debate on it for some considerable time. We should be allowed to examine the implementation of the seventh directive on the shipbuilding intervention fund and other matters such as the threat by Kvaerner Kincaid to cease building marine engines in my constituency. Many people in that industry are deeply worried about the parlous future that they face. Surely we are entitled to ask for an early debate on their future.

Mr. MacGregor : I note what the hon. Gentleman says, and I do not in any way underestimate the importance of the issue that he raises. However, the business for the next few weeks makes it extremely unlikely that I shall be able to find time for a debate in Government time. It is, of

Column 442

course, always open to others to find time that is available to them to raise such matters. But I do not underestimate the importance of the industry. I fully understand the great importance of the issues and of the industry.

Mr. John Bowis (Battersea) : As we move into the warmer and open- window season when neighbourhood noise becomes even more of an urban menace, may we have a debate and perhaps a statement so that we can examine the issue and how our fellow citizens can protect themselves from the thoughtless actions of their neighbours? Perhaps the Government could also announce a public information and education campaign to persuade people to be more reasonable.

Mr. MacGregor : I thought for a moment that my hon. Friend was about to refer to the sticky July month here in the House. He will have to find other opportunities to raise in the near future the matter to which he referred. As I have had to say to others, we have a great deal of business to do in Government time.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Why does not the Leader of the House reverse the decision that he has already made about the need for a debate or a statement about the proposed takeover of ICI by the despicable Lord Hanson, whose record has been one of asset stripping

Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Member knows that he must not refer in those terms to a member of the other place. Will he please withdraw the word "despicable"?

Mr. Skinner : The despicable Hanson Corporation--will that do? [Interruption.] I thought it might. The Hanson record has been one of asset stripping. It is no use the Leader of the House talking about the takeover panel, because it missed the Guinness scandal, which went straight under its nose. There are 52,000 jobs at stake. Let the workers have a ballot and not allow Hanson to take the company over with the Government helping their friends.

Mr. MacGregor : I did not make any decision. I simply made a clear statement of the position on any potential takeover or merger.

Mr. Chris Butler (Warrington, South) : Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on damage to the environment caused by some groups of itinerants? Will a Government measure, designed to give stronger powers to keep itinerants off private land, be one of those introduced to keep us busy over the coming months?

Mr. MacGregor : I am aware of my hon. Friend's particular interest in this matter. He will be aware of the legislative provisions that are available to deal with it.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on wages and other incomes? In such a debate we could discuss the admirable proposals for a minimum wage. That would help people on poverty wages who have to clock on and clock off. Tory MPs who condemn the proposal would also have an opportunity to explain their position. How many of them, earning £30,000 a year here, are doubling, trebling or quadrupling their incomes by moonlighting as parliamentary advisers, company directors, and so on? We ought to be given an opportunity to expose the rank hypocrisy of those people who attack the poorest of the poor while they use this place to line their pockets.

Column 443

Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman knows about having two jobs, for he was a Member of the European Parliament as well as of this House.

Mr. Cryer : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Interruption.]

Mr. MacGregor : On the question of a national minimum wage-- [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order.

Mr. Cryer : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : No point of order arises. The hon. Gentleman must not, from a sedentary position, carry on a conversation. He should listen to what the Leader of the House has to say.

Mr. MacGregor : We shall certainly be very happy to continue to debate the Opposition's proposals for a national minimum wage. I have made that clear several times. The matter has already been debated, and I hope that there will be further debates. Our estimates of the number of jobs lost simply have not been refuted by the Opposition, nor is that possible.

Mr. Charles Wardle (Bexhill and Battle) : Does my right hon. Friend accept that many Government Members would like to have an early debate on the performance of water companies since privatisation? A debate would give the House an opportunity not only to set out the great success of privatisation but to question the shortness of the period over which some capital investment is being written off. Is my right hon. Friend aware, for example, that Eastbourne

Water--previously a statutory company--has increased its charges by 100 per cent. over the past three years? That is something that my late constituent and parliamentary neighbour, Ian Gow, challenged last year, as did I. The situation has arisen largely because the director general has allowed investment to be written off over a very short period.

Column 444

Mr. MacGregor : I cannot promise a debate on this matter, or on water companies generally, in the near future. As I have said, we have a very busy programme.

Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield) : I am grateful for having been called, Mr. Speaker.

I should like the Leader of the House to do a very simple job next week. He has been good at some things--and he knows what I mean. Will he drag a Treasury Minister to the Dispatch Box to tell the House why the Treasury is interfering with the allocation of finance from Europe, through Commissioner Millan, for areas, such as my constituency, where the Government have closed down mines? The money to which I refer is made available for the specific purpose of helping such communities to overcome their problems by creating jobs where the Government have created unemployment.

Mr. MacGregor : In a moment, I shall say something nice to the hon. Gentleman. In answer to his main charge, I have to point out that there has been a considerable improvement in the employment situation over not many years. The point about a Treasury Minister coming to the Dispatch Box is one that he himself must pursue. I cannot promise Government time for a debate next week.

With regard to the simple job to which the hon. Gentleman referred--I think that I know what he has in mind--I can promise that I hope to have one of the issues settled in the House next week. I know that it is of importance to him. Indeed, provision is made for it in next week's business, and I hope very much to be able myself to see it through the House.

Whitsun Adjournment

Mr. Speaker : I remind the House that, on the motion for the Adjournment on Thursday 23 May, up to nine hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the results made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Column 445

Points of Order

4.24 pm

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Today--perhaps the Leader of the House would listen to what I have to say--I gave the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity to explain the position about the tabling of oral and written questions by Ministers, who make up approximately 100 Members of the House of Commons. Unfortunately, in a flippant reply, he refused to advise the House and the country about the position. Perhaps, in the absence of a proper reply from the Leader of the House, you, Mr. Speaker, might care to explain the position to the House.

Mr. Speaker : I thought that the hon. Member asked for a statement next week on that matter. When the hon. Gentleman mentioned it to me, I thought that he was referring to our exchanges last week on business questions. I think that the whole House knows that there are constraints on Ministers, as there are constraints upon me and upon shadow Ministers, tabling questions, but it is not a matter for me.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House suggested that, during a short overlap period when I was also an MEP, I was at a financial advantage because I received one third extra to my parliamentary salary. I placed on the record repeatedly at the time--the Leader of the House has deliberately forgotten that--the fact that that money was given to the Sheffield Labour movement and benefited it. I received no advantage from it.

Mr. Speaker : I do not think that that is a matter for me either.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C.

Ordered,

That the Home-Grown Cereals Authority Levy (Variation) Scheme (Approval) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

Column 446

Orders of the Day

Planning and Compensation Bill [ Lords ]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Ordered,

That the Planning and Compensation Bill [ Lords ], as amended, be considered in the following order, namely : new Clauses, new Schedules, Amendments relating to Clause 1, Clause 31, Clause 2, Clause 32, Clauses 3 and 4, Clause 33, Clause 5, Clause 34, Clause 6, Clause 35, Clause 7, Clause 36, Clause 8, Clause 37, Clause 9, Clause 38, Clause 10, Clause 39, Clause 11, Clause 40, Clause 12, Clause 45, Clause 13, Clause 41, Clause 14, Clause 44, Clause 15, Clause 42, Clause 16, Clause 43, Clause 17, Clause 46, Clauses 18 to 20, Schedule 1, Clause 47, Schedule 7, Clause 21, Clause 48, Clause 22, Clause 23, Clause 49, Clause 50, Clause 24, Schedule 2, Clause 51, Schedule 8, Clause 25, Schedule 3, Clause 26, Schedule 4, Clause 52, Schedule 9, Clauses 27 to 29, Schedule 5, Clause 53, Schedule 10, Clause 30, Schedule 6, Clause 54, Schedule 11, Clause 55, Clause 69, Clause 56, Clause 66, Clause 57, Clause 67, Clause 58, Clause 68, Clause 59, Schedule 12, Clause 70, Schedule 14, Clause 60, Clause 71, Clause 61, Clause 64, Clause 62, Clause 65, Clause 63, Schedule 13, Clause 72, Schedule 15, Clause 73, Schedule 16, Clauses 74 to 76 and Schedule 17.-- [Sir George Young.]

New clause 1

Old mining permissions

.--(1) In this section and Schedule --(Registration of old mining permissions) -- to this Act, "old mining permission" means any planning permission for development--

(a) consisting of the winning and working of minerals, or (b) involving the depositing of mineral waste,

which was deemed to be granted under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 by virtue of section 77 of that Act (development authorised under interim development orders after 21st July 1943).

(2) An old mining permission shall, if an application under that Schedule to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject is finally determined, have effect as from the final determination as if granted on the terms required to be registered. (3) If no such development has, at any time in the period of two years ending with 1st May 1991, been carried out to any substantial extent anywhere in, on or under the land to which an old mining permission relates, that permission shall not authorise any such development to be carried out at any time after the coming into force of this section unless--

(a) the permission has effect in accordance with subsection (2) above, and

(b) the development is carried out after such an application is finally determined.

(4) An old mining permission shall--

(a) if no application for the registration of the permission is made under that Schedule, cease to have effect on the day following the last date on which such an application may be made, and (b) if such an application is refused, cease to have effect on the day following the date on which the application is finally determined.

(5) An old mining permission shall, if--

(a) such an application is granted, but

(b) an application under that Schedule to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject is required to be served before the end of any period and is not so served,

cease to have effect on the day following the last date on which the application to determine those conditions may be served.

Next Section

Home Page