| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 787
committee, which no one, not even Scottish Natural Heritage, wants. Its response to the report of the Loch Lomond and Trossachs working party states:"SNH appreciates the effort the Park Authority and its staff have made, and it continues to support it in its work. However, we recognise the constraints under which it has acted, and the very real problems it continues to face in trying to achieve the ideal of geographically and functionally integrated management within the present system . . . The failure to achieve a satisfactory level of integration is an indication that the present system"--
which the Government are imposing--
"is inadequate to meet the needs of Loch Lomond.
The Joint Committee . . . would depend on the voluntary delegation of powers and functions by the Local Authorities involved. We are concerned that, on present indications, this may not materialise".
That is the response of SNH, the Government's own body. We might like to ask whether SNH approves of national parks. It is often rumoured that its chairman, Magnus Magnusson, approves of them, although he is not on record as saying so. It might be helpful if he clarified his position at this stage.
I believe that the debate on Scotland's national parks is moving forward and has moved forward still further tonight. The proposal for Scotland's national parks is one whose time has come and the sooner it comes, the better.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall)for moving the new clause. I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) are particularly interested in Scotland and its heritage. I am aware of their particular desire for national parks.
I am sad that I do not have much time to answer the debate in detail; I can merely respond in note form. The hon. Member for Dumbarton is not quite fair to the Scottish Office about its efforts to deal with the Loch Lomond project, because a great deal is going on. If it had not been for the Government introducing a change to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 to enable a change in circumstances relative to byelaws, no such development would have been possible. We have now received recommendations from the local authorities. We are going through the large number of objections--far more than just those from the Scottish Sports Council--as quickly as we can. I hope that we shall be able to do something about them in the not too distant future.
I agree that speed limits for motor boats, jet skis and so on should be considered as soon as possible, but at the same time, we should allow for certain water recreation, as others have requested. There has been no delay, because it is only right that we should consider the consultations carefully, and that is exactly what we are doing.
In response to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden, I should like to consider all the issues associated with the national parks in much greater detail. Of course, he is not really right to say that SNH believes in national parks and not in the voluntary partnership, because, after all, the architect of the Cairngorms partnership was no less than Magnus Magnusson, the chairman of SNH, who is a keen enthusiast for the voluntary system. There is no doubt that that system is
Column 788
settling down extremely well under Mr. David Laird. We are pleased at how the developments are coming along in the Cairngorms. What has been important has been the tremendous co-operation between those who have been appointed to the partnership, who have had a general welcome, and the new local authorities. They are all beginning to work together extremely well towards the objectives that we want to see achieved.That is what will happen at Loch Lomond and the Trossachs. I do not know why Opposition Members keep on running down that partnership scheme, because they believe, as I do, in giving local authorities as much responsibility as possible. The local authority of the hon. Member for Dumbarton and Stirling authority have an enormous chance to work together on that project to develop just what we want, a voluntary partnership. That will offer the chance of immense development in the Loch Lomond area.
Bearing in mind the fact that the Countryside Commission has recommended that the special areas of Scotland should be subject to special procedures to govern their future, we have offered exactly that in the Cairngorms, Loch Lomond and the Trossachs. I am confident that that will work out well in the future.
Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) rose --
Sir Hector Monro: I would have liked to debate this issue at much length, but unfortunately that is not possible tonight. The voluntary partnership is working well and will work well with the new local authorities, so I ask the hon. Member for Dumbarton to withdraw the new clause.
Mr. Wilson: I shall be brief, even though the Minister would not give way to me.
The Minister's response was disgraceful, because it did not begin to address the philosophical question of why Scotland, which gave national parks to the world, should be the only part of Britain that does not benefit from national parks. The truth of the matter is that it is because of the landowning lobby in Scotland and the Government's refusal to interfere in the free market of land and the untrammelled rights of landlords. That is the problem. Until the day when the Scottish Landowners Federation does not have the ear of the Government, Scotland will be denied national parks and Scottish land and Scottish natural heritage will be denied the protection that comes from national parks. Fortunately, the day when such things can be changed is not very far away.
There is wide consensus in favour of national parks and a clear-cut need for them. The fact that the Scottish Office has continued to find every excuse available for avoiding the implementation of national parks in Scotland is a standing disgrace to the Government and also a standing memorial to the fact that they are in the pocket of the landowning lobby in Scotland.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill): I share the annoyance of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) at the Minister's answer because however brief the time may be--we know that it is pressing--I think that at least sympathetic consideration could have been given to something so obviously desirable and long wanted. As we are not going to make any progress tonight, we must hope for better times in future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Column 789
New clause 16
Guidance on old mineral planning permissions
`.--(1) When issuing guidance under paragraph 10 of Schedule 13 the Secretary of State shall have regard to whether a mineral planning authority would reasonably be expected to impose similar restrictions if the permission had been issued following a new application after 21st February 1982;
(2) Where he feels similar restrictions would have been imposed following a new application after 21st February 1982 his assumption shall be that their provisions are reasonable.'.-- [Ms Ruddock.] Brought up, and read the First time.
Ms Ruddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 75 to 77.
Ms Ruddock: As perhaps befits this time of night, new clause 16 is moved in a spirit of co-operation. The Opposition, like the local authority associations and numerous countryside and conservation organisations, welcomed the Government's promise in the other place to bring forward new provisions to enable mineral planning authorities to review pre-1982 permissions. However, when those proposals came before the Standing Committee, they were a grave disappointment. Once again, the Bill's promise had been blighted, undoubtedly by the exercise of commercial interests in the drafting room.
Schedule 13 establishes a mechanism for the provision of compensation to mineral operators when new conditions are imposed by the mineral planning authorities on old mineral permissions at active sites. Schedule 13 is the problem for the simple reason that the eligibility and compensation arrangements have led to widespread alarm among local authority associations, and especially at the Council for the Protection of Rural England, whose representations and expertise on the matter are well known to the Minister. The compensation arrangements are a major departure from the tried and tested practice in respect of pre-1948 permissions dealt with under interim development orders. IDOs have avoided unnecessary confrontation with industry and unnecessary compensation payments. Our preference would have been for the Bill to introduce a regime based on IDOs, but given the Government's chosen course, our new clause seeks to protect local communities from suffering from poor and outdated standards in respect of old mineral permissions, or from compensation payments to companies that are often vastly profitable. Mineral extraction, even to modern environmental standards, imposes considerable unwelcome burdens on local communities. They suffer from dust, dirt, frequent and constant noise, and from heavy lorries with heavy loads which are sometimes driven without due care through narrow streets. Those rural communities especially need and deserve the upgrading of old mineral planning permissions. That is a simple matter of progress and justice, and a recognition that the world has changed.
Reasonableness is supposed to be the yardstick by which the requirements of change are to be imposed in schedule 13. If it is, the Government should accept our new clause.
Column 790
If the conditions to be imposed on old mineral planning permissions are similar to those currently expected for new planning permissions, they should be deemed reasonable. New clause 16 provides for that. Neither the Minister nor industry should have anything to fear, and I look forward to the Minister's constructive response.Mr. Clifton-Brown: May I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his letter, which clearly set out the answers to all the questions raised in Committee? It was extremely helpful, and gave some very useful information.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the starting point for considering compensation should be that, in common with all other forms of development, planning permissions can be revoked or modified only if subject to the payment of compensation? Will he confirm that the industry has been constructive in acknowledging that the environmental standards of operations and of subsequent restoration of sites should continually improve--
It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Environment Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.-- [Mr. Wood.] Question agreed to.
As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered. Question again proposed , That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: May I start that paragraph again?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Tedious repetition is not acceptable at this time of night.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: It would be greatly amiss if I were tedious, let alone repetitious, so I shall be neither.
Mr. Piers Merchant (Beckenham): My hon. Friend will be expeditious.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Indeed, I shall be expeditious, as I was trying to be before the Ten o'clock motion was moved.
I should be grateful if the Minister will confirm that the industry has been constructive in acknowledging that the environmental standards of operations and of subsequent restoration of sites should continually improve, and that the industry is already making great strides towards achieving higher environmental standards. As the industry has accepted that it should bear the cost of upgrading planning permissions with regard to "sensory" conditions--those relating to noise and dust--will my hon. Friend confirm that it is the Government's intention that the Government amendments should provide only a backstop to ensure that the industry's fundamental working rights cannot be severely restricted as a result of the new review? Is it not the case that new clause 16 seeks to nullify compensation safeguards contained in the Bill? Does my hon. Friend agree that, were it to be accepted, it would secure the effective confiscation of assets, retrospectively and without compensation? Will he confirm that the guidance notes to be issued by the Secretary of State will carefully reflect the contents of the Bill, and will not be
Column 791
allowed effectively to introduce new requirements with which the industry will be required to comply but which have not been considered first by the House?I am concerned that the guidance notes, of which I have seen a draft copy and which extend to 45 pages, include references to the use of prohibition notices and the circumstances in which they can be used. They are defined in the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981. However, the draft notes extend the criteria significantly by introducing new material considerations, and I should like my hon. Friend's assurance that he will bring anything that effectively changes the current legislation back to the House for consideration.
Mr. Tipping: The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) raised some interesting points about compensation. This aspect of the Bill will prove to be a lawyers' charter. As the hon. Gentleman recognised, the strength of the new clause is that it rules out compensation and removes local authorities from the invidious position in which they would find themselves.
Local authorities clearly want to make environmental improvements, but if they are challenged, they face potential costs which they cannot afford. The new clause is an important way for them to avoid those costs. I support it strongly, because the issue of compensation will prove to be a quagmire.
Dr. John Marek (Wrexham): I shall make a brief contribution in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping). We could debate new clause 16 for a long time. Suffice it to say that the Government are again on the side of the landlords and the people with assets who want to stuff even more money into their pockets. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who has just spoken, proved that point very well.
Government Members care not a fig about the community. In my constituency of Wrexham and the surrounding area of about 50 miles in each direction, there is more concern about applications for quarrying for various minerals, the dismissal of the community's concerns and desires, and environmental matters than almost any other issue. I think that new clause 16 is very important, and Labour Front-Bench Members were correct to table it.
I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) will confirm in her winding-up speech that, when the next Labour Government take office--Conservative Members may do themselves in over the next 10 days--she will insist that the Labour Government's environment Bill is the equivalent of new clause 16. That is what the public of this country demand. They are fed up with Conservative Members pleading for money for their own supporters, without worrying about the environment, people or communities. I look forward to seeing new clause 16 take effect, not as a result of this Bill, but in the next Parliament.
Sir Paul Beresford: Government amendments Nos. 75, 76 and 77 are technical amendments, so I shall concentrate my remarks on new clause 16. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) is correct when he says that it is an important clause.
Column 792
As the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) said, the system of regulations under the interim development order approach is working. That is our model in this instance. As she knows, there will be no compensation for conditions which do not restrict working rights. Compensation will arise only if working rights restrictions prejudice to an unreasonable degree either the economic viability of the operation or the asset value of the site. There is little difference from the test that the mineral planning authorities should be, and are, applying to the imposition of conditions on active IDO sites.Ms Ruddock: I am anxious not to intervene upon the Minister too soon, but I know that he is trying to rush, so he may pass over this point. He referred to "prejudice to an unreasonable degree" and that is on the face of the Bill. Will he define that statement? Otherwise, he must agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) that the legislation could be a lawyers' charter.
Sir Paul Beresford: I do not agree with the hon. Lady. The word "unreasonable" is used quite commonly in legislation. As she knows already- -it has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown)--we are undertaking preliminary consultation on the draft guidance. That guidance makes it clear that we intend that the industry and mineral planning authorities should follow the same principles for updating the pre-1982 sites as were followed for the interim development orders. That will ensure that there is equal treatment between the sites and the operators. It is a fair and equitable approach.
I am a little astonished--but perhaps I am not so astonished upon reflection--at the reaction of the hon. Member for Wrexham. If that is the kind of approach that we are to expect from the Labour party in future, God help industry and the economy in this country. I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her new clause.
Ms Ruddock: I must invite the Minister to respond again, as I failed to intervene during his speech. He has not explained to the House-- [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) has the Floor.
Ms Ruddock: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has not given the House an explanation as to why the legislation is different from the interim development orders. He said that they are working effectively, but he has given no account of why the test of reasonableness in relation to the economic viability of working a site or its asset value should have been placed in the schedule. It is very difficult for us to understand why that proposal has come forward when the Government already acknowledge that they have a perfectly good working arrangement in respect of older mineral planning permission.
I wonder whether the Minister will be kind enough to tell the House why that change is necessary--why that new duty is imposed. He has not said why our new clause is unreasonable. All that our new clause seeks to do is acknowledge that, where the standards that are to be imposed are equivalent to those that would be imposed on a new planning permission sought today, by definition that must be reasonable. Why is it not reasonable?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Surely the reason why it is in that schedule is that, although the interim development orders
Column 793
have worked well so far, we have dealt with the easiest cases, and the more difficult cases remain to be resolved. That is why it is necessary to put those later permissions in that schedule.Ms Ruddock: I do not believe that that remark was at all helpful. The hon. Gentleman has not in any way explained why what is being dealt with at the moment is more difficult than what was dealt with in the past. We must accept that people are sitting on assets that are in the ground, and they have old planning permissions, which are not appropriate to modern standards, modern considerations and the needs of modern societies.
Is the Minister prepared to speak?
Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has touched on it. We are convinced that there is no difference between the IDO and the method that we are moving now. We are consulting industry, mineral planning authorities and environmental groups on draft guidance in relation to putting it into action.
We feel that it would be only fair for compensation to be paid to the industry if there were an effective change in the economic viability of those sites. However, we recognise, as does the industry, the importance of introducing conditions--and the industry is accepting those conditions for the sites--for environmental reasons. I hope that the hon. Lady will consider the matter carefully and will accept that, in those circumstances, it is only fair that compensation should be paid if, beyond that, there is an effect on the economic viability of a specific site.
Ms Ruddock: The Minister may believe that he is being helpful, but I fear that he is not. The economic viability is not an objective measure. It will be for the local authority, the mineral planning authority, to make some judgment about the way in which the new conditions would affect economic viability.
I suggest to the Minister that, if a cash-strapped local authority has to take that into account, it may feel that it is unable to demand that conditions at that site are raised to modern standards, because of fears that it might be subject to challenge under the legislation, as it could be held that there was an economic impact on that company that was unacceptable under the legislation that the Minister proposes.
We believe that very many of those companies are well able to pay for the slight changes--or, in some circumstances, considerable changes--that might result from bringing those permissions up to modern standards. We believe that those companies are better placed to absorb those costs, and to behave responsibly and in an environmentally friendly way, than are local authorities and local communities.
I am afraid that, if the Minister cannot accept what is a very simple new clause, which only defines effectively what is reasonable action and prevents the continuance of ambiguity and worry for local planning authorities which would have to make those considerations--if he intends to sit there and allow local authorities and local communities to bear the brunt of bringing those old planning permissions up to modern standards--we must divide the House. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time: --
Column 794
The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 269.Division No. 180] [10.14 pm
AYES
Column 794
Ainger, NickAinsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Allen, Graham
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Armstrong, Hilary
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Austin-Walker, John
Barnes, Harry
Barron, Kevin
Battle, John
Bayley, Hugh
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Beggs, Roy
Bell, Stuart
Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Bennett, Andrew F
Benton, Joe
Bermingham, Gerald
Berry, Roger
Betts, Clive
Blunkett, David
Boateng, Paul
Bradley, Keith
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Burden, Richard
Byers, Stephen
Caborn, Richard
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Campbell-Savours, D N
Cann, Jamie
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Chidgey, David
Chisholm, Malcolm
Church, Judith
Clapham, Michael
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Clelland, David
Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Coffey, Ann
Cohen, Harry
Connarty, Michael
Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Corbett, Robin
Corbyn, Jeremy
Corston, Jean
Cousins, Jim
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Dafis, Cynog
Davidson, Ian
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Denham, John
Dewar, Donald
Dixon, Don
Donohoe, Brian H
Dowd, Jim
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eastham, Ken
Etherington, Bill
Evans, John (St Helens N)
Fatchett, Derek
Faulds, Andrew
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Flynn, Paul
| Next Section
| Home Page |