Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 49:

Page 22, line 6, at end insert—

"(c) land not falling within paragraph (a) or (b) which is in the New Forest and is subject to rights of common"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come to a group in which there are a number of government amendments and two opposition amendments, Amendments Nos. 50 and 52. If it is agreeable to the House, I will speak to the government amendments at this stage and come back on the other amendments, which are important.

Government Amendments Nos. 49 and 81 are made at the request of the authorities in the New Forest. Controls on certain limited works in the Forest are contained in local legislation. As these works are dealt with in local Acts, they will be exempt from the requirement for consent under Section 194. However, for any works in the New Forest that are not permitted by local Acts, Section 194 applies at present as for any other land, subject to rights of common. The controls in Clause 38 apply only to registered common land and to certain land exempt from registration. As originally drafted, therefore, Clause 38 would not apply in the New Forest. Although we were initially led to believe that the authorities in the New Forest were content with that, after further consideration the Verderers of the New Forest have asked that the safety net provided by Section 194 should be reinstated by applying Clause 38 to the Forest in the same way. Amendment No. 49 does that, and Amendment No. 81 ensures that the controls apply to National Trust land in the New Forest.

I shall deal with government Amendments Nos. 51 and 82 next. At the request of the Quarry Products Association, we propose to extend slightly
 
30 Nov 2005 : Column 261
 
the exemption from the requirement for consent to mineral workings that have planning permission at the time that the Bill becomes law. Amendment No. 82 provides that the exemption will also apply where an existing permission is varied by an extension of the time limit to which the permission is subject. Because it is a transitional measure, we have also moved it into Schedule 3. That necessitates the removal of Clause 38(6)(e), which is achieved via Amendment No. 51.

In agreeing to that change, we have not resiled from the basic principle that new minerals workings that prevent or impede access on common land should in future require the consent of the national authority under Clause 38. But we recognise that there may be circumstances in which the time for the completion of works relating to an existing planning permission may be varied, and we accept that imposing the need for an additional consent at that point would not be appropriate. We also believe it is in the interests of common land that such existing permissions, which I understand often contain provisions for the restoration of the land, should be able to be completed where the change relates solely to the time taken for completion of the development.

Government Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 are technical amendments to Clause 38(8) to ensure that paragraph (b) does not exempt works from the controls in a way that was not intended. The amendments ensure that the exemption under Clause 38(6)(b) applies only where the enactment referred to applies generally to common land, and not to a specific common. It ensures there is no overlap or confusion with the exemption in Clause 38(6)(a), which applies to specific commons.

Government Amendment No. 73 is a consequential amendment to make Clause 51 consistent with Clause 38. I beg to move.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, in view of the groupings and the fact that the Minister has spoken to Amendment No. 51 I must point out that, if Amendment No. 51 is agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 52.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I shall speak to our two amendments grouped with Amendment No. 49. Our Amendment No. 50 is mainly a probing amendment, in that it deals with electronic communication apparatus. The Minister clarified that such apparatus,

"for the purposes of an electronic communications code network",

means basically a phone mast. There is a great deal of opposition to such things, especially in areas of natural beauty. Does the exemption from the requirement to obtain national authority permission to build them on common land mean that they can circumvent the planning system?

On our Amendment No. 52, we are back on the question of quarrying. The methods used in quarrying differ according to conditions, quantities and so on.
 
30 Nov 2005 : Column 262
 
The controls on noise and nuisance also vary from place to place and time to time. Some of our common land is very beautiful and attracts tourists, holidaymakers and others whose spending is important to the rural community. Where extraction has not begun, the national authority—if it is even-handed—should wish to ensure that the methods are appropriate to the location. Obviously if a site is well under way and the operating conditions are understood by all, there is no imperative to start changing things and probably bump up the cost. However, if the work has commenced in only the past few months or not yet at all, the national authority should be able to call the plans in.

I shall deal with the government amendments. It is interesting to hear what the noble Lord has to say on the exercise of powers in the New Forest; we are all very much in awe of the venerable association of Verderers of the New Forest and its ways. This is the only point at which the Bill will affect the New Forest. As the association has not written to the rest of us with complaints, I presume that the Government have got it just about the way that the association wants it. There was a bit of a belt-and-braces situation in government Amendment No. 55, and it is a little difficult to see anyone arguing that it would affect the requirement to get other people's consent. The meaning is perfectly plain when "arising" is removed.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, we look on many of the amendments as extremely helpful. I agree with the noble Duke about the verderers. Clearly the Minister is well informed; we too assume that correct decisions have been made so far as the clause is concerned.

Amendment No. 50 addresses the vexed question of installations of electronic communications for the purposes of an electronic code network. That is problematic, and it would be interesting to hear the Minister's views on whether the amendment is the right way to go about it. So far as I am concerned, the jury is out on the matter, and we want to listen to more contributions.

Government Amendments Nos. 51 and 52, which concern minerals, seem very reasonable. After "apply", government Amendment No. 53 inserts "(generally)". Why? What other land are the Government thinking of in that context? The other amendments make sense as well, so I do not want to prolong the proceedings of the House. This raft of amendments is quite constructive.

6 pm

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I have one or two questions about government Amendments Nos. 51 and 82. I do not understand why this matter is being moved from one bit of the Bill to another, but I do not suppose that it has great significance. If it has, perhaps the Minister can tell us.

The prohibition on mineral works currently set out in Clause 38 has been changed only in one respect as far as I can see. Paragraph (a) in Amendment No. 82 is
 
30 Nov 2005 : Column 263
 
no different; and I do not think that paragraph (b) is different given that the period allowed for the works to be carried out is part of the planning permission. I think that that would be covered by the part of Clause 38 that the Government wish to remove and replace by their amendments. So the only difference seems to be the words,

"subject to any extension of time granted before or after the commencement of that section".

I can understand why the works might be subject to an extension of time granted before the commencement of that provision since that, rightly or wrongly, will be part of the existing planning permission. What is really being said is that if after the Bill has been enacted there is existing planning permission for mineral working on a common and the developer, owner or whoever applies for an extension of the time granted within which those works should be carried out, that would still not require planning permission. It does not seem obvious why that should be the case. As any new permissions for mineral extraction will require specific permission from Natural England, it is not clear why an extension of time for an existing permission should not be subject to similar permission. As I understand it, given that the planning permission cannot be carried out unless that extension of time is granted, and an application for that will have to be made, it will be subject to all the normal planning procedures.

I have read the Bill without any specific examples in mind of commons where that might apply, and it may well be that in the real world it will not make any difference either way. However, I can see circumstances in which mineral workings on a common might be extremely controversial and harmful to that common, yet permission might have already been granted, perhaps in the distant past, for that to be extended. Will the Minister explain why such circumstances should not be caught by these provisions?