Commons Bill [HL]

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 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?