102
の
ET
joint company representing the State and those firms interested in potash production_which would continue the exploration as a matter of urgency (para. 212)Page 128bf66200 DVKİM
PARIM 21 Page 128 of 662121. pusara 1992. TVAH OBW
OBV 230108
2008. EHTO OMA Unless our recommendation for the nationalisation of mineral rights (above) is to be implemented in a very short time, the mineral rights in specified potash-bearing minerals should be nationalised separately, in the same manner as petroleum mineral rights under the Fetroleum (Production) Act, 1934
9. Immediate arrangements, should be made for the preservation of mining records at present in private hands (para. 380).
bri buoRuel debing ungiteinez hujeronborgeouf Keithu 10. More detailed official statistics should be published in regard to the mineral industries (parä. 425). jobs
..MEWA
bu & HET ALTOUM.
not made a m
340 pr mold MA T; bi 30 Rapilti painot,
emandé duodi 28.0 .ped jurt T duc de
20.ped
booth and Innoflak
Chef doube queged cardanditov
MISNM
W. C. C. ROSE, no v
Laula. In
Secretary.
pe
An 02 Anand gam V.02 T. Pef downft entfor
MIAKA AM QACR D B
204.3 JLM „ut bied volante GA
Luhman MLA Vvrisqo1 & box. 4h002.
10. 2100KMAJ
noil.
EWESTWOOD (Chairman). T. BALOGH YOU le
A. R. DAVIES.
W.. R. JONES. PA
Hon
L. C. HILLsated in south bred von qa
A. O. RANKINE
J. A. S. RITSONIM VOLGE S. ROBSON.nwobudli temal
TALNE SV. I THORNEYCROFT
G. E. P.
E. G. WILLIS V0 ani)
BLE EI bashindiauty
R. E. YEABSLEY. ET Bjemo.)
anlally daimon
29th March, 1949.
Kitos alkaenda
A midnot pudiamul aget) dzflynut
leahs do ndi
63
-
VA.LA
b. I am od M ...] Homo
St Edma Pangla Dumaid vagn, mafia Cind asulik niï wove. )
(but asin, qan”)
.
ahtA A 2.0 pe
sedge H H 2 me mi jigolode)
golnud a butalt), te udonsH R 450
Moduld raburð með. R.
!gninil/ womeback
And man 4 Balmur 3 ulmari
bil nag & beniaiW thine i
MidiW
wiftend to...un ne. in
Insigniowa)
Page 1 subject to reservations included as Appenage 128 of 662 ...
103
i mpolenu W
APPENDIX I
LIST
noia.
J
OF INDIVIDUALS, MINING COMPANIES, INSTITUTIONS AND OTHER BODIES WHO HAVE SUPPLIED EVIDENCE (NOT INCLUDING GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS ́- AND
OFFICIALS)
Anglo-Austral Mining Co. Ltd.
Association of British Chambers of
Commerce..
British Plaster Board Ltd.
British Fluorspar Producers' Association. British Iron & Steel Federation.
British Barytes Producers' Federation. British Salt Federation.
British Overseas Mining Association. British China-clay Producers' Federation. British Refractories Research Associa-
tion.
F. W. Berk & Co. Ltd.
J. H. Bennetts, Esq., A.I.M.M. Buccleugh Estates Ltd.
Dr. James Boyd, Director, Bureau of
Mines, U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bleaklow Mining Co. Ltd.;
Central Landowners' Association. F. Lyde Caunter, Esq.
China Clay Association. China Clay Federation.
Cumberland Development Council Ltd. Cornish Tin Mining Committee.
Cornish Mining Development Associa-
tion.
Cornish Chamber of Mines.
W. E. Cavill, Esq.
Dumfries & Galloway Development
Association.
Prof. G. H. J. Daysh. Derbyshire Stone Co. Ltd.
English Clays Lovering Pochin & Co.
· Ltd.
Fullers' Earth Union, Ltd.
Federation of British Industries. J. B. Fern, Esq., A.I.M.M. Fluorspar, Ltd.
Glamorgan Hematite Iron Ore Co. Ltd. Geevor Tin Mines Ltd.
Gypsum Building Products Association. Prof. S. E. Hollingworth, M.A., D.Sc. S. H. Haughton, Esq., D.Sc. (S. African
Geological Survey).
Dr. J. F. Henderson (Canadian Geolog-
ical Survey).
Hopetown Estates Ltd.
Halkyn District United Mines Ltd.
Hodbarrow Mining Co. Ltd.
Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. Institution of Mining & Metallurgy.
Joint Committee of Accountancy Institu-
tions.
W. D. Pohnston, 2sof 662 Geological
Survey.
W. Jamieson, Esq.
B. Laporte & Co. Ltd.
Dr. G. M. Lees, M.C., D.F.C., Ph.D., F.R.S. (Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. Ltd.). Brian Llewellyn, M.C., B.Sc., A.R,S.M.,
M.I.M.M.
J. MacKendrick, Esq.
John Mort, Esq. (Barmaster of Kings
Field, Derbyshire).
McCreath, Taylor & Co. Ltd. Malayan Chamber of Mines. W. Mitchell, Esq., B.Sc.,
M.I.M.M.
A.R.S.M.,
Millom & Askam Hematite Iron Co.
Ltd.
T. J. M. More, Esq., O.B.E., J.P.
James Millar & Co. Ltd.
New Cheshire Salt Works Ltd.
Louis T. Nel, Esq., D.Sc. (South African
Geological Survey).
National Coal Board.
Nottingham Gypsum Products Ltd. New Consols Mine Ltd. Non-Ferrous Minerals
Ltd.
Development
M. Ongley, Esq. (New Zealand Geolog-
ical Survey).
Palmer, Mann & Co. Ltd.
Thomas Pryor, Esq., D.S.O., M.I.M.M.
Lt. Col. J. Ramsden, C.M.G., D.S.O.,
M.A., A.I.M.M.
Dr. H. G. Raggatt (Australian Geological
Survey).
Alexander Reid, Esq., M.I.C.É., F.G.S.
Scottish Land & Property Association. Alexander Scott, Esq., D.Sc., M.A. C. D. G. Sandison,
A.F.R.Ae.S.
G. W. Simms, Esq. South Crofty Ltd. Scottish Council
Industry).
Esq.,
B.Sc.,
(Development &
J. Trounson, Esq., A.I.M.M.
Prof. S. J. Truscott, D.Sc., A.R.S.M.,
M.I.M.M.
United Steel Companies Ltd.
W. T. Vizer-Harmer, Esq.
West Coast Hematite Iron Ore Pro-
prietors' Association.
James Wilkinson & Son Ltd.
Prof. David Williams, M.Sc., Ph.D.,
M.I.M.M.
Weardale Lagecd.of 662
Yate Mills Ltd.
104
zidane
ed
will go blonde ad id APPENDIX II og ud die anitzeb ost
MINERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITEEF¤RBBORD62 Australia Ferro Reservations by Mr. Peter Thorneycroft, M.Putin
bbw earysol
1. I disagree with what I take to be the two main conclusions reached by my colleagues namely:
vio vobian jo tapol· ad: bla
(a) To nationalise the minerals included in their terms of reference.
net....obnú os (b) To establish a Mineral Development Commission to which the fee simple in
these materials would be transferred og udi viri bi tot ada I wish to state shortly the reasons for my disagreement and the alternative proposals I would put forward.
דיי
►
2. The weight of evidence which has been given before the Committee has certainly been to the effect that the Town and Countrý Planning Act is, insofar as it applies to minerals, unworkable. In such circumstances there are three courses open- namely:-to nationalise the minerals; to amend the Town and Country Planning Act, or to remove minerals from the Act altogether. I deal with these different courses below. in whale
To angsing 40 vs Ars
To nationalise the Minerals.
-།
lolle i en uno sit eto atgong
G
* 3. This course is the one preferred by my colleagues. They appear to agree that in practice a decision to nationalise the minerals actually within their terms of reference would lead to a decision to nationalise other minerals of more common occurrence. At the start of our enquiry I was inclined to the view that the nationalisation of these minerals might possibly provide the answer to some part of our problem. The more I attended our Committee meetings and listened to the evidence, the more satisfied I became that nationalisation, at least in the form recommended by my colleagues, would increase rather than diminish the problems of mineral development.
་
7.
The arguments in favour of nationalisation are that it would bring the ownership of the minerals and the right to develop them into the same hands. It would, of course, leave the land and the minerals in separate ownership unless and until someone came along and suggested that it would be administratively convenient to assimilate those two. All incentive would be taken from the landowner to explore or encourage others to explore the minerals on his property or to encourage the development of those minerals in any way. Indeed, the incentive would be a negative one-i.e. he would be actively concerned to preserve the amenities of his property by discouraging. exploitation on his land. A new and probably expensive Mineral Development Com- mission would be established which would be yet another Board to which application would have to be made before private exploration or development could take place.
To amend the Town and Country Planning Act.
Corymbo
4. I understand that the possibility of such amendment is or has been under con- sideration. It might be possible to amend the Act so as to restore some part of the incentive to the owner to sell and the prospector to explore. Presumably any amend- ment along these lines would be upon the basis of the State purchasing part of the development right only and allowing the remainder to be dealt with upon a market value basis. I doubt whether any amendment of this kind would really work.
3
.
It would certainly raise complex problems as to the amount of compensation mineral owners should receive for their existing development rights under present legislation. In any event, it could not get over the difficulty that insofar as you take away development rights, you take away incentive also.
To take the Minerals with which we are concerned out of the Town and Country
Planning Act.
.
-
5. This would restore incentive to both the owner and the prospector. The argu- ment, and indeed the only argument which I have heard advanced against this course is the difficulty which may have arisen in the past where mineral ownership is divided into a number of different hands thus complicating the problem of large-scale develop- ment. No evidence has been given to the Committee although I have asked for any that was available to suggest that any such obstacle is holding up development at the present time. Indeed, such evidence as we have had is all the other way.
New Organisation.
6. I see no purpose in establishing a new Mineral Development Commission. The responsibility for the development of these minerals was placed upon the Minister of Fuel and Power by ChAGE 1945. He should discharge that responsibility2and not pass it to another body. I think he might well consider strengthening and expanding
105
64
the section dealing with this particular type of work, but he should keep the responsi- bility for seeing that it is carried out firmly in his own hands and be, answerable directly to Parliament for what is done.MNED JA SOTA MI
The establishment ofal MifeDevelopment Commission which would admittedly have to be upon a Regional as well as on a National Basis would certainly be a costly undertaking. The cost of exploratory work upon the scale contemplated by my colleagues would be, to say the least, considerable. I am not impressed by the argument that this work is too speculative for private enterprise and therefore should be undertaken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If I were Chancellor of the Exchequer I would think a long time before using public funds in as gamble of this character. I also bear in mind the possibility that some industrial interests and land- owners would be quite happy to watch the Government do the exploration at the public expense rather than spend their own money.
„bimenok bug bluów i
I
CA
1
?
I hold the view that the best explorers are often the industrial concerns themselves. They know what it is that they are looking for air sent tolls or or ased
7. In these circumstances it seems to me that a solution should be sought along the lines set out below. It will be seen that I draw no doctrinaire distinction between private and public ownership but seek to combine the advantages of large-scale develop- ment in certain areas with the advantages of continued initiative and exploration by private people over the country as a whole. My solution would be as follows:
::
:
(a) Remove all minerals from the compensation and betterment provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act. The ownership of the mineral and the right to develop it would both remain in the same private, hands, blow (b) The effect of removing minerals from the Town and Country Planning. Actṛin the sense described above would be to leave the Minister of Town and Country Planning with the power to permit or refuse permission to develop but to ‹ deprive a private owner who had been refused permission to develop of any right to compensation. This may, seem harsh on private owners. I would, however, point out::
eta na tuationoita te ovat ni ermundy sift (i): that they will probably get little under the existing provisions of the Town
and Country Planning Act.
'
;
(ii) No Minister is likely to refuse permission to develop valuable mineral
deposits if he can possibly avoid doing so.
IPSON PA
(iii) It has been suggested to us in evidence that it may be possible in the case of some minerals for the owners to arrange a compensation scheme among themselves
det fors boo won b bnat zid a goil.nolqxS
--
(iv) In the event of his mineral being worked he will get a fair price for it (c) In cases where development is clearly desirable (Yorkshire Potash would be an example) and difficulty arises owing to the separate ownership of the minerals, steps should be taken to ensure development. The prospective developer could put forward a scheme to the Minister for development of the area as a unit, and the Minister should be empowered after full public enquiry at which all interested parties could give public evidence, to take over the mineral concerned at a price and on such conditions as appearedTM just. This seems to me a practical form of nationalisation. It requires a case to be proved and is done for a specific purpose. It can proceed at such a pace as the economic condition of the country and the resources and activities of industrial enterprises permit. Above all, it can proceed while at the same time not hindering prospecting work by private individuals over other minerals and in other areas.
...
8. I conclude that it is possible to further mineral exploration and development in the United Kingdom by reducing the general level of taxation and the removal of the complex administrative barriers which at present hamper and restrict it. I would, however, advise any Government (particularly in existing economic circumstances) to think well before it ventures public funds upon so hazardous and speculative a form of enterprise.
14th April, 1949.
(Sgd.) PETER THORNEYCROFT.
PAW
Vitore ati
Page 131 Page 131 of 662
(65268) Wt. 642—477_7/49 D.L.
PAINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN
R.
65