HC Deb 27 July 1926 vol 198 cc1963-4
Major Sir GRANVILLE WHELER

I beg to move, in page 9, line 37, at the end, to insert (3) Where the working of any coal or the working of any coal in the most efficient and economical manner is impeded by the same being included in a mining lease, or by any restrictions, terms, or conditions contained in a mining lease, or otherwise binding on the lessor, or by the absence of any such restrictions, terms, or conditions, a right to withdraw the minerals from the mining lease and to re-lease the same to parties other than the lessee, or to work the same, or otherwise to vary the terms of the mining lease, may, on an application for the purpose being made by the lessor and referred to the Railway and Canal Commission under the principal Act, be granted by the Commission in any case where the Commission consider that it is expedient in the national interest that the right applied for should be granted to the applicant. This Amendment is intended to clear up a point of importance with respect to the arrangement of leases. Under this Amendment, where the working of any portions of coal is impeded in any way by any restrictions or terms in a mining lease, and it is in the national interest to secure that coal, the lessor will have the power to go before the Canal Commission—in the same way that the lessee would have power to do if the lessee were held up by the action of the lessor—and ask for the right to withdraw the minerals from the mining lease and to re-lease it to parties other than the lessee. That is the sole object of the Amendment. It provides that this type of restriction on the working of a coalfield shall be abolished.

Mr. RHYS

I beg to second the Amendment.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip)

I think this Amendment was moved in precisely the same form in Committee.

Sir G. WHELER

No, it did not deal with the lessees.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I was under the impression that it was moved entirely in this form; at any rate, the question was raised in Committee, and the answer is this. If the lessor desires to rearrange the leases which he has granted, it must be in consequence of a desire on the part of his lessees to take some coal which at present is leased to somebody else, and the Bill provides that a lessee shall be in a position to make the necessary application to get a rearrangement of the lease in order to enable coal to be worked economically and in the national interest. Therefore, as far as any coal which is included in the lease is concerned, this Amendment is unnecessary. If, on the other hand, the intention is to give the lessor the right, over and above his lessees, to reshuffle his mineral leases, it is not the policy of the Bill that the lessor shall have the right to act in that way. The Government think that proper power is given under Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Clause 13, and we think this is unnecessary merely for the purpose of granting a lessor the same privileges as the lessee of making application on his own behalf. As the proposal appears to be unnecessary and would serve no useful purpose whatever, except to suggest that the lessor is to have power over everybody's head and come in and reshuffle leases which he has granted, the Government do not propose to accept the Amendment.

Sir G. WHELER

The Solicitor-General has not grasped the point at all. The point, to my mind, is this—

Mr. WALSH

On a point of Order. Is the hon. and gallant Member in order in speaking a second time?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

If an hon. Member moves an Amendment, he has a right of reply.

Sir G. WHELER

The point is this. There are sometimes, owing to faults which arise in our leases to-day, leases of coal which may be worked by an adjoining colliery itself, and there are difficulties which therefore arise. It is a small point, but one of substance. In this case we want the lessee who desires to get his coal worked to be met in the same way as the lessor. I do not want to detain the House and I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.