HC Deb 21 December 1927 vol 212 cc501-3

Lords Amendment: In page 18, line 10, leave out from the word "not" to the end of line 11, and insert: a Government Department or local or public authority, or a statutory or public utility company.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

In the Bill as it left this House the exemption provisions of the last part of Sub-section (1) of Clause 18 applied to Government Departments, local or public authorities, or public utility companies, and charities. There seems no reason why charities should be included in the exemptions. They are not on the same footing as dock companies, which might be prejudiced if premises that have been leased are assigned to competitors. It was on that particular ground that dock companies and other public companies in the same position were exempted.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 19, line 21, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 25, at the end, insert: and Paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1), Sub-section (2) and Sub-section (3) of this Section shall not apply to mining leases.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr, E. BROWN

Ought we not to have a word of explanation about this, as it is not entirely a drafting Amendment? The Home Secretary said there was a point at issue, and I should be glad to have some information.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

Mining leases have been excluded from this Clause because the Mines (Working Facilities) Act, 1923, affords the holders of mining leases most of the rights or privileges which Clause 18, Sub-section (2) gives to the holders of other leases. There is already statutory machinery dealing with this particular industry, and, in accordance with the general principle, it seems undesirable that another Act should duplicate the same rights and deal with a matter which has been dealt with under another Act. So it is to prevent repetition in another Act that this Amendment has been put in.

Mr. HARDIE

In the Act referred to there is nothing said about compensation between the owner of the coal measures and the people who work them. If there is a question of compensation I can understand it, but since compensation is not mentioned in the Act referred to, it seems to me that, if you are going to compensate in a general way places of business, a coal mine should be treated as a place of business just as much as a shop, and can the hon. and learned Gentleman explain why it is that they have gone so far as to leave mines out?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I am not suggesting that the Mines (Working Facilities) Act, 1923, is exactly on all-fours with this Bill, but it does deal with the subject which is appropriate to that Act, and which is not appropriate to this Bill. I do not think that this House ever intended that this Bill, which deals with landlord and tenant, should deal with mining leases. It was intended to deal with an entirely different class of tenant. It is undesirable to import into a Bill dealing with landlord and tenant provisions dealing with mining leases, which are provided for in another Act of Parliament. It may be that Parliament has not done everything that hon. Members opposite would like, but it seems undesirable to have in this Bill a duplication of provisions dealing with mining leases.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 19, line 37, agreed to.