HC Deb 02 May 1929 vol 227 cc1868-72

I beg to move, in page 9, line 6, to leave out the words "and orders."

This is merely a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.


I beg to move, in page 9, line 40, to leave out the word "working," and to insert instead thereof the words "past, present."

This would make Sub-section (4) of Clause 9 read as follows: Every mineowner to whom this section applies shall, on being so required by the Central Board, give to the Board all such information as the Board may reasonably require with respect to the past, present or projected working of any such minerals as are mentioned in subsection (1) of this section and shall produce for the inspection of the Board all plans relating to the working of any such minerals. So far as drainage is concerned, it will be necessary for the Central Board to know where past workings have taken place, so that they may not be misled, either in minor or in major drainage schemes, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will do well to enable them to secure this necessary guidance.


I would remind the hon. Member that this Bill is designed not to be retrospective, and there is, therefore, no case for asking mining companies to supply information as to what has happened in the past. To insist upon such a proposal would involve very onerous and unnecessary obligations upon them. Of course, any relevant information as to future workings and as to the existing state of the mines will be not only desirable but necessary.


The right hon. Gentleman must know, as the Secretary for Mines knows, that of late years there has been an increasing demand that not only present plans but all other plans shall be placed at the disposal of the Mines Department, for their assistance in administering the law, particularly with regard to drainage. This Amendment is not proposed from any ill motive, but simply because we think that what applies to mine drainage as regards the collection of old plans will apply to these districts also, and we think it will help the Central Board. I would remind the

right hon. Gentleman that some amount of drainage work has already had to be done in this neighbourhood because of subsidence, and it may be that in the plans for the new drainage works some of these old drainage works will have to be abrogated; so that, if new works are to take place, it will be necessary to have a knowledge of the old workings. The object of this Amendment is simply to strengthen the hands of the Central Board, so that they may have the fullest information at their disposal, and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman does not see fit to accept it.

Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD

Is it not a fact that this Clause deals with surface drainage and not mine drainage?


It deals with drainage due to subsidence during the working of a mine.

Question put, "That the word 'working' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 85; Noes, 23.

Division No. 299.] AYES. [12.1 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Ford, Sir P. J. O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Pennefather, Sir John
Atholl, Duchess of Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Greene, W. P. Crawford Pilcher, G.
Betterton, Henry B. Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Raine, Sir Walter
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Remer, J. R.
Bawyer, Captain G. E. W. Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Briscoe, Richard George Hanbury, C. Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Harland, A. Ross, R. D.
Campbell, E. T. Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Rye, F. G.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Cobb, Sir Cyril Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian Sandeman, N. Stewart
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by) Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George Hills, Major John Walter Smithers, Waldron
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Cope, Major Sir William Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Courtaulc, Major J. S. Hudson, Capt. A. O. M. (Hackney, N.) Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Kindersley, Major G. M. Thomson, Sir Frederick
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) King, Commodore Henry Douglas Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Lamb, J. O. Wallace, Captain D. E.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Dixey, A. C. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Dunnico, H. McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus Warrender, Sir Victor
Edmondson, Major A. J. Macintyre, Ian Watts, Sir Thomas
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) McLean, Major A. Wells, S. R.
Elliot, Major Walter E. Margesson, Captain D. Withers, John James
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.) Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hun. B. M. Womersley, W. J.
Fairfax, Captain J. G. Moreing, Captain A. H.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D. Neville, Sir Reginald J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Sir George Hennessy and Mr. Penny.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Duncan, C. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Ammon, Charles George Gillett, George M. Strauss, E. A.
Barr, J. Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins) Taylor, R. A.
Batey, Joseph Griffith, F. Kingsley Tinker, John Joseph
Bellamy, A. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Noath) Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Kelly, W. T.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Lawson, John James TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Buchanan, G. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Mr. Parkinson and Mr. Wilfrid Paling.
Day, Harry Potts, John S.

Amendment made:

In page 9, line 43, after the word "plans," insert the words "sections and levels."—[Mr. T. Williams.]


I beg to move, in page 10, line 44, at the end, to insert the words: Provided that no such agreement shall be made without the mineowner having first submitted the scheme relating to such works, together with a draft of the proposed agreement, to the Central Board and obtained the Board's consent thereto in writing, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. We think this is a good Amendment. It is on the lines of the last one. We suggest that it is not asking too much that a scheme shall be submitted to the Central Board for agreement.


The Amendment is not necessary, because the whole of the works are to be carried out on the instructions of the Central Board. Subsection (2) says: The Central Board may at any time by notice require any such mineowners to prepare and submit to the Board"— Already the object of the Clause is to give the Board power to initiate these works and the power of the Board is in no way affected by the various alternatives suggested in the Clause.


In view of the Minister's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.


I beg to move, in page 11, to leave out from the first word "mine," in line 2, to the words "all," in line 3.

The Bill provides here that the cost of relief measures shall be divided between mineowner and royalty owner. As the Clause stands, where a mine has been abandoned, the Central Board would have to do the work. It would not be a liability on the royalty owner. We do not think that that is fair. We think that it would be unreasonable to expect the Central Board to recover the cost of works in respect of abandoned mines from the farmers on the surface, and that the cost of the works should come from the royalty owners in these rare cases, seeing that they would have made a profit in the past from the working of the mines.

Amendment agreed to.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.