NEW CLAUSE.—(As to rights of support.) (Hansard, 2 July 1934)

Marquess of HARTINGTON
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The form in which I move it is not quite the same as that in which it appears on the Order Paper, but it is so near the words on the Paper that I need scarcely trouble the Committee with reading it. I wish to call the attention of the learned Solicitor-General to this case, which, I am told, raises a point of very considerable importance. It deals with the question of rights of support which are ordinarily enjoyed by every landowner. A landowner, by erecting houses, acquires no additional rights of support; he does not increase the obligation upon his neighbour for anything fresh that he erects, but in the course of 20 years new buildings do acquire a right of support for the surrounding land. Under this Bill a licensee may own a site for an oil well, or a bore hole, or some working in connection therewith, and by voluntary agreement, without having to go to the Railway and Canal Commission, he may have sunk a bore hole, and after the lapse of 20 years that bore hole or works in connection with it may have acquired a right of support for surrounding land and minerals. That raises a very serious position, because 1714 it is possible that, as in the case of Derbyshire, those oil workings may go through coal workings, and that would mean a pillar of coal widening out from the apex down, in a pyramid shape, to a very considerable area at the bottom. I think the area, which has been the subject of arbitration, was fixed at 2½ acres, and that area would have to be left for each well, meaning a loss of many thousands of tons of coal. The adjoining mineral owners would have no means of preventing that right of support except by working their coal within the period of 20 years.
I am sorry my hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) is no longer in his place, because I am sure he would agree that that is an extraordinarily undesirable way of working coal. Coal ought to be worked with respect not to surface considerations or to questions of property ownership, but with respect to the nature of the seams, and for a coalowner to have imposed on him the necessity of digging coal within a period of 20 years might seriously interfere with the sane and wise working of a pit. This right of support would, as the Bill stands, be acquired by common law, not under the Bill and not through the Railway and Canal Commissioners, so that a coalowner whose neighbour had acquired these rights of support would have no remedy and no claim for any compensation. The same result might conceivably come where a licensee had sunk his bore hole by virtue of a right acquired from the Railway and Canal Commission. There is nothing in such a case to prevent the common law operating in favour of the licensee. I do not intend to press this Clause to a division at this late hour, but I am advised that this is a point of very great importance which may have far-reaching results on the getting of minerals. I am sorry to have brought it up without 1715 having had an opportunity of consulting beforehand with my hon. and learned Friend, because I think the ease might have been met by the Government, but it is a serious thing for owners adjoining an oil well, who might stand to be prejudiced and who would have no rights in the matter.
The object of the Clause is simply to make sure that the ground licensee shall not secure these rights of support except by agreement or by application to the Railway and Canal Commissioners. He will then have to pay fair and proper compensation and not be in a position to experiment with considerable disorganisation and possibly unemployment in the neighbourhood without compensation. I am not wedded to the form of the Clause and I do not say it is ideal, but I hope that between now and the Report stage the Government will make sure that the Bill will not have the effect of allowing the common law to operate with altogether unreasonable hardship against owners who may be deprived, without any common law rights, of the rights they now enjoy.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I ought to remind the Committee that they have not seen the Clause in the form in which the Noble Lord moved it. I have studied it carefully, and the alteration is purely a matter of drafting, taking out certain words and putting in others to the same effect. If the Committee do not wish it I shall not read the Clause.

§ Sir S. CRIPPS
I think we ought to hear it, perhaps

§ The CHAIRMAN
Perhaps the Noble Lord who moves it will read the Clause.

Marquess of HARTINGTON
It reads: A person holding a licence under this Act shall not acquire, by reason of the execution by him of any works for the purpose of exercising the rights granted by such licence; any right in law to require the owner of any lands or minerals to leave support for any such works otherwise than by agreement or by obtaining such right of support under Section three of this Act.

§ The SOLICITOR - GENERAL
The effect of the Clause would be to deprive someone who bores under the machinery of the Act from the Common Law right which he would otherwise have in common 1716 with everyone, a right to support from neighbouring land in respect of works or excavations which have lasted for 20 years. I think that was quite fairly the object as expressed by my Noble Friend who moved the Clause. The reply is that we do not see why people who are seeking to develop this industry should be placed in a worse position than everybody else. Those who excavate for coal and whose excavations remain for 20 years get exactly the same rights as against the neighbouring landowner as would someone who bores for petroleum, and I am afraid we could not possibly accept the Clause, which would really deprive those who develop this new industry under this Bill of a Common Law right which is enjoyed by everybody else. If the question of rights of support require consideration, it should be considered as a whole, and the position of all those who get the advantage of rights of support should be considered together. We could not possibly accept the cutting down of that right in respect of the particular class of people who may be affected by this Bill.

§ Captain WATERHOUSE
If the Noble Lord is right, as I have reason to think he is, that something like two and a-half acres of coal would have to be left for support round an ordinary well, then the Government by this Bill are not merely confiscating the oil, but confiscating some thousands of tons of the landlord's coal round every one of these borings. Moreover, they are putting the workers of coal to very grave difficulty and extra expense. That is an attitude which the Government ought to consider most carefully before they come to a definite decision. It is bad enough that they should confiscate the oil, but that they should put this extra difficulty in the way of the colliery owners and indulge in this extra piece of confiscation is not what the House understood to be the position when the Second Reading was moved.