CLAUSE 14.—(Powers of the Commission in relation to underground land other than coal.) (Hansard, 14 December 1937)

§ Mr. Denman
I beg to move, in page 16, line 26, at the end, to insert: (b) to interfere with any underground structures or works; (c) to withdraw or interfere with any water supply or source of water supply. In moving this Amendment perhaps I may be allowed to refer to a later Amendment—in page 16, line 28, at the end, to insert a new Sub-section (2)—which is an extension of the same subject.

The Deputy-Chairman
I had intended to treat that Amendment as consequential.

§ Mr. Denman
Clause 14 entitles the Commission to perform necessary operations underground and the operative part of it is followed by a proviso which limits the exercise of this power of action either by the Commission themselves or licensees in certain respects. The Amendment seeks to add to that proviso two sets of circumstances in which the Commission may not interfere. It proposes that they are not to interferce with any underground structure or work, or withdraw or interfere with any water supply or source of water supply. It is clear that under the Clause as it stands exceedingly embarrassing conditions are liable to arise. Suppose, for example, somebody has bored for oil in a coal country. According to the Clause as it stands, the Commission could interfere with the structure in connection with that boring. We seek to preserve the rights of the present owners of the land in so far as those relate to underground structures or works, or to water supply or sources of water supply.

§ The Attorney-General
The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to a point which requires consideration. Under paragraph (a) of the proviso in the Clause as it is now drafted, the right conferred on the Commission to undertake underground borings or other operations is limited to this extent, that they are not to interfere with the carrying on of underground operations carried on for a purpose other than a coal-mining purpose. The hon. Member has pointed out that those words might not cover a case where, although operations were not actually being carried on, there were underground structures which had been put there in the course of previous operations and which might in the future be required for such operations and which, therefore, should be protected under the proviso. In the second Amendment to which he has referred, a slightly different point is raised. It seeks to deal with a case in which works or operations carried on by the Commission interfere with other works which it is desired to undertake or increase the expenses of those desiring to undertake them.
1099 It will be clear to the Committee that the intention of the Clause is to give the Commission power to work underground without inflicting any real damage either on existing operations or on operations which may reasonably be conducted hereafter. We cannot accept the Amendment on the Paper because it goes much too far. The proposed new paragraph (c), for instance, would, I think, prohibit any operation which in any way would interfere with any underground water supply. But if my hon. Friend withdraws this Amendment, we are prepared to consider whether the intention which we have in mind is sufficiently carried out by the proviso in the Clause as drafted. We desire the Commission to have the power to do works underground as long as they are not inflicting damage on other people who have already worked underground or may reasonably require to do so hereafter, but we undertake to look into the point which has been raised.

§ Mr. E. J. Williams
Probably most Members of the Committee are aware of the fact that pits have to be sunk in shafts, and as the coal is worked out, the shaft is driven down deeper to the lower levels, but it is not necessarily perpendicular That depends on the geology of the district. I have in mind a case in which there would be practically two shafts working the lower seams. Is there anything in this proposal which would interfere with the Commissioners should they find that the surface measure had been worked out? Is there anything, for instance, which would prohibit them from using that shaft to get to the lower levels?

§ The Attorney-General
I am not sure that I grasp the hon. Member's point.

§ Mr. Williams
It might interfere with the surface or with water supplies.

§ The Attorney-General
This has nothing to do with the surface rights. I think the point as to surface rights arises on a later Amendment. As I say, the object of the Clause is to give the Commission power to do anything they like underground, as long as they do not damage existing structures or operations or interfere with anybody else. That is our intention, but, as I say, we are prepared to look into the wording.

§ Mr. Batey
We should have a little more explanation of this proposal. The Attorney-General seems to be very sympathetic towards this Amendment, and to-night we have noticed that Amendments moved by hon. Members opposite are receiving different treatment from the Amendments moved on this side. As the Attorney-General is so sympathetic towards this Amendment, he will not, I am sure, hesitate to tell the Committee exactly what is meant by it. Although I have some knowledge of coal mining, I do not understand it. The Amendment seeks to add words about interference with underground structures or works, and refers to withdrawal or interference with any water supply or source of water supply.

§ The Attorney-General
I am not proposing to accept the words on the Order Paper.

§ Mr. Batey
Then what is the hon. and learned Member proposing to do?

§ The Attorney-General
I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I said that the hon. Member had raised a point which called for consideration. He pointed out that the words in the Bill only refer to interference with operations actually being carried on, and that there might be cases where there were structures underground with which it would not be reasonable to interfere, although operations were not actually being carried on. I said that we would look into the matter.

§ Mr. Batey
There may be structures underground with which it would not be wise to interfere. What structures can there be underground with which it would not be wise to interfere? I and my miner Friends have no idea what structures there can be. The Commission is given power to deal with coal for coal-mining purposes. What else can there be underground? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oil."] Does the Attorney-General advance that argument?

§ The Attorney-General
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Den-man) gave an illustration. I do not want to repeat it.

§ Mr. Batey
Let the hon. Member explain. I know coal-mining and have been down a few mines, and I should like to know any coal mine where the Commissioners would be interfering with any 1101 structure or works by their power to work coal. Perhaps the hon. Member can tell us what structures or works he means. The Amendment refers to any water supply or source of water supply. We know of more than one colliery area where the village is supplied with drinking water from the pit. Does the hon. Member mean that after the royalty owners have sold out, as far as coal is concerned, they are to keep their hold on the water?

The Deputy-Chairman
That point does not arise on this Amendment.

§ Mr. Batey
With respect, I submit that it docs. The Amendment is, to insert: (b) to interfere with any underground structures or works; (c) to withdraw or interfere with any water supply or source of water supply. Does that mean that the royalty owners will still have the right to claim the water that may be pumped out of the pit?

The Deputy-Chairman
I have already pointed out that that point does not arise on this Amendment.

§ Mr. Denman
I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Lunn
I beg to move, in page 16, line 27, to leave out: (b) to interfere with the surface of any land. We have heard the word "complexity" used frequently in connection with this Bill until one begins to wonder whether or not the Bill ought to be redrafted. My Amendment shows how ridiculous and contradictory is this Clause. Sub-section (1) says: Provided that neither the Commission nor a person to whom a licence has been granted under this Sub-section shall be entitled by virtue of this Sub-section or of the licence—

(a) to interfere with the carrying on of underground operations carried on for a purpose other than a coal-mining purpose;

(b) to interfere with the surface of any land; "

How can they do the work provided in the first part of the Sub-section without interfering with the land? The Attorney-General has accepted a number of Amendments from the other side, and he must accept this Amendment, because the 1102 phrase which I seek to delete is too ridiculous to place in an Act of Parliament.

§ Mr. R. J. Taylor
I support the Amendment. The Commission may grant a lease to a company who are prepared to begin operations. The Commission will have previously bored for and proved the coal, and some company will be prepared to sink a shaft. I have in mind several cases where the land adjacent will probably have to be procured and a roadway made to the site where the shafts are to be sunk. The provision about not interfering with the surface of any land which would be a restriction to any company which had obtained a lease and was ready to begin shaft-sinking operations.

§ The Attorney-General
I am not surprised that hon. Members complain about the complexities of the Bill. The complexities are not due to any sinister motive, but to the fact that the subject is complex. We have done our best in the Bill to meet in intelligible terms the various situations which may arise in making the Measure workable. The Commission get a right in the coal under the Clause which we have passed. For the proper working of the coal, quite apart from what they have to do on the surface, they may have to go through adjacent underground land which is not in itself coal. That you cannot do unless you have power to do it, because in our system of law, ownership in land goes down to the centre of the earth. [An HON. MEMBER: "To hell itself!"] It used to be said that hell is the centre of the earth, but I understand people doubt that now. You can imagine that, 2,000 or 3,000 feet below the surface, the strata of coal will be surrounded by other strata not in themselves coal which will be the property of other people.
The purpose of this Clause, which I hope every hon. Gentleman in every part of the Committee will see is a thing to be carried out, is to enable the Commission to have power to license people to work underground in surrounding strata if it is necessary to get the coal. The ultimate purpose of this Clause is to confine those rights, broadly speaking, to cases where the underground working will involve no damage of any kind to any 1103 body else. The only objection can be a purely legal one of proprietary right, a nuisance value in which someone might say, "You are not in fact doing me any financial or material damage, but you are seeking to go on what is technically my land." The Clause makes it clear that the Commission will not be held up by such an objection. That is why in the proviso in this Clause we restrict this power in the way that appears in the Bill.
Among other provisions in the proviso is the one which it is proposed should be omitted. We say under this power, "You shall not go underground in a way to interfere with the surface of any land." So far as the power of the colliery companies in the future to do damage to the surface is concerned, that is dealt with in the second part of the Second Schedule, which we shall get to at a later stage. I do not deal with that under this Clause, because that is a very important and quite separate matter, and the only purpose of this Clause is to give the Commissioners the same narrow power which I sought to define. Therefore it is essential that in defining that power we should make it clear that they are not entitled to damage the surface. I hope that with that explanation, and in view of the fact that the whole question of the power to damage the surface is one which we shall have the opportunity of discussing at a later stage, the hon. Member will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Lunn
Can the hon. and learned Gentleman explain how it is possible to enter upon land, to execute works upon land, and to have words like this: shall not interfere with the surface of any land"? I am quite sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that those words do not explain the position at all and that there is a necessity for some other words.

§ Mr. T. Williams
There are certain parts of the country where coal mines work out to the surface or start at the surface and move away at a very low angle. Are we to understand that this distinction would prevent the Commission from interfering with surface land, even though the coal is found to come right out to the surface? If that is so—and coal near the surface is easy to obtain 1104 and more economical to produce—the Commission would have no power to deal with it at all, unless in some other part of the Bill there are provisions which will enable the Commission to operate in that case. Secondly, are we to understand that, while the Commission have a right to grant a lease and do all the things referred to in Sub-section (1) of Clause 14, in no case will they have the power to interfere with surface land, even though it must be known that, having granted a lease to mine coal within any given area, mining operations can only take place—

The Deputy-Chairman
I think the hon. Gentleman has overlooked the words in the first line of the Clause. This only deals with underground land not being coal.

§ The Attorney-General
The answer to both questions is that this Clause is not a restriction of the powers of the Commission but an added right. Assume that under the latter part of the Bill the lessees from the Commission have complete power to go down underground. All that this Clause is doing is to say that having got underground they shall have power to work underground in land which has not actually coal vested in it, provided they do not inflict damage or bring about the conditions dealt with in the proviso. It is nothing to do with surface rights, which we shall discuss later.

§ Mr. Bevan
The assumption is that they are already carrying on coal operations. They wish to go from land where there is no coal into a place where there would be coal. Surely that is the position, and the assumption is that they have got underground. If they have got underground, they have only done so because there is coal there, and therefore they want to go where there is coal from land where there is no coal; and this is intended to give them the power to do so.

§ Mr. Lunn
I cannot understand how they can get through to those works and carry them out without going through the land. My hon. Friends beside me say that I should withdraw the Amendment. It is not that I like it, but I take their advice and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Sir Stafford Cripps
I beg to move, in page 16, line 29, to leave out Subsection (2).
I am moving this Amendment in order to get an explanation why these particular limitations should be imposed upon the working of a licence or upon the Commission in the circumstances of Subsection (1). As I understand it, the limitations which it is proposed to impose are the limitations which would be imposed by the form of the conveyance upon the actual coal which they are assumed to be working in connection with any underground land which is not coal under Sub-section (1). I understand the reason why the restrictions are attached to the coal itself is because it is purchased subject to these conditions and restrictions, but I do not understand why similar restrictions should be applied to the other land which is not purchased.

§ The Attorney-General
I can give an explanation of this Sub-section best by taking an illustration. Suppose, for example, there is some restriction imposed on the working of coal in a certain area owing to the fact that a house is above that coal, it may be the house in which the owner lives himself. The object of the restriction is that operations should not be conducted underground to take away coal which would lead to the house falling down. Under the first Sub-section of this Clause the Commission have been given power, as it were, to go about underground on other people's property, and it seemed to us reasonable that where there is a restriction applying, say, to a pillar of coal because its removal would cause some defect on the surface which it has been agreed should not be created, the general power conferred by Subsection (1) should not be exercised in the land over or adjacent to the pillar of coal which is protected by covenant.

§ Sir S. Cripps
I appreciate that particular case, but may there not be many other servitudes or covenants on land through which the coal passes which do not call for the same necessity? I can understand in that particular case where there is a right of support for a particular building or a particular piece of land that you obviously do not want to take it away from the other land which you have 1106 to work in getting the coal. There are other kinds of servitudes which are attached to the coal such as those in Clause 4 (4) but I do not see the necessity for such a wide provision as this Subsection (2). Surely, it should be limited to the class of case that the hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned. For that purpose I do not think anybody would have any objection to it, but to bring in every other servitude and alternative covenants may unduly restrict the power to work through portions of land next to coal, and may effectively stop the utilisation of the licence under Sub-section (1). Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will be good enough to look into that point before the next stage to see whether this limitation is not much broader than is really necessary, and whether it cannot be limited to such a case as the right hon. Gentleman has stated.

§ The Attorney-General
This point has been carefully considered, but we will reconsider it in the light of what the hon. and learned Gentleman says.