HC Deb 14 December 1937 vol 330 cc1127-9

11.25 p.m.

Sir D. Reid

I beg to move, in page 19, line 36, after "regard," to insert: to the full annual value of such right as well as.

This Amendment depends for its consideration upon Sub-section (3). Everyone knows that the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act enables rights to be conferred for the purpose of working mines. Sub-section (3) is an Amendment of that Act, and provides that where the surface of any coal mine has been used for the erection of any surface works or dwelling place of workmen employed in connection with the working of the coal, they are the concern of the Railway and Canal Commisson, and there is to be a right to use and occupy the works or dwellings for the purposes for which they were erected. Then Sub-section (4) provides that where such a right is to be granted on the termination of a lease and the right was comprised in that lease, the Railway and Canal Commission, in determining whether any compensation or consideration is to be paid or given in respect of the right to be granted by them and the amount thereof, if any, shall have regard to the fact that the right comprised in the lease was therein comprised and to the amount of any rent reserved by the lease in respect thereof, By the passing of the Bill the whole situation will be changed. In the normal case, if these works and dwelling houses are erected on the surface and are comprised in the lease for mining work, they are part of the mining lease. The owner, being the owner of the surface works, undertakes to make himself responsible. It does not matter so much to him whether he gets the full business rent for the land used for the surface works or for the dwelling house. In many cases I have known, as part of the bargain, a very great reduction to be made in the rental charged for land for certain purposes. Now the situation will be wholly changed. After the Bill has passed, the owner of the ground has no interest in the mine whatsoever. If a new lease is granted on the mine, the owner of the surface works gets no benefit from the royalty charged for the lease. His sole interest, therefore, is as owner of the land, and it will be immaterial that this matter was comprised in the previous lease. I am proposing that the Coal Commission shall have regard to the full annual value of such land. The Subsection will then read: Where such a right as is specified in the last preceding Subsection is to be granted on the termination of a lease, and a right to erect or use the works or dwellings was comprised in that lease, the Railway and Canal Commission, in determining whether any compensation or consideration is to be paid or given in respect of the right to be granted by them and the amount thereof, if any, shall have regard to the full annual value of such right as well as to the fact that the right comprised in the lease was therein comprised and to the amount of any rent reserved by the lease in respect thereof.

The next Amendment standing in my name, in page 19, line 39, at the end, to insert "and to any other relevant circumstances," is consequential. I hope the Attorney-General will see that the fact that under the original lease the surface workings and the mines belonged to the same owner and the land belonged to the same lease, is no criterion when the land is being leased entirely by itself.

11.30 p.m.

The Attorney-General

While I appreciate part of what my hon. Friend has said, I am afraid I cannot advise the Committee to accept his Amendment. The words of Sub-section (4) instruct the Railway and Canal Commission to have regard to the rent, and my hon. Friend says that there may be a case in which the land is let at a very low rent because the royalties are high. In other words, because the owner of the surface and of the coal is getting royalties amounting to so much, he felt, taking into account that fact plus what he gets for the rent of the surface, that he is on the whole getting an advantage. I am sure, however, that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the increased royalty, which in itself decreases the rent obtainable for the surface, will be reflected in the compensation he gets, and that will be the general practice throughout the country. For that reason it does not seem right to us to insert words which would prevent the giving of due effect to what must in these circumstances be fair, namely, compensation based on the amount of the royalty without taking into account the consideration which was accepted for the surface rights under the lease. We do not think it would result in fairness if we accepted the Amendment.

11.32 p.m.

Sir D. Reid

The Attorney-General has read more into my Amendment than I said. I did not say that the royalties would be high; I said that very often, in making a bargain, one would not haggle over the surface as long as the rest of the arrangements were satisfactory. The royalty, even when not excessive, has always been much the larger part of the receipts, and, even if a proposed lessee makes difficulties, there is comparatively little haggling over the rental for the surface. I have known that to happen again and again. The Attorney-General is putting forward a particular and exceptional case when he says that an owner will get more compensation because the royalties are high. The royalties are not necessarily high at all. I am simply asking that when the circumstances are changed so that the surface belongs to one owner while the mines belong to another owner, and the owner of the mines asks for compulsory rights over the surface, he should pay what the land is worth.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain Margesson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.