HC Deb 20 December 1937 vol 330 cc1725-33

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Peake

I beg to move, in page 26, line 44, at the end, to add: (3)—(a) In any case in which the fee simple in any coal or mine of coal and the fee simple in land supported thereby is vested at the passing of this Act in any statutory undertakers, and no coal-mining lease of the coal or mine of coal is subsisting at the passing of this Act, the following provisions shall have effect with respect to that coal or the coal in that mine (hereinafter in this Section referred to as 'the reserved coal'):

  1. (i) the reserved coal shall not be worked except with the consent of the undertakers;
  2. (ii) a coal-mining lease of the reserved coal shall not be granted except with the consent of the undertakers;
  3. (iii) a right to withdraw support from the land supported by the reserved coal shall not be exercised or granted except with the consent of the undertakers:
Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply to any coal in respect of which the undertakers have been paid compensation under this Act for their acquired interests in that coal: Provided also that the consent of any statutory undertakers under this Sub-section shall not be unreasonably withheld and any dispute between any such undertakers and the Commission as to whether any such consent has been unreasonably withheld shall be referred to and determined by the Railway and Canal Commission, who shall have power to dispense with the consent of the undertakers in respect of any reserved coal subject to such terms and conditions for the benefit and protection of the undertakers as that Commission may think fit; Provided further that if at any time after the vesting date the undertakers cease to require the reserved coal, or any part thereof for the purposes of support to their undertaking the undertakers may, notwithstanding anything in this Sub-section, center into an agreement with the Commission for the working of that coal on such terms and conditions as may be agreed, and one of the terms may be that the rent or part of the rent payable by the lessees under any coal-mining lease of that coal shall be paid to the undertakers. (b) In this Sub-section the expression 'statutory undertakers' means any person authorised by or under an Act of Parliament, or an order having the force of an Act of Parliament, to construct, work, or carry on any railway, canal, inland navigation, dock, harbour, tramway, gas, electricity, water, or other public undertaking. This rather formidable Amendment, which stands in the names of myself and the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. D. Adams), the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) and the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle East (Sir R. Aske), will, therefore, command the confidence of every hon. Member of the Committee. It has a formidable appearance, but it really has a very simple purpose, to protect the works of certain statutory undertakers and local authorities who are not protected, as a great many local authorities and statutory undertakers are, by any special Act of Parliament, or by what we in the mining industry know as the mining code. The mining code is incorporated in the Railway Clauses Act, 1845, for the protection of railway companies and certain other statutory undertakers, but there are a great number of statutory undertakers, both local authorities and otherwise, who own fire stations, gas works, docks, harbours and canals, and are not protected by the mining code of the Railway Clauses Act. They have, in fact, relied not on any statutory protection but on the fact that they have actually purchased the minerals underneath their works, and in doing so they have in the past thought that thereby they had absolute security against their undertakings being interfered with by mining operations conducted beneath them.

It is no use to these undertakers to be paid compensation for damage to their undertakings. Their undertakings are of such importance that what they require is an absolute unchallengeable right of support. If damage occurred at docks at Newcastle or at Goole, or at some of our big power stations, such damage could not be put right by any payment of compensation. Under the Bill, the coal lying under these works vests in the Commission, who have the right to grant a mining lease of the coal lying under docks, canals, harbours, gas works or electricity undertakings, to whomsoever they may belong. The only protection which these statutory undertakers have is in Part II of the Second Schedule, under which they have to make an application to the Railway and Canal Commission for restrictions to be imposed upon the working of the coal, and they can be asked to make a payment to the Railway and Canal Commission in respect of the grant by the Commission of those restrictions. They can be asked to make that payment unless within six months of an advertisement by the Coal Commission that it intends to lease the coal, they make their application.

The position is that instead of the absolute right to the coal, they obtain under the Bill a very hazardous right, depending upon an application to the court and the production of evidence, the onus of proof lying upon them to prove that the restrictions ought to be placed upon the working of the coal. The Amendment which I propose gives them a much better protection. It provides that the statutory undertakers actually own the coal at the date of the passing of the Act, and where the coal is not on lease that coal shall be called "reserved coal" and shall not be worked without the consent of the undertakers. These provisions do not apply unless three qualifications are satisfied. In the first place, they shall not have drawn any compensation under the Bill in respect of these areas of coal. That is to say, these undertakers are not asking both to have their cake and eat it. They are prepared to forego their compensation if they can obtain their rights to the reserving of the coal.

There is a further provision that if the consent of these undertakers is withheld, any dispute as to whether it is unreasonably withheld or not can be referred to the Railway and Canal Commission; but the Committee will observe that the onus of proof is changed. Under the provisions of the Amendment it will be up to the Coal Commission to satisfy the Railway and Canal Commission that the consent of the undertakers is being unreasonably withheld. There is a third proviso, under which coal reserved by statutory undertakers in this way can be released by them subsequently if they find that they do not need the coal for the support of their undertakings. I think this is a thoroughly reasonable Amendment. It is backed by hon. Members in all quarters of the Committee, and I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to see his way to accept it.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Stanley

This Amendment, as far as our proceeding is concerned, is unique. It is a united front Amendment, supported by hon. Members on all sides. The matter which it raises is one of considerable importance to a number of very important statutory bodies. Quite frankly, I think that in fact these bodies already have in the Bill as it stands an absolute and a satisfactory protection. I cannot believe that the Commission would deliberately undermine the security of undertakers of this kind. In the second place, the Commission will work under the direction of the Board of Trade in matters of public interest, and no doubt it will be possible in that case to secure for them greater protection. If these safeguards fail, then there is still an application to the Railway and Canal Commission, and I can hardly conceive that such an application would fail. Therefore, I do not think these people would suffer any possible loss under the Bill as it stands.

On the other hand, I have considerable sympathy with their position. They have bought this coal for the express purpose of support, and they are unlikely in the circumstances to get proper compensation for it. They run one nominal risk that the purpose of their original action may be defeated. The Amendment as it stands is unacceptable, particularly the proviso which allows statutory bodies a sort of double option, first, as long as it suits them to have the coal left as their support, and, secondly, if it suits them better to allow the coal to be sold and to share in the amount. That is a difficult position to maintain. We have taken up the attitude in regard to other owners that if there is no value at the time we cannot leave them in possession of the coal in the hope that at some future date it may be worked for which they would get compensation. That in itself is unacceptable. I have some sympathy with what, I think, is rather a theoretical point raised by these undertakings, and between now and the next stage of the Bill I will look into the matter and see if I can devise an Amendment which will give effect to the suggestion.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. David Adams

The hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) presented a case from the national standpoint. I desire to submit a case from a more localised standpoint and hope that the Minister may be even more sympathetic than he has already indicated. There is the case of the Tyne Improvement Commissioners on which I happen to be a representative of Newcastle Corporation. This is the conservancy authority for the River Tyne and Port of Newcastle, and in conformity with their statutory authority they have over a process of time acquired some 400 acres on the north bank of the river which includes two wet docks, numerous coal staithes, quays, warehouses, sheds and railways, which are used for the export and import of general cargo, coal, timber, etc. At Howden they have acquired engineering shops where their river craft are repaired and other machinery built, and the capital sum expended on the dock estate is£2,500,000 and on the Howden Yard£87,000. The Tyne Commissioners own the coal under the great part of their dock estate and Howden Yard. They have never leased the coal or other minerals since they acquired them between the years 1857 and 1874. They also own the north and south piers at the mouth of the River Tyne, which were erected at a cost of£1,657,000. As late as 1934, coal was acquired from the Crown in order to protect these works.

The Tyne Commission is not a profit-making concern. They obtain revenue from the dues, tolls and charges upon goods, vessels and passengers, and the ferries which they own. They have a total loan debt of£3,129,000, which will be liquidated by a sinking fund provided from revenue. In the judgment of the Tyne Commission, it would be disastrous if the coal under their properties were worked in such a way as to incur any risk of subsidence. Clause 3 (2) provides that during the period between the valuation date, 1st January, 1939, and the vesting date, the Tyne Commission will cease to own all that coal and the Government will have the right to lease the coal for working. The Coal Commission would thus obtain the right to withdraw support from the overland works. It is true, further, that under Paragraph (6) of Part II of the Second Schedule, compensation for damage to overland works and buildings would be paid; but compensation would be of no advantage to the Tyne Commission. It will readily be seen that irreparable damage would be done if any of the coal were to be worked under the properties of this authority.

If this statutory body obtains the protection which it seeks, it will not, of course, expect any share of the£60,000,000. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman that the Tyne Commission and similar bodies were asking to have the advantage both ways was, in my judgment, not well-founded. The right hon. Gentleman asked why it is that the Tyne Commission should refuse to the Coal Commission the right, if necessary, to work the coal, and at some subsequent date, if the Tyne Commission so desired, that they should have the statutory right to lease or sell the coal to the Coal Commission. That is very easily answered. Again and again the Tyne Commission have removed large tracks of land from the fairway of the river. For instance, the Salt Meadows estate has been dredged away, and a considerable area of coal-bearing land is under the River Tyne. Surely, it is not unreasonable that such coal should be worked. Again, there is very little doubt that there are certain works on the Tyne in possession of the Tyne Commission which may become redundant. If they are redundant, it is reasonable that the Tyne Commission should have the right to lease to the Coal Commission the coal under such works, for which they have no further use. Broadly, that is the situation. We ask that adequate protection should be given to this as to other statutory bodies, and I suggest that the opinion that we are protected by compensation has little bearing upon the case.

Mr. Peake

In view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, from which I understand that discussion will take place between now and the remaining stages of the Bill, with a view to reaching agreement upon words for the protection of these undertakers, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams

I am sorry to intervene, but my name is down to this Amendment, and I did not know that the Mover proposed to take this course.

The Chairman

The hon. Member has been long enough in the House to know that if he insists on speaking the Amendment cannot be withdrawn.

Mr. Williams

That is my purpose in rising. I wish to point out that the issue involved is a graver one than has yet been represented to the Committee. These public utilities, both municipal and company, represent interests which, together, are 20 or 30 times as great as the Commission will be. They have bought the rights of this coal for the sole purpose of ensuring that their undertakings shall not be prejudiced. In other words, we do not want to see a gas-holder falling down a coal mine, or an electricity works collapsing—

Mr. E. Smith

Or a house.

Mr. Williams

That does not come under this Amendment, I had my name down to another Amendment about that point which was not called. We do not want to see the collapse of a reservoir for instance as a consequence of which the economic interests of a whole district might be paralysed. The right hon. Gentleman said that public utilities were properly protected under the Bill. The protection rests entirely on the assumption that the Commission will always be wise. If all Commissions were always wise, there would be no need to insert in Statutes a right of appeal against their decisions. What is desired here is that the coal which these people have bought, not to work it but solely in order that their undertakings shall not be in physical peril, should be sterilised, and it is not sought to deprive the Commission or those working coal mines, of the right to underground wayleaves. This is a matter of greater importance than, I think, the right hon. Gentleman has yet realised, and we ought to have an assurance that when he refers to the next stage of the Bill, he does not mean the Report stage. The next stage in one sense is when we consider the new Clauses. They will not come under consideration until late in February, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to say that his undertaking means that a new Clause will be introduced to deal with this matter before the Bill has passed from the Committee. I assure him that there are many people profoundly concerned about this matter, and that they will not be satisfied with a rather vague and general promise in respect of the Report stage.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. Stanley

I hasten to reply, and I tell the hon. Gentleman at once that I am not in a position to accede to his demand. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment put his case very well. I expressed the opinion that there was some point in it and I promised that I would, before the next stage was reached, consider the matter and take steps to deal with it. Frankly, I think that promise is one on which I am entitled to ask the Committee to rely. I cannot think that those great undertakings to which the hon. Member referred attach much importance to whether this matter is dealt with by means of a new Clause which we shall reach some time in the early part of February, or by an Amendment to an existing Clause, which we shall reach on the Report stage a few weeks later. It seems to me that all that matters is that the right thing should be done in the right place in the Bill. I have given that assurance to the Committee, and I ask the Committee to accept it in the spirit in which it is given.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Maitland

When my right hon. Friend reconsiders this matter may I ask him to bear in mind that the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend is also supported by the Association of Municipal Corporations on the general lines that have been laid down by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams).

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.