HC Deb 08 February 1938 vol 331 cc886-903

No new mine of coal shall be sunk or opened in England or Scotland after the passing of this Act, unless the owner of the mineral rights therein has first obtained from the Commission an order authorising the sinking or opening of such mine. In the event of the Commission refusing such authorisation to the owner thereof the owner shall be entitled, as from the date of his application to the Commission for such authority, to the payment of interest upon the sum of money awarded to him in respect of his claim under Sections six and seven of this Act as if the date of such application had been the vesting date under this Act provided that he shall satisfy the Commission of his bona fide intention and ability to sink or open such mine before he shall become entitled to any such payment of interest.—[Sir S. Cripps.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.7 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

On the face of it this new Clause is concerned with the question of the liberty of owners of mines or royalties to make new sinkings in the period which elapses between the passing of this Bill and the taking over of the royalties by the Commission. It purports to lay down certain provisions which shall apply in the event of an owner not being able to get permission to sink a pit which he would otherwise have done during that intervening period. We are not wedded to the precise terms of the Clause, if there are more convenient words in which to frame it, but we are very anxious to raise the question of what the Commission is going to do by way of planning the coal resources of the country. Obviously if the Commission is going to utilise its ownership of the royalties in order to try to bring some orderliness into the production of coal, it is essential that at the earliest possible moment it should get the most complete control over the question of the opening of new mines and pits; otherwise it may be that for the purpose of getting better compensation, for the purpose of an owner putting himself into the position of being able to obtain a compulsory lease from the Commission as the owner of the royalty of a mine, in various districts steps might be taken, even before or immediately after the passage of this Bill, to open up new mines which would alter the relationship between coal production in the various districts and between the various districts.

I am aware of the various provisions with regard to quotas and so on which have their influence on the position, but they do not in any way prevent owners from opening mines now. It would be entirely wrong, when you are contemplating a new system of the ownership of minerals, a new system for the granting of leases, if in the intervening period, after full notice has been given that that system is to come into operation, individual owners, from the point of view of improving their own position for the future, should be able to take action and spend large sums of money which would be contrary to the plans which the Commission itself would have when it came into the full ownership of the minerals. Once the Commission gets control of the royalties it will be for the Commission to say whether in any particular instance a new mine or pit is to be sunk. I imagine that that is one of the methods the Commission will use for planning the coal production of the country. That is one of the main objectives of this so-called unification of royalties, or nationalisation as we call it.

Unless there is some such provision as this in the Bill it seems to me that we shall be laying the Commission open to very grave embarrassment, and we shall be tending to defeat the very object which we all presumably have in mind in the unification of royalties. We are anxious to find out from the Minister what his views are both as regards this specific question of planning and also as regards the wider question of how the Commission are going to use their powers to try to bring order into the production of coal. It might be that a proposal would be made to stop such a thing as the development of the Kent coalfield while there was plenty of capacity for production in other parts of the country, or it might be that a completely new coalfield could be developed before the Commission came into power. Such a coalfield could be started and then it would be necessary to go right through with it. Once a mine is started you cannot stop it economically; once the capital is put up in an area where it is said that up to the present coal has not been fully proved, people may say that for the purpose of compensation they prefer to put down a pit. They are perfectly entitled to do it, and they may think that by that method they would get a much larger share of the £66,000,000.

Mr. Ritson

I beg to second the Motion.

The Clause is a common-sense proposal, and after the exposition of my hon. and learned Friend it would be sheer waste of time for me to speak at any length upon it. We know how often there have been attempts to develop a coalfield as a result of which someone has to be compensated.

4.13 p.m.

Sir Hugh Seely

I hope the Minister will not accept this new Clause, and for two reasons. The hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Second Reading ended by saying that if anyone sank a pit now he would be doing it merely to get some of the £66,000,000. I can assure him that no one will sink a pit, with all the costs involved, in order to prove a claim greater than is justified to a share of that £66,000,000. This is really an extreme Socialistic Clause. It may be that the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to have this power in the Bill. It may come some day and this may be a step towards it, but as matters stand I cannot see how you can say that anyone is not to sink a new pit who has a lease of the coal now and that merely because you pass a Bill providing that the royalties are to be unified you are to be able to say that you will stop the whole industry progressing.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. E. J. Williams

The hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) has failed to appreciate what we have in mind here. Apart from this new Clause it would be possible for a colliery company, in conjunction with certain owners, at once to start boring operations, and when they had discovered any coal in an area they could cut the sod and start sinking a shaft. I rose to get an explanation from my hon. and learned Friend why Wales is not mentioned in this proposed new Clause, and whether it would not be possible to delete the words relating to England and Scotland and leave things as they are in that regard.

4.16 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

Before I answer the hon. and learned Gentleman and give a detailed explanation upon the point which he raised, may I just say that I cannot advise the Committee to accept this Clause? In one phrase the hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was desirable that the Commission should get control at the earliest possible date of all these matters regarding the property of which it will be the owner. The earliest possible date is that at which the property will actually vest in the Commission, in 1942. I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman's point to be that somebody might now, for the purpose of getting more compensation, put down a plant, prove the existence of coal and sink a pit. I do not think I am misrepresenting him. All I can say is that the Clause deals only with what happens after the passing of the Act. The property is to be valued on the valuation date, which is 1st January, 1939. From such knowledge of the industry as I have, it seems to me quite impracticable to start the process of getting leases, boring and proving coal and then sinking a shaft. It could not affect the valuation at 1st January, 1939.

Perhaps that was not really the point to which he wanted to direct our attention. His point is that, by and large, the Commission will be owner of this coal, and that it is therefore desirable that the Commission should have in its mind a sort of general planning for the future. He asked me to say whether I could tell him how the Commission would use its powers in the future in this matter, but I am afraid that until the Commission exists no one can get an answer to that question. The Commission will, of course, be bound by what we have already passed in the Bill, that they shall, under Clause 2, deal with their property, in such manner consistently with the provisions of this Act as they think best for promoting the interests, efficiency, and better organisation of the coal-mining industry. The Commission is bound, under Clause 2—it is so long since we were on that Clause that some of us may have forgotten it—to pay attention to any general directions given by the Minister in the national interest. I cannot answer, therefore, as to what may or may not be the intentions of the Commission.

The reason why a proposal of this kind, obviously, cannot be accepted, is that the Committee have accepted the arrangement of the Bill, which is that between the passage of the Bill and the final vesting date, the present owners of the property remain in the enjoyment thereof, and that it would therefore be contrary to what we have already passed if we inserted something of this kind now. The broad principle remains that after the valuation date, as long as they do not do anything to deteriorate the property under Clause 9, which I am sure hon. Members will remember, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent them from improving the property. I should think that improvements were desirable. The principle is that until the property actually passes to the Commission, the Commission has no locus standi in the matter.

It is fanciful to imagine that in the short period before the vesting date—it is short compared to the length of time that this property is to be in the hands of the new owners—we are in the least likely to see the development of entirely new coalfields about which nobody knows anything now. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the opening up of the Kent coalfield, but that has a history of many years, and it has not yet gone very far. To imagine that some sort of startling development of that kind is likely to occur before 1942, to the detriment of the Commission later on, is a little wide of the mark. A suggestion of that kind is out of line with the policy which the Committee have already adopted in the Clauses which we have passed. While I much sympathise with the hon. and learned Gentleman's point of view—it is expressed in a Clause in the Bill which we discussed last Friday that control should pass this year, and is not in this Bill—it is not possible for me to accept the Clause, and I hope that the Committee will resist it.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. A. Bevan

The purpose of the new Clause which has been proposed is to find out what sort of powers the Commission will have under the Bill and under the explanation which the Secretary for Mines has given. I understand that, under the Bill, existing leases will be taken over by the Commission on the vesting date in about four years' time, and that they have no power to vary those leases. There will, therefore, be one limitation already in force upon the Commission in regard to existing leases. If an arrangement has been made with any landlord by which a colliery owner can sink pits and establish new collieries, that power will remain in the hands of the colliery owner under the lease, and it will not be within the power of the Commission to refuse to agree to a development of that kind. To do so would be a violation of the existing lease.

I want to know whether I have the approval of the Secretary for Mines thus far. If it is apparent that under existing leases a colliery owner has already entered into an arrangement by which he can sink new collieries as and when it suits him so to do, that power will still be in the hands of the coalowner after the vesting date. Are we clear about that? May we have the hon. and gallant Gentleman's reply?

Captain Crookshank

I realise that it is such a long time since we were on that Clause that memories have to be refreshed. Existing leases are safeguarded.

Mr. Bevan

I thought that was so, but in order that we may all be clear about what we are doing, that admission was necessary. If that be so, and the Commission are bound by the character of existing leases, there is nothing in the Bill at the moment to prevent colliery companies from varying in the meantime leases that do not contain that power at present. Have I the hon. and gallant Gentleman's approval to that point? In this interim period, if a colliery owner, anticipating the powers to be conferred upon, the Commission, does not possess leases which give him that right, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent him from varying those leases so that when the Commission inherits those leases in four years' time, it will inherit leases with all those conditions attached. Have I the approval of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to that statement? If that be the case, I would like to know from the hon. and gallant Gentleman what powers the Commission would have to control the development of existing coalfields. The effective control will be in the hands of the colliery owners, because it will be a part of the leases which the Commissioners will have taken over that the colliery owners are able to sink new collieries if and when they like, extending over the coal of which they have the lease.

We are referred to a previous part of the Bill, and are told it is one of the main advantages of unification of royalties that the Commission will have the direction and orderly development of coalfields, but it is apparent that the Bill strips the Commission of the power to do so. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree with what I say? If he does, I would like him to tell the Committee what will be the power vested in the Commission to control the development of the coalfields, because such control will depend upon the leases.

The Chairman

The hon. Gentleman seems to be developing an argument against the safeguarding of leases, which has already been passed by the House on Second Reading.

Mr. Bevan

I bow to your Ruling, Sir Dennis, but I was taking up a matter referred to by the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely), who referred to what he described as the extensive powers for which we were asking. I admit that they are extensive, but I submit that they are necessary. In the four-and-a-half years between now and the vesting date, these powers would give the Commission at least the right to authorise or deny the opening up of new collieries. In so far as the proposed new Clause would do that, it would vary that part of the Bill where, in the interim period, the Commission can vary existing leases. After that date has been reached, the part of the Bill which prevents the Commission from interfering with existing leases would, I admit, resume its power, but in the meantime very important influences may be brought to bear upon the coal industry. That is why I think that the powers we are asking are too limited and ought to be more extensive. Our schemes for the coal industry are more ambitious than those of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and we ask for this power for four-and-a-half years.

We were told on the Second Reading of the Bill that one of the principal claims made for the unification of mining royalties was that the ownership of those royalties in one pair of hands and one centre of authority would, by virtue of the ownership itself, enable the owner, the State, to impose orderly development upon an industry which is universally admitted to have developed in an anarchic and anti-social way. Now we are told by the Secretary for Mines that there is nothing in the Bill which will not enable the existing owners of coal to strip the unification of mining royalties from any of its significance in that regard. I assume that, if that is so, it is very questionable indeed whether the House of Commons ought to waste its time in unifying mining royalties. The financial aspects of the matter have not commended themselves to us, and now the organisation itself is rendered nugatory because of the powers vested in the leaseholders.

It is sheer nonsense for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that in the meantime, in the years which intervene between now and the vesting date, nothing important can happen. Only the extraordinary tradition in this country which lays it down that no Minister shall take up any office except it be one in regard to which he has an entire ignorance would have allowed him to make a statement of that sort. I do not blame the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but it is the misfortune of this Committee that it has to put up with that fact. You can go a very long way towards sinking a pit in three or four years; you can sink quite a formidable pit in that time, and it might easily pay an existing owner, if he could not get his landlord to vary his lease, to sink a shaft. I understand the desire of the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed that he should not interfere with his liberty in this matter, but it is the contention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that one of the virtues of this Bill is that it interferes with the liberty of private economic adventurers like the hon. Baronet. We were informed that it is just because of hon. Members like himself exercising the rights that they have that the industry has been brought into its present anarchic state, so that the hon. Gentleman is rebuked by his own Government. It therefore hardly lies in his mouth and in the mouths of other owners like himself to claim that this is an unwarranted interference with their liberties, because it is just that interference that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said was necessary, and it is just that interference that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has told us that these provisions do not empower.

It is true that after the vesting date it will be impossible for new coalfields to be developed without the permission of the Commission, although, as my hon. and learned Friend has pointed out, a great deal can be done between now and then to commence the exploitation of a new coalfield, but the main trouble is that we have no power to control the extension of the periphery of existing coalfields. One of the most stupid things that has happened in the last two years has been the enormous development of new coalfields, even in the Midlands, at the expense of some of the older coalfields in this country. In that way assets have been wasted, and mines are derelict in South Wales, in Durham, in Scotland, and indeed all over the country, very largely as a consequence of the fact that instead of there being intelligent development, new enterprises, of which the hon. Baronet is happy to own one, formidable commercial successes, exploiting rich seams of coal, have been allowed to develop, and the counterpart of the thriving properties that hon. Members like the hon. Baronet possess is the disused shafts and mines of South Wales and Durham. That is a wholesale wastage of national assets.

I hope I have shown the Committee that by resisting this new Clause and by refusing, although I cannot argue that, to limit the liberty of the coalowners in other parts of the Bill, the hon. and gallant Gentleman in facts strips the Commission of any effective control over future colliery development and shows that this Bill, as we always said it was, is a facade behind which is nothing but emptiness.

4.37 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

I did not expect the Secretary for Mines to accept this Clause. The reason why I was anxious that it should be moved was in order to demonstrate the fact that the Government would not accept it, because it shows the complete hollowness of their professions that this Bill is designed to do anything as regards the orderly planning of the coal industry of this country. Let me remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman of two Clauses, of which I am sure he is quite aware—first of all, Clause 12, under which a person carrying on the business of coal mining immediately before the vesting date who is then beneficially entitled to the fee simple in coal gets thereby an absolute right to a lease of that coal, a right which he would not get unless he satisfied both those things. It is surely worth while somebody opening a pit, starting a coal mine, in order to get that right under Clause 12, which he cannot otherwise get.

In a new area, or in a fringe area, if an owner starts to develop a seam and carry on the business of coal mining, he gets, under this Bill, the very valuable right of a perpetual lease, which he cannot otherwise get; and it is the commonest thing possible in Acts of this kind, where you are dealing with property and compensation, to stabilise the circumstances at the date when the Act is passed. It is very common indeed, anyway to stabilise the circumstances as at the date when the compensation is to be payable or when the valuation for compensation is to be made. The extraordinary thing about this Bill is that you are assessing compensation upon the £66,000,000, upon the basis of an Act already passed three years ago. You are then going to take the property for which you are paying the price only four years hence, and in the intermediate period, apart from wastage of the property, you are allowing it to be altered just at the will of the people from whom you are taking it.

I think there has never been a Bill before which has permitted that where a property is to be taken. The most usual form, of course, is to give the right of entry immediately, whenever it is wanted, and thereafter to allow compensation and so on to be fixed. That is not happening in this case, and what we are asking in this Clause is to stabilise the conditions up to the vesting date, just as Clause 15 of the Bill stabilises the conditions after the vesting date, because after the vesting date it is not lawful for anyone other than the Commission or a person authorised by them to search or bore for coal. So that that is stabilised after the vesting date, and if it is necessary to stabilise it after the vesting date, there can, in our opinion, be no conceivable argument in favour of allowing people to do that in the period that elapses between the passing of the Act and the vesting date. Indeed, not only can there be no argument, but any person or Government concerned with the orderly planning of an industry must inevitably take steps to prevent it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot say that this does not affect anything and is not necessary. The hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) has let the cat out of the bag sufficiently well to demonstrate that that is not the truth. He realises quite well that he, among others, is going to try and get away with it in the next four years, and that is why he is so indignant at being stopped.

Sir H. Seely

indicated dissent.

Sir S. Cripps

Is not that the reason for the hon. Baronet's indignation? Does he suggest—

Sir H. Seely

All that I said was that I did not think anyone would go to the expense of sinking a pit during this very short period merely to get a part of the £66,000,000, which the hon. and learned Gentleman said was the reason for moving this Clause.

Sir S. Cripps

I said that that was one of the reasons, and I pointed out how under Clause 12 that reason, among others, may operate. It may operate very strongly, and it may also operate on the question of valuation. The valuation of an unproved mineral is a very different thing indeed from the valuation of a proved mineral. I was talking the other day to a person who manages very large sections of property, and I asked him, just out of curiosity, what he had done as regards the Coal Bill. He replied that as far as he could ascertain he had put in a claim for all the property they owned in England, in the hope that there was coal under it. I told him that I did not imagine he would get much out of it, and he said he did not suppose he would, but that he would have a shot at it. If his position had been that he had proved his claim in one of these areas, his position as regards compensation would be entirely different. It is obvious that in those circumstances it would pay a person to—

Mr. Stanley

He has not got the whole four years in which to do it. He has got to do it by 1st January next, and, therefore, he has got to be pretty quick about it.

Sir S. Cripps

The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that in the first instance we put a much earlier date into this Clause, but we were told that it was out of order, and therefore we altered it to bring it into order. We should like to have stopped all this immediately notice was given at the last General Election that the Government were going to unify mining royalties. That is when it ought to have stopped. When the hon. Baronet below the Gangway here says that this is a drastic Socialist step that must be resisted at all costs, I would point out that one does not resist steps which do not affect one. That seems to be fairly conclusive, and, therefore, we have the position that this is a step that is going to affect the royalty owners and the coalowners. How is it going to affect them? It is not going to affect them to their disadvantage, or else they would not oppose it; it is going to affect them, if they are allowed to do this, to their advantage. Anything that affects them in those four years to their advantage will be to the loss of the Commission, because the compensation will be based upon the receipts of three past years and the Commission should be entitled to any improvement after the date the compensation is fixed.

The coalowners and royalty owners want to keep the advantage to themselves, although the compensation is based on the advantage that they had three years ago. They want to have it both ways. We see in this a very strong additional reason, which has been completely proved out of the mouth of the hon. Baronet, why a Clause of this sort should be put in to protect the Coal Commission. We shall certainly, as a result of the action of the Government, be entitled to say, as we shall say, in the country that all the Government's professions about the planning and the reorganisation of the coal industry based upon the ownership and the unification of royalties is just eye-wash. We always thought that it was eye-wash, and now that is proved.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Peake

I have been rather less fortunate than the hon. Baronet opposite in being able to comprehend the meaning of the new Clause. As I read the Clause it is absolutely meaningless. I cannot see any point in putting meaningless Amendments into a Bill which is already extremely difficult to understand. The object of the Clause, as I understand it, is to prevent new mines being sunk in the next few years without the permission of the Coal Commission. Am I right so far?

Sir S. Cripps

Right.

Mr. Peake

I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Member. Let us follow the means proposed to be employed to achieve this object. The new Clause intends to place a restriction upon the lessee of the coal, but in point of fact what it does is to place a restriction upon the owner. Every area which is at all likely to be developed in the next 15 or 20 years is already, and has been for probably a good many years, in lease to a colliery undertaking. The development of coal in the past has never been done to any extent by the owner of the coal but by the lessees, the colliery undertakings. Although it is intended to put a restriction upon the lessee, in point of fact the restriction is put upon the owner who, as I have said, in nearly every case has already parted with any right to prevent his minerals being developed by granting a lease to these new areas. It is perfectly clear that the intention of the Clause is really only to restrict the owners and not the lessees of the coal, because the compensation awarded is to be interest upon the lump sum which is awarded to the mineral owners under other Clauses of the Bill. This Clause will be unable to prevent any new mines being sunk except in the one in a thousandth case of the mineral owner who at present enjoys a freehold in the possession of his coal. The new Clause will achieve no object whatever in securing better planning of the coalfield in the future.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. Bevan

The hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) misinterprets the language of the Clause because the first words are: No mine of coal shall be sunk or opened in England or Scotland … unless the owner of the mineral rights has first obtained from the Commission an order.

Mr. Peake

A restriction is placed upon the owner. He has already parted in almost every case with his right to prevent development. His coal is under lease. It is the lessee whom it is intended to restrict by the Clause, but in fact it restricts the owner.

Mr. Bevan

There is a limitation which is imposed upon the mineral owner by the language of the Clause, and that passes on to the lessee. The mineral owner still remains the mineral owner.

Mr. Peake

Then he ought to get some compensation.

Mr. Bevan

That is another point entirely. The hon. Member has been trying to show that the Clause is meaningless. If he wishes to claim that compensation ought to be given, he is standing on entirely different grounds. If he is correct in his contention that the Clause is meaningless, surely compensation ought not to be given for something that is meaningless.

Mr. Peake

It is no good now placing a restriction on the owner from doing something that he has already granted permission many years ago to somebody else to do.

Mr. Bevan

The hon. Member says that there are in most cases in existing leases the right to develop. Does he assert that this Clause does not limit the right to develop in such cases?

Mr. Peake

No, it does not.

Mr. Bevan

But the mineral owner still remains the mineral owner, although he may have leased his coal. There is the mineral owner who has not leased the right to the development of his coal, and the hon. Member admits that the Clause limits him where he exists. He says that such a mineral owner does not exist to any extent, but where he does exist the Clause limits him. In respect of other limitations the Clause has a meaning. Therefore, it is not a Clause that means nothing. It means that where there is a mineral owner who has not leased his right to development, he will be limited if we pass the Clause. In that respect the Clause has a meaning. Although in fact the other mineral owners have leased their right to develop to certain colliery undertakings, they still remain in law the mineral owners until the vesting date, when the Commission becomes the mineral owner. Therefore, they will have to get permission from the Commission under this Clause before developments can take place on their land.

In some parts of the Bill there is a protection of the existing leasehold rights, but here you have a modification of them. Therefore, those landlords who have not parted with their rights to develop will be limited if the Clause passes. In the second case, as regards the others who have parted with their rights, on lease, they will still be the mineral owners, and the limitation passes on to the colliery companies. If that be so, then if our Clause is passed there will be a limitation of the right of development on the part of any new colliery undertaking. It is just such a limitation that the Government indicated they intended to carry through, and those powers are absolutely essential if we are going to direct the development of the coalfield. The Government are not allowed to mine coal or to exploit coal in any sense of the word. They have not the power of direct direction to the coal-owner but will only have powers governing the exploitation of the coal vested in them as owners of the mineral rights.

We are now told by the hon. Member that in his judgment the vast majority of the leases in this country already carry powers of development. Therefore, with respect to those the Commission will have no power of direction. The hon. Member went on to say that the Clause does not mean anything. We shall remember his speech, and I hope that it will be remembered in Leeds, because he has said in effect that so far as the unification of mining royalties is concerned, in the future as in the past, in regard to the sinking of collieries and the development of the coalfield, the coalowners will be able to do what they like. When we seek to give the Commission for 4½ years the powers which they ought to have, the hon. Member says that for those 4½ years we will have no interference with private economic adventures in the coalfield. If the Committee does not make provision such as we suggest in the Clause, they are largely wasting their time in regard to the Bill.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 122; Noes, 241.