HC Deb 10 February 1938 vol 331 cc1407-14

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Spens

I beg to move, in page 71, line 7, to leave out from "shall," to the end of line 11, and to insert: (a) prepare a draft of the proposed substituted lease, of the premises comprised in the subsisting lease the immediate reversion wherein is vested in the Commission (in this Schedule called 'the transferred premises'), and deliver a copy thereof, and a copy of any revision thereof, to each of the persons, other than the Commission, who are for the time being interested in the premises comprised in the subsisting lease whether as lessors or lessees or as consenting to the demise, and shall prove to the reasonable satisfaction of the person or persons for the time being occupying the position of lessor under the subsisting lease (in this Schedule called 'the existing lessor') that such proposed substituted lease contains all proper provisions for protecting the interests of the persons interested in the premises comprised in the subsisting lease the immediate reversion wherein is not vested in the Commission (in this Schedule called 'the remaining premises'), or in any other premises not being part of the transferred premises against anything which may be done or may happen in, or in connection with, the, transferred premises, or any operations therein or connected therewith during the term of the substituted lease of the transferred premises, such provisions being similar to and not less favourable to those persons than the provisions for similar purposes contained in the subsisting lease; and (b) give notice in writing to the existing lessor requiring the preparation by him of a draft of the proposed substituted lease of the remaining premises and serve a copy of such notice on the lessee under the subsisting lease. All our Amendments to the Fourth Schedule with the exception of that in page 71, line 36, to leave out "Board of Trade," and insert "President of the Law Society," which stands in the names of myself and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) comprise one group. Perhaps I may treat that as a separate point. The Fourth Schedule is the Schedule, under which separate leases have to be prepared where the existing lease contains coal hereditaments and other hereditaments which are not to pass to the Coal Commission. Two separate leases have to be prepared, one of the coal hereditaments, of which the Commission becomes the lessor, and the other of the hereditaments, of which the original lessor or his successors in title remain in reversion. The Schedule, as drafted, proposes that the leases in each case should be prepared by the Commission. Conveyancing practice has always been that the lessor prepares the draft of his own lease. There is no objection to the preparation by the solicitors for the Commission of the leases of the hereditaments which pass to the Commission, but the solicitors' profession strongly object to the suggestion that the leases of the hereditaments which are not going to pass to the Commission should be prepared by anyone except the solicitors for the lessors.

In practice it is obviously desirable that that should be so because a great number of existing leases are long-term leases and the title to the reversion of the other hereditaments may have changed very considerably, and no one will know who the proper lessees are except the solicitors of the original lessors. In addition, the proper description of the parcels that are going to be retained will be far better known in the first instance to the solicitors who have been and are acting for the lessors. There is no good reason why the ordinary conveyancing practice should be varied. All the Amendments after the first two are consequential and are a matter of machinery.

10.52 p.m.

The Attorney-General

I cannot help thinking that there may be considerations which my hon. and learned Friend has overlooked. The problem here is not quite the normal one of ordinary preparation of a lease. It is a case where a document which confers rights in respect to different premises has to be settled. I cannot but think that it is for the convenience of every one that the preliminary draft cutting the document in two should be prepared by one person, or by the legal advisers of one person. The object is that the two documents should ultimately contain all that is in the original document. If you have two people independently drawing up drafts, there is a possibility that there will be a gap between them and something will be left out, whereas if one person prepares the two original drafts one can be more certain that the two will contain everything that is in the document. The draft the preparation of which is to be done by the Commission is simply a preliminary draft. It has to be sent at once to the lessor. Objection can be taken to it, and I do not at present see anything in the Schedule inconsistent with the practice by which the final document to be approved, signed, sealed and delivered should be treated as approved and finally drafted by the solicitor to the lessor.

I cannot but think that it is for the convenience of everyone that the first document to be considered should be drawn up by one person. That is our present view. We have no desire to do anything except arrive at the result by the most convenient, proper and economic method, and as at present advised we think this procedure does no violence to the ancient traditions of the profession, and it really is a practical way of starting the solution of a problem which in some cases may introduce matters for discussion and in others may be quite an easy and simple problem to solve, namely, putting into two documents what was previously in one.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams

I speak with some diffidence on this subject, upon which the Committee has just been addressed by two very eminent legal gentlemen. But, as I understand it, here are a body of people who in the ordinary way do their job on behalf of their clients, and a new body, which as yet has no existence, is proposed to do the job, which strictly I do not think they ought to do. The Attorney-General says that, perhaps, on balance, it may be better that the Commission should do it. But if you are going to make a change and take away from a particular group of legal gentlemen the work they normally do, there is an obligation on those who propose the change to make a much stronger case than we have heard from the Attorney-General. As far as I can gather, after listening to the two hon. and learned Gentlemen, the one who proposes that the thing should be left alone has made a substantial case, and, against that, a stronger case has not been made by the Attorney-General; so it seems to me that the Attorney-General has lost.

10.57 p.m.

Major Milner

I entirely agree with what the hon. Member has just said, and, as a strong trade unionist, I object to this blackleg labour. I will address myself to a practical point. Has the hon. and learned Gentleman considered the case of a solicitor for a property owner who, for many years, has made himself acquainted with the facts, circumstances, boundaries, positions and rights of the property? He is surely better qualified to do what is necessary than the Commission or their legal advisers, who come freshly to the work. These are extremely complicated and difficult matters. I can speak with a clear conscience, because I do not happen to act for mineral owners, and never have done; and I submit that the well-established practice of the solicitor doing the work he has done for many years ought not to be changed for quite a new practice, under which new solicitors would do the work without the knowledge which probably the old solicitors have. I understand that the Law Society agree in principle with the Amendment, and I hope that the Government will do what the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) urged them to do, and retain the present practice.

10.59 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

I hope the Government will not do anything of the sort. We are all ready to assist trade unionists in every way we can, but this is a question of a sectional interest, as against a community, or national, interest. Surely the situation is that when the Commission are exercising the powers conferred on them by Section 10 of the Act, they will be acting in the position of landlords, and they will be settling the new lease as landlords. The learned Attorney-General says that it is better in the first instance to get the document initiated at one office, and that you are more likely to get an accurate register of two documents if they are settled side by side. In so far as the Commission is responsible, as it is under this, it will initiate the division, which seems to us to be the sensible and practical step to take. What ultimately happens between the lessor of the property that does not belong to the Commission and the lessee is entirely a matter between the lessor and the lessee. They can do what they like and arrange for anybody they like eventually to settle the lease between them.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Spens

Once the Commission has segregated the minerals which it is going to take over it deals with the lease. As regard the other rights, a great number of these cases are very old leases, and you may find in 1938 that you are dealing with a lease dated 1850. How in the world can the Commission's solicitors set to work to prepare a lease by the present person entitled to the other properties? He has got to send a blank document. He does not know the description of the parties, and the only people who do know it are the family solicitors. He will send a blank document probably completely in the wrong form, and then the family solicitors will take it and put it into shape. I suggest that it is far more sensible to stick to the ordinary practice and let the people who know, the people who have got the information, set to work to prepare the document in the first instance. I therefore ask the Government to reconsider this matter in the interests of everybody, including the Commissioners and their solicitors.

Mr. Assheton

This is clearly a very technical point, but one thing is certain and that is that there will be some nice pickings for the lawyers. I hope, however, that the learned Attorney-General will be warned by the fact that he has received such warm support in opposition to this Amendment from the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and that he will therefore be quite certain to look carefully into the matter before the Report stage.

11.4 p.m.

Sir Joseph Nall

The Mover of the Amendment pointed out that the Commission will not be able to fill in the documents for the residue of the property. The original lessors will have to fill in all the blanks, and, in fact, they will really have to draft the thing a second time. Who is going to pay the costs? Somebody is going to pay twice. The Government should think again before they mulct the original lessor in having to pay twice.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Spens

I beg to move, in page 71, line 36, to leave out "Board of Trade" and to insert "President of the Law Society."

This is the first of three Amendments. The object is to provide that the arbitrator should be chosen by the President of the Law Society rather than by the President of the Board of Trade. This deals with a very complicated conveyancing practice and, with all respect to the Board of Trade, I would suggest that in a matter of pure conveyancing the President of the Law Society would be more likely to be able to get a conveyancing counsel who would do the job satisfactorily than would the Board of Trade.

11.8 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

This is a very small point. If agreement cannot be reached reference has to be made to an arbitrator, to be agreed upon by the two parties. When the person to be appointed cannot be agreed upon by the parties, we propose that the selection of arbitrator should be made by the President of the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade is not an interested party and the President of the Board of Trade is perfectly capable of appointing an impartial arbitrator. If it is suggested that he is not capable, I must repudiate that at once. If for any reason there was any difficulty, no doubt the Board of Trade would constult whom it thought would be able to give reasonable advice. In this matter we think that the final decision ought to be left with the Ministry to choose the arbitrator.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

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

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Forward to