HC Deb 10 February 1938 vol 331 cc1324-53

Amendment made: In page 46, line 10, leave out "for value."—[Captain Crookshank.]

5.24 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

I beg to move, in page 46, line 33, to leave out sub-paragraph (3).

The Amendment is really moved largely for the purpose of obtaining information. The paragraph deals with the question of easements to which mines are subservient and with the question of whether these easements are to be extinguished or are to remain in existence. It is quite a common factor that there has been in the past a number of such easements which have not, in fact, been operative. They have been granted between the owners of a house and a mine perhaps more or less by way of nominal protection, and, as long as the ownership remains related between one and the other, they do not affect anybody, and nobody takes any serious notice of them. If the ownership becomes separate and the Commission come in and get the ownership of the mineral royalties, many of these might be very rigidly enforced as a method of trying to extract money or commodities of one kind or another out of the Commission. In other words, a change of circumstances brought about by putting the ownership of coal into the hands of the Commission may bring about a very different set of circumstances as regards the degree to which people insist upon this kind of rights. In these circumstances, there ought to be some provision by which some of these rights can be extinguished on payment or in other ways at the time when the Commission take over. We are afraid that if that is not done this is what will happen to the Commission. I will not use the word "blackmail," but extravagant demands will be made which really lack reality because they are not demands which will ever be made. Though technically and legally they are entitled to be made, they would only be made in the ordinary course of events if there were some connection between the owner of the one and the owner of the other.

It really comes to this, that people are always prepared to do down a Government Department or a big corporation, whereas, in the ordinary friendly intercourse of neighbours in the countryside they would not do this sort of thing. We are afraid that some of these rights will be utilised for that purpose, and that the Commission will become the fair game of anybody who has a right of this sort and wishes to use it to squeeze the Commission. It is a very difficult point which cannot really be dealt with by the omission of this paragraph. The Amendment is only put down in order to raise the point, but we want to know whether the point has been carefully considered and whether there is not some form of protection that might be introduced. Certain rights of this sort might be wiped out on payment of compensation or something of that kind, and if the matter has not been considered, we ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider it between now and the Report stage and to let us know the result of his consideration.

5.30 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell)

This paragraph is intended to deal with the case in which a person has an ownership or interest in coal and also owns other land which is enjoying some benefit under a covenant servitude adverse to the coal. Let me give an example of the sort of case I have in mind. Suppose an owner has leased his coal to a colliery company and has adjoining that coal clay or other minerals not covered by the coal-mining lease, which he is working himself or is having worked under a different lease. He may have under the coal-mining lease reserved a right of access to the clay through the coal mine. Any restrictive covenants of that kind are, of course, reflected in the royalties on which compensation will be paid, and there is no intention in a case of that kind of wiping out any such right. Those are the cases that we have in mind, which the Schedule is intended to cover. I have no information as to the likelihood of the sort of things which the hon. and learned Member suggests, but I am obliged to him, and I will certainly have inquiries made as to whether some further provision ought to be made. I should point out that if any of these rights under discussion should in the future unduly impede the working of coal now being worked, or which may be worked in the future, an application under the Mines (Working Facilities) Act would enable them to be overridden on such terms as the court might think fit. If they should become a real hindrance to the future working of coal, my view is that an application under the Mines (Working Facilities) Act would enable them to be overruled, but I will certainly consider what the hon. and learned Member has said.

Sir S. Cripps

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.33 p.m.

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, in page 46, line 42, at the end, to insert: (4) In a case in which any of the conveying parties might, after the conveyance, be subject to any personal liability in respect of a restrictive covenant that adversely affects the coal or mine, the conveyance shall be deemed to contain a covenant entered into by the Commission with that party with the object and intent of affording to him and his successors in title a full and sufficient indemnity, but not further or otherwise, that the Commission will at all times after the vesting date duly perform and observe that restrictive covenant in relation to the coal or mine and will at all times keep that party and his successors in title effectually indemnified against all actions, proceedings, costs, charges, claims, and demands whatsoever in respect of that restrictive covenant. This Amendment relates to a point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) on Clause 3. He put before us the case of a coalowner who, on the transfer of his coal to the Commission, might find himself later on possibly liable to an action under some covenant which he had entered into relating to the coal which he had parted with, and the hon. and learned Member suggested that he should have an indemnity. The Clause provides for an indemnity of a more restricted kind than asked for by the hon. and learned Member. It provides for an indemnity in the case of a restrictive covenant, which are the only covenants which normally run with the land and pass from person to person as the land passes. In our view this should be restricted, as if you extend it to personal obligations, it is rather difficult to say where you should stop, and we do not think it could be justified in principle.

Amendment agreed to.

5.34 p.m.

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank)

I beg to move, in page 47, line 3, after "request," to insert "or on giving some notice."

This is a drafting Amendment.

Sir S. Cripps

Is the hon. and gallant Member quite correct? As I read the Schedule a person having an interest vested in him without power to convey it, or having power to convey an interest with or on some consent, approval or request, shall be deemed … to have had that power or to have received that consent, approval or request. Now it is proposed to add the words "or on giving some notice." I do not quite understand the meaning of the words. He is to have "some consent, approval, or request"—I can understand that—but why as an alternative there is going to be "some notice," I do not understand. The receipt of some notice I can understand, but I do not know what it means by giving some notice. At the moment it is nonsense, but I may be completely mistaken.

5.35 p.m.

The Attorney-General

I will look at the point raised. The sort of case which the paragraph is intended to cover is the case of a person of unsound mind who cannot in law make a conveyance except with the sanction of the court or a charily which might have to obtain the sanction of the Charity Commissioners. These words are only to get the consent of the court which may be necessary to give notice. In some cases a corporation may have to give notice. I think it is in accordance with the general tenour of the Clause. It is to deal with cases where something has to be done by giving some notice before a conveyance takes place.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 47, line 5, after "request," insert "or to have given that notice."—[Captain Crookshank.]

The Temporary Chairman

I propose to call the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), in line 41, to leave out the words "to make good, or", and the hon. and learned Member's two further Amendments to the Schedule, so that the Committee can discuss them together.

5.39 p.m.

Mr. Spens

I beg to move, in page 47, line 41, to leave out "to make good, or".

This is the first of my Amendments dealing with the provisions for compensation for subsidence, a vitally important matter to everybody concerned. A provision has crept into modern mining leases giving an alternative to the person who causes the subsidence to making good the damage by paying monetary compensation. I want respectfully to suggest that any right on the part of the Commission to make good the damage except by a monetary compensation raises, as it always raises under these leases, one of the most contentious questions that anyone can come across. The right to make good except by money compensation means that a surveyor comes along and says that they have made good the subsidence. Of course, the occupier or owner, as far as my experience goes, always says that the so-called making good is only a makeshift operation and that it is utterly and entirely unsatisfactory. A wrangle begins at once between the owner or occupier of the house and the mine as regards this so-called substitute for a money payment. I suggest that when we are dealing with the Commission it is undesirable that there should be any alternative to the simple one of making a proper money compensation payment for damage caused by subsidence.

The provisions for the money compensation appear to me to be unduly complicated and difficult. In the first place they are divided into two in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), but later on in the Schedule you find a limitation even on the compensation given under these two subparagraphs. The effect is that when the Commission have determined to work coal, they can give public notice of their intention, and thereafter the person who suffers from subsidence will not get compensation unless in putting up his building he has used reasonable and proper precautions in making the design and in the construction of his building or works. What will be regarded as reasonable and proper precautions in the design and construction of a building? It is just throwing into the lap of the lawyers as good a bone of contention as could possibly have been devised. Whenever a subsidence occurs after such a public notice, the Commission will no doubt always claim that proper precautions in design and construction have not been taken, and the owner of the building will, of course, say that he took proper precautions, and you will have a wrangle, years after a building has been erected as to whether or not it was erected with reasonable and proper precautions in design and construction. Therefore, I deprecate the complication of these compensation provisions. In my second Amendment, I suggest that we should reduce the provision to the simple proposition of proper money compensation for subsidence, letting the ordinary course follow from that, so that a claim would be made and, if it was not agreed, the matter would go to the courts, which would deal with the case and fix the sum to be paid, and so the matter would be finished.

The third Amendment involves a substantial change in the law, and it is an Amendment which I put forward with considerable diffidence. I want the Committee seriously to consider whether the fact that the Commission will become the owner of all the coal in the country does not give us an opportunity to get over one of the practical difficulties in very many cases when a person has a claim for compensation for subsidence. My Amendment would not give any additional right to claim for subsidence, but would get over the practical difficulty which so often exists, particularly where there is very deep working, in cases where subsidence takes place and the owner of the building on the surface knows that some one is responsible for it, but has not the slightest idea which it may be of two or three, or possibly more, working companies.

In many cases in recent years an individual making a claim has had to start by joining as defendants two or three different mining companies, not knowing which was, in fact, responsible, and it has only been at a later stage in the action, after discovery, when the plans and so forth have been disclosed, that he has known which was the company responsible for the subsidence and has continued the action against that one alone, in the meantime having been involved in very substantial costs before having got to that stage. The Amendment would bring about a very substantial change in the law, so that any person having a claim for compensation for subsidence would hereafter be allowed, in the first instance, to make the Commission the defendant to his action and to bring the claim against the Commission.

The Commission will be the one body in the country which will have the information at its disposal and will be able to know who is the responsible person. It will be able to bring that body in under the ordinary procedure as a third party, and in its turn will be able to recover from the person responsible. That is the idea behind the third Amendment. I take no pride in its drafting, but I hope the Committee will consider it seriously, because I believe it would bring about a most beneficial change in our procedure. To sum up, the Amendments raise three points: First, whether it is wise to allow the Commission to have the right to make good the damage; secondly, whether we ought not to have, in preference to the somewhat complicated provisions in the Schedule, a simple provision for money compensation; and, thirdly, whether it would not be desirable to make a change in our law which would allow the right of action in the first instance to be against the Commission, the Commission to bring into the proceedings the parties who are in fact responsible for the subsidence.

5.50 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood

It is delightful to find the hon. and learned Member for Ash-ford (Mr. Spens) for once on the side of the Labour party. He has advocated admirably what we have been advocating in vain for so long, namely, that there should be a certain element of justice in this Bill for the people who suffer from mining subsidence. On the first two Amendments we entirely support the hon. and learned Member. As to the third Amendment, we should be more inclined to support it if the hon. and learned Member had indicated in the Amendment or in his speech any method whereby the Commission could recover from the people against whom the claim is at present made.

Mr. Spens

Although it is not in the Amendment, I think I said that under the ordinary procedure the action would be started against the Commission, and the Commission would be able to bring in as a third party, and so recover from it, the mining company responsible. That is rather a technical question of procedure. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) may not agree with me, and may feel that some words ought to be added in order to make that clear.

Colonel Wedgwood

Not being a lawyer, it is difficult for me to follow the method, but it is obvious that the Commission ought not to be in a worse position than it otherwise would be owing to the faults of a third party. I am very anxious that the Government should make some sort of concession on the first two Amendments. The first Amendment is to stop people who are liable from patching up houses and churches and then thinking that they have done their duty. Patching up is all very well, but what does it amount to? It means that the cracks are cemented up and that on the front and sides of the house gigantic scars are left. The very fact that there is a scar on a building detracts from the value of the property for all time. The patching up may be successful for the time being, but it is a warning that further patching up and litigation may be necessary later on, and anybody wanting to buy the property will naturally offer a much lower price for it. The value of the property is destroyed, although it may have been made good according to the standards of the colliery company at the time.

There is a special example of this in Stoke-on-Trent. It so happens that there is a certain part of Burslem which is freehold property. The church and a considerable area—I would not like to say how many hundreds of acres—are all small freeholds, owned by the owners of the surface, and those places, in spite of the fact that the people own the minerals immediately below them, are continually being let down and injured. Up to now, there has not been compensation, but the damage has been made good. In the churchyard, all the tombs of my ancestors would have vanished underground long ago if the family had not made them good. As far as the Church fabric is concerned, the colliery company has helped. In the case of the houses of these freeholders, sitting on their own minerals, there has been help from the company to make them good; but that has not in the least prevented the value of the property from being utterly ruined by the working of a neighbouring colliery, owing to the spread in the depression, when these very deep areas are mined, affecting all these properties.

These people have a claim. Is the extent of their compensation to be cement pumped into the walls or a new patch put on, or are they to get real compensation for the loss they have suffered owing not only to circumstances beyond their control, but to the working of somebody else's pit on somebody else's land? I have an Amendment on the Paper later on which seeks to insert the word "loss" instead of having only the word "damages." On the main principle however, that we should no longer have property made good, but should have real damages representing the loss on the property, we entirely agree. The same principle, of course, would apply to local authorities, and they would be able to get damages, instead of merely getting a mended sewer or a supported school. I am not certain that all the loss would be included in the words: proper compensation for damage due to the letting down of the surface of that land and buildings, works, drains, pipes, ditches, fences, trees, crops, cattle, or other things for the time being thereon or thereunder. In the case of a factory, there may be losses and damages which go beyond those specified in the Amendment, and there is always the danger that if one specifies the particulars of any damage, one thereby rules out everything not mentioned in those particulars. We ought to make quite certain that where heavy machinery is thrown out of operation, where factories are damaged or departments have to be closed down, there should be compensation, not merely for making good what has happened, but for loss of time and for the possibility in future of not being able to have the foundations for heavy machinery.

However, these Amendments are a step in the right direction. I hope we may have the further support of the hon. and learned Gentleman for Ashford when we demand plans of underground workings for the people who suffer damage. The hon. and learned Member did not support us on Tuesday last when we asked that local authorities should be able to see plans so that they might know against whom they should proceed. When it comes to the small owner, it is infinitely more urgent that he should have the plans, because the small property owner is more likely to suffer from mining in the neighbourhood, and he would be in a much better position in regard to getting compensation if he knew against whom he should bring an action. No doubt that matter will be raised on a later Amendment, and I hope all those hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite who, in the interests of honest British property, are standing up for the rights of honest British property owners, will give their support for the small man exactly on the same lines as we are now helping them to get what we consider to De just compensation for all.

6.0 p.m.

The Attorney-General

The Amendments, as my hon. and learned Friend said, raise three points, although the third one falls under a rather different category from the other two. When we are dealing with paragraph 6 of Part II of the Second Schedule, with which these Amendments deal, it is right that we should remind ourselves of the background of this paragraph. Paragraph 5 deals with all cases in which there at present exists some definite terms with regard to the right to withdraw support. There then arises the problem as to what rights to withdraw support should pass to the Commission in respect of coal which at present is being worked by a freeholder who is owner of both coal and surface and also in respect of future coal at present not worked. Obviously, if the Commission got no right to withdraw support they would be getting something worth very much less than if they got coal with the normal right to withdraw support subject to the ordinary conditions.

Therefore, this problem had to be considered in the valuation of the global sum which was ascertained by the tribunal. The principle adopted was the natural and obvious one that in so far as future coal is concerned or coal in respect of, which, though being worked, there is no' right to withdraw support, it should be specified that coal should pass to the Commission with the normal ordinary right to withdraw support. That was the basis of the valuation, and the compensation which the Commission will be paying will be based on the fact that in respect of that coal they will get the ordinary right to withdraw support, subject to ordinary and normal conditions. If they are given more than that they will be given something which they have not paid for. If they are given less and if this paragraph is amended so as to give them less than the ordinary normal rights to withdraw support, they will be paying for something and not getting it, because the money which is to go to the present coalowners is based on the assumption that when they transfer their coal to the Commission they will transfer the normal rights to withdraw support which they would be expected to give assuming they started working their coal.

Colonel Wedgwood

I must have this quite clear. At present they have, I suppose, the right to withdraw support from minerals which they have bought on those principles, but when you have neighbouring land being compensated by these companies, are not the Government going to apply the liability to support to people on neighbouring land? It is a principle which has been recognised, in fact if not in law, by the colliery companies whose properties they are taking over.

The Attorney-General

Paragraph 5 deals with all cases in which the owner of the surface and the person working the coal are different, and in that case the right to withdraw support is already provided for in the lease. Nobody asks to be allowed to work coal under a lease unless he has a right to withdraw support under conditions. All the cases in which there is a difference between the owner of the surface and the worker of the coal have been dealt with in paragraph 5 and do not arise in this discussion. Paragraph 6 deals with cases in which the fee simple, the ownership in the coal or mine, is in the same person as that of the surface and there is no mining lease existing. That is to say, it deals with two cases. It deals with the case in which a freeholder is at present working his own mine; and with the case of coal which has so far not been worked, the coal and surface being in the same ownership.

The problem was on what terms were we to pay compensation in respect of the coal in those two categories passing to the Commission. If you assume that the Commission got no right to withdraw support at all, the sum of course would not be a large one. If, on the other hand, you assume that they could withdraw support and not pay for any damage, then they would be getting something much more valuable than is normally transferred. The problem which had to be settled was as to what right to withdraw support was to be deemed to pass to the Commission in cases where there was no existing provision in lease or deed providing for it. The principle adopted, which the Committee will realise was the only principle which could be adopted in fairness, was to assume that the Commission would get the ordinary and usual rights to withdraw support on the ordinary conditions. There are a great variety of conditions made in different leases and different deeds.

We came to the conclusion that the words in the Schedule set out, as near as we could get them, the usual terms on which the right to work coal is given. My hon. and learned Friend and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite raised the point about "making good." They want to lay it down that the person owning the property should claim damages in money if he liked, and that the making good should only be at the request of the person whose property was injured. My information is that this right to make good is a usual incident in bargains of this kind. There are no doubt many occasions when it cannot be done. There are special works where obviously you have to go to an outside person and the mineral worker is unable to do it himself. According to my information the mineral workers in most cases stipulate for this right; it is not a new thing. One can see that in many cases it is reasonable and fair. There must be many jobs which the mineral workers can do themselves and do just as well, as far as the damage is concerned, as anybody else. It is not, therefore, an unfair stipulation. My hon. and learned Friend says there has been great trouble about it in the past. There may be less trouble in future for the very reason that this will be a right vested in the Commission, who will, no doubt, be criticised and expostulated with if their lessees abuse a right, which the Commission will no doubt confer on them, of making good the damage instead of paying compensation. I suggest that if I am right in saying that this is a usual provision and in suggesting that the very existence of the Commission may make it less liable to abuse in future than it has been in the past—if it has been abused—then the Committee may think that it is a perfectly reasonable provision.

Coming to the second part of the question, my hon. and learned Friend objects to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Clause 6, namely, that the obligation to make good or to pay in the case of houses or buildings set up after notice that the coal is to be worked, shall be limited to cases in which proper precautions in design and construction have been taken. My hon. and learned Friend took a very low view of human nature and of the Commission when he assumed that the Commission would always say, "You did not take proper precautions," and the man would always reply that he did. I do not take the gloomy view of the reasonableness of the Commission and the general intelligence of the people who set up buildings after notice. This refers to proper precautions as to design and construction.

Colonel Wedgwood

Does it mean there must be a cement float to every house?

The Attorney-General

I cannot state the technical processes which would fall under these words, but the best the Bill can do is to choose appropriate words to express its intention, leaving particular cases necessarily to be settled afterwards. The words are: Reasonable and proper precautions taken in the design and construction of the buildings. It may well be that if you are setting up a building to cost £1,000,000, precautions would be reasonable which would be wholly unreasonable in the case of a small building.

Colonel Wedgwood

These are cases in which men own the surface. You are taking their minerals away from them. You are paying them £70 an acre for minerals, but if they use that land for building purposes you are putting upon them the obligation to put cement floats under each house, running them into an expenditure of, perhaps, £200 or £300 an acre. Surely there must come a point when it is not worth while for the State to buy the minerals. If the minerals are only worth £70 an acre and for building purposes the land is worth £700 an acre, surely you do not propose to force the owner of the land to lose all the value in his property.

The Temporary Chairman

That point comes under the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman—in page 48, line 8, after the second "to," to insert "loss or."

The Attorney-General

The answer to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's question is to be found in sub-paragraph (3) in page 48 of the Bill. He was dealing with a case where there are existing buildings on the land of such a value as it would be unreasonable to damage, and there is an express provision in sub-paragraph (3) dealing with that point. I thought we were discussing an objection to the provisions by which, after notice was given, damage was not paid for unless proper precautions were taken, because that was discussed as the second point.

The Temporary Chairman

The Amendment dealing with that is the Amendment to which I have referred—in page 48, line 8, after the second "to," insert "loss or."

Mr. Spens

My second Amendment moves out the words from "pay," to the end of sub-paragraph (2), and I was justifying the omission of sub-paragraph (2).

The Temporary Chairman

I beg your pardon.

The Attorney-General

I had just pointed out that there is a power in the owner of the surface to go to the Railway and Canal Commission and say, in effect, "The value of the existing building is far greater than the value of the coal, and the buildings should therefore be protected." One would assume also that the Commission themselves would exercise ordinary common sense in such a case. Coming back to the subject of the Amendment, the owner of the surface will get the value of his coal.

Colonel Wedgwood

He does not want it.

The Attorney-General

That is not the point which I am making. He is getting the value of the coal, and you cannot determine the value of unworked coal without coming to some decision as to what rights to withdraw support shall be taken with it. The point which arises under the second Amendment will surely be dealt with in this way: Notice is given that there are going to be workings. The surface owner, in spite of that, decides to build. There are reasonable and proper precautions which can be taken in the design and construction of what is going to be put up. It is perfectly easy for that matter to be dealt with at the time between the Commission and the colliery owner and the surface owner. The proper precautions could be agreed upon and there could be no question of an unseemly and profitless dispute arising in all cases at a later stage when damage occurs. On the general principle it seems to me right that those who put up buildings after notice that there are going to be workings should take reasonable and proper precautions in the design and construction of the buildings.

With regard to the third point, which is that if a surface owner believes he has a right of action and is not certain against whom that right of action lies, he should be able to proceed against the Commission and leave them to do what it has been suggested would be an almost impossible task, I cannot think that that course would be fair to the Commission. There might be a case in which it would be impossible to prove where the ultimate liability lay, and the Commission would be left with the liability and with no chance of recovering from anybody else. I can see the force of the suggestion that the Commission may have information which is valuable to someone who has a claim of this kind, and I am prepared to consider it from that point of view, and I think a later Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend is more directly concerned with that point. If it is not covered by what is done later, I shall be prepared to consider in relation to this problem the giving of some rights of claim to obtain information which may be in the possession of the Commission which would be material to deciding who has done the damage.

6.24 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

I do not know whether the Attorney-General appreciates that in his last sentence he has entered upon dangerous ground. We had a long Debate the other day on the question of disclosing to other people plans which were in the possession of the Commission and access to such plans was refused. It must be obvious to anyone reading this Schedule that someone has to have access to the plans. How can a person carry out reasonable precautions if he does not know what is going to be done underneath the surface? I should like to warn hon. Members on this side of the House and in other parts of the House against the apparent plausibility of these Amendments. This is another ramp by the royalty owners, and nothing less. They do not touch any coal which is at present in lease. They concern only the case where the surface and the coal is at present in the possession of a royalty owner, who will have to sell the coal to the Commission. The coal will be bought on a certain basis, and now it is suggested that the basis will be altered so that the surface land may be much more valuable than it otherwise would be. The hon. and learned Member shakes his head, but does he suggest that the alteration is not going to make the land more valuable?

Mr. Spens

I agree that it will make the procedure simpler, but that it will make the land more valuable I do not agree.

Sir S. Cripps

The fact that it does simplify the procedure means that it will make the land more valuable. If a man has a piece of land and the possibility of getting compensation for subsidence is likely to cost a lot of money, and take a lot of time, it will increase the value of the land to simplify that procedure. That is common sense. The whole object of this device is to increase the value of the land which is left in the hands of the royalty owners after they have sold their coal. If this proposal affected all people who have land over mines, as it does not, there might be a great deal to be said, even though the Commission have paid for the coal on a certain basis, for putting the extra expenditure upon the Commission, although the extra expense ought to be borne by the royalty owners and taken off the sum of £66,000,000 which they are getting; but for the sake of simplifying the procedure it might be well to risk the Commission having to spend more money.

If this proposal were to cover the cases we have in mind in which buildings are now erected over mines, we should be very glad to support it, even though it put an extra burden on the Commission, but what it is going to do is merely to give the royalty owners a better price for their land. Having sold their coal they are to have the opportunity of selling off building sites over the coal at a better price because they are better protected. Therefore, I do not think we ought to support these Amendments, because they do not achieve the substantial thing we should be glad to see, and that is protection given to the small man where buildings exist above mines at present. As regards the omission of sub-paragraph (2), that seems to be reasonable to a limited extent.

There is a great deal in what the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment said about the illimitable discussion that may be raised in regard to reasonable and proper precautions. The Attorney-General said that this is a reasonable condition and that these reasonable people would be able to agree by correspondence beforehand as to what were proper precautions. Let me ask him a simple question. Suppose the Commission came to him, as a lawyer, and said: "Do you advise us to agree beforehand what are reasonable and proper precautions?" He would say: "That would be very unwise of you. You would be binding yourselves to all sorts of things. You do not know what may happen and you might let yourselves in for an enormous sum. You had better wait and see whether anything happens. If it does, then you have all sorts of defences that this was not proper, and the other was not proper, and this was not reasonable and the other was not reasonable." In those circumstances no one could possibly advise the Commission to commit itself in advance and to deprive itself of this protection.

On the other hand, I agree that it is very desirable that something of that sort should be done, and there should be some means. These plans all have to be submitted to a local authority, and local authorities in such areas are perfectly conversant with the difficulties. Why should not a local authority be able to give a certificate that the plans incorporate reasonable and proper precautions? With that certificate the matter is decided. If you liked you could have a hearing before the local authority between the Commission and the building owner, if you thought it necessary or desirable, and if not, leave it to the local authority when it passes the plans to say: "In our opinion, knowing the circumstances of the district, we say that these plans incorporate reasonable and proper precautions." That is the only way of getting out of the difficulty.

It is reasonable to say that a person who has the notice should take reasonable and proper precautions, but I do not think it is right that the matter should be left without finality until years after the buildings were put up and when it is difficult to prove how the foundations were put in. You cannot prove it by the plan; you have to prove it by referring to the men who did the work. You have also to prove it by your concrete mixture, whether it was three and one or two and one, and whether it was reinforced and what the type of reinforcement was, and all sorts of things. You have to prove the facts perhaps 15 years after, when everyone who worked on the place is dead and gone. Why should the matter not be put into the hands of the local authority as one that had to be dealt with in mining districts when plans were submitted, and where notice had been given to the Commission by a building owner? It would get over the difficulty.

I must say that the third point, arising on the third Amendment, is a most amazing proposition. It will not relate merely to this class of land with which we have been dealing but to every mine in the country. It will be an insurance against those who unfortunately happen to be dealing with land which is underlaid by mines in the hands of bankrupt owners. It is all very well for the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that there is third-party procedure by which you can bring the owner in, but you do not get anything out of it. You pay first and then you get what you can. It is an impossible proposition. I agree that it would be a great convenience if everybody who had a claim for subsidence could go against the royalty owner, but the hon. and learned Gentleman will see where that leads us. The only solution is to make the nation the coalowner as well as the royalty owner; then you would have your single owner. As one goes through this Bill, one sees clearly that a half measure of nationalisation is worse than a full measure, and perhaps worse than no measure at all.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Denman

Let me try to bring the Committee to a point upon which we can all agree instead of one which divides us so acutely. I think we all agree that the Commission deserves to have the rights for which it has paid. The point of the second Amendment is that we restore the essence of the original bargain. The Bill goes beyond the original bargain made with the Commission. Perhaps I might be allowed to quote one or two sentences from a letter that was put before the tribunal in which both parties agreed on certain points. It was stated clearly, on this matter of subsidence, that the global figure to be arrived at as a result of the determination of the tribunal was to be accepted by the Committee as covering, in addition to the fee simple of coal, the following rights, that is to say: Such underground rights as are necessary for effectively getting coal, including the right to let down the surface, upon the following basis: No. 1 is irrelevant and No. 2 is this: In the case of mines of coal severed from the surface, on the basis of payment of reasonable compensation for damage due to letting down the surface and buildings and works thereon. That is to say, the Commission bought its coal more cheaply by reason of the fact that it had laid upon it the obligation of compensation for damage through letting down the surface and buildings and works thereon.

When we come to the Bill, we are told that, after notice has been given, the surface owner must take reasonable and proper precautions, but those precautions may be exceedingly costly, so that the surface owner has not only a less amount for his coal because the liability for subsidence was left with the owners, but he has subsequently inflicted upon him this added charge for taking precautions, by way of cement floats and so on, against subsidence. This is a departure from the original terms of the bargain to the disadvantage of the surface owner and I suggest that in common fairness the Government ought to take that point back and look at it before the Report stage.

Mr. Bevan

How can the hon. Gentleman contend that the surface owner is in a worse position? He is in precisely the same position. If he parted with his rights to the mineowner to work the coal under his land and to let down the surface, he could not proceed against the mineowner then, any more than he can proceed against the Commission now. He is not in any worse position that he was before.

Mr. Denman

The Commission pays him only the amount of money that was due to their retaining the liability for any costs due to subsidence and letting down the surface. Therefore, the surface owner has a less amount than he would have got if the liability had been left with him.

6.40 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

Surely the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The obligation to make good and pay proper compensation is still here, and that is what we are talking about. What the royalty owner is presumed to have parted with is not compensation; he will get compensation on exactly the same basis as that on which he would have got it had he leased his coal by ordinary mining lease. Therefore this is taking the normal average circumstances under which a mineral owner would have leased his coal and saying: "We will incorporate these provisions." The surface owner will not get any more in future in the way of compensation from the Commission than before, but the hon. Gentleman wants him to get more.

Mr. Denman

This might have been the terms on which the valuation was made, but in fact the liability to make payment of reasonable compensation for damage, due to letting down the surface and buildings and works thereon, was left to the Commission.

Mr. Bevan

Surely the main obligation of the Commission to the mineral owner would be determined by the conditions of the lease under which the mineowner would work. He has had compensation for whatever rights he has parted with, but the hon. Gentleman wishes to give to the landowner a double compensation. Not only will the landlord have received his compensation from the Commission but the hon. Gentleman wishes to impose upon the Commission an obligation which was not imposed upon it by the owner under the terms of the lease that the Commission bought.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Spens

May I explain what the real difference is? The royalty owners were paid a sum of money on the basis that ordinary reasonable compensation for letting down the surface was to be paid. It is for the Government to determine what reasonable and ordinary compensation should be paid, so they take a Clause out of one of the leases drafted in one of the most favourable ways for working leases for compensation, in order to work in the most favourable way in getting coal and to pay the smallest amount of compensation. We say that is incorporating a basis on which compensation was to be paid favourably to the Commission and unfairly to the surface owner. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) replies that my Amendments might go too far the other way and are unduly favourable to the surface owner. I venture to differ from him. I maintain that the provisions of the Schedule are not only complicated but are not a fair interpretation of the terms of the arbitration on which the global figure is based.

Sir S. Cripps

If the hon. and learned Gentleman is asking me to arbitrate between the rapacity of the owners and the honesty of the Government, I find it difficult.

6.44 p.m.

The Attorney-General

I do not want to repeat what I have said, but I think my hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) is wrong in thinking that there is any inconsistency between the words which he read out and the provisions of the Schedule. I said earlier that there are many varieties of existing contract. For some pits there are leases, for instance, under which the surface owner has undertaken not to put up any future buildings; after compensation for existing buildings no more buildings are to be put up. The question is whether that is a reasonable provision. I agree as to the desirability, if possible, of getting some sort of settlement of this matter when the expense is incurred and a house put up. There are, of course difficulties of proof, and so on. I cannot give a definite undertaking, but I will certainly consider whether it can be done through the local authority or in any other way. I appreciate the force of the point, and will do my best to find a way of meeting it.

6.46 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood

I think that a flagrant piece of injustice is going to be perpetrated in this regard. I do not usually appear at this Box or anywhere else in support of landlords, but here, I think, there are some landlords who have a really good case. If this Amendment were carried, it is perfectly clear that the value of that part of his land which remains in the private owner's possession would be higher than it will be if the Bill is passed in its present form, but it would not be higher than it would have been before the Bill was introduced. This Amendment deals solely with those cases where the owner of the surface and the owner of the minerals at present are one. The owner of the surface has hitherto refused to lease his minerals underground, because, if those minerals were worked, his property on top would lose more in value than he would gain from the royalties on the coal which he sold. Directly you get, on the surface, buildings of a greater value than the value of the coal below, it does not pay the owner to allow that coal to be mined and let his buildings drop. Under this Bill you are taking away from that man his prop, and are paying him for the prop the value of the coal, which, it is already agreed, is less than the value of his property on top. He does not want to part with the coal, but you are taking it in the public interest, so as to work these coal seams economically. Surely, in these circumstances, the man has a right to compensation, not merely for the value of the prop, but for the destruction of his property above.

The passing of this Amendment would restore the value of the surface to its pre-Bill figure. Obviously, it would also decrease the amount that should be paid to the owner of the minerals for the minerals. It would reduce the amount of money to be paid by the Government to certain mineral owners, because they would not merely be buying the coal and the right to get it, but they would be buying it subject to a liability to pay heavy compensation if the property on top were destroyed. Therefore, the owner of the minerals would get less; the value of the coal would fall to exactly the same extent as the value of the surface would rise if this Amendment were carried. But, unfortunately, the Government have gone to the country with a grand gesture and said, "We are going to pay £66,000,000." If this Amendment is carried, the Government will still be paying £66,000,000, and getting something with a heavy liability on it; but the owner of the minerals, if the Amendment were carried, would get less for his coal, which he does not want to sell, and would get more for his surface. It is perfectly clear that the man who has built on his property and does not want his property let down, but prefers to keep his property, is going to suffer. But, say the Government, he can always go to the Railway and Canal Commissioners and prove his case that it is undesirable economically that that coal should be worked. Is that so?

The Attorney-General

Yes.

Colonel Wedgwood

Then at any rate some landlords can save their property. But how about the small man? Has the right hon. Gentleman had experience of taking a case before the Railway and Canal Commission? It would be necessary to employ the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite to state the case, and the people who plead before the Railway and Canal Commissioners make the best incomes in this country. The Parliamentary Bar is a most prosperous concern, and those who appear before the Railway and Canal Commissioners also do well. The people I am thinking of are the small people in Burslem and elsewhere who own their houses underneath which there is coal. This coal, at the highest figure, cannot be worth more than £70, and the house may be worth £700. Such a man is to have his property destroyed, and be told that he can go to the Railway and Canal Commissioners and fight the case. They will not do it; they cannot afford it. There are countless people in that district who are suffering now and cannot afford to bring a case, although they have a very probable chance of winning, in that instance against the colliery company. These people, I say, are being robbed by this Bill, and certainly the feeling in North Staffordshire against the Bill will be strongly accentuated if this injustice is perpetrated this afternoon.

Let me turn to the far more serious case dealt with in sub-paragraph (2)— the case in which a man owns the surface and the minerals, and the surface is not built on. It may be valuable building land, or it may be land on which no building is contemplated, or it may be land which a factory owner, driven from the town by subsidence letting him down, has bought in order to put his factory there. The coal underneath is probably of a very low value, being coal which has not been leased already, and perhaps being very deep. The coal vests in the Government. Then some colliery owner comes along and says he would like to lease this coal, that it is true it is very deep and very poor coal, and he will only pay a very small royalty for it, but he thinks he could work it economically in conjunction with another piece of land adjoining. Then the Coal Commission put a notice in the paper saying they are going to lease the coal under such-and-such an estate, and giving notice that henceforth anyone who puts up anything on that plot of land will have to take the necessary precautions, without specifying in the least what the necessary precautions are. I must say I think it might at any rate be provided that plans passed by a local authority should be regarded as plans which took the necessary precautions. The minerals are taken away for practically nothing; they are worked; and suddenly the owner finds that his estate is valueless either for houses or for the building of a factory.

Take our own case of the Wedgwood factory. We have been driven out of Stoke-on-Trent because they were looking out for coal underneath, and we had very expensive tunnel ovens and machinery which must not be shifted; it must be safe. Consequently, we have had to buy an estate just bordering on Stoke-on-Trent, and we determined to secure the minerals underneath, so that we should not have the whole of our capital destroyed by the ripping out of the minerals underneath. Now that we have bought it, we discover that it is no more secure than any other factory in Stoke-on-Trent. The Government will come along and say, "When you put up your factory there, you must take reasonable precautions against that factory being damaged." How is that to be done? Tunnel ovens are 200 feet long; the factory itself will cover five acres; how are we to take precautions against that? Any upset of the level whatever would ruin the whole concern. What is to prevent the same history happening again? The factory built between a hundred and two hundred years ago has been ruined, and the next one may be ruined in exactly the same way. We cannot go to the Railway and Canal Commissioners, because it is not built yet.

What can we expect from the Government? We are to a certain extent helping British interests; we employ 1,200 people. There must be countless other people who for business reasons require an absolutely stable base. I see no means whatever whereby these people can avoid being ruined without being paid compensation. I do not expect in this Bill to get much justice, despite the Railway and Canal Commission. I do not expect to get much justice for anyone who has to face up to the coal interests of this country. But I do think that here you have a case where anybody who is swayed by abstract justice will say that this Amendment and the further Amendment which we have on the Paper are right, and that the Government are wrong in treating people in this way.

Amendment negatived.

6.59 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood

I beg to move, in page 47, line 42, at the beginning, to insert "loss or."

This Amendment is at the beginning of sub-paragraph (1, a) of paragraph 6. Sub-paragraph (1) as it stands gives compensation for: (a) damage arising from such working to that land, exclusive of buildings or works thereon; and (b) subject as hereinafter provided, damage arising from such working to buildings or works thereon. I am asking that the words "loss or" should precede "damage," so that the compensation payable should not merely be compensation for the damage done but for the loss caused by the subsidence. Take the case of an ordinary householder whose house is damaged and who claims compensation under the existing law. At present, as a compromise, in order to avoid going to law, he gets the damage made good, but he does not get any compensation for loss to the value of the property due to the liability to damage and to disfigurement. He does not get compensation for the time the house is out of use and cannot be let. The object of the Amendment is to see that in future the liability of the Government, or of the person to whom the Commissioners lease the minerals, for damage includes not merely damage to the property but all losses caused by the damage. I think that is perfectly fair. It is one of the points raised by the Royal Commission which recommended in its favour in the case of small properties.

7.2 p.m.

The Attorney-General

I am afraid my answer must be the same as on the last Amendment, that the liability falling on the Commission, or the lessee under the Commission, for subsidy should be the ordinary normal liability, so far as we can ascertain it, for which leaseholders have been content to allow their coal to be worked in the past. If you say you are going to put a liability greater than is normally put on those who work coal, and greater than was in the mind of the parties when the bargain was made, you are doing something unfair to the Commission.

Colonel Wedgwood

They pay less for the coal.

The Attorney-General

The sum to be paid for the coal has been fixed.

Colonel Wedgwood

Only the global sum.

The Attorney-General

It is determined by the global sum. I am afraid we cannot contemplate altering the basis in any material particular. Everyone appreciates very much the case that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has in mind. There are cases where the buildings on top are very much more valuable than any coal that you could get below. I do not know how far he will be prepared to go with me in assuming that the Commission will act like normal people in their senses, but assuming he will go some way with me in that direction, it would, of course, be intensely stupid to work coal worth £70 which might easily land them in a damage claim for £100. That is a real protection in some cases. There is the further protection of the Railway and Canal Commission. Where you have a number of houses I find it difficult to believe that the Commission would be so exacting as to insist on the working being continued except in cases where the national interest clearly required the coal to be worked at the expense of the surface owner.

Mr. Dunn

Disregarding the quality of the buildings on the surface or price, or anything else, looking at it from the underground point of view, where it is absolutely necessary in the interest of the safety of the mine itself to take out the coal—perhaps in consequence of geological difficulties or of the nature of the seam, it is impossible to leave the coal in—what is the answer to that?

The Attorney-General

That is a different matter entirely. We cannot accept the liability to conseqential loss. It would be imposing on the Commission obligations greater than have been contemplated. I think the right hon. Gentleman said the Royal Commission on subsidence recommended compensation for consequential damage, but he is wrong about that.

7.11 p.m.

Sir H. Seely

I think it is not quite as easy as the Attorney-General has made out. I can give a case in which we were working coal which had full liability on it for any damage or loss, and not only for structural damage. The actual damage to property on the surface would not have been great, but the company that owned the building might not have been able to fulfil contracts and we should have been liable for heavy damages. The thing was argued for some time and in the end the company bought the coal from us, and therefore it was not worked. Now under the Bill there is the risk of it being worked by the Commission and the company's position will be worsened.

The Attorney-General

In that case when the company bought the coal from the hon. Gentleman he was willing to sell it more cheaply than he otherwise would have done, because of this exceptional liability for damage. When they come to get their compensation it will be based not on the exceptional liability on anyone who works it to pay consequential damage, but on the normal liability for damage and, other things being equal, they get more when they sell it to the Commission than they gave for it.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 48, line 4, after "advertisement," insert "in the London Gazette and."—[Captain Crook-shank.]

7.16 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood

I beg to move, in page 48, line II, at the end, to insert: and the Commission shall also include in such notice an intimation that the underground colliery plans arising from the beneficial exercise or grant of any right as aforesaid shall, subject to such safeguards as they may think fit, be available at any time to—

  1. (a) prospective builders;
  2. (b) local authorities in connection with town planning and housing schemes;
  3. (c) owners of property desiring to prefer claims for compensation believed to be due to subsidence occasioned by mineral workings."
This Amendment deals with the right of the colliery owner to secure plans of underground workings. If the Government decide to work minerals in a particular locality they put a notice in the London Gazette and local papers, and, after that, no compensation will be paid for damage to buildings caused through minerals being worked on that land, unless reasonable and proper precautions have been taken in the design and construction of the buildings or works to minimise the damage in the event of subsidence. That is to say in these new leases, any damage to buildings through the minerals being got out underneath will be paid for provided that certain precautions have been taken. The Committee has decided that these precautions have to be taken, although it seems to me rather hard on the property owner to be told that, after the passage of this Bill he is to put cement floats under any houses he builds, or to put foundations going down to the centre of the earth for his machines, if he wishes to get any compensation for damage done to them as a result of the Government's digging coal out underneath. I shall certainly vote against that on Third Reading, but the Government have done their best to destroy the value of property in this way, and have enforced precautions of property owners which will be far more onerous than the building of the houses. These people might, at least, be allowed to see the plans of the underground workings, so that they can see what precautions to take. I have not the slightest expectation that the Minister of Mines will allow this, because I understand that the secrecy of colliery plans is a cardinal tenet; but, so far as the justice of this is concerned, it seems to be obvious. Otherwise, how can people take reasonable precautions? If, however, the Committee feel that this is really one of the things that will not hurt anybody, and that might assist in avoiding that subsidence for which the Commission has to pay in any case if it happens, we might pass this Amendment, and enable people to carry on developments in the neighbourhood of collieries with a little more confidence.

7.22 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

I do not think we need have a very long debate on this point. We discussed the subject the other day and my right hon. Friend said that an assurance was obtained from the colliery owners ten years ago that they would give information, when reasonable requirements were put before them, and he also informed the Committee that they had within recent weeks repeated the assurance. He pointed out that the undertaking went further than the proposal in the Amendment, as the owners were prepared to give notice of their intentions, and he said that, in our view, that was more valuable than any words which could have been put in the Bill. This Amendment has a much more restricted sphere. On the last occasion the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Gripps) threw out the suggestion that something might be considered with a view to the prescribing of precautions by local authorities. Of course, this raises rather a wide question. The matter is now put in a slightly different light, and I see some force in the contention the right hon. Gentleman has made. If he does not press this, I can tell him now that we are looking into this question of plans, in the light of the Debate the other day and of what has been said this afternoon, and if, on balance, it is thought desirable to do something in this regard, the matter can, perhaps, be dealt with on Report stage.

7.24 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood

What I understood my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) to say was that reasonable precautions should be such as were insisted on by the local authorities—that the decision of the local authority as to what were reasonable precautions should be the criterion. If that is what the Government contemplate looking into and adopting, I think that would be an improvement.

Captain Crookshank

Of course I cannot give an assurance, beyond saying that I will consider it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.25 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper)

I beg to move, in page 49, line 7, at the end, to insert: Provided that in the case of any coal or mine of coal which is held on a title comprising other subjects also, the conveyance to be assumed as aforesaid shall be deemed to contain a clause of assignation of writs to the effect only of enabling the Commission to maintain and defend their right to the coal or mine and, for that purpose, an obligation to make the writs forthcoming on a proper receipt and undertaking to redeliver. The sole purpose of the proviso is to deal with the case of custody of right to title where a mine and certain other subjects are held on the same title. It is little more than drafting.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 49, line 19, at the end, add: (c) For any reference to the London Gazette there shall be substituted a reference to the Edinburgh Gazette."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.