HC Deb 30 March 1938 vol 333 cc2087-92

7.45 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, after "interests," to insert "and with full capacity so to do."

That is to meet a point which was taken by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), who pointed out that in this part of the Bill we are dealing with notional contracts, under which the property will be held during the interim period, and he said that it could not bind the property if the owner at the date of valuation was of unsound mind. It is necessary to put in some saving words to protect that case.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, in page 3, line 28, after "paragraph," to insert: and, in the case of any such other minerals or substances that are or would normally be worked by surface workings and not in association with that coal or anthracite, the Commission shall, if any person interested therein makes application to the Commission in that behalf before the expiration of six months from the valuation date, by direction exclude them from the operation of this paragraph. There was an Amendment on the Paper in the Committee stage, but it was not moved. On further consideration my right hon. Friend thought it was a reasonable provision to ask the House to insert. What we are dealing with in this part of Clause 3 is the subsidiary minerals. Paragraph (b) says that in this part of the Bill the expression "coal" shall, in a case in which minerals or substances othed than bituminous coal are comprised in the lease at the valuation date, include those other minerals or substances "so however that the Commission may, by direction …" exclude from the operation of this paragraph the minerals indicated. Generally speaking, the Commission does not want to be possessed of the subsidiary minerals, and the only subsidiary minerals that they do need to take are those which are in the lease. Then they have this power of exclusion. If they are not worked in association with the coal but merely by surface workings there does not seem to be any reason why they should take them over, particularly in cases where application is made that they should not. I think it is reasonable to suggest that when an application of that kind is duly made, the Commission may exclude them.

7.49 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, to leave out "that," and to insert "as in the opinion of the Commission."

Apart from my Amendment we certainly oppose the Minister's Amendment because it seems to me this is giving back to the owner something for which the Commission has paid. They have paid on the basis of the royalty under the lease. The royalty under the lease covers these other minerals as well as the coal. It may be that they do not want to work them. It may be that somebody else wants to work them, but why should he get them for nothing, which is what he is doing if this is allowed? The royalty was the basis for the valuation.

Mr. Spens

In some cases there are quite separate royalties.

Sir S. Cripps

But the whole was taken into account. If you say these minerals were never included in that which you purchased, then there might be an argument for excluding them altogether—taking them right out of the definition Clause altogether; but it is no argument for putting this Amendment in. Because, as this Bill was originally drafted, the conception was that where a lease covered these other minerals in addition to coal, that was paid for by the £66,000,000.

Captain Crookshank

Paying for the valuation is quite another matter. This is merely what is to vest.

Sir S. Cripps

Really the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not quite appreciate what the point is. I am sure it is my fault. Certain things vest in the Commission, by virtue of which they are paid £66,000,000. That is what they get for that £66,000,000—that which vests in them. The coal vests in them. In addition, under this Clause as originally drawn, other minerals also vested in them if they hold under a lease which covers the coal. Either it must have been in the contemplation of the parties when the arbitration took place that the £66,000,000 covered the other minerals, or it did not cover the other minerals. If it did not cover the other minerals, then there was no justification for including the other minerals in this Clause as it originally stood. I am, therefore, justified in concluding that it did cover the other minerals. That is why it was put into this Clause as passing and vesting with the coal. Then there was a power given in case the owners did not wish to have the other minerals, enabling them to divest themselves of them, presumably because they were of no value. Therefore, they lost nothing. But this case now must be on the basis that there must be other minerals which the Commissioners would not divest themselves of because, if they did divest themselves of them, this addition would not be necessary. Therefore, this must deal with minerals which they do not wish to divest themselves of, but which the owner wants to get back. If you have paid for them in the £66,000,000 it is not right to give them back to the owner without any payment at all; it is not right to make the Commission give them up when the Commission think they are of value.

What really is the position here? It is completely different from the Clause as it stood before, which allowed the Commissioners to get rid of something which they thought of no value. Now the Amendment is giving the owner a right to demand back from them something which they do consider of value. For that we can see no conceivable justification, unless you are going to say that when they demand them back they shall pay the value of them. Why should the owner who has been paid the value of the minerals under the lease be able to get back again a part of that value without paying for it? That seems to us to be the position under this Amendment. So long as it was merely a question of the Commissioners getting rid of something they did not want, there was quite a good reason for that, seeing it was of no value. But now when, though they do not wish to get rid of it, they are forced to give it back, although they have paid for it, that means giving back to the mineral owners some part of that for which the £66,000,000 was paid.

I quite understand the point of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He says that in some cases there may be a separate royalty payable for these other minerals, in addition to the royalty payable for the coal. If it be a fact that that other royalty was not taken into account in arriving at the £66,000,000, then there may be some excuse for it; but if the other royalty was in fact taken into account and included in the £66,000,000, then quite clearly there can be no excuse. Furthermore, in those cases of leases where a single royalty covers the right to get both the coal and the other minerals and that single royalty has of course been brought in as part of the £66,000,000, the total price of the minerals, there can be no argument in favour of giving back part of the subject matter of that royalty. The right hon. Gentleman would never suggest that the Commissioners should be forced to give back a part of the coal, even if they did not want to work it. That would be giving back something they have paid for. These other minerals in my submission are in exactly the same position.

My Amendment to the proposed Amendment, which is a comparatively small matter, was put down for these reasons. The words are: and, in the case of any such other minerals or substances that are or would normally be worked by surface workings and not in association with that coal or anthracite … But who is going to determine that? Who is going to determine whether they are worked, not in connection with surface workings and in association with that coal? That is not a matter which ought to be allowed to go to the courts. In view of the fact that the Commissioners are giving up something which belongs to them, it ought to be left in the discretion of the Commissioners to say whether in the particular case the minerals do come within the definition. As the Amendment is at present left there is no guidance at all. Is it to be sufficient for a person to say to the Commission, "These other minerals, I suggest, would normally be worked by surface workings and not in association with the coal"? Is that to be a sufficient qualification, and thereupon are the Commissioners to divest themselves of the minerals and to hand them back; or has one to go to a court and get a declaration that these minerals are such minerals? Under my Amendment it would be left to the Commissioners to decide whether in the particular case minerals fall within this definition. But our major objection, and the objection against this Amendment, upon which we must divide unless we can get some better explanation of it, is that this is forcing the Commission against their will to divest themselves of something of value, for which they have paid.

8.0 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

It may facilitate the discussion if I say that I think the hon. and learned Member is under a misapprehension. The £66,500,000 did not include these other minerals. The other minerals are quite outside that. Consequently, that part of the hon. and learned Member's case, that the Commission will be divesting itself of something for which it had already paid, is wrong. I hope that that explanation will satisfy the hon. and learned Member. With regard to his Amendment, the normal and constitutional way, if there was a dispute, would be for the court to decide it, but on consideration we agree that this is a practical matter which might well be decided in the way suggested by the hon. and learned Member's Amendment, and therefore my right hon. Friend is prepared to accept his Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.