HC Deb 30 March 1938 vol 333 cc2140-6

10.52 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, in page 29, line 38, at the end, to insert: Provided that paragraph (b) of Subsection (4) of Section three of this Act shall not bind the Crown as regards gold, gold ore, silver or silver ore, and accordingly the expressoon, 'coal' in this Part of this Act shall not in any case include those minerals or substances. The Amendment is to cover a small point which, I am afraid, we overlooked at the earlier stage. It will be within the knowledge of hon. Members interested in these technical matters that gold, gold ore, silver and silver ore are known as mines royal, and the property in them has been from time immemorial vested in the Crown as part of the Prerogative of the Crown. As the Bill is at present drawn the Prerogative of the Crown is entirely unaffected. Under Clause 3 (4, b), which deals with subsidiary minerals which are comprised in a lease, the terms of that paragraph suggest that if an owner of coal has acquired from the Crown a licence to get gold, and then has included his right to work the coal and his licence to get the gold in the same lease, then the gold would pass to the Commission. The object of this Amendment is to prevent that happening and safeguard the Prerogative of the Crown in the one respect in which it might otherwise be affected by the Bill.

10.54 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, to leave out from the second "ore," to the end of line 4.

This Amendment is really in order to ascertain whether the concluding words of the Minister's Amendment are necessary. Without them any question of binding the Crown is entirely excluded. But if there did happen to be such a case as the hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned I do not know why the leasehold interest should not be acquired with the coal. That would not be affecting the Crown at all. The safeguards would be quite sufficient without the concluding words which I propose to omit.

10.55 p.m.

The Attorney-General

Here, again, the view that I took was that these words necessarily followed upon the first part of the Amendment, and were necessary in order to bring the definition of coal in the various parts of the Act into accord with what has been provided by the first part of the Amendment. I will study with care what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, because I think he may have raised a point which possibly I have not considered, and, if it should be necessary to make any modification, I will certainly do so.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, in page 33, line 38, after "power," to insert: (including an option or right of pre-emption and. This Amendment deals with a matter which was referred to earlier this evening, and makes it clear that a person who has an option has an interest, and can come in with the freeholder.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 34, line 2, after "be," insert "or in, on or over the rents and profits thereof."—[The Attorney-General.]

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Spens

I beg to move, in page 34, line 5, after "be," to insert: and (in the case of any coal or mine of coal comprised in a manor) otherwise than in respect only of a right belonging to a person (other than a person in whom the coal or mine is vested) to withhold consent to the working of the coal or mine or to the working thereof in such a way as to withdraw support from any land within the manor in which the person to whom such right belongs is interested, such right being a right which is saved by paragraph five of the Twelfth Schedule to the Law of Property Act, 1922, and subject to which by the custom of the manor the coal or mine is held by the person in whom the same is vested. In 1922, when the House decided to abolish copyhold rights in this country, it did not face up to the problem of dealing with the rights of copyholders in minerals, and so it preserved the situation as regards the lord of the manor and copyhold tenants exactly as it was in regard to the land which was then enfranchised, and the common situation in most of the manors of this country is that, while the coal is vested in the lord of the manor, the copyholders have a right to withhold consent to its being worked, or to its being worked in such a way as to withdraw support. As the Bill is drafted, it appears that the right of copyhold tenants to withhold consent to the working of minerals, or to their being worked except on certain terms, is a power which comes within the definition of an interest, and would, therefore, entitle every one of these ex-copyhold tenants to come in and make some sort of claim. They have had no payment whatever, because it is included in the global figure for the copyhold tenants—

The Attorney-General

No.

Mr. Spens

With respect, I think that that is so. So far as the ordinary situation is concerned, where coal is a tack lease, the ordinary process is that the lease is subject to the working lessee getting the consent of the copyhold tenant beneath whose tenement he desires to work the coal. Therefore, we suggest that, in order that the whole of the valuation of the coal under these manors may not be held up for months by these, in many cases, large numbers of persons, coming to make their claims, they should be excluded in the first instance from being regarded as persons who have an interest. The hon. and learned Gentle- men opposite may not agree, but I want the House to realise what the result would be if they are. How is anybody going to separate the value of the coal belonging to lords of the manor and that of the copyhold tenants? The right of persons to withhold their consent is going to hold up valuations in all these cases.

Just as Parliament refused to face up to a similar problem of compensation in 1927, so it appears to us that Parliament is going to refuse to tackle this problem now, and is simply going to leave it to the courts. The result will be that every single sum of money will have to be paid into court, and the court will have to find what each of these copyhold tenants and the lord of the manor is going to get out of it. That will hold up the matter for a long time. Our suggestion—a perfectly simple suggestion—is that the only person who shall be regarded as interested is the person in whom the coal is vested—not entitled to claim a fee-simple interest but only entitled to claim an interest for the purposes of this Clause. That will make the thing much more simple. There may be some better method, but at any rate, at the present time the question is not being faced. All the share of the global figure which is to be paid in respect of coal under these manors will have to be paid into court and will be wrangled over for many years to come, unless something is done to meet the position.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams

I beg to second the Amendment.

In the absence of my hon. and learned Friend during the Committee stage I moved an Amendment, not in the same form but of similar intent. I think I succeeded in explaining to myself what it meant, but it is a most complicated matter, and, having listened to explanations from many people more expert than I am, I have come to the conclusion that the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend will make a substantial simplification in administration. I am satisfied that Part I of the Bill will be exceedingly complicated in administration; if it is the work of all, we must do all we can to simplify it.

11.4 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

I am all in favour of simplification, too. Why not cut out all the, compensation? It would simplify the matter enormously. All that the hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested is that a small, and perhaps not very wealthy, section of the community should be completely expropriated, without any compensation. The hon. Member shakes his head. He cannot know what the Amendment means. The hon. and learned Member will agree with me.

Mr. Spens

With great respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, the present position is that the lord of the manor negotiates the lease, and the lessee gets the consent. If it has any value at all the lessee pays a small sum of money for the consent. The Commission will be in exactly the same position.

Sir S. Cripps

If that is the idea of the Amendment, it is even worse than the other. That will leave the position that the lessee, before he could work, must find every copyholder in order to get consent.

Mr. Spens

That is the present position.

Sir S. Cripps

That will make it worse, and I hope that the Government will refuse the Amendment.

11.6 p.m.

The Attorney-General

My hon. and learned Friend who moved the Amendment spoke of simplification. No doubt there might be simplification, but the Amendment in effect would deprive a number of copyholders of rights in futuro. As I read the Amendment, it would exclude the right of a copyholder, whose right is solely one of withholding consent, to bargain. In so far as the Amendment deals with the case of copyholders, who are, of course, outside the Bill, they have no interest in coal, and therefore they stay where they are. There is the question as to whether, if a copyholder's right is that of withholding consent to the working of coal, that should be regarded as a partial right to possession of the coal, or should be treated, as the Amendment treats it, as a mere right to withhold consent. In our view, a copyholder has the right to withhold his consent, quite apart from the right in coal, and I cannot see why, if he has a certain right under the existing law, both in respect of coal being worked now and coal worked in futuro, he should not be in the same position as the lord of the manor or the freeholder and should not be entitled to such proportion of the global sum to which they are entitled.

My hon. and learned Friend says that none of these payments were included in the global sum, but I do not think that is right. In some cases there is a separate payment to the copyholder and in some cases it is an arrangement between the copyholder and the lord of the manor, but in both cases the figure is included in the global sum. If it is an arrangement between the lord of the manor and the copyholder it would be included in the global sum. I agree that difficulties may arise but they do not arise out of this Bill. They arise out of the fact that copyholders' rights go back deep into the past and are not easy of precise valuation. One has to remember that in the past whenever a lease has been negotiated under which coal has been worked in a manner subject to copyhold, the lord of the manor and the copyholder have been able to agree generally as to their proportionate rights in the royalty to be paid by the colliery owner. I think my hon. and learned Friend took a rather gloomy view of the relations between the lord of the manor and the copyholder and the prospect of their being able to come to an agreement as to how the compensation should be divided between them. As far as justice is concerned I suggest that the Bill is on the right lines in giving to the copyholder, if he has an interest in the coal, the right to come into compensation and to get such proportion of the freehold value of the coal as he is entitled to claim.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made:

In page 34, line 9, leave out from "under-lease," to "and," in line 11, and insert: a tenancy and an agreement for a lease, under-lease, or tenancy (but not an option to take a lease, under-lease, or tenancy).

In line 17, after the first "licence," insert: (whether personal or by way of profit à prendre) that confers a right to work and carry away coal or a right to use a mine of coal for a coal-mining purpose.

In line 23, leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 28.—[The Attorney-General.]

11.13 p.m.

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, in page 35, line 21, at the end, to insert: (2) For the purposes of this Part of this Act a person shall not be deemed to be carrying on the business of coalmining unless a substantial part of his business consists of working, getting, and carrying away coal.

This Amendment deals with a point raised by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) in the Committee stage. We think that these words are an improvement on what was originally in the Bill, and make more clear what is meant by a person who is carrying on the business of coal-mining.

Amendment agreed to.