HC Deb 27 July 1943 vol 391 cc1524-30

Section thirty-three of the principal Act, which imposes a restriction on the working of coal vested in statutory undertakers, shall extend and be deemed always to have extended to county councils and other local authorities for the purposes of the functions conferred upon them by any Act of Parliament or by any order or regulation made thereunder, and accordingly that Section shall have effect and be deemed always to have had effect as if—

  1. (a)in the third line of Sub-section (I) thereof the words "vested in a county council or other local authority for the purposes of the functions conferred upon them by any Act of Parliament or by any order 1525 or regulation made thereunder or," were inserted after the word "Act";
  2. (b) in the tenth line of Sub-section (I) thereof the words "for the purposes of the said functions or acquired," were inserted after the word "acquired";
  3. (c) in the sixteenth line of Sub-section (1) thereof the words "of the county council or other local authority or," were inserted after the word "writing";
  4. (d) in the second line of Sub-section (2) thereof the words "the county council or other local authority or," were inserted after the word "which"
  5. (e) in the seventh line of Sub-section (2) thereof the words "the county council or other local authority or," were inserted after the word "as";
  6. (f) in the third line of Sub-section (5) thereof the words "the county council or other local authority or of," were inserted after the word "of";
  7. (g) in the eighth line of Sub-section (5) thereof the words "county council or other local authority or the," were inserted after the word "the";
  8. (h) in the second line of Sub-section (6) thereof the words "the county council or other local authority or by," were inserted after the word "by."—[Sir J. Lamb.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir J. Lamb

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

I move this new Clause on behalf of the County Councils' Association and other local authorities, and in doing so I apologise to the Committee for the form it takes. I think it is a wonderful example of legislation by reference, but it contains a straightforward question of principle to which I will refer in a few moments. Perhaps I may explain that the Clause is consequential upon a very long Section of the 1938 Act. That Act gives protection to statutory authorities and all local authorities where they are acting in the capacity of statutory authorities. It prevents coal which is owned by them being obtained without their consent if they owned that coal prior to the passing of that Act. It shall not be worked without consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. What I am asking for now is something very simple but very just, namely, that we should extend the power of the local authorities not only when they are acting as statutory undertakings, but when they are acting in pursuance of duties which have been placed upon them by this House. There are many other duties which they have to perform and for which they do not get the semi- protection which the 1938 Act gives them. For instance, they are concerned with schools, hospitals, town halls and very large blocks of municipal or county offices. The authorities could get protection if they were acting as statutory authorities. Surely the services which are being rendered by them as local authorities in connection with schools, hospitals and the like are quite as essential to the well-being of the public as those which are being operated by them in the form of a statutory authority. It is only right that they should be given the same safeguard under one as the other.

We know that in the past it was the practice of many authorities to buy supporting minerals for the sake of protecting their buildings. It was a costly thing to do, but they did it, and, as we know, great expense fell on the public, many of whom were not receiving benefits from the minerals. The Minister may say, "There will be compensation," but I understand that where this coal exists it is thought that there will be a nil valuation. How will that affect local authorities when they are asking for compensation for something which is valued at nothing? Local authorities where they are acting as statutory authorities or under duties which have been placed upon them by this House should receive the same treatment. Even this new Clause does not go as far as I would like. I can only deal with coal which was vested in the authority prior to 1938. I cannot go into the question of compensation for other damage. I hope the plea which I have made on behalf of the local authorities will be accepted.

Mr. Magnay (Gateshead)

I beg formally to support the Motion.

The Attorney-General

What I say, although not wholly satisfactory to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), may do something to reassure him. So far as this part of the general topic is concerned, persons fall into two categories. They appear to be very different superficially, but I do not believe that in substance there is a great deal of difference in the final result. Therefore the statutory undertakings which are mentioned in Section 33 should carry on the undertakings which are more or less essential to the life of the community.

The important point about Section 33 is that many of these are undertakings— probably all are in part undertakings—the cessation of which without notice might cause grave public inconvenience. They have a pima facie right of veto. In the first instance, they can say, "No, you must not work the coal of which we were formerly the owners in fee simple and which is directly under our undertaking." If the Commission thinks that is unreasonable and that the coal ought to be worked, because the danger of damage to the works on the surface is negligible or because as might happen, the works although they belong to a statutory undertaker are not a vital part of the undertaking, and that if some damage occurs it can be dealt with by underpinning or by compensation—after all they are entrusted with the duty of seeing that coal which can properly be worked is worked—they can take the statutory undertaker to the Railway and Canal Commission and say, "These people have exercised their prima facie right of veto. We think this coal ought to be worked and we do not think there is anything in the special services which they have to give to the public which would justify them in putting a veto on the working of the coal. That is the requirement behind the veto if they exercise it in the first instance. The Coal Commission can start by saying "We think this coal ought to be worked."

The local authorities for whom my hon. Friend is speaking can, like the rest of us, if they think the danger of damage is such that it ought not to be worked, go to the Railway and Canal Commission and make their protest. So that in whichever compartment you start, whether you start as a statutory undertaker with a primary right of veto, or as someone not a statutory undertaker, with the Coal Commission primarily having the right to decide, in both cases, if objection is felt by the other party, you finish up before the Railway and Canal Commission. There are some industries which are not statutory undertakers and which are of vital importance to the community, and it would be contrary to the national interest that damage should be done by working the coal. The principle on which we went in the original Act and to which, I hope, the Committee will adhere, is that we did not think it right to put into Section 33 of the original Act statutory undertakings dealing with the matters there set out—water supply, electricity supply, tramways and so on. We felt that the other activities of local authorities which have been referred to, such as hospitals, schools, and municipal buildings, important as they are, fell very much in the same category as many other buildings not owned by local authorities. Hospitals, schools, and municipal buildings are very much in the same general category as offices. Though there is work done in many offices which is not as useful as the work done in municipal buildings, there may be work done in some offices which is equally useful. We thought that the right place to draw the line.

I sympathise with the County Councils Association, and take no objection to their raising of the point, but we think it better to leave the line drawn where it is. It does not make much difference, if any. If a county council or local authority has reason to think that damage which cannot be properly dealt with by compensation may result from coal being worked under their buildings, they can go to the Railway and Canal Commission, like everyone else, and in the result, no harm will be done but, apart from the statutory undertakers, the Commission is the right body in the national interest to have the first voice.

Mr. David Grenfell (Gower)

Is it clear that, if a county council or a statutory undertaking fears that damage might be done to the property by such working, it has the right to lay a complaint with the Railway and Canal Commission, which would have regard and consideration to the problem of subsidence or damage to property, and full scope and opportunity would be given by a competent body for discussion of the point before a decision is made?

The Attorney-General

That is the position.

Mr. R. J. Taylor (Morpeth)

It seems to me that in this case it is not the question of compensation that is concerning the county councils so much as the desire to protect buildings, by means of which a very useful service is performed. It sounds well when we speak of the national interest in working coal. Of course, we want to work the coal in the national interest. The complaint that most of us on this side have made during the whole of our lifetime is that the coal has never been treated as a national asset but as a means of making private profit. We have millions of tons which never have been and never will be worked, simply because the owners have not treated it as a national asset. Here you may have a statutory body on the one hand and a non-statutory body on the other. The important thing to me is that the coal is not evenly distributed all over the country. You may have places, like Bournemouth, which will be immune from any damage at all and will continue to have all the amenities of beautiful towns, and you may have considerable areas of built-up property, rendering a useful service to the community in the coal areas which may now be considerably damaged and for which no compensation will requite the local authority. It seems to me that the problem goes a good deal further than the question of compensation, because the damage that can be done may be irreparable.

The Attorney-General

That is why there is the right to go to the Commission to get it stopped.

Mr. Taylor

I take it that what the Mover of the Clause wants is to veto their right to go to the Railway Commission at all? It seems to me that this is a case in which the coal districts will be the losers in this bargain if the Commission agrees to the coal being worked. I know areas where provision has been made under valuable buildings for coal to be worked on the pillar system so that there will be no subsidence. Coal is not worked in that way now. It is taken out on the long wall face, and it is impossible to prevent damage being done. I take it we have the assurance from the Attorney-General that there will be adequate safeguards for the local authority, if they can prove that the damage which will be done will be such that the coal will not be worth taking.

Sir J. Lamb

I regret that the Attorney-General cannot give what I am asking for in this new Clause. He has attempted to draw a distinction between action taken by a local authority as a statutory authority and action taken by it as a local authority. I admit that if gas, water or electricity were taken away, immediately, it would be serious, but I cannot admit that if a hospital has to be evacuated straight away it is not a serious thing. There have been cases of hospitals having to be evacuated immediately and the patients removed elsewhere. The same applies to schools. If the children have to be evacuated, there are no other schools to which they can go. The education of a child cannot be delayed. The child grows out of the period when it should be receiving instruction and later education does not compensate for what it has missed. The only satisfaction I have received from the Attorney-General is that the Railway and Canal Commission will deal with the matter. Are we to be prejudiced in the compensation which my right hon. and learned Friend says we may get from the Railway and Canal Commission, because the coal now under the buildings is put down at a nil valuation? We fear that if we have this coal specified as being of no valuation, it may be bought out again later and we may be told that we are asking for compensation for something which is stated to be of no value.

The Attorney-General

I do not think that that would have anything to do with it. The question, as I see it, will arise if the Coal Commission wants to work coal and the owner of the surface buildings, in this case the local authority, say that it will be dangerous to work it. That question will be decided "Aye" or "No." I quite see that if the local authority has put in a big claim for compensation on the ground that it was workable coal, they will have to get over that in the argument before the Commission. My hon. Friend put a case in which they have put in a nil valuation. If the Railway and Canal Commission decide that it is not to be worked, everybody, including the local authority, will be happy. If leave is given to work it, and damage is done, that is dealt with under a Schedule to the original Act, and the nil valuation will have nothing to do with it.

Sir J. Lamb

I understand that it will be the valuation of the buildings or of the damage done to the buildings, and not the valuation of the coal which has caused the damage. I do not suppose that I can do other than accept the decision of the Minister, and I, therefore, beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.