MINES (WORKING FACILITIES AND SUPPORT) BILL [Lords] (Hansard, 17 February 1966)

§ Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)
I had thought that a Bill was usually presented from the Government side, but on each occasion I am having to rise from this Bench to explain what the Bill is about. I am flattered to do so, but I would have thought that the learned Solicitor-General might have risen to do so as a matter of courtesy to the House.
This Bill is truly a consolidation Bill and not a Statute Law Revision Bill. It seeks to consolidate a particular form of compulsory purchase and compensation—a form of compulsory purchase relating to the obtaining of rights to work minerals if it is in the national interest that those minerals should be worked.
The Bill consolidates the rather unusual procedure whereby a person who desires to work minerals, or to have certain rights to do so, applies to the Minister and the Minister, if he then sees fit, refers the matter to the High Court and the High Court decides whether that right should be granted and what compensation should be paid. This is an unusual form of compulsory acquisition and assessment of compensation.

§ Sir Barnet Janner (Leicester, North-west)
I do not understand how, in a debate on a Bill of this nature, the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) can raise issues of this kind. This is purely a consolidation Bill. We are here not dealing with the subject matter of the Bill. I respectfully submit that all the hon. Gentleman can do is to say whether the Bill consolidates the law. If it does not, he is entitled to speak on it. The merits or demerits of what is in the Acts being consolidated have nothing to do with the subject.

§ Mr. Graham Page
If the hon. Gentleman had allowed me to develop my argument, he would have seen that I have a perfect right to question the timing of the Bill. I have to explain its contents in order to explain why I think that it is ill timed. When a consolidation Measure 1669 is before us, the House is entitled to consider whether this is the appropriate time at which to consolidate the subject matter of the Bill.

§ Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)
Surely, in addition to that, the House is perfectly entitled to know what is being consolidated.

§ Mr. Graham Page
Indeed. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General did not tell the House, I intend to do so. I will explain why it is ill timed.
The Bill deals with compulsory purchase of mineral rights. There is now before the House legislation dealing with the Land Commission, which has some monstrous powers of acquisition. It is making a farce of consolidation when it is quite clear that other legislation, if passed by the House, would set aside this form of compulsory acquisition. It will be quite purposeless in future.
Instead of using this form of acquisition, of applying to the Minister for mineral rights and the Minister referring the matter to the High Court, none of that will happen in future if the Land Commission Bill is accepted by the House and there will merely be an application to the Commission to acquire the mineral rights and to exploit them in the national interest.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Roderic Bowen)
The hon. Member is not in order in discussing arrangements alternative to those which are provided in this consolidation Measure.

§ Mr. Graham Page
With great respect, I was endeavouring to show why this was the wrong time to bring forward a consolidation Measure and I was saying that the House was contemplating a Measure which would make this purposeless. I would have thought that I could also deploy that argument in connection with the compensation provisions which are consolidated in the Bill.
Assurances have been given by the Government during the course of previous debates in this Session, on earlier matters of legislation, that there would be a complete review of compensation. I cannot imagine that the form of compensation contained in the Bill would survive a review of that sort. Again, I say that 1670 it is ill timed to bring forward a consolidation Measure which cannot have a very long life. Perhaps this part of the law has been consolidated because it is easier to repeal it when collected together and consolidated in this form. If that is so, the Government should be frank and honest with the House and say that that is the purpose of the consolidation.

§ Sir Barnett Janner (Leicester, North-west)
We have had this kind of Bill before the House on a number of occasions. The whole purpose of consolidating is to remove the dead wood and try to bring into reasonable wording the law as it stands. No one has a reasonable ground for complaint if a Bill is introduced in order to make the law clear, without having to delve into all of the Statutes concerned, which are repealed by virtue of a Measure of this kind. I do not think that this lends itself to being a question of debating what is coming in the future. The question is whether it is proper and right for the purpose of the lay people as well as the lawyers, to consolidate a number of Acts and remove the rubbish lying about? Nothing can be better than to have consolidating Bills for this purpose.

§ Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)
This is the sort of Bill that Governments of all parties bring in on a day when they do not think that anyone will be here. It has been said from the other side of the House that one has not a right to ask what is being consolidated. I believe that the Government have treated the House with grave discourtesy, because any Government has a responsibility to explain the purpose of legislation which they are trying to get through the House.
I am not disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner), who is an old friend of mine, that a lot of this is dead wood. He happens to be a lawyer, and is much more conversant with what is dead wood than perhaps 90 per cent. of the Members of the House. But other Members are just as entitled to know what is being done in cleaning up legislative statutes.
I am not disagreeing with the idea behind this, but I do think that the 1671 House has been treated discourteously since my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has had to move the only explanation we have had about the Bill.

§ The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot)
We are dealing with a perfectly well understood procedure here. This is a consolidation Measure which does not raise any question of principle, and if any hon. Member wishes to know what is involved, all he has to do is to look at the Report of the Joint Committee. This procedure has been followed again and again and no discourtesy is involved when a Minister does not go over the ground covered by the Report. I do not complain, and I never have complained, when either of the hon. Gentlemen opposite have sought to debate a consolidation Measure. I would respectfully suggest that the purpose is clear enough. To see what is involved one has only to look at the Schedule to the Bill, and at the Measures repealed.
1672 If hon. Members care to turn to the Bill they will see that there are nine Measures dealing with working facilities and support, and similar matters in the mining industry. This has nothing to do with forthcoming legislation on the Land Commission. It is a matter of general convenience, that legislation dealing with this very technical subject should be included within the ambit of one Statute. The Committee has reported that this Bill is pure consolidation and represents the existing law and that there is no point to which it thinks the attention of Parliament should be drawn.
This is a report of a Committee on which the party opposite was fully represented. That is a perfectly sufficient answer to the speeches that we have heard.