MINES (WORKING FACILITIES AND SUPPORT) BILL. (Hansard, 15 December 1925)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, this Bill is intended to deal with some defects in the working of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923. Under that Act the Railway and Canal Commissioners can under certain circumstances order money to be paid into court. When they have made up their mind to grant facilities but have not ascertained the amount of compensation to be paid, they can order a sum of money to be paid into Court pending a decision. They cannot order payment of the money out of court. They have to go to the Court of Chancery and use the procedure of that Division. This is somewhat inconvenient and unworkable, and the whole purpose of this Bill is to enable the Commissioners to order payments into court in all proper cases and to make orders for payment of money out of court on which the Paymaster-General will act. The Bill is to obviate some defects in the machinery of the existing Act, and I hope that your Lordships will assent to it.

§ LORD DYNEVOR
My Lords, I am much obliged to the Lord Chancellor for his explanation. I took a great interest in the original Act and I was not quite clear as to the necessity for this Bill, but I am glad to hear the explanation from the Lord Chancellor.

§ LORD PARMOOR
My Lords, I have had an opportunity of communicating the question that I desire to ask the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe. If he will look at the definitions in Clause 24 he will see that The expression 'costs of collection' includes all costs and expenses incurred by a committee constituted for a collection area in the exercise of any of the powers (whether of collection or management) … I should like to hear what the noble Lord has to say upon that point, because I understood that the costs of collection and management were to be differentiated and that, although the cost of collection was to be a charge against the income of the tithe owner, the cost of management was to be found out of the special fund already in the hands of Queen Anne's Bounty.
I want to ask the noble Lord whether I am right or wrong. It appears to me that the real cost of management will be thrown, not on Queen Anne's Bounty, but on the income which would otherwise come to the tithe owner, if all the expenses of management as regards the committees constituted in these local areas are to be borne in the way which appears to be suggested in this case. In other words, does he mean that those costs are to fall upon the tithe owner or that they are to be costs borne by the general funds of Queen Anne's Bounty?

§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD BLEDISLOE)
My Lords, I think I can reassure my noble and learned friend on this point. If he will look carefully at this definition clause he will find that it refers only to the costs and expenses incurred by a local committee of collection. It does not refer to the costs of central administration which Queen Anne's Bounty have expressed their willingness to discharge out of their corporate fund. These are simply the costs of, and incidental to, the local collection by the local collection committee, which are not covered by the central cor- 1462 porate fund our, of which the central administrative expenses will come to be discharged.

§ LORD PARMOOR
I should like to make one comment upon that. It means that the real expenses will be thrown upon the tithe owner. However, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for the answer that he has given.