§ Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERMy Lords, in moving that the report of Amendments to this Bill be now received, perhaps I might draw the attention of the House to the Marshalled List of Amendments. The first two stand in my name. That which reads "Page line 30," should read "Page 2, line 3o," and the second should read "Page 2, line 38." They will, therefore, be taken after the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings.
§ Moved, That the Report of Amendments be now received.—(The Earl of Munster.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ Clause 1:
§
Registration of particulars of ownership.
(4) The matters whereof particulars may be registered in respect of any holding shall be—
(b) the property and rights, being such as are specified in the Second Schedule to this Act, which are held in association with such coal and mines or any of them and in which the holding subsists;
(e) such other matters relating to the coal hereditaments in which the holding subsists, or to the title thereto, as appear to the Board, either on general grounds or having regard to the particular circumstances of the holding, to be material for the purpose of rendering the information as to proprietary interests recorded in the Register complete.
(5) The provisions of Part 1 of the Third Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to the making and examination of applications for registration, to the ascertainment of the facts whereof particulars are to be registered, to the registration of particulars, and to the rectification of the Register where requisite in consequence of any change occurring in relation to those facts after particulars thereof have been registered or otherwise.
§ LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (4) (b), to leave out "being such 212 as are specified in the Second Schedule to this Act." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the statement that has been made by the noble Earl gives me priority in the Marshalled List of Amendments. The first standing in my name, to leave out certain words, is consequential, if such a word can be used in this case, upon the omission of the Second Schedule. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9, leave out from ("rights") to the end of line 10.—(Lord Hastings.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD HASTINGSThe next Amendment in my name is of the same character—consequential upon leaving out the Second Schedule. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 15, leave out from ("matters") to ("subject") in line r6.— (Lord Hastings.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD HASTINGSThe next Amendment in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 22, after ("matters") insert ("if any").—(Lord Hastings.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (4) (e), to leave out "either on general grounds or." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment on page 2, line 24, is of some substance. The words as they appear are "either on general grounds or having regard to the particular circumstances of the holding." Why those words "on general grounds"? There is, of course, inevitably a suspicion in the minds of those who are interested in this matter that the inclusion of the words "general grounds" may conceivably prejudice their interests in any appeal which may be brought hereafter. The words "general grounds" do not appear to have any direct reference to the measure that is before the House, but they may enable, or we think they may enable, things to be brought in which should have reference and will have reference to a later period rather than to the Bill that is now before the House. There is a certain suspicion about these words. It does not seem the sort of language useful for the purpose, and it is thought that 213 the words may have in them the elements of something detrimental to the royalty owners if and when the other Bill comes up. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 24, leave out from ("Board") to ("having") in line 25.—(Lord Hastings.)
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERMy Lords, the noble Lord will know that the particulars which may be registered are set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of this subsection, and they specify certain matters of which particulars shall be given. This last paragraph (e) allows the opportunity to specify any other matters which are material to render the information complete. The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment will be to prevent the Board from including any such additional matter generally for any class of property and in that case it would have to be added specially in any individual case in which it was material. I hope my noble friend will accept my definition of his Amendment and the effect that it would have on this Bill, and that he will not press it.
§ LORD HASTINGSMy Lords, I cannot think that the noble Earl's answer will really meet my point. The noble Earl has said, with perfect truth, that paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) provide for certain specific matters and that paragraph (e) is, so to speak, a saving clause which brings into discussion any other matters not covered by the four preceding paragraphs. So far as that goes I am entirely with him, and I think some saving clause is a necessity. But with great respect to him I think he has not answered my particular point. Why are the words "general grounds" required? If he can make any further reply on that particular point I should be very grateful to him.
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERMy Lords, if by leave of the House I may be permitted to answer the point raised by the noble Lord, I would say that if it would meet him I am prepared to ask your Lordships to agree to leave out the words "either on general grounds or having regard to the particular circumstances of the holding."
§ LORD HASTINGSMy Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for that. I had considered the possibility of extending 214 the Amendment to take out other words, but I am conscious that taking out those further words really increases the scope of the subsection. I realise, however, that it is the intention neither of the Government nor of the royalty owners to put any impediment in the way of the correct registration of these properties, and, although the further Amendment now suggested does greatly widen the scope of the subsection, I quite gratefully accept the suggestion of the noble Earl. If your Lordships will agree to it I will accept the noble Earl's suggestion and withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERMy Lords, I beg to move to leave out the words "either on general grounds or having regard to the particular circumstances of the holding."
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 24, leave out from ("Board") to ("to") in line 26.—(The Earl of Munster.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERMy Lords, the next Amendment, in my name, is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 30, leave out ("Third") and insert ("Second").—(The Earl of Munster.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (5), to leave out all words after "Register." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the last part of this subsection reads:
rectification of the Register where requisite in consequence of any change occurring in relation to those facts after particulars thereof have been registered or otherwise.
The argument here is that if the Register requires rectification that rectification ought to be automatic. It should not be dependent upon the consequence of any change occurring in relation to those facts. It ought to be automatic that an incorrect Register should be rectified. I will give an instance which will bear me out, I hope, and induce your Lordships to see the matter from the same point of view as I do. Suppose any change is needed to adjust an error. Under the Bill as it is drawn rectification would disqualify the Register altogether. That is not desirable. I think the noble Earl
215
will see that as the Register cannot be rectified except in consequence of a change in relation to facts, that eliminates the possibility of rectifying the Register if an error has been made. I move this Amendment, not as a matter of principle, but in order to simplify the working of the Bill and to provide the possibility of any kind of error being rectified.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 35, leave out from ("Register") to end of line 37.—(Lord Hastings.)
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERMy Lords, I feel that there is some substance in what my noble friend has said and in the circumstances I am prepared to ask your Lordships to accept the Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERMy Lords, the next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 38, leave out ("Third") and insert ("Second").—(The Earl of Munster.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD HASTINGS moved, after Clause 1, to insert the following new clause:
§
Saving for property rights, obligations, etc.
.Neither—
shall (otherwise than for the express purposes of this Act) alter, prejudice or affect the title to any property or the validity or nature of any rights, interests or obligations or the validity or invalidity of any claims of any person.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I begin to advance any argument in favour of this Amendment I would like 216 to explain that until we knew whether the Second Schedule was to remain in the Bill or whether it was not it was impossible to draft an Amendment in the terms we should desire. An Amendment of this character has been in my mind ever since the Bill came into print, but as I have endeavoured to explain the existence of Schedule II made it impossibly difficult to draft such an Amendment as has been in mind. That is why this Amendment makes its appearance on the Report stage. Although Schedule II has gone there will remain the Schedule which is still printed in the Bill as Schedule III although it will become Schedule II. In Schedule III there are provisions which will introduce into the measure certain ambiguities which it is desirable to guard against. It is always desirable in legislation to be as precise as possible. The Amendment is devised primarily for that purpose but also for certain other purposes. The intention of this Bill is that it should be a Bill for registration and nothing else. My noble friend the Leader of the House gave a demonstration of the intention of the Government in respect of this Bill when he permitted Schedule II to be withdrawn. We have been constantly told that the Bill would not be permitted in any way to prejudice the royalty owners if and when a wider measure is brought before Parliament. On that ground I think it desirable that any ambiguities which may conceivably prejudge that position should be removed.
§ But there is another reason for my Amendment. The proposals hereinafter contained are to enable the Committee, the Board or whatever the body is to be called which is going to deal with this registration, to be governed by this saving clause, so that the interests of the owner of the property shall not be jeopardised by any decision to which that Committee of the Board of Trade might come. We have heard throughout the debate on this Bill, and I have always agreed, that we must take every possible step we can to ensure that the registration is accurate. There is, however, in the Bill a certain provision which enables the Board of Trade, through this Committee, to decline acceptance of particulars in advance of registration if they are of opinion that these are not valid. The owner of the property may have a very bad case, but there is no reason that I know of why he should accept the view of the Committee 217 of the Board of Trade that the particulars which he has advanced are not accurate. He must obviously have a right of appeal to some more authoritative body than that, and the clause which is on the Paper in my name is intended solely to ensure that nothing which is done in regard to the registration particulars, or omitted in regard to the registration particulars, shall prejudice either the title of the person desiring to register or the validity of his interests.
§ I find it most difficult to understand why this saving clause should be regarded as other than completely innocuous. It is not intended to spoil the working of the Bill. It is not intended in any way to interfere with the operations of the Board of Trade. It is intended for no more than it states, and that is to protect the interests of the persons most concerned in the event of errors and so forth in the registration of particulars. I very much hoped that, if the Government were unable to accept the words which I put on the Paper at the earliest possible moment directed to registration errors, they would have had other words to introduce instead. I have been disappointed to find that no such words have appeared on the Paper. I think that until the noble Earl has replied and I am able to hear what the arguments are against what, to me, is a perfectly innocuous Amendment, I shall not really be helping any noble Lord in the House if I continue further on this technical matter. If shall have, of course, the right of reply when the noble Earl has given me his reasons. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause I insert the said new clause.—(Lord Hastings.)
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEMy Lords, I have such respect for my noble friend Lord Hastings, if he will allow me to say so, that it is with some sorrow that I take exception to part of paragraph (f). Luckily, I am not and never have been a coalowner, and therefore I know nothing about coal, and my only reason for intervening is the amazement which it has caused me to see these words in paragraph (f):
the determination by … the High Court under this Act of any question in connection with any application for registration of particulars;218 and so on, meaning that the decisions of the High Court are to be excluded. I am all for Ministries being upset every hour of the day, but certainly not the High Court. If my noble friend would see his way to leave out "or the High Court," I should then be satisfied.
§ Lord HASTINGSMy Lords, it is only by leave of the House that I can reply to that point. My noble friend Viscount Bertie, with his usual perspicacity, has at once fastened upon what at first sight is rather a peculiar wording. The answer to his point is, however, just this. We desire to limit the wording, phraseology and operation of this particular Bill which we are discussing to the particular Bill itself. The inclusion of the words which lay down that even the High Court itself shall not be able to prejudice either the title or the validity of any right, is intended purely to confine the decisions of the High Court to matters affecting this Bill and not a Bill which is to come later on. The registration of particulars, or an error made in the registration of particulars, should clearly not enable even the High Court itself to prejudice the owner in respect of anything that may happen under a later Bill. It should not be permitted to affect his title or the validity of the rights which he is desiring to register. Although I quite agree with my noble friend that the inclusion of the High Court in this proviso seems at first sight to be peculiar, I am legally advised that it is necessary that it should be so included.
§ LORD RANKEILLOURMy Lords, I also am not a coalowner, and I only intervene on a matter of construction. I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, is quite right in this matter. Suppose an application is made to the High Court for registration and is dismissed by the High Court on the ground of inaccuracy, informality, or whatever it may be. Surely a judgment of that sort ought not to be allowed to cast any doubt on the validity of the title, which might be made clear on some other occasion. Taking the new clause as a whole, I confess I cannot see what harm it could possibly do. It says that all these proceedings, registration, incidental errors, etc., shall not 219
alter, prejudice or affect the title to any property or the validity or nature of any rights,and so on. Is it to be held, if this clause is resisted, that any of these formalities will affect the validity of any rights? If they will not, then the clause is harmless. If they will affect them, then the clause is necessary.
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERMy Lords, at a previous stage of this Bill my noble friend clearly stated that it was not the intention either of the Mineral Owners' Association or of himself in any way to endeavour to wreck the Bill or to make it unworkable. I believe that the undertaking which my noble friend gave at that stage of the Bill still holds good. But I must, in answering this question, draw your Lordships' attention to some parts of the Amendment which stands in his name and which he endeavours to insert into the Bill after Clause r. The first point that I would make is this. The words "otherwise than for the express purposes of this Act" are meaningless, for there are no express purposes of this Act, as it applies solely to the recording of particulars. Although no statement appears in the Bill, registration is, of course, necessary for purposes of unification, and the effect of this Amendment would be to exclude that purpose, along with any other purpose, by an express provision that the Register shall not have effect for any purpose at all. Further; the particulars of registration could not be used for the purposes of the main Bill without a clause in that Bill to repeal or to modify the Amendment which my noble friend now asks us to accept.
I now turn to the last words which appear in his Amendment, reading:
alter, prejudice or affect the title to any property or the validity or nature of any rights, interests or obligations or the validity or invalidity of any claims of any person.I am advised that those words are of such extreme generality and vagueness that it is difficult to acquiesce in their appearing in the Statute Book. In so far as it is possible to discern their meaning it seems to be reasonably plain that there is nothing whatever in the Bill that could produce the results that the words seek to exclude. I think the noble Lord will conclude that he has put down an Amendment on the Order Paper which does quite clearly wreck and stultify the whole 220 working of the Bill, and I feel sure that that is not the intention of my noble friend.On the other question which the noble Lord raised, on particulars which may be registered and which are incorrect he will observe that sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 2 of the Third Schedule on page 11 gives him the answer to the point which he raised at that stage of his remarks. I will not weary the House by reading the subparagraph, but perhaps my noble friend will see his way to withdraw his Amendment to-day, for the reasons I have given, and that he will put himself in communication with my honourable friend to discuss this matter, which is highly complicated and one of legal difficulty. I hope that my noble friend will accept my advice and withdraw the Amendment which stands in his name.
§ LORD HASTINGSMy Lords, I am much obliged for the answer which the noble Earl has given me, but we do come back to what Lord Rankeillour said, that either the Amendment is innocuous and therefore the Government need have no fear of accepting it, or else there is something in the Bill which renders the Amendment extremely desirable. Here is a perfectly definite disagreement between the legal advisers of the Government and the legal advisers of the royalty owners. The noble Earl is perfectly correct in saying that there is no desire on my part, or on the part of the royalty owners, to introduce an Amendment into the Bill at this stage which would be a grave impediment in the way of its effective operation. That is the last thing in the world that we have in mind; but inasmuch as there is this perfectly definite difference between the legal advisers of the two parties concerned, while I agree with the noble Earl that the best thing I can do now is to withdraw the Amendment, I do not give up hope of negotiating an agreement with the Minister of Mines.
The matter is not altogether suitable for a very long discussion before this House. It is rather a matter for argument between one lawyer and another, and when the matter comes to be argued I have not the least doubt in my mind that either the legal advisers of the Government will convince the legal advisers of the royalty owners that the latter are wrong, or else the legal advisers of the royalty owners will convince the legal advisers of the Government that they are 221 wrong, or else they will arrive at a compromise to prove that both are right. When that has been achieved I feel I can rely upon the Minister of Mines to produce an Amendment to give effect to the decision arrived at. At present I will accept the advice of the noble Earl and withdraw my Amendment, clearly reminding him that he has not heard the last of it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 4 [Interpretation]:
§ LORD HASTINGSMy Lords, the Amendment that I move to this clause is consequential upon the leaving out of the Second Schedule.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 30, leave out from ("rights") to the end of line 31.—(Lord Hastings.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in the definition of "Interested in," to leave "in" so that the subject of the definition would be "Interested." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this phrase "interested in" occurred only in the Second Schedule, now deleted, but the words "interested" and "interest" do occur elsewhere in the Bill, and it is necessary there should be some definition of them.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 1, leave out the first ("in") —(The Earl of Munster.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Third Schedule:
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERMy Lords, the last Amendment on the Paper is consequential.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 40, leave out ("terms") and insert ("provisions").—(The Earl of Munster.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Then, Standing Order No. XXX1X having been suspended, Bill read 3a: Amendments (Privilege) made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.