COAL BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 8 June 1943)

§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF MUNSTER)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The measure, as its title indicates, is designed to amend certain sections of the Coal Act, 1938, and I think it will prove to be in no way a contentious measure. The House will probably recall that under that principal Act all coal, known or unknown, worked or unworked, was transferred to the Commission on the 1st July, 1942. Thus the Coal Commission, as owners of this valuable mineral, have had nearly a full year's working experience of the Act, and it has been found that in certain cases the principal Act is in need of slight alteration and amendment.

There are only three clauses in this Bill to which I need ask your Lordships to refer. The first is Clause 3. Under Section 13 of the principal Act any colliery freeholder who had acquired his property before the Second Reading of that Act was entitled to the grant of a lease on terms which placed him financially in exactly the same position as when he was a freeholder. These colliery freeholders were to receive the compensation due to them, but it was to be returned, together with the value of relief from mineral rights duty and other levies, in the form of rent payable over the period in which it was estimated that the coal would be worked out. The House will probably observe that in point of fact it is quite impossible to calculate exactly when the coal will be 891 worked out. I am advised that the usual mineral lease provides for the payment of rent per annum calculated on the yearly output. It is not possible either to state precisely beforehand the period it will take to work the coal out or to estimate the rate of output per annum. If the intention of Section 13 of the principal Act is to be preserved, then it is necessary to provide that the colliery freeholder should refund to the Coal Commission the compensation which he receives as a capital sum and take a lease from the Commission at a peppercorn rent, and have attached to it the same liabilities as he had as a freeholder before the passing of the principal Act. That is what this Clause 3 effects.

I now would ask your Lordships to turn for one moment to Clause 6 of the Bill. Here again I must refer to the principal Act. Under Section 22 of that Act we repealed that part of the working facilities legislation which enables persons to apply to the Railway and Canal Commission for rights to work coal. There could be no dispute about that, as all coal was vested in the Coal Commission, but in point of fact the repeal went too far. Let me quote an instance to show in which case it went too far. The coal leased to one concern would, in the national interest, be better worked by a neighbouring concern, but as the Coal Commission have no power to transfer retained interests, the better working of the nation's coal could not in fact be achieved. This clause therefore provides that if the applicant and the Coal Commission desire the transfer to be made, application can then be made to the Railway and Canal Commission. On the other hand, subsection (3) of Clause 6 deals with another matter in which the principal Act did not go far enough. The Railway and Canal Commission still have powers to modify onerous conditions or restrictions affecting the working of coal, and no reasonable objection could be taken to this where the person with power to modify those conditions is a third party, but where that person happens to be the Coal Commission it is obviously quite inconsistent that application should be made to the Railway and Canal Commission for the revision of conditions which have been imposed by the Coal Commission.

The last parts of the Bill to which I need draw the attention of the House are Clause 10 and the Second Schedule. It 892 may be recalled that under the principal Act the Commission acquired all those rights which a coal owner could sell to a willing purchaser in virtue of his interest in the coal, but not in virtue of any interest he might have in the land. Coal mining leases frequently require the lessee to give the lessor notice when he is approaching coal underlying surface buildings, and this enables the lessor to prohibit or authorize the working of such coal. Let me give your Lordships another example of the kind of case with which this clause deals. Where the owner of the fee simple in the coal and the owner of the fee simple in the land were formerly one and the same person, that owner, in letting a given area of coal to the lessee, has attached to the lease a condition that the lessee may not work coal supporting buildings without first obtaining the lessor's consent; but under the Act it is doubtful in certain circumstances in whom is now vested the right to give or withhold that consent. Is it the Coal Commission as owner of the coal, or is it the former owner as the owner of the surface? Obviously a doubt exists, and this doubt must, and should, be cleared up. Accordingly this clause and the Second Schedule provide that the right to give or withhold consent has passed to the Coal Commission as owner of the coal, but the right to let down the surface, which is vested in the Commission along with the coal, shall carry a condition to give compensation for any damage that may be done to supporting buildings. That is the small Bill that I present to the House. It will, I am sure, in no way prove to be a contentious measure, and I now submit it to your Lordships for Second Reading. I beg to move.