HC Deb 29 November 1948 vol 458 cc1763-71

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees)—(King's Recommendation signified.)

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to alter the composition of the National Coal Board, extend the area within which their activities may be carried on and empower them to terminate certain long-term contracts and (amongst other things) to authorise the making of certain payments in connection with the settlement of disputes arising under regulations made under Section thirty-seven of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of fees and allowances to a referee or the members of a board of referees appointed under regulations so made to whom disputes arising under the regulations are referred and of allowances to persons giving evidence before any such referee or board."—[Mr. Gaitskell.]

10.11 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre (New Forest and Christchurch)

May I ask your guidance, Major Milner? You have already read this Motion, but I should like to know, as it refers to the composition of the Coal Board and the area within which it works, and so on, whether that is subject to discussion now or whether we can only discuss the provision relating to referees.

The Chairman

The sole question relates to the provision of money for the payment of referees. That is the only question which can be discussed.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

In that case, I hope that we shall have some statement from the Government as to why this sum is required. It is obvious that under Clause 3 of the Bill a certain number of contracts will be invalidated. The Government have taken power to invalidate any contract they like, not only on the basis of past history but on what they may think likely to be opprobious to the Government. I hope that before we pass this Resolution, somebody on the Government side will tell us what the cost is likely to be and how many contracts are likely to be invalidated, particularly as we are being asked to pass a Money Resolution of this sort based on a Clause of such wide definition.

Hon. Members will see that the operative words are: If the Board are of opinion that they are, or are likely to be, hampered … That seems to me to be an impossible phrase to pass. If we do so we shall be saying that the Coal Board can object to any contract without reference to any known form of law, and can merely say that it seems to be unprofitable or is something that they would like to annul. Therefore, I should like from the Minister some statement which would give us a clue as to the number of contracts which the Government propose to disavow.

Mr. Gaitskell

I think the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) is under some misapprehension. This Money Resolution merely relates to Subsection (3) of Clause 4 which provides for the Minister of Labour to make certain payments to referees or members of boards of referees, and so on. The purpose of that Subsection is to ensure that the same procedure is followed under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act as has been adopted in the other Nationalisation Acts.

In the Regulations made by the Minister under Section 37 of the Act, reference is made to a referee or board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour. This Money Resolution, as I say, simply ensures that members on those boards of referees may be paid in the ordinary way. I cannot possibly say how much it will be. Obviously it depends on the number of disputes arising out of Section 37, but obviously it will not be very much.

10.15 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

I think the Minister carefully avoided the question I put. The question I was raising was the amount which the Board will pay under Clause 3 of the Bill, which is dealing with termination of contracts.

The Chairman

I am afraid that the question, under Clause 3, does not enter into the Financial Resolution at all. It is an entirely different question.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

With due respect, Sir, this Financial Resolution refers to referees, and I think if you read Clause 3 you will see that it also refers to referees. When the Minister says that under Clause 4 the sum may be insignificant, the question is, what happens under Clause 3 where we have all these contracts disposable, so far as I can see, at the will of the Minister, and where the Government have to make compensation?

The Chairman

Would the hon. and gallant Member indicate where the question of referees arises in Clause 3?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

I would say it arises under Clause 3 (3, b). With respect, all I am trying to do is to make certain——

The Chairman

I am sorry, but I am afraid the hon. and gallant Member is quite out of Order. Mr. Foster.

Mr. John Foster (Northwich)

The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power has explained that the object of this Money Resolution is to ensure that the referees shall be paid as they are under the former Act. There is a question of principle here whether it is right to provide by Money Resolution that the referees shall be paid on the same principle as under the Act. Of course, under Clause 4 of this Bill the Government are seeking to take power to make it possible for them not to have certain questions decided by the referees or anybody else. Also under this Bill the referees will have cast upon them the very onerous task of deciding whether a person who has "an expectation of accruer" of benefit has or has not suffered a loss according to the amended wording of Clause 4 (2). In other words, a man who is entitled under the old Act to compensation for loss of office may be deprived altogether of compensation by the amendments sought to be made by Clause 4. It will be noticed that under Clause 4 (2) the Government are seeking by retrospective legislation to take out of the old Act some words originally inserted and to relate this Amendment right back to the old Act—a wicked provision, because it means that a man who is relying on the words an expectation of accruer, whether as of right or under customary practice"—

The Chairman

Order. That question may be properly discussable on the Committee stage of the Bill, but not here, where authority is to be given for the provision of the means wherewith to pay the board of referees dealing with superannuation rights. I do not think the hon. Member can go beyond that. He is endeavouring to argue the merits of the various factors regarding superannuation and this is not a proper occasion to do that.

Mr. Foster

With great respect, I agree I was seeking to raise the merits, but I connected the merits with the payment because, where this question is to be decided, it is not right that this House by Money Resolution should provide for the payment of referees. In my respectful submission, we are entitled to discuss whether the money shall be provided for that purpose. Under this Resolution authority is given to pay the referees who have to decide the very superannuation rights under Clause 4 (2).

The Chairman

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that if the Bill in its final form does not provide for boards of referees, this Resolution will be non-operative. The Committee stage on the Bill will be the appropriate time at which to argue the desirability or otherwise of the superannuation, and the form of the machinery, whether it is to be a tribunal or a referee or otherwise. It will be competent for the Committee to decide that boards of referees shall not operate. Were that so decided then this Financial Resolution would be non-operative.

Mr. Foster

With respect, I think there are two points on that. One is that on the Committee Stage of the Bill we cannot alter the Money Resolution. The second one is that we cannot argue on the Money Resolution that these referees, if they decide such questions, ought to have their remuneration increased. We are not providing here that referees should be paid by reference to the work they are to do.

The Chairman

I am sorry. The Resolution does not make any provision as to the amount of the money provided. That will depend on what is eventually decided at the Committee stage of the Bill or by regulation. The amount of the money can be lessened, but it cannot be increased.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

On a point of Order. Does that mean that in fact on the Committee stage of the Bill we shall be entitled to alter the amount of money that can be paid?

The Chairman

Certainly, that will be the position.

Hon. Members

In Committee?

The Chairman

There is no amount set out in this Financial Resolution, and, therefore, the amount eventually expended will depend upon the conditions laid down in the Bill by the Committee on the Bill.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

And the amount can be increased?

The Chairman

There is no amount stated to be decreased or increased. The amount is at large.

Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay)

The purpose I have in rising is to object to authorising at this time any amount of money, whether it is to be made smaller or larger in Committee on the Bill, for this particular purpose. We have had so far very little explanation from the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Money Resolution to show precisely for what he wants this money order. If he had been kind enough to get up and explained to us what the point of the order is, then possibly it would have been easier for me, and I should not have been forced and compelled by the inadequacy of his remarks on this order to intervene, much as I dislike having to do so. In the circumstances, as we are now left with no explanation of the money order, which, apparently it is completely beyond the capacity—not that the capacity is large—of any member of the Government to explain, may I ask, to be sure of this assumption, if it is possible for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to help us?

I look at these Money Resolutions from the point of view of a vast number of people who at the present time are telling me that they exceedingly dislike any money being handed over for this purpose to the Government. I represent a very large number of people who think that any amount, such as is being spent here, whether it be a large or a small amount, ought not to be spent. We do not know whether it is to be a large or a small amount. We are not allowed to know that.

Quite honestly, it is a singularly disreputable thing that the Government should come at this time of night to ask for an order of this kind. I see that the Prime Minister and the Lord President of the Council are present. I think that when Members of this House are discussing the financial affairs of this Bill, of which we have not been told—and of course I would not dream of discussing it now—and we have the leaders of the Government just laughing at the idea of the suffering of our people, that shows how necessary it is to inquire very carefully into all these matters.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

May I seek your guidance, Major Milner? I understood you to say that this Resolution only applies to Clause 4 of the Bill at the moment. There are a great many payments which have to be paid out under Clause 3. Are we to understand that that is covered by some previous Resolution of this House, or are we in fact now voting sums for that payment?

The Chairman

I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not expect me to refer him to other Resolutions. We can only deal with the Resolution before the Committee, and that is the one which I have read.

10.30 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

In that case, do I understand that anything which we may do tonight has no effect on Clause 3 of the Bill, because, if that is so, I think that Members on this side of the House would take a very different view of the Measure before us?

The Chairman

The matter is covered by the Financial Resolution which has no reference to Clause 3 of the Bill. The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot expect me to interpret a prospective Act of Parliament.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

May I point out, Major Milner, that you ruled me out of Order earlier when I ask what the sum payable under Clause 3 would be, and you said that this Resolution only applied to Clause 4. I am now asking for your guidance as to whether in fact you are saying that nothing under Clause 3 will be covered by this Resolution?

The Chairman

I have perused Clause 3, and I can see nothing in it referring to the powers of referees or allowances to witnesses.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

With due respect, Major Milner, I would like to get this matter clear. Is it your Ruling that I cannot now speak about any sums payable under Clause 3, yet, at the same time, it may be that under this Resolution Clause 3 will be covered? That seems to me to be a question which the House should know before it passes this Resolution.

The Chairman

I gathered from what the Minister said when he explained the Resolution that it refers to Clause 4 and has no reference at all to Clause 3. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must accept that.

Captain Crookshank (Gainsborough)

With all due respect, Major Milner, I think that I understand the point quite clearly that so far as any payments to referees and so forth are concerned, which is the subject matter of this Money Resolution, that is covered by the Clause 4 and is further discussable on the Committee stage. What I think was confusing the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre)—and I am sure no one can blame him for being confused—is that in what is called the definition part—that is the opening words—of this Money Resolution, there is a reference to the Act empowering the Board to terminate certain long-term contracts. I think that my hon. and gallant Friend had in mind the possibility of determining whether by the termination by arbitration or other means of certain long-term contracts there was likely to be some payment required from somewhere, and he wanted to be clear whether that came in the Money Resolution and, if not, from where such payment came.

The Chairman

If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at the long Title of the Bill he will see that all the Financial Resolution purports to do is to repeat almost in terms the long Title of the Bill as a preliminary to the authorisation set out in the Financial Resolution. That is the explanation for these preliminary words.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

If that is so, Major Milner, I should be entitled to ask the Minister under the long Title what might be raised under Clause 3.

Mr. Gaitskell

It may perhaps clear this up if I confirm what I have already said, that the Money Resolution has nothing to do with Clause 3.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

With great respect, as the Minister of Fuel and Power has made that statement and you, Major Milner, have accepted it as against the objections that we have raised on this side of the House, I do ask for a firm Ruling from the Chair.

The Chairman

The hon. and gallant Member has already had half a dozen Rulings. I am afraid he must accept them.

Mr. C. Williams

I do not agree that the right hon. Gentleman has proved anything at all. With great respect, all that he has proved is that he has not the faintest idea what he is talking about.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.