Commons Sitting of 2 July 1934

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, MR. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PKIVATE BUSINESS.
Newport Extension Bill [Lords].
As amended, to be considered upon Wednesday.
Ramsgate Corporation Bill [Lords].
Read a Second time, and committed.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Ian Leslie Orr-Ewing, Esquire, for the County of Somerset (Weston-super-Mare Division).
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    JAPANESE MOTOR CAES.
    Mr. HALESasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that arrangements have now been completed by Japanese motor manufacturers in Tokio for the importation into Calcutta and other Indian ports of a considerable number of cheap Japanese motor cars closely resembling British cars in size and pattern; and will he, in the interests of the buying public, communicate with the Indian Government that such cars shall be plainly stamped with the country of origin in order that these cars can be easily identified by intending purchasers?
    THE SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I will communicate my hon. Friend's suggestion to the Government of India.
    Mr. HALESasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that arrangements are now being made with certain motor dealers in England for the importation of cheap Japanese cars at a cost of less than half the price of British
    1542
    cars of similar construction and size; and if he will, at the earliest possible moment, make arrangements in order to prevent serious injury being done to the British motor-car industry?
    The DEPUTY PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): My attention had not previously been called to this matter, but if my hon. Friend or the trade association concerned would care to furnish me with any definite information I shall, of course, be glad to consider it.
    Mr. HALES: Is my hon. Friend aware that, if this invasion be permitted, it will do the gravest injury to the motor industry and have the effect of further deteriorating the value of every secondhand car in this country?

    RUSSIAN PRODUCE.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the President of the Board of Trade the quantities of exports of wheat, barley and butter from the Soviet Union for the last year for which figures are available?
    Dr. BURGIN: There were exported from the Soviet Union during 1933, 748,248 metric tons of wheat, 567,094 metric tons of barley and 37,205 metric tons of butter.

    RETAIL TRADE.
    Mr. MABANEasked the President of the Board of Trade the comparative figures of retail trade in this country in May, 1934, and May, 1933?
    Dr. BURGIN: The money value of retail sales in May, 1934, exceeded by 7.7 per cent. that for May, 1933. My hon. Friend will find detailed information on the subject in an article which was published in the issue of the "Board of Trade Journal" for June 28th.
    Mr. MABANE: Will my hon. Friend draw the particular attention of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Gripps) to these figures in view of his categorical statement that there was no reflection in these figures of the beneficial effect of the recent Budget?
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether those figures are based upon the increased population or not?
    Dr. BURGIN: I think that the answer is "Not."

  INDIA.

    BENGAL POLICE.
    Duchess of ATHOLLasked the Secretary of State for India how many British officers of the Bengal Police have retired, or intimated their intention of retiring, on proportionate pension before completing their full period of service since 1st January, 1934; from what posts, respectively, these officers are retiring; and how many British officers, or Indian officers promoted to officer rank after approved long service, will be available to take their place?
    Sir S. HOARE: No such officer has retired on proportionate pension since the 1st January, 1934. One superintendent of police has, during the same period, applied for permission to retire prematurely in 1936. No difficulty is anticipated in adequately filling the vacancy in the ordinary way by promotion from the rank below.
    Captain CAZALET: Have recent events been prejudicial to the recruiting of the police either in Bengal or elsewhere, and has there been a falling off either in the number or the quality of the recruits?
    Sir S. HOARE: No, there has been no-falling off at all. Both in numbers and in quality the results of the last two years have been excellent.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Are men who have served in the police sending their sons into the force as much as two years ago?
    Sir S. HOARE: I could not possibly answer a question like that without looking into the genealogies of all the applicants.

    HYDERABAD (MEDICAL OFFICER).
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for India if the Government of Bombay has restored the annual grant in respect of the salary of the medical officer of Hyderabad now that the reasons for withholding this grant have been materially altered by the change in Congress policy?
    Sir S. HOARE: I have no information, but if the hon. Member so desires, I will inquire.

    QUININE.
    Duchess of ATHOLLasked the Secretary of State for India why 300,000 lbs. of quinine owned by the Government of
    1544
    India are lying idle; for how long has this been the case; and what arrangements are now in contemplation for making this stock of quinine available for the millions who annually suffer from malaria and cannot procure it?
    Sir S. HOARE: The Government of India habitually maintain a reserve stock of quinine for emergencies. This reserve rose to 300,000 lbs. about 1926 and continued at or above that figure until 1932. Measures have since been initiated to reduce it to 150,000 lbs. which is regarded as a sufficient reserve. In March, 1933, it had been reduced to 282,759 lbs. I have no later figure, but I understand that the Government of India are doing their best to increase sales. I will ask them for a further report with reference to the last part of the question.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Is it not the case that the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Agriculture in 1928 that the Government of India should control production, manufacture and distribution in the interest of those who suffer from malaria has been held up since the first Round Table Conference because the proposed Federal Government would have no power to deal with the matter?
    Sir S. HOARE: My Noble Friend is totally misinformed. The attitude of the Government of India has nothing whatever to do with any proposal that was discussed at the Round Table Conference. The Government of India are maintaining a policy which has always been in existence, namely, that they should have a substantial reserve of quinine and should do their best to encourage the population to make use of it.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Reports of the Government of India in regard to the recommendations of the Royal Commission which have been carried into operation, will he not find that this recommendation was held up after the first Round Table Conference because the Federal Government would have no power to deal with the matter?
    Sir S. HOARE: I cannot do more than repeat the answer I have given, that there is no foundation for that suggestion as far as I know.

    NAGPUR CONSPIRACY CASE.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for India when the

    1545
    Nagpur conspiracy case, referred to in the report on the administration of the Central Provinces and the police report of those provinces, was discovered; whether the conspiracy was of a political nature; how many persons were convicted and on what charges; and whether the convictions were upheld on repeal?
    Sir S. HOARE: The conspiracy, which was of a revolutionary character, was discovered in July, 1932. The accused, who numbered 14, were charged with conspiring to kill Government officials and to commit dacoities to obtain money for the expenses of the conspiracy. Ten of the accused were convicted and sentenced by the session judge. On appeal two were acquitted and the convictions of the remaining eight upheld.

    POLICE FORCE, BARHAIYA.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELLasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that an additional police force is posted in the village of Barhaiya, Monghyr, and the whole cost charged to the villagers; that the reason given in the Bihar Legislative Council on behalf of the Government was that it was to protect the village from the subversive influence of the National Congress; and whether, now that the Congress is no longer an illegal body, he will give instructions to the Government of India to have the burden of the cost of this extra police removed?
    Sir S. HOARE: Additional police were posted in this village, at the cost of the inhabitants, in May, 1932, as the result of the subversive activities of the villagers, which were continued in spite of several warnings. Exemptions were granted to those who had kept themselves aloof from the civil disobedience movement. I cannot say whether these additional police have now been withdrawn. The question is one which I must leave to the discretion of the Provincial Government.

  IRAQ (ASSYRIANS).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is still hopeful of settling the Assyrians outside Iraq; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take to afford them protection inside Iraq?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): With regard to the first part of the question, I have nothing at present to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend, the Lord Privy Seal, to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) on 19th June. With regard to the second part, so long as the Assyrians remain in Iraq, responsibility for their protection devolves upon the Iraqi Government, who have on several recent occasions given assurances on the subject to the League of Nations.
  Captain CAZALET: Is the statement in to-day's papers true that the Brazilian Government have definitely refused to accept these Assyrians in Brazil?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot ask questions on what appears in the papers.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Have we an Englishman resident among the Assyrian population, and does the right hon. Gentleman realise that England has a rather special responsibility for these people going beyond that of the League of Nations?
  Sir J. SIMON: I think our responsibilities in the matter are quite well understood. As regards the first supplementary question, in order to avoid misunderstandings perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put it down.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    BRITISH DELEGATION.
    Major HILLSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give the names of the British delegation to the Assembly of the League of Nations at Geneva?
    Sir J. SIMON: I should be grateful if my right hon. and gallant Friend would repeat his question in a week's time when I shall be in a position to give him an answer.

    RUSSIA.
    Sir WALDRON SMITHERSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether, in view of the fact that, on the admission of its own rulers, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is the base of the world revolution, and through its agents throughout the world

    1547
    loses no opportunity of fomenting civil war in other countries, His Majesty's Government will oppose the entry of the Soviet Government into the League of Nations;
    (2) whether, in view of the terms of the preamble and of Article 23 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, and of the statement at the seventeenth congress of the Communist party in January last of M. Stalin that he will lead to victory the revolutionary forces throughout the world, His Majesty's Government will oppose the entry of the Soviet Government into the League of Nations?
    Sir J. SIMON: As far as I am aware, the Soviet Government have not applied for membership of the League of Nations, so that my hon. Friend's questions do not arise.
    Sir W. SMITHERS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the entry of the Soviet into the League of Nations will only widen their opportunities for revolutionary propaganda?
    Mr. COCKS: What connection has Article 23 of the Covenant of the League of Nations with the subject? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Sir W. Smithers) to read the Covenant of the League of Nations before putting these imbecile questions?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Whatever the hon. Gentleman's views on questions may be, he must not express them.

  BRAZIL (BRITISH INVESTORS).
  Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the action of the Brazilian Government in relation to releasing exchange funds to repay Bank of San Paulo (Brazil) loans at a discount of 60 per cent. notwithstanding the unilateral moratorium arrangement with British creditors of Brazil; and will he request His Majesty's Ambassador at Rio de Janeiro to obtain particulars and make a report on the matter?
  Sir J. SIMON: I have seen a report indicating that the Brazilian Government have given permission for the exchange
  1548
  derived from the sale of certain foreign bonds in the possession of the Bank of the State of Sao Paulo to be utilised for the purpose of purchasing on the open market bonds issued by the bank, which are to be cancelled following upon their purchase. This scheme has, I understand, no connection with the arrangements for the consolidation of Brazilian foreign loans which were announced on 5th February last. I have requested His Majesty's Ambassador at Rio de Janeiro to furnish me with particulars, and I will communicate these to my hon. Friend on receipt.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: If this action of the Brazilian Government be correctly stated, is it not equivalent to downright dishonesty?
  Sir J. SIMON: I cannot answer a question in those terms. The purchase of the bonds is at most an offer. No bondholder is obliged to part with his bonds.

  RUSSIA.
  Sir W. SMITHERSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information concerning the economic position in the Soviet Union; what has been the extent of the famine in the past 12 months; and what is the present position?
  Sir J. SIMON: I have no recent information on the subject suitable for answering this question beyond what has already appeared in the Press.

  AGRICULTURE.

    MEAT IMPORTS.
    Captain ELLISTONasked the Minister of Agriculture to what extent there has been, since the institution of the meat quota, an increase in the pro portion of meat imported with the bones and other tissue of little value removed: whether the increase in the importation of boneless meat and pieces or cuts of meat prevents the quota scheme from having its full effect in benefiting the home producer of meat; and whether he will take steps to prohibit the importation of carcase meat from which the bones have been removed, or which has been cut into pieces less than the whole carcase, in the case of mutton, lamb, veal and pork, or less than a fore or hind quarter in the case of beef?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): Under the Ottawa Agreements imports of chilled beef, frozen beef (carcases and boned beef taken together) and frozen mutton and lamb from foreign countries are subject to quantitative regulation. It is only in the case of frozen beef that the importation of boneless meat is of importance. In the Ottawa standard year, approximately 8½ per cent. of imports of frozen beef from foreign sources was in the form of boned beef. In the year 1933, this pro portion rose to approximately 19½ per cent. As I indicated in my statement on the livestock situation on 20th December last, negotiations were opened with a view to reducing the quantities of boned beef imported from foreign countries. The importers subsequently agreed to take steps to ensure that the proportion of boned beef imported does not exceed that which obtained in the Ottawa year, and in the first five months of this year there has in fact been a substantial reduction in the proportion of boned beef imported from foreign countries. With regard to the last part of the question, the Market Supply Committee are at present examining the situation generally.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the 1931 imports of beef, mutton, lamb, and bacon from foreign countries are permitted under voluntary agreements during 1934; the estimated decrease in weight for all kinds of meat for the latter period; and the price per cwt. during each of the two periods?
    Dr. BURGIN: As the answer is a rather long one, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The regulation of imports from foreign countries of the descriptions of meat -to which the hon. Member refers is statutory, except in so far as voluntary reductions have been arranged in imports of chilled beef. The latter reductions have been arranged from quarter to quarter, and it is not at present possible to give a figure relating to chilled beef for the whole of this year. As regards frozen beef it has not been possible in the time available to give comparable figures for 1931 and 1934.
    Assuming that the present rate of reduction in imports of frozen mutton and lamb from foreign countries is maintained such imports in 1934 will amount to about 61 per cent. of the quantity imported in 1931. It is estimated that the total importation from foreign countries of bacon as defined in the Bacon (Import Regulation) Order, 1934, will amount in 1934 to approximately 56 per cent. of the imports in 1931.
    The estimated decrease in the weighs of imports of foreign frozen mutton and lamb is approximately 816,000 cwts. and the corresponding figure for bacon is 5,085,000 cwts.
    The following table gives average wholesale prices for the first five months of 1931 and 1934:

    —

    1931.

    1934.

    Pence per lb.

    Pence per lb.

    Chilled Beef (Argentine, first quality; mean of forequarters and hindquarters).

    4⅞

    4¾

    Frozen Mutton (Argentine, first quality).

    4⅜

    5¼

    Frozen Lamb (Argentine, first quality).

    5⅞

    6¾

    per cwt.

    per cwt.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    Bacon (Danish Green Sides, first quality).

    70

    6

    91

    6

    HOUSES AND COWS (IMPORTS).
    Major COLFOX (for Sir THOMAS ROSBOTHAM)asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the fact that the imports of horses and cows into this country during the first five months of 1934 as compared with the first five months of 1933 has increased to 3,567 and 11,167 as-against 2,111 and 5,086; and whether, in view of the adverse effect upon British breeders of such increase, he proposes to take steps to deal with the matter?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am aware of the increases referred to in the first part of the question which I find are largely due to renewed activity in imports from the Irish Free State. I would remind my hon. Friend, however, that the imports during the first five months of 1934 were substantially lower than during the corresponding period in 1931 and 1932.

    SEA-FISH COMMISSION (REPORT).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Sea-Fish Commission have issued a report; and, if so, whether such report is available for hon. Members?
    Mr. ELLIOT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part, therefore, does not arise.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell approximately when the commission are likely to issue their first report?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I understand that they hope to issue their report on the herring industry in the course of a few weeks. The report on white fish will, of course, be later.

    WAGES (REGULATION) ACT.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture how many cases under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, were investigated by inspectors during the first four months of this year; in how many cases proceedings were taken in court; how many convictions were registered; and the average fines, excluding arrears of wages?
    Mr. ELLIOT: The number of cases investigated under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act during the first four months of this year was 880. Police court proceedings were taken in 28 cases, in 23 of which convictions were registered, with an average fine of approximately £3.
    Mr. LUNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the inspectors are not biased in the direction of supporting the farmer rather than the agricultural labourer?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Oh, yes, Sir. I think that it would be a very wrong suggestion to make that officials were biased in favour of one section of the community as against another.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the amount of these fines is helping to retard farmers from negotiating the 1924 Act?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid that I do not quite understand the question.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is a paying proposition for farmers to break the law when fines are so small?
    Mr. ELLIOT: No, I do not think that that would be a fair suggestion. After all, the law is being generally enforced, and as the hon. Gentleman is aware, we put on additional inspectors from the 1st April this year to see that it is observed.
    Mr. D. GRENFELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman insisting that in all cases which have been before the court, and in which awards have been made, the arrears are fully paid up.
    Mr. ELLIOT: There are instances of arrears being collected by the court, but I should require further notice of that particular question.

    HOPS.
    Mr. M0LS0Nasked the Minister of Agriculture what quantities of hops were shipped to Canadian cold-water ports in September, October, and November, 1933?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I regret that I have no information as to the quantities of hops shipped from the United Kingdom to particular Canadian ports. The total quantities shipped to all Canadian ports during September, October and November, 1933, were as follow:—

    Tons.

    Cwts.

    September, 1933

    …

    2

    12

    October, 1933

    …

    2

    7

    November, 1933

    …

    —

    12

    Total

    …

    5

    11

    Mr. M OLSONasked the Minister of Agriculture whether in studying the report of the provisional Hop Committee, he has considered the effect on exports to Canada of the proposed prohibition of free sales until all firm contracts have been fulfilled or for 28 days after the beginning of trading; whether he will indicate, approximately, when under paragraph (7) free sales are likely to become permissible; and whether he is satisfied that this date is early enough to enable hops sold to Canada to be delivered before the St. Lawrence river is frozen?
    Mr. ELLIOT: With regard to the first part of the question, my hon. Friend

    1553
    will appreciate that home brewers should have the first call on the home crop. As to the remainder of the question, I regret that it is not possible to give any indication of the probable date when general trading will begin under the agreement; this will depend on the date when the crop becomes available and the activity of the market. I am unable to say, therefore, whether hops purchased for delivery in Canada could reach that country before traffic on the St. Lawrence ceases.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: Is this one of the ways of encouraging our export trade?

  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (BIG BEN).
  Sir W. DAVISONasked the First Commissioner of Works when the scaffolding will be removed from the face of the clock in the Clock Tower; and when Big Ben will again strike the hours?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): It is hoped that the scaffolding will be removed from the faces of the clock during the course of the present week. Big Ben will strike the hours and the chimes will resume operation at 9 p.m. to-morrow night.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Will my right hon. Friend inform the House as to the action taken by Big Ben in securing this early release from the imprisonment and silence imposed by the Office of Works?

  HOUSING (SLUM CLEARANCE, BIRMINGHAM).
  Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Health whether he has received a report from one of his inspectors in connection with the Birmingham Corporation's proposals for the slum-clearance area in Emily Street; and if he can state whether the property owners raised any objections to the corporation's proposals?
  The DEPUTY PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative and to the second part in the affirmative.

  PALESTINE (IMMIGRANT DOCTORS).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies
  1554
  (1) whether and, if so, why new immigrant doctors into Palestine are restricted to five a year; and whether there is a limitation on the numbers of doctors or lawyers allowed to practise in any other British Colony or Dominion;
  (2) whether there are any and, if so, what restrictions on the number of Jewish refugees from Germany practising as doctors in Palestine; and, if so, who asked for the restriction?
  The DEPUTY SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): In March last the Executive of the Jewish Agency in Palestine was informed of the proposal of the Palestine Government to institute measures for the limitation of the number of licences to be issued annually to doctors, dentists, and advocates. I am not aware that any request for such restrictions had been made. No legislation has yet been enacted to give effect to these proposals, which are at present the subject of correspondence between the High Commissioner and myself. So far as I am aware, no similar system of limitation exists in other British Dependencies or in the self-governing Dominions.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I hope that I am right in supposing that the right hon. Gentleman will do his best to prevent such an unusual distinction?

  STREET COLLECTIONS (METROPOLITAN AREA).
  Mr. THOMAS COOKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of flag days which have taken place in the Metropolitan area since 1st May; the total number so far authorised this summer; and the principle upon which this authority is based?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): The number of street collections held in the Metropolitan Police district during the period 1st May to 30th June, 1934, was 88; of these 11 were general collections authorised for the whole or a large part of the district and 77 were local collections. For the period ending the 30th September, 58 other collections, five of which are general, have been authorised. The decision to grant or refuse a permit is taken after full consideration of all the circumstances of

  1555
  each particular case, due regard being had to the recommendation of the advisory committee.
  Mr. COOK: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the issuing of so many permits is apt to be detrimental to the more deserving causes?

  TRANSPORT.

    ROAD ACCIDENT.
    Mr. JOHN WALLACEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the circumstances under which a boy, J. Anderson Walker, was killed on the Barnet by-pass road, on 20th April, in a collision between two motor lorries; and whether proceedings will be instituted for dangerous driving against the driver responsible?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir. After full inquiry and careful consideration of all the circumstances, the Commissioner of Police has come to the conclusion that the evidence is not such as to justify proceedings for dangerous or careless driving.
    Mr. WALLACE: In view of the intense indignation in this case, does not my right hon. Friend think that he would be justified in taking into account the question of circumstantial evidence, which is regarded as significant in cases of a much more serious character?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I think that my hon. Friend is aware that proceedings have been instituted against both the driver of the van and the owner for permitting the use of the vehicle in a dangerous condition. The summonses are to be heard next week, and my hon. Friend will appreciate that it is not possible for me to make comment on the case.
    Mr. WALLACE: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the proceedings are to be taken on a purely technical offence and not on the question of dangerous driving, which is the serious matter in this particular case?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: All that I can say is that this matter has been considered by those whose duty it is to consider such matters, and I can add nothing to the answer that I have given.

    ROAD SERVICE LICENCES, NORTH-WEST AREA.
    Major OWENasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the remarks made by the traffic commissioner for the north-west area, sitting at Bangor on Monday, 25th June, as the licensing authority under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933; whether he is aware that the commissioner stated that there was confusion in the minds of some operators from rural areas as to the nature of the licence to be applied for; and why the Ministry of Transport refused to publish in the Welsh language a translation of the memoranda issued by the Department?
    Sir VICTOR WARRENDER (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply. Inquiries are being made into this matter, the result of which will be communicated to the hon. and gallant Member.

    WATERLOO BRIDGE.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to inform the House of the decision of the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether the London County Council are legally entitled to disregard the twice- expressed opinion of Parliament that Waterloo Bridge should not be pulled down?
    The DEPUTY LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): It is a long-established rule that the opinions of the Law Officers are confidential and must not be disclosed, but I would point out in any case that a decision in the matter can only be pronounced by a court of law.
    Sir W. DAVISON: In view of the fact that Parliament has on two occasions come to a decision in this matter, is my right hon. Friend aware that the Act under which the London County Council are acting as a highway authority deals only with the reparation of bridges and the widening of bridges, and that it is only when a bridge is wholly incapable of repair that they are entitled to pull it down? Is he aware that they are estopped from alleging that in view of the fact that they proposed this year to recondition it?
    Mr. BALDWIN: With regard to the first point, what the House did, as I

    1557
    understand it, was to say that unless a certain course was pursued no grant would be allowed on the Vote for the Money Bill. With regard to the latter part, perhaps it may simplify matters at this point if I say that the Government have no intention of proceeding any further in the matter.
    Mr. WILMOT: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the London County Council are entirely competent as the bridges authority in their own area?
    Mr. BALDWIN: That is not my business.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
  36. The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. THORNE:
  "To ask the Home Secretary whether he has received a report from the Chief Constable of Sheffield in connection with the Fascist meeting held at Sheffield on Thursday night last; if he can state the number of police on duty at the hall and the number of members of the British Union of Fascists that were brought to Sheffield from outside areas; whether the police were invited inside the hall; whether the ambulance corps was a unit of the British Union of Fascists or the Sheffield unit of the St. John's Ambulance Corps; the number of persons arrested and how many were injured; and whether the major part of the meeting was orderly, and if there was a disturbance at what part of the meeting it took place and what was the cause."
  Mr. THORNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether, notwithstanding the fact that two of my questions have been postponed until Thursday, I am still ruled out from putting this question? I have a number of questions down for Thursday, and I may be ruled out again on that day.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Rule is that the hon. Member may not have more than three questions on the Paper on the same day?
  Mr. THORNE: There are two questions which have been postponed.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, but they are still on the Paper.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.
  Mr. MABANE: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the
  1558
  fact that the returns of revenue and expenditure for the year up to date foreshadow a surplus at the year end as excessive as in the year last ended, he will consider introducing a second Budget at some later stage to mitigate the bad effects of over taxation by making further tax reductions, and to secure that revenue and expenditure for the year 1934–35 may balance?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff-Cooper): It is quite impossible to base any sound conclusions on returns relating to the first quarter of the financial year only.

  CIVIL SERVICE PAY AND BONUS (CONSOLIDATION).
  Mr. JOHN WILMOTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now make any statement as to the intention of the Government with regard to the consolidation of bonus and salary in Civil Service?
  Mr. COOPER: It is a matter of regret that the negotiations on this subject on the Civil Service National Whitley Council have resulted in the inability of the Staff Side to enter into an agreement with the Official Side on the basis of the proposal made by them with the approval of the Government. The Government have accordingly reviewed the whole position in the light of all the circumstances. They are satisfied that the proposals made are fair and reasonable and that it would be right to put them into operation from the 1st July. An announcement to this effect was accordingly made at the meeting of the National Whitley Council on Friday, the 29th June, and detailed instructions will be issued at an early date. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPOET a summary of the proposals in broad outline.
  Mr. WILMOT: Am I to understand that the Government proposals are being applied without the agreement of the staff side of the Whitley Council?
  Mr. COOPER: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to give notice that the Opposition will raise this matter at the earliest opportunity on a Vote of Supply.
  Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: Can the hon. Member say whether these recom-

  1559
  mendations are, broadly speaking, consistent with the recent report of the Royal Commission?
  Mr. COOPER: Yes, Sir, they are.
  Sir ERNEST GRAHAM-LITTLE: In view of the very wide dissatisfaction in the Civil Service, can the right hon. Gentleman not find time for a discussion in the House?
  Following is the summary:
  Consolidation of Civil Service Pay.
  Consolidation will be effected as from the 1st July, 1934, on the terms set out in paragraphs 352, 355 and 356 of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service or with reference to a cost-of-living figure of 55, whichever is more favourable, with the proviso that the remuneration so arrived at shall remain subject to abatement at the appropriate rates so long as half the emergency reductions continue in force. In other words, the pay of a civil servant hitherto remunerated by means of basic pay plus cost-of-living adjustment under the Stabilisation Agreement will be measured (for so long as half the emergency reductions remain in force) as half way between his pay under that agreement and the consolidated pay which would result from the full application of the consolidation scheme.
  In the case of those graded clerks and temporary typing staffs whose remuneration has been subject to variation on cost of living grounds pari passu with that of staffs conditioned to basic rates, the general underlying principles of the scheme will apply.
  In all cases of established civil servants retiring on or after 1st July, 1934, the full consolidated rate will be deemed to be the annual salary and emoluments of the office within the meaning of Section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1859, by reference to which pensions, additional allowances and gratuities will be calculated.
  In accordance with the terms of Section 4 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, awards of gratuities under that Section or Section 3 of the Superannuation Act, 1914, to unestablished civil servants or
  1560
  their dependants will be calculated upon the pay actually received, i.e., the consolidated rate less the abatement. Whereas hitherto only 75 per cent. of bonus has been reckoned for such awards, gratuities awarded to persons retiring on or after 1st July, 1934, will be calculated upon the full amount of pay actually received.

  TITHE RENTCHAEGE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Major COLFOX (for Mr. OSWALD LEWIS)asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is now in a position to state the composition of the proposed Royal Commission on tithes?
  Mr. ELLIOT: I am not yet in a position to state the composition of the proposed Royal Commission.

  GERMANY (SITUATION).
  Major ATTLEE(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he had any statement to make on the situation in Germany?
  Sir J. SIMON: Recent occurrences in Germany have been fully described in the Press and are also dealt with in the official communiqués issued from Berlin and Munich. His Majesty's Government are naturally following with close attention the course of events, but I am unable at present to make any further statement.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: May I ask the Lord President of the Council what Vote will be taken on Wednesday?
Mr. BALDWIN: Yes. The Estimates for the Treasury and Subordinate Departments will be taken, and I understand a discussion will take place on matters relating to monetary policy.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
The House divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 28.

Division No. 312.]

AYES.

[3.20 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. sir John

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

North, Edward T.

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Goff, sir Park

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Orr Ewing, I. L.

Albery, Irving James

Granville, Edgar

Patrick, Colin M.

Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

Grattan-Doyle, sir Nicholas

Perkins, Walter R. D.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Grimston, R. V.

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Atholl, Duchess of

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

Petherick, M.

Baillie, sir Adrian W. M.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Hales, Harold K.

Pownall, sir Assheton

Balniel, Lord

Hamilton, sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Hanbury, Cecil

Pybus, sir Percy John

Beauchamp, sir Brograve Campbell

Harris, sir Percy

Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

Hartington, Marquess of

Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)

Hartland, George A.

Rathbone, Eleanor

Benn, sir Arthur Shirley

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Ray, sir William

Blindell, James

Heneaga, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Rea, Walter Russell

Bossom, A. C.

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Boulton, W. W.

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. sir S. J. G.

Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

Bowyer, Capt. sir George E. W.

Holdsworth, Herbert

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

Broadbent, Colonel John

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Rickards, George William

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Ross, Ronald D.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney. N.)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

Hurst, sir Gerald B.

Runge, Norah Cecil

Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Butler, Richard Austen

Ker, J. Campbell

Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

Rutherford, sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

Caine, G. R. Hall.

Knight, Holford

Samuel, sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Campbell, sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Samuel, Rt. Hon. sir H. (Darwen)

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Lees-Jones, John

Sandeman, sir A. N. Stewart

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Scone, Lord

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Levy, Thomas

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Chapman, sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Lewis, Oswald

Shute, Colonel J. J.

Clarke, Frank

Liddall, Walter S.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)

Colfox, Major William Philip

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)

Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Lister, Rt. Hon. sir Philip Cunliffe

Smithers, sir Waldron

Conant, R. J. E.

Little, Graham-, sir Ernest

Somervell, sir Donald

Cook, Thomas A.

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Cooper, A. Duff

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Copeland, Ida

Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Cranborne, Viscount

Loder, Captain J. de Vera

Spens, William Patrick

Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Strauss, Edward A.

Crooke, J. Smedley

Mabane, William

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Crookshank, Capt, H. C. (Galnsb'ro)

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Thorp, Linton Theodore

Crossley, A. C.

McCorquodale, M. S.

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

Davies, Maj. Geo. P.(Somerset, Yeovil)

McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

Davison, sir William Henry

McLean, Major sir Alan

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Denville, Alfred

Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Despencer-Robertson. Major J. A. F.

Maitland, Adam

Turton, Robert Hugh

Dickie, John P.

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Dixey, Arthur C. N.

Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. sir M.

Wallace, John (Dunfermilne)

Donner, P. W.

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

Ward, Lt.-Col. sir A. L. (Hull)

Duckworth, George A. V.

Martin, Thomas B.

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Mills, sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

Wayland, sir William A.

Elmley, Viscount

Mitchell, sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Monsell, Rt. Hon. sir B. Eyres

Wise, Alfred R.

Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

Moreing, Adrian C.

Wood, Rt. Hon. sir H. Kingeley

Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Fox, sir Gifford

Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Fraser, Captain sir Ian

Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

Sir George Penny and Sir Victor

Fremantle, sir Francis

Munro, Patrick

Warrender.

Ganzoni, sir John

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

NOES.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Smith, Tom (Normanton)

Attlee, Clement Richard

Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

Thorne, William James

Banfield, John William

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Tinker, John Joseph

Batey, Joseph

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Logan, David Gilbert

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Cripps, sir Stafford

Lunn, William

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Daggar, George

McEntee, Valentine L.

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Mainwaring, William Henry

Wilmot, John

Edwards, Charles

Owen, Major Goronwy

Gardner, Benjamin Walter

Salter, Dr. Alfreo

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. Groves and Mr. G. Macdonald.

ESTIMATES.
Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PETROLEUM (PRODUCTION) BILL [Lords].
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  PETROLEUM (PRODUCTION) BILL [Lords].

    CLAUSE 1.—(Vesting of property in petroleum in His Majesty.)
    3.30 p.m.
    Mr. SPENS: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 10, and to insert:
    "His Majesty shall henceforth have the exclusive right of searching and boring for, and getting, and appropriating petroleum existing in its natural state in strata in Great Britain, and no person other than a person holding a licence under this Act for the purpose shall search or bore for such petroleum, and any such petroleum gotten or appropriated otherwise than by a person holding and in accordance with the provisions of such a licence shall be forfeited to His Majesty."
    In my view the opening words of the Clause are based on an untrue view of the law. They are based on the theory that private property exists in petroleum and gas under the earth in its natural state, and that, therefore, there is some property which can be vested in His Majesty, and that the effect of vesting that private property in His Majesty is to divest the individual private owner of property in that same petroleum and natural gas. That theory is based on the well-known theory of law that the owner of the surface is entitled to be regarded as the owner of everything that exists under the surface down to the centre of the earth, but I would remind the Committee that it has long been established in our English law, in respect of mineral substances, that there are exceptions to that theory. First of all, as regards solid minerals, the Crown has long claimed the right of its prerogative to property in gold and silver; no owner of the surface has any right at all in any gold or silver which happens to exist underneath the particular piece of surface of which he is owner.
    There are also other well-established exceptions in the case of non-solid minerals, minerals in a fluid condition, of which the best known are water percolating through minerals, water percolating underneath the soil in unknown
    1570
    channels, and brine in the big brine baths of the country. English law has recognised, since the middle of the last century as regards water, and since 1906 as regards brine, that there is no private property in these non-solid minerals unless and until the owner of the surface does some act by which he is able to appropriate these minerals and make them his own. Private property arises in these minerals for the first time when he manages to load these minerals into a bucket or can, and takes possession of them in that captured state. I admit, of course, that the question has only arisen for decision in this country as regards petroleum, but I suggest to the Committee that so far as English law at present is concerned there is an equal chance, indeed it is much more likely, that the courts of this country will hold that there is no private property whatever in petroleum and petroleum gas in its natural state under the surface.
    I am confirmed in that view by making a study of the way in which the law has developed in the United States of America, where, of course, since the end of last century they have had to deal practically with the existence of petroleum under the surface. It is a fact that in a number of States, particularly those States in which the influence of English law has been greater than in others, the American doctrine is that the same law applies to petroleum and petroleum gas in its natural state as applies to water percolating under the soil, namely, that there is no private property, and that no private property exists in it unless and until some person has in fact done something to reduce it into possession and to appropriate it for himself, and that then and then only for the first time arise any private rights of property which can be confiscated without compensation or can otherwise be dealt with.
    Therefore, I suggest to the Committee that it is clear beyond a shadow of doubt that there are two alternative theories of law, one of which could be adopted by the Legislature for the first time in this country in respect of petroleum: We can either give legislative sanction to the theory that there is exactly the same property under the surface in petroleum and petroleum gas in its natural state as there is in coal and stone and other minerals of that description; or we can adopt and give legislative sanction for

    1571
    the theory, which I submit is the more likely theory to be adopted by the courts, that there is no private property at all in petroleum and petroleum gas in their natural state unless and until someone is able to capture them and appropriate them for himself. That is much the more commonsense view of the law when you are dealing with a property which may in fact be here to-day and gone tomorrow, if a fissure appears in the limestone, or indeed if your neighbour sets to work and bores a hole next door.
    It seems to be a fact well established that one single bore-hole can draw off all the petroleum which is percolating or lying or oozing under a very large area of country, and if the true theory of law be that every owner of soil has a right of property in the petroleum which lies under the surface, then if this Bill were not passed the position would be that a person who sank a bore-hole and drew off all the petroleum over a large area of property would be taking his neighbour's property and making it his own, and if that be the true view should have to pay substantial compensation and damages to his neighbour for doing so. We have long recognised that difficulty as regards running water and brine, and we have held the view that each person has got the right, if he thinks fit, to sink a well on his own property and to appropriate all the water or the brine that he can get out of that well, and his neighbour then has a right on his boundary to sink his well and see if he cannot dry up the other man's well. So it goes on and is going on to-day in the City of London. Wells are being sunk on private property in the City of London with a view to avoiding the high rates for water in the City.
    If there be this choice of the theory of law on which this Bill should be based, I suggest to the Committee that there is every reason for adopting the view that there is no private property in petroleum and natural gas under the soil unless and until it is made one's own or appropriated by the owner of the surface, and that the private right which this Bill is interfering with is not the right of property at all in the petroleum, but the right of developing your land by digging wells and sinking bore-holes for the purpose, if you can, of capturing all the petroleum which happens to be either
    1572
    under or passing under your land and the land of your neighbours.
    If the Committee will think that out they will see that it is a much less serious interference with the rights of private property than to adopt the theory that there is private property in petroleum as it exists to-day under the soil, and to vest that in the Crown. In the one case you are, as many hon. Members have said, confiscating private property without compensation, and on the other theory you are merely preventing an owner developing his property in the way he desires to develop it. It is a no more serious interference with that right, to prevent him sinking bore-holes where and how he wishes and irrespective of the amenities and his neighbours' rights and so forth, than it is under the Town Planning Act or any other housing Act to prevent him building the type of house that he wants on his own particular type of surface. Therefore I suggest, on the ground of the legal principle involved, which I admit is doubtful, the Committee should make a choice which course they are going to adopt. I suggest that on that ground and on the ground of expediency it is far better that we should merely interfere with the right of user of the surface rather than attempt here and now to pass an Act confiscating property belonging to individuals, and to do so without compensation.
    3.40 p.m.
    Mr. DAVID REID: I do not propose to speak at length because I fully explained my view of the law on the Second Beading of the Bill, and my view is entirely in agreement with that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), who moved the Amendment. I venture to suggest to the Government that this is an Amendment which ought to be accepted. It does not interfere with the object which the Government have in view, and it avoids creating a precedent which might be used in future to justify Acts of Parliament confiscating private property without compensation. It cannot be denied that the Bill is drawn on the assumption that the law is that there is private property in petroleum, and my hon. and learned Friend has shown that there is at any rate grave doubt as to the accuracy of that view.

    1573
    In those circumstances, why should the Government resist the Amendment? Why-should they base this Bill on what is, I think, generally regarded as a wrong view of the law, with the additional disadvantage of creating an awkward precedent which may be used in the future in the way I have suggested? When the Bill was introduced hon. Members opposite gloated over what they regarded as the precedent which it involved. In my view they are mistaken in their view of the law, and if they are barking up the wrong tree, why should the Government bark with them? The Bill will work equally well if this Amendment is adopted; it will be in conformity with what I believe to be the correct view of the existing law, and will as I say avoid an awkward precedent.
    3.42 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): The Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), and supported by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Down (Mr. D. Reid) is an academic Amendment. I am not saying that it is not important, but it is not directed in any way to the substance of the Bill. If it were adopted, any owner of land under whose land petroleum might be found, would get no more and no less than he would under the Bill as it is now drafted. It is put forward on this ground and this ground only—that on a certain view of the law the words suggested in the Amendment would be more appropriate than the words in the Bill, or to put it in another way, that the words used in the Bill suggest a legal position which my hon. and learned Friend says may be wrong though he does not say definitely that it is wrong. The two legal positions are these: One view is that if a man owns property he can dig down to the centre of the earth, and that he would be entitled to claim all contained in that cone of soil including any petroleum as his property. The other view is that he might not be able to claim that, but that he could sink a hole in the surface of which he was the owner, and draw up through a pipe anything that happened to come up through that pipe, and, subject of course to such statutory regulations as might exist, he could sell what he got out of the pipe just as he could sell the gravel off the surface.
    1574
    I suggest to the Committee that it is not quite correct, even on that view of the matter, to say that no property exists in petroleum. It is not an actual property; it is more a potential property. It is a property when you can catch it and put it in a bucket, but I do not think it is right to say—and this is the view on which my hon. and learned Friend based the Amendment—that there is no private property in petroleum. Everyone appreciates the distinction between the view which clearly applies to immovables, that you can take what is actually in the soil, and the view which may apply to liquids. My hon. and learned Friend gave the examples of water and brine. When I first read the Amendment I was not quite sure as to what night be its intention, but my hon. and learned Friend has made it quite clear. He speaks in the Amendment of His Majesty henceforth having
    "the exclusive right of searching and boring for, and getting and appropriating petroleum."
    Therefore, it is the intention of the Amendment that the Crown shall have exactly the same rights over petroleum as those which are Conferred by the Bill. It may be suggested that anybody below whose land petroleum runs should be able to pump for it and sell it as an ordinary member of the public. It is not intended by this Amendment that that right should be vested in a private person. I want to be as brief as I may be in dealing with this Amendment, but I hope I am doing it full justice. My hon. and learned Friend has admitted frankly that there may be some doubt about it. We do not want to use any words which may leave any doubt in existence, and on which arguments may be put forward or suggestions made which are not consistent with our purpose. I have already suggested that even on my hon. and learned Friend's view the words in the Bill are not inappropriate, and we think that the proper and straightforward course is to use words as to which there can be no doubt, and to say that it is the intention of the Bill, whether it is regarded in the light of the one theory or the other, that this property shall be and is hereby vested in His Majesty. While appreciating the considerations advanced and the very interesting position stated quite accurately by both my hon. and learned Friends, I

    1575
    would ask them to withdraw the Amendment.
    3.47 p.m.
    Marquess of HARTINGTON: I am sorry that the Government have not seen their way to accept the Amendment, because I regard these words as preferable to the words in the Bill in spite of the fact—and I am guilty of some temerity in differing from my hon. and learned Friends on this point—that I believe the Amendment to be based on thoroughly bad law. I think it is based on a view of the law which has long gone by the board. It is right that the Committee should know that there is a precedent which I humbly submit covers the matter. I do not think I told the House of Commons the full history of the petroleum well of which I am now the licensee when I dealt with this matter on the Second Reading of the Bill. Even before the War we had begun to suspect the existence of petroleum beneath our property and we had protracted negotiations with Mr. Pearson, with a view to its exploitation. Those negotiations took a long time. I have the draft lease here and hon. Members will see that it is a bulky document. This was a new thing in this country at the time and the negotiations took a long time. But the negotiations were practically completed when the Government came gate-crashing in, and as anyone with a knowledge of Government interference in these matters would expect they spent a great deal of public money and made a hash of the whole business.
    The Government came in under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and appropriated quantities of oil. The quantities were not enormous, but the values at that time were very high. They sold 500 tons of the oil at £22 10s. a ton, and another 500 tons at £14 a ton. That was during the War and the oil was needed for national purposes. After the War we were proceeding in the courts against the Government for taking this oil to which we maintained they had no right, and the Government after considerable negotiation came to the conclusion that they would lose their case, and that there was, in fact, property in the oil. Finally, there was a compromise by which it was agreed that the Government should keep the cash which they had received for the oil and hand over to us the well, derrick,
    1576
    tools and licence as a going concern. On a rough valuation, the values were about the same, and we decided to enter into that arrangement.
    I think that confirms my view that in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown at that time there was undoubtedly property in petroleum, and I believe there is no doubt that property in petroleum does exist. The analogy with water is false, because water is flowing and is constantly renewed from above, otherwise it would cease to exist, but petroleum is not flowing, and it is a false view to maintain, that petroleum can be extracted from any great distance. There are exceptional conditions in which petroleum can be got from some little distance, but, broadly speaking, it cannot be extracted from any very considerable distance. It flows through the interstices of rocks, many of which are as dense as that on which this House is built. Gas pressure extends over a wide area, but it is not the case that oil can be extracted from any great area. Therefore, I think the doctrine of my hon. and learned Friend is wrong, and I am sorry the Government cannot accept the Amendment. I hope I may be allowed to ask a few questions, which I indicated to some extent during the Second Reading Debate, but to which I have had no reply so far. Answers to them will tend to enlighten our minds and to shorten the Debate to a considerable extent. The first question is: On whose advice has this Bill been drafted and brought in? We have received very little information on that point. We know that it has not come from any pressure within the ranks of our own party.
    The CHAIRMAN: I cannot say now what would or would not be in order on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but the questions of the Noble Lord are beyond the scope of this Amendment; at any rate, his first question is.
    Marquess of HARTINGTON: The questions are all based on the question why it is necessary to appropriate oil. The Government's case is that they must appropriate the property, and I am not clear why it is considered necessary to do so.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the questions would come better on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." It is admitted by the Noble Lord that the

    1577
    Amendment does not (make any actual difference with regard to the question as to property.
    3.54 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I am surprised that the Government have not accepted the Amendment and shown more sympathy with the gallant effort of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) to get them out of the very nasty hole in which they find themselves. It shows, however, that the Government have a, certain amount of pluck; they realise that they are nationalising petroleum and confiscating the property of other people, and they are prepared to stand up to it. My hon. and learned Friend has done his best to get them out of that difficulty and to make it easier for Conservatives to support the Government, but the fact that they admit that they are nationalising property gives an excellent opportunity to hon. Members opposite. Hon. Members who support the Government will find it very hard to argue again proposals for nationalisation that may be put forward by the Socialists, and, in our view, only by fighting this Bill can we reasonably fight nationalisation in the future.
    3.55 p.m.
    Mr. MOLSON: I am sorry the learned Solicitor-General has not accepted the Amendment, but not for the same reason as the last speaker. I am very glad the Government are not allowing any doubt about the fact that property in petroleum is to vest in the Crown, whether it vests at present in private individuals or whether it does not, but I cannot quite agree that because this is an academic question, it is therefore without importance. It is not impossible to contemplate some time in the future when the question might arise whether all minerals vest in the owner of the surface or in the Crown. Many people think the decision in the case of Northumberland against the Queen, in Queen Elizabeth's reign, was wrongly come to, and that royalties ought in law always to belong to the Crown. If I understand the Solicitor-General rightly, he is not contending that the view of the law put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) is wrong, but I would suggest to him that the Amendment would apply equally, whichever view of the law might prove to be accurate,
    1578
    whereas in the case of the Bill as put forward it definitely assumes that at present petroleum vests in the owner of the soil. I have put in a manuscript Amendment to delete the word "hereby," so that, without asking the Government to depart from the draft which they have put forward, by deleting the word "hereby" one would avoid the disadvantage of Parliament expressing, for what it may be worth, the opinion that at present property in petroleum vests in the individual.
    The CHAIRMAN: I cannot call the hon. Member's manuscript Amendment in any event, because, of course, the form in which the Question has already been put involves words beyond the word "hereby" standing part of the Clause. Moreover, I think the Amendment is misconceived. So far as I have followed the discussion hitherto, it is not suggested that petroleum is already vested in the Crown.
    3.57 p.m.
    Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: This is not an academic Amendment at all; it is a matter of very considerable substance. I do not know whether to be glad or sorry about the attitude of the Government, but this was an attempt—and I am not qualified to say whether the exposition of the law given by my hon. and learned Friend was right or not, though the information that I have been able to obtain on the subject leads me to believe it is not—to change this Bill from sheer and undiluted confiscation of an existing right to a mere statement as to whom a doubtful property belongs. My hon. Friends and myself who oppose this Bill dislike both views. We think it is an unjustifiable interference, but we like the statement suggested by my hon. and learned Friend very much more than the sheer bald-faced confiscation without compensation which the Government propose; and we propose to divide in favour of the Amendment in order to show that our dislike of confiscation is even greater than our dislike of the principles of the Bill.
    3.59 p.m.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: I think the opposition to this Bill is conceived on a misunderstanding. I do not think this is the nationalisation of an asset that belongs to individuals, because I think that petroleum in the ground is, like the air above the ground, incapable of

    1579
    being taken possession of and becoming a thing of private property. I do not think it can scientifically be done. This Bill is making use of what the Crown has always claimed, because the foundation of the ownership of the land of this country is that all the land belongs to the Crown, and there are such things as estates in land belonging to His Majesty's vassals who have all the property rights, but the land comes back to the Crown, and the only people who are actually independent of the Crown are the Udallers of Orkney. All the rest are His Majesty's vassals. I think that that is sound law.
    What is the position of this petroleum? It is under the ground floating about, and can come to any part of the sub-strata. Nobody knows where it is, or from what ground it comes. You can bore anywhere. That is one of the causes of over-production in the United States where, no matter how wide the oilfield is, everyone wishes to bore and to take out as much oil as possible before the other fellow has sucked it away. I have seen in Rhodesia a farmer put down a well a little bit deeper than another man's well, perhaps a mile away, and get his water. The same thing happens with oil. It is not capable of being made private property. The law says that the landowner owns the property in the land as high as heaven and as low as hell, and, therefore, it was illegal to fly an aeroplane over a house. There is nobody who can either work or take possession of the oil except the Crown. Therefore, I submit that this Bill is not nationalisation at all. It is simply stating that the Crown alone can make a job of this thing, but personally I do not think it knows how to make use of it. Therefore, I think we are perfectly right in giving the Minister of Mines the right to carry this into operation so that those who have sown and incurred all the expense and trouble will reap the benefit.
    4.3 p.m.
    Major COLFOX: It seems to me that the whole case which the Government put up against this Amendment is the same case that they put up in favour of the Bill, and that they rely, as far as I can grasp, on geological facts. I am not a geologist, and have no expert knowledge of the subject, but I have heard it stated on reliable authority that this oil does not travel more than a very
    1580
    limited distance. I have also heard it stated by the Government spokesman that the oil does travel a very considerable distance. I want to know what is the truth about that. It cannot be merely an opinion; it must be a fact one way or the other. Therefore, I want to ask the Government spokesman on whose advice he is relying in saying that this oil travels for long distances? Before coming to any decision about this myself, being admittedly totally inexpert, I should very much value some definite expert opinion on the subject of the distance which oil is likely to travel underground.
    4.5 p.m.
    Lord SCONE: The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) was rather unfortunate when he announced that one could not have private property in air. It is now perfectly possible—and it is being done all the time—to extract from it various valuable chemicals both for agriculture and for war purposes. So that I think that argument goes by the board. Secondly, the hon. and learned Member could not see how anyone could have private property in oil. Of course, if oil happened to exist where there was a number of smallholdings on the surface, it might be rather difficult to determine who should have that oil, but surely if it happened to exist under a large estate, as, I imagine, in the case of my Noble Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington), it is quite likely that the whole of the oil could be extracted from private land in single ownership. Oil does not travel more than a few hundred yards, and I would most emphatically support the demand for a reply from the Minister as to what sources of information he has to make anyone suppose that oil travels more than a very short distance.
    Finally, in regard to the point as to there being ownership of oil invested in private persons at the present time, as the law stands to-day I think we may take it as being pretty well established that such private property does exist, because it may be taken for granted that the Crown never lets go of anything that it once gets its hand on. We were told at Question Time that the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown was confidential, but I have no doubt that the Law Officers at an earlier date repre-

    1581
    sented that there was private property in oil; otherwise, my Noble Friend's family would never have had their property restored. I agree that, bad as this Bill is from beginning to end, it would be slightly more innocuous if the Amendment were accepted. I would, therefore, urge the Minister to accept the Amendment, and also to give an answer to the question with regard to the distance that oil can travel underground.
    4.8 p.m.
    Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: I wish to express satisfaction with the view stated by the learned Solicitor-General. The Committee is asked to declare in this Bill that property in oil should vest in the Crown. The Committee may bear in mind the statement of probably the greatest master of the law of our Constitution, that Parliament can do anything except change a man into a woman. That was the opinion of Professor Dicey. The issue here is whether we stand by the Government in the declaration in the Bill that property in petroleum should be vested in the Crown. I, myself, take that view, and would enlarge the view in regard to other natural products which may be hereafter found underground. I congratulate the Government upon taking this stand. I think they are doing the right thing as a National Government. They are justified in protecting the economic resources of the country so that they can be applied to public purposes. If it be the case that by scientific investigation there are valuable deposits of petroleum or other natural products in the soil, then, in the view of many of us, it is right that the Government should take steps to vest such discovered properties in the Crown. I express again my satisfaction at the stand which the Government have taken.
    Major COLFOX: Are we to have no reply from the Front Bench as to the advice on which they base their statement that oil is a travelling commodity? It really is a very important point.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
    The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment—to leave out Sub-section (1)—I do not select. The following Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse)
    1582
    is one of a group of Amendments which would have the effect of vesting petroleum in a board established with a view to dividing royalties among the owners of the soil. Those Amendments are out of Order, because they would be very clearly outside the scope of the Bill, and, indeed, would be such that, if they were made, the Bill would be a totally different Bill from that which was read a Second time.
    4.11 p.m.
    Captain WATERHOUSE: May I point out that the Title of this Bill starts off by saying that it is a Bill to vest in the Crown, and goes on to say that it is
    "to make provision with respect to the searching and boring for and getting of petroleum and natural gas, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid."
    I submit that in the last sentence the real essence of the Bill lies. If the Bill is mainly to nationalise, and not to rationalise, I think we have been misled; but if it is to rationalise, and to nationalise only as an incident, I submit, with great respect, that my Amendment is a better method of rationalisation, and, therefore, comes properly within the scope of the Measure.
    The CHAIRMAN: There are only two observations I would make upon that. If one accepts that the Bill is dealing with two particular matters, one vesting the property and the other rationalising, I should still have to rule this Amendment out of order as being entirely contrary to and outside the scope of the Bill. I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that I am not ruling the Amendment out of order as being outside the Title of the Bill, but outside the scope, because an Amendment may be quite in order and yet be outside the Title of the Bill if it be within the scope of the Bill. In the circumstances, however, I have no doubt whatever that this particular Amendment is entirely outside the scope of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    4.14 p.m.
    Marquess of HARTINGTON: I am very grateful to you. Sir Dennis, for indicating at an earlier stage that I might now ask my hon. Friend those questions which he showed such an amount of reluctance to answer during the Second

    1583
    Reading. They are questions to which the Committee must have answers before it can really discuss the Bill. The first question is, on whose advice really the Bill was brought in? There, is no difference of opinion that the searching for petroleum ought to be properly controlled by the Government to avoid wasteful exploitation such as has happened in America, but why this necessity for its expropriation? I ask my hon. Friend, therefore, on whose advice he has brought in this Bill? There are, after all, readily accessible and very reliable authorities who might be consulted. When I pressed my hon. Friend last time, he adopted a military formula, and said that they had taken advice in every shape and form, and had surveyed the whole field. "Any shape or form" is a convenient formula. What does the Minister mean by it?
    Has the hon. Gentleman consulted the Geological Society of London, a very reliable body of immense weight in geological matters? Has he consulted the Institute of Petroleum Technologists? I shall not mind if my hon. Friend interrupts my speech, and says "yes" or "no" to my questions as I proceed. If that makes too grave a breach in his Parliamentary docorum, he can make an affirmative or negative movement of his head. Has he consulted these reputable bodies whose advice one would expect to be taken in a matter of this kind? My hon. Friend does not seem disposed to answer. Has he consulted the Institute of Fuel, whom one would expect he would have consulted if, as he said, he has taken advice from every quarter? Has he consulted the Institute of Mining Engineers? My hon. Friend shows no sign of answering. I was rather struck to see in the papers yesterday, among the more interesting news, that at 2.30 to-day there is being held in Regents Park a show of donkeys and ponies under the auspices of our Dumb Friends League. In view of the attitude he has taken up, the Minister for Mines would be more useful at that show than he is here, and it might well be that he would win a prize. Has he consulted the Institute of Mining Metallurgists? I press my hon. Friend for an answer to these questions. They can all be answered very easily and quickly. If he will not answer now, he is entitled to answer later on. Has he consulted the
    1584
    five applicants whose licences have been held up by the introduction of this Bill? Has he consulted any of the existing licensees? I can answer that one for him. He consulted me and I told him that this was a darned rotten silly Bill.
    I wish the hon. Gentleman would give us some more information on these points. It is hard work to get on unless we are in possession of these facts. The Government are making very far-reaching alterations of the law of England and the House was entitled to expect that on Second Reading of a Bill of this kind it would be told very much more than it has been. Neither the President of the Board of Trade in his opening speech nor the Minister for Mines, in replying to Debate, gave the information, and we are entitled to have it on the Commitee stage.
    The second question is: Why has it been thought necessary to introduce this Bill just at a period when there were already signs that interest was being taken in the question of petroleum and when licences to bore were actually before the Department? There were five applications before the Ministry when the Government decided to introduce this Bill. The applications were held up, and there might have been oil being got now, but it cannot be got because the Government will not let anybody look for it.
    The third question is: What grounds have the Government for believing that if this Bill becomes law search will be made for oil which would not have been made unless this legislation had been introduced? The Committee is entitled to hear from the Minister what grounds he has for believing that if the Bill becomes law search will be made. Has he any guarantee that money will be spent, that wells will be sunk, and that scientific exploration will be made? Has he in mind to grant the licences which are held up if the Bill becomes law? Has he any reason to believe that other applicants will be more willing to come forward if this Bill becomes law? All these are questions to which the Committee is entitled to an answer before we proceed to a discussion of the further Clauses. We have had an extraordinary dearth of information so far, and we are entitled to have answers to these questions before we go on.
    I come to the question of the expropriation of petroleum which is provided

    1585
    for in Clause 1. Oil is spread widely over different parts of the world, and in spite of private ownership it can be produced cheaply. That system has in some cases led to faulty development, and, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) told the House during the Second Reading Debate, it has in some cases led to the principle of off-setting, that is, drililng the wells with regard to controlled ownership rather than to the natural form of the oil pools. The licensing system could get over that difficulty, and with one or two small modifications all that is necessary could be done by the existing licensing system. Over the greater part of the world private rights in petroleum exist, and where they have been taken away, as they have been in some cases, by Governments, the result has usually been disastrous.
    The Committee is no doubt aware that over the whole of North America complete property rights in petroleum exist. In a paper read to the Institute of Petroleum Technologists, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hitchin said:
    "In Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala and Peru there is a disposition to hold that deposits of petroleum wherever found, are the property, not of the surface owner, but of the State."
    In some cases the State has complete rights, and in others the rights may be expropriated by the passing of something in the nature of an Order in Council. It is of some interest that:
    "In Mexico the Central Government retains the ownership of mineral resources. Formerly it conceded the landowner the rights to coal and oil in his lands, but reclaimed these in 1917 with effects temporarily disastrous to the oil industry and to the country's finances."
    In this country development has not sufficiently advanced for anything that the Government can do to be disastrous, but it is an interesting fact that in 1917 the action of the Mexican Government was disastrous to a whole industry and to the country's finances. That is enough to show that petroleum can be and has been got without this system of expropriation which the National Government are now advocating. Oil is got in large quantities in America, and one has heard of people like Rockefeller, for instance, who have made decent competencies by prospecting for oil. I would remind the Committee
    1586
    that we in this country hardly know what royalties are. We have to go to places like Texas to see royalties on a magnificent scale.
    Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: Or go to South Wales.
    Marquess of HARTINGTON: I do not think there is any case in this country where they get one-sixth of the value of the coal extracted. Royalties in America exceed anything we have ever contemplated in this country. When we were speaking of this question on the Second Reading an hon. Member interrupted me and said that in the Forest of Dean there were no royalties. There are, however, and the colliery company gets off no cheaper there. The royalty owners are a Government Department, and, instead of the money going to the owners of surrounding coalfields, it goes to Whitehall. They are heavier than those charged by many private owners. We ought to have an explanation why the existing licensing system will not break down. We are all agreed that oil should be controlled, and we want to get unity of development over the whole field. If we are able to start the industry in England it would be a thousand pities to have the dissipation of energy which is seen in the unrestricted private ownership and enterprise which is allowed in America. My submission is that that object can be perfectly well attained without this measure of expropriation. The licensing system gives a complete monopoly and the right to bore in any area to a single company, and more than that, it seems to me, is unnecessary. The licence can be issued to cover any area which the Government think fit and on any terms which the Government think fit. It may be issued to cover the whole of what may be supposed to be an oilfield of two or three counties.
    There are no limits to the power of the Government in the granting of licences. That seems to do away completely with the necessity for this expropriation. There are, I think, certain conditions which would be required under the licensing system. You would want to grant anciliary rights and compulsory powers similar to those in the Mines (Working Facilities) Act, which was passed by a Conservative Government without demur, certainly without any demur from me. The licensing system

    1587
    does make a considerable interference with property rights, but it is an interference which I, who am something of a stickler for property rights, have never boggled at for a moment, because I realise it is necessary. If an owner who may have vegetable oil under his land which a licensee who is a monopolist might not think it desirable to get, the owner has no remedy. The Committee may think that is hard on him. He might want to enter into some such pooling arrangement as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse) has endeavoured without success to move. Suppose an owner under the existing law believes he can get oil and the company which has been given the licence in his area is not disposed to get that oil, he has no remedy in law or remedy of any sort. Why it should be necessary to go beyond that I cannot imagine. If the Committee decide to go into the question of compensation to an owner in these circumstances it will have no great difficulty. I do not know that the Government need bother about that.
    The difficulty is not so great here because the actua loil does not flow any great distance. It may in some instances flow for a considerable distance, perhaps up to a maximum of a thousand yards, only under exceptional conditions. What does travel over wide areas is the gas pressure, and that is why it is necessary to have direct control over the getting of oil. By tapping the oil structure at the top the gas can be released from the whole of the oil pool and the rest of the oil will thereupon give off gas to replace that which has been drawn off. Ultimately the gas on the whole of that field extending over a considerable area will become a thickened heavy treacly fluid and refuse to flow through the rock. It is necessary, therefore, to have this control in order to stop the getting of oil where it should not be got. It is undesirable to drill on the top of the structure where the gas is and still more undesirable to drill on top of the oil where it is heavily charged with gas. I agree that there might be a considerable interference of property rights with a measure of control. I say once more there is no necessity for the extension of Government interference which is entailed by this complete expropriation.
    1588
    Another point which arises on this question of expropriation has been referred to in connection with coal. Some hon. Members take the view that it would have been far better if all minerals had remained vested in the Crown. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite are quite entitled to then-point of view and to cheer that view they are Socialists; but we on this side of the House are—most of us—not Socialists. We were elected to Parliament because of the almost irreparable damage which had been done to the finances of the country by the party opposite putting their view into practice when they were in office, and I am sorry to see the spectacle of a National Government introducing this legislation, with those two dogs there returning to their vomit. It seems to me a pity that a Government which was definitely elected to put right the harm which the Socialist Government did should at the dictation of some advisers, introduce more Socialist legislation. The question of coal is strictly relevant to the question of oil, and I directly join issue with those Members who believe that coal could have been worked to greater advantage if there had been no private property rights in it. The hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) dealt with that question on the Second Reading. He said that at this moment great difficulties are arising from the private ownership of coal, but they are difficulties which I think are capable of being put right with no great trouble. I do not fully share his views about the desirability of closing certain coal mines That prosperity for the coal industry is to be attained by restricting the output of coal, in order to keep up the price, is not an argument which, in the long view, is a sound one. However, that may be an arguable proposition.
    I wonder whether my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Leeds believes that if the Government were the sole owner of the coal things would be very much easier. He says that anyone who wants to close a coal mine has to pay compensation to the landowner. If a lease is granted by a landowner to a colliery company for the purpose of working the coal on his land, there is an obligation upon the colliery company to get that coal, and if it does not it has broken its lease and becomes liable to

    1589
    pay compensation. What leads the hon. Member for North Leeds to believe that a Government Department would be an easier landlord than an existing landlord? The Regent Street leases, and other cases, show that a Government Department would be no more lenient than a private individual. Nor do I believe that if colliery companies had to negotiate leases with a Government Department there would have been a greater development of the coal industry in this country.
    There have been certain difficulties but, on the whole, colliery companies have found landlords eager to assist them in every possible way, and for a very good reason, namely, that every ton of coal which is mined means 3d., 4d., 5d. or 6d. in the pockets of the landlords. If the coal had always belonged to the Government, I believe the colliery companies, instead of having the active and willing co-operation of the landowners, would have had to fight nearly every inch of the way. Landowners would not have been anxious to see their land spoiled and the air in the neighbourhood blackened by collieries. So far from its being the case that the coal industry would have gone ahead more easily if there had never been private ownership, I believe the position of affairs would have been definitely the reverse if colliery owners had had to deal with a Gevornment Department instead of a private owner, and had encountered the hostility of a whole neighbourhood instead of getting active and willing cooperation.
    Mr. E. WILLIAMS: Look at the present plight of the coal industry.
    Marquess of HARTINGTON: I hope those who say that will remember what they did in 1926.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think a reference to coal by way of comparison is quite in order up to a certain point, but I must ask hon. Members on both sides not to let this develop into a discussion on coal.
    Marquess of HARTINGTON: I have really finished my point about coal. It is not the case that coal would have been better developed if there had been no private property in coal, and it is not the case that oil will be better developed if there is no private property in oil. There is not one Clause in this Bill which will diminish by one the number of landlords
    1590
    with whom anyone who wants to search for oil will have to negotiate.
    Mr. E. WILLIAMS: Will it be in order to ask whether the Noble Lord will explain why every Commission which has inquired into the mining industry has in its report taken an entirely opposite view from that which he is putting forward?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that proves the point I made just now—that we must not let this develop into a discussion on coal.
    Marquess of HARTINGTON: The answer to that is obvious—because they were all set up by Radicals or Socialists. Rut I will leave the question of coal, which we cannot discuss without engendering a certain amount of heat, and turn to another aspect of my argument, and that is the effect this Measure of expropriation will have on the general question of the security of property. In his Second Reading speech my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Leeds rather misunderstood the point I made about the effect of this Bill upon agriculture values. Of course, no land, or little or no land, has up to now been sold because of petroleum rights, but undoubtedly that land has enjoyed a value arising from the fact that the ownership of it was complete, and because there was always a possibility of enjoying incomings as well as the liability to pay outgoings. This Measure will be taken as a precedent for expropriating all forms of increment which may arise in the future. If we destroy the sense of security attaching to the ownership of land, so that an owner feels that any bit of luck which may come his way is not to be his, we shall find a disastrous, flight of capital from the land, which will do great damage to agriculture and house building.
    Hon. Members will recall the effect which the creation of a feeling of insecurity in the ownership of land can have by recalling what happened after the Budget of 1909. The number of houses built dropped by more than a half a year or two after that legislation, which was really designed to increase the number of houses to be built. It is a very serious thing to diminish the sense of security attaching to rights in property. This House has in the past been rightly jealous of interference with the

    1591
    rights of property, because they are essential to the very existence of any community such as ours. It is noteworthy that in any pioneer community a far more serious view is taken of crimes against property than of crimes against the person. In a pioneer community if two men fall out over a game of cards or a girl and they shoot one another, the view taken is, "Well, boys will be boys." A very different view is taken of, say, the stealing of gold dust. In my own county of Derbyshire, where we had ancient mining laws, a very lenient view was taken of any fighting among the independent bands of miners, but anyone caught stealing lead, which of necessity had to be left lying about, was liable to have hands nailed to the winding gear and to be left there until he was dead. A serious view of crimes against property is necessarily taken, because ordered commercial development is impossible unless the security of property is absolute. This Measure is a considerable infringement of the security of property rights, and a Government which was returned for the special purpose of restoring the feeling of confidence in the community is exceedingly ill-advised to bring it in. My hon. Friends and I must divide the Committee on this question of the Clause standing part of the Bill, and in doing so we feel that we are dividing the Committee on an issue which is much more serious than many hon. Members have realised.
    4.40 p.m.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: On the general question of resisting an attack on the rights of property, I should certainly join with the Noble Lord; but we are dealing here with a type of property which, so far as I am advised—and I have had occasion to go into geological matters in the last two years in connection with litigation—ought to be vested in the Crown, because it is not a suitable property for private interests. At one time land was not regarded as a suitable subject for private ownership. We had a sort of communal system of land all through the country. But that led to abuse; the land was neglected and wasted, because it belonged to everybody, just as it would be to-day if those conditions prevailed. We had to depart from that system in Elizabethan and pre-Elizabethan times. The commons were enclosed because the
    1592
    land was neglected and was not producing the food which it ought to have grown. Everybody was doing his utmost to get as much as possible out of the land and putting as little as possible into it. We had to have private ownership to get something out of the land. Now the tendency is more and more to leave things to private ownership with a view to their improvement, because as long as every member of the community is, in an upright, honest and fair fashion, doing the best for himself, he is also doing the best for the whole community. That is one of the laws of our being, that is the principle of righteousness, which Providence has provided for the guidance of human society. That is the principle of Kant, the German philosopher—to act in such a manner that one's action is capable of being a universal law to mankind.
    We had to abandon the system of communal property because what belongs to two or three people is allowed to go more or less to rack and ruin. That is why, when people have a responsibility put upon them, they appoint a committee—because no single man 'Wants to take the responsibility for any act of wrongdoing. Each wants to blame the other. In the case of oil, however, we are dealing with a commodity which is buried in the bowels of the earth. It may have formed into a small pool in one place, but in another place it may have spread over practically any distance. It all depends on the strata and the cracks in the rocks. The Noble Lord has told us that once the gas is let out one cannot get the oil out, because the pressure is taken away. That shows that oil-bearing land is something which needs to be treated as a unit. The Noble Lord hoped the Government had had the best scienific advice, and I hope they have. They must have some advisers, some geologists whose names will stand scrutiny. I have not always the most profound faith in geologists, for they have contradicted each other from generation to generation, like the theologians. In Scott's book, "St. Ronan's Well," Meg Dodd describes geologists as "men who go aboot wi' wappin' hammers trying to find oot how the world was made." Still, on these matters, there is sure to be sufficient evidence, even if it is got from geologists from America. In scientific matters they are probably more reliable than Americans are in political matters.

    1593
    I wish the Government could have accepted the hon. Member's Amendment, which was not such a plain, blunt declaration. With it we might have arrived at much the same result, without offending susceptibilities about the rights of property. They are rights which must not be abused. Everyone must regard private property as a trust. Landowning ought never to have been commercialised. The possession of land should have been looked upon as a trust and the best landowners are those who regard the land as a trust. That is why the land system in this country, especially agricultural land, has been successful. I demur entirely to the idea of doing anything against the rights of private property. We know that it used to be that
    "whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap"
    but to-day that which he has earned shall be taken away from him by taxation. I support this Bill, not because it does anything in the nature of nationalisation, but because it is a businesslike effort to see if there is oil in our earth, of which I have very grave doubts.
    4.46 p.m.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: I do not propose to go into questions as to the rights of private property, or to discuss the principle behind the Bill. My view was amply discussed on Second Reading, when the House gave a most emphatic vote. The Noble Lord the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) presented a series of queries and tried to cross-examine the Secretary for Mines. I do not know whether there was anything behind those questions. I say in all seriousness that it is just as well to clear the air of rumour. I did not attach any significance to the rumours, but it is undoubted that, during the Second Reading Debate, there were constant lobby statements that outside influences were behind the Bill. Once you start that kind of thing, it is difficult to keep pace with it. It would be just as well if the Minister told us that this Bill has been undertaken by the Government Department concerned, after ordinary technical advice, merely to regularise a very unsatisfactory position. It is as well on an occasion like this not to mince words. It has been constantly stated that one of the big oil monopolies is behind the proposal, but other statements have been made. The right hon. Gentleman will know better
    1594
    than I do what a lot of mischief can be done by this kind of statement, and I have risen to ask him to give a denial to all these insinuations, to which I hope he will not think I give any countenance. I am, on the contrary, satisfied that a Bill in his hands would not come forward as the result of pressure. It would be unfortunate if a most important piece of legislation for the proper and ordered expansion of any possible oil resources should be allowed to create a story of this kind. I hope the Committee will feel that I am justified in making this request.
    4.48 p.m.
    Captain WATERHOUSE: I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade will be gratified at the unsolicited testimonial he has received from the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten), will probably find himself in the Lobby with us, because he is very close to us now. He knows that these proposals are wrong, and that they are confiscation proposals, but, being a good Tory, he is trying to find reasons for supporting the Government. He says that the land belongs to the Crown, and that the Crown made grants of land. That is perfectly true, but if the hon. and learned Member presented me with a piece of land and three or four years later tried to reclaim the present, he would be confiscating what had become my property. The same position arises with regard to oil. The Crown, in granting land, made over the mineral rights with the exception of rights in gold and silver. That was decided in the case Northumberland versus The Crown in 1568.
    I listened to the speech of the Minister on the Second Reading when he laid out his points so lucidly and clearly, that one felt, as always, that the speech must carry conviction. I read his speech afterwards with the greatest care to make sure that I had not been mistaken in the attitude which I am taking upon this Bill, and found that one must correct the impression which one formed upon hearing it in the House. The first part of the speech is a general disquisition on the importance of oil in our economic structure, and upon oil rights. It is beyond denial that that is a matter of general agreement. When he came to the second

    1595
    point he was obviously batting on a bad wicket, which he did not like at all; he was obviously turning from one argument to another, and at the end he left one in doubt as to which horse he was to back. Hon. Members will appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman was in doubt whether he was playing cricket or was horse-racing. He was careful to say:
    "As far as we know, there are very small petroleum rights to be found anywhere in the United Kingdom."
    He went on to say, a little later:
    "If petroleum were found in any area or under any land or site, I am sure it would only be in rare instances, and they are provided for in the Schedule to the Bill, and it would come as a great surprise to the landowner."
    I am not quite sure what the final sentence means. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that after this Bill nothing will come as a surprise to any landowner. Obviously, his speech has not been quite accurately reported, but I do not want to stress the inaccuracy. He develops this theme, and he goes on:
    "In the first place, we hold the view that these rights, if they exist at all, are purely imaginary and have no practical value, and never have had any practical value. The only method by which these multifarious problematical rights can be brought into some sort of businesslike uniformity is by vesting the rights in the Crown."
    Finally, he says:
    "There is only one new departure, and that is in the transfer of these royalty rights to the Crown."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1934: cols. 213, 214 and 215, Vol. 291.]
    The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that the rights are imaginary and that there are no rights at all, and then say that he proposes to transfer them to the Crown. Either there are rights or there are no rights. If there are, this Bill is proposing to confiscate them.
    The right hon. Gentleman put forward a novel argument to support his claim. He said that the value of the rights was not known, and that if anybody who had property the value of which was not known, it ought to be confiscated. If anybody buys stock upon which he gets a fixed annual income, and there is suddenly a capital increment, as the result of which he doubles his income, the right hon. Gentleman does not for one moment suggest that that increment
    1596
    should be taken by the State. If the right hon. Gentleman proposes to hang in his dining room a picture for which he has paid £1,000, and he invites me to see it, and I say "That's a very nice Rembrandt you have," and then he finds that the picture is worth £3,000, he would not suggest handing over the £2,000 to the State. The picture is his; he bought it for better or worse. Let us imagine that the Secretary for Mines has a fancy to do a little hunting in Leicestershire, and that he buys a hunter for £200. He enjoys himself for a considerable time. Then the Solicitor-General comes along and says, "That's a nice horse. Let me see if I can do anything over the sticks with it," and he puts the horse in training and wins the Grand National with it. According to the right hon. Gentleman, the extra value of that horse ought to be confiscated by the State. If the Solicitor-General said to the Secretary for Mines, "I have taken away your hunter for which you paid £200, and I will be very generous and pay you £250 for it," the reply of the Secretary for Mines would be, "I do not want your £250; I want my hunter back. You ruined my hunter when you allowed it to be put into training." The Committee will agree that this is not a very generous proposal. If that be the generosity of His Majesty's Government, I do not think that it will appeal to many hon. Members. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to confiscate the increment that one gets in land, he ought to give compensation for the very much more frequent and equally unexpected losses that are incurred in the purchase of land. He went on to say in his Second Reading speech:
    "The Government have considered every alternative that has been before a Royal Commission or a Committee or before Parliament in any Session in the past."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1934; col. 216, Vol. 291.]
    There has never been a Royal Commission which has considered those points, and that argument is therefore answered at once. The matter has not been discussed since 1918. Immediately after the War, a number of scatter-brained schemes were brought forward with the idea. The Minister eulogised the Civil Service, and I agree that in that Service we have the finest body of experts that any country has ever had at its dis-

    1597
    posal. Will the right hon. Gentleman or the Secretary for Mines say to the House, "We asked our experts to pro vide us with an alternative scheme, and they have had to say, 'We are sorry, but we can think of nothing to take the place of confiscation'"? I do not believe that that is the case at all. I do not believe that the Government ever went into any alternative to confiscation. They thought that confiscation was easy; they liked what they call a clear cut; and they just made inquiries, accepted what was to their hands, and served it up as a most unpalatable dish to many of us on this side of the House. I am not going to deal at length with what my hon. and learned Friend said about the ownership of oil minerals. To do so would be an impertinence on my part. But I submit that, strong as his case was, there are arguments and cases which could be quoted proving quite conclusively that the ownership is in the hands of the owner of the surface.
    My Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) made what was perhaps the most telling speech, other than those from the Front Bench, on the Second Reading. He dealt with the convenience of this Measure. He said that it was so very much more convenient to keep oil minerals in the hands of the Crown, and he put forward the rather dangerous argument that when a large tract was owned by one person it could be quite simply worked, but that now, with a number of smaller landowners, it was very difficult to work, and, therefore, it was less desirable to stick to the exact letter of the law with regard to property. That is an argument which I completely resist. I believe that the whole of our civilisation is built on the basis of property rights. The fact that anybody, by a life of work, can acquire property, which heretofore has always been protected by the State, is perhaps the greatest asset that we have in this country. If we are now going to say that because a man is merely a small owner, and because the allocation of these rights may be awkward, therefore the defence of these rights is not necessary, we are starting on a slippery slope which may land us in difficulties which we cannot guess at this moment.
    I am sorry. Sir Dennis, that you were not able to allow me to move my Amendment to set up a pool, because I believe
    1598
    that by some scheme of that sort—I do not want to deal with my Amendment—the Government could, if they wished, have avoided this controversial issue altogether; they could have given, their board the power to take dues for the benefit of His Majesty or of the State if they thought that that was proper or necessary, and provision could have been made for the charging of expenses. It cannot be possible for the Government now to say that it is impossible to unify this industry in this country by any means other than nationalisation; it is absolutely against the expert opinion on the subject. I have here a paper read by Dr. J. B. Umpleby before the World Petroleum Congress last year, on the position of petroleum in America, in which he said:
    "In a recent case all operators and about 70 per cent. of the royalty owners agreed in principle to unitise a semi-flush field, urged on by the fact that the edge water was rapidly encroaching and the gas cap was rapidly spreading. Agreement was reached on the limits of the producing structure, the rock pressure in different parts of the pool, and many other vital factors."
    He concluded by saying:
    "If the conservations commissions were prohibited by law to grant drilling permits in new areas except on unitised blocks, there can be little doubt that both lessees and lessors would get together on a workable unit plan."
    That is not the opinion of a Government Department; it is not the opinion of a politician either for or against a Bill; it is the opinion of a practical expert. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to reply, I hope he will say exactly what steps were taken and who was consulted in order to try to find a means for forcing upon this House a Measure such as this, with the principle of which so many of us completely disagree. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether or not he has made efforts, and, if he has made efforts, what efforts? Will he tell us whether he has made inquiries, and, if he has made inquiries, from whom he has made inquiries, as to the practicability of a scheme of unification without nationalisation?
    5.8 p.m.
    Viscount CRANBORNE: Both my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse) and my Noble Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington)

    1599
    have great technical knowledge of this subject, which I cannot claim, but I would like to support my Noble Friend in the plea which he has made to the Government to answer one or two questions on the subject of this Bill. I think we ought to know why the Bill has been brought in. I know that we had an answer on this question from the Secretary for Mines on the Second Reading. He said that the Bill had been brought in:
    "For no other reason than this, that the Government, surveying the situation and the needs of the present time, having had indications of renewed interest in the search for oil, have surveyed the whole ground, have taken the best advice, have exhaustively examined all possible alternatives, and have produced this Bill for the assent of both Houses of Parliament and of the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1934; col. 307, Vol. 291.]
    That is a magnificent sentence, and we all congratulate my hon. Friend upon it, but it really does not take us any further. He says:
    "surveying the situation and the needs of the present time."
    That is exactly what everybody wants to know—what the situation is, and what in the opinion of the Government are the needs of the present time. At the end of the sentence we are exactly where we were at the beginning. The President of the Board of Trade says that there is really no great urgency about the question. I think that other speakers have already quoted the passage in his Second Reading speech in which he said:
    "As far as we know there are very small petroleum rights to be found anywhere in the United Kingdom."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, 19th June, 1934; col. 213, Vol. 291.
    Why, then, are the Government bringing in the Bill, if this is not a practical proposition at the present time? Surely it cannot be because they have nothing else to do? They have unemployment, housing, and questions of foreign policy, which might well occupy the time of the House. I cannot believe that they would have taken this action unless there were some practical and urgent reason for it, and I think that the House of Commons ought to be told what it is.
    That brings me to my second question, as to what consultation preceded this Bill. Whom did the Government consult, and why? I know that the Secretary for Mines, during the Second Reading Debate,
    1600
    said that there had been an appeal to suspicion, but I would assure him that that is not so so far as I am concerned, and I am sure it is not so in the case of my hon. Friends who have spoken in this Debate. We do not think that there is a Stavisky standing behind the right hon. Gentleman at the present moment; we have the highest respect for his personal character, and we assure him of that at once; but, at the same time, we would like to know the facts as to who was consulted. We have no ulterior moment; we simply want to know. The President of the Board of Trade used a number of abstract arguments. He said, and it is quite true, that in this country we have not very much petroleum, that we might need it in case of war, and that therefore it was very important that it should be developed here wherever that was possible. He went on to say that those who at present might hope to find oil on their property had done little or nothing in the way of exploration. I take it that the implication of those two statements is that the Government are going to do rather more in the way of exploration, and, therefore, we should like to know what steps they propose to take in the way of consultation. I noticed that the Secretary for Mines, answering my Noble Friend the Membr for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Harrington) at the end of the Debate, said that:
    "The Government, of course, have done what any Government must do; they have taken advice of every kind and form to survey the whole field."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1934; col. 314, Vol. 291.]
    I think they are quite right in doing that, but do let them tell the House of Commons exactly what they did. Then we should be quite satisfied. This Bill is, after all, a very far-reaching Measure, and I think that the questions we are asking are very reasonable ones. The Government, however strongly we support them, cannot expect us to support legislation of this kind unless we know the motive that inspired it, and I am afraid that, unless satisfactory answers can be given on this question, I and a good many other strong and devoted supporters of the Government will be obliged to go into the Lobby against them.
    5.12 p.m.
    Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I want to join in the appeal which has been made to the Government to give us a really compre-

    1601
    hensive explanation of the need for this Measure, and, above all, of the need for this Clause. The speeches of those who have supported and those who have opposed the Clause have shown little fundamental difference of opinion. The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) made an impassioned speech, but really the only thing he had to say in favour of the Clause was that it would give the Government control. My Noble Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) wants exactly the same, namely, control. Where we differ is as to how far the Clause is necessary or fair in ensuring control. We think that our interpretation of the law is right, and that the Clause involves a new principle, and one of extreme danger. I do not wish to labour the question of interpretation of the law, but, if the interpretation which was put upon it by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) is correct, this Clause is really quite un necessary, because all that it does is to give the Crown the right to levy royalties, and I would point out to hon. Members opposite, who have greeted this proposal with glee, that, if that interpretation be correct, it does not abolish royalties, but, on the contrary, it imposes them. A royalty will be payable to the Crown in stead of, as my hon. and learned Friend says is the present state of the law, the oil belonging to anyone who actually gets it. If that interpretation be correct—
    The CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the hon. Member that the Question now before the Committee is, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. BEAUMONT: I beg pardon. The ownership of the oil will be vested in the Crown, and presumably the producer will have to pay something for it. I cannot for the life of me see why the Crown should want to possess the oil simply for the sake of getting control when in point of fact they can have control by the licensing provisions of the Bill, and, indeed, under the existing system, for they can charge people what they like for these licences. We have been told that the object is to ensure rationalisation of oil production, but, if our interpretation of the law be correct, and if in fact the oil does at present belong to the surface owner of the land, there is no question
    1602
    whatever that this Bill is pure and undiluted confiscation without compensation. I believe I am right in saying that this is the first time that that has been done by any party, and it is a principle to which a great many of us are resolutely and determinedly opposed. I am modern and progressive enough to realise and to agree that the interest of the State must be paramount, and that, in case, not of convenience, but of need—I wish to stress that point—confiscation would be justified; but we have been given no evidence of need. We have been told that this is the simplest way of doing it, and that in the opinion of the Government it is necessary, but we have not been given one single argument to support that, or one single technical opinion to back it.
    When you are embarking on a question of confiscation without compensation, a very vital principle and a new one, it is essential that you should have the clearest evidence that such action is vitally necessary. No such assurance has been given. Many hon. Members suggest that there is not any oil there, and they might just as well support the Bill but, when an injustice is going to be done, it is no excuse, like the celebrated baby in "Midshipman Easy," to say, "It is only a little one." If this thing be wrong in principle, it should not be done except under the most drastic necessity. If there be any oil, there will be a very considerable hardship. The Bill does not confer any considerable pecuniary advantage on the getter of the oil. It does not reduce by one man the number of people with whom he will have to deal. He will have to deal with the landowners, with the Crown and, if necessary, with the Railway and Canal Commission just as much as before. The only difference it will make is that, whereas in his dealings with the landowners there was some reasonable hope of getting to an agreement, he will have every landowner against him who does not want his property ruined.
    Not enough attention has been paid to my Noble Friend's point about the attack on the security of agricultural land. The value that has been paid for oil rights under the land is negligible, if it exists at all, and if the effect of the Bill were to stop gambling in land because of oil values it would be a good thing.
    The disadvantage of the Bill is that it adds one more insecurity to the position of the agricultural landowner. He never

    1603
    knows when someone may come in and acquire a licence from the Government to damage his property and make it untenable. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) the other day said it was the practice in the oil districts that he knew for the concessionaires to buy the whole of an estate. That may or may not be the practice but it is not in the Bill, and there is nothing in the world to stop them getting a small portion of an estate and completely ruining the rest, paying only the agricultural value of the small portion that they have to buy plus 10 per cent. That is a very serious danger indeed.
    It is no use saying that these rights are of no importance, because they do not happen to have been previously exploited or even suspected. The Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) stated on the Second Reading a precise analogy. Lord Snowden said he would nationalise all property without injustice by saying that everyone born, after the passage of the Bill should inherit nothing, and he would not lose anything because he had never had it and he would have no expectations. That might commend itself to hon. Members opposite, but not to many on this side. The effect of these oil fields, if such there be, on agricultural land may be extremely disastrous. We all know what the effect of coal seams under the land in many districts has been. The house in which my family have lived for 600 years has been rendered uninhabitable by coal seams underneath it. It has nothing to do with me personally. I am only citing it as an example that comes within my knowledge. Does the House really think that adequate compensation for that property will be the agricultural value of the land plus 10 per cent? I do not seriously believe there is any member of the Conservative party, or indeed any supporter of the National Government, who would suggest that that was indeed equity and justice. The Clause is not an integral part of the Bill, and this is not a wrecking Amendment. If the Clause be a gross injustice and sets up a principle which is inherently wrong, we are right to divide against it.
    5.22 p.m.
    Lord SCONE: Whatever may be the legal position at present in regard to the
    1604
    ownership of oil, there will be no doubt about it if we pass this Clause, because the first Sub-section says:
    "The property in securing petroleum existing in its natural condition in strata in Great Britain is hereby vested in His Majesty and His Majesty shall have the exclusive right of searching and boring for and getting such petroleum."
    That is to say, we have a frank and avowed transference of private rights to the State. That is nationalisation, and nationalisation is practically the main if not the only plank that Socialism has. The vast majority of Members on this side of the House have not forgotten that they were returned on a programme the main feature of which was the utter demolition of the Socialist party and all its works. I gave only one pledge in the whole course of the election, and that was that I would resist Socialist legislation even if introduced by the National Government. That is my position to-day. Most of us still realise that those were the votes that put us into this House—the votes of people who were disgusted with Socialism. Some have forgotten it. There is, for instance, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Notts (Mr. Knight).
    Mr. KNIGHT: The view that I put forward is the view that I have put forward on every opportunity since the Government were returned. It is the view which I put before my constituents and which they approved. That view is that this National Government is commissioned to collect the economic resources of the country and apply them for public purposes. I apply that test to this Bill.
    Lord SCONE: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not forgotten his early training in the Liberal and Socialist parties from the glib way in which he can produce a formula to suit every case. To proceed to more serious matters, we who remember the pledge that we gave, a pledge which the hon. and learned Gentleman himself must have given, or the House would never have seen him back again, protest emphatically against the introduction of the Bill, and of all the Bill the first Clause is the most objectionable feature. It is definitely a transfer to the Government of private property. No one has yet attempted to make a reasoned defence of it. We hope that the Minister for Mines or the President of the Board

    1605
    of Trade will at least do the House the elementary courtesy of explaining why the Bill was introduced. We have had requests for this information from all sides, even from the Liberal benches. It is rather strange, considering how the Liberals stand up for the rights of private property when they are objecting to the action of the Minister of Agriculture, apparently welcome this Socialistic Bill which so affects the rights of private property. However, there is no saying what a Liberal will do to-day. We must really ask the hon. Gentleman if he will give us an explanation of the introduction of the Bill. There have been rumours going about that recent geological investigations have shown the potentiality of great quantities of oil, but we should like to have a little more information on the subject. We naturally do not expect the hon. Gentleman to tell us the exact parts in which these formations are, but he might tell us roughly the square mileage on which they are expected to occur and whether they are in any way comparable with the geological areas in America in which oil has been found, on whose advice the Bill has been introduced, and how it is intended to administer it. If he can give us this assurance, some of us may dislike it a, little less, but we cannot promise other than a vigorous resistance to the Bill in all its stages.
    5.27 p.m.
    Mr. S PENS: I am afraid I am still unconvinced that there is any existing private property in petroleum and gas in its natural state. I am, therefore, entirely unconvinced that this Bill confiscates any private property in any shape or form. On the other hand, there seems to me no doubt that, the Committee having been against me on my Amendment and putting in these first words of the Clause, we are going to create in the Crown a property in petroleum and gas in its natural state by these words. It is a thing, of course, that the Legislature is perfectly entitled to do and, if I may take an analogy from the fish that come and go in the territorial waters around our coast, His Majesty has private property in whales and sturgeons caught within those waters and always has had. Other people have private property in such fish as they can make their own within those territorial waters. It would be competent for us to say, "We hereby vest all private property in
    1606
    every fish that is caught within those territorial waters in His Majesty." By these words we are doing something very analogous to that, if we thought fit to do it. We are creating a right of property in this petroleum and gas in the Crown, with the result that any person who in fact comes into possession of any petroleum or gas henceforward comes into possession of the private property of the Crown. It is obvious that in the course of mining or of sinking wells for water a landowner, with no intent at all to find petroleum or" gas, may come across it. That difficulty has been foreseen, and we find in Clause 10 (2):
    "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as imposing any liability on any person where in the course of mining or other lawful operations petroleum is set free."
    That is a provision on which I shall have something to say later on. But the real objection to the Clause is this. At At present a person can apply under the Coal Mines Working Facilities Act for the right to work coal under someone's land—a right which to my mind is one of the greatest invasions of private property that this House has ever passed. If he makes his case before the Railway and Canal Commission, he says, "I have a right to get coal under any town in the country. I have to pay compensation. One of the reasons I have to pay compensation is the fact that the owner in that residential area is at law the owner of the coal which lies under that particular house." What we are saying by this Bill in its present form is that when a licensee, by arrangement or by application to the Commission, endeavours to obtains the terms upon which he is to be entitled to sink, search for and get petroleum, he shall not have to pay any compensation to the owners of the surface from under which he gets the petroleum, or that the only person to whom he shall have to pay compensation shall be the Crown. That is the difference which the wording of the Clause, as it is now proposed, really means. We are going to make it possible for a licensee to get exactly the same powers as if the Amendment in my name had been accepted, but there would have been no question to determine as to whether he would have to pay any compensation to the owner of the surface because in fact he was going to get petroleum from under that surface. He has to pay compensation for

    1607
    all disturbance of the surface, and presumably if, as a result of getting petroleum, a subsidence follows, I have no doubt that the same sort of thing would be in the Order as the Railway and Canal Commission put into Orders to-day when they deal with that kind of matter. The only difference the Bill is making is that there shall be no compensation payable to the owner of the surface for his theoretic ownership of the petroleum underneath.
    In practice there is not very much in it, because I do not believe that it would be possible, in the case of petroleum, for any particular owner of the surface to prove that the petroleum came from under his particular surface. I believe that if you sunk a bore and petroleum came up, the owner of the surface could prove obviously that some petroleum came from under that surface, but as to the people all round from under whose land the petroleum was drawn into the bore hole, I do not believe any action could ever prove that in fact it was petroleum from under their land which was coming up through the bore. It would be one of the most difficult things for any owner of surface rights to start to prove. It is because of that difficulty that in the past we have had to legislate. As long ago as 1891 as regards brine we had to pass an Act by which there should be compensation awards to the owners of the surface in respect of subsidence caused by people taking brine from under their surface. It was a very complicated machinery, but it was in order to deal with the particular difficulty where, by well or bore hole, you get up something which is ascending in a fluid state from under each bit of surface, and where no owner of surface can possibly tell or prove that it has come from land under his control. These difficulties will be got rid of by this Bill. I am very sorry that the wording of my Amendment has not been accepted, because I feel that if it had been it would have been impossible for hon. Members to take up the attitude that the first words of the Clause confiscate private property and vest it in the Crown. I stick to my view, which is, that all this Bill is doing is to vest in future in the Crown property in all petroleum as soon as it is found, and, in those circumstances,
    1608
    I am not going to vote against the Clause.
    5.36 p.m.
    Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: I am afraid that I shall have to vote against the Clause. On the Second Reading the Bill was well received by the Socialists and by the Liberals. There are only a few of them here at the moment so they cannot speak with a very unanimous voice, but I am certain that their battalions are waiting downstairs to rush to the aid of the Government in case the few Conservatives who are left here should win on this Clause. If the Bill had been brought in by the last Government there would have been a three-line Whip to the Conservative party. There would have been no question about it. There would have been a very different tone in the Smoking Room and in the House about "This accursed Bill the Socialists are bringing in." The word "confiscation" would have been used, and the Chief Whip would have been running round saying, "You cannot stay away. You will have to be here and vote against this Bill." I see no reason why, because the present Bill has been brought in by a National Government, I should change my principles, and I am afraid that I cannot do so. I look upon the Bill as entire confiscation. People in the old days used to buy land because it could not run away. Now if you have a drop of oil under it it may run—no one knows where. I should like to know from the Secretary for Mines, or the President of the Board of Trade, why the Bill has been brought in? We have asked in vain. What is the hurry for the Bill? Who is behind it, and what result do the Government expect to get out of it? Do they expect to get oil? Are they keeping something up their sleeve? That is the sort of information we want. We shall go into the Lobby because I do not believe we are going to be told. We ought to receive a little better treatment than those people who follow the Government nearly the whole time simply because something happened. I cannot see any reason why we should not be told. Is it a secret and something the Government are ashamed of telling us? I am certain that a great many people outside the House know it, and why should not we? I hope that we shall be given some information.
    5.40 p.m.
    Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: I speak on this subject as a landowner and not as a Liberal, because I suppose that this is one of the subjects upon which Liberals have not had fixed principles, whatever they may be. I hope that the country will not judge all the landowners by the examples to which we have listened to-day. Speaking as a landowner, I think that the Bill is just, reasonable and perfectly fair, and I hope that it will go through.
    5.41 p.m.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: I am glad to hear the representative of the landowners, but I think that the Government, by their draftsmanship of the Bill, have themselves to blame for very much of the criticism which has been brought against them. I see no reason why it should have been so stated. Is it the case that if it had not been for crude oil they need not have stated the case so crudely as it is stated in the first sentence of Clause 1? I agree entirely with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens). I admit that there is at present no private proprietorship in oil any more than there is in the air. You extract nitrogen from the air, but it is not until you have done it that it can be private property, as in the case of the sea, salmon and whales belong to the Crown or private owners. It is very unfortunate that the position has been stated in the Bill in this way, and it looks as if there is to be some confiscation, but really it is not so. The hon. Member did not speak about this fact. The Crown have for hundreds of years granted estates in land. This position would be more analogous if the hon. Gentleman were to go to Moss Brothers and buy a secondhand coat and find a purse in it. It would not be his.
    Here is a certain subject which, as far as we know, was never contemplated as existing. The Government propose to take the title to it, but I wish they had done this in a little more delicate and, perhaps, circumlocutory fashion. I think that hon. Gentlemen have a real grievance. It is one thing to say that there is nothing in it, but the fact that the Government should take the trouble to pass this Bill and dispose as lightly of the criticism of some of their supporters, makes one wonder what is at the back of it. Why are we not told? We all know—those of us who happen to possess
    1610
    Bibles and read them—the parable of the man who bought a field from another man with a great treasure in it. He knew all, but the seller did not, and while it was a fair price for the field, it was unfortunate the seller did not know anything about it. The buyer got the treasure. He might reasonably have thought that it was ordinary business, but I think that it was a bit sharp. Is there a pearl of great price in this particular Bill? Is there some enormous pool of petroleum which the Government want to find? All the Governments as landowners are the most harsh and cruel in all possible ways? There is nothing so wicked as Government Departments. You can deal with a commercial company, because you know that it is out to make money, and that is an ordinary aspiration with which one can deal on reasonable and logical grounds. You can say to them, "Do not press us too hard. You do not want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg." But a Government Departmust must have no bowels whatever, and no mercy.
    Look at my hon. Friend who is smiling so pleasantly charging 2d. for a seat in the Government parks sublet to private contractors. There you have all the vices of nationalisation and all the evils of private enterprise joined together, and you pay 2d. if you sit down. For those who propose to exploit oil—if there is any—there can be no worse fate than the fact that they will have to deal with a Government Department. I do wish the right hon. Gentleman would take us into his confidence and tell us who is or what is behind this Bill. Whe are the people who are to get the oil? Who are going to be the oil lords, the Rockefellers of England? This Bill does excite alarm in the bosoms of loyal supporters of the Government and of innocent and upright landlords. The Government ought to tell us, for their own credit and because of the feeling in the country, what this Bill really means. I do not intend to vote against it, but I have the gravest possible feeling of concern that a Bill of this kind should be introduced, and we should not know really the reason for it.
    5.46 p.m.
    The DEPUTY PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I beg leave to remind the Committee that we are dealing with a business proposition, and that

    1611
    one of the considerations in every business proposition is that we should not scare away from the area of business those on whom we may have to depend. Let me make it quite clear where the Government stand in this matter, and why they took up this question at all. It is not a new departure on our part. It comes in regular succession from other Measures of a somewhat kindred nature. The Bill itself has been known to the country now for three months, and during that time is has been debated at considerable length in the other place. It was conducted through the other place by one who will probably not be suspect by my Noble Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington). He is not a member of the Liberal party and never has been. I refer to Lord Londonderry, who is as good a Conservative as my Noble Friend, and it was my Noble Friend Lord Londonderry who conducted the Bill through the House of Lords.
    We have been asked: What lies behind the Bill? Who has inspired it? What is the conspiracy that is going on of which the Government have given us no information? There is nothing more of that nature to be found in the Bill than you find in the Budget of every year. Does any hon. Member who has been here for any length of time imagine that for one moment the Chancellor of the Exchequer would get up at this Box and say: "Before I altered the Sugar Duties, I consulted so-and-so. Before I altered the Silk Duties, I took the advice of the Silk organisation"?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: He did not con-consult the distillers when he altered the whisky tax.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not give away even a distiller. Objection is taken, apparently, to our having obtained information from any source whatever, except from my Noble Friend and those who have some knowledge of the getting of oil. Why should we come here to the House and say: "We have been told by so-and-so; we have been approached by this company, that company and the other company. We have taken the advice which has been given to us by great corporations." One reason why we do not say that, is that it would
    1612
    not be true. We have not taken the advice of great corporations. We have not asked private individuals who have some knowledge of the getting of oil and the organisation of companies to draft this Bill for us. I say without the least reserve that nothing in the inception of this Bill need cause the most squeamish Member of this House a moment's loss of sleep. Everything has been perfectly straightforward and above-board, but I am not going to tell my hon. Friends, for their amusement, who may or may not have been consulted.
    I noticed that my Noble Friend made reference to the fact that we had sought advice from him. Perhaps he will allow me to say that his advice was not very valuable, and that if we have had to go elsewhere for technical advice, it was his fault and not ours. He was not much guidance. What were the institutions from which we ought to have obtained guidance, according to my Noble Friend? I took down the names of some of them. He spoke them very rapidly and the list was long. The Geological Society of London. Had we consulted them? Had we consulted the Institute of Fuel, or the Institute of Mining Engineers, or the Institute of Mining Metallurgy?
    Marquess of HARTINGTON: Or the Institute of Petroleum Technology.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: So far as I know, we have not consulted any of them. We have many ways of getting information, but we did not think it necessary to go to these technical societies. I can tell my hon. Friends at once that we did not think it necessary to go to any one of them any more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have thought it necessary to go to the Statistical Society when he was considering altering the Income Tax, or to the Institute of Hygiene when he was dealing with the Sugar Duty. The fact is that the Government take complete responsibility for everything that appears in this Bill. If they have obtained information, they have obtained it from sources which they can trust. They have done so without any sacrifice of the national interest. I should like it clearly to be understood that, so far as I am concerned, I am old enough in business affairs to know that it never does, either in private or in public, to do anything that is fishy. There has been nothing fishy in regard to this Bill, and I hope that my

    1613
    hon. Friends will now realise that they have gone a little too far in making these hints. One of my hon. Friends has said that there have been discussions and rumours in the Lobby and the Smoke Room. It does not matter where it happened. Whoever makes that accusation ought to come on to the Floor of this House and substantiate it. There is not a word of truth in these suggestions of irregularity.
    My Noble Friend also made reference to the delays which had been caused in the exploitation of the oil properties of this country by reason of the fact that we had delayed the final issue of licences. I think he said there were five cases of this kind. Full information was given on this subject, in answer to a question in the House, by my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines, so that I am giving the Committee what it already knows, but it may be just as well that it should know once more the reasons why the Minister for Mines found it impossible in each of those five cases to tell them to go full speed ahead. I will take them one by one.
    Case 1. This was an application to search for natural gas. The conditions to be complied with by persons requiring licences were explained in a letter from the Department on 5th February, 1932. A copy of the latest licence granted was enclosed, but no reply was received. That explains the reason why that licence did not go forward.
    Case 2. This was an application to drill for oil. In this case the applicant was acting in partnership with the owner of a small property consisting of a residence and three fields, and he asked for an area of about three square miles. The applicants were told that, subject to compliance with the Department's requirements, the licence would be issued. There were some correspondence and several interviews. At one of these, in June of last year, it was stated that the applicants did not wish to proceed for the present with the application. There was another interview in October of last year, when the applicant stated that the financial interests concerned with him had refused to do anything further until the results of some other investigations that were being made were available. That is the explanation of the second licence not having gone any further.
    1614
    Case 3. This was an application for a licence over an area of about three square miles. The applicants had acquired rights of entry from the land owner by agreement over a small part of the area. The applicants were not prepared to undertake any drilling operations pending the results of some other investigations they were making. Until they were prepared to do this the Department was not willing to grant a licence—and quite properly. There has been no complaint made against the action of the Department by these applicants. Since then they have proceeded no further with the application.
    Case 4. This was an application to drill for oil over two small areas. The applicants were originally informed in April, 1931, through their solicitor, who was also one of the applicants, that, subject to compliance with the requirements of the Department, the Secretary for Mines would be prepared to proceed to issue a licence to the syndicate. The undertaking was dependent upon the Department being satisfied that the syndicate had obtained rights of entry and a lease from the landowner in respect of a portion of the area applied for. We were protecting the interests of the landowner, please observe. The solicitor was subsequently sent to prison for fraud, but the application was renewed by the other applicants. No evidence has been furnished to the Department on the lines asked for, and nothing has been heard from the applicants for a considerable period. Finally, we come to Case 5. This represents a further application from the same applicants as in Case 4, except that this was made after the solicitor had been sentenced. The applicants were given an undertaking similar to that referred to in Case 4. Since February, 1933, nothing further has been heard from them.
    That, I think, disposes finally of the five licences for the exploitation of oil in this country that have been held up. Let me now come back to the business proposition by which we are faced. The House will gather, even from the reading of that list of five applications, how difficult the whole question is. There are conditions to be complied with, which must of necessity be complied with if public and private interests are to be properly protected. Furthermore, there

    1615
    are not a very large number of people who are prepared to undertake drilling operations in this country or elsewhere. After all, with such measures as our drills would have to pass through, it is quite possible that as much as £30,000 or £35,000 may have to be spent on a single bore hole. I do not know how much has been spent on the bore holes at present in use in this country, but I should not be surprised to find, if you go down to anything like the maximum depth of 10,000 feet, that £30,000 would not see the operation through. There are very few companies or organisations that are prepared to undertake such an expensive adventure, and it is a great adventure. What we want, and what we hope to get, is a spirit of enterprise among those who will feel that they can safely embark upon expenditure of this nature and do it with prospect of making some profit in return.
    I wish the Committee would realise how extraordinarily difficult it is to arouse any interest in anything of this kind, if all the time we are to be told that if we negotiate with an oil company we are doing something wrong. If the Department is to negotiate, it must be trusted by Parliament. If it is not trusted by Parliament, then there must be some change. It is certain that this is the only way in which the transaction can be carried through. If there is any oil, we wish to see it developed. I do not know whether the adventure will be undertaken. If it is undertaken, I do not know by whom it will be undertaken. We are open to receive applications, when this Bill has gone through, from any quarter, from anyone who has the resources, who will comply with the law and who will not only abide by the rulings of the Government Department but will protect the private interests which may be interfered with. I would remind the Committee that we have gone a long way in protecting private interests. Let the Committee look at Clause 3 and they will find on page 3 the most generous terms ever given by way of compensation in any Act of Parliament.
    Captain WATERHOUSE: What sort of compensation?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Compensation for amenities and the acquisition of surface rights.
    Captain WATERHOUSE: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my point yet.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I was coming to the attack made upon me by the hon. and gallant Member. It was the kind of attack that I can remember, and if the hon. and gallant Member desires I will come to it at once. He asked how it was that we were giving way to this spirit of confiscation, and he seemed to think that it was entirely due to our political antecedents. Let me tell him that mine are just as honest as his. If I am here at this Box presenting this Bill, it is because I profoundly believe in it, just as much as the hon. and gallant Member believes it is wrong. He is asking for compensation for property which, in the opinion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), does not exist. Who on earth would be likely to give compensation for property in oil which does not exist? The hon. and gallant Member says that it is wrong not to give compensation for property which is to be taken away, which, according to the hon. and learned Member, does not exist. The hon. and gallant Member produced an illustration from the racecourse and another from the auction room. I will take the latter. He seemed to think that his illustration of a £200 picture would cover the case. Let me point out that under Clause 3, for the £200 picture, if there were any compensation to be paid, 10 per cent. would be added, and he would get £220; not a bad transaction. He would make a little profit. I do not grudge him the profit under Clause 3, because I think it is only right that the surface owner should be adequately protected, but when he asks that, in addition, we should give compensation for property which does not exist at all, then I say that is really throwing away public money.
    Mr. M. BEAUMONT: Is the right hon. gentleman stating now that it is the definite view of the Government that the hon. and learned Member for Ashford is correct in his interpretation of the law?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am prepared to accept a considerable amount of what the hon. and learned Member says, although not the whole, and that is the reason why I could not accept the Amendment. On this subject we accept the Bill as it stands and we stand by it; and we shall

    1617
    hope to get the support of the hon. and learned Member.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Do the Government accept the view that oil under the land does not belong to the owners of the land?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not going to be drawn into that discussion. I say emphatically that there is so much doubt about it that it was absolutely necessary to make it clear in this Bill. That is the reason for the Bill. It is because there is this doubt that we have not had more than a trivial number of applications for licences. I am anxious in the public interest that we should have a larger number of applications for the right to bore, and that whatever obstacles are in the way should be removed in the public interest. While safeguarding private rights, I am not prepared to say that public money should be given to individuals for rights which, on the best legal advice, we believe do not exist, and I am not going to do anything which will leave any doubt that as far as the future is concerned the rights of oil are vested in the Crown. I am not going to be led into a discussion on royalties or subjects of a general character, but I should like to say, in conclusion, that we are asking the Committee to pass this Clause, and the House to pass the Bill, because we wish to see the oil industry developed. We believe this is the first step necessary to clear the ground for that development. We wish to see exploration go forward, and, as far as we can, to induce anybody to undertake it, without accepting the invitation of some hon. Members that it should be done by the State. The commercial side of these undertakings can be done as well by private organisations, and the Bill aims at giving private adventure a chance which it has not got now. With that view I, who am not a Socialist and believe in the rights of property, recommend it to the Committee. The noble Lord the Member for West Derbyshire suggested that the Secretary for Mines and myself were, in his elegant phrase, returning like dogs to our vomit. I do not know exactly what he meant. It is not a phrase with which I am familiar, but if in this business we could import an element of dog sense, we should get the Measure through a great deal more rapidly.
    6.6 p.m.
    Major COLFOX: The argument of the President of the Board of Trade depends largely on the alleged fluidity of petroleum below the surface. The right hon. Gentleman had been asked a definite question on that point, and has not replied to it. The Government's ease is that petroleum is very fluid and can be drawn from long distances, but, on the other hand, it is said that it only travels short distances below the surface. Therefore, the statement on which the Government base their case is unreliable. Neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Secretary for Mines is a technical expert on this subject, and when they advance the argument of the fluidity of petroleum, it is only reasonable to ask them to support that statement by telling us the advice upon which they rely for that view. They have been asked to do so, but have not replied. On the other hand, the Noble Lord the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) has definitely stated that petroleum does not travel long distances, and that a well on one man's land cannot rob petroleum from another man's land for more than a limited area, if at all. If the statement of the Noble Lord is correct, the whole case, or at least nine-tenths of the case, of the Government in support of this Clause falls to the ground. Personally, I have no view as to whether petroleum travels under the surface or not, but we have these conflicting statements. The Government's case is that it does, but their case is not supported by any expert evidence, nor do we know the grounds upon which their opinion is based. I feel that the Government have no case, and I shall certainly vote against the Clause.
    6.8 p.m.
    Marquess of HARTINGTON: I am sorry to have to press the President of the Board of Trade. I was delighted to hear his explanation with regard to why the five applications have not been granted, and I am puzzled why the Secretary for Mines could not have given me that information months ago; it would have settled the question once and for all. I am delighted to have heard such a commonsense answer. But I received no reply to my question as to why this expropriation is necessary. A licensing system gives the Government full opportunities to exercise control over

    1619
    the development of an oilfield, and I feel bound to ask what is the reason far believing that a policy of expropriation is going to facilitate the search for oil. The licensee, the company, will still have to negotiate with every landowner on whose land it proposes to erect works or sink a well, or run a pipe line. The number of landowners with whom negotiations will be necessary is not diminished. Royalty, presumably, will be charged by the Government for the oil produced, and from my experience Government Departments will not err on the side of making too small a charge. Indeed, the Government will be in a position to charge a far higher royalty than the private owner. There is to be one monopoly for the whole of the oil in England; the Government are to be in the position of being able to charge a high royalty. I cannot understand why this expropriation is required. It will hinder rather than help the exploitation for oil. I do not know of any landowner who is rich enough to resist the development of oil on his land, if he receives a royalty. Without exception, landowners in England would be delighted to have an oil company to sink wells, if they have an interest in the oil, but without exception landowners will fight every inch of the way if they are to get the compensation suggested by the Bill, that is, to be recouped the actual financial loss they suffer plus 10 per cent. To that extent the position will be far worse than it is under the existing law. I do not know why a licensing system is not sufficient, and why the Government want these expropriation proposals. It would be desirable to make the licences terminable in certain conditions. That has been a defect in the past. It may be undesirable to grant a licence to a company of doubtful financial standing and thus tie up the production of potential oil supplies. In my view the Government have all the control which is necessary by a system of licences without requiring the expropriation measures of the Bill.
    6.14 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: So far the President of the Board of Trade has not given the real reason why the Bill has been brought in at this time. We are getting towards the end of the Session, and I can see no reason why the
    1620
    Measure should not have been brought in 12 months ago, or why it should not be brought in six months hence. There appear to be no prospects for the immediate future. The Government have had a certain number of applications, but there is no reason to suppose that there will be very many in the future. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why the Bill is brought in just now? Is it merely to waste the time of the House, or is it brought in in the hope that there will be more licences granted in the future for the right to bore for petroleum? As it is, the Bill is confiscation and nationalisation. I wish the Bill had been brought in by the Socialists. I see on the Front Bench the Minister of Health, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil (Major G. Davies). I can imagine how they would have opposed such a Bill. They would have wiped the floor with it.
    I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade is pleased with the reception that his Bill has received from the Socialist Opposition. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) said he agreed with the principle of the Bill, and the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) said the policy of the Bill was entirely a Liberal policy. It is nationalisation and confiscation, and as such it is a Socialist policy. I ask hon. Members who are here as Conservatives to realise that if they vote for the Bill they vote for confiscation and nationalisation. The lawyers of the House, most of whom are now absent, have been trying to get round that fact. They say it is not nationalisation, but they have tried to alter the wording of this Clause. No matter how they quibble about it, it is nationalisation and confiscation. Every Conservative ought to oppose the Bill.
    6.16 p.m.
    Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I cannot let the observations of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) pass unnoticed. When I saw this Clause for the first time I confess that I did not much like the look of it, because those of us who were returned to this House to support the National Government had occasion to say many times on the platform very strong things about suggestions for nationalisation. But when we come to examine this

    1621
    Clause and when we examine the facts about this particular class of commodity, which we suspect is under the ground though we are not quite sure about it, and when we know that there is at least a grave doubt as to what the true legal position is with regard to this inchoate right of property, we have to consider whether we are really and truly doing something which, although it may be quite exceptional, is not giving service to the doctrine of nationalisation.
    I confess that when I had heard the arguments during the Second Heading Debate I began to see that there was a great deal in this particular problem which necessitated exceptional treatment. That being so, I want to appeal in my turn to my hon. Friends who act with me in a great many of these matters, those members of my own party who came originally to a view of this Clause based on previous political leanings and orientation, to consider whether they are not now possibly being misled into voting against this Bill because their prejudices are rising superior to their examination of the facts and circumstances of the industry. I say that with great deference. I hope my hon. Friends have attempted
    to pay the same attention to this problem as I have done. I shall regret it if, as a result of rival examinations by members of the same political school of thought, we ultimately find ourselves arriving at totally different conclusions. But, approaching this question with some independence of thought and with some fear lest the Government might be doing something which would drive a breach into those principles for which I was returned to this House, and having made my examination, it seems to me that the Government have come to a right conclusion. But perhaps it is just as well that it should be made plain to the Government by their supporters that, having come to that conclusion, we are anxious that it should be equally clear that we are dealing with this particular topic because it is an exceptional matter and not because we are being in the least forced either from our political views or the pledges which we gave to our constituents in the last election and the preceding election.
    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 30.

    Division No. 313.]

    AYES.

    [6.21 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

    Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.

    Grattan-Doyle. Sir Nicholas

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar. South)

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Greaves-Lord. Sir Walter

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Croom-Johnson, H. P.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Cross, R. H.

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

    Albery, Irving James

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Daggar, George

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Hales, Harold K.

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Hamilton, Sir H. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)

    Banfield, John William

    Denville, Alfred

    Hammersley, Samuel S.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Dickie, John P.

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Batey, Joseph

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Blindell, James

    Edmondson, Major Sir James

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Edwards, Charles

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Buchan, John

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    Janner, Barnett

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon A. D.

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

    Colvllie, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Knight, Holford

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Cooke, Douglas

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Lawson, John James

    Copeland, Ida

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Granville, Edgar

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Leonard, William

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Levy, Thomas

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Lewis, Oswald

    Munro, Patrick

    Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

    North, Edward T.

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Storey, Samuel

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Peake, Osbert

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Pearson, William G

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Lunn, William

    Penny, Sir George

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

    Mabane, William

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Petherick, M.

    Thorne, William James

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Tree, Ronald

    McLean, Major. Sir Alan

    Pybus, Sir Percy John

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Wallace, John (Dunfermilne)

    Magnay, Thomas

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Maitland, Adam

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Rickards, George William

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    West, F. R.

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Ruthorford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Meller, Sir Richard James

    Salmon, Sir Isldore

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Salt, Edward W.

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Wilmot, John

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Monsoll, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Selley, Harry R.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Shute, Colonel J. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Major George Davies and Dr.

    Morris-Jones.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Fox, Sir Gilford

    Scone, Lord

    Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Lees-Jones, John

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Bracken, Brendan

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Nall-Caln, Hon. Ronald

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Brown, Brig. -Gen. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)

    Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Clarke, Frank

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Ray, Sir William

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Remer, John R.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Marquess of Hartington and Mr. Michael Beaumont.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Licences to search for and get petroleum.)
    6.31 p.m.
    Mr. OSBERT PEAKE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, to leave out "Board of Trade," and to insert:
    "Coal Mines Re-organisation Commission (hereinafter called the Commission ')."
    Now that we have decided the vexed question, "In whom is the ownership of the mineral oil to be vested?" we come to a Clause which is a good deal less controversial. The scheme under the Bill is that the property in the oil is vested in the Crown, but neither the Crown nor the Board of Trade are going to search for or develop the oil. They are going to grant licences to private individuals, and
    1624
    I think most of us, with the exception of those hon. Members who sit on the Socialist Benches, agree that that is a wise policy. Under Clause 2 the licensing authority is to be the Board of Trade and my Amendment is to leave out the Board of Trade and to put in its place the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission. It may seem strange to hon. Members that I should choose the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission for this purpose. I should like to make it clear in the first place that what I am seeking to do is to transfer the duty of managing the development of mineral to a body which is permanent, which is expert and which is completely independent of political influence. In the second place, although I

    1625
    might have moved an Amendment proposing a completely new Commission to deal with the ownership of oil, I could not have done so in such a way as to ensure that that commission would be paid as well as a commission of this kind ought to be paid. It would obviously be out of order to put down Amendments which would throw a new charge on the Exchequer.
    The Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission possesses the main features of the sort of body which, in my opinion, ought to have the duty of granting licences to search for and obtain petroleum oil. It is independent; it is well paid and it is presided over by a man whom nobody could possibly imagine to be susceptible to the sort of influences which some of my hon. Friends seem to fear. It has the power of taking evidence on commission, and of securing expert advice. I wish to divide my argument into two parts. First I contend that the Board of Trade is a bad authority for dealing with these important and onerous duties. Under Clause 8 of the Bill it is provided that the duties and powers of the Board of Trade under the Act are to be exercised through the Secretary for Mines. I have the greatest confidence in my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines but I have not such great confidence in his successor whoever that successor may be. One of the great objections to handing over these important duties to the Secretary for Mines is that we cannot get any real continuity of control because Secretaries for Mines are here to-day and gone to-morrow:
    "The evil that they do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones."
    We shall, obviously, have a completely different outlook upon this question of mineral development when my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines leaves his present office and is moved up higher. I wish the Committee to understand how important the duties, of the licensing authority will be. This is not a matter of issuing a licence to keep a dog or a wireless set or to kill game. These licences, in fact, will be huge concessions. They will be analogous to existing mineral leases containing hundreds of clauses and conditions and each of those clauses and conditions will be the subject of long negotiation. There will be questions
    1626
    as to the duration of the licence or lease, how it is to be terminated, whether there is to be a minimum sum payable even if oil should not be obtained and so forth. There will be questions of royalties, and whether a licensee is to pay a deposit or give security that he is going to take steps to develop the mineral. With all respect to my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines, the Board of Trade and the Mines Department have no experience of the ownership of minerals. Personally, I should like to see a special commission for this purpose presided over by my noble Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) at a good substantial salary. You must have continuity of policy if the industry is to be properly planned and developed and you must have independence of political influence.
    I think our experience this afternoon and during the Second Reading Debate shows how important it is that we should get a body to grant these licences whose representative would not have to answer questions at the Table of the House of Commons. I do not see how it will be possible for these concessions to be given to the people who are most suitable, if questions are to be addressed to the responsible Minister during the negotiations for a licence which I should imagine—and I have had some experience of negotiating mineral leases—will last for months and possibly years before the terms are finally settled. I do not see how it will be possible for the Secretary for Mines to negotiate with great commercial interests on these matters if at various stages of the negotiations he has to answer in this House the sort of questions which have been put to him during these Debates. Who has applied for a licence? Did Jones apply before Smith or Smith before Brown? What is the state of the negotiations? It is possible that we shall each have a constituent sending us questions to be put to the Minister as to why his application has been turned down.
    I do not suppose for a moment that the Noble Lord the Member for West Derbyshire would be prepared in regard to his mineral estates, to state in public the names of the applicants for leases or the reasons why some of them were being turned down. If the State is to be the

    1627
    owner of the mineral oil, I do not see why the State should be put at a greater disadvantage than the private individual in negotiations of this kind. I want the Bill to be a success. It is an experiment. Some of my hon. Friends call it a Socialist experiment, but I am sufficient of a realist to wish to make the Bill a success, and I do not think it fair to allow the State to take over the mineral oils and then to fetter it as it is going to be fettered if the Board of Trade is to be the licensing authority.
    Having stated the reasons why I think the Board of Trade would be a bad authority for granting these enormous concessions, I wish shortly to point out why a body like the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission would be more suitable. You can get for a commission of that kind a chairman who is above all suspicion of party interests or of being "got at" by anybody. You would get continuity of policy and what is more you could dispense with all the ridiculous regulations which are provided for in Clause 6 of the Bill. Whenever a Government Department starts to run anything its first step is to issue a lot of regulations. Under Clause 6, regulations first have to be drawn up as to the manner in which the applications are to be made. A form has to be filled in and the regulations are also to cover the question of fees—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I think we had better leave the details of the regulations until we reach the Clause which deals with them.
    Mr. PEAKE: Perhaps I was going a little too far. My point is that we could give a Commission such as I suggest an absolutely free hand and there would be no need to fetter it with the masses of red tape which are, apparently, necessary to keep a Government Department from overstepping the limits of discretion. I think I have said enough to show that there is sound reason for taking this important duty away from the Board of Trade and handing it over to a body such as the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission. There is also this advantage in such a course. At the beginning there obviously will not be a great deal of work for such a body to do in this connection. If the oil industry develops its work will grow, and it might then be necessary to set up a completely independent
    1628
    body, but there would be a saving of money if, in the first place, this duty were handed over to the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission.
    6.43 p.m.
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I have listened with very great interest to the speeches of the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Osbert Peake) this evening and on the Second Reading, when he made some more general observations about his desire for an independent and wider organisation, not only for this purpose but for other purposes in connection with fuel. The Committee will have observed that he moved this Amendment to substitute the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission for the Board of Trade, as the licensing authority under this Measure, on several grounds. First he says that the commission is permanent. That remark applies equally to the Board of Trade.
    Mr. PEAKE: The Secretary for Mines is not permanent.
    Mr. BROWN: That may be so, but the Board of Trade is permanent. Then the hon. Member says he wants expert knowledge in connection with the licensing authority. I have no desire to cast the slightest doubt upon the capacity of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission, which is a very able body, but it is a body which is concerned solely with coal and with certain aspects of the coal question only. At the same time I would point out that there is in the Board of Trade at the moment a small but very competent department called the Petroleum Department which has much expert knowledge on this subject at its disposal, and which has been for years advising British Administrations on these matters, and, indeed, giving advice in cases arising all over the world on this very subject. Therefore, if what my hon. Friend desires is expert knowledge, I think he will agree on reflection that he had better leave the Board of Trade as the Department concerned. There are a number of Members who desire, in the early stages at least of the development of this policy, that there should be constructive Parliamentary control. That can only be exercised in two ways: first of all by Parliament having the power in general over the regulations, and secondly by

    1629
    having direct power through the Minister who is responsible at the Board of Trade and who can be called upon to answer for his actions at any time under our Rules. That is not the case with the Reorganisation Commission, which was made by this House an independent body, and, as a matter of fact, the Minister for Mines can only give information as to its operations to this House by courtesy of the commission.
    I think, on reflection, my hon. Friend will agree with me that if he desires to get an independent body because he does not want political influence, that desire would be outweighed by the desire in the early stages of development to see that this House has the completest possible control, and that control can be got through a Minister who answers for the Department on the Floor of the House. It cannot be said that the Reorganisation Commission have on this matter any technical or expert knowledge, although it is a very able body on its own subject. Although my hon. Friend in his Second Reading speech was taking a wider view that this, I am now concerned with this problem only, and on consideration of all the issues involved I think the Committee will agree with the Government that in the early stages of the development of policy the granting of the licences should be in the hands of the Board of Trade and of a Minister responsible to Parliament for his actions. I regret, therefore, that I cannot accept the Amendment.
    6.48 p.m.
    Mr. LUNN: Had it not been for the interjection of the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. O. Peake) a moment ago, I do not think I should have spoken on this Amendment, but when the hon. Member interjected that the Mines Department was not there—
    Mr. PEAKE: I said the Secretary for Mines.
    Mr. LUNN: The Board of Trade is there, and the Mines Department is there, and we want it to remain there. The Mines Department on more than one occasion has been threatened—
    Mr. E. BROWN: I think the hon. Member has misunderstood the point. My hon. Friend said that a particular Minister would not be there.
    Mr. LUNN: I heard the compliments that were paid to the Secretary of Mines beforehand, but what I am concerned about is not that we should take power away from the Secretary for Mines, but that he should have more power. Those of us who come from mining constituencies believe that we have been and are connected with an industry of sufficient importance to have a Minister and a Department of its own, but it has not got that. The Mines Department is a Department of the Board of Trade, and as such it will have to administer this Bill, and I think I am safe in saying that our party would agree that it is the proper Department to do it. I am rather surprised at the hon. Member for North Leeds wanting to spend money. This is an economy Government, a Government that was going to save money in all directions, and there has been more criticism of the Chairman of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission that almost any other individual that I know during the last two or three years.
    Mr. PEAKE: I am giving him some extra work.
    Mr. LUNN: There are doubts about that, as to whether there will be extra work, and it is not always those who do the most work who get the most pay. It is usually the man who does not take off his jacket who gets more money than the man who takes off his shirt, and I am afraid that would apply very much in this case. If this work were added, someone would come along with a desire to give him a largely increased salary because of the imaginary duties which were being put upon him. We should prefer that it remained under the Board of Trade and particularly under the Mines Department, which we want to see remain alive and become stronger, rather than that it should go to an outside body. There is the other point too, with regard to Parliamentary control. After all, in this Parliament we have done a good deal to remove from the rights of Members of this House the power to interfere in matters concerning the people of this country, and I am not inclined to take too much away from the control of the elected representatives of the people. In matters where money is found by the people, the people ought to have some control over it, and so, per-

    1631
    sonally, and I think I can say it for this party also, we oppose this Amendment. We think there will be nothing lost to the nation and to the individual who desires to bore for oil in this country if the matter is put under the Board of Trade, and if I, as a Member of Parliament, and other hon. Members are able to ask questions and know something about what is transpiring in this industry, if it is to be one, in the future. We may become more independent of foreign countries by having a new industry in our own land.
    6.51 p.m.
    Mr. MACMILLAN: I am glad my hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. O. Peake) has brought forward this matter, because it raises a point of rather more substance than the Minister was inclined to concede. It is clear that if we are to embark upon a new policy of State-ownership of mineral oils, there are questions involved as to the best method of the exploitation of this property which is to become national property. There is a widespread feeling that there may be a more efficient exploitation of the property by an ad hoc independent body than by an ordinary Department of State which is formed mainly for administrative purposes. Supposing this House embarks upon a policy for the vesting in the Crown of mineral rights, I do not think this House would wish to allow the Ministry of Mines to be the Department that should administer so vast an undertaking. It would probably feel that we should follow the parallel of some of our recent legislation and set up an ad hoc body for that purpose, perhaps drawing a great deal of its information and expert opinion from the Ministry of Mines, but having some other factors of permanence which are of value. Although I see that in the initial stages there is not likely to be very much done in this matter, this really raises the rather important point for the future, that we should embark upon a sound technique, and there is a great deal in the idea, if the industry develops at all, that the care and granting of leases and the general control of this property, which is now to be vested in the nation, should be carried on by an ad hoc body appointed for the purpose and not by a Ministry
    1632
    that serves the ordinary administrative purposes of a Government Department. Therefore, I hope the Minister will bear in mind the importance of the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend, if he cannot accept the Amendment.
    6.53 p.m.
    Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I am sure the Minister will be alarmed to know that in his attitude towards this Amendment he has my whole-hearted support. If this industry is going to develop and if we are going to have oil wells and oil production plants all over the country, I think it is absolutely essential that the licensing of them should be in the hands of someone over whom we have some measure of control. I cannot imagine any worse body, if I may say so without any disrespect to them at all, than the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission, whose only interest is a mineral interest and who, with all their expert knowledge, are bound to take that view of the question. In considering the granting of these licences, the exploring for this oil, who are the right people to do it, where the licences they are to be given, it is essential to take many factors into consideration, and it is essential that this House should have an avenue for raising its protest if the development of this industry does not go in the way that it likes. Therefore, I am very glad to learn that the Government propose to keep the granting of licences and control over the development of this important industry and over the very drastic powers which they are taking in hands which Parliament is competent to criticise.
    6.55 p.m.
    Captain M. J. HUNTER: I should like to support very strongly the objection raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. O. Peake) against this matter being put into the hands of a Government Department, but I cannot agree with him that the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission is the ideal body for the purpose. I would very much rather agree with the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Macmillan) that the ideal is an ad hoc body set up for the purpose, and I feel very strongly that dealing with licences and regulations and the whole of what may be a large and growing industry, and a very valuable one to the country, should be outside political hands.
    Mr. O. PEAKE: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I should like to have had a more satisfactory reply, and I hope the Minister will consider the matter further before the Report stage.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment which I have considered selecting is that in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse)—in page 2, line 4, after "power," to insert "after consultation with the Treasury and the Minister of Health"—but I should like an explanation of the purpose of the Amendment before deciding whether to select it or not.
    6.59 p.m.
    Captain WATERHOUSE: This Amendment has nothing to do with the series of Amendments that I put down on Clause 1. It is merely designed to give some consultation with some outside person before these licences are granted. As the Bill stands, the power of the Board of Trade is absolute. The Minister for Mines has told us that there is at the Board of Trade a small Department who are experts in petroleum. I presume that that part of the Department will be transferred to the Ministry of Mines under Clause 8.
    Mr. E. BROWN: It is there.
    Captain WATERHOUSE: I am glad to have that statement from the Department. At this moment, as the Bill stands, the Ministry of Mines have an absolute uower to grant a licence under any condition that they like, providing they comply with the Regulations laid down under this Bill, and they have so far—I hope they will not maintain the attitude to the end of the discussion—resolutely refused to admit anybody else to their counsels.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think I have seized the hon. and gallant Member's point. He wishes to ensure that there shall be consultation with somebody before the licences are granted.
    Captain WATERHOUSE: Consultation with one or more Departments.
    The DEPUTY -CHAIRMAN: In that case, I will select the Amendment, but I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will
    1634
    keep clear of amenities which arise on a later Amendment.
    Captain WATERHOUSE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, after "power," to insert "after consultation with the Treasury and the Minister of Health."
    I think the point is one of some substance, but it is in no way one of hostility to the Bill. My hostility to this Bill arises on Clause 1, and if the Bill is to be forced on us at all, my object is to improve the remaining Clauses rather than make them unworkable. The Board of Trade are to have the decision as to the granting of licences in their own hands, and be ruled and guided by any considerations which they think should guide them. In taking these powers to themselves, I suggest that they are assuming a very grave responsibility. In the first place, these licences once granted are, as the Bill stands, irrevocable. The Minister will tell me if I am wrong, but I do not think there is any power of ending a licence. It is a tremendous power for one Department to have for all time the right to say that in one district there shall or shall not be the power of prospecting for oil, and, if oil be found, how it shall be developed in that district. No local authority has any right to appear before my hon. Friend before the issue of a licence. When a licence is under consideration, nobody has any access to the Ministry. In the secrecy of his office, the Minister can decide the whole issue. I do not mean to say that the Treasury will not find some means of getting there. From what little I know of Departmental work, I think the Treasury have their scouts everywhere, and a finger in every pie, and if they think anybody is going too far, they put on a thumb-screw and get their way in the long run.
    The Minister of Health, however, has no such power. However much one may resent some of the Minister's activities, there are times when he can fulfil a useful function. My right hon. Friends and I had the privilege a few years ago of discussing a Bill, now an Act—the Town and Country Planning Act—under which we allowed the local authorities to plan vast areas. Such areas have been planned, are being planned and will be planned. Moreover, the county councils, county boroughs and local authorities of all sorts have been scheduling areas

    1635
    within their own administrative areas. Some are scheduled for industrial purposes and others for educational purposes. These are matters known to the Minister of Health, and completely outside the ken of my hon. Friend, and I think it is not unreasonable that before we allow him to start away with these very large powers he should give us an assurance that in using them he is going to consult the Ministry of Health. I hope he will not say in reply that it is not necessary, that he has had the power to issue licences since 1918, and has done nothing and is not likely to do anything in the future. If the Bill means anything, and we have not been completely deceived from start to finish, it is going to be used, and we may expect some practical results and some licences to be issued. Let him remember that he has to-day taken away the power of landlords and of local authorities to say anything about the getting of oil in their land. Therefore, I hope he will not say that the provisions of the 1918 Act are sufficient, but will think in his wisdom that it is worth while to consult his right hon. colleague of the Ministry of Health on this point.
    7.7 p.m.
    Mr. E. BROWN: I will not conceal from my hon. and gallant Friend that I did get a little amusement on Friday morning when I saw this Amendment in his name, and, reflecting on the past, I wondered why he should select the Minister of Health. I came to the conclusion that he was concerned with amenities which arise, as you, Captain Bourne, rightly said on other Amendments. He also raised two points, with one of which I must ask to be excused from dealing at the moment, because it arises again in a precise form, as to the action concerning publication before the issue of a licence. The real point the hon. and gallant Gentleman makes is that some other department ought to be consulted about the issue of licences. I find some difficulty in following his argument. It will be essential that the Board of Trade shall consult with the Treasury, because under the structure of the Bill the consent of the Treasury is necessary to the financial terms of any licence. That being so, I should have thought my hon. Friend would have had complete confidence in the operations of
    1636
    the two departments together. He brings in the Ministry of Health, but I am afraid he did not make it very clear to me why he selected it, because, unless it has to do with the surface of land and amenities, I do not see what knowledge that Ministry could bring to the problem.
    The issue of licences gives no power to enter the land or to work it, but to enter into negotiations with the holder of the surface rights, and, if no agreement is come to, to go to the Court, who will have to take into consideration the very facts he now mentions, the permission to prospect and the over-riding consideration as to whether the grant of a particular right by compulsion is in the national interest. I cannot conceive a clearer-cut draft, designed to secure the very interest my hon. and gallant Friend desires. The Government cannot see that anything more is necessary for the issue of licences than consultation of the Department directly responsible with the Treasury who are responsible for consent to the financial terms. I, therefore, regret that I am not able to accept the Amendment.
    Captain WATERHOUSE: In view of the explanation of the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    7.11 p.m.
    Mr. TINKER: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, to leave out,
    "to grant to such persons as they think fit licences."
    This Amendment goes to the heart of the Clause. I want hon. Members to realise what we propose to do. We agree that Clause 1 is a practical instalment of Socialism, but it does not go the whole way, and I want to remove any doubt about what Socialism will mean under this Bill. Clause 1 takes powers from one person to hand them over to another. We may as well, while we are dealing with this Bill, ask ourselves whether the people to whom we propose to hand them over have any right to them. I heard the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) making statements about what is being said not merely in this House but in other places where he knocks about. If there is any doubt in the minds of hon. Members as to what the Bill means, we should try to settle

    1637
    it, and, seeing that Clause 1 is accepted, we must try to put into the hands of the Board of Trade full power to deal with the whole problem. The Secretary for Mines, replying to the Debate on 19th June, said that the Bill was not Socialism, but was handing over to private enterprise certain conditions by which they could exploit the minerals found. I do not agree with that, because I do not think that we should hand over to any set of people the rights of the community. It is a grave injustice, and we on these benches are fighting for the recognition of the rights of the people. We say that no private individual ought to stand in the way of those rights.
    Licences are to be issued in certain conditions. I do not know 'What the conditions will be; we have not been told. Probably they will be explained later. We are to give to a body of people the right to search for a doubtful quantity of oil that may or may not exist. The President of the Board of Trade has told us that to put down a bore-hole of any extent may cost from £30,000 to £35,000. Can we expect that anybody will take out a licence and be called upon to expend that amount of money without some guarantee that, if there is any prospect of losing, they can look forward to the State to help them out? It would be wrong to ask any set of people to search for a certain thing of which there is doubt and to put down a large expenditure of money, and then to expect them to stand to lose on the transaction. One can imagine them coming to the House of Commons later and saying, "We have taken on this proposition, we have failed to find oil, we have spent a certain amount of money, and we want to know what the State is going to do with us?" I can imagine that we shall have trotted out the usual story about poor widows and others who have put their small amount of money into the undertaking believing it was a Government concern, and we shall have to recognise that there is something in that argument, but that is only one side of the picture. When we give out these licences, we shall be expected to see that the people who interest themselves in them do not lose anything.
    Suppose, on the other hand, the concern is a huge success. The benefit which ought to come to the community will then largely go into the hands of profiteers.
    1638
    As the Bill is drawn, we stand to lose in either case. If it be a financial failure, we shall be expected to find money, just as we were for sugar-beet, which among others things, the State has had to back. If the petroleum undertakings are a failure, the State will have to find the money, and, if they succeed and make huge profits, the State will get nothing out of it. We say that the State ought to have the profits. As under Clause 1 we have decided that the State shall take over the mineral rights and that the landowners have no cause to say that they belong to them, we should now take a further step and let the State take full control and work these mineral rights. I cannot understand hon. Members opposite always contending that things that come under a Government Department will fail and putting forward the argument that there is lack of incentive and initiative when an undertaking gets into Government hands. Whenever I hear that argument I wonder why hon. Members put any trust at all in any of the Government Departments. I believe that State officials give their very best to the State and that if we put anything into the hands of a State Department to work it will be worked as well as private enterprise can work it. I believe that State officials give the whole of their abilities to the benefit of the State.
    If my Amendment be carried, we shall put into the hands of the State full control of both the ownership and the working of this mineral wealth. In Clause 1 we have taken a step never before taken by the House of Commons and have given the State power to claim the mineral rights of any landowner. We are doing that because we see the signs of the times and the needs of the future. Members of the other House must have recognised that what has happened in the past cannot be allowed to happen in the future, and so they have taken this step forward. We have built a portion of the bridge. It is not yet complete. It has to be completed, but it will not be completed in this Parliament. It will not be completed until we are driven further, until private enterprise stumbles a little more than it has done; and, when we are faced with its utter failure, even this Parliament might do something. By moving this Amendment, we are pointing

    1639
    out to the House of Commons what will have to be done.
    Things which are essential to the State cannot in future be left in the hands of private enterprise. Hon. Members opposite have expressed some doubt as to the pressure that may be behind a State Department in bringing in this Bill. I will say for the President of the Board of Trade and those who are associated with him in this Bill that I do not believe there has been any pressure of an underhand kind behind this Bill. I would remove any doubts that hon. Members may still have by saying that the State intends to work this mineral and will not leave it to private people to do it. We have an opportunity here to let the State take a big step forward and to take full control of the oil industry in this country, which I think will operate later on, and so obviate the State being faced with claims for rights where licences have been granted. We are giving the Government the opportunity to-day to do what will later come from a Socialist Government if they do not do it.
    7.21 p.m.
    Mr. T. SMITH: I wish to support the Amendment. We on this side have been in entire agreement with the Government up to this point in the Bill, but I am afraid we shall find ourselves in different Lobbies when the Division is taken on this Amendment. Hon. Members opposite want to leave in private hands mineral wealth so far as oil is concerned, and we supported the Government in resisting that contention. We have established the principle that the wealth in petroleum shall be vested in the State. We are now discussing a Clause which suggests that licences shall be given to people who are willing to exploit petroleum. If the President of the Board of Trade will permit me to say this, I was rather astonished at some of the things he said earlier in the Debate. He said that we did not want to scare investors away and that we wanted to encourage people to apply for licences, to bore holes, and to work for petroleum. He then went on to say that in his opinion private enterprise could always deal with commercial subjects better than the State. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I knew that would bring forth
    1640
    applause. Hon. Members opposite rather belittle the State enterprises which we have in this country, and I could not help but reflect, when the President said that, on the state of industry in the country under private enterprise. Anyone would think that the coalmining industry was a paying proposition and that shipping was in a flourishing condition.
    It appears to be all right for private enterprise to control the basic industries, but the moment they get into difficulties they come along to the State and ask for the taxpayers' money to help them out. We have some of the finest State enterprises in the world in this country. Will anybody deny that the Post Office system in this country is the best in the world. Nobody would deny that except the Noble Lord the Member for Alder-shot (Viscount Wolmer), who wants to hand it over to private enterprise. It could not run the Post Office as well as it is run to-day. If you purchase a railway ticket under private enterprise you are charged in accordance with the distance you travel. The same applies to a tram itcket, but under our excellent postal service we are charged 1½d. for a letter from London to Aberdeen, exactly the same if it goes from London to a place near by. That shows the difference between private enterprise and a State organisation of which I am proud. The Post Office will stand comparison with any in the world for excellence of service and for yielding a substantial surplus at the end of the year.
    Mr. JOHN WALLACE: Is the hon. Member trying to establish that we should be able to get a railway ticket to Aberdeen for the same price as to Charing Cross?
    Mr. SMITH: I could see a lot of Scotsmen going to Scotland if they could. There is some virtue in certain of our State enterprises. Hon. Members and ourselves differ on this point. They conscientiously believe in private enterprise, while we believe that certain services should be State owned; and I am giving the postal service as an illustration of successful State enterprise. The Noble Lord the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington), earlier in the Debate, said that if the State had owned the mineral wealth of this country since 1658 the mining industry would not have flourished as it has done during the last

    1641
    50 years. I should like to cross swords with him on that point. The right to owenship of coal royalties in this country has literally wasted thousands of acres—
    The DEPUTY -CHAIRMAN: We had better not pursue that subject on this Amendment, which is limited in its scope.
    Mr. SMITH: I only mentioned that because it had been dealt with earlier in the Debate. There is another side to the question of public ownership. Have hon. Members forgotten the experience of wartime, when the Ministry of Munitions had to be set up because private enterprise was exploiting the State? Hon. Members do not do themselves justice when they criticise the undertakings that are owned by the State. Here is a chance for the State to do something. We have here what is comparatively a new venture. Nobody knows to what extent there is petroleum in this country. There is no question of nationalising a concern, because there is not one in existence, but here we have a chance to set up the machinery to exploit petroleum. We think that will be advantageous to all concerned. On the Second Reading the President of the Board of Trade dealt with the small amount of oil there is in this country and in the Empire. Those hon. Members who have expressed doubts as to why this Bill has been brought in cannot, I think, see as far into the future as the President of the Board of Trade. I believe that sooner or later we shall have to exploit our petroleum resources, and that it will be much better to do it as a State concern. I can see the possibility of a number of companies being set up for speculation—because that 13 what it means—in the working of petroleum, and when they find they have made a bad bargain they may come to the House to ask for a subsidy. I can foresee a number of competing units in operation. The very fact of their being in competition may be disadvantageous and defeat the very object of the Government in bringing in this Bill. We say the Government now have an opportunity, which they ought not to miss, of setting up the machinery to exploit the production of petroleum in the national interest.
    7.31 p.m.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am sure that my two hon. Friends opposite will not expect
    1642
    me to accept this Amendment. It would very much surprise me if that were their expectation. I have no intention of falling into temptation. They think that the nationalisation of the working of oil ought to follow on the nationalisation of the royalties on oil. The two things are entirely different. In the first place, oil is produced and sold in competition with similar fuel from all over the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) was very anxious to draw a parallel between the oil business and the Post Office. I would remind him that the Post Office is a monopoly. It has not had to meet competition, especially from outside the country. When he tried to draw a distinction between the way in which we assess postal charges and the cost of railway tickets he was going a little outside the limits of the logic of which he is usually a victim. He wanted to make a comparison between the present charges for railway tickets, which vary according to the distance travelled, and what would happen under a Socialist State, when one would take a ticket like a stamp, and go as far as one pleased for as long as one pleased.
    Mr. T. SMITH: No.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Then why did the hon. Member make the comparison?
    Mr. SMITH: I was trying to point out that we have at least one service run by the State which is efficient.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, but my hon. Friend said that he disapproved of the way in which we charge for railway tickets, which vary in cost according to the distance travelled, but he overlooked the fact that Post Office charges vary according to weight. That does not seem to draw a distinction which would justify anybody in embarking upon a State enterprise. My hon. Friend was also very anxious that we should make an experiment with oil. He could not have chosen a more complicated business for the experiment. If it is to be tried at all let it be done in a sphere where it will have some chance of being tried out without too many complications. One of the worst complications is that most of the oil comes from abroad, and that there is very keen competition in the selling and distribution of oil, and as a consumer of oil I am delighted that that should remain so. It is only when we get into the region of monopolies that there can be even an

    1643
    arguable case for Socialism, and we have not yet reached that region in oil, and I doubt whether we ever shall. The Government cannot accept the Amendment, and my hon. Friends I am sure do not expect that we should. All I would say is that I hope they will rest content with having hoisted the flag—we do not ask them to pull it down—and let us pass on to other business.
    7.35 p.m.
    Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I am sure the Committee are glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman still believes in keen competition from abroad in the sale of articles in this country. We are Very glad that he has come back to his Free Trade opinions, because many of us thought he was deserting them even as regards meat, wheat, and products of that sort, and beginning to think that free competition from abroad was not the ideal state of affairs. We shall note those views with great pleasure, and quote them to the Minister of Agriculture next time he is putting forward one of his propositions from the Treasury Bench. The more complex the position is the more necessary it is to have nationalisation. The right hon. Gentleman has been responsible for a scheme for getting oil from coal. In that case has he maintained this free competition in which he so much delights, in order that the oil from coal may meet the free competition of the oil from other places? He has had to make special arrangements in order that that oil can be produced by private enterprise. He has had to pass a special Act of Parliament to give all sorts of guarantees in order to try to induce someone to undertake that work. If it turns out to be a success the profits will not go to the State, who put up the inducement, but to the private capitalists who put up the capital. They put up the buildings, but the State had to put up the fence which was necessary to enable the enterprise to carry on.
    As regards the production of oil, how is the private individual going to correlate the price of oil with the price of coal in this country, or with the price of oil from coal in this country? Is the State to stand aside and say, "You compete as much as you like with coal, we are uninterested in the competition between coal and oil in this country, so long as
    1644
    they are both produced here"? Or is the State going to say, "We must control competition between the two commodities. We do not desire to have a great quantity of oil produced and find the coal industry is suffering. We have to keep a balance. We have to see that the oil does not decrease the output of coal but only decreases the amount of oil imported." If the State is to do that it will be a most complicated arrangement as regards duties, price arrangements, price fixation, and all the other matters which necessarily come in when anyone is trying to correlate two commodities which are competitive but not identical in nature. The right hon. Gentleman likes free competition. I do not know in what functional capacity it delights him, but I presume as a consumer and not as a legislator.
    If we are to allow an infant industry to spring up, the argument is all in favour of the State taking that industry into its own hands, because in any case the State will have to exert a great number of controls. The question is, Will those controls be exerted so as to produce a profit for the people who are producing the product, the oil, or will they be exerted so as to get the maximum planned consumption of the commodity? There are two rival theories. The right hon. Gentleman says, "I am prepared to step in at this stage and to put on a tariff in order to see that a certain firm to whom I give a licence make a profit. I have to do that because if they do not get a profit production ceases, and I do not get the oil. So I have to plan my legislation to give them a profit." We say, "We do not want you to plan legislation to give people a profit, but to plan legislation to get the production of oil which you desire as a wise planner, having regard to the coal problem and all the problems of the fuel consumption of different industries. If you are going to put this production into the hands of private enterprise you will not be able to do that, because the very fact that you have to plan for profit will deprive you of the power to plan from the other aspect." That is the vital difference between ourselves and the right hon. Gentleman.
    There is one other aspect of this controversy on which I have to touch. This Bill is the culmination of the contest which has gone on in this conntry be-

    1645
    tween the industrialists and the land owners since 1834. By gradual stages we have seen a diminution of the power of the landowner and the growing power of the industrialist, and now we have reached the point when, after legislation like the Mining Facilities Act, not even the other place is prepared to stand up for the landowner when the industralist believes that it is in his interest to con fiscate something which the landowner thinks belong to him. In this assembly there are some 29 or 30 Members who still stand in the early nineteenth century—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I hardly think that question arises on this Amendment.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I was just coming to the point. They still stand in the nineteenth century position of believing that the landowner has a right not only to own but also to produce the particular commodity. This Bill contemplates the taking away, the confiscation of the landowners right to own, and the handing over to the industrialist of the right to produce, which is taken away from the landowner, his ownership having been transferred to the State. What we ought to do is not to take a partisan view, and give this right to one class rather than to another class, but to say that, having taken the very wise step of confiscating the landowner's right to own property, we shall put into the hands of the whole community the right to produce and the right to distribute this particular commodity.
    Unless one be so blind to the circumstances of the present day as to believe that the profit-earning system is successful, which I do not think anyone can really believe, seeing the vast excess of goods in contrast with conditions almost of starvation, certainly of extreme need, among the people, no one can suggest that it is desirable that a new industry like this should be handed over to the tender mercies of a system which has proved so wholly inefficient in other matters. Here is an opportunity which, but for the lack of flexibility of mind which marks the Treasury Bench, would lead them, would lead any sensible congregation of people, to say, "Having taken the step of confiscation we must logically produce for the benefit of the whole community, and not hand over production to one class for profit."
    7.44 p.m.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: The Mover of this Amendment and the last speaker have argued that Clause 1 confiscates something from private individuals. I was not present when the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) delivered his speech, but he told me something about it. There is no more property in oil under the surface of this country than there is in water under the surface, and there never has been, and therefore if the law declares that the State is to have the title to the oil under the surface the State is taking nothing from anybody, and there is no confiscation. I admit that the Clause is clumsily and crudely drawn. It could have been worded much more delicately, and not in a way that has given opportunity for my hon. Friends to scoff at the Government for having landed us, through that crudeness of statement, into a position in which it is made out that we are engaged in an act of confiscation. I do not want to touch on the comparison with the Post Office, but would merely point out that the President of the Board of Trade summed up the matter at once when he said that the Post Office was a monopoly. I have no hesitation in saying that if it were run by private enterprise proper provision would have been made for the penny post long ago and you could have got a telephone in Glasgow for 25s., whereas it cost me nearly £25. Under private enterprise, 25s. would have enabled the payment of a good dividend. The Government of the day waited until they saw that the telephone service was a sound enterprise. They let private enterprise do the pioneering and spend the money, and then they seized the telephones—for a fairly adequate compensation—and I and other telephone subscribers have been paying ever since. It is the most costly way of running anything.
    I sympathise with the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) when he suggests that if private enterprise fails over the production of oil, it will come back to this House and ask for a subsidy or for some of the money which it will have lost. In that case, there will be no stouter opponent than myself, because that is private enterprise ceasing to be private enterprise. The case which the hon. Gentleman put of shipping is quite

    1647
    different. Shipping is fighting foreign Governments who are subsidising, but British shipping is prepared to fight all the mercantile navies in the world on a fair—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. and learned Member had better not go into that. I suggest that he keeps to the Amendment.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we even had private enterprise in a war, because the most successful naval engagement was that which defeated the Spanish Armada, and it was done by private enterprise. Oil is a very difficult, delicate and skilled enterprise. Even if we got the most skilled civil servants to undertake it, what could they do? They could only employ an oil firm. If private enterprise embarks upon an enterprise of this kind, you must give private enterprise a chance of making a profit. The hon. Member for Leigh suggested that private enterprise would come here for a subsidy or grant if it lost money; I do not believe it for one moment, but if it does, it will not get sixpence of the country's money. The whole difference between private enterprise and State enterprise is that private enterprise riks losing its money. I object to State enterprise, because, if the State goes into a venture and loses money, it says, "What does it matter? We will just put more money on the back of the taxpayer." The shadow of bankruptcy hangs over every private enterprise. That is what stimulates it to economy and to thrift.
    "The difference between private enterprise and State enterprise is that private enterprise hates to give a man the sack, but it always does it when it has to, whereas public enterprise never gives a man the sack,"
    says Professor Peacock, the Canadian economist. That is why private enterprise can make a success and State enterprise will incur the heaviest losses. It is all very well to say, "Take the sugar subsidy," but that is only a relief of taxation. There is no instance of greater wealth and greater skill than in the great oil companies. They are doing the most wonderfully skilled work in the world and they sell their commodity at the cheapest price. Just imagine; you can get a gallon of petrol for Is. 4d., and 8d. of that is tax. There has never been as cheap
    1648
    a means of power as oil, and that is largely due to the immense skill and powers of distribution possessed by the oil companies. Why should we take a risk which may put a new charge on the already heavily burdened taxpayer? Let the men with illimitable resources take the risk.
    The State is always saying, "Tails we win, heads you lose, to private enterprise. Take the whisky trade. The senior partner in the whisky trade is the State, Private enterprise takes the loss and the State takes the profit. There is not the lightest reason why any Government, Labour or Conservative, should, if a loss occurs, rob the till of the taxpayer in order to give something to people who will go into this venture with their eyes open, with the knowledge that there is a great risk and that they might lose their money. They ought not to come to the Treasury and say, "We want you to make good our losses." We can pledge ourselves, if there be any lucidity or logic in our understanding, that we shall certainly turn a deaf ear against any suggestion of making good that money. We shall say, "You willingly took this risk and you must abide by the consequences."
    7.52 p.m.
    Mr. E. WILLIAMS: I conclude that there is only one reason for this Bill, which is that some time in the future the country may be landed in war and it may be necessary for the Government to take control of the fuel resources in order that they may be used fully to prosecute the war successfully. In this Bill, there is some indication of Socialism, but I do not believe that the Government have any Socialist tendencies. They realise that if a war breaks out it is essential that all the national resources should be controlled in the national interests, and that petroleum, in such an emergency, would play a prominent part. There may be some substance, therefore, in what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), that the industrialists may be winning the battle which they have fought for the last 100 years over the landlords. That may be the main reason why the Government are bringing in this Bill. They realise that, in the event of war, external supplies of oil may be cut off and it may

    1649
    be necessary to make borings to find out whether we have any petroleum resources. If I am correct in that deduction, the Government should declare that the production of the oil should remain in State hands. The Government have a ready market to hand in the Navy, which is consuming oil. There is no reason why the Government should not consume their own product.
    I shall not take up the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) as to the success of private enterprise, except to say that I am amazed that anyone can talk about the success of private enterprise in this country. Look at Germany, France, or the United States, and at every staple industry in this country. It is patent that the system is breaking from top to bottom. It is a stark fact that private enterprise is crumbling before our very eyes. The Government are obliged by tariffs, restrictions, quotas and trade agreements, and by subsidies of all kinds, to help it to keep on its feet. Nearly every Bill that the Government have brought in has been for the purpose of preventing the collapse of the system.
    The Minister has said that we did not expect him to accept this Amendment, but I should have thought that he would do so in order to carry out the logic of the Bill. Oil is now in competition with coal. There is an oil from coal movement in this country. There is no reason why the power resources of the country should not be properly co-ordinated, whether oil, coal, gas or electricity, so that the power problem may be properly assessed. We shall never be able to solve the coal problem until it is treated as a power problem. Only in so far as the State is prepared to establish machinery to deal with the sources of power shall we be able properly to assess the domestic and industrial need for power and to relate it to the productive capacity of power in this country, and to solve the power problem.
    If war breaks out, the Government will be compelled to take control, not only of the oil resources, as they propose in the Bill, but of the productive plant that may be established meanwhile, in the same way as during the last War. The Government of the day were obliged to take control of the coal trade and to fix a definite price beyond which industrial
    1650
    coal should not be sold in this country. They placed it under the Coal Control Board.
    Marquess of HARTINGTON: They lost the country £40,000,000.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: It does not matter. The Government said that we had to accept it and we won the War. We lost £7,800,000,000 in prosecuting the War. We lost £40,000,000 in shipping. We lost £7,000,000 per day in blowing to atoms not only humanity but the production of this country. When we talk of nationalisation, the rentiers are prepared to say that the National Debt shall be a national matter—
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: If they lent the money, surely they are entitled to it?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: One knows that, in commodity value, the investment in the National Debt to-day represents about three times the sterling value of the investment at the time it was made, and they are prepared to take it. That has a great deal to do with the fact that so many of our staple industries are faced with collapse; they cannot maintain these high interest charges and sell commodities at low prices.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that the hon. Member is now wandering rather far from the Amendment.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I appreciate that, but I think you will realise that I have been led away by some of the speeches that have been made and by the interruptions that have occurred. At present we have in our Navy an available margin for the consumption of any oil that may be produced here. Obviously the Navy, the Army and the Air Force are national institutions and, having at hand a national institution in the Navy, where there is a ready market, I should have thought that we should have been prepared, in accordance with this Amendment, not only to say to landlords, by virtue of certain enactments, that any petroleum found under their land should become national property, but also to be logical and say that the oil found there should be produced first for the Navy and for any other industrial purposes, and should be properly co-ordinated into the fuel problem of this country. We do not believe, that after the State has entered into a venture of this kind, when plants have been established and they have been

    1651
    found to fail, the State should subsidise those plants as it has subsidised the failures of private enterprise in the case of sugar beet and so on. If any profit is to be made on the plants that may be established, we trust that the profit will go to the State through the State taking complete control of any licences that may be issued for the extraction of oil, in order that the oil may be used for the purposes of the State. For these reasons I support the Amendment.
    8.3 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: It is not often that I agree with anything that is said by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Gripps), but I feel that it would be ungenerous if I did not thank him for what he has said in this connection. He has dotted the t's and crossed the t's of a great deal that I and some of my hon. Friends
    who oppose this Bill have been saying this afternoon. He has pointed out very clearly that the Government put it on to confiscate the property of certain landowners and to confiscate it without compensation. Socialism means nationalisation and confiscation and that is what this Bill does. That is why we oppose it and hon. Members opposite support it. I should like to ask the Minister if he can tell us how many licences he expects to grant before Christmas. Will it be one, or will it be 100? If he can tell us that, it will give us some idea as to whether there is any good reason for introducing the Bill at this time.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 31.

    Division No. 314.]

    AYES.

    [8.5 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Llawellin, Major John J.

    Albery, Irving James

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Mabane, William

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

    Magnay, Thomas

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Maitland, Adam

    Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Gluckstoin, Louis Halle

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Bernays, Robert

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Blindell, James

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Borodale, Viscount

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Boulton, W. W.

    Greaves-Lord. Sir Walter

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

    Greene, William P. C.

    Morrison, William Shephard

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Munro, Patrick

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Hales, Harold K.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Hammersley, Samuel S.

    Peake, Osbert

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Pearson, William G.

    Burnett, John George

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Petherick, M.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

    Carver, Major William H.

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Cassels, James Dale

    Hornby, Frank

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Pybus, Sir Percy John

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Rankin, Robert

    Cook, Thomas A.

    James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Ray, Sir William

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Remer, John R.

    Denman, Hon. R D.

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Denville, Alfred

    Law Sir Alfred

    Rickards, George William

    Dickie, John p.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Robinson, John Roland

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    Levy, Thomas

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Edmondson, Major Sir James

    Lewis, Oswald

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Elmley, Viscount

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Little, Graham-. Sir Ernest

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)

    Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Wallace, John (Dunfermilne)

    Salmon, Sir Isidore.

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Salt, Edward W.

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

    Sanderton, Sir Frank Barnard

    Spens, William Patrick

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Scone, Lord

    Stevenson, James

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Selley, Harry R.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Withers, Sir John James

    Shute, Colonel J. J.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Train, John

    Sir Walter Womersley and Dr. Morris-Jones.

    NOES.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Banfield, John William

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Batey, Joseph

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Thorne, William James

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Daggar, George

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Edwards, Charles

    Lunn, William

    Wilmot, John

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

    Amendment made: In page 2, line 6, at the end, insert:
    "(2) Any such licence shall be granted for such consideration (whether by way of royalty or otherwise as the Board of Trade with the consent of the Treasury may determine, and upon such other terms and conditions as the Board of Trade think fit."—[Mr. E. Brown.]
    8.13 p.m.
    Marquess of HARTINGTON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that no royalty reserved by way of consideration shall in respect of any year or other period exceed ten per centum of the value in the open market for the time being of the nett production of oil during that year or other period."
    If the Government had not already conceded the principle that all oil found in this country should be the property of the Crown, no such Amendment as this would be necessary, because any oil that might be found would be reasonably dealt with, as is the case with other minerals, and the oil companies would be able to negotiate on reasonable terms. Now, however, that the Government have acquired for themselves a monopoly in oil, I can see a risk that the grasping policy which has been so often pursued by the Crown in the past might be pursued in this case, and that so high a royalty might be charged as to make impossible the commercial development of our oil resources, the development of which is agreed to be desirable. The President of the Board of Trade and the
    1654
    Secretary for Mines are, of course, familiar with what is happening to-day in the case, for instance, of Regent Street, where the Crown, as the landlord, is behaving as no individual landlord would ever dare to behave. If any London ground landlord thought of rack-renting as the Crown is doing in Regent Street, there would be such an outcry as would make the position impossible. It will be agreed that the Crown as a landlord is almost invariably an unconscionable and harsh landlord.
    We think that the figure of 10 per cent., which has been inserted in the Amendment, is a reasonable figure. It is the figure which obtains in most cases in the British Empire where the Crown is the owner of oil, and it is lower than that which commonly obtains in America, where the surface owner receives anything between one-sixth and one-eighth, or occasionally one-tenth, of the value of the oil extracted. Ten per cent. is a reasonable figure which the oil companies can well afford to pay, and we consider that its inclusion in the Bill will ensure that the Government shall not charge so high a royalty as to make the exploitation of oil impossible, while at the same time ensuring that the Crown shall not make a bad bargain.
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. E. BROWN: I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment. The Noble Lord will see that the financial consideration that is laid down ought to

    1655
    be a matter for negotiation between the Board of Trade and the licensees and there are objections, especially in the early stages, to fixing the sum. Ten per cent. may be too low in some cases and too high in others. The Department concerned must have regard to the effect that the rate of royalty is likely to have on the development of the oil. With regard to other parts of the Empire, I am advised that difficulties have arisen in relating the rate of royalty to conditions in the open market, because there are cases in which there may be no open market value. This has certainly been the case in Trinidad, where a somewhat similar arrangement obtained at one time. The practice, of course, varies in different countries, and the experience is bound to vary from place to place. Although the Noble Lord has grave objections to the attitude taken by some Government Departments—he will not expect me to be drawn into that discussion to-night—it will be to the interest of all concerned to act in a reasonable manner. It would not be to the advantage either of the licensee or of the Government to fix this rate and to make it depend on the open market value.
    8.18 p.m.
    Captain WATERHOUSE: The hon. Gentleman must have failed to read the Amendment, or he has misunderstood it. There is no question of fixing the amount. This is a maximum. If he will not accept the Amendment, is he really thinking of charging more than 10 per cent.? Is he going to lay down the principle that above 10 per cent. is a reasonable royalty to be charged either by the State or by a private individual?
    Mr. E. BROWN: The Government are not proposing to charge 10 per cent. It is the Amendment that proposes to do that.
    Captain WATERHOUSE: The Amendment does nothing of the sort. There is no question of fixing it. It fixes a maximum. I presume, if the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept the maximum, he has it in mind to charge more than the maximum. If he is going to charge more, does he think that it is a legitimate thing for a Government Department to do? Does he really propose, as the Minister responsible for
    1656
    the Department having the control of the greatest mineral products in these islands, to say that a maximum of 10 per cent. is not a sufficient royalty? Surely hon. Members opposite will not sit silent under a suggestion of that sort. It may lead anywhere. If he has any real reasons why he will not accept 10 per cent., they ought to be stated, because the argument that he has just put out can only lead to one conclusion, that he has it in mind that more than 10 per cent. could be charged and that he has a right to charge it. I urge him to reconsider his decision.
    Mr. E. BROWN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is putting words into my mouth. I made no such statement. I say I am against fixing a maximum of 10 per cent. It is not to be supposed that we have 10 per cent. in our mind until the licences have been drafted and negotiations have taken place.
    Captain WATERHOUSE: The hon. Gentleman said that 10 per cent. might be too high or it might be too low. If words have any meaning, when he says it may be too low it means that in certain circumstances he may be charging more than 10 per cent. I should like to know what those circumstances are and what he has in mind. What possible licensed area could deserve more than 10 per cent.? We ought to have a much more categorical answer to the point than has been given.
    8.21 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS: I think we might ask the hon. Gentleman for a little more lucid explanation why more than 10 per cent. royalty can possibly be considered a proper royalty to charge in present circumstances. After all, if we are nationalising this mineral, it is not unreasonable to ask that the State should set an example to private owners, and more than 10 per cent. royalty seems to me an outrageous charge for the State to contemplate. I think the hon. Gentleman has not fully appreciated that the Amendment limits the amount to 10 per cent. It does not say that 10 per cent. is necessarily the amount that should be charged. I do not think we should allow it to go out that a Government Department considers that it might be reasonable to charge a royalty of more than 10 per cent.
    8.22 p.m.
    Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I am very disappointed at the attitude of the Government. No private owner would be able to contemplate a royalty of this nature. One of the dangers that we see in this monopoly is that the Government, having confiscated the rights of the unfortunate landowner, will be able to exploit them for their own benefit. Anyone who has had experience of Crown ownership knows that they are unconscionably harsh and unreasonable. They are the worst landowners in the country. We wish, since these rights are to be taken over by them without compensation, to see that at least they shall be used for the proper development of oil and not merely to obtain increased royalties which private ownership would not be entitled to charge. We do not think it unreasonable, with the knowledge that we have of the way Government Departments work, to ask that some maximum should be put to the royalties that they are capable of charging. I am not even prepared to lay down that it should necessarily be 10 per cent. I do not think, in view of the justifiable anxiety that has been expressed by various people in connection with the Bill, that it is unreasonable that we should demand that the Crown should not lay itself open to the charge of exploitation. We press the Government to reconsider their decision, not necessarily to accept this particular Amendment, but to admit the general principle of fixing a reasonable maximum beyond which the State shall not charge.
    8.25 p.m.
    Mr. E. BROWN: I hoped that I had made it clear that that is exactly what the Government have in mind. All that I object to is fixing any definite sum in the Bill. The Government have no figure in mind at this stage at all. I regret if I expressed myself clumsily, and hon. Members did not find my explanation clear. But I object to being told that the Government have been considering the question of 10 per cent. The question of 10 per cent. only arises because it is mentioned in the Amendment.
    8.26 p.m.
    Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: What my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines has said does not in the least prevent him from accepting the Amendment. No
    1658
    one will deny that a royalty of 10 per cent. is extrtmely high. The Bill sets up remarkable and dangerous precedents. Having deprived the landowner of any interest in this mineral, the Government now proceed to provide themselves with the right to exploit the licensee. This is a reasonable Amendment, and one which might very well be accepted by the Government.
    8.27 p.m.
    Marquess of HARTINGTON: My hon. Friend's attitude compels me to press the Amendment. I put in the figure of 10 per cent. in what was intended to be a spirit of sweet reasonableness as the maximum royalty which Parliament would ever contemplate. I do not know whether my hon. Friend knows the facts, but I went into the past history of the thing. In 1917 a Bill somewhat similar to the present one providing for control and not for exploitation was before Parliament. That Bill proposed a royalty of 9d. per ton to be payable into a pool and divided up among the owners of land who were supposed to be interested in oil. The 9d. a ton was less than the 10 per cent. contemplate din this Amendment. I regard 10 per cent. as a very high royalty and as the maximum charge if the new industry in this country is to have any hope of succeeding. My hon. Friend hopes, for reasons not explained to the House, that when the Bill becomes law this provision will help us. I cannot say that it will. You have a Government Department to deal with as well as the landowner. I cannot see his argument. If he is to have the power to charge more than 10 per cent. and he is unwilling to accept a maximum of 10 per cent. the hope of getting this industry started is about doomed. I shall feel bound to press the Amendment.
    The hon. Gentleman said that we could rely on the Government department concerned to take a reasonable line. With all respect to the Civil Service—and I have every admiration for it—that is just what we cannot rely upon. An exploiting company wants to get the oil, and the landowner wants it to be got because he is to have some little consideration in return. The civil servant is not going to get anything, and there is no particular reason why he should desire to do business. He has not the imagination and self-interest which I am unrepenrant in believing, is the best basis of all business

    1659
    transactions. We cannot rely upon a Government department taking a reasonable line. It cannot be done. That is the reason I have put forward 10 per cent. as the maximum royalty the Government should charge if there is to be any hope of getting the oil industry developed. If my hon. Friend thinks that that is not enough, I am willing to amend the Amendment and to accept 12½ per cent., although I should regard that as an unreasonably high royalty to charge where you have a new industry and no one knows for certain whether there is
    any oil at all and where you may incur great risks when starting to sink the drill hole. Unless my hon. Friend is prepared to accept the figure of 12½ per cent., I shall feel bound to press the Amendment to a Division, because I believe that 10 per cent. of the value in the open market of the net production is an extremely high royalty and one which the Crown could not be justified in accepting.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 22; Noes, 176.

    Division No. 315.]

    AYES.

    [8.31 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Scone, Lord

    Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

    Perkins, Walter B. D.

    Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)

    Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Ray, Sir William

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Renter, John R.

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Greene, William P. C.

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Marquess of Hartington and

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Salt, Edward W.

    Captain Waterhouse.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    NOES.

    Albery, Irving James

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Lunn, William

    Banfield, John William

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Mabane, William

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Batey, Joseph

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

    Magnay, Thomas

    Blindell, James

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Boulton, W. W.

    Greaves-Lord. Sir Walter

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Grimston, R. V.

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

    Burnett, John George

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Morrison, William Shephard

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Hammersley, Samuel S.

    Munro, Patrick

    Carver, Major William H.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Cassels, James Dale

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Hornby, Frank

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Pearson, William G.

    Crooke, J. Smedlay

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Crossley, A. C.

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Petherick, M.

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.

    Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

    Daggar, George

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Pybus, Sir Percy John

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Denville, Alfred

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Dickie, John P.

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Rankin, Robert

    Duncan, James A. L.(Kensington, N.)

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Edmondson, Major Sir James

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Edwards, Charles

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Rickards, George William

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Lawson, John James

    Robinson, John Roland

    Elmley, Viscount

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Emrys- Evans, P. V.

    Lees-Jones, John

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Levy, Thomas

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Lewis, Oswald

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tslde)

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Selley, Harry R.

    Spens, William Patrick

    Wallace, John (Dunfermilne)

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Storey, Samuel

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

    Shute, Colonel J. J.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Thorne, William James

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Withers, Sir John James

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingewinford)

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Walter Womersley.

    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    8.38 p.m.
    Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, at the end, to insert:
    "( ) (a) Every such licence shall contain provisions enabling the Board of Trade to revoke the same (either with respect to the whole of the area to which it relates or any part or parts thereof) if the person holding the licence shall have, in the opinion of the Board, either—

    (i) within such period as the board deem reasonable after the grant of the licence failed to take adequate steps (including adequate drilling operations) to search for petroleum in exercise of the rights granted thereby; or

    (ii) within such period as the Board deem reasonable after gettable petroleum shall have been found either—

    (a) failed substantially to commence the works necessary to bore for and get the petroleum so found; or

    (b) in a case where it is necessary for such person in order to exercise the rights granted by the licence to acquire ancillary Tights failed to make application for such rights under section three of this Act.

    (b) In this sub-section 'gettable petroleum' means petroleum proved to exist in the area to which the rights granted by the licence extend in such quantities and in such circumstances as to render the same in the opinion of the Board of Trade capable of being got upon economic terms."
    I hope that this Amendment may be accepted without the heat that has been engendered in some of our previous discussions, because this cannot be described as an attack on Ministers or on Government Departments. On the contrary, it gives them additional powers. As I understand the Bill, once a licence has been given, it is given for always. The object of the Amendment is to give the Board of Trade power, under certain conditions, to revoke licences which have been granted. It is obviously undesirable that if an undertaking believes that there is oil on a site and it obtains a licence and tries to exploit the oil but fails to do so, it is undesirable that they should have a permanent lien on that particular area. The Amendment would give the Board of Trade power in those
    1662
    cases to revoke the licence if within a specified time set by the Board of Trade they do not take steps to exploit the oil, after obtaining the licence, or they fail to get it in sufficient quantities to make it a reasonable business proposition. Then the board should have power to revoke the licence and to grant it if they so desire to other undertakers who may be more competent or more lucky in obtaining oil. It is undesirable that the licence should be held permanently and not exercised either in the interests of the enterprise or of the State interest.
    8.40 p.m.
    Mr. E. BROWN: I do not think that there will be any difference of opinion about most of what has been said by the hon. Member. The difference of opinion will be whether we ought to put the proposed words in the Act or whether the matter would not be more properly covered by the regulations to be drawn up. It is the opinion of the Government, after considering the Amendment very carefully, that matters of this kind are much more likely to be effective and to be flexible enough to meet the varying conditions if they are put in the regulations instead of in the Act. It is clear that there will have to be conditions in the licences enabling the board to terminate them if the conditions of the licence are not fulfilled. There will have to be provisions which will require the licensee to take proper steps to carry on the work. In some countries a certain amount of drilling is required to be undertaken or an annual payment made of a sufficient amount to ensure work being done, or there might be a combination of the two. My hon. Friends may rest assured that this point will not be overlooked in the drafting of the regulations, and since the regulations are to come before the House before a licence is granted and the House will be able to express its opinion, I hope they will agree that it is not necessary to put the proposed form of words in the Bill.
    Captain WATERHOUSE: May we take it as a definite assurance that the regulations will contain words to this effect?
    Mr. BROWN: It is clear that there will have to he conditions in the licences to enable the board to terminate them if the conditions of the licence are not fulfilled, and the points to which I have alluded will be amongst those conditions.
    Mr. M. BEAUMONT: Frankly, my preference is to have these things in the Bill, and then you know where you are, but in view of what the Minister has said I do not propose to press the Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Marquess of HARTINGTON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, to leave out "as soon as may be after," and to insert, "before."
    This is an Amendment of some considerable importance. It deals with the secrecy with which, under the procedure contemplated by the Bill, these matters will be conducted. As the Bill stands, the negotiations will be conducted in complete secrecy until after a licence has been granted. The object of the Amendment is to make sure that the negotiations shall not be conducted in conditions of complete secrecy, but that neither Parliament, nor the would-be oil developers, nor other persons who are interested, nor the local authorities who may be vitally concerned, shall be in the dark until they are confronted with the fait accompli. Therefore, I move this Amendment and the subsequent ones which depend upon it. It might well be that if Parliament had decided to leave the oil in private hands, the would-be concessionaires would have strong interests and might be deterred from coming forward except under conditions of secrecy. I need not labour that point.
    It is obvious that if various owners hold potential oil-bearing land it might be desirable to keep quiet. The company might want the negotiations kept secret because of the risk that another oil company may get to know of them and offer to pay higher royalties, thereby preventing them getting control of the oil fields. But once you have a complete unified control of all the oil in the country which the Bill gives to the Government then nothing whatever is gained by secrecy
    1664
    during the early stages. The whole nation is equally concerned, and it seems to me that there is nothing to be lost by securing the fullest publicity and having the oil put up to the highest bidder, attracting the largest number of applications you can get, and then choose the best. There would be a case for secrecy if oil was not nationally owned, it might act as a deterrent to would-be prospectors; but once oil is nationally controlled it is in the highest degree essential that there should be no secrecy and that the whole matter should be conducted in the light of day. It is in the public interest that the Department which has to grant licences should have the widest possible area of choice and be able to grant a licence to the best person and the best company. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment. I can conceive of no conceivable reason why they should not.
    8.47 p.m.
    Captain WATERHOUSE: I should like to add one or two arguments to those which have been so ably advanced by my Noble Friend. The only reason why this Amendment might be undesirable would be if the Government have already decided to whom they are going to give these licences, but we have had an assurance from the Secretary for Mines and from the President of the Board of Trade, that no such decision has, in fact, been taken, that they are in the open market If that is the case then surely the more people who know about the matter the more likely you are to get the best terms. If the object of the Government is to safeguard the interests of the State, it is our desire as well, then surely they should try to get the best terms they can. In his Second Reading speech the President of the Board of Trade was most careful to say that he did not want any hole-and-corner business. He said:
    "We do not provide for any hole-and-corner business."
    If that be so, why does he not give notification? The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
    "I can imagine no authorities more likely to be trustworthy than those to be found in the principal Departments of State."— [OFFICIAL REPORT. 19th June. 1934; col. 215, Vol. 291.]
    That is all very well. We all trust the Departments, but when you have new

    1665
    work to do then I think an element of risk enters into it. I should like to read a quotation from a letter written by Mr. Cunningham Craig in 1918, it seems like ancient history, but 1918 is a date very relative to the present discussion because it was just after the passing of an Act granting licences for the prospecting of oil. Mr. Craig was an expert employed by the Research Department of the Ministry of Munitions, and on the subject of petroleum production he said:
    "Unfortunately the Production Department was put into the hands of officials with a very meagre knowledge of the subject, and to that alone the whole mess and muddle is due."
    I remember the answer which my Noble Friend got this afternoon, when the President of the Board of Trade said that he bad not consulted any of his technical department:
    "Possibly resenting the necessary control by research, possibly from mere ignorance, the production department threw itself into the hands of certain interests, which, rightly or wrongly, believed that the development of a British oil industry would affect them adversely. Representatives of some of these interests co-operated with, or were actually employed by, the Controller of Production, and instead of carrying out the recommendations forwarded to them the officials attempted research work themselves and commenced a course of criticism and obstruction which has lasted almost up to the present. Colliery owners and others who were willing to produce oil by distillation, and were willing to risk their own money for that end, were discouraged or oven deliberately prevented from getting to work. This state of affairs caused great dissatisfaction in many quarters, while precious time was slipping away, and the dissatisfaction was not inarticulate. But something like a conspiracy of silence seems to have been deliberately engineered, possibly to save the reputation of certain incompetent officials, possibly in the interests of established industries that objected to the development of an oil industry not within their control."
    He proceeds to speak of the very irrelevant answers given to questions in another place on this subject, and says:
    "This obstruction has continued up to the present time. Latterly the excuse given was that intended legislation rendered it undesirable to grant any more licences than had already been granted under the Defence of the Realm Act Regulation."
    That shows that Government Departments are not infallible. In this case we are starting a new branch, and how does my hon. Friend know that the Department is able to form an opinion as
    1666
    between man and man and company and company? Surely the Amendment is reasonable, and I hope he will be able to see his way to make some concession on this point.
    8.53 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS: I desire to support the Amendment. On the Second Reading the President of the Board of Trade said:
    "It has been asked that there should be as much publicity as possible given to the issue of these licences. I would point out that of course it is not practicable that there should be publicity before the licences are actually granted. That would lead to all sorts of transactions which would not be fair to the prospective licensee. But immediately the licences have been granted we are prepared to give publicity in the usual way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1934; col. 215, Vol. 291.]
    In the course of this Debate reference has been made to the power which the Board of Trade is taking to entirely override all local authorities in their town planning schemes. There appears in the "Times" this morning a remarkable letter from Lord Rankeillour, who was formerly Mr. James Hope, Chairman of Committees in this House, and in case any hon. Member has overlooked that letter it is worth making a short quotation from it:
    "Secondly, there is no proper provision for the protection either of the local public or individual residents whose amenities and assets may be gravely injured. If once the concessionaires can make terms with the surface-owners, the neighbours will not have a chance of protest. Individuals may, indeed, try their luck at common law in proving specific damage after the event; but the local authority will have no opportunity whatever to fight for their rateable value or the amenities of their area. This is in glaring contrast to the meticulous care taken to give everyone a chance who can show any sort of case of likely injury before a Parliamentary Committee."
    A very strong case would have to be made out as to why people who live in a certain neighbourhood, individuals and public authorities, are not to have any say before these licences are granted. I have a later Amendment which deals with the question of ratification of the granting of licences, but it may be that the damage will then have been done. There is a very strong case indeed for some opportunity to be given to public bodies and individuals to state their case in this matter. An oil well may irretrievably damage property in its immediate neighbourhood. That may be

    1667
    necessary and inevitable, if you are to have an oil industry, but I cannot but think that in common justice the State should give individual citizens the right of presenting any suggestion as to the way in which this may best be carried out. The prospective licensee is not the only person who is entitled to fair treatment.
    8.58 p.m.
    Sir EUGENE RAMSDEN: I oppose the Amendment, and I hope the Minister will not accept such an unpractical suggestion. As one who has some knowledge of business, I realise that it is impossible for the State or anyone else to carry on any business of this kind if it is to be done in the open. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I repeat that you cannot carry on business transactions of this kind in face of the whole world. We shall all require the necessary publicity when the Government have come to a decision, but anyone who has any experience of business will realise that it is quite impossible to do business, to buy or sell or make arrangements in business, if other parties and the whole world are aware of what is taking place.
    8.59 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I regard the Amendment as of very great importance. I was rather horrified at the remarks of the last speaker, that no business can be carried on in the open, that it is impossible to carry on negotiations with the Government if other people know what is going on. That is the most damning assertion against the proposal of the Bill that has been made. I should be sorry to think that our business men could not carry on their business in a straightforward manner, but have to resort to these methods of secrecy. It must also be remembered that this is the granting of a monopoly. During the Second Reading Debate the Minister was interrupted on this point, and he said:
    "The answer must be obvious in the nature of the problem. I suggest that only prejudice can fail to appreciate that answer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1934; col. 307, Vol. 291.]
    I may be very thick-headed, but I completely fail to see why secrecy should be observed. Surely it is to the advantage of the locality that publication should take place, and it is of advantage to the State. The State has to make the
    1668
    best bargain it can out of what it has to sell. The State has now confiscated the property of the landowner without giving any compensation. Out of that confiscated property it proposes to make a certain amount of money by royalties. We have now to accept that fact, and naturally we want to see the State make the best thing out of it in order to help the taxpayer. We do not want to see these valuable licences given away to the first comer. Therefore publicity is desirable.
    9.1 p.m.
    Mr. WISE: I rise to express the hope that the Government listened with attention to the words of the hon. Member for North Bradford (Sir E. Ramsden). If it be necessary that this sort of business should be carried on in the atmosphere of dark secrecy, where the interests involved on either side may be able to carry on their intrigue or bargain without the full light of publicity on them, I hope the Government will remember that they themselves are shareholders in one of the largest of the vested interests which may be concerned, and that their action in refusing the light of publicity may very well be misinterpreted by the country at large. Although as taxpayers we should all be very glad if the Government were to make a good deal for the State by advancing the value of the shares held by the State, we should as decent citizens regret the unfortunate fact that they were able to put through such a deal because they excluded the light of inquiry from their negotiations in order to secure what they were after. There is already a very considerable amount of suspicion as to the object and intentions of the Bill. It would be most unfortunate if those suspicions were aggravated by the thought that an interested party wished to exclude the fullest investigation from its efforts to confiscate the property of citizens of this country.
    If we are to have this confiscation at all, it is essential that the confiscation be undertaken for the benefit of the best possible vested interests concerned, although in any case the confiscation is bad. Unless the full details are published before the confiscation takes place, before a licence is granted, it seems to me that many avenues of proper development of the oil supplies of this country will be excluded. It does not seem fair that suddenly, out of the

    1669
    blue, without consulting possible competing interests, without consulting the local authorities, without consulting nearby landowners whose property may be very adversely affected, a licence can be granted. If due publicity is given there is some chance that some of the worst evils of this Bill may be mitigated —there is not much chance, but there is some. I hope that in view of the remarks of the hon. Member for North Bradford, which not only reflect adversely on His Majesty's Government, but reflect ex traordinarily adversely on the general method of conducting business—
    Sir E. RAMSDEN: I do not wish to intervene again, but apparently the hon. Member has not the remotest idea of how ordinary business transactions are carried out. If he thinks that any transaction, whatever it may be, whether it be the leasing of a right or the sale of goods, can be conducted in the presence of every person who may be curious or may have an interest, he is entirely wrong. It would be impossible to do business under those conditions, and, if the hon. Member had any practical experience of business, he would realise that fact.
    Mr. WISE: I can only reply, first, that this is not ordinary business but a question of granting a monopoly, and, secondly, that if the remarks we have just heard are true I am profoundly thankful that I have no experience of business. But I hope that it may be possible for the Government to set a precedent as regards business transactions in the future and, if those transactions have not been properly conducted in the past—and I should regret to think that such was the case—that they shall in future be conducted at least with what ordinary politicians would regard as common honesty.
    9.6 p.m.
    Mr. TINKER: I am inclined to support this Amendment especially after the remarks of the hon. Member for North Bradford (Sir E. Ramsden). Listening to this Debate I wondered where it was going to lead us. The Mover of the Amendment and his friends want to destroy the Bill altogether. I only want to destroy Clause 2 and thus we meet on common ground. I hold that whatever is done by the Board of Trade in connection with this matter ought to receive the full light of publicity. It seems to
    1670
    me that under this Clause certian business may be done of which we shall only know when it has been completed. We shall not then be able to do anything to stop a licence whatever conditions may have been attached to it. I am in favour of the light of publicity shining on all these things and especially on the work of 'Parliament and I think that this Amendment is justified. If there is no question of any underhand dealing, such as has been suggested in some of the remarks made by the opponents of Clause 1, we shall be able to see that fact for ourselves. It will be possible to test what is in those statements and I suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that there could be no harm in accepting this Amendment. If a bargain is a fair bargain I cannot see the House of Commons doing anything to upset it. If everything is above board there is no reason why these transactions should be hidden. The public should know what is being done; they should know for themselves that everything is fair and for that reason I shall vote for the Amendment, if it is pressed to a Division.
    9.8 p.m.
    Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for North Bradford (Sir E. Ramsden). There is no purpose, I suggest, in misrepresenting what he said. The Noble Lord the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington), speaking on another Amendment, declared that one of the things which he wanted to see was the proper and efficient development of this industry and that statement has been reiterated during the discussion. The Noble Lord wanted to know why certain applications for licences had been refused and I think the President of the Board of Trade more than satisfied him on that point. He asked why there had been delay and what encouragement had been given to people to apply for licences. I ask the Noble Lord and the other supporters of this Amendment: Do they think there will be any applications for licences if the public are to know every turn of the negotiations which take place before the licence is granted?
    Mr. RHYS: If the hon. Member reads the Amendment he will find that it merely ask that a notification shall be published to the effect that a licence has been applied for and there is no

    1671
    suggestion that the terms of the negotiations should be made public.
    Mr. HOLDSWORTH: That does not meet my argument. The argument of the supporters of the Amendment is that the public should know beforehand, the person who is applying for a licence. If it is proposed to give to the public all round the news that A is applying for a licence, it means that others will get busy to compete against him. My own opinion is that the hon. Member for North Bradford is perfectly correct in what he has said. Even the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise) does not invite the public gaze on everything that he does however honourable his actions may be and in business it is obvious that you cannot display to everybody the terms on which you are conducting negotiations on particular transactions. I am surprised at the attitude which is being taken up by hon. Members who have supported so many Government regulations with regard to marketing boards and so forth. Why can they not trust the Board of Trade to conduct these negotiations? When the licence is granted the orders and regulations have to come before Parliament and I suggest to hon. Members opposite that, if they do want to see the efficient development of this industry, they must leave it to the department to negotiate with the best people knowing that there will be every regard for ordinary common decency in the consideration of the applications. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent any person who wants to do so applying for a licence. I resent the misrepresentation which has been made of my hon. Friend's remarks so as to suggest that business is conducted in a hole-and-corner manner or that there is something dirty about it. Everybody with business experience knows that it is impossible to conduct business and at the same time advertise to the world the terms on which it is being conducted.
    9.12 p.m.
    Mr. JOHN RUTHERFORD: It appears obvious after the speech of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that he will induce the Government to accept this Amendment because, in reply to my Noble Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington), he made great play with the fact that persons had applied for
    1672
    licences who were not at all suitable. If notice is to be given in the "London Gazette" of the names of persons who are applying for licences, at any rate it will ensure that we shall not have crooked solicitors who are liable to be sent to prison holding these licences.
    9.13 p.m.
    Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: I had no intention of intervening in this Debate until I heard the remarks of the hon. Members for North Bradford (Sir E. Ramsden) and South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth). I have been in business and my experience in business has been that when you are buying you keep the transaction as dark as possible but when you are selling you blazon it abroad so as to get competition. Evidently things are now conducted differently in Bradford. I found, however, in my experience that Bradford people were extremely able at both buying and selling, and they never talked very much unless they had a lot to sell. But in this case what the Government have to sell is something in the nature of a monopoly. The Government are the only sellers of it. Would that some of the people in Bradford were in that position. They would probably get better prices.
    But in this case what the Board of Trade have to do is to get all the competition they possibly can, and they can only get competition by advertising what they have for sale. From the business point of view they should advertise it as widely as possible instead of having hole and corner dealings with someone or other who happens to turn up. They will not succeed in that way unless some "genial juggins" turns up, who is prepared to listen to the sweet-tongued Ministers and pay too much. I think such people will be hard to find. My experience of the oil people is that they are pretty well able to look after themselves. Why not open this to competition? Let all concerned know that there is a wonderful oilfield going, and let them all bid for it. Let it go to the highest bidder. It may do something to take another sixpence off the Income Tax, which people who are being defrauded of their rights would be very pleased to have.
    9.15 p.m.
    Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I think the hon. Members for North Bradford (Sir E. Ramsden) and South Bradford (Mr. Holds worth)

    1673
    have not the faintest idea what the Amendment does, and their speeches were totally irrelevant. The Amendment suggests that before a licence is granted it shall be made public. There is nothing in it to suggest that all the negotiations may not be carried through in as secret and hole-and-corner a manner as even the hon. Members for Bradford could wish. It is suggested by the Amendment that as this is a monopoly and a matter which affects not only the buyers and sellers but all the people around, before the final step is taken the other people affected, not in a commercial way, but through amenities and so on, should have the right to put in an objection. I am thankful, after hearing the speeches of the hon. Members for Bradford, that I have not had any connection with business, but in such connection as I have had with it in dealing with land, I have not had the least objection to there being the widest possible publicity. But that has no bearing on this Amendment. We ask that the Board of Trade should arrange their negotiations by any means they like. We are willing to agree that they should adopt the soundest and best methods and make the best bargain they like, but before the thing is fixed and irrevocable, let the other people affected have some chance at least to put in their objections. I do not mean that rival organisations should put in other claims. Let them be ruled out beforehand if the Committee like, but we want the other people who are going to be adversely affected by the development of the industry in the area to have a chance to raise their objections before it is too late.
    9.18 p.m.
    Mr. SPENS: All that a licence under this Bill is going to confer on an individual or firm is the right to go to a landowner to make arrangements voluntarily. If the landowner and he cannot come to an arrangement, he can make an application to the Railway and Canal Commission, and all persons interested will then automatically be given an opportunity of appearing before the court, and he will have to pay compensation to everybody affected, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. I may be wrong, but I am a little anxious over one thing, and one thing only, and that is whether it is not possible, under Clause 2, under which the Board of Trade will make its own arrangements in selecting the
    1674
    licensee, which will include, I apprehend, what royalty, if any, the licensee is to pay for the property now vested in the Crown, if there be any such property—I am anxious that, that having been done, it may be possible under Clause 2 and Part 1 of the Coal Mines Facilities Act for that licensee then to go to a landowner and enter into a voluntary arrangement for the working of the surface which would not afford an opportunity for those persons in the neighbourhood whose amenities would be affected to come into the bargain at all. I agree that if the landowner refuses and the application has to be made to the court, then the court always gives opportunities for everybody affected to state their objections, and compensation has to be paid, but I do not want to let this Clause pass without making sure that the point that I have mentioned is covered.
    Mr. M. BEAUMONT: It is true that this only gives the right to negotiate, and subsequently to apply to the Railway and Canal Commission, but can the Commission then turn the licence down altogether if they want to?
    Mr. SPENS: The first thing that the licensee has to prove to the Railway and Canal Commission is that it is in the national interest that a right should be given to him, and he will not be heard until he has established that particular matter, and unless the Commission comes to the conclusion that it is in the national interest that that licensee should be allowed to make a bargain against the wishes of the landowner, he will get no further, except that he will have the pleasure of being required to pay the cost of the application.
    9.21 p.m.
    Mr. E. BROWN: My hon. Friends are very concerned about publicity, but there was no issue to which as much attention was given in another place as this particular issue, and I was rather surprised that the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Rhys) should have quoted the letter from Lord Rankeillour. I have no opportunity to quote the speeches made in another place in reply to the Noble Lord. He put his case three times and was answered in another place, and their Lordships' House did not agree with him. Therefore, I was rather surprised to have that letter raised in this Debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont)

    1675
    was rather inclined to say that the hon. Members for Bradford had not read the Amendment, and he then proceeded himself to make a speech and to raise an issue that had nothing whatever to do with the Amendment. He talked about amenities and services, which have nothing to do with the Amendment. The issue is perfectly simple. The Government want, as far as they can, to meet the general desire that at the earliest possible moment two things should be known, namely, the name of the licensee and the area affected by the granting of a licence. That is what this Clause does. It provides that as soon as the licence has been granted those two things shall be published in the "London Gazette" and, if Scotland be affected, also in the "Edinburgh Gazette."
    Surely it cannot be argued that the Government's intention, which is to secure conditions in which competent and capable persons able to give a unified development to any oil that may be found, to search for it, bore for it, and develop it, would be encouraged to come forward, would be secured if, the moment they came to the Government about a particular area, the name of the licensee on the one hand and of the area on the other were to be blazoned forth to the whole world. As I said in reply to the Noble Lord, the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) on the Second Reading, only prejudice could fail to appreciate the difficulty. It is not a question, in searching and boring for oil, in which anybody can go and dig in his back garden; it is a question of whether you will have people coming forward who will have reason to suspect, because they have geological knowledge, after examination of an area, that they would be justified in asking for a licence to develop it. They are getting an opportunity to develop, and that is all that they are getting, when they get a licence. Is it to be supposed that competent and capable persons will be willing to come forward, if this Amendment be carried, and they know that the moment they make their application about a particular area, which their special technical knowledge leads them to believe may have oil underneath it—technical knowledge which they have acquired because they have with them
    1676
    men of great skill in geology, and which they may have spent great sums of money to acquire—is it to be supposed that they will come to let that information be known to the Government, knowing that their names and the area affected will at once be made public? Only prejudice could fail to see that in those conditions you are not likely to get competent and capable persons with real knowledge coming forward to apply for a licence.
    The dangers can be put in a sentence or two. The moment the information was published what would happen? The Department would be overwhelmed with applications from people in that area who up to that moment may never have suspected that there was oil within miles, and the Government would be faced with a problem that would be almost insoluble. There would be the danger, which was referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) in a striking speech on the Second Reading, the danger of offsetting and of speculation, because directly the area was published all kinds of people who might see an opportunity for personal advantage would be seeking to use the machinery of the Bill and to take advantage of the knowledge gained. The Government have considered this very fully and paid attention to everything that has been said and written on the subject and have given it anxious care, and they are quite sure that their fundamental purpose, which is to get the development of such oil as may be in the soil by creditable persons, will not be carried out if publication be insisted on in advance of the licence being granted. They believe that they have gone as far as any possible public or private interest can demand in arranging that publication of name and area shall take place the moment the licence has been granted. For these reasons, the Government cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. WISE: Before the hon. Gentleman resumes his seat, can I ask him if in addition to replying to points that have not been raised he will reply to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), which the Committee wants to hear cleared up?
    Mr. BROWN: I am much obliged, but I understood that point was to be raised

    1677
    on another Amendment, and, without any disrespect, I confined myself to the Major point.
    9.28 p.m.
    Mr. GEORGE HALL: I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) indicated that he would support this Amendment. He was speaking I understand for himself. As far as I and those who are acting with me are concerned, we think the case made out in another place and by the Minister for Mines is such that we ought to support the Government and resist the Amendment. I think the Government are taking the right line in dealing with the matter.
    9.29 p.m.
    Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I think there is a great deal of substance not indeed in the speech of the Minister for Mines, but in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), and for that reason we do not intend to press the Amendment to a Division. I would like respectfully to suggest to the Minister for Mines that he might remove the beam from his own eye before worrying about the mote in ours. He entirely misquoted the effect of the Amendment. He spoke with great vigour about people who would not come forward, but he knows that under the Amendment negotiations could go on perfectly well for a long time before it would be necessary to publish. I am sure he did not intentionally misrepresent us, but that was the effect. I appreciate what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Ashford concerning the right and duty of the Canal Commissioners which I had not fully appreciated.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. TINKER: I moved an Amendment earlier which, if carried, would have defeated the purpose of the Clause, and I want to extend the point I made then. I am strengthened in my position by the discussion on the last Amendment. The Secretary for Mines said the negotiations for licences could not be made public because, if everybody knew what was happening, there would be many people
    1678
    clamouring for oil, thus proving that private interests will be watching all the time for what benefit they can get out of it. Anybody who can score at the expense of the Government will be ready to do so. That does support the Opposition point of view by showing that Clause 1 would lead to underhand dealings. When these licences are to be given out, it is not to be as open and above board as one would like. That brings me back to my point that the better thing would be for the State itself to have complete control and work the oil, never mind bringing in any outside influence. If the oil be necessary for the good of the nation—and that is the primary argument—why bother about letting it out to private enterprise? Why should not the State take it over and put it in the hands of the capable people they have at their call. If it be a failure, let the State stand the failure. They will know what they are doing.
    The principle for which we stand, of the control and conduct of industry, should not allow us to let this pass without making a protest. If we are taking one step let us take the other, and realise that at some time or other we have to go on to State control of all our industries. This is only one step in that direction, and I raise my voice against this Clause hoping we shall make some impression on the other side. I should like to know what the Noble Lord the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Harrington) will do if we press it to a Division. Is he going to sink his objection to Clause 1? Or will he agree with me and those who want to delete Clause 2 that, if the State takes one part of control, it should take the other? There is something in what has been said, that we are taking away from the landowner and allowing the exploitation to the industrialists who will have little or no risk and the protection of the State. If the commodity they find cannot compete with foreign sources, we shall have the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary for Mines coming to tell us we must do something to protect the oil interests, that it is so necessary for the good of the nation and so essential for industry that we should have control of petroleum that we must protect this private interest. If there be any loss or gain, I argue that the State should have it. Whichever way it goes it belongs to

    1679
    us. I do not want to shirk my responsibility, but neither do I want to think that I am handing over to industrialists all the chance of making huge profits without any question of loss. Because of that, I am against Clause 2 of the Bill.
    9.35 p.m.
    Marquess of HARTINGTON: The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has asked me how I am going to vote on the Clause. I was wondering about that, but, if the hon. Member is going to vote against it, I shall certainly vote for it. I believe, however, even conceding the principle of the Bill, that Clause 2 is a mistaken Clause. The Board of Trade is not a proper authority with which to entrust these enormous powers. I hope that the Committee realises that we are dealing here with very big matters. We propose to give powers to the Board of Trade to grant concessions, which may be of enormous importance, in conditions of complete secrecy, and I take the view very strongly that we are going to give the Government a monopoly of this oil. If we are to give these enormous powers of granting concessions, it ought at least to come before a Committee of Parliament before the concession is granted. We rightly insist on many matters coming before Committees of Parliament, and I believe that, although it is to some extent slow and expensive, the Private Bill procedure in the Committee rooms upstairs is almost an ideal procedure. It is public and it secures an absolutely fair, impartial and thorough examination. If anyone demurs on the ground of cost, I would remind him that we are dealing here with matters immensely more important than very many matters that, as the law stands now, have to go to Private Bill Committees. Borough extensions, extensions of water works, or of railways and canals, are really small change compared with the issues that may be involved in this question of the granting of licences.
    I greatly regret that my right hon. Friend would not accept my Amendment to provide for more publicity. I still cannot see why. An hon. Member pointed out how impossible it is to do business in conditions of secrecy. I do a certain amount of the kind of business that the Government will have to do in this matter, that is, the disposing of minerals
    1680
    to the best of advantage, both in the way of leasing minerals and selling timber, and I have never found it necessary to preserve the complete secrecy that is suggested. On the contrary, I secure the widest publicity, and that is the way in which the Government, having something to sell, can get the best price. The Government, however, have decided against publicity, and I hope that before the Report stage they will reconsider redrafting this Clause so as to provide that these enormous powers shall not be vested in the Board of Trade but shall be vested in Parliament. By doing that, I believe that we can secure a really sound, impartial and fair investigation of applications for licences and we can make sure that the licences are granted in such a way as to secure that what is a national asset shall be developed on the widest national lines.
    9.39 p.m.
    Mr. BATEY: I was pleased that the Noble Lord made the position clear that if my colleague went into the Lobby against the Clause he would vote in favour of it. That makes it easier for us to go into the Lobby against the Clause. It is a far more important Clause and raises a far more important question than the matter about which the Noble Lord spoke, because it raises the question of the granting of licences and the setting up of private enterprise for the production of petroleum. Sub-section (2) of the Clause seems to be very important, for it says:
    "Any such licence shall be granted for such consideration (whether by way of royalty or otherwise) as the Board of Trade with the consent of the Treasury may determine, and upon such other terms and conditions as the Board of Trade think fit."
    I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade what is in his mind with regard to the words "or otherwise." Some of us have had a long experience of royalties, and it makes us hate them and want to abolish them as quickly as possible. As we are in favour of abolishing royalties on coal, we do not want to set up royalties for petroleum. This Subsection gives far too much power to the Department. The safest course in connection with this Bill is not to grant any licences at all. An hon. Member opposite referred to the licences as granting a monopoly. We are opposed to any monopolies, and we are opposed to the

    1681
    granting of these licences which destroys the usefulness of the Bill. When it was first brought in we thought that here at last the Government were going to do something useful. We now find that the Bill will be very much like all the other Bills which have been brought in by the Mines Department; it will mean very little. It is not sufficient merely to own the petroleum; it is essential that the State should produce it. In saying that, one remembers that there are Members of the Government who are pledged in favour of minerals being owned by the State, and they have gone to the length of saying that they would even buy out the royalties on coal.
    We are glad, at any rate, that the introduction of this Bill prevents the necessity of having to buy out any royalties on petroleum. I would like the President of the Board of Trade to tell us where petroleum is being produced at the present time. The Minister of Mines told us in answer to a question that in 1932, 91 tons of petroleum was produced in this country; in 1931, 87 tons; and in 1930, 60 tons. I am wondering where that has been produced. Will it mean that the Government will have to buy out the royalties or those who are producing this oil before this Bill can be put into force? Whatever the answer, we believe that this Clause gives us a chance of stating the position for Socialism. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] 'Make no mistake about that. As I have sat here to-day, I have admired the few hon. Members opposite who have put up a fight for private property. I wish that all people would fight as hard for Socialism as they have been fighting to-day for private property. This Clause gives us the opportunity of stating our Socialist principles and saying that we are opposed to the granting of licences that will allow private enterprise to produce oil.
    Industry provides an abundance of lessons to warn the House against granting these licences. Private industry will not produce anything unless it can be produced at a profit. If there is no profit there is no production; and so we can take it that if there is going to be no profit when these licences are granted there is going to be no petroleum. The Government must have had some information, must have had something at the back of their minds, when they brought
    1682
    in this Bill. They must have believed that there is petroleum here, and in that case, I take it, they want petroleum produced. Will private enterprise produce that petroleum? What lesson has the extraction of oil from coal for us? That process has not been developed because private enterprise would not put up the capital. That is what we can expect in regard to the production of petroleum.
    The President of the Board of Trade has told us that it would cost some £30,000 to sink a bore-hole, and hon. Members behind him said that it would cost much more. Is there any likelihood of private enterprise finding that amount of money for the sinking of a bore-hole unless it is absolutely certain that an enormous profit can be made? If the Government want petroleum, then the State ought to produce it. I submit that this Clause gives to the Department far too much power in the granting of licences, because the time will come, and it may be before many years are past, when there will be a majority in this House that will socialise all the minerals and give us State enterprise in the production of petroeum, coal and all the other minerals. The working classes, realising the failure of private enterprise, will say that the State must not only own but produce these things. I shall have the greatest pleasure in going into the Lobby against the Clause.
    9.49 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) seems to think that boring for petroleum is such a risky venture that it ought to be taken on by the Government and not by private enterprise. In that case the taxpayers would bear the losses. That is a very useful indication of what we may expect from Socialism. However, I did not rise to talk at large about Socialism and Nationalisation, but only to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question. We do want to know why this Bill has been introduced at the present time.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That question cannot possibly arise on Clause 2.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I was going to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would say how many licences he expects to issue before Christmas, whether he expects to issue one or 100. That would show whether there is any

    1683
    real reason for this Clause to be passed or no reason, and whether the time of Parliament is being unnecessarily occupied.
    9.50 p.m.
    Mr. WISE: I rise to commend to the notice of the Committee the inexorable logic of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), who quite reasonably and justly, from his own point of view, is opposing the inclusion of this Clause. As a sincere Socialist he sees no reason why this first instalment of Socialism should not be carried one stage further, but I think it is only fair that those on this side who disapprove of the Bill should make it quite clear that they are supporting—speakinfi, probably, only for myself—this Clause on the ground that if we are to have any instalment of Socialism in our time we prefer that it shall be as small an instalment as possible. Therefore we are not prepared to join with the hon. Member for Leigh, though we appreciate his motives and his logic, in voting against this Clause, because it is at least less Socialistic, though not very much less Socialistic, than what he has suggested.
    One of the points raised by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) deserves a little examination before the Committee finally decide on this Clause. In Sub-section (2) it is stated that a licence shall be granted:
    "For such consideration (whether by way of royalty or otherwise)."
    I gather from the hon. Member that although he is opposed to royalties in principle he would like to make quite certain that if licences are granted the State shall at least get something, and that therefore some sort of royalty is essential. The words to which he objects are "or otherwise," and there I find myself in agreement with him. If we are handing out one landowner's property to a commercial concern without any compensation to the landowner other than for the disturbance of his site value, I think it is only fair that somebody should have something out of it other than the commercial concern, and if the landowner, who I think is really entitled to the royalty, is not to get it I would like to ensure that the State should get it.
    I am not sure that the hon. Member will entirely agree with me when I put this point, because he reminded us that certain Members of the Government had
    1684
    pledged themselves to the total nationalisation or confiscation of all mineral rights in this country. That may be true, but it was tactless for the hon. Member to dig up past history in that way. If Members of Governments or of the Opposition are to be reminded of their utterances as far back as the year before last politics becomes an almost impossible profession, and I hope he will not press his point about the previous possibly injudicious utterances of Members of the Government, of which I am certain they have sincerely repented and which I am sure they will not repeat. I hope that he and the hon. Member for Leigh, although they were quite justified in dividing against the Clause, will check their passionate desire to push the Government further than they mean to go, if only out of consideration for those suporters of the Government, to whom he paid a very kindly tribute in his speech, who are endeavouring to hold them back. Undoubtedly there will be a time in the future—I hope in the very distant future—when the two hon. Members will be able to push the rock downhill as fast as they can push it. I appeal to them, in the meantime, not to press a Division on this Clause, because the Clause will be theirs to play with in due course. I beg they will not make efforts to play with it before that is absolutely necessary.
    9.56 p.m.
    Mr. D. D. REID: If you are proposing to give anybody a long lease, you have to give a free hand. If hon. Members opposite happened to be Members of a Socialist Government, they would find that the Minister who was exercising such powers would be very chary of doing so unless he were given a free hand. As for these unfortunate words, I suggest that the hon. Members are obsessed with leases, which are almost like royalties. There may be cases when it is thought more desirable to reserve payment for the lease in a certain number of gallons or drums of petroleum. That is not an unusual thing in a lease with regard to tin mines at the present moment.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee proceeded to a Division.
    Captain AUSTIN HUDSON and Major G. DAVIES were nominated as Tellers for the Ayes, but there being no Members willing

    1685
    to act as Tellers for the Noes, The CHAIRMAN declared that the Ayes had it.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Provisions as to compulsory acquisition of rights to enter on land etc.)
    10 p.m.
    Mr. D. D. REID: I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, after "away," to insert "and."
    The Clause gives the holder of a licence power to acquire land on which work is to be carried out under the licence. It is obvious that the owner of the licence may find it important to get land in a way which will render the licence nugatory and which is entirely opposed to the spirit of the Bill. I am suggesting that we should leave in the power to search and bore for, get, carry away and store petroleum and delete the treating and converting of petroleum. These words give the licensee an opportunity of acquiring by compulsion land for setting up a refinery. That is a very serious matter. We were told upon the Second Reading that one refinery could be smelt for 20 miles. Suppose the output of petroleum were small; no one would think of taking land for the purpose of treating and converting oil on the spot. The oil would no doubt be conveyed to some existing refinery. In the case of a large output, the Clause will give power for the setting up of a refinery in a district without any regard to the wishes of the landowner, of the inhabitants, or anybody else. I submit that the power is excessive.
    We know that in every part of the world, petroleum is carried through pipe lines. It is no good putting up a refinery if it is to be a nuisance in the district, but the man who gets a licence is to be given facilities for searching, boring for, getting, carry away and storing, and he may very well be left to acquire land by agreement in some place where no one will object, and he might convey his oil through pipe lines.
    10.5 p.m.
    Mr. SPENS: Under the Mines (Working Facilities) Act there are five ancillary rights for which a person who desires to work minerals can apply. Sub-section (2) of this Clause adds two more, the one the right to enter upon land and sink bore-holes therein for the purpose of searching for and getting petroleum, and the other the right to use and occupy land for the erection of buildings for a
    1686
    number of purposes, including the purpose of treating and converting the petroleum, that is to say, for the purpose of putting up a refinery. I suggest that it is unnecessary, if there is a right to get petroleum, to have any right beyond that of getting and storing it, and that, when it comes to a question of compulsorily taking additional land for the purposes of a refinery, a special case ought to be made out that that is necessary, and that the land cannot be made use of unless there is a refinery in that place. If there is a store, the petroleum can be taken from the store to the refinery, wherever it may be situated, in the most convenient place for refining.
    In practice, however, when an applicant goes to the Railway and Canal Commission, he simply asks for the main right, and, if the court is satisfied that it is in the national interest that he should have the right to work the mineral in that particular place, this string of ancillary rights is nearly always granted in addition as a matter of course. It seems to me that the inclusion of the ancillary right of taking land, putting up buildings upon it and using them for a refinery, may be rather onerous to private owners, and they may consider that any compensation which they get is inadequate in view of the loss of amenities or of the inconvenience that they may suffer. Accordingly, I suggest that either these words should be left out or the right to have land and buildings for a refinery should be made a special ancillary right, for which a special case should be made out.
    10.8 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Lincoln shire, which is one of the places where petroleum may be found in this country, is at present entirely unspoiled by unsightly buildings. There are certain well known beauty spots there, and, if these large storage tanks are going to be put up, they will spoil the amenities, whereas a mere borehole would probably not be much worse than a pylon. We should like to know exactly what will be the rights of the landowner, and also of those living in the neighbourhood, with regard to protesting—
    The DEPUTY -CHAIRMAN: There is an Amendment to deal with that point, which will be called next.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: We rather object to large storage buildings, whereas we should not object so much to the actual boreholes.
    10.9 p.m.
    The DEPUTY SOLICITOR-GENERAL: This Amendment does not cover the question of storage, and, therefore, the point just made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) does not arise on it. The Amendment proposes to leave out "treating and converting," but the granting of ancillary powers in respect of any of these matters only arises if the applicant satisfies the Commission that the proper and efficient working of the mineral is unduly hampered by inability or failure to obtain such rights or facilities. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ash-ford (Mr. Spens) suggests that, so far as these words would cover a refinery, they would not be really necessary, as the oil could be easily pumped or otherwise conveyed to a refinery in some other part of the country. If that be right, my hon. Friends' objection, in my submission, answers itself, because in that case it would be impossible for anyone to say that they were unduly hampered by the fact that they could not get land adjacent to the well for setting up a refinery. Accepting that distinction for the purposes of my argument, the Commission would obviously have regard to it.
    Further, having got before the Commission, as one would, ex hypothesi, in such a matter, there is a later provision in the Clause which deals with amenities, and those affected will be able to appear. I mention that in passing, because it does not really arise on this Amendment, although it has been referred to. For these reasons I would ask the Mover of the Amendment to withdraw it. We think it right to keep in these words to cover a case which might arise where the person with the licence would be unduly hampered if he could not get land for treatment, but we suggest that the sort of cases with which the Amendment is designed to deal are already covered by the words in the Mines (Working Facilities) Act.
    10.10 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS: The Solicitor-General has said, quite rightly, that before the
    1688
    ancillary right to set up a refinery could be granted the application would have had to reach the stage of being heard before the commission. Could he tell me whether, before the hearing, the interests concerned will have the right to be heard and to make objections before the commission?
    The DEPUTY -CHAIRMAN: That point will arise on the next Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    10.11 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 23, at the end, to insert:
    "and any authority, body, or person appearing to the Commission to be interested with respect to suck amenities shall be entitled to appear and be heard by the Commissioners with respect thereto, notwithstanding that such authority, body, or person may respectively not be an authority, body, or person having power to grant the right applied for or any authority, body, or person from whom such right must be obtained."
    The right hon. Gentleman will have realised by now that I do not like his Bill, and would like to destroy it, but at the same time he will realise that this is not by any means a wrecking Amendment. Clause 3 requires the Royal Commission to have regard to the question of amenities before granting compulsory powers, but there is no provision making it necessary for them to hear the view of those who are affected in regard to amenities. We conside that county councils, district councils and people living in the neighbourhood should be able to give evidence before the commission, but, unless some such power as this Amendment provides be given, the application may come before the commission and the whole thing may be finished before they hear of it. By the time this stage is reached the whole thing will be public and the need for secrecy on which the Government insists, as we think so wrongly, will have gone. There seems to be no reason why this right of appearance should not be granted to local authorities and other people in the district.
    10.14 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS: I do not know whether hon. Members have any idea what a large oil refinery looks like. I have some slight connection with the Anglo-Persian refinery in South Wales, and it covers a very large area of ground which is extremely

    1689
    unsightly and very smelly, A very strong case can be made out at this stage of the proceedings for representations to be made by people who are interested in the neighbourhood. We have on several occasions raised the point of the right of local authorities to have some say in the development of their areas. I hope the Minister will give very serious consideration to the request that my hon. and gallant Friend has put forward. I do so with the most genuine desire to safeguard the amenities of the countryside and without any desire to hold up the oil industry which may or may not develop.
    10.16 p.m.
    Mr. HASLAM: I wish to support the Amendment and the idea underlying it. The part of Lincolnshire that I represent contains that part of the country in which the poet Tennyson was born and bred and wrote many of his most noted works, and references to that part of the country are contained in many of his best known poems. It is known generally as the Tennyson country. If some unsightly building, such as a petroleum refinery, were put up in that country, very many people would regard it as an outrage. To those who desire to preserve that kind of amenity, people perhaps who have no representative organisation to voice their views and feelings, but who nevertheless feel very strongly on such a point as this, some sort of power to make such representations should be given. Such amenities as these are treasured very highly by large numbers of people, and any interference with them would be regarded with strong feelings.
    10.19 p.m.
    Viscount WOLMER: If the Government do not accept the Amendment, I feel certain that they will arouse a great deal of resentment, particularly among local authorities. The Bill has slipped through with very little public attention but, when the people in some beautiful part of England wake up and find that Parliament has enabled a huge oil monopoly to erect a refinery in their midst and that they have no locus standi, they will be justly indignant. Anyone who has seen an oil refinery knows what a terrible blot it is on the landscape, and the fumes are capable of being smelt 20 miles away. It is a very grave interference with the amenities of the whole
    1690
    neighbourhood and the value of property. People will not be able to sell land or sell or let houses so readily if they have a thing of that sort dumped down in their midst. It is a matter in which local authorities and the community generally are vitally interested. Local authorities have a right to be heard when this matter is being considered. On our local authorities now is charged the whole duty of town planning. We are town planning the whole of the countryside, and I am very glad that it is being done under proper safeguards, but how can a local authority town plan the countryside if it has not the right to be heard on a matter of this sort? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment, or, at any rate, some other form of words which will have the same effect.
    10.21 p.m.
    Captain WATERHOUSE: I should like to add my voice to the urge which has been given by my hon. Friend on this Amendment. I do so in this particular case because I have in mind the possible effect of a refinery being built, say, just outside the boundaries of a city like that of which I have the honour to be one of the representatives. The corporation might not have the smallest chance of going before the Railway and Canal Commission, and certainly it might not be in their area that the oil would be found. A big city would constantly be smothered with fumes from the refinery every time the wind came from South-East, South, or South-West, and they would have no access at all to the one body who might look after their interests and safeguard their rights. I reinforce every word the Noble Lord has said on this subject. If we are to have a Measure which, as my right hon. Friend says, will make provision so that anyone subjected to a disturbance shall be compensated, he is bound, I think, to accept the Amendment, or one similar to it. Disturbance does not come only from being kicked out of a house; one can be sadly disturbed by the smell which comes through the windows.
    10.23 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: If there is to be a local public inquiry at which everybody is entitled to be heard, I think that possibly the Amendment is not necessary. If there is only to be an inquiry before the Railway and Canal Commission

    1691
    in London, it will make it very hard for local people to be represented. The local authorities are engaged in country planning to a certain extent. At the same time they are very much exercised as to the question of employment, and if they see that treating and storage tanks are to be put up, they may realise that they are an employment factor, and they may be persuaded in their favour, and some of the beauty spots of England may be spoilt. I suggest to the Government that they should think of that case, and that people interested in beauty spots and amenities generally should be enabled to make representations. The beauty spots of England are not only amenities enjoyed by those who live in the neighbourhood, but many of them are the property of the nation and are places to which people can go from the industrial centres. It would be a very sad thing for England if they were to be destroyed by this new development. I beg of the Government to do all in their power to safeguard the remaining beauty spots of this country and not allow them to be destroyed as in some foreign countries where industrial development of this nature has taken place.
    10.24 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am in the happy position of being able to assure the Movers of this Amendment that these words are not necessry, because the parties in question have full right to appear or to make application to appear, which is all that the Amendment asks, before the Railway and Canal Commission. The general position in our law is that a body such as the Railway and Canal Commission are entitled, and indeed it is their duty, to hear those persons or bodies whom it is necessary and proper to hear in order to decide the matters which have been entrusted to them by the Legislature. In an ordinary case of law it is the two parties, but in this case, where the commission is enjoined to have regard to the effect of the amenities of the locality, the commission will have the fullest power and, indeed, the duty to consider applications made to them by persons who said that they were interested in the preservation of the amenities. Of course, they must be the judges, and that would be so under the Amendment, whether they are proper interested parties. If I may take the words
    1692
    of the Amendment, I think they accurately define what would be the position of a body of this kind. The Amendment says:
    "Any authority, body, or person appearing to the commission to be interested …"
    I think that is a very fair statement of what would be the powers and duties of the commission in a matter of this kind, and I think the Committee will see that any other result would lead at once to an absurdity. The parties interested, that is to say, the person who owns the land and the person who wants the land, might have no interest in and no knowledge of the amenities, and yet Parliament has said that that is a matter to which the commission are to have regard. Therefore, our law, which is sensible in this as in many other matters, implies a power without any expressed words, and that they must hear all proper parties in order to inform themselves on the matters to which Parliament says they must have regard. There is also power, if the commission think fit, to order a local public inquiry to be held. That is in the Act and it would no doubt be exercised on an appropriate occasion. I hope my hon. Friends will see fit to withdraw the Amendment.
    10.27 p.m.
    Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I have been listening with great attention to what my hon. and learned Friend has said, and I am not quite sure, and I should like an assurance, that he has quite covered the point that was made on this side of the Committee. I agree with him that under the Act of 1923, of which I have had some experience, any persons who are interested can apply to the Commission and get leave of the Commission to appear and put their case, but the point which has been suggested is a little wider than that. The point expressly put was that of a local authority where facilities have been asked in respect of a property which is outside their area, and therefore they have no rights over the area. Of course, people within the area and people directly affected as adjoining landowners have a right under the Act of 1923 of going to the Commission, of explaining how they are affected and getting leave to appear, and leave is granted in a proper case, but here is a local authority which does not own the land, which is not directly affected in its own area but

    1693
    desires to represent a body of people who are its constituent inhabitants and who may themselves be affected, not directly with regard to their property but with regard to their sense of taste, smell, hearing and sight, and I am not at all sure, with great respect to my hon. and learned Friend, whether the assurance that he has given us really covers that point. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to give us an assurance, because I confess from my own experience, which is a small one but it is an experience, of the working of the Act of 1923 that I doubt whether, under the existing way in which the legislation is carried on, the Commission have power to do what is suggested.
    May I put one other point. Under the Act of 1923, when the application relates to the supply of water, in Sub-section (5) of Section 5 there is an express provision under which notice has to be given where any local authority is affected so that the application may be brought to the direct notice of the authority, and the local authority in that case is empowered to take such steps as they may think fit to bring their views before the commission. It looks, therefore, as though under that Section water is placed in an exceptional position and express power is given to a local authority to intervene and place their views before the commission. In these circumstances, inasmuch as the amenities of the people generally are being aimed at by some of my hon. Friends in connection with this matter, I still venture to doubt whether the Amendment may not be necessary for the purpose of enabling a local authority to put its views on this particular matter, and I hope that before this question is disposed of this particular point will receive a little further attention.
    10.32 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I should like to deal shortly with the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson). With regard to Sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the 1923 Act, my hon. and learned Friend has not noticed that it also refers to any other right which appears to the Board of Trade to affect any local authority. There is no question of a local authority not knowing what is going on. With all respect to my hon. and learned Friend, he has not appreciated the change
    1694
    or the extension which is necessarily affected by the fact that in this Bill the amenities may be made, and are a proper reason for opposition to the application. It would, of course, be improper and impossible for me to lay down some general principle as to what authority would be proper to be heard by the commission, but I hope he will agree that under the Bill anyone who can properly speak for those whose amenities are affected would be a proper person for the commission to hear. We are satisfied that this is the position, and we hope it will satisfy my hon. Friends.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: In view of the assurance given by the Solicitor-General I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed:
    "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    10.33 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Among those who can appear before the Commission are local authorities and "persons interested." I am not referring to amenities but to the granting of licences. Catchment areas have been established since the original Act was passed and I should like to know whether it is clear that where a catchment board is affected it will have the right to appear before the Commission. They will be interested in cases where pipe lines are laid across streams or where a certain amount of digging has to be done, and I should like to have an assurance that they will have the right to appear if they wish to object to the granting of any licence.
    10.34 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: There is one point in regard to Sub-section (2) that I want to deal with, the extra 10 per cent. allowance which is to be given in determining the amount of compensation to be paid. It used to be quite a familiar feature in the old days, in compensation cases, to give the extra 10 per cent., which was always said to be for the purpose of paying the costs of reinvestment. In the days when practically the only alternative form of investment was land itself, and the cost of conveyancing and so on on re-investment was very often heavy, especially in the case of small sums of money, 10 per cent. was offered over and above fair compensation. Nowadays it is

    1695
    generally accepted that the basis of that argument has disappeared, because there are various forms of alternative investment which are very small in cost; one-eighth or one-quarter per cent. is quite sufficient to cover the cost. If the compensation is to be fixed at a fair sum, as one assumes, what is the object of this extra 10 per cent. over and above the fair compensation which is to be paid? In the Assessment of Compensation Act of 1919, this was dropped, and one had hoped that it had finally passed out of compensation law. Why is it necessary to reintroduce a feature which, if compensation is properly assessed by a tribunal, cannot possibly be deserved by any persons whose interests are compensated to If it is necessary to pay the 10 per cent. extra it only shows that the assessment was 10 per cent. too low.
    10.37 p.m.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I wish to ask a question with regard to the proviso to Sub-section (1). It is laid down that where a licence is granted the people who receive the licence are to have the rights which waterworks have with regard to the digging up of streets, and in connection with that there are all sorts of restrictions regarding the guarding of the excavated streets. I have some connection with the electrical industry, which enjoys rather similar powers under the Electricity Acts; and there are the provisions in the Gasworks Clauses Act of 1847. In this proviso it is stated that the appropriate Clauses of the Waterworks Clauses Act of 1847 are to apply in the case of pipe lines but
    "subject to any modification or adaptations specified in the order."
    In other words an oil company will be given rights by the order which are denied to any waterworks or gas or electricity undertaking in the country. Why? It seems to be a rather unusual provision, whereby the well-established Statute law which has now been running for nearly 100 years and covers nearly all public utilities, will be modified in this Bill.
    10.39 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: The reason for the words
    "subject to any modification or adaptations specified in the order "
    is that whereas the Waterworks Clauses Act of 1847 deals with pipes which
    1696
    carried water, this Clause deals with pipes which are to carry oil and, therefore, contains the necessary modifications. That is what the words are intended to cover. As regards the point about catchment areas, I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) appreciates the fact that I cannot lay down definite decisions as to particular cases. The general principle is quite clear and it was stated by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson). Any party or person who can satisfy the Commission that he or they are interested, that is to say that their rights are liable to be affected and who make application, if they are considered proper parties to be heard, will be heard, and the authority of a catchment area just like anybody else can make application. If they satisfy the Commission that their position is likely to be adversely affected the Commission will, in a proper case, allow them to be heard. As regards the 10 per cent., I cannot add anything to what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) will find in the Bill, namely, that the 10 per cent. is to be paid on account of the acquisition of the right being compulsory. It is one thing when a person decides to dispose of his own property. In that case he, no doubt, gets the fair market value and he is able to look after his own interest, but it is another thing when his property is taken away compulsorily and the 10 per cent. addition is to be made as set out in the Bill, on account of the acquisition of the right being compulsory.
    10.42 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I am sure the hon. and learned Solicitor-General does not really mean that, because these words have become absolutely technical words in the law of compensation and have been discussed ad nauseam on the question of what this 10 per cent. allowance was for. It has always been held that it could not be part of the value because the application is to fix the fair value, and there cannot be any more value after you have fixed the fair value. The theory was that the allowance was made originally to meet the cost of re-investment, which was reasonable when the only alternative was re-investment in land and 10 per cent. in cases of small sums of compensation Was

    1697
    about the cost of re-investment. It has in recent days, however, been argued that the 10 per cent., which was a notional allowance under the 1847 Act, ought to be reduced in view of that very fact, and I have (myself argued that l£ per cent. was the proper allowance in the case of a big award instead of the customary 10 per cent. Whether it was made in that case I do not know, because the arbitrator wisely gave a lump sum and did not go into the point. It is impossible to say that just because a right is acquired compulsorily you ought to give 10 per cent. more. That has never been the theory, and apparently in this case the old practice has simply been adopted without anybody in the least understanding what it meant or why it was there. I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that before the Report stage he ought to look into this point and see whether we have not arrived at a stage in the history of compensation when this ridiculous anachronism ought to be wiped out. Let him, if he thinks it necessary, put in a reasonable sum for the cost of re-investment, over and above the value, but do not assume that the value to be given by the tribunal is not a fair value. If it is a fair value, there can be no excuse, except some such thing as the cost of reinvestment, for any addition of this kind.
    10.44 p.m.
    Mr. D. D. REID: I think the hon. and learned Solicitor-General has treated the Committee to a rather scanty explanation of these words "subject to any modifications or adaptations," when he says that they are due to the fact that these pipes will convey oil and not water. I should be obliged if he would tell us what these modifications or adaptations are to be and why they should apply to pipes which are carrying oil and not to pipes which are carrying water. These words seem to give an unlimited power of legislation to a Government Department and I have had some experience of the pranks played by Government Departments in making use of powers of this kind. I suggest that if the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to retain these words, some such words should be inserted on the Report stage as "subject to any modification which may be required owing to the fact that the pipes are to carry oil and not water."
    10.46 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The Solicitor-General's explanation was a very bright one on the spur of the moment, but it obviously indicated that I was raising a new point. As long ago as 1847 we had laid down the conditions to be observed, and only a few weeks ago we were discussing on the Report stage a Bill to modify the Electricity Acts, and the strongest opposition was raised by, I think, the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) about the very provisions in that Bill with regard to digging up roads. That all dated back as long ago as the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847. This is the Waterworks Clauses Act of the same year, dealing with the same point, but both gas pipes and water pipes must be so arranged that they do not leak. If a water pipe leaks, it blows up the road, and if an oil pipe leaks and someone happens to drop a match, it blows up the neighbourhood. Here we have power given to a body to modify these safeguards to the community with regard to the security to the public when roads are being dug up, and I think we ought to have a fuller explanation why it is proposed that the Order shall apply these Clauses subject to any modifications or adaptations specified in the Order. I have not observed this point in time to put down an Amendment to leave out these words, but I think we ought to have an adequate explanation as to why what has been the general law of the land in respect of all public utilities should be modified in this case.
    10.48 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: May I suggest what the reason is? I think it is that the Waterworks Clauses Act and similar Acts are only intended to be incorporated in subsequent private Acts subject to such modifications as the private Acts may make, and the practice has always been in subsequent private Acts from time to time to make modifications of the Clauses Acts to suit them to the particular cases with which the private Acts are dealing. The hon. Member will find many cases where the Clauses Acts, the Land, Water, and Gas Clauses Acts, have in fact been modified in detail to suit some particular local circumstance. In this case, the only way in which you could modify those Acts would be by an Order, because there is no other operative legislative Act except a subsequent Order.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell me any case where the general provisions about digging up streets have been modified in an Order?
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I cannot tell the hon. Member offhand, but there is a number of cases where the general conditions of Clauses Acts have been modified in particular Acts. The safeguard that modification can be made in special Acts is always maintained in the Clauses Acts themselves and in the subsequent private Acts. I suggest that the object here is to give a similar right in an Order, which otherwise could not be done.
    Mr. D. D. REID: May I suggest that the Clauses are in a private Act by Parliamentary authority. That is quite a different thing from suggesting Clauses by the whim of a Department.
    10.50 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think there has been some misunderstanding. The Order referred to here is not made by Government Departments but by the Railway and Canal Commission. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has pointed out that it is not infrequently necessary to make modifications in these General Clauses Acts, and the mere fact that the liquid concerned in the Act of 1847, though it might cause some damage would not blow up a whole neighbourhood, may have afforded a reason why the Commissioners in this Order made some modification. It is not a Government Department Order.

    Clause 4 (Power to supply natural gas) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

      CLAUSE 5.—(Accounts of receipts and expenditure under Act.)
      Amendment made: In page 4, line 19, at the end, insert:
      "(2) All moneys received by the Board under this Act shall be paid into the Exchequer and all expenses of the Board under this Act shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament."— [The Solicitor-General.]

    CLAUSE 6.—(Power to make regulations.)
    Amendment made: In page 4, line 28, at the end, to insert:
    "(b) the fees to be paid on any such application."—[The Solicitor-General.]
    10.52 p.m.
    Mr. M. BEAUMONT: May I ask if you are calling the Amendment in my name on the Paper, Captain Bourne, or the one which I have handed in?
    The DEPUTY -CHAIRMAN: The Amendment on the Paper. The manuscript Amendment is quite inappropriate to this Clause.
    Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I beg to move, in page 4, line 37, to leave out Sub-section (2), and to insert:
    "(2) Any regulations made under this section shall come into operation upon the date specified therein in that behalf but shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made and shall cease to have effect upon the expiration of a period of three months from the date upon which they come into operation unless at some time before the expiration of that period they have been approved by a resolution passed by each House of Parliament but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of any new regulations.
    Provided that in reckoning any such period of three months as aforesaid, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days."
    The purpose of the Amendment is to substitute for what is known as the negative procedure in the Bill the procedure of an affirmative Resolution. The Bill lays down that the regulations shall come before this House and unless anybody objects to them within a certain time they shall pass into law. The Amendment, on the other hand, proposes that they shall not pass into law unless an affirmative Resolution is passed by this House, stating definitely that they shall become operative. To be perfectly frank, I have never held that this Resolution procedure as far as this House is concerned was of any substantial value. We all know what has happened from time immemorial. These Resolutions are on the Paper and come up after 11 o'clock when people are tired. A few speeches are made, and Members come in from the Smoking Room to say "Aye" for the Government, and that is the end of that. Of the two methods of procedure there is no question that the only one which has any effect at all is the affirmative Resolu-

    1701
    tion procedure which I am proposing. Under it the responsible Minister has to state a case to the House, and the onus is not on a private Member who has some personal knowledge of the matter which naturally cannot be expected to excite a large number of Members to keep a House and get a Division. The onus for seeing that the matter is discussed by the House is on the Minister and that will provide that these regulations do not pass through the House by default.
    I move this Amendment with more hope of acceptance because, although both processes are, except in very few cases, almost entirely formal, the Minister of Mines is about the only Member of the House who has under the procedure proposed in the Bill actually achieved a definite result. At one time he did stir up some excitement and succeeded in defeating one of these Resolutions under the negative procedure; but we all have not his versatility and energy—I wish I had—and we cannot all do that. It is not imposing a very great burden either on the Minister or the Ministry to ask them, when these Regulations are framed, to lay them before the House and to explain them to the House so as to give the House a chance of deciding on them, instead of leaving it to a private Member to have the whole onus of raising the question at a late hour.
    10.57 p.m.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment. The provision that the regulation shall be laid before Parliament will give the House an adequate opportunity of dealing with any point that may arise. It is seldom that under this procedure anything is upset, but the Minister of Mines did once achieve that, and I have no doubt that if there were anything in these regulations of which my hon. Friend disapproved he would, with his usual vigilance, at once mobilise his friends, and we should be in the happy position of listening to him in the middle of the night while the regulations were under discussion. That is quite sufficient for the purpose of giving the House an opportunity of discussing the regulations. This question was discussed fully in another place, and the decision finally taken was strongly in favour of the proposal incorporated in the Bill. I hope that in these circumstances my hon. Friend will
    1702
    not think it necessary to press his Amendment.
    10.59 p.m.
    Viscount WOLMER: I do not think my hon. Friend is quite right in his diagnosis. There is a good deal to be said from the private Member's point of view for giving him the opportunity of selecting one of 28 days in which this subject can be discussed rather than leaving it to the Government to have the choice of the day on which it is to be brought forward. That is the real point so far as a private Member is concerned. If these regulations lie on the Table of the House for 28 days, nothing can be done during those 28 days, and, if there is a feeling on the subject, the private Member has the whole of those 28 days in which to mobilise opinion, and he can launch his attack on any of those days. If a positive Resolution is required the Government can bring it forward at very much shorter notice and get it through very much more quickly. Therefore, I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend as regards this House; but there is another place and, after all, another place is becoming to an increasing extent the guardian of the liberties of the English people. Noble Lords do not attend in another place quite so frequently as we have to attend here, and therefore it is easier in many respects for the Government to get an order through there without anyone noticing it. It is from the point of view of another place that the safeguard of the Government having to introduce a positive Resolution really lies. However, the Government appear to have made up their minds on this matter very definitely, and it seems that the advantages and disadvantages are so evenly balanced that it is not worth while making a fuss about it. But I hope that when these Resolutions do come forward my Noble Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington), who is an expert in this matter, will not hesitate to raise the subject if, in the opinion of himself and of others who are qualified to judge, there is anything in these necessarily somewhat technical Resolutions which those who view this Bill with anxiety think ought to be brought to the light of day.
    Mr. M. BEAUMONT: Frankly I am entirely unconvinced by the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, but as I attach so

    1703
    little value to either of these procedures I do not think it is worth while bothering the House to go to a Division, and, therefore, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    11.2 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS: I beg to move, in page 5, line 4, at the end, to add:
    "(3) Any licence granted by the Board of Trade shall be subject to confirmation by both Houses of Parliament."
    I attach a good deal of importance to this Amendment, which is one of great principle. Under the monopoly which we are now granting to the Government to grant licences for the exploitation of oil there is no provision for the control of Parliament over any licences which may be granted. I pressed my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines on this point on Second Reading, but I could not get a definite answer. If we were always to have my right hon. Friend at the Board of Trade or the hon. Gentleman at the Department of Mines I think we should have little to fear, but, on a question of principle, this House ought to be very careful before it parts so completely with its control over what may prove to be, or may not prove to be, a large and flourishing industry. I see no words in the Bill which provide for the revocation of a licence once it has been granted. We do not know to whom licences will hit granted. Some large company may be able to obtain a licence, and that company or group of individuals may not be all welcome to Members of this House, and yet we shall have no power to say whether that licence shall continue. I ventured a little earlier to quote a letter which appeared in the "Times" this morning, and I was rather taken to task by the Secretary for Mines, but in spite of that I hope he will allow me to read another passage from it, because I think it is of great importance. It is written by a Noble Lord to whose opinions we may attach some weight. He says that he objects:
    "To the powers proposed to be given to a Department to grant any concession it likes"—
    I think that is a mistake; he should have used the word "licence."
    "without any opportunity of Parliamentary revision. Unless the Bill is altered the Board of Trade will be able to grant concessions."
    1704
    Again, I think the word should be "licences."
    "in secret to any persons they choose, British or foreign, to bore for oil in any area, and Parliament, short of a special Act, will be quite unable to stop them. It is a most vicious precedent, and its effect in the future in making corruption easier is one which I need not elaborate."
    I think I have said enough on the general question of principle to invite the very serious consideration of the Committee before it parts with control over the oil industry. There is a great deal of substance in the point which I put forward, and I think there ought to be a very strong defence of the Clause as it now stands.
    11.6 p.m.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The proposal made by my hon. Friend is almost on all fours with one which was proposed to be made earlier in the Debate. It draws special attention to the fact that, where a licence is granted without examination by this House, it may be liable to irregular proceedings or irregular -influence, or in other ways may be unacceptable to this House and to the general opinion of those who may be anxious about the granting of licences. I do not know that he need be in the least anxious about that. The licences will be made under regulations which will have been laid and will have been discussed here, and they will be made on the responsibility of the Board of Trade. If anything improper be done by the Board of Trade, I am sure there are Members of the House who are quite ready to move a reduction of the salary of my hon. Friend or of myself, in order to bring matters to a head in the House. I do not think the Amendment is necessary. The regulations will do all that is necessary to safeguard the interests which my hon. Friend has in mind. Under those regulations alone can the licences be issued. It is desirable to deal with the matter with great rapidity, and a great deal of Parliamentary machinery may cause delay in the business.
    I was asked earlier by one of my hon. and gallant Friends how many licences I thought might be granted between now and Christmas, and he staggered me when he talked about 100. I cannot answer that question. There may be one or there may be a very large number. Suppose that it ran up to the number which the hon. and gallant Member was

    1705
    sanguine enough to propose. We should be sitting here for a whole Session if we had to deal with them under the procedure suggested by the hon. Member, who must see that, from the Parliamentary point of view, that is impossible.
    11.9 p.m.
    Sir P. HARRIS: I do not think that the Minister has treated the Amendment with the seriousness which it deserves. We have great confidence in his judgment and integrity, and we quite realise that he will use his power with great discrimination, great business knowledge, and, in every case, without fear or favour. If the oil industry is to be a reality in this country, and if there really is oil under our soil, there will be great possibilities. We know the experience of America, to which country the discovery of oil has been a gold-mine, and we may be making a precedent over which this House should keep some form of control. Ministers come, and Ministers go, and the right hon. Gentleman may be in a very much more important position later on. His ability and capacity, and the confidence of this House, may secure that he will not always be President of the Board of Trade. Just recently we have had some remarkable changes on the Treasury Bench.
    This is not a temporary Bill, but a permanent Bill, and some such provision as this is very necessary when we are embarking, almost without precedent, on something like a concession of national assets. Personally I am not very sanguine that there is a great deal of oil under our soil, but if by some miracle all the geological calculations are falsified, and suddenly quantities of oil are discovered somewhere, one can understand various interests bringing pressure to bear on the Department, and, while the Department will, I am sure, always try to do its duty, there might be some suspicion that undue favour was being shown to some interest or other. We had some discussion earlier about five applications for licences from the Noble Lord, and the right hon. Gentleman was able specifically to tell him that there had been nothing irregular, but that they had been rejected for very good reasons. But, supposing that someone did really strike oil, supposing that we did hear that the wonderful thing had happened, it would be always liable to be suggested that
    1706
    some particular favour had been shown to one particular interest as against another. I think that better safeguards should be provided for publicity and discussion when a licence is granted by the Board of Trade. I do not think that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment would suggest that it is the ideal form, but I think that some better Parliamentary control should be provided.
    11.13 p.m.
    Viscount WOLMER: There is this point, which the President of the Board of Trade has not really faced in his reply, that in these licences a monopoly is being conferred, and there is no other monopoly that can be obtained in this country which the House of Commons has not reserved to itself the right to determine. If you want a gas regulation Order, or an electricity supply Order, or a railway Bill, or if you want to get a marketing scheme through, you have to come to the House of Commons every time, and our predecessors have provided elaborate machinery by which Parliament shall not only consider the matter in principle, but also in detail. As this Bill stands, great areas of the country could be made over by order of the President of the Board of Trade, whoever he might be at the moment, and the only remedy that the House would have would be to move a Vote of Censure on the Government or to propose a reduction of the salary of the President of the Board of Trade, at once bringing the matter into the front rank of party politics. That is not at all the sort of way in which a question of this sort should be dealt with. It ought to be dealt with in the same way as a railway Bill, or a gas Order, or some other local monopoly, that is to say, it ought to be considered, apart from questions of party politics, on the merits of the case.
    The only remedy that the President of the Board of Trade can think of suggesting will immediately bring the issue into the arena of party politics, and we know what that means. It means that, directly the matter becomes a party issue, Members will vote with the Government even though they think the Government are wrong, as they constantly do to-day. When the President of the Board of Trade says that the House has its remedy in proposing a reduction of his successor's salary, he is really missing the point

    1707
    altogether. The point is that when a great monopoly is conferred upon anyone, Parliament has in the past always insisted upon the right of itself considering whether the terms of the monopoly are right or wrong. In saying it is to be made a matter of party politics, the right hon. Gentleman has made a mistake. He is doing something that has never been done in the past and he is treating the matter in the wrong way altogether.
    Amendment negatived.

    Clauses 7 (Power to inspect plans and mines), 8 (Exercise and powers and duties of Board of Trade) and 9 (Definition of minerals in 16 and 17 Geo. 5. c. 28, s. 23), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

      CLAUSE 10.—(Savings.)
      11.17 p.m.
      Mr. SPENS: I beg to move, in page 5, line 39, at the end, to add the words:
      "(4) Nothing in this Act nor any licence granted by the Board of Trade hereunder shall be construed or operate to exonerate any person holding any such licence from any indictment, action, or other proceedings for nuisance in the event of any nuisance being caused or permitted by such person."
      In as much as we are giving power to licensees to acquire the right to set up refineries, and a refinery is capable of being a public nuisance, there is a danger that possibly these licensees may put forward the defence that they are acting under powers conferred upon them by this Act and, if they prove that they are doing nothing unreasonable in the circumstances, they may have a good defence to an action for nuisance. Such a position would be intolerable. If they are going to get these very valuable rights, they should be liable to ordinary actions for nuisance if they make the surrounding country and villages and towns seriously suffer. We ought to insert a proviso that they have no such statutory defence.
      11.19 p.m.
      The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: We are satisfied that nothing in the Bill or in any licence granted by the Board of Trade would exonerate a person holding a licence from the actions set out in the Amendment, and for that reason we think
      1708
      it would be a mistake, and would be indeed objectionable on the general principles, to insert words which might suggest any doubt about the matter.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
      11.20 p.m.
      Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I should like a little explanation on Sub-section (3). I know that it was inserted in another place after considerable negotiation, and that great value was attached to it by the land-owning interests, but the wording fails to reveal what it means.
      The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: This Sub-section was inserted to make it impossible for an argument to be raised with regard to the very weighty words in Clause 1 (1):
      "The property in petroleum … vested in His Majesty."
      Those words were inserted to make it clear that petroleum should not be searched for and taken under those general words without the machinery of the Bill being gone through. That is the object, and I think it probably explains the reason for the words taking such a form here.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Short title, repeal and extent.)
    11.21 p.m.
    Sir WILLIAM RAY: I beg to move, in page 6, line 9, at the end, to insert:
    "(3) The provisions of this Act shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-one, and no longer unless during the year ending on that date petroleum was being regularly gotten from not less than five wells or bore-holes which were, during the said year, being operated in exercise of rights granted by a licence granted under this Act, in which event the said provisions shall continue in force until other provision is made by Parliament.
    (4) In the event of the provisions of this Act Ceasing to have effect under subsection (3) of this section, the property in petroleum vested in His Majesty by section one of this Act shall by virtue of this Act revest upon the date of cesser in the persons in whom it was vested immediately prior to its being so vested under the said section or in their successors in title. Provided that except in respect of such revesting nothing in this or the immediately preceding sub-section of this section shall affect the previous

    1709
    operation of this Act or the validity of any licence granted thereunder or having effect as if granted thereunder which is in force at the date of such cesser or any obligation or liability previously incurred under this Act or under any such licence or the taking of any steps or the institution or carrying on of any proceeding to enforce any such obligation or liability."
    The Amendment has been put down in the hope that it will prevent what may be a derelict Act remaining on the Statute Book for all time and giving rise to endless controversy. The Amendment will not affect the provisions of the Bill at all. If the Measure is not a success, it can be removed from the deadweight of old laws which are still on the Statute Book. Unless there are five of these wells or bore-holes under license by the time suggested, I think that we can assume that there is nothing further to be done. We provide in the Amendment that it will not be included in the days to come in such Measures as the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. It is really because of that reason that the Amendment has been put upon the Paper.
    11.23 p.m.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The proposal made in this Amendment would give the Act a life-time of five years. On has only to consider the nature of the business and property prescribed by the Bill to see how awkward it might be. As everyone knows who has had experience of oil, an oil-well sometimes flows unexpectedly, and still more unexpectedly ceases to flow. No one knows what will be the issue of petroleum or the situation of the oil industry in this country. It is certain that if it follows the example of oil produced in other parts of the world a five years' limit may be too short or too long. You can have it either way you like. If you make it seven as suggested, or if you make it any period, we ought to deprecate in the exploitation of oil any change of that kind being incorporated in the Act. I should like to point out that very little harm could come from the Act remaining on the Statute Book. Even if we had only a couple of borings, I do not see that there would be anything wrong in the Act remaining on the Statute Book. One of the objects of my hon. Friends with regard to the Amendment is to limit the operation of the Act. That is, quite naturally, their object from their point of view. On the contrary, we want to give every opportunity
    1710
    for its operation because we want it to work. We are anxious to attract into this business people who would not otherwise come into it if they were to be left in any doubt of the period during which they might be able to operate. Therefore, the acceptance of the Amendment would defeat the objects of the Bill, and in those circumstances we cannot accept it.
    11.26 p.m.
    Marquess of HARTINGTON: My right hon. Friend is wrong in his arithmetic. The Amendment would continue the Act for seven years. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that seven years is not long enough to give the Act a fair chance, we are quite willing to extend its working to 10 or 12 years, and if he thinks that five wells are too many, we would agree to four or three, but I think two wells would be too few. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that if the Act does not operate it shall cease to cumber the Statute Book, and the very dangerous and very formidable principle which it sets up shall cease to exist. I feel bound to press the Amendment because, far from helping us to exploit the search for oil, the Bill will definitely hinder it. I regard the chance of even having oil found in England as diminished by at least 50 per cent. by the passage of this Bill. It will add enormous confusion to the task of anyone who wants to look for oil. It means that any prospecting company that is going to operate will have to face the hostility of every landowner instead of their good will. They will have to fight every inch of the way instead of being welcomed. These are undoubted facts. It is the greatest blow that could be dealt at any possibility of getting oil in this country.
    We do not know very much about the Bill, in spite of the questions we have put, we do not know the real need for it. We do not know what ground the Government have for believing that this expropriation is going to encourage the search for oil. We do know that it means dealing with a Government Department and with a hostile landowner instead of a friendly landowner who is anxious to draw his share of the proceeds of the oil. We do not know the real need for the Bill. We do not know why this expropriation is needed. We do not know what advice the Government

    1711
    have taken. But we do know that the Government intend that the negotiations should be conducted in dead secrecy and that they are not prepared to limit the royalty reserved to 10 per cent. of the value in the open market of the oil produced. I am willing to accept any modification of the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman may see fit to suggest, 10 years instead of seven years, or a greater or less number of wells, or some regulation as to the flow of oil. The sole object of the Amendment is to ensure that if the Bill does not succeed it shall not go on indefinitely. If it is not a success we maintain that this dangerous and disastrous precedent should disappear from the Statute Book.
    11.31 p.m.
    Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I hope that a little more consideration will be given to the principle underlying the Amendment. I am not wedded to the actual terms. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Bill
    is an experiment. We say that it is an experiment which is not likely to succeed. We may be right, more remarkable things than that have happened. If we are right then the right hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that the Bill will do no harm if it is still on the Statute Book. We feel that the Bill will impede the search for oil, and if it is on the Statute Book after it has failed it will be extremely dangerous. There is nothing in the Amendment to prevent it going on if it is a success. The right hon. Gentleman claims that the Bill is necessary. In that case he can do no harm in accepting a limit of time for its operation if it is a failure, and if it is a failure then by accepting the Amendment he will give the country a chance of getting rid of a bad piece of legislation.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 17; Noes 151.

    Division No. 316.]

    AYES.

    [11.34 a.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Ray, Sir William

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Renter, John R.

    wise, Alfred R.

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Greene, William P. C.

    Shute, Colonel J. J.

    Marquess of Hartington and Mr.

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Michael Beaumont.

    NOES.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Banfield, John William

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Mabane, William

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

    Boulton, W. W.

    Graves, Marjorie

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Grimston, R. V.

    McKeag, William

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Hammersley, Samuel S

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Burnett, John George

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Carver, Major William H.

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. H. (Prtsmth., S.)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Morrison, William Shephard

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Hornby, Frank

    Munro, Patrick

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

    Daggar, George

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Dickie, John P.

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Pearson, William G.

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    Janner, Barnett

    Penny, Sir George

    Edwards, Charles

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Petherick, M.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Blitton)

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Lawson, John James

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

    Leckie, J. A.

    Radford, E. A.

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Rankin, Robert

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Rickards, George William

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour

    Robinson, John Roland

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Spens, William Patrick

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Stones, James

    Wilmot, John

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Salmon, Sir Isldore

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Major George Davies and Dr.

    Salt, Edward W.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Morris-Jones.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Resolution agreed to.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(As to rights of support.)
    A person holding a licence under this Act shall not acquire by reason of the execution by him of any works for the purpose of exercising the rights granted by such licence any right in law to require the owner of any lands or minerals to leave support for any such works otherwise than by agreement or than by obtaining such right of support under section three of this Act.—[Marquess of Hartington.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    11.45 p.m.
    Marquess of HARTINGTON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The form in which I move it is not quite the same as that in which it appears on the Order Paper, but it is so near the words on the Paper that I need scarcely trouble the Committee with reading it. I wish to call the attention of the learned Solicitor-General to this case, which, I am told, raises a point of very considerable importance. It deals with the question of rights of support which are ordinarily enjoyed by every landowner. A landowner, by erecting houses, acquires no additional rights of support; he does not increase the obligation upon his neighbour for anything fresh that he erects, but in the course of 20 years new buildings do acquire a right of support for the surrounding land. Under this Bill a licensee may own a site for an oil well, or a bore hole, or some working in connection therewith, and by voluntary agreement, without having to go to the Railway and Canal Commission, he may have sunk a bore hole, and after the lapse of 20 years that bore hole or works in connection with it may have acquired a right of support for surrounding land and minerals. That raises a very serious position, because
    1714
    it is possible that, as in the case of Derbyshire, those oil workings may go through coal workings, and that would mean a pillar of coal widening out from the apex down, in a pyramid shape, to a very considerable area at the bottom. I think the area, which has been the subject of arbitration, was fixed at 2½ acres, and that area would have to be left for each well, meaning a loss of many thousands of tons of coal. The adjoining mineral owners would have no means of preventing that right of support except by working their coal within the period of 20 years.
    I am sorry my hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) is no longer in his place, because I am sure he would agree that that is an extraordinarily undesirable way of working coal. Coal ought to be worked with respect not to surface considerations or to questions of property ownership, but with respect to the nature of the seams, and for a coalowner to have imposed on him the necessity of digging coal within a period of 20 years might seriously interfere with the sane and wise working of a pit. This right of support would, as the Bill stands, be acquired by common law, not under the Bill and not through the Railway and Canal Commissioners, so that a coalowner whose neighbour had acquired these rights of support would have no remedy and no claim for any compensation. The same result might conceivably come where a licensee had sunk his bore hole by virtue of a right acquired from the Railway and Canal Commission. There is nothing in such a case to prevent the common law operating in favour of the licensee. I do not intend to press this Clause to a division at this late hour, but I am advised that this is a point of very great importance which may have far-reaching results on the getting of minerals. I am sorry to have brought it up without

    1715
    having had an opportunity of consulting beforehand with my hon. and learned Friend, because I think the ease might have been met by the Government, but it is a serious thing for owners adjoining an oil well, who might stand to be prejudiced and who would have no rights in the matter.
    The object of the Clause is simply to make sure that the ground licensee shall not secure these rights of support except by agreement or by application to the Railway and Canal Commissioners. He will then have to pay fair and proper compensation and not be in a position to experiment with considerable disorganisation and possibly unemployment in the neighbourhood without compensation. I am not wedded to the form of the Clause and I do not say it is ideal, but I hope that between now and the Report stage the Government will make sure that the Bill will not have the effect of allowing the common law to operate with altogether unreasonable hardship against owners who may be deprived, without any common law rights, of the rights they now enjoy.
    The CHAIRMAN: I ought to remind the Committee that they have not seen the Clause in the form in which the Noble Lord moved it. I have studied it carefully, and the alteration is purely a matter of drafting, taking out certain words and putting in others to the same effect. If the Committee do not wish it I shall not read the Clause.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I think we ought to hear it, perhaps
    The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the Noble Lord who moves it will read the Clause.
    Marquess of HARTINGTON: It reads:
    "A person holding a licence under this Act shall not acquire, by reason of the execution by him of any works for the purpose of exercising the rights granted by such licence; any right in law to require the owner of any lands or minerals to leave support for any such works otherwise than by agreement or by obtaining such right of support under Section three of this Act."
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: The effect of the Clause would be to deprive someone who bores under the machinery of the Act from the Common Law right which he would otherwise have in common
    1716
    with everyone, a right to support from neighbouring land in respect of works or excavations which have lasted for 20 years. I think that was quite fairly the object as expressed by my Noble Friend who moved the Clause. The reply is that we do not see why people who are seeking to develop this industry should be placed in a worse position than everybody else. Those who excavate for coal and whose excavations remain for 20 years get exactly the same rights as against the neighbouring landowner as would someone who bores for petroleum, and I am afraid we could not possibly accept the Clause, which would really deprive those who develop this new industry under this Bill of a Common Law right which is enjoyed by everybody else. If the question of rights of support require consideration, it should be considered as a whole, and the position of all those who get the advantage of rights of support should be considered together. We could not possibly accept the cutting down of that right in respect of the particular class of people who may be affected by this Bill.
    11.55 p.m.
    Captain WATERHOUSE: If the Noble Lord is right, as I have reason to think he is, that something like two and a-half acres of coal would have to be left for support round an ordinary well, then the Government by this Bill are not merely confiscating the oil, but confiscating some thousands of tons of the landlord's coal round every one of these borings. Moreover, they are putting the workers of coal to very grave difficulty and extra expense. That is an attitude which the Government ought to consider most carefully before they come to a definite decision. It is bad enough that they should confiscate the oil, but that they should put this extra difficulty in the way of the colliery owners and indulge in this extra piece of confiscation is not what the House understood to be the position when the Second Reading was moved.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.
    Schedule (Licences in force under the Petroleum (Production) Act, 1918), agreed to.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  NATIONAL MARITIME MUSEUM [MONEY].
  Resolution reported,
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the establishment of a National Maritime Museum and for the addition of certain lands to Greenwich Park, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment by any Board appointed under the said Act to manage the Museum of any moneys received by them into the Exchequer except as otherwise provided by the said Act;

  (b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses not otherwise provided for by the said Act incurred by the said Board in carrying the said Act into effect, including any salaries or remuneration paid to the Director of the Museum or to any officers appointed by the said Board;

  (c) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Works in carrying the said Act into effect."

  CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
  Ordered,
  That so much of the Lords Message [28th June] as relates to the appointment of a Committee on Consolidation Bills be now considered.—[Sir F. Thomson.]
  So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.
  Ordered,
  That a Select Committee of Six Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider
  1718
  all Consolidation Bills in the present Session.—[Sir F. Thomson.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
  Committee nominated of Mr. Entwistle, Mr. Fielden, Mr. Janner, Mr. Holford Knight. Major Milner, and Mr. Ross Taylor.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered,
  That Three be the quorum.—[Sir F. Thomson.]

  NATIONAL MARITIME MUSEUM BILL.
  Mr. George Hall, Lieut. - Colonel Llewellin, an. Sir Murdoch McKenzie Wood nominated Members of the Select Committee on the National Maritime Museum Bill.—[Sir F. Thomson.]

  ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION) BILL [Lords].
  Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Two Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.