HC Deb 13 July 1937 vol 326 cc1119-41

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Pritt

I was saying that the moral justification for any particular right that is to be expropriated sometimes has some effect on the provision as to the cost to be incurred in connection with making good the claim to compensation. Whatever may be the moral justification of royalty owners, it will probably be agreed by the whole House that their claim in morals is certainly not the highest claim that has ever been known, and yet they are being treated in the Bill better than any expropriated person in the history of English law. It is a general principle of compensation law that, in the absence of unreasonable conduct on the part of the expropriated person, the cost of the assessment of the compensation shall be borne by the expropriating authority, the Government, or someone other than the person who is being compensated. I do not think there is a single precedent hitherto for paying them also the cost of establishing the existence of their title, and yet the Bill is proposing to do that. If by some curious chance property of this kind resided in the working class, instead of in archbishops and dukes, I do not think that provision would have been found in it.

Another objection which arises from the nature of the subject-matter is that it is extremely difficult to discover from the Bill what kind of costs are going to be incurred. That is the fault, not of the Government, but of the complexity of the whole matter. We are dealing with large claims by a group of people who, whatever their merits, are known by the entire community to have demanded three times as much as they are getting and to have expected nearly twice as much, and in the circumstances they are not likely to deal with questions of costs and title with any very lenient hand. Smarting with disappointment, they will be prepared to spend money out of anyone's pocket when they are trying to make the best title they can make. Consequently we may feel sure that, with the knowledge that in this very Bill provision is being made for paying them costs which had never been paid to mortal man before, the costs will be on a very extravagant basis. If they knew that they had to pay all the costs of establishing their title out of their own pocket, my profession and kindred professions would not be looking forward with such a healthy appetite to the operation of the Bill.

The Bill, especially if it is made compulsory, will create something very like a very valuable and important register of title. True, it will be an epitaph, and that will make it more attractive to many. Unlike registers of titles in so many countries, it will have the great disadvantage that, as I see it, it will not be in any way conclusive as to any matter of title at all. It is not easy in our complicated system of law to make any register of title to any real property conclusive, but it is not impossible. It has been done and it ought to be done again. I ask the Government to see in Committee that the Bill shall say that, when questions of title have been settled, it shall determine the title of any particular unit of ownership for good and all. If that is done, it will be a very much better Bill. Notwithstanding all its sins I, in common with most of my hon. Friends, shall support the Second Reading.

5.50 p.m.

Sir P. Harris

I do not claim to be either a miner or a mine owner, but I listened to the statement of the Secretary for Mines and he did not show his usual clarity. One of his particular gifts, as a private Member and as a Minister, is that he is able to give a precise statement of a Bill as well as, when occasion requires, precise criticism. He dismissed the Bill as a small rather innocent Measure of six Clauses. Most of the important material is to be found in the Schedules. The growing habit of putting the greatest part of a Bill into a Schedule is a bad one. It is rather disarming. Members read the Clauses and then have to study very complex Schedules. The Minister was not able to make clear the whole significance of these Schedules. It is our responsibility to study the financial position closely. The Financial Memorandum states: The cost of the staff and other administrative expenses of the Board of Trade under this Bill will probably not exceed £30,000 in a full financial year. We asked questions about the full significance of this £30,000, and the hon. Gentleman dismissed the matter under the cover of a Treasury custom. The Treasury always provides for a full financial year. before we part with the Bill we should have a more precise statement as to how the money is to be spent. First, how much is to be spent on administrative staff? There is nothing to differentiate the amount to be spent on staff and that to be spent on expenses. Is this organisation to be one of lawyers or is it to be merely a number of officials just entering claims in the register? We also have a right to know how long these registrations are to continue. The Second Schedule says: The Board shall not be liable to pay any such costs as aforesaid incurred in relation to a holding in respect of which no application for the registration of particulars is duly made within the period of six months beginning as to England and Scotland respectively on the date on which notice is first published in the 'London Gazette.' That seems to imply that there is going to be expedition. If registrations are not voluntarily made within six months, the applicants will not be given expenses. If that is so, a good deal of our criticism will go by the board. It ought to be made clear what is the liability of the Ministry of Mines and Parliament to the owners of royalties who are going to register their claims. I agree that it is very remarkable that Parliament is going to pay the expenses. Are they legal expenses or only the expenses of employing surveyors or mining experts to measure arid assess the value of their property? That all ought to be made clear. Is it merely a question of the legal title? I think the House, as the custodian of public money, ought to have it made clear what is the estimated total expense, not for one year but for the whole period of registration likely to ensue under the Bill.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Tinker

The Bill states that £30,000 has to be found in the first year out of moneys provided by Parliament. If that does not mean the taxpayer, I do not know what it means. Had it said that it had to be allocated out of certain moneys paid for in royalties it would have been clear to us, but it does not say that. If we allowed that to go through now without something definite we should let ourselves into a position that we have no right to be in. What is the meaning of this term?

Mr. Stanley

What term?

Mr. Tinker

The payment of the £30,000. The financial memorandum says that the expenses of the Board of Trade shall be defrayed out of moneys supplied by Parliament. We want the President of the Board of Trade to make it clear that that is the full responsibility that the House will have to meet. If we are told that whatever money is incurred in settling these claims will be found out of the ultimate charge of the £66,450,000, I should have no objection to the Measure, because I think it is the right thing to be done, but if we have to find one penny outside this large amount I shall ask my colleagues to vote against the Bill unless we are clear on the point.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Stanley

The House, I am sure, would not expect me to make a speech. My hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary for Mines explained very clearly and at considerable length the provisions of this Bill, but hon. Members who, during the course of the Debate, have raised particular points are, of course, entitled to expect an answer to them, and I will certainly try to give it to them. The Debate was opened by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall), who with his usual courtesy explained to me that he has an urgent and indeed inescapable engagement elsewhere and asked me to excuse his presence, but I would like to refer to some of the points which he raised. He was rather critical of my hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary for Mines because he said he was sensitive on this question of committing the House in advance. I think that the hon. Gentleman was sensitive on that point, and rightly sensitive. It is not only something that is due to those, who when the time comes to introduce the major Bill, may be opposed to it either in principle or in detail, but I think it is something that is due to all hon. Members of this House that they should not, on a machinery Bill of this character, taken in isolation, when it is impossible to discuss many of the major items, find themselves by some decision committed to take a certain course on a Bill such as may be introduced.

I think that it is with the general agreement of hon. Members on all sides that we have been extremely careful so to draft this Bill that no hon. Member will find himself in that position when we come to the larger scope of the Debates upon the major Bill. Here for a moment let me deal with a few remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). The hon. Gentleman has an extremely suspicious mind.

Mr. Ede

He has learned a lot.

Mr. Stanley

He obtains, no doubt, considerable satisfaction from it, and I should be the last to try to deprive him of his pleasure, but I would only say to him, will he pity poor Members of the Government, because if he is so suspicious that the fact that we do introduce a Bill means that we do not mean to go on with anything else, what would he have said if we had done nothing at all? Surely his suspicion would have been expressed with redoubled force. Let me reassure him. The present Prime Minister made a definite statement to the House that he intended in the next Session to introduce a Bill dealing with the unification of coal royalties. I do not recede one inch from the statement that he then made and the pledge that he then gave to the House and to the country.

Mr. Lee

Is that irrespective of any return that may be made under this Bill?

Mr. Stanley

I am afraid that I do not quite understand the relevance of that question.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald

If the return is incomplete, will the Bill be proceeded with?

Mr. Stanley

That point was raised by another hon. Member. Let me make it quite plain that the date of the introduction of the main Bill is not in any way dependent upon the completion of the register under this Bill. The only object of this Bill is, in view of the fact that certainly three or four months must elapse before we can make any progress with the major Bill, to try to use that time to the best advantage possible, so that the final liquidation of the whole of this great problem may be expedited. I want the House to understand that when the next Session starts this Bill will have no effect on the date of the introduction of the major Bill.

Mr. George Griffiths

The Commission have said that the amount shall be £66,450,000. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept it from the date that it was declared, so that he will be able to deduct from the coal owners the amount they are now receiving?

Mr. Stanley

I think that the hon. Gentleman will realise that that quite clearly is a matter which falls to be discussed under the major Bill and not under this Bill. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of making his point abundantly in a few months' time.

Mr. Griffiths

I cannot sleep at nights for it.

Mr. Stanley

I regret that I am an innocent cause for prolonging the hon. Member's insomnia for yet a few more months, but I think that the House will clearly understand that this is one of the matters which will appertain to the major Bill and not to this Bill. The hon. Member for Aberdare also made the point that he would like to see the Bill strengthened but objected to the fact that it was a permissive and not a compulsory Bill. If he will reflect, he will see that, if you are, in fact, to have a Bill of this character which is designed not to prejudge the issues or to bind people down to strict definitions, it is almost impossible to have it anything except of a voluntary character. That is why the stimulus of this Bill which we have to-night is the carrot rather than the kick; and the provision that costs shall only be paid if registration takes place within six months is the sanction under this Bill, rather than the compulsion of the individual and penalties if he should fail. It is quite clear that in the major Bill there must be an element of compulsion and of finality of one kind or another, and that Bill must definitely say that at a particular period on a certain date the register must close and the particulars must be filled in. I would point out to hon. Members that there will be in the hands of the Government a very valuable sanction indeed, the sanction most valuable of all, of saying that those who at a certain date have not registered will be unable to share in the money which is to be provided for compensation.

I pass to another very important point which has been raised by several hon. Members—the question of the cost of this Bill. I will, first of all, deal with a rather more technical point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) as to the way in which these costs were put. I can myself see no other way in which you can express these costs, except on the assumption that they go on for a full year and represent the expenditure during that full year. It is at the moment impossible to estimate actually how long that task will take. It may be that nobody will take advantage of this permissive provision, but still the staff will be employed and will be drawing wages. It may be that 100 per cent. may register in the first month or two, when clearly the task of the staff would be shortened immensely. In any case, it will be impossible to give any reliable estimate until we have discussed the major Bill and have seen the time limit given in that Bill for the completion of this registration. I suggest that the usual plan of giving the cost of the service as for a full year is the only one that can be adopted. With regard to the particulars as to what staff is to be employed, how many are to be lawyers and how many are to be clerks, I think that the hon. Baronet would probably like to adopt the normal course, which is, to wait for information of that kind till the necessary Supplementary Estimate is introduced, because that is the time when that kind of detail is more conveniently discussed.

I pass from this rather more technical point to the major points which have been raised as to the principles upon which these costs are being incurred. Hon. Members will realise that the expense of this Bill falls into two classes, one is the expense incurred by the Board of Trade, or in fact the Mines Department itself in the keeping of the register, the reception of these particulars and the checking of their accuracy, and the other the costs. which actually are incurred by those who desire to register, but whose costs are refunded under the provisions of this Bill. I think that with regard to the first part there is no dispute. This register is for the advantage of the Government. It is for the purposes of the people who are. eventually to be the owners of this, property and who, therefore, want the particulars of the property they are to, take over. Therefore, quite clearly these-expenses have to be incurred.

Some criticism has been raised both as. to the principle of refunding the cost to. the royalty owners and also some criticism as to what those costs may be. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), in a burst of legal candour, uttered before he left for another place, and only slightly obscured by an amending statement after he returned, says that to a lawyer it was not unreasonable that under conditions of this kind the reasonable cost of the persons whose property was being taken over should be paid by the person who is taking over the property. That, I think, is the reason which has. actuated the Government. After all, in this case it is the Government which is the mover. It is not the royalty owners who have come to us and said, "Can we sell our property." It is the Government which has said, "It is in the national interest that this property should be taken over," and in those circumstances it is only fair that the expenses necessary for ascertaining the actual property which is to be acquired under the Bill, should be paid by those people who are to acquire it.

Here I want to make plain something which, I think, has been rather misunderstood by a number of hon. Members. They have been worried at the idea that two gentlemen, to quote the hon. and learned Member opposite, the archbishop on the one hand and the duke on the other, might dispute between themselves as to the title to a particular unit of holding and carry on that dispute in the most expensive and luxurious way, entirely at the expense of the taxpayer, and I quite see that that is a prospect which would fill any but a lawyer with alarm. I direct the attention of hon. Members to Sub-section (4) of Clause 1, where they will see in paragraph (d): Such matters of title as are requisite for the identification of the holding as a unit of separate ownership. That is the information which the Board require and which the person who registers has to furnish. The object is not to establish which of two individuals has the legal title to a particular holding. The object of the registration is to establish the holding, and only such matters of detail as are requisite for the identification of the holding need be registered. Therefore, it will be for the Board of Trade, who are the registering authorities, to say whether they think it necessary for this dispute between the archbishop on the one side, and the duke on the other, to be resolved before they can sufficiently identify the holding.

Mr. Pritt

By virtue of Part 1 of the Second Schedule, Clause 2, Sub-section (3), the Board might send to the Court any issue arising in connection with the ascertainment of the facts material to the proposed legislation. It is true that the motion must come from the Board, but upon every single question of any kind the Board has to make up its mind, and, therefore, it can only do so by sending it to the Court.

Mr. Stanley

I am glad that the hon. and learned Member agrees that it lies with the Board, and that, therefore, it is for the Board to say whether, if there is a dispute as to title, it makes impossible the identification of the holding.

Mr. Pritt

It is any fact material to the register, including the ownership.

Mr. Stanley

The hon. and learned Member has an advantage over me here, but I only want to impress on the House the fact that it rests with the Board to decide. It is for them to say: "Despite this dispute between two people as to the legal title to the coal, we have sufficient information to enable us to identify the holding."

Mr. Pritt

There is more than that in it.

Mr. Stanley

I do not think there is any good in carrying out a sort of Nervo and Knox argument across the Table. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which is Nervo? Which is Knox?"] I leave hon. Members to decide. I can only say that that is what I am informed is the legal interpretation. That is the intention of the Board of Trade, and when the Bill comes to Committee if there is any doubt about this provision we can on an Amendment discuss it in the ordinary way. I should, however, like to make it quite plain that it is not the intention of the Board that the provisions of these Schedules shall be used for the resolution of disputes between two parties as to the legal title to particular coal.

Sir Stafford Cripps

In that case will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the meaning of the proviso in paragraph (1) of Part II, on page 13, line 6, with regard to the payment of costs?: Provided that, if two or more applications are made in relation to the same holding, which I presume is a disputed action the liability of the Board under this sub-paragraph shall be limited to such a sum as would have been payable by them if a single application only had been made, so however that the Board may pay costs in excess of that sum in any case in which it appears to them that the making of more than one application was justified having regard to any special circumstances. Surely, that contemplates a dispute between two owners being settled by the court.

Mr. Stanley

I am not denying that it may be necessary in a particular case for the Board to refer the matter to the court, but the provision to which the hon. and learned Member has called attention is to prevent duplication of registration costs. The point that I want to make is that it is at the volition of the Board that an application to the Court is made, and not of the claimant.

Perhaps I may now pass to some other points that were raised. One was the question of the secrecy of the register. The hon. and learned Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Pritt), in a burst of candour which was reminiscent more of his speeches at this end of the Strand than of his speeches at the other end of the Strand, said that he needed that for the purpose of propaganda. He can hardly expect this House to legislate simply for the purpose of providing him with propaganda.

Mr. Pritt

Then it is the case that His Majesty's Government think that information on public matters must be concealed in order to prevent legitimate propaganda?

Mr. Stanley

That sort of interruption by the hon. and learned Member makes me realise why he has made such a great success at the Bar. It is a case of the old and traditional practice of saying exactly the opposite of what your opponent has said, in order to prove what a bad case he has. The hon. and learned Member said exactly the opposite of what I said. On the question of secrecy it is clear that so long as this register is optional and is still conditional before reaching finality on the passage of the main Bill, its contents must be secret. To start with, unless confidences are observed it may make it very difficult to get the register which we desire. Secondly, it may well be that when the major Bill is passed there may be some alteration in the actual registration which has to take place, and before that happens the disclosure of prior applications would, of course, be grossly unfair.

Let it be remembered that the register starts as the register of holdings in the possession of private individuals, but it will end as the register of holdings which are the property of the State. When that happens and the register is simply a description of what the State in one form or another owns, I myself, although I can make no pledge at the moment, can see no objection whatsoever to its being made public. But I must warn the hon. and learned Member about the propaganda business, because he will realise that nobody is going to register values or the amount of the money they are receiving by way of royalties. I am afraid, therefore, that it will be very dull reading for some hon. Members.

Now I pass to a most important point which was raised by my Noble Friend the Member for Newark (Marquess of Titchfield). He raised the position of the surface owner. This is a rather complicated matter, to which I want to give a careful reply. The purpose of the register is to obtain information which will be useful for the assessment of compensation under the main Bill. It is, therefore, important that the particulars registered should include the particulars not only of the mineral property in a physical sense but also of the working rights annexed to it, and of any restrictions with which that mineral property may be burdened. Obviously, those matters affect the value of the property on which compensation is to be paid. The existence of such rights or restrictions that we want to have registered may affect persons who have no mineral interests themselves and are, therefore, outside the scope of the Bill. Here I want to make it quite clear that because such persons are outside the scope of the Bill no statement or particulars that are entered on the register can in any way affect or prejudice the rights of such persons.

Perhaps I might give an instance. The Board of Trade may be invited to register that there is annexed to a given area of coal a right to withdraw support from the surface without any obligation to repair damage or pay compensation. It will be the duty of the Board of Trade to satisfy itself whether or not such a claim is correct. Even if the board accepted such a claim in error the owner of the surface would be entirely unaffected because under the Bill he is not a party to it and, therefore, that could have no binding effect against him. Similarly in the case of an owner of coal who has registered particulars of his property, he may have overlooked the existence of some restrictive covenant which affects the working of it. No such omission could affect the rights of the person who had the benefit of that covenant which the applicant had omitted to register. The complete safeguard for anyone who might otherwise have been affected by this Bill in his capacity as a surface owner is that there is no reference to him in the Bill, and, therefore, nothing that is done in the Bill could affect his rights. With regard to those who are within the scope of the Bill, I can promise that what they register under this Bill will not be held conclusive for the purpose of the main Bill until they have been given an opportunity on the passage of the main Bill to reconsider the information after they see in full the purposes for which it is required, as set out and defined by the main Bill.

Sir S. Cripps

Is the right hon. Gentleman going to ask the High Court to adjudicate on a case and to say: "Your decision really means nothing, because anybody can reconsider it later on and litigate it all over again?"

Mr. Stanley

Certainly not. We shall never bring to the notice of the High Court anything which will not be affected by what I have just announced. Clearly, you cannot make conclusive upon the man who registers, information which he gives in ignorance of the definite purposes for which it is required. The definitions will be included in the main Bill and he will be given a chance of seeing those definitions, and before the information that he has given is regarded as finally binding and conclusive opportunity will be given to him to amend it.

The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) asked me a question in regard to leasehold property. Leasehold property will not be registered, but it will be necessary for those who register the three classes of rights to which they are entitled, to give any necessary information about leasehold property.

Mr. J. Griffiths

What I am concerned about is that leases are to be registered. Page 4 defines what a lease and a sublease are. If there are disputes, as there conceivably may be, about leases, and they may well be more numerous about leases than disputes about title to the whole property, will the cost of disputes of that character have to be paid for just as the cost of disputes about titles?

Mr. Stanley

The hon. Member is wrong. Leases have not to be registered. My hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Mines in his opening speech, explained as will be found in the First Schedule, the units of separate ownership which are to be registered, namely, freehold possession, freehold reversions, and leasehold reversions in the case of an underlease of a main lease. A simple leasehold is not a unit of holding and, therefore, as such it has not to be registered.

Mr. Griffiths

I know of collieries where there are separate leases to work three separate seams from the same royalty owner, for varying purposes. When we come to the major Bill I presume that it will contain provisions by which all these leases are surrendered to the State.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker {Captain Bourne)

Mr. Speaker pointed out that on this Bill we cannot discuss the provisions of the main Bill.

Mr. Griffiths

Are not all these leases to be registered? In Clause 4 there are definitions and interpretations. Lease, for example, includes an under-lease and an agreement. I take it, therefore, that leases are to be registered.

Mr. Stanley

This is rather a small point, but it does not in the least affect the register. Information as to leases would have to be given.

Sir S. Cripps

Is not that to be one of the matters as to which an interested person can complain to the High Court if a wrong entry is made in a particular registration document as to the provisions of a lease? Therefore, questions concerning leases could be litigated in that way.

Mr. Stanley

Subject to what I have already explained, it is not necessary that we should know which of the two is really entitled to the lease. It is the same point over again. I know that the hon. and learned Member disagrees with me, and no doubt the matter will be more fully explored in Committee stage. The only other point is that raised by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), who wanted to know whether there was any contradiction between the Financial Memorandum, Clause 2 of the Bill and the explanation given by the Secretary for Mines. The issue is quite simple. We cannot consider in this Bill the provisions of a Bill which has not yet been presented and, therefore, for the moment this work is undertaken by the Board of Trade and the expenses are paid by the Board of Trade. But that does not preclude us, when the time comes to present the major Bill to Parliament, from including proposals that these payments shall be dealt with in a different way. I have endeavoured to the best of my ability to answer the questions which have been raised and I think that in all quarters of the House there is general acceptance of its principles. I hope, therefore, the House will now be prepared to give it a Second Reading.

6.34 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

I should not create a breach in the well understood Rules of the House that the Minister should make the last speech on a Bill, were it not for the perfectly extraordinary suggestion the right hon. Gentleman has put forward, a suggestion which has never been put before the House before. He now says that although the Bill sets up a register of the proprietary interests in coal mines in Great Britain and in certain other properties and rights in land, the particulars which will appear in that register are not to bind in any sense the people who register.

Mr. Stanley

indicated dissent.

Sir S. Cripps

That is specifically what the right hon. Gentleman stated.

Mr. Stanley

What I said was that they would not bind the people who register until after the passage of the main Bill and they have had a chance, therefore, of seeing the definitions in that Bill. Ultimately they will be bound.

Sir S. Cripps

This is becoming more and more like an Alice in Wonderland or an Alice through the Looking Glass as a piece of legislation. Either this register will ascertain and finally decide the rights and titles of the parties to the coal mines in this country or it will not. It cannot do that at one time and not at another time. There is no provision in the Bill which says that it shall not bind anybody until after another Bill has been passed and that when the other Bill has been passed it shall bind them. There is no suggestion of that kind. The President of the Board of Trade shakes his head, but that is what he has just said. He has said that it is not the intention of the Bill to bind people who register as regards their titles and particulars of their titles until after they have seen the main Bill and have had an opportunity of considering in the light of the provisions of the main Bill whether they desire to be bound or not.

This is the most fantastic suggestion ever put forward in the House of Commons. It means that you are setting up a great elaborate piece of machinery and going to provide, at the cost of the State, for an infinity and a maximum number of appeals to the High Court on every conceivable subject. You are going to have this elaborate procedure and a whole series of decisions by the High Court, and then you are going to turn round and say to the subjects whose title has been decided, "This is only just for fun that we are going to the High Court, it does not bind anybody. When you know and see how we are going to divide the money you can come forward and dispute the title." That is an impossible attitude to take up. Unless the registration is going to decide something finally it is of no value to anybody. It is unnecessary to have a trial canter as regards registration of coal mines. There are plenty of particulars in the Department already. Unless you are going to say at once that matters referred to the High Court or left unreferred to the High Court are going to bind the people who have chosen to register themselves under the Bill, it seems to me the Bill is a perfectly useless vain piece of paper, merely wasting public money, and arriving at an ascertainment of something which is not intended to be final and of no value whatever.

One other matter—the question of the costs of the litigations. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was the usual thing that the one who was acquiring the property paid the costs of the person whose property was being acquired. That is true as far as the ascertainment of compensation is concerned, but not true of the ascertainment of title. In this case the ascertainment of compensation has taken place; it is 66,500,000, and all that remains now is the ascertainment of title. A dispute between royalty owners will be which is to get the greater or lesser share of the money, of the loot as one hon. Member described it, and it has never before been laid down in our legislation that disputes as to title between rival property owners should be paid for by the State. That is what is suggested here. I regard this as a serious matter. When we come to the much larger questions of land nationalisation and the nationalisation of industries, we shall be paying for infinitely more disputes than we shall have to pay for in this case. When people can get these disputes settled free of charge they are going to enjoy themselves. It is hard enough to stop people disputing about title when they have to pay out of their own pockets, but if the State is going to pay it will be impossible to stop them disputing. It becomes a sport.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider seriously this question because it is setting up an entirely new precedent. I have nothing to say, under the system under which we operate, of acquiring property and paying the costs of the persons whose land is being acquired —it has long been the custom to do so—but to introduce at this date a new incidence of expense in the acquisition of land or of mining royalties or any other forms of property, is wholly unjustified and can only have arisen from pressure put by these interests upon the Government. It really is time that this Government which one sees arrayed on the Front Bench had a little more of what is vulgarly called guts, and that on this little matter of costs should stand up against these vested interests and tell them that they refuse to create a new precedent just because they demand it as the owners of royalties. I hope the Minister, if he is really going on with what now appears to be a perfectly futile piece of waste paper, will at least guard the people of the country from this further imposition in the interests of vested proprietors.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Ede

In the earlier part of the discussion hon. Members anticipated that the reply would be made by the Attorney-General—

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell)

I have sat in the House during the whole of the Debate but I do not know why it should have induced hon. Members to think that I was going to reply.

Mr. Ede

After hearing the reply of the President of the Board of Trade they will probably feel that their logic is right even if their prophecy is wrong. Those of us who are not lawyers feel a little discomfort after the speeches of the Secretary for Mines and the President of the Board of Trade. The Secretary for Mines in explaining the Bill was careful to tell us that he was not a lawyer, and the President of the Board of Trade in the course of his numerous sallies with the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) took pride in the fact that he shared with the majority of hon. Members the advantage of not being a lawyer. I do not know what most laymen feel about this Bill, but after the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, and the obvious discomfort of the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with the various questions addressed to him, I feel that we ought to have some guidance from one of the Law Officers with regard to the points which have been raised by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). The announcement made by the President of the Board of Trade, almost casually, that this registration would not bind either the royalty owners or the Government when we come to consider the final Bill, puts an entirely new complexion on what we are doing to-day.

What will royalty owners feel after this announcement? Why should there be any statement of registration at all, when if the statement of registration makes it rather awkward for the Government, they may repudiate the basis on which they have been going and introduce an entirely fresh basis altogether? I hove the President of the Board of Trade will realise that those who came here with the best feelings in the world towards the Bill, who do not share the opinions of the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), who anticipated that the Second Reading would be more or less a formal affair, have been given cause for grave misgivings by what he has said, and by the criticism that has been made of it. If the Front Bench opposite feel that their lips are sealed, there is always the unpaid legal adviser of the Government, the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), who generally comes to their assistance and who, I have no doubt, will be duly rewarded for it in good time. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will hasten the good time a little bit, if neither of the hon. and learned Gentlemen on the Front Bench feels called upon to reply, by giving us his views on the rightness or wrongness of what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) said. I do not think the Government can expect us to accept as satisfactory the position we have now reached.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. Attlee

We seem to have been brought into an extraordinary position. I have read the proceedings on this Bill in another place and I have studied the Bill. It was not until the right hon. Gentleman made his speech that we were brought into this extraordinary position. I think the House is entitled to know what is the purpose of this Bill. We have had too much trouble with this sort of Bill already. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor brought in a Bill which he did not understand; it was emasculated, and then had to be withdrawn hurriedly. We now have another Bill which apparently is equally futile. Is it eyewash? Is it that something was put in the Government's election address and in the King's Speech, and that now something has to be done about it? We took up the line that the Bill was a genuine attempt to do what the Government felt it was best to do. We had made up our mind not to oppose the Bill, but if we do not get a better explanation, we shall nave to oppose it.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. Stanley

I can reply only by leave of the House. I waited until everybody had risen to speak, including the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), and I do not think the Leader of the Opposition was in the House while I was making the speech of which he complained. I wish to make it clear to the House that this is not an

"eyewash" Bill. There is no intention of considering this Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think, as fulfilling the pledge of the Government. The Prime Minister has already stated that the major Bill will be introduced next Session. I think it was clear to every hon. Member that it could not be introduced during this Session, and that meant that there would be an interval of two or three months. The Government felt that during that time it would be a good thing to get together as much information as possible, and thereby shorten the process in the long run. Nobody pretends that a Bill of this sort, which is preliminary to the main Bill, can be conclusive in character. We believe that the passage of this Bill, which will enable the register to be set up and the next three months to be used in getting information, will save time when the major Bill is introduced and passed.

Mr. Attlee

I gather that this register is not to be conclusive on anything. That is the cause of the trouble.

Mr. Stanley

The right hon. Gentleman will realise that under the terms of this Bill the owners will have six months in which to register these claims. We hope and believe that the major Bill will be the law of the land before those six months have passed. What I meant by the statement I made was that if a royalty owner rushes in and is first to register, when the major Bill is passed, he will have an opportunity of making any amendment of the particulars that he has supplied. The House will realise that there is no obligation and no inducement to anybody to register in under six months, and we hope and believe that before that time has passed the major Bill will be through.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 203; Noes, 118.

Division No. 281.] AYES. [6.49 p.m.
Acland-Treyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Bennett, Sir E. N. Cartland, J. R. H.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Bernays, R. H. Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Albery, Sir Irving Boulton, W. W. Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Bower, Comdr. R. T. Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Aske, Sir R. W. Boyce, H. Leslie Channon, H.
Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover) Brass, Sir W. Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Atholl, Duchess of Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Chorlton, A. E. L.
Baillie, Sir A. W. M. Brocklebank, Sir Edmund Christie, J. A.
Balfour, G. (Hampstead) Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham) Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith) Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M. Bull, B. B. Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Butcher, H. W. Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury) Butler, R. A. Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Campbell, Sir E. T. Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs) Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H. Rosbotham, Sir T.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n) Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L. Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth) Rowlands, G.
Craven-Ellis, W. Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose) Royds, Admiral P. M. R.
Crooke, J. S. Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Salmon, Sir I.
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. Salt, E. W
Crossley, A. C. Latham, Sir P. Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Crowder, J. F. E. Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak) Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Cruddas, Col. B. Lees-Jones, J. Savery, Sir Servington
Do Chair, S. S. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Denman, Hon. R. D. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L. Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Denville, Alfred Lewis, O. Simmonds, O. E.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. Liddall, W. S. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H. Lloyd, G. W. Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Drewe, C. Loftus, P. C. Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Duggan, H. J. Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A. MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Spens, W. P.
Edmondson, Major Sir J. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross) Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. McEwen, Capt. J. H. F. Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Ellis, Sir G. McKie, J. H. Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Emmott, C. E. G. C. Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J. Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Entwistle, Sir C. F. Magnay, T. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Erskine-Hill, A. G. Manningham-Buller, Sir M. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Fildes, Sir H. Marsden, Commander A. Tasker, Sir R. I.
Furness, S. N. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Titchfield, Marquess of
Goodman, Col. A. W. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Train, Sir J.
Gower, Sir R. V. Morgan, R. H. Tree, A. R. L. F.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral) Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) Wakefield, W. W.
Gridley, Sir A. B. Munro, P. Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Grigg, Sir E. W. M Nall, Sir J. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Grimston, R. V. Nicolson, Hon. H. G. Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Gritten, W. G. Howard O'Connor, Sir Terence J. Warrender, Sir V.
Guy, J. C. M. O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Waterhouse, Captain C.
Hannah, I. C. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A. Watt, G. S. H.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H. Orr-Ewing, I. L. Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Harbord, A. Peake, O. Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Harvey,' T. E. (Eng. Univ's.) Peat, C. U. Williams, C. (Torquay)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Perkins, W. R. D. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Petherick, M. Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Pickthorn, K. W. M. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Hepworth, J. Pilkington, R. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.) Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Wise, A. R.
Higgs, W. F. Procter, Major H. A. Withers, Sir J. J.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S. Raikes, H. V. A. M. Womersley, Sir W. J.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. Ramsbotham, H. Wragg, H.
Horsbrugh, Florence Ramsden, Sir E. Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Hudson, R. S. (Southport) Rayner, Major R. H.
Hume, Sir G. H. Reed, A. C. (Exeter) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.
Hunter, T. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) Sir George Davies and Mr. Cross.
Hutchinson, G. C. Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
NOES.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Day, H. Kirby, B. V.
Adamson, W. M. Dobbie, W. Kirkwood, D.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.) Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Lathan, G.
Ammon, C. G. Ede, J. C. Leach, W.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) Lee, F.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Foot, D. M. Leonard, W.
Banfield, J. W. Frankel, D. Leslie, J. R.
Barnes, A. J. Gallacher, W. Logan, D. G.
Barr, J. Gardner, B. W. Lunn, W.
Batey, J. Garro Jones, G. M. Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. Gibson, R. (Greenock) MacLaren, A.
Broad, F. A. Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) Maclean, N.
Bromfield, W. Green, W. H. (Deptford) Mander, G. le M.
Brown, C. (Mansfield) Grenfell, D. R. Marshall, F.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) Griffiths, C. A. (Hemsworth) Mathers, G.
Buchanan, G. Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Maxton, J.
Burke, W. A. Harris, Sir P. A. Messer, F.
Cape, T. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Milner, Major J.
Charleton, H. C. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Montague, F.
Chater, D. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Muff, G.
Cluse, W. S. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. Holdsworth, H. Noel-Baker, P. J.
Cocks, F. S. Jagger, J. Oliver, G. H.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. Paling, W.
Dalton, H. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Parker, J.
Davies, Rt. J. (Westhoughton) Kelly, W. T. Parkinson, J. A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W. Simpson, F. B. Viant, S. P.
Pritt, D. N. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's) Walker, J.
Ridley, G. Smith, E. (Stoke) Watkins, F. C.
Riley, B. Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly) Watson, W. McL.
Ritson, J. Smith, T. (Normanton) Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.) Sorensen, R. W. Welsh, J. C.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) Stephen C. White, H. Graham
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens) Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng) Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Rowson, G. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.) Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey) Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Sanders, W. S. Thorne, W. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Sexton. T. M. Thurtle, E.
Silkin, L. Tinker, J. J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.

Lords Amendments to page 5, line 8, agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Cross.]