NEW CLAUSE.—(Leases not to be refused unreasonably.) (Hansard, 8 February 1938)

§ Mr. H. G. Williams
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

§ Sir S. Cripps
On a point of Order. Has not the principle of this Clause been negatived already on the Clause moved by the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake)—(Certain provisions of new leases)

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The Committee will realise that I am in a little difficulty about this because I did not hear the Debate. I understand that there was a difference between the two points.

§ Sir S. Cripps
I think the Committee will agree that the Debate there was whether this should be left finally in the decision of the Commission or should be put in the hands of another person. The 998 Debate proceeded on the question whether the Commissions should be master in their own house, and on that basis I understand that the Committee turned down the Clause.

§ Mr. H. G. Williams
As I understand it, the Debate on that new Clause covered in part the underlying principle of mine, but in the main it dealt with people who are already in possession of leases, whereas mine deals with people who may never have had a lease, and therefore it covers a very much wider point. If hon. Members will look at the proposed new Clause—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I have made inquiries of the Chairman of Ways and Means as to the circumstances, and I understand that this Clause was not called previously.

§ Sir S. Cripps
It was specifically dealt with, and I am sure that the Secretary for Mines will bear me out and say that he also particularly dealt with this point. I dealt with it in the remarks I made at that time and I thought that it had been thoroughly debated.

§ Captain Crookshank
If I am to say anything on this point it is that I understood, with the hon. and learned Member opposite, that the Clause had been dealt with.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I did not hear the Debate, and as it has been passed by the Chairman I had better leave it and allow it.

§ Mr. H. G. Williams
Whatever course the previous Debate may have taken does not alter the fact that my new Clause deals with a point not covered by the new Clause to which reference is being made. If hon. Members will look at Clause 2 they will see that the Commission are given the duty of granting coalmining leases. I am moving this new Clause solely because I want to preserve a measure of liberty to the people of this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! "] I know that hon. Members opposite believe in the Socialist principle and do not believe in liberty, but that is no reason why I should not do my best for what I happen to believe in. This new Clause was put forward as an Amendment to Clause 2, but my draftsmanship was not sufficiently succesful, and I was told that it was not appropriate at that point, and 999 my attention was directed to another Clause. I tried there and failed, and I was told that the appropriate place to introduce the point was in a new Clause. I therefore felt a little sad that the hon. and learned Gentleman should try to trip me up after the Chairman had previously tripped me up twice.
A large number of people are owners of coal. They are so numerous that if any citizen thinks he would like to own a coal mine the chances are that he will find some coalowner willing to do business with him and grant him a lease. [HON. MEMBERS: "At a price! "] If he is reasonable he will be able to obtain a lease on terms which, if his judgment is right, will enable him to conduct the coal mine properly. The only coal mine in which any coal miner wants to work is one that is conducted properly, and no coal miner wants to work in a coal mine which is conducted at a loss. If we are to monopolise the ownership of coal, only one authority will be in a position to grant a lease, and that is the Commission. If only one authority has the right to grant a lease, and an unqualified right to refuse to grant a lease to any particular person, it is clear that the rights of the citizen to become the owner of a coal mine or to start a new coal mine are destroyed.
Therefore, I think hon. Members will see that in my Clause there is involved the fundamental principle of the liberty of the British subject to enter into any occupation that he desires to enter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I know that hon. Members opposite are anxious to destroy the liberty of the people, and I am glad they are interrupting me because it gives me the opportunity of enforcing the point that they are the enemies of liberty. The terms of the Clause are very reasonable. It imposes upon the Commission the duty of granting leases, but they are free to refuse the granting of a lease, though I want to attach to that that they shall not refuse to grant a lease unreasonably, in other words, because they do not like you or because they wish to direct the whole future development of the industry, which I do not think is desirable. I think that in the long run the fact that a large number of people are free to make decisions leads to better results than one person acting as a dictator and having the 1000 sole power to make decisions. Therefore, I do not want the Commission to be in a position to refuse to grant a lease to anybody who comes along without giving any reason at all. In other words, if they refuse to grant a lease, they must have good reasons for so doing. Furthermore, if they grant a lease, they must not include in it unreasonable terms.
I am pleading a cause to this Committee. If I had been pleading this cause in any House of Commons elected up to 10 years ago, I should not have had a single opponent. It is an interesting commentary on the change of public opinion that it is even necessary for me to propose this Clause. It is a significant commentary on the political thought of this country that a Government can introduce a Bill which presumes that an autocratic body can deprive the citizen of his rights, and the fact that a Member should seek to preserve those rights is regarded as a matter for jeering by a party that professes to call itself the champion of democracy. It is an interesting comment on our political philosophy. I am one of those who with others are trying to preserve a measure of freedom in this country. It is not easy. We see freedom being completely eliminated over half of what we call the civilised world since 20 years ago, the right of free expression of views destroyed, the right of free entry into an industry destroyed, and the right of the citizen to enter into any occupation that he thinks fit to enter destroyed. I do not want any statutory barrier placed in his way to enter any occupation, because I believe it is vital. The freedom of the people, free economic development, the preservation of free institutions, the preservation of that very democracy which we all think we stand for. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I do not mind the jeers of those who look forward to the time when they will all be little Lenins and little Stalins, but I am concerned with the idea that we should not in our Acts of Parliament, even by appearance, do things which destroy the right of people to choose their own occupations. It is in that sense and in the hope that I shall receive some support that I move the Second Reading of this Clause.

§ Sir Joseph Nall
I differ from the Mover of this Clause only on one point, 1001 when he says that public opinion has so changed that it now accepts the kind of dictatorship that is indicated in the Bill. I am convinced that public opinion does not accept it. There is a very widespread feeling of resentment against the dictatorial powers that are claimed in the Bill. I hope the Minister will consider this Clause. It is unreasonable that the authority in whom is to be vested the right to grant leases should have an absolute and unfettered right to decide whether or not a lease should be granted, and be entitled to impose whatever kind of conditions they wish to impose in granting a lease. There ought to be some kind of appeal against an abuse of the authority to be reposed in the new Commission. If the terms of this Clause are not regarded as satisfactory, I suggest to the Government that there ought to be some kind of appeal against abuse in the granting of leases, otherwise we may find that not only a new person endeavouring to come into the industry may be deprived of the lease which he seeks, but an existing colliery undertaking seeking a lease of adjoining coal may resent or feel aggrieved at the decision in regard to their application. There ought to be some appeal in cases of that.

§ Captain Crookshank
The Mover of the Clause admitted that he was not here when we were discussing an earlier Clause which dealt inherently with the same matter. The earlier Clause was a proposition that if the renewal of a lease was unreasonably withheld, there should be the right of arbitration. This Clause says that if a new lease is unreasonably refused there should be reference to the Railway and Canal Commission. The principle which we negatived earlier is the same principle that is brought forward here.

§ Mr. H. G. Williams
It is not the same principle. The first question was whether a person already in the industry is entitled to a renewal of his lease. That is a question as to whether he is entitled to continue. The underlying principle of my Clause is whether a person who is not in the industry is entitled to enter the industry. That is a fundamentally different principle.

§ Captain Crookshank
It does not fundamentally alter the answer I am going to give, and for this reason. What this Bill 1002 seeks to do and what we have passed in earlier Clauses, so long ago that the facts are already forgotten, is to place the coal of the country under a statutory body which will, according to Clause 2 (1), so manage the business consistently with the provisions of this Act as they think best for promoting the interests, efficiency and better organisation of the coalmining industry. At the same time under Clause 2 (2) they do that subject to the general direction of the Board of Trade in matters appearing to the Board to affect the national interest. Therefore, this body, which will be charged with very great powers and important functions, will surely be the body above all, from the vast knowledge of the industry which they will accumulate, best fitted to decide what is in the interests of the industry, subject to what is the national interest. The suggestion of this Clause is that if they refuse to grant a lease there is to be recourse to the Railway and Canal Commission. The reason why the Railway and Canal Commission is inserted here is because of the fact that up to to-day the Railway and Canal Commission have functioned when leases are refused under the Acts of 1923 and 1926. Under those Acts an appeal can be taken to them, but the only criterion by which the Railway and Canal Commission can judge is the national interest. While I am sure we all appreciate the sincerity of the views of my hon. Friend and ms desire that the maximum of freedom should be maintained in this country—which I certainly share with him—he must agree that it would be clearly anomalous for Parliament to set up a body to administer a property in the general interests of the industry and the national interest, and at the same time give jurisdiction to somebody else to override any decision that they make, on the ground that it is in the national interest to do so. That is contrary to the whole conception of the plan which we have been discussing up to now—that the Coal Commission are to consider these matters and act in the way they think best in the interests of the industry as a whole and the national interest. It would be inconsistent with that plan to provide that in individual cases there should be some review which could only be based on the national interest. I am sorry to disappoint my 1003 hon. Friend but I do not think it is reasonable to put these powers into a body such as the Railway and Canal Commission, overriding the Coal Commission which ex hypothesi would be in a position to know better what is in the interests of the coal industry and the national interest.

§ Sir J. Nall
Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that the Commission will have unfettered and dictatorial powers and that there will be no right of appeal?

§ Mr. H. G. Williams
Before asking leave to withdraw the Clause, may I say that I am not in the least disappointed at the reply of the hon. and gallant Gentleman? But I think it is a little pathetic that no Minister to-day is willing to accept something which, a quarter of a century ago no Minister would dare to oppose. So rapid has been the change and the decline in the view taken of personal liberty that to-day no Minister is prepared to take a view which would have been unanimously supported 25 years ago. Having made that comment on the decline in the democratic spirit in this country, I ask leave to withdraw the Clause.