THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to compensation payable under Section six of this Act.)

HC Deb 10 February 1938 vol 331 cc1353-407

7.27 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, in page 50, line 1, to leave out from "underlease," to "and," in line 2.

This Amendment and the next Amendment are purely consequential on Amendments already made.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 50, line 7, at the end, insert: with the exception of any such interest that is a retained interest by virtue of a direction under Sub-section (2) of Section five of this Act."—[Captain Crookshank.]

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Bevan

I beg to move, in page 50, line 44, to leave out from "persons," to the end of line 4, page 51.

This Amendment, along with a number of other Amendments in the names of my hon. Friends and myself, raises a question of considerable importance, and, as the issue is entirely different from the one we have been discussing, it would be as well, perhaps, if I outlined the background of the position. The Amendment concerns the machinery which is to be set up for arriving at the valuation of compensation to be paid to mineral owners whose rights are to be purchased under the Bill. It is first proposed to establish a Central Valuation Board, which will consist of an independent person, who shall be the chairman, and who is a member of the legal profession, and two other independent persons, and the rest of the Board will be drawn from the valuation regions, which will be established by the Valuation Board itself. Assuming that the number of regions into which the mining areas of Great Britain are divided is 12, there will be a member for each of those regions on the Central Valuation Board, in which case the board will consist of 15 persons.

It is laid down that each individual member from each region shall be a person who is engaged in the management of mineral properties, so that, assuming that the Board consists of 15 persons, one will be the chairman, two will be independent persons, and the other 12 will be individuals employed by existing landlords in the management of mineral estates. The functions of the Central Valuation Board are not in themselves so important as the functions of the regional valuation boards. The first function of the central board will be to divide up the country into a number of regions, after which in each of those regions there will be a regional board, which will consist of all the managers of mineral estates in that region. There will be a chairman appointed by the Board of Trade, after consultation with mineral owners, but that regional board will consist entirely of the managers of mineral estates in that area.

Captain Crookshank

On a point of Order. The hon. Member is now talking about regional boards, but the Amendment has to do with the Central Valuation Board. Could we keep them distinct, because there is a Government Amendment on the second point which might alter what the hon. Member wants to say?

Mr. Bevan

I am not going to argue the principle of the regional board at all, but in order that the Committee might be able to understand the significance of our Amendments it is necessary to keep in mind the machinery of valuation, and I thought it was for the convenience of the Committee, as these Amendments raise almost the same principle, that we should have a general discussion upon mineral agents being members of either the central board or the regional board.

The Chairman

I think it would be inconvenient to discuss the regional boards at any length on this Amendment. We must keep the two Amendments separate.

Mr. Bevan

I accept your Ruling, Sir Dennis, but I thought it would be convenient if we could discuss the general principle, because, as a matter of fact, the Amendment on the Paper on behalf of the Government makes the position, from our point of view, much worse. However, the first point to be considered is that when a claim for compensation is made, it is first made to the regional board, which will assess the value of the claim. If the owner of the houses, the person making the claim, is aggrieved, he will appeal to the Central Valuation Board, consisting, as I have already said, of 12 representatives, each drawn from a valuation region and each of them being mineral agents. The central board nominates a referee, who shall hear the appeal of the owner of the houses against the original assessment made by the regional board, but that referee will be, or may be, a member of the central board, and he will himself be a manager of a mineral estate. He will therefore he hearing an appeal against a valuation made by mineral agents themselves, so that you have here a number of landlords, owners of mineral rights, making a claim for compensation, and their original assessment is made by their own employés. They appeal against the assessment, and the appeal is heard by another employé.

The only protection under this procedure is that the person who is appointed to be the referee shall not have been involved in the original valuation or a member of the board that made it. In the whole of this machinery the valuation and the appeal against it will be made by existing managers of mineral estates, who are employés of the landlord whose interests are being considered. The first point is that we consider that to be a highly undesirable proceeding, that a landlord's own employé should assess the value of the claim made by the landlord. The hon. and gallant Member may say, "Oh, it does not matter, because, after all, there is no more money to be paid by the State, and all that is going to happen is that the landlords will have a dog fight about the share that each shall have of the global figure, which is already determined. Therefore we are not interested at all to keep the ring; all that we do is to appoint a chairman and two independent members, who will, as it were, see to it that they do not go outside the ropes, and we are not bothered about the dog fight at all." The hon. and gallant Gentleman might say that it is also necessary that, in so far as the landlords are quarrelling, as they will be, about their individual shares of the £66,000,000, the arbitration tribunal which determines to each his share shall be one in which the landlords have confidence, because, after all, the State is not bothered about it, and the landlords themselves should be able to employ the assistance of their own mineral agents in the matter. I do not want to anticipate the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech, but that is probably what he will say to me as part of his reply. In the next place he will say, "After all, these people are the only people in the country who have the expert knowledge necessary to do this work, and you cannot employ anybody else."

As to the first point, that we are not interested in what happens to the individual landlord because the total sum of money to be paid has already been determined, the fact is that this is a matter of very great importance. While I do not wish to say a word against the hon. and gallant Gentleman, if he is not in a position to accept the Amendments, or Amendments of a similar kind, we shall want to have the services of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he is going to be immediately involved in this matter. Although it is true that these mineral agents will only be concerned in this regard in distributing the £66,000,000 among the mineral owners of the country, they will also be assessing, as far as I understand it, the value of ancillary minerals, and no quota is fixed there. In addition to the £66,000,000, there is an estimate of £10,000,000, and we are not even limited to that amount, because the assessment of the ancillary minerals might exceed the £10,000,000. Indeed, we do not know—we are not informed, because it is not known—what proportion of the £10,000,000 is to be used for that assessment, so that we are handing over to the employés of the landlords the valuation of unknown claims against the Exchequer.

This is a very complicated procedure, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman should interrupt me if I am incorrect, because if what I am saying is true, it is a very serious charge indeed against the Government and the procedure contemplated under the Bill. Each landlord will be making a claim, not only in respect of his share of the global sum, but also in respect of the ancillary minerals that might have to be worked, and he therefore will be making a claim for his share of the £10,000,000 or any more than the £10,000,000 that might be necessary. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree with me so far? If he does, it is a very serious matter indeed. We are handing over to the landlords the right to determine how much money the State shall pay for ancillary minerals. Obviously, if they are to have that right, they will assess their claims as high as they can, and the House is therefore being committed to the payment of an unknown figure. I am sure that this House would not part with its control over the expenditure of public money in such a way if it really understood what it was doing. It is being lured into accepting this machinery because of the reassurance that, the £66,000,000 having been fixed, we are not committed to any more.

If we had fixed the compensation to be paid for ancillary minerals in the same way, then we could view this procedure with some complacency, but the amount may be any figure within the £10,000,000, and it may be even more than the £10,000,000. As far as I understand it from the Bill, if the assessment comes to more than £10,000,000, the Commission will have to find the money, and additional borrowing powers will have to be given. It seems to me that that is a very serious position indeed. It is true that this body of men is a highly competent body, possessed of a knowledge that is not possessed by anyone else in the country. It is also true that the assessment of claims by the mineral owners cannot be made without the help of a body of this kind, and it is not intended by my Amendments that their services should be dispensed with. What we are suggesting is that the Central Valuation Board should consist exclusively of independent persons appointed by the Board of Trade. If the services of the mineral agents are needed, as they will be, they should be called in either as expert witnesses or as assessors. They ought not to be valuers themselves. No particular one of them should be a referee to adjudicate on a valuation, because he or one of his colleagues will have determined the procedure by which the valuation has been arrived at and the principles on which it has been obtained. If you give me the right to determine the procedure and the right to lay down the principles of the valuation, you will have gone a long way towards enabling me to tell what the amount will be.

Let us assume that a particular mineral agent is interested in a claim made by "A." He may have assessed the claim made by "A." He may be a member of the Central Valuation Board, and the mineral valuer, for, say, Yorkshire. There may be an appeal against an assessment of the Yorkshire regional board, of which he is a member. He cannot surely be a referee on that—you could have the referee appointed from Wales to umpire on the Yorkshire valuation—but he will have already had a share in the original procedure and in laying down the principles of valuation, and he will see to it that if possible the decision will favour his own assessment of his employer's rights. He may, therefore, in many instances have considerable opportunities of influencing the result of a valuation. That would seem to me to be altogether inequitable, and there is surely nothing unreasonable in our suggestion that if these mineral agents are employed they ought not to be employed as members of the Board but in the capacity of witnesses or assessors.

The Commission will have to find the expenses of the valuation, because the costs of valuation are included in the £10,000,000. Who will decide the procedure to be gone through? The people who will receive the damages—the mineral agents. They will decide the procedure of valuation and they will be paid as compensation, out of the £10,000,000, the expenses of the valuation. They will therefore have a vested interest in making the procedure as expensive as possible.

Mr. Peake

The scale is laid down.

Mr. Sevan

The scale is laid down, I think by the Treasury, but even if there is a scale laid down, that scale does not determine the amount of the expenses. It is the procedure that will determine that.

Mr. Peake

indicated dissent.

Mr. Bevan

The hon. Member shakes his head. He knows no more than I do what the procedure will be, because it is unknown. All that we know is that we have a bare skeleton of procedure set out. We may take it for granted that there will be a vested interest in appeals against valuations because the more appeals there are the more expenses there will be. In point of fact, we are handing over to these mineral valuers the opportunity of deciding how much of the £10,000,000 they are to receive from the Commission. That is an utterly unreasonable and unjustifiable procedure, and the way to get over it is for the mineral agents to be employed in every case in the capacity of witnesses or assessors. If they are so employed the independent persons who constitute the Central Valuation Board will have complete control over the procedure, and will not have a vested interest in making it as complicated and as expensive as possible.

There is not one hon. Member who would hand over his money in the way that is contemplated in this Bill. If hon. Members generally were seized with the undesirability of what is proposed to be done they would join with me in pressing my Amendment upon the Government. The Central Valuation Board must have a quorum of 10 members. There will be the Chairman who will be a legal representative, two independent members and seven mineral agents. At any legally-constituted meeting the mineral agents will be in a majority, and those agents will themselves in every instance be in the employ of the landlords and will be engaged in determining how much additional money, over and above the £66,000,000, can be extracted from the Commission. This seems to me to open up an endless vista of corruption and nepotism. It is highly undesirable that people should be placed in that position, and it is a gross abuse of public procedure that this machinery should be established.

7.55 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

My first words must be to take exception to the last words of the hon. Member, when he said that this opens up a vast vista of corruption. I would remind him that he is dealing with members of a very honourable profession—mineral agents.

Mr. Bevan

May I say at once that I was not making any charges, but it is surely good public policy to protect people from being exposed to temptation of this kind.

Captain Crookshank

I am glad the hon. Member has modified what he said.

Mr. Bevan

No. I said "endless possibilities." I did not say "endless corruption."

Captain Crookshank

The Amendment, if it were passed, would reduce the Central Valuation Board to three persons—an independent legal chairman and two other independent persons. We have adopted the procedure that is laid down in this Schedule for the valuation, for one or two obvious reasons. The first one is because the work of mineral valuation is very technical and there are very few people who are capable of exercising it. Those people are, in the nature of things, employed on that work to-day. If we accepted the suggestion of the hon. Member it would be impossible to go outside and find people who would do the valuing. It could not be done, because those particular valuers do not exist outside. Therefore the valuations must be done by those who have a knowledge and experience of this highly technical business.

The functions of the Central Valuation Board are not very great. It has to divide up the country into regions. For that purpose persons will be nominated to serve on the Central Board and when the regions have been decided, there will be one representative member for every region. The Central Board will also allocate to the regions the sub-divisions of the global sum. Beyond that they will have to lay down the rules of procedure and also such general rules as they consider necessary. Rules will also be required in order to secure uniformity of valuation all over the country. The work that will have to be done will be that of dividing between the owners the sum that will be allocated to them. The hon. Member was right when he said that neither the Commission nor the Exchequer are directly concerned with that matter. A certain sum has been decided upon for allocation and the only problem is how that is to be properly divided in view of the claims of the people who are at present the owners.

Hon. Members have commented upon the length of time that it will take to get the valuation done, but if we did not make use of the existing personnel for that purpose the time would be prolonged beyond all sense; in fact the work could not be done. Therefore, the scheme of the Bill is on the lines that are laid down, and the Central Valuation Board is charged with the functions that I have mentioned. The hon. Member used the word "landlords," and sought to make a case on the ground that it was wrong to employ the mineral agents in the way proposed because they are the employés of the landlords. All the owners are landlords, big or small, otherwise they would not be concerned in the matter. I am satisfied that the method laid down in the Bill is the quickest way of doing the work. The hon. Member pointed out that when a claim was made and objection was taken to it it would be referred to the Central Valuation Board who do not deal with the appeal but pass it on to a referee. He said that the global sum belonged to a certain number of people, and what proportion they got was no concern of his. He was more concerned about those subsidiary hereditaments which we were discussing earlier.

The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) dealt with much the same point, namely, that if there were the shadow of a doubt about the valuation of those hereditaments it was important that it should be resolved as independently as possible. We have had a lot of discussion on that point, and it is largely in order to meet the case made by the hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends that we propose later to move an Amendment to the effect that the referees should be appointed by the Board of Trade. That, we think, is the right answer to the point which was made earlier with regard to independent referees. The only other point is as to costs. The scale of the costs of proceedings is to be that prescribed by the Treasury and naturally it will not be extravagant because we are as anxious as the hon. Gentleman opposite that this work should be done as economically as possible. But by and large, I do not see how we can possibly deal with this valuation procedure better than by the method which is here proposed and which brings in the people who are most competent to deal with these matters. A legal chairman and two independent assessors would, in the very nature of things, be unable themselves to draw up rules to secure uniformity in dealing with these cases, and that is one of the things which will be required. It is desirable that the cases of people in different parts of the country should be dealt with as uniformly as possible under the valuation rules. I hope I have gone some way to remove the anxiety expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Bevan

I recognise the effect of the subsequent Amendments to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred, but I ask him why should it be impossible for the Central Valuation Board to consist of persons other than mineral agents? Why should it not consist of persons who are competent to weigh evidence? Every day the courts have to judge the value of expert evidence. Why should the Board include any mineral agents at all? The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not replied to that question. He must remember that the assessment about which the referee has to make a decision, has already been arrived at by mineral agents. Therefore, the subsequent decisions will be to a large extent influenced by the level of those assessments.

Captain Crookshank

I agree that if it were a court, the court would be able to assess the evidence, but the hon. Gentleman must know that in various other cases it is found generally desirable to have people with expert knowledge as members of these bodies. For example, we were discussing the other day committees of investigation. I know that is a different case. I am simply pointing out that sometimes it is desirable and expeditious to have expert people, and expedition is part of the problem in this case.

8.5 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give us any precedent for interested parties being made arbitrators on the question of how much should be paid by the State for the properties in which they are interested? Take the case of an official arbitrator under the Acquisition of Land Act. Before a person is appointed as an official arbitrator he must give up all connection with business. Those arbitrators are appointed from people who are generally members of firms of surveyors, but they have to dissociate themselves entirely from all the private business. They must go out of business before they act as official arbitrators. In this case, during all the material time, when these people are acting in the capacity of judges as to how much is to be given to certain individuals, they are to continue in their private business as mineral agents. They are to continue to act as agents for the very people whose properties they are assessing.

The suggested Amendment to prevent them voting on the particular property which they represent does not touch the matter. If there are, say, two properties, one represented by A and the other by B, then if A votes the right way in regard to B's property, B will vote the right way in regard to A's property. The hon. and gallant Gentleman shakes his head, but we have to make allowance for human nature in these matters. In the case of the Commission, a member of it must not be a member of a trade union because it might give the appearance of being interested. But that consideration apparently does not arise in the case of the people who are to arbitrate between the public and the owners as regards these subsidiary hereditaments. I am not concerned about how they divide up the £66,000,000. As regards that, we can leave the mineral agents to squabble among themselves.

Captain Crookshank

I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman was here when I spoke earlier, and it may save time if I tell him that as a result of the speeches which he and his hon. Friends behind him made, we propose to insert an Amendment that the referees should be nominated by the Board of Trade.

Sir S. Cripps

I am sorry I was not here earlier, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement does not meet the point. The referees function only if there is an appeal. The decision of the tribunal from which an appeal is made is always of the greatest importance in deciding that appeal, and there is always, necessarily, a certain bias in favour of upholding such a decision, unless and until it is apparent that there is something wrong with it. Therefore the decision of the Valuation Board, though it will not bind the referees, will be a large factor in the decisions at which the referees arrive. There will be knowledge of the general standards which the Valuation Board have fixed for compensation for these subsidiary hereditaments. We are aware of no precedent in the law under which a person who is to arbitrate between the public and certain interests is also the representative of those interests.

This is more than a point connected with the Bill. It is a big principle. This Bill may be used as a precedent for many future Measures and if the idea is introduced that the person who is to decide between the public and the owner is to be of a class of persons who are employed by the owners at the moment when the decision is made, it will be an extraordinarily dangerous precedent. As I have said, we do not mind about the £66,000,000. That is a matter for the royalty owners. They can divide it as they like. It will not affect the public one way or the other. But when it comes to the other class of case, in which compensation is entirely at large—just as much at large as in the case of a local authority which goes out to acquire property in its own district—that is a different matter. Suppose we introduced a Bill which said that where property was acquired by local authorities the body to assess the compensation should consist of officers of local authorities, I should be very much surprised if there was not a tremendous outcry. It would be said to us: "You are selecting the very people who represent the acquiring authorities to determine the compensation and obviously they will determine it as low as they can, because their own local authority may be the next one to acquire property and they will set a precedent which will inhere to their own benefit."

The mineral agents are the employés of the royalty owners. They are to set a precedent, as regards what is to be paid for these rights by the public, and they can do so absolutely at large. They can decide on any figure they like. There can be no justification for such a proposal. We do not want the bias to be in the opposite direction. We are not asking that the Commission should appoint all the members of the Valuation Board, but we do ask that the bias should not be in the way which is proposed in the Schedule. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman raises the point that it is necessary to have people with intimate knowledge, we say that in this case the right place for the person with intimate knowledge is in the witness-box. Certainly, let us avail ourselves of his intimate knowledge and of such help and guidance as he can give in the form of evidence. But do not put him in the position of a judge, because that is not his proper place. He is essentially an advocate or a witness. There would be no difficulty whatever in having a Valuation Board consisting of members who know about the law and custom of valuation—it is not a very difficult thing for people to know about—but who do not represent the interests, either of the Commission or of the people whose property is being assessed.

I cannot think that the Government are discharging properly their responsibility to the public if they put this question of how much the owner is to get for the property, exclusively in the hands of the mineral agents. It amounts to putting in the hands of a majority of mineral agents the decision as to how much their masters, the royalty owners, are to get. The mineral agents are, for this purpose, the servants of the royalty owners, and the Government are putting in the hands of the servants the decision as to how much the masters shall get from the public. That is an extremely dangerous precedent and it is a proposal which no person who is concerned with justice in these matters could possibly permit to go through without protest.

I seriously ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to alter this system as far as subsidiary rights are concerned. It could easily be done. You could say, for the purposes of the subsidiary rights, the chairman and the two other independent persons, and not for the mineral rights, and simply leave it at that. When dealing with subsidiary rights, you should have independent members, and when dealing with other rights you should have your full Central Valuation Board. I do not see any difficulty about it. The mineral agents will be in their proper places representing the employers' interests and will put forward the best case they can either as advocates or witnesses, but they will be in the wrong place as judges. In the circumstances, it is impossible for them, however much they try to dissociate themselves, when they are day by day carrying on the business during these four years of making the claims. They are the people who have to do it, and will have to get out the particulars and the evidence; and to ask them, at the same time, to be the judges, is really to ask them to perform a task which no human being can perform with justice to himself or to the public. I seriously ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman, for the sake of the administration of the Act, whether people like it or not, to make some alteration as regards that matter.

8.17 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

I am as anxious as the hon. and learned Gentleman that subsidiary hereditaments should be dealt with in the interests, which are fair and proper, of all parties concerned, one of which is the future Commission. The Amendment deals with the Central Valuation Board, and I do not see how that problem there arises.

Sir S. Cripps

They have to value the subsidiary rights.

Captain Crookshank

The hon. and learned Gentleman is not quite right there. The functions of the Central Board are very few. First of all, they have to decide what are the regions of valuation, and that does not affect the subsidiary rights in the slightest. In these regions, they have to sub-divide the global figure, which has nothing to do with subsidiary hereditaments. Further than that, on page 60 of the Bill they have to prescribe rules for securing unanimity of valuation, which, in effect, means the best valuing practice, so that everybody is dealt with fairly within the global figure.

Sir S. Cripps

And subsidiary hereditaments.

Captain Crookshank

In so far as it touches them, it is very small. The rules of valuation are like the rules of other professions.

Sir S. Cripps

The rules of valuation are not the rules of a profession. They are the rules according to which you will arrive at values, and, according as these rules are fixed, you may arrive at a high or a low set of values. Take the central body with regard to rating valuation. I imagine that this body carries out similar arrangements with regard to getting uniformity of valuation. The rules they make vitally affect the question of the total quantity of subsidiary rights, whether they come to the £10,000,000 which they estimate, or to £20,000,000 or £5,000,000, and, surely, that is not a function to be carried out by a mineral agent.

Captain Crookshank

I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that it now gives a more general uniformity, and I am quite prepared to say that we are satisfied that the general provisions of the Bill are right, and are going to be fair in the interests of the Commission we have in mind. [Interruption.] It is not the public, it is really the Commission.

Sir S. Cripps

The public provides the £10,000,000 and not the Commission.

Captain Crookshank

Everyone is the public if it comes to that. I am anxious to get the valuation of subsidiary hereditaments upon a proper basis, and we think that the procedure in the Bill will do it. It is the right of the Commission to have their own valuer and to make their own claim. If that is right, and the Commission have this right, that is an end of it. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is satisfied with the valuation put upon the subsidiary hereditament by the Central Board nothing further need be done. It is only when they are not satisfied. The fact that the Valuation Board makes a valuation or not does not matter, so far as that is concerned.

Sir S. Cripps

The hon. and gallant Gentleman has asked me whether I am satisfied or not. If you have an arbitrary power such as have the regional boards and the Central Board, it does matter what the first decision is. Even if you appeal from it, you have the onus of showing that it is wrong, and it is a very serious onus.

Captain Crookshank

I realise, from what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, that he believes that as a matter of procedure there is something wrong with it, but as a matter of procedure I do not see anything wrong with it, and from that valuation there is a reference to a referee. In order to meet this point we are suggesting that that should be determined by the President of the Board of Trade, who is the most competent person you can have. On the evidence before me, I am prepared to say that we ought to avoid further machinery, if that can be done. We are advised that the present proposal is a perfectly reasonable and proper one in the interests of the Commission. I am prepared to look at the matter again to see whether some of the things which the hon. and learned Gentleman has said really make it necessary for us to go further, but frankly, what was put in was done in order to meet this point and in our view it does meet it. But I shall fail in my duty if I do not do what I said I would do. I will see whether it is strong enough, but I say straight away that in our view it is.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Bevan

The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary for Mines said that we are going beyond the Amendment which has been moved. The purpose of the Amendment is to limit the Central Board to a chairman and two independent persons. It will consist exclusively of these three. We have another Amendment to limit the regional board also. We do that, not because we are concerned about the global figure, but about these subsidiary hereditaments. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must realise that this is the thing with which we are quarrelling. He has told us that the mineral agents ought to be responsible for valuation, because there are no other persons with the degree of knowledge which they possess. The assumption, therefore, is that the referee who is to be appointed will be a mineral agent. If there are no other persons who can provide valuations of this sort, then an appeal by the Commission against the valuation of a mineral agent goes to a mineral agent who alone is competent to settle the matter. If it is a mineral agent who is to be the referee it will be a mineral agent who, in the first place, in some region or another has fixed the valuation of a subsidiary hereditament. All mineral agents will be members of the regional board, and, therefore, the mineral agent who is to be the referee will in some region or another have valued subsidiary hereditaments. At some stage of the procedure the assessor of a valuation on which he is to be the referee, has already made the valuation.

Captain Crookshank

I am afraid we are somewhat out of order, but if the hon. Member will look at Part III of the Schedule he will see how the referee and the valuations are dealt with.

Mr. Bevan

The hon. and gallant Member has said that he proposes to deal with the matter in a later Amendment, and I have already suggested that it would have been for the convenience of the Committee if we had had a general discussion. What we are really concerned about is that the valuation of subsidiary hereditaments shall be achieved in a just manner as between the Commission and the mineral owner. All mineral valuers will be members of the regional board.

Captain Crookshank

That is subject to the decision of the Board.

Mr. Bevan

All regional boards will consist of the managers and mineral agents in the district. If an assessment has been made by a regional board of subsidiary hereditaments and the Commission appeals against the assessment, the Central Board or the Board of Trade have to appoint a referee. There is to be a panel of referees which will include all or any of the members other than the independent members of the Central Valuation Board; the panel is to consist of mineral agents who are members of the Central Valuation Board. The hon. and gallant Member has pointed out that in no circumstances will they contemplate anybody else being the referee, because there is no one with this special knowledge except mineral agents, and if therefore an appeal is made against the valuation of a regional board, it is going to be to a referee who will also be a mineral agent, and who in his original capacity will have already valued the subsidiary hereditament. Surely that is an impossible position. We must not assume that these persons are like Caesar's wife, above suspicion. Everybody acts upon the assumption that persons are inclined to be dishonest, at any rate in the commercial world, unless safeguards are established. People do not have auditors because secretaries are dishonest, but because they may be dishonest. You are exposing these people to the greatest temptation in the discharge of their duties to their employers, the owners. They will fix the values of subsidiary hereditaments as high as possible, and then in their capacity as referees they will be asked to turn the valuation down.

What is a referee going to do? Having in mind his own valuation he will have to decide whether it is unreasonable and ought to be turned down, and also, the valuations made by his colleagues in other parts of the country. He will have an interest in keeping up his own valuation because what he lays down as the value of a subsidiary hereditament will govern what a subsequent referee will say should be the value of the hereditaments which he values. My hon. and learned Friend is a mineral valuer in Yorkshire and I am a mineral valuer in South Wales. I have valued subsidiary hereditaments in South Wales for my employer, the owner of the mineral rights, and he has valued them in Yorkshire. The Commission appeals against my assessment and at once my hon. and learned Friend is the referee. He knows that the Commission is going to appeal against his assessment, and that I am going to be the referee. What is he going to do? He is going to arrive at a decision which will form a precedent for his own assessment when that is appealed against. It is an absurd and impossible position, and we cannot allow it. No hon. Member will dare to defend such a position. I admit that the hon. and gallant Member has promised to look into it, but he did so with the proviso that if he thought further protection ought to be given, he would consider whether the Bill ought not to be strengthened. Surely the case made out is strong enough to demand that an Amendment should be made that will exclude the possibility we are pointing out, and that must be the exclusion of subsidiary hereditaments from the regional valuation in the first place. Even if you have a referee who is not a mineral valuer the level at which he is going to make a decision will be determined by the regional valuation.

I come now to the last point. If it be possible, as it ought to be, to appoint a referee who is not a mineral agent, then there will be a person with competence to decide a matter of this kind, in which case the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument against my Amendment disappears. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument was that the Amendment could not be accepted because there is no body of persons in Great Britain able to do the job, except the mineral agents. If there are to be referees who are not mineral agents, as ought to be the case, then there are other persons who can do the job. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is in this difficulty: either the referees are to be mineral agents and therefore be exposed to the charges I make against this procedure, or they are not to be mineral agents, in which case there is no justification for resisting the Amendment. I maintain that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's reasons for resisting the Amendment are invalid, and we ought to ask him for a more favourable reply than he has yet given.

8.37 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

We do not wish to divide unnecessarily on this or on any other Amendment, but we regard the point raised in this Amendment as a cardinal one, not only as regards this Bill but as a precedent. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he would look into the matter again. May I suggest the lines on which he might look into it? In Clause 6, the Bill lays it down that the compensation shall be ascertained separately with regard to the coal and the subsidiary rights. There cannot be a single ascertainment of the two together. Therefore, from the very inception there is a separation of these two things. We do not care about the coal, which can be left exactly as it is under the Clause, but we do care about that which is separate, the subsidiary rights. Is there any difficulty in saying that when the Valuation Board is dealing with subsidiary rights, only the independent members shall act? That seems to me to be the commonsense way of dealing with the matter, to say the least. Secondly, when one comes to the referees, would not the right course be to follow the precedent of the Official Arbitrator, that is to say, to appoint somebody? If a mineral agent is wanted, appoint someone to do the job, make him give up everything else, and pay him a proper salary. In that way the referee would not be connected with the ownership of minerals. He could act just as the Official Arbitrator does.

Let it be remembered that the Official Arbitrator does not occupy a permanent appointment, and is appointed for only five years. Let the referee be appointed for that period of time. When he had finished that job, he would be able to get another job; he would be suitable as a Coal Commissioner; at any rate, there would be no difficulty in his getting a job. Exactly the same course has been followed under the Acquisition of Land Act. Why not adopt that principle, which is a good one, and one that is easily worked? It would also mean having one referee doing the job throughout the whole period, which would be more satisfactory than having a number of different referees. If uniformity is wanted, this is the way to get it, and one would have an impartial referee. I suggest that on those Unes this matter could be satisfactorily solved without any serious disturbance of the procedure.

8.40 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestions. I am sorry that he did not envisage them a little earlier, so that I could have considered them and said what my views are on them; but perhaps he thought of them as the Debate proceeded, which, after all, is the object of Debates in the Committee. I do not think I can say any more than I said earlier. Perhaps we can leave the matter at that, and proceed with the other Amendments. We are at one in wanting to deal with this matter in a satisfactory manner.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.41 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, in page 51, line 42, to leave out from the beginning, to "engaged," in line 43, and to insert "such number of other members, being persons."

This is one of the series of Amendments of which we have been speaking with regard to the regional valuation boards. As the Bill is at present, everybody is to be a member of a regional valuation board who appears to the Board of Trade to be engaged in the management of mineral estates in the region and to be persons having a knowledge of coal-mining and experience in the valuation of minerals. That would be much too large a body, and these Amendments are designed to leave it to the Board of Trade to appoint out of that body such number as they consider suitable.

Sir S. Cripps

I intervene only in order to protect hon. Members on this side. This is, of course, the body to which we object. We do not intend to do what we might have done if we had wished to stop the proceedings, that is to say, to divide; but we wish to make it clear that this is a matter which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is going to consider as far as subsidiary hereditaments are concerned.

Amendment agreed to.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Rowlands

I beg to move, in page 51, line 44, after "region," to insert: including estates to which Section twelve of this Act relates. The sole object of this Amendment is to give equal opportunities to those colliery owners who also own their minerals as are given to mineral owners who do not own collieries.

8.45 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

In view of the Amendments which we are making, this Amendment is not necessary, for in appointing the regional valuation boards the Board of Trade will consider the claims of those whom the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In page 51, line 45, leave out "to be persons."

In line 46, at the end, insert "as the Board of Trade may determine."—[Captain Crookshank.]

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, in page 52, line 40, after "valuation," to insert, "under this Schedule."

This is to make it clear that a person is not debarred from being chairman of a valuation board if he has at any time acted in connection with the valuation of coal property.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, in page 52, line 46, to leave out "take any part in any proceedings connected with the valuation," and to insert: vote on the taking of any determination of the Board as to the value. This Amendment will make clear that a member of a regional valuation board can act as advocate in the valuation of a holding. He cannot, of course, take part in the decision.

8.47 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

I am not certain of the purpose of this Amendment. Originally the right hon. Gentleman and those advising him thought that no member of a board should take any part in proceedings connected with the valuation of a holding in respect of which he has acted as a mineral agent. Now, however, it will be sufficient to debar him from acting in the actual decision upon it. Of course, if it is desirable for him to be present in order to be an advocate, that does not matter so much if it is in connection with the £66,000,000. If, however, it is in connection with the subsidiary hereditaments see what happens. The Commission has no advocate present, so that one side will have the right to have an advocate present to put his case and influence everybody present to arrive at a large figure, without a word being said by the Commission. It only emphasises the real impossibility of applying this procedure to the subsidiary hereditaments. Again, I only want to utter a word of caution and although we will not oppose the Amendment, we wish to put our objection in as regards subsidiary hereditaments.

Amendment agreed to.

8.49 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, in page 53, line 2, at the end, to insert: or, if he has any acquired interest, of a holding that comprises that interest.

This Amendment provides that nobody must take part in the settlement of a valuation in which he acted on behalf of the owner or if he himself has an acquired interest.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, in page 53, line 31, at the end, to insert: (7) Subject to the provisions of this Schedule and of rules made thereunder, the Central Valuation Board, a referee appointed under this Schedule, and a Regional Valuation Board shall have power to regulate their own procedure. It is only reasonable that these persons should regulate their own procedure.

8.50 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

This may be all right as regards the Central Valuation Board and a regional valuation board, although it is a little dangerous to allow even that to pass entirely out of the hands of the Board of Trade. The Board may well desire to lay down certain regulations, because they might very well find that some complaints were being made about the way these things were proceeding.

Mr. Stanley

Is the hon. and learned Member suggesting that there should Be the approval of the Board of Trade?

Sir S. Cripps

Yes, something of that sort, particularly in regard to the referee, because it has always been found necessary in cases where such persons have been appointed for some overriding authority to lay down the broad lines of their procedure, or at any rate, to retain the power to lay down those broad lines. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider it before the Report stage.

Amendment agreed to.

8.52 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, in page 54, line 12, to leave out "statement to be furnished with an application for registration must specify," and to insert: information to be furnished in relation to an application for registration shall extend to. This Amendment is consequential on a new Clause we passed the other night dealing with the limitation of information required under the Registration Act. Under that Clause we said that in certain circumstances there would be indemnity if all the details prescribed had not been produced.

Amendment agreed to.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Denman

I beg to move, in page 56, line 12, after "that," to insert: in the case of a holding belonging to an ecclesiastical corporation to which the Ecclesiastical Leasing Acts apply, a notice must be served by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and in any other case. This is merely a machinery Amendment for the convenience of the Coal Commission and of the Church. In cases of coal under a glebe there might be more than one person who could approach the Coal Commission with notices of claims, and that is obviously inconvenient. It would be for the convenience of the Coal Commission and the Church that one body, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, should have the duty of sending in notices.

Amendment agreed to.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. Stanley

I beg to move, in page 56, line 32, at the end, to insert: Provided that in the application of this sub-paragraph to a matter with respect to which the Commission or the Board of Trade have given such an indication as to the information material in their opinion for valuation purposes as is mentioned in the Section of this Act (Limitation as to information required to be given under the Registration Act), the omission from the particulars of matter outside the scope of the indication given may be disregarded.

This Amendment is consequential on the new Clause which we passed on Tuesday.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Stanley

I beg to move, in page 57, line 15, to leave out "in," and to insert "that renders."

This Amendment, again, is consequential on the same new Clause.

8.55 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

I am sorry to delay the very happy course of the proceedings at the moment, but one cannot legislate quite in this way. It may be all right for the right hon. Gentleman, who has a note explaining the meaning of each Amendment, but it is impossible for the rest of the very large Committee which is present to see that we are not doing something stupid, unnecessary or wrong when we are proceeding at this speed. I suggest with great respect that the right hon. Gentleman, instead of saying, "This is the same as the last," or something of that kind, should give us a word or two of explanation, because then we should really be doing our job a little bit better than we are.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Stanley

This Amendment relates to the Clause which enables the Commission to refer a holding to a regional valuation board for valuation even if there were errors and omissions, if those errors and omissions are such as have already been held to be immaterial under that new Clause.

Mr. H. G. Williams

We are running a little fast, and if I occupy a moment or two it may give the President an opportunity to look into the matter. I take it that this Amendment has to be taken in conjunction with the next in line 16, otherwise it does not read. If that is so I can understand it, and if I can understand it probably the rest of the Committee can.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Stanley

I beg to move, in page 57, line 16, after "thereof," to insert "open to objection."

The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) has already explained this Amendment. It has to be read with the previous one, and, like that, is also consequential on the new Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. STANLEY:

In page 57, line 37, at the end, to insert: Provided that if from any information in the possession of the Regional Valuation Board it appears to them that there is in the particulars so registered as aforesaid an error or omission of material importance for valuation purposes, they may, at any time before they have settled their draft valuation of the holding, notify the Commission that they are of that opinion, and thereupon the said provisions shall again come into effect and, if any alteration is made thereunder in the particulars so registered as aforesaid, the valuation shall be made on the basis of the particulars as altered.

Mr. Stanley

This is another consequential Amendment on that same new Clause.

Sir S. Cripps

Apparently what has happened is that this Amendment was put down to-day for the first time and that the explanation of it has been omitted from the right hon. Gentleman's brief. I am much obliged to the Lord Advocate for attempting to supply the brief—

Mr. Stanley

He has not.

Sir S. Cripps

Perhaps somebody could get a brief from another place.

Mr. Stanley

I apologise to the hon. and learned Gentleman and to the Committee. We are getting on rather faster than we expected. This Amendment was put down only at the last moment. I have not got a note about it, and I will not move it now, for it would not be proper to ask the Committee to pass it without an adequate explanation.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. STANLEY:

In page 57, line 40, after "paragraph," to insert: or, in the case of particulars that are altered after that date under the proviso to the last preceding sub-paragraph, those particulars as so altered.

Mr. Stanley

This Amendment, also, I do not move now.

Amendments made: In page 57, line 42, after "and" insert "shall."

In line 43, leave out the second "of."—[Mr. Stanley.]

Mr. Stanley

I beg to move, in page 57, line 44, after "respectively," insert: be assumed prima facie to be correct and complete. This Amendment, also, is consequential on the new Clause. The fact that in some cases the information given for registration purposes will not state all the circumstances of a holding make it necessary to limit the provisions of the Bill as they stand. As the Bill is worded at present that registration would be conclusive against the parties concerned in the registration as to what is vested in the Commission.

Amendment agreed to.

9.1 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

I beg to move, in page 58, line 30, after "relates," to insert "wholly or partially."

This Amendment raises a very small point, but one which may be of importance. Sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 11 of this Schedule deals with cases in which the Regional Valuation Board have settled a draft of their valuation of a holding and have to give notice in the prescribed form to the claimant and if the valuation relates to subsidiary coal hereditaments within the meaning of Section six of this Act to the Commission. Then, if the claimant or the Commission desire it, the Board will give him or them an opportunity of being heard. The Regional Valuation Board might settle a draft containing two items, one a main item, coal, and one, a subsidiary hereditament, and there might be some doubt whether in that case the valuation relates to the subsidiary coal hereditament. It might be held that that would not cover the case where it does not relate only to the subsidiary hereditament, and our object is to make sure that any valuation which in part or wholly relates to a subsidiary coal hereditament shall be open to this form of procedure. We suggest that the words "wholly or partially" should be inserted in order to cover the cases where a single valuation is put in with two items, one subsidiary and one coal, because it is desirable in such a case that the Commission should be able to take this procedure.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Stanley

Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to consider this Amendment. I could not put a meaning to the words of the Amendment, because it seemed to me that a subsidiary hereditament could only be part of a coal holding, and therefore the word "wholly" could not be applicable, but I see now what his point is and I should like an opportunity to consider it.

Sir S. Cripps

I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell

I beg to move, in page 58, line 35, after "heard," to insert "and of giving evidence."

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will agree to do with this Amendment what he has agreed to do with the previous one. If he wishes I will explain it. The proposal is that a claimant or some other party concerned shall have an opportunity of being heard. We ask that the Board, after hearing them, should give the opportunity for the production of evidence. The point is not too clear, and we ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider it.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Stanley

I had thought that that was the purpose of the Amendment. As the Schedule stands now, it is competent for the claimant to appear in person. That has been put in deliberately. It is our view that the royalty owners, who are the people concerned, should have an opportunity to be called. We also thought that it was desirable that the first stage of the proceedings should be rather informal, in view of the fact that there is a right of appeal to a referee, but we shall certainly look into the point in the general review which we are making of the procedure.

9.7 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

The Clause deals only with subsidiary hereditaments. What will the position be? The Commission has a right to be heard by a competent mineral valuer and so has the claimant. This would cause a dispute between the Commission and the claimant before the regional valuation board. I am sure from my experience of the law that it is highly desirable that the competent mineral valuers should be cross-examined, but if they are there as advocates they cannot be cross-examined. I am not certain what the position of the Commission will be. Will there be any mineral valuers at that stage employed by the Commission? They will be employed by the colliery companies. From where is the Commission to get a competent mineral valuer? Can it go into the Durham or South Wales coalfields? But all the valuers will be up to their eyes in work putting in claims for the owners. Afterwards, of course, the Commission will take them all over, but the Commission may be in a terrible difficulty. Suppose it has half-a-dozen or a dozen regions, and disputes going on in all of them, and the only person who can put the case is a competent mineral valuer. It may not have 12 of them to go into each district to put the case, in which circumstances the Commission cannot put its case at all. The Commission cannot put its own case, but only by a competent mineral valuer, and if it cannot get one it cannot put its case. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at that aspect of the matter.

Mr. Stanley

Yes, I certainly will, but I have a feeling that the Commission, with its prospects of a long inquiry, will have a certain drawing power.

Mr. Shinwell

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 58, line 46, leave out "Central Valuation Board," and insert "Board of Trade."—[Mr. Stanley.]

9.11 p.m.

Mr. Stanley

I beg to move, in page 59, line 3, after "made," to insert "to the Board of Trade."

This is the first of a series of Amendments which together constitute a substantial amendment which sets up a panel of referees for appeal from the Central Valuation Board. The point has been largely discussed on a previous Amendment. These Amendments are intended to meet a point which was made before Christmas in regard to the subsidiary hereditaments, and which we undertook to look into. I think all of us agree when we come to this valuation for the subsidiary hereditaments that we have to take every possible precaution to see that the sum payable is not swollen against the Commission.

9.12 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

I shall not waste the time of the Committee by rediscussing these points, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to take into account when he reconsiders this matter that he has not really done anything very much here, because he has kept the constitution of the panel the same. The words are that the panel may consist of all the members other than the independent members. The right hon. Gentleman is excluding them. It may consist of the mineral agents, locally and regionally. Nowhere else is "may be" said, and prima facie it is a mineral agents' panel, from whom one is selected.

Mr. Stanley

I will certainly look more closely into this matter. I am not sure whether one man will be able to do all the work that is to be undertaken.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 59, line 4, leave out "the Central Valuation Board," and insert "they."

In line 5, leave out "in the prescribed manner."

In line 6, leave out "the Board," and insert "them."

In line 8, leave out "Board," and insert "Central Valuation Board or of any Regional Valuation Board."

In line 23, leave out "more than one person," and insert: the claimant and also by a person intervening, or by two or more persons intervening.

In line 37, leave out "him," and insert "that person."

In line 39, leave out the first "he," and insert "the referee."—[Mr. Stanley.]

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Stanley

I beg to move, in page 60, line 37, to leave out "of section thirty-three of this Act."

Clause 33 provides that the liability of the Commission with respect to the payment of costs shall not extend to costs occasioned by disputes between adverse claimants.

Amendment agreed to.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart

I beg to move, in page 60, line 44, at the end, to insert: and the sum total of all such costs shall be deducted from the total sum allocated for compensation in each region in accordance with Sub-section (4) of Section six of this Act before such sum is apportioned amongst the claimants in accordance with Sub-section (7) of Section seven of this Act. We on this side of the Committee are not against payment for costs reasonably incurred by a claimant, but, if some safeguard of this description is not inserted, one can conceive that much more than the £66,000,000 will be reqired to meet the costs incurred in taking over the royalties. Disputes may arise that will be long drawn out, and the costs may be very heavy. The persons involved may not be very much concerned as to how long the case may last if they have the idea that someone other than themselves will foot the bill for costs. It would put a different complexion on the whole matter if they knew that any costs incurred would have to be met out of the amount allocated to the valuation region, and that money so spent on the payment of costs would have to come out of their apportionment, thus leaving less money to be paid by way of compensation.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams

The hon. Member suggests that the valuation which will be proceeding may be dragged out and costly. That will probably be the case because the persons adversely affected think they have not got a square deal. As I understand the Amendment, it proposes that the costs, win or lose, shall be paid by the person who grumbles, or by the group of persons who may be adversely affected. It seems to me to be a strange principle that, in a case where you have legitimately protested and where you are right, nevertheless the costs shold be deducted from that part of the global sum which has been allocated to your region. That seems to be monstrously unfair. Surely, if you are right, the fact that you are right and the fact that it has taken a long time to prove it should not add a further burden or rob you of something. That seems to me to be the significance of the Amendment, and for this reason, unless someone can supply me with better reasons, I shall vote against it.

9.22 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

We cannot accept this Amendment, for the very good reason that, on the larger issue, it seems to us quite clear that if for good reasons, or whatever reasons it likes, the State comes in and buys property from persons who are not anxious to sell it, it is not reasonable that the costs involved in that transaction should fall elsewhere than upon those people. Moreover, it was specifically one of the references of the tribunal which made the award of the global figure, that they were not to make any allowance on account of the acquisition being compulsory, or of the fact that the distribution of compensation would involve expense. Therefore, in the valuation they made, they had no regard to what the costs of the valuation and so on might be. In view of that fact, it would be a monstrous thing for the House to upset the basis of the award by saying that these charges could be taken out of the global figure.

9.24 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

I do not think the Secretary for Mines has dealt very satisfactorily with this point. What is happening now is that a perfectly free hand is being given to all claimants to litigate as much as they like at the cost of the State. That is not a very hopeful way in which to start proceedings. Indeed, I should think there had never been such a paradise for lawyers as this, where both parties can litigate as much as they like without either of them paying the costs. That is a most gorgeous prospect. The analogy of the hon. and gallant Gentleman really does not touch the question. It is not a question of arriving at the amount of compensation. That has been done. This is merely a question of how the swag is to be divided up. It may be that there are legitimate differences of opinion as to how the swag is to be divided up. On the other hand, it may be that there is a multiplicity of squabbling merely because there is so much swag to be divided up, but it is a very fantastic conception that you should say to all these mineral owners, "You have to see that you get the most out of this Bill and we will pay both sides to see how they can get it. The more you fight, the more we will put up to pay your expenses." That is not a very proper method of procedure, surely. It might be that in some very strictly limited circumstances you might say, "If the fight is a proper one, we will in certain circumstances pay some sum towards your costs," but to say that the Commission shall pay the costs reasonably incurred by the claimant, or a person intervening, in respect of any holding in giving effect in relation to that holding to the preceding provisions in this part of this Schedule or the rules made thereunder, really is out of all reasonableness. All sorts and kinds of people are going to put in claims to these undiscovered minerals all over the country. Obviously anyone who thinks there is any coal near any bit of land that he owns will do it. It does not cost much. When you put your claim in, all the fighting for it is done free.

Captain Crookshank

The hon. and learned Gentleman has omitted to observe Sub-section (3)—no value, no costs.

Sir S. Cripps

I quite agree, but there is always the chance, even then, of saying, "This is quite unreasonable. After all, we had a good chance of getting something. We were advised by mineral agents." I have often heard it said, "We were advised by counsel that we had a good claim to put forward," and reading this section it is obvious that the intention of Parliament was that the parties were to have all their costs. I should like at least to have words put in to show that that is not the intention of Parliament that everyone should litigate as much as possible and spend as much as possible on the lawyers. I think that is a thoroughly bad idea. [Interruption.] I am not at all surprised at the laughter that comes from the other side. Whenever anyone gets up on those benches he is generally speaking for a vested interest, and it strikes them as an extraordinary thing that I, a lawyer, say I am not trying to make the best out of the Bill for lawyers. When a coalowner gets up he speaks for coalowners. When a tramp shipowner gets up, of course he speaks for tramp shipowners. No one expects him to speak for a constituent now. That is all out of date. I can understand the surprise and consternation of hon. Members opposite that I should so offend against the practice in the House as to make such a remark. That is because of the reputation that lawyers have. The few bright exceptions have not yet convinced them of the general honesty of the profession. This is a serious matter and we should take some steps, if not those in our Amendment, to avoid this expenditure falling upon the community through the Commission and, unless we can get some undertaking that

the matter will be reviewed, we must press this to a Division.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 107; Noes, 190.

Division No. 94.]	AYES.	[9.30 p.m.
Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)	Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)	Oliver, G. H.
Adams, D. (Consett)	Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)	Parker, J.
Amnion, C. G.	Graves, T. E.	Parkinson, J. A.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	Pethick-Lawrenee, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Banfield, J. W.	Harris, Sir P. A.	Price, M. P.
Barnet, A. J.	Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)	Pritt, D. N.
Barr, J.	Hayday, A.	Quibell, D. J. K.
Batey, J.	Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)	Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Bellenger, F. J.	Henderson, T. (Tradeston)	Riley, B.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.	Hills, A. (Pontefract)	Ritson, J.
Bevan, A.	Hollins, A.	Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Buchanan, G.	Hopkin, D.	Seely, Sir H. M.
Burke, W. A.	Jagger, J.	Sexton, T. M.
Cape, T.	Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)	Shinwell, E.
Charleton, H. C.	Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)	Simpson, F. B.
Chater, D.	Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.	Smith, E. (Stoke)
Cocks, F. S.	Jones, A. C. (Shipley)	Smith, T. (Normanton)
Cove, W. G.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Sorensen, R. W.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford	Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.	Stephen, C.
Daggar, G	Kirby, B. V.	Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.	Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth. N.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Lawson, J. J.	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Dobbie, W.	Leach, W.	Tinker, J. J.
Dunn, E. (Rather Valley)	Leonard, W.	Tomlinson, G.
Ede, J. C.	Leslie, J. R.	Walkden, A. G.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)	Logan, D. G.	Watson, W. McL.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)	Lunn, W.	Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Foot, D. M.	Macdonald, G. (Into)	Westwood, J.
Frankel, D.	McEntee, V. La T.	Wilkinson, Ellen
Gallacher, W	Maclean, N.	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Gardner, B. W.	Marshall, F.	Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Garro Jones, G. M.	Mathers, G.	Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)	Maxton, J.	Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)	Milner, Major J.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)	Montague, F.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Grenfell, D. R.	Naylor, T. E.	Mr. Adamson and Mr. Whiteley.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)	Noel-Baker. P. J.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.	Clarry, Sir Reginald	Findlay, Sir E.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)	Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)	Fleming, E. L.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.	Conant, Captain R. J. E.	Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Albery, Sir Irving	Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)	Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Apsley, Lord	Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)	Fyfe, D. P. M.
Aske, Sir R. W.	Cox, H. B. Trevor	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Assheton, R.	Craven-Ellis, W.	Gluckstein, L. H.
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.	Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page	Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Balfour, G. (Hampstead)	Crooke, Sir J. S.	Greene, W. P. C. (Worcoster)
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanst)	Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.	Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Barclay Harvey, Sir C. M.	Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Grimston, R. V.
Beauchamp, Sir B. C.	Cross, R. H.	Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'rab'rw'll, N. W.)
Boulton, W. W.	Crossley, A. C.	Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Bower, Comdr. R. T.	Crowder, J. F. E.	Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.	Cruddas, Col. B.	Hannah, I. C.
Boyce, H. Leslie	Culverwell, C. T.	Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.	Dawson, Sir P.	Haslam, Henry (Hornoastle)
Brooklebank, Sir Edmund	De Chair, S. S	Harvey, Sir G.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)	Denman, Hon. R. D.	Hailgers, Captain F. F. A.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)		Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Bull, B. B.	Danville, Alfred	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A P.
Burghley, Lord	Doland, G. F.	Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Butcher, H. W.	Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)	Higgs, W. F.
Campbell, Sir E. T.	Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)	Holmes, J. S.
Cartland, J. R. H.	Dugdale, Captain T. L.	Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Carver, Major W. H.	Duncan, J. A. L.	Hopkinson, A.
Cary, R. A.	Dunglass, Lord	Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Eastwood, J. F.	Horsbrugh, Florenee
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)	Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Haek., N)
Channon, H.	Emery, J. F.	Hume, Sir G. H.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)	Errington, E.	Hunter, T.
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)	Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)	Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)	Orr-Ewing, I. L	Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Kimball, L.	Palmer, G. E. H.	Spans. W. P.
Law, H. K. (Hull, S. W.)	Peake, O.	Stanley, RI. Hon. Oliver (Wm'ld)
Leech, Sir J. W.	Peat, C. U.	Stewart, J. Henderson (Fite, E.)
Lees-Jones, J.	Perkins, W. R. D.	Storey, S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Petars, Dr. S. J.	Strauss, E. A. (Soutlhwark, N.)
Lannox-Boyd, A. T. L.	Plugge, Capt. L. F.	Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Lewis, O.	Ponsonby, Col. C. E.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Liddall, W. S.	Radford. E. A.	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Lipson, D. L.	Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.	Sutcliffe, H.
Little, Sir E. Graham.	Ramsbotham, H.	Tasker, Sir R. I.
Loftus, P. C.	Ramsden, Sir E.	Tate, Mavis C.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.	Rankin, Sir R.	Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Lyons, A. M.	Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)	Thomas, J. P. L
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)	Rayner, Major R. H.	Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.	Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)	Wakefield, W. W.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.	Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)	Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Magnay, T.	Ropner, Colonel L.	Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.	Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.	Rowlands, G.	Waterhouse, Captain C.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.	Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.	Watt, Major G. S. Harvie
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.	Russell, Sir Alexander	Wayland, Sir W. A
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)	Salt, E. W.	Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Samuel, M. R. A.	Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.	Sanders, W. S.	Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.	Sanderson, Sir F. B.	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Moreing, A. C.	Shakespeare, G. H.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.	Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Munro, P.	Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)	Wragg, H.
Nall, Sir J.	Smith, L. W. (Hallam)	Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.	Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh	Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)	Mr. Furness and Sir James
		Edmondson.

9.38 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, in page 61, line 15, to leave out "this Part of."

This paragraph deprives the Commission of the liability to pay costs of proceedings, but there are certain exceptions, and one of them is the very reasonable one that the applicant on his part must have done what he ought to have done. As the Schedule is now worded, the liability is limited to one part of the Schedule, whereas it should apply to the whole Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

9.39 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

I beg to move, in page 61, line 24, to leave out sub-paragraph (6).

This sub-paragraph deals with the power of the High Court in regard to costs. It is one of the elementary ideas in law that costs shall not be a matter for appeal, but shall always be dealt with by a body which intimately knows what the circumstances are. Sub-paragraph (2) lays down: If two or more notices of claim are served in relation to the same holding, the liability of the Commission under this paragraph shall be limited to such a sum as would have been payable by them if a single notice only had been served, so however, that the Commission may pay costs in excess of that sum in any case in which it appears to them that the service of more than one notice was justified having regard to any special circumstances. That is clearly a question which need not go to the High Court. There cannot be any dispute on whether there are two claims, and if there are two claims, there cannot be any dispute as to there being only one set of costs. In the third subparagraph, it is provided: The Commission shall not be liable under this paragraph to pay any costs in a case in which the holding in question is ultimately certified to have no value. There cannot be any dispute about that. The fourth sub-paragraph says: The Commission shall not be liable to pay any costs under this paragraph incurred by a person who has neglected to comply at the due time with any of the preceding provisions of this Part of this Schedule that impose upon him a duty in connection with the valuation of the holding in question, whether with respect to the delivery of an estimate of the value of the holding, to the furnishing of information with relation thereto or to any other matter. That is a simple question of fact. It is not a matter about which anybody can conceivably want to go to the High Court. The fifth sub-paragraph says: The Commission shall not be liable to pay any costs under this paragraph incurred by a person intervening in respect of any intervention on his part which was not reasonably requisite for the proper valuation of the holding in question. That is the only sub-paragraph which can raise any debatable point. It raises the point as to whether intervention was reasonably requisite. Surely the Commission is an infinitely better judge than the High Court as to that. The valuation will be done by the regional valuation committees. The Commission will be thoroughly conversant with the whole of the proceedings before the valuation committees and the whole way in which these cases are being dealt with, and whether the intervention in a particular case helps or does not. It will be entirely foreign to the High Court, and it is, in our submission, infinitely better in this case that the Commission, which is to be a public body, for which the President of the Board of Trade will be responsible in this House, should exercise its discretion as to whether or not intervention is reasonably requisite for a proper valuation. We therefore suggest that this additional appeal, which I suppose will be at the cost of the Commission, in these circumstances would only add still more to the eventual cost of the acquisition of the mining royalties. We think this is a very unnecessary power, which will only cause more litigation, and as we have set up a public body to which the right hon. Gentleman is going to be responsible for appointing suitable people, we must trust those people to deal properly and fairly in the matter of costs, and they will be far the best judges of the matter. Therefore we suggest that this reference to the High Court should be omitted.

9.46 p.m.

The Attorney-General

I should like to associate myself with what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said as to the capacity of lawyers to approach problems without having regard to their own professional interests. He started by saying that it was not usual for there to be an appeal as to costs. I am sure he will agree that it is also a general legal principle that people should not be judges in a matter which affects them personally. The decision of the Commission as to costs is a matter which affects the funds for which the Commission is responsible, and, therefore, in a case in which you, in the first instance, put power as to costs in the hands of the persons who will have to pay them or not, according to their decision, we thought it right to provide machinery for an appeal. In fact, under these subparagraphs they are deciding whether they shall or shall not pay costs.

I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that in some of the matters dealt with in these sub-paragraphs there could be no dispute, but I think he was wrong in saying that sub-paragraph (5)— "reasonably requisite for the proper valuation" —was the only matter as to which there could be a dispute. I think there could be a dispute as to subparagraph (2). If there is a matter that is clear, there is an appeal to the High Court, and the costs of that appeal will be in the discretion of the High Court, and the High Court, exercising that discretion, will simply mulct in the costs of that appeal the person who has made a useless and futile use of this subparagraph.

Sir S. Cripps

I think I must have misunderstood the purpose of sub-paragraph (2) if the hon. and learned Gentleman is right. The latter part of it is purely discretionary, but he does not suggest, does he, that under it the High Court could order them to pay costs?

The Attorney-General

It may be an absolute discretion, and it may be that the scope of this right is limited, but if anybody sought to exercise it where it was plain that there was no ground on which the Commission's decision could be reviewed, the only effect of that would be that they would have to pay the costs of the futile application to the High Court. At any rate, we agree that there is one debatable point, and in our view, the fact of there being one debatable point is sufficient to justify the subparagraph, particularly having regard to the fact that this is a matter in which the Commission appear to be made in the first instances judges in their own interest. We think that justifies putting in the right of appeal, the costs of which will be in the discretion of the High Court, which, as my hon. and learned Friend very well knows, can well be trusted to mulct in costs those who make a futile and unjustified use of their rights.

9.50 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman has quite dealt with all the points, but let us see how far we can agree. I think he is substantially agreed that the only point really in dispute is in sub-paragraph (5), and therefore I ask him to limit this to subparagraph (5). The hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head. He agrees that in sub-paragraph (3) there cannot be any dispute. That is obvious. Then do not let us help people to try and make disputes by including sub-paragraph (3). The only appeal which really could be required would be against the exercise of some discretion. Therefore, if we are agreed that sub-paragraph (3) cannot bring in the exercise of discretion at all, let us cut out sub-paragraph (3). Subparagraph (2) is very important. If the latter part of the sub-paragraph is one for an unfettered discretion on the part of the Commission, it should not be included, because if it is, it will at once open the question as to whether Parliament intended that that discretion was to be controlled by the High Court. I do not think that can be our intention, because the Commission may pay costs in excess of that sum in any case in which it appears to them that the service of more than one notice was justified. That is a real gift. In hard circumstances the Commission can give some extra money for costs. That is surely not intended to go to the High Court. It is important that if that is so, it should be eliminated. That deals with sub-paragraphs (2) and (3). Cannot we eliminate sub-paragraph (3) at any rate? As regards the point made by the learned Attorney-General about people being judges in their own cause, I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman was here while we were discussing mineral agents. This is rather a different matter, because here the people are not dealing with their own interests at all, and this is much more analogous to the case of the engineers of a local authority, who are made the judges under a contract as to whether certain work has or has not been property performed. Constantly officers of public authorities are made the final judges in matters of that sort. These people are administering a fund, and as administrators they are in a different position from mineral agents representing a definite private interest in which they and their employers will definitely benefit in certain circumstances.

This matter might well be left to the Commission, but if the right hon. Gentleman insists upon giving in some particular case this right of appeal, then I ask him to restrict it to the narrowest possible limits, so that we shall not tempt people to go to the High Court. In these cases we have a lot of litigants who become cross, and say: "I will take it to the House of Lords," or whatever court it may be. My hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General knows the type. They are just the sort of people who will take advantage of a Clause like this and take up a case simply because they are cross. I do not want to give those cross people an opportunity to go to court simply because they are cross. I suggest that this is a case where the discretion ought to be left to the Commission. Unless we get some concession I am afraid that we shall have to go to a Division.

9.56 p.m.

The Attorney-General

I do not want to say categorically that this particular question may not arise under sub-paragraph (4). It may also arise under subparagraph (2), assuming for the moment that it may be a matter for discretion. My hon. and learned Friend knows that even in the exercise of a discretion there has to be some grounds upon which the discretion can be exercised. He says that it is a great pity to encourage people who are cross to go to the courts. I agree with that statement. There is, however, an advantage in enabling cross persons to have the right to go to court, even though it may be rather a futile proceeding on their part. It may engender more bitterness if you deprive them of that right than if you allow them to go to court and have a certain amount of trouble and perhaps be mulcted in costs. While agreeing with the force of a great deal of what was said by the hon. and learned Member I suggest that, having regard to the context in which this power is conferred, it is better on the whole to leave the general right of appeal realising that those who get good legal advice from their legal advisers will be told that in most cases an appeal to the High Court will be futile.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Pritt

Surely the Attorney-General is wrong in what he has said about subparagraph (2). That sub-paragraph gives a discretion to the Commission to pay to certain people costs which they would not otherwise get. The Attorney-General says that the discretion must be exercised on proper grounds, and that it is sometimes right to have an appeal about the exercising of the discretion. I am afraid that he has put the point upside down. This is not a discretion to take away costs, but it is a discretion to the Commission to give costs to people which they could not otherwise get. If we leave the legislation as it stands, what will it mean? Notwithstanding that it is a virtually universal rule that when a discretion is exercised to give somebody something and not to take something away, that you should never make that the subject of appeal, but we shall be telling the Court that Parliament has enacted certain provisions which mean that there can be an appeal. Under sub-paragraph (2) there

is a present of extra costs that can be given, and the High Court, therefore, would be compelled to hold that here it is intended that this can be the subject of appeal, even where you are exercising the discretion of giving some money away. This is not a case of giving money away to the coal miners but to certain interested people.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 107.

Division No. 95.]	AYES.	[10.0 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.	Eastwood, J. F.	Magnay, T.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)	Edmondson, Major Sir J.	Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.	Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Albery, Sir Irving	Emery, J. F.	Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Apsley, Lord	Errington, E.	Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Aske, Sir R. W.	Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)	Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Assheton, R.	Findlay, Sir E.	Mills, Major J. D (New Forest)
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)	Fleming, E. L.	Moreing, A. C.
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.	Fox, Sir G. W. G.	Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Balfour, G. (Hampstead)	Fremantle, Sir F. E.	Munro, P.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)	Fyfe, D. P. M	Nall, Sir J.
Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Beauchamp, Sir B. C.	Gluckstein, L. H.	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Boulton, W. W.	Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Bower, Comdr. R. T.	Greene, W. P- C. (Worcestor)	Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Boyce, H. Leslie	Grimston, R. V.	Palmer, G. E. H.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.	Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)	Peake, O.
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund	Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)	Peat, C. U.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)	Guinness, T. L. E. B.	Perkins, W. R. D.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)	Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.	Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Bull, B. B.	Hannah, I. C.	Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Butcher, H. W.	Hannon, Sir P. J. H.	Radford, E. A.
Campbell, Sir E. T.	Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)	Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Cartland, J. R. H.	Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)	Ramsbotham, H.
Carver, Major W. H.	Heilgers, Captain F F. A.	Ramsden, Sir E.
Cary, R. A.	Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.	Rankin, Sir R.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.	Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)	Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)	Rayner, Major R. H.
Channon, H.	Higgs, W. F.	Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)	Holmes, J. S.	Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)	Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.	Ropner, Colonel L.
Clarry, Sir Reginald	Hopkinson, A.	Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Clydesdale, Marquess of	Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.	Rowlands, G.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)	Horsbrugh, Florence	Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Colman, N. C. D.	Hudson. Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)	Russell, Sir Alexander
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.	Hume, Sir G. H.	Salt, E. W.
Conant, Captain R. J- E.	Hunter, T.	Samuel, M. R. A.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)	Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.	Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)	Scott, Lord William
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)	Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)	Shakespeare, G. H.
Cox, H. B. Trevor	Kimball, L.	Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Craven-Ellis, W.	Law. R. K. (Hull, S. W.)	Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page	Leech, Sir J. W.	Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Crooke, Sir J. S.	Lees-Jones, J.	Smith. Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Cross, R. H.	Lewis, O.	Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Crossley, A. C.	Liddall, W. S.	Spens. W. P.
Crowder, J. F. E.	Lindsay, K. M.	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'n'ld)
Cruddas, Col. B.	Lipson, D. L.	Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Culverwell, C. T.	Little, Sir E. Graham.	Storey, S.
Dawson, Sir P.	Lloyd, G. W.	Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
De Chair, S. S.	Loftus, P. C.	Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Lovat-Fraser, J. A.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Denville, Alfred	Lyons, A. M.	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)	Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)	Sutcliffe, H.
Duckworth. W. R. (Moss Side)	MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.	Tasker, Sir R. I.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.	McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.	Tate, Mavis C.
Duncan, J. A. L.	McKie, J. H.	Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Dunglass, Lord	Maclay, Hon. J. P.	Thomas, J. P. L.
Wakefield, W. W.	Wedderburn, H. J. S.	Wragg, H.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.	Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)	Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan	Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Wall, Major G. S. Harvie	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.	Captain Waterhouse and Mr.
Wayland, Sir W. A	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl	Furness.
NOES.
Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)	Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)	Parker, J.
Adams, D. (Consett)	Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)	Parkinson, J. A.
Adams, O. M. (Poplar, S.)	Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)	Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Ammon, C. G.	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	Price, M. P.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Harris, Sir P. A.	Pritt, D. N.
Banfield, J. W.	Hayday, A.	Quibell, D. J. K.
Barnes, A. J.	Hills, A. (Pontefract)	Richards, R (Wrexham)
Barr, J.	Hollins, A.	Riley, B.
Batey, J.	Hopkin, D.	Ritson, J.
Bellenger, F. J.	Jagger, J.	Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.	Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)	Seely, Sir H. M.
Bevan, A.	Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)	Sexton. T. M.
Buchanan, G.	Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.	Shinwell, E.
Burke, W. A.	Jones, A. C. (Shipley)	Simpson, F. B.
Cape, T.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Smith, E. (Stoke)
Charleton, H. C.	Kelly, W. T.	Smith, T. (Normanton)
Chater, D.	Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.	Sorensen, R. W.
Cocks, F. S.	Kirby, B. V.	Stephen, C.
Cove, W. G.	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.	Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford	Lathan, G.	Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Daggar, G.	Lawson, J. J.	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)	Leach, W.	Tinker, J. J.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Leonard, W.	Tomlinson, G.
Dobbie, W.	Leslie, J. R.	Walkden, A. G.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)	Logan, D. G.	Watson, W. McL.
Ede, J. C.	Lunn, W.	Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)	Macdonald, G. (Ince)	Westwood, J
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)	McEntee, V. La T.	Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)
Foot, D. M.	Maclean, N.	Wilkinson, Ellen
Gallacher, W.	Marshall, F.	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Gardner, B. W.	Mathers, G.	Williams, T. (Don Valley)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	Maxton, J.	Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)	Milner, Major J.	Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Graham, D M. (Hamilton)	Montague, F.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)	Naylor, T. E.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES,—
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.	Noel-Baker, P. J.	Mr. Groves and Mr. Adamson.
Grenfell, D. R.	Oliver, C. H.

10.11 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, in page 62, line 10, after "and," to insert "the Commission."

This Amendment deals with the certification of values for purposes of payment of compensation. As the Schedule now stands, the regional board having certified to the Commission the amounts ascertained by the valuation has to send on a copy of the certificate to the claimant On further consideration we think that this could be done more cheaply and quickly by the Commission.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, in page 63, line 30, to leave out from "all," to "either," in line 32, and to insert "acquired interests comprised in the holding."

This is only a drafting point in connection with the payment and disposal of compensation, and it relates to what are described earlier in the Bill as prior interests. We consider that the form of words now proposed is more convenient.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, in page 63, line 33, to leave out "or request had been received," and to insert "request or notice had been received or given."

The Committee will recollect that on the Second Schedule an Amendment was accepted dealing with notice. This Amendment is consequential on that.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, in page 63, line 37, to leave out "is," and to insert "was."

The Committee will be glad to know-that this Amendment is being made purely for grammatical reasons.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, in page 65, line 2, to leave out from the beginning, to "are," in line 4, and to insert: At any time before the vesting date, or after that date but before the relevant certificates have become conclusive under paragraph 17 of this Schedule, the Commission, if they.

Mr. Gallacher

On a point of Order. Is the Amendment in my name to page 63, line 42, not to be called?

The Chairman

No, it is not selected. I think I am saving the hon. Member from trouble by not selecting it, because I am quite sure it would not be possible for him to move that Amendment without breaking the Standing Orders.

Captain Crookshank

We have now come to the part of the Schedule which deals with the responsibility of the Commission for making payments on account. This first Amendment on line 2 is really only verbal.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 65, line 7, leave out "ascertained to be."

In line 7, leave out from "amount," to "make," in line 8, and insert "may." —[Captain Crookshank.]

10.15 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, in page 65, line 12, to leave out "A sum paid under this provision," and to insert: Provided that no payment on account shall be made under this paragraph, except with the consent of the person entitled, either

1. (a) before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty; or
2. (b) unless the Commission have given to the person entitled not less than three months' notice in writing of their intention to make the payment.

(2) A payment on account made under this paragraph. This is a little longer and a more important point. The Amendment provides that the consent of the person entitled to the compensation must be obtained and that payment shall not be made before 1st January, 1940, or unless the Commission have given not less than three months' notice of their intention to make the payment.

Mr. Shinwell

I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman might amplify the statement he has just made, as it is not quite clear to hon. Members on this side of the Committee as to why he should insert the Amendment. Is it the intention to force payment on to the claimant?

Captain Crookshank

I was assuming that the hon. Gentleman knew the general purport of the Amendment and I am prepared to explain it further. What is envisaged here is that, supposing, before the final compensation date the Commission think it wise to make payment on account, they can do so, if they are satisfied that the valuation has advanced sufficiently far to enable them to estimate how much they can pay on account. The effect of the Amendment is that unless the person entitled to receive the money agrees, no such payment should be payable before 1st January, 1940. Three months' notice is to be given because if a certain person knew that a sum of money was coming to him on a certain date it might help him, in disposing of his mortgage for example, to give notice on that point so that he would not have to pay the mortgage interest and also the interest on the money received on account. I hope that the hon. Gentleman sees the point. It would be rather silly if he was going to receive money which he would use to pay off the mortgage, that he should not be given notice, otherwise he would pay interest which was quite unnecessary.

10.18 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

Assume that the money is available on 1st June under this provision, the Commission cannot pay the amount on 1st June, but will have to give three months' notice and not be able to pay until 1st September. If they could pay the money on 1st June, a man could invest it for three months on short term, or do anything else he liked with it. We on this side are not in the position of realising what it means when you are owed a lot of money and provision is put into the Bill that it shall not be paid to you. Most people are generally glad to get it. The Bill envisages a rather curious state of affairs. If people do not get their money, they will get more in royalties. In other words, the Commission will save money by being able to pay as quickly as possible.

During the period in which royalties will continue to be collected by the person who is to receive compensation the royalties will be considerably more than the interest on the compensation money. That is apparent from the arrangement for 15 years' purchase, which obviously means that they will get a greater amount in royalties than by the interest on their compensation money when it is invested. Similarly, the quicker the Commission can get into their hands the right to receive royalties and pay out in respect of compensation, the better off the Commission will be. It is not assumed that the Commission is to pay money, and the man is still to receive royalties. I cannot understand anybody wanting to have this money not being paid it. There is a set-off, I know, but the longer a man is in the possession of his royalties and not in receipt of the interest on the money, the better for him. Similarly, the other way, the better for the Commission. Therefore, the Commission are not to be allowed to do this, although they want to.

The assumption for the insertion of this provision envisages a provision in which the Commission want to pay off before 1st January, 1940, but are not to be allowed to do so. Why not? If they have raised the money and got it invested on short-term Government securities at I per cent. they would rather use it in paying the compensation than in getting interest on the money invested. Who is going to stop them? The answer must be that if anybody is going to suffer it must be the owner of the royalties who gets the money. Why is he going to suffer? This is to protect him. It says that the Commission shall not pay before a certain date and shall not pay unless there is three months' notice. Why? What harm is it going to do anybody to be paid money? Obviously, the only reason is that a man will not be as well off when he receives the money as he was before. The hon. and gallant Member's explanation about notice of mortgage is "all my eye and Betty Martin." Surely it is better to have the money than to have three months' notice. If someone comes to me and says, "I owe you £10,000" and says, "Will you have it now or on three months' notice?" I should say, "Give it to me now." The hon. and gallant Gentleman says, "This is a wonderful arrangement. We have money available to pay, but we are going to give three months' notice. How much better off you will be." That is what the hon. and gallant Gentleman says. That cannot be the reason for this provision. It is too fantastic even for a National Government. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman who is looking so eager will give us the real explanation.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Stanley

The object of the Clause is that if it is found that during the period before the vesting day, there is an opportunity of raising a part of this money, naturally it will be raised at a convenient time from the point of view of the Commission. Clearly, the money having been raised by the Commission, they will want to put it to use, and therefore, they will want to pay it out on account. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the provisions of Sub-section (2), he will see that there is no monetary gain in the way of income either to the Commission or to the owners by reason of this payment on account. The owner will go on receiving his royalties until the vesting date. He will, of course, between the time of payment and the vesting date receive the interest on the compensation that is invested; but after the vesting date, when the time comes for full compensation to be paid to him, both the capital sum and the interest he has received will be taken into account and deducted from it. Therefore there is no difference from the point of view of income. The only prejudice that the royalty owner might suffer is that money on account might be paid to him at a time when, from the point of view of reinvestment, it is a bad time. That is why this Clause is compulsory and not merely permissive. The recipient might say, "The time chosen for this payment is a time when the opportunities of reinvestment are bad, and therefore I am not prepared to take it."

Mr. Shinwell

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the three months' notice? Seeing that the three months' notice is a condition which the person must accept, how does that affect the matter, if the intention is to put the person concerned in a better position from the point of view of reinvestment?

Mr. Stanley

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish my argument. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked why should this be made compulsory, because it is so much to the advantage of the royalty owner that he should receive this that to make it compulsory is absurd. I do not agree that it is necessarily to his advantage. If the money is raised at a time when the market is favourable for raising money, the hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that that is a time when it is unfavourable for investment. If one raises money cheaply, when one reinvests money one gets a low rate of interest; and the time when the market is favourable for a man who raises money is a time when it is unfavourable for a man who invests money. Therefore, the owner may say that the time which suits us for raising the money with which to pay him is prima facie a time when it is difficult for him to reinvest it. Therefore, the Clause is made compulsory so that we shall be certain that if the Commission does raise money, they will be able to pass it on to the owner on account of compensation. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that at any rate it is a wise precaution.

With regard to the next point which the hon. and learned Gentleman made, it is clear that, in fact, no payment of this kind could be made before 1940. The hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that the process of valuation has to be considerably advanced before it will be safe for the Commission to pay out any money on account to a particular owner. It is clear that the Commission will not be in a position to pay out before 1940, and if they are not in a position to do so, it is just as well to indicate to the owners that they will not be forced to take money which they do not desire before 1940. Similarly, with the question of three months' notice. There is no question of three months' notice if you are paying out money by agreement. What we are supposing are circumstances where the Commission propose to pay to an owner who is not willing; and before a man is in those circumstances paid a large sum of money which he has to find means of disposing of and investing to the best of his ability, he should have three months' notice to enable him to make his preparations.

10.31 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

I am beginning to see what is working in the brain of the right

hon. Gentleman. He is President of the Board of Trade and he is the person familiar with the workings of trade, trade booms, depressions and so on. He refers to 1940. What is the significance of that date? The National Government will remain in power until 1st January, 1940, and God help the man who has to invest during that period. But the right hon. Gentleman sees a hope for him. The Government will then be replaced, a firm basis for investment will arise in this country under the next Labour Government, and it will be safer then to invest money. [Laughter.] The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) must not laugh, for it is his own Government provision that he is supporting. The 1st January, 1940, is a significant date. Here is the right hon. Gentleman so much taken up with the cares of the royalty owners that he is even protecting them against the National Government. They are not to be forced to have money during this period because the prospects are so gloomy. Apart from that, I can see no possible reason for putting the date in. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is not necessary because no money can be paid away before that date. Why, then, put it in? As regards the three months' notice, does he suggest that three months is necessarily going to lead to a better opportunity for investment, that, whatever the period, if you invest in three months' time you can always get a much better chance than now? He says that, no matter when it is decided to pay the money, to do so three months ahead is always better than now. It is ridiculous.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.

Question put, "That the proposed words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 98.

Division No. 96.]	AYES.	[10.33 p.m.
Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)	Balfour, Cap). H. H. (Isle of Thanet)	Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.	Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.	Bull, B. B.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)	Beauchamp, Sir B. C.	Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.	Boulton, W. W.	Butcher, H. W.
Albery, Sir Irving	Bower, Comdr. R. T.	Campbell, Sir E. T.
Aske, Sir R. W.	Boyce, H. Leslie	Cartland, J. R. H.
Assheton, R.	Briscoe, Capt. R. G.	Carver, Major w. H.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)	Brocklebank, Sir Edmund	Cary, R. A.
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.	Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)	Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)	Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.	Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Channon, H.	Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.	Radford, E. A.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.	Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)	Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.	Ramsbotham, H.
Clarry, Sir Reginald	Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)	Ramsden, Sir E.
Clydesdale, Marquess of	Higgs, W. F.	Rankin, Sir R.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)	Holmes, J. S.	Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Colman, N. C. D.	Hopkinson, A.	Rayner, Major R. H.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.	Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.	Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Conant, Captain R. J. E.	Horsbrugh, Florenco	Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'sl'r s. G'gs)	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)	Ropner, Colonel L.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)	Hume, Sir G. H.	Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Cox, H. B. Trevor	Hunter, T.	Rothschild, J. A. de
Craven-Ellis, W.	Hutchinson, G. C.	Rowlands, G.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page	Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.	Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Crooke, Sir J. S.	Keeling, E. H.	Salt, E. W.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C	Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)	Samuel, M. R. A.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Kimball, L.	Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Cross, R. H.	Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)	Scott, Lord William
Crossley, A. C.	Leech, Sir J. W.	Shakespeare, G- H.
Crowder, J. F. E.	Lees-Jones, J.	Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Cruddas, Col. B.	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Culverwell, C. T.	Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.	Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Davidson, Viscountess	Lewis, O.	Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Dawson, Sir P.	Liddall, W. S.	Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
De Chair, S. S.	Lindsay, K. M.	Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Lipson, D. L.	Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)	Little, Sir E. Graham.	Spens. W. P.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)	Lloyd, G. W.	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Dugdale, Captain T. L.	Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.	Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Duncan, J. A. L.	Loftus, P. C.	Storey, S
Dunglass, Lord	Lyons, A. M.	Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Eastwood, J. F.	Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Eckersley, P. T.	MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.	Sutcliffe, H.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)	Tasker, Sir R. I.
Emery, J. F.	McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.	Tate, Mavis C.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.	McKie, J. H.	Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Errington, E.	Magnay, T.	Thomas, J. P. L.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)	Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.	Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Findlay, Sir E.	Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.	Wakefield, W. W.
Fleming, E. L.	Maxwell, Hon. S. A.	Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.	Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.	Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Fremantle, Sir F. E.	Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Furness, S. N.	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Warrender, Sir V.
Fyfe, D. P. M.	Moreing, A. C.	Waterhouse, Captain C.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.	Wayland, Sir W. A
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)	Munro, P.	Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)	Nall, Sir J.	Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Grimston, R. V.	Nicolson, Hon. H. G.	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Guinness, T. L. E. B.	Orr-Ewing, I. L.	Wragg, H.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.	Palmer, G. E. H.	Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Hannah, I. C.	Peake, O.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.	Peat, C. U.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)	Perkins, W. R. D.	Captain Hope and Sir James
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)	Plugge, Capt. L. F.	Edmondson.
NOES.
Adams, D. (Consett)	Fool, D. M.	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)	Gallacher, W.	Lathan, G.
Adamson, W. M.	Garro Jones, G. M.	Lawson, J. J.
Ammon, C. G.	Geoge, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)	Leonard, w.
Banfield. J. W.	Green, W. H. (Deptford)	Leslie, J. R
Barr, J.		Logan, D. G.
Batey, J.	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.	Lunn, W.
Bellender, F. J.	Grenfell, D. R.	Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Bonn, Rt. Hon. W. W.	Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)	McEntee, V. La T.
Bevan, A.	Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)	Maclean, N.
Buchanan, G.	Griffiths. J. (Llanelly)	Marshall, F.
Burke, W. A.	Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)	Mathers, G.
Chater, D.	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	Maxton, J.
Cocks, F. S.	Hills, A. (Pontefract)	Milner, Major J.
Cove, W. G.	Hollins, A.	Naylor, T. E.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford	Hopkin, D.	Noel-Baker, P. J.
Daggar, G.	Jagger, J.	Oliver, G. H.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)	Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)	Parker, J.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)	Parkinson, J. A.
Dobbie, W.	Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.	Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)	Jones, A. C. (Shipley)	Price, M. P.
Ede, J. C.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Pritt, D. N.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)	Kelly, W. T.	Quibell, D. J. K.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)	Kirby, B. V.	Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Ritson, J.	Sorensen, R. W.	Westwood, J.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)	Stephen, C.	Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)	Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Seely, Sir H. M.	Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)	Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Sexton, T. M.	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)	Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Shinwell, E.	Tinker, J. J.	Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Simpson, F. B.	Tomlinson, G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)	Walkden, A. G.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Smith, T. (Normanton)	Watson, W. McL.	Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves.

Question, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Third Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

10.40 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, in page 65, line 32, at the beginning, to insert: Subject to the provisions of this paragraph. This Amendment is purely introductory, and the next Amendment is a very small technical provision relating to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 65, line 39, at the end, insert: (2) In the case of a holding that could have been sold as mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph eighteen of this Schedule under powers conferred by the Ecclesiastical Leasing Acts, the compensation paid in respect thereof and the income thereof shall be held and disposed of, and the said Acts shall have effect, in like manner as if the compensation had been money paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners upon a sale under the said Acts of the premises in which the holding subsisted. Provided that if the holding was a reversion and the rent reserved by the lease was subject, by virtue of a scheme in force under the said Acts, to a direction for the payment thereof to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the benefit of their common fund, the direction shall have effect in relation to the income of the compensation as it had effect in relation to the rent.

In page 66, line 14, after "provisions," insert "of this paragraph and."—[Captain Crookshank.]

10.44 p.m.

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, in page 66, line 32, at the end, to insert: (2) The Commission shall not be liable to pay under this paragraph any costs incurred by a person who or whose predecessor in title has neglected to furnish to the Commission information, relevant to the ascertainment of the person entitled to the compensation for the holding, that he is required by this Schedule, or has been reasonably required by the Commission, to furnish to them. The High Court shall have power, on the application of a person aggrieved by a denial on the part of the Commission by virtue of this sub-paragraph of liability to pay any such costs as aforesaid, to give such directions as to the matter in question as appear to the Court to be just. (3) In case of difference as to the amount of any costs, other than costs of Court proceedings, that the Commission are liable under this paragraph to pay, the Board of Trade may direct in what manner they are to be taxed. The purpose of this Amendment is to fill an omission by introducing into this part of the Schedule provisions which have already been passed with regard to the earlier part of the Schedule as to the liability of the Commissioners for costs. It provides that the Commissioners shall not be liable to pay costs incurred by persons who neglected to furnish the Commission with information which, if it had been furnished, would have prevented costs being incurred. It also contains a taxation provision similar to what has already been passed in the earlier part of the Schedule and a reference to the High Court of a similar kind to that upon which we have already divided.

Amendment agreed to.

10.45 p.m.

The Lord Advocate

I beg to move, in page 67, line 8, to leave out from "sub-lease," to the first "and," in line 10.

This Amendment and the following Amendment are both consequential on Amendments which have already been passed.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 67, line 15, at the end, insert: with the exception of any such interest that is a retained interest by virtue of a direction under Sub-section (2) of Section five of this Act."—[The Lord Advocate.]

10.46 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

I think that this would be a convenient point at which to move to report Progress. Extremely good progress has been made this evening; we have given the right hon. Gentleman the greatest assistance that we can; and I suggest that, if Progress were reported now, we should still have time to finish the rest of the Schedules at a conveniently early hour on Monday. We have all been working at fairly high pressure keeping these things going. I know that hon. Members opposite have; the pressure has been so great at some moments that they have gone off the rails. In the circumstances, I suggest that our master should set us free for the rest of the evening.

Mr. Stanley

rose—

The Chairman

I may say that I do not propose to put that Motion for the moment.

Mr. Stanley

Then I am afraid I do not know to what Motion I am speaking. I readily express my appreciation of the very valuable aid that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has given us during the passage of the Schedule. I am genuinely grateful for a number of suggestions which have been made, in no party spirit but with an obvious desire to improve the machinery of the Schedule. With regard to business, I suggest that the series of Amendments that have been put down to the Fourth Schedule are all on one point, and that a narrow one; and that the most convenient thing would be for the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) to move the Amendments. We could then see, from his explanation of them and any subsequent discussion, whether they are more formidable than I believe them to be, and, if so, we can move to report Progress.