§ Order read for Consideration of Lords Amendments in lieu of certain of their Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, and Lords consequential Amendment.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Captain Crookshank.]
§ Lords Amendments considered accordingly.
§ CLAUSE 2.—(General provisions as to functions of the Commission under Part I.)
§
Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 24, at the end, insert:
Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall be construed as conferring on the Board any power to give a direction inconsistent with any provisions of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, or of any other enactment relating to the control or management of a mine within the meaning of that Act, or of any regulations made under that Act or any such other enactment.
§ 5.51 p.m.
§ The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank)I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Hon. Members who took part in the previous stage will remember that there was a Lords Amendment to insert a proviso in Clause 2, and that a discussion arose in which my right hon. Friend stated that the words "in relation to any matter regulated by the Coal Mines Act," were, as we stated in the reasons sent to the other place, unduly restrictive. The only possible way of getting an opportunity of looking at the words again was by rejecting that Amendment on that occasion. Since then there has been an opportunity of consultation and consideration of what should be the right words, and I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman who has been leading the Opposition will take any exception to them. I shall be very surprised if he does, because I think they carry out the general views which the House expressed on the last occasion.
§ 5.53 P.m.
§ Mr. T. WilliamsWe do not oppose this Amendment because I understand that it is practically in the words of my hon. and learned Friend. For once in a way we can agree with their Lordships.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to compensation payable under Section 6 of this Act.)
§
Lords Amendment: In page 73, line 19, at the end, insert:
20—(1) If in the case of any valuation region the relevant certificates have not become conclusive under paragraph 17 of this Schedule at the vesting date, the claimant or any person intervening in respect of a holding in the region for which compensation is to be payable may require the Commission to make, at the expiration of each quarter thereafter until the certificates become conclusive, a payment on account under the last preceding paragraph of an amount not less than that specified in this paragraph, and, as from the date of any such requirement, the Commission shall be liable to make payments to the person entitled to the compensation for the holding accordingly.
(2) The amount of a quarterly payment that may be required as aforesaid shall be an amount equal to interest for three months at the rate mentioned in Sub-section (8) of Section seven of this Act on three-quarters of either—
Provided that if before the beginning of any quarter at the expiration of which a quarterly payment becomes due any payment on account has been made in respect of the holding under the last preceding paragraph otherwise than by way of quarterly payment required as aforesaid. the amount of the quarterly payment shall be reduced by an amount equal to interest for three months at the rate aforesaid on the amount of the said payment on account.
(3) In the case of a holding consisting of a reversion, if at a date on which a quarterly payment becomes due the draft valuation of the holding has not been settled, the amount of that payment shall be an amount equal to one-eighth of—
so however that that amount shall be subject to the reduction mentioned in the proviso to the last preceding sub-paragraph in the case therein mentioned:Provided that in a case in which there is reasonable ground for apprehending that, if a payment of the amount so ascertained were made, the aggregate of that payment and of any other payment on account theretofore made might exceed the aggregate of the compensation for the holding and the interest thereon, the Commission may withhold that payment.
(4) In a case in which the proviso to the last preceding sub-paragraph has effect and in a case of a holding other than a reversion, if at a date on which a quarterly payment becomes due the draft valuation of the holding has not been settled, that payment shall be deferred until the draft has been settled and the amount thereof shall be ascertained under sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph.
(5) In this paragraph—
§ 5.54 P.m.
§ Captain CrookshankI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Hon. Members will recollect that when we got the Bill from another place there was an Amendment which dealt with the vesting date, postponing it until such time as all the valuations were completed. That Amendment was rejected by this House, on the grounds that we considered the period up to 1st July, 1942, adequate for completing the valuation, and that uncertainty as to the vesting date would render it impracticable to make the valuation. The other place have not insisted upon the Amendment which they made, but they have sent down this Amendment which touches in some ways upon some of the anxieties which led them in the first place to make the Amendment which was rejected by us.
2047 It has been feared in certain quarters, and the fear has been voiced in this House by certain hon. Gentlemen that circumstances might arise in which the valuation might not be completed on 1st July, 1942, and that therefore those who were concerned with royalties as a source of income would be in a very difficult position. The vesting date being settled by Act of Parliament, the money due to them would, so to speak, be in the bank awaiting distribution in their favour, but, as the valuation was not completed, they would be unable to get either their capital or their income. We do not necessarily accept the suggestion put forward that it will be impossible to finish the valuation by 1st July, 1942, because we have taken the best possible advice on that subject and we have come to the conclusion that this is a practicable scheme. Therefore, in asking the House to accept this Amendment, I do not retract, on behalf of my right hon. Friend or of myself, anything that we said on those grounds, but we suggest that there may be some difficulty in individual cases if it were not possible to make payments on the date set.
The Amendment is linked up with the Sub-section which empowers the Coal Commission to make payments on account, either before or after the vesting date, so long as they consider it reasonably safe to do so. They will have raised a great sum of money and it will be to the convenience of everybody if the money is passed on to the ultimate recipients, if that can be done without risk of paying out too much. The Amendment makes it possible for a claimant to ask that payment should be made in his case. If a person or corporation, supposing that the valuations are not completed and compensation cannot be paid out, asks that something should be paid to them on account, the Amendment provides machinery for that purpose. The matter is closely safeguarded and there is no risk of the Commission finding themselves having to pay out more by payment on account than the ultimate compensation. Hon. Members have only to realise that under these new provisions of the Schedule claimants can ask to be paid quarterly from the vesting date, as payment on account, the interest, as laid down in the Bill, on three-quarters of the draft valuation or of the certified valuation. 2048 It is obviously pretty safe to pay interest merely on three-quarters of the draft valuation, though of course nobody can say exactly what the relationship of the draft valuation may be to the final figure.
If, under the Amendment, no draft valuation has been made on that particular property (and again, that is almost inconceivable), under paragraph (3) of the Amendment it would be possible for a claimant to ask for quarterly payments of one-eighth of the rent of the year ending with the vesting date. The Commission are completely safeguarded, because if they think there is reasonable ground to suppose that such a sum might exceed the ultimate compensation, they may withhold payment.
All this is rather hypothetical. But it is rather a source of anxiety, and we ask the House to accept the Amendment, bearing in mind that when my right hon. Friend was asking the House on the 6th of this month to reject the Lords Amendment on that occasion he said that the House would be glad to see whether there was any unfairness or inequity which could be overcome in this matter, and that he would be prepared to assist in overcoming it. I should like to make it clear, anyhow, that the money is due as a debt to the royalty owners as from the vesting date, and, as from that date, interest runs in their favour. Therefore, the House is not being asked to take any kind of risk, but the Amendment makes it possible to deal with what will, I daresay, be only very exceptional cases, where the person or corporation is without any source of income owing to some delay in valuation. I hope that this explanation will satisfy the House. If there are any other points that hon. Gentlemen wish me to mention, I shall be happy to do so. I trust that the House will conclude that this is a very satisfactory way out of a difficulty which at one time loomed very large.
§ 6.1 p.m.
§ Mr. T. WilliamsThis Amendment is very different from the original Amendment which their lordships passed on another occasion. It deals with the isolated cases that may crop up, and, since Parliament has decided that certain sums of money shall be paid, we see no reason for withholding payment if certain circumstances obtain at any given time. 2049 The new Amendment clearly provides all the requisite safeguards so that no one person or body should secure more than they are actually entitled to. I entirely agree with the Minister that this Amendment should be agreed to by the House, so that, wherever an odd case may crop up here and there, appropriate arrangements may be made to deal with it
§ 6.2 p.m.
§ Mr. SpensI should like to add a word in expression of my satisfaction, not only that this Amendment is at last to appear in the Bill, but that hon. Gentlemen opposite are accepting it. In the earlier stages of the Bill I felt that, although the big corporations and big royalty owners would have no difficulty in making a case for a voluntary ex gratia payment on account, I felt that the small royalty owners might find difficulty in getting the Commission, under the original provisions of the Bill, to make a payment on account. The new Amendment will give every person who finds himself in a position of difficulty, and can satisfy the Commission that that is the case, the right to a payment, and accordingly it will protect especially the position of the small royalty owners, which might have given rise to great anxiety under the provisions of the Bill as it was originally introduced. I am very pleased that this Amendment will now appear in the Bill.
§ 6.3 p.m.
§ Mr. BateyI confess that, when I saw this Amendment, it was beyond me; I could not understand why we should have such a long Amendment, covering two and a half pages, to deal with such a very small matter as the Secretary for Mines has explained. If it means no more than the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, namely, that, if the valuation is not complete by 1942, the royalty owners will be entitled to interest, I am puzzled to know why we could not have had a much simpler Amendment, and why we should go on putting Amendments into the Bill which nobody can understand. I did not understand the Amendment, and thought it was just something that was put into the Bill in order to make a harvest for the lawyers. If it is as simple as the Secretary for Mines has said, I think it should have been put in more simple language.
§ 6.4 p.m.
§ Mr. James GriffithsMy view is the same as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). Because the Amendment is drafted in the way that lawyers have devised, as a result of centuries of practice, to make their meaning not understood by the ordinary layman. I want to ask a question or two about it. Perhaps the answers are implied in the Amendment. In the first place, is the hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied that there is nothing in this new provision that will offer an inducement to the royalty owners to delay the process of valuation and the vesting date? Apparently, the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) takes the view that all the anxiety in another place has been to protect the small royalty owners, but it comes as a great surprise to me to know that the small royalty owners are represented in another place.
§ Mr. SpensThe hon. Member has misunderstood what I said. I myself moved similar Amendments in this House at two previous stages of the Bill, mainly for the purpose of assisting the small royalty owners. As I have said, I thought that the big royalty owners could look after themselves.
§ Mr. GriffithsI have read with very great care the Debates in another place, and I certainly should not describe those who sponsored and spoke on this Amendment as small royalty owners. Is the Secretary for Mines perfectly certain that there is nothing in the Amendment now which would permit the royalty owners to do what the President of the Board of Trade was afraid they would do if the original Amendment was carried, namely, to use the provision to delay the valuation so as to push off the vesting date and get more royalties? My second question is with regard to interest. I gather that the royalty owners are to be paid, from the vesting date onwards, interest on what may remain of the money which they have not received, very largely, I think, because the valuation will not have been completed. If I understand the matter correctly, before the valuation is complete a certain amount of money will be paid on account into a bank for the small royalty owner whose property has not been completely valued, and that money will lie in the bank and earn interest. Is that the interest that the royalty 2051 owner is to get? If at the vesting date and onwards the valuation has not been completed, will he receive the full royalty, or interest on the full royalty, or will he receive merely the interest on the sum paid into the account? In my view, the royalty owners have had far too much money already, and I am concerned to protect the Commission and not to put any extra burden upon them.
§ 6.9 p.m.
§ Mr. E. J. WilliamsThe House will appreciate that the valuers who will have to be engaged are substantially the same persons who are now doing the job, and very largely it will lie with them whether the matter can be expedited or not. Can the Minister assure us that there is some kind of machinery, or that the Department itself will have some power, to compel the valuers, who will be largely the estate agents of the large landowners, to work up to the vesting date and not beyond it? That is the important point. If the Minister can assure us that there is some kind of machinery that will cause them to expedite the valuation, so that it will be complete, or as nearly complete as possible, on the vesting date, we shall be satisfied.
§ 6.10 p.m.
§ Captain CrookshankI am sorry that the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) is puzzled by these words, but I am afraid that most of us who have been through the long stages of this Bill will have realised that we are dealing with difficult and technical subjects, and what would appear quite simple to him and to me becomes, when translated into legal language, rather cumbersome. There is, however, no hidden meaning in the Amendment. In particular, the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) can be satisfied that there is nothing in it that would offer any inducement to delay the valuation. At the moment the Bill, as it has been accepted by both Houses, provides that the royalty income shall be payable up to the vesting date, when it ceases, so that there is no inducement to royalty owners to delay the getting of their money afterwards. Under the Amendment which the hon. Member had in mind, and to which this House declined to agree, that royalty would have 2052 gone on to the vesting date whatever it might be. This is a very different proposal.
§ Mr. GriffithsMay I ask whether it will be possible for them to delay it, and whether the interest which they might get under this provision would be better for them than receiving the royalty?
§ Captain CrookshankNo, it must be much worse. There can be no conceivable inducement to anyone to delay, because they get their royalty income up to the vesting date, and, after that, the compensation is due as a debt. As regards the rate of interest, we cannot go back to the Bill at this stage, but Sub-section (8) of Clause 7 provides that, as from the vesting date, the debt is due, and, therefore, interest on the compensation money runs in favour of the royalty owners. The rate of interest is to be ascertained in accordance with the formula which is there prescribed. It is not, therefore, in the interest of anyone to delay the valuation, because the financial effect would be unsatisfactory from the point of view of those who are going to get compensation. This provision, however, is not designed to deal with that objective at all; it is merely to deal with the difficulty that, supposing that the valuation was not completed, and supposing that a particular person had not received anything, he would, under the Schedule in its previous form, though he knew that money was owing to him and that interest was running in his favour on that money, be unable to touch any of it at all. I can assure the hon. Member that there is no kind of inducement to delay the valuation.
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
Lords consequential Amendment: In line 3 of the Lords Amendment in page 73, line 21, leave out "the last preceding paragraph," and insert "paragraph 19 or 20 of this Schedule."
§ Captain CrookshankI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is consequential, and I hope that these are the last words that will be uttered on the Bill.
§ Question put, and agreed to.