HC Deb 31 March 1938 vol 333 cc2247-68

6.38 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, in page 54, line 5, to leave out from "be," to the end of line 6, and to insert: such number of the members of the Board as may be prescribed. The reason for omitting the provision of a quorum of 10 is because, under Clause 6, paragraph 4, the actual numbers of the boards are outside the Bill, and as we do not know how many members there will be, it would be wrong to specify the number of the quorum.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, in page 54, line 41, to leave out from "be," to the end of line 42, and to insert: such number of the members of the Board as may be prescribed, and the rules may prescribe different numbers as respects different Regional Valuation Boards. It was originally intended that there should be not less than three members, but since we made an alteration in the Committee that not all the valuers in the region should be on the board, but only such as the board may determine, that makes it uncertain whether, in some areas, there will be the right number. We might want different numbers in different areas to complete the board, and it would be better to do as we now suggest, and not to prescribe this matter by rule.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, in page 55, line 17, after "Boards," to insert: and to a referee appointed under this Schedule. We omitted, by mistake, to make any reference to the payment of remuneration to the referees. It is clear that the referees ought to receive something for the services which they will render, and for which they will be paid in the same sort of way as the other bodies, that is to say, in amounts to be determined by the Board of Trade, and by payments to be made by the Commission. That is the effect of this Amendment, and of the consequential one a little later.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, in page 55, line 17, after "and," to insert "such."

This Amendment and the following one are mere verbal alterations to show that in some cases these expenses could not really be determined on a scale. They might be paid, if it is right to do so, in another way.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 55, line 18, leave out "on such scale."

In line 21, after the first "Board," insert "and of a referee appointed under this Schedule."—[Captain Crookshank.]

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, in page 60, line 31, 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. There is a little more substance in this new proviso. It may be, in the course of investigation of claim, that the regional valuation board might see an error in the particulars, or an omission, which they might think of material importance for valuation purposes. The Amendment makes it possible for them at any time before they have settled their draft valuation to notify the Commission of the error which they have seen. It would then be for the Commission, as the registration authority, to make the alteration. I am sure the House will realise that it is important to reach finality in these matters as soon as possible, and while there is no reason to suppose that the registration authority would leave out anything material or make a mistake, yet the regional valuation board are composed of mineral valuers who know the district, and they might possibly see some mistake. If so, it should be corrected at that stage, and that is where finality should rest.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. Keeling

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, to leave out from "purposes," to "notify," in line 4, and to insert: or if in the course of proceedings before a referee acting in pursuance of the provisions of this Schedule it is proved to the satisfaction of such referee that there is such an error or omission in such particulars the said Board or referee (as the case may be) may. The object of this Amendment is twofold. The first object is to allow the regional valuation board to notify the Commission at any time of any error they discover, and not merely before they have settled their draft valuation. The second object is to allow a referee acting under this Schedule to make a like discovery and notification.

Mr. Spens

I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

6.45 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

I am afraid I cannot recommend the acceptance of this Amendment to the proposed Amendment. In moving my Amendment, my concluding words were that we thought that finality was important, and should be reached at the stage where we have put it, that is to say, the stage of the Regional Valuation Board. The Government Amendment was framed on the theory that the Board, from its constitution, might conceivably notice an error or omission, and would therefore be the proper body to deal with it, and would do so in their own draft valuation which has to go forward. Now my hon. Friend asks me to take it a stage further, so that at any stage, even up to the referee, should an error be found, it would be possible to rectify it. As a matter of fact, the referee ex officio is not really concerned with the accuracy of the particulars. What he has to do is to make a decision on the valuation, and, if it is left as late as the stage when the matter comes before the referee, I am afraid that the gloomy forecast which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) made last night, that 3½ years would not be long enough, would certainly be true. I think we had better leave the finality in this matter with the Regional Valuation Board before they make their draft valuation, because they are the people who are actually likely from their own knowledge to be able to spot an error or omission.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Amendment made: In page 60, line 34, after "paragraph," 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."—[Captain Crookshank.]

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, in page 60, line 44, at the end, to insert: (5) The estate owner in respect of a holding, in respect of which the payment of compensation under this Act is claimed, and all persons claiming under him and their successors in title respectively shall be estopped from asserting after the vesting date any matter adversely affecting the premises in which the holding subsisted, unless it is shown that there was furnished for the purposes of the Registration Act information of all the circumstances of the holding relevant to that matter, or, if it was a matter with respect to which the Commission or the Board of Trade gave such an indication as to the information material in their opinion for valuation purposes as is mentioned in Section thirty-one of this Act, such information with respect to that matter as was thereby indicated. This is to provide that if a person is interested in a holding for which compensation has been paid, he should not afterwards—I hope no one will think I imagine it is likely to happen, but we must stop up the gap—be able to claim that the holding does not comprise something which, when he was making the claim, he said it did comprise; and, further, that he should not afterwards be able to say that that particular property is subject to some sort of servitude when, at the time when he was making his claim, that is to say, when the existence of the servitude or otherwise might make a difference, he did not disclose it.

Sir Stafford Cripps

This seems to us to be a very healthy suspicion of a class of people who ought to be so regarded.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, in page 61, line 7, to leave out from "served," to the end of line 10, and to insert: and, if it has not been delivered at the date on which notice of the registration of particulars in respect of the holding is given to the Regional Valuation Board, it must be delivered within such period as the board may specify by notice requiring delivery thereof served on the claimant after that date, so however that the period specified shall not be less than one month from the service of the notice requiring delivery thereof. Under sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 11 of the Schedule as it stands, notice to the claimant and to the Regional Valuation Board has to be given with regard to the registration of the holding within one month from the date when the claimant has to put in to the Regional Valuation Board an estimate of his holding. One does not want the Regional Valuation Board to be completely snowed under with work coming in at one moment, so that they cannot digest it; and, moreover, it may very well be, as has been pointed out, that a particular mineral agent might be working for several interests, and would have to deliver all these notices to all the different interests with whom he was concerned on the same day. The Amendment merely allows the Regional Valuation Board to have some say, in regulating the demands for estimates, as to the date when they can be sent in. It is purely a machinery Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

6.51 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

I beg to move, in page 61, line 25, after "relates," to insert "wholly or partially."

This Amendment raises a point which we raised during the Committee stage, and the right hon. Gentleman told us that he would look into it. We think, however, that he has not looked into it successfully. Sub-paragraph (4) is intended to deal with cases where the valuation relates to a subsidiary coal hereditament only, and the procedure is to be different where it relates only to a coal hereditament. There must, however, be cases, as we understand it, unless the right hon. Gentleman can correct us, where the valuation includes both coal hereditaments and subsidiary coal hereditaments. In such a mixed case this procedure obviously ought to apply, but the words if the valuation relates to subsidiary coal hereditaments leave it doubtful whether the meaning is that it wholly relates or that it wholly or partially relates thereto. We imagine that it is intended to cover the case in which it relates wholly or partially, but, as at present drafted, it is not clear which is intended. Whether it be the one or the other, it is obviously necessary to make it clear which case it is intended to cover, and we suggest the insertion of the words "wholly or partially" in order to make it clear that, if you have a mixed claim, this procedure shall apply to such a mixed claim.

6.54 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell)

We have looked into this point, we hope successfully, and I hope to be able to satisfy the House and the hon. and learned Gentleman that these words are not only unnecessary but inappropriate. Subsidiary hereditaments are only taken over if they are comprised in a coal mining lease, and, therefore, are accompanied by coal hereditaments. Clause 7 (2) lays it down quite clearly that the valuation will be both of the principal and of the subsidiary hereditament, but when we come to the compensation, it is split up. The valuation is of both, and, that being so, we think that the sub-paragraph clearly covers the case where there is a valuation of coal hereditaments and subsidiary hereditaments, because subsidiary hereditaments are never valued by themselves. The words "wholly or partially" would be inappropriate, because you never would get a valuation strictly confined to subsidiary hereditaments, and, when the later stage is reached where they are split up for compensation purposes under Clause 6, a valuation of the subsidiary compensation only can be made. The valuation under Clause 7 (2) is a valuation of both together, and, therefore, it is clear that, in any case where subsidiary coal hereditaments are included, the valuation notice will have to be given.

6.56 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

Might I ask the Attorney-General whether that would mean that in such a case the valuation of the coal hereditament could be disputed in the manner set out in the last part of the sub-paragraph; that is to say, as regards the coal hereditament, would the parties be given the opportunity of being heard and so on? If, as the Attorney-General says, the valuation relates to both, can either part of the valuation be disputed? Is it possible for a claimant to say that he is content with the valuation of the subsidiary coal hereditament, but to dispute the valuation of the coal hereditament? Is it not intended that this procedure shall only relate to the subsidiary coal hereditament part of the holding? Supposing that the coal valuation is £10,000, and the subsidiary valuation £1,000, is it not intended that this procedure shall apply only to the £1,000 part? It seems to me that, as the words stand, it would be possible for the claimant, while satisfied with the £1,000 part, to dispute the £10,000 part.

The Attorney-General

I think it is all right, but I will look into it. I think it is clear from the words that it is only if the valuation relates to a subsidiary hereditament that you give notice at all. The point is that the Commission are not interested in the value of coal hereditaments, because that simply relates to the division of the global sum, and therefore the Commission will have no motive to dispute that figure, which does not interest them. I think the Clause makes the matter clear, but I will certainly consider it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.57 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

I beg to move, in page 61, line 30, after "heard," to insert "and of giving evidence."

This is another small point. As regards the question of hearing, sub-paragraph (4) states that the board shall give him or them an opportunity of being heard by, as it will now read, a person experienced in the valuation of mineral assets. In the case of a claimant in person, it seems to us that, if any value is to be attached to the inquiry, there must be an opportunity of asking that person questions. That opportunity will not arise if he only appears as an advocate and not as a witness, and, therefore, there should not only be an opportunity of his being heard as an advocate, but also an opportunity of his giving evidence on the point. Otherwise, there would be no means by which the board could get any evidence either from the Commission or from the other side, and they will merely have to decide on ex parte statements. When the subparagraph speaks of being heard by a competent mineral valuer or a person experienced in the valuation of minerals, it means that he is entitled to appear as counsel or solicitors might appear, and the board would hear that person, but it will not entitle anyone to bring evidence. It seems to us to be necessary to insert here a provision by which the parties desiring to be heard might bring what evidence they think desirable in order to assist the Regional Valuation Board. Whether these words are appropriate or not, some provision should be made for the parties to bring evidence before the Regional Valuation Board. Otherwise, the board will only be discharging a rather useless function.

6.59 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

I think that perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman is slightly exaggerating the importance of this particular stage. It is a rather informal stage. Perhaps I might remind him of the point at which we now are, because the Schedule is so complicated that it is very difficult to remember with which point one is dealing at any given moment. What occurs is that after July, 1939, the Commission pass on to the Regional Valuation Board the registration that has been effected, and at the same time they pass it on to the claimant and give him notice, and the claimant has to make an estimate himself to the Regional Valuation Board. The board looks at the estimate and makes a first draft of its award. At that stage the board has to give the claimant an opportunity of coming along and being heard before it makes its final valuation.

It is not really a sort of stage at which there is any question of giving evidence. The claimant makes his own valuation and the Regional Valuation Board makes its draft one, and then the claimant says, "I think you are wrong, it is not enough or it is too much," as the case may be, and suggests the reasons that he has for thinking it too low or too high. I do not think there is any necessity for talking in terms of evidence or witnesses, because it is an informal stage before the Board makes a firm valuation. If the claimant has a complaint about it he applies for a referee to consider it and then, of course, we are in a formal stage. It seems to me that this stage is in the nature of a conference between the Valuation Board and the claimant. It does not seem to me that, even if the claimant and the Board are in conflict, it needs witnesses, or even advocates, for either to understand what the other is saying.

7.3 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

This is like the situation of an assessment committee for rating purposes. If a claimant appears before such a committee on their draft valuation he is entitled to bring evidence, and constantly does. The way to assist people to get a correct decision is to bring evidence along and not merely to argue it. I should have thought that it was desirable to get an accurate decision at the earliest moment. It will get rid of an appeal to the referee altogether. The person who can give the evidence is there and, if he could give evidence, it would enable the other side to cross-examine him and elucidate the true facts. It is desirable to have some method of arriving at the earliest moment at the most accurate result. It would not complicate the matter enormously. If you do not provide this opportunity you are only encouraging appeals to the referee.

Mr. Spens

I should like to associate myself with everything that the hon. and learned Gentleman has said.

Captain Crookshank

I should have thought that the words in the paragraph covered what the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind. If the claimant disputes the figure, they would presumably ask, "What is your evidence?" Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean that, if he were asked that question in an informal way, he could not answer? If that is what he fears, it is ridiculous.

Sir S. Cripps

Both sides will very likely be present and the mineral valuer for the Commission will make certain observations. I want the claimant to have an opportunity to ask him questions, and I want the person who appears for the Commission to test the evidence on the other side. That is the only way to arrive at a satisfactory decision.

Mr. Stanley

The hon. and learned Gentleman does not want an opportunity of bringing more people there? It is only that the people who are there anyhow shall be able to answer questions put by the Board?

Sir S. Cripps

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.7 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, in page 61, line 30, to leave out "competent mineral valuer," and to insert: person experienced in the valuation of minerals or in the management of mineral estates. This is a point that was raised indirectly at an earlier stage. There might be a number of these cases and the same mineral valuer might be acting for a large number of properties. It would be physically impossible for him personally to deal with them all, because they might be in different parts of the country. It seems quite reasonable that some qualified person, an estate solicitor or someone of that kind, might be able to take this informal stage of the proceedings before the Regional Valuation Board. It may help to speed up the machinery.

Amendment agreed to.

7.8 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, in page 61, line 31, at the end, to insert: and where in the case aforesaid a hearing is required either by the Commission or the claimant the Board shall give to the other of them also an opportunity of being heard as aforesaid. As the Schedule stands, the Commission, as well as the claimant, is given an opportunity of being heard against the draft valuation of a subsidiary coal hereditament, but it does not expressly say that, if the Commission claims to be heard, the claimant shall also have a right to appear, or vice versa. That is all the Amendment seeks to secure.

Sir S. Cripps

It is not clear from this that they shall be heard at the same time, but I imagine that is the intention, that there shall be a single hearing when both parties are present. I think the words "at the said hearing" would make the point clearer.

Amendment agreed to.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Keeling

I beg to move, in page 61, line 31, at the end, to insert: The said notice to the claimant shall contain an intimation of his right to be so heard. This is designed chiefly for the protection of small men. Such persons, even though they are supposed in law to have mastered every detail of the Act, may in fact be ignorant of the procedure laid down for their benefit. The Amendment will ensure that they are reminded of their right to be heard on the subject of the draft valuation.

Mr. Spens

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 61, line 37, at the end, insert: The said notice to the claimant or any person intervening shall contain an intimation of the right of the person to whom it is given to have the valuation reviewed under the provisions of paragraph 12 of this Schedule."—[Mr. Keeling.]

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Bevan

I beg to move, in page 61, line 46, to leave out from "them" to the end of the sub-paragraph.

This deals with the panel out of which the referees will be selected to hear an appeal against a valuation of a holding by the Regional Board. The Central Valuation Board will consist of mineral agents belonging to the various regional boards and it is extremely undesirable to have a referee who is himself a mineral agent and has already taken part in making valuations in other parts of the country arbitrating in an action brought against one of his colleagues. It is possible—I suppose it is much more than possible; it is easy—to obtain persons who are competent to do this work and act as arbitrators, and are not mineral agents. It may be necessary to have mineral agents as assessors, to assist the arbitrators in arriving at technical decisions, but surely it is not necessary for the arbitrators themselves to be mineral agents. It is possible that these mineral agents, knowing that they themselves may act as referees, will reach decisions in an arbitration on one claim in such a manner as will favour themselves in valuations they have reached on other claims.

It is true that, as the Schedule is drawn, a referee cannot be a member of a Regional Board whose valuation is disputed. Nevertheless, he knows the principles upon which he, himself, will have made a valuation. If he is acting as a referee, he will be tempted to make his decision in such a form as will favour the acceptance of his own valuation, should that be appealed against to some other member of the board. I think this business of what is vulgarly called back-scratching ought to be avoided. You ought to have someone from outside, who will be able to reach decisions without being under the shadow of suspicion, and whose decisions will not affect matters in which he has an interest. I hope the Minister will feel himself to be in a position either to accept these words or, in another place, to insert words which have the same intention.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Tinker

I beg to second the Amendment.

7.19 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams

I hope this Amendment will not be accepted. In an ordinary case, if you fail before one court you go to a higher court, and the higher court consists of members of the same profession as the lower court.

Mr. Bevan

These are employés.

Mr. Williams

I agree. But so are judges; they are employed by the State.

Mr. Bevan

Not by litigants.

Mr. Williams

The suggestion that these people will act improperly in reviewing the decision of one of them seems quite wrong. Purely from a practical point of view, because these are the only effective people, the Amendment does not seem to me a very effective proposal.

7.22 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

I wonder if I might deal with the next Amendment at the same time, because it relates to the same point. I can see that one wants some element of complete independence in the panel of referees. The House will recollect that we changed the Schedule to some extent on the Committee stage by making the appointment of that panel one by the Board of Trade. As the paragraph stands now, all or any of the members of the panel may be members of the boards, except for the independent persons. The independent members are the legal gentlemen. It may, on a strict legal reading of the words, include a number of other people, if the Board of Trade put them on. But if the Amendment were accepted, it probably would make it very difficult to put any of these persons on. In fact, I am not sure that that is not what the hon. Member wants. It struck my right hon. Friend and me that the panel which the Board of Trade is to constitute should have some of these members of the boards, and that it should have, as I say in my Amendment later, at least two persons who are entirely independent. Care would then be taken, as the paragraph itself says, to see that a referee should not deal with a case which had come up from a regional valuation board with which he was connected. I think our Amendment is the better for the purpose we have in mind. The hon. Gentleman is again, as he was on Committee stage, suspicious about a reference to a member of the valuation board, even if it was a reference to something outside his own area, because of the effect it would have on valuations in another case by the board in which he was interested. I repudiate that, on behalf of a small, but very honourable, profession; and I would also point out, for what it is worth, that the general rules of valuation for this purpose are to be drawn up by the Central Valuation Board, and are afterwards, before they come into effect, to be approved by the Board of Trade. So, if there is any possibility of impropriety—which I do not admit—there is that check.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Bevan

How does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that his Amendment will meet the situation? It is not the panel that is going to arbitarate, but individuals selected from the panel. If you have a panel of 20 people, 18 of whom are mineral agents and two of whom are independent people, I do not see how that affects the situation. It is not the 20 people who are going to arbitrate, but one of them. If it is possible for one of the two independent persons to arbitrate, that shows that it is not necessary for the arbitrator to be a mineral agent. It really is very hard lines that I should always be attacked in this manner, for making charges against a profession, when I am simply protecting those who have to appear before the refrees. I am not making a charge of dishonesty against my neighbours because I lock my door, or against a secretary because I employ an auditor. All we are trying to do is to protect people from the possibility of temptation.

7.27 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

There is a good deal, I think, in this Amendment of ours, and very little in the one that the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to put in its place. It is important that justice should not only be done, but should appear to be done. In former cases, where valuation has had to be made or references have had to be made, in matters of this type, where a surveyor has been appointed to the position of an official arbitrator, it has been made a condition that he should give up the whole of his private business during the time that he acts as an official arbitrator, not because he is suspected of being dishonest, but because it is desirable that a person in that position should not have clients whose interests might be involved. We are primarily interested in this Clause because these referees will have to decide in the case of subsidiary coal hereditaments. In the case of subsidiary coal hereditaments, valuation is going to be made which will actually be a charge on the State, through the Commission. The lower the valuation, the less the charge will be; the higher the valuation, the greater the charge will be. It will obviously be in the interest of the mineral owners as a whole to get those hereditaments valued as high as they can be.

Is it not obvious that a person would be gravely embarrassed if he settled on a scale of valuation which was a low scale, when he came himself, on behalf of his employers, to put forward a valuation for that same type of hereditament? He would have prejudiced his own case. He is making a decision which can be quoted against him when he becomes an advocate. Surely, it is wrong that anybody should be put in that position, and wrong that the public should be given the impression that a person in that position is going to decide how much the State ought to pay. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, as my hon. Friend has said, has completely given away his case, in his reference to his own suggested Amendment, because he says they want an element of complete independence on the panel of referees. What is the point of wanting an element of complete independence? The only answer that the hon. and gallant Gentleman can give is that it is better to have cases decided by someone who is completely independent. If that be so, and you are to choose a referee from a panel, must not everybody on the panel be completely independent? How can it be that in some cases it is desirable, as he says, to have complete independence but in another case it is not desirable to have complete independence? How does he differentiate? When he comes to look at the panel from which he is to choose a referee, he looks it up and down and says, "Here are two independent gentlemen and here are 10 who are not independent gentlemen. In this case, shall I choose an independent gentleman or a gentleman who is not independent?"

I should be very much obliged if either he or the Attorney-General would tell us what criterion he is going to apply in the selection from a panel as to whether an independent or a not independent person is chosen as referee? The answer must be, if you believe, as he stated that he believed, that you want an element of complete independence upon the panel, that you must always choose the independent, and never choose the dependent referee. His offer and his acknowledgment that you must have an element of independence is tantamount to saying that he recognises that he must appoint an independent person to arbitrate in a case of this sort. If that be so, the only way that he can achieve that objective, is by having a panel of people who are all of them independent.

It is idle for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that there are very few mineral valuers, that they are a very honourable profession, as I am sure they are, and, that therefore he must include mineral valuers on this panel because nobody else would be competent to hear such a case. Then who are his two independent people going to be? Are they to be mineral valuers? What does "independent" mean? Of what are they going to be independent? I presume, independent of any private interest, so that they will not have any reservations as regards exercising their functions as arbitrators. If he can find two such people to put on the panel, why cannot he find 10? Does he really want more than two? There are only two official arbitrators in the country to deal with the whole of the valuations under the Assessment of Compensation Act.

The Attorney-General

There are more now.

Sir S. Cripps

There may have been more appointed recently, but for a long time the country was divided into North and South, and there were only two valuers who were independent people expressly under the Act, and had to be so, though they were valuers and surveyors. Why cannot we have in this matter the same privileged position? I do not mind whether a man is a mineral agent or not, provided he is independent. The people who are contemplated here, the mineral agents in the various regions, are of necessity not independent, because they are to carry on their ordinary business of hearing and arguing, and putting in recommendations for clients of all kinds. It is more than human to expect such a man when he comes to sit as referee, and who knows that he has perhaps a similar claim himself coming forward in a month or two, in arriving at a decision, not to have at the back of his mind a sub-conscious bias in favour of the claimant in the case. It will mean that this panel of referees, unless the independent persons are always chosen, will be inevitably sub-consciously biased.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) spoke about appealing from judges to judges. That has nothing on earth to do with it. If somebody suggested that an official referee in the courts should be appointed from among solicitors who maintain their clients after appointment—that is the analogy—one would say, "It is an outrageous suggestion that this man should still be carrying on his practice as a solicitor and also act as an official referee." No one for a moment would tolerate such a position. This is exactly the same thing. If a man, who is still going to represent his client's interests in this very subject matter as between the Commission and the claimant, is to be asked to give judgment, can it be suggested that people would accept that judgment as a fair judgment? They would not. That is the answer. I beg of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, for the sake of the proper administration of justice, which is what this is as between the Commission and the claimant, to see that this is an independent panel of referees, and that, as he acknowledges that the element of independence is essential, he will see that it is present in respect to every person upon the panel.

Amendment negatived.

7.37 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, in page 62, line 2, after "but," to insert shall include at least two persons who are not members of any of those boards, and.

Mr. Bevan

Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman going to take advantage of this Amendment to make some reply to the cogent arguments addressed to the House by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps)? This is really too serious a matter to be dismissed so lightly. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that the two persons who are to be appointed will be the only persons who will be allowed to be referees? Will they be adequate in number, and, if so, why did he resist the previous Amendment? We would really like to know. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that we have allowed the Bill a very good run this evening, and we would like to have some assurance that this very substantial point will be met. We ought not to have public money dealt with in this cavalier fashion. We must really have some guarantee that the arbitrators in these matters will not be interested in serving their employers by abstracting money for them out of the public purse.

7.38 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

I did not mean to be discourteous, but I said what I wished to say on this point when dealing with the previous Amendment. But with the permission of the House I would add that the Amendment says: two persons who are not members of any of those Boards. It does not necessarily mean that they will be inexpert persons independent of the work of the valuation boards. I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Gentleman does not overlook one aspect of this matter. He said, as he has said before, when speaking of the subsidiary hereditaments, that it will be in the interests of the agents acting for owners to force them up as high as possible because they have nothing to do with the global figure. I am not an expert in valuation work at all, but I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman fully appreciates the fact that, being subsidiary hereditaments, they really cannot be forced up very much. Their value very largely depends upon the value of the coal property. That is what I am advised by those who deal with these matters. The subsidiary minerals can be worked only in conjunction with coal, which is a large proportion of that with which we are dealing. If coal is of no value and is not likely to be worked at all, the other minerals, which can be worked only if coal is worked, obviously, cannot be forced up to any higher value.

Mr. Bevan

The subsidiary minerals are extremely important.

Captain Crookshank

That may be, but the valuation of minerals is a very different matter from anything else, and the more I hear of it from those who are experts, the more complicated and unique it seems. I would warn the hon. and learned Gentleman not to stress too much the possibility of forcing up the prices of subsidiary hereditaments against the Commission or anybody else. The value of the subsidiary hereditaments has relation to the coal.

Sir S. Cripps

I would also warn the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I have been in many compensation cases and valuations of all sorts and kinds, and anybody who has had experience knows the ingenuity of valuers. I have never found a valuer yet who cannot force up the value of anything in making a claim.

Captain Crookshank

Be the valuers ingenious or not, I would counter that by saying that I doubt whether there is anybody, whether valuers or anybody else, who, if they were appointed by the Minister to be members of the panel and were then asked to give a proper decision on a contested claim of valuation, would not do it honestly or properly to the best of their ability. It is no good the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite saying that that is not so. What was the point of his talking about the ingenuity of valuers in the sentence in which he interrupted me, if it was not that he had something of the kind at the back of his mind? I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not yet satisfied. We have gone a considerable way since the Bill was introduced in trying to meet him and his friends on this point. We changed the selection of the panel from what it was when the Bill was introduced to that of the President of the Board of Trade, and since then we have made it quite clear that it shall not consist wholly of members of valuation boards but that it shall have at least two—it might be said that there might have been more—who have no connection with valuation boards at all.

I would ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to bear in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) said, that this is a very small profession and that the number of people competent to do this kind of work is very small indeed. Again I observe that the hon. and learned Gentleman disagrees with me, but if he made extensive inquiries in the country he would find and he can take it from me, that the number of people who are competent technically and are available for this purpose is not any definite number. The provisions of the Schedule, as they will be if the Amendment is accepted, go a long way to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite to get the right constitution. We believe that by what we have done we are well on the way to doing that, and that is why I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 63, line 15, after "subsisted," insert "and."—[The Attorney-General.]

7.44 p.m.

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, in page 63, line 17, to leave out from "consideration," to the end of line 23.

This Amendment proposes to delete paragraph 13 (c) of the Schedule. The paragraph dealt with the case of a freeholder working his own coal and provided that the valuation should be made on the basis of the lease which he would have from the Commission. Yesterday the House inserted in Clause 12 certain words which enables the Commission, in certain circumstances, to grant the person working his own coal a lease on less onerous terms. That alteration has made this paragraph inapposite as laying down the basis upon which the coal is to be worked. It is, therefore, proposed to delete it. It is unnecessary to put anything in its place, because the general provision of Clause 7 (4), providing that the unit shall be valued on its basis in the open market, gives sufficient guidance to the valuation tribunals as to the basis upon which to proceed.

Amendment agreed to.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Spens

I beg to move, in page 67, line 26, to leave out from "time," to "the," in line 28, and to insert "before or after the vesting date."

This Amendment relates to the provision in the Schedule under which payment on account may be made either before or after the vesting date. The Amendment is moved for the purpose of testing exactly what is meant by the way in which the opening words of paragraph 19 are drafted. That paragraph provides that at any time before the vesting date payment on account may be made, but after the vesting date payment on account can only be made before the relevant certificates have become conclusive. As I understand it, at that time the claimant becomes entitled to payment, and there does not seem to be any reason for limiting the provision by saying that after the vesting date but before the certificate has become conclusive, no payment on account can be made.

If there is the possibility of an interval between the date on which the certificate becomes conclusive and the date when the claimant receives the amount to which he is entitled, I should like to know why it should be impossible for a payment on account to be made during that interval. If there is any possibility of that interval being of any length, it is clear that the power to make payment on account should not be taken from the Commission during the interval. Therefore, in order to carry out what we understand to be the position, namely, that the Commission is to have a discretion to make payment on account at any time before and after the vesting date until the full amount is paid, it would be much simpler if the Amendment were accepted and power were given to the Commission to make payment on account at any time before or after the vesting date.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams

I beg to second the Amendment.

I hope that the Amendment will be accepted, because I think the position is ambiguous. The only time when the power to make payment on account ceases is when the relevant certificates have become conclusive. In other words, during the period of doubt payment on account can be made, but when the period of doubt comes to an end the whole situation may be sterilised, because in paragraph 17 (2, a) it is provided that the Court may by interim order direct the Commission to suspend the payment of compensation on the basis of the certificates sent. Although these things can be done freely during the earlier part of the procedure, when we are getting nearer the conclusion the right to make these payments on account is apparently suspended. If we have misread the words, I hope we shall be told so, but if we have read them rightly, I hope the Amendment will be accepted.

7.49 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend need have any anxiety on this point. The limitation which is in the Schedule as it now stands, that payment on account cannot be made after the relevant certificates have become conclusive, is due to the fact that when that occurs there is no question of payment on account, because the compensation is a debt due.

Mr. Williams

But will any sum be paid?

Captain Crookshank

It is a debt due and has been ascertained, and if it is not paid then the claimant can enforce payment by going to the Court.

Mr. Williams

If the Secretary for Mines will look at paragraph (a) he will see that the whole sum and not the part that may be paid on account may be sterilised. He will find that in line 31, on page 65. The whole sum may be sterilised at that stage, although it has been perfectly free before.

Captain Crookshank

I think the point is clear. If there is any doubt about paragraph (a), that is another matter. If the hon. Member still thinks that there is any shadow of doubt about it, we can look into it, but the point is that you cannot make payment on account when the compensation becomes a debt due.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Spens

I do not know why the Commission cannot make payment on account of a debt due. That beats me. I have heard of a great many people who make payment on account of debts due. What I want is that it shall be possible for the owners—I was about to say these wretched people—the expropriated owners to receive something on account right up to the time that they receive the full amount due to them. I should have thought that my Amendment would have enabled that to be done. Why the Commission is to be deprived of the right to make a payment on account because the sum has become a debt due, I cannot understand. I hope that although the Minister cannot accept the Amendment now, he will reconsider the matter and bring forward an Amendment in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.53 p.m.

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, in page 68, line 7, at the end, to insert: and the said interest shall be deemed for all purposes, including the purposes of the Income Tax Acts, to be paid on each anniversary of the date of the payment on account that occurs before the vesting date and on the vesting date. This Amendment relates to Income Tax. One assumes that the person who receives £100 on account is debited each year with £3, representing interest at three per cent. Suppose he has received interest for three years, then he will be debited as having received £109. In a recent decision in the courts it has been held that the mere debit of interest is not in itself regarded as payment for Income Tax purposes. The result of that decision is that, but for these words which we propose to insert, the persons who receive a payment on account and have been debited at three per cent. interest each year might not be in a position to have it taken into account in the ordinary way. Therefore, we suggest that the best course to adopt is to insert this Amendment to clarify the position.

Amendment agreed to.

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, in page 68, line 37, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 2, on page 69.

This paragraph is directed to a case where the coal passing to the Commission has been with other lands the subject of a mortgage. It provides that if everybody concerned agreed, the charge contained in the mortgage should be placed on the value of the land which did not vest in the Commission so as to leave the coal free of the mortgage and so simplify the splitting up of the compensation. As the provision is operative only if everybody agrees, and if everybody does not agree, then there would be no agreement, the House will welcome an Amendment which takes out an unnecessary provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 72, line 29, leave out from beginning to "Where," in line 31, and insert: (v) After paragraph 21 the following paragraph shall be inserted, 21a."—[The Attorney-General.]