NEW CLAUSE.—(Grants in relief of hard-ship to mineral agents.) (Hansard, 27 July 1943)

§ Mr. Colegate (The Wrekin)
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause affects a very small number of people, but because an injustice is perpetrated to a small number that is no reason why an effort should not be made to put it right. The new Clause deals with the position of mineral agents. When the Coal Act, 1938, was brought in the position of the mineral agents was raised and it was pointed out that the effect of vesting the coal in the State would be that it would be unnecessary to employ mineral agents. Clauses dealing with the matter were brought up during the Debates on that Measure and were 1543 rejected on the following grounds. Firstly, it was said that the mineral agents would be getting four-and-a-half years' notice of the termination of their employment, which is correct; secondly, an undertaking was given that they would have the first chance of jobs under the Commission, and that priority would be given in employment to those who might lose their employment as a result of the Act; and, thirdly—an important point—it was said that during the four-and-a-half years they would have greatly increased professional incomes part of which they could regard as compensation for the loss of their employment. I understand that many of these mineral agents have secured employment with the Coal Commission. There only remain to be considered the small number who have not. While it is true that they have had increased professional incomes during the four-and-a-half years, those incomes have been greatly affected by Income Tax. I am not running what I would call the usual fallacy about Income Tax. Like a good many others in the House, I would like to see completely abolished any payment—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I cannot see how Income Tax can be discussed on the questions raised in this new Clause.

§ Mr. Colegate
They were promised that four-and-a-half years' income would provide a sum which would compensate them for their loss of practice. I submit that the tremendous change in Income Tax, which was not then foreseen, has thrown out the calculations made in that respect. I am not discussing Income Tax qua Income Tax.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I see the point, and it might be put forward as an illustration, but only very shortly.

§ Mr. Colegate
I would remind the Committee that the Income Tax Commissioners themselves do not tax compensation which is given upon profits. This compensation was promised to these people for loss of office. I would also remind the Committee that five years' income is regarded in commercial and industrial circles as only fair compensation for loss of office, but not four or five years' income less Income Tax. I have had personal experience of this matter. If one receives five years' income one 1544 receives it gross, and the Inland Revenue do not charge Income Tax upon it. It so happens that, by the accident of the war, the promise given in 1938 by the Government has not been fulfilled and instead of receiving, as they might have expected, 4½ years' income on the increased scale, they have received 4½ years' income at a very much lower rate. Therefore, there is a very serious case for consideration. I appeal to the Minister, as there are very few of these cases, to consider some means of providing compensation for them. He can deal with this very small number of cases at a trifling cost and remove a sense of injustice from a body of professional men who have always been respected and looked up to by both sides in the coal industry.

Major Lloyd George
I am sorry that I shall not be able to accept this new Clause, and I will briefly give my reasons to the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate) referred to mineral agents. Mineral. agency is not a separate profession. Mineral agents can be qualified either as mining agents, surveyors, mining surveyors or land agents, and what is more important is the degree to which any man or firm was engaged in mineral agency, and that varies greatly. At one end of the scale there are men or firms whose business was almost entirely mineral agency; at the other end men or firms whose mineral agency business was almost a side line. In a way they are rather similar to the tithe collectors. There were about 1,800 people or firms connected with collecting tithes, and I think only about 120 whose commission exceeded £100 per annum. I have not comparable figures for mineral agents, but I am told that in 1938 there were not more than 25 to 30 firms wholly or mainly engaged in this work. When the Government announced their intention to unify the ownership of coal the mineral agents foresaw the end of their mineral agency business, and, indeed, earlier than that, in 1936, I think, a memorandum was submitted by the royalty owners and that memorandum contained a claim for compensation for their agents. That claim was discussed on several occasions with the professional representatives of the royalty owners and also with the committee of the Surveyor's Institute, and it is quite clear that a guarantee of con- 1545 tinuance for five years would have been accepted. That was in 1936 and that would have taken them to 1941. Actually, they have either been given jobs or they have remained undisturbed until now.
A good deal has been done by the Commission, as my hon. Friend knows, to get many of these people employment. I do not think they were ever promised any compensation in the sense that my hon. Friend means, but they were promised four years' work. The question of Income Tax really does not affect the issue so much, because all of us have had to suffer from the increased Income Tax, in whatever capacity we happen to be, and I do not think I can possibly take that as a reason for moving in respect of this Clause. I have no evidence that they were promised anything than the four years' work, and that they have had. Moreover, during that period they had opportunities of earning fees, which, incidentally, were paid by the Commission, in connection with the valuation of their principals' properties, and it is quite possible that the fees would be equivalent to a reasonable capitalisation of their mineral business. I would say also that they probably earned during this valuation period more than their business would have provided if the Act had never been passed.
I am not trying to suggest that if one thing is wrong it is necessary that the other thing should be wrong too, but if we compare them with the tithe collectors, for example, we find that about 120 firms, I think, were retained for the period of seven years. The remainder, about 1,700, lost all their work immediately. I would repeat that under the Act of 1938 nearly all the mineral agents were either given jobs or left undisturbed until 1943. There is plenty of evidence to show that they would have been quite willing in 1936 to accept continuance for five years, and, in fact, they have been left undisturbed until 1943. There is one further point: tithe collection has been transferred to the Inland Revenue, while in the case of coal the Commission draws its mineral staff from the ranks of past practitioners in mineral agency, and I do not really think that as a class they can really say they have not been treated fairly reasonably. I very much regret that I cannot see my way to accept the Clause.

§ Mr. Colegate
I have made my point and beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.