HC Deb 11 October 1946 vol 427 cc515-7
Mr. Wilmot

I beg to move, in page 5, line 15, to leave out from "compensation" to the end of line 18, and to insert: in such cases and subject to such conditions ELS may be specified in the order or determined thereunder, in respect of loss suffered as the result of the acquisition or exercise of rights under the order, but no account shall be taken, in calculating the compensation payable as aforesaid, of the value of any minerals present in or on land affected by the order, being minerals specified in the order as those from which in the opinion of the Minister any of the prescribed substances can be obtained. The Amendment proposes to substitute a new compensation Clause for that which is in the Bill. It is compensation respecting the acquisition of minerals for which uranium and so on may be obtained. The essential difference in the words now proposed is that no compensation will be paid for the minerals themselves. Worth while deposits of uranium are not thought to exist in this country, but, if some were found, it is felt there would be no reason why the State should pay for a deposit which had not been thought of, discovered or exploited. Its expropriation would cause no loss to the person concerned, who would have had no knowledge that it was there. These substances have only just become of interest at all.

Compensation will be paid, of course, for any loss that is suffered. Thus, if the minerals sought were embedded in a tin mine, and the taking of the minerals interfered with the working of the tin, obviously, there might be a case for compensation for loss of tin or of the tin mine, and in similar cases for disturbance of existing property rights. I feel sure that the Committee will accept the view that it would not be proper to saddle the State with compensation for something which is not known to exist and which is of no use outside its use for these particular purposes. The precedent for this is in the vesting in the Crown of possible petroleum deposits, as was done by another Government. I trust the Committee will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Not only does the proposed Amendment exclude from compensation the value of the minerals concerned, but it provides that compensation is to be payable only as may be specified in the order. To prevent misapprehension, could the right hon. Gentleman give some assurance that it is his intention to pay full compensation for damage suffered and that he intends in all cases to provide compensation in respect of all matters other than minerals? What I have in mind is the question of subsidence. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in all mining operations it is a most serious matter, and merely to leave, as this Clause does, the question of the payment of compensation for subsidence to the discretion of the right hon. Gentleman, would give rise to a good deal of alarm and despondency in many quarters. I hope he does not apprehend the possibility of non-payment of compensation in any such cases but if that is his attitude, perhaps he would tell the Committee at once?

Mr. Wilmot

I am quite sure that the Clause, as drafted, includes full compensation for loss suffered, including subsidence and the sort of cases which the hon. Gentleman has cited.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

To prevent any possibility of misunderstanding may I point out that the right hon. Gentleman referred to the drafting of the Clause as providing that compensation. It is possible that opinions may differ on that, but it would relieve apprehension if the right hon. Gentleman would say that if he is left discretion by the Clause, he will always exercise that discretion in favour of compensation for subsidence.

Earl Winterton (Horsham)

I think we want to define this question more carefully. This is just the kind of Bill Governments smuggle through on a Friday afternoon hoping no one will understand its true import. I understand that this metal may be found anywhere—may I have the attention of the right hon. Gentleman for a moment? It might, for example, be found under a house in a town and then it would be necessary to pull the house down, because it is a very valuable metal—

Mr. Beswick

rose—

Earl Winterton

I did not hear what the hon. Gentleman said. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be favourable to the point I am putting. I do not think that what I suggest is an impossible situation at all. Supposing it were necessary to pull down a house in a town; what compensation would be paid? Would it be on the basis of the 1939 value of the house? Sup- posing it was a new house built since the war, what would be paid? We ought to know these things. It is not a small matter. The material might be found in a town in large quantities; what compensation would then be paid? It is not a party question. I am not concerned with compensation paid to landowners but with the general question. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will answer more definitely.

Mr. Wilmot

We do not want to burden the Bill with a lot of detailed descriptions. It is left to be settled ad hoc in the Orders and the Minister will, of course, give reasonable compensation. The safeguard is that all these Orders are subject to special Parliamentary procedure, and therefore within the control of the House. If a Minister, acting under this Clause, were to award unreasonable compensation, or failed to take account of such factors as have been mentioned, then it would be open to the House to insist that the matter should be adjusted in accordance with reason.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

In the light of that statement, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could give the assurance for which I asked—that it is his intention to pay some compensation in all cases of subsidence?

Mr. Wilmot

Yes, certainly.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Thank you.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.