HC Deb 29 April 1947 vol 436 cc1765-6
Mr. Barnes

I beg to move, in page 126, tine 59, at the end, to add:

The Hertfordshire and Gloucestershire Canal Company 7½% preference shares of £20 (fully paid).Original shares of £140.

Mr. Assheton

In view of what the Minister recently told us, namely, that he was acquiring a derelict canal, I think it would be interesting to the Committee to know at what price these original shares of £140 now stand.

Mr. Barnes

As a matter of fact they are not marketed. This is a liability we are taking over with a railway company.

Mr. Assheton

Whether they are marketed or not, that does not answer my question. There are many shares which are not dealt with in any market, and may not be quoted in any market, but they may have a value, and it would he interesting to know the value of these shares.

Mr. Harrison

Would the Minister inform the House what amount of money is involved in this transaction?

Mr. Barnes

I cannot; they are not quoted, and therefore a matter of this description will have to go to the arbitration tribunal.

Mr. Assheton

I quite understand that, but surely the Minister is not contemplating buying an important property like this without having counted the cost? He must, at any rate, have made some inquiries as to the value of the property. He has told us it was a derelict canal. He has given us no reason why he wants to buy it. He must have made up his mind it was worth doing, and must have calculated an amount of some sort that he was likely to pay for it. It is true that, under this Bill as drafted, there will be a decision later, as to the exact prices to be paid, but I am sure the Minister must have some figure in his mind as to what he is going to pay for it.

Mr. Burden (Sheffield, Park)

The right hon. Gentleman said it was a canal taken over by a railway company. Perhaps, it was allowed to become derelict in the interests of the railway company.

Mr. Barnes

I was going to say to my hon. Friend the Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) that he knows a lot about this. In this case, I am taking over a liability.

Mr. Assheton

But if the Minister is taking over a liability, I am afraid I may suggest to my hon. Friends that we should divide against the proposal; because I cannot see any reason for taking over this liability, and the right hon. Gentleman has made no suggestion why he should do so.

Mr. Dodds-Parker (Banbury)

If the right hon. Gentleman is taking over a liability, surely he has not to pay somebody for doing so?

Mr. Barnes

I must refer hon. Members to Clause 13. This canal is part of the property of the railway company. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) knows, as all hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee know, that all the properties of the railway companies are to be transferred on the vesting date, 1st January. As I indicated when I moved the insertion of this company, we discovered that it had been omitted, and that it was desirable that it should be put into the Schedule.

Mr. Byers

As one who supports the nationalisation of the railways, I find this a very worrying situation. Can we have an assurance from the Minister that this is the only liability he is taking over[HON. MEMBERS: No."]—or are there, in fact, many other liabilities?

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.