Clause 2.—(ADJUSTMENT OF COMPENSATION.) (Hansard, 4 June 1951)

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre (New Forest)
This Amendment is put down to give the Minister an opportunity of making his intentions clear. He will remember that in the earlier stages he gave an undertaking to consider certain recommendations made by the Opposition. He said he would consider them and give an answer by Report stage. If this Bill goes through unamended, there will be no Report stage, and therefore we have put down this Amendment in the hope that the Minister will be able to give an answer as to what he proposes in the future stages of this Bill.

§ The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker)
I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member and I appreciate the reason which led to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) and his hon. Friends to put down this Amendment. With permission I will, to use the words of the hon. and gallant Member, make my intentions clear. As I promised, I considered an Amendment to the first Clause of the Bill which was moved by the hon. 706 and gallant Gentleman when the Committee last met and I propose to put down a new Amendment which will, I hope—I can have no assurance about it—meet his point. Since, however, the Committee have passed Clause 1, I am advised that I should propose my Amendment on another day. For that purpose I will at a later stage move the re-committal of the Bill. That being so, I hope that hon. Members opposite may feel able to withdraw their Amendment.

§ Mr. Brendan Bracken (Bournemouth, East and Christchurch)
We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for this statement. In your younger days, Sir Charles, you probably heard of the stern Victorian parents who asked the suitor for their handsome daughter to make his intentions clear. They were animated largely, I think, by financial considerations, rather than by any ideas of unsuitability or otherwise. I hope the Minister will make his intentions clear. We will certainly not put any barrier before the altar, provided that we see that the daughter is sufficiently well guaranteed.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
I also thank the Minister, and I would add that we must wait until his Amendment is put down, but equally, if the right hon. Gentleman seeks the re-committal of the Bill, we must be entitled to seek re-committal of any passages on which we may desire further information.

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)
I do not think we should pass this Clause without receiving some further information from the Minister. I am by no means satisfied that we are justified in accepting the figures of a transference of compensation from the Cannock Chase district to the South Staffordshire district. I believe that this is the first Bill which modifies to some extent the compensation provisions of the original Act. I am of the opinion that the more we go into the question of compensation to the coal-owners, the more we have to realise that, when we passed the original Bill, we made a very big mistake, in that the terms were over-generous. The more we examine the amount of money which is passing over to the coalowners, the more 707 we must agree that it has been something of a racket. The more we go into details of what is to be paid to the various companies the more the evidence accumulates to support that conclusion.
In submitting earlier Amendments to the Bill, the Opposition were arguing about the burdens that came as the result of the activities of the Coal Board, but the burdens that are being placed on the industry by the compensation Clauses and their working out are really a very big burden indeed. In Clause 2, which deals with the adjustment of compensation, we have a typical example of the burdens that are being placed on the coal industry in a certain district. In the Cannock Chase district, for example, the figure given is £5,142,000.
Let us look where this money is going. Who are the people who are to benefit as the result of the working out of this over-generous provision for the compensation of the coalowners? I have looked up some facts and figures about the Cannock Associated Collieries, Ltd., which, I presume, is to receive compensation under the Bill, and, in the "Stock Exchange Year Book," we find that the preference shareholders have already received their money back, because they have received 22s. for every £1 share, plus dividend from the 1st July to 30th December, 1948. The preference shareholders have, therefore, received more than the money which they invested in the industry: they have got 22s. for every £1.

§ The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew)
In this Clause, there is no reference to shareholders.

§ Mr. Hughes
Surely, Sir Charles, the shareholders are to receive the benefit of these payments; otherwise, the opposition would not have come from me, but from hon. Members opposite? I am discussing what happens to this £5,142,000, and I submit that this sum will percolate through to the shareholders in Cannock Associated Collieries. If this money is not going to go to the colliery shareholders, then there is a greater mystery still.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
It is not directed to the shareholders in the Bill. 708 The hon. Gentleman's Amendment—in page 2, line 33, at the end, to add: All payments under this section to shareholders in coal companies and coalowners in the Cannock Chase and South Staffordshire districts shall be registered and be open for public inspection at Somerset House, is out of order; it is meaningless, and the hon. Gentleman must not try to make his speech on that Amendment now.

§ Mr. Hughes
I understand that, under Clause 2, which deals with the adjustment of compensation, we are approving of certain sums being paid to colliery shareholders, or being transferred to certain shareholders.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
There is no word about shareholders in Clause 2.

§ Mr. Hughes
This Clause is a mystery, and I think we should have an elucidation of it. Other hon. Members are also in doubt. Here is a Clause in the Bill apportioning the sum of £5,142,000 to the Cannock Chase district, and, if your Ruling, Sir Charles, is that this is not going to the shareholders, where is it going?

§ The Deputy-Chairman
To the Cannock Chase district.

§ Mr. Hughes
If it is going to the Cannock Chase district, I am speaking for the people who form part of that district and of the Cannock Chase Associated Collieries, Ltd. I am pointing out that the preference shareholders have already received compensation of 22s. per share.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I think I should remind the hon. Gentleman that on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" he can only talk about what is contained in the Clause.

§ Mr. Hughes
I want to protest on behalf of the preference shareholders. In line 26, it is stated that £5,142,000 is to be paid to the Cannock Chase district. I did not invent these figures, and I am arguing that we are not justified in supporting the Motion. I have already dealt with the preference shareholders. The ordinary shareholders—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I must ask the hon. Member to obey my Ruling. There is nothing whatever about shareholders in this Clause, and I am not going to allow that discussion.

§ Mr. Hughes
Am I entitled to argue that this district is receiving compensation?

§ The Deputy-Chairman
Certainly.

§ Mr. Hughes
In this district, certain interests have received a first distribution of 6s. 8d. per £1 share, and similar interests have also received a further distribution of 3s. 4d. per share. I maintain that already sufficient has been allotted to this district, and that we are not justifield in apportioning further sums to the people in this particular district. I know it is a very technical matter, but I have got the fundamentals.
This Clause also authorises the South Staffordshire district having £853,000. I say that this is too much, because under the provisions of the Act a sufficient burden has already been placed on the coal industry in the payment of compensation to certain companies. For example, there is a colliery concern known as Settle Speakman and Company. We are entitled to look at this in perspective, and to look at the past earnings of this concern to see whether we are justified in apportioning to them £853,000 referred to in this Clause.

§ Dr. Harriett Stross (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)
Not that it makes any difference to the fundamental basis of my hon. Friend's argument, but I think I should correct him by pointing out that Settle Speakman and Company are based in North Staffordshire, not South Staffordshire.

§ Mr. Hughes
If my hon. Friend is right the Stock Exchange Year Book is wrong. Much as I listen to my hon. Friend with great deference and respect on matters medical, on this matter I prefer to take the evidence of the Stock Exchange Year Book. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) will agree with me that on these matters the Stock Exchange Year Book is an infallible authority.

§ Mr. Brendan Bracken
Not wishing to increase the disorderliness of the hon. Gentleman's speech, I can only say that it is impossible for me to get mixed up in a dispute between the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), who certainly does not come from North Staffordshire and 710 who will certainly have no connection with it after the next General Election.

§ Mr. Hughes
I can hardly think that the right hon. Gentleman has shed the light that we expected to get from him. I will not go into great detail, but the company which is to receive this compensation has paid enormous dividends. Certainly, 20 per cent. plus a bonus of 10 per cent. in 1949, after nationalisation, is-an enormous dividend.

§ Mr. Bracken
What about the Anglo-Persian Oil Company?

§ Mr. Hughes
I submit, Sir Charles, that it would be completely out of order in this debate to discuss the Anglo-Persian Oil Company.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
Discussion of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company is completely out of order, and what the hon. Gentleman is now saying is also completely out of order.

§ Mr. Hughes
The assets of this particular company, vested in the Coal Board, amount to £845,466; its share capital is £200,000. I therefore say that we are not justified in handing over further large sums of compensation to this company. This is a further illustration of the fact that the whole issue of compensation under nationalisation has become a racket and a ramp.

§ Mr. Peter Roberts (Sheffield, Heeley)
I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) in his allegations about rackets and ramps. All I can say is that it is generally accepted that the Government made quite a good bargain in this matter.
I should like to ask the Minister one question. In dealing with the new allocation for these two districts, how much has his Ministry so far paid out in supplementary compensation, both to Cannock Chase and to South Staffordshire? Also, what is the proportion of compensation? It might affect the total amount. I think it is relevant to know what the Ministry has so far paid out in partial satisfaction.

§ Mr. Noel-Baker
I think I can bring comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Aryshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), to all categories of shareholders, and to all hon. Members. The adjustment made by Clause 2 in no way affects the burden 711 laid on the coal industry for compensation by the 1946 Act. That was settled by that Act, and everything remains as it then was. This simply makes a minor adjustment between two parties, between some of the claimants. As all the claimants are agreed that it is just that this change should be made, and as the Central Valuation Committee desire it should be made I feel sure that the Committee would desire to support it.

§ Mr. Bracken
I hope the right hon. Gentleman does not encourage the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes)—whom the other night I rightly called the arch-druid—in this idea of "forward by default." The Minister talks about the "burden laid on the coal industry." Is it a burden if somebody else's property is taken? Why should a Minister of the Crown use such language in this Committee? Is it a burden when somebody else's property is taken away? [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman has something to say, would he mind getting up and saying it?

§ Mr. John Cooper (Deptford)
It is certainly a burden if it is rotten property.

§ Mr. Bracken
If it is rotten property the statements of the Coal Board are altogether inaccurate and misleading. I hope the Minister will not encourage the use of this language about burdens. When somebody else's property is taken away he surely should be paid something reasonable for it, and that is what the Government have done. It has not been generous, and I must say that it is tragic when a Minister of the Crown talks about the "burden laid on the coal industry" at a time when his colleague the Foreign Secretary is finding the greatest possible difficulty in getting justice for British investors in Persia.

§ Mr. Noel-Baker
I now have the information for which the hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) asked. So far, the Ministry have paid out in compensation £41 million in cash and £45,600,000 in stock—a total of £86,600,000—and a further amount will be paid this month.