HC Deb 24 January 1967 vol 739 cc1291-4
Mr. Patrick Jenkin (Wanstead and Woodford)

I beg to move Amendment No. 144, in page 25, line 46, to leave out from 'name' to 'and' in line 2 on page 26 and to insert: 'within two months after vesting date' This Clause re-establishes the Iron and Steel Arbitration Tribunal which had been set up under the 1949 Act and whose functions came to an end. Those functions are to be revived under the Bill and under the provisions of the 1949 Act which are revived by Schedules 3 and 4. The Arbitration Tribunal will have a number of very important functions, all, I think, of a transitional nature.

4.30 p.m.

The Clause provides that the tribunal must be re-established as the Iron and Steel Arbitration Tribunal, and it shall be re-established—I come now to the words to be deleted by the Amendment— on such day as the Lord Chancellor may by order appoint for the purposes of this section. As the Bill stands, therefore, the Government have a complete discretion as to how long should elapse between vesting date and the establishment of the tribunal. This is wholly wrong. The matters falling to be decided by the Arbitration Tribunal are fairly complex but they are matters which those concerned will wish to have settled as swiftly as possible.

The most important matter is the determination of compensation. It is the intention that Government stock in satisfaction of the compensation should be issued on vesting date, and, if there is any delay, there will be payment of interim interest. Because it is of the utmost importance that the compensation stock should be issued exactly when the Government wish to issue it, or as nearly as possible then, any question of dispute about it should be settled as rapidly as possible. The provision that, if such dispute cannot be settled between the stockholders' representatives and the Minister, the question has to go to the Arbitration Tribunal requires that the Arbitration Tribunal should be in existence as soon as possible after vesting date.

The Tribunal could well be re-established before vesting date, as soon as the Bill is passed. But we have proposed to limit the discretionary period within which the tribunal must be established to two months after vesting day. Disputes will hardly have got under way until then or, at least, they will not have gone much further than being ready for hearing, and the tribunal should then be in existence.

The Government are anxious to press the Bill forward. The Minister said yesterday—we took it with a handful of salt—that the Government have always felt that the Bill should be pressed for-ward with as much haste as possible. We are concerned to see that, as soon as they have it on the Statute Book and the various time tables under the Bill start rolling, there does not thereupon enter into the conduct of affairs a dilatoriness which would be wholly regrettable. As the Bill stands, the Lord Chancellor's discretion, is wholly at large and there is no time limit whatever.

I have mentioned compensation. There are other matters which may be of more relevance to firms which are not being taken over. There are various provisions in the Bill, which were described in Committee as common form provisions in nationalisation Acts, for giving the Corporation power, as it were, to claw back property which has been unreasonably disposed of by one of the companies being taken over during the period between 4th November, 1964, the date when the then First Secretary of State made his announcement immediately after the election, and vesting date. If companies have unreasonably disposed of properties or made imprudent transactions, there are provisions whereby the Corporation can claw the property back, it can nullify transactions, it can surrender leases, and so forth.

There are many such provisions in the Bill, and all disputes on them must be referred to the Arbitration Tribunal. These are matters which will affect people who may not otherwise be concerned with the nationalisation of the steel industry, people who may have bought property in good faith but who find nevertheless that it has to be returned to the Corporation under one of those provisions. It is most important that these matters should be determined as swiftly as possible, and for this reason, too, it is essential that the Arbitration Tribunal be set up within a finite time.

I need not enlarge on the case. It is a matter of administration after the Bill has become law. We want no dilatoriness to slip in at that stage in the Government's handling of the matter. Miserable and hateful as the whole Bill is, we think it right nevertheless that the machinery set up under it should work as efficiently and as expeditiously as

Mr. Freeson

If I speak briefly on this matter, it is not out of disrespect for the points made by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin). Except for his concluding remarks, there is no essential point of difference between the two sides of the House on this question. It is the Government's view that the Bill as it stands would provide for better expedition than the Amendment, which would require the re-establishment of the Arbitration Tribunal within two months of vesting date rather than on a specific date appointed by order of the Lord Chancellor for the purposes of the Clause.

For this reason and not for any of the reasons suggested by the hon. Gentleman, we find the Amendment not acceptable. We would prefer to allow the Clause to stand as it is to allow such an order specifying a date to be issued.

I give the assurance that, to a very large degree, the Amendment is pushing at an open door. It is possible—it is not for me to say at this stage—that the re-establishment of the tribunal could take place before vesting day. The Amendment would preclude this, and I hope, therefore, that it will not be pressed.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin

If I may speak again, with leave of the House, I do not follow the hon. Gentleman when he says that our Amendment would preclude earlier establishment of the tribunal. All we say is that it should not be later than two months after vesting day. However, the hon. Gentleman has said that it is, or it could well be, the Government's intention to establish the tribunal even before vesting day. If he will go a little further and say that he will draw this matter to his right hon. Friend's attention so that an undertaking might be given in another place, after the matter has been looked at again to see whether it is possible to meet the point, I think that we need waste no more time on it.

Mr. Freeson

I give that undertaking.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin

In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.