§ Claims and Valuation Proceedings.
§ 11.—(1)…
§ (5) As soon as may be after giving effect to the preceding provisions of this paragraph 373 in the case of any holding the Board shall settle their valuation thereof and shall give notice of their valuation in the prescribed form to the claimant and to each of the persons intervening if any, and in either of the cases aforesaid, to the Commission. The said notice to the claimant or any person intervening shall contain an intimation of the right of the person to whom it is given to have the valuation reviewed under the provisions of paragraph 12 of this Schedule.
§ 14. The Central Valuation Board shall have power to make, with the approval of the Board of Trade, rules as to the procedure to be followed in giving effect to the three last preceding paragraphs and for prescribing anything that is therein directed to be prescribed, and in those paragraphs the expression "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under this paragraph
§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved, in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph (3), to insert at the end of sub-sub-paragraph (a), "or a person who has had experience in the management of land or with business experience." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I raise this matter as a general question of principle. I do so with a good deal of hesitation in view of the great discretion and wisdom with which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has conducted the proceedings on this Bill. It strikes me as gratuitous that we should provide that the Chairman of tie Central Valuation Board must necessarily be a member of the legal profession. I have the very highest respect for the legal profession. Whenever I am in difficulties with the law I invariably consult them, and I have generally found that their advice on matters of law is excellent. I have not always found that their views on other matters are nearly as good, and sometimes they have proved in my case to be very expensive. This is a matter where you are appointing an expert valuation body, and while I have no reason to suppose that a member of the legal profession will not make a good member, I am not certain that the underlying idea that because you are a lawyer you are necessarily good at valuation is true at all. A lawyer is supposed to be a person of judicial mind, but when it comes to dealing with highly expert business of this kind he is not necessarily the best qualified person to do it.
§ I suggest two other kinds of persons, first a person who has had a wide experience in dealing with the management of 374 land, and who is therefore accustomed to dealing with questions which enter very largely into the management of the coal industry, or a person of wide business experience—the word "with" on the Paper is a misprint for "wide" I think it has been really the general view of the British public throughout its history—and that is why it adopted the jury system—that while it regards the legal profession as indispensable it relies upon the sound sense and judgment of twelve honest men. In appointing the Central Valuation Board I submit it is desirable that some discretion should be allowed. If the Board of Trade cannot find a lawyer who is really well qualified they should be able to choose a person who has other experience, either a wide experience of business or a proper knowledge of valuation.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 26, after ("profession") insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERMy Lords, the Bill as it stands provides that the Chairman of the Central Valuation Board must be a member of the legal profession, appointed by the Board of Trade after consultation with the Lord Chancellor. I am advised that these words were put in at the express wish of the Mineral Owners' Joint Committee, who asked that the Chairman should be a lawyer, and a free and independent individual not connected in any way with the coal industry. The Schedule provides in sub-sub-paragraph (b) for the appointment of two other independent persons to the Central Valuation Board, and one of those two other independent persons might quite possibly be a man who has had experience in the management of land, and the other one with wide business experience. But the whole machinery clauses of the Bill were drawn up in consultation with the Mineral Owners' Joint Committee, and, as they particularly asked that the Chairman should be an independent person and a member of the legal profession, I suggest that we should be well advised to leave that portion of the Schedule as it stands.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHMy Lords, when are the Government going to pay some attention to people who are not represented by the Mineral Owners' joint Committee? I should have thought that it was patent to your Lordships that 375 enough harm had been done by lawyers in the proceedings leading up to this Bill to make all the royalty owners regret a provision that a lawyer should be the Chairman of this Central Valuation Board. I cordially support the noble Marquess and hope his Amendment will be pressed to a Division.
§ LORD HASTINGSMy Lords, I beg to add my voice to that of the noble Lord who has just spoken. If the Mineral Owners' Joint Committee at any time desired a lawyer to sit as Chairman of the Central Valuation Board it was before they had experience of Sir Wilfrid Greene as Chairman of the Tribunal!
§ EARL STANHOPEMy Lords, I do not think there is any objection to accepting this Amendment. I have no idea at all who the Chairman will be, but it does not follow from this Amendment, if we put it in the Bill, that he will not be a lawyer. I should point out, with regard to the word which has been misprinted, that the Amendment must be made as it stands on the Paper.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, I am afraid it is my handwriting that is at fault. I had no opportunity of getting this Amendment typed.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD HASTINGS moved, in sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 11, after "Commission," to insert "and (in the second case aforesaid in which notice has to be given to the Commission) to all persons interested in the valuation of all other holdings in the valuation region." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was disappointed that there should be no Amendment to cover this particular point in the name of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, or the noble Earl the Leader of the House, because when we were debating this point on the Report stage I pointed out to Lord Stanhope that in my view—and I hoped it might also be his view—the Amendment which had been inserted at the previous stage in Clause 12, now Clause 13, was held by us to cover the point which had been doubly covered by an Amendment inserted in the Third Schedule to give the Commission the right to appear before a selected person in opposition to any valuation made in the matter of freehold coal. When the concession was made to the 376 colliery proprietors in the matter of freehold coal, an Amendment was inserted in the Third Schedule to give the Commission the right to appear when, in their opinion, a freehold coal owner's property had been undervalued. The mineral owners felt—I think with justice—that if the Coal Commission were to have the opportunity of appearing in opposition to a valuation on the ground that they considered it too low, it was only right and proper that mineral owners in that district, who were intimately affected by the extent of the valuation made of the freehold coal in their area, should have the opportunity to appear, by their representative, before this same individual who heard objection from the Coal Commission.
§ That, I think, is fundamentally sound and fair, and I suggested to the noble Earl that possibly the whole matter was met by the Amendment inserted in Committee in Clause 12. The noble Earl gave me an undertaking that he would consider the point, which was a new one to him. I had hoped he would have put an Amendment down which would have made it unnecessary for me to move the present Amendment and made it possible for him to have taken out the rather clumsy provisions in which the Commission have the right to appear in these circumstances. Nothing of that kind has been done, so I put this Amendment down again as a saver. I am disappointed that nothing has been done because it is hardly necessary to argue that where one party has the right to appear and object to a valuation on the ground that it is too low, other parties deeply interested in the matter ought to have the right also to appear through their representative to assert that a valuation is, if anything, too high. That is in conformity with our usual practice of law, and I shall hope to have an answer either from the noble Earl the Leader of the House or from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I am not at the moment proposing to press the matter further, but I attach very great importance to this particular Amendment and hope the Government will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 25, after ("Commission") insert the said words.—(Lord Hastings.)
§ EARL STANHOPEMy Lords, His Majesty's Government have, of course, 377 considered my noble friend's Amendment and discussed it at some length. We find that it is impossible to leave out these provisions in the Third Schedule, as the noble Lord suggests, because the proviso under Clause 13 does not compel the owner of coal to press his claim nor does it compel him to appeal. There is nothing whatever to make him lodge an appeal, nor of course would it be an offence under any of the rules of these Schedules. Therefore, as he has got no interest in getting an adequate valuation, because he is going to be left in the same position whatever his valuation, it is necessary that the Coal Commission should be represented before the Valuation Board in order to make their claim and, if necessary, to lodge their appeal. That is why it is necessary to retain that provision. As regards the Amendment my noble friend has put forward, as I told him on the Report stage that would enable all owners of coal to appear and be informed of a valuation of freehold coal, and only freehold coal. That goes a good deal too far, particularly in the way the Amendment is worded: "all persons interested in the valuation of all other holdings in the valuation region."
I wonder whether my noble friend remembers that the Regional Valuation Board is composed of the mineral agents in the region? Therefore the valuations will come before that body in the first instance, and they Will be able to see at once whether in the case of freehold coal the valuation has been pushed too high with the result that their own clients—each of them having one or more clients—would get an inadequate amount of compensation because too big a proportion is being paid in respect of freehold coal, leaving too little for them. Therefore the Regional Valuation Board will see that the valuation is not pushed too high on the freehold coal as against the interests of those whom they represent. I hope for the reasons I have given that my noble friend will feel it is not necessary to press his Amendment. It has been given full consideration by the Government, and we feel we ought to resist it and insist on keeping the provisions in the Bill which were put in on the former occasion.
§ LORD HASTINGSMy Lords, when the noble Earl says that it is necessary to retain in the Third Schedule the words 378 which give to the Commission the authority to appear in certain circumstances, I must say I should have thought that if the freehold coal owners comply with the conditions that prevail in the Third Schedule and with which they have got to comply in the new terms of Clause 13, the situation was completely safeguarded from the standpoint of the Coal Commission. I very much regret that it should be thought necessary to retain in the Bill these words giving the Coal Commission the opportunity to appear in certain circumstances. However, the Government must be the best judge of that. But when the noble Earl comes to answer me in respect to my own Amendment, and to give me reasons why the mineral owner really has nothing to fear from the particular provisions which have been inserted in the Schedule, he is really giving to one side an absolute authority to do certain things and holding out to the other side the reasonable expectation—I grant him "reasonable"—that these fears will not be realised because he already has in the constitution of the original Valuation Board persons who will see to it that his interests are not inimically treated. That may be so. I think that in actual practice it probably will be so. I would be willing to agree with him there.
It is hardly, I think, quite fair that one side should be given a statutory opportunity and that the other should be merely given the hope, the expectation, even the reasonable expectation, of fair treatment but no statutory authority for establishing that treatment. I am disappointed that the Government have not been able to deal with this matter in a more comprehensive way. However, I do not regard it as of sufficient importance to put the House to the trouble of a Division. Although I am perhaps expecting too much, I would ask the Government once again to consider this, and, when the Bill is being discussed in another place and a very large number of Amendments are being there dealt with, see if they could give something which would give exact parity of opportunity to both parties in this matter. That would be to our advantage, and would be gratefully received by royalty owners in general. I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
379
§
EARL STANHOPE moved to insert in paragraph 14:
Provided that rules under this paragraph shall not be made until a draft thereof has been approved by a Resolution passed by each House of Parliament.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, you will observe that there are three Amendments down dealing with the same matter. My noble friend Lord Hastings has down an affirmative Resolution giving power to make modifications or additions to rules, and my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh has put down a negative Resolution. The Government naturally prefer their own drafting, and for this reason. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has, I think, taken his wording from what appears in the Government of India Act.
§ LORD HASTINGSI took it from one of the Local Government Acts, in point of fact.
§ EARL STANHOPEI think that is almost the only instance that is known of this particular provision, which happens not to have worked too badly with regard to two Acts, but there is this real difficulty. The procedure under these orders is entirely different from that of a Bill which starts in one House and then goes down to the other, and, if there is disagreement between the two Houses, that can be composed. With regard to these orders, they start really simultaneously. With respect to the Government of India Act what I believe normally happens is this. Another place considers the Draft Order and then adjourns it and it comes up here. If your Lordships make any alteration it then goes back to another place, and they then reconsider it in its new form. As long as the two Houses agree all well and good, but if there is any disagreement between the two Houses there is no machinery by which that disagreement can be resolved. Therefore we think that very much the better way, and probably the quicker way, is that if either House makes objections to these rules they should then be withdrawn and be reintroduced in the form that will make them acceptable to that particular House of Parliament which has objected.
What we propose therefore is that there should be an affirmative Resolution necessary in each House, but that there should not be the power to amend because that, as I say, raises rather 380 difficult questions of procedure between the two Houses. I think that would really meet my noble friend's point which is that these rules should not be passed but should be both considered and approved by each House of Parliament This Amendment is a considerable step further than the Amendment which was clown on the Paper in my name on the previous occasion. It was then a negative Resolution. I think actually there is not very much difference between the two, but at any rate this ensures that the House has to consider the matter and say so, instead of just letting the rules go by default. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 26, at end insert the said proviso.—(Earl Stanhope.)
§ LORD HASTINGSMy Lords, the Amendment which has just been moved on behalf of the Government does, of course, to a very large extent meet the particular point which my noble friend Lord Balfour and I desire. I am not disposed in the circumstances to move my Amendment in opposition to that which is down in the name of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, but, as was pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, at the last stage, it is really essential that power should be reserved to this House and to another place, if not to amend these draft rules, at least to make suggestions for their alteration. I presume that this particular form which is preferred by His Majesty's Government, although it does not leave us able to amend these rules, would give an opportunity for debate during which the undesired portions of the rules would come under survey and suggestions would be made, possibly even divided upon, which would go back to the drafters of the rules giving them the knowledge of the points to which this House objected and those points which this House desired to be replaced in the draft. If I am correct in interpreting the purpose of the Amendment in that way, in effect what we desire is achieved by it. With that understanding I am quite prepared not to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper, and to accept that which has been moved on behalf of His Majesty's Government.
§ LORD GAINFORDMy Lords, may I ask one question in regard to procedure? In the event of rules being drafted and 381 then not approved by Parliament, would a similar period elapse to the twenty-eight days which I think is the usual period for the new draft rules to be placed on the Table of the House? If not there is a danger that if you do not revise at once the time for revision in connection with the new draft might be very much curtailed.
§ EARL STANHOPEMy Lords, by leave of the House I will reply to my noble friend's question. I do not think it is necessary to have any time limit because these rules do not come into operation until they have received an affirmative Resolution from the House.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHMy Lords, I only wish to say just a word to the noble Earl who leads the House. I am very grateful to him for having met us to the extent he has. I think his solution is a good one. I have just one other matter to which I want to refer. I do not think it is of the smallest importance on this occasion, but I am interested in the order in which these three Amendments have appeared on the Paper. I wondered whether there was any rule as to how they should be dealt with. I have reason to believe that my Amendment was first on the Paper because it was down within a very short time of the conclusion of the last stage, and I think my noble friend Lord Hastings followed, a very good second, with Hs Amendment. The noble Earl the Leader of the House, I think, was third in the race to get his Amendment on the Paper; yet it appears first of the three. On this occasion, I do not think it is of any importance, but there might be circumstances in which it might be of considerable advantage to debate a particular Amendment. I am asking for information as to how the order in which the Amendments appear on the Paper has been arrived at.
§ EARL STANHOPEMy Lords, the Government Amendment is to insert a proviso and I understand that a proviso takes precedence of a new sub-paragraph which was proposed by my noble friends.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, there are five drafting Amendments, all dealing with the same point. I beg to move that they be agreed to.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 79, line 47, after ("settlement") insert ("or trust for sale")
§
Page 79, line 22, after ("on") insert—
("(a)")
§
Page 79, line 23, after the first ("or") insert—
("(b)")
§
Page 79, line 25, after ("Act") insert ("or"
(c)")
§
Page 79, line 36, after the first ("or") insert—
("(d)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, there is another drafting Amendment to this Schedule. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 3, at end insert ("and any reference to the trustees of the settlement shall he construed accordingly.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Fourth Schedule [Lease Consolidation Schemes]:
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, there are two drafting Amendments to this Schedule. I beg to move.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 86, line 7, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").
§ Page 87, line so, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, there is a further drafting Amendment to make paragraph 6 coincide with another similar paragraph. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 87, line 25, leave out ("Board of Trade") and insert ("Lord Chancellor in the case of England or the Lord President of the Court of Session in the case of Scotland").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Seventh Schedule [Amendments of20 & 21 Geo. 5. c. 34, ss. 5 and 8]:
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, there are five drafting Amendments to this Schedule. I beg to move.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 94, line 19, leave out ("the said")
§ Page 94, line 24, leave out ("the said")
§ Page 94, line 27, leave out ("the said section") and insert ("Section five")
383§ Page 94, line 34, leave out ("the said")
§ Page 94, line 42, leave out ("of") and insert ("from").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, there are three further drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 96, line 1, leave out ("the said")
§ Page 96, line 10, leave out ("the said")
§ Page 96, line 19, leave out ("of the said Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ EARL STANHOPEMy Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
§ Moved, That this Bill do now pass.—(Earl Stanhope.)
§ On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.