CLAUSE 1.—(Appointment of Electricity Commissioners.) (Hansard, 20 November 1919)

Mr. T. THOMSON
I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "three of."
Probably never before has the House appointed any body with bigger powers and more extensive control than the Electricity Commissioners to be established under this Bill. The Minister of Health has likened his powers under the Housing Act to those of an Oriental potentate, but the powers of the new Big Five under this Bill are infinitely greater than anything given to the Minister of Health. In discussing this question in Committee, the Home Secretary argued very forcibly in favour of three of the Commissioners being whole-time officials, and I respectfully submit that the excellent arguments that he gave then are equally as applicable to the five as to the three. He suggested that it was most important that these Commissioners should be absolutely impartial, without any axe of their own or of anybody else's to grind. He went on to say that in order to get this impartial body they should be whole-time officials, and he said that they would thus obtain a body 1249 which would be free at any rate from the pulling of the strings of any particular class, power company, or municipal undertaking, which might desire some policy of their own. Those are very strong words, and I submit, if it be necessary for the reasons set forth by the Home Secretary that three of the Commissioners should be whole-time officials, in order that they may be entirely independent, with no axe to grind, and no interest other than the public weal, it is equally necessary whether the number be four or five.
The Home Secretary told us that it was suggested that three should be engineers, one a skilled financier, and another a trained Civil servant skilled in law and administration. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to which of these five he suggests that this restriction or limitation does not apply. It may be said that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent all of them being whole-time officers, but I submit that the House should go further than that, and should insist on all of them being whole-time officers and completely independent. Is it not necessary that the trained Civil servant should give the whole of his time? Is it suggested that the skilled financier, who has to weigh up the most delicate and complicated claims of various undertakings, should not be a whole-time officer free from outside influence? Of the engineers, we are told that one would be one who had experience in municipal government and undertakings, and another experienced in power companies. Surely both of them should be absolutely free, independent, unfettered, with no axe to grind, and therefore whole-time Commissioners? The third Commissioner would hold the balance between the other two, and there is therefore all the more reason that he should be a whole-time officer. I therefore ask the Home Secretary if he cannot see his way to accept this Amendment to indicate which two of the Commissioners should not be whole-time officials. In discussing the matter in Committee the Home Secretary suggested that he did not want to tie the hands of the Commissioners and the Minister of Transport in this particular matter, because circumstances might arise where it would be necessary to appoint someone who might not want to give his whole-time service. I submit that when special occasions like that arise specialists or experts can be called in without making them Commis- 1250 sioners. The right hon. Gentleman can get the expert advice that is necessary on particular occasions without making anyone a Commissioner. I therefore submit that the arguments that the Home Secretary gave to the Committee in favour of making three whole-time officials in order that they might be entirely independent of outside influence and have no axe to grind applies equally to the whole five.

§ Mr. SHORTT
I beg to move, after Sub-section (4), to insert (5) A person shall be disqualified for being appointed or being a commissioner if he has, directly or indirectly, any share or interest in any undertaking for the supply of electricity, otherwise than as a ratepayer in the case of an undertaking of a local authority.

Mr. T. THOMSON
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "electricity" ["supply of electricity"], to insert the words "or electrical plant."
8.0 P.M.
It will then provide that a person shall be disqualified from being a Commissioner if he has, directly or indirectly, any share or interest in any under-taking for the supply of electricity or electrical plant. I submit that if it is desirable to debar any Commissioner from having an interest in any undertaking concerned with the supply of electricity it is equally necessary to debar him having any interest in undertakings which are concerned with the supply of electrical plant. The principle underlying the one case is exactly the same in the other. If it is desirable that these officials should be absolutely disinterested and uninfluenced by any outside considerations it is desirable they should have no concern in a firm that might be supplying electrical plant or machinery which would necessarily be required by the various undertakings directed by the Electricity Commissioners. I hope the Home Secretary will be able to accept these or similar words.

§ Mr. NEAL
I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

§ Mr. SHORTT
I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment, at any rate for the present. I cannot pretend to consider what the effect of these words would be, but it might very well be one which so differed from the proposal of the Amendment as it stands in my name as to involve almost a change of principle. Take, for 1251 example, the case of a shareholder in some very big undertaking, a small portion of the work of which is concerned with electrical machinery. That small portion of the work might not make a difference of a half-farthing to his income, and it would be very hard if in such a case he were to be forced to sell out a good investment, the holding of which could not make the most suspicious person suspicious of him. That is one instance which occurs to me on the spur of the moment. If these words were inserted they might involve hardships of that description. It may be that the words "supply of electricity" are not sufficiently wide, and if the hon. Member has any suggestion to make in regard to that it might be possible to insert other words in another place, but I do not like to accept words of such far-reaching effect without much more consideration.

Mr. THOMSON
In view of the assurance I have received from the right hon. Gentleman, and bearing in mind the shortness of the notice, I will ask leave to withdraw my proposed Amendment to the Amendment.

§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON
I beg to move, in Sub-section (6), after the word "Trade" ["the Board of Trade"], to insert the words "subject to the consent of the Treasury."
I think everybody wishes to try to ensure there shall be as much Treasury control as possible over the expenditure of the various Departments, and I hope, therefore, my right hon. Friend will be able to accept this Amendment. After all, we do not really know in the least what sum is involved here. Under this Clause the Electricity Commissioners are empowered to pay the secretary, inspectors, officers and servants of the Commission salaries and, on retirement, such pension or gratuities as the Board of Trade may determine. It is quite conceivable that these sums will total a very large amount, and there is nothing in the Bill or in the Financial Resolution passed the other day to indicate in the least what the amount will be. The Treasury is concerned in this Bill very deeply indeed. In Clause 19, Sub-section (2), the Treasury is practically concerned to the extent of £20,000,000 for 1252 the construction of works and the acquisition of land. The Electricity Commissioners will have the handling of the money, but the Treasury has to find it. Again, if we turn to Clause 34, Sub-section (4), the; Board of Trade can lend £25,000,000 if the Electricity Commissioners cannot borrow on reasonable terms. That will have to be a Government guarantee, and thus it will be seen that the Treasury is concerned to the extent of £45,000,000 sterling in these two Clauses alone. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, cannot say that the Treasury is not very deeply concerned in this measure. The Debates which have taken place in this House lately show, on the part of hon. Members on the Back Benches, a very keen desire that the Treasury should really have control over expenditure, and I am only suggesting that, when the Minister of Transport has made up his mind what shall be the payment in respect of salaries and pensions, he shall submit it to the Treasury and get their consent.

Mr. T. THOMSON
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Mr. SHORTT
The Treasury really are not in the slightest degree concerned in the particular payment. The matter does not interest them at all. The payments in regard to which this provision is made are the payments to be made by the Electricity Commissioners to their staff, and they are borne on the Electricity Commission expenses. If the revenues of the Commissioners are insufficient to meet those expenses, the deficit is not made good by the Treasury at all, or from any moneys voted by Parliament in any way whatever. It is provided by a levy on the trade itself, and Sub-section (2) of Clause 35 provides that the Commissioners shall apportion such deficit amongst the several district electricity boards, joint electricity authorities, and authorised undertakers within the United Kingdom in proportion to the number of units of electricity generated by or on behalf of those board's, authorities, and undertakers, respectively, in the preceding year. Provision, therefore, is made, where the expenses of the Electricity Commissioners are bigger than their revenue for collecting the deficit from the trade itself. It does not affect the Treasury in any way, and as far as the Minister in Charge of the Electricity Commission, who is responsible to Parliament, is concerned I hope my hon. Friend will agree that he 1253 is really a quite sufficient safeguard although he is not safeguarding public money at all.

§ Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON
Is it quite clear that none of the money which is going to be advanced or guaranteed by the Treasury will go in payment of salaries or pensions?

§ Mr. SHORTT
None of it can go in payment of salaries or pensions. In the first two years the Commissioners might possibly have to borrow for working expenses, but it would be a very small portion of the amount that would be advanced—

§ Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON
That is my point.

§ Mr. SHORTT
It is absolutely a small matter, and, seeing that we are here dealing with the question for all time, it is hardly reasonable to say that simply because there might be a small debt which has to be paid off in two or three years, that is a reason why the Treasury should intefere for all time in the appointment of the staff.

§ Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON
After what my right hon. Friend has said, I do not propose to press my Amendment.