CLAUSE 4.—(Preparation and carrying out of scheme.) (Hansard, 9 November 1926)

Mr. HERBERT
I beg to move, in page 4, line 4, after the word "lines," to insert the words belonging to or to be constructed by authorised undertakers within the area of the scheme or. I hope that, at last, I have come to an Amendment which the Government will see fit to accept. I understand that 1013 the Government do not propose and never intended that what is called the grid should necessarily be entirely owned and run by the Board or by the Commissioners. Assuming that to be the intention of the Government, the words of this Amendment might almost be described as a drafting Amendment, because it is to make paragraph (b) read, that one of the duties of the board is that of providing for inter-connection, by means of main transmission lines not merely to be constructed or acquired by the Board, but belonging to or to be constructed by authorised undertakers within the area of the scheme or constructed or acquired by the Board, etc. As the Bill already does provide that the main transmission lines are in certain eases to be provided by the authorised undertakers and not by the Board, I hope the Attorney-General will regard my Amendment as an improvement and as one necessary to make the Bill consistent.

§ Sir J. NALL
I beg to second the Amendment.
I think it important that a provision of this kind should be adopted. Paragraph (b) says that provision shall be made for providing for inter-connection, by means of main transmission lines, to be constructed or acquired by the Board, etc. It may be well be that the existing transmission lines will serve the purpose, and there seems to be no reason why the Board should acquire them and thereby probably dislocate the local area scheme of the present owners of the transmission line, or why the Board should build a parallel transmission line far the purpose of their scheme. We pointed out in Committee upstairs that unless the fullest possible use is made of existing transmission lines and of those which from time to time may be necessary or will be necessary for the local undertaking, a duplication will result which is hound to entail unnecessary expenditure in maintenance charges, staffs, and so on. So long as the interconnection is achieved, and so long as the scheme of the Board is fulfilled, it does not seem to be necessary to insist that the main transmission lines which achieve the object should either be constructed by or be acquired by the Board. With that object 1014 in view, and purely in the interests of economy in construction, avoiding unnecessary duplication and maintenance charges, it seems to be desirable from every point of view that this Amendment should be accepted.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
It was quite logical to put down this Amendment at the time when the Amendment proposed for Clause 2 had still to be considered and discussed by the House, because if the Amendment then proposed had been carried, and the duty of supplying electricity had been taken away from the Board, it would then have followed that the Board ought not to own or acquire the transmission lines, because they would no longer be charged with the duty of supplying. Once the duty of supplying is imposed upon them, as it is by the decision of the House in Clause 2, then it seems to me to follow that the transmission lines which are necessary to the supply ought to be constructed or acquired by the Board as provided in the Clause. It is not intended and it cannot be intended that the Board should construct main transmission lines when such lines already exist. That is why the words "to be constructed or acquired" are put in. If hon. Members will turn to Clause 8, they will find there elaborate provision for the Board constructing in some cases and acquiring in other cases main transmission lines, as may be thought the most economical and convenient. It is intended, as the House has decided, that the Board is to be the authority which is to supply the electricity which it acquires from the selected station, and for that purpose it is in our view convenient and necessary for the Board to own the main transmission lines.

§ Mr. BALFOUR
The Attorney-General says that it would be logical to insert this Amendment had the Amendment proposed in Clause 2 been accepted, but I submit that not only would it have been logical in those circumstances, but it is still logical, because we are still pursuing the same point. We intend to hang on to the same point, which is, in the first instance, the right of the undertaker, whether a municipal authority or a private undertaker, to have the power to construct within their area whatever is necessary for the electricity supply of this country, and if they fail to do it there should be nothing to stand in the 1015 way of the central authority carrying out that work. For that reason, this Amendment is now proposed, not in any way to hamper the operations which my right hon. and learned Friend has in view in this Bill, that the Central Board shall have the right to construct main transmission lines in order to give the necessary supply. The central authority should not only have the right to construct those lines, but also construct lines if they find that the authority charged with the duty of supplying electricity in a district, namely, the private undertaker or the municipal authority, refuses to construct those lines within their area for the purpose of supply under the scheme set up in this Bill.
The Attorney-General has said that, once the duty of supply has been imposed on the Central Board, then, of course, they must own the transmission lines. Not at all. I can quite understand that, in making that observation, he was stating what he believed to be a fact; but there is no necessity for it whatever. The fact that the Central Board turns out its current from the central station does not mean, necessarily, that they should own the transmission lines over which the current is conveyed. As long as the current is conveyed at the most economical rates it does not matter whether they own the lines or have the power to construct them. The whole difficulty in discussing all these points is that we are doing so with Ministers who, of necessity, are not able to visualise how a particular Clause will operate in everyday life.
I wonder if any further pleading would soften the heart of the Attorney-General and divert him from the evil courses he has adopted in recent months, bring him back to those other paths which have been pursued so long by the party of which he is a distinguished member, and induce him to give up his support of this Socialist measure. The Central Board has not only the power to transmit the current over these main lines, and take over the current at a selected station; they are the overriding authority, and are able to decide the destinies of any authorised undertakers in the areas. I think we have a right to say that we will have either private enterprise or a Socialist system—one or 1016 the other. We cannot sit down tamely and submit to a scheme which is based on Socialistic ideas and supported by State funds competing with private enterprises which have to pay their way, find their funds and earn their bread. The thing is impossible, and I again appeal to the Attorney-General: Does he still intend to pursue this Socialistic course or is he going to stand by principles which have actuated the party with which he has been associated for so many years?

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
I beg to move, in page 4, line 8, to leave out the words subject to the provisions of Section 9 of this Act. This Amendment, which seems to have excited the curiosity of some hon. Members, is really only a drafting Amendment. The reason for it is that paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) are all subject to the provisions of the succeeding Clauses and we should logically have to put in (a) "subject to Clauses 5 and 6," in (b) "subject to Clause 8," and in (c) "subject to Clause 9." If we put this in in one case and not in another it might raise difficulties, because a Court of Law may say that there is some distinction drawn between paragraphs (a) and (b) if such words were inserted and paragraph (c) if such words were not inserted. The matter will come up under Clause 9 when I will move an Amendment on the point.

§ Sir J. NALL
I doubt very much whether this is really a drafting Amendment. In effect, I think, it will require an Amendment in Clause 9. Clause. 9 says The Board may require ally authorised undertakers, And so on, when there is a change of frequency. If the Attorney-General alters that an I says that "the Board does require any authorised undertakers," then whenever the Board requires a change of frequency, Clause 9 will operate. Clause 4 says that the Electricity Commissioners shall as soon as practicable prepare and transmit to the Board a scheme or schemes relating to the respective areas. One of the provisions in the scheme is that it shall provide for inter-communications and such standardisation as may 1017 be necessary. The Attorney-General has intimated that he will introduce an Amendment in Clause 9 at a later stage, and I want to make it quite clear that when a scheme providing for a change of frequency is made the cost is not to be thrown on the small local undertaking under the provisions of the 1919 Act. I understood the Attorney-General to say that where the Board wants a change to be made, then the Board is to arrange the finance in accordance with Clause 9. Is it quite clear that Clause 9 will and must be called into operation in every case where a scheme under Clause 4 involves a change of frequency?

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
I think I can assure the hon. and gallant Member. The Clause we are now discussing stipulates what are the matters which are to be in the scheme, and the succeeding Clauses proceed to work that out. In the case of standardisation it is worked out in Clause 9, and the terms on which standardisation are to become operative are to be found in Clause 9. I am prepared to move an Amendment on that Clause making it quite clear that the cost of standardisation in areas covered by a scheme are not to fall on individual undertakings.

§ Sir J. GRANT
I beg to move in page 4, line 29, after the word "any" to insert the word "tramway."
There is a desire on the part of tramway companies that it should be made clear that a private generating station shall not be chosen as a selected station. I do not suppose the Government contemplates that the generating station of a private company will come under the operation of the Bill, and it is inconceivable that they should. The language of paragraph (a) of this Clause, however, is such that the question is not quite clear, and it is possible for the generating station of a private company to become a selected station. There is a provision in the Bill which protects railway companies and private individuals, and tramway companies, very reasonably, ask that they may be placed in a similar position. I hope the Government will give sympathetic consideration to the desires of the tramways.

§ Sir J. NALL
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Mr. HARDIE
The purpose of this Amendment is quite simple, that a tramway generating station shall not without the consent of the owners be a selected station. The Bill provides that generating stations belonging to railway, canal and dock undertakings shall not without the consent of the owners become selected stations. I think we should not place any difficulties in the way of big areas. Take Glasgow, with its tram system. It is quite easy to see that difficulties could arise there unless we have this word inserted. It ought to be the duty of the Government to see that on occasions like this there should be that protection given which is given to others. I think the word "tramways" should be included so as to get no interruption in the tramway systems without the consent of the owners.

§ Colonel ASHLEY
It seems to the Government that, on the whole, this Amendment ought not to be accepted. So far as we know, there are no existing tramway generating stations which would be included. As my hon. Friend knows, this Clause, in which he wishes the word to be inserted deals only with existing stations. Therefore, so far as we can see, none of these tramway generating stations would come within the purview of the Bill, because they are unsuitable. I have another reason which makes it more difficult to accept the Amendment, apart from the fact that they are not going to be taken. It is that certain of these tramway companies are authorised undertakers. Putting this word in would definitely exclude these tramway companies which were authorised undertakers from the purview of the Bill, which seems wrong, especially as it might be necessary to ask some of these stations to help temporarily till the scheme had gone through.

§ Mr. HARDIE
Is it to be understood that., taking the city of Glasgow, if circumstances as suggested in the Minister's speech should arise, he would consult with the Corporation of Glasgow, who own the tramway system, before he did anything in the matter?

§ Colonel ASHLEY
I certainly would consult the Corporation.

§ Mr. BALFOUR
Does my hon. Friend seriously apprehend any difficulty? It seems to me that in most cases a tramway station would be similar to a station owned by a canal, inland navigation or dock company. It seems to me there can be no harm from the point of view of my hon. Friend of inserting the word "tramway." There can be no possible harm in giving that protection given to those other parties.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
I beg to move, in page 4, line 35, to leave out the word "the," and to insert instead thereof the word "a."
This is a purely drafting Amendment.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
I beg to move, in page 4, line 35, at the end, to insert the words and the scheme shall not authorise the acquisition of a main transmission line belonging to the owners of a private generating station without the consent of the owners thereof. This is really a drafting Amendment, although it looks a little more. We are really bringing into Clause 4 words already in Clause 8, Sub-section (2) which more logically come in in Clause 4.

§ Mr. G. HURST
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after the word "to," to insert the words "any such undertakers or."
This Amendment has been put down at the suggestion of the Manchester Ship Canal Company with a view to obviating what appears at first sight an injustice to owners of navigation, dock and harbour undertakings. I understand the Attorney-General is willing to accept it. I shall say nothing except that it brings in line with the owners of private generating stations the owners of canal, inland navigation, dock or harbour undertakings.

§ Mr. RADFORD
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Mr. BALFOUR
Before the main Amendment is put, I wonder if my right 1020 hon. Friend has considered the conditions of owners of main transmission lines in private hands connecting over large distances and giving supplies under the 1909 Act. to a large number of consumers for general purposes of supply. Maybe one of those lines, owing to the confusion into which our legislation is getting, may become one of the Main transmission lines over a large tract of country, under private hands, not planted there because they have any particular statutory power, but because-it cannot be stopped now under the 1909 Act. That main transmission line may be run by private traders over large tracts of land and they could not have any jurisdiction over it. My right hon. Friend might say, "Why do you raise this point? It is a point which M obviously in favour of private enterprise." I raise it because I think we should raise every point which will make for clean and straight legislation and will save confusion.

§ Mr. HARDIE
I would like to have some information on this matter. The Amendment refers to a "generating station without the consent of the owners thereof." Suppose that the Commissioners find themselves in the position that they require a line as described in this addition. If the owners do not consent, what is the position of the Commissioners or the Government? Are they to say that the scheme cannot develop further because the owners do not consent? Will they say to the owners, "We are sorry you do not consent, but we cannot help it because the Bill gives us no power"? Are the Government to be held up by someone who holds privately something which stands in the way of development?

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
I seem to have raised more alarms than the Amendment justifies. If the House will look at page 9, they will see, in line 35, exactly the provision that we are now discussing Provided that a main transmission line belonging to the owners of a private generating station shall not he acquired without the consent of the owners thereof. I am merely transplanting that proviso from Clause 8 to Clause 4, to which it more properly belongs. The proviso is necessary in order to prevent the Board coming along and taking possession of 1021 some transmission line which is used by a private generating station, and used for its own purposes. The Board ought not to be allowed to take such a transmission line; they ought only to be allowed to take main transmission lines which belong to a system for distributing electricity, that is to say, belong to an authorised undertaker. If there were merely a main transmission line belonging to some private colliery company or undertaking of that kind, the Board would not be entitled to take it. If there were not a main transmission line in that district they would have to lay one down.

§ Mr. HARDIE
There has been much talk, in connection with this Bill, of developing electricity. Here is a line that could carry both quite easily, but because this Bill is not a Bill that sets out to do for the nation the first thing that it should do—

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)
The hon. Member began by asking a question, but he is now doing mole than that.

§ Mr. HARDIE
I will put my question. In a ease such as I have stated, where a line can carry both supplies, is there to be nothing in the Bill to prevent needless expenditure on another line?

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
There is nothing in the Bill, as it came through Committee or in my proposals, to compel the owner of a private line to hand it over for public purposes.

§ Mr. HARDIE
It plays into the hands of private enterprise all the time, yet it is said to be a Socialist Bill.

§ Mr. BALFOUR
Would the learned Attorney-General tell the House how far he intends to proceed with the Bill to-night?

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
I understand that there is some question of a Prayer coming on later this evening. Therefore, it we can get to the end of Clause 5 I should be content, and probably that would meet the convenience of the House.
Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 36, leave out the second word "the," and insert instead thereof the word "every."—[The Attorney-General.]

§ Sir J. NALL
I beg to move, in page 5, line 2, to leave out the words "specified area or areas," and to insert instead thereof the words "part of the area specified in the scheme."
I understand that the Government will accept this and a further Amendment in my name.

§ Mr. HURST
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
The Government propose to accept this and a consequential Amendment. The purpose of the Amendment, I understand, is to remove an ambiguity and to make it clear that the Board can, if it please, adopt a scheme for part only of an area, and go on to the other part later. That is obviously desirable.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
These four Amendments fall to the ground, as they are dependent on a proposed New Clause which the House did not accept.

§ Sir J. NALL
I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out lines 39 to 43 inclusive.
The object of this Amendment is to delete a proviso regarding appeals. The House will observe that Sub-section (4) reads as follows: The arbitrator to whom any such matter is so referred may, in any case in which he thinks it expedient to do so, call in the aid of one or more qualified assessors and hear the case wholly or partially with the assistance of such assessors, and may, if satisfied as to the justice of the complaint, either order such pecuniary compensation to be made to the complainants as seems equitable in all the circumstances or order the scheme to be amended in such manner as he may direct:> That is quite a clear direction as to what the arbitrators may do, but the proviso which I desire to leave out goes on to say: Provided that the arbitrator shall not grant any relief other than pecuniary compensation in any case where the Board certify that the grant of such relief would conflict with the basic principles of the scheme or would prejudicially affect the efficiency of the scheme. That is an extraordinary provision. In effect, it is that the respondent before the Court may say to the Court, "You must not find against me, because the Act under which you have been set up directs that you must find for me except in a very limited number of cases where you may grant a sum of money." After what fell from Attorney-General earlier as to the wide scope of appeal provided in Clause 4, and as to how all the constitutional rights of His Majesty's subjects—which I endeavoured to show are overridden by this Bill—would be covered by the provision for arbitration, I think the claim that this proposed arbitration covers the loss of the subject's historic right of appeal to this House if he thinks himself aggrieved falls to the ground when we read that proviso. The arbitrator may not alter the scheme, and may not find for the appellant, if the respondent says that he does not want him to do so because it would upset the respondent's ideas, but the arbitrator may grant some money. It may not be practicable in certain instances to meet a case by an award of money. It may be that the need of some adjustment in the 1024 scheme will be clearly proved and that some revision in the proposals of the Board ought to be made, that there is no need for a money grant and that, in fact, the money having been granted some blemish may still exist in the scheme which will prejudice its operation for all time. I do not see why there should be this bias in favour of the respondent Board, because it is to be assumed that in these cases the appellants will be undertakings prejudicially affected by the provisions of the scheme.
The number of people who can make these appeals at all is very limited in any case. The ordinary right of appealing to Parliament during the consideration of a private Bill or provisional Order has been thrown overboard. It no longer exists and the schemes of this central board—this public trust administering a public service, and comparable in some cases to the great municipalities or the statutory companies—will have the force of law which will endow them with all the rights, privileges and prerogatives usually associated with the private Bill legislation of statutory companies or municipalities. The bodies who are to be controlled, expropriated, prejudiced, possibly ruined by the operations of the scheme are, by this Bill, denied any access to Parliament or any appeal to the Courts. They have only this limited reference to the arbitrator, and now in this proviso the very scheme of which they complain may not be amended by the arbitrator if the respondents say it will upset their scheme to do so. All that can happen is that some cash payment may be made. It is a travesty of cur constitutional procedure in the first place that a limited and extraordinary, a chaotic and possibly inconsistent system of arbitration should be set up, but it is a travesty even of that system that this proviso should remain in the Bill and that nothing but a cash payment should be possible if, in fact, the respondent board make out a case for that kind of award. The Government spokesman said he hoped to satisfy the Chambers of Commerce and the other organisations who made representations on the question of appeal that he had met the outraged feelings of constitutionalists, and that the ancient right of the people to appeal to Parliament would would be preserved. If he really is consistent, and if he wants to make good the 1025 claim which he has advanced, he ought to drop this proviso and allow the arbitrator to function effectively and with some chance of doing some small justice to those who may be ruined by the operations of the scheme.

§ Mr. R. HUDSON
On a point of Order. I submit that the point which my lion, and gallant Friend has just made is covered by the rejection earlier in the day of the proposed new Clause dealing with the tribunal of appeal. That Clause endeavoured to give wider powers to the arbitrator, and the same arguments were put forward as are being put forward now and the House rejected it. An attempt is now being made again to widen the functions of the arbitrator.

§ Sir J. NALL
I submit this particular aspect of the arbitration was not mentioned at all.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I think the new Clause which the House rejected simply proposed to sot up the arbitration, and did not deal with the subject of the arbitration.

§ Sir J. NALL
The House discussed the setting up of the tribunal but did no1 proceed to discuss its functions, because the consequential Clause was not moved.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
That is so.

§ Mr. BALFOUR
I beg to second the Amendment.
I ask hon. Members to visualise the exact position of the Board. The Board is to prepare a schema, and they may determine that it is necessary to bring within the scope of that scheme a large number of properties. They may be faced with the difficulty of saying: "It is very unfair to these people to have to take over this property, and many arguments could be advanced that it is better in the public interest to leave it out of the scheme, and while it may seriously affect them it will not be much good to us." But the answer to that will be: "What does it matter I They have no right to stop us putting this into the scheme. They cannot prevent us ultimately doing so, and all we have to do is to pay them. Out of what fund do we pay? We pay out of a fund of which £33,500,000 is guaranteed by the Treasury, and it does not matter to us on the Board. We want to see this 1026 scheme work smoothly for the electricity supply of this country, and the cost does not matter. We have no direct personal responsibility for the money. We are simply a public Board, and therefore we will arrange our scheme on a grandiose scale, and anybody who is damnified can make a representation, but they cannot make any representation ultimately to show that it is a foolish thing or to alter it." All that they can get is money, and the money is to be put up by the British taxpayer, or, at any rate, if put up by public subscription direct to the Board, is to he guaranteed by the British taxpayer, and the ultimate responsibility for the whole of the money under this scheme must inevitably lie on the British taxpayer.
I cannot understand—I may be and possibly am a very dense person, but I am concerned honestly to try to find out—what it is that our Ministers are trying to do in insisting on keeping in Clauses and Sub-sections like this. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend is advised that it is necessary for the scheme, or that there are opportunities of making Parliamentary representation when the scheme is set up, but I submit most respectfully that all those arguments are not sufficient when it comes to the test of experience, when these matters are handled by people who know nothing of what we are talking about here to-clay, but who must take the Acts of Parliament as they find them. My right hon. Friend may say: "The same old story." It is the same old story, the Constitutional story, the thing we will never let go so long as we are fighting on this or any other Bill. We must go back to the basic facts on this Bill or any other Bill. Let hon. Gentlemen opposite fight for the other thing. They are quite right. It is what they come here to do, and I should never deride them for doing it, but for Heaven's sake let us, on these benches, stick to the other thing and fight the Constitutional issue.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) wound up an emphatic appeal by saying: "Let us fight for the other thing." But I am in considerable doubt as to exactly what "the other thing" was. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hulme (Sir J. 1027 Nall), who moved the Amendment, told us that this Bill was a travesty of our Constitutional procedure, that it created a limited and chaotic right of appeal, and that the Board were entitled to say: "You may not find against me, because I certify that you have got to decide an appeal in my favour." All that I can say is, first of all, that my hon. Friends seem to have misappreciated altogether what the powers conferred by this Clause are, and, secondly, they seem to have misappreciated altogether the functions and position of the Board. This Clause is one which enacts, first of all, that the Electricity Commissioners are to prepare a scheme. They are a body to whose competence my hon. Friends, at any rate, pay lip service, and whom they admit to be, as in fact they are, the most competent electrical authorities in the country. The scheme, having been prepared by these high electrical authorities, is published by the Board in order that everybody interested may have a full opportunity of stating his case. There is express provision made that everyone who is interested may make representations, and the Board is hound to consider those representations. Of course, if you start with the hypothesis that the Board is the sort of body which my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead described, who will say: "What does it matter what it costs l We will go ahead; we are simply a public body, and it does not matter what we spend, because the British taxpayer will have to find the money"—if you start with that hypothesis, you had better have no Bill at all.

§ Mr. BALFOUR
Hear, hear!

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
My hon. Friend is quite consistent. He would rather not have the Bill at all, but I am trying to address a House of Commons which is accepting this Bill, and when my hon. Friend asks me what it is that Ministers are trying to do, I answer that what we are trying to do is to ensure in this Bill that we shall have an effective Bill which will cheapen the cost of electricity to the consumers of this country, and it is with that object in view that we have provisos of this kind. Let me follow up what will happen. The scheme, having been prepared by the Commissioners, having been submitted 1028 to the Board and considered by them, having been published and representations made by all the parties interested, the Board have to consider those representations and then either accept, modify, or confirm the scheme. When the Board has confirmed the scheme, then, under Subsection (3), it is the duty of the Board to carry it out without waiting any further. There is a proviso there that any authorised undertakers on whom obligations are imposed by the scheme, if they think they are prejudiced, have a right of appeal. On that appeal, if their objections can be met without prejudicially affecting the efficiency of the scheme, there is power given to the arbitrator to direct such a modification, but if their objections are such that they cannot be met without destroying the efficiency of the scheme, the arbitrator cannot wreck the scheme, which ex hypothesi has already been approved and commenced to be put into operation, but in that ease, in order that the position of the particular undertaker may be fully safeguarded, he is to be given financial compensation; in other words, he is to be paid what in a Court of Law is usually the reward of a successful claimant—he is to be given damages. Why the power to give damages should be considered a travesty of our Constitutional procedure, I am at a loss to understand, because in the Law Courts, with which I am familiar, that is the normal and recognised Constitutional procedure for remedying a wrong. Damages are the appropriate remedy.
Of course, if the Board is an unreasonable or dishonest body, which is determined to carry through any scheme, however grandiose and absurd, at whatever cost, by misusing its powers, the scheme will not work, but if the Board is, as we believe and intend that it shall be, a businesslike body, carrying out a great public duty on businesslike lines, there can he no reason at all why the Board should not be allowed to say, in a given case: "We cannot alter this scheme, which has been considered and approved, because to alter it would destroy the whole basis of it"; but if the arbitrator comes to the conclusion that the scheme, as framed, does prejudicially affect any individual, that individual has to be compensated for the injury he sustains, and how it can be said that a man is wronged because he 1029 is given financial compensation for an injury, I am again rather at a loss to understand. This Clause was elaborately thrashed out in Committee. The Committee was satisfied, as I hope the House will be, that it is a reasonable and fair protection, and that to go further would be to imperil the whole operation of the scheme. Therefore, I ask the House to endorse the decision of the Committee.

Mr. HERBERT
I beg to move, in page 6, line 7, at the end, to insert the words Any scheme made under this Section shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as practicable after it has been finally adopted by the Board, and shall not come into force unless and until it has been approved either with or without modification by a Resolution passed by each such House. This Amendment is intended to provide that any schemes under this Clause shall have the approval of Parliament before they become effective. One of the principal criticisms which has been made against this Bill is that Parliament is invited to delegate its powers to a bureaucratic or autocratic body, and the object of this Amendment is to try to preserve the control of Parliament in order to protect those whose interests are affected by a scheme of this kind, to give them the cherished right which the subject has always had—an appeal to Parliament in cases of this kind. We have just been discussing the question of an appeal, which I may describe as being an appeal rather on a matter of detail where the Bill provides that an award of damages may be given in the case of a person who suffers through this particular scheme. But there is something much more important here than the question of an individual person or corporation who is suffering damages. It is really a constitutional point of very considerable importance, and it is a matter of very deep regret that a Conservative Government—although we have had a Labour Government in office—should be the first Government in this country to give away in a wholesale manner this right of the appeal of an individual to Parliament in cases of this kind. I know that the Government in this matter, at any rate as their views are expressed by the Attorney-General, rather like a young woman in a 1030 hurry, are particularly anxious that nothing should be done or put into this Bill which shall in any way delay the carrying out of the schemes under the Bill. But I venture to suggest that the very short delay which would be required by making it necessary to obtain the assent of Parliament to a scheme of this kind 's well worth what is involved in it.
I am glad that at the present moment the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport is on the Front Bench, because I am going to quote in support of this Amendment something which happened in the setting up of the London and home counties area, with which he is well acquainted. It was only after a considerable struggle that we reserved the rights of Parliament with regard to the setting up of those electricity areas. In that case it was necessary for the Order constituting the London and home counties area to obtain with or without modification the assent of both Houses of Parliament. It will be within the recollection of everyone interested in the question of electricity that the Electricity Commissioners made about as big a mess of that business as any bureaucratic body has ever done in the last 50 years. The first thing they did was to produce a. scheme which the Courts declared ultra vires. They then had inquiries, at the cost of a small fortune to the ratepayers. [An HON MEMBERS: "Lawyers' fees!"] Yes, lawyers' fees; all done because this business was handed over to a bureaucratic body instead of being left to Parliament to decide, and the consumers had to pay. They produced another scheme and the wisdom was shown of Parliament having reserved to itself the right to approve that scheme with or without modification. I was fortunate, as events have subsequently proved, with the help, if I may acknowledge it as such, of the Parliamentary Secretary to the. Ministry of Transport in getting a modification of that Order, which I do not hesitate to say was of the greatest possible value to my constituents and to all those concerned in the matter of the London and Home Counties Order. I do think this is a case where we ought to be met. Many times during the progress of this Bill we back bench Members of the Conservative party who regard ourselves as not reactionaries, and I do 1031 not think anybody has ever accused me of being reactionary, but as people who do maintain the basic principles of the Conservative party, are entitled to ask that our leaders will at, least do something to show that they still have, some regard for the rights of Parliament and the rights of those who may be affected in matters of this kind to have their case fully considered by Parliament.

§ Mr. HARDIE
At General Elections.

Mr. HERBERT
So far as elections are concerned, if that is a question to be considered in connection with this Amendment, I can only tell the leaders of our party on the Front Bench that it is the experience of many of us that their attempt to steal the thunder of the party opposite has been an inartistic one, the main effect of which has been to lose to a very great extent the sympathy and support of those who have always been Members of their party. In this case I ask, and I ask earnestly, that the right of Parliament to a final voice in the production of these great schemes may be reserved. If the schemes are good ones, there will be not the slightest difficulty in getting the approval of Parliament. If the schemes are bad ones, the reservation of that right of control in the last resort by Parliament will be a thing for which the authors of this Bill may well be thankful in the future as it may save them somewhat from things happening from this Bill that they would regret as much as anyone in this House.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
As soon as I called on the hon. and learned Member, my attention was called to Sub-section (3) of this Clause which we have already passed, which provides that as soon as the scheme is disposed of, it is the duty of the Board to carry out and give effect to the scheme, and then follows the proviso. It seems to me that the present Amendment would conflict with that, and would be inconsistent with the Clause. I would hear the hon. and learned Member, for it seems to me quite clear that we should have two contradictory proposals in the same Clause, which would not do.

Mr. HERBERT
I did not quite catch the exact passage to which you refer, although I realise the point.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The whole of Subsection (3) seems to be a definite direc- 1032 tion that the Board proceed to carry out the scheme, and this Amendment would make Sub-section (3) of no effect.

Mr. HERBERT
I am very much obliged to you for what you have said, because, if I may say so with respect, what you have said leads me to think that perhaps my Amendment is not quite correctly worded, but I think it will be realised that a proviso at the end of a Clause governs the whole of the Clause that goes before, though it may be that the words of my Amendment may be not quite accurate. The intention, of course, is that the proviso which I have proposed shall govern the whole of the Clause which precedes it, and, therefore, perhaps it might be that my Amendment should be worded in some such way as to say that the scheme shall not be "put into operation" until it has been approved by both Houses of Parliament, and so on. But I venture, if I may with all respect, to suggest that my Amendment cannot be altogether out of order, because of the fact that it is a proviso coming at the end tending to qualify the whole, and if it be that the words require a slight alteration, it is only a matter of drafting, and not a matter of substance.

§ Mr. BALFOUR
Might I ask whether your attention has been called to the words in Sub-section (3)?— and shall not, pending the determination of the complaint, carry the scheme into effect so far as it affects the complainants. So that the matter will be in suspense until it is determined, and the matter of pecuniary compensation could be left out entirely, and still not affect the matter.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
May I point out that both my hon. Friends seem to have misapprehended what. I understand you to have pointed nut. The difficulty is this. Under Sub-section (3), it is the duty of the Board as soon as certain things have happened, namely, the scheme has been adopted and published by them, to carry it out at once, or within the area as the case may be. Then comes the proviso to which the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) calls attention, which says that if there happens to be an appeal by a particular authorised undertaker, the scheme is not to be carried into effect as far as it affects him (the complainant), 1033 but otherwise the scheme is to be carried into effect. We have passed from that, and now come to a later Clause, in which it is said that no scheme is to have any effect until both Houses of Parliament pass Resolutions in support of it. That is not a proviso to Sub-section (3), it is a contradiction of Sub-section (3). I submit that we cannot say it is the duty of the Board to carry the scheme into effect as soon as it has been adopted, and in a later proviso say they are not to carry any scheme into effect until long after—namely, after resolutions have been passed in the two Houses of Parliament. The two things would make nonsense of the Clause, and are mutually inconsistent, and my submission is that the Amendment is hopelessly out of order.

Mr. HERBERT
I think the learned Attorney-General has shown me exactly where my Amendment is verbally at fault, told how with a slight alteration it can be put in order. I think that as a lawyer he will agree with me that my Amendment would be in order, and that there would be no objection to it, if instead of the words "come into force" we were to insert words, following those at the beginning of Sub-section (3), be carried out and given effect to. We should then have a provision at the beginning of the Clause that after the scheme had been drafted and published it should be carried out and given effect to. Next we should get a proviso that it shall not be carried out and given effect to until something has happened. I beg to suggest, very respectfully, that that is not a form of drafting which the learned Attorney-General would find any difficulty in interpreting and carrying out.

§ Sir J. NALL
I would like to submit this point. Following Sub-section (3) is a proviso as to arbitration. If we had attempted to move this present Amendment before the provision as to arbitration, quite clearly, I should think, it would have been out of order. Obviously arbitration would have to take place before the scheme could be laid before Parliament, and if a provision as to laying the scheme before Parliament is to come into the Clause at all, clearly it ought to come after Sub-section (5), which, in itself, might deal with a scheme 1034 to which some objection might arise. Therefore, I should have thought the words on the Order Paper were quite in order, but should have been numbered "Sub-section (6)," and that they would, in accordance with the common practice of the House, have formed a final Subsection to this Clause 4.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I think this conversation has confirmed me in my view that the Amendment is quite impossible at the stage at which we have arrived. It might have been possible before we dealt with Sub-section (3) and Subsection (4) to have made some such provision, perhaps, but we have passed the point at which it can be done It would be rather a consequential alteration to Sub-section (3), and, that not having been made, it is quite clear that we cannot put the words in here, and we must pass on to the next Amendment.

Mr. HERBERT
If I may be allowed to do so, I would ask that this Clause should he re-committed.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
It cannot be recommitted at this stage—in the middle of a Bill.

§ Sir J. NALL
Would it not be in Order to move to re-commit either the whole Bill or any part of the Bill at the conclusion of the Report stage?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
That is a possible procedure at the conclusion of the Report stage.

Mr. HERBERT
Do I understand that it will be open to inc, at the conclusion of the Report stage, apart from any question that may arise on other Clauses, to move that this particular Clause be re-committed?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
At or before the beginning of the Third Reading stage it is open to the hon. Member to move the re-committal.

§ Mr. HANNON
I beg to move, in page 6, line 7, at the end, to insert the words (6) In the event of a scheme being adopted under this Act as respects any area which comprises or is in whole or in part within the London and Home Counties Electricity District, and any provisions of such scheme being inconsistent with any provisions of any scheme referred to in the London and Home Counties Electricity District Order, 1925, or in the London Electri- 1035 city (No. 1) Act, 1925, or in the London Electricity (No. 2) Act, 1925, the provisions of the scheme adopted under this Act shall prevail and be deemed to supersede any provisions with which they are so inconsistent of any scheme so referred to as aforesaid, and which have not been carried out at the date when the scheme adopted under this Act becomes operative. This Amendment is submitted to the House as an important consideration in relation to the rights already established for the London company and municipalities under the two Acts passed in 1925. I apologise for the short notice given in regard to this manuscript Amendment, but I think the Government have already given this point consideration, and I hope they will be prepared to accept my Amendment or, at any rate, seine modification of it.

§ Mr. ATTLEE
I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment.. This is a very important proposal to be sprung upon us without hon. Members having had time to study it. It has been said that London was dealt with satisfactorily by No. 1 and No. 2 Electricity Acts but we are strongly opposed to those Acts, and everything which has occurred since those Acts were passed has tended to show that we were right. What we have seen lately has been an enormous increase in the profits of the London companies because they have capitalised their reserves, and in this way they are putting heavy burdens on the people of London in the future in regard to those areas. Now it is proposed that none of the limits under this national scheme, for which the London area as well as others will have to pay, is going to accrue to those areas which have been handed over to company groups. It is impossible without going carefully through those Acts and comparing them with this Bill to say at what points under this Bill its provisions will impinge upon or alter No. 1 or No. 2 Electricity Acts. This is a very sweeping Amendment and it would be unfair to London to make Londoners pay a further contribution under this Bill, while at the same time being deprived of the advantages accruing to other areas. In my opinion it would be disastrous to London if this Amendment were accepted.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
My understanding of this Amendment, which was only shown to me last night, and which the Ministry have not had 1036 an opportunity of considering, is exactly the opposite of that of the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee). I understood that the object of the Amendment was to provide that, if there were a conflict between a scheme under this Act and under the Act of 1925, this Act should prevail—in other words, that London should be assured of coming in, and should not be kept out by reason of the Act of 1925. If that were so, the objections which the hon. Member has indicated would not, of course, exist. It is, however, obvious that this is a complicated Amendment, and one which should be considered. I cannot possibly accept it at such short notice. I will discuss it with my hon. Friend who has moved it, and also, if he will be good enough to see me, with the hon. Member for Limehouse; and if it should turn out that there is any need for an Amendment of this kind, it might, perhaps, be considered in another place. I rather hope that it will not be necessary, but if it should be necessary it could be met in that way. I do not think the House can be reasonably asked to accept the Amendment without a more complete understanding of it than is possible in the circumstances.

§ Mr. HANNON
In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.