CLAUSE 5.—(Existing selected stations.) (Hansard, 9 November 1926)

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
I beg to move, in page 6, line 10, to leave out the word "the," and to insert instead thereof the word "a".
This is merely a drafting Amendment, for the purpose once more of changing the article.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The next four Amendments on the Paper are, I think, consequential on proposals which have now fallen to the ground.

§ Sir J. NALL
I think that the first one ought to be considered, namely in page 6, line 15, to leave out the words with the approval of the Electricity Commissioners. This Amendment is not entirely concerned with the point that was discussed earlier on a new Clause. It was put 1037 down with the intention of carrying out a change that was made in Clause 4. It does not by any means cover the scope of the matter in the way that the new Clause did.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
It seems to me that we have discussed several times the question of the approval of the Electricity Commissioners, and that the louse decided against an alteration.

§ Sir J. NALL
I think that, if we could discuss shortly this Amendment, it would dispose of the other similar Amendment. The new Clause that was moved this afternoon related to certain specific duties which are at present carried out by the Commissioners in relation to other undertakings. The intention in putting down the present Amendment was to ensure that the Board would in fact be the supreme authority in this matter, and would not be subject to veto owing to the decision already taken in the Committee on Clause 4.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
Perhaps the hon. Member will move the Amendment.

§ Sir J. NALL
I beg to move, in page 6, line 15, to leave out the words with the approval of the Electricity Commissioners. This Clause provides that the Board shall direct the manner in which selected stations shall be operated, and carry out such extensions to those stations as are required under the scheme. The concluding words of the first paragraph provide for the carrying out of such additional extensions, outside those provided for in the scheme, as the Board think necessary, but these can only be ordered by the Board with the approval of the Commissioners. I think I may say shortly that that entirely stultifies the arrangement made earlier in the proceedings on this Bill, that the Commissioners are to recommend to the Board what the Board should do, and that the Board, under the provisions of Clause 4, shall examine the scheme, which when confirmed, will ultimately have the force of law. If we do not leave out these words, the Commissioners could afterwards frustrate the Board's intentions by refusing to allow them to carry out the provisions of their scheme for which they may have authority under the original recom- 1038 mendation of the Commissioners. If the words are left in we shall have this rather extraordinary situation that, under the present proposals of Clause 4, the Commissioners hand the scheme to the Board, who may then revise it before they adopt it. The Commissioners, finding that their recommendations have been revised by the Board, may then veto the Board's own opinion by refusing to give their approval, and therefore these words ought to be left out.

§ Mr. BALFOUR
I beg to second the Amendment.
We have here a particularly Gilbertian situation. The Commissioners send the scheme to the Board, who may modify it, and afterwards, when they come to put it into effect, they can only do it with the approval of the Commissioners. It seems to me ridiculous. I do not know why it should be. I have no desire to say that one authority is better than the other, but there should be some authority, once you have established them, who can carry out their own scheme, and if this is to be adjudged upon by someone, it should be some superior authority and not an authority in conflict with the authority which itself framed the scheme which they are offering. I hope my right hon. Friend realises the Gilbertian situation in which we shall find ourselves if we leave this in.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
My hon. Friend suggests that I should perhaps realise the Gilbertian situation we, are in because the Electricity Commissioners were to prepare the scheme, the Board were to modify it, and the Electricity Commissioners could veto it if these words were left in, but he has wholly failed to understand to what the words apply. The words "with the approval of the Electricity Commissioners" relate not to the original scheme, but to additional extensions and alterations made from time to time by direction. What happens with regard to the scheme itself is dealt with in Section 18. What we are dealing with now is the question of additional extensions and alterations which may from time to time be directed after the scheme has been put into operation, and inasmuch as Section 11 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1919, makes the Electricity Commissioners the authority whose consent has to be given for any ex- 1039 tensions or alterations it is desirable to make it clear that that position stands good even after this Bill has come into operation. Unless one has any suspicion or dislike of the Electricity Commissioners, which I have myself disclaimed, and which, I understand, those responsible for the Amendment are equally anxious to disclaim, I cannot understand why we should not make clear that the Electricity Commissioners have exactly the same power with regard to these alterations and extensions as has already been given by Parliament under the Act of 1919.

Mr. HERBERT
I suggest that we really are in some very considerable practical difficulty. It is all very well for the Attorney-General to say this is a matter where the approval of the Electricity Commissioners is only required for the purposes which are particularly mentioned in this Sub-section, but surely, if the Board is to be the body which is to operate the scheme in these matters dealt with in this Sub-section, it is really an integral part of the business. The Attorney-General has given us, I understand, a promise to amend Clause 18. If Clause 18 is to be amended in the way suggested, and if it is to be the ease that the Board are to be the final authorities who are to carry out this scheme when it has been fully completed, surely it is absurd for them to be hampered by having to obtain the approval of the Electricity Commissioners to some one particular item which, undoubtedly, is an integral part of the work which they have to do.
I do not for one moment desire to be obstructive in regard to this matter. All that I want to do is to point out that if the Attorney-General does what he has told us he intends to do in regard to Clause 18, it is perfectly obvious that if that Clause is to be amended in the way suggested, Clause 5 will be a very considerable difficulty if we leave it in its present form. I should have thought that it would have been very much easier if these words were left out. I foresee, from what the Attorney-General has already promised, that, after we have dealt with this Bill on Report stage, if it is not re-committed in this House, it will require a large amount of work to be expended upon it in another place, in 1040 order to make it a workable Act of Parliament. Surely, we might just as well do what we can to lessen that task and leave out these wards now, with regard to which I cannot see any argument in their favour, in order to simplify the position when we come to Clause 18. I hope the Attorney-General, in these circumstances, may think that in the interests of getting through a workable Act it might be just as well to leave out these words now, unless he attaches very great importance to them. At the present time I do not see that he has given us any arguments which show that there is any value to be attached to the words. In these circumstances, I hope he will agree to leave them out.

§ Mr. ATTLEE
I can never quite understand the attitude taken up by hon. Members opposite. At one time they are very strong on the point that we must have tribunals of arbitration, every possible appeal, every possible protection for people who are going to be ruthlessly steam-rollered by this new autocratic body which is being set up under the Bill. At other times they want to sweep away any protection for the authorised undertakers. I understand that the particular point now at issue is that in future Years where the Board demand certain additional extensions arid alterations it shall be with the approval of the Electricity Commissioners. Despite the numerous efforts by hon. Members opposite to abolish them, the Electricity Commissioners, they still remain in existence, and we on this side believe that it is necessary to have a supreme body controlling the industry, apart from the operating body, the Board. That is why I understand the approval of the Electricity Commissioners will he necessary before the Board requires additional extensions and alterations to be imposed on the authorised undertakers. I agree that there is something Gilbertian in this Bill, but that Gilbertian situation has very largely been caused by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) and his friends. They managed under Clause 4 to so arrange that the Electricity Commissioners were to be under the Board. The Gilbertian situation is that the Electricity Commissioners are practically the technical advisers of the Board up to Clause 4. By Clause 5 they come into their own again as a semi-judicial 1041 body, and, therefore, they are again in e position to be appealed to, and throughout the Bill they are in the position of being the deciding body on technical points. Therefore, we want the approval of the Electricity Commissioners kept in the Bill here in order to give authorised undertakings some protection against the Board.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
These are all consequential on an Amendment which has already been disposed of.

§ Sir J. NALL
I beg to move, in page 6, line 27, at the end, to insert the words If the arbitrator decides that any directions of the Board requiring additional extensions or alterations of any such station impose on the owners thereof an unreasonable financial burden, such directions shall become null and void. It has been decided that the main functions of the arbitrators in this case is to decide on the financial basis. It is quite consistent with that that we should now add this Amendment. If the arbitrator is satisfied, in relation to this particular Clause that it will impose an unreasonable burden on the owners, it seems only reasonable that he should be able to annul the proposal. I do not know whether there is any objection to it. It is only in manuscript, but I hope the Attorney-General will be able to accept it.

Mr. HERBERT
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
I had not heard the Amendment until it was read out by the lion, and gallant Member, and, therefore, I have not been able to give it that careful consideration I should like to have given it. I understand, after 1042 hearing it read, that what it suggests is in effect already in the Bill. The Bill provides that the Board has to make arrangements for such additional extensions and alterations as they may direct, but if in Clause 9 any direction requires such additional extension or alterations as to impose on owners an unreasonable burden, they can appeal. Obviously, the arbitrator would have power to do a variety of things. He could not only declare them null and void, he could modify them, he could decide they should not become effective unless certain modifications were made, or he could order a certain pecuniary recompense to be given. He can say, "These are unreasonable additions and extensions; I refuse to sanction them," and if he took that course they are not binding. The only effect of the Amendment appears to me to limit the powers of the arbitrator, whereas if the Bill is left as it is he can disallow or modify them.

§ Sir J. NALL
By leave of the House may I just ask the Attorney-General this? Clause 5, although it gives the right of appeal to an arbiter, does not say what the arbiter may do.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Obviously therefore what he may do is to decide upon the appeal.

§ Mr. ATTLEE
Is it clear under this Clause exactly what the arbiter's powers should be? Should not something be put in stating that the arbiter has the powers of an arbiter under the Board of Trade? I do not agree with what has been pat forward by the hon. Member opposite. I think something is required to say what the arbiter's powers shall be and how far he should go.

Mr. HERBERT
I thnk there is a very great deal in this request. The Bill reads: If the owners of any such station consider that any directions of the Board … impose upon them an unreasonable financial burden, the matter shall, if they so require, be referred to the arbitration of a barrister. The barrister will hold an arbitration. What is he to do? Suppose he does decide that there is imposed upon these owners an unreasonable financial burden, what is to happen? I think this is a case where the Clause as it stands is obviously incomplete. I invite the Attorney-General 1043 to tell us. Suppose he was appointed arbitrator in this case and he found that the action did impose on the owners an unreasonable financial burden, what would he then do? What would be his award?

§ The ATTORNEY- GENERAL
The answer to the question is, if I were arbiter, I should do one of two or, possibly, three things. First I might disallow the order or direction altogether on the ground that the extensions or alterations were unreasonable. Secondly. I might say they would be disallowed unless modified to au extent I mentioned, and thirdly, I might be able to say there must be some compensation paid by the board. Anyhow, I could do the first two things.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
With regard to the next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie), and other Amendments—in page 6, line 31, to leave out from the word "order" to the word "acquired" in line 34—I cannot make out the possible form. The Clause reads in this way: That if the owners of any such station are unwilling to enter into or fail to carry out any such arrangements to the satisfaction of the Board, the Minister of Transport may by Order empower any authorised undertakers or other company or person approved by the Board, or, failing such authorised undertakers, company, or person, the Board, to acquire the generating station at a price to be determined. There is nothing in this Bill giving a Minister of Transport any machinery or money to acquire any of those things. The whole Bill is based on other authorities acquiring them. Therefore. I am afraid that Amendment will not stand.

§ Mr. HARDIE
That is the reason for the Amendment. We want to have the reverse of what is the Bi11. That is why we are moving Amendments. We want exactly what you are saying is not in the Bill.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I am afraid it would not have that effect without a great deal of supplementary machinery.

§ Mr. HARDIE
We will bring that in after.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The House must see the proposal as a whole before it makes up its mind on the merits.

§ Mr. HARDIE
If we get sufficient support for this proposal, the consequence will be that everything else will follow that finding. The Amendment is related to other Amendments on the Paper. It seeks to make an alteration in the Bill, but not one which interferes with any basic principle at all.

§ Colonel ASHLEY
There is no provision in the Bill for any money with which the Minister of Transport can acquire anything, and, therefore, the Amendment would impose a charge and is out of order.

§ Mr. HARDIE
The Minister of Transport is going to empower the Board by a certain sum of money, part of which is already allotted, to the extent of £33,500,000. By the Government passing that they are in the position of acting on behalf of the Minister of Transport—using the guarantee of the Government to purchase the things necessary in order to carry out the provisions of the. Bill. That being the case. I hold that the Amendment is perfectly in order.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I am afraid that that is not so under our Rules. You cannot propose anything which involves an extra charge on the Exchequer or the rates on the Report stage of a Bill.

§ Mr. ATTLEE
The purpose of the Amendment is that the Minister of Transport should make an Order to acquire a generating station at a price to be determined. The Board cannot make an Order. It is necessary that the Minister of Transport should make the Order, vesting the station in the Board, and the Board be provided with funds by this Bill for acquiring the station.

Mr. HERBERT
The extraordinary explanation of the hon. 'Gentleman who has just spoken is only justified if the Amendment on the Paper is riot moved or is not carried. It is only if the words proposed to be left out remain in the Clause that the Board "acquires." The Minister of Transport may by Order "acquire," but the Minister of Transport has no funds with which to do it. As far as I understand the English language, the words "the Minister of Transport 1045 may acquire," do not mean that the Minister of Transport may vest in the Board.

§ Mr. ATTLEE
If the hon. Gentleman will read further down to line 37 he will see where the question of vesting the generating station in the Board comes in.

Mr. HERBERT
Yes, on payment of the price.

§ Mr. ATTLEE
By the Board.

Mr. HERBERT
No, it does not say so. Presumably it is to be paid by the person who acquires.

§ Mr. HARDIE
This Bill could not proceed in Committee until a certain financial provision, namely, £33,500,000, had been made by this House. That money was not given to the Board and was not given to the Commisioners. It was voted by the Government to be handed to the Minister of Transport. Because that took place, it seems to me to establish the financial relation between the Government and the function of the Commissioners under the Bill. If we cannot make Amendments dealing with the money already passed by this House for the purpose of carrying out this Bill, then it would seem to me that the Rules of the House preclude an ordinary Amendment which seeks in the ordinary course to make a logical condition under which the Bill might proceed.