MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT. (Hansard, 17 February 1927)

§ The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley)
After the Estimates that we discussed yesterday, which amounted to £50,000 and £450,000, I must really apologise for asking for so small a sum as £10. This £10 is merely a token Vote, in order to enable me to use Appropriations-in-Aid to meet excess expenditure. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that, the year before last, Lord Weir's Committee reported to the Government with regard to the electrical supplies of this country, and the Government, having considered that Report, after due deliberation brought in a Bill, which is now an Act of Parliament, to regulate the electricity supplies of this country. Before bringing in that Bill, the Government considered, and I think the Committee will agree that it was a right course, that it would be well to have independent outside technical advice beyond the advice which was given by their legal technical advisers, the Electricity Commissioners.
The Committee will appreciate that, in a scheme so large as that of the Elec- 1140 tricity Act, it was essential that the figures should be as accurately ascertained as human knowledge and skill could devise; and so, in the spring of 1925, a Supplementary Estimate was brought into the Horse and voted, which enabled the Government to use a sum of money in the financial year 1925–26 to get outside technical advice on the Weir Report and on the scheme generally. As a matter of fact, of the £15,000 voted, not more than £10,500 was actually expended, and so, early last year, a sum of £5,000 was inserted in the Estimates as a re-vote, in order that the work might go on. That £5,000 is not sufficient to meet the expenses which were incurred in the general scheme and in the technical scheme of investigation up to the 15th December last, when the Electricity Bill became an Act.
It may be asked, why is the 15th December taken as the date, and not the 31st March, which is the end of the financial year? It is because, after the 15th December, when the Bill became an Act, any money for these investigations, according to the terms of the Act, became a charge on the fur d under the control of the Electricity Commissioners, afterwards to be recoyered from the Central Electricity Board. Up to the 15th December last, the money found by Parliament will be re7overed, with 5 per cent. interest, from the Central Electricity Board when it functions, but obviously it cannot he recover-d before the 31st March next, as the. Electricity Board will not come into being until the 1st March next. In effect, therefore, what I am asking the Committee to do, having, I hope, given them a fairly clear explanation, is simply to sanction, in this token Vote of £10—not to find money, but. to sanction—certain Appropriations-in-Aid, being utilised for the deficiency which now exists between the £5,000 which was put into my Estimate and the £19,000 which it has cost to carry on these investigations between the beginning of this financial year and the 15th December last.
The £14,000, less £10, the amount of the token Vote, is found, as to one part, by savings on other Subheads of the Ministry of TransFort—offices not being filled up, and other economies—and, as to the other part, by the fact that we have received Appropriations-in-Aid 1141 greater than we anticipated, to the amount of some £7,000, savings having been made and recoveries, for example, in respect of the cost of the Railway Rates Tribunal having been greater than we anticipated. We have between 26,000 and £7,000 more than we anticipated, and now what we are asking the Committee to do is simply to allow us to allocate these excess Appropriations-in-Aid, which we have received, towards the liquidation of that £14,000, the balance being found by economies. The taxpayer will not he a penny out of pocket, because all the money which this investigation has cost, plus 5 per cent. interest, will be repaid from the Central Electricity Board after the 31st March next.

§ Mr. G. BALFOUR
On a point of Order, I should like to ask your ruling, Sir, as to whether this Vote can in fact be taken as a token Vote. I should like to point out at once that whether it can or not will in no way interfere with the operations of my right hon. Friend, or the conduct of the business of his Department. This Vote of £10 is really a token Vote dealing, not with the amount which has actually been voted—namely, £14,000, because it is entirely, if I understand it aright, under the Act of 1926, whereas a Supplementary Estimate can only be granted as a supplementary sum to the sums provided, as stated on the Paper, under the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, the Railways Act, 1921, and so on. We are thus, indeed, asked to vote a sum for a new service under the Act of 1926, and I think it is not competent for us to grant this as a token Vote under the Act of 1926, because it obviously cannot be a sum supplementary to any of those sums which were originally granted under the original Estimate.

§ Colonel ASHLEY
On that point of Order. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) is under a misapprehension. This is not under the Act of 1926. This is an ordinary Supplementary Estimate such as we had last year. The only way in which the Act of 1926 comes in is that the Act of 1926 visualised the fact that the money had been spent under Supplementary Estimates and under ordinary Estimates for this purpose, and said that it was only right and proper that the Central 1142 Electricity Board should repay to the taxpayer the money with 5 per cent. interest. That is the only way in which the Act of 1926 comes into it.

§ Mr. BALFOUR
On that point, surely the very fact that this £14,000 is to be recovered under the terms of the Act of 1926 clearly shows that this £14,000 is in fact a new service, and should have been introduced later in the Vote on Account, and not brought in as a token Vote to appropriate sums which the House has already voted and which have been saved. It seems to me quite clear that the proper method of dealing with this matter would be by introducing it at the appropriate stage under different machinery, and explaining to the House that this £14,000 is required for a new service under the Act of 1926, and is repayable and chargeable under the terms of that Act.

§ Mr. DENNIS HERBERT
I am not quite sure whether I agree with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour), but I think we want information on this point. In the first place, is any of this money money which is expended under the authority of the Act of 1926, and, if it is, how does it come to be included in this Estimate, which is an Estimate in connection with the expenditure of various sums of money under various Acts of Parliament, but not under the Act of 1926? If the Leading of the Estimate is looked at, it will be seen that there is no reference whatever to the Act of 1926.

§ Mr. HARDIE
I should like to ask whether it is in order for any token Vote to come before this House for sums of money that are loans? I understood that it was only on the question of Government payments that a token Vote could be taken at any time. This, however, is a sum of money, as we are told to-day, which is recoverable, though I do not know whether it will ever be recovered. Is it strictly in order, in such a case, to take a token Vote in this form?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I do not think there is anything at all out of order in this particular Vote. The point raised by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour), with regard to its not being complementary to the original Estimate, does not make any difference at all. This is not what I may call purely a token 1143 Vote which might be treated as a new service, but I do not think there is anything in the nature of a new service here It is simply to enable the Ministry to make use of a sum of money which has been saved.

§ Mr. HERBERT
I ask you to rule definitely whether expenditure under the Act of 1926 can be included under this particular Estimate, which does not refer to that Act?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
As I understand it, I do not think this comes under the Act of 1926 at all.

§ Mr. HARRIS
Is it possible through an Estimate to force the new Board to accept expenditure which they may not consider justifiable?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
That does not seem to me to be a point of order, but a matter for argument.

§ Mr. HARDIE
Can you give us any precedents where a token Vote has been taken for money which has been advanced? We are in the position of pawnbrokers in advancing this money.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I do not know whether there are or are not, but it certainly is not my business to find out.

§ Mr. HARDIE
You, Sir, are in charge of the Committee and of its procedure, and I am asking you as the authority on these qeustions to give your ruling. If you cannot give a ruling and want time to get up your information, I am prepared to move, "That the Debate be adjourned."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I have given my ruling that this Vote is in order, and that is sufficient.

§ Mr. R. MORRISON
May I raise an entirely different point of Order? The Minister, if I heard him correctly, stated that there had been a saving on the original Estimate of £7,700, and that that £7,700 was now going to be transferred to the purposes of the Central Electricity Board and would be recoverable at 5 per cent. The point I want to raise is whether we should be in order in discussing the savings which have been made by the various departments of the Ministry of Transport to realise the £7,700.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I see no objection to hon. Members discussing the reasons why this saving has been made so long as they do not go too much into detail.

§ Mr. W. BAKER
I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £5.
My difficulty with regard to this Supplementary Estimate is that, despite the fact that the Minister of Transport said he was asking for a very small sum and despite the fact that he seemed to think he was giving a very full explanation, I did not hear a single word from him with regard to the details of the expenditure under Sub-head C. On page 12 we are given "details of the foregoing," and it is stated that the fees and expenses of consulting engineers and expenses of the technical survey for a general schme of generation and transmission of electricity in Great Britain, including field surveys of the central England and Glasgow and Clyde alley areas amounted £14,000. I would respectfully submit to the Committee and to the Minister that it is not giving adequate information to lump those services together and give a common total for the whole thing and I consider that a protest is called for. It has been the practice in the past, in presenting Supplementary Estimates, to give the most meagre information, which frequently has not been adequately supplemented when the discussion has taken place. There is one further point to which I wish to draw attention. The original Estimate was for a sum of £9,200, and the Supplementary Estimate is for a sum of £14,000, which is getting on towards being double. In view of the very inadequate information which has been placed before the Committee, I move to reduce the Vote by £5.

§ Mr. BALFOUR
I am sorry I could not hear all that my right hon. and gallant Friend said in his opening remarks. I may have missed something, but I gathered that he apologised for asking the Committee to vote such a small sum as £10. I am quite sure that it is new to this Committee that a Minister should have to apologise or should think of apologising for asking for a small sum. I wish to ask my right hon. and gallant Friend whether the original Estimate of 1145 £9,200 was in fact over-expended by November of last year, and whether it is not a fact that this expenditure which is now asked for has been wholly incurred to meet the requirements and the provisions of the Act of 1926. I should like my right hon. and gallant Friend to say how much, if any, of that sum was used for the purposes of the survey which was made during the later stages a the Bill of 1926. I have not the slightest desire to embarrass my right hon. and gallant Friend in the progress of his work or in the investigations and the expenditure of necessary money, but I do say that, if he is fair, he will place the position before the Committee and the country in a straightforward Parliamentary manner. If he had come to the Committee and had said that owing to the passing of the 1926 Act and the investigations which were made in anticipation of that Act without the authority of Parliament, investigations undertaken to facilitate the proceedings under that Bill—

§ Colonel ASHLEY
I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I cannot allow to pass his statement that it was without the authority of Parliament. There has been a Supplementary Vote, and there was an item put into the Vote for the Ministry.

§ Mr. BALFOUR
I at once accept the assurance of my right hon. and gallant Friend.

§ Mr. R. HUDSON
Is it in order for the hon. Member to accuse the Ministry by implication of not acting in a straightforward way?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
It is not for me to express an opinion either way.

§ Colonel ASHLEY
I do not complain.

§ Mr. BALFOUR
I suggest that my right hon. and gallant Friend should explain why, after using those savings and further Appropriations-in-Aid, he is calling for a token Vote which in effect means, as he must know, that the bulk of this additional sum of £14,000 is needed because of our legislation of last year which produced the Electricity Act of 1926. That is the plain fact of the case. The bulk of it really is for the new service which was set up last year, and I am sure that none of us would have quarrelled if it had been taken at a later stage under the 1146 proper procedure and had been placed before the Committee so that we could have understood it and that people outside would have known that we were incurring the first necessary expenditure under the Act of 1926.

Mr. HAFIRIS
Having followed the proceedings last year during the struggle over the Electricity Bill, I am not surprised that the Minister should have got a little impatient and have wanted to forestall the passing of his Bill. The Bill suffered so much from delay and from the obstruction of vested interests that I suppose he felt he could no longer hold his hand and was bound to get on and prepare the way for setting up the Board, and, from the point of view of users of electricity and industry, I am rather inclined to congratulate the Minister on his courage and enterprise in anticipating the work of the Board. On the other hand, as a good Parliamentarian, I do not like to see the Minister spending large sums of money without the direct authority of Parliament. I think it is right to assume that this considerable sum of £14,000 has largely gone in salaries and appointments. This Committee should be very suspicious of a Minister having power to make appointments of this kind uncontrolled by the House of Commons, and we ought to know something about the character of the appointments. We have no particulars or details of the establishment which the Minister has brought into existence to carry out his work. We do not know whether they were engineers or surveyors, what sort of salaries were paid, whether their appointments were permanent or temporary, whether they have been dismissed or whether their services have been handed over to the new Board. It seems to me that it is very unsound in principle. I might be prepared, under very exceptional circumstances, to whitewash the Minister, but I think we are entitled to more details as to how the money has been spent.
The Vote speaks of a technical survey and of consulting engineers. Consulting engineers give advice. We have had a great deal of advice from a great number of engineers during the last two or three years, and no doubt we have paid heavily for it. Who are these consulting engineers? How many were appointed? What were their fees and on what terms were their engagements made? This new 1147 Ministry of Transport is not bound by the old precedents of some of the other Departments. They have new fangled methods. I am glad to see a new spirit of enterprise and energy—perhaps it is the electricity which charges them with that enterprise and energy—but some of these new officials have a habit of making speeches in the country, which is quite a new custom with officials. If we have these appointments made without the authority of Parliament and no details given, we may find the Ministry using this as a precedent, and in the future we may have a whole sheaf of new appointments because of the possibility of the passage of another Act of Parliament. I think therefore that we should have a full and frank detailed statement regarding the terms and conditions of the appointments of all these officials.

§ Mr. D. HERBERT
I think this Estimate has been put in a form which perhaps is rather slovenly and that it is really not the fault of the Committee if the Minister incurs a little more trouble and time in getting it through than would otherwise have been the case. I should like to be clear on one point, because I understood from what he said just now that none of the expenditure that is covered under this head was expenditure that came under the Act of 1926. May I ask whether anything under this Estimate is spent under the authority of the Act of 1926?

§ Colonel ASHLEY
None whatever.

§ Mr. HERBERT
Then are we going to have another Supplementary Estimate for the current year? If not, may I have some explanation as to how the necessary payments are to be made to certain gentlemen the activities of one of whom were referred to in the House and some complaint was made of the Department engaging a great consulting engineer to go round and make inquiries and make reports to the Board in anticipation of the passing of the Electricity Bill? The Electricity Act, 1926, is referred to in the footnote to this Estimate as being responsible for certain savings, but the Act of 1926 is not mentioned in the heading of Class II at all, and therefore I think one would be right in assuming that the Minister should know, as is the case, that no money covered by this Vote has been expended under the Act of 1926.

§ Sir FREDRIC WISE
It is recoverable.

§ Mr. HERBERT
It is recoverable, according to this, under the Act of 1926, but it will not be recoverable until after March. What I mea at was that that is the only reference to the Act of 1926, but that under that Act certain sums are recoverable. My point is that this Estimate contains no reference whatever to any expenditure under the Act of 1926, and if the Minister is not asking for any money to be expended under that Act, I want him to tell us how he is paying for the gentleman who was sent round before that Act was on the. Statute Book to collect information arid give advice as to schemes which were being published in anticipation of the passing of the Act. I raise the point because I object very strongly indeed to the growing habit of Government Departments acting, when they have no authority whatever to act, on the assumption that, because the Government has a Bill before Parliament, it will become an Act.

§ Colonel ASHLEY
We did nothing without Parliamentary sanction. We had a Supplementary Vote for 1925–1926, which was passed. Last year £5,000 was put into my Estimates for this very purpose, and not a penny was spent without Parliamentary sanction.

§ Mr. HERBERT
I entirely accept my right hon. Friend's explanation as far as it goes, but I still want to know this. He will not deny the fact, with regard to a letter I read when I raised a question of privilege on this very point. I am not quite sure of the gentleman's name, but there is no need to mention it. My right hon. Friend, I think, will not deny that he was sent round according to the terms of that letter which was written to the secretary of certain electricity undertakings. He visited them, and these in charge of the undertakings were requested to give him information to enable him to prepare certain schemes which would have, to be prepared under what was then the Bill of 1926, if it ever became an Act of Parliament.
However my right hon. Friend may get out of the charge of having spent money without Parliamentary sanction, a charge which I, at any rate, never made, it does not alter the fact, and I am sure he will 1149 not dispute the fact I have just described, that this gentleman was sent round to do this work. I imagine no one in the Committee will dispute the fact that that gentleman did not go travelling round the country examining electricity undertakings for nothing, and if he has not been paid he has got to be paid somehow, and I should very much like to know how he has been or is going to be paid. But that does not interfere with what I was going to say about the growing practice of Government Departments acting without the authority of an Act of Parliament in a way which they themselves describe as acting in anticipation of the passing into law of a Bill which is then before Parliament, On the occasion in question Mr. Speaker decided that there was no breach of privilege and he said something to the effect that it was not an uncommon thing for Government Departments to prepare in anticipation of the passing of a Bill which was before Parliament. That may be a perfectly common thing but it is a wrong thing for a Government Department to do to incur considerable expense and to incur it in a way which involves asking the taxpayers of the country to assume that a Bill that is proposed by the Government will be passed into law without alteration. That is a protest I desire to make in any event, whatever may be the details in regard to the particular matter we have now been discussing. I could find the gentleman's name if need be, but I am sure thy right hon. Friend will not question it. He knows the incident to which I refer. I want to know definitely whether the expenses of this investigation have been, or are going to be, paid, whether they are in any way included under this Estimate, or whether, if they are not included, it will be necessary to come before us with a further Supplementary Estimate.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I agree with the Minister that this Estimate is in a proper form. I cannot think how otherwise he could come to the House, and ask for this money. His position, at the moment, is extremely difficult. The electricity problem is in a very important transition stage and any Government would be guilty of very great unwisdom unless it took proper precautions to see to it that the problem of electricity shall be properly tackled in 1927 when the Act 1150 comes into operation. The right hon. Gentleman has made it perfectly plain that he has received Parliamentary sanction for all the expenditure his Ministry has undertaken, and I am content to accept his word.

§ Colonel ASHLEY
Except, of course, the £14,000 for which I am now asking. That is the whole essence of a Supplementary Estimate. Having spent more than you had to spend, you have to ask the House to find the money.

§ Mr. HERBERT
Under an Act of Parliament which is not mentioned in the heading of the Vote.

§ Colonel ASHLEY
That is where I disagree with my hon. Friend—not under the Act of Parliament, but under the other Estimate which happens to have been exhausted. Now I am asking for sanction for £14,000.

§ Mr. HERBERT
I understood my right hon. Friend to say this £14,000 had been expended.

§ Colonel ASHLEY
Not under the Act.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
That is the point I was about to make. We admit the need for vigilance and economy, but the fact remains that this £14,000 is necessary for the proper development of the electricity scheme at the earliest possible moment. The hon. Member is entitled to make the point he has made, but when you look at the general problem it would be great unwisdom on the part of any Government to delay taking action such as the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to take under this Vote. He asks for the sanction of the House to spend £14,000 upon what is, in my judgment, a very wise thing. We are to come under the ægis of the Electricity Act in a very short time, but, surely, the ground has to be prepared for the working of the Act at the earliest possible moment. It is a perfectly proper thing for the Minister of Transport to ask the sanction of the House for a sum to enable him to take immediate action when the Act comes into active operation. Why do we wish to get this £14,000? It is for the fees and expenses of consulting engineers and expenses of the technical survey for a general scheme of generation and transmission of electricity in Great Britain, including field surveys of the Central England and Glasgow and Clyde Valley areas. 1151 Surely, as I said, that is a perfectly proper thing for the Minister in a transition stage to undertake and I am convinced that no Member of the House would object to the wisdom of a Department taking a step of that kind.
The question I rose to ask is in connection with the statement I have just made. I approve of the prevision of the Department in sending round highly skilled consulting engineers to give the Government Department proper advice but these engineers have only gone, as far as I can see, to Central England, Glasgow and the Clyde Valley. Far be it from me to disapprove of their visitations to these various parts, but I would like to ask whether the Minister of Transport proposes to send consulting engineers and experienced skilled men to the one part of the country where electricity can be of most use. I refer to the Highlands of Scotland. Anyone who has visited the Highlands of Scotland knows that the water power there is one of the most marvellous in the world. The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) looks or, at any rate, he smiles approval of that remark. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposes, if we sanction this Vote, to send his skilled consultants to the Highlands of Scotland to consider the problem as a whole. A great deal has been done up there. I must confess that my right hon. Friend and his Department have benefited that part of the country to a very great extent, and I would like hill to assure me now that steps are to he immediately taken to send skilled consultant engineers up there to investigate the problem and see what can be done.

§ Colonel WOODCOCK
The Supplementary Estimate says that the money is to be spent in connection with the technical survey for a general scheme of generation and transmission of electricity in Great Britain, and with the Severn Barrage investigation I am sorry that the Minister has not set out the details of the expenditure more explicitly. The Severn Barrage has been the subject of many questions in this House asking why this money should be expended year after year. The inquiry has been going on for three or four years, and each year some estimate is made of the money required. This year 1152 in the Estimates £20,475 was the sum asked for. What we want to know with reference to the Severn Barrage is whether the Government are continuing these investigations, while at the same time they are allowing the city of Bristol to spend millions of pounds on electricity within a few miles of the very spot where they are making this experiment. The Estimate states that so much money is required for the technical survey. I should like to ask what is the Report so far on the subject of the Severn Barrage? Many people with practical knowledge of the Severn, which has almost the highest tide in the world, know that the whole scheme is impracticable and that it would jeopardise the many millions of pounds spent at the docks at Avonmouth, with which it would certainly interfere. Money is being spent year after year out of the estimates on this matter, and I would like the Minister of Transport to explain how much he proposes to spend this year, in addition to the £14,000?

§ Sir JOHN MARRIOTT
On a point of Order. Does this matter arise on the Supplementary Estimate? Does not the Severn Barrage investigation refer entirely to a sum in the original Estimate?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member has anticipated me. I was about to make the same remark.

Mr. HARDY
On a point of Order. The hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison) put a question on this matter, and asked for a ruling, which was given. The Committee took it that everything could come in under this Estimate, including the Severn Barrage and the Caledonian and Crinen Canals.

§ Colonel WOODCOCK
I would point out that the explanatory note on "Special Service and Inquiries" mentions that the sum of £14,000 is required for field surveys of the Central England, Glasgow and Clyde Valley areas. Probably the Severn Barrage would some in under that heading.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I must have been misunderstood if hon. Members think that everything can come in under this Estimate. It is a very narrow Estimate indeed.

§ Mr. J. HUDSON
The question of the generation of electricity in the North of Scotland has been raised, and the hon. and gallant Member for Everton (Colonel Woodcock) has now referred to the Severn Barrage and, suddenly, we discover that all this is out of order. There are other districts which are equally important, to which one would like to refer. Do you rule out all these detailed districts?

§ Mr. D. HERBERT
The Scottish District is mentioned in the Supplementary Estimate.

§ Mr. HARRIS
The sum of £14,000 is to be paid for the cost of a technical survey. The hon. and gallant Member for Everton wishes to know whether the technical survey includes the Severn Barrage?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
It is evident that the money asked for is for a definite purpose. We cannot discuss as to whether allocations should be made for districts all over England, otherwise we should never get through. The only question is whether the Minister of Transport should devote this money for the particular purpose specified in the Estimate.

§ Colonel WOODCOCK
May I point out that the Severn Barrage investigation is mentioned, and that overleaf, on page 12, under the heading "Special Service and Inquiries," mention is made of "Central England," which, I take it, includes the Severn Barrage. The Severn leads right into the Central England. I take it that as the Severn rims through the whole of Central England, that reference means the Severn Barrage. It is a matter of great importance that so much money is being wasted year after year by this investigation into a totally impracticable scheme. This is the only time we can raise it. Probably the Minister would like to hear us on the subject, and we should like to hear him.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I am not concerned about that. It is out of order.

§ Mr. J. HUDSON
I regret very much that I am precluded from dealing with the particular district which I should have liked to mention. I was much interested in the Minister's assurance that the whole of the £14,000 will be recovered 1154 ultimately from the general electricity scheme which is being arranged under the 1926 Electricity Act. I know that there is provision made in that Act for the recovery of such money, hut the recovery will only take place if it is quite certain that the scheme will be a success. I do not forget that the scheme was openly described in this House by the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Sir C. Wilson) as nothing short of rank and rotten Socialism. The Minister of Transport is so sure that this thing is going to work and that the money will be recovered, that he feels he can promise that there will be no difficulty. He assures us that the expenditure will not fall upon the nation or the taxpayers. That is an assumption that the general electricity scheme we are embarking upon is going to be the success that the Minister believes. I hope it will be a success. I am not quite so sure about it, speaking as a Socialist. I think that Socialism in any of its forms will have to work out its schemes much better in detail than this scheme has been worked out, if we are to be sure that the £14,000 we are now discussing will be recovered from the scheme.
The sum of £14,000 is to be paid, justifiably, for skilled work and technical assistance. It is less, apparently, than the total sum that is to be paid in salaries alone to the new Board which has been set up in connection with the electricity scheme. If I understood the Minister correctly, this preliminary survey, which is to cost £14,000, and which, I think, has already cost £5,000 this year, and in last year's Estimate a further £10,000 was found, is practically the whole survey. I am wondering what justification there is for the heavy charges that are to he incurred in the salaries of gentlemen on the Electricity Board, some of whom have had no experience in electricity. I should like information about the exact technical detail of the work that has been done in connection with this matter, so that we may feel justified in the expenditure now proposed to be made.

§ Mr. ROBERT HUDSON
The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) in his remarks appeared to have two ideas that were firmly fixed in his mind, and which he repeated at great length. He rather reminded me of the gentleman in 1155 the poem which we knew as children, "The Hunting of the Snark," who said: I have said it twice: I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true.

§ Mr. HERBERT
I say it three times.

§ Mr. HUDSON
The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) spoke with great ingenuity about the salaries included in the sum of £14,000, and he gave us a terrible picture of the precedent which the Minister was creating. Unfortunately for his argument, if he will look at the statement on page 12 of the Estimate he will see that it has no reference to appointments and salaries, but only to the fees and expenses of consulting engineers who have been chosen for this job. Finally, the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) has for years, and all the time that the Electricity Bill was under consideration, told us that the Act would never come into operation and that it would take years and years to get the survey completed. He naturally feels very chagrined that his prophecy has been falsified.

§ Mr. BALFOUR
That is not the case. It was made clear in Committee that the survey would be taken in hand and they would be ready for action as soon as the Central Board was set up.

§ Mr. HUDSON
That is the whole basis on which the House agreed to pass the Bill. The hon. Member kept on prophesying that the programme set out in the Bill was entirely wrong, and that it would take years to carry out the survey.

§ Mr. BALFOUR
Will the hon. Member deal with my own words, and not- attempt to interpret what I say? My words are on record, and they stand. Leave it at that.

§ Mr. HUDSON
This survey has been carried on very much quicker than was expected, and this House should rather congratulate the Minister and those responsible for advising him that he has been able to do it so much quicker and get the magnificent work of the Electricity Act into operation so much sooner than would otherwise have been the case.

§ Mr. HARDIE
I am surprised that any emphasis should be laid on the small sum of £10. That is the most misleading part 1156 of this Estimate. On page 12 we are asked to look at (c) in connection with fees and expenses. We are so particular in this House that some people seem to distinguish the value of money between a fee and a salary. What we are dealing with, after all, is hard cash. The one thing I would complain about is that the Government have not taken the valuable information contained in the Report as a whole, and made that the real basis of what they call the new scheme. It would have been a much more efficient scheme if that had been done. The Attorney-General, standing at the Box on 10th November, said, in reply to a direct question, that the success of this scheme was still purely hypothetical. When you get a statement like that from the Attorney-General who was in charge of the Bill, it gives you some doubt about the success of the scheme. The House never once dealt with the Report upon which the Bill is supposed to be based. If we had been dealing with a national scheme, which this is not, the whole of that Report would have come before the House, and to-day we should have been more familiar with Ibis Supplementary Estimate. The reason why Members have not seemed to follow the thing closely is because they are not familiar with the Report. That report was a costly business in the eyes of many people, but, when we take the work done, it was not really a very costly operation if we are to value the information that was obtained. It is a. great pity that in this demand to-day, we are going to grant this to pay for good information that has largely been put on the shelf.
The Committee should ask itself why there should be any necessity for a Supplementary Estimate. I would have thought that those skilled in finance would have understood that when the Government, through the Treasury, passed £33,500,000 for a given purpose, this purpose of investigation ought to have been the first charge on that sum. It seems to make it more difficult for Members of this House to understand what it being done when we get questions like this, split up as this has been split up. There are few Members who seem to grasp that this is not a part of the electricity scheme at all. Although the scheme is supposed to be based on the expenditure here under (c), we are told that it is no part of the expenditure 1157 on the scheme, although we are told that we have got to recover the money from that scheme when it does work. It seems to be a very boggling way, and a way that is designed to mystify ordinary people like myself in regard to the finance of the scheme. The Deputy-Chairman, of course, says he did not say that we could discuss these things, but I think the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow will show that, in his reply to the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison) he ruled that these things could come in.
Under the heading of "Special Services and Inquiries" you have three figures, and you do not do anything to show that only (c) on page 12 should he discussed. I consider that under "Special Services and Inquiries" we are quite entitled to deal with the original Estimate of £9,200, the revised Estimate of £23,000 and the additional sum of £14,000. If we are not to discuss these things, then we have to conclude that all these other items are simply outside the scope of the Estimate; and, if they are outside, why should they be printed there? The hon. Member for South-west Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) spoke about the possible advantages from the point of view of ale users. This is a very bad beginning for a scehme that sets out to reduce the price of current. It begins by placing an initial debt upon it of £14,000 or more. Then we have in addition the annual accumulation of the salaries of the Board. Why did the Minister say nothing about the basis of the payment of the Board, and as to whether the recommendation came from the Weir Committee that such a thing should be appointed? Why did he not inform the House of all the conditions laid down in the Report, and give some indication as to what they asked for and suggested and gave as their reason for the basis of a real working scheme? So far as the working of the scheme is concerned, what you find is a difference of opinion. What is the use of the House of Commons going to the expense of employing highly technical men in order to get the very best evidence, and then, when we get that evidence, treat it from the commercialist point of view only and allow all the money that has been spent, and almost all the valuable information that has been obtained, to slip overboard?
1158 How can the House of Commons claim to be doing the business of the nation when it simply takes money like this, to get information supposed to be for a practical purpose, and then wipes it out by the commercialists on its own benches? I cannot see where we are going to have any Report from the Minister for the next two years. He talks about repayment after 31st March, 1927, but if it was possible to find £33,500,000, he might have explained to the House what was the difference between that Vote of £33,500,000 and this Vote. He might have explained why it was that the charges and fees for this scheme and Report were not paid in the same way as that was paid. Will he tell us how, until the scheme is paying, the salaries of the Board are to be found? Are they to come out of the £33,500,000 or are we to have another Supplementary Estimate until the scheme is paying? I want the House to understand exactly what we have been doing in Committee. The whole work of the Committee was so overshadowed by the coal stoppage that very little public interest was taken in it. I had hoped that the Minister of Transport, even on this small call for £10, would have been so proud of the scheme, and especially of the Report, that he would have given some details as to the great benefits that were going to be derived by the nation from this Report.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I think the hon. Member has gone far enough on this general line. He must not continue on that line.

§ Mr. HARDIE
We were told by your ruling that we were to deal with page 12 under (c). I am dealing with that, and hold that I am strictly in order. If the Report had been explained to-day, the Committee would have understood why it was necessary to come here now for any number of pounds, whether 10 or 500 or 10,000. If the right hon. Gentleman had been proud of the Report, he would have let us know the great advantages that will accrue. The whole of this business about the money for this scheme has been so divided up that, so far as I can see, we are going to have a continuation of these things. Unless you have an immediate income, you are going to be compelled to come back to this House for more money, because £33,500,000 will not carry you far.

§ Mr. GILLETT
I should like to ask the Minister some questions on those parts of the Estimate that have not yet been dealt with. I fully recognise that the sum of £14,000 has been spent, and it will not make much difference what we say at present. I should like to know how the Minister has managed to find the £14,000 which he now proposes to use, temporarily at any rate, in payment of these other services. I should like to ask him also where the savings have come. in that amount to £6,200. The only thing he mentioned, in a, casual way, was that they had something to do with staff and offices. I take it that the whole of the savings come under the first head.

§ Colonel ASHLEY
That is right.

§ Mr. GILLETT
When I come to the second one—£7,700—I should be interested to know how the Minister has managed to raise that money. I find it under (n). There is really only one large fund from which the money could have come, and that is the Road Fund. There are a number of other items. One is for £14,000, but that is repayment by the amalgamated railway companies in respect of expenses of the Rates Tribunal. It is hardly likely there could have been any increase there. There is also something from the Rates Tribunal, Holyhead Harbour dues and a number of similar items. None of these are likely to provide a sum of £7,000. Therefore I am compelled, unless the Minister tells me otherwise, to think that really this £7,000 is simply due to the fact that the Road Fund has been making larger grants towards the repayment of certain expenditure.

§ Colonel ASHLEY
No.

§ Mr. GILLETT
Then perhaps the Minister will tell me where this £7,000 does come from, because it seems to me, looking at the original estimate, that it is difficult to find where the Minister could have found a sum of £7,000 unless it came from the Road Fund.

§ Colonel ASHLEY
Perhaps it would be convenient if I answered the various questions which have been put to me now. May I say, in the first place, in view of the discussions which took place in Committee last year. how much I appreciate the attitude of the hon. Mem- 1160 bers who sit behind me? If my recollection is correct, the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) asked me what was the total amount that these surveys, general and special, have cost up to now. My answer is that in the financial year 1925–1926 they cost £10,500. In this financial year, and up to 15th December, 1920, when the Act came into force, £19,000; therefore, the total cost up to 15th December, 1926, was £29,500. There will probably be a little more expenditure incurred after 15th December. I do not think very much, but that will fall upon the funds of the Electricity Commissioners, who will recover from the Central Electricity Board, just as we are going to recover this money. The next point raised was, I think, by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie).

§ Mr. BALFOUR
Before the Minister leaves this, will he tell us how much of that £19,000 was spent after the issue of the circular which was sent out in 1926, saying that in anticipation of the passing of the 1926 Act representatives would be sent round to make that survey?

§ Colonel ASHLEY
With the best will in the world I cannot tell my hon. Friend that, because I am not sure of the exact date. As I understand it, the gravamen of the charge of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Springburn was that most of the information which was gained by the technical surveys which we are discussing this afternoon had not been used, but had been pigeon-holed. I must really totally disagree with him. Surely, he must consider that a Government Department has a certain amount of ordinary common sense, and would not have spent money for which they have to account to the House of Commons, unless they were going to make use of the information obtained. As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hampstead and many other hon. Members know, the Electricity Commissioners gave their technical advice to the Government, on which the Bill was founded, before the Bill was brought in. The Government thought, and very rightly thought, that they ought to have confirmation from outside any Government source, as to the accuracy of the figures and calculations which had been made, and therefore these surveys were undertaken. They were done over the 1161 whole of Great Britain, and, in particular, over the two areas mentioned, and that information has been most useful. It has been used—

§ Mr. HARDIE
My point is that it may have ben used, but it is not included in the Act.

§ Colonel ASHLEY
The greater part of it is included, because it is used in the preparation of the scheme. The other part will he used by the Commissioners when they put up their schemes to the Board when it begins to function next month. In both ways that information has been used. It has been used in framing the Act and also in helping the Commissioners to devise a scheme under the Act which is now being put together and which will be put up to the new Board when it begins to function next month. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) and the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) if my recollection is correct, de sired more information as to what these surveys were—as to the engineers, and details of that sort. I do not think I can give them great details, because I do not think it really is the duty of the Minister to know all the details of an electrical survey. All I did was to instruct the Electricity Commissioners, if I may use a colloquial phrase, to get busy on a scheme as soon as possible, and to place the work of survey in the hands of consulting engineers in Victoria Street. Those eminent consulting engineers were to engage appropriate staffs to make this general survey of Great Britain, and when that general survey was finished they were to go in particular into much more detail in regard to the two areas which we propose to deal with, namely, Central England and the Glasgow area and Clyde area.

§ Mr. HARRIS
Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the names of the engineers?

§ Colonel ASHLEY
Yes; they are Messrs. Merz and Kennedy, very eminent engineers, of Victoria Street.

§ Mr. J. HUDSON
Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the technical details are so far advanced that it would be true to say that the scheme is a working scheme to be handed over to the Board to carry forward?

§ Colonel ASHLEY
Again, I cannot answer "Yes" or "No" to that. My submission is that, under your general scheme, you cannot deal with the whole country at once, obviously that would be undesirable even if it were possible. You have got to begin on certain areas, and, the technical men whom the Electricity Commissioners have engaged are at the present moment very nearly finishing, or have finished, their detailed examination of the two areas I have mentioned, so that the Electricity Commissioners, as soon as possible, and without delay, may be able to put up one or two schemes for the Board to consider. Therefore I submit that that meets the points raised by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green and the hon. Member for Huddersfield, who wanted to know more of the details, and whether the very best people possible have been engaged in order to assist in the preparation of the scheme. It also meets the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson).

§ Mr. HARRIS
I think it is rather important, in passing large sums of money like this, that we should know whether the £14,000 will mostly go in fees to Messrs. Merz and McLellan, or whether it will go to the large staffs of engineers going up and down the country.

§ Colonel ASHLEY
Of course, the eminent consulting engineers will receive that reward due to their eminence and ability, and so will their assistants. I think my hon. Friend will agree with me that if you are dealing with the technical scheme for the whole of the country, and not only for two particular areas, the amount spent is not excessive. I do not think there are any other points that I have not answered.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee when the consulting engineers propose to go to the other parts of England?

§ Colonel ASHLEY
It will not be for the consulting engineers to deal with other parts of the country, nor will it be a matter for the Electricity Commissioners. It will be for the Board to decide what areas to take next. So as to save time, we have decided on certain areas. The scheme as regards those areas is now being put up to the Board 1163 or will be put up to the Board within the next fortnight or so, and it will be for the Board to decide where they will go next.

§ Mr. GILLETT
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us from where the £7,000 comes?

§ Colonel ASHLEY
I have not got full details with me, but the increase in Appropriations-in-Aid is accounted for by a number of miscellaneous items; for instance recovery in respect of Agency Services, recovery of expenses of the Railway Rates Tribunal, and sale of minutes of evidence given before the London Traffic Advisory Committee.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL
As one of those who sat on the Committee upstairs considering this electricity scheme for three months, I am really rather interested this afternoon to hear that some of the hon. Members who thought that the scheme which has been brought forward by the Government was going to do away with all the ill effects and all the evils that exist at present. This afternon one hears that they are not quite so happy in their minds. I was always one of those who looked upon this scheme as a step towards Socialism.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member must not embark upon that subject on this Estimate.

Sir F. HALL
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) was allowed to make his remarks on that point, and I was only endeavouring to reply to them.

§ Mr. J. HUDSON
On a point of Order. My remarks had a very exact reference to the £14,000 in this Estimate, and I submit that the hon. and gallant Member who is now speaking has shown no connection whatever.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member for Huddersfield had his eye upon me and I think that he saw I was going to rise and stopped his remarks. I do not really think that the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) are in order.

Sir F. HALL
I will not pursue that any further. I have made my protest. It was not often that I was able to agree with some of the proposals put forward by the Government during the time of our three months' education on this matter, because we were educated by 1164 many Members who never had anything to do with it. This afternoon we hear what an enormous expenditure is going on in different parts of the country, and the money has to be found by Parliament to pay for salaries and so forth for these eminent gentlemen to go to various parts of the country. Surely that is what we could expect under a Government scheme. We should expect all these enormous sums of money to be spent, and I am not surprised at it. The hon. and gallant Member for Everton (Colonel Woodcock) evidently does not recognise that the Severn is in the West of England, for he talks about it being in the centre of England. I can quite appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman (Colonel Ashley) if he was going to bring forward this very elaborate scheme would ask for this Estimate. He has stated that the Estimate in 1925–26 included a sum of £5,000.

§ Colonel ASHLEY
£15,000.

Sir F. HALL
It is now found that the money that was asked for is not sufficient. The right hon. Gentleman has been perfectly honest about it. Whether we do or do not agree with the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act the Government have taken a proper course in saying that they must make themselves thoroughly cognisant of the various requirements up and down the country. The scheme qua scheme having beer passed, we should agree to accord him a unanimous vote.