CLAUSE 1.—(Arrangements between Central Electricity Board and authorised undertakers.)

HC Deb 05 December 1934 vol 295 cc1599-656

3.40 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS

I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out "or control."

I move this Amendment partly in a spirit of inquiry. I am not quite clear what is the significance of the words "or control." The Clause deals with two classes of persons—those who are owners of a generating station, and a different class who control a generating station; and I am not quite clear as to what is meant by such control of a, generating station. I can visualise a case where a company who own a generating station may lease it to someone, who may be regarded as the person controlling it, but I imagine that that is not what was in the mind of the Minister in drafting the Bill. As far as I know, in the legal sense there is no class of persons falling into the category of controlling stations as distinct from owning stations, and, therefore, apparently, under the Bill we are conferring a power on a class that does not exist. If that be so, I imagine that later on we shall need an Act of Parliament to make this new entity into a statutory being. I would point out that this Amendment does not stand by itself; there is associated with it a consequential Amendment—in page 2, line 28 to leave out Sub-section (2).

My investigations lead me to the conclusion that these words "or control" probably relate to one of those rather new bodies which are known as joint electricity authorities. I think I am right in saying that the only one that is functioning in the proper sense at the present time is the one known as the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority, and, therefore, I am led to the conclusion that these words "or control" are inserted for the purpose of making it possible for the Central Electricity Board to make arrangements of this kind, not merely with authorized undertakers who own a non-selected station, but also with the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority, who apparently, without owning, are controlling certain stations. I am rather led to this belief because I understand that the chairman of that authority has expressed the opinion that the power proposed to be conferred is already jointly in the possession of the Central Electricity Board and of the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority. If he has correctly interpreted the law, there is no necessity for this provision. If, on the other hand, he has not correctly interpreted the existing law, I presume that this provision is inserted in order that he may possess the powers which he declares he already possesses; or there may be other reasons that I do not appreciate. In any event, for once I am going to make the declaration that I am not at all clear on the subject, and it is because I want to be made clear that I move the Amendment.

3.45 p.m.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha)

I take it that the purpose which my hon. Friend has in view is merely to elucidate the meaning of the word "control. As the Committee are aware, the purpose of Clause 1 is to enable the Board to enter into agreements with authorised undertakers, and as in some cases the stations of authorised undertakers are under the control of joint authorities, it would seem to be only reasonable that the body having the agreement-making power, namely, the joint authority, should in such cases be nominated, as it is here, as the party with whom the Board may make the agreement on the other side. That is the sole and the whole meaning of the word "control." I am advised that these words are necessary, and that, if they were extinguished from the Bill, no joint authority in these circumstances could enter into an agreement with the board.

Mr. WILLIAMS

Do I understand that, for example, the arrangement with, the Wimbledon electricity undertaking, which belongs to the Wimbledon Corporation, was one of the arrangements of the kind to which these words "or control" refer? Was that an arrangement made through the Joint Electricity Authority, or was it made directly between the board and the local authority?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

The Joint Electricity Authority is the appropriate authority.

Mr. WILLIAMS

In that particular case?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

Yes.

3.47 p.m.

Sir JOSEPH NALL

I do not know whether the Minister is aware that, as mentioned by my hon. Friend, the chairman of the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority has stated that his authority does not need any further powers. Is not that rather m conflict with the suggestion of the Minister as to the necessity for these words?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

I heard my hon. Friend say that, but, of course, in these matters we are advised by draftsmen who wish to cover the legal position in a legal way, and, whatever may be the superficial appearance of the Bill, we are bound to be guided by the draftsman.

3.48 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS

As far as I understand the point, the Minister thinks that these words are only necessary in the case of a certain joint authority; but is he quite sure that this only applies to local authorities? I do not pose as an expert, but it seems to me that it might apply to other bodies than local authorities. Is the Minister quite sure that he has enough words to cover the case where there are local authorities and other people as well? At the moment it only refers to local authorities, and I would not like it to go forward that it applies only to local authorities if there is the remotest chance of its referring to other people.

3.49 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

I think I can set my hon. Friend's fears at rest. The purpose of the Clause is to enable the Board to enter into agreements with those who own or control generating stations, and, if they do not own the station, they will control it. It must be either the one or the other, and the words, I think, comprehend both.

Mr. WILLIAMS

In other words, my hon. Friend has gone beyond his first statement, and it goes further than local authorities?

Amendment negatived.

Mr. RICHARD LAW

I beg to move, in page 2, line 14, after "arrangements," to insert: or continue any such arrangement entered into before tile passing of this Act. It is not the intention of this Amendment to whittle down the Clause in any way, or to weaken the objective which the Minister has in view. The purpose of the Amendment is rather to reinforce the Minister's intention. The purpose of the Clause is, of course, to give powers to enter into certain forms of contract which at the present moment are illegal. But the Clause gives certain safeguards to the general body of consumers, and also to the board itself, for it lays it down that the board cannot enter into such contracts in future unless the commissioners give consent, and base their consent on certain conditions of finance and also certain considerations as to the effect which the contract will have upon other authorised undertakings which may have a very strong though indirect interest in the contracts that are made.

This safeguard is obviously one of considerable value. As things are at the moment, it is apparent that the owner of a non-selected station, if the station has been run on a sound economic basis, and if it be one of which the board ardently desires to get control, is in a position to drive a very hard bargain indeed with the board, and in some of these contracts which have already been made it is evident that the owners of the station have not lost anything by their contract, and there is reason to suspect that in some cases they have perhaps an undue advantage. There is, for example, the case of the Wimbledon Corporation, which under its contract gets electricity from the board at a discount of something like 40 per cent. upon the prices paid by other undertakings in the neighbourhood. It is obvious that contracts of this kind should be referred to the commissioners in order that they may judge of their financial soundness. If this safeguard be valuable and just in so far as it relates to future contracts, it is equally valuable in so far as it relates to contracts which have been entered into in the past. If the intention of the board is to be fulfilled and if the board is to be safeguarded from making any kind of mistake in the future in regard to these contracts, it ought surely to be safe- guarded equally from any of the mistakes which it may have unwittingly entered into in the past, and for that reason it seems to be just and reasonable to ask that the commissioners should have power not only to give their consent in regard to future contracts but to review contracts that have been made in the past.

3.54 p.m.

Sir PHILIP DAWSON

I wish to make it clear to the Committee that in no case where my name stands to an Amendment do I wish to do anything which will hamper the work of the Central Electricity Board in any shape or form. I consider that the board have done exceedingly well under very difficult circumstances, and I am confident that the new Chairman will go on with the work, as he possesses the confidence of practically all those connected with the generation and distribution of electricity. In this case it appears to me to be unjust that, if certain agreements already made are not such as would be passed by the Electricity Commissioners to-day, they should be allowed to continue while any new agreement should only be possible with the consent of the Electricity Commissioners. I hope the Minister will accede to the request in such a way that contracts which have been already entered into will be subject to the approval of the Electricity Commissioners.

3.55 p.m.

M r. HORE-BELISHA

I appreciate the spirit in which my hon. Friend has spoken, and I take it that the tone of his remarks is a good augury for the Debate. The Government consented in another place to subject future agreements to be made within the terms of this Clause to the review of the Electricity Commissioners. My hon. Friend who moves the Amendment asks that not only future agreements but past agreements should be subjected to a similar review in similar conditions. There is a practical distinction to be drawn between what has yet to be done and what has already been accomplished. In cases where agreements have been entered into and are in force, certain acts have been done under them and certain acts have not been done. For instance, an undertaking may have refrained, by virtue of an agreement, from ex- tending its station and have accepted a certain position of dependence on the Board for its supplies which it would not have accepted had it not thought that the agreement into which it was entering was valid and would be in all circumstances implemented.

Despite that difficulty—and it is a considerable one—I wish to show the Committee at this early stage that I am receptive to any sound arguments that can be used. I recognise that my lion. Friends may have some fear, if past agreements are not subjected to review, that they were agreements which would evoke suspicion. I do not assent to that point of view, but I understand it. I am prepared, therefore, to accept the spirit of the Amendment, although I believe the actual wording is a matter of slightly greater complication than perhaps my hon. Friend has envisaged. It seems to me that the proper place for such an Amendment would be at line 27, and, if anyone can devise a form of words which is legally acceptable and covers the point, I shall be only too happy to accept it. If such an Amendment has not been prepared, we could insert it upon the Report stage.

Sir J. NALL

I think my hon. Friend has an alternative form of words which would come in at line 27. I should be quite willing to hand a copy to the Chair if that course commends itself to the Minister.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

The Minister's statement will relieve the anxiety of a great many people who think—they may have been quite wrong—that some of these past agreements were open to objection. I had the opportunity of seeing the alternative form of words just mentioned by the hon. Member opposite, and that alternative form of words contains words which will be the subject, in another part of the Bill, of a proposed Amendment. I take it that if that other part is amended first, these words will be inserted in the earlier part of the Bill. The Minister was good enough to say that if it could not be dealt with now, the matter could be dealt with on the Report stage, but I would remind him that unless an Amendment is made in Committee there will be no Report stage. In any case it would be satis- factory if we could get the Amendment incorporated this afternoon.

Mr. LAW

In view of the Minister's sympathetic attitude and satisfactory explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.2 p.m.

Sir J. NALL

I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, to leave out paragraph (a), and to insert: (a) they are satisfied that the supply of electricity by the board will cover the expenses of the board (including interest and sinking fund charges on any capital expenditure incurred directly or indirectly) in the provision of such supply. The object of this Amendment is to ensure that in looking at these arrangements the commissioners shall make certain that the supplies are not given on unremunerative terms. One of the troubles, if I may say so, has been the uncertainty as to whether they are remunerative terms. If the estimates of the board are correct, their grid tariff already published ought to cover their expenditure over a term of years. That is provided for in the Act of 1926. It is possible that in their anxiety to obtain custom the officers of the board may have been the cause of arrangements being made such as are proposed in this Clause at prices which give preference to one authorised undertaker as against another. The fact that they have already done this, or are believed to have done it, should point to the necessity of the Committee making some safeguard against its recurrence, and, indeed, that that aspect of the matter should be taken into consideration in a review of the existing agreements. As my hon. Friend knows, it is this suggestion or suspicion of undue preference arising out of these arrangements which is causing so much anxiety in a good many quarters. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will see fit to accept the Amendment.

4.4 p.m.

Mr. WEST

Is it not a fact that the board is allowed in no case to make any profit out of bulk supplies to any undertaking, and if the undertakers are not allowed to make any profit, what can be the object of this Amendment? I wish the Minister would give us some information upon that point. If it be true that the people behind this Amendment are only desiring to safeguard the interests of consumers, I think it is a very worthy motive, but it seems to me that even if the board were going to supply under cost price, the benefit surely would not accrue to the board, but would be passed on to the consumers in the district. Therefore, it could only mean a transfer of profit from one area to another. I wish we could have an explanation of what it really does involve.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. WILLIAMS

This was a subject of discussion in the summer when we had the Taunton Bill under consideration, and I endeavoured to deal with it at some length on the Second Reading of the Bill. It was largely because of this that I was anxious that the matter should go to a Select Committee, as I wanted to find out precisely what would be the effect of these arrangements. May I repeat what I said on Second Reading? If the hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. West) will refer to Sections 7, 11, 12 and 13, which, I think, are the appropriate Sections of the 1926 Act, he will see the general practice. Broadly speaking, the idea is that a certain number of stations are to be selected and developed, and the others are gradually to cease to be generating stations. The latter are to buy the current they require from the board when the situation has developed when they can no longer produce enough for their own requirements, and it is laid down in the Bill that they are to buy at the tariff rate, that tariff having been fixed so that it will pay for the cost of the electricity the board buys, together with the expenses of The interest and sinking fund on the capital raised to put up the grid. If current is supplied to certain authorities at terms less than the grid tariff, it may be, although it does not absolutely follow that it must be, that the cost of current does not yield its fair share of contribution towards the capital cost of the grid. Wimbledon, for instance, has one of these special arrangements which confers an apparent advantage on the inhabitants of Wimbledon, it may be to the detriment of the inhabitants of every other part of the United Kingdom.

I maintain that in these matters there should be no preference, and that the board should treat, as far as possible, all alike. That is why many of us have had doubt with regard to these arrangements. If for any reason it is advisable to have a special arrangement, the cost of the current which is supplied to one of these non-selected undertakings which makes such arrangements, ought not merely to cover the bare cost of generating the electricity as distinct from these charges for transmission which arise out of the grid system. Therefore, if we are to treat all the inhabitants of the United Kingdom equitably, it seems to me that, in any event, the bargain made should provide for some of these capital costs. The obligation exists to pay interest on the money raised and to build up a capital fund, so that by the time the grid is assumed to wear out, there will be a capital fund to meet the situation. You cannot escape the obligation of a sinking fund even under a Socialist Government. In any event, these capital charges exist, and have to be met, and it seems to me that in any arrangement made, the people who enter into it ought to pay their footing, if nothing else—too use a phrase familiar in engineering workshops.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. A. C. REED

There is another point about this Amendment which I humbly commend which has not been raised, and that is the question of those smaller stations which are not selected. I believe it is a fact in the case of a number I know of that when they come up to the capacity of their stations, they have to apply to the commissioners before putting up a new station. The commissioners then say, "We do not want you to put up any new station, and will you apply to the Central Electricity Board and ask at what you can obtain current from the grid?" It is found that some of these selected stations can produce current very much more cheaply than the Central Electricity Board can supply it. In those cases the Central Electricity Board quote under the cost of supply to those stations, and get that portion of their supply, but it means that those stations accordingly get out of the expense, and in a few years' time will be obsolete, and will be entirely dependent on the Central Electricity Board. Therefore, as their contracts fall out, the districts may have to pay more for current than they do now. Consequently, I think that this is an excellent Amendment, because in the event of the Central Electricity Board not being able to supply stations equal to their own cost of production, they will have the sanction of the Electricity Commissioners to continue their stations and enlarge their plant. Therefore, it is some protection to the consumers that this Amendment should be accepted.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

I quite understand the motive of my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment, but the. difficulty with which he finds himself confronted when called upon to adduce words to express his idea is illustrated upon the Order Paper, where a number of diverse alternatives are given. We say in the Bill that the Commissioners shall not give their sanction to these agreements unless they are satisfied that the arrangements will not result in a financial loss to the board. When you are dealing with the Commissioners you are dealing with an impartial and a judicial body set up by Parliament to protect the interests of the industry, and when you are dealing with the Board you are dealing with a body of business men of high repute and capacity charged by Parliament with the fulfilment of a task—a task, be it noted, which is to be directed solely to the promotion of the national interest, and which is to be free—and here I refer to the speech of the hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. West)—from any motives or reality of profit-making. They enter into such agreements in pursuance of their general purpose. They act as ordinary business men would act, and to say to them with regard to each particular business transaction that that shall in all respects fulfil the close definition put upon the Paper by my hon. Friend is to expect too much from any body of business men.

It would require that from the very moment any contract was entered into it should be lucrative, but the Board, in making contracts, have regard, like any other business firm, to the acquisition of custom, and to the ultimate profitability of the transaction. It seems to be sufficient guidance to the commissioners to say that they shall be satisfied that those arrangements will not result in any financial loss to the Board. If you try to specify the matter with greater particularity, you become involved in a difficulty with regard to choice of words such as that which has confronted my hon. Friends who have put this Amendment on the Paper. You are open to the danger that you have perhaps left out some items. Therefore, if Parliament is to trust the two parties it has established, then to give them a, general direction of this kind is surely sufficient. I would submit to the Committee that that is a sufficient test to impose upon them, and I trust that my hon. Friends, however doubtful they may be about the wisdom of this Bill, will, at any rate, agree that the lines they propose to leave out of the Bill are an ordinary commonsense business direction, and that more cannot be expected from a responsible body of men.

4.16 p.m.

Sir J. NALL

I appreciate what the Minister has said, but there are alternatives on the Paper. I was hoping that he would have indicated that, although he did not like this particular Amendment, he would accept one of the other Amendments. The question of financial loss is not so simple. In theory the board need not make a financial loss. It can sell current in any particular quarter or to any particular undertaker at a figure, and it can be shown that as a result of that no ultimate aggregate loss occurs, simply because it is covered up by somebody else at a different figure. Under the provisions of the Act of 1926 the board are now taking surplus supplies from selected stations at figures which are actually less than the economic cost. It may be that they do not incur a loss at a station, but the aggregate payments of selected stations for all current generated involve a loss because the capital charges of stations are loaded up on that part of the stations' product which is resold to the owners of a station, and thereafter the surplus is sold elsewhere at a figure which is actually less than the economic cost. With that in its account the board can then proceed to sell the surplus to somebody else at a figure based upon the cut price. In fact, one is prepared to say that the board sells something at less than cost, because it covers its capital charges on the part of the product of the selected station, which is resold to another selected station. To sell this surplus product to someone else at a low figure, to dump it into the area of another area, is, in fact, incurring a loss on that particular transaction. At least, it would be incurring a loss on that particular transaction if the matter were properly accounted in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

I would ask the Minister to further review this matter. It may be that he will say that this would involve an Amendment of the 1926 Act. That may be so, but it is highly irregular and improper for the board to be acquiring surplus supplies from one source and dumping them into the area of another authority possibly for use in competition with the station from whence they came. It enables an undertaker to give a supply to a consumer at a dumped price, thereby enabling that consumer to compete with other persons in the same line of business who get their supply from the selected station of the original producer. He is bound to base his tariff on the grid tariff which he is charged for the supply he gets back from the board's pool. Therefore, I suggest that, if the Minister does, not like the words of the first Amendment we have moved, lie might well consider the two Amendments which follow, which approach the subject from the same angle, and might well be considered at the same time. The commissioners without some sort of direction might well find themselves in a dilemma. No one will question the wisdom of the commissioners in these matters, as my hon. Friend pointed out, but they are in that position. Unless they have some direction as to what is meant by loss, what factors are they to take into consideration in determining this matter? The intention in putting the Amendment upon the Paper was that there might be some sort of guidance to the Committee in determining whether there is loss or not. I suggest that some definition should be put in; otherwise, in theory, the board will always be able to say, "We know that we have sold a supply at.1 although it was derived from the surplus of somebody else at.08, but in fact we have not made a loss." But it will only be because other charges have been loaded on to other sales. If this particular transaction were property accounted, there would in fact be a loss.

Mr. WEST

The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the dumping of the product by one company into an area of another undertaker, and gave the impression that there would be some unfair competition and an unfair price. Is it not a fact that there can be only one company in any one area?

Sir J. NALL

The hon. Gentleman did not quite understand what I meant. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The original producer is the owner of the selected station. Therefore, the price at which he can sell is based upon the grid tariff. The board acquires the surplus of that selected station only and then sells it to somebody else, a neighbour, who is not a selected station owner, at a low price, which enables the neighbouring authority to sell it to a trader for power purposes at a figure less than the owner of the selected station can sell power to the people in the same line of business in the area of the selected station. They are not in the same area, but, by the mere accident of the geographical boundary between the area of the two undertakers, through these transactions the board can in fact give, and is in certain cases already purporting to give a supply to people in the same line of business, thereby enabling them to compete with somebody else, simply because one gets a supply from a selected station owner and the other from another under-undertaker who is not a selected station owner. Really, that is preference gone mad. It is no answer at all to say that it is not in the same area. The board, after all, is an authorised undertaker under the terms of the 1926 Act, and authorised undertakers are not allowed to give preferences within their own area. Therefore, the board ought not to be able to circumvent that prohibition against preference. In determining the question the commissioners ought to have guidance.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. WEST

There should not be, as I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman, any unjust competition in the same area. It is true that there may be two prices in different areas, but does not that apply to-day? In my own area, the Hammersmith Borough Council are supplying power to traders in Hammersmith at probably half the rate at which the adjoining company in Kensington are supplying it. Therefore, the Hammersmith tradesmen, according to the lion. and gallant Member, have an enormous advantage over the traders of Kensington, but the difference is, of course, that in Hammersmith it is a public authority supplying the power and in Kensington it is the beloved private enterprise. I hope that he will support me in urging that the Kensington, Chelsea and Chiswick traders who have the misfortune to buy bulk supplies from private companies should vote Labour and so obtain greater equality.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

It does not appear that the hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. West) has appreciated what was clearly explained by my hon. and gallant Friend. The circumstances with which he was dealing were as follows, and I will make the contrast as abrupt as possible. If you had two factories on opposite sides of the road in the areas of different supply authorities, it is conceivable that the factory in the area of the station where the electricity was produced would have to pay more for current than the factory in the other area which received electricity commercially at third hand, it having passed through the Central Electricity Board and the local undertaker before it reached it. It is manifest that if you acquire a thing at third hand cheaper than first hand, a situation may arise in which there may be ground for criticism. The Minister spoke as if the words on the Paper were intended to be an alternative definition to the words "financial loss." That is not the purpose.

There are two items in the cost of production and distribution of electricity. There are the standing charges and the coal and other actual costs directly incidental to generation. If somebody else is paying all the overhead expenses, you can receive the current on terms which involve no loss in one sense; no loss to the board because they have forced somebody else to pay all the overhead expenses. The theory in business is that you spread overhead expenses evenly over all your production. The Minister did not face up to the issue, but seemed to misinterpret the purpose of our Amendment. I know that it is difficult to draft satisfactory words, but in one of the suggested alternatives provision is made in some circumstances which will not involve the full loading of overhead expenses. To say that there is no financial loss is most unsatisfactory, because the whole burden of the capital cost of the grid might be loaded upon 90 per cent. of the people in order that the remaining 10 per cent. might entirely escape that burden. That is hot an entirely satisfactory situation and does not represent equity. It represents a measure of undue preference, and I hope that the Minister will reconsider his attitude on that important point.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. CHORLTON

I want to support what has been said by earlier speakers as to whether the directions which will be given to the commissioners will really deal with this question. I do not see how this afternoon we can arrive at a form of words defining the true cost in the varying circumstances. On the other hand, the commissioners will find some difficulty in deciding what the cost will be when they have cases submitted to them for approval, If the Minister would agree that they should be directed in a suitable way so that they would not get these differences between those who have concluded an agreement, and those who may conclude agreements in the future, I think that the difficulty could be overcome.

Mr. CLARRY

On a point of Order. Is it your intention, Sir Dennis, before we dispose of this Amendment to call the following Amendments which are almost to the same effect, though the wording is rather different?

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must wait and see. I am afraid I cannot answer that question now.

4.29 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

I try to appreciate the point of view of my hon. Friends, and I hope that they will appreciate the opposite point of view. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law) explained to the House that in some way or other selected stations were to be involved in financial hardship. I understood the purpose of this Amendment to be a means of avoiding any financial hardship to the board.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

To the consumers not otherwise protected.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

The board. thought that the object of the Amendment was to protect the board.

Mr. WILLIAMS

The board gets its income by charging its expenses to a great variety of people. If it fails to recover enough from "A", then the charge made to people who represent the other letters of the alphabet is more. What we are concerned with are all the other undertakers.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

That may be a. legitimate contention, but the Amendments on the Order Paper purport to protect the board. If they do not purport to protect the Board, then I do not understand the meaning of them. The Clause says that the Commissioners must be satisfied of two things, under Subsection (1a) that the Board will not be involved in a loss and, (b) that authorised undertakers having a legitimate interest in a contract will not be involved in a loss. It falls naturally into two parts and we are now dealing with the first. It is on the first part which is concerned with the financial position of the Board that the Amendment has been moved. Whatever prices electricity is being sold at by the selected stations are provided for in the Act of 1926. My hon. Friend opposite admitted in his speech that his complaint was about the Act of 1926. His purpose could not be furthered by the moving of this Amendment. If his intention was to call public notice to the fact that certain injustices may or may not be done under the Act of 1926, in the hope that the Government would take notice of them and provide for them if and when further legislation is introduced revising the 1926 scheme, his Amendment would have been moved to some good purpose, but so far as our present discussion is concerned if the Amendment is intended to protect the board from financial loss, then I claim that, within the ordinary business connotation the words in the Bill are sufficient for the purpose, namely that the Commissioners must be satisfied that the arrangements will not result in a financial loss to the board. These words only find themselves in the Bill because of the contentions of those who take the view of my hon. Friends. They were put in as the result of a debate in another place in order to meet the very criticism that I am trying to meet now. I do not think that it can be legitimately said that the Board is so unhusinesslike as to enter into arrangements which will be to their disadvantage, but even so there is a protection, because there is provision for examination into the whole of the circumstances. If I am wrong in my interpretation of the Amendment and if the grievance is that selected stations are being enabled to provide electricity at an improper or insufficient price, then the words of the Amendment cannot properly be inserted in the Bill because they have to do with the whole scheme of the Act of 1926.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

I am profoundly dissatisfied with the reply of the Minister. He says that the words in the Bill were inserted in another place in order to meet our point. They were inserted as the result. of a Debate on the subject, but they did not satisfy those who were responsible for raising the issue. Those who raised the issue wanted words inserted on the lines of the alternatives on the Order Paper, and it was because the words "financial loss "as inserted in the Bill are meaningless that we are now asking that more satisfactory words should be inserted. The Minister says that our object apparently is to protect the board. The board, in the long run, is automatically protected. It has to fix its tariff at such a rate that its accounts will balance. If arrangements are entered into by which certain people will pay less than the tariff, then the tariff for other people will be higher than it would otherwise be. This Amendment has nothing to do with the board. What we are dealing with are the interests of a variety of consumers in places where no such special arrangements are entered into. Why should preference be given to consumers in particular areas over and above consumers in other areas? In other words, why are the principles of the Act, of 1926 being departed from and one set of consumers being treated differently from another? That is the point upon which I am pressing for an answer.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS

The. Debate shows that those hon. Members who asked that the Bill should go to a Selected Committee were right and that the Government were wrong in advising the House to take it on the Floor of the House. Seeing that on the Government's advice we decided to take the Bill on the Floor of the House, it is all the more reasonable to urge that the Government should put us in possession of as much information as they can to enable us to understand the purposes of the Bill. The Amendment affects that part of the Bill which, as it now reads, concerns only future agreements. We are, however, given to understand that a number of similar agreements have already been entered into, although, as the Minister tells us, they have been illegally entered into. It is obvious that in considering the question of cost, it would be an assistance if we had before us some particulars of the similar agreements which have already been entered into. I understand that they are some 20 in number. and I would ask the Minister—it is too late to do it in the Committee stage—whether he will promise that before the Bill comes to be. considered on Report he will circulate a list of those agreements which have been already entered into. with particulars of the agreements, so that when we reconsider the Bill we may have before us information which is reasonable that we should have, and which will help us in considering the future arrangements. I hope that the Minister will accede to that request.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE

I am interested in the station in my own town which is producing at a low rate. We are, I understand, producing at a price considerably below the grid price and we sell from time to time, as other stations do, to the commissioners. They, in turn, supply the electricity which they have purchased from Walthamstow, to Woodford, a neighbouring authority. The contention of hon. Members who have spoken is, that in supplying to Woodford that which they have purchased from Walthamstow, they should charge Woodford a price in excess of the price at which they have purchased from Walthamstow. If they do that, the result will be a profit to the commissioners, but the commissioners are not permitted to make a profit. If they are not permitted to make a profit, it appears to me that paragraphs (a) and (b) cover all possible losses. The only people who could make a hiss would be the commissioners or the selling authority in selling to the commission. Waltham-stow sells to the commissioners and they re-sell to Woodford. Paragraph (a) says that the commissioners shall not make a loss but that they shall see that they cover their expenses when they sell to Woodford. Paragraph (b) says that they shall see that no loss is incurred by Walthamstow in selling to the commissioners.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

Will the hon. Member explain who is going to pay for the grid? He is leaving the grid out all the time.

Mr. McENTEE

No, I am not leaving out the grid. If the hon. Member imagines that Walthamstow, or any other authority that sells from time to time to the commissioners, are not paying their share to the grid, he is labouring under a delusion.

Mr. WILLIAMS

Will the hon. Member tell me how they pay?

Mr. McENTEE

They pay in the price. We purchase from time to time. Quite recently we had a considerable supply from the grid. If a loss arises, and the hon. Member says that is so, then paragraph (a) says that there shall be no loss to the commission. The commissioners are the people who are to guarantee themselves against loss and they have it in their power to do so. Paragraph (b) is a guarantee against loss for the people from whom the commissioners purchase electricity. If the commissioners get anything over and above the amount necessary for guaranteeing themselves against loss, then, obviously, there must be a profit to them, although under the terms of their appointment they are not permitted to make a profit. I think the wording in the Bill is perfectly sound and equitable to everybody concerned. The hon. Member said that there might be a factory on one side of a road and another factory on the other side of the road, in different areas—I presume the dividing line would be in the centre of the road—and that one factory would have to pay a higher price for electricity than the other. Do not they do that to-day?

Mr. WILLIAMS

I put the argument where electricity in both cases was generated in the same station, and I said that the man who was nearest to the station might be forced to pay more than the man who was a greater distance away because the man who was the furthest distance away might be under an authority which had made special arrangements, and he got his electricity at below cost.

Mr. McENTEE

I cannot understand how it could come from the same station. Take my own town. I cannot imagine any road in my town where a factory would be on one side and another factory would be on the other side, and they would be affected in the way suggested. One week we sell electricity to the board. Next week we purchase from the board, as has been done recently. It is the duty of the board to balance their accounts and to see that no loss is made. Under the wording of the Act itself all concerned are better guaranteed against loss than they would be either by the suggested Amendment or any other Amendment that I have read on the Order Paper.

Sir J. NALL

The Debate has taken up a considerable amount of time. I hope the Minister will see what can be done before the Report stage. If so, I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

I will certainly consult the commissioners, but I cannot promise my hon. and gallant Friend that the discussion will lead to any formula other than that in the Bill.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS

Before the Amendment is withdrawn, will the Minister say whether we shall be afforded information with regard to the agreements already entered into, and that the information will be given before the Report stage?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

The reason why I did not answer the question was partly because it does not seem to be so relevant to the Amendment we are now discussing as to the Amendment that past agreements should be referred to the Commissioners. The proposal is that the Commissioners should review those agreements as being a proper and impartial body for the purpose. That will be the appropriate occasion for raising the point. Perhaps my hon. Friend will raise it then. They have all the qualifications which the hon. Member thinks are possessed by a Select Committee of both Houses of Parlia- ment, or some other committee; but the more appropriate place to deal with the question is when we reach that Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. CHORLTON

I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, to leave out paragraph (b), and to insert: (b) after giving notice by advertisement and after giving to any authorised undertaker interested an opportunity of making representations in respect to the matter and of being heard. The Amendment is to give an opportunity for anybody who may legitimately be interested or affected in any way, other than those already mentioned in the Clause. The Clause as drawn relates solely to those under contract, but there may be other undertakers interested, and it is only reasonable that some account should be taken of their feelings in the matter, financially or otherwise. This provision would enable them to be heard and to represent their case.

4.47 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN

The Question I have to put is "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'substantial' in line 26, stand part of the Clause."

I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I call attention to the fact that the next four Amendments on the Order Paper deal with the same point. The fifth Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Bailey) deals with a different point, but the next three Amendments after that also raise questions which are raised in paragraph (b), which it is now proposed to leave out by the present Amendment. Therefore, the question as to whether these subsequent Amendments are called or not will depend on the Debate on the present Amendment, and hon. Members who have put their names to them will perhaps take note of the fact.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip)

The Question you have put it to include all the words down to the word "substantial" in line 26. I take it that all the Amendments which come before that will not be called.

The CHAIRMAN

That is so.

Mr. CULVERWELL

I understood you to say that the next four Amendments would be called.

The CHAIRMAN

I apologise for making a mistake in the way in which I have put the Question. I think what I meant was to put it in this form: "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'to' in line 21"—that is the word "to" after the word "contract"—"stand part of the Clause."

4.51 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

The Amendment of the hon. Member is designed to enlarge the class of persons who are to have an opportunity of being heard by the Commissioners in relation to any of these agreements. The Bill provides that a certain specified class of persons are to have that opportunity. The difficulty of ascertaining who are interested parties, undertakers, would be considerable unless the class is defined. The hon. Member will realise the difficulties of ascertaining who are interested undertakers, and he may propose that advertisements should be issued, presumably in the newspapers. It seems undesirable and unnecessary to enlarge the class beyond those authorised undertakers who are already in possession of a contract to supply electricity to, or obtain electricity from, the owners of a generating station. It may be a little difficult when the advertisement has been issued for the commissioners to know who are these other persons, apart from those specified, who are interested. Some people may regard themselves as interested undertakers, but the commissioners may disagree with them. Unless there are some words to indicate who are to be regarded as interested undertakers, other than those mentioned in the Clause, it would lead to some considerable difficulty. If the Amendment were accepted it would give them a right to a hearing and would lead to a great increase in costs, no doubt very convenient to the profession to which I have the honour to belong.

I think it is sufficient, in this particular case, that authorised undertakers who have contracts shall be allowed to make representations, and it is not necessary to invite other persons outside that definite class to make representations as well and give them a right to have a formal hearing, a full dress inquiry, before the tribunal. The right to make representations will secure attention to their particular needs, and, if you are to have an open inquiry with an examination and cross-examination as to existing arrangements, other persons in the position of power companies ought to be in the same position when they desire to make contracts, which they have the power to make under the law as it stands. I hope the Committee will think that the Clause gives persons who are genuinely interested all the rights to which they are entitled.

4.54 p.m.

Sir P. DAWSON

I have listened carefully to the interesting speech of the Attorney-General. There may be difficulties of the kind he has mentioned in giving every class of person or authority who think they are interested, an opportunity of making representations; it may make such investigations much longer and much more expensive. At the same time I must point out that in the technical questions which are involved there may be some difficulty in deciding who are interested persons in addition to those referred to in the Clause. Would it not be a way out of the difficulty to insert some words to the effect that interested persons are those whom the commissioners consider may be interested. No one has a better knowledge of those who are likely to be interested in the supply and distribution of electricity than the Electricity Commissioners, and it would do away with the fear that persons who may be really interested might not be heard.

Mr. CHORLTON

In paragraph (a) the same difficulty has been got over by allowing the commissioners full powers to say precisely what are the costs. They are given no instructions. My Amendment is only carrying the same principle into paragraph (b) and allowing them to say who are the interested parties.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I cannot see any analogy between paragraph (a) and paragraph (b), in spite of my hon. Friend's ingenuity. With regard to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Lewisham West (Sir P. Dawson), it is somewhat difficult to fix his proposal on to the Amendment. New words will have to be devised. Speaking without much authority for the moment, I see no great objection to saying that the commissioners shall invite anybody who they regard as interested persons, and if the hon. Member will allow the matter to be considered with the Minister of Transport I will put his suggestion before him.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

I do not think the Attorney-General has quite appreciated the significance of the Amendment. The country is divided into nine areas, and in each area a grid tariff has been fixed. That tariff is intended to provide enough revenue to enable the Central Electricity Board to pay generators for the electricity they buy and to meet the standing charges on the grid for that area. Obviously any authorised undertaker in a given region is an interested person, not merely the people who take a supply from or give a supply to the station affected. Taunton and Exeter are, I think, in the same area. St. Ives is also in the same area, and that is a long way away, but, nevertheless, the grid tariff for the people at St. Ives is bound to be affected by an arrangement-made with Taunton. Everybody is affected, and therefore every authorised undertaker in a region is likely to be affected and should be entitled to make representations. I would ask the Attorney-General to consider the question that all persons who are obviously interested, all municipalities and all companies who are authorised undertakers, should be entitled to make representations when one of these special contracts is being made in the region. I think it is possible to draft words rather narrower than the Amendment but which would still leave it open for representations to be made by the undertakers in a specified area.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. CULVERWELL

I understand that the Attorney-General is prepared to consider an Amendment which would ensure that those whom the commissioners consider to be interested parties shall be given an opportunity of making representations. I appreciate his objection to a very wide inquiry involving as many persons as my hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Chorlton) would wish to have consulted, but I think his argument scarcely applies to the Amendment which appears later on the Paper in the name of myself and some of my hon. Friends to the effect that the owners of each selected station in an area should be consulted. The purpose of that Amendment is to ensure that before giving consent to any of those arrangements the commissioners shall consider representations not only from the undertakers who are actually going to supply the electricity, the non-selected stations, but also the owners of the selected stations in that area. That would extend the scope of the inquiry much less than the present Amendment, and it is a proposal of which I hope the Government will see fit to approve.

It is clear, as the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has pointed out, that any arrangement of the kind envisaged is bound to affect the whole area of supply concerned. We are particularly interested in Bristol, because as a result of the 1926 Act, and with the sanction and encouragement of the board, the Bristol Corporation spent something like £2,000,000 of the ratepayers' money upon a selected station which was designed to supply a large and increasing part of one of the sub-areas of the board. Obviously to the extent to which the board make arrangements with unselected stations for the supply of electricity to them, to that extent the selected station at Portishead will suffer. The more electricity the board obtains from unselected stations the less will the selected stations have to supply; and therefore the selected stations are particularly interested in any such arrangements as those envisaged in this Clause. Therefore, while the Attorney-General cannot see his way to accept this Amendment, I hope he will accept the more restricted Amendment which would give the right to the owners of a selected station in a particular area to make representations concerning any arrangement of this kind which is being discussed.

5.4 p.m.

Sir CHRISTOPHER CLAYTON

I would appeal to the Minister on behalf of the industrial users of electricity who ought to be considered in this connection. Industrial users may feel that they are likely to be prejudiced under the new powers given to the hoard to sell electricity and really to become undertakers, and I suggest that they should be entitled to have their case considered. Such a concession would involve a compara- tively slight extension of what has been suggested by the Attorney-General. I hope that the position of the industrial users will not be overlooked.

5.5 p.m.

Dr. ADDISON

It is not the part of the Opposition to suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman how he is to deal with his own supporters in a matter of this kind, but I venture to express the hope that he will not embarrass the commissioners by extending the right of making representations so that anybody and everybody can come in with representations when the commissioners want to do anything. Persons affected or likely to be affected by any of these arrangements are clearly entitled to state their case, but if, as I understand, the country is to be divided into only nine areas, the claim that any selected station in an area, whether affected by an arrangement or not, is to be entitled to come forward and state a case would involve a position which many of us can realise—

Mr. CULVERWELL

My Amendment does not say "any selected station." It refers to each selected station in the area in which the generating station is situated.

Dr. ADDISON

I was referring at the moment to what an hon. Member opposite said, but the other Amendment to which the hon. Member refers would lead to the same thing in the end, because the board would surely have these agreements in all nine areas, and the Amendment would mean that any station in any of the areas, whether affected by an agreement or not, would be in a position to make representations. Another hon. Member wants to go even further and to give the power of making representations to practically anybody who receives a supply of electricity. Such proposals it seems to me would open up an impossible vista for these unfortunate commissioners who would never be able to do anything except listen to representations.

5.8 p.m.

Sir GEOFFREY ELLIS

I hope that the Minister will reconsider this matter. I thought that a rather sharp distinction was drawn between the direct and indirect effects of these arrangements. The commissioners will require to have consultations constantly with the selected stations in the area if this work is to be done promptly, and any case of the kind which is provided for here would affect every generating station in the area. In fact, any contract which varies conditions affects the generating stations. If the Attorney-General agrees to the suggestion of the hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Culverwell) and accepts the more limited wording of his Amendment, it will not put any more work on the commissioners. As it is, indirect consultation has to take place again and again. The Bill, as drafted, tends to narrow down the area in which those consultations can take place, and therefore I would ask the Minister to consider including those selected stations which are in the area of the generating station concerned. I think that such a provision would help rather than hinder the work.

5.9 p.m.

Sir P. DAWSON

I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) has misinterpreted what is really designed to help the consumers and help the Central Electricity Board and help the commissioners. What I understood the Attorney-General to be willing to consider was the proposal that all those who were considered by the commissioners to be directly or indirectly interested in any agreement of this kind should get a hearing. The Attorney-General has pointed out the difficulties in the way of the proposal that all interested parties should get a hearing, and it is difficult to define "interested parties." I hope, however, I rightly understood the Attorney-General to say that he would consider some words which would enable the commissioners to give notice to all those whom they considered to be interested in any of these agreements.

5.10 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

My hon. Friend will not, I know, desire to put what I have said higher than I intended. Speaking on the spur of the moment, I said that it seemed to me much less open to objection that the commissioners should give notice to those whom they thought were interested, than that notice should have to be given to everybody who thought himself interested. But on reflection I do see an objection to the proposal that the commissioners are to say who are and who are not "interested persons." It is a very vague phrase, and if we look at the ever-extending circles of interest, the degrees of interest involved, it may be said that everybody is interested in this matter. When the commissioners are exercising statutory powers they must do so with precise understanding of what is intended.

Sir P. DAWSON

Would the word "affected" alter the case?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I think on the whole that would make it worse. I do not know what "affected" might be said to mean. I am afraid I cannot go beyond what I have said, that the Minister will look at it again, but I am bound to say, after the reflection which has taken place in the ten minutes since I spoke on the spur of the moment, that I see a practical difficulty in the commissioners deciding to whom notice should be given, whether the word used be "interested" or "affected." In regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Culverwell), I do not see that the owners of selected stations are really in any different position from other authorised undertakers, and I do not see why they should be put into a privileged position. I think the words in the Bill are likely to prove satisfactory for the purpose of giving every person who is directly interested the right of making representations which the commissioners ought to entertain.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

The only people who will have the right, to make representations will be those who directly supply current or who take current from these stations. In the case of Wimbledon, for example, if a contract is made after this Bill becomes law, the county of London Company which supplies the adjoining borough of Wandsworth, is likely to be affected. But they will have no power to make representations although the prices which they are compelled to charge may conceivably be affected because of the contract in Wimbledon. That contract might prejudice every consumer in their area. All we are seeking is that those who are obviously going to be prejudiced, namely, the authorised undertakers in a given grid tariff area, whose charges may be affected by one of these contracts, should have the right to make representations. I would not limit it to the selected stations. Every distributor whose tariff is altered by one of these arrangements should be free to make representations.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. CULVERWELL

I suggest that the selected stations deserve first consideration. Under the 1926 Act they were encouraged to proceed and to expand, the assumption being that in time the other stations would disappear. If there is one interest which deserves to be heard it is that of the selected stations. I have given an instance, which the Attorney-General of all people should be able to appreciate, in which a selected station was promoted and encouraged as a result of the 1926 Act with the idea that it was in time to take over a certain area of supply. It will be prejudiced if any arrangement is made by the board by which its production or its sales are reduced. Obviously, the sales of selected stations will be reduced to the extent to which the board purchases from unselected stations. It is only fair and reasonable that the selected stations should be heard and the acceptance of the Amendment would avoid all that vague extension of inquiry into all sorts of interests which might or might not be affected. In this case it is a defined small Dumber of persons who would be consulted. Therefore, I had hoped that the Minister would have seen his way to accept this small extension.

5.15 p.m.

Sir JOHN PYBUS

I would like to say a few words in support of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison). I think there is very great danger in adopting a loose form of words, in endeavouring to manufacture sentences and to put them into an Act which may make the work of the commissioners very much more difficult, will cause delay in making contracts and will definitely handicap the business activities of the board. There is no business man who would consent to be bound to invite any number of people to attend and put in a claim to be allowed to interfere in the fixing of a contract, when possibly their plea would be merely devised in order to waste time. I beg the Minister to protect the commissioners and not to tie their hands too tightly.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. CHORLTON

I must protest against the hon. Member for Harwich (Sir J. Pybus) making aspersions. We are really doing our best to improve this Bill, and it is too bad for the hon. Member to say that we are unbusinesslike or inviting everyone to come in and make applications.

Sir J. PYBUS

I would not wrong the hon. Member for worlds. I am sure his intentions are perfectly fair, as indeed they always are.

Mr. CHORLTON

The proposal is to allow the commissioners to say just precisely what is the cost. It is left to them entirely. The Minister got out of the difficulty with a lot of strange words by saying that they knew, and it was up to them to do it in that way. I thought this was going to be the outcome of all the Amendments that have been put in, that the powers should again be given to them to see that those who they thought were concerned in a particular case that arose should be consulted or notified. After all, we do want to ensure in these things that there shall not be hardships which are only found out later. Why should it complicate the Measure if the same action that is to be taken on one Clause is to be taken on another? It should be left entirely to the commissioners to select who are the parties concerned in these particular cases.

5.18 p.m.

Sir C. CLAYTON

I suggest that those people who consider that they are prejudiced by the action of the commissioners should be entitled to call the attention of the commissioners to the way in which they consider themselves prejudiced. The commissioners would have the right to turn them down if they considered there was nothing in their case, but if they thought it was worth while to meet these people they could consider their case. It leaves the turning down of the first application to the commissioners. I do not think that very much time would be wasted in that, and it would give a chance for those people who thought they had a grievance to have their case looked into.

Amendment negatived.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, to leave out "substantial."

Here I imagine that the learned Attorney-General will give me some explanation. I take the view that if one of these contracts involves any prejudice to any authorised undertaker—who again, I would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite, may be either a municipality or a private company—that circumstance ought to be taken into account. I do not think that the degree of hardship ought to be limited by the word "substantial," because it is going to be a little difficult to know what that word means. I visualise a case where there are two adjoining authorities, and one of them has spent a great deal of money in providing a stand-by plant for the purpose of assisting the other authority. There is a contract, but in the ordinary way the one authority very seldom supplies anything to the other because the emergency does not arise. Nevertheless there is a contract and the plant is available for the purpose. Then one of these contracts under the Bill is entered into and as a result the capital expenditure becomes perfectly useless—that is the expenditure on the stand-by plant. I am wondering whether in a case like that a "substantial' prejudice would have arisen. It is clear that prejudice would have arisen. The town council concerned might have spent £10,000 or £15,000 in buying plant because of this arrangement. The arrangement automatically comes to an end because of the new contract made by the board and the commercial value of the plant goes because it may never again be used. It is clearly a case of prejudice. Is it "substantial" prejudice within the meaning of the Bill?

5.22 p.m.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL

The word "substantial" is intended to prevent the commissioners from being put in a ridiculous position. It is quite easy to imagine cases in which it would be impossible to say, as a matter of strict terminology, that there was not some prejudice, but on the other hand it might be a case in which there was no prejudice, which no one could say was prejudice that ought to alter or affect the decision of the commissioners, on the ground that it was very small and indefinite prejudice and not really "substantial" prejudice. The word "substantial" will enable the commissioners to direct themselves to that sort of consideration. It is precisely the sort of consideration which every ordinary business man would take into account when considering whether a particular proposal involved, say, a loss or a prejudice to his business. He would exclude those things which were not substantial and not real and which were not prejudice in any sense of the word, except from a very technical and strict point of view.

The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has given an instance which shows on what different planes he and I live. He asked me whether, if a sum of £15,000 expended on new capital works was made immediately non-productive and useless, that would be "substantial" prejudice. I should have thought it would be "substantial" prejudice. My hon. Friend seems to think that £15,000 is not worth talking about. I am not going to attempt any hard-and-fast line until I have the whole circumstances stated. It is quite impossible during the Committee stage to deal with any particular case. I think the commissioners will have their minds directed to the real point in a particular inquiry if the word "substantial" is left in, but that they would be unduly fettered in their decision if they were left with only the word "prejudice" without any qualification of the directions which they must take into consideration.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. J. JONES

I do not wish to enter into a controversy about the Amendment, but I would like to know the position of those authorities which were in the field before the board came into operation.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must ask that question on some other occasion. The only question before the Committee now relates to the word "substantial."

Mr. JONES

That is what I mean to say. I reckon it is "substantial" when a local authority has invested £250,000 before the Electricity Board came into operation. Surely that is "substantial." The question is, are they going to be overruled by this new board? Where do they stand in the eventuality of the Electricity Board deciding that they are no longer a contracting authority? I have been a member of a local authority for 30 years. This board is going to control the whole electricity supply. Is it not "substantial" to ask what is to become of the £250,000 which we have invested in electricity in the East End of London? In recent years a great electricity station has been established at Barking, only about a twopenny train ride from our station. Are we not "substantially" interested? I do not know the meaning of the word "substantial," except when I have been substantially fed on a beefsteak. I should like to know where we stand, particularly in areas that are newly developed. This great station will eventually come under the control of the Electricity Board. Our station may be looked upon as out, of date; but we have spent an enormous sum of money in developing it and we ought to know where we stand and what the power of this new board will be. Hon. Members opposite know something about the East End of London. The Minister of Transport recently opened a new road there, and he knows that electrical power is the order of the day. In fact his monuments are all over the place. There are 11 of them at one street that I know.

The CHAIRMAN

They are clearly not under the Electricity Board.

Mr. JONES

They ought to be.

The CHAIRMAN

I must ask the hon. Member to grasp the point that is raised here. I cannot see that what he mentions has any reference to the sentence in which the word "substantial" occurs in this Clause.

Mr. JONES

I was talking about "substantial" damage that might be done to our Electricity Department.

The CHAIRMAN

But it would not be done under this particular Clause and the hon. Member is out of order.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment that I call is the manuscript Amendment to which reference was made earlier in the Debate. Mr. Law.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. LAW

I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, at the end, to insert: (2) So soon as may be after the passing of this Act the Electricity Commissioners shall inquire into the working of any arrangements made before the passing of this Act to which sub-section (1) of this section applies, and unless—

1. (a) they are satisfied that the continuance of the arrangements will not result in a financial loss to the board; and
2. (b) after giving to any authorised undertakers who are or were when the arrangements were made under contract to supply electricity to or to take a supply of electricity from the owners of the generating station in question an opportunity of making representations with respect to the matter, they are satisfied that the continuance of the arrangements will not result in any substantial prejudice to any such authorised undertakers,

they shall direct that as from such date as may be specified in the direction the arrangements shall cease to operate and the said arrangements shall cease to operate accordingly, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before the said date.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN

On a point of Order. I do not wish to appear discourteous, but it seems to me that it is improper for the Committee to consider so complicated an Amendment in manuscript. We are unable to see its full import, and the Committee should be given possession of the Amendment in a form in which it can be examined properly.

The CHAIRMAN

I am not sure whether the hon. Member was in when the previous discussion took place, when it was intimated that the parties on the opposite sides of the question might come together, or rather that they were agreed on the matter of principle, but that it was a question of finding suitable words. Therefore, although this Amendment is rather long, I think it is not an improper one to put forward as a manuscript Amendment, and that at least hon. Members who followed the earlier discussion will have no difficulty in following the arguments on it.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE

On a point of Order. We on these benches were not included in any arrangement. I suggest that as there is the possibility of dealing with this matter at a later stage, it is asking too much to have a long Amendment debated now which it is impossible to follow when read. If it is to be moved at all, I think it should come on the Report stage.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

There is nothing complicated about it. If hon. Members will look at page 2 of the Bill, lines 18 to 27, they will find that in those lines are practically all the significant words of this Amendment, except that there are certain introductory words in the Amendment to make it clear that it applies to past acts of the board, wherets the words in the Bill apply only to future acts.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN

Further to the point of Order. I am sure the hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. R. Law) is quite as competent as the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) to explain his own Amendment, but the difficulty in which we find ourselves is that there are hon. Members sitting belonging to His Majesty's Opposition who are holding a watching brief on this Bill and who have not been parties to the arrangement to which you, Sir, have referred.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) was mistaken when he suggested I had said that an arrangement had been made. I did not speak of any arrangement being made. I said that I gathered that the parties to the discussion on the earlier Amendment were agreed in principle. I did not speak of any arrangement at all.

Mr. BEVAN

I did not wish to give any greater significance to your words, Sir Dennis, than properly belongs to them, but an arrangement was made between those parties to the discussion. We are all parties to the discussion in a way, although we may not be discussing this particular matter. We are all Members of the Committee, and if we do not take part in a discussion, it is because we feel that no matter of interest in which we are fundamentally involved has arisen; but how do we know that our interests are not affected by complicated lines of this kind, not placed before us so that we can examine them? I think it is extremely discourteous to the Committee that we should be asked to consider this Amendment in the form in which it has been presented, and I appeal to you to give us protection. We are at the moment helping to facilitate the business of the Committee.

5.36 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN

This is a matter on which perhaps Members of the Committee will sympathise with the Chair. I have considered the matter very carefully. No one can be more opposed by the nature of his duties to manuscript Amendments than the unfortunate Chairman, but on this particular occasion I should have thought it was distinctly inconvenient that, those who have been taking a, leading part in the discussion should not have the opportunity of considering this manuscript Amendment. It is clear that those who were taking part in the discussion to which this Amendment, refers will be quite capable of taking part in the discussion on the Amendment. It is then for the other Members of the Committee to adopt any course which they may see fit as to voting for or against the Amendment, but I do not think it would be right in the circumstances that I should not put the Amendment to the Committee.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

Further to the point of Order. It is all very well for the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) to say this is a simple Amendment and that we should understand it, when he has been collaborating all the afternoon with the hon. Member for South West Hull (Mr. Law), who has brought this Amendment forward, and—

The CHAIRMAN

I hope the hon. Member is not questioning my Ruling.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

If you give me time, Sir Dennis, I will come to the point of Order. Seeing that there has been a certain amount of discussion between certain Members of the Committee, but not all, it is impossible for all of us to be familiar with this manuscript Amendment, although we understand that it has certain implications, and a protest has been lodged accordingly. My point of Order is this, that, seeing this is the case, I hope you will allow some latitude with us when we discuss the Amendment and wish to put our point of view regarding the substance of the Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Member wishes to speak on the Amendment notwithstanding the fact that he does not understand it I can assure him that he will be given the opportunity.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

You will notice, Sir Dennis, that I said that we did understand that there were certain implications in the Amendment, and it is those implications that we are watching all the time. We on these benches are not taking very much part in the discussion, but we are watching the business that is going on between the two contending parties like dogs after the beef on the bone.

Mr. WEST

I was in the House when this question was raised earlier, but I think the hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law) will himself agree that the manuscript Amendment has been very greatly enlarged and the question made much more complicated.

The CHAIRMAN

I have already ruled to the best of my ability, and, I hope, to the best convenience of the Committee, that the Amendment is a proper one to call.

Mr. A. BEVAN

We are anxious to assist the business, but is it the intention of the Movers of the Amendment to press it to a Division? If that is their intention, we must protest at this stage.

The CHAIRMAN

Really, the hon. Member cannot expect any Chairman to know what is the intention of any hon. Member with regard to pressing an Amendment to a Division. As to whether the hon. Member proposes to vote against the Amendment or not, that is a matter for him to determine, and to announce if he chooses in debate on the Amendment, but it is not a point of Order. Mr. Law.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. LAW

I do not want to advance the arguments that I put forward earlier on a similar Amendment, but I should like to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) said just now. The Amendment, although so complicated to read, does, as I understand it, raise a very simple principle. The Clause gives the Electricity Commissioners power to review contracts which are made under the Clause in the future, and the purpose of this Amendment is simply to give them the same power to review similar contracts which have been made in the past.

Mr. ATTLEE

Can the hon. Member give us the wording of the Amendment again?

The CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Member thinks for a moment, he will realise that it has to be read from the Chair.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. DENMAN

Merely on a point of language, I thought, with the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and the Mover of the Amendment, that it was extremely simple, but the Mover's own explanation of it has made it rather obscure, because he said the Amendment gave the commissioners power to inquire. On the contrary, it places upon them an obligation to inquire. Is that what be intends, whether there is any need or not?

5.44 p.m.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS

Earlier this afternoon I asked the Minister if he would take steps, before the Report stage, to furnish Members with a list of these agreements which have been entered into by the board and which the Minister tells us are illegal, and also if he would furnish some particulars about them. He replied that that was an inconvenient moment at which to raise the point, and I, therefore raise the question again now. A Select Committee would certainly insist on having such a list before it, and the Government, having refused to send the Bill to a Select Committee, ought certainly in the circumstances to supply the Members of this Committee with that information. We are asked by this Bill to condone a number of agreements which have been made in excess of the powers of the board. It is not unreasonable that we should ask before we pass the Bill to have before us a list of the agreements and some particulars of them. I hope the Minister will see his way to circulate that information by way of a White Paper or some other convenient way.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

I should be extremely sorry if any Member of the Committee found himself in any difficulty, and I trust therefore that I may be permitted to recall the circumstances in which this manuscript Amendment was moved, assuring hon. Members in all quarters of the Committee that from whatever section of the Committee such an Amendment might have proceeded it would have received the same consideration from me, desirous as I am to see that complete justice is done and that all the doubts that can be removed are removed. That is my sole motive. Earlier in the discussion my bon. Friend the Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law) moved an Amendment which sought to impose upon the Commissioners the duty of examining agreements already entered into in addition to the duty which is imposed on them in the Bill of examining future agreements. I said at once that there were difficulties in the way of such a course, quite apart from the wording of the Amendment, because certain acts have been clone under the agreements or have not been done which might have been done.

So anxious was I that our discussions should proceed in as amicable a manner as possible and to demonstrate also that I do not wish to take up a stubborn attitude upon this Measure, I said that if a more appropriate form of words could be found to embody the same idea, a form which would meet with the approval of my legal advisers, I would accept it. Accordingly, my hon. Friend has produced what amounts to a duplication of the words already in the Bill, simply applying the past tense where the future now exists. Hon. Members will appreciate, from having heard the Amendment read, that the words in paragraphs (a) and (b) are reproduced with the exception of the fact that "are" becomes "were", and that the word "continuance" is used where it is appropriate. I do not think the Committee is in any difficulty in understanding the substance of the Amendment. It must be recalled also that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) did not, any more than I did, like reopening the past. However, I do understand and appreciate, although I dissent from, the view of my hon. Friends. They say that they do not know what these agreements are, but that they are suspicious of them and fear that they deal with some injustice that has been done which may never be disclosed. The Board takes the view that it has nothing to conceal and it is willing to make these agreements open. In these circumstances, I feel, if it would ease the course of the Debate and free the minds of my hon. Friends from any apprehensions they may have, that I could with propriety accept the Amendment. I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that if they have any Amendments on the Paper which do not by their form of language justify inclusion in the Bill, I will adopt exactly the same course with them.

I now come to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis). Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot ask me to place these agreements before the Commissioners for review and at, the same time ask to review the agreements themselves. This is a business body, and the Central Electricity Board enters into agreements like every other concern, whether public or private, in the natural course of its procedure. The agreements made by an ordinary authorised undertaker are not open to public review, but in this case we have a body appointed by Parliament with an impartial and judicial authority, which can properly undertake this course on Parliament's behalf. I am therefore responding to the suggestion that is made to me by those who do not like these agreements, and I say they will be laid before the Electricity Commissioners in regard to both the past and the future. I trust that that will satisfy my hon. Friend. If he were to press upon me the other course of laying the agreements open to Parliament, quite probably I should not be able to accept the Amendment. In the circumstances which I have described, I am prepared to accept it, although I do not like it, as a gesture of good will and as an indication that I appreciate the qualms that hon. Gentlemen have. I trust that the Committee will take the same point of view.

Mr. LEWIS

When I spoke I was not certain whether the Minister would accept the Amendment. I agree that as he has accepted it the other course which I ventured to suggest is not now necessary.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN

In view of all the circumstances, it seems to me to be appropriate that the Amendment should not be put from the Chair, but that the Minister should get. up and say he would consider the inclusion of such words on the Report stage. That would be courteous to the Committee in the circumstances and would meet the wishes of the hon. Mem- hers who have moved the Amendment, and would still provide us with a proper opportunity to discuss it. I suggest to the Minister that that would be the fair way.

The CHAIRMAN

That is not a matter for the Minister to decide at all. The Amendment is already before the Committee, and it is the duty of the Chair to put it in due course, unless it should be withdrawn by leave.

Mr. BEVAN

It is customary for the Minister on many occasions to say "I will consider the insertion of such words on the Report stage," and then the Mover withdraws the Amendment. If the Minister will intimate that to the Mover of this Amendment, perhaps the hon. Member will withdraw it.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

I will respond at once to the appeal of the hon. Gentleman. It is naturally a matter of complete indifference to me and to the Government whether this Amendment is inserted in the Bill at this or any other stage or in another place. Frequently Ministers say that proposed Amendments will be considered before the Report stage. I, however, like to make up my mind quickly where it can be made up, and I say to the Committee that I am prepared to accept this Amendment now. If the Committee prefers it. to be inserted in another place it is no concern of mine, but if hon. Members understand its purport I do not understand why they should object to it being inserted now.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH

The suggestion of my hon. Friend ought to be accepted, because I am not satisfied that the Minister himself thinks the Amendment is necessary. He strikes me as being in the mood to oblige his hon. Friends rather than to give adequate reasons why the Amendment should be accepted. I think it would be much better to let it go on the Order Paper for the Report stage so that Members can see it and understand why it is to be accepted.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

In the ordinary way I should not object to the course suggested by the two hon. Members opposite, but a Report stage is not inevitable. There is only a Report stage if the Bill has been amended. Up to now no Amendment has been accepted. The Minister has intimated his willingness to accept this Amendment, but I do not know what course he will take with other Amendments. In the discussion on a previous Amendment, however, the Attorney-General indicated the possibility of giving some consideration to the question of the rights of representation and of the measure of publicity, if any, that should be given to any agreement. In view of that undertaking I am anxious that there should be a Report stage so that the Minister may have an opportunity of considering that point. and a Report stage will be inevitable if the present Amendment is accepted now. On those grounds, if on no other, I am anxious that it should go in the Bill now.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

I should like to add to the appeal that the Amendment should be accepted now because, if it goes in the Bill, we can then see how it looks, and if anyone wants to object to it he can put down Amendments on the Report stage and have it properly discussed. The Committee finds itself in an unsatisfactory position with this manuscript Amendment, and the only bright side to it is the clear explanation and the helpful position of the Minister.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN

I have never listened to a more astonishing suggestion. We on this side are not hostile to the Amendment; we are merely at the moment uncertain about its full implications and deeply suspicious that a Minister should accept the Amendment at this moment in terms which lead us to suppose that he accepted it, not because of its intrinsic merits, but merely to conciliate an opposition with which we have no sympathy. In such circumstances it is surely proper for us to say that we are not going to sit down and allow an Amendment to be inserted as though we agreed with it and get our own position misunderstood. That is an astonishing suggestion.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

I did not make that suggestion.

Mr. BEVAN

The hon. Member really must not imagine that every speaker in the Committee is replying to him. I was replying to the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). I want further to suggest that it is extremely discourteous to put us in this position. We protested when this Amendment was moved in the first place that it was a manuscript Amendment raising points of considerable importance which we have had no opportunity of considering and it would be more courteous to treat the matter in the manner I have suggested. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has said that unless the Bill were amended there would be no Report stage. I understand that the Government themselves can make a Report stage by amending a Bill. The point of the hon. Member is therefore met. I understand, too, that if the Bill is not amended here, it may be amended in another place. The wishes of the hon. Member could be met. in that case. I would ask him to realise that we are not opposing the Amendment; we are merely asking a courteous response to the courtesy which we have shown in the discussions.

Sir J. PYBUS

The hon. Gentleman has now given as his reason as to why this Amendment should not be taken today that the Minister, anxious to please the Committee, is doing something which is really not in the public interest—

Mr. BEVAN

No. I said we were suspicious of the fact that the Minister has accepted the Amendment not on its intrinsic merits, but in order to conciliate an opposition to which we are ourselves opposed.

Sir J. PYBUS

The hon. Member now repeats that charge, but I suggest that those of us on this side who have sat through the whole Debate do not share his view. There seems to be no good reason, beyond this extraordinary suspicion which the hon. Member has expressed, why matters should not follow their proper course and the Amendment which has been put from the Chair should be taken to-day.

6.1 p.m.

Sir J. NALL

I must apologise to the Committee for being absent when this particular Amendment was moved, because I am really the culprit, as the Minister had been good enough to say, when making some remarks on a previous Amendment, that he could accept a. different form of words. In this case, as this is only an alternative form of words, the reasonable thing to do is to insert the Amendment now, and not to withdraw it. Anything accepted to-day will be subject to further scrutiny and revision on the Report stage, and I should think that provides every opportunity that is required and is the best course. We are not introducing something new, but only providing an alternative form of words.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. PARKINSON

I think that after the course the Debate has taken this Amendment ought not to be inserted in the Bill to-day. The Minister did say that he would accept an alternative form of words, but it should be remembered that this is a manuscript Amendment, and has not been in the hands of hon. Members, and before it is inserted in the Bill it ought to be open to their scrutiny in order that they may have an opportunity on Report to say anything they wish to say. It is rather unfair to spring the Amendment on us in this way, and, in a sense, insist on it being inserted to-day. The fair course would be to withdraw the Amendment, which would allow the Minister to give full consideration to the words between now and the Report stage, and also give an opportunity to other hon. Members to place their own interpretation upon them.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

I am sorry to take up any more time, but really there is no guarantee of a Report stage. All that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) can suggest. is that the Government should put down an Amendment which they do not desire in order to manufacture a Report stage. If the Amendment is inserted now it will be open to debate and to amendment on the Report stage, whereas if that is not clone now the chances are that there will be no Report stage.

Mr. BEVAN

Do you not trust the Minister?

Mr. WILLIAMS

There is complete trust in the Minister. If they are not inserted now the words will be inserted in another place, and if then we should want to discuss them the opportunity will only arise at some odd hour in the morning, just before the Adjournment, when the House considers the Lords Amendments to the Bill, and under all the disadvantages of that situation it is practically impossible to make any alteration. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why? "] Everyone with experience of dealing with Lords Amendments knows why. If we wish to have a free discussion and a free opportunity to amend Amendments, the

proper course is to put them in on the Committee stage.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 274; Noes, 42.

Division No. 9.]	AYES.	[6.7 p.m.
Acland, Rt Hon. Sir Francis Dyke	Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)	Lennox-Boyd, A, T.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Edmondson, Major Sir James	Lewis, Oswald
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, w.)	Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey	Liddall, Walter S.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Elliston, Captain George Sampson	Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Albery, Irving James	Elmley, Viscount	Lindsay. Noel Ker
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)	Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Amery. Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Emrys-Evans, P. V.	Lloyd, Geoffrey
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Entwistle. Cyril Fullard	Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)
Apsley, Lord	Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)	Lockwood. John C. (Hackney, C.)
Assheton, Ralph	Everard, W. Lindsay	Loftus, Pierce C.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)	Fermoy, Lord	Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Balley, Eric Alfred George	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Ballile, Sir Adrian W. M.	Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)	Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Ford, Sir Patrick J.	Mabane, William
Barclay-Harvey. C. M.	Fox, Sir Gifford	MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)	Fremantle, Sir Francis	MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Belt, Sir Alfred L.	Fuller, Captain A. G.	McConnell, Sir Joseph
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel	Ganzoni, Sir John	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Boothby, Robert John Graham	George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)	McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.	Gillelt, Sir George Masterman	McKie, John Hamilton
Bracken, Brendan	Glossop, C. W. H.	Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Brass, Captain Sir William	Gluckstein, Louis Halle	McLean, Major Sir Alan
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George	Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas	McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Broadbent, Colonel John	Graves, Marjorle	Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Magnay, Thomas
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)	Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'.W.)	Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Brown, Ernett (Leith)	Grimston, R. V.	Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.( Berks.,Newb'y)	Guy, J. C. Morrison	Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Browne, Captain A. C.	Hamilton, Sir George (llford)	Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney Zetl'nd)	Marsden, Commander Arthur
Bullock, Captain Malcolm	Hanbury, Cecil	Martin, Thomas B.
Burnett, John George	Hanley, Dennis A.	Meller, Sir Richard James
Butler, Richard Austen	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Mitchell, Sir w. Lane (Streatham)
Cadogan, Hon. Edward	Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenn'gt'n)	Mitcheson, G. G.
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)	Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)	Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm	Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.	Morgan, Robert H.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil	Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.	Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Carver, Major William H.	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Morrison, William Shepherd
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Holdsworth, Herbert	Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)	Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)	Munro, Patrick
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)	Nail, Sir Joseph
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)	Hore-Bellsha, Leslie	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)	Hornby, Frank	Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)	Horsbrugh, Florence	North, Edward T.
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)	Howard, Tom Forrest	Nunn, William
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leoiric	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Christie, James Archibald	Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.
Clarry, Reginald George	Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer	Orr Ewing, I. L.
Clayton, Sir Christopher	Hurd, Sir Percy	Owen, Major Goronwy
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Hurst, Sir Gerald B.	Patrick, Colin M.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.	Peake, Osbert
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.	Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth. C.)	Pearson, William G.
Cooke, Douglas	Jamleson, Douglas	Penny, Sir George
Cooper, A. Duff	Jennings, Roland	Perkins, Walter R. D.
Copeland, Ida	Joel, Dudley J. Barnato	Petherick, M.
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bllst'n)
Cranborne, Viscount	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Potter, John
Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)	Pownall, Sir Assheton
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard	Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)	Pybus, Sir John
Curry, A. C.	Kerr, Hamilton W.	Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Davison, Sir William Henry	Kirkpatrick, William M.	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western (Isles)
Dawson, Sir Philip	Knox, Sir Alfred	Ramsbotham, Herwald
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton	Rathbone, Eleanor
Denville, Alfred	Lambert, Rt. Hon. George	Rawson, Sir Cooper
Dickie, John P.	Law, Sir Alfred	Rea, Walter Russell
Donner, P. W.	Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Drewe, Cedric	Leckie, J. A.	Reid, David D. (County Down)
Duckworth, George A. V.	Leech, Dr. J. W.	Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U
Rickards, George William	Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.	Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)	Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Robinson, John Roland	Spencer, Captain Richard A.	Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas	Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.	Ward, Sarah Adelalde (Cannock)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)	Spent, William Patrick	Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)	Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)	Wayland, Sir William A.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)	Stevenson, James	Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.
Salt, Edward w.	Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)	Weymouth, Viscount
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)	Storey, Samuel	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart	Stourton, Hon. John J.	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard	Strauss, Edward A.	Wills, Wilfrid D.
Scone, Lord	Strickland, Captain W. F.	Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)	Summersby, Charles H.	Womersley, Sir Walter
Shaw, Captain William T. (Fortar)	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)	Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.	Thompson, Sir Luke	Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Bantt)
Skelton, Archibald Noel	Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.	Thorp, Linton Thendore	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine.C.)	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of	Major George Davies and Dr.
Somerset, Thomas	Train, John	Morris-Jones.
Somervell, Sir Donald	Turton, Robert Hugh
NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Griffiths, George A. (Yorks.W.Riding)	McGovern, John
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Attlee, Clement Richard	Groves, Thomas E.	Maxton, James.
Banfield, John William	Grundy. Thomas W.	Parkinson, John Allen
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)	Hicks, Ernest George	Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Buchanan, George	Jonet, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Thorne, William James
Cove, William G.	Kirkwood, David	Tinker, John Joseph
Daggar, George	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	West, F. R.
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)	Lawson, John James	Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Dobble, William	Leonard, William	Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Edwards, Charles	Lunn, William
Gardner, Benjamin Walter	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur	McEntee, Valentine L.	Mr. John and Mr. Paling.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

6.16 p.m.

Sir P. DAWSON

I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, at the end, to insert: ( ) Section twenty of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, so far as it relates to the making of agreements by authorised undertakers shall apply to the making of arrangements by the Board under this section, and accordingly the Board shall not in making any such arrangements show any undue preference to any local authority, company, or person. The object of this Amendment is to make sure that power companies shall be able to carry on their work now, as in the past, and that the board will not be able to get round those rights which already exist. It is true that the last Clause of the Bill contains a general statement to that effect, but I should like to have a definite statement that the power companies are not to be damaged by any possible evasion of that Clause.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he asks in regard to Clause 5. The Act of 1882 has to be read as part of the bundle of Acts of which this new Bill will form part.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

If Clause 5 means that Section 20 of the Act of 1882 is to apply, how can Clause 1 be used? The sole purpose of Clause 1, it seems to me, is to enable preference to be given to certain people in the shape of terms which you do not give to other people. That is giving a preference. If Clause 1 is based on the assumption that, for certain reasons, you give a preference, what is the meaning of Section 20 of the Act of 1882, which says that a preference must not be granted? I cannot see how Clauses 1 and 5 are to he reconciled, because they seem to embody two entirely conflicting principles.

6.19 p.m.

The ATTORNEY- GENERAL

The observations of my hon. Friend show the danger of referring to words without quoting them accurately. He says that Section 20 of the Act of 1882 forbids the giving of a preference. It does nothing of the kind. It forbids the giving of an undue preference, and that is a very different matter. If my hon. Friend will be good enough to look at the preceding Sections of the Act of 1882 lie will observe that they speak of the "like circumstances." It has been decided in a large number of cases that you are not guilty of giving undue preference merely because you give, in wholly different circumstances, two different rates to two different consumers. There is no difficulty at all in applying the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill, even with the limitation imposed upon the powers of undertakers by Section 20 of the Act of 1882.

Amendment negatived.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, at the end, to add: and nothing in this section shall prejudice the position of power companies under section ten of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926. If hon. Members will refer to Section 10 of the Act of 1926, they will find that the Central Board are debarred from supplying electricity direct to any authorised undertaker in an area in which a power company is the authorised undertaker. Some hon. Members might not he quite familiar with the distinction between a power company and a supply company. Power companies are those which came into being as the result of an investigation, I think by Viscount Cross's Committee, over 30 years ago, and they were given perpetual tenure, as distinct from the companies which are liable under the Acts of 1882 and 1888 to be bought out by the local authority when their franchise has expired. The reason the power companies were given perpetual tenure was that it was felt necessary that electricity should be developed in areas where it had not been developed at all. If it had not been for the power companies, the rural areas, which at last are beginning to be developed, and many of the more scattered industrial areas, would have been denied an electricity supply for an almost indefinite period.

Because of the peculiar position and, incidentally, the peculiar responsibilities, of the power companies, they were safeguarded in the Act of 1926. I was not one of the committee which considered that Measure, but I think I am not going too far when I say that Section 10, in protecting the power companies, represented what might be called a fair bargain between the public interests and the private interests represented by the power companies, bearing in mind that a degree of responsibility is imposed upon the power companies which does not apply to municipalities and supply companies operating in the more congested urban areas. Those rates were a sequel to a situation which has grown up since 1900, and they ought to be preserved, as they were properly preserved in the Act of 1926.

6.24 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

If my hon. Friend will be good enough to refer to the last Sub-section in Clause 1 he will find these words: Nothing in this Section shall empower the board to supply electricity directly to any undertakers to whom they would not otherwise be entitled to supply electricity directly. So far as I understand the point of my hon. Friend—and I think I do understand it—those words seem to me to meet his point.

Mr. WILLIAMS

I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I was of the opinion that the last Subsection of Clause 1 did give the protection desired, but I was anxious to have the best legal opinion without undue expense. I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for having given to me for nothing something which, in other circumstances, would have cost me a great deal. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.25 p. m.

Sir J. NALL

I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, at the end, to add: (6) The Board shall make compensation to any authorised undertakers who are injuriously affected by any arrangements entered into under this section, the amount of such compensation failing agreement to he determined by arbitration. I am informed that this matter may be of very great importance in cases where an existing line has been extended or plant installed and would be prejudiced as the result of agreements under the Bill. It is only reasonable that something should be done for those. who have incurred that expense. Contracts already in existence for supplies by authorised undertakers from non-selected stations, when the non-selected station is still in existence, will fall within the scope of Clause 1, but the period of the contract might not have been long enough to recompense the authorised undertaker for capital expended.In other cases, although no contract may exist, expenditure upon a transmission system may have been incurred. Such a system may have been laid out in anticipation of giving a bulk supply to the owners of non-selected stations. If in the ordinary course of business authorised undertakers have laid out their lines and sub-stations to meet a provisional demand, which has been met, or to provide for an ultimate demand which they might reasonably and probably expect and which it would be incumbent upon them to anticipate and provide for, it is only reasonable that, as and when one of these new arrangements under the Bill cuts out that additional load which would have been met, the undertakers should be indemnified. That seems a reasonable proposition, on its merits.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

Before we go any further and get a reply from the Government, I wonder whether my hon. Friends who are putting down these Amendments would give an explanation. If you give the board this new power to make agreements in certain cases, it seems inevitable that matters of compensation will arise. Where a man is summarily dispossessed, he has upon him the legal pressure of this great board and he is at a very great disadvantage. My hon. Friends who are moving the Amendment suggest that if there is not a proper agreement there should be arbitration. I do not know the technical side of this, but it seems to me that if there is any dispute there should be arbitration in these very important matters so far as the individuals or the undertakings are concerned.

The Committee should be informed by hon. Gentlemen who are moving the Amendment what form of arbitration they suggest. It is essential to know this before we can tell whether to help them to press their Amendment to a Division and to do what we can to get the Government to accede to the Amendment as they acceded to one just now. It is clearly the duty of this Committee to improve the Bill, but it is also the duty of the Conservative party to look after absolute fair play in every respect. We have always done so; we are doing so and we shall always do so. The great principle of arbitration which is included in this Amendment should be fully explained by the promoters of the Amendment, in regard to how it is going to work and who are the arbitrators to whom they propose to appeal. I would ask that we should be given that information, which is essential at the present time.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

I had hoped that the discussions we had on the earlier part of the Clause would have made it unnecessary for this Amendment to be moved. However, I make no complaint of the fact that it has been moved, for it gives me an opportunity of stating quite categorically that the Clause does not give to anybody any power to break any contract. The Amendment asks that. compensation should be paid to authorised undertakers who are injuriously affected. I do not quite know what is intended by the words "injuriously affected." They are generally applied, I understand, to property cases; but, if a man has suffered any damage, or claims to have suffered any damage. it must be in respect of some contract into which he has entered and which has been compulsorily broken. As I have said, there is no such case here. On the contrary, the Electricity Commissioners are required to give their consent to any of these agreements, and to hear those authorised undertakers who can claim to be directly interested. Further, Subsection (5) says: Nothing in this section shall empower the Board to supply electricity directly to any undertakers to whom they would not otherwise be entitled to supply electricity directly. In these circumstances, I do not see how we can properly insert these words. The Amendment suggests no machinery by which the arbitration is to be determined, and in any case I would submit to the Committee that the case for arbitration does not arise. Therefore, I would ask my hon. Friend if he could see fit to withdraw his Amendmenet.

Sir J. NALL

I do not want to press the matter unreasonably. I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.33 p.m.

Sir P. DAWSON

I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, at the end, to add: (7) The Electricity Commissioners shall keep a record comprising full particulars of all arrangements entered into under this section, which record shall be available at any time for the information of authorised undertakers. It is obvious that, in an important matter of this kind, the commissioners would in all probability keep full records, but I think it would be just as well to indicate, by the addition of some such words as these, that it, is contemplated that any such arrangements shall be duly recorded, and, furthermore, that any authorised undertaker who is interested in an agreement of this kind should have the right, subject to the Electricity Commissioners considering the request reasonable, to see such records as they may have.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

I feel that a somewhat different complexion has been put on this Amendment by my action in accepting the general Amendment providing for disclosure to the Commissioners of the arrangements entered into, whether in the past or in the future. Surely, they would be the proper persons to take note of the arrangements made, and I cannot see any valid reason why there should be published to the world—if that be the intention of the Amendment—every arrangement made by the board. That would make it extremely difficult for the Board to carry on its business, and it is a requirement that is not exacted from the industry as a whole. When one undertaker makes an agreement with another, he is not required to make it available for the information of all other undertakers. That is not required of ordinary undertakers, and, therefore, I do not see why it should be required of the Board. At any rate, I trust that my hon. Friend will feel that the acceptance of the previous Amendment, placing these matters under the review of the commissioners, will make it unnecessary for him to press the present Amendment.

6.35 p.m.

Sir J. NALL

The Amendment does not suggest that these records should be published broadcast; all that it asks is that the commissioners should keep a record of these agreements—

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

For the information of other authorised undertakers.

Sir J. NALL

I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. The intention, however, is that it should be available to authorised undertakers who are concerned or interested; it is not proposed to throw open the records to the thousand and one undertakers all over the country. It seems reasonable that there should be a regular record of these agreements which are made from time to time, and that a definitely limited category of interested parties should have access to the information.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN

Surely, a, record is kept of these arrangements as a matter of course. It would be absurd of any business organisation to keep no record—

Sir J. NALL

We are only asking that a record shall be kept by the commissioners.

Mr. BEVAN

I imagine that such a record is kept, and that that part of the Amendment, therefore, is entirely redundant. If it be the intention of the Movers of the Amendment to secure that the record shall be made accessible only to interested parties, it is just those parties who would desire to keep records. It would be astonishing if a public authority were put under a limitation which is never imposed upon a private concern. This is a matter in which there are rival interests, but the only party who would be placed under any limitation would be the public authority. The Amendment does not call upon private concerns to maintain a record of these undertakings and agreements and to present it to the board, but it is proposed that the board should be compelled to present such a record to the other parties to the negotiations. That, surely, is a monstrous proposition; it is an imposition that ought not be placed upon a public undertaking. It would mean that the public authority would enter the arena of these negotiations with its hands tied, while the other party would have his hands completely free. I think the Minister is perfectly right in resisting the Amendment.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

Frankly, I have been overcome by the powerful and eloquent appeal which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) has made for secrecy in these rather new circumstances. It seems curious, apart from all this Socialist desire for secrecy, that an Amendment should be moved for the purpose of keeping records. I can understand that it is necessary to keep certain records, and that it might be necessary for the Government to understand precisely how these commissioners are carrying out their work, but I do not think that other people in this industry should have the power to go and look at these records on all sorts of matters, and I am glad that the Government cannot accept the Amendment as it stands. It seems to me, however, that, when we are setting up a great board of this kind, we ought not to carry the policy of secrecy too far, but that there should be some means whereby the House of Commons, if it thinks that something wrong or unfair is being done, should be able to go into the matter, without unduly disclosing matters which in other businesses it is considered should not be published abroad. I rather regret that the Minister has not been able to suggest some solution, perhaps by another Amendment, so that we might have a really proper balance, without going to that perfection of secrecy which is characteristic of the Socialist party.

Sir G. ELLIS

I must take exception to the suggestion that a rival to the Central Electricity Board ought not to be able to obtain information as to what the board is doing. We contend that in the Electricity Board we have a rival who can cast the whole of his expenses upon us, mild that we ought to know what he is doing.

Sir P. DAWSON

In view of the Minister's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

6.42.42 p.m.

Sir J. NALL

I want to take this opportunity of raising the question of principle which underlies the Bill. The Minister, on the Second Reading, admitted that the provisions of this Clause cut right across the principles of the Act of 1926, and the provisions of the Clause still appear, after the discussion this afternoon, to be difficult to justify. The Clause deals with a class of authorised undertakers—or perhaps, in these days, they might be better described as distributors—who own generating stations which are not selected in accordance with the Act of 1926. That Act definitely dealt with this class of undertakers, and clearly laid down the terms of supply and so on with regard to selected stations. Under Sections 10 and 14 of that Act, the Central Board are able to close down any one of these stations if they can prove that their price for electricity is lower that the owners' price. That seems to be a reasonably fair proposition.

It was stated categorically during the passage of the Bill of 1926 that the board would be able to supply more cheaply than the local undertaker, but, if this Clause means anything at all, it means that the board have not been able to justify what was said in 1926, because in certain cases it has been found to be impossible to carry out the principle of the Act of 1926 and supply undertakers under the grid tariff. In fact, local undertakers can supply themselves more cheaply than the board can. So we get this Clause. So we get this misuse of the surplus output of certain selected stations and undertakings. It is clear that every criticism that I raised against the 1926 Act is amply justified by the presentation of this Bill and the endeavour to manipulate and negotiate not only agreements already existing but a number of others that are contemplated under the Bill when it passes. The Bill is here as a, public demonstration of the fact that there are throughout the length and breadth of the electricity industry a quite considerable number of electricity undertakers who can produce more cheaply than the grid, whose undertakings are more economical if they are left alone, and if the 1926 Act does not apply to them. It is in order to get behind the provisions of the Act and to bring these people in willy-nilly that we have this Bill, and because we have had in recent times these little illegal sub rosa surreptitious agreements which I am sorry my hon. Friend thinks ought not to be disclosed for anyone to look at.

The Act, however, goes further. It enables the board, by amending schemes, to select stations which they did not select before. It has only recently called o into operation this last mentioned power. I understand it has practically torn up and scrapped one of its big schemes, that for the South-West of England, so as to bring in a number of stations which were not selected in the original scheme of 1931, abandoning the construction of a super-station which was included in that scheme, thereby again demonstrating that the whole theory of the Act was based on an entirely wrong conception and has been proved to be unnecessary. One agreement that the board has made with the Home Counties Joint Authority has already been the subject of correspondence between that authority and the board. It was reported at a meeting of the authority in March that the board had notified them that there has been a loss of £2,900 in arrangements to supply the Dorking station. The significance of this is that someone else has to bear a loss. There is also the case of Wimbledon, which was able to drive a particularly hard bargain with the board and got its supply something like 40 per cent. cheaper than its neighbours, and to make the board take over obligations hitherto borne by the authority. Someone else has to make up the deficit. The theory of the thing is that the board can make no loss and can do no wrong. The industry must pay. In this scrapping of the South-West England scheme we see the first evidence of a genuine and proper admission that the first effort was wrong and that something very different has now to be done.

What is the position of the selected stations under the scheme of the board and under this Clause? These stations have, presumably, been constructed by local authorities and bigger companies with a view to supplying the smaller areas, enabling them to shut down non-selected stations. Any arrangement under this Clause under which these non-selected stations are kept running for the purposes of the Central Board must obviously operate against the proper and full working of the selected stations which was intended by the Act of 1926, and to the extent to which the Clause keeps in being the non-selected stations, which were not selected because they were unfit, it enables the board to fail or to halt in making a proper use of selected stations in accordance with the original scheme. So far from arriving at complete reorganisation and concentration in the generation of electricity, the 1926 Act has placed upon the industry a burden of expenditure which need not have been incurred, and this Clause is one of the first steps to enable the board to cover up its tracks, to hand its losses on to certain undertakers and to bring in undertakers who would not otherwise be in. The Clause reveals a wholly unsatisfactory set of circumstances. It shows that the Government's intervention into the realms of productive industry is fraught with waste and unnecessary expenditure and it must inevitably and ultimately present a. heavy bill to the House in order to get the board out of the difficulties that it must get into if it goes on with agreements and working arrangements such as are indicated in the Bill. The unfortunate alternative is that the industry and the consumer will have to bear the losses arising from the follies of 1926, which will be made more acute in certain areas by the operation of this Clause.