HC Deb 27 July 1943 vol 391 cc1500-3

Lords Amendment

In page 3, line 9, leave out from "practicable" to the end of the Subsection, and insert:

"the water power resources which the Board propose to examine with a view to their possible use for the purpose of generating electricity."
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston)

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The Amendment deals with Clause 4, which provdies for a development scheme. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate said during the proceedings in this House, the Government never attached any great importance to the development scheme stage. A development scheme stage, as he said on 5th May in this House, was only a preliminary stage, and the Bill ought not therefore to have provided for so precise a scheme as we outlined in Clause 4 as it left this House. When the Clause went to another place it was pointed out to us—as indeed it had been pointed out here as well—that a development scheme which provided for a specification not only of the water power resources proposed to be utilised, but the situation of the works, including generating stations, and main transmission lines which were proposed to be constructed for the purpose of utilising these resources, might have tied our hands at a later stage if once we had approved of this development scheme. Therefore, in another place on behalf of the Government, Lord Alness moved that instead of the Clause as it left this House we should insert the words: the water power resources which the Board propose to examine with a view to their possible use for the purpose of generating electricity. The Amendment, which was moved on behalf of the Government and carried unani- mously in another place, has been inserted for the purpose of making it abundantly clear that the development scheme stage provided for in this Bill is not to be a precise description stage but a mere general survey, and the later constructional scheme stages are the occasions when hon. Members of this House, the Electricity Commissioners and the Secretary of State for Scotland will have adequate and abundant opportunity of going into the details of any scheme.

Mr. Henderson Stewart (Fife, East)

I suppose it is almost a forlorn hope to fancy that anything I can say is likely to cause us to reject this Amendment, but I ask the House to recognise precisely what they are doing in accepting it. I hope that my hon. Friends realise the nature of the change which has taken place, and they will perhaps do me the courtesy of recalling my views previously. When the Bill was before the House on the Committee stage, the Lord Advocate, in reply to a question from me, defined what he thought was the point and purpose of the development scheme in Clause 4. As I heard him talk then, I was obliged to intervene with this question, "What is the point of a development scheme at all? What value is it to the Government?" The right hon. Gentleman replied, indicating that he did not think that it was of great moment, but I would ask the House to remember the other words which he then used, which showed that the Government had a very important purpose in mind when they stuck to this development scheme, which I sought to abolish in order to combine Clauses 4 and 5 and therefore the development a-ad constructional schemes. The Lord Advocate said it was true that it was intended to be a preliminary survey, but it did two things. He did not specify the two; I think he had forgotten the second point. At any rate, he specified one of these two things. He said that the point of the Clause and the development scheme was that— it would give us an authoritative picture of the possibilities of future development,"— and I think therefore it is useless.

Mr. Johnston

An authoritative picture in broad outline.

Mr. Stewart

Those were his words. In view of the statement of the Government then, I did not press the matter. When it came to the Debate in another place I found that Lord Alness took an entirely different view of the meaning of these development schemes, He there explained that the development scheme, after the Amendment proposed, would be nothing more than the outline of electrical possibilities which it was the intention of the Board subsequently to examine. How different from the statement of the Lord Advocate that here was to be an authoritative picture of future developments. The two things are not in any way comparable. To what is it that this House is now asked to agree? I hope that the House will look at the Clause as it is now to be amended and see the absurd situation into which we are being introduced. If the Amendment is accepted, this is how Clause 4 will read: It shall be the duty of the Board as soon as may be after their appointment to prepared a general scheme for the exercise of their powers and duties … showing,"— note the first condition— so far as practicable,— the water power resources which the board propose to examine"— some time in the far distant future— with a view to their possible use. If the House thinks that that means anything, I confess I am not in its company. I cannot make sense, practical or otherwise, out of this Amendment. It has made the Clause absolutely unnecessary and futile. Having got this indication of the water power resources which the Board propose to examine with a view to their possible use, it is now still to be called the scheme. The thing is absurd. How can it be a scheme when it is an indication that on this or that day we may "as far as possible" or "so far as practicable" perhaps look at it? That is called a scheme. Let the House recall the course that this so-called scheme has to go through. Let it consider all the authoritative stages, examinations, considerations and approvals that have to be followed by this so-called scheme when it is prepared. First of all, this so-called scheme has to be submitted to the Electricity Commissioners for their approval. Just imagine it. The Electricity Commissioners are to sit down solemnly to look at a piece of paper on which there are half a dozen words saying, "Possibly, in the future, so far as is practicable, we may, in our judgment, perhaps look at certain things which may one day become a scheme." The Commissioners must sit down for hours considering this monstrous proposition, and when they have in their wisdom decided that it is a very sound idea, it is then submitted to the Minister and his officials. They likewise have to sit down and consider these words— "possibly, in the future, so far as is practicable we may one day perhaps look at certain things." Then it is published, and the House has noticed the formalities which must be observed. It has to go to certain newspapers, through a whole rigmarole, This is asking the House to accept an absurdity. The Government should have said, as I have said in this House, that a development scheme is valueless and that what matters is a real five-year plan. The whole Clause ought to be altered. I feel it is impossible to accept the Amendment.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.