HC Deb 27 July 1943 vol 391 cc1503-4

Lords Amendment: In page 30, leave out, "giving affect to," and insert: the generation of electricity from any of the water power resources specified in".

Mr. Johnston

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

This Amendment is consequential upon the one we have just accepted, but in response to an interjection by an hon. Member about no reply being given to that one, perhaps I might be permitted to say a few words on this one. I am sure the House would have accepted the reasoning of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) with a little more avidity if he had not so extravagantly expressed it and had not so obviously forgotten the background of this Bill, which is to provide that the main recommendations of the Cooper Committee should be accepted. The hon. Member repeated the proposal for a five-year plan. That, however, was not accepted. The House took the view that every constructional scheme should be brought before both Houses of Parliament, which should be given the option of turning down each separate constructional scheme. The hon. Member for East Fife took the view that we ought not to have these separate schemes before us; he is entitled to take the view that there is one five-year plan, but that is not the view which the Government or hon. Members in all parts of the House have taken. We have to guard jealously the rights of Parliament in controlling these schemes, and we have to take every possible step we can to ensure that no board shall be given Fascist powers.

Sir Joseph Lamb (Stone)

They are here now.

Mr. Johnston

No, every constructional scheme under this Bill is being laid before this House at the instigation of the Government, whereas the proposal we have repeatedly resisted is a proposal for a five-year plan. It is a major matter of principle which has been argued and decided time and time again in this House.

Mr. Henderson Stewart

The right hon. Gentleman has not said anything about Clause 4, the development scheme, in his remarks.

Mr. Johnston

I talked about nothing else. The last Amendment was to Clause 4. This Amendment is consequential and, therefore, the argument I was seeking to use on this Amendment was one I could have used on the previous Amendment. I only adduced it in view of an interjection that there was no reply to the previous Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.