§ Mr. R. S. HudsonI beg to move, in page 91, line 5, column 3, to leave out "19."
I gather that it would be convenient if we considered at the same time the next two Amendments, in page 91, line 16, column 3, after "23," to insert, "except Subsection (1)," and in line 22, column 3, to leave out "24." There is a common thread running through them. All theses three Amendments were discussed in Committee and rejected by the Committee as a result of what, on further consideration, we think were misunderstandings. We hope that they can be accepted now. They are not of major importance. The effect of the first Amendment is to save from repeal Section 19 of the 1882 Act. In the course of our discussion upstairs the Parliamentary Secretary said:
It is certainly our intention, in relation to Sections 19 and 20 of the 1882 Act, that both safeguards should apply to all consumers."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 6th May, 1947; c. 912.]That has been carried out in the case of Section 20. Apparently it has been overlooked in the case of Section 19. The effect of Section 20 is to say that no consumer must be given unduly favourable terms. Section 19 says that no consumer must be given unfavourable terms. One is a positive and the other a negative discrimination, and I imagine that, in the circumstances, the Government will be prepared to accept this Amendment. Shall I deal with this one first, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and then deal with the other two?
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerIt will be in Order if the right hon. Gentleman will deal with all three Amendments together.
§ Mr. HudsonSo far as the Amendment to line 16 is concerned, it concerns the subject of the acquisition of land for gas undertakings. This matter, again, was 537 debated upstairs and the Solicitor-General said that the protection was unnecessary because, in fact, the compulsory purchase of land would be under the Land Acquisition (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, which protects land belonging to statutory undertakings. That is quite true, but a certain number of cases will arise where the land belongs to non-statutory undertakers, and, in such cases, the protection of that Act does not run. Therefore, we suggest that, as a certain number of cases will now arise involving non-statutory undertakers under the new Schedule subsequently to be discussed, it is desirable to restore this small protection.
In regard to the next Amendment, here again this matter was debated in Committee, and this Section which we desire to save imposes a penalty on undertakers who do not carry out their statutory obligations. The Solicitor-General said that, in the case of local authorities not carrying out such statutory duties, there was no penalty, and that the only thing which the Ministry could do was to look up their special order to see if the local authority had not carried out its duties to supply. I am not surprised, in view of the multiplicity of jobs which the Solicitor-General has to do, that he made what we think was a slight slip in this case, because under Section 23 the Minister has power to impose such conditions as he thinks fit and any conditions so imposed shall be regarded by the undertakers as having statutory effect. No doubt, the Solicitor-General had the point in mind when he talked about looking at the order, but, in fact, under this Section, as we want to see it restored, there is a right to impose conditions which in effect amount to the issuing of directions to the local authority, and we think that the Minister ought to have similar powers to give directions to the Central Authority. I do not suggest that these Amendments are of particular importance, but I hope the Government will see their way to accept them.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralI think that, with regard to one of the Amendments, we can go a little way to meet the case which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman, but not with regard to the other two, and I will endeavour to state my reasons. With regard to the first of these Amendments, which would have the effect of resurrecting Section 19 of the 538 Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1882, the right hon. Gentleman will recollect that, when we were discussing Clause 32 (7) earlier in these discussions, we accepted an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) dealing with undue discrimination. We feel that, as Subsection (7) stands, or as it will be worded when these words have been brought into it, it will accomplish, so far as we feel it ought to be accomplished, the object which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.
In point of fact, the provisions of the Bill, as it stands give the statutory consumer only the rights conferred by Section 27 of the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899. The non-statutory consumer, as pointed out earlier in our discussions, is left in the same position as he was before, subject to the point which I think interested the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) very much, the extension of the liability of an undertaker, now the Board, to provide distributing mains. Hon. Members will know, of course, that a statutory consumer is the consumer who owns or occupies premises within 50 yards of the distributing main.
8.45 p.m.
We have provided that the Board shall be under the obligation, at the request of six or more persons, to lay down a distributing main, not merely along a street, but along a route, which considerably widens the burdens placed upon them, and, therefore, greatly extends the category of persons who come within the scope of Section 27 of the Schedule to the 1899 Act, and who, accordingly, become statutory consumers with the right to demand a supply. Having done that, and having enlarged the scope of the Act, we feel that we have supplemented that by the provisions of Subsection (7) to such an extent that we have virtually covered the ground which is covered by Sections 19 and 20 of the 1882 Act. For those reasons and because in other words, we have virtually done what the first Amendment seeks to do, I ask the House to reject that Amendment.
With regard to the second Amendment, we feel that, at a later stage in the life of this Bill, before it becomes an Act, we could go some way towards meeting what the right hon. Gentleman proposes; but we cannot accept the Amendment as it stands because it has a serious drafting 539 defect, in that it incorporates part of Section 23 of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act which relates to the special Act. As there is no special Act, it would be meaningless to bring in that part of the Section. But without giving any formal undertaking, we will consider introducing into the Bill the first part of the Section, suitably drafted, which the right hon. Gentleman desires With regard to the final Amendment, we feel that we cannot accept it, if for no other reason than that it would be meaningless in the context, because what happens is this: Section 24 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1909, provides that nothing is to enable the Board of Trade to authorise the compulsory acquisition of land belonging to a Statutory undertaker; they can authorise only the acquisition of such land under Section 1 of the 1909 Act. Section I of that Act is repealed by this Bill. Therefore, if the Amendment were accepted, it would, as I say, be meaningless, because it would simply say that the Board of Trade shall not be empowered to take certain action under a Section which has been repealed. For that reason, I ask the House to reject the Amendment.
§ Mr. R. S. HudsonWith the leave of the House, I would like to ask one further question. Do I understand that during the remaining stages of the Bill the Government will consider some alteration in order to do what our Amendment, even though it may be defective in form, was meant to do, namely, to protect lands of non-statutory undertakers? I understand that practically all the gas undertakings are non-statutory, and that, from the practical point of view, there is a definite problem to be solved. Perhaps the Solicitor-General would look into that point, because there is a very genuine case which requires to be safeguarded.
§ The Solicitor-General indicated assent.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterI would be grateful if the Solicitor-General would clear up one point. He has been very reasonable in his response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), but I am not clear on one point with respect to the first Amendment which seeks to preserve Section 19 of the Act of 1882. The Solicitor-General told the House that the provision incorporated today in the Bill, if I may quote his own 540 word, "virtually" has the same effect. He used the word "virtually" on two or three occasions, and I took it to mean that the provision did not completely have the same effect as Section 19 of the 1882 Act. As the Solicitor-General is aware, that is a very important Section. It provides that there shall be no discrimination against an individual consumer by charging him more than similar consumers are charged. That is obviously a very important provision. Perhaps the Solictor-General, with the leave of the House, could make it quite clear to what extent his new provision fails to go the whole distance of the 1882 Act. He said "virtually" did. That presumably means that it does not do so completely. To what extent does it not do so?
§ The Solicitor-GeneralIf I may have the leave of the House to reply, the reason I used the word "virtually" was because the Section contains the expression,
part of an area.It is extremely difficult to define what one means, in relation to the area of an undertaker, when one refers to "part of an area." It will be considerably more difficult when one considers the greatly enlarged areas of the area boards. Therefore, when I used the expression "virtually," I was doing so in order to prevent myself saying that Subsection (7) meant exactly the same as a provision the precise meaning of which I myself could not define.
§ Mr. J. FosterI would like to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). I would like the Solicitor-General to tell us whether the principle of the Amendment is or is not accepted. The object of the Amendment is to preserve the immunity from interference of all gas and water undertakers. As the law will stand if this part of the Bill goes through unamended nonstatutory undertakers will not be protected from interference. I believe that to be the law. If I am wrong, I would be grateful if the Solicitor-General would correct me. If, on the other hand, I am right, I would be grateful if he would state why he does not want non-statutory undertakers to be protected from interference.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralIf I may again ask the leave of the House to reply, as 541 the hon. Gentleman says, the protection given in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the First Schedule of the Acquisition of Land Act relate to the property of statutory undertakers. I believe the greater number of the non-statutory undertakers are in Scotland, about which I rather hesitate to speak, but, as I have said, if hon. Members opposite will be good enough to give us their advice between now and a later stage, we will consider very carefully what they say. I do not intend that to be taken as a formal undertaking.
§ Mr. R. S. HudsonI am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralI beg to move, in page 91, line 32, column 3, to leave out "33" and to insert "32."
The object of this Amendment is to preserve from repeal the provisions of Subsection (1) of Section 33 of the Electricity Supply Act. That is a Section which enables the provisions of the Local Government (Superannuation) Act, 1937 —that Section as amended by later Sections—to be applied and used for pension purposes. As the Bill stands at the moment that Section is repealed. We can do that by regulations, if we think fit; under the Bill as it stands we have regulation-making power with regard to pensions. We feel that it is possible that it may be desirable for the area boards or the Central Authority to avail themselves of the provisions of the Superannuation Act of 1937, and, therefore, we do not want to repeal that power at the moment. If we should desire to do so hereafter, if it is found unnecessary to use the provisions of the 1937 Act, we should prefer to do so by regulations under the regulation-making power.
§ Mr. R. S. HudsonI dare say there is something to be said for this, so far as convenience is concerned; but, as I understand it, the effect of what we are being asked to do is to give the Government power to repeal an Act of Parliament, not by another Act of Parliament, but merely by Order in Council or regulation. It seems to me to be going rather far.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. ShinwellI beg to move:
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the 542 Amendments to Clause 13, page 15, line 6; Clause 13, page 16, line 2; Clause 13, page 16, line 32; all the Amendments to Clause 14; the Amendments to Clause 17, page 24, line 13; Clause 19, page 28, line 32; Clause 20, page 30, line 9; Clause 20, page 30, line 16; Clause 2i, page 33, line 8; Clause 22, page 33, line 11; Clause 22, page 35, line 35; Clause 23, page 36, line 14; Clause 24, page 38, line 38; Clause 25, page 38, line 45; Clause 26, page 39, line 40; all the Amendments to Clause 29; the Amendments to Clause 30, page 44, line 34; Clause 34, page 47, line 33; Clause 35, page 48, line 19; Clause 37, page 49, line 21; Clause 50, page 61, line 28; Clause 59, page 67, line 44; Clause 59, page 68, line 9; Clause 59, page 69, line 7; Clause 59, page 70, line 19; Clause 59, page 70, line 38; and of all the new Clauses and of the new Schedule standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Shinwell.
§ Lieut.-Colonel ElliotWe do not propose to oppose the Motion, but we had moved that the Bill be considered in Committee of the Whole House, and I really do think it would have beep a saving of the time of the House if that had originally been done. The Government are now proposing to embark on what is very nearly a Committee stage of the Bill at the end of a long day under conditions which, although they are improved by the concessions of the Government to the suggestions made to them, do not by any means meet the position which should be met if the House of Commons is to legislate on this great and important subject as it ought.
§ Mr. ShinwellI only want to say that we are getting on so well it is a pity to spoil it.
§ Bill immediately considered in Committee.
§ [Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]
§ 9.0 p.m.
§ Lieut.-Colonel ElliotOn a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont. We have now gone into Committee, and earlier we did discuss with Mr. Speaker what the position would be at the conclusion of this stage. As Mr. Speaker said—
The Deputy-ChairmanThat may be so, but we cannot now, in Committee, discuss what may happen later when the Committee stage ends.
§ Lieut.-Colonel ElliotI wish only to ask what the position would be if manuscript Amendments are put down. If no Amendment is made during the Committee stage, 543 the Clauses, of course, would be unchanged. If, however, the Opposition or any hon. Member desired to submit manuscript Amendments, could you give us your guidance whether such Amendments would be in Order, in view of the unusual fact that we are taking the Committee stage after the Report stage. Manuscript Amendments are usually out of Order on Report.
The Deputy-ChairmanThat is a matter on which I can give neither guidance nor a Ruling. It is a matter for Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. R. S. HudsonFurther to that point of Order. Does not that depend upon who happens to be in the Chair? Is it certain that Mr. Speaker will be sent for and will be in the Chair when the Committee stage comes to an end?
The Deputy-ChairmanThat is not for me to decide. We are now at the commencement of the Committee stage, and I can deal only with the Amendments on the Order Paper. I cannot now deal with any matter which does not relate to the Committee stage.