HL Deb 30 November 1926 vol 65 cc859-996

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Constitution of Central Electricity Board.

1.—(1) For the purposes of this Act there shall be established as soon as may be after the passing of this Act a body to be called the Central Electricity Board (in this Act referred to as the Board), consisting of a chairman and seven other members appointed by the Minister of Transport after consultation with such representatives or bodies representative of the following interests as the Minister thinks fit, that is to say, local government, electricity, commerce, industry, transport, and labour.

(2) A person shall be disqualified for being appointed or being chairman or a member of the Board so long as he is a Member of the Commons House of Parliament.

(3) The chairman of the Board and any member of the Board who is, by the terms of his appointment, required to devote the whole of his time to the performance of his duties under this Act shall, within three months after his appointment, sell any securities which he may hold for his own benefit in any company carrying on the business of supplying electricity or the manufacture or sale of machinery or plant for the generation or transmission of electricity; and it shall not be lawful for the chairman or any such member of the Board whilst he holds office to purchase for his own benefit any securities in any such company, and if the chairman or any such member of the Board under any will or succession becomes entitled for his own benefit to any securities in any such company, he shall sell them within three months after he has so become entitled thereto.

(6) The Board may act notwithstanding a vacancy in their number.

(7) A person appointed to be the chairman or to be a member of the Board shall hold office for such term not less than five years nor more than ten years as may be determined by the Minister before his appointment.

(8) The Board shall appoint a secretary and such other officers and servants as the Board may determine, and there shall be paid out of the fund hereinafter established to the members of the Board, or any of them, such salaries or fees and allowances for expenses as the Minister of Transport may determine, and to the secretary, officers, and servants of the Board such salaries and remuneration, and, on retirement or death, such pensions and gratuities, as the Board may determine; and any expenses incurred by the Board in the exercise and performance of their powers and duties under this Act shall be defrayed out of the said fund.

(10) Every document purporting to be an Order or other instrument issued by the Board and to be sealed with the seal of the Board authenticated in manner provided by this section, or to be signed by the secretary or any person authorised to act in that behalf, shall be received in evidence and be deemed to be such order or instrument without further proof unless the contrary is shown.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (1), to substitute "eight" for "seven." The noble Lord said: I have a consequential Amendment lower down on the Paper and perhaps the Committee will allow me to take the two together. I am now moving that the Electricity Board should consist of eight, not of seven, members and by my subsequent Amendment I propose that there be added to the Board a representative of agriculture. As we all know, agriculture is the largest single trade in this country. We have heard from various statesmen within the last few months that this Bill is to benefit the countryside, especially agriculture and industry, and therefore I do not think it is unreasonable for us to ask that on the Central Electricity Board there should be a representative of agriculture besides a representative of industry. The word "industry" is generally taken to mean great trades, like the engineering trade or the cotton trade. If the development of the countryside, as the Government hope, is to take place, it seems to me that it is all-important that we should have a representative of agriculture on this Board, especially as we all know that agriculture is not nowadays represented in either House of Parliament in the same way that it used to be.

If my present Amendment is made it will carry with it—unless the Lord Chairman directs me that it should be otherwise—that the eighth member will represent agriculture on the Board. I appeal to members of the House with a knowledge of agriculture and who represent agricultural associations and members in all parts of the House to support this. It is an entirely non-political Amendment, which is merely intended to give agriculture a voice in the distribution and generation of electricity. It seems to me fair that agriculture should have fair representation and not be dependent on those who have nothing whatever to do with the agricultural industry.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 12, leave out ("seven") and insert ("eight").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL)

My noble friend has not quite appreciated the principle on which this Board is to be composed and I think he made that clear when he said that if this Amendment were carried his second Amendment followed consequentially; because the two proposals are quite different. The idea behind the creation of this Board—and I stated this emphatically on the Second Beading—is this. It is not that it should be composed of the representatives of different industries and occupations; it is that it should be composed of seven members and a Chairman of wide experience in affairs and business who, if possible, should not be directly representative of any industry, but should very impartially consider the interests of all.

The other proposition is really quite a different one because, if my noble friend reads the words, he will see that these members are to be appointed by the Minister of Transport after consultation, if he thinks fit, with representatives of local government, electricity, commerce, and industry. It does not in the least follow because he consults with these particular industries, commerce and electricity, that he will select one of them to represent that industry. On the contrary, I rather hope that the noble Lord will co-operate with me and your Lordships also in keeping this Board independent and impartial and not representative of any industry, but separated, as far as they can be, from any particular industry. Therefore I strongly deprecate putting into the Bill that the representative of a particular industry shall be upon the Board. It is obvious that if a statutory right is given for a representative of agriculture to go upon the Board all the other industries and interests will require the same treatment. I hope therefore that my noble friend will not press his Amendment.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I think there is a great deal in what the noble Viscount said about not putting in here a representative of agriculture. But if your Lordships will look at, line 14 it seems to me that that is the place in which it ought to appear, because it is quite clear that the Minister will consult the representatives of different industries and he ought, obviously, to consult the representatives of the agricultural industry. I hope that the noble Viscount will give me an assurance on that point when that Amendment is reached. I therefore ask leave to withdraw my Amendment with that in view.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Minister of Transport" and insert "the Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury." The noble Lord said: I understand that the Minister or Ministry of Transport is very anxious to retain full control over everything in this Bill; but as no less than £33,000,000 of public money is going to be advanced, it seems to me that the Treasury should have the right of nominating the members of this Board and not the Minister of Transport. The Ministry of Transport is a very busy Department with many functions and I do not think it should nominate the jury, the judge and the counsel for the prosecution as well in connection with this Bill. It would be much better if the Treasury nominated the Electricity Board. That seems even more necessary when one considers that the Ministry of Transport is to be a sort of court of appeal, and it ought not to be both judge and jury at the same time. I think that possibly my noble friend may not accept this Amendment, but I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 13, leave out ("Minister of Transport") and insert ("the Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I think my noble friend said that he did not expect me to accept this Amendment and therefore put it forward rather tentatively. There are one or two reasons why I do not want specially to associate the Treasury with the appointment of these members of the Board. The Treasury, as is well known, is really the central Department of the Government and we want to keep the Board as far as possible independent and free from Government control. If the Board is to be appointed by the Treasury you will really lay stress upon the fact that there was this Government connection or control.

LORD CARSON

Why?

VISCOUNT PEEL

Because, as I have said, the Treasury is the central organ of Government controlling other Departments very largely. My noble friend says that the Ministry of Transport has so much to do that it would not be able really to find time to select these men. That is an argument obviously which would apply far more to the Treasury. But, after all, the Ministry of Transport is the Department which is responsible for electricity and so on, and whose statutory business it is to deal with these matters. Therefore, it seems to be obviously the Department selected for choosing the members of the Board.

I really did not follow what my noble friend said about the judge and jury coming from the same place. These men appointed to the Board are not in any sense members of the Department of the Ministry of Transport; they are independent people of distinction chosen from outside for their business experience. All that the Minister of Transport has to do is to nominate them; when they are nominated they are completely independent. In those circumstances I think that the Minister, who is likely to have most knowledge on this subject and who deals with these matters constantly from day to day, is really the person who ought to have the right and on whom, shall I say, the duty ought to be cast to nominate these persons, and not the Treasury which is not in very close relation with it. The only other point that I think my noble friend made was that the Treasury was going to advance a sum of something like £33,000,000. May I remind my noble friend that the word is "may" and not "must"? and I think he may trust the Treasury, of which I have had a good deal of experience myself, to look after their own interests in that matter. The Treasury are quite capable, as I know very well, of making very strict and stiff bargains, and I do not think we ought to be asked to put them in the position of directly appointing the members of this Board.

LORD OLIVIER

I do not quite understand and I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether the Treasury is to have no financial control at all over these things.

VISCOUNT PEEL

The Treasury will make what conditions it likes if, of course, it chooses to guarantee the money.

LORD CARSON

This seems to me to be an important Amendment; at least, it is important as to who should appoint the members of this Board. The Board has vast powers; it can create any staff it likes; it can vote itself any payment it likes; it can set up consultative and technical committees and employ a number of people in that way. Altogether the Board can establish a very large department. It is plain that the question of those who are appointed is one of great importance. The noble Viscount in charge of the Bill says that the Minister of Transport is dealing with these matters every day. I do not know exactly what that means, nor how the Minister is brought into contact with this question of electricity supply at all. I do not know why he should be the person selected, not could I understand the argument of the noble Viscount that the Board would be less connected with the Government if the appointments were made by the Ministry of Transport than if they were made by the Treasury. I suppose the Ministry of Transport is as much a Department of the Government as the Treasury is. I do not think You can draw distinctions of that kind.

What the noble Lord who moved the Amendment had in mind was this, as I understand the Bill. There is to be an immediate advance from the Treasury of £33,000,000, or a guarantee by the Treasury to enable that sum to be raised. It is the boast of the Government that this Board is quite independent, and will not have to account to the Government or to Parliament in any way, or be responsible to anybody, and if the country is going to advance it £33,000,000 one would think some protection would be given by the Treasury haying the power to nominate the members of the Board to whom they are to advance that sum.

I know that £33,000,000 is a trifling sum in the eyes of a Conservative Government, but it is worth thinking about. If they do not have any voice in the appointment of the Board the Treasury, practically, will have no control of any kind or description, but will simply be compelled, after the Board is appointed, to sign the guarantee enabling these gentlemen to get possession of the £33,000,000 and then, in accordance with the provisions of the Bill, set to work to carry out the various exploits which, it is said, will make a revolution in the supply of electricity. I do not think that is a good way of doing business from the point of view of the country and I think the Amendment is worthy of consideration.

EARL BUXTON

I am in favour of the Amendment and hope the noble Lord will press it to a Division. I would point out that these vital and extensive powers go to a Board which is for five years practically to be independent of control by the Government. In those circumstances I contend that it ought to be nominated by a very powerful Department. The Ministry of Transport is one of our smallest and least important Departments and the nomination of a Board of this description ought not to be in the hands of a Department of that character. When I had the honour of being at the Board of Trade, transport and all those questions, now under the Minister of Transport, constituted only one of the many functions of the Board of Trade and I will undertake to say that it was done better then than it is now.

In regard to the question of economy, your Lordships will recall that the Geddes Committee recommended that the Ministry of Transport should be sent back to the Board of Trade with a much reduced staff. I never understood why that recommendation was not carried out. Undoubtedly it would have led to great, economy and, equally, I have, no doubt, it would have led to efficiency. The Board of Trade would have been a suitable Department to nominate the members of this Board. I think there is great force in what has been said as to the financial position. After all, if you are going to lend the Board £33,500,000, it will be the taxpayers' credit that is being lent and the taxpayer is going to run some risk; therefore, it is a Board over which the Treasury ought to have control. I think a Board of this importance ought to be appointed by a strong Department in order that suitable persons shall be put upon it and ought not to be under the control, as it is now proposed, of a Department such as the Ministry of Transport, which, as I have said, is one of the very small Departments and has not the opportunity or the knowledge or power required for appointing a strong Board.

LORD DANESFORT

What appears to me to be of more importance than that the Ministry of Transport should nominate the Board is that the Treasury should have some control over it. As my noble friend Lord Carson has pointed out, the Board would have to expend an enormous sum of money not merely in the staffing of a department and so on, but would be spending large sums in the standardisation of currents and the laying down of transmission lines. Surely it ought not to be left in such a state that there is no check upon a Board which is going to spend public money in this way. It is one of our constitutional principles that every Department in this country is subject to some control by the Treasury. The Army, the Navy, and all the great spending Departments cannot spend money without the authority of the Treasury. I would like to suggest to my noble friend that something should be put in the Bill, either in Committee stage or, if there is not time to think out a scheme for Committee, then on the Report stage, which would give the Treasury some control over the Board which has the expenditure of this vast sum of money. Perhaps my noble friend will tell us whether he will consider that point either at this stage or before the Report.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think the speech which has just been made by my noble friend shows that there is some misapprehension. This Board is not a financial board, not a board to expend public money at all. No penny of public money can be expended by the Board or be entrusted to it except with the consent of the Treasury. It seems to me that for the purpose of checking the expenditure of public money the Treasury will be in all the stronger position if it does not itself appoint this particular Board. The Board is formed to deal with the provision of electric power for public purposes and such control as there is of electricity is now with the Minister of Transport. The Commissioners are responsible to the Ministry of Transport and that, therefore, is the proper administrative Department for choosing the members of this proposed Board. I suggest to the House that to put the Treasury in would be going wholly outside the ordinary course of business in this country. As to what was said by the noble Earl opposite. Lord Buxton, his argument was in favour of merging the Ministry of Transport in the Board of Trade. That is, of course, a wholly different matter from any argument for putting the Commissioners of the Treasury in this part of the Bill.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I hope the House will accept the Amendment. It is quite true that the Board will not spend public money, but they will obtain from the public a loan of £33,500,000.

VISCOUNT PEEL

Not necessarily.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

My noble friend says "not necessarily." Does he mean it will probably be £100,000,000 instead of £33,500,000? If so, I agree with him.

VISCOUNT PEEL

It is limited. That is the utmost limit.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I have never yet known an estimate which was not exceeded, and certainly not an engineer's estimate, nor an estimate of a member of a Government. Their estimates always are exceeded. I could give any number of instances of that, but I do not wish to take up the time of the House. There is another and very strong reason why this Amendment should be accepted. Those of us who were in favour of economy always understood that there would be an abolition of a certain number of the new Ministries which were, unfortunately, created during the War and that one of the Ministries to be abolished was the Ministry of Transport. That Ministry was described by a Committee of the House of Commons over which I had the honour to preside as being a grandiose Department. We do not want to add to the powers of that Ministry. What we want to do is to curtail its powers and to abolish it altogether. I cannot help thinking that the reason the Ministry of Transport has been chosen is that the Government want an excuse to keep it in existence; otherwise it is not necessary to keep a Ministry with a Minister and officials merely to say that you are to go round Trafalgar Square instead of across it. In these circumstances I hope my noble friend will press his Amendment to a Division.

LORD GAINFORD

There is another point which has not been mentioned and it is one which is important. All of us who have been associated with electrical undertakings believe that the operations of this Bill and the setting up of a new Board, instead of cheapening electricity in the country, will do exactly the reverse, and in the event of a new Board being established, as is proposed by this Bill, the effect must inevitably be that you will have a new spending Department. We all, I think, recognise that the Ministry of Transport has been a spending Department, and some people think on rather a lavish scale in certain directions. Be that as it may, we are quite certain that the Treasury is always looked upon as guarding the finance of this country, even when it has an extravagant political head, but the Treasury attitude of mind will be really to see that the individuals who may be appointed upon a Commission of this kind are men who are going to do what they can to restrain expenditure on a large scale by a new bureaucratic body which is going to be set up. It is for that reason, as well as in the interests of the loans which will have to be secured by this new body, that I think it is far more important that the Treasury should be represented rather than the Ministry of Transport in connection with the nomination of persons to serve on the Board.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

The speech of my noble friend opposite is one which, if taken seriously, would strike at the very foundation of this Bill. It resembles his Amendment to send the Bill to a Select Committee which was discussed in your Lordships' House after the Second Reading. The purpose of this Bill is to set up a great plan of dealing with electricity and producing it. For that purpose people who are acquainted with the subject, and intimately acquainted with it, are wanted. The Electricity Board will consist of people selected by the Minister who has, after all, had to do with this scheme from the very beginning, who knows the very complicated details of it, and who has been in contact with those concerned. He will, of course, consult the interests concerned. That is the way you will get your Electricity Board. If you send it to the Treasury, what do the Treasury know of the foundation and nature of the scheme with which we are dealing? They have had no experience. They are admirable people at their own business, but not admirable at a business of this kind, which is technical in the last degree. For that reason I very much prefer to see the thing in the hands of the Minister of Transport, who has had to do with it, rather than see the appointment taken out of his hands and put in the hands of the Treasury, who have no experience. This has been talked of as if it were intended to enable the Electricity Board to borrow the enormous sum of £33,000,000. Nothing of the kind. Loans, generally of small amount, will be wanted as things go on, and very soon the return from the reduced cost of current will enable the interest and sinking fund of these loans to be paid. It is only at the very beginning that money will be wanted and, for myself, I should be surprised if more than a million will ever have to be guaranteed at all. It will be borrowed with the guarantee of the Treasury to enable it to be obtained at the lowest rate, and Clause 27 gives ample power to the Treasury to deal with the matter.

VISCOUNT PEEL

If I may say one word, I think there is some misapprehension in the minds of noble Lords on this subject. May I say, as regards the speech of my noble friend Lord Banbury, that this sum of £33,000,000 is not an estimate in the ordinary sense of the word. It is an upper limit beyond which the Treasury has no right to guarantee money. But there seems to be an idea in the minds of some noble Lords that by giving the Treasury the power to nominate the members of this Board they will be able in some quite unexplained way to exercise control over the finance of the Board. That is a complete and absolute mistake. The only question here is not who controls the Board, not who manages the finances of the Board, not who criticises the figures of the Board, but who appoints these people. Let us assume that they were appointed by the Treasury. When once they were appointed the Treasury would have no authority over them whatever. Let there he no mistake. If you substitute the Treasury for the Ministry of Transport you will not confer any control whatever on the part of the Treasury over the finance of the scheme.

If any noble Lord thinks that the Treasury is not capable of taking care of itself when it guarantees any money borrowed by the Board, let him put down an Amendment, and I certainly would consider it on Clause 27 when we come to deal with the financial side of the matter. If noble Lords really think so I would like them to back their opinion by telling the Treasury what they ought to do. But do not let there be any misapprehension. The Treasury will get no control by this Amendment and I think it much better to leave the matter to the Minister who is dealing with the scheme. My noble friend Lord Carson asked what on earth the Minister of Transport had got to do with electricity. The answer is—everything. He is the one Minister who deals with it. The Electricity Commissioners are responsible to the Ministry of Transport and there is no other Ministry to deal with the matter. It is rather absurd to say that the one Department which shall not nominate these men who are going to control and manage this scheme is the Department which knows most about it. I really think your Lordships will not get any Treasury control over finance if

you substitute the Treasury for the Ministry of Transport.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I do not think that what has been said alters the basic facts of the case. What a great many noble Lords and myself desire is that this Board should be nominated absolutely independently of the Ministry of Transport. Speaking for myself, I should have far more confidence in seven men selected by the Treasury than seven men selected by the Ministry of Transport. The Minister of Transport is directly interested in pushing this scheme forward. The Treasury, on the other hand, would see that the greatest possible economy was exercised. Therefore, when it comes to the nomination of people of this kind the Treasury is quite as capable of finding expert, reliable persons to nominate as the Minister of Transport. Of course they would confer with the Minister of Transport. I do think that nomination by the Treasury will carry a far larger measure of public confidence than if the persons were nominated by the Minister of Transport.

On Question, Whether the words "Minister of Transport" shall stand part of the Clause?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 31.

CONTENTS.
Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.) Churchill, V. Howard of Glossop, L.
Haldane, V. Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.
Sutherland, D. Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) Invernairn, L.
Wellington, D. Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)
Peel, V. Kilmaine, L.
Bath, M. Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)
Camden, M. Ampthill, L. Knaresborough, L.
Queensberry, M. Arnold, L. Kylsant, L.
Ashton of Hyde, L. Lawrence, L.
Airlie, E. Atkinson, L. Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)
Clarendon, E. Biddulph, L. Merrivale, L.
Drogheda, E. Bledisloe, L. Meston, L.
Gainsborough, E. Charnwood, L. Monteagle, L.(M. Sligo.)
Graham, E. (D. Montrose.) Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.) Muir Mackenzie, L.
Grey, E. Newton, L.
Howe, E. Cottesloe, L. Oranmore and Browne, L. (L. Mereworth.)
Leven and Melville, E. Danesfort, L.
Lovelace, E. Darling, L. Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)
Lucan, E. [Teller.] Desart, L. (E. Desart.) Parmoor, L.
Malmesbury, E. Desborough, L. Saltoun, L.
Morton, E. Dynevor, L. Sandhurst, L.
Onslow, E. Ernle, L. Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Plymouth, E. [Teller.] Erskine, L.
Russell, E. Faringdon, L. Sudeley, L.
Spencer, E. Forres, L. Suffield, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Gage, L. (V. Gage.) Templemore, L.
Glenarthur, L. Thomson, L.
Bertie of Thame, V. Hampton, L. Warrington of Clyffe, L.
Chaplin, V. Harris, L. Wargrave, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Aberdeen and Temair, M. Askwith, L. [Teller.] Montagu of Beaulieu, L. [Teller.]
Winchester, M. Avebury, L.
Banbury of Southam, L. Morris, L.
Beauchamp, E. Carson, L. Pontypridd, L.
Buxton, E. Gainford, L. Sempill, L.
Chesterfield, E. Glanely, L. Shandon, L.
Hemphill, L. Shuttleworth, L.
Midleton, E. Illingworth, L. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Strafford, E. Lamington, L. Stanmore, L.
Allendale, V. Lawrence of Kingsgate, L. Treowen, L.
Falmouth, V. Monson, L. Wavertree, L.
Wittenham, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "local government" and insert "the County Councils Association." The noble Lord said: With regard to this Amendment, I suggest to the Government that, since they claim that local government should be represented on the Board, the County Councils Association, which is representative of all the counties in this country, should be selected. I understand that the expression "local government" does not necessarily mean county councils alone, and may include other authorities, but the county councils have in many cases control of tramway lines—as in Middlesex, for instance—and I think that they ought to be represented. I would remind the noble Viscount that in the other House it was stated that this Bill would be of benefit to the counties, but nobody is at present to have representation on the Board who is specially representative of the interests of country districts as distinct from those of the town. I think it would only be fair that the County Councils Association should be selected as being the most representative body.

Amendment moved— Page 1, lines 15 and 16, leave out ("local government") and insert ("the County Councils Association").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I do not really think that this Amendment is necessary and for the very good reason that under the term "local government" the county councils are, of course, already included. What my noble friend wishes to do is to substitute for all the great local government interests a particular one, the county councils, to the exclusion of the others.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I said not.

VISCOUNT PEEL

It is no good my noble friend saying "not." I am dealing with the words he wants to put in. He wants to leave out "local government" and insert "the County Councils Association." The obvious inference is that they are to be consulted and the others are not. What about the county boroughs? Have not they some interest? What about the other local bodies? It is rather curious that the particular bodies selected for consultation on local government by my noble friend have rather less to do with electricity than other local bodies. It is rather a paradox to select them and say that only they will be consulted. I have not the slightest doubt they will be consulted among other local government interests, and therefore I ask the noble Lord not to limit the choice of the Minister by saying that he shall only get advice on local government matters from the County Councils Association.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

I rise to ask what is the general intention with regard to this list of consultees that has been put into the Bill. Does it exclude the Minister from consulting any other persons or interests he may wish to consult? Are these the only ones to be consulted, or is it only a list interalia of those he may consult? Surely a Minister in the exercise of his office is free to consult with any one from whom he may get valuable information or advice. I hardly see the necessity of enumerating the list of certain persons whom he may consult, presumably to the exclusion of others. It seems to me to be limiting the scope of the Minister and I think the list might be well left out.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I think it is of the nature of a general direction to the Minister, an indication that these are the great interests connected with this matter which he should consult. I think it is no more than that. Obviously it does not prevent him from consulting others, because the Minister may always consult any one he likes.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

After what the noble Viscount has said I shall withdraw the Amendment and put down a more specific Amendment on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved before "and labour," at the end of subsection (1), to insert "agriculture." The noble Lord said: I told the House before what I thought should be done with regard to agriculture, and the noble Viscount said that the place suggested was the wrong place, but it is curious that in these consultees there is no reference to agriculture. Surely he might allow the word "agriculture" to go in and make it quite clear that some representatives of agriculture might be consulted as well as representatives of the factories in town? It is important that this should go in, otherwise agriculture will be left entirely out.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 16, after ("transport") insert ("agriculture").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I have the greatest regard for the interests of agriculture, especially in connection with the supply of electricity, and I am sure my noble friend Lord Bledisloe has the same. I would suggest to the noble Lord that agriculture is not excluded. We are always talking, especially in this House, about agriculture being our greatest industry. Surely you do not exclude agriculture by saying you will consult industry. It is the biggest industry and you must consult it.

EARL BUXTON

On every occasion the Government have referred to the question of agriculture they have said that this Bill will help to a substantial extent our oldest native industry, which is agriculture. My noble friend in his speech also referred to the same matter. It seems to me that as it is one of the great industries of the country and as they have specially picked it out to benefit from this Bill, it is essential that it should be mentioned among the others. As my noble friend behind me has said, if you are going to have a list that is an exclusive list then if you do not mention agriculture you exclude it from being consulted. It seems to me that in the circumstances, and in view of the way the Government have pledged themselves to agriculture, it is important that it should be mentioned.

Incidentally, may I say that I have studied the proposals made in the Bill and I cannot conceive how in any possible way the Bill, as it stands, will help agriculture? It is purely a Bill for generating electricity and only incidentally in this way can it possibly help agriculture, and that is by these transmission cables going through rural districts near the farms, and over places of that sort. Anybody who knows anything about the Bill knows that you cannot tap these lines without enormous expense, as much expense as would result from putting up a small generating station. It is not the cost of generating or the cost of current that prevents electricity being extended to rural districts: it is the cost of distribution and wiring and fitments. I think it is most unfortunate that the spokesmen of the Government have given the impression to the country generally that, to use the words of the Minister of Transport, by lighting up the poultry houses they will get an additional number of eggs and by using the electric milker they will induce the cows to give more milk. There is no truth in that as far as this Bill is concerned. It is about time the Government made some qualification in what they have stated. It seems to me entirely contrary to their policy to leave out the word "agriculture."

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

If the noble Viscount had only put in that the consultees represented industry generally it would be a different matter, but if you look at the words of the clause you see that it says "electricity, commerce, industry, transport, and labour." The general use of the word "industry" in our common parlance relates to the industry of the industrial towns. All I can say it that I have seen representatives of agriculture since last Thursday and they have been profoundly dissatisfied at the absence of any reference to agriculture. If the noble Lord will put in the word "agriculture" it cannot possibly do any harm and it will be a great benefit to those in the country who are looking, I think vainly, for benefits out of this Bill in regard to agriculture.

LORD WITTENHAM

I cannot understand why the Minister does not accept the Amendment at once. It cannot do any harm. I doubt whether it is even redundant. Industry includes agriculture, according to him, but why then do you specify electricity and commerce from all other industries? Your fatal fault is having specified at all. Having once specified you cannot get out of the Amendment to include agriculture by saying that it is included. If you specify electricity, commerce and transport, I cannot conceive why agriculture should not be specified, too.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I must make a protest against the speech of the noble Earl opposite who said that this Bill would do no good for agriculture and would not bring electrical power and light within the reach of agriculture. He rather indicated that the Government's statements on these matters were not closely connected with the truth.

EARL BUXTON

Exaggerated.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I say on the contrary, that it must be, and will be, of great advantage to agriculture. These transmission lines carrying electricity at high power will give an opportunity, without this colossal expense of which my noble friend speaks, to distribute electricity much more freely than is possible now. But there is, I think, some misunderstanding on this point of agriculture. My noble friend asks why we do not include agriculture. May I make this bargain? Supposing I accept my noble friend's Amendment with regard to agriculture, will he abstain from moving that any more bodies be introduced among those whom the Ministry is to consult?—because one does want to limit the persons or interests to be consulted. If my noble friend really thinks that agriculture is not included in the word industry, which I contend, I am quite content to put in the word "agriculture." I do not suppose that in another place they will have any objec- tion and it would give my noble friend the satisfaction of knowing that he has obtained an Amendment.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I willingly accept that because all I want is to have the word "agriculture" included.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert "or a member of His Majesty's Civil Service." The noble Lord said: I put down this Amendment in order to follow out a line of thought which was indicated in another place. It is very important that the Chairman or members of this Board should be absolutely independent, that they should have no pre-conceived notions and be under no tie whatever. I am prepared to put in that, the disqualification should also extend to a member of either House of Parliament. I do not think that a member of the Civil Service, who is pensionable and can be called to account by various Government authorities, should be qualified to be a member of this Board. I trust that the noble Viscount will see his way to accept my Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 21, after ("Parliament") insert ("or a member of His Majesty's Civil Service").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I do not think my noble friend ought to expect me to accept all of his Amendments. I have already accepted one, and I am going to make an appeal to him again. The general idea of the Board is that prominent people of great experience in business or in industry should be appointed as independent persons on this Board. I am bound to say that I do not think that that appointment naturally suggests one of His Majesty's civil servants, and I do not think it is in the least likely that a civil servant would be appointed. I hope we shall not have here again a list of all those persons who are to be excluded, otherwise we shall continue from now until Christmas. Even supposing that a civil servant were appointed, of course he would have to be seconded, and if he became detached from the Civil Service I suppose he would be as independent as anybody else. Supposing that a civil servant was in that detached position would it be right to prohibit the Government in any circumstances from appointing such a person? He might be a man of outstanding position in this matter whom it was most desirable to appoint, and although I do not think it the least likely that a civil servant will be appointed, I ask my noble friend not to add to the list of exclusions by saying that civil servants shall not be appointed.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

When the Bill was introduced there was no disqualification whatever. It was obvious that this might become a very important political matter, and to prevent that the House of Commons voluntarily put in words to say that no member of the Commons House of Parliament might be a member of the Board. We have seen constantly, of late years, members of the Civil Service throwing up their jobs for the time being and going into highly paid jobs in industry, and elsewhere, and then possibly, after a time, reverting to the Civil Service. If these people are intending not to be officials, then it should not be possible for them to revert to the Civil Service.

THE EARL OF MIDLETON

Is it worth the while of the noble Viscount to insist upon resisting this Amendment? He has himself said that he does not think there is any question of appointing a civil servant. Would it not be wiser then to accept the Amendment?

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I should have said that if the noble Viscount wishes me not to press my Amendment I will withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to omit from subsection (3) the words "who is by the terms of his appointment required to devote the whole of his time to the performance of his duties under this Act." The noble Viscount said: I suppose the object of the subsection is to prevent people using their position for personal advantage, and I therefore propose to delete the words which limit the restriction to whole-time members of the Board.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 22, leave out from ("Board") to ("shall") in line 24—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

VISCOUT PEEL

The distinction drawn in the Bill is a very simple one, and I think, possibly, it may commend itself to your Lordships. A distinction is drawn between the Chairman and whole-time members of the Board, and those who are part-time members. As regards whole-time members, they are obliged to sell out all their securities and to have no interest in any electrical company; but as regards part-time members, it is suggested that it would be enough in their case if they disclosed any interests which they may have in any electrical company. It is thought that if you are going to make all the members of the Board sell out any interests which they may have in any electrical company, you may prevent yourselves from appointing men of great knowledge of the subject as part-time members of the Board. If they make a clean breast of any interest which they may have, surely not much harm can be done by their retaining those particular shares. I almost think that to go as far as the noble Lord suggests would be too severe and harsh a suggestion.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

In answer to the noble Viscount, I would draw his attention to page 2, where they are allowed to purchase, too.

VISCOUNT PEEL

They have got to disclose everything they do. Subsection (4) says: Any member of the Board shall, if he is interested in any company with which the Board has or proposes to make any contract, disclose to the Board the fact and nature of his interest, and shall take no part in any deliberation or decision of the Board relating to such contract…

On Question, Amendment negatived.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (3), after "hold," to insert "or over which he has control through a nominee." The noble Viscount said: Things are not always what they seem. Sometimes people buy shares and have them put in the name of a nominee, for good, bad or indifferent reasons. I have simply put down this Amendment to try to make the subsection a little more watertight.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 26, after ("hold") insert ("or over which he has control through a nominee").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think that in principle this represents the intention of the Government. I do not think, however, that the words are suitable, because a man might have control, not through a nominee, but in some other way. If the noble Viscount will withdraw the Amendment, we will endeavour to frame an Amendment on the next stage of the Bill which will meet his point.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (3), after the first "own," to insert "or another's." The noble Lord said: I think this Amendment comes under the same head as that of Lord Bertie, and if the Government will undertake to deal with the point on Report I shall be content. The Government are quite willing to make the clause watertight so that these members may not hold shares for their own benefit or for the benefit of others. It is very important that they should not. They might divest themselves of shares and put them into the name of a wife, or son, or partner. It is important that they should be absolutely independent of any financial influence.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 26, after ("own") insert ("or another's").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think the noble Lord is mistaken. The principle to which I assented is that anybody who has a beneficial interest in shares shall be affected by this clause. The present Amendment would make a man who is a trustee for others, with no benefit, obliged to sell out his shares, or be ineligible for the Chairmanship or for the position of whole-time member of the Board. That is a wholly different thing, and the promise I made would not cover this. Many of us are trustees, sometimes without knowing it, of all kinds of shares for other people.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

It is perfectly open for a trustee to retire.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I want to make the clause watertight in the sense that no person shall be beneficially interested, directly or indirectly, in shares of this kind while he is a whole-time member of the Board. If the Government can achieve that shall be content.

LORD PHILLIMORE

How extraordinary it would be to carry this Amendment! What is a wretched trustee to do who is one of two trustees and holds shares? How is he to sell, and how is he not to sell?

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdraw.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert "and while he holds any such securities he shall take no part in the proceedings of the Board, and shall not vote on any matter dealt with by the Board." The noble Lord said: This really carries the point we have been discussing a little further.

VISCOUNT PEEL

This is a very much stronger point, but I understand the noble Lord wants to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I may have spoken under a misapprehension. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 10, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

These words in the subsection apply to the whole-time members; that is to say, they have to sell out all their shares and interests in electricity companies, and to do so within three months of the time of appointment. Under my noble friend's Amendment during those three months they must sit down and do nothing at all. Surely this Board will take some time to set up, and they cannot do much harm in three months. I think the Amendment goes a great deal beyond the point which the Lord Chancellor made.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

May I put this case? Two of these Commissioners die or disappear, and two more are appointed. We will say that they are selected from the electrical trades, because of their expert knowledge, but for three months they may act as Commissioners while they still hold shares in electrical businesses.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

It is quite possible, with the best intentions, that they may not be able to get rid of their shares. There may be a limited market, or no market at all.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

That really is the answer to this Amendment. The case with which we are dealing refers to people whose shares are left by will, and surely, if that happens, a new member of the Board should have a limited time in which to get rid of the shares.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

Is not the case parallel to that which arises when a Government comes into office? In that case a Minister on appointment resigns his directorships, and if he is interested in a particular Department, he is not expected to concern himself with matters in which his own interests are affected. It is not suggested that the members are dishonest, but while they are interested they should not act. At the same time, after what has been said I will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

had on the Paper an Amendment to add to subsection (3) the words: "Any breach of the conditions contained in this subsection shall render him liable to dismissal or suspension from the Board by the Minister." The noble Viscount said: I think this must be an omission on the part of the Government, for they have not put in any penalty for infraction of this subsection. You will observe in subsection (7) that A person appointed to be the Chairman or to be a member of the Board shall hold office for such term not less than five years nor more than ten years. … You might thus have a person who, when he had been appointed, was either slack in attendance to business, or actually refused to act, and there is nothing to compel the Board to get rid of him.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I think the point is covered by the terms of the appointment, but, if not, I will look into the matter before the Report stage.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I would rather have it in the Bill.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I will look into it.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, at the end of subsection (6), to insert "but the quorum shall be six for the transaction of business." The noble Lord said: Unless I am wrong there is no quorum mentioned in the Bill. Anybody who has experience of boards of directors knows that you must fix a quorum. A Commissioner might be sent to inspect works in the United States, and another might go to Switzerland. There might be only two or three left, and you might come down to a Chairman and one other member. Surely it is advisable to define in the Bill the quorum that is necessary; it is an ordinary act of prudence.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 21, after ("number") insert ("but the quorum shall be six for the transaction of business").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

My noble friend is going in some detail into the methods in which this Board should conduct its business. I suggest to him that this is rather a matter of domestic detail, concerning the regulations that the Board will make. It is a small matter to make statutory. You would say that if the number of members present at any time falls to five then no business can be transacted. I think it should be left to the Board.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I hope my noble friend will adhere to his Amendment. Unless there is a quorum, what might happen? There are to be eight members. Two members might come down and they might call a meeting at such short notice that the other members could not get there. They might pass anything they like, imposing any charges upon the consumer, and indirectly upon the taxpayer. My noble friend has been with me on two boards and I do not think he will contradict me when I say that there is not a single board in this country which has not a quorum. Whether six is the right number or not, I do not know; but that there must be a quorum is, I think, undoubted, and I shall have much pleasure in voting with my noble friend if he goes to a Division.

THE EARL OF MIDLETON

I hope the noble Viscount will not put the House to the trouble of dividing upon this Amendment. It is quite reasonable to ask that there should be a quorum on a matter which concerns millions of public money. And having regard to the fact that there is a considerable amount of uneasiness, which the noble Viscount does not seem to understand, on the part of members of this House with regard to the Bill, I hope he will accept the Amendment.

LORD WITTENHAM

It is quite usual in such businesses to have a quorum, and there ought to be a quorum in this case. Will the noble Viscount accept a lower number?

EARL BUXTON

Considering the nature of this Board and that after it is nominated there will be for five years no Parliamentary control over it, the least we can do is to show that a business of this description ought not to be conducted by one or two members of the Board. I think six, as proposed by the noble Lord, is too large a number, so why not say "four"? You might even put into the Bill that there shall be a quorum or something of the kind, if my noble friend thinks it will not add too much to the detail in the Bill. It seems to me that a quorum is absolutely essential in the circumstances.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

May I remind your Lordships that the quorum of this House is three? I think that the last observation made by the noble Earl opens a door for a decision on this matter. The right thing might be to insert a provision in the Bill that the Board shall make regulations as to quorum and other matters. That, I think, is common form, and if it meets with acceptance we shall be glad to consider the matter before the next stage of the Bill. Certainly this Amendment proposing a quorum of six may make it unworkable, because trifling and informal business might have to be done and it would be impossible to do it unless six out of the eight were present.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

The Lord Chancellor quoted an example, the quorum of your Lordships' House, and I should be quite content with three, though I should prefer four, as a quorum. Just think for a moment of the evil that would come about through not having a quorum. Gerard Lee Bevan had a company in which one person was a quorum and he transacted the business, with results that are well known to your Lordships. This Board ought not to be anything in the nature of a one-man show. Nobody puts trust in a one-man show, and I think the quorum should be the Chairman and three other members.

LORD DANESFORT

I hope my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill will accept the suggestion of three besides the Chairman. If it is important that the board of an ordinary commercial company should have a quorum and that such a provision should be put into every set of Articles of Association, surely in the case of such a Board as this, with its enormous powers and its control over a great number of undertakers throughout the country and the right to spend a great deal of money, we ought to have some quorum prescribed. It is all the more important because, as has already been pointed out in your Lordships' House this Board is responsible to no one and if it should do anything wrong the public, the consumers, and the undertakers will suffer without having any redress by going to a public Department or Parliament. I hope my noble friend in charge of the Bill will see the reason for this Amendment, and if he will accept three members in addition to the Chairman I will support it.

VISCOUNT PEEL

We could not possibly accept any Amendment with three or four and the Chairman, because if the Chairman is ill for two or three months the whole thing will be suspended. It is impossible. Will noble Lords allow me to consider it and bring up an Amendment on Report? It wants a little consideration and I will bring up a clause to deal with it.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Surely it is much better to put the Amendment in now, and if on the Report stage the Government find that they wish to reverse it, let them bring forward a proposal for the purpose. If it is left to the Report stage there may be a different House, and we may find we shall not be able to put it in.

THE LORD OHANOELLOR

I must say that this is quite impracticable. We cannot accept the Amendment as moved to insert six; but we have promised to bring up a quorum clause on Report, and I certainly think noble Lords ought to accept that.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I did not understand that my noble friend was going to bring up a quorum clause; I thought he said something rather different. If he will undertake to bring up a quorum clause on Report I will withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to add the following to subsection (10):— every Order in regard to the closing down of any stations or the erection of any cables, or the purchase of any land, shall be printed and presented to both Houses of Parliament within seven days of such Order being made, if Parliament is sitting, and if Parliament is not sitting then such Order shall be published in at least one London newspaper within seven days in such a form to enable information to be given to the public. The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to ensure that due notice shall be given to the public when Parliament is not sitting as well as when it is in Session. Time is wanted for the consideration of these matters from the point of view of the undertaker, the public, and any other party who is interested. I hope my noble friend will be able to accept the Amendment, and I shall be glad to hear what he has to say regarding it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 8, after ("shown") insert the said new words.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I do not think my noble friend has brought forward any really strong argument for the acceptance of this Amendment. As a matter of fact, if he looks through the Bill, he will see that all the essential matters are dealt with publicly and that most of them are brought before Parliament itself. For instance, land can only be acquired compulsorily by a Special Order which comes before your Lordships' House, and notice has to be given under the existing law with regard to cables. I do not want to go through the whole of them, but my noble friend will find scattered through the Bill where these different points arise ample provision for publicity and for Parliament to express its views regarding them. I hope my noble friend will not insist upon putting into the clause a number of safeguards of this character.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I moved this Amendment because the Ministry of Transport are adepts at concealing what they are going to do and put notices down under the Publications Act. I may recall to the recollection of your Lordships the making of the Uxbridge Road Order, in regard to which notice was given under the Publications Act and urgency was alleged. All I wish to secure is that due and fair notice should be given of any changes which may be necessary.

VISCOUNT PEEL

That will be done.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

General powers and duties of Board.

2.—(1) The Board shall be charged with the duty of supplying electricity to authorised undertakers in accordance with the provisions of this Act, but shall not, save as hereinafter expressly provided, themselves generate electricity, and the Board shall have such further powers and duties as are provided by this Act.

(2) It shall be lawful for the Board to enter into arrangements with any authorised undertakers for the exercise by them on behalf of the Board of any of the powers of the Board under this Act which the Board think can more expediently be exercised locally:

Provided that the Board shall not delegate any of their powers with respect to selected stations without the consent of the owners of those stations.

LORD ASKWITH

had given Notice to move in subsection (2), to leave out "Provided that" and insert: (3) The Board shall endeavour to arrange for the delegation to an association of owners of generating stations within any area for which a scheme has been adopted under this Act (being stations which by virtue of the scheme become selected stations) upon such conditions as they think fit of any of the powers or duties of the Board within that area which they consider can be so delegated without prejudice to the efficient discharge of the general duties of the Board or to the efficient execution of the scheme within the area. (4) … The noble Lord said: I would ask the leave of your Lordships to move the Amendment of which I have given Notice, in an amended form. The parties concerned in it and, as I understand, the Government also, would prefer that it should be turned about so that the Association shall approach the Board with a scheme instead of the Board approaching the Association; and that the powers of the Board should be defined a little more clearly. As redrafted my Amendment would read as follows: (3) Where proposals are made to the Board by any association of owners of generating stations which by virtue of this Act become selected stations within an area for which a scheme has been adopted under this Act for the delegation to the association of any powers and duties of the Board within that area, then, if the Board are satisfied that the association making the proposals is a fit and proper body to carry out those powers and duties, the Board shall comply with the proposals if and so far as they consider it practicable to do so without prejudice to the efficient discharge of the general duties of the Board or to the efficient execution of the scheme within the area, but subject to such conditions as the Board may think fit to impose. This Amendment is very much pressed for by the Federation of British Industries and is supported by the Provincial Electric Supply Committee. The chief object of it is to make quite clear the intent and meaning of this Bill, that it is not to produce a State-managed supply system, but to obtain a more closely knit industry as between the existing undertakers. This is in the nature of a compromise and shows that it is not intended that the industry is to become a State-managed one, but that the real object of the Bill is to knit the existing systems together.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Does the noble Lord still leave out the words "Provided that"?

LORD ASKWITH

Yes.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I will put first the Amendment to read in this way: Page 3, line 20, leave out "Provided that."

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 20, leave out ("Provided that").—(Lord Askwith.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

My noble friend has so very clearly stated this Amendment and the reasons for it that I can really add nothing to what he said. I think it would be a useful Amendment and I am prepared to accept it. I may, however, remind the House that there are certain matters which later in the Bill cannot be delegated. Subject to that, I am willing to accept the Amendment.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

I must draw the attention of the noble Viscount to the circumstance that the drafting will require considerable care because this new clause proposes to impose an obligation upon the Board to delegate. It may be very unsuitable that they should come under such an obligation, particularly as it is at the instance of the owners of generating stations. It might not fit the plan.

VISCOUNT PEEL

Has the noble Viscount got the Amendment?

VISCOUNT HALDANE

Yes.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I think it is entirely within the power of the Board whether they should delegate or whether they should not.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

Yes, but not that they should be compelled.

VISCOUNT PEEL

They must not be compelled.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 20, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Askwith.)

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

had an Amendment on the Paper to move, in the proviso in subsection (2), after "to," to insert "adopting schemes or."

VISCOUNT PEEL

May I state before the noble Lord moves this Amendment that I am quite prepared to accept it, but would he be good enough to move it as an Amendment to the next Amendment standing in my name? I am informed that it is better that it should be done in that way.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

I should be pleased to comply with the noble Viscount's request, but there is one mistake in the wording of my Amendment which ought to read "adopting schemes or to." "I think the word" to "ought to be added. We must make separate the two points of adopting the scheme and the selecting of the stations.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I understand that it would be more convenient if Lord Peel moved his Amendment first and Lord Oranmore and Browne moved his Amendment as an Amendment to Lord Peel's.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I will move my Amendment in the new form, namely, page 3, line 22, after "stations" "insert" nor shall they delegate their power of adopting schemes or fixing a tariff under this Act."

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

I quite agree that the Amendment would be preferable in that form.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Perhaps the noble Viscount would move it in that form and we can dispose of it at once.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 22, after ("stations") insert ("nor shall they delegate their power of adopting schemes or fixing a tariff under this Act").—(Viscount Peel.)

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

Appointment of consultative technical committees.

3.—(1) The Board may appoint one or more consultative technical committees consisting of engineers employed in connection with undertakings comprising generating stations which are by virtue of this Act for the time being selected stations.

(2) A consultative technical committee shall give advice and assistance on such matters as may be referred to the committee by the Board, and for that purpose the committee shall meet from time to time as the Board may determine.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "such matters as may be referred to the Committee by the Board" and insert "all matters in connection with generating stations." The noble Lord said: I put down this Amendment in order that the noble Viscount might give us some information upon the matter with which it deals. It is considered important amongst my electricity friends.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 29, leave out from ("on") to ("and") in line 30 and insert ("all matters in connection with generating stations").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I understood this Amendment as being a limiting Amendment, so that all these personages should be consulted only on matters connected with generating stations. Of course, what we want is that the Board should have an opportunity not only of consulting them about generating stations but about other matters, such as transmission lines, potential loads and subjects of that kind. I hope my noble friend will not tie these learned men down to one subject. I think it is much better that their advice should be sought on other matters.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

If the noble Viscount thinks that would be the effect I will withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4:

Preparation and carrying out of scheme.

4.—(1) The Electricity Commissioners shall, as soon as practicable, prepare and transmit to the Board a scheme or schemes relating to the respective areas specified therein. (b) providing for interconnection, by means of main transmission lines to be constructed or acquired by the Board, of selected stations with one another and with the systems of authorised undertakers:

(2) The Board shall cause every scheme to be published, and shall give public notice of the date (not being less than one month from the date of the notice) by which authorised undertakers and other persons interested may make representations thereon, and the Board, after considering the scheme and such representations, and after holding such inquiries (if any) as they think fit, may adopt the scheme either without modifications, or subject to such modifications as they think fit, and either generally or as respects any part of the area specified in the scheme, and shall publish the scheme as so adopted by them, and where the scheme has been adopted as respect part of the said area it may subsequently be adopted as respects other parts of the area.

(3) As soon as a scheme is so adopted and published either generally or as respects any part of the area specified therein, it shall be the duty of the Board to carry out and give effect to the scheme, or to carry out and give effect to the scheme within the said part of the area, us the case may be:

Provided that if any authorised undertakers on whom obligations are imposed by the scheme consider that the carrying out of those obligations would be prejudicial to them they may, within one month after the publication of the scheme as adopted, by notice in writing, specifying the nature of the complaint and of the relief sought by them, require the Board to refer the matter complained of to the arbitration of a barrister (or in Scotland an advocate) qualified for appointment to judicial office appointed by the Minister of Transport from panels to be set up by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord President of the Court of Session respectively for the purpose, and the Board shall refer the matter accordingly, unless they amend the scheme by relieving the complainants of such obligations as aforesaid, and shall not, pending the determination of the complaint, carry the scheme into effect so far as it affects the complainants.

(4) The arbitrator to whom any such mater is so referred may, in any case in which he thinks it expedient to do so, call in the aid of one or niece qualified assessors and hear the case wholly or partially with the assistance of such assessors, and may, if satisfied as to the justice of the complaint, either order such pecuniary compensation to be made to the complainants as seems equitable in all the circumstances or order the scheme to be amended in such manner as he may direct:

Provided that the arbitrator shall not grant any relief other than pecuniary compensation in any case where the Board certify that the grant of such relief would conflict with the basic principles of the scheme or would prejudicially affect the efficiency of the scheme.

(5) A scheme may from time to time be altered or extended by a scheme made and adopted in like manner and subject to the like right of appeal as the original scheme:

Provided that a generating station included in a scheme as a selected station shall not cease to be a selected station without the consent of the owners thereof.

VISCOUNT FALMOUTH moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), after "lines," to insert "belonging to or to be constructed by authorised undertakers within the area of the scheme or." The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to limit or reduce as much as possible any unnecessary expenditure by the Board. As the Bill stands the scheme submitted has to provide interconnection by means of main transmission lines to be constructed or acquired by the Board. It may well be that there are main and transmission lines already existing in the area and I do not see why those mains should not be used. Even if mains are not already existing, there may very likely be an authorised undertaker existing in the area who would be willing to put down mains in order to carry the current that the Board requires. In view of this fact they may be able to find someone else to do the work. I think the Amendment that I submit would considerably reduce the cost to which the Board would be put in carrying out this interconnection. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 4, after ("lines") insert ("belonging to or to be constructed by authorised undertakers within the area of the scheme or")—(Viscount Falmouth.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

My noble friend wants either the owners of selected stations or some authorised undertaker, I presume, to build these great transmission lines, instead of the Board. I will deal first with the question of lines already existing. In that case no question would arise, because being already built they do not want to be constructed, and the Board has power to take them over if necessary, although I understand that it is not very likely that they will be taken over because there will be a very different kind of cable required. Putting that aside for the moment, I turn to the question of new lines for the transmission of high tension electricity. I do not think it is at all likely that any authorised undertaker would construct those lines. I do not quite see that it would be to his interest to do so. After all, these lines are for the purpose of conducting high tension electricity through areas of country far beyond the area in which a particular undertaker works and they are also for the purpose of interconnecting different areas. Therefore it is a thing really a good deal beyond the scope of an authorised undertaker and I do not see what interest he would have in doing it.

Nor do I understand quite what difference there would be. In the one case a contractor would be employed by the authorised undertaker and as soon as the line was constructed it would be let or handed over in some way to the Board, because the Board must control the high tension mains, or it would be constructed by the Board itself; that is to say, the Board would be the contractor. I should have thought it much simpler, as the Board have to manage the mains, that they themselves should construct them instead of their being constructed by somebody who has no interest in them and, I may say, who would not be so interested in keeping down expenses. Therefore, on the score of economy and of direct rapid business, it is much better to leave the matter as it is.

VISCOUNT FALMOUTH

In view of what the noble Viscount has said I will withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT PEEL moved the following addition to paragraph (b) of subsection (1): "and where the scheme relates to a specified area, for interconnection by means of such lines of the system of the Board in that area with the system of the Board in any other area with respect to which a scheme is then in force or may subsequently be made." The noble Viscount said: This is not much more than a drafting Amendment to make it quite clear that the Board has power to interconnect areas by high tension electric cables.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 7, after ("undertakers") insert the said words.—(Viscount Peel.)

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, after paragraph (b) of subsection (1), to insert the following new paragraph: (c) Providing for transforming stations and transformers on the main transmission lines at intervals of not more than ten miles apart in order to make a supply of electricity available at pressures suitable for use in agriculture and rural industries and for domestic purposes. The noble Lord said: This is a very important Amendment and I hope the Government may see fit to accept it. It is very important, when these great high tension cables are laid possibly for a hundred or more miles in length, say from London to Birmingham and then on to Manchester and on to Leeds and so on, that the villages and smaller places en route should have the oppor- tunity of getting a cheap supply of electricity. If you have to take electricity long distances you must do so at very high voltage. Speaking in general terms, 1,000 volts have to be added for every mile, because the loss from cables charged at high voltage is far greater than from those charged at low voltage. But you cannot use the current at that pressure without what is called the transformer, which transforms this high pressure current into current which can be used for domestic purposes, say 200 or 220 volts or whatever the voltage may be.

Unless we are to have these transformers along these big lines of cable the cables will be quite useless for the countryside. It has been said before in debate, and my noble friend Earl Buxton has pointed out, that a great point has been made by the Government—I hope it will come to pass although I am not very confident—that this scheme is going to do good to the countryside. It is no good running a cable from London to Birmingham, through the villages of Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire and so on, unless there is some means of supplying electricity to the villages. It would be just the same as building a new railway line and having no intermediate stations. The line would be utterly useless to the countryside. It is quite different from the telephone system, and I only mention that because lately a friend of mine said: "Why cannot you be connected to a trunk line when your village happens to be near the trunk line?" That is quite a different matter. You cannot take electricity from these great main lines of transmission without a transformer. It should be the duty of the Board—I think the responsibility is on them as well as on the undertaker—to see that some opportunity of getting cheap electricity is given to the villages.

Take the example of France, where I have had a good deal of knowledge of a hydro-electric scheme. When the current is taken from the mountains to the plains in the case of the War river, which generates for Nice and other places on the Riviera, the intermediate villages have made it a condition that they should have transformers in their villages to supply them with electricity. It is very important that that should be done, and unless there is something in the Bill about it my fear is that the general tendency will be to go only to the industrial centres and leave out the countryside. It is to make that point quite clear that I move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 7, at end insert the said new paragraph—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I do not quarrel in the least with what my noble friend has said. He has put very clearly the point about the methods of transforming electricity, and he showed up his friend who compared electricity to the telephone line in a most effective manner. This Bill, of course, is for the purpose of assisting rural areas as well as town areas. In his Amendment he wishes to lay something down about transformer stations. Under the Bill already the Board have power to put down these transformers, or sub-stations, as I think they are called sometimes. The Act of 1919 gives a definition of transmission lines including transformers. So that part is already provided for.

My noble friend must distinguish between main transmission lines and distribution. The object of this Bill is not so much to distribute as to provide for the possibility of distribution. If the Board is approached by a distributing authority, an authorised undertaker, to put a transformer station at a particular place, they would no doubt do it. Then the authorised undertaker would do the distribution, but you must not call upon the Board to do it, because that is not their business. Their general control is over generation, not over distribution, as I have explained in my speech in the Second Reading debate. Therefore, as they have got the power, I think there is no necessity to give the power twice over. It is obviously one of the objects for which they are constituted. I am sure the noble Lord would not press the Amendment in the form in which it is on the Paper, because it says "not more than ten miles apart". That would be restricting the Board in the details of their business, which I am sure the noble Lord would not wish to do. I quite appreciate his desire to meet the requirements of rural areas, but I submit that those requirements can be met fully by the Bill.

EARL BUXTON

I am afraid I do not understand just where these powers are given at the present moment. We have heard so much of the advantage that this Bill is going to confer on rural districts as well as industrial areas that surely it would be better to have it specifically mentioned in this Pill. As I pointed out a little while ago, the members of the Government and the supporters of the Bill have stressed very much the advantage it would be to the rural districts, and I ventured to point out that the cost of transformer stations is so high that if the rural districts have to meet the expense there would be no advantage to them from the Bill itself.

I hope that it is quite clear that they have this power. I gather that the noble Viscount does not desire to dissent from the view of my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, but that he thinks that it is already provided for in the Bill.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I have just found the definition. The expression "main transmission lines"—and my noble friend will observe that this is the phrase used in this Bill— means all extra high-pressure cables and overhead lines …. transmitting electricity from a generation station to any other generating station, or to a substation, together with any step-up and step-down transformers— and so on; I need not read it all.

EARL BUXTON

Where does that come from?

VISCOUNT PEEL

I am reading from the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919. Quite clearly the definition includes these transformers.

EARL BUXTON

I wanted to know the noble Viscount's authority, and he has given it me, but I do not think that the matter is quite clear. Power is undoubtedly given to the Electricity Commissioners to deal with the question of transmission under certain circumstances, and I understand that my noble friend is anxious to make it clear that under this new measure rural districts are to have their share of the advantages of these transmission cables. Unless this is specifically stated, I do not think the Commissioners will find themselves bound in any particular case to provide for the cost—and it will be very considerable— of these transmission stations. I agree with the noble Viscount that the words "ten miles" are unsuitable and limit the clause too much, and if the noble Lord used the words "suitable provision," or something of that sort, it might be better, but I should like to point out that, even if these transmission stations are provided in rural districts, as I hope they will 119, this is unfortunately only a small portion of the cost of bringing electricity to the doors of the farmers. This, however, is an advantage which ought to be given to rural districts, and is going to be given to other parts of the country. I think that the Government might accept this Amendment, or something like it, in order to make it clear on the face of the Bill that such is their intention.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

Before the noble Viscount replies, may I put the point once more, perhaps in a different way? We all agree that it is the business of the authorised undertakers to do this, but it will only be human nature and in accordance with experience if they look for an immediate commercial return. A great deal of public money—perhaps over £30,000,000—is to be raised, and surely the country districts should have some of the benefit arising from it. It should not all go to providing electricity for the towns. I think there is a case for insisting that in suitable places—I gladly withdraw the words "ten miles"—it should be obligatory upon the undertakers to provide transformers for that purpose otherwise it is certain that the power will all go to large consumers and factories in the towns and that the country will be left out.

VISCOUNT PEEL

May I remind my noble friends of the general lines of the Bill 7 Under Clause 2 the Board is charged with the duty of supplying electricity to authorised undertakers. Under the general terms of the Bill it can, except in certain cases, supply only to authorised undertakers. It cannot supply to individual persons, whether big consumers in the towns or others, except in certain cases where the ground is not covered and there are no authorised undertakers. The business of distribution is really outside the scope of this Bill. Possibly some noble Lords think that it would be an advantage if the Bill dealt with dis- tribution as well. That is a possible point to make. But, the Bill does not do so.

I have been criticised because the Bill deals with too many things, and now my noble friend wants to extend it and include distribution as well as generation. I am merely pointing out that this is not really the business of the Bill. When the Board is approached by authorised undertakers, they are bound to supply electricity, it is their duty to do so and they will do so, but I think it is a very large change in this Bill to introduce distribution at this stage as well as generation—that is what I understand the noble Lord to desire—and I would ask him to consider that point. As regards the country districts, there is no earthly reason to suppose that the country will be less considered by the Board than the towns. It is their business to provide high tension electricity, and if they bring it through the country the opportunity is surely much greater than it was before, and it is for the authorised undertakers to bring it to the farms and elsewhere.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

This debate rather reminds me of the old debates on the Education Bill when we discussed the difference between "may" and "shall." I understand that this: is a case of "may." Under the definition of intercommunication cables the Board may, if they choose, set up transformers; but am I to understand that they are not obliged to do so unless they think fit? This Amendment, in effect, asks that if a district council or some other body undertakes to be an authorised distributor, these transforming stations should be provided by the Board so as to enable such a body to distribute the current to the farmers in its area.

I can assure my noble friend that the various chambers of agriculture, who meet monthly at the Central Chamber, have formed expectations—possibly false expectations—of the future of this Bill. They have got it into their heads, perhaps by wrongly reading the Bill or, more likely, the speeches in support of the Bill, that there is going to be a great extension of electricity to the farms for chaff-cutting and other purposes. Unless there is some instruction in this clause laying it down that it is the duty of the Board to erect transforming stations for the benefit of rural district councils or other bodies undertaking to supply rural consumers, the Board by failing to erect such sub-stations may deprive rural consumers of the opportunity to obtain cheap current. It seems under the Bill that the Board is free to refuse such substations. I am not quite sure whether that is the case under the Bill as it stands. This Amendment, in effect, says that, where there is a demand for electricity from an authorised distributor, whether in existence or to be created—for clearly, if you are to have electricity distributed, you must create an authorised distributor through the district council or otherwise—where an authorised body is brought into existence, the Electricity Commissioners shall be under some obligation to prepare schemes for dealing with such demand as may arise. I understand that under the Bill as it stands they are to do so only if they think fit.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The answer to the noble Lord is quite clear. The Board, when they have electricity to supply, are bound under Clause 10 of the Bill to supply electricity to authorised undertakers who require it. If for that purpose transforming stations are necessary, then they must provide transforming stations.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

Does that apply only to existing authorised distributors, or also to those who propose to distribute when the current is available? Can a district council say that they will distribute if there is a transformer, and thereupon call for the erection of a transformer in view of their intention to distribute, even if they are not distributing at the moment?

VISCOUNT PEEL

The alternatives are quite simple. If there is an authorised distributor in an area, he has a right to call upon the Board to do it and the Board has to do it. If there is no authorised distributor in the area, then the Board has a right, if it chooses, to supply to individual consumers, but that is only in the last resort.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

I do not think that this quite answers my question. Supposing distributors are prepared to distribute if they can get cheap electricity, is the Board under an obligation to transform in order to enable them to distribute?

VISCOUNT PEEL

I said so. If they call upon the Board to supply them with electricity the Board is bound to do so.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

Even if they are not distributors at the moment when they call upon the Board?

VISCOUNT PEEL

They cannot call upon them, of course, unless they are authorised undertakers, but they can become authorised undertakers. Does the noble Lord suggest that there is a hiatus between the time when they ask to become authorised undertakers and the time when they become authorised undertakers?

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

Let me put a case. Suppose a district council should be prepared to distribute current to farmers but have no distributing mains or other electrical appliances at the moment, but propose if they are assured of cheap current to create a distributing system, can they rely on obtaining current?

VISCOUNT PEEL

Of course they can, but they have got to do the distributing part of it. They have got to put down the distributing cables and so on. All the Board would do would be to make it possible for them to get it. With these great mains running through the country they would, where these people ask them to do it, set up a transforming station so that, instead of getting current at 120,000 or 150,000 volts, they would get it at a voltage suitable for work in that particular area.

EARL BUXTON

The point is that, in certain districts, there are these undertakers that already provide the electricity. They can come upon the new Board to tap these transmission cables, instead of generating themselves and the Board will in ordinary circumstances supply them with electricity instead of their generating themselves. No doubt it will be a great advantage to those districts, but the districts my noble friend has in mind are those where at the present moment there are no under- takers and no distributing stations. Suppose that some body, it may be a private or it may be a municipal body, desires to provide electricity in an area and is prepared to undertake the distribution, because I agree that this Bill does not allow the Board to deal with distribution—

VISCOUNT PEEL

It does not allow it where there is an authorised distributor; it cannot compete.

EARL BUXTON

This body, whether it be private or municipal, is anxious to supply electricity and is prepared to lay down the cables, wire the houses, and incur all the expenses of distribution. Can it, having made up its mind to do that and having anticipated this provision, which will of course be very costly, be certain then that the Board is bound to provide a supply of electricity for the amount of current they require?

VISCOUNT PEEL

I can only read out Clause 10 which seems to me absolutely clear. As soon as the Board notifies that they are in a position to supply electricity, then the Board shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be under an obligation to supply either directly or indirectly to any authorised undertakers in that area or part thereof demanding such a supply such an amount of electricity as they require for their undertaking… Can anything be clearer than that?

EARL BUXTON

Take the very case I have mentioned, that of a municipality, or a district council, or a private individual, who had not yet provided cables and so on, because they cannot do it until they have got the guarantee from the Board: Would they be an authorised undertaking before they had actually carried out the provision of the cables and so on?

VISCOUNT PEEL

I am not quite sure of the exact point where the municipality or company become an authorised undertaking. There is no real difficulty: they can easily become it. What would happen would be that they would come to the Board and say: "We want to put down this system, but we must have this transformer, and you must supply us with electricity from this or that spot." The Board would say: "It is much better to get it from that spot. "The thing would be arranged, they would be the authorised undertakers, and the Board, its business being to supply industry, would do all they could to help them.

LORD ASKWITH

This is an important Amendment, but as it is worded it is not quite clear what my noble friend Lord Montagu wants. As it is worded I do not blame the noble Viscount for opposing it because it gives the authority far more power for direct work than is the object of the Bill. I would suggest that he might bring up an amended form on Report stage instead of our talking at cross purposes now.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

Perhaps I might reconsider this on Report if the noble Viscount will allow me. I might see his officials and himself before then. With regard to Clause 10, the Board are not obliged under Clause 10 to put down mains which would entail an unreasonable expense on the Board. The Board would say to people that they could not supply less than a hundred farms and their mains would pass on to the town beyond and these people would get nothing. That is what is behind my Amendment. I desire that that should be remedied: in other words, that the country should get cheaper electricity. If the noble Lord will allow me, I shall withdraw my Amendment now and put down another on Report, possibly with his concurrence, and he may then accept it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT FALMOUTH moved to add to subsection (2):— as soon as practicable after a scheme has been so adopted and published, either generally or as respects any part of the area specified therein, the Minister of Transport shall embody the scheme in a Provisional Order, and submit the Order to Parliament for confirmation, and no such Order shall be of any force unless and until it is confirmed by Act of Parliament. Any two or more such Orders may be confirmed by the same Act of Parliament. The noble Viscount said: This is an important Amendment. It tries to enable a certain amount of control to be exercised over the Board. As the Bill stands, the Board have power to spend up to £33,000,000 without any supervision by anybody. If they were directors of a company, they would have to face the shareholders, or if they were a local government body, they would have to face ratepayers. This Government Board has nobody to face whatever on this matter. I feel it is most important that a scheme submitted by the Board should be scrutinised by Parliament before it becomes law. There is nothing original in this proposal. Under the 1919 Act, when the joint electricity authorities were set up, those joint electricity authorities, before they can function, have to be sanctioned and confirmed by an Act of Parliament and a scheme put forward by this Board which, after all, will involve an immense amount of public money, should also have the advantage of being scrutinised by Parliament.

There is another point, that anybody who has a grievance or feels he has been unfairly treated, has a somewhat limited opportunity for appeal. As far as I can see from the Bill, the only people who are really taken into consideration are authorised undertakers. There are other bodies concerned as well as authorised undertakers. The consumer is a very important person and he appears to have no opportunity whatever of airing his grievance. I can well conceive that a scheme might be brought forward for a big area in which the consumers would be perfectly convinced that, if the scheme were brought into operation, it would mean not a reduction but an increase in the price of electricity, a thing that many people believe the Bill will mean as it stands to-day. Many consumers, for instance, in a non-standard area, on being told to convert into a standard area in a short time, would feel a serious grievance.

Those of your Lordships who realise the difficulty of changing over in a big workshop will realise the inconvenience it is. A good many of these industrial districts are on a non-standard frequency. In these areas you will find very large motors driving winding machines for collieries and so on. If you change these over it will be a great inconvenience indeed. Many consumers will wonder why it will not be possible, as this Bill is avowedly for interconnection, to interconnect by a machine called a frequency-changer and thus let the districts remain on a on-standard frequency at any rate for a period of years until the change can take place with very little inconvenience to anybody. I hope your Lordships will support me in insisting that these schemes should be placed before Parliament and have the approval of Parliament. It will protect the consumer, and it will protect the public, and also enable Parliamentary institutions to function, which, to use an electrical term, have been rather short circuited by this Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 9, at end, insert the said words.—(Viscount Falmouth.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

My noble friend complained that consumers would be short-circuited by this Bill, but if the Amendment is passed the Bill will certainly be long-circuited. In fact I do not think there would ever be an end to the Bill at all. Parliament has spent months in passing this Bill through, giving these people powers, and then when they have made a scheme the whole thing is to come up before Parliament and be discussed again. I am bound to say I think your Lordships would be very weary of anything of that kind. I must remind my noble friend, as I said in moving the Second Reading, that the time factor has to be considered as well as others. You passed the Bill on its Second Reading unanimously, and I urge your Lordships not to clog the measure with unworkable provisions when the really important thing is to set the business to work as soon as possible. My noble friend said there was no opportunity for consumers and others to express their views on the subject. My noble friend has not studied the Bill. If he will look at subsection (2) of Clause 4 he will see that when the scheme is published both authorised undertakers and other persons, which includes, of course, consumers, have ample opportunity of stating their whole case before the scheme is adopted.

Must these consumers come to Parliament and state at immense length their whole case again? It is an administrative question, and not one which should be dealt with in a legislative House. Of course at all these public inquiries, again and again, objections are to be heard after a scheme has been published, and then a right of appeal arises. I should have thought that really there was enough safeguard and delay in the Bill as it stands already. Moreover, the really essential matters do come before Parliament under certain Orders, such as the acquisition of land, the power to build new stations, &c. All important matters already come before Parliament, and, as I have said, a full opportunity is given for publicity and discussion, and for consumers and others to make their voices heard. Really I think it is unnecessary to bring these schemes before Parliament and to go the weary round over again. At any rate, I hope that it will be the duty of some other Minister than myself to have the task of discussing them, should they come up again.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

Not only has the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, said what is true, but the amount of legal costs entailed would be very oppressive, and I hope the Amendment will not be accepted.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

My noble friend Lord Peel has said that there is an appeal. It may be that he knows the Bill better than I do, but I cannot see where there is an appeal except in the case of authorised undertakers. Authorised undertakers have an appeal to the arbitration of a barrister appointed by the Minister of Transport. That, as far as I can see, is the only appeal allowed under the Bill. The consumer has no appeal at all, because the consumer is not an authorised undertaker. It may be true that this particular Amendment might be modified, so as to provide that there shall be a Resolution in both Houses of Parliament, and in that way avoid the amount of time taken up by a Provisional Order. As far as I know the noble and learned Viscount opposite is wrong if he says that Provisional Orders are very expensive. I thought that they were instituted because they were cheap.

I would point out to my noble friend that he is setting up a Board which may be appointed for ten years, and which is to have enormous powers, and there is to be no appeal from the Board, except, so far as I can see, in the case of authorised undertakers. Surely it is not wise to give such powers to any body of men whose names we do not know—we have never been told who they are, although demands were made for their names in another place. It is a very unusual thing, and I cannot call to mind any other case, where people were to be appointed, where their names have not been given before the Bill passes. In this case no names have been given, and we know from my noble friend that the Government are to have no power over those appointed. Therefore these eight men, for ten years, if the Minister of Transport chooses to appoint them, can do whatever they choose and may, in fact, cause great hardships and inconveniences to a great number of people in this country. In those circumstances my noble friend Lord Falmouth suggests that there should be some sort of appeal, or some sort of tribunal to whom the consumer and people interested might appeal. Whether this is the best form of tribunal I do not know, but that there will be some sort of tribunal I feel certain. Can the Government give any promise that they will consider an appeal tribunal on Report?

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

May I make an appeal to the noble Viscount? I have much sympathy with the view put forward by the noble Viscount who moved the Amendment, that Parliament should have as far as possible control over the many important matters which arise under this Bill, but I quite see that it would be impossible in every case to have an Act of Parliament to consider the scheme. But there is provision made for Parliament to have an opportunity of considering certain matters, and rejecting them if it sees fit. This does not even require an Affirmatory Motion on the part of either House. The proviso at the top of page 7 of the Bill, relating to subsection (2) of Clause 5, could also be inserted on the Report Stage instead of the Amendment which has been proposed by Viscount Falmouth. I do not know whether that would satisfy the noble Viscount, but it would certainly make me much more comfortable as to the possible results of the large powers which are given by this Bill.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not think it is possible to give the promise that has been asked for. The Bill provides for important schemes of the nature described—schemes for acquiring stations, for building new stations, for amendment of the tariff, and other matters—to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, but to provide that every scheme, small or great, should come before Parliament would really mean to introduce great obstruction and delay in the execution of the powers conferred by the Act.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to omit from the proviso in subsection (3) the words "Minister of Transport from panels to be set up by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord President of the Court of Session respectively for the purpose," and to insert "Lord Chancellor after consultation with the President of the Court of Session." The noble Lord said: I do not know that the Minister of Transport is so well qualified as the Lord Chancellor to appoint an arbitrator, because it is a legal matter.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 25, leave out from ("the") to ("and") in line 28, and insert the said words.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

LORD DANESFORT

The position of an arbitrator under this clause is a very important one, and the question will arise in a later clause under which a barrister is to be selected, charged with most important duties involving questions that may be of very great moment to the authorised undertakers, and, incidentally, to the public. Therefore I think there is great force in what the noble Lord says. The Minister of Transport knows nothing about barristers. Perhaps he might consult some. I presume he would, but it is not his function to know about judicially-minded barristers; whereas the Lord Chancellor has every opportunity of knowing, and no doubt does know if I were an authorised undertaker I should have very much more confidence in an arbitrator appointed by the Lord Chancellor, after consultation with the Lord President of the Court of Session, than in a barrister appointed by the Minister of Transport.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I do not think my noble friend has quite read the Bill, because the arbitrators are to be qualified for judicial office and to be appointed by the Minister of Transport from panels to be set up by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord President of the Court of Session respectively for this purpose. All that the Minister of Transport has to do, after the panels are so set up, is to say which of the barristers shall do the work. Surely that does away with the whole objection of my noble friend. And when Lord Montagu lays it down that the Lord Chancellor must consult the Lord President of the Court of Session on the appointment of an arbitrator in every English case, why, it would break up the Union between the two countries!

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

Surely if the Lord Chancellor can select the panels he can select the barristers themselves. However, I will not put the House to the trouble of a Division.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT PEEL moved, near the end of the proviso in subsection (3), after "complaint", to insert "unless the complaint is one with respect to which no relief other than pecuniary compensation can be awarded." The noble Viscount said: This is not a very important Amendment. All that it means is that where the compensation to be awarded is only in money there is no reason why the scheme should be held up. The scheme shall go on, and the money will be paid. Of course, it might take some time to find out how much money would have to be paid, but it ought not to affect the scheme.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 32, after ("complaint") insert the said words—(Viscount Peel.)

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

Existing selected stations.

(2) If the owners of any, such station are unwilling to enter into or fail to carry out any such arrangements to the satisfaction of the Board, the Minister of Transport may by order empower any authorised undertakers or other company or person approved by the Board, or, failing such authorised undertakers company or person, the Board, to acquire the generating station at a price to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act, but where the generating station is situate in an electricity district for which a joint electricity authority has been constituted that authority shall be given first opportunity to acquire the station, and on payment or tender of such price the Minister of Transport may make an order vesting the generating station in the authorised undertakers, company or person, or the Board:

Provided that an order under this subsection authorising the acquisition of a generating station shall not come into force until it has been laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than thirty days on which that House has sat and if either House of Parliament before the expiration of that period presents an address to His Majesty no further proceedings shall be taken thereon.

(3) Where the Board acquire a generating station under this section, they may carry out such extensions or alterations thereof as are required by the scheme or as they think fit, and may either operate it themselves or make arrangements with any authorised undertakers or other company or person to operate it:

Provided that the Board shall not themselves operate such a generating station unless they satisfy the Electricity Commissioners that they are unable to enter into an arrangement with any authorised undertakers or other company or person to operate it on reasonable terms, and where the generating station is situate in an electricity district for which a joint electricity authority has been constituted, the Board shall first endeavour to enter into arrangements with that authority to operate the station.

VISCOUNT FALMOUTH moved, in subsection (2), to leave out the words: "but where the generating station is situate in an electricity district for which a joint electricity authority has been constituted that authority shall be given first opportunity to acquire the station." The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to put other authorised undertakers on the same footing as a joint electricity authority. It is difficult to see why a joint electricity authority should have been specially selected in this instance to have the first opportunity of supplying an authorised undertaker in an area, which area might happen to be in the area of a power company.

The power companies have been given by Parliament certain rights, and from time to time these rights have been taken account of in different Acts passed since the power companies were set up. In the 1919 Act and in the 1922 Act the position of the power companies was fully appreciated and safeguarded. This Bill, on the other hand, appears rather to neglect what has already been done in connection with safeguarding the position of the power companies, and seeks to put the joint electricity authority in the area of the power company above the position of the power company. A very large number of people have put their money into these concerns on the understanding that their rights would be maintained by Parliament, and I feel that this clause very injuriously affects those rights.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 39, leave out from ("Act") to ("and") in line 43.—(Viscount Falmouth.)

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

I have a similar Amendment on Clause 6, and it is evident that if the Amendment of the noble Viscount is not carried now it is unlikely that I shall succeed with mine, so it is better for me to say what I have to say on this Amendment. I confess that I am no friend of the joint electricity authorities. I have Amendments further down the Paper seeking to do away with them in the future as being unnecessary under the new scheme, but I should like to say two things without going into that point, which will be raised later on.

In the first place, those authorities have not been a success. There are only three in the whole country. In the 1919 Act the Commissioners were given power to form these joint authorities all over the country, but they have been singularly unsuccessful in persuading the local undertakers to agree with them. Consequently it does seem unreasonable that in the present Bill they should always have to be consulted before any other undertaker. After all, this must fetter very much the discretion of the Board. It is desirable to get the best men possible on that Board, and does my noble friend in charge of the Bill think it will be as easy to persuade men of that standing to become members of the Board if they find themselves hampered and fettered in this way, and obliged to turn to these joint authorities before going to other people who, in their opinion, may be more suitable for carrying out the work which they wish to be carried out?

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I have a later Amendment which is practically consequential on this, and therefore I think it would save time if we took the discussion now and not on the other Amendment. May I point out to my noble friend Lord Peel that the result of this Amendment is to give increased powers to the Board—which is what I understand he desires—because subsection (2) of Clause 5 reads as follows: If the owners of any such station are unwilling to enter into or fail to carry out any such arrangements to the satisfaction of the Board, the Minister of Transport may by Order empower any authorised undertakers or other company or person approved by the Board, or, failing such authorised undertaker, company, or person, the Board … to do certain things. Therefore, complete freedom is left to the Board to do particular things under certain conditions. Then come words which limit the powers of the Board: … but where the generating station is situate in an electricity district for which a joint electricity authority has been constituted that authority shall"— not "may"— be given first opportunity to acquire the station. Why are those words put in? I have been unable to acquire any certain knowledge as to why those words were put in, but I have heard that they were put in by the Labour Party who were desirous of giving work to local authorities. I do not know whether that is true or not, but perhaps my noble friend knows. In any case I hope that he will accept this Amendment, which is on the lines that he desires and gives complete authority to the Board unhampered by anybody.

LORD DANESFORT

Before my noble friend replies, I should like to ask him why the joint electricity authority should be given a special privilege which is not given to any power company or any other company which supplies electricity? Is there any reason why they should be put in a specially privileged position by the words it is proposed to leave out and should be told that they are to be given the first opportunity of acquiring a station? Supposing the station is in the area of a power company, why should not that power company have the station? Why should the electricity board be given this privilege? There may be an explanation but it does not appear on the face or it.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I gathered from the action of my noble friend Lord Oranmore and Browne that he was not a good friend of the joint electricity authorities and that in some way they had, unfortunately, sustained or incurred his displeasure; because I notice that later on he is moving a series of Amendments to leave out all the clauses dealing with those unfortunate authorities. I am interested in the appeal of my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam, because I have heard a great many complaints from him and some of his friends that here was a Board to which too much power and too much authority was to be given.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Hear, hear!

VISCOUNT PEEL

Now, by some change of front which my noble friend executes so very judiciously and ingeniously, he says: "Why fetter this Board? Why tie it down? Why prevent it from giving this opportunity to anybody it likes? And why tie it to giving the first option to the joint electricity board?"

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

It might be because the noble Viscount has convinced me of the merits of the Board.

VISCOUNT PEEL

It is incredible that I should have convinced my noble friend of that, and I think we will put aside fantastic hypotheses. I am asked by my noble friend Lord Danesfort why this should be done, and the answer, I think, is a simple one. As he says, under Clause 5, in connection with selected stations, when selected stations are to be acquired by the Board it has to see whether it can hand them over to anybody else at the prices arranged. The Bill says that it shall give the first option to the joint electricity authority, and I think the reason is pretty obvious. What are these joint electricity authorities? They are combinations in the particular districts of the power companies and the municipal authorities and, therefore, presumably represent the will of those authorities. Instead of picking out some power company or some of the municipalities and saying: "Will you take over this station?" I should have thought it was the most obvious and natural thing in the world to say to the joint electricity authority: "Will you do it, because you represent all these people and you are the first persons who should say whether you want to do it or not." That is really the whole mischief of the business. My noble friend said, as if it was a sort of charge against the joint electricity authorities, that there are only three of them in the country. If there are only three of them I suppose the damage is less if they are given the option. That, as a matter of fact, is one of the arguments I used in introducing this Bill—that you wanted a Bill with more compulsory powers and not merely persuasion, because as the result of persuasion under the 1919 Act you had only been able to set up, for instance, three joint electricity authorities and four advisory boards. I think I have given a reason why the first option should be given to the joint electricity authority.

EARL RUSSELL

I am not sure that the noble Viscount has satisfied the question that was asked as to why discretion should not be left with this new body. They surely would be best able to say whether it should be offered to a particular authority or somebody else. What is the reason why they are obliged to offer it to this particular authority instead of exercising their descretion?

VISCOUNT PEEL

In answering that I might refer to the point made by my noble friend who laid this provision to the charge of the Labour Party. I am not quite sure who introduced it, but I was going to say—though I have not brought the charge myself and the noble and learned Viscount need not defend himself—that this was unanimously passed in another place, and, therefore, the damage, if damage there is, must be laid to the charge of all Parties and not of one. In answer to what my noble friend says, I think that if after considerable effort you have set up a joint electricity board, which is combined from the power and other companies, it is a fair thing when you are saying to the joint electricity authority: "Take over this station," that the Board should be told—in order, if you like, to keep up the status of a thing like a joint electricity authority—that the joint electricity authority should have, as of right, the first claim to be asked. Otherwise they are in the position of being pushed aside for any one of these power companies or municipal authorities. In the interest of their dignity and representative status, I think it is right that there should be this power in the Bill.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

Not only are the joint electricity authorities large bodies, but they are the only bodies which have a chance of undertaking the distributing for which the Bill does not provide. I think the policy of those who support the Bill must be to support the joint electricity authorities in every way and to hope for the creation of more of them.

EARL RUSSELL

I am still left with this difficulty which I really do not think the noble Viscount has answered. Assuming, as one does, that this Board you are setting up is a competent, wise and fair-minded one, if it is proper in the particular case that a station should be offered to the joint authority, cannot they be trusted to do that themselves? Might there not be circumstances in which it might be desirable that the station should be offered to someone else, and if such circumstances arose in the minds of these competent people that we are asked to trust why should they not exercise their discretion?

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

That is the point I endeavoured to make. My noble friend, who was eulogising this Board and saying that it ought to be trusted with wonderful powers, comes now and says: "There are certain circumstances in which they are to be directed to do certain things." I cannot see why this Board, as the noble Earl opposite says, should not be allowed to exercise their discretion and if they think they should give an opportunity to the joint electricity authority then they can give it. But when they are not ordered to do anything else so far as I can see in the Bill and when everything else is to be left to their unfettered discretion, why should they, in these particular circumstances, be ordered to do a certain thing?

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

My noble friend seemed to talk of the joint authorities as though they were unified bodies. I do not think that has always proved to be the case. On the contrary, I think there are instances where there are power companies which form part of the joint authority but which do not see eye to eye with the majority of it. I think there have been instances (which I propose to deal with later on upon another Amendment) where active differences have occurred between them, and where Bills brought forward by the power companies have been opposed by the joint authority. Even when this joint authority does exist it only exists on the condition that the power companies remain absolute masters in their own house, that they may have what I may term Dominion status and, therefore, they cannot be taken really as viewing the matter in the same way as a joint authority as a whole, though for various reasons of their own they may be members of it.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It really is a matter of policy. This was accepted in another place without any opposition or any Division. I think the view was taken that where there was a joint authority having jurisdiction over a large area and representing or composed of all the power companies and the local authorities together, an authority of that importance was the best authority to be selected for this purpose. Therefore the first duty of the Board should be to see whether that authority would or would not take over the stations.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6:

New selected stations.

6.—(1) The Board may make arrangements with any authorised undertakers in whose area of supply, or in the neighbour hood of whose area of supply, any new generating station required by a scheme is to be situated, for the provision of such station, but where such area of supply is situate in an electricity district for which a joint electricity authority has been constituted, the Board shall first endeavour to enter into arrangements with the authority for the provision of such station.

LORD ASKWITH moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert: Provided that where a new generating station is required in the area of supply of a company which is a London company within the meaning of the London and Home Counties Electricity District Order, 1925, such company shall have the first option of providing such station. The noble Lord said: This clause gives very wide powers indeed to the authority for the provision of a station, and it is necessary that something should be done to protect the existence of the present agreement which was entered into so recently as the year 1925. Under that agreement the London companies are under an obligation to carry out within their area the provisions of a technical scheme which the joint electricity authority has to submit and the Commissioners to approve. It would be against the spirit of the London settlement if the joint electricity authority were to have the first opportunity of putting a new station in an area of a London company, as the London companies are under obligations to carry out within their areas the provisions of the technical scheme which the joint electricity authority has to submit, and the Commissioners to approve.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 35, at end insert the said proviso—(Lord Askwith.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

Under this Amendment, I understand, my noble friend wishes to take away a certain right from the joint electricity authority and give it to one of the companies. In London there is a joint electricity authority and all the London companies are represented on this joint authority. These companies, under the provisions contained in the London and Home Counties Electricity District Order and other Orders, are under an obligation to carry out parts of a technical scheme for the whole district. The technical scheme is one which the joint authority has to submit to the Electricity Commissioners. Of course the companies have an opportunity of objecting it seems to be clear then that the joint authority is the proper body to have the first option of supplying a new station anywhere in that district. In my view the point seems to be very clear.

LORD GAINFORD

I hope the noble Viscount will reconsider his view. Under the 1925 arrangement it was made quite clear that each undertaker in London has the power over its own district. An arrangement was come to by which all the authorities in the London area had special districts allotted to them and they have made definite provisions for meeting all their obligations. They have to submit their obligations to the Electricity Commissioners. Therefore, their obligations go through the sifting of an expert electrical body, and so long as they are prepared to do their work properly it seems to me quite unfair that when an arrangement has been made by all the electrical companies in London among themselves with respect to their particular specified areas they should be interfered with by a joint electricity authority, and that the joint electricity authority should come down and impose what it likes as against the interests of the particular company. Although this is a matter which concerns London exclusively, I think a gross injustice would be done if a joint electricity authority were placed in a super-position over the

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

heads of the independent companies which have particular powers and obligations to Parliament that have been given to them in specified areas.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

It is true that London has been dealt with somewhat specially. There are a number of London Acts which regulate the position of the companies, but it is very undesirable that they should be carried further than is necessary. You have the joint electricity authority for London, and if you are to keep anything like uniformity in the scheme of the Bill it is well that you should depart as little as possible from the arrangement you have made.

On Question, Whether the said proviso shall be there inserted—

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 78.

CONTENTS.
Bath, M. Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.] Lamington, L.
Winchester, M. Latymer, L.
Biddulph, L. Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Chesterfield, E. Erskine, L. Newton, L.
Morton, E. Fairfax of Cameron, L. Oranmore and Browne, L. (L. Mereworth.)
Gainford, L.
Falmouth, V. Jessel, L. Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)
Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.) Wargrave, L.
Askwith, L. [Teller.]
NOT-CONTENTS.
Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.) Chaplin, V. Glenarthur, L.
Churchill, V. Glentanar, L.
Balfour, E. (L. President.) Haldane, V. Howard of Glossop, L.
Hood, V. Kilmaine, L.
Sutherland, D. Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) Kinnaird, L.
Wellington, D. Lawrence of Kingsgate, L.
Peel, V. Merrivale, L.
Airlie, E. Meston, L.
Beauchamp, E. Ampthill, L. Monk Bretton, L.
Birkenhead, E. Arnold, L. Monson, L.
Buxton, E. Ashfield, L. Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)
Clarendon, E. Ashton of Hyde, L. Muir Mackenzie, L.
Gainsborough, E. Avebury, L. Olivier, L.
Graham, E. (D. Montrose.) Bledisloe, L. Phillimore, L.
Grey, E. Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.) Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Howe, E. St. John of Bletso, L.
Leven and Melville, E. Cottesloe, L. Saltoun, L.
Lovelace, E. Danesfort, L. Sandhurst, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.] Darling, L. Somerleyton, L.
Malmesbury, E. Desart, L. (E. Desart.) Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)
Onslow, E. Desborough, L.
Plymouth, E. [Teller.] Dynevor, L. Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Russell, E. Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)
Spencer, E. Ernle, L. Suffield, L.
Stanhope, E. Faringdon, L. Templemore, L.
Stafford, E. FitzWalter, L. Teynham, L.
Forres, L. Thomson, L.
Bertie of Thame, V. Gage, L. (V. Gage.) Wavertree, L.
Burnham, V. Glanely, L. Wolverton, L.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7:

Obligations and rights of owners of selected stations.

7.—(1) As from such date as may be fixed by the Board, the owners of a selected station shall be under the obligation—

  1. (a) to operate the station so as to generate such quantity of electricity, at such rates of output, and at such times as the Board may direct, and to conduct such operations with due regard to economy and efficiency;
  2. (b) to sell to the Board all electricity generated at the station at such price as is hereinafter mentioned.

(5) The Board shall make to the owners of each selected station monthly payments on account of the net amounts due from the Board to those owners under this section in accordance with estimates made for the purpose, subject to adjustment as soon after the end of the year of account as the actual liability can be ascertained.

(6) If any question between the Board and the owners of a selected station arises under this section, then, if it relates to the cost of production, it shall be determined by an auditor appointed by the Minister of Transport, and in any other case it shall be determined by the Electricity Commissioners:

Provided that, pending the determination of the question by the auditor or Commissioners, the owners of the station shall comply with any requirements which may be made by the Board, and the price at which electricity is to be supplied by or to the owners of the station shall be such as may have been determined by the Board, subject to such subsequent adjustment as may be necessary to give effect to the decision of the auditor.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), after "electricity", to insert "as may be required by the Board for the purposes of the scheme in addition to the electricity required by the owners for the purposes of their undertaking or business". The noble Lord said: If my Amendment is agreed to the clause will then read: As from such date as may be fixed by the Board, the owners of a selected station shall be under the obligation— (a) to operate the station so as to generate such quantity of electricity as may be required by the Board for the purposes of the scheme in addition to the electricity required by the owners for the purposes of their undertaking or business …. This is the first of a series of Amendments, and I shall make my noble friend Viscount Peel happy by saying that if he rejects this one I shall not move the other Amendments afterwards. The object of this Amendment is to allow a selected station to provide electricity for its own customers.

As the Bill stands now the owner of a selected station is entirely under the control of the Board as to the quantity of electricity to be generated, the rates and times of output, and he is required to sell the whole output to the Board and then buy back from the Board the electricity required for his own undertaking. Under the Bill the owner may not even be allowed to generate at his selected station all the electricity required for his own needs. I think it is clear that this is an extremely awkward business arrangement. It establishes a dual control and it might prevent selected stations which had entered into an agreement to supply electricity to certain people prior to the passing of this Bill from being able to do so because the Board might, under the powers given to them, restrict the quantity of electricity that the selected station could supply. The result of the Amendment would be to leave the selected station free from the control of the Board as regards its own consumers while giving the Board power to compel it to supply to the Board such amount of electricity as might be required for the Board's scheme. Accordingly the schemes which the Board are to undertake would not be interfered with, and all that the Amendment would do would be to abolish the dual control and to allow the selected station to be to a certain extent master in its own area.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 15, after ("electricity") insert ("as may be required by the Board for the purposes of the scheme in addition to the electricity required by the owners for the purposes of their undertaking or business").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

Your Lordships are aware that the whole principle on which this Bill is founded is that of the control of generation by the Board and, with a view to controlling generation, one of its functions is to purchase the whole of the electricity supply at the selected stations. It also has the duty of deciding which selected station shall work on three shifts, which on two, on one, with peak load, with base load and so on. The Amendment of my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam traverses the whole basis on which the Bill is founded. It is, in fact, a Second Reading objection, and is just as effective a rejection of this Bill as if your Lordships had rejected it on the Second Reading.

I will not go through all the objections to the proposal of my noble friend, but I will take one to show that it is not practicable. He suggests that these selected stations, after supplying their own needs, should generate a certain amount of electricity which should be taken by the Board. That is impracticable and I do not think that my noble friend has envisaged what the production of electricity really is. He is really thinking of a brewery company—I take that just as an illustration. A brewery company can, of course, make so many barrels of beer and can stock them in a warehouse and, when it is asked for the beer by some superior authority, it can deliver these barrels. But it is not the same with the production of electricity, because production on this large scale means that the electricity must be taken at the time of its generation. The station has its base loads and its peak loads. Supposing the authority comes down upon a station and says that it must live up to its promises and supply them with electricity: the station will reply that this cannot be done because the demand comes at the very time when their peak load is on. They can do it when their base load is running but they cannot do it at that time. The whole scheme will fall to the ground. My noble friend will have observed that the electricity is to be supplied at such times as the Board may direct. That makes another difficulty.

Another point is that, while these different stations go on producing electricity, the necessary power of the Board is not only to tell one station to produce more electricity but to order another to produce less. Accordingly this proposal cuts through the whole scheme of the Bill, the object of which is that electricity shall be generated at the cheapest possible price and at the most efficient stations; and this will be made impossible by the suggestion of my noble friend. That is a great objection to the proposal, but there is a minor objection. By this Amendment these stations would avoid the necessity of paying the expenses of the Board, because they would contribute only on the particular amount of electricity which they sold to the Board and not on their whole product, and they would get the whole benefit themselves, in dealing with their consumers, of the bigger load which would be due to the action of the Board. I think that I have said enough to show that the whole object of the Bill would be defeated by my noble friend's proposal. I am very glad that he intimated that if this Amendment is defeated he does not propose to move the other Amendments relating to this clause.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Perhaps I was foolish to say that I would not move the other Amendments. If I had not said so perhaps my noble friend would have accepted this one. He says that this would be an advantage to certain selected stations, because they would avoid paying the expenses of the Board and thus it would be a gain to the consumer. I thought that the whole object of the Bill was to allow the consumer to get something cheaply, but apparently that is not so.

VISCOUNT PEEL

It would fall upon the other consumers.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

That may be so. I cannot follow my noble friend in all his engineering statements because I am not an engineer and I do not profess to understand electricity, but this Amendment was given to me by electrical people who attach very great importance to it. I may add that I sincerely hope that my noble friend does not intend to bring in a Bill to deal with beer in the same way as this Bill deals with electricity.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

VISCOUNT PEEL moved, at the beginning of subsection (5), to insert: Where the price to be paid for electricity by or to the Board is to be calculated in accordance with this section, the amount to be paid by or to the Board for a supply in any year shall be ascertained as soon as practicable after the end of the year of account, but". The noble Viscount said: This drafting Amendment is an addition to the present subsection (5) and makes it clear that the price is not to be ascertained until the end of the year of account.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 9, at the beginning insert the said words.—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in the proviso in subsection (6), after "be" ["may be made by the Board"] to insert "lawfully." The noble Lord said: I understand that my noble friend is going to accept this Amendment. If so, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 25, after ("be") insert ("lawfully").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

My noble friend has not advanced any very strong arguments in favour of this Amendment.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

That is because I do not wish to waste time. I have always been brought up to understand that if the Government accepts an Amendment the best thing to do is to say nothing.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I have very much pleasure in accepting the Amendment moved by my noble friend. I think it is a very sound and wise one.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOTNT PEEL

My next Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 25, leave out from ("Board")—to end of the subsection.—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:

Construction and acquisition of main transmission lines.

8.—(1) As soon as may be after a scheme under this Act has been adopted as respects any area or part of an area, the Board shall construct and lay down the main transmission lines required for the interconnection of selected stations with one another and with the systems of authorised undertakers in accordance with the scheme so far as it relates to that area or part of an area.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to add to subsection (1):— and such transforming stations and transformers along the route of the main transmission lines at intervals not greater than ten miles apart as may be required to provide a supply of electricity at pressures suitable for use in agriculture and rural industries and far domestic purposes.

The noble Lord said: This is really a repetition in this place of what I moved before, but in a more suitable place. Perhaps the noble Viscount can tell me what is the bearing on the charge to these small centres of subsection (2) of Clause 10. Are we to understand that, if there is a loss on the supply, the undertakers will not supply at all, and the Board will not supply at all? That is a great injury to country districts.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 2, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

It seems to me that this Amendment does fall with the Amendment previously moved by my noble friend.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 agreed to.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 8:—

Scheme for supply of electricity to road vehicles.

".The Electricity Commissioners shall prepare a scheme or schemes in consultation with the Minister of Transport for the supply of electricity in each area in which the main transmission lines of the Board are situated at convenient roadside stations not more than ten miles apart for use in electrically propelled road vehicles, and shall transmit the scheme or schemes to the Board, and the provisions of Section four of this Act with respect to the adoption, publication and carrying out of a scheme by the Board shall apply to every scheme prepared under this section."

The noble Lord said: This is a different point. There is a difficulty about the supply of electricity for road vehicles. I know in America and in France of places where provision is now made for some distance outside towns for these vehicles. Batteries of certain types are kept already charged at the station and electrically propelled vehicles can pick them up on the way as they are going about their business. It ought to be possible to supply fully-charged batteries and accumulators to electrically-propelled vehicles in exactly the same way that petrol pumps provide petrol. For certain purposes the electrically-propelled vehicle is the most efficient vehicle for distribution, and arrangements should be made for these vehicles to pick up their supplies in exactly the same way that petrol vehicles are filled up with petrol. There should be depots for the electrically-propelled vehicle. I shall not, however, say any more until after the noble Viscount has spoken.

Amendment moved— After Clause 8 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

Really this is another case of the same principle of distribution to which I referred before. It should be left to the distributors. It cannot be done by the Board. They are carrying this electricity at 150,000 volts pressure and to transform it down to the amounts to be used by these motors would be a very expensive task indeed, and could quite well be done by the authorized distributors whose business it is. My noble friend should make his very valuable suggestion to the authorised distributors.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9:

Standardisation of frequency.

(3) The Board shall be entitled to be repaid by the Electricity Commissioners in each year the sums required to meet the interest and sinking fund charges in respect of money so borrowed, and the payment of such stuns shall be treated as part of the expenses of the Electricity Commissioners, but shall be shown as a separate item in their accounts and in their demand notes for contributions towards their expenses:

Provided that the apportionment of the expenses of the Electricity Commissioners under this subsection, instead of being made in accordance with section seven of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922, shall be made on the basis of the revenue received from the sale of electricity other than electricity sold in bulk to authorised undertakers.

VISCOUNT FALMOUTH moved, in subsection (3), after "borrowed," to insert "and the sums (if any) applied out of revenue in paying any such expenses as are mentioned in subsection (1) of this section." The noble Lord said: This is quite a simple Amendment. There appears to be no provision for the fact that some of the revenue might be thus spent and so I propose to insert these words. I hope the noble Viscount will accept them.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 12, after ("borrowed") insert ("and the sums (if any) applied out of revenue in paying any such expenses as are mentioned in subsection (1) of this section").—(Viscount Falmouth.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I am advised that no such Amendment is necessary, because no money should be or will be applied out of revenue for such purposes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD GAINFORD moved, in the proviso in subsection (3), after "revenue," to insert "less operating expenses." The noble Lord said: I am moving this Amendment which stands in the name of Lord Askwith. It is an Amendment that is necessary on equitable grounds. It is necessary that the net revenue should be obtained annually. I understand that in another place it was rejected on Report stage because it was not possible to obtain figures of gross revenue for a calendar year. The Amendment now suggests that it should not be for gross revenue, but that it should be less operating costs. It is suggested that the objection, which was previously taken by the Government, that it was not possible to obtain the net revenue, because the general date on which the year ends is March 31 in the case of local authorities, and December 31 for most companies, has been met and that operating costs would prove equitable all round if it was added to the net revenue. Instead of urging that gross revenue should be taken, this Amendment would meet the justice of the case by excluding the operating costs, which accountants could easily take out, and which would be applicable for the calendar years.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 21, after ("revenue") insert ("less operating expenses").—(Lord Gainford.)

LORD ASKWITH

I beg to thank my noble friend for having in my absence very clearly put the point I should have put. I understand that these operating costs could be got out very easily. It would meet the point that, if the net expenses had to be brought out, it would have to be at different times because of the different dates involved, March 31 in some cases, December 31 in others and September 29 in others.

VISCOUNT PEEL

This is rather a technical Amendment. I understand there are several objections to it. One is on the ground that the financial years of the different companies do not coincide and there would be great difficulty in making out net operating expenses in certain of the companies. Again, we have got to understand what the operating expenses are. They seem to differ in almost every company. The more serious objection is that the clause excludes revenue from supplies sold in bulk. If this Amendment was accepted you would require computation as to what part of the operating expenses attach to such supplies. I believe that is practically impossible to compute. Therefore, I can only refuse to accept the Amendment on the grounds of impracticability and impossibility, two rather strong grounds.

On Question, Amendment, negatived.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

Before this clause passes I desire to say that I had intended to move an Amendment, but I was too late to hand it in before the Marshalled List of Amendments was printed. Considering the lateness of the hour, I think it would be more convenient if I brought it forward on the Report stage. As a matter of fact the Amendment deals with the financial inequalities which exist, or which apparently will exist among those authorised undertakings which have already applied for an Order from the Commissioners, as compared with those that may hereafter, after the passing of the Act, make alterations under an Order of the Board.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11:

Tariff for electricity supplied directly by Board.

11.— (2) The tariff shall unless otherwise determined by an Order of the Electricity Commissioners be so framed as to include as part of the charge and show separately—

  1. (a) a fixed kilowatt charges component;
  2. (b) a running charges component; and for this purpose the fixed kilowatt charges component and the running charges 930 component shall be ascertained on the like principles as those set forth in the Seventh Schedule to this Act:
Provided that an Order of the Electricity Commissioners under this subsection shall not come into force until it has been laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than thirty days on which that House has sat, and if either House of Parliament before the expiration of that period presents an Address to His Majesty no further proceedings shall be taken thereon. (3) The tariff fixed under this section may, if the Board think fit, he different for different areas.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I beg to move a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 15, lines 12 and 13, leave out ("unless otherwise determined by an order of the Electricity Commissioners").—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD FORBES moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "on the like principles as those set forth in the Seventh Schedule to this Act" and insert "in accordance with such principles as may be approved by the Electricity Commissioners." The noble Lord said: I find in this clause a rigidity with regard to the method of arriving at the tariff which is to be charged to various undertakers which was not, in the intention of the Weir Committee. Therefore, I have put down on the Paper an Amendment to omit the words "on the like principles as those set forth in the Seventh Schedule to this Act, and to substitute the words "in accordance with such principles as may be approved by the Electricity Commissioners." Your Lordships will observe that this does not refer to the tariff but to the running charges component. This running charges component is fixed in a very rigid manner in the schedules of the Bill, and while it is very right and proper that it should be rigidly fixed for the sale of electricity to the selected stations, it is a different thing when you are dealing with authorised undertakers and not with selected stations.

It is quite clear that the schedules are inappropriate in such cases, because there are various differences between the two. The Seventh Schedule lays down, for instance, that the "maximum demand in respect of any month" shall be deemed to be twice the largest number of units of electricity supplied from the generating station during any consecutive thirty minutes in that month. In the case of the authorised undertakers there is no specified generating station. Again, the Seventh Schedule lays it down that the cost of production shall be ascertained in accordance with the Second Schedule, but it will be found that the Second Schedule refers to such things as the sums expended on fuel, oil, water and stores consumed at a given station, but there is no given station with regard to authorised undertakers. The schedule is inapplicable and therefore I much prefer that this rigidity be dispensed with and that the words which I suggest to your Lordships to replace those in the Bill should be adopted by the House.

Amendment moved— Page 15, lines 19 and 20, leave out ("on the like principles as those set forth in the Seventh Schedule to this Act") and insert ("in accordance with such principles as may be approved by the Electricity Commissioners").—(Lord Forres.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I am quite prepared to accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13:

Limitation on price to be charged to owners of selected stations.

13. Where any authorised undertakers, being the owners of an existing generating station which by virtue of this Act becomes a selected station, who take a supply of electricity from the Board prove to the satisfaction of the Electricity Commissioners that the cost of taking that supply from the Board on the terms provided by this Act in any year exceeds the cost which they would have incurred bad this Act not been passed in themselves generating the like quantity of electricity, then the charges by the Board to those undertakers for the supplies of electricity furnished to them shall be so adjusted that the amount charged in that year does not exceed the cost which, in the opinion of the Electricity Commissioners, the undertakers would have incurred in themselves generating the electricity.

VISCOUNT FALMOUTH moved to omit all words after "Commissioners that" and insert:— the aggregate of (1) the cost of taking that supply from the Board on the terms provided by this Act, and (2) the cost properly incurred by those undertakers in generating at any other generating station belonging to them and not being a selected station, any additional quantity of electricity required for the purposes of their undertaking exceeds in any year the cost which they would have incurred had this Act not been passed in themselves generating a total quantity of electricity equal to the sum of (a) the quantity so taken from the Board, and (b) the additional quantity of electricity so generated by them, then the charges by the Board to those undertakers for the electricity supplied by the Board in that year shall be so adjusted that the aggregate of (1) the amount so charged by the Board, and (2) the cost so incurred by the undertakers as aforesaid in generating the said additional quantity of electricity does not exceed the cost which, in the opinion of the Electricity Commissioners, the undertakers would have incurred in themselves generating the said total quantity of electricity.

The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is rather complicated and is intended to meet a particular case. Certain authorised undertakers and large municipalities have got a series of generating stations connecting their power system. It is quite conceivable that under the Bill certain of those stations only will be made selected stations. Those stations which are made selected stations will have to generate electricity according to the orders of the Board. The whole of the system of the several generating stations will be gradually put out of balance, and so one will not be able to assist another. If you are going to throw the whole system out of balance, as you will by making certain of the stations selected stations, you will probably put up the cost of electricity at the other stations. In order to protect the authorised undertakers from the increased cost of electricity which may arise owing to the Board insisting that only certain stations shall be selected stations, I move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 10, leave out from ("that") to the end of the clause, and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Falmouth.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

This Amendment refers to the limitation, in Clause 13, of the price to be charged to owners of selected stations. It is an advantage which is given to selected stations, and the effect of the Amendment is to apply this advantage, or guarantee as it is called, to other than selected stations. The Amendment gives to the owners of selected stations a guarantee not only as regards the supplies which they manufacture themselves at their own selected stations, but also as regards supplies manufactured at their non-selected station. I can to see what reason there is for applying this guarantee to the generation of electricity which is not controlled by the Board. This guarantee applies solely to supplies controlled by the Board and not to supplies outside their control, and I cannot see any reason for giving these other stations such a guarantee.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD ASKWITH moved, after the second "Commissioners," to insert "after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard." The noble Lord said: This is a question of adjustment on this clause. The Commissioners act judicially, and therefore it appears to be only fair that they should give the parties an opportunity of being heard.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 19, after ("Commissioners") insert ("after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard").—(Lord Askwith.)

LORD GAINFORD

Does the noble Viscount propose to accept this Amendment?

VISCOUNT PEEL

No.

LORD GAINFORD

Then I should like to press the reasonable character of it. All this Amendment suggests is that the parties, who have a knowledge of what the cost will be in connection with certain eventualities, should at any rate be heard by the Commissioners. It seems quite reasonable that when people who have no knowledge are given powers arbitrarily to decide, without any evidence, what shall occur, at least the parties who are interested should be allowed to put forward certain reasons why the cost would amount to a certain figure in a certain eventuality. The Amendment is a reasonable one. There is no suggestion that the Commissioners are not an impartial body, but it is only fair that they should give the parties an opportunity of being heard.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think the only objection to this Amendment is that it really is not needed, and might do harm in other cases. It appears to me that where the Commissioners have to decide a matter of this kind, and the parties desire to be heard, they must hear them, and if you say so in this case specifically it will be used as an argument in other cases that no such obligation exists in those cases. I am sure it is better to leave it to the general rule. They are bound to hear the parties.

LORD ASKWITH

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 [Power to close generating stations in, certain events]:

LORD ASKWITH moved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following new subsection:— (5) Where the cost to the undertakers of taking the whole of their supply directly or indirectly from the Board, as provided for in subclause (1) hereof, will be more than the then prevailing cost to those undertakers the Board may come to an arrangement with the undertakers whereby the undertakers agree to take the whole of their supply of electricity from the Board, directly or Indirectly, on condition that the Board agree to repay to the undertakers any expenditure necessarily incurred by them in carrying out a change of their system of supply from a direct current system to an alternating current system, such payment to be provided for by the Board in like manner to the payments made under Clause 9 (1) and (2) hereof.

The noble Lord said: This is to provide for cases where, on the assumption that the Commissioners did not extend or allow an extension of an existing station, or allow a new generating station, the undertakers were most anxious to increase the supply, and then were told that they might have to take current from the Commissioners, which would mean an alternating current, and they might at the very end of their tenure have to alter their lines so as to take alternating, instead of direct current. That would cause very large expense, without any possibility of recoupment. These words are designed with a view to giving some power of allowing payment for that change.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 31, end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Askwith.)

VISCOUNT HALDANE

I think this may be a useful Amendment, and I hope the noble Viscount will consider it. There are a certain number of non-selected stations which are generating direct current, and it is extremely desirable that they should be provided with the means of generating current which is in accordance with the general system, but the burden of that might be heavy. The purpose of the Amendment is to make that easier.

VISCOUNT PEEL

The noble and learned Viscount is perfectly right in saving that there are a number of stations generating direct current, with all their machinery attuned to it, which might have to change to alternating current if they were to take a supply from the Board. My only question is: Who is to pay for it? The two noble Lords who have spoken agree that it ought to be paid for by the Board. But why should the Board have to finance these changes, which, unlike the other changes which are financed by the Board, are mainly for the advantage of the consumers of the particular companies. I understand that as many as fifty of such changes have been made voluntarily in the last few years at the expense of the companies themselves, and, as it is to the advantage of the companies to make this change, it is rather hard to place the cost on the. Board, that is to say, to spread it over other bodies of consumers besides those who get their electricity from this particular company. I should prefer to leave it to the individual company to bear the expense.

LORD ASKWITH

It is very hard on the individual companies to bear the expense where many of these companies are coming to the end of their term. Without the consent of the Board under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, Section 11, no station can be extended or new station erected without the consent of the Commissioners; therefore they are entirely in the hands of the Commissioners, and the method of raising the money is suggested in the Amendment as being the same, that is, payment to be provided for by the Board in like manner to the payment made under Clause 9 (1) (2) of this Bill.

VISCOUNT PEEL

If the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment I will look into the question of the particular case he has mentioned, the case of companies coming to an end.

THE MARQUESS OF WINCHESTER

I think this is a most important Amendment, and I do not notice that spirit of compromise which was promised by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead. I earnestly hope that some serious consideration will be given to this, because it is a very important point.

LORD ASKWITH

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 agreed to.

[The sitting was suspended at eight o'clock and resumed at half-past nine o'clock.]

Powers of authorised undertakers.

16.—(1) Where under this Act the Board is authorised or required to enter into arrangements with authorised undertakers for any purpose, then, notwithstanding anything in any Special Act or Order, or any other instrument regulating the constitution or powers of the undertakers, it shall be lawful for the authorised undertakers, whether a joint electricity authority, a local authority, or a company, to enter into and carry out any such arrangements.

(2) The carrying out of any such arrangements shall be a purpose for which authorised undertakers, being a local authority or a joint electricity authority may borrow under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922.

(3) Where the carrying out of any such arrangement by authorised undertakers, being a company, involves capital expenditure, and owing to limitations on the powers of the company to raise capital the company cannot raise the necessary capital without the authority of an Act of Parliament, the company may submit to the High Court (or in Scotland the Court of Session), a scheme providing for increasing all or any of the existing classes of loan or share capital of the company, or creating new classes of loan or share capital, with such rights, priorities and conditions as may be specified in the scheme; and if the scheme is approved by the Court, then, notwithstanding anything in any special Act affecting the company or the holders of any class of loan or share capital in the company, the additional capital of each class shall form part and rank pari passu with the existing capital of that class, and any new class of capital may with the consent of the majority in value of the holders of any class of security affected rank before any existing class of capital.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: This subsection provides that if a scheme is submitted to the High Court, and the High Court approves the scheme, for providing or increasing any existing charge or share or loan capital, then notwithstanding anything in any special Act affecting the company or the holders of any class of loan or share capital in the company, the additional capital of each class shall form part and rank pari passu with the existing capital of that class, and any new class of capital may with the consent of the majority in value of the holders of any class of security affected rank before any existing class of capital. That, being interpreted, means that where the company has borrowed, say, a million of money as a first charge on certain securities or assets which belong to it, that company may borrow a further million of money on the same security, the security it has already pledged to the people who invested their money in the first £1,000,000, and that notwithstanding that an Act of Parliament has provided that this particular security shall be given to these people.

The effect of that is to create distrust in all the investing classes of the country at a time when it is necessary, if we are ever going to recover our prosperity, that more money should be invested in industry. The only possible object of this would be that the company should be able to borrow a little less cheaply than they would if they observed the bargain which they had entered into. That slight advantage would be more than lost by the insecurity which everybody will feel and which will prevent people investing in securities to which a special asset has been assigned and which has been confirmed by an Act of Parliament.

I have always understood that the best title that could be given was a Parliamentary title. Yet under this subsection we shall render nugatory a Parliamentary title. Many years ago, I remember late one night in another place, a somewhat similar clause to this was introduced in an Irish Railway Bill and, curiously enough, it was supported by the then Conservative Government. I objected and I was told that my objections were quite good but that this particular Irish company could not get the money, or would have to pay a higher rate if they were not allowed to break their contract and to do what is proposed to be done under this clause. It was very late at night, and I divided and was hopelessly beaten. I came to this House, saw the late Lord Avebury and put the facts before him. Lord Avebury said, as I knew he would, that of course such a thing was impossible and he was quite certain that he could get it altered in the House of Lords. He did get it altered in the House of Lords and the Conservative Government of that day accepted the Amendment which your Lordships made. I hope that the same thing will happen again this evening.

I may point out to your Lordships that the acceptance of my Amendment does not in any way interfere with the Bill or with the principle of the Bill. It does not touch the powers of the Board or of the Electricity Commissioners. It does not touch in any kind of way any of the principles which are supposed to give cheap electricity to the country. All it does is to say that a contract entered into under an Act of Parliament remains a contract and is not broken because one of the parties to the bargain thinks he may get a little out of it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 18, lines 15 to 35, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

VISCOUNT HALDANE

The noble Lord opposite has been talking of things that belong to past history. He seems to forget, or not to realise, that in legislation which has been on the Statute Book for a long time joint stock companies are authorised to have their memorandum of association altered—even their memorandum of association. They cannot do it themselves, but they go to a Judge of the Chancery Division in England and to the Court of Sessions in Scotland and there the Judge has power to sanction an alteration of the memorandum. It may involve alterations in the priorities of the stocks. It may be that the undertakers in this case when they are a company cannot get on without that freedom. It is a freedom which, if not incorporated, they would have and it is the doctrine of ultra vires that puts a difficulty in their way. But all that is over. Parliament has determined since the days when the noble Lord recorded his triumph with the assistance of the late Lord Avebury that a joint stock company should have power to alter even its memorandum provided a Judge of the High Court, who sees to these things and sees to justice, sanctions it. Without that power a great many companies to-day would be in great difficulty and it is highly inexpedient that we should refuse to act on the principle to-day.

VISCOUNT PEEL

There is only one observation that I should like to make to my noble friend. From the way he spoke—I do not say he suggested it—one would almost draw the inference that this company was compelled to go before the Court to have a new scheme made. That is not so.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I did not mean that.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I know the noble Lord did not mean it, but I think his words rather suggested it. May I just state in one word how this arises? This company has ex hypothesi accepted the obligation to enlarge its station, to put down more dynamos and plant, and consequently to produce more electricity. Moreover, when it has put down that plant, and when it has produced a greater amount of electricity and thereby increased its load and therefore produced the rest of the electricity at a less price, then all the electricity that it produces is to be bought by the Board. Therefore it has a certain market for all the electricity it produces. Owing to certain limitations it cannot raise the necessary capital without going to Parliament. Now it would in the ordinary course go to Parliament but for this Bill, but it is a very expensive thing to get a Bill through Parliament, so it is given an alternative. It need not take the alternative if it does not like it. It can go to Parliament if it chooses, but if it wants to limit its expenses then, according to this Bill, it submits a scheme to the High Court, providing for certain matters to which my noble friend has alluded, and if the scheme is approved by the Court then, and then only, does it form part of the law of the company. Therefore you have these safeguards. First of all, if it has to borrow any more money there is ample security for it, certain security for it; secondly, it need not take that course: and, thirdly, if it does it is only to be approved by the High Court. In these circumstances I think it is very difficult to see that any harm can be done to anybody.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

The noble and learned Viscount opposite said that already in certain circumstances a company may go to the High Court, or to another Court if it is a Scottish company, and get its articles of association altered.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

Memorandum of association.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Its memorandum of association. I am not quite sure whether that would permit any security which had been pledged to certain creditors being also pledged to other creditors, but presuming it does, may I call his attention to a remark once made by the late Sir Charles Dilke: "Because you have done a wrong thing once don't do it a second time, and because there is a had precedent don't create another." My noble friend Viscount Peel says that there is nothing very much wrong in this because it cannot be done unless the High Court sanctions it, but what you are going to do is to allow the High Court to override an Act of Parliament. I am not a lawyer and I should not like to say that this is an entirely novel proposition, but I should have thought that if it ever had occurred before it must be a very rare thing indeed to allow a Court to override Parliament. I see the Lord Chancellor here and I should like him to inform me whether he can give me a single instance where a Bill has been brought in and passed into law which provides that the High Court can override an Act of Parliament. In my ignorance I have always thought that Parliament was supreme and that anything that it did could only be overridden by itself, and that if it was necessary to override an Act of Parliament then you must introduce another Bill for that purpose.

I really feel that this is much more serious than my noble friend thinks. I venture to say that I have had many years experience in the City. I am quite certain—as certain as I am that this is the House of Lords—that if you pass this clause you will be doing irreparable injury to a class which you wish to encourage and increase, that is, the investing class. I do not want to repeat what I said just now, but I would implore your Lordships to remember that you cannot restore prosperity to this country without capital. Take the case of a trustee who says that he does not want to put his money into the shares of a power company, but into something that is quite safe. He is offered some debentures in an issue of £1,000,000 and that £1,000,000 is secured as a first charge on the assets of the company. He is only getting four per cent. for his money, but that is not what he is looking to; he is looking to the security. Now you are going to say that a Judge of the High Court may put another £1,000,000 in front of that and halve the security on the faith of which that money has been invested. I shall certainly divide the House if I can get a Teller, because I believe that this is one of the most important clauses in the Bill, and it is not a clause that will affect the operation of the Bill in the slightest degree.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My noble friend has asked me whether a provision in an Act of Parliament—probably a Private Act in this case—can be overridden without a further Statute. Of course it cannot; but this is the Statute which, if it is passed, will authorise the Court to increase the capital of a company and to authorise the issue of further capital ranking, not in front of, but rateably with existing capital. It can only rank in front of existing capital—

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Did I say in front? I think I said pari passu. That was what I meant.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

That is what this Act does. It authorises the Court to make the scheme sanctioning the issue of further capital and further capital, of course, for new work, and when the further capital is spent upon

the new work the capital assets will be increased and will bear an increased amount of the share capital. There is a very recent precedent for that. It is to be found in the Railways Act, 1921. I have no doubt that my noble friend is very familiar with that Act, which authorises the passing of a scheme of amalgamation under which any existing classes of loan or share capital of a railway company can be increased under such conditions as may be specified in its scheme. That scheme was sanctioned, not by a Court, but by a special tribunal created by the Act, which is much the same thing. That is a very recent and, I think, a very relevant precedent.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I have not had an opportunity of looking up the point to which the Lord Chancellor refers, but I would point out that this was done by an Act of Parliament. I have never said that an Act of Parliament cannot do it. My second point is that it was done during the amalgamation. For instance, my old company the Great Northern had, I think, £10,000,000 of debentures. It was going to amalgamate with the North Eastern, which probably had something like £30,000,000 of debentures because it was a much larger company. You had to give to these different holders a new debenture and you had to give it to the holders of both the North Eastern and Great Northern. In those circumstances it was absolutely necessary that there should be an alteration in the capital, but that was quite a different thing from this. If I may venture to say so, I do not think that it is a very apt illustration. What is the position of the railways at the present time? As far as I know, they are—I admit partly owing to the coal dispute—in a very bad financial position, and I do not think it was a very good illustration that the Lord Chancellor gave.

On Question, Whether subsection (3) shall stand part of the clause?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 53; Not-contents, 6.

CONTENTS.
Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.) Bath, M. Grey, E.
Leven and Melville, E.
Balfour, E. (L. President.) Airlie, E. Lovelace, E.
Beauchamp, E. Lucan, E. [Teller.]
Sutherland, D. Clarendon, E. Onslow, E.
Wellington, D. Gainsborough, E. Plymouth, E. [Teller.]
Spencer, E. Cottesloe, L. Jessel, L.
Stanhope, E. Danesfort, L. Kilmaine, L.
Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.) Kinnaird, L.
Allendale, V. Desart, L. (E. Desart.) Merrivale, L.
Chaplin, V. Desborough, L. Monk Bretton, L.
Haldane, V. Dynevor, L. Olivier, L.
Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.) Oranmore and Borwne, L. (L. Mereworth.)
Erskine, L.
Peel, V. Farington, L. Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)
Gage, L. (V. Gage.) Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Arnold, L. Glenarthur, L. Stanmore, L.
Biddulph, L. Glentanar, L. Templemore, L.
Bledisloe, L. Hampton, L. Teynham, L.
Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam) Howard of Glossop, L. Thomson, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Winchester, M. Askwith, L. Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.] Wavertree, L.
Falmouth, V. [Teller.]

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD ASKWITH

had given Notice to move to insert the following new subsection at the end of the clause:— (4) Where under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, or under any Order made thereunder, or under any deed of transfer executed in pursuance of powers conferred by any such Order, or under any special or local Act, any right to purchase the whole of any part of the undertaking of any authorised undertakers being a company is vested in a local authority (including a joint electricity authority) the authorised undertakers may at any time within ten years before the date of purchase next occurring after the passing of this Act, or within ten years of any subsequent date of purchase enter into a contract with the local authority to amend, vary or alter the terms of purchase on the next occurring date upon which they may purchase upon conditions to be agreed between the parties with the approval of the Electricity Commissioners, and the terms of such agreement shall be binding upon the parties. The noble Lord said: I propose that this subsection should be inserted at the end of the clause. The object is to provide that where a company are supplying electricity in the area of a local authority, and are approaching the time when the undertaking can be purchased by the authority, the two parties may agree for a modification of the terms of purchase. No objection is taken to this proposal, but precisely the same difficulty will be encountered where one local authority is supplying in the area of another local authority, and the subsection should therefore not be limited to companies. It has been pointed out to me that the words "being a company" in the sixth and seventh lines are superfluous, and I therefore ask leave to omit them and to move the Amendment in that amended form. The Association of Municipal Corporations agree, and I understand that Lord Charnwood, if he had been here, would have signified that agreement.

Amendment moved—

Page 18, line 35, at end insert the following new subsection:— ("(4) Where under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, or under any Order made thereunder, or under any deed of transfer executed in pursuance of powers conferred by any such Order, or under any special or local Act, any right to purchase the whole or any part of the undertaking of any authorised undertakers is vested in a local authority (including a joint electricity authority) the authorised undertakers may at any time within ten years before the date of purchase next occurring after the passing of this Act, or within ten years of any subsequent date of purchase enter into a contract with the local authority to amend, vary or alter the terms of purchase on the next occurring date upon which they may purchase upon conditions to be agreed between the parties with the approval of the Electricity Commissioners, and the terms of such agreement shall be binding, upon the parties.")—(Lord Askwith.)

VISCOUNT HALDANE

This Amendment, like other Amendments moved by the noble Lord, or some of them, is a well-intentioned proposal and there would be much to be said for it if we were living in an unoccupied atmosphere. The difficulty is that in the case particularly of the London companies the terms and period of purchase have been fixed by Statute. That was the result of long controversy over Mr. Chamberlain's original proposals of 1882 and it was arrived at after great discussion. I fear that if we were to accept the pro- posal of the noble Lord we might get into much controversy and much strife with those who fought for the period of purchase of electrical undertakings for public authorities being a fixed one. Could the noble Lord have told us that he had come to some arrangement with these public authorities I should have said there was a good deal to be said for letting people bargain freely. Unfortunately, that is not so, and so far as I know the noble Viscount will get himself into much trouble if he accepts this Amendment.

VISCOUNT PEEL

This clause, as I think the noble Lord is aware, should come as a new clause after Clause 37. It ought to be moved then. Perhaps that would give me an opportunity of considering what the noble and learned Viscount said so that I may be able to come to a conclusion on the point when we reach that clause.

LORD ASKWITH

Do you mean that I should put it down and move it after Clause 37?

VISCOUNT PEEL

I understand the noble Lord can move it when we come to Clause 37

LORD ASKWITH

Then I will move it at that place.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Is it the pleasure of the House that the Amendment should be withdrawn for the present?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16 agreed to.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Clause 18 [Saving for necessity of obtaining certain consents]:

VISCOUNT PEEL moved the following new subsection:— (2) Where an application is made by any authorised undertakers to the Minister of Transport or the Electricity Commissioners for their consent or approval under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, in any case where such consent or approval is by those Acts required, the Minister or Commissioners, in determining whether to give or withhold the consent or approval, shall have regard to the provisions of this Act and the effect of any scheme or proposed scheme thereunder.

The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is a very simple one and is proposed in pursuance, I understand, of a promise made in another place. The effect of it is simply to prevent any conflict between the provisions of the scheme and any subsequent consent of the Minister; so that there might be no discrepancy between them if the Minister is asked to give his consent to a proposal which conflicts with the arrangements of the scheme.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 20, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Peel.)

Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19 agreed to.

Clause 20:

Acquisition of Lind by the Board.

20.—(1) The Board may acquire land or any easements or servitudes or other rights in or over land by agreement, or may be authorised to acquire land or any such right compulsorily, for the purpose of any of their powers and duties under this Act (including the construction of main transmission lines) in like manner as a local authority being authorised undertakers may acquire or be authorised to acquire land under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, for the purpose of a generating station, and those Acts and the Acts incorporated therewith shall apply accordingly; and the Board shall be deemed to be a public authority for the purposes of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919.

(2) Nothing in this section shall authorise the compulsory acquisition by the Board of land held by the owners or lessees of any railway canal, inland navigation, dock, or harbour for the purposes of their undertaking or enable the Board to acquire compulsorily any easement, servitude, or other right in or over such land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of section twenty-two of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and section eleven of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922.

LORD DYNEVOR moved to leave out Clause 20. The noble Lord said: I fully explained my objection to this clause on the Second Reading of this Bill. It was chiefly because it gives power to the Board to purchase land compulsorily for the transmission cables. I pointed out then that full powers exist for crossing land for the purpose under Section 22 of the Electricity Act of 1919, which is not repealed by this Bill. Under that Act there is no purchase of land for that purpose, only a licence, and, therefore, there is no severance of the land. There are many small owners of land who own, perhaps, one field. If the centre of the field is compulsorily purchased in a diagonal line the owner will be left with two isolated pieces of land and will not be able to cross the purchased land. I pointed out that these cables are going straight across country, up hill and down dale, and properties will be severed in all directions. The generating station may send out a dozen transmission lines in the form of a fan. Near the station, I imagine, a wide piece of land would be bought and then, as the fan becomes wider and wider and the cables further apart, isolated tracts would be bought, making terrible severances in all directions.

I have heard it said that, when the railway was projected from St. Petersburg to Moscow, the Tsar was asked where he would like the line to go. He called for a map, a ruler, and a pencil and he drew one straight line from St. Peters-burg to Moscow. That is the power you are giving to this Board. They may want to make a line of cables from Newcastle to Birmingham. They can draw a straight line across country and purchase the land, with the exception that they are not allowed to cross a piece of land where there is already a building, or a garden, or a pleasure ground which would affect the amenity of the house. These powers are too great. I do not want to stop cables from crossing the country, but I want it to be done by the present method of Clause 22 of the Electricity Act of 1919.

I may be told that in moving to leave out the whole of this clause I am also taking away other powers. This is not really so, for, although powers are also sought for the Board compulsorily to purchase land for generating stations, I would point out that that can already be done by the Electric Lighting Act of 1909, Section 1 subsection (1). That Act is incorporated in this Bill, as one may see from Clause 47, so I am not interfering with the purchase of land for generating stations. I also objected on the Second Reading of the Bill to the Board being given the power of a local authority under the Land Acquisition Act of 1919. The Board is neither a local authority nor a Government Department. Viscount Peel laid great stress on the point that the Board is not a Government Department. The Government cannot have it both ways. If the Board is not a Government Department, it should not be given these powers. If the Board is a Government Department then it can safely be said that this Bill is Socialism. If compulsory purchase is taken away out of the Bill then these powers under the Land Acquisition Act are unnecessary for there is no need for these words in the clause. I hope that the arguments which I used on the Second Reading and this evening will have convinced your Lordships that this clause is quite unnecessary.

Amendment moved— Page 20, leave out Clause 20.—(Lord Dynevor.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I can assure my noble friend that this Board is not a Government Department, and it necessarily follows that it is not Socialism. My noble friend says there are certain powers which this clause takes that are not necessary because the Board already has them. I do not think he is quite accurate in that statement. He is quite correct in stating that the Board has power to acquire generating stations without this clause, but, according to the definition of generating stations given in a previous Act. I think the term "generating stations" does not include sub-stations and, therefore, without this clause, the Board would have no power to acquire land compulsorily for substations, and would be placed in a worse position than any other undertaker. That is the first observation I desire to make.

The second is this. Though I listened very carefully to the observations of the noble Lord made on Second Reading and also this evening, I do not think he attached sufficient weight to the numerous safeguards that there are in the clause against any harsh dealing. First of all, every Order for compulsory acquisition comes to the Minister of Transport for confirmation and then it comes to Parliament for confirmation by Resolution. There is complete power in either House to object to the Order and there is a further safeguard in the case of this House. My noble friend will remember the proceedings in relation to Special Orders which were approved by this House this year, or last year, on the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Salisbury. The Orders will further be considered under those proceedings before the Committee. Therefore you have really very great opportunities, especially in this House, of considering all the Special Orders that may be made and of throwing them out.

The third point on which the noble Lord dwelt was: Is it necessary for the purpose of these transmission lines to acquire land? Is it not sufficient to have the power to take compulsorily an easement over the land? I think that was the main point of my noble friend's speech. I was going to make this suggestion to him. If he would be prepared to withdraw his Amendment I would be very glad to consider before Report—he is entitled to put it again then if he chooses—whether it is not possible to attain everything that need be attained for the construction of the lines for the purposes of the scheme by acquiring easements compulsorily and not acquiring the land for those easements. If my noble friend is content with that offer I hope he will withdraw the Amendment and I will be glad to consider that point very carefully.

LORD GAINFORD

May I point out that the expense connected with laying cables is one of the features which have placed this country behind many other countries in the world. In America each State has the power of directing that cables may be laid from point to point irrespective of the particular wishes of the owners of property. In France very similar powers exist to enable cables to be laid. The reason this country is behind other countries in electrical enterprise is the great expense of laying the cables and distributing the power generated. In 1916 I introduced into another place a Bill to enable telephone wires to be erected direct from place to place. I think it was Lord Banbury, who was then also in another place, who objected to the provisions of that Bill until I was able to point out to him that there were certain persons in this country who were absolutely unreasonable and, even in time of war, would not allow wires to pass over their property. The result was a great increase in expenditure to the country in connection with the detour which had to be taken in certain lines of telegraphy. Exactly the same thing has occurred in connection with private enterprise and municipal enterprise in this country in regard to the generation of electricity, and I hope the Government will be very careful not to allow the right of individuals to prevent cables being laid where they are required for the public service.

LORD DANESFORT

There is one point in connection with this Amendment which I think has escaped attention. In order that the Act shall be properly operated we must have not only generating station, but transformer stations, which transform the high voltage in the line by which electricity is conducted into a lower voltage, which is absolutely essential especially in rural areas. I take it he would be the last man to desire that rural areas should not be provided for in this Bill. If this clause, or something like it, is not in the Bill there is, as far as I know, no power for the Board to acquire land on which to put these, transformer stations. Therefore I think that in some form or other this clause is absolutely necessary and I trust my noble friend will consider this point before the Report stage.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I should like to ask for information. What is the position with regard to the main roads in the matter of these lines? Suppose, for instance, a transmission line is to pass alongside the Great North Road. Will it not sterilise the use of that land and the frontage of that road for all time? Does it not affect the value of the land? Does it not prevent development of the adjacent property? It seems to me that unless you have some power to divert this line, say, 100 yards back from the road you are going to spoil the frontages on the main roads. Perhaps the noble Viscount can give me some information.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I was going to give the noble Lord some information on a subsequent Amendment raising this point, but I will give it now if he prefers it. I presume that he refers to new transmission lines. I may say, as regards taking a line along the frontage of a road and cutting off the frontages, that I should have thought the natural interest of the Board would prevent them doing that, because they would not want to pay more than they need for the rights of transmission and if a line goes along the frontage they will clearly have to pay a great deal. I cannot go through all the Acts of Parliament now, but road authorities, I understand, have ample powers to protect themselves already in the case of a line carried along their roads. I do not think that any additional powers need be sought by these authorities, because, as the noble Lord knows very well, undertakers are carrying lines over the country already and I do not think the position will be altered.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I do not think the noble Viscount quite understands my point. I am not talking about the verge of the road. I am talking of the case where the lines are being carried on poles or standards on private land just behind the verge of the road.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I dealt with both those points, first with the case of a line running along the frontage and then with the case of road authorities themselves.

LORD FORRES

This is a matter that came very prominently before both the Williamson Committee and the Weir Committee and it was found in every quarter that impediments to running lines freely over the country were very detrimental to the provision of cheap electricity. I sincerely hope that the Government will net give way in a matter that concerns the benefit of the community as a whole and will not be unduly influenced by the interests of private persons who stand in the way of the Bill.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I am much obliged to the noble Lord, and I did not wish to detract from anything that he has said. The only point that I thought worth considering was whether it was necessary to buy land in all cases, or whether in some cases it would not be enough to take compulsory servitudes. That is the point that I promised to consider. After all, so long as the cables go over the land it does not much matter whether the land is bought or simply used for the purposes of the Act.

LORD DYNEVOR

I must say that I reall do not like leaving this clause in the Bill. I think it is a most dangerous one. But I have listened to my noble friend Lord Peel and I would ask him if he could give me an undertaking—I do not ask for a distinct promise—that if the land is actually purchased there will be no severance and that the owner will be able to pass and repass over the land that has been purchased. I under stand that my noble friend is willing to see me on this question before the Report stage.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

That undertaking could not be given in the case of all the land. If an easement only is taken then my noble friend's object is secured, because there will be nothing but the easement belonging to the Board and the owner will retain the property in his land.

LORD DYNEVOR

If the noble Viscount will allow me to see him before the Report stage I will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20 agreed to.

LORD DYNEVOR moved, after Clause 20, to insert the following new clause:—

Wayleaves.

".—(1) Where any ground below, across or above which any wayleave for an electric line has been granted under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, is required for some purpose other than that for which it was being used at the date of the grant, and the circumstances are such that owing to the wayleave it cannot be so used, then after the expiration of three calendar months' notice in writing given by the owner of the ground to the company or person using the same wayleave, the company or person shall remove the electric line so that the proposed use of the ground shall not be interfered with: provided always that the owner of the ground shall give facilities for the removal and re-erection of the electric line.

(2) Any payment to be made in respect of compensation for damage or the wayleave rentals shall be fixed by an arbitrator agreed upon by the parties interested, and in default of agreement an arbitrator shall be appointed in accordance with the terms of the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is not actually consequential, but I had hoped that my first Amendment deleting Clause 20 would have been carried. Since my noble friend will be discussing the question before the Report stage, I think it would be well if I moved this Amendment in order to explain my meaning. This Amendment is moved in order to enable an alternative route to be made for transmission lines when the owner of the land wants to develop it for building or working minerals, or any other purpose than that for which it is used at the time when the grant was made, and is prevented from doing so because of the wayleave. I have already pointed out how a line of cables crossing a field diagonally would prevent it being laid out for building, and also how a line crossing slate, stone, gravel, sand or coal would prevent its being quarried or dug. It is essential that an alternative route should be available. I may mention that I have already made such an agreement with a company to cross my land with poles and cables. On the Second Reading I pointed out that the officials of the Ministry of Transport had already given me an assurance on the question, so that they are fully alive to the necessity for an alternative route for the cables. This is on the lines of the Amendment that I had hoped to get into the Act of 1922. If the transmission lines can never be altered in their position, then the land will be held up for building purposes and mineral development curtailed. It is most necessary to look forward. Hundreds of miles of cables may be put up along country roads, and it is most desirable that no hasty legislation should be passed which might do infinite harm in the future.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 43, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Dynevor.)

VISCOUNT HALDANE

I do not know whether the noble Lord quite realises what he is proposing. It is to shift compulsorily overhead cables. An overhead cable may cost anything up to £4,000 a mile, sometimes £25,000 a mile. An under- ground cable costs about £10,000 a mile, and this is to be moved for the convenience of the landowner—a convenience which may be exercised in a very disastrous way. It is therefore a very serious proposition and I should be very sorry if the Government did not resist it.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I understood that my noble friend only moved this Amendment for the purpose of stating the effect of it. He was going to discuss with me the whole question which is involved in this. Of course, it goes very far in the form in which it is moved.

LORD DYNEVOR

The noble and learned Viscount opposite evidently does not like the idea of an alternative route for the cables, but I would remind him again that the Minister of Transport had already given me an assurance before that they would put an alternative route into all agreements. Although it may be an expensive matter they themselves realised the necessity. I shall therefore bring the matter up again when I discuss it with my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21 agreed to.

Clause 22 agreed to.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 22:—

Main, transmission lines not to be laid under the carriage-way.

".Where any main transmission line constructed or acquired by the Board is intended to be laid across or along the route of any public road the Board or an authorised undertaker shall not be entitled to lay such transmission line under the metalled carriage-way of the road or to break up the surface thereof for the purpose of constructing or maintaining the transmission line, and the transmission line, so far as it is within the road fences, shall be carried overhead or laid under the grass verge or footpath in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922."

The noble Lord said: Anybody who is concerned with roads, either as a member of a county council or otherwise, knows that the greatest possible damage is always being done to roads and streets by the digging up of the surface for the laying under them of pipes of all descriptions. I can tell your Lordships as an engineer that the permanent effect of this is to destroy the whole surface of the road. There may be an undertaking given to put the road back into the same condition, but very soon—sometimes within a month or two—after it is restored and a certificate of the county council given, the road is found to have become disintegrated by water leaking down. Surely the time has come when the rights of the road user and the principle of maintaining our main roads intact as far as possible should be recognised. A trench cut down the middle of a road not only causes very serious injury, but when you have to repair the cable later a further set of digging operations is started. Those, who live in London know that habitually in London in all our main streets the road is in a constant state of being dug up.

Is it not important in this new system that we should insist, as far as possible, on the cable running down the verge of the road, and not in the middle? The use of roads will probably increase for many years to come, and the course which I suggest is therefore highly desirable. I have the support in this matter of the most distinguished county surveyors and others concerned with our roads, who think that some stand should be made against regarding our highways as places for the putting down of all kinds of pipes. I do appeal to the noble Viscount who represents the Ministry of Transport to realise the great importance of keeping the surface of our roads intact. The road should be treated in these days as a sacred thing dedicated to the use of the citizens of the country and not to be used for all kinds of extraneous purposes.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 21, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

My noble friend in an eloquent passage appealed to me, as representing the Ministry of Transport, to look after the roads of this country. Some noble Lords, I think, have suggested that the Ministry of Transport ought to be done away with altogether but whether that should be done or not no one has ever accused the Ministry of being indifferent to the roads, because after all that is one of the main subjects with which it deals. I have heard some people say that there are too many roads being made by the Ministry, and therefore I do not think the Ministry can be accused of being indifferent to the roads. I think, however, I can relieve my noble friend's mind on one point. He is afraid the roads are to be picked up and these great cables are to be run beneath them. I am advised that that is not so—that these cables will be run overhead. As regards any other point, the road authorities are amply protected already. I do not want to go through the whole series of rights which they have under various Acts, but I do not think there exists the least danger, and I hope my noble friend will leave the road authorities, comfortably placed as they are.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

In this respect the Ministry of Transport is sometimes Dr. Jekyll and sometimes Mr. Hyde—sometimes, in its guise as interested in electricity, it says that the road is nothing and electricity is all, and the next day it says that the road is everything and electricity is nothing. Its two functions of preserving the roads and putting electricity in the most convenient place are two things which conflict. If the Ministry of Transport were only a Road Ministry I should have the greatest possible faith in it, but it has branched out into all kinds of new regions, and I do not trust it in this matter. The Ministry may incline to the electricity side and not the road side, and you may get the roads broken up, and there will be no court of appeal. The Acts mentioned by the noble Viscount are, in my opinion, quite insufficient to protect the roads against being broken up. Many of the roads out of London are at the present time more like graveyards than roads. Therefore I have put down this Amendment. I will not, however, press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 23 to 26 agreed to.

Clause 27:

Power to Treasury to guarantee loans to Board.

27.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Treasury may guarantee in such manner as they think fit, the payment of the interest and principal of any loan proposed to be raised by the Board, or of either the interest or the principal:

Provided that the aggregate amount of the loans, the principal or interest of which may be so guaranteed, shall not exceed thirty-three and a-half million pounds.

(2). Such sums as may from time to time be required by the Treasury for fulfilling any guarantees given under this section shall be charged on and issued out of the consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof.

(3) The repayment to the Treasury of any sums so issued out of the Consolidated Fund, together with interest thereon at such rate as the Treasury may fix, shall be a charge on the undertaking and all the revenues of the Board next after the principal and interest of the guaranteed loan, and any sinking fund payments for the repayment of the principal thereof, and in priority to any other charges not existing at the date on which the loan is raised.

(4) All sums paid from time to time in or towards the repayment of any sum issued out of the Consolidated Fund under this section shall be paid into the Exchequer.

(5) The Treasury shall so long as any such guarantees are in force, lay before both Houses of Parliament in every year within one month after the thirty-first day of March a statement of the guarantees (if any) given during the year ended on that date, and an account up to that date of the total sums (if any) which have been either issued out of the Consolidated Fund under this section or paid in or towards repayment of any money so issued.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 27. The noble Lord said: This is the clause which authorises the Government to guarantee a loan of £33,500,000 or to lend £33,500,000 of the taxpayers' money to a Board over which it has no control. There is no difference between guaranteeing money and lending money. So far as the credit of the country is concerned it is exactly the same thing. The noble Viscount, Lord Peel, has told us that this is not a Government Department. He has told us that more than once, and we know that this Board can be appointed for any period from five to ten years. During that time they will have control of £33,500,000 belonging to the taxpayers and nobody can say anything to them. Does anybody ever lend a large sum of money to someone else on no security and without retaining any control whatever over its expenditure? That is what will happen.

There is no security and no control over the expenditure of this money at a time when the Government ought to be economising in every possible direction and, instead of borrowing money or guaranteeing new loans, endeavouring to reduce loans already in existence, in view Of the fact that in three or four years—I have not the exact figure but I am more or less correct—£300,000,000 in Government loans fall due for repayment. How are those loans to be repaid? They can only be repaid by fresh borrowing. In order to borrow anew you must satisfy investors that they will get good security. For that purpose you must try to induce them to lend at a lower rate, so that there may be a saving and the burden of the debt may be reduced. In order to do that the Government should be careful not to incur fresh obligations of any kind. Yet in five of that they propose to lend or to guarantee £33,500,000 to this Board while not retaining any control over it themselves, according to the Government and its supporters, among whom I presume I must include the noble and learned Viscount opposite, who seems to be ready to come to the rescue of my noble friend Lord Peel whenever he thinks there may be a little hitch in the proceedings.

The result of this will be that the Board will not only have entire control of this money, but when, as is possible, they have embarked on large schemes, what will happen? It is true that under the Bill no larger sum than £33,500,000 can be advanced, but when, as is more than probable, that sum has been practically lost, what will happen I know perfectly well what will happen. A Bill will be introduced in another place to provide another £33,500,000, and this will be the argument in support of it: We have already spent £33,500,000. It has not developed as we thought. It would; but we have only to spend another £33,500,000 and you will see what will happen. If the Bill comes to this House, as I presume it will, and we have any power to say anything, the noble and learned Viscount will point out that there was a precedent five or six years ago, when we advanced this money, and because we advanced it then we have to advance it now.

Then, if this is going to be such a successful scheme, why should the Government advance any money at all? If there are going to be eight able men, business men I presume, understanding finance, who will supply a great and needed want and put this country in the position of other countries to supply an enormous amount of electricity at very advantageous rates to themselves—if all that is going to take place why should the Government interfere at all? Why not let them go to the investing public and point out that here is a great scheme which is going to be an enormous economy—I think my noble friend said it would save £44,000,000 a year—and that here is a fund for them to invest their money in. Why not leave it like that? Why should the Government come in? The only reason for the Government coming in has been already given in another place by the Attorney-General, that if they did not come in nobody else would be fools enough to lend the money. The Attorney-General did not use the word "fools," but that was the meaning of his statement, that if the Government did not get it they could not get the money anywhere else.

I believe my noble friend will not accept my. Amendment, because I believe the Attorney-General is right, that they could not get the money in any other way and that the unfortunate taxpayer will be the person who will lose it. I feel obliged to move the omission of this clause because I believe it is a step in the wrong direction altogether. We ought not to be subsidising industries, whether it be mines or anything else. I hope the Free Traders opposite will support me because this is nothing more or less than a bad form of Protection—namely, subsidy.

Amendment moved— Pages 23 and 24, leave out Clause 27.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

VISCOUNT HALDANE

The noble Lord opposite is really under great delusions. This is not a clause enabling the Treasury to advance £33,000,000. It is a clause of guarantee, and a clause of guarantee with a very definite security. The electricity that is produced at a high rate and sent into a continuous reservoir—namely, the transmission cables—is electricity which will yield a profit to the producer, who will produce it at a much less cost than at the present time and be paid for it enough to let the Board make some profit for themselves from the difference between the two costs. That is a fund on which the Board can build and does build. It will have to borrow a certain amount of money for making the works which will be required to earn these sums and that money it will borrow progressively, very small sums in the earlier days, but when it wants to borrow for that purpose it is a great help for it to go to the public with a Treasury guarantee. It lowers the rate of interest and the Board will be in a position to borrow with this security and with a fund coming in which will pay not only the interest but the sinking fund, and very quickly, in course of time, get rid of the principal of what is borrowed. To say that this is a clause enabling the Treasury to advance £33,000,000 when it is really a clause enabling the Treasury to come to the back of the Board in a series of progressive operations, is to misrepresent totally the scheme of the Bill and I really do not know on what basis the noble Lord's Amendment proceeds.

VISCOUNT PEEL

The noble Lord has raised the question of the guarantee. Obviously the money could only be raised at a higher rate of interest and that would have to be paid, either by the selected stations or by the business itself. The only result would be that the cost of electricity would be higher for distribution and higher for the consumer. As has been to some extent pointed out by the noble Lord opposite, at the commencement of their operations they will have, of course, very few assets on which to borrow money, for two reasons—first of all, because the operations of the Board as a commercial concern are to be as far as possible not to make money but only such margin of money as is necessary to secure them against loss. What have they to do with this money? First, they have to spend £8,500,000 on the standardisation of frequency. But that does not create a fresh asset for them. All that means is that they will be able, as it were, to ensure that more electricity shall be sold under the control of the Board to the authorised undertakers for the benefit of the distributors. What is the other work for which they require the money? The other £25,000,000, or presumably less than that, will be spent on these greatcable transmission lines. But before they are built they are not an asset. They are a prospective asset. They will be built gradually and the whole of the money cannot be borrowed at the same time. It will be borrowed as it is required for the development of this work, which may take a certain number of years. It is obvious that without this guarantee they would have to pay more for their money.

My noble friend takes rather a melancholy view of this money because he seems to think the whole scheme is a failure. He voted for sending the Bill upstairs because, I think, he objected to the Bill. But, after all, the Bill was accepted by this House unanimously on Second Reading because it would produce cheaper electricity. In those circumstances his fear of losing this £33,000,000 of guarantee is to some extent groundless. The only other matter he regrets is that the guarantee should be given at all. I can only say that that is a much larger question of policy which I do not think I could discuss at the present moment. These terms of guarantee are what are known as "trade facilities terms." My noble friend says they ought not to be given. But it is the policy of this Government and of other Governments to give them. Trade facilities terms have been given in Great Britain in a great number of cases, with the result that the money has been borrowed more cheaply than otherwise would have been the case and a great many persons have in consequence been provided with employment.

I do hope the noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment, because unless the State comes in with its guarantee the whole business will be very much hampered. My noble friend says the members of the Board are appointed for five years, and will spend this money. Of course they will not. They retire in rotation, and fresh persons are appointed. It is impossible that all this money could be spent in five years. I think he may trust the Treasury to make good arrangements for the guarantee.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

The noble and learned Viscount, as I understood him, said this was not a loan but was a guarantee. They are exactly the same thing. Though I should never venture to lay down the law to the noble and learned Viscount on a legal question, do on a financial question claim to be nearly as good an authority as he is himself. If he goes to any banker in the City he will find every one agree that a loan and a guarantee are exactly the same thing. They touch the credit of the country. If this is guaranteed there is more stock with the guarantee of the country in existence and the people who take this up will not take up other Government stocks because they will not have the money to do so. Therefore a guarantee and a loan are exactly the same thing so far as the credit of the country is concerned. My noble friend Lord Peel says they would have to pay a higher rate of interest otherwise. Why should they not? Is the taxpayer to advance money to every large undertaking in the country in order that those undertakings may make larger profits at his expense?

My noble friend says that already considerable sums of money have been advanced under the Trade Facilities Act. This Trade Facilities Act was introduced by Mr. Lloyd George, to whom we owe most of our evils, and when he brings forward anything that Mr. Lloyd George has introduced and says that it is a good thing, I am afraid I cannot agree with him. I always protested, when I was a member of the House of Commons, against the Trade Facilities Act, because I always said that if a particular company was going to enter into a good thing it could borrow the money in the City or from private investors, and if it was not a good thing then it was not worth the Government's while to go into it. I am not quite certain—my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong—but I thought the Trade Facilities Act had come to an end. I understood the Government had made up their minds not to lend any more money under the Trade Facilities Act, and here they come and do practically the same thing with regard to this clause. I apologise if I am wrong—but I understood the noble and learned Viscount to say there was going to be some security. There is no security, none at all.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

The Treasury will get it.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

The clause says: Subject to the provisions of this section the Treasury may guarantee in such manner as they think fit the payment of the interest and principal of any loan proposed to be raised by the Board or of either the interest or the principal. It does not say that one of the conditions is that there must be any security. It is quite true that the Treasury might make conditions, but there again I dislike leaving all these things to a Department of the Government. Why on earth not put it in the Bill instead of leaving it to a Government Department? I should hi like, before I withdraw the Amendment, to know whether it is quite impossible for the Government to agree to some measure of control of the expenditure during the five or ten years, as the case may be. I am quite certain my noble friend would not lend any of his money, not one penny, to any person without security and not have any control over him. I do not see why the taxpayer should be in any different position.

LORD DANESFORT

May I make an appeal to the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill on the last point, that the Treasury should be given some control over this expenditure before it is incurred? I think the noble Viscount has proved conclusively that the Board could not conduct its operations at all without getting this Treasury guarantee. That may be true—it is unfortunate, I think, but probably it is true. If it is true, and we have to give this guarantee for these many millions, it is only common sense that in the interests of the taxpayer the Treasury should be able to say: "We are going to guarantee £33,500,000 of the taxpayers' money. On what are you going to spend it?" As far as I understand the Bill, there is not one line in it which would enable the Treasury to ask: "What is the nature of the expenditure? Is it going to be fruitful, is it going to be remunerative, is it going to reduce the price of electricity?" Possibly—I think this point was mentioned earlier in the debate—my noble friend would consider the matter before the Report stage, and consider whether it would not be possible to introduce some element of Treasury control before they are called upon to guarantee these enormous sums of money of which they are the custodians and trustees.

LORD OLIVIER

Usually I am content to be governed by my noble friend behind me, but with regard to these provisions I feel some qualms as expressed by my noble friend Lord Banbury. This is a case in which money is put at the disposal of a public Department—the Ministry of Transport. We have had to guarantee loans before now to Colonies and so on, and in all these cases the Treasury retained a certain power of control on behalf of Parliament. Perhaps that should be a matter for the other House rather than this, but it does appear to me that when you have immense sums placed in the hands of a Government Department there should be some kind Of Treasury control such as is suggested by noble Lords opposite. All this Bill provides is that the Treasury are to lay a statement of the advances authorised and of the expenditure, and in the next clause there is no provision for any accounting except an audit by an auditor provided by the Ministry of Transport. It is not proposed that this should be laid before the Public Accounts Committee or in any way controlled, and all that we can do is to challenge the Ministry of Transport if we are not satisfied.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I do not think that the noble Lord opposite has carefully studied this Bill. He has restated the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, and has asked why the Treasury should not make conditions and stipulations and know how the money is to be spent. Of course they can do so. There is no question about it. Clause 27 says:— Subject to the provisions of this section, the Treasury bay guarantee in such manner as they think fit, the payment of the interest and principal … and so on. If they can guarantee "in such manner as they think fit," is it not plain that it is not only their business but their duty to find out on what objects the money is to be expended and to lay down such conditions as they choose. In subsection (3) there is also a provision as to securing payments upon the assets of the Board. I do not think, therefore, that noble Lords ought to repeat that the Treasury is quite incapable of taking care of itself and making conditions as to the terms and arrangements under which the money is to be guaranteed.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 27 agreed to.

Clause 28 agreed to.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved, after Clause 28, to insert the following new clause:—

Board not to exercise powers of Section 5 of Act of 1922.

" . Nothing in this Act shall authorise the Board to exercise the powers conferred on authorised undertakers by Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922, of giving financial assistance to joint electricity authorities."

The noble Lord said: Unless this new clause is inserted the joint electricity authority will be in a more favoured position than other undertakers, for these reasons. By Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922— Any authorised undertakers whose area of supply is wholly or partly within the district of any joint electricity authority … and also county councils and other bodies may lend any money to the joint electricity authority, subscribe for securities, or guarantee payment of interest on money borrowed by the authority. By Clause 27 of the Bill the Treasury may guarantee sums up to £33,500,000 and by Clause 19 the Board are deemed to be authorised undertakers within the meaning of the Electricity (Supply) Acts 1882–1922, and accordingly may give the financial assistance mentioned to joint electricity authorities. I think it can hardly be intended that the right to raise money on State guarantee should be used for the purpose of assisting the special class of undertakers who are competitive with other undertakers. I am sure that is not the intention of the scheme of the Bill, but it will be one of its results if this clause is not inserted. I hope my noble friend will be able to accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 2, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Oranmore and Browne).

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I really do not think the clause is necessary. It is almost inconceivable that the Board would desire to finance a joint electricity authority in this way, but, in fact, I do not think that under the Bill as it stands they would have the power to do so. Section 5, to which the noble Lord refers, only authorises undertakers whose area is situate wholly or partly within a joint authority district to give the financial help. Of course, the area of the Board would cover the whole country, and that surely would not come within the description of an undertaking within the district of any joint electricity authority. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not overload the Bill with quite unnecessary words.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNS

The words of Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, to which the noble and learned Viscount refers, are as follows: ( ) A scheme under the principal Act constituting a joint electricity authority or other body for the improvement of the organisation of the supply of electricity in any electricity district may include provisions authorising or requiring authorised undertakers, and authorising companies and other bodies represented, on the authority or body to contribute towards any administrative expenses of the authority or body. Do I understand the noble and learned Viscount to say that under that section it would be impossible to act in the manner in which I have just suggested?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

That is my view.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

Of course, after I have had the assurance of the noble and learned Viscount that my rendering of the Bill as it stands is incorrect, I can only bow to his superior knowledge and withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29:

Charges for electricity supplied by power companies.

29.—(1) On a power company commencing to receive a supply of electricity from the Board, the Minister of Transport may revise the maximum prices authorised under the special Act of the company to be charged by the company for supplies, other than supplies in bulk to authorised undertakers, and may revise the standard prices fixed by such Act and on such revision in determining the maximum and standard prices regard shall be had to any change in the cost of electricity to the company attributable to this Act.

(2) Where a special Act passed before the passing of this Act authorises such a power company to make good any deficiency in any previous dividends which have fallen below the prescribed standard rate of dividends, the Electricity Commissioners may, after such inquiry as they think fit, by special Order made under Section twenty—six of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, make provision for the repeal or limitation of any such authorisation, and where such an Order is made the special Act shall have effect subject to the provisions of the Order.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 29. The noble Lord said: This is another of those clauses which contravene Acts of Parlia- ment by the authority of the Ministry of Transport in one place and by the Electricity Commissioners in another. Subsection (1) says: On a power company commencing to receive a supply of electricity from the Board, the Minister of Transport may revise the maximum prices authorised under the special Act of the company to be charged by the company for supplies, other than supplies in bulk to authorised undertakers. … That means that, although an Act of Parliament has given to the company power to make certain charges, the Minister of Transport may revise that Act and alter the maximum charges. I do not quite know why this was put in. I understood that the result of this Bill was to be to give consumers and the public generally cheap electricity. Is the Minister of Transport afraid that the present maximum charges will not be sufficient and that therefore he must have power to revise them in order to make good the expenditure? Or does it mean that, notwithstanding any Act of Parliament on the faith of which people have invested their money on the understanding that certain charges may be imposed, they are going to reduce the charges and break faith with the investor, and also break an Act of Parliament—not by another Act of Parliament, not by the High Court, but by the Minister of Transport who is not even a member of the Cabinet?

Then, subsection (2) says:— Where a special Act passed before the passing of this Act authorises such a power company to make good any deficiency in any previous dividends which have fallen below the prescribed standard rate of dividends, the Electricity Commissioners may, after such inquiry as they think fit, by special Order made under Section twenty-six of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, make provision for the repeal or limitation of any such authorisation, and where such an Order is made the special Act shall have effect subject to the provisions of the Order. That is to say, that the Electricity Commissioners may again alter the terms on the faith of which people have invested their money.

The meaning is that people were told that if they put their money into one of these companies in all probability they would get a low rate of interest, if any interest at all, at first, but that there was a standard rate and if things improved then they might get a further amount by the difference between the standard rate and previous dividends. I presume also it touches the sliding scale. As your Lordships are aware, under the Gas Companies Act if the rates charged to the public are reduced the dividends may be increased, and I believe the same procedure was applied to the electricity companies some three or four years ago. Now that is all going to be altered. In fact, this Bill alters an Act of Parliament whenever it suits to do so, sometimes by the High Court, sometimes by the Ministry of Transport and sometimes by the Electricity Commissioners. I really do think my noble friend cannot have understood this clause, or else association has altered him very much in the last few years, if he really is going to get up and say he defends this clause.

Amendment moved— Page 25, leave out Clause 29.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

After the comments which the noble Lord made on my character, I feel quite nervous of getting up and saying what I can on behalf of the clause. I am comforted, however, by the belief that the noble Lord has not completely appreciated the bearing of the clause. After all, what is the reason for this clause? It is this, that all the advantage which these power companies will get as a result of the new scheme for the generation of electricity should not be bottled up in the coffers of the power companies, but decanted, or some of it, for the benefit of the consumer. How is that being done? My noble friend seems to consider it shocking that the Minister of Transport should be able to revise these maxima and standards. They are already revised in some cases in three years and in other cases ten years, and all this Bill does is to give power to the Ministry of Transport to revise these prices after the Bill is in action, in order to secure that the advantages obtained by the Bill shall be passed on to the consumers. I cannot see anything very deadly in that.

Then, go to the second subsection, with regard to the making up of the back dividends by power companies. My noble friend will recollect that in Lord Weir's Report they recommended these powers, but the Government are more merciful (shall I say?) than the Weir Report, and they think it will be sufficient to have some limitation. A Special Order may be made, and Special Orders, as the noble Lord knows, come before this House. I understand, as to the possibility of paying back dividends, that during the last ten years alone they might pay back something like £3,000,000 in back dividends Of course, if they were allowed to do that or, perhaps, to go back further than that ten years there would really be no advantage got from this Bill at all, because all the advantages which these power companies would get not by their own action but by the action of the Board would or might be absorbed in paying up the back dividends. It seems to me there is nothing against natural equity in limiting that power and in saying: "Those advantages which have come to you not by your own action but by the gift, shall I say, of somebody else shall not be entirely retained by you but passed on, in some measure at least, to the consumer."

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I am astonished at my noble friend's remarks. He says, in effect: "Something has come to you by accident, and though that has been guaranteed to you by Act of Parliament, there is nothing wrong in taking it away from you. That is unearned increment." I am very much afraid that my noble friend, when he was a member of the Coalition Government, sat at the feet of Mr. Lloyd George and imbibed some of his doctrines; because that is land nationalisation again. It is saying, in effect: "The land is the property of everybody. You have no business to have it, and if you have it why should it not be taken away and given to someone else?"

Then my noble friend said that the maximum dividends shall be revised in order that some of the money which would have belonged to certain people and was secured to them by Statute may be given to somebody else—that is, the consumer. If you construe, that, you will find that it means that because there are more consumers than shareholders the latter are to be sacrificed because it is more popular to sacrifice the shareholders and give something to the consumers, and by that means probably get the Bill through. That is not my idea of Conservative principle. It would probably commend itself to the three noble Lords who sit on the Bench oppo- site. But they have at any rate the courage of their opinions and say straight out that they are in favour of what is practically confiscation. But that a Conservative Government should introduce a clause of this sort and should recommend it on the ground that there are only a small number of people who have the money and a large number of people who will benefit if you take it away from them, is indeed surprising.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 29 agreed to.

Clause 30:

Relation of charges to dividends.

30.—(1) Where any company, being authorised undertakers and not being a power company, receive a supply of electricity either directly or indirectly from the Board, the Electricity Commissioners may by a special Order under Section twenty-six of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, make provision as to the relation between the charges to be made for electricity and the dividends to be paid by the company, and the Order shall have effect as if the provisions contained therein were in substitution for the provisions (if any) contained in the Act or Order relating to the undertaking of the company as to the relation of charges to dividend:

Provided that where any such company carries on two or more separate undertakings one or more of which receive a supply from the Board, any such Order shall regulate the charges to be made for electricity in the case of the undertaking or each of the several undertakings receiving such a supply in relation to the divisible profits on the capital attributable to that undertaking.

(2) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any company which is a London company within the meaning of the London and Home Counties Electricity District Order, 1925, or to any company which may be formed under the agreement set out in the Fourth Schedule to the London Electricity (No 1) Act, 1925.

LORD ASKWITH

had on the Paper an Amendment, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "section" and insert "twenty-two of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922, regulating the charges to be made for electricity in respect to the undertaking or several undertakings for which the supply is received." The noble Lord said: There is a clerical error in the Amendment as printed; the word regulating should be "regulate" The clause as it stands provides for the operation of a sliding scale but under the Amendment the charges to be made to the undertakings in question would be regulated by Section 22 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922.

Power of revision in cases where the Commissioners think fit is allowed by Clause 29 and during the Report Stage in another place I find that the Attorney-General said on November 11 in dealing with Clause 36: I have arranged to have moved in another place an Amendment in regard to the Words which appear in Clause 30, where we dealt with a somewhat similar difficulty, namely, to leave out the words in relation to the divisible profits on the capital employed on that undertaking. The words "the divisible profits on the capital employed on that undertaking" I occur only in the following proviso with reference to companies which have two or morn separate undertakings, and if that promise were carried out those companies would have revision, but the other companies would not. The suggestion of this Amendment is that these companies should all be put upon the same basis and, instead of this difficult question of the sliding scale, there should be revision.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 28, leave out from ("section") to the end of subsection (1), and insert ("twenty—two of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922, regulate the charges to be made for electricity in respect to the undertaking or several undertakings for which the supply is received").—(Lord Askwith.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I am afraid this promise of which my noble friend spoke is quite new to me. I have no knowledge of such a promise having been made, because the change that is going to be made is really a considerable one. I would like to have the opportunity of considering it very carefully and looking into the promise.

LORD ASKWITH

I will give my noble friend the reference, and I will withdraw the Amendment now and put it down on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved to add to subsection (2) the words: "or to any company formed for the purpose of such an amalgamation of undertakings as is provided for by Section 8 of the London Electricity (No. 2) Act, 1925." The noble Lord said: This is a small Amendment which I hope the Government will be able to accept.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 9, after ("1925") insert the said words.—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

Yes.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I do not think it is any use moving my Amendment to omit Clause 30. It deals with practically the same point. Could I make a bargain with my noble friend? If I withdraw my Amendment at once, will he consider on the Report stage the Amendments which I moved a few minutes ago [...]

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The bargain which my noble friend proposes is too vague in its terms and too wide to be accepted. He proposes to withdraw an impossible Amendment on terms that we consider all the previous Amendments he has moved

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

No, only the two dealing with this point.

Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 31:

Adoption of Local Government and Other Officers' Superannuation Act, 1922.

31. The Board and any joint electricity, authority respectively may (without prejudice in the case of any such authority to the provisions contained in subsection two of Section eight of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919) if they think fit, adopt the provisions of the Local Government and Other Officers' Superannuation Act, 1922, in the same manner as if the Board or such joint electricity authority, as the case may be, were a local authority within the meaning of the said Act of 1922, and upon that Act being so adopted by the Board or a joint electricity authority the Act shall apply as if the Board or the authority, as the case may be, were such a local authority as aforesaid.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved the addition of the following words: but any expenses incurred by any joint electricity authority under the provisions of this section, or under the said subsection (2) of the said Act of 1919, shall not be deemed to be administrative expenses of such authority to which authorised undertakers may be required to contribute under Section five of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the power which is given to the Board or to joint electricity authorities to set up superannuation schemes, and it is one of some importance. Section 5, subsection (4) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922, authorised a joint electricity authority to levy money from other bodies represented on the authority. At the time that that section was moved in the House of Lords my noble friend Lord Peel was questioned on it by my noble friend Lord Bessborough, and he gave what was at that time supposed to be a satisfactory reply. Perhaps the noble Viscount will allow me to remind him of what he said:— … such provision is very useful and necessary, because these bodies, at first, will have no funds out of which to pay their small administrative expenses. It was limited, but it has been taken now in a much wider sense.

They call upon those associated with them in the joint authority (even when they are opposed to them), when they are promoting Bills to which the joint authority is opposed, to contribute to their expenses. The expenses which are borne by the companies are 57 per cent. of the total. At present, the joint authority for London has an expenditure of £11,000 a year, half of which is paid by the companies. It is now taking new and larger offices and employing experts to advise it, and its expenses are rapidly increasing. If, in addition to this, it is allowed to form a superannuation fund and the expenses of that fund are to be put upon the companies, that will hardly be carrying out the undertaking or the explanation of my noble friend at the time the Bill of 1922 became law. I hope he will see that it is not reasonable to allow these superannuation charges to be counted as administrative expenses and will agree to the Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 22, after ("aforesaid") insert the said new words,—(Lord Oranmore and Browne).

VISCOUNT PEEL

I understand that by Section 5, subsection (4) of the Act of 1922, a scheme for the establishment of a joint authority may include provisions authorising or requiring various undertakers to contribute towards any expenses of the authority. Apparently, therefore, it is optional and not compulsory. I was going to suggest to my noble friend that surely the place and the time for raising this question is when the local inquiry is held before the scheme is made. Surely the matter ought to be dealt with on its merits by the Commissioners, and ought not to be settled definitely in this way by a statutory provision. I suggest to my noble friend that that would be the best way to deal with the question.

LORD ORANMOBE AND BROWNE

I am afraid that hardly satisfies me. These persons are in a favoured position in a great many respects as compared to other authorities. In each of the schemes they have construed the words "contribute towards any administrative expenses of the authority" as meaning "to pay the whole of such administrative expenses," and, instead of making contributions to be contributions at first to small administrative expenses, they have used the section to enable them to make authorised undertakers repay the joint authority and give a perpetual subsidy quite unlimited in amount. They can pass on their charges to other people, which the companies have no power to do. It seems to me that Parliament ought to place some limit on the expenses they can put upon those who are associated with them.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 31 agreed to.

Clause 32 [Power to lop trees and hedges obstructing electric lines]:

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, after subsection (4), to insert the following new subseetion:— ( ) The authorised undertakers shall have regard to the antiquarian or artistic value of buildings, forests, woods, trees and lakes, and shall if required by any local authority place their cables underground so as not to obscure or interfere with the view of any such objects,. Any dispute under this clause shall be referred to the decision of the First commissioner of Works.

The noble Lord said: I think this is an Amendment to which the noble Viscount might agree. Last Session the noble Viscount, the First Commissioner of Works, allowed me to move an Amend- ment which he accepted on these lines to the Roads Bill in order to preserve the picturesque aspect of the roads. Just think where these lines may run. A line from London may possibly go through Windsor Forest. A line from Lancashire to the north would go through the Lake country. A line to Brighton would pass through some of the most beautiful parts of Surrey and Sussex and over the Downs.

I think that regard ought to be had to the picturesque character of the villages, the woods and forests and so on, through which these lines might go. In the New Forest, of which I am a verderer, a line is already projected by a power company working under existing powers, to take an overhead line through some of the most beautiful old woods. I really think in these cases the cables ought to go underground. One of the great values of this country, and one of the reasons why foreigners come here and admire our countryside so much, is that we have preserved the picturesque character of the countryside. It differs in that respect from America, where you see everything of a utilitarian character and nothing really picturesque. Things exist here which do not exist abroad. I make a plea for the picturesque character of the country and I am sure that if the Earl of Crawford were here he would support me. I believe he does support me. I believe that if the noble Viscount were here in his proper guise of First Commissioner of Works instead of representing the Ministry of Transport, he would accept the Amendment. His Department is a very good judge of what is picturesque.

Amendment moved℄ Page 27, line 27, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I fully appreciate the appeal made by my noble friend for preserving the amenities of the country, and I might also say that in my humble way I have been doing what I can in the last two years to preserve them. But my noble friend is going to put rather a severe burden on me or on any First Commissioner of Works by his proposal. He says in his Amendment "shall if required by any local authority place their cables underground so as not to obscure or interfere with the view of any such objects." First of all, I think it is not possible, for technical reasons, to place these high tension cables underground, and, secondly, it is a very difficult matter for a First Commissioner of Works to have to pronounce on whether a cable should be placed underground. I do not think, even if he could judge of the amenity, that he would have sufficient technical knowledge to decide finally where these cables should be placed. That is the difficulty of the Amendment.

Perhaps I may inform the noble Lord that already we have very close relations with the Ministry of Transport in the matter of laying down lines. We have an arrangement by which they always discuss with us cases where a line is likely to pass an ancient monument. I am bound to say I have always found them very ready to consider any representations that we may make. Further, the Ministry of Transport is very ready to preserve ancient bridges and so on within their own jurisdiction, and would do everything possible. I do not think it is possible to accept this Amendment, which places the First Commissioner of Works in the very difficult position of having to decide on a matter of which he really would not be fully advised. As regards amenities generally, these societies are very active and when the inquiry is being held they can make their representations very vigorously, so that public opinion can bring itself to bear very actively in these matters.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

No doubt we should be safe in the hands of the noble Viscount, but we see beautiful trees cut down along our main roads quite unnecessarily and to the great detriment of the countryside. If I added the words "when possible," would that meet the noble Viscount? I think there should be some reference to this point in the Bill. It has been conceded in Roads Bills and other measures, and surely it is a very small addition. Perhaps the noble Viscount would admit it in another form on Report. Supposing you work a line through South-Western London and straight across country—as is the intention—through Richmond Park, I am sure the Lord Chancellor, who knows Surrey very well, would not approve of that. As for the technical difficulties, let me tell the noble Viscount that they do not exist. The electric cables can be put underground.

VISCOUNT PEEL

Not of that voltage.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

It is perfectly possible. They could be put in earthenware pipes and perfectly insulated. We should have some assurance on this point. When the noble Viscount talks of the technical ignorance of the First Commissioner of Works, he does not understand that I want him to be a judge of beauty, not of electricity. He does not need any technical knowledge of electricity.

LORD MONK BRETTON

When the noble Viscount is considering this matter, I hope he will bear in mind the question of our rural villages and the defacement of their beauty which may be produced. I tremble to think of some of the possible results of this Bill.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I am entirely in sympathy with these representations. I cannot accept the Amendment, but I will consider and discuss with the Minister of Transport whether anything can be done to make these representations effective.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

That is all that I want—some opportunity. On that understanding I will put down a new clause on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 32 agreed to.

THE EARL OF MALVIESBURY moved, the insertion of the following new clause after Clause 32:—

Protection of county bridges.

".—(1) Nothing in this Act shall in any way limit or affect the powers of any County Council (in this section referred to as "the County Council") to rebuild, alter, widen or repair the structure of any bridge upon which any work by this Act authorised shall be constructed, or impose upon the County Council any liability which was not by law imposed upon them prior to the commencement of this Act.

(2) If at any time the County Council require to carry out works for rebuilding, altering, widening or repairing any bridge which might involve interference with any portion of the undertaking by this Act authorised they shall prior to the commencement of such works give the Board one month's notice in writing of their intention to carry out such works and if in order to avoid interruption to the supply by the Board of electrical energy, it is in the opinion of the County Council necessary temporarily to remove the mains and other electrical appliances belonging to the Board from such bridge, then the Board shall (and they are hereby authorised so to do) at their own expense temporarily carry their cables and wires across such bridge overhead or at the side thereon in such a manner as will not be a danger or inconvenience to the public, or unreasonably interfere with the works to be carried out by the County Council.

(3) When the rebuilding, altering, widening or repairing of such bridge shall have been completed the Board shall have the same rights and powers with regard to such bridge and its approaches as they had before the works were carried out.

(4) If any dispute arises between the County Council and the Board with regard to this section the same shall be determined by an arbitrator to be appointed on the application of either party by the Minister of Transport."

The noble Earl said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

VISCOUNT PEEL

To shorten proceedings, I am ready to admit the clause, subject to this, that I think it may have to be re-drawn in certain particulars on Report. If the noble Lord will agree to that I will accept it.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

The Amendment, though very long, contains no new principle. The principle contained in it has been admitted in law for a long time, and it only seeks to secure that county councils shall be in no worse position than they are at the present time. As the law stands, the county councils have always had the power of obtaining protection from the Electricity Commissioners by the insertion of a model clause in these Orders. Under the Bill as it stands that protection would be taken away.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 35, at end insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, after Clause 32, to insert the following new clause:—

Supply of electricity for lighting rood crossings.

".Where any main transmission line or other electric line owned or used by any authorised undertaker is laid at or near any crossing or bridge on a road to the maintenance of which the Minister of Transport contributes out of the Road Fund, the Minister of Transport may by Order made on the application of the Road Authority, or of any representative body of road users, require a supply of electricity to be given from such lines for the purpose of lighting the crossing or bridge at such price and on such conditions as may be agreed between the parties giving and taking the supply, or in default of agreement as shall be decided by the Electricity Commissioners."

The noble Lord said: Looking to the future we must realise that cross roads are going to be increasingly dangerous. It is important that these points, and also bridges, should be lighted, if there is light available. My object is to have something in this Bill to authorise the Ministry of Transport to order the lighting of such dangerous places, which will very often be on the line of the main transmission cables. This is a reasonable Amendment, and I hope it may be accepted either in this or in some other form.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 35, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I do not disagree with the general propositions of the noble Lord, but it is really the business of the lighting authority and not of the Electricity Commissioners to make these Orders.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 33:

Schemes for constitution of electricity districts, and the organisation of supply therein.

33. For section five of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, as amended by section nineteen of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1922, the following section shall be substituted:— (1) Where it appears to the Electricity Commissioners that with respect to any areas the existing organisation for the supply of electricity therein should be improved, and that a joint electricity authority should be established therefor, the Commissioners shall give notice of their intention to constitute those areas a separate electricity district, and to formulate a scheme for effecting such improvement in the district, and for the establishment of a joint electricity authority for the district: Provided that in considering what areas are to be included in a district, areas shall be grouped in such manner as may seem to the Commissioners most conducive to the efficiency and economy of the supply of electricity and the convenience of administration. (2) After such a notice has been published, the Electricity Commissioners, after consultation with the authorised undertakers in the proposed district, shall formulate such a scheme as aforesaid, and publish the scheme in such manner as they think best adapted for insuring its publicity, and hold a local inquiry thereon, and shall give to authorised undertakers, county councils, local authorities, railway companies using or proposing to use electricity for traction purposes, large consumers of electricity, and other associations or bodies within the proposed district which appear to the Commissioners to be interested, an opportunity of making representations to the Commissioners on the proposed scheme, and with respect to the inclusion in or exclusion from the proposed district of any area.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved to leave out Clause 33. The noble Lord said: I am afraid that this Amendment will not meet with the approval of the Government. The object is to do away with the joint electricity authorities. This is not a question of principle, though it is an important detail of the Bill, and I think very possibly, if my noble friend would admit me into the secrets of the consultations which took place before this Bill was finally drafted, I should find that the very course which I now suggest was considered, though not finally adopted. What is the history of the setting up of joint authorities? The Commissioners were given power in 1919 to set up these authorities in any district delimited by the Commissioners, where the local authorities agreed to it. I believe they delimited no less than fourteen of these districts, but only in three of those was the authority finally set up, and sometimes, it appears, in rather peculiar circumstances.

For instance, in the case of London and the Home Counties, it was done because the companies knew that their life was drawing to a close, and under an arrangement made with the County Council it was possible by this means to prolong their lives until 1971. But the result of it has been friction of a very severe kind between the companies and the joint electricity authority. On many occasions they have found themselves in conflict on Bills promoted by the companies and it seems to me that in the existing circumstances there is no particular object in continuing these authorities. They were set up in order that large districts should co-operate in the supply of electricity and by that co-operation secure that a greater amount of electricity should be used and the price cheapened.

Now we are to have a Board and the powers given to the Board are to be used for national purposes, on a much larger scale than the sectional way in which their power was used by the joint electricity authorities. At the present time you are going to have, in addition to the Electricity Commissioners, numerous other authorities, and it seems to me that to set up further authorities will only complicate matters. I therefore beg to move the omission of Clause 33.

Amendment moved— Pages 27 and 28, leave out Clause 33.—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

The effect of this and certain other sectional Amendments moved by the noble Lord is really to wipe out the joint electricity authorities altogether from the arrangements in this country. Of course the noble Lord is well aware that under previous clauses of the Bill different sections deal with these joint electricity authorities, and therefore so far as the Bill is concerned the Amendment makes considerable change. I am going, very shortly, to put in a word in favour of these joint authorities. Three of them have been set up, and more may be set up, and I understand they fulfil a very useful purpose in connection with the work of the Board by supplying a great deal of local information and knowledge, which naturally cannot be at the disposal of the Central Board. Another thing is that they fit in a great deal with the arrangement for the secondary transmission of electricity in districts, and therefore play a useful part.

In the circumstances I think it would really be a mistake to cut them out of the Bill. It would leave a gap and their functions could hardly be performed by any other authority. They are combinations of power companies and local authorities, and as there is a good deal of, I will not say jealousy, but difference of opinion between the different authorities, their working as a joint electricity authority is a great advantage really for the production and distribution of electricity. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will give them at least another five years in which to carry on their useful activities. After that he can re-consider the matter.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 33 agreed to.

Clause 34 agreed to.

Clause 35 [Amendment of Schemes]:

VISCOUNT PEEL

The Amendment to this clause which stands in my name is purely drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 29, lines 10 and 11, leave out ("any subsequent enactment") and insert ("section twenty-one of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922").—(Viscount Peel.)

Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 36:

Provisions as to companies with large area of supply.

36.—(1) Where after the commencement of this Act a special order is made authorising a company to supply electricity, and the area of supply consists of or includes the whole of the districts of two or more local authorities, and is, in the opinion of the Electricity Commissioners, adequate in extent, the following provisions shall have effect with respect to the right of purchasing their undertaking:—

(2) The special order in any case to which subsection (1) of this section applies may make provision as to the relation between the price charged for electricity and the dividends paid by the company.

LORD ASKWITH moved, in that part of subsection (1) which precedes paragraph (a), to leave out "consists of or includes the whole of the districts of two or more local authorities." The noble Lord said: This is a small Amendment. The effect is to leave it to the opinion of the Commissioners whether any proposed area of supply is "adequate in extent," the intention of the clause being to give better tenure and purchase terms in Orders for large areas. The area has to be adequate in extent, but it also has to be the area of two or more authorities. It may, however, be fully adequate in extent and yet only within, say, one rural district, and it is sub- mitted, therefore, that the words in question should be left out of the clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 14, leave out from ("supply") to ("and") in line 16.—(Lord Askwith.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I have no objection to this Amendment, though I am not quite certain whether it is really necessary. I would suggest to my noble friend that it involves certain consequential Amendments later on in the Bill, and that he might make himself responsible for them.

LORD ASKWITH

Very well.

VISCOUNT PEEL moved to add to subsection (2): or where the company to which any such special order is granted is a company carrying on one or more other undertakings, the relation between the price charged for electricity in the case of the undertaking authorised by the Special Order and the divisible profits on the capital attributable to that undertaking.

The noble Viscount said: This Amendment reconciles this clause to the provisions in Clause 30, and makes them harmonious. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 35, after ("company") insert the said new words.—(Viscount Peel.)

Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.

LORD ASKWITH moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 36:—

Advances to be made by intending purchasing authority.

".—(1) Where under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, or under any order made thereunder, or under any deed of transfer executed in pursuance of powers conferred by any such order, or under any special or local Act, any right to purchase the whole or any part of the undertaking of any authorised undertakers being a company is vested in a local authority (including a joint electricity authority), the authorised undertakers may, at any time within seven years before any date when such undertaking or part thereof may be purchased or when notice may be given by the local authority requiring the authorised undertakers to sell such undertaking or part thereof, require the local authority to declare whether they intend to exercise their right to purchase.

(2) If the local authority notify to the authorised undertakers their intention not to exercise their right it shall not be exercisable at such date.

(3) If the local authority within six months of such requisition do not notify to the authorised undertakers their intention with regard to the exercise of the right to purchase, or as a condition of not exercising their right, seek to impose terms which in the opinion of the Electricity Commissioners are unreasonable, the Electricity Commissioners may suspend the right to purchase for such period and on such conditions as they think fit."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is really entirely based upon the Weir Report, in which these words occur— It appears to us that the possibility of purchase at such short notice has the effect of sterilizing the activities of the undertaker during the latter years of his franchise owing to his reluctance to sink capital in an undertaking which may be compulsorily purchased. And they make certain recommendations on which the proposed new clause is founded. An Amendment was submitted to another place on the Report stage, but the Speaker held it was out of order at that stage, owing to certain provisions for finance. Those provisions have been omitted from the clause I am submitting to your Lordships, which proposes that due notice shall be given when purchase is to take place. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 35, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Askwith.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I have not really had much opportunity of considering this clause. I do not know whether the noble Lord would be ready to defer it until the Report stage?

LORD ASKWITH

If the noble Viscount would prefer it, I will wait until then.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37 [Terms of purchase of a company taking a bulk supply]:

LORD ASKWITH moved, to add to Clause 37 the following new subsection:— Where under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, or under any order made thereunder, or under any deed of transfer executed in pursuance of powers conferred by any such order, or under any special or local Act, any right to purchase the whole or any part of the undertaking of any authorised undertakers is vested in a local authority (including a joint electricity authority) the authorised undertakers may at any time within ten years before the date of purchase next occurring after the passing of this Act, or within ten years of at any subsequent date of purchase enter into a contract with the local autho- rity to amend, vary or alter the terms of purchase oil the next occurring date upon which they may purchase upon conditions to be agreed between the parties with the approval of the Electricity Commissioners, and the terms of such agreement shall be binding upon the parties.

The noble Lord said: I am moving this at this place because it was suggested that it would come in properly under terms of purchase at the end of Clause 37 as a new subsection. The noble and learned Viscount criticised it previously on the ground of its effect on the position of local authorities and on the ground that it appeared to contradict Acts of Parliament. As far as local authorities are concerned, there has been no objection on the part of any single local authority, and I am informed by my noble friend Lord Charnwood that, provided the words "being a company" are omitted, the chief association representing municipalities would accept it. I cannot conceive a more harmless clause. An agreement would prevent having to go to Parliament with all the enormous cost that would involve.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 19, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Askwith.)

LORD GAINFORD

I think the Attorney-General, in another place, did say the Government approved this and he gave an undertaking that it would be considered in another place. He did not actually pledge the Government to accept it, but said it had the approval of the Government and that it was only on account of the local authorities not having had the opportunity to consider it that it was deferred. The local authorities do not take any objection to it as it merely enables them by agreement to be hound, after the Electricity Commissioners have approved their agreement. It does save the local authorities from the expense of promoting an Act to confirm the agreement. I trust the Government will be reasonable at this late hour and accept it.

VISCOUNT PEEL

The Government is always reasonable and, as far as I am concerned, I do not offer any opposition to it and it may take its chance in another place.

Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 38 to 42 agreed to.

VISCOUNT CHURCHILL moved, after Clause 42, to insert the following new clause:— .—Where any authorised undertakers may supply and are supplying within their district or area of supply electricity for haulage or traction to any company or authority being the owners or lessees of a railway; tramway, dock, harbour or canal undertaking situate partly within and partly without that district or area, such authorised undertakers may, subject to such limitations and conditions (if any) as the Minister of Transport may prescribe either generally or in any particular case, so supply electricity to be used for any purposes of such undertaking, whether within or without such district or area of supply, and such company or authority may, subject to such limitations and conditions (if any) as the Minister of Transport may prescribe either generally or ill any particular case, use the electricity so supplied for any purposes of their undertaking for which they are entitled to use electricity.

The noble Viscount said: In asking your Lordships to consider this new clause I feel quite certain I shall have the support of all open-minded business men from the practical point of view. As your Lordships know, under an Order of 1909 the railway companies, when electrifying, have been given the power to obtain current from any electrical authority and to use that current for the purpose of haulage and traction through the areas of other electrical authorities, but for the purpose of operating cranes or lifts or for lighting purposes they have to get the current from the electric lighting authority in the district. This is very impracticable from a working point of view because it necessitates duplication of plant and multiplicity of accountancy, and many other things. This clause enables a company to use the power that it gets in bulk for the purposes I have named as well as for traction and haulage.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 16, at end insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Churchill.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I am quite ready to allow this clause to take its chance in another place, but I think very likely safeguards may have to be imposed in order to maintain the position of other various undertakers.

THE MARQUESS OF WINCHESTER

May I point out that if this clause us carried, railway companies may be able to supply electric light? In the City of London in the case of the lighting of Cannon Street Station Hotel the same question was raised. The Railway Company desired to light the hotel themselves. I do not think the undertakers should be deprived of any rights that they have at present.

VISCOUNT CHURCHILL

In answer to my noble friend I am bound to point out that in a case where a railway company generates its own current they can use the current for any purpose they like and in all probability in the case the noble Marquess referred to the company is making its own electricity.

THE MARQUESS OF WINCHESTER

The Southern Railway tried to do it, but they were not allowed.

Clause 43:

Sale of fittings.

43.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section a joint electricity authority and any local authority authorised by special Act or by Order to supply electricity may sell electric lines, fittings, apparatus, and appliances for lighting, heating, and motive power, and for all other purposes for which electricity can or may be used (in this section called "electric fittings"), and may instal, connect, repair, maintain, and remove the same, and with respect thereto may demand and take such remuneration or rents and charges, and may make such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon.

(2) The exercise of the powers of this section shall be subject to the following restrictions:—

  1. (a) The joint electricity authority or local authority shall not manufacture electric fittings unless expressly authorised to do so by special Act or Order;
  2. (b) The joint electricity authority or local authority shall not sell electric fittings except—
    1. (i) to a consumer or a person who intends to be a consumer of electricity supplied by them; or
    2. (ii) to a contractor who requires such fittings to enable him to supply them to a person who is, or intends to be, a consumer of electricity supplied by the joint electricity authority or local authority;

(3) The Electricity Commissioners shall appoint a committee comprising representatives of associations representing local authorities who are authorised undertakers, contractors, and persons engaged in the business of making and persons engaged in the business of selling electric fittings, such committee to be appointed after consultation with those associations, and that committee shall determine any question which may be raised under this section as to the recognised retail or trade prices of any electric fittings and shall advise and assist the persons concerned as to the method of giving effect to the provisions of this section.

THE DUKE OF MONTROSE moved in paragraph (b) (i) of subsection (2), after "them" to insert and they shall not for sale by direct labour execute any wiring of private property or undertake the supply direct to the consumer of the fittings or materials for such wiring except between the main of the authority and the consumer's meter. The joint electricity authority or local authority may, however, enter into contracts with an electrical contractor for the execution of such wiring of private property including the supply of the necessary fittings and materials provided the contractor acts independently of the authority in the execution of the contract.

The noble Duke said: the object of my Amendment is to remove an anomaly which seems to exist in Clause 43 as it stands. Under this clause the municipality, as an approved supplying authority, is authorised not only to bring the current to a consumer's meter, but to carry it beyond.

Under subsection (1) of this clause they are empowered to instal, collect, repair and maintain. That means that municipal authorities will establish installation departments, and those installation departments will be financed from the rates. The work of the installation departments financed from the rates is restricted in some degree by paragraph (a) of subsection (2). It says there that those municipalities shall not manufacture electrical fittings, that is to say, meters, cookers, lights, radiators and so on. By that subsection the right of manufacturers of fittings is specifically and adequately safeguarded, but the right of the installation contractors is not safeguarded. The installation contractor is open to the direct attack of rate-aided and direct labour. Now it seems to me that if we safeguard the privileges of one set of industrialists it is only right and just that we should safeguard the interests of another set of industrialists. If we safeguard the interests of the manufacturers of fittings we should safeguard the interests of installation contractors.

If we leave the clause as it is every municipality, by applying rate-aided direct labour, will be able to sweep away the whole means of living of hundreds, I may say thousands of working contractors. They might just as well hand a dagger to the city engineer of every municipality and tell him to get busy and cut the throat of every contractor. It seems to me that we ought to try to remove this anomaly. I know that certain associations have given their approval to this clause as it stands, but the association representing the interests of Scottish contractors, I may say, strongly objects to it. The noble Earl, the Lord President of the Council, said the other day there was not a scintilla of evidence that the rights of any private owner were injured by this Bill. I have shown that the rights of the owners of existing enterprises are injured by this Bill, and I therefore beg to move my Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 38, after("them") insert the said words.—(The Duke of Montrose.)

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

This question has a long Parliamentary history. I heard the echo of some of the fights during the last twenty years in the speech which the noble Duke has just delivered. Briefly, until 1906 powers similar to those conferred in this clause were granted to about eighty municipalities, powers much wider than those actually contained in this clause. From 1906 onwards we had continual fights in the Committee rooms of the House of Commons and of the House of Lords, and in both Houses the decisions were not always harmonious with each other. My attitude, I think, was consistent in the early days in being opposed to the full powers given in this clause. But in the last few years I have been converted, by the evidence given in your Lordships' Committee rooms, which I have read, and by new facts which have become patent to all.

I can mention those facts in two sentences. Firstly, we find that people who hire things from municipal electrical authorities are inclined, when they get satisfaction to say, "I don't want to go on hiring, I want to buy." Parliament has forbidden hitherto, except in certain cases, to give that power to municipal authorities. Secondly, unless you give these powers to municipal authorities the poor man's house cannot be wired, because the cost is prohibitive, It was on these arguments that your Lordships, and I following your Lordships, changed your minds on this subject, and I need not remind your Lordships that on the Bath, Barrow and Burnley Bill the debate resulted in the passing of a clause by your Lordships' House backing up a decision of one of the Committees. Last year's debate had the effect of very powerful parties coming together, and I think there has been circulated to your Lordships, unofficially, a signed agreement by those parties.

It is quite true—I appreciate the point made by the noble Duke—that the Scottish organisation is not satisfied, but he must forgive me if I say that in this case the Scottish organisation is not as big a thing as the seven great authorities who have come together—the British Electrical and Allied Manufacturers' Association, incorporated; the Electric Lamp Manufacturers' Association of Great Britain, Ltd.; the Electric Light Fixtures Association; the Electrical Accessories Manufacturers' Association; the Electrical Contractors' Association, Incorporated; the Electrical Wholesalers' Federation, Ltd.; and the Incorporated Municipal Electrical Association. These seven bodies claim to represent £250,000,000 of capital and 500,000 workmen.

THE DUKE OF MONTROSE

I think these are all manufacturing associations, as distinct from contractors, who do not manufacture.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The Electrical Contractors' Association have always claimed that they represent contractors, and I have not heard it contradicted. The evidence given upstairs has never hinted that they are not contractors. They have passed themselves off—I say it without offence—as electrical contractors, and I am sure the opposition would have contradicted that if it had not been true. It is a very remarkable fact that we have this agreement, the result of long discussions between all parties. Its effect in the saving of hours of Parliamentary time and thousands of pounds to the taxpayer and the private interests concerned is enormous.

It is easy to suggest Amendments to the clause. There are twelve words that I do not very much like, but I refrain from calling your Lordships' attention to them because, for the first time for twenty years, we have this valuable agreement of the parties south of the Tweed, at any rate. This Amendment is not confined to Scotland. I do not differentiate between the Amendment of the noble Duke and that of Lord Banbury of Southam, who desires to omit the clause. I do most earnestly appeal to your Lordships not to interfere with this agreement, come to by all the parties, but to leave the clause as it stands.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I quite agree that all that the Lord Chairman has said is absolutely correct, but I would put the question from another point of view. Supposing you pass this clause as it stands, you will be creating a precedent. I can hear the noble and learned Viscount opposite coming down and saying: "You have sanctioned municipal trading with £250,000,000, the owners of this money having agreed; now you must agree to municipal trading in something else." You will go on until you find that the municipalities, with the ratepayers' money, are competing with private traders who have no ratepayers behind them. I strongly object to municipal trading, and I hope that this Amendment will be accepted. I am not really very sanguine, because the Government have shown themselves hostile to nearly every Amendment. It is ten minutes past twelve now and there are very few noble lords here. I appeal to my noble friend Earl Balfour, who

will not want to oppose a Scottish Amendment—since we have been so kind and have done nothing to prevent the passage of 44 clauses of an iniquitous Bill—at any rate, to let us go to bed now and pass the remaining clauses on Thursday. I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

That is not the proper Motion.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I beg to move to report progress.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

That is not the proper Motion.

THE DUKE OF MONTROSE

I listened very carefully to what the noble Viscount said, but this is a principle, and the very important principle of bringing labour, financed from the public taxes, into direct competition with private enterprise. Certain associations, I admit, have approved of that principle in the past, and there is nothing in my Amendment to stop any association by special Act or Order getting the same privilege in the future. But it is too dangerous a principle to allow to pass without a challenge in a Public Act, because if we admit that principle in the case of a municipality employing labour financed by the public rates or taxes against private enterprise, how can we defend it in the case of a Government employing labour financed from the public taxes against private enterprise? I am afraid I must press this to a Division.

On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?—

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 5; Not-Contents, 36.

CONTENTS.
Graham, E. (D. Montrose.) [Teller.] Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.] Jessel, L.
Lamington, L.
Banbury of Southam, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Balfour, E. (L. President.) Malmesbury, E. Bledisloe, L.
Onslow, E. Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)
Sutherland, D. Plymouth, E. [Teller.]
Wellington, D. Spencer, E. Cottesloe, L.
Stanhope, E. Dynevor, L.
Bath, M. Erskine, L.
Churchill, V. Gage, L. (V. Gage.)
Airlie, E. Haldane, V. Gainford, L.
Clarendon, E. Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) Glenarthur, L.
Lovelace, E. Glenarthur, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.] Peel V. Hampton, L.
Howard of Glossop, L. Somerleyton, L. Templemore, L.
Kilmaine, L. Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.) Thomson, L.
Kinnaird, L. Wavertree, L.
Meston, L.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE DUKE OF MONTROSE moved in subsection (3), after "fittings," where that word first occurs, to insert "and consumers of electricity." The noble Duke said: The Amendment relates to Subsection (3) of the clause, the object of which is that the Electricity Commissioners shall appoint a Committee to discuss and consider the price at which electric fittings may be sold. The Committee may be composed of representatives of contractors and persons engaged in the manufacturing of fittings, and it seems to me that the consumer who uses the fittings ought also to be represented on the Committee, because, after all, they are the persons principally concerned in the prices.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 34, after ("fittings") insert ("and consumers of electricity").—(The Duke of Montrose.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I would suggest to the noble Duke that if this is an agreed clause it is a pity to disturb the wording of the clause by an Amendment which really is hardly necessary; because the local authority who sells will consider the interests of the consumers whom it represents. It is therefore unnecessary to have the consumers specially represented.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 43 agreed to.

Clause 44 agreed to.

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE moved, after Clause 44, to insert the following new clause— .Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act or Order, electricity supplied by any authorised undertaker to any company, body or person owning or working an undertaking being a port, clock or harbour may be used for all or any of the purposes of such undertaking or any part thereof.

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment of which I have given Notice.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 17, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Ritchie of Dundee.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I am prepared to allow this Amendment to go to another place, because I understand that it removes certain disabilities from which the Port of London, I think, alone is suffering.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

At this stage I beg to move that the House be resumed.

Moved, That the House be resumed.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

THE EARL OF BALFOUR

I venture to suggest to my noble friend that it would be for the general convenience if we were to finish the work which has been So prosperously begun.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear.

THE EARL OF BALFOUR

I will not argue the question. My noble friend thinks it is late, and it is late, no doubt, from any point of view, especially from the point of view of the ordinary practice of this House. With his long familiarity with another place my noble friend must be well aware that the present hour would be regarded as early on some of the days when he and I have been engaged together in work there. I am sure it would not be convenient for your Lordships to accept this Motion, and I do not think that our constitutions are weaker than those of Members elsewhere.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

After what my noble friend has said I will not press my Motion. But I would like to say that there are, according to the Division which took place a few minutes ago, only 41 members at present in the House.

THE EARL OF BALFOUR

Forty-five.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Thirty-six and five make forty-one—I can still count. There are only 41 members in your Lordships' House. This is a most important Bill and we have given it due attention. Nobody can say that there have been any unnecessary speeches and yet at twenty minutes past midnight, having got through 44 clauses, my noble friend desires that an important Bill of this sort should be pressed with only 41 members present. If he so desires I have nothing more to say.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 45 agreed to.

Clause 46:

Interpretation.

46.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—

The expression "generating station" has the meaning given thereto by section thirty-six of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and not the meaning given thereto by section twenty-five of the Electric Lighting Act, 1909;

The expression "transmission line" when used with reference to a line which is a main transmission line within the meaning of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, shall include all such works as are mentioned in that definition and, when used with reference to a line which is not such a main transmission line, shall include any works necessary to and used for the control of the transmission line and the transmission of electricity thereby and the buildings or such part thereof as may be required to accommodate those works;

The expression "owners" in relation to a generating station includes lessees or occupiers of the station operating the station:

The expression "authorised undertakers" includes a joint electricity authority.

LORD EMMOTT

had given Notice to move to add to subsection (1), The expression absolute right of veto' means any unqualified right vested in an authorised undertaker in any Act or Order whereby a power company is restricted from supplying electricity (exclusive of any right of supply for the purposes of any railway, tramway, canal, navigation, dock or harbour, or of any water undertaking) without the consent of such authorised undertaker in any specified area.

LORD MONK BRETTON

I should like to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Emmott.

VISCOUNT PEEL

This is merely definition, and I am ready to accept it.

LOAN MONK BRETTON

If the House is willing to accept it without explanation, I have no objection.

Amendment moved— Page 36, line 5, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Monk Bretton.)

Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

First Schedule: