Lords Sitting of 14 May 1934

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
CLYDEBANK AND DISTRICT WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
WESTON-SUPER-MARE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Arrangements between Central Electricity Board and authorised undertakers.
1.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, the Central Electricity Board shall have power and shall be deemed always to have had power under that Act to make arrangements with any authorised undertakers who are the owners of a generating station which is not a selected station, for the following purposes, that is to say, for regulating the manner in which and the purposes for which the station is to be operated and maintained or for securing that the station shall cease to be used as a generating station and where arrangements are made for any of those purposes, the arrangements may provide—

(a) for the supply of electricity—

(i) to the Board by the undertakers;

(ii) to the undertakers by the Board;

(b) for the making of payments, of such amounts as may be agreed, to the Board by the undertakers, and to the undertakers by the Board, in respect of the
300
matters provided for by the arrangements;

(c) for any purposes incidental to the purposes aforesaid.

(2) The provisions set out in the Fourth Schedule to the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926 (which relates to compensation for deprivation of employment), shall apply and shall be deemed always to have applied in relation to every officer or servant of any authorised undertakers affected by the closing (permanent or temporary), or the imposition of restrictions on the working or use, of a generating station by or under any such arrangements as aforesaid.
(3) No arrangements made by the Board after the passing of this Act for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) of this section shall have effect, unless and until they have been approved by the Electricity Commissioners, and the Electricity Commissioners may approve the arrangements either without modification or subject to such modifications as they think fit or may disapprove the arrangements.
(4) A generating station shall not be deemed to be a selected station for the purposes of this Act or the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, unless it is specified in a scheme for the time being in force under that Act as a selected station.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH)THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH) moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "to make arrangements" and insert "by agreement." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the words "by agreement" are to be inserted to meet the point made by my noble friend Lord Elibank and others on the Committee stage, that the expression "arrangements" was of doubtful legal interpretation. I think this Amendment makes it quite clear now that an agreement will be entered into in each case to give effect to the arrangement.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("to make arrangements") and insert ("by agreement").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, all I wish to do is to thank the noble Earl for having made this concession and inserted these words. The Amendment is exactly what we asked for, and I believe it will be most satisfactory.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved, in subsection (1), after "owners of," to insert "or control." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment ought

301
to be taken in conjunction with a later Amendment which I am going to move, and it is to meet a difficulty that was envisaged by Lord Falmouth during the Committee stage. It is directed to the point that under Clause 1 it would not be competent for the Central Electricity Board to make arrangements with undertakers such as a joint electricity authority or a power company which may be controlling and operating by agreement a generating station of another authorised undertaker. This Amendment will enable the Central Electricity Board to enter into arrangements with an authorised undertaker who controls by agreement a generating station belonging to another authorised undertaker. We feel it is desirable that the Board should be able to enter into an agreement with an undertaker who controls someone else's station in the same way as if the undertaker owned the station.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, after ("of") insert ("or control").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I recognise that the noble Earl has done a great deal on this Bill to meet the wishes of the electricity authorities and has made it unnecessary to oppose any of his Amendments, except in part, with the exception of this one. There is a very strong objection taken to this particular Amendment, partly legal and partly otherwise. The word "control," which comes into this Amendment, is either an extension of the Bill or not an extension. If it is an extension of the Bill it would legally necessitate, one would think, some alteration in the Title of the Bill, which refers to "certain arrangements with authorised undertakers who are the owners of generating stations." This is quite a different thing and may extend the Title of the Bill. "Control" is not a word that is always palatable in Acts of Parliament. It reminds one of "Dora." It is so wide that an attempt is made in a subsequent provision to explain the word "control," and to make it appear as if the agreement was to be made with authorised undertakers who have come to an agreement with non-selected stations. That may be an explanation of the matter, but if so it is really legislation in advance, because under the Electricity Act of 1909 such
302
arrangements as this cannot be made—that is the delegation of authority—with out statutory authority. In that respect it makes this anticipatory legislation, which is most unsatisfactory in an Act of Parliament.
Further, according to the authority for which Lord Falmouth appears to have been speaking, the London and Joint Electricity Authority, that is about the only authority with which such arrangements for control would, as it is anticipated, be made. But that authority, through its Chairman, has already stated that they have done what they have done, and what they propose to do, under the auspices of the law. It was only on April 18 last than an eminent gentleman in the engineering world and a member of the other House, Sir Philip Dawson, wrote a letter in The Times in which he called in question the legality of an arrangement made with one of the authorities in London, Wimbledon. I do not want to go into the Wimbledon matter; I only mention it upon the point of principle. But the Chairman of that authority replied to him, and said that he had acted quite legally. The complaint was that Wimbledon was supplied at a price 40 per cent. lower than adjoining undertakers, and he said:
"The agreement is perfectly legal and rests for validity upon the powers vested in my authority by the Electricity Supply Acts of 1919 and 1922 and the London and Home Counties Electricity District Order, 1925, and is not affected by the present Bill."
He then stated that the Wimbledon agreement is but one of a number of similar agreements and claimed that they are perfectly legal agreements.
If he is right this Amendment is a perfectly unnecessary insertion to make in the Bill, but if it is made in the Bill it gives rise to a strong suspicion that it means a control that is not liked by other authorities. It looks as if it was an attempt to legalise arrangements that have been made of which they are not quite sure, and it is an addition which I trust the noble Earl will consider before Third Reading and not press upon the House now. It is a very technical matter and I beg to suggest that the course which I have just indicated should be taken.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think that a word of explanation further is required from the noble Earl about the real meaning of these words "or control." This is not a matter that was pressed for on the Second Reading nor, indeed, in the Committee stage. It seems to us to be quite new. Does this mean financial control, because if so I suggest to the noble Earl that we are inviting all sorts of arrangements to be made by these power companies, interlocking their finances and so on, and there will be no end to the negotiations that will have to be undertaken. I therefore would ask the noble Earl to give a further word of explanation in reply to the noble Lord who has just addressed the House.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, may I point out that this is an innovation in the character of the Bill, because the Title of the Bill states distinctly it is:
"to authorise the Central Electricity Board to make certain arrangements with authorised undertakers who are the owners of generating stations which are not selected stations."
Therefore, if you have control in addition to that, you are really going outside the Title of the Bill, and from that point of view something ought to be inserted in the Title. Apart from that, it is a new function, and I do not think it is within the proper province of the Government at the present time to do what the noble Earl proposes. Moreover, it seems to me to be quite unnecessary. The joint electricity authorities are quite satisfied with the legal position without these words, and I hope the Government will not press this Amendment.
THE EARL or PLYMOUTH: My Lords, the word "control" is defined in a later Amendment which I am going to move. I cannot accept the view that this is any real extension of the Central Electricity Board's powers. As I understand it, at the present moment both the Electricity Board and the joint authorities are able to make these agreements with other authorised undertakings, and this particular Amendment is merely designed to enable the Central Electricity Board to give a supply to the joint authorities so that they can pass it on to these various undertakings. As I am advised, there is no extension of the powers of the Central Electricity Board. The word "control" to which some attention has
304
been drawn is, I think, very clearly defined in the later Amendment which I have on the Paper. I am advised that this is a necessary and, indeed, useful Amendment.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will not press this Amendment, because it is viewed with the greatest suspicion by the electricity industry as a whole. As the two noble Lords who preceded me have said, it is an innovation. It is something that did not occur in the Bill when it was first presented to your Lordships' House, and I think that the point made by my noble friend Lord Gainford, when he pointed out that the Title of the Bill only refers to arrangements made with authorised undertakers and does not speak of "control", is a, very strong point indeed against the Amendment. I hope that the noble Earl will not find it necessary to proceed with this Amendment in view of the various and very good arguments which have been adduced against it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, the next Amendment in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("for the following purposes, that is to say") and insert ("to enter into arrangements with them").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL or PLYMOUTH: The next Amendment also is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("made for any of those purposes") and insert ("so entered into as aforesaid").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL or PLYMOUTHmoved to insert at the end of subsection (1):
"Provided that after the passing of this Act the Board shall not enter into any such arrangements except with the consent of the Electricity Commissioners, and the Commissioners shall not give their consent unless—

(a) they are satisfied that the arrangements will not result in a financial loss to the Board; and

(b) after giving to any authorised undertakers who are under contract to supply electricity to, or to take a supply

305
of electricity from, the owners of the generating station in question, an opportunity of making representations with respect to the matter, they are satisfied that the arrangements will not result in any substantial prejudice to any such authorised undertakers."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think this Amendment requires a little explanation. I move it as the result of the consideration which during the Committee stage I promised to give to Amendments put on the Paper in the names of various noble Lords having for their object the provision that the arrangements made under Clause 1 should be subject to supervision, and to other points which were brought forward in the course of the discussion on those Amendments. I think the main point which interested noble Lords was that these agreements should be supervised by an impartial body—namely the Electricity Commissioners, and a new subsection devised for this purpose was added to this clause of the Bill at the instigation of my noble friend Lord Eltisley. As I informed the Committee when we were discussing this particular point, the Government were prepared to accept the general principle and this Amendment has been put down in order to carry out the undertaking I gave then. The generally expressed desire was that the Commissioners should be required to satisfy themselves that the various special agreements would not result in a financial loss to the Board, and a possible detriment to other undertakers and, through them, to the consumers generally. The Committee inserted in Clause 4 of the Bill an Amendment proposed by Lord Gainford for this purpose and the Government are prepared to apply that provision to the agreements made under Clause 1. This Amendment gives effect to that.
Certain noble Lords, in particular, I think, my noble friend Lord Gain ford, appeared to be apprehensive lest the rights of the Central Electricity Board by these arrangements to afford supplies to particular undertakers might prejudice other important undertakings who were themselves giving supplies to the same undertaking. The Government have given consideration to that point as well, and have provided that the Electricity Commissioners should give any such undertakers the opportunity of
306
making such representations, and should not approve any such agreement unless they were satisfied that the arrangement would not result in any substantial prejudice to such undertakers. We feel that these proposals meet fully both the general interest common to all undertakers that the Board should not enter into arrangements which would result in a financial loss, and also the particular interest of those undertakers who have a special interest in connection with supplies given to particular undertakers.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 12, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK moved to omit from paragraph (b) of the proposed proviso the words "are under contract to supply electricity to, or to take a supply of electricity from, the owners of the generating station in question" and insert "appear to the Electricity Commissioners to be affected." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the Amendment which stands in my name, if it were accepted, would mean that paragraph (b) of the proviso moved by the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, would read:
"after giving to any authorised undertakers who appear to the Electricity Commissioners to be affected an opportunity of making representations with respect to the matter,"
and so on. The noble Earl's Amendment provides that arrangements between the Central Electricity Board and authorised undertakers under Clause 1 of this Bill shall require the consent of the Electricity Commissioners, and that the Commissioners before giving their consent shall give certain authorised undertakers an opportunity of making representations with regard to the arrangements. This opportunity will only be given to authorised undertakers who are under contract to supply electricity to the owners of the generating station with whom the arrangements are made or who are under contract to take a supply from those owners.
I submit that this right of making representations is too restricted because other authorised undertakers may be affected by the proposed arrangement—authorised undertakers, for instance, who are intending to enter into a contract to take a supply of electricity from the owners of the generating station in ques

307
tion. I should like to give an example of this. Take the case of a company undertaker who may be paying the grid tariff for a supply from the Board whereas next door a local authority undertaker may be obtaining a supply at a rate below the grid tariff. The company undertaker is subject to purchase by the local authority under the Electricity Acts. When the time arrives for that right of purchase to be exercised the company's price to the consumers would compare unfavourably with the price of the neighbouring undertaker. That would certainly be detrimental to the company in negotiations with the local authority.
It seems to me that there cannot really be any reason why the noble Earl should not accept this Amendment, because all we are asking the Government to do is to put the Electricity Commissioners in the position of being able to say that this or that authorised undertaker is affected by these arrangements. The Electricity Commissioners under this Amendment will therefore not be limited as they are to-day as to the undertakers with whom they will consult in connection with these arrangements. It seems to me that it is perfectly reasonable—in fact it is more than reasonable, it is only fair to the undertakers—that this Amendment should be incorporated in the proposed proviso. I beg to move.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
Leave out from ("who") in line 8 to ("an") in line 11 and insert ("appear to the Electricity Commissioners to be affected").—(Viscount Elibank.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, during the Committee stage we had a long discussion on this particular point. I then said I would see if I could find words to meet some of the objections raised by various noble Lords, particularly as to whether it would be possible to insert words which would give those substantially affected by any agreement or arrangement of this kind an opportunity of making representations to the Electricity Commissioners. I have put down my Amendment in these particular words because in our view there are no other undertakers who are substantially affected by an arrangement of this kind other than those who were receiving or affording a supply or were
308
under contract to receive from or afford a supply to the undertaker in question. As a matter of fact, it is always open to the Electricity Commissioners to hear anybody they like on any particular question, but I venture to say that it is of the utmost importance that we—
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Will the noble Earl forgive me for interrupting him? I would like to ask whether that would apply in this case where the Commissioners are deliberately instructed under the Act that they shall consult certain people?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: It would most certainly apply. It is always open to them to receive representations from any one from whom they wish to receive representations on a particular arrangement of this kind. I venture to say that it is highly objectionable that they should be directed by an Act of Parliament, as this Bill will become, to receive representations from certain definite people. It is essential, in order that these operations should be put through expeditiously and without unnecessary delay, that it should not be open to any undertaker who may think he has some kind of interest, or may be technically held to have some kind of interest, in an agreement of this sort, to have the power of delaying matters and of being afforded statutory opportunities of making representations. I venture to say that my words are definite and clear and that they cover those people who are substantially affected by an arrangement of this kind. I venture also to say that these clear words which I have suggested are altogether more appropriate in a case of this kind than the somewhat vague and general words which the noble Viscount suggests.
Viscount ELIBANK: May I ask the noble Earl whether he has taken into account the case which I have just mentioned He said that in his view everything has been covered; but has he considered the case which I quoted of the undertaker who has at stake his purchase rights with the local authority? It may be that a supply is being given at a higher rate through the grid than through the generating station from which he was receiving it. He may, therefore, be in the position of losing those purchase rights because he cannot supply at a reasonably cheap price. I cannot think

309
that the noble Earl has taken that case into consideration. He may have considered all other cases.
LORD GAINFORD: May I ask the noble Earl what would be the position of somebody who obviously is not covered by the words "who are under contract to supply electricity to, or to take a supply of electricity from, the owners of the generating station in question," but might be prepared to contract to do so? Will the noble Earl tell us whether, in his judgment, a representation made by a body of that kind—an outside body prepared to contract—would be considered by the Electricity Commissioners in the event of their application being made? I understand that it is intended to give latitude to the Commissioners, but those words seem to me to prevent an outsider who is prepared to contract from doing so. I should like an assurance on that point before we pass this Amendment.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I am afraid I am not in a position definitely to give an assurance upon that point. As I have said, I understand that it is within the power of the Commissioners to receive representations from anybody who, in their opinion, they may think interested.
On Question, Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
On Question, original Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) For the purposes of this section authorised undertakers shall be deemed to control a generating station if, and only if, they have, by agreement with the owners of that station or otherwise, power to regulate the manner in which and the purposes for which the station is to be operated and maintained, or, as the case may be, power to secure that the station shall cease to be used as a generating station."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is really consequential upon the Amendment which I moved previously. It defines the meaning of the word "control." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 12, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Loan ELTISLEY Loan ELTISLEY moved to insert the following new subsection:
"(3) Section twenty of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, so far as it relates to the making of agreements by authorised undertakers shall apply to the making of arrangements by the Board under this section, and accordingly the Board shall not in making any such arrangements show any undue preference to any local authority, company or person."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to ensure that the Central Electricity Board, in making arrangements with authorised undertakers under Clause 1 of the Bill, shall not allow any undue preference to one authorised undertaker over another authorised undertaker. I do not want to make a speech upon this Amendment if there is any likelihood of the noble Earl accepting it. When it was first moved in Committee he gave the undertaking that he would look into the matter before the Report stage. The point is that associations representing electricity undertakers wish to get a definite statement by the Government that the Board will be bound by Section 20 of the Act of 1882 with respect to any arrangements which they make under Clause 1 of the Bill. If we can have that statement I do not think I need labour the Amendment in submitting it to the House.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 21, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Eltisley.)
THE EARL or PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord of this. As he knows, I undertook to look into this matter after the Committee stage. I have done so and I am definitely advised that Section 20 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, which prohibits undue preference, would apply to any arrangement made by the Central Electricity Board under Clause 1, inasmuch as Section 20 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, specifically provides that the Board shall be deemed to be authorised undertakers within the meaning of the Electricity (Supply) Acts. Furthermore, I understand that during the Committee stage various noble Lords showed some doubt as to the interpretation of the word "arrangements" in this connection. I think, as the result of an Amendment which I moved earlier and which your Lordships accepted, it is perfectly clear that "agreement" has been now defi-

311
nitely incorporated into any arrangement that is made. Therefore I think that clears that point out of the way as well.
LORD ELTISLEY: In view of the definite statement which the noble Earl has made, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The next Amendment in my name is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 22, leave out subsection (3).—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to omit all words in subsection (4) after "A generating station shall not be deemed to be a selected station," and insert "by reason only that, by virtue of arrangements made for the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, electricity is generated thereat for the purposes of the Board." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is really an Amendment of a drafting character, to eliminate any kind of ambiguity that there may be. It is intended to make it clear beyond doubt that although electricity may be generated at certain stations under Clause 1 for the purposes of the Board, they will nevertheless not be selected stations. That was a difficulty which the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, had in mind. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 31, leave out from ("station") to the end of line 34 and insert ("by reason only that, by virtue of arrangements made for the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, electricity is generated thereat for the purposes of the Board").—(The Earl of Plymouht.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2:
Amendment of s. 11 of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926.
2.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in Section eleven of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, the Central Electricity Board shall have power and shall be deemed always to have had power to supply electricity to authorised undertakers at prices and on conditions other than those specified in the appropriate tariff fixed under that section, in cases where they are satisfied that special circumstances exist and that those undertakers, or other authorised under-
312
takers who are supplied with electricity by those undertakers, will thereby be enabled to supply, to persons whose needs for electricity are of an exceptional nature, an amount of electricity corresponding to the amount of the electricity so supplied by the Board.
(2) So much of any tariff fixed under the said Section eleven before the commencement of this Act as purports to reserve to the Board power in special circumstances to supply electricity at prices other than those specified in the tariff shall cease to have effect but no such tariff shall be deemed to be invalid by reason only that it purported to reserve such a power.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (1), after "persons," to insert "(not being authorised undertakers)." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment arises largely as a legal matter. The word "persons" is a very wide word, and really requires sonic limitation in this clause. One has to remember the Interpretation Act, 1889, which defines what "persons" are to be in every Act since the year 1850. It says:
"In this Act and in every Act passed after the commencement of this Act the expression 'person' shall unless the contrary intention appears include any body of persons corporate or unincorporate."
Under that Act this word "person" here would include the case of the supply by one authorised undertaker to another authorised undertaker and it would be extremely unfair to other authorised undertakers if one authorised undertaker obtained specially favourable terms and passed them on, no doubt with a commission and with any special conditions that might also have been obtained, in a manner which might be very detrimental to other undertakings. This Amendment defines what the word "persons" means in accordance with the Interpretation Act, 1889, and therefore I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 7, after ("persons") insert ("(not being authorised undertakers)"). —(Lord Askwith.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I am prepared to accept this Amendment, because it is quite clear that that is the intention of the clause, but I would suggest to the noble Lord that it would be better to insert those words after the word "nature" in line 8. I think that would really make it clearer. There might be a good deal of ambiguity left if the words were inserted after "per

313
sons" in line 7, as the noble Lord suggests. The clause would then read:
"will thereby be enabled to supply to persons, not being authorised undertakers, whose needs for electricity are of an exceptional nature".
That might be confusing.
LORD ASKWITH: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for accepting this Amendment, and I will take his view as to what is the proper place to put in these words. I move my Amendment in that form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 8, after ("nature") insert ("not being authorised undertakers").(Lord Askwith.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL or PLYMOUTH THE EARL or PLYMOUTH moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that after the passing of this Act the Board shall not enter into any agreement for the supply as aforesaid of electricity to authorised undertakers at prices or on conditions other than those specified in the appropriate tariff, unless and until the Board have satisfied the Electricity Commissioners that the agreement will not result in a financial loss to the Board."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which I move in order to meet an undertaking given during the course of the Committee stage. The Government are prepared to accept the principle that agreements made under this clause shall be subject to the supervision of the Electricity Commissioners, who shall satisfy themselves that the agreements are not prejudicial to the Central Electricity Board. The wording of this Amendment follows that contained in the Amendment proposed by Lord Gainford on the Committee stage.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 9, at end, insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY had on the Paper an Amendment to insert the following new subsection:
"(3) Nothing in this section shall affect the application to the Board of Section twenty of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, and accordingly nothing in this section shall empower the Board to supply electricity to any authorised undertakers at prices or on conditions which would give any undue preference to those undertakers."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is similar to the Amendment on Clause 1, page 2, line 21. In view of the very definite assurance which was given by the noble Earl with regard to that prior Amendment, I do not think it necessary to move it, if the noble Earl will be good enough to assure me that the ground of this Amendment is also covered.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Yes, it is covered.
Clause 3:
Amendment of s. 12 of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926.
3.—(1) If it is made to appear to the Electricity Commissioners by any authorised undertakers or railway company that it is in the general interest so to do, the Commissioners may direct that the charges and allowances to be included in the price to be charged for electricity under Section twelve of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, by the undertakers to whom the direction relates shall be computed as if all such electric lines used by the undertakers (for whatever purpose) as are specified in that behalf in the direction—

(a) were transmission lines; and

(b) were used for all the purposes for which any of them were used;

and, unless and until the direction is revoked by the Commissioners, the said charges and allowances shall be computed accordingly.
THE EARL or PLYMOUTH THE EARL or PLYMOUTH moved, at the beginning of the clause, to insert the following new subsection:
"(1) The price to be charged under Section twelve of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, by authorised undertakers for electricity supplied to a railway company for haulage or traction purposes shall include—

(a) an amount equal to such proportion of the contributions payable by the undertakers in respect of the expenses of the Electricity Commissioners as is properly attributable to the supply of that electricity to the railway company; and

(b) such charges and allowances in respect of any transmission line or part thereof used by the undertakers for the purpose of that apply as would be included if the supply were a supply in bulk to authorised undertakers."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is moved in order to fulfil a pledge which I gave during the Committee stage. It is designed to cover the Amendments moved by Lord Eltisley and Viscount Elibank, to provide that authorised undertakers affording supplies to railway companies should add trans

315
mission costs and the Commissioners' expenses (including standardisation of frequency expenses) properly attributable to the supply to the railway company.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 21, at the beginning, insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I thank the noble Earl for having agreed to this proposal, and for having incorporated it in the Bill?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL or PLYMOUTH: The next is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 26, leave out ("Section twelve of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926"), and insert ("the said Section twelve").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL of PLYMOUTH THE EARL of PLYMOUTH moved to insert at the end of subsection (1):
"Provided that the Commissioners shall not give any such direction as aforesaid without giving to all authorised undertakers and railway companies affected by the direction an opportunity of making representations with respect to the matter."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I do not think any explanation of this Amendment is necessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 36, at end, insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to
Clause 4:
Supply of electricity by Central Electricity Board to railway companies.
4.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Central Electricity Board may supply electricity directly to any railway company upon such terms and at such prices as may be agreed:
Provided that the Central Electricity Board shall not enter into any agreement with a railway company for the supply of electricity to that company under this section for use within the area of supply of any authorised undertakers who own a selected station without the consent of those undertakers, so, however, that such consent shall he deemed to have been given if, on the application of the Board, the Electricity Commissioners determine that the withholding thereof is unreasonable:
Provided also that the Central Electricity Board shall not enter into any agreement with a railway company for a supply of electricity to that company under this section unless and until the Board have
316
satisfied the Electricity Commissioners that the supply of electricity to the company upon the terms and at the prices proposed to be stated in the agreement will not result in a financial loss to the Board.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, in subsection (1), immediately before the proviso, to insert:
"Provided that no agreement shall be made under this subsection for the supply of electricity by the Board to a railway company without the approval or the Electricity Commissioners, and the Electricity Commissioners shall not approve any such agreement unless notice of the application for the approval has been given by advertisement or otherwise in such manner as they may direct and an opportunity has been given to any authorised undertakers who appear to the Electricity Commissioners to be affected of making representations thereon."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment I regard as a somewhat vital one in connection with existing undertakers. The railways, in the judgment of a great number of us, can secure their supply of electricity from existing undertakers, but the noble Earl in this Bill proposes to extend to the Electricity Board the power of providing railways with electricity. We are grateful to him for having met us in regard to the principle that persons aggrieved may go before the Electricity Commissioners, and this particular Amendment is only aimed at securing further justice for parties who are aggrieved. Under the 1926 Act it was possible for all railway companies to apply to the undertakers and to get their electricity. So far they have applied, and there has been no grievance whatsoever. I think that in most cases the big companies would be able to supply any electricity on reasonable terms if the railways wanted it.
Of course we say that the terms on which electricity is supplied by the Board should be fair, and in this particular Amendment we ask that the approval of the Electricity Commissioners should be obtained before an agreement is entered into by the Electricity Board with the railway companies. If noble Lords will read this particular Amendment they will see that I propose that the Electricity Commissioners should not approve of any agreement made by the Electricity Board for the supply of electricity unless notice of the application for approval has been given by advertisement or other

317
wise, in such manner as they may direct. The Commissioners are given a great deal of discretion as to how they are to make public the fact that they are proposing to give power to the Electricity Board, and my Amendment then goes on to say:
"and an opportunity has been given to any authorised undertakers who appear to the Electricity Commissioners to be affected of making representations thereon."
In a matter of this kind we think that aggrieved undertakers ought to have an opportunity of being heard by the Commissioners, and the object of the Amendment is to secure that the Electricity Board should net supply electricity without the approval of the Commissioners.
Many of these large undertakers are already supplying electricity, and they consider that it is not necessary for the Electricity Board to step in and take away what was conferred upon undertakers by the Act of 1926. It is only reasonable that there should not be any overlapping of powers already existing, and the Electricity Board may want to interfere with legitimate powers which exist. The public are thoroughly well protected, and it does seem to me to be reasonable that a any rate inquiry should be held in, the few cases where the Board consider that they are in a better position to supply electricity than the big companies. If the big companies cannot supply, the case will then be considered by the Commissioners and fairness and justice will be done. What we ask is that at any rate opportunity should be given to all the undertakers to be heard by the Commissioners before the Board set themselves up as an authority against the big undertakers. I hope the noble Earl will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 4, at end, insert the said proviso.—(Lord Gainbrd.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I am afraid I must oppose this Amendment on a number of grounds. To begin with, it introduces the very prolonged procedure which is at present required before consent can be given for the use in one area for incidental purposes of supplies given by an ordinary undertaker for haulage and traction purposes in another undertaker's area. That procedure is referred to in a later proviso
318
of this clause. In an Amendment which I am going to move at a later stage, page 4, line 43, considerable concession is being made by the Government, in that as the result of that Amendment authorised undertakers owning a selected station will have their position somewhat strengthened. But it is entirely against the principle of this clause that any other authorised undertakers who will receive their supply from the grid and can only pass it on to railway companies, as provided by Section 12 of the Act of 1926, should have the right to oppose any proposed agreement under Clause 4 between the Board and a railway company for a haulage and traction supply.
After all, the main object of this clause is to facilitate the electrification of railways and to enable the railway companies to make one contract and one agreement with the Central Electricity Board, for the supply of current without the area of electrification and in that way to avoid the necessity of their having to make a number of separate contracts with various authorised undertakers. The procedure envisaged in this Amendment is that which is applied by this Bill to applications for consent to the use of electricity given for haulage and traction purposes and for other purposes, such as the lighting of stations and hotels. In cases of that kind, I may incidentally say, where there is a good case and where there has clearly been an expenditure of capital for a particular purpose the Minister no doubt would take that matter into consideration in coming to any decision.
But the issue is really an entirely different one in this particular case. After all, these incidental purposes are entirely subsidiary to railway electrification generally, and in their particular case the local undertaker may quite well be giving that supply. At the present moment, as I understand it, power companies and the larger authorised undertakers have the power to supply railway companies with electricity for use in the areas of other authorised undertakers without having to submit to any intervention on the part of the Electricity Commissioners, or without any appeal being provided for to the Minister or any other authority. I cannot really see that there is therefore any argument which would compel one to adopt the

319
view that there is justification for differentiating between the Central Electricity Board and those other large power companies. This Amendment is very closely connected with a later Amendment in the name of the noble Lord and other noble Lords, but I do not wish to argue the points raised on that Amendment now.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to leave out the first proviso in subsection (1). The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is necessary for me to move this Amendment, which is really of a drafting character, to make room for an Amendment I am going to move later on in order to deal with a matter which the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley, introduced during the Committee Stage, and the substance of which I accepted in principle, but which, I foreshadowed, might require a certain amount of alteration. I think that my Amendment entirely carries out the undertaking that I gave.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, leave out lines 5 to 14.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, the next two Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 15, leave out ("also").
Page 4, line 21, leave out ("stated in") and insert ("provided for by").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, at the end of the second proviso in subsection (1), to insert:
"and that the receipts on income account in respect of the supply of electricity to be given by the Board under that agreement shall over a term of years to be fixed by the Electricity Commissioners (not exceeding five years) be sufficient to cover expenditure on income account incurred in giving such supply together with a proper proportion of the Board's general expenses, including interest and sinking fund charges."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very important Amendment. On the Committee stage I indicated that electricity might be supplied to the railway companies at prices that might result in a financial loss to the Board, and it is found necessary clearly to state what
320
that loss might mean. In order to secure that adequate justice is done some words such as these ought to be accepted by the Government. Originally the Board was set up in order to pool the resources of the electricity stations generating current in the country. £40,000,000 were expended by the Electricity Board, and the charges had to be covered, and they fell back upon authorised undertakers. Therefore the authorised undertakers have already been at considerable expense, and they can only charge according to the grid tariffs. But, having had to contribute already to the grid system, it does seem unfair that now there should be excluded the general expenses, including interest and sinking fund charges.
The Amendment suggests that the receipts from the supply given by the Board under the agreement should
"over a term of years fixed by the Electricity Commissioners (not exceeding five years) be sufficient to cover expenditure on income account incurred in giving such supply together with a proper proportion of the Board's general expenses, including interest and sinking fund charges."
This is a definite proposal so as to define what the losses will be and how they are to be met. What I am asking the Government to do is to say that the railway company should have to bear the Board's interest and sinking fund charges, and that they should not be imposed upon the authorised undertakers, because it would only mean that you would then be subsidising, from the existing undertakers, the railway companies in order to provide an uneconomic price. An uneconomic price is not fair on the existing undertakings, and I move this not only because you would be poaching on the preserves of the existing undertakers by supplying the electricity to railway companies at an uneconomic price, but because the undertakers have already incurred considerable expense, and they ought not to have to meet other expenses, such as might be incurred by the Board in carrying out the arrangements for the supply of electricity to railway companies.
It seems to me that the period of five years mentioned is a reasonable period to suggest. It is quite impossible to say what surplus or loss may be incurred in any year, and, in order to fix prices, it is usual under the contracts made at the

321
present time for all these large undertakings to arrange for a period of from three to five years in which they can have the prices fixed. In all the agreements made with large undertakers there are fixed periods, I believe, of from three to five years, and it is suggested that ten years is outside all reason. There is a provision in all these agreements that at the end of this period of from three to five years there should be a revision of prices based upon the existing circumstances of the day which justify revision. Therefore it seems to me that my Amendment is absolutely reasonable. It is merely placing the undertakers on a right footing financially and preventing their being unduly required to provide current at an uneconomic rate. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 22, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Gainford.)
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I desire to endorse what Lord Gainford has been saying on this matter. This is a most reasonable request. It may be that the noble Earl may think the proposal is too wide as to the number of persons who may appear before the Commissioners but, if so, that could be amended. But the broad principle that the railways should not be supplied at an uneconomic rate is reasonable. If the rate is uneconomic there ought to be an opportunity of its being put on an economic basis. If it is economic, nothing whatever would be said.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I should also like to support this Amendment. This is an Amendment on which undertaker companies feel very strongly indeed. As my noble friend who has just sat down said, if the railway companies are to be supplied direct, as under this Bill they will be supplied direct by the Board, then at least they should be placed in the same position with regard to their supplies as any other undertaking in the country, industrial or other. Unless something like this is provided in the Bill it will be possible for the Central Electricity Board to supply the railways without taking this matter into account. The noble Earl shakes his head. I am glad to see him shaking his head, but I would much rather see words included in the Bill so that there is no misconception about the position at all. That is the
322
difficulty. If you leave this question in the air, when occasion arises you cannot conceive of the Central Electricity Board looking up the OFFICIAL REPORT to see what the Government meant when they were passing this Bill. No, they Will look at the words in the Act as it stands, and they will take an interpretation of it as it stands. If words like these are left out they will be perfectly justified in interpreting the Act according to the words that stand in it. So I hope the noble Earl will meet us in this case and see what he can do to put something into the Bill that will meet this position. Like my noble friends I appreciate that the Government have met us in a number of directions, but there are one or two points still on which we feel strongly and this is one of them.
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, I should like to reinforce the arguments which have been submitted by my noble friends. It appears to me that our request is a very modest one. It is merely to clarify an Act of Parliament so that the price to the railway companies may balance expenditure, including interest and sinking fund charges. I believe that is the intention, and I cannot myself see any great objection to making the intention absolutely and indisputably clear in the Bill.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I must confess I am a little bit puzzled by noble Lords setting so much store by this Amendment. After all, there are very definite words in the Bill at the present moment to the effect that the supply of electricity to a railway company shall be upon terms and at prices which will not result in a financial loss to the Board. We discussed this type of Amendment very thoroughly during the course of the Committee stage, and I did hope that your Lordships would not press me to include in a provision of this kind such detailed instructions as are included in the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite. I really do not think they are appropriate in a case of this sort. It is perfectly true that these words area taken from Section 11 of the Act of but in that case they apply to the general tariff of the Central Electricity Board spread over the whole country, and they are not in this particular case at all appropriate.

323
May I repeat the position as I see it? First of all the Commissioners must satisfy themselves that the price at which the supply is given does not throw upon the Board any financial loss. Your Lordships have been talking of uneconomic prices. I cannot conceive that the Central Electricity Board would supply electricity to a railway company at a price that was not remunerative to them. Cases may well arise in which the price, while contributing to the overhead charges of the grid which have to be borne in any event, does not cover the average of these charges. These supplies are given at rates which, while they are of general advantage to the Board—and indeed the Board would not give those supplies unless there were advantage accruing to them as the result of giving those supplies—do not necessarily make the full contribution towards interest and sinking
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to insert the following new subsections:
"(3) Notwithstanding anything in this section no electricity supplied thereunder to a railway company by the Central Electricity Board shall be used within the area of supply of any authorised undertakers who own a selected station without the consent of those undertakers, so, however, that such consent shall be deemed to have been given if, on the application of the Board, the Electricity Commissioners determine that the withholding thereof is unreasonable."
fund charges and other overhead expenses which have to be borne in any event. I am told that it is the ordinary practice of all electrical undertakings catering for large industrial supplies to make special contracts at reduced rates which contribute less than the average to the overhead charges including interest and sinking fund. I venture to say that the proviso, as it stands, achieves all that the noble Lord opposite desires, and that to attempt to tie down the Electricity Commissioners with detailed instructions of this kind is really quite inappropriate and is against the spirit of the whole purpose of this clause. I hope that your Lordships will not accept this Amendment.
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided.—Contents, 14, Not-Contents, 36.

CONTENTS.

Reading, M.

Mersey, V.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Pentland, L.

Balfour, E.

Askwith, L.

Stanmore, L.

Eltisley, L.

Strachie, L.

Cowdray, V.

Erskine, L.

Wargrave, L.

Elibank, V. [Teller.]

Gainford, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Halifax, V.

Hampton, L.

Hereford, V.

Hanworth, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Alvingham, L.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Feversham, E.

Barnby, L.

Palmer, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Bayford, L.

Redesdale, L.

Lucas, E. [Teller.]

Biddulph, L.

Rennell, L.

Munster, E.

Clanwilliam, (E. Clanwilliam.)

Rockley, L.

Plymouth, E.

Sanderson, L,

Vane, K. (M. Londonderry.)

Ernle, L.

Snell, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Falmouth, V.

Greville, L.

Templemore, L

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

"(4) Any electricity supplied under this section by the Central Electricity Board to any railway company shall be used in such manner as not to cause, or be likely to cause, any interference (whether by induction or otherwise) with any telegraphic line belonging to or used by the Postmaster-General, or with telegraphic communication by means of any such line:
Provided this subsection shall not apply in relation to any undertaking or part of an undertaking in respect of which the railway company is authorised to use electricity by Act of Parliament or by an order confirmed or having the effect of an Act of Parliament containing provisions for the protection of the telegraphic lines of the Postmaster-General in respect of the use of electricity.
In this subsection the expression 'telegraphic line' has the same meaning as in the Telegraph Act, 1878."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is the Amendment I referred to a short time ago. The new subsection (3) re-enacts the provisions of the first proviso to the clause as amended in Committee on the Motion of my noble friend Lord Eltisley. The new subsection (4) is in connection with the Post Office. It affords the same protection to the Post Office in respect of electricity supplied to railway companies under this clause by the Board as is enjoyed by the Post Office under an earlier Act in respect of similar supplies by joint electricity authorities and power companies. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 43, at end insert the said new subsections.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK moved to insert the following new subsection:
"(3) Where by reason of any supply of electricity given by the Central Electricity Board to a railway company under this section any capital expenditure incurred by any undertakers for the purpose of supplying electricity to the railway company is rendered wholly or partly unremunerative the Board shall pay to the undertakers a sum equal to the then value of the works represented by such capital expenditure or a fair proportion of such value as may be reasonable in the circum stances. Any dispute between the Board and any undertakers under this section shall be settled by arbitration."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is to provide that where an authorised undertaker is to-day giving a supply of electricity to a railway company for haulage and traction purposes and also for ancillary purposes, and that supply is taken away from the undertaker by the Central Electricity Board under the provision of Clause 4, then the Board shall reimburse any loss the undertaker might have incurred in expending capital for the purpose of giving the supply. This is an absolutely fair and just Amendment, and without it considerable hardship may arise. In the Committee stage the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, moved an Amendment in these terms, and I supported him. Ultimately he withdrew his Amendment on the noble Earl objecting to it on the ground that it would load the Central Electricity Board with subjects with which it ought not to be loaded.
It is the case that in certain contracts for the supply of electricity for the Brighton line there is a proviso that the Central Electricity Board may take over these supplies if they become authorised so to do. This is a very important point. When these provisions were arrived at and accepted in these contracts the various undertakers had no idea that Parliament would ever grant such powers to the Board as are indicated in this Bill. Not only that, there are actually certain cases where power companies have expended considerable capital on plant and equipment to supply carriage works for a railway company and for other purposes. I know of one case in the Midlands where this has been done and where the supplies are given at fourteen miles in different directions from the generating station of the power company itself. The company had to establish and equip a special sub-station for locomotive works, and they have also equipped a number of pumping plants and lighting installations in various parts of this district all for the purpose of supplying the ancillary requirements of a railway company.
If no Amendment is included in the Bill of the nature of the one I am moving it will be possible for the Central Electricity Board to take away the supply from the existing undertaker and give that supply direct, without any compensation whatsoever to the undertaker who has undergone all this large expense and who would, moreover, be left with this equipment and plant on his hands as scrap. The noble Earl in his reply on the Committee stage said, so far as I remember, that in his opinion other parts of the Bill would enable the Central Electricity Board to take this question into consideration when they were taking over a supply and were going to give it to the railways. The undertakers who are specially interested in this—and they are not only undertakers in the Midlands but undertakers in the South of England and in London—are not satisfied that this point should be dealt with purely by inference through other clauses. They ask that the matter should be made quite clear in the Bill. It is for that reason that I have put down this Amendment again. I hope that the noble Earl, after looking into this matter again, has realised that there is a great deal of

327
justice in the demand that they are making.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 43, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Elibank.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, as I promised, I have looked into this matter again, but while I am sympathetic with the noble Viscount I really see no just cause why this subsection should be included in the Bill. The noble Viscount has referred to a particular instance where a company has spent a lot of money in installing special machinery for dealing with a certain supply. He continues to argue that that was done at a time when there was no idea whatsoever that the Central Electricity Board would be given permission by Parliament to supply direct to the railways. But he told us at the same time, as I understand, that in the contract between the undertaker and the railway company was a clause to the effect that if the Central Electricity Board should be able to supply direct to the railway the contract was terminable at six months notice.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I interrupt to say that that applies in certain contracts, but that it does not apply in all contracts? Some other cases that I have mentioned have not got that clause in the contract.
The EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I fully understand that, but let me take first the instance where the contract does contain that particular clause. I do not think it can possibly be argued seriously that in that event the possibility of this situation arising was not contemplated at the time. Otherwise there would have been no object in putting that provision into the contract. On the other hand, in a case in which there was no clause of this kind, my answer is that there is nothing whatsoever in this Bill which enables railway companies to break contracts which they have made with authorised undertakers for the purpose of obtaining a supply from the Central Electricity Board. There is nothing in the Bill which alters the force of the contract or alters the position of the railway company in respect of any particular contract which they have entered into. In that case I imagine any undertaker giving a supply to a railway
328
company would naturally so make his arrangements as to meet this kind of position, which I think it must be admitted they must have contemplated would possibly arise. I really cannot see that there is any justification for introducing what is a quite novel idea in Electricity (Supply) Acts, that compensation should be given because a railway company fails to renew a contract. In conclusion I would only point out that joint electricity authorities and power companies who are entitled to give railway supplies are under no obligation of this nature, and I see no reason why the Central Electricity Board should be differentiated from other undertakers.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, before this Amendment is divided upon, if the noble Viscount and his friends intend to go to a Division, may I be allowed to add this further consideration to what has been said by the noble Earl? Not only is this a new principle in dealing with arrangements for the supply of electricity, but it is an entirely new principle in the whole question of compensation when public utility companies are substituted for private companies. It therefore raises a very big matter of principle and my noble friends were very interested to hear what the noble Earl had to say on behalf of the Government. If I may be allowed to say so, we entirely support his point of view. What is being asked for by the noble Viscount and his friends is that compensation should be paid to people who, in anticipation of certain developments in the future, provided rather more machinery and power than they otherwise would have done.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I think the noble Lord is mistaken in that. There is no such intention. All that is asked is that where there is certain plant and equipment, where certain capital expenditure has been undertaken for the purpose of supplying railways—usually for ancillary purposes—at any rate that capital expenditure, or such part of it as the Electricity Commissioners may think fit, should be reimbursed to the undertakers, nothing more nor less.
LORD STRABOLGI: If the noble Viscount was asking only for compensation for the plant put down for ancillary purposes there would he a great deal more justice in his demands.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: That is the Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: I repeat that what he is asking for is compensation for possible loss of hypothetical profits. If in certain eventualities, after all these barbed wire entanglements have been got over and all these safeguards of going to the Commissioners have been satisfied, some concern thinks it is not going to get in perpetuity the profits it hoped to get, then compensation is to be given by the taxpayer, because that is what it comes to in the long run. The Electricity Board owes its existence to the act of your Lordships' House and of the House of Commons. In certain circumstances it raises money on Government guarantees. If it fails in the long run it is the taxpayer who will have to pay. This compensation which the noble Viscount is asking for will eventually have to come from the taxpayer.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask why it should come out of the taxpayer's pockets? It would come out of the railway company's pockets.
LORD STRABOLGI: No, not if the whole supply comes from the grid. A great deal of money has been raised with the implied guarantee of the Treasury.
LORD PENTLAND: No.
LORD STRABOLGI: With the support of the Act of Parliament. In the long run the taxpayer would have to make good the loss. Suppose you take the other ease: suppose the noble Viscount succeeded, and very heavy compensation was claimed, and the claims were upheld under the Amendment which he is now pressing upon the Government. In that case the compensation would fall on the Central Board and they would have to recoup themselves by higher rates. Then the taxpayer would pay not as a direct taxpayer but as a consumer of electricity, as we all are in some form or another.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: That is another story.
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes, it is another story, I quite agree, but it shows that I was not so very far wrong when I said that this is a, national responsibility. What the noble Viscount is really asking for is that people who have not provided for this very thing happening, who
330
have not been far-sighted enough to provide sufficient amortisation or sinking fund and so on to pay for the extra plant, are to be able to come to the Central Board and be compensated. I therefore very much hope that the Government will stand firm against the noble Viscount and his friends, and if they divide on this question, in view of the principles involved we will certainly support the Government.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I think the noble Lord who last addressed the House really did not understand the position which I think this Amendment was intended to meet—namely, the case where an existing undertaking firm with large powers has naturally assumed that under the Act of 1926 they would be called upon to supply electricity in bulk to the railways if the railways were electrified. As a matter of fact, by means of increase of capital and increase of plant they have been supplying a lot of ancillary operations connected with railways, for instance, the approaches to the railway stations and the workshops of the railway companies. They have put down plant and expended capital, and we will assume that they are at the present time supplying all those ancillary undertakings. They naturally anticipated under the Act of 1926 that in the event of the railways being electrified they would have to supply electricity to the railways rather than that a new body such as the Central Electricity Board should step in and take the work over.
The case which this Amendment seeks to provide for is where the railways are electrified and the railway companies say: "Not only do we want to be supplied with electricity for the natural traction of the railways, but also that the electricity shall be supplied by the new Electricity Beard to the workshops, approaches, and other ancillary undertakings of the railway." It does seem to me in that case to be fair that some claim for compensation should be permitted. I hope that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, if he is not prepared to accept this Amendment which might cover possible expansion in the course of the electrification of railways, at any rate will cover the just claims of concerns who already are supplying electricity to the ancillary undertakings but the supply to which will be taken away from them.
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, seems to me rather to have misunderstood the situation. He is really proposing now to rob Peter to pay Paul. He says that this is a call upon the general taxpayer, under the misapprehension that the Central Electricity Board is being financed by the general taxpayer. If the Central Electricity Board comes to grief regarding its finances, then I suppose the nation will have to step in; but it really is a different thing to take it away from an undertaking which has done special work in order to supply a railway company and, under the powers of Clause 2, to grab it for yourself. I have had put into my hands an instance of this, and a very striking one, the case of the Northampton Company in the Midlands, where no less than fourteen miles of line and all sorts of ancillary matters were specially constructed to give supplies, in one case to the London, Midland and Scottish Railway for their carriage work at Wolverton, and in another case to the London and North Eastern Railway works at Woodford Halse in Northamptonshire. Those places are fourteen miles in different directions from the generating station of the Northampton Company, and they have had to establish and equip a special sub-station at Wellingborough locomotive repair shop as well as quite a number of pumping plants and lighting installations in various parts of their widespread district. This has been certainly done for the sake of supplying the railway companies. Now the Central Electricity Board are getting power to take all that away from the company, to mulct the Northampton Company, to place it within the supply which the Central Electricity Board are able to give to other undertakings, and to reinforce them at the expense of the Northampton Company. I think that is a most unjust proposal. The Amendment may be a little too wide in its present form, but I shall certainly support the noble Viscount, and I hope he will go to a Division.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, it would be reasonable to suppose that there must be some confusion of thought upon this particular Amendment. I should like to associate myself with the explanation which has already been given by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, and I think your Lordships may rest assured that all
332
necessary safeguards have been provided for. At the same time I would like to remind the House of the correction which has already been made of the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and also remind the House that this large sum of money which has been referred to was found entirely without Government guarantee.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 5 [Short title, citation, interpretation and extent]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, the Amendments to this clause are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 2, after ("and") insert ("shall be construed as one with")
Page 5, line 3, after ("and") insert ("those acts and").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Effect of death on certain causes of action.
(2) Where a cause of action survives as aforesaid for the benefit of the estate of a deceased person, the damages recoverable for the benefit of the estate of that person:—

(b) shall not include any sum in respect of the mental or bodily suffering of that person before his death;

(d) where the death of that person has been caused by the act or omission which gives rise to the cause of action, may include a sum in respect of funeral expenses but, save as aforesaid, shall he calculated without reference to any loss or gain caused to the estate by his death.

(4) Where a person dies in the interval elapsing between a wrongful act or omission and the suffering of damage by another person by reason of that act or omission, there shall be deemed for the purposes of this

333
Act to have been in existence before his death such cause of action against him, if any, as would have existed if his death had occurred after the suffering of the damage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY) moved to leave out paragraph (b) of subsection (2). The noble and learned Viscount said: All these Amendments are of a very technical character and are little more than drafting alterations to make the legislation clear. The Government are much indebted to the gentlemen who have drawn attention to these matters, and I should like to express our obligation to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wright, for the great help he has given in assisting to draft the new clauses. The first Amendment is in Clause 1, page 1, and it is proposed to leave out lines 17 to 19. The effect of paragraph (b) is that where the plaintiff dies the damages recoverable against the wrongdoer are not to include any sum in respect of the mental or bodily suffering of the deceased plaintiff. But under paragraph (d) of the same subsection the damages are also to be calculated without reference to any loss or gain caused to the estate by the death. The latter provision is essential to exclude such considerations as the benefit to the estate by insurance policy moneys becoming payable in consequence of the death. The reason for the Amendments is this. Supposing, for example, a celebrated surgeon has been killed. It is very difficult to calculate what the loss would be in his case supposing he were an operating surgeon. The combined result of the two paragraphs would be that no damages are recoverable at all except out-of-pocket expenses incurred before death and, by express provision, funeral expenses. The result of this will be to give adequate damages in the case of death.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, leave out lines 17 to 19.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD DANESFORT: May I suggest to the noble and learned Viscount that his proposed Amendment rather unduly limits the amount of damages which may be recovered? May I take an illustration? Supposing a man is killed by a motorist, and he has a good claim against the motorist. The man dies. What are his dependants entitled to recover from the motorist? Does not the clause say that
334
the damages are to be calculated without reference to any loss or gain caused to the estate by his death. What does that mean? Supposing the man is in an important professional or other position, and is earning large sums. His death means that his estate loses those large prospective sums which he would have earned if he had not died. I want the noble and learned Viscount to explain what would happen in a case like that. Would not his representatives be entitled to something in respect of the loss to his estate which his death caused? It might be very considerable, or it might not be, but perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will explain to the Committee what the effect of this clause would be on a case like that.
LORD WRIGHT: May I say a few words in reference to what my noble friend has said? The noble Lord, I think, is overlooking the fact that the dependants in such a case as he puts have claims under Lord Campbell's Act. Those claims are preserved by this Bill, and will be preserved by the Act. The result therefore is that if the surgeon leave a widow or children or others who, if he were alive, would be dependent on his earnings, and were maintained out of his earnings, then the prospective benefits will receive full and adequate consideration and satisfaction under Lord Campbell's Act.
The difficulty which the Committee, and I speak as a member, had to face was this, that it is almost impossible to determine what would have been the loss to the estate in such a case as the noble Lord has put, of a surgeon being killed in an accident, by trying to calculate what the position would have been if the surgeon had lived. The man would have been expending money for his own purposes. He might have expended everything that he earned, in any way which was convenient to him. In those circumstances it seemed impossible to equate the position in the case of death with the ordinary position of a personal injury case, and it was found impossible to produce any formula which would be a satisfactory direction to the jury in such a case. Of course the real answer to this suggestion is that the rights under Lord Campbell's Act would be fully operative in such a case, and would give adequate compensation.
LORD DANESFORT: Might I suggest to the noble and learned Lord that the claimant might not want to go under Lord Campbell's Act, but might want to go under this Act? If he goes under this measure he gets nothing for the loss of prospective income. If he goes under Lord Campbell's Act would not the same difficulty of calculation arise? Personally, I do not see that any serious difficulty would arise, because the jury would be able to make a fair estimate of what the loss to the estate of prospective earnings amounted to. It seems rather hard, because there may be a possible difficulty in assessing the damages, that people in such a case should be deprived of damages altogether.
LORD HANWORTH: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will not take that view. These arc matters which have been most carefully considered by the Committee. It is introducing a novelty into the law, and abolishing a principle under which there would be no action surviving, and nobody who has not given continuous attention to the problems involved can speak with any authority. I may say that the Committee who have been dealing with this have been considering it for weeks, and parsing every single word. It is important that every word should be parsed and considered in making an alteration of this sort. It is not a matter on which you can bring a fresh mind, in the course of the last few minutes. to bear. Those who are acquainted with the ramifications of this subject have been very careful indeed to chose accurate and precise words in reference to an alteration which may go much further than is at first sight supposed and certainly intended. In those circumstances I do hope that the Lord Chancellor will adhere to his words, and that he will not feel embarrassed by a criticism which cannot, if the noble Lord will forgive my saying so, have had the same close scrutiny that has been given to this matter by the Committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In reply to the noble Lord, it is perfectly true to say that this legislation is going to introduce a new form of action altogether, and it is just as well when you are introducing a new form of action to be very careful to see that it does not go too far. I am quite sure the noble Lord will say, "One step enough for me." Later on
336
when we have passed the legislation, if his laudable anxiety to enhance the amount of damages becomes nearly a public necessity it will be time enough to do it then. But it will be just as well at present, when we are introducing this novel legislation, to be very careful before we commit ourselves to a very large and extended form of damages.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in paragraph (d) of subsection (2), to leave out all words after "action" and insert "shall be calculated without reference to any loss or gain to his estate consequent on his death, except that a sum in respect of funeral expenses may be included." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is really a drafting Amendment. The objection to the existing draft is that it raises a doubt whether medical and hospital expenses before the death may be included in the damages or not. Strictly speaking, this doubt is unjustifiable because such expenses are not caused by the death but by the accident. The Amendment puts this right by using the words, "consequent on his death," instead of "caused by his death," and by putting the exception about funeral expenses last.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 3, leave out from ("action") to the end of line 6 and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out subsection (4) and insert:
"(4) Where damage has been suffered by reason of any act or omission in respect of which a cause of action would have subsisted against any person if that person had not died before or at the same time as the damage was suffered, there shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to have been subsisting against him before his death such cause of action in respect of that act or omission as would have subsisted if he had died after the damage was suffered."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is another drafting Amendment, merely with the object of making the legislation clear, but it is to meet a point of substance. The subsection in the Bill is intended to meet the case where the order of events is (1) the act which causes the accident, (2) the death pf the driver (who would be the defendant or the de

337
fendant's servant), and (3) the suffering of damage by the plaintiff. Here the cause of action does not arise till the damage is suffered, and it is only then that the act becomes wrongful ex post facto. It is pointed out that the last two events may be simultaneous, or so nearly so as to put a burden of proof upon the plaintiff which he could not discharge. The Amendment is intended to remove this difficulty, and does so.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 14, leave out subsection (4) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert after subsection (4):
"(5) The rights conferred by this Act for the benefit of the estates of deceased persons shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any rights conferred on the dependants of deceased persons by the Fatal Accident Acts, 1843 to 1908, or the Carriage by Air Act, 1932, and so much of this Act as relates to causes of action against the estates of deceased persons shall apply in relation to causes of action under the said Acts as it applies in relation to other causes of action not expressly excepted from the operation of this Act."
The noble and learned Viscount said: The object of this Amendment—and it is a very technical matter—is to make clear the relation between a claim under the Bill by the representatives of a deceased person who would have been the plaintiff, and a claim by a dependant of the deceased person under the Fatal Accidents Acts. It is intended, that these remedies should be cumulative. The measure of damages is quite different, and there is no reason why they should not subsist together. The wrong-doer should be liable to pay some damages for the injury to the deceased person. This enures for the benefit of the estate. In addition the widow may—in spite of this addition to the estate—have suffered pecuniary damage owing to the death, or else she may not. If she has, her right under the Fatal Accidents Acts should be unaffected. This cannot be met merely by saying that the Fatal Accidents Acts shall not be affected, because in certain respects they will be affected. Where there is an accident caused by the negligence of a driver, in which both the driver and a passenger are killed, then under the present, law the passenger's dependants would lose their right under the Fatal Accidents Acts
338
against the driver owing to the death of the driver, but by reason of the Bill they will have a right against the estate of the deceased driver.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 21, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert after subsection (4) the following new subsection:
"(6) Any liability in respect of a cause of action which by virtue of this section survives against the estate of a deceased person shall, if the estate is insolvent, be deemed to be a debt provable in the administration of the estate, notwithstanding that it is a demand in the nature of unliquidated damages arising otherwise than by a contract, promise or breach of trust."
The noble and learned Viscount said: The need for this Amendment arises he-cause a claim for unliquidated damages in tort is not provable in the administration of an insolvent estate. It seems, however, clearly desirable that it should be put on the same footing as the claim for unliquidated damages for breach of contract or breach of trust. In bankruptcy a person with such a claim can bring an action against the debtor, and if he gets judgment he can use it to found a second bankruptcy; and it sometimes pays him to do so. But in the administration of an insolvent estate the position is different. Under the law as it stands there could not be a claim for unliquidated damages in tort against the deceased person. Under the Bill there can he such a claim against his estate. It would, however, be useless for the claimant to bring an action, because when he had obtained judgment the judgment debt, being a debt which has accrued after the death, would not he provable. There is nothing analogous to a second bankruptcy because the deceased has died once for all and his insolvent estate must be wound up once for all. The claimant would, therefore, be without remedy, and this would in part defeat the object of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, after the words last inserted insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, in moving that the House do resolve itself into Committee I would like to explain why it is that there are any Amendments. I told your Lordships on Second Reading that this was an agreed Bill, and indeed I do not think there ever has been such an agreed Bill as this; but in its passage through another place, and after it had passed another place, it became evident that some of the horse associations had some slight anxiety as to whether the Bill might not he going too far, and the Amendments which I have put down have been agreed by the National Horse Association as entirely meeting their view. I will explain to your Lordships in more detail the purpose of the Amendments when we come to them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Prohibition of certain public contests, performances, and exhibitions with animals.
1.—(1) No person shall promote, or cause or permit to take place any public performance which includes any episode consisting of or involving—

(a) throwing or casting, with ropes or other appliances, any unbroken horse or untrained bull; or

(b) wrestling, fighting, or struggling with any untrained bull; or

(c) riding, or attempting to ride, any horse or bull which by the use of any appliance or treatment involving cruelty is, or has been, stimulated with the intention of making it buck during the performance;

and no person shall in any public performance take part in any such episode as aforesaid.
(2) For the purposes of proceedings under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of the preceding subsection, if an animal appears or is represented to spectators to be unbroken or untrained it shall lie on the defendant to prove that the animal is in fact broken or trained.
LORD JESSEL: Before the noble Lord moves his first Amendment I should like to say—
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Amendment has been called. I think the usual practice would be for the noble Lord to make his remarks when the Question that Clause 1 stand part is put.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHmoved, in subsection (1), before "permit," to insert "knowingly." The noble Lord said: I have not the smallest objection to the noble Lord asking any question, but I think it would probably be better to follow the usual course. The point of the Amendment is that the National Horse Association conceived that it might be possible that this clause would allow some innocent person to be involved in something which would be an offence, and they desired the insertion of this word "knowingly." I am advised that it does not weaken the Bill in any way, and the promoters are quite prepared to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, after the second ("or") insert ("knowingly").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD JESSEL: Perhaps it will be convenient and save time if I ask the noble Lord now a question which I have been asked to put on behalf of the horse societies. This is a Bill dealing with rodeos, and my question is, why is it not called a Rodeo Bill? If your Lordships will look at Clause 1 (c), you will see that it says that any one
"riding, or attempting to ride, any horse or bull which by the use of any appliance or treatment involving cruelty is, or has been, stimulated with the intention of making it buck during the performance …."
may be prosecuted. A man riding a horse at a military tournament may hit it with a whip or spur it inadvertently and the horse may buck and someone who dislikes the exhibition may prosecute. I think the matter should be made clear. Perhaps the noble Lord will explain why the word "rodeo" is not included in the Title. I have no wish in any way to oppose my noble friend. I have never seen a rodeo performance, nor do I wish to see one, but at the same time some of the horse societies have asked this question, and this may be a convenient time to put it.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): I am wondering whether it would not be better

341
if the Amendment were dealt with first and the noble Lord raised his point on the Question that Clause 1 stand part.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: That was the suggestion I put before your Lordships originally, and after what the noble Marquess has said it has even more force, because we have already called the noble Lord's Amendment and the noble Lord has stated his reasons. I think the noble Marquess is quite correct when he suggests that the usual practice is, when a general question arises on a clause, that it should be discussed on the Question that the Clause stand part, and not on a separate Amendment. But I am entirely in the hands of your Lordships. Your Lordships' procedure is sufficiently elastic to permit of any procedure of which your Lordships may approve.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to insert at the end of subsection (2):
"proceedings under paragraph (c) of the said subsection in respect of the use of any such appliance or treatment as is there in mentioned upon a horse before or during a performance, it shall be a defence for the defendant to prove that he did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to know, that the appliance or treatment was to be or was used."
The noble Lord said: The point here is that it might be possible for any malicious or evil-minded person to do something to make a horse restive or buck without the knowledge or consent of the rider or of any one connected with the management of the entertainment. So these words are inserted for the purpose of making the defence a good one that this was done without the knowledge of either the promoter or rider, who could not be expected to know. I think the Amendment is perfectly clear, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 25, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am now very happy to answer the noble Lord, Lord Jessel. If the noble Lord had been in his place on the Second
342
Reading he would have heard me say—I am quoting from the OFFICIAL REPORT:
"It has not been found possible to introduce a Bill to prevent the holding of a rodeo because that is a term which is not capable of exact definition in the sense in which it is desired to prevent it."
I have looked this word up in the Oxford Dictionary, and I find it means various things. It means, originally, the place in which a gathering of cattle takes place, and the actual gathering of the cattle, but one thing it does not mean is the thing which it is sought to prevent by this Bill. It was, therefore, necessary to define the purpose more clearly, and that has been done in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of Clause 1.
LORD ASKWITH: I should also like to ask a question about Clause 1. I understand this Bill is to prevent cruelty to animals, but Clause 1 (a), (b), and possibly (c) seem to me to be drafted with a very wide wording. The Clause does not say anything about cruelty to animals, and it seems to me to want some words in line 8. As the Bill is worded at present it would appear to cover anything like they have in Australia, where at an agricultural show wild animals come in and are shown off as part of the whole business. There is not necessarily any cruelty involved at all. That is a thing that occurs in Australia, and yet under the wording of this Bill a matter like that, though it is not so likely to occur here, would be a public performance. It seems to me you are opening the door rather wide. Further, the Bill does not say whether it includes an accident to participants other than animals.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think the answer to the noble Lord is that these two items (a) and (b) which it is intended to prevent were items that took place in these performances at Wembley ten years ago, which were undoubtedly offensive to public opinion. At the time public opinion declared itself in no uncertain manner, in the Press and otherwise, that it did not want these things to happen, and paragraphs (a) and (b) are specifically prohibitive for the purpose of seeing that they do not happen again on any occasion in this country.
LORD ASKWITH: Whether there is cruelty or not?
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: That is so.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I cannot see that by inserting the words suggested by Lord Ask with, "involving cruelty to animals," you will affect the purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh. In paragraph (b) it says:
"wrestling, fighting, or struggling with any untrained bull."
I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that that might include a sale-ring of race horses or prize cattle in which the animals got excited or frightened and started to wrestle with the attendants. I cannot see any objection to adding the words "involving cruelty to animals" in line 8.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I should take the very strongest objection to that. The noble Earl has overlooked the fact that the clause starts by saying:
"No person shall promote, or cause or permit to take place any public performance…."
It is perfectly clear that the contingency which the noble Earl suggests of a restive animal in a sale-ring or elsewhere could not possibly come under the description "public performance."
LORD BARNBY: Reference has been made to Australia, and Canada might also be mentioned, but I think a caveat might be entered with regard to those particular gatherings. It is obvious that no one is going to question the propriety of making any provision against unreasonable cruelty, and, therefore, the objects of the Bill are those of which everyone in your Lordships' House would be strongly in favour. I do not want to insinuate that there is any disinclination to agree with that, but when one looks at the manner in which this Bill was introduced, at the ægis under which it was introduced, and the speed with which it was rushed through another place, one feels that the Bill has been read by only a very small proportion of those who are responsible for its having passed through another place. It would be very unfortunate were a measure, hurried through as this one has been, to be passed introducing loopholes and difficulties of interpretation which may cause unreasonable inconvenience or interference at a subsequent date.
344
I want to make my motives clear to your Lordships. It is only with a view to avoiding hasty legislation of this character that I address your Lordships at all. There will be others in this House who, like myself, have worked on cattle ranches in distant parts of the world. No body of persons is more familiar than your Lordships' House with the proper ray of treating a horse. Many of your Lordships, like myself, have ridden since we can remember, and are the first to resist any suggestions of cruelty. But let us realise what the rodeo is aimed to do. It is to give free play to the exercise of that skill which is essential in the handling of cattle which are necessary for the food supply of the people. It is perhaps unnecessary to remind your Lordships that this kind of rodeo or competition is to exercise the skill that is necessary to handle cattle in our own Dominion of Canada, and it is there considered a very proper form of the measurement of the capacity of individuals effectively and cheaply to handle cattle.
It will be known to your Lordships that cattle were not indigenous to the North American Continent, and that when they were introduced there in the early days of migration it was necessary to have great skill in handling them. If they were not handled rightly there was a big shrinkage of weight which meant a severe loss to the owners. When one reads the Bill through carefully, and, in conjunction with that, reads the remarks of the Minister in charge of the Bill in another place, who said that there is a remedy available to deal with any cruelty that may occur—
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Will the noble Lord give me the reference to that?
LORD BARNBY: It is in the OFFICIAL REPORT, column 681. With the aim of this Bill we shall all be agreed, but the manner in which this stage has been arrived at, and the precedent which is here involved of hasty legislation, of a Bill being rushed through without full analysis of what it is aimed to do and what interpretation may be put upon it, and what may be its effect on the public in our Dominions—those are matters upon which there is no doubt a difference of opinion.
LORD DANESFORT: The noble Lord who has just spoken has referred to the case of Canada and Australia. Of course, in breaking wild horses in Canada methods have to be used which may not be at all necessary here. We do not propose to interfere with anything that is done in Canada or any of the Dominions. We are dealing with public performances in this country of which we have already experienced the cruelty. I am sure that neither the noble Lord nor any of his supporters would suggest that the performance of a rodeo in this country would help the breaking of horses in Canada or Australia. They train their men in Canada and Australia for that purpose, and to have people coming over here in order to stir up what I think is a rather degraded public taste by exhibiting these things is certainly not necessary for training horses in Canada and has nothing whatever to do with it.
The noble Lord talks about rushing the Bill through the House of Commons. The reason the Bill went through the House of Commons quickly was twofold. In the first place the House of Commons were agreed that this is a right Bill. There was no opposition to it from any side of the House or from any individual in the House. In those circumstances it is only natural and proper the Bill should get through without undue delay. Another reason why there should not be delay is that. the rodeo is coming over here, and the intention had been announced of having the performances which are very distasteful to the public and to the House of Commons itself. Therefore, it was very important to get the Bill through quickly.
The only other word I wish to say is this. We had experience some years ago of what rodeo meant. We had experience of public performances of "throwing or casting, with ropes or other appliances, any unbroken horse or untrained bull." We had experience of "wrestling, fighting, or struggling with any untrained bull." We knew what these public performances were. The public, I think, speaking largely, and certainly the Press, with almost absolute unanimity, condemned the public performances such as are aimed at in this Bill, and it was because the public and the Press almost
346
unanimously condemned these performances that the Bill was brought in. I hope your Lordships will—I will not say merely follow the House of Commons, but, acting on your own initiative and judging on the merits of the case, will accept this Bill and pass it.
LORD O'HAGAN: I would like to say a word with regard to the remarks made this afternoon. Most of what I intended to say has already been said by my noble friend who has just addressed the House. At the same time I think I might. perhaps repeat in another form a few of the words which I spoke on another occasion in your Lordships' House, not so very long ago, when I had the privilege of raising this matter and bringing it before your Lordships' House. As one of those who had the experience of watching the rodeo when it was performed in England on the last occasion, I would only say that even after the removal of some of the things which are mentioned in this Bill, had taken place, the programme at Wembley was not a performance which would inspire the real sportsman with any pleasure.
I wish to make it clear that in speaking against such artificially-produced performances in this country there is no reflection on those who are actually taking part in them, that is to say, with regard to those who risk life and limb with the courage and ability which must have commended themselves to those who watched them. But it was the other side of the picture that appealed, I think, to the bulk of those who saw the performance and made us determined, when an opportunity offered, to do whatever we could to see that it did not occur again. I would also like to remind your Lordships that it was not merely the performance that took place at Wembley that gave rise to such public opposition. It was that whereas at Wembley performances of the rodeo took place under some of the best conditions that could be obtained here, there were other performances in other parts of the country where the cruelty exhibited was disgusting beyond description.
LORD BARNBY: May I say a word or two of explanation? I would like to remind your Lordships that the remarks

347
which I made before were with reference to legislation and not with reference to the holding of a rodeo. I purposely refrained from any remarks as to the propriety or the reverse of that. I cannot, however, allow to pass unchallenged the suggestion that no member of the House of Commons or the public in general wished to see an exhibition of that class of manliness which has hitherto been included in rodeos in other parts of the world and particularly in our Dominions. With full respect to the noble Lord who has just spoken, I venture to disagree with him in the suggestion that there is any lack of curiosity to see such an exhibition of courage as has been displayed at these gatherings in our Dominions, where a man going full gallop throws himself off a horse and seizes a steer by the horns. I challenge any member of your Lordships' House or of the House of Commons to deny that it requires great personal courage to do that.
Like many other members of your Lordships' House I have ridden all my life and I have been thrown off animals frequently. I do not regret it and I do not suppose that the animals did either. But the statement has been made in another place that the game was for a cowboy to seize a bullock by the horns and twist its neck until the agony compelled the creature to lie down. Your Lordships will be aware that the kind of steer used to-day is mostly short-horned. In the early days, however, long horns came from Texas and your Lordships can visualise the courage it would take to place oneself in the way of a bunch of perhaps 3,000 long-horned cattle and throw oneself off a horse. It rather introduces an element of ridicule to suggest that a man who pits himself against an animal such as a steer capable of pulling 3,000 or 4,000 pounds is dealing with a weak animal capable of being tortured by a man. Those who have seen these animals either in circumstances of domestic docility or of wildness on the plains of North America or the Argentine will know that that is not the case. It was because that sort of reference was made to rodeos that I raised this point —not on the question of holding a rodeo, but on the question whether it is desirable that legislation of this character should be rushed through, when it may be taken as a precedent.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think it is unfortunate that the noble Lord was not in his place for the Second Reading of this Bill. The speech to winch we have listened was really a very eloquent Second Reading speech. It does not arise on the Amendments. The noble Lord is better qualified than anybody to tell us what takes place at similar events in Canada and Australia, but what takes place in Canada and Australia is not what would be proposed to take place in this country. The whole point made by the noble Lord is that it requires great personal courage to jump off a horse and tackle an untamed steer. The animals brought over here on the last occasion were widely advertised as being untamed, but in point of fact they were not untamed. When they were taken down to Kent to graze they were tamer than any other cattle there. I think the noble Lord really is warning your Lordships against a danger which does not exist. Those animals such as he has dealt with and struggled with in Canada are not the sort of animals which came to Wembley in 1924.
As to haste, the reason for haste is that the desire of Parliament, as I interpret it, is to stop this thing happening. Therefore the Bill has to be passed before the Recess. In order to avoid any complaint of excessive haste, I allowed ten days to elapse in your Lordships' House between Second Reading and the Committee stage. I do not think, therefore, that anyone can accuse the promoters of the Bill of rushing it. The Bill got speedily through the House of Commons because there was no opposition. There has been ample time for discussion in your Lordships' House.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Penalties]:
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: There is a drafting Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 17, leave out ("alternately") and insert ("alternatively").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

WATER SUPPLIES (EXCEPTIONAL SHORTAGE ORDERS) BILL.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(viscount Gage.)
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, on the question that the Report be now received I should like to ask for some assurance from the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill. It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that when the Bill was in Committee there were great difficulties confronting both the noble Viscount and myself in the matter of Amendments, owing to the fact that the Bill was so rushed that there was practically no time to put down Amendments. The most important question I raised then was as to Orders being confirmed by Parliament. Your Lordships know that these Orders are merely made by the Minister and there is no control. I suggested that there should be control by Parliament. The noble Viscount said that was not possible, because this was an emergency measure and the Orders made must come into operation at once. I ventured to go further and suggested that if that could not be done the Orders might lie on the Table of both Houses. That is a very common procedure now, and I know that the Ministry of Health do not object to that form. The noble Viscount said that also was not possible and asked me to see him and confer with him.
I have had the opportunity of doing that, and what I am anxious to get now is some assurance that there is no intention on the part of the Government at December 31, 1935, to place this Act in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, because of course there is a real danger of their doing that. So many temporary Bills I have known brought forward which have become Acts and have then been included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and we have no further power over them. I am quite aware of the statement made by the Minister of Health in another place when he said in Standing Committee:
"This is a purely temporary measure to last only long enough to enable us to take emergency measures in respect of the actual drought."
350
He went on to say:
"There is no intention to use the machinery of the Bill as a permanent addition to the Statute Book. It would be quite improper as a permanent addition to the Statute Book."
No doubt that is very satisfactory as far as it goes, but there must have been some doubt in the mind of one distinguished member of the House of Commons; I refer to Sir Francis Fremantle, who said on Third Reading that he had very grave doubts whether he ought to support the Third Reading.
Sir Francis said:
"Because this is creating such a precedent, I have some qualms in giving to the Minister the duty and responsibility of making these Orders without Parliament having an opportunity of reviewing them. I hope that the matter may be taken into consideration in another place "—
and then he went on to say—
"because I feel uneasy in regard to it, but in every other respect I congratulate the Government on what seems to be very useful and prompt action."
I think that is the general feeling of the House—that on general principles there is no objection to it; but on the other hand I think we ought to have a little further assurance than was given by the Minister. Certainly Sir Francis Fremantle evidently thought so, because he referred to it again. Notwithstanding what the Minister said, I am anxious to get an expression from the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill that there is not the slightest intention on the part of the Government to put this Bill, when it has become an Act, after December 31, 1935, into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and that so far as his Party arc concerned they have no wish to have the Bill except as merely an Emergency Bill with no idea of carrying it on in the future.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I think that the only point which now remains is the last point mentioned by the noble Lord, and in connection with that I can make this statement: while we cannot, of course, give an assurance that in no circumstances will the Bill be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, if, for instance, at the end of next year there is again a drought as severe as that which the country has just experienced, we can give the noble Lord a definite assurance that there is no intention of making the Bill a permanent measure, either by including it in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act or in any other way.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Amendments reported accordingly.
Clause 1 [Power to make Orders, and duration, variatian and revocation of orders]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I have to move a purely drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 3, after ("water") insert ("into a canal or").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock.