ELECTRICITY BILL. (Hansard, 23 July 1947)

HL Deb 23 July 1947 vol 151 cc266-314 266

§ House again in Committee.

§ Clause 41:

§ Apportionment of liabilities in respect of stock, borrowed moneys, etc., as between Central Authority and area boards.

§ 41.—(1) The Central Authority may require any area board to contribute, to such extent as may be determined by the Central 267 Authority, towards the satisfaction of the obligations of the Central Authority in respect of—

(a) the redemption of British Electricity Stock or the payment of interest thereon;
(b) the repayment of sums to the Treasury under the next following section or the payment of interest thereon;
(c) the making of payments under Part II of this Act by way of compensation to local authorities; or
(d) the repayment of any sums temporarily borrowed by the Central Authority or the payment of interest thereon;

and the area board shall comply with that requirement.

§ LORD ROCHDALE moved in subsection (1) to leave out "to such extent as may be determined by the Central Authority, towards" and insert "rateably in proportion to the book values of the assets for the time being vested in the Central Authority or the area board as the case may be." The noble Lord said: This clause deals with the extent to which the Central Authority may require area boards to contribute towards the satisfaction of the obligations of the Central Authority in regard to the matters which are detailed in the subsections of Clause 41; that is to say, for the redemption of British Electricity Stock, the repayment of sums to the Treasury under the next following clause, and various other similar items. It seems right to me that the area boards should be required to contribute in the way outlined, but as the clause now stands it says that the apportionment between the area boards shall be as determined by the Central Authority; in other words, it may be laid down in a perfectly arbitrary way.

§ Personally, I feel strongly that we should know the true financial position of each of the area boards year by year. In saying that, I want to make it quite clear that this has nothing whatever to do with the question that was debated earlier on as to whether the electricity industry budget should be on a national or on an area basis. But we do want to know the true position of each of those boards financially, however they may be dealt with afterwards. For that very purpose it seems that there should be capital items in the accounts of each area board comparable to the actual assets taken over by the board in respect of which the Central Authority has actually issued stock. All this Amendment seeks to do 268 is to ensure that that shall be so, and it proposes to do this by relating the indebtedness of the Central Authority to the book values of the assets that have been taken over by the area boards.

§ It may be argued that to arrive at these book assets might be difficult, but I do not see any serious difficulty in the way. I suggest that the book values could be taken either from the existing book values which occur in the statutory accounts that all other undertakings have to submit to the Electricity Commission now (that would be one way of doing it, and to support that point of view I would like to remind your Lordships that the rate of depreciation each year is a rate that has been approved by the Electricity Commissioners), or the book values could be entirely new book values, which presumably must be made out if the old ones are not acceptable for the purpose of arriving at the appropriate demands on each area board for Income Tax purposes. Whichever method is adopted I do not think matters from the point of view of it being accepted that it should not be difficult to have proper book values for the assets taken over by each area board. I suggest that this is a really important provision. After all, we are asking no more than we should of an independent private company which bought certain capital assets. They would enter them into their accounts at the cost which they paid for them. Unless this is done, I see that it is going to be difficult, if not impossible, to have a true financial picture of the results of the year's working of each area board. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 59, line 24, leave out from ("contribute") to ("towards") in line 25, and insert the said words.—(Lord Rochdale.)

LORD TEYNHAM
I should like very briefly to support this Amendment, which has been so clearly set out by the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale. It is really one of administration. I think it is necessary so that we can know the true financial position of any of the area boards. I think that is explained if the Central Authority are to be responsible for capital and interest charges in connexion with British Electricity Stock issued. This Amendment will provide for a proper apportionment of these stock charges between the area boards in relation to the book value of the assets actually taken over by the boards. I do not think it 269 should be difficult to ascertain these book values; in fact they must be found for the purposes of Income Tax. The Amendment is really designed to improve the efficiency and administration of the organization as outlined in the Bill. I do strongly support this Amendment.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The effect of this Amendment is to take out the words on page 59, line 24, "to such extent as may be determined by the Central Authority," so that the subsection will read: The Central Authority may require any area board to contribute towards the satisfaction of the obligations of the Central Authority … . Instead of having the completely flexible system which the Bill proposes, you are going to have—for reasons which the noble Lord very plainly described—a more or less inflexible system. It is to be dependent upon book values. I do not like this Amendment. I do not like it first of all because it brings an element of inflexibility into what ought to be a very flexible system.
May I tell the noble Lord that you need not assess book values to deal with Income Tax? You cannot get out of paying Income Tax by the simple method of not dealing with your book values. That is one reason why I object to this Amendment. I think we have agreed to-day in all parts of the House that this must be run on a national and not on a regional basis. There have been a few voices raised in protest, but broadly speaking that is agreed. I am not certain myself that book value of assets is a good basis. At any rate, it is not the conclusive basis at which I should look. First of all, in looking at what is the hook value of assets you have to remember this. At the present time you will probably find among these companies—if my experience goes for anything—the book value of assets dealt with in wholly different ways. There is no standard which you have to apply, and the trouble is that very different systems apply.
If I wanted to put in the front rank the book value of assets, I should want to be assured that all the companies with whom I was going to deal dealt with their book value of assets on more or less the same basis. After all, the area boards will inherit, amongst other things, accounts of the various constituent com- 270 panies and they will find, unless I am very wrong, that the book value of assets is dealt with on quite different bases. If I were to impose upon all the area boards an obligation to get the book value of their assets on the same basis that objection would go; but on the other Land it is a difficult accountancy proposition and it would take a good deal of time. Until that is done I do not think it is fair to place too much reliance upon the book value of assets.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK
May I interrupt? I think the basis upon which those accounts are kept is laid down by the Central Electricity Authority and they are all kept on the same lines.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I wish I could feel that the noble Viscount was right, but I am assured by those who know—I have no knowledge myself at all—that you will find the widest possible variations.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK
There ought not to be.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
Perhaps there ought not to be, but I am ass fired there are; I do not knew, but I am told there are. Anyhow, do not let us exaggerate this matter. If you get a more Dr less uniform system, that that is one of the matters to which you have to have regard is, to my mind, quite plain. I have not the shadow of a doubt but that if you, get a uniform basis, or still more if there is a uniform basis to-day, it is one of the matters which the Central Authority should take into consideration. But I think there are other factors too which they should take into consideration: for instance, the revenue-earning capacity of the assets, or perhaps the tariff structure in particular areas.
There are various other matters which should be taken into consideration, and my objection to this Amendment there fore is, first of all, that it makes inflexible that which essentially should be flexible; and secondly, that it singles out one or two important considerations, disregarding other more important considerations. From that point of view I object to the Amendment. If it is a question of publicity, your Lordships all know where I stand; the utmost publicity must be given to the area hoards over the publishing of their accounts. If anyone says he does not know how any area board stands in 271 this matter I can only say he must learn to read accounts. I have no half-way house about this. I am complete and absolute in my determination to see that there is the most full disclosure of all the relevant facts. Therefore I ask the noble Lord to assume that there will be that disclosure; and, that being so, I ask him not to make that which should be flexible, inflexible, and not to pick out one item when there are other items perhaps of equal importance which should be considered.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
I am bound to side here with the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. We must not lay down, I think, an absolutely hard and fast rule. I have been greatly worried about this. There is to be a discretion; this thing is to be run as a whole; and it is, possibly, to be subject always to the most minute particularity in every form of accounting, as the Lord Chancellor has said. Your Lordships have acceded to the proposition that each area board is not necessarily to run in exactly the same way and on exactly the same financial lines, and that one may bear a larger share of the contribution to the Central Fund expenses than another. But once we have accepted that proposition—and I think we accepted it rightly in an earlier clause—then I agree with the Lord Chancellor that we cannot lay down that there should be a mathematically proportionate contribution to general reserves or particular reserves or towards the expenses which the Central Authority have to carry. I think we must see, when we come to the accounts clause, that we get this as clear as we possibly can.
It is common ground that we should know exactly whether each of these businesses, in each of its activities, is making a profit or a loss. To do that you have to arrive in some way at the capital employed in the business. I should have thought that for the purposes of Income Tax, although the basis need not necessarily be uniform, the Income Tax authorities must know what is the capital structure in order to ascertain the profit made. After all, you make a profit on something—on your capital; therefore you must know, in each of these businesses, in order to assess them for Income Tax, what profit they have made. And that does not mean just an excess of revenue 272 over outgoings; it does mean a relation to capital generally employed in the business.
I do not want to carry this further at this stage. I would advise my noble friends not to press this Amendment. I think really we are in general agreement that when we come to the accounts we must concentrate on making perfectly sure (as I think we did in regard to the Transport undertaking, which incidentally is very much the same; you may be making a loss on the railways, but making a profit on the roads) that we know how we stand financially on each undertaking that we conduct. It would be wise to concentrate, with the most meticulous care, upon the form of the accounts which are laid down, and leave a pretty broad discretion to the Central Authority and to the boards what contributions are to be made to this or that fund.

LORD ROCHDALE
In view of what has been said about this Amendment—and I must say I appreciate much of what the noble and learned Viscount has said upon this point—I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 41 agreed to.

§ Clause 42 agreed to.

§ Clause 43:

§ Reserve Funds of Central Authority and Area Boards.

§ (2) The Central Authority and the area boards shall contribute to the central reserve fund such sums at such times as the Central Authority may determine and the management of the said fund and the application of the moneys comprised therein shall be as the Central Authority may determine:

§ Provided that— (a) no part of the said fund shall be applied otherwise than for the purposes of the Central Authority and area boards; and

§ (4) If an area board establish an area reserve fund, they shall, from their surplus revenue, contribute to the said fund, to such extent as the Central Authority may approve, and the management of the said fund and the application of the moneys comprised therein shall be as the area board may determine:

§ Provided that—

(a) no part of the fund shall be applied otherwise than for the purposes of the area board; and
(b) the power of the Central Authority to give directions to any area board shall extend to the giving to them, with the 273 approval of the Minister, of directions as to any matter relating to the establishment or management of the area reserve fund or the carrying of sums to the credit thereof, notwithstanding that the directions may be of a specific character.

§ 8.47 p.m.

§ LORD RENNELL moved in subsection (2) to leave out "determine" where that word first occurs, and insert "approve." The noble Lord said: I feel rather sad that the Amendment which I am going to move is being moved to-day instead of yesterday. Had it been moved yesterday, after what we heard about the independence of the area boards, I have no doubt that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor would have accepted it. However, since the Lord Chancellor has to-day decided that the area board is subsidiary to the Central Authority, I have very little hope of my Amendment being accepted.

§ The object of the Amendment is to endow the area board with that elementary independence which an independent institution is entitled to exercise—namely, to decide what to place to its own reserves. I hedge that round by giving the Central Authority the power to approve or disapprove the reserves so created, instead of determining or giving orders; because if there is one test of the financial independence of an institution, it is whether or not somebody can tell it what to do about its excess revenues—about the importance of placing them to reserve or otherwise. This independence is not permitted to the area boards. The object of my Amendment is to give back to the area boards the independence which they can have and which to-day we are told they have not got. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 60, line 30, leave out ("determine") and insert ("approve").—(Lord Rennell.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
As the noble Lord fully anticipated, I regret to say that I cannot accept his Amendment. May I say just a few words about area boards since he has given me the opportunity? I do not say that these area boards are independent; I am conscious of the fact that if you have to buy your electricity from a gentleman who has the right to fix the price at which you have to buy, you lack a certain element of independence.

274

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
It is a ring!

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
That's the very reason why I want the area boards to have a little independence from the Central Authority. That is why, those being the circumstances, I object to the provision that the Central Authority should appoint the area boards. I wart the area hoards, when they are told that they have to pay, at any rate to be able to express themselves forcibly and tell the Central Authority exactly what trey think of them. I think that is, at any rate, some use. If the area boards are to be appointed by the Central Authority when they start off on their little exposition of the true position, the Central Authority would be able to say to them: "If you talk any more like that, you will not be appointed again." That will not do at all. That was why I was anxious that they should, at any rate, not be appointed by the Central Authority. Do not let it be said that I think these area boards are as free as the wind. I admit quite frankly that they are not; but there is no reason why we should make them even more enslaved

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
Is the technique the Lord Chancellor has just described—"If you talk like that you will not be appointed again"—the technique the Minister is going to apply?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
Oh, no The technique I have been describing is always employed by the silent people those who do not talk. Therefore, For the reasons I have given and for other reasons of which the noble Lord is wet aware, I regret to say that I cannot accept his Amendment.

LORD RENNELL
Having regard to the noble and learned Viscount's very clear exposition of the independence or otherwise of the area boards, which m ill entirely satisfy all your Lordships, I beg leave to withdraw.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ LORD ROCHDALE moved to insert at the beginning of the proviso to subsection (2): (a) the contributions to be made by the area boards in any financial year shall be determined rateably in proportion to the book value of the assets for the time being vested in each area board and to any surplus revenue accrued to the area board in that year. The noble Lord said: In view of whit was said on the last Amendment that I 275 moved, I will be quite frank and say that I am moving this Amendment for information. Subsection (2) (b) gives the Minister considerable power of direction with regard to the Central Reserve Fund, and enables him to give directions "as to any matter relating to the establishment or management" of the Fund, and so on. It seems to be perfectly right that the area boards should contribute to the Central Reserve Fund, and I have no doubt that there will be no objection to that. But a certain amount of doubt might easily arise in the event of there being no general basis, no clear published basis, as to how the apportionment of the contributions is to be arrived at. With the normal trading concern, as I see it, reserves could be built up only in one way, and that is from the surplus profits.

§ If that were to be the only criterion in this instance—that is to say in the case of the area boards—then I can quite easily see cases where a smaller board, and possibly a more efficient board, would be paying into the Central Reserve Fund considerably more than a larger board which was running with less efficiency; in other words it would he putting a premium on inefficiency. If, on the other hand, the basis were to be not the profits that have been earned at all, but the size of the board concerned, then that would not take into account the fact that certain boards, owing to the locality in which they operate, may find it much more difficult to make profits than other boards. Area boards who have to operate with a high proportion of agricultural consumers are obviously going to find it more difficult to make ends meet than those who are operating with a very high proportion of industrial consumers. All that this Amendment seeks to do is to suggest, whatever may be the formula to be arrived at, that it should take into account the size of the concern, on the one hand, and its efficiency and profit-making capacity on the other hand. I must admit that I am not by any means wedded to the wording of this Amendment but, as I pointed out earlier, I have put it down in order to find out what is in the back of the Minister's mind. He must have something in the back of his mind, because he has reserved to himself such a considerable power of direction. I beg to move.

276

§ Amendment moved— Page 60, line 33, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Rochdale.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I do not know what is in the back of the Minister's mind. What is in the front of his mind is this. The Bill provides that the Central Authority shall be able to tell the area boards what each of the area boards are to contribute towards the Central Reserve Fund. There is a risk—it will be a theoretical one, I think—that that power might be rather oppressively used. It might be oppressively used, in the case of a particular area board who were doing well and showing themselves thoroughly efficient, to make what I think is called excess revenue. It is conceivable that the Central Authority might come along and say: "You shall contribute a good deal." I do not think that that is likely, I sincerely hope that it is not. That being so, it was felt right to guard against that and protect the area boards from such a risk—which as I say is a remote one—and that the Minister should have power, altogether apart from the clause which gives him power to give general directions in the national interest, to control the operations of the Central Authority in this connexion, and if he thinks that they are being too harsh to any particular area board to be able to say so. In view of these considerations we cannot accept the Amendment.

LORD ROCHDALE
I fully appreciate what the noble and learned Viscount has said as regards the powers that the Minister has retained, and the reasons. But I must say that I had hoped for a little more enlightenment as to the basis on which he was going to work. Perhaps we shall hear more of that later on. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, in proviso (b) of subsection (4), to leave out "with the approval of the Minister." The noble Viscount said: Perhaps I may remind my noble friend Lord Rennell of what I think was in the front of his mind when he put down this Amendment. I think the object is that the Central Authority and not the Minister shall have to tell the boards about their reserves. I beg to move.

277

§ Amendment moved— Page 61, line 15, leave out from beginning of line to the second ("of").—(Viscount Swinton.)

§ LORD MORRISON
I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, is perfectly correct. The Amendment would permit the Central Authority to give directions to the area boards in regard to area reserve funds without seeking the approval of the Minister. These directions, I would point out, relate to the establishment and management of the funds, but not to their application, and the Minister's approval would be used only to ensure that a proper standard of management was observed. It is not clear what objection there can be to this, and I hope that the noble Viscount will not press the Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
I understood that the object of the last Amendment was that the Minister could, so to speak, act as arbitrator and guardian, so that one local authority was not dealt with too harshly in order to subsidize another. This is something different. Here is a question of how the fund is to be administered. I would have thought that if any direction were to be given it should be given by the Central Authority and not by the Minister. However, I do not press this. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 43 agreed to.

§ Clause 44 agreed to.

§ Clause 45 [Sums which are to be chargeable to revenue account]:

§ LORD MORRISON
This is a drafting Amendment, to bring the phraseology into line with that of Clause 22. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 62, line 15, leave out ("expressed") and insert ("to be deemed").—(Lord Morrison.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 46:

§ Accounts and audit of Central Authority and area boards.

§ (2) The form of the said statement shall be such as to secure the provision of separate information as respects the generation of electricity, the distribution of electricity, and each of the main other activities of the Electricity Board concerned.

278

§ (3) The accounts of the Central Authority and of every area board shall be audited by auditors to be appointed in respect of each financial year by the Minister.

§ (5) So soon as the accounts of the Central Authority have been audited, they shall send a copy of the statement of their accounts referred to in subsection (a) of this section to the Minister together with a copy of my report made by the auditors on that statement or on the accounts of the Authority and shall also send copies of the statements of accounts of every area board to the Minister together with any reports on those statements of accounts as aforesaid.

§ 9.2 p.m.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, at the end of subsection (2) to insert "and to show as far as may be the financial and operating results of each such activity." The noble Viscount said: Now we do come to an Amendment of great importance but on which I am sure we shall be in complete agreement. The noble and learned Viscount said: "The one thing we are in more agreement on than any thing else is that there shall be absolute and complete disclosure of the whole financial position of each undertaking:" I have no criticism of subsection (1) of this clause. Subsection (2), however, dealing with the form of the statement of accounts says that it shall be such as to secure the provision 01 separate information as respects the generation of electricity, the distribution of electricity, and each of the main other activities of the Electricity Board concerned.

§ That is all right so far as it goes, but information does not necessarily mean a clear statement as to whether or not in those transactions a profit or a loss has been made. We had a great deal of discussion on the Transport Bill, not because there was any difference of opinion, but in order, on a question where it was extremely difficult to apportion capital assets, to see that we put in words which would show that a clear financial statement was issued with regard to every operation. We proposed trading accounts and separate profit and loss accounts, and it was agreed that the requisite words be inserted. They were put down by the Leader of the House, Viscount Addison. Clause 95 of the Transport Bill says: The said annual statement shall be so framed as to provide, as far as may be, separate information as respects the principal activities of the Commission …

279

§ That is what we have here, and the Leader of the House proposed to insert this: and in combination with periodical statistics and returns rendered by the Commission to show, as far as may be, the financial and operating results of each single activity, which are exactly the words I propose in this Amendment. I feel sure they will be generally agreed. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 62, line 31, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Swinton.)

§ LORD MORRISON
The noble Viscount has described with great accuracy the circumstances in which he came to place this Amendment on the Paper. Clause 46 (2) was amended in the Commons so as to require the annual accounts of the Central Authority and of each area board to give separate information in regard to the generation of electricity, the distribution of electricity, and each of the other main activities of the Electricity Board concerned. The Amendment now proposes to amplify this to require "the financial and operating results" of each such activity to be shown "as far as may be." Similar phraseology is used in the Transport Bill and there is no objection to its acceptance here.

LORD RENNELL
I think the very brief statement which the noble Viscount who moved this Amendment made is really all that need be said. It is an essential principle of the operation of an industry of this sort, as a whole, that the separate activities of generation on the one hand and of distribution on the other should be shown separately, and that the financial results should also be shown separately. As it is obvious from the spokesman of the Government that that end has been achieved, I think it is unnecessary to detain your Lordships any longer, except to express great satisfaction on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House for the way in which the Amendment has been accepted.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY moved to add at the end of subsection (3): Provided that a person shall not be qualified to be so appointed unless he is qualified to act as auditor of a company (not 280 being a private company) under any enactment for the time being in force relating to the qualification of an auditor of such a company as aforesaid. The noble Lord said: The Amendment which stands in my name seeks substantially to do with the audit of the accounts of the Central Authority and the area boards what subsection (1) does with the form of account. That subsection provides that the accounts "shall conform with the best commercial standards." My Amendment seeks to make it obligatory that the audit of accounts of the Central Authority and the area boards shall be carried out by a qualified accountant. This matter has been raised once or twice on other nationalization Bills, but I would like to point out to your Lordships that we have now—or I hope we shall shortly have—a standard to which we can refer. The Companies Bill is now before another place and, therefore, we cannot yet discern its final form. However, on the assumption—which I do not think it unwarranted—that the clause will not be amended, I would like to refer your Lordships to Clause 22 (1) of the Companies Bill. It says: A person shall not be qualified for appointment as auditor of a company unless either

(a) he is a member of a body of accountants established in the United Kingdom and for the time being recognised for the purposes of this provision by the Board of Trade; or
(b) he is for the time being authorised by the Board of Trade to be so appointed either as having similar qualifications obtained outside the United Kingdom or as having before the eighteenth day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-five, practised in Great Britain as an accountant."

§ Those are the standards demanded of a person thought fit to audit accounts of public companies. It seems to me proper that qualifications should be demanded of persons called upon to audit this very important (as it is to be) nationalized industry. Accountants—and I have the honour to be one—are young in professional life. We have not the same antiquity as the law, or perhaps as medicine, but I think it has come to be recognized that accountants play an important part in the life of our nation. I do not think it is too much to demand that the Government should recognize (as they recognize the other older professions in Acts of Parliament) that when profes- 281 sional advice and help is required proper qualifications should be demanded. May I recall to your Lordships that I take no narrow view of these matters; in fact, I was one of those who moved that in the case of private companies such a qualification should not be demanded, because I thought it was perhaps an unnecessary approximation to the closed shop. But in this case I think a qualification is demanded, and I think the proper qualification as set down and admitted by His Majesty's Government in the Companies Bill should also be written into this Bill which is now before us. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 62, line 34, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord De L'Isle and Dudley.)

§ LORD MORRISON
After the eloquent speech of the noble Lord I regret that I am unable to accept his Amendment; and I do not propose to follow him into the argument with regard to the closed shop. I desire to give what I think he will agree are three excellent reasons why the Government find themselves unable to accept the Amendment. It has been the Government's policy to reject similar Amendments in relation to other nationalized industries. There are three arguments. The first is that the Minister has no intention of appointing any persons to such important duties if they are not properly qualified to carry them out. If he did he could, and no doubt would, be criticized in Parliament. The second reason is that the Companies Act of 1929 makes no provision for qualifications of auditors of companies. The present Companies Bill may be altered before it is enacted. The third reason is that the accounting profession are sponsoring a Bill to define the qualifications of a practising accountant, and meanwhile it might not be wise to attempt a definition in relation to public corporations. For those reasons I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
Before the noble Lord replies, may I make a suggestion to the noble Lord who has just spoken? I can conceive that there are certain objections, especially at this time with the Companies Bill not yet an Act of Parliament, why this precise form of Amendment is open to objection. I can quite follow that, but whether an auditor is appointed by a Minister or by anybody else, I think that in an important matter 282 such as this it is essential, and in accordance with practice, that the qualifications of such an accountant should be mentioned. "An accountant" foes not mean anything without a statement of qualifications. There is nothing here about his ever having passed an examination. So far as I know a chimney sweep is an auditor if he is willing to audit. I strongly urge on the noble Lord, assuming that he does not object to this, to say that between now and the Report stage he will see if it is not possible to lay down some rules under which the country will be satisfied that these very important accounts, both of the Central Authority and the area boards, shall be audited by experienced accountants who have a real knowledge of the business I hey profess to perform.

§ THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH
I too heard with the very greatest surprise the rejection of the very reasonable Amendment which my noble friend has moved on this subject. It is suggested that we should trust the Minister to ensure that accounts are audited by a proper person. I am always very suspicious indeed when either House of Parliament is told that they should trust the Minister to make sure that something is done. The whole basis of our constitutional history is trust of the Minister, and ought it not to be our constant endeavour in legislation to ensure against the almost incredibly remote chance (but still the chance) that the Minister may do something wholly improper—as Ministers have done in the past and as, for all we know, Ministers may do in the future?
What does my noble friend ask? He asks not that the accountant of these bodies should have particular qualifications, but merely that the accountant should have the same qualifications as those to which the accountant of any public company is subject under the law in force for the time being. It astonished me to hear the noble Lord suggesting that there was anything unreasonable, anything but the plainest common sense in that provision. Noble Lords may point out that when these accounts are presented to Parliament it will be relevant for Parliament to challenge the accounts. But, contrary to what has been suggested by the noble Lord, it will not be proper for Parliament to challenge the competence of the accountant employed by the Minis- 283 ter. It is not unlikely that he would be empowered under the clause as it stands to have the accounts audited within the Ministry. In that event we should be wholly precluded from challenging the competence of the person who audited the accounts. I beg the noble Lord to think again, and to consider whether this is not, after all, a very reasonable provision such as may suitably be inserted in nationalization Bills, both present and future, and whether it is not in the last resort a very proper provision in the interests of the nation.

LORD RENNELL
I have heard with profound surprise the reasons adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, in declining to accept this Amendment. The second reason, that the present Companies Bill is not yet an Act of Parliament is, surely, entirely irrelevant. The terms of the Amendment do not propose that this Companies Bill shall be taken as a model. It merely proposes that those enactments which are in force for public companies at any time shall be applicable to this authority. And to adduce that, among other reasons—with none of which I find myself able to agree—for declining to insert the provision that these accounts should be audited by a qualified auditor is so surprising that I feel sure the noble Lord will wish to reconsider the matter. I must associate myself absolutely with every word that the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, has said, and protest against the possibility, however remote, of an unqualified auditor being appointed. I am not satisfied, in view of the reasons that have been given for refusing this Amendment, with the assurance that in fact a qualified auditor will be appointed.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK
In the course of his remarks the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, indicated that the Minister intended to appoint qualified auditors. If that is so, is it beneath the dignity of the Minister, to include that in the Bill? As the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, has said, we do not trust the assurances given day after day, and week after week. They may be all right so long as the noble Lord is in his place, or the Government are in their place, but directly they are out of office, or the next Minister comes along, we have only what is in cold print in the Bill. It should not be 284 beneath the dignity of the Minister to include this provision in the Bill. "Properly qualified" auditors would probably be a sufficient term to cover the point. I think it is very little to ask that the Government should agree to this.

§ LORD MORRISON
I do not wish to involve your Lordships in a lengthy argument on this subject. I have carefully noted all the points made. I think perhaps the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham was exaggerating a little when he suggested that the Government might even appoint a chimney sweep to audit the accounts. I should not like to be on the Government Benches if and when that matter was debated in Parliament! As I say, if the noble Lord who moved this Amendment will withdraw it now, I am quite prepared to have it reconsidered and brought up again.

§ LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY
After that assurance from the noble Lord, I will not press this Amendment, but I would like to say a word about it. Taking his last reason first, it is perfectly true that a Public Accounts Bill is under negotiation, but I do not think that is an adequate reason, when we are considering legislation, for not putting proper safeguards into this Bill. Going backwards along his reasons, the fact that the Companies Bill is not law, as the noble Lord Rennell has pointed out, is not relevant to this Amendment, which is drafted to cover just that particular point. The first reason I agree with entirely, and I do not think it right that we should accept on this point, any more than we should with regard to the qualifications of a doctor or a dentist, the assurance that a qualified person will be appointed. In view of the noble Lord's assurance—and I hope that we shall arrive at some agreement—I will withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ LORD LLOYD moved, in subsection (5) at the end to insert: "and copies thereof shall be made available to the public at a reasonable price." The noble Lord said: The Amendment in my name seems to me to be covered by a subsequent Amendment which has been put down by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. I am very grateful to the Government for giving us this Amendment, and I am prepared not to press my Amendment.

285

§ LORD MORRISON
I hope the noble Lord will move his Amendment because I was going to say in reply that on consideration it appears to us that the words of his Amendment are preferable; I was going to accept the noble Lord's Amendment in preference to the Government Amendment.

LORD LLOYD
I am always grateful for an opportunity to do the noble Lord a good turn. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 62, line 47, at end insert ("and copies thereof shall be made available to the public at a reasonable price").—(Lord Lloyd.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 47 agreed to.

§ Clause 48:

§ Acquisition of non-statutory undertakings.

§ 48.—(1) This section applies to any person, not being a body to whom Part II of this Act applies, who at the passing of this Act is engaged in supplying electricity to the general public and who, at any time after the nineteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and forty-five, has incurred or incurs, in respect of works approved by the Minister for the purposes of this section (whether before or after the execution of the works) expenditure properly chargeable to capital account; and in this section any such person is referred to as "the undertakers," and his business, so far as it consists of the supply of electricity to the general public, is referred to as "the electricity undertaking."

§ 9.23 p.m.

§ LORD LLOYD moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "public," where that word first occurs, up to and including "account." The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the clause on the acquisition of non-statutory undertakings. We are very grateful to His Majesty's Government for this clause which, I think I am right in saying, was put into the Bill because it was pressed in another place by the Opposition. It was pressed for two reasons. The first was that these non-statutory undertakings, many of which are small concerns, would be likely, with the establishment of this great Government monopoly, to be forced out of business, quite apart from the fact that, if they remained in business, they might well be ruined, with great hardship to their employees. There was the other consideration, that a good many of them might consider they would do better to 286 get out of business while the going was good, which would, if they went out of business before the new Electricity Authority were in a position to supply electricity in those places where they have been supplying it, result in great hardship to their consumers. We are grateful to the Government for this clause, and this Amendment is merely an endeavour to improve the clause.

§ The Government have gone a long way to meet this point, but this Amendment is designed to remove certain restrictions which still remain in this clause. The words that I seek to leave out are the words which qualify the non-statutory undertakers which are to be taken over; and the qualification is that capital expenditure on works approved by the Minister must have been incurred since November 19, 1945. My objections to this qualification are, first of all, that obviously the Minister could render the whole of this qualification invalid by refusing to give any approval. I am not suggesting for a moment that he would; but he could. The second objection is that this leaves a great deal to chance. A company may wish to get the approval of the Minister, and as the clause stands a company that spends £5 on works which are approved would be qualified. A company which did not spend that money, on the other hand, would be disqualified. Finally, if the Minister refuses approval, there is no appeal.

§ I suggest to your Lordships that it would be to the advantage not only of these non-statutory undertakers, but also of the public at large, that as many as possible, and certainly as many as want, should come in and be taken over by His Majesty's Government, and that they should be given an opportunity of doing so. As I have said, a number of them may be frightened of being put out of business by this new Electricity Authority which is to be set up. The more prudent of them might well decide to go out of business while the going was good, and that would cause great hardship to their consumers; and, what is more, it would exclude from the three hundred odd non-statutory undertakers quite a number of undertakers who would otherwise wish to come in.

§ I submit that the small non-statutory undertakers, many of whom have done a 287 very good job of work, cannot be as efficient as a larger concern, and I am sure it is in the interests of the public that so far as possible these small concerns should be incorporated in the larger scheme. The Government have objected to taking over more of these non-statutory undertakers on the ground that a great deal of their equipment is not standard, and that these undertakings are not worth much to the Government. I suggest, as against that argument, that that very fact would enable the Government to take them over a great deal more cheaply, and I feel, therefore, that we should do well to eliminate this provision and allow as many non-statutory undertakers as wish to come in, quite regardless of the provision, to be taken over if they so desire. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 64, line 42, leave out from ("public") to ("and") in line 2 on page 65.—(Lord Lloyd.)

§ LORD CHORLEY
I was very glad to hear the noble Lord express his gratitude to the Government for having gone so far as to meet this particular matter, because he will not be so disappointed when I tell him that we cannot accept this Amendment. The noble Lord has, quite properly, pointed out the scope of Clause 48. In effect it is to deal with the position of non-statutory undertakings in a biggish way of business who, in order to meet the substantial numbers of consumers who take their current from them, have to embark upon fairly substantial capital works. The relevant date, of course, is the date as from when it was known that there would, in fact, be nationalization of the industry.
The noble Lord's Amendment, in effect, would enable any one of these non-statutory suppliers to insist on being taken over. There are all sorts of people of this kind. Some of them have very small concerns indeed—a mere garage, or a cycle shop, or something of that kind in the country. In some cases they are a one-man show, almost tied together with bits of string. The noble Lord's Amendment, as I say, would enable the owner of a little concern of that kind to insist on its being taken over and merged in the Government scheme, and moreover would, in a sense, put such people in the position of statutory suppliers, a status which has certainly not been theirs in the 288 past. In those circumstances the clause as it stands is as far as the Government feel it is proper and reasonable to go, and I am sure the noble Lord, on thinking the matter over, will agree to withdraw his Amendment.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK
Would the noble Lord kindly tell us how far the clause does go, so that we can sum up the whole situation?

§ LORD CHORLEY
I think the terms of the clause are reasonably clear. It states at the beginning, This section applies to any person, not being a body to whom Part II of this Act applies, who at the passing of this Act is engaged in supplying electricity to the general public and who, at any time after the nineteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and forty-five, has incurred or incurs, in respect of works approved by the Minister for the purposes of this section (whether before or after the execution of the works) expenditure properly chargeable to capital account. The whole point, of course, is in the words "works approved by the Minister." This is capital expenditure. It might well be incurred where possibly a number of new houses have been built or new works have been started, in order to enable consumers of that kind to be supplied.

LORD LLOYD
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, but I must confess that I am a little disappointed that he cannot meet me on this point. I think that he slightly exaggerated the smallness of these undertakings. Some, I agree, are very small, but there are a number, I believe, who will be excluded from the Bill by this provision to the extent that they did not happen to apply to the Minister for this permission. In some cases they will feel that the risks of continuing in business against the competition of a nationalized undertaking are such that they are better out of it. This will lead to great hardship on their particular consumers. However, I do not consider this matter sufficiently important to press it, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ LORD CHORLEY
This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 66, line 40, at end insert ("and for references to the vesting date there shall be substituted references to the date of transfer").—(Lord Chorley.)

289

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 49:

§ Supply of electricity to railways.

§ (2) The terms and conditions on which electricity is supplied by an Electricity Board to any railway undertakers for the purposes of haulage or traction shall be determined in accordance with regulations made by the Minister and the Minister of Transport jointly, or, in the case of a supply by the North of Scotland Board, the Secretary of State and the Minister of Transport jointly.

§ (3) Where electricity is supplied by an Electricity Board to any railway undertakers for the purposes of haulage or traction, that supply may be used, with the approval of the Central Authority, or, in the case of a supply by the North of Scotland Board, with the approval of that Board, on the same terms and conditions, for any other purposes for which electricity may be required by the railway undertakers.

§ (4) The Central Authority may, with the approval of the North of Scotland Board, provide in the North of Scotland District a supply of electricity to railway undertakers for the purposes of haulage or traction, and a supply provided by the Central Authority outside the said District may, with the like approval, be used in that District.

§ 9.34 p.m.

§ LORD CHORLEY moved to add at the end of subsection (2): and such regulations shall make provision for securing that the charges made for any such supply and the other terms and conditions on which it is provided are such as to avoid financial loss resulting to the Electricity Board from the provision of the supply.

§ The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to fulfil a pledge which was given by the Minister at the Report stage in another place, when dealing with an Amendment which was moved by the Opposition. Though rather differently placed with the Amendment then proposed, I think it would have had a similar effect. Two points which were made were: first, that the proviso to Section 4 (1) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1935, does in fact deal with the question of the supply of electricity to railways being made, so to speak, on the basis of not subsidizing the railway, and that as that Act will be repealed, some provision ought to be made in the present Bill. The same point was made in another way: that there was, or might be, some fear of an understanding between the nationalized electricity undertaking and the nationalized railways 290 under which an indirect subsidy might be provided to the railways. That is a matter which ought to be avoided at all costs. My right honourable friend does not think there is any danger of that kind, but he does agree, ex abundanti cautela, and therefore he has tabled this Amendment on behalf of the Government, which I hope your Lordships will accept. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 68, line 42, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Chorley.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD WOLVERTON
The point contained in my Amendment has been made by the Amendment just moved, for which I thank the noble Lord. I will not move my Amendment.

§ LORD CHORLEY moved, in subsection (3) to leave out from "traction" to "for" ["for any other purposes"] a rid insert: the Board may enter into an agreement with the railway urdertakers for the use of that supply, on such terms and conditions a3 may be agreed. The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment on the same lines as the last one, to give effect to an undertaking given in another place on Report stage. It was thought that the words at present in the clause, "on the same terms and conditions," which refer to the terms and conditions on which electricity should be supplied to the railway companies for traction and haulage, were a little too tight and might with advantage be loosened. That is done in the words proposed: "the Board may enter into an agreement with the railway undertakers for the use of that supply, on such terms and conditions as may be agreed." I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 68, line 45, leave out from ("traction") to the first ("for") in line 3 on page 69, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Chorley.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD CHORLEY
This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 69, line 4, at end, insert ("Provided that an area board shall not make an agreement under this subsection which involves 291 the use of the supply outside the area of that board, unless the agreement has been approved by the Central Authority)."—(Lord Chorley.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD CHORLEY
The next three Amendments are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.

§ Amendments moved—

§ Page 69, line 7, leave out ("for the purposes of haulage or traction") and insert ("under this section").

§ Page 69, line 13, leave out ("for the purposes of haulage or traction") and insert ("under this section").

§ Page 69, line 59, leave out ("for the purposes of haulage or traction") and insert ("under this section").—(Lord Chorley.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clauses 5o to 53 agreed to.

§ 9.37 p.m.

§ Clause 54:

§ Provisions as to pension rights.

§ 54.—(1) The Minister and the Secretary State may make joint regulations for all any of the following purposes, that is say— (a) for providing pensions to or in respect of persons who are or have been in the employment of an Electricity Board or a Consultative Council, or persons who have been members of the Central Electricity Board or have been employed by any body to which Part II of this Act applies or have been employed whole-time for the purpose of administering the undertaking or any part of the undertaking of any authorised undertakers, but who have not been taken into the employment of an Electricity Board as aforesaid;

§ (3) Regulations made under this section shall not be invalid by reason that in fact they do not secure that persons having pension rights are not placed in any worse position by reason of any such amendment, repeal, revocation, transfer, extinguishment or winding up as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, but if the Minister and the Secretary of State are satisfied or it is determined as hereinafter mentioned that any such regulations have failed to secure that result, the Minister and the Secretary of State shall as soon as possible make the necessary amending regulations.

§ Any dispute arising as to whether or not the said result has been secured by any regulations made under this section shall be referred to a referee or board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service for his or their determination thereon.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
This is the usual Amendment. I beg to move.

292

§ Amendment moved— Page 72, line 9, leave out ("which") and insert ("whom").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD HAWKE moved, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out "employed whole-time for the purpose of administering the undertaking or any part of the undertaking of any authorised undertakers" and to insert: regularly employed by any body, other than a local authority, to which Part II of this Act applies or have been regularly employed in or about any undertaking or business vested by or under this Act". The noble Lord said: We now come to two clauses dealing with what I may call the displaced persons. Clause 54 deals with pension rights, and I will try to outline what the clause does and does not do. Under this clause the Minister may make provision for pensions to employees of any of these boards, consultative councils and members of the Central Electricity Board; also for the whole-time employees of any body taken over who themselves have not been taken over by the Central Authority. He can establish pensions schemes to cover these matters, and he can continue, amend and revoke existing schemes, and transfer their funds, or wind them up. Any regulations he makes in this respect must secure that persons having pension rights are not worse off. Any dispute must go to a board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour. The Bill does not provide; so far as I can see, for any pensions for those who draw pensions at the present moment by grace rather than by right; nor for pensions for those who are employed other than by any one particular undertaker. In this particular Amendment we seek to deal with this latter class, though we have an Amendment down later on dealing with the other classes.

§ As a result of the wording on the Bill, which uses the words "whole-time employees," the following anomalies arise. The expression is not defined, and is not found in existing electricity law. So far as it is known, the expression would cover casual or temporary workers of one undertaking, but at the same time it would not cover employees who are employed by more than one undertaking. Our words are "regularly employed." These words are hallowed by long usage in Statute, and are the words used in Section 16 of 293 the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919. These words have been interpreted to cover employees jointly employed, but they definitely exclude casual and temporary employees. The Act of 1919 actually provides pensions for people who have "been regularly employed in or about the undertaking, or any authorized undertaking." That, your Lordships will see, is substantially our wording.

§ Benefits are provided for anybody who has suffered loss of employment, or diminution of emoluments, has given up his employment in consequence of being required to perform non-analogous duties, or has been placed in a worse position as to conditions of service. Under that Act the person concerned can go to a referee within five years. Our words provide that the benefits or security given in Clause 54 of this Bill will extend to the same class of persons as receive the security and benefits under the Act of 1919, and, indeed, of 1926. A later Amendment will secure that the benefits are of the same type. There are other arguments which can be used in this matter, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Rochdale, will put them forward to your Lordships. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 72, line 10, leave out from beginning to ("but") in line 12, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Hawke.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
If I may say so with the greatest respect I venture to think that this Amendment is moved under a complete misapprehension. The object here is to enable us to give pensions to anybody who has been employed—nothing about regular; nothing about "whole-time"—by any of the bodies to which Part II of the Act applies. We introduced these words "whole-time" for this reason. There may be people, and there are people, employed by a holding company which is not to be taken over, who are servants of that holding company but who in fact spend their time in working for the subsidiaries of that holding company, giving their whole time not to one subsidiary but to two. We thought we would put in words to deal with the case of a servant of a company which is not being taken over, and that is why we added this phrase. If your Lordships will read the clause with me, I am quite certain you will be satisfied that 294 we have done what: the noble Lord waits without his qualifications about "regular" or anything of that sort. The clause reads: for providing pensions to or in respect of persons who are or have been in the employment of an electricity board or a consultative council, or persons who have been members of the Central Electricity Board or have been employed by any body to which Part II of this Act applies: That is as general as it can be. All you have to do is to have been employee—never mind about regular or any other qualification—by a body to whom Part II of the Act applies.
Then we went on to use the phrase which has given rise to so much misapprehension. The noble Lord is not the only one who has been misled by this phrase, because I confess I was myself. The phrase is this: … or have been employed whole-time for the purpose of administering the undertaking or any part of the undertaking of coy authorised undertakers, but who have not been taken into the employment of an electricity board as aforesaid. I am going to move a manuscript Amendment, which was suggested to me to make this matter plainer, which is to leave out in line 11 the phrase, "the undertaking or any part of the undertaking of any authorised", and put in the words, "undertakings or parts of undertakings of", which I am told makes it plainer. Therefore, I can give the noble Lord the most ample assurance—and I am sure he will agree with me—that I have here a power to pay pensions to anybody who has been employed by any of the bodies to whom Part H of this Act applies. I have added these words about whole-time people for the simple reason that I want to go further than that. I want to be able to include servants of holding companies which are not taken over because, for instance, they may own more than 25 per cent. of extraneous assets. All the same, I think it right to pay a pension to a servant of theirs who has devoted all his time to undertakings which are taken over and which were subsidiaries of the holding company. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will rest satisfied.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK
Naturally I accept what the noble and learned Viscount has said in regard to the altera- 295 tions which he proposes to make to the clause, but there still remains the point that the Minister and the Secretary of State may make regulations. There is great anxiety on the part of the employees of a company with which I am concerned, and of the whole of the employees throughout the industry. I have had representations made to me that the Bill states only that regulations "may be made" in regard to these matters, and not "shall be made." When the matter was raised in another place, it was stated on behalf of the Minister that he would look again at the clause and introduce in the Report stage a form of words covering the difficulties. That has been done, but actually nothing has been done to implement this undertaking, though something appears to have been done, by what the noble and learned Viscount has said to-night. The fact remains that it is provided that regulations "may" and not "shall" be made in regard to these matters. Employees still feel in a state of uncertainty as to what the position will be if the clause is left as it is.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
As a matter of fact, the Treasury nearly always use the word "may" instead of "shall." You cannot say "shall" make general regulations for "all or any of the following." It does not make sense. The pensions of ex-Lord Chancellors are authorized by saying that the Treasury "may" pay. It is the same with Judges' pensions. The Treasury always do pay, and noble Lords really need have no concern. The "may" will be treated as "shall." It is a matter of the English language—and the Scottish language. I am afraid I cannot put in the word "shall."

VISCOUNT ELIBANK
I am very glad to hear the noble and learned Viscount's explanation, and I must accept it. But I listened in your Lordships' House only a few days' ago to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, insisting that the word "shall " should be inserted in a particular case—I think it was in the Agriculture Bill—in order to give security to a certain class of persons. It was actually suggested on this side of your Lordships' House that the word "may" should be used; now, the Lord Chancellor says that the word "shall" is the same as "may." It is difficult to know where we stand.

296

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
It shows how revolutionary Lord Chorley is!

VISCOUNT ELIBANK
That is not an answer.

LORD HAWKE
I think there is some excuse for the timid gazelle having fallen into the trap where the king of the jungle, the Lord Chancellor, had fallen in before him! Can the noble and learned Viscount assure me that where a man has been employed by different subsidiary companies but has not been employed by the holding companies at all, he will be eligible for a pension?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
Yes. He is quite all right because he has been employed by a company to whom Part II of the Act applies. There is nothing unfair.

LORD HAWKE
It is difficult to see where the Lord Chancellor's Amendment will precisely meet the point of people who are vitally interested in this matter. Obviously we shall have to consider it between now and the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The next Amendment is the one I indicated just now. I have reason to think that it will meet with the Committee's approval. I do not mean that this makes any difference, but I think it may help some people who are in doubt about this matter and make them happier than they would be. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 72, line 11 leave out from beginning to ("authorised") in line 12, and insert ("undertakings or parts of undertakings of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The next is a drafting Amendment to bring this Bill into conformity with the Transport Bill. Lord Balfour of Burleigh moved the corresponding Amendment in the Transport Bill, and he described it as being in the nature of a drafting Amendment. I will accept the noble Lord's description of this Amendment that it is of that nature. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 72, line 19, after ("relating") insert ("in whole or in part").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

297

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
This again is drafting. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 72, line 43, after ("rights") insert ("under the scheme, whether such persons as are mentioned in paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection or not").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved at the end of subsection (3) to insert: and such reference shall be deemed to be an arbitration within the meaning of the Arbitration Acts, 1889–1934, and the provisions of those Acts relating to statutory arbitrations shall apply to such reference and determination.

§ The noble and learned Viscount said: This proposes to put at the end of subsection (3) of this important Clause 54 words similar to those contained in the Transport Bill. Clause 54, as your Lordships will now be aware, deals with provisions as to pension rights and paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1), and subsection (3) of the same clause, all provide for the making of regulations, and they are, of course, of great importance to people who have claims to pensions. There is, however, no provision under which these regulations can be at all discussed in public, and in the Transport Bill, under Clause 99, subsection (3), there was a provision that a reference mentioned in line 21, page 73, should be deemed to be an arbitration following the terms of the Transport Bill. I venture to think that that was a wise provision arid it would be a wise provision here, because if you refer a question of law to a referee or board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service for their determination, it is desirable that you should know what provisions of the law apply to such a reference. That difficulty was got over in the Transport Bill, and I venture to think that the clause inserted by the Amendment will do no harm here and will clear up an ambiguity which I know is rather serious in the minds of some of those people who are interested in these questions of pension rights. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 73, line 21, at end insert ("and such reference shall be deemed to be an arbitration within the meaning of the Arbitration Acts, 1889–1934, and the provisions of those Acts relating to statutory arbitrations shall apply to 298 such reference and determination."—(Viscount Maugham.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The noble Viscount quite naturally wants to get this Bill into conformity with the Transport Bill. Your Lordships will remember what happened in the Transport Bill; I remember it very well and so does Lord Chorley. Such an Amendment was moved in the Transport Bill and Lord Chorley had just made a very eloquent speech against it when Viscount Addison came in and s rid that he had decided to accept the Amendment and to see if he could get his colleagues' approval afterwards, or words to that effect. As a matter of fact, yow Lordships may have seen that Viscount Addison, the Minister and I went out together and we were willing to accept it. However—there is no secret about it now because it is being dealt with to-day and may indeed have been dealt with by now—the other place were not willing to accept this Amendment. Therefore the Transport Bill will come back to your Lordships' House with the other place disagreeing with this proposal and it will be for your Lordships in due course to consider what course to take. I mention those facts because I think your Lordships should know that you should not place any undue stress upon the fact that it makes this Bill conform with the Transport Bill.
May I say this about the merits of the proposal? When I first became in charge of an office, which had nothing to do with law, I took to that office a profound regard for our judicial system and I, for my part, thought that it was natural that in all arbitrations all sensible people would desire arbitrators to have power to state a case for the opinion of the court, so that the court could keep control of the matter and see that the arbitrator; keep straight on questions of law. I stand here quite unblushingly and say that if my rights were concerned, and my rights were going to be subject to arbitration, I should desire that that principle should apply. Of course, I know the courts, and I know the Judges, and there are other people who do not. But when I became the Minister of National Insurance and had to work out the scheme of national insurance, and particularly in regard to industrial injury, which uses the old phrase "arising rut of, and in the course of the employment," I was very surprised to find that the 299 workers representatives—the trade unions in short—were most insistent that there should be no appeal to the courts. It was the fact, the regrettable fact, but it was the fact.
When I went to the employers on this matter, I went in some trepidation, and I was quite certain that they would take a strong line, saying there must be an appeal; but, to my even greater surprise, the employers too said that they thought it desirable that the courts should not come into this at all. It is a fact—as I say, a regrettable fact—that both sides, so far as national insurance is concerned, have taken that view. I still keep in touch with my old office. An the servants of the Friendly Societies, many of whom are being taken over but many of whom are not, have agreed, in regard to pensions and the like, upon of system of Ministry of Labour arbitrations, which are not in any way subject to the courts. I must admit that later experience with regard to the Ministry of Pensions has led me to see that there is something to be said for those who objected to a combination of the two systems, for what has happened there? We have given, under that scheme, a right of appeal by case stated to the courts, and the Judge from time to time pronounces on the cases. This has had a most unfortunate result. He pronounces on some case, a case of principle, and thereupon all those people who have had their cases already decided say, "Well, if only my case had been decided after this principle had been enunciated, how different it would have been. Please try my case again." So I was prevailed upon, rightly or wrongly—at any rate I did so—to set up a new lot of tribunals to determine once again the cases of those people who thought they were aggrieved by the Judge's decision. Those tribunals have been working very hard, trying to deal with the matter satisfactorily.
Now the Judge has given another decision, and has said that those tribunals must be unanimous. Therefore, I have now got another request to start all the work from the beginning again. I have resisted this time, because, after all, you cannot go on doing this sort of thing. Therefore, I do see some criticism. But having said all that, I frankly say I remain of the opinion that if I were the judge of my own rights I should desire this right to go to the court to get 300 a case stated. But the problem as I see it is this: ought I to insist that this is such a fundamental principle that I must force it upon people who do not want it? Because these electrical industry men are very well organized in their trade unions, and the trade unions have made it perfectly plain to us that they do not want this principle. Let us remember also that an appeal to the courts on a case stated is a double-edged weapon. It by no means follows that the man is always going to win. Sometimes there might be an appeal by the Electricity Authority, and the man might lose by virtue of this appeal to the court. That is the position.
I can only give your Lordships guidance, and I quite realize that there are different views held as to what we should do. But, so far as I can give your Lordships any guidance at all, it would be this: that although we may well think that this system of case stated to the court to enable the courts to have control is a desirable system—and I have said that I myself would desire it for my own rights—yet I do not feel that it is so clearly right that we ought to thrust it upon all these people who say that they do not want it. They prefer the informality, and, if you will, the irregularity of a Ministry of Labour referee, who deals with the matter, very largely, I suppose, as a conciliator. Probably he has no regard for the rules of evidence and has never heard of them. The proceedings, I expect, are conducted in a most informal way round a table; the referee tries to fix things up, and I am bound to say that very often he succeeds very well. I would venture to suggest to the Committee that we should not make people who do not want this system put up with it. For those reasons I cannot accept this Amendment having regard to what has happened and is happening to-day. I have no doubt that if we did this we should find that in the other place people are just as much opposed to it as they are showing that they are in reference to the Transport Bill to-day.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
I do not think that this is a matter upon which even a lawyer would die in the last ditch. Frankly, I have a completely open mind about it. I do not see that this is a matter in which we need be academic, have a particular article of faith or lay down any sealed pattern rule. With re- 301 gard to war pensions, the conciliation method was tried, but apparently people did not like it at all and a judicial tribunal had to be set up. In social insurance—whether because it was because the Lord Chancellor was the first Minister or not I do not know—the people concerned seem to like the informal way. I am sure that the Lord Chancellor has reported accurately on the state of affairs. Indeed I gather that he has taken a sort of Gallup Poll about this business. The people primarily concerned are people who are going to have disputes about pensions and, on the whole, they would like to start with the irregular and not the regular system. I gather that those who under the new dispensation are going to run this industry are quite agreeable also. These are going to be the two sets of people concerned. The others are going to die so they, at any rate, will not continue to have a great interest in the matter.
My advice, for what it is worth, is that we ought not to be adamant about this principle or this precedent. Do not let us assume that this is a precedent necessarily to be followed in all the other cases in nationalized industry. Let the people who are to run it, and the employers and the workers in ordinary industry, decide. Let the partners in industry decide which is the way in which they would like to run this kind of business. I am sure that both Houses of Parliament would say to them: "This is primarily an industrial question for the partners in this particular industry. We do not want any sealed pattern rule. We do not want to force anything upon you. Whatever you may agree is the best way, that is the way you had better follow, and then, if you find you have made a mistake, you can then try the other." After all, even Socialists are open to conviction and change. We will do what, on the whole, the Gallup Poll indicates they want to do.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
This is not a matter on which I am in any way a pedant and I do not in the least think anybody, even I, should die in the last ditch on behalf of the Amendment on the Paper. I tell you quite frankly what I feel about it, with I may say a rather large experience of matters of this kind. I feel that in the ordinary case there should be no appeal to the court and everything should be done in the informal 302 way round the table which the Lord Chancellor has graphically described. Against that I have no objection what-ever. But what I fear is that in a case like this, with complicated regulations of all kinds, there may sometimes be questions of construction of pension rights and documents, and under the regulation; which are to be made under this clause those questions really ought to be generally decided, once and for all. As I understand it, these particular referees will not give reasons. They will give their decisions on the cases before them. The world will not know what decision they have given and there may be thousands of other people who are not in the least aware of what their rights are.
It is that which I think we might. add to this clause without accepting the provision I have put down on the Paper. I think we might give the Minister power to direct the referees on any particular case to order a case to he stated to the court, or if you like, to some other agreed tribunal, in order that that particular question should be settled, and when it is settled—we do not want any rule about it—there, ought, as a matter of practice, to be a definite statement in some periodical to enable everybody to knew that the question has been decided once and for all. I believe that would save a great deal of heartburning and difficulty. But I frankly admit that that is not the Amendment have on the Paper. I did suggest when this was drafted, that the precedent of the Transport Bill should probably be followed, but I invite those concerned to say whether they do not want a little formal direction to be given to the referees. I would suggest that they should have an opportunity of asking the Minister, in a question of great difficulty, to have a case stated as if it were a case under the Arbitration Act, and for the matter to be decided once and for all. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY
Before the Amendment is withdrawn, could I ask the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor one question on what he said? I understood him to say that there had been discussions between the Minister of Fuel and Power and the trade union representatives on the question of pensions, and they had preferred the method of dealing with them which is laid down in the Bill. 303 The alternative method, as posed in the Amendment, does fall in line with what we have had in the Transport Bill, on which the question was raised which I would like to ask. Remembering the number of people who are not in pensions schemes and are not by the nature of their employment members of trade unions, is he satisfied that their interests have been represented in the sense that this method is also suitable to them? I am bound to say that in trying to ascertain from the part of the industry I know which of these methods would be thought to be most suitable for the men concerned, I can find very little preference for one or the other. I would like to feel that not only those represented by trade unions, but other employees of the industry, had been able to express their views, and that their opinions had been considered in deciding which of these two methods to adopt.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I do not know what the non-unionist view is. The difficulty about that is that you cannot collect their opinions. I can say, however, that amongst the organized workers in this country there is an overwhelming view about this.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved to add, after subsection (7), the following new subsection: (8) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

§ The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment does not depend at all on the other one. It is simply this. Many of these regulations will be of the greatest importance. It has been the practice of the Government in all these cases to arrange that when important regulations or orders are made, the Houses of Parliament shall have a right, if they choose to exercise it, to examine the matter and, if necessary, to refuse to approve or, in other cases, move to rescind the order or regulation. I think regulations of this sort ought to have some such sanction. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 74, line 10, at end insert the said subsection,—(Viscount Maugham.)

304

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
We have a similar Amendment on the next clause, and in that clause, which deals with compensation, I was proposing to accept the Amendment about the regulation being made in draft, with the affirmative resolution of Parliament. Your Lordships will see that that Amendment is to page 75, line 38, and it is also in the name of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham. That is following the precedent of the Transport Bill. There they accepted this clause in the compensation clause, but did not put it into the pensions clause. With regard to the pensions clause, the position is this. Clause 62 (3), as your Lordships will see, says: All orders and regulations made under this Act, not being orders required to be laid before Parliament in draft or orders subject to special parliamentary procedure"— if we do not pass this Amendment, these words will apply— shall be laid before Parliament immediately after they are made and if either House, within a period of forty days … resolves that the order or regulation be annulled they shall cease to have effect. So the effect of leaving out this Amendment here would be to make them subject to negative approval. But in the next clause, following the precedent of the Transport Bill, I propose to accept the Amendment which will make them subject to affirmative approval. I hope with that assurance the noble and learned Viscount will accept the later Amendment and not press this one.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
I should have called attention to one of the other clauses. I am quite content with what the noble and learned Viscount says, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.

§ LORD TEYNHAM moved after Clause 54 to insert the following new clause:

§ "Special provisions as to customary pensions.

§ The provisions of this Act which direct that liabilities of a body to which Part II of this Act applies shall become as from the date of transfer, liabilities of an Electricity Board shall apply in relation to customary obligations of the body in relation to pensions, notwithstanding that the body was under no legal obligation in respect of those pensions, and if any question arises as to the existence or 305 extent of any such customary obligation, the question shall, in default of agreement be referred to a referee or board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service, and the decision of that referee or board shall be final, and the Electricity Board shall give effect to that decision."

§ The noble Lord said: This is a rather long Amendment, but it is really very simple. It provides that pensions which are based on customary practice, and may not be covered by a pensions scheme or a deed, should he continued. I should just like to say that this Amendment is drafted rather on the basis of paragraph 4 of the Schedule of the Local Government Act, 1933. I feel that His Majesty's Government should be able to accept this very reasonable Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ After Clause 54 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Teynhanz.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I think this provision is in the Bill already, because "pension rights" is defined. If your Lordships will look at the definition of "pension rights" which begins on page 85 you will see this: … and any expectation of the accrues of a pension to or in respect of that person under any customary practice … However, I think we had better have something like the noble Lord suggests here. I accept his Amendment in principle; and I will see that the appropriate words are added to the Bill to make it quite plain that persons relying on customary rights are not thereby deprived of their pensions merely because they are not based upon legal rights. If the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment now, I will see that the proper words are put into the Bill.

LORD TEYNHAM
I am very grateful for the statement made by the noble and learned Viscount, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 55:

§ Compensation to officers in connection with transfers.

§ 55.—(1) The Minister and the Secretary of State jointly shall by regulations require every Electricity Board to pay, in such cases and to such extent as may be specified in the regulations, compensation to officers of any body whose property, rights, liabilities and obligations vest by virtue of this Act in the Board and officers employed whole-time for the purpose of administering the undertaking or any part of the undertaking of any authorized 306 undertakers, being officers who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emcluments or pension rights or whose position is worsened in consequence of the vesting, or in consequence of the subsequent transfer to another Electricity Board or the subsequent disposal in any other manner, of any such. property, rights, liabilities or obilgations.

§ (5) Regulations made under this section—.

(a) shall prescribe the procedure to be followed in making claims for compensation, and the manner in which and the person by whom the question whether any or what compensation is payable is to be determined; and
(b) may in particular contain provisions enabling appeals from any determination as to whether any or what compensation is payable to be brought, in such cases and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the regulations, before a referee or board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service,

and where any such provision is made as is specified in paragraph (b) of this subsection, the decision of the referee or board of referees shall be final.

§ LORD HAWKE moved, in subsection (1) to leave out from "officers," where that word occurs a second time, to "being," and insert: who have been regularly employed in or about the whole or any part of any undertaking or business vested or transferred by or under this Act

§ The noble Lord said: I return to the charge with very much the same Amendment as I moved to Clause 54. The noble and learned Viscount pointed out to me that I had misread the meaning of Clause 54, but here we have another set of words which are different from those. As a matter of form, I again mace the accusation that he has not power here to compensate part-time officers, and I leave the onus of proof to him. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 74, line 16, leave out from ("officers") to ("being") in line 18, and insert the sad new words.—(Lord Hawke.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I cannot understand why the noble Lord takes this view, because he understands these thins so very clearly. The part-time officer to whom he is referring is, I presume, a part-time officer of a body taken over under Part II of this Bill. If that is so, then he is plainly covered by the words: … as may be specified in the regulations, compensation to officers of any body whose property, .rights, liabilities and obligations vest: by virtue of this Act in the Board… . 307 The part-time officer must be an officer of a body who are taken over, and if he is employed only by a holding company which is not taken over, then we get exactly the same problem as we had before. In order to make this matter plain, and to remove misapprehensions rather than make any change—I do not think it makes any difference—I am moving a manuscript Amendment to line 17, to leave out from "administering" to "authorized" in line 18, and insert the words, "undertakings or parts of undertakings of," I am given to understand that that makes people feel happy about it, but I really can assure the noble Lord that we have covered the matter quite properly.

LORD HAWKE
I would just like to know the precise reason why the Government are so shy of the words used in the 1919 and the 1926 Acts, which are the ones we are using.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I thought we had words which quite obviously covered this matter. You cannot say more than that you may pay a pension to an officer of a body who is taken over. That is very simple and about as wide as it can be.

LORD HAWKE
The noble and learned Viscount cannot give any particular explanation why those long hallowed words are no longer to be used in this Bill?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
No, I cannot. They are not hallowed so far as I am concerned.

LORD HAWKE
We will no doubt have an opportunity of studying the manuscript Amendment and be able to refer to it again on the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I do not think this Amendment makes any difference, but I have reason to believe that it will remove some misgivings. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 74, line 17, leave out from ("administering") to ("authorised") in line 18 and insert ("undertakings or parts of undertakings of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

308

§ LORD HAWKE moved at the end of subsection (2) to insert: (3) If within five years after the vesting date—

(a) any existing officer relinquishes his employment on the ground that he has been required to perform duties which are not reasonably comparable to or are an unreasonable addition to those which as an officer of his previous employer he was required to perform; or
(b) the services of any existing officer are dispensed with by an Electricity Board because his services are not required and not on account of misconduct or incapacity to perform such duties as immediately before the vesting date he was performing or might reasonably have been required to perform; or
(c) the emoluments of any existing officer are reduced;

that officer shall unless the contrary be proved, be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section to have suffered loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments by reason of the vesting.

§ For the purposes of this subsection the expression existing officer means any person who was on the nineteenth day of November nineteen hundred and forty-five and immediately before the vesting date such an officer as is referred to in subsection (1) of this section and whose services are transferred to an Electricity Board by reason of the passing of this Act."

§ The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to secure that these employees shall have the same right of compensation up to a period of five years after the vesting, as is provided for them in the 1919 and 1926 Acts, should employees fall into a similar predicament. I do not think the Amendment requires any explanation other than that. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 74, line 35, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Hawke.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The principle of this Amendment is not acceptable to us, but in view of the fact that the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, has an Amendment to this clause in which he is going to provide for draft regulations and an affirmative resolution, I suggest that the noble Lord can rest quite satisfied that he will have a chance of seeing these regulations in draft. That being so, perhaps he will not wish to proceed with this Amendment.

LORD HAWKE
In view of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

309

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved to leave out subsection (5) and insert the following new subsection: (5) Any dispute between an Electricity Board and an officer as to whether any, or what, compensation is payable under this section, or any regulations made thereunder, shall be referred to a referee or board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service for determination, and such reference shall be deemed to be an arbitration within the meaning of the Arbitration Acts, 1889–1934, and the provisions of those Acts relating to statutory arbitration shall apply to such rates and determination.

§ The noble and learned Viscount said: I do not know what view the Government will take of this Amendment, which is on the same lines as some others which are concerned with relations of officers and compensation. This one relates to compensation to officers in connexion with transfers, and it leaves everything rather vague. The principal part of my Amendment, except the last lines, is really designed to make the matter a little clearer. In the first instance it must be taken that the dispute will arise between the Electricity Board and an officer as to whether any or what pension is payable to him, and I should like the regulations necessarily to prescribe, after stating that fact, what is to happen in the dispute. I say that the dispute ought to be referred to someone or other, and I am willing to accept the view of the Government and follow the other clause where the dispute goes to a referee or board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour.

§ Now, so far, there is no reason that I can see why this should be objected to. I think it makes the clause a little clearer and shows the people concerned what it is intended to do in connexion with the claim for compensation if there is a dispute. Then it is interesting to note that the regulations in the Bill to be made under this clause, subsection (5), paragraph (b) may in particular contain provisions enabling appeals from any determination as to whether any or what compensation is payable to be brought, in such cases … before a referee or board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour …

§ I am not quite sure that I know what is meant there by "appeals": appeals from what decision? My suggestion is that we should go, after a dispute has arisen between the Electricity Board and an officer, to a board of referees. And then 310 in my Amendment I have a suggestion that such reference shall he deemed to be a n arbitration within the meaning of the Arbitration Acts. With reference to what the Lord Chancellor said on the previous Amendment, which contained words rather like that and which I have withdrawn, I do not think those arguments apply to the present case because here there may he a claim for large compensation to an officer. As I conceive it, it is rather like those cases which can be settled easily by informal methods round a table. The claim may be for some thousands of pounds and I do not think it is pleasant to settle that sort of litigation round a table in a private room, I suppose with no public necessarily admitted and it being left to a referee to determine without any appeal from him.

§ Therefore, I respectfully suggest to the noble and learned Viscount that the provisions in Clause 55 really relate to something quite different from the pension clause, that it is necessary that there should be a decision by a board of referees and that in a proper case them should be power to have a case stated. Large sums are involved here, and I do not think the views of the ordinary trade unions art of much importance with regard to these claims to compensation by officers. It is not a wages claim at all; it is something quite different; it involves different considerations and often large question; of law. Accordingly, I hope that the Amendment which stands in my name and in the names of Lord Rochdale and Lord Wolverton May be accepted. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 75, line 11, leave out subsection (5) and insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Maugham.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The noble and learned Viscount asked in particular about these appeals. The theory of the appeal is this: The officer, first of all, states this claim before the Central Authority, and it is only if the Central Authority do not give him satisfaction that he goes before this referee appointed by the Minister of Labour. That is the appeal which they have in mind. They regard the going to the Minister of Labour's referee as an appeal from the 311 Central Authority. For the rest, I am sorry to tell the Committee that a precisely similar Amendment is being, or has been by now, I suppose, disagreed with in another place on the Transport Bill.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
Is that one on compensation?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
On compensation. Although it is possible, of course, that a claim might be more serious, and might be a larger claim, in the majority of cases it would be on behalf of workers in the industry—at least I should imagine so; and all I can tell the Committee is what I have said before. They may be right or they may be wrong, but they have a strong feeling that it is better to have the Ministry of Labour left to do that. Anyhow, I am not in a position to accept this Amendment, and I think it should be withdrawn. The other place would disagree with it and I do not think it is an Amendment which we should force upon people unless they want it.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
In those circumstances, I must beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. I suppose, however, that if, as a matter of fact, something does happen in another place to the clause there will be an opportunity to reinstate my Amendment?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
Certainly.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
This Amendment has already been mentioned, and the Lord Chancellor has kindly said that he would be willing to accept it. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 75, line 38, at end insert: (7) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by resolution of each house of Parliament."—(Viscount Maugham.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I accept this Amendment.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.

312

§ Clause 56:

§ Application, amendment and repeal of enactments relating to electricity supply.

§ (3) All local enactments in force at the vesting date and applicable to any authorised undertakers except enactments applicable to local authorities or composite companies otherwise than in. their capacity as authorised undertakers, shall, as from the vesting date, have effect⁃ (c) with such other adaptations and modifications (if any) as may be prescribed:

§ 10.38 p.m.

§ LORD CHORLEY moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "(c) with" and insert: shall also have effect, as from such date as may be prescribed which may be prior to the making of the regulations but not to the vesting date, with. The noble Lord said: This clause is one which, amongst other things, gives the Minister power to make regulations for the purpose of clearing up local Acts of Parliament and local regulations and matters of that kind, which deal with this sort of consideration. As the clause is at present drafted, the regulations have to be made before the vesting date, which, on consideration, obviously would lead to all sorts of difficulties, because many of these Acts have not yet floated into the vision of the Ministry, so to speak. Therefore, it is desirable that the regulations should be made, or that there should be power to make the regulations, at a later time. The Amendment has been tabled in order to enable that to be done. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 76, line 39, leave out ("(c) with") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Chorley).

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
The next Amendment is really little more than drafting. It only makes clear that the adaptations and modifications mentioned have to be required in consequence of the provisions of the Act. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 76, line 40, at end insert ("being adaptations and modifications required in consequence of the provisions of this Act").—(Viscount Maugham).

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

313

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
The next Amendment represents only a desire to bring the provisions here in line with the other provisions, in perhaps somewhat shorter form. The Amendment seeks to add that an order made under the subsection (3) shall be subject to special Parliamentary procedure, which is, of course, laid down in the Act of Parliament relating to such procedure. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 77, line 35, at end insert ("An order under this subsection shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure.")—(Viscount Maugham.)

§ LORD CHORLEY
I am happy to accept this Amendment.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 57 agreed to.

§ VISCOUNT ELIBANK moved, after Clause 57, to insert as a new clause:

§ Allocation of assets of certain bodies.

§ "Where any body, not being a body to whom Part II of this Act applies, have among their objects the promotion or protection of the interests of electricity undertakers or any class thereof, or of the officers of electricity undertakers or any class thereof, and, by reason of the failure of the objects of the body in consequence of the provisions of this Act, the affairs of the body are being wound up, any assets of the body which, after satisfaction of all their debts and liabilities, remain undisposed of may, notwithstanding anything in any enactment or instrument defining the objects of the body or regulating their affairs, be applied in whole or in part in compensating the officers of the body."

§ The noble Viscount said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara, who is unfortunately unable to be here this evening, I am moving the Amendment which stands in his name. The Amendment is put forward on behalf of the Incorporated Municipal Electrical Association and other associations who will naturally be wound up when the industry is taken over by the Government. They are anxious that their staffs should be fairly dealt with, and they have been advised by counsel that under their Memo- 314 randa of Association they could not devote the funds which they still have in their possession to staff compensation. They therefore approached the Ministry of Fuel and Power with a request that a clause should be inserted in the Bill which would enable them to carry out their wish despite the terms of the Memoranda. I understand that the Ministry appreciate the position, and I have been informed that this Amendment will probably be accepted by the Government. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ After Clause 57, insert the said new clause—(Viscount Elibank.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I have pleasure in accepting this Amendment.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK
On behalf of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara. I beg to thank the noble and learned Viscount.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
I understand that it is suggested that this might be a convenient moment to adjourn.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
The next Amendment is one to which we attach a certain amount of importance and I think perhaps the discussion on it would take half-an-hour or three-quarters of an hour. We are entirely in the hands of the House, of course, but it may be thought a little late now to start on a discussion of that length.